Jay Bilas Tweets

[pogo]

Or sign one, and have the school sell it at an auction.

Hey! Are you suggesting the signed picture of Toure that I bought at auction makes me a part of the problem? This is as complicated as the Gordian Knot.

[The Mad Hatter]

Here are my thoughts on the signature issues:

1. It is understandable why people feel that players should be able to sell their signatures. It seems natural that they should be able to. However, the loopholes for all sorts of problems that emerge once you allow it are very problematic. Any payment to an athlete comes on the table as long as the athlete gives a signature in exchange. Since these problems exist, if selling signatures is going to be allowed, not allowing them must be demonstrated as a serious problem. This leads us to:

2. I don't think not being allowed to sell their signatures while in college is hurting the vast majority of players. In the first place, only the elite players, even in high profile sports, have a major financial market for their signatures. The kind of college players that would attract paydays from brokers for their signatures are precisely the ones that are destined to make the pros in their sport. So while they can't immediately cash in while in college, they will cash in plenty in a short period of time. What's more, while they can't sell their signatures, the national recognition and brand they build in college does result in financial gain for them. Guys like RGIII get big endorsement deals before they have played a snap of pro ball precisely because college sports let them showcase themselves and build their brand.

In the second place, there is a much smaller market for signatures of the type that @pogo refers to. However, two things must be said here. First, the market for signatures from non super stars is predicated almost entirely on the school and not the player. I.E., there will be people with no connection to the University of Texas that are interested in Kevin Durant's signature while in college, whereas the market for Paul Miller's autograph is pretty much WSU fans. This makes it a hard sell that the school is abusing the player if the market would not exist without the school. Second, in many of the contexts where such signatures are sold, notably auctions/fundraisers, they are being bought first and foremost because the buyer is wanting to contribute to the school, not that they think that the player's signature actually has the market value that they paid.

3. Is it weird that the roommate can sell the signature, but the player can't? Sure. In that very moment, the roommate gets more benefit from the athlete's brand than the athlete does. In the long term, however, whether by going pro or in the job opporuntities that come from good will and networking with the alumni community, the athlete has plenty of ways to benefit enormously from their brand (that the roommate does not).

On some of the broader issues brought up in this thread about schools using up players and not actually educating them (especially in football), I would say that I agree that such issues are major problems and must be addressed. However, those problems are only exacerbated by professionalizing college sports because it pushes schools even further away from their institutional mission. Part of the problem with football is the lack of alternatives to the college one. Baseball has the minor leagues. Basketball as world leagues or D-League. Football doesn't really have anything. I would far rather see the development of a minor league football system than the professionalization of college sports. It makes far more sense from a mission standpoint.

These are not easy issues, and I don't believe that the status quo is acceptable. Nonetheless, I remain unconvinced that professionalizing college sports actually solves the major problems and I believe that it introduces a whole new set of problems.

[Rlh04d]

On some of the broader issues brought up in this thread about schools using up players and not actually educating them (especially in football), I would say that I agree that such issues are major problems and must be addressed. However, those problems are only exacerbated by professionalizing college sports because it pushes schools even further away from their institutional mission. Part of the problem with football is the lack of alternatives to the college one. Baseball has the minor leagues. Basketball as world leagues or D-League. Football doesn't really have anything. I would far rather see the development of a minor league football system than the professionalization of college sports. It makes far more sense from a mission standpoint.

Good post.

I don't really think the answer is the professionalization of college sports -- however, I think college sports clearly are already professionalized in all aspects except for the actual labor. I think it's a massive issue when the only thing amateur about high level college sports is the fact that the players don't get paid.

I think the solution needs to include the de-professionalization of college sports to a major degree. I don't know exactly how to go about doing that, though. I think requiring a hefty percentage of all profits (above tuition, game day costs, and perhaps financing shortfalls in the above two for non-revenue sports, but not salaries or new facilities) to be returned to academics would be a good start. And stricter oversight from a competent governing body on academic standards for athletes.

[pogo]

Competent governing body is the key phrase. It may also be an oxymoron.

[Rlh04d]

Competent governing body is the key phrase. It may also be an oxymoron.

Yep. Really, a lot of this comes down to the ineffectiveness and incompetence of the NCAA as far as I'm concerned. They have too many rules that they can't enforce, the rules they can enforce they don't, they don't have enough control over academics or disciplinary actions, and there's no consistency in their discipline.

[jocoshock]

There are inequities that need to be addressed short of paying athletes to complete.
1) Scholarships, especially in the major sports are 1 year propositions - making the athletes in effect contract/contingent employees of the university. They are only guaranteed 1 year at a time, but are committed for their entire 4 or 5 years unless the coach and university release them. The coaches on the other hand are under virtually no commitment to honor their multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts.

2) If a coach is fired before his contract expires, the school is on the hook for the rest of the contract unless/until the coach finds another job for equal or more money. The school has no such obligation to the athlete that they "fire". Either give the players more protection or let them walk whenever they want; just like the coaches do.

3) The WSU basketball team flies to games in private jets. No other team at the university does. Title IX does not require the school to fund private jets for the other sports teams.

4) It is true that only the largest schools (or schools with big-time sugar daddies) can afford pay athletes, even if the pay represents no more than an increased stipend of $2,000 per year or more, but the Power Conferences have already stacked the deck against the majority of the Division I basketball schools through TV contracts, scheduling (not-scheduling), etc. There is also already a two-tiered justice system in the NCAA. WSU gets 3 years probation for lack of institutional control. KU gets a slap on the wrist... UCLA would sneeze; Long Beach State would catch a cold.... The big boys have multiple weapons at their disposal. If they can't pay the athletes, they will find another way to game the system.


5) At some point, you will need to decide if college sports are part of the free enterprise system or not. If so, let the chips (bucks) fall where they may and let the players and the market determine their value, just like Major League Baseball. If not, then the NCAA should start setting the schedules for all 348 (or so) Division I teams and start leveling the playing field (ala NASCAR and the NFL) and go for parity across the board. Parity has worked well for the NFL and NASCAR, lifting all boats and bringing in plenty of guaranteed revenue for all of the teams.

[Shockeriffic]

A lot of the proponents of "pay the players" don't actually want the schools to pay the players. Most of them are more in favor of the Olympic model. The schools wouldn't pay the players but the NCAA wouldn't stop them from getting endorsement deals or making money off their name.

[shockmonster]

Boyd Converse's vision in the 1960's at WSU was just ahead of his time. Soon it will probably be considered legal.

[Steeleshocker]

A lot of the proponents of "pay the players" don't actually want the schools to pay the players. Most of them are more in favor of the Olympic model. The schools wouldn't pay the players but the NCAA wouldn't stop them from getting endorsement deals or making money off their name.

Interesting idea, but could cause problems due to some schools being so closely tied to companies, ala Oregon and Nike.