Pro basketball players and now pro hockey players just going from their professional teams back to college.
Has the NCAA just given up?
- Thread starter 615dawg
- Start date
Pro basketball players and now pro hockey players just going from their professional teams back to college.
It’s frustrating, but I think that stuff like this has been inevitable ever since the day the courts slapped the NCAA with anti trust rulings. They are powerless, and at some point, fans are gonna have to come to grips with the fact that we’re now watching pro sports with college uniforms
Anytime the NCAA tried to stop something they get slapped down in court so yeah I would give up too
There was a rule change back in August, probably due to threatened litigation. Players from pro leagues can apply for eligibility, but they have to prove their total earnings were less than the cost of attending school. Which, with the cost of tuition these days, it may be easy to stay under that threshold.
AFAIK, the rule was only for hockey, but I dont know why it would be limited to that sport if challenged.
AFAIK, the rule was only for hockey, but I dont know why it would be limited to that sport if challenged.
The only way to fix this is to unionize college athletes (maybe a separate union for each sport?) and have them collectively bargain for the eligibility rules.
Is it less than the cost of that particular school, or a general average?
If its the former, that may give an advantage to fancy private schools with large tuitions
You know what’ll happen… **
(Damb… ‘Mark Keenum Dr Evil mashup’ on Google Gemini did this… Winged Bulldogs… whoa…)
I still don't understand why this would be true. Not all of them are getting a pile of money.
I think this would just make it worse. It's the one thing you do to TRULY make it professional sports, which I tell you all again, you don't want.
So what about fringe minor league guys that went out of high school. Maybe signed for $150k or so… flamed out after 3 years. Heck, if it’s truly Cost of Attendance rather than just tuition, then that opens the door for a ton of high school to minors flame outs.
Also, did the Supreme Court consider how much these rulings limit opportunities for high schoolers going forward? I mean, from a literal interpretation of the ruling, and the power it took from the NCAA, how can 5 or 6 year eligibility even be debated. Seems unlimited eligibility is inevitable or you’re limiting one’s rights to monetize themselves. Pavia will make a fortune the next 6-8 years bouncing around from Michigan to USC to LSU to Miami.
Also, did the Supreme Court consider how much these rulings limit opportunities for high schoolers going forward? I mean, from a literal interpretation of the ruling, and the power it took from the NCAA, how can 5 or 6 year eligibility even be debated. Seems unlimited eligibility is inevitable or you’re limiting one’s rights to monetize themselves. Pavia will make a fortune the next 6-8 years bouncing around from Michigan to USC to LSU to Miami.
It's either the unregulated Wild West with pros coming back to college, or it's unionized, standardized, common sense rules that everyone can live with. For example, I'm sure a players union would agree to no pros coming back to play college.
There's no "just break the law" magic third option out there. There's no going back to [insert whatever year we are nostalgic for].
At this point they just need to tell players to play college ball as long as they want until the pros gobble them up or the college doesn’t want them anymore.
I think paying the athletes to play is what makes it professional.
I really don't see how the players unionizing would make things worse. A CBA could resolve the transfer and eligibility issues, that are the worst part of college sports right now, and might even result in some financial rules for a little balance (keeping in mind the schools with larger fan bases will always have an edge).
I just don't see how they get to an enforceable collective bargaining position anytime soon.
Here’s what really makes no sense to me….
If the NCAA has no authority or jurisdiction to stop this avalanche any more, why are they still being allowed to blatantly leech off the system in which they provide no real value?
$1.4 billion in revenue from the NCAA in FY24. Huge chunk of that is from March Madness TV rights, but about $300 million comes from other championships as well.
96% is reinvested to the schools / conferences, but that still leaves $56 million going directly back to their offices. That’s about $56 million too much, based on what they are doing. It’s time for the P4 to break away. They can add a few more leagues for basketball, and set up a much better tournament (with even more revenue) without the bottom 25% of teams that currently make the field. Do the same with WBB and the CWS. The NCAA is Blockbuster Video at this point.
If the NCAA has no authority or jurisdiction to stop this avalanche any more, why are they still being allowed to blatantly leech off the system in which they provide no real value?
$1.4 billion in revenue from the NCAA in FY24. Huge chunk of that is from March Madness TV rights, but about $300 million comes from other championships as well.
96% is reinvested to the schools / conferences, but that still leaves $56 million going directly back to their offices. That’s about $56 million too much, based on what they are doing. It’s time for the P4 to break away. They can add a few more leagues for basketball, and set up a much better tournament (with even more revenue) without the bottom 25% of teams that currently make the field. Do the same with WBB and the CWS. The NCAA is Blockbuster Video at this point.
The four years to play rule has survived many challenges based on the traditional four years to complete a degree. But those cases were all decided before the House Settlement went into effect. With the amount of money being handed out, I can see unlimited eligibility on the horizon.
Is there a limit to how long a University can keep someone in school? Once you get a PhD, do you just enroll as an undergrad in a new major? Can you lose your eligibility by flunking out? Could a school get in trouble for failing to apply standard academic standards to athletes? (For that ladt one, I think the NCAA ruled long ago that schools are free to tarnish their own academic reputations in the name of sports, if thats what they want to do).
They do tarnish their reputations, but apparently it's accepted now and just assumed that it's OK and not representative of the school. It pretty much only happens wholesale in football and basketball - other sports tend to have normal, college ready students for the most part. It's really a shame, and not what college athletics was all about at the beginning (theoretically). It even happens to a degree in the service academies, and I believe they're exempt from their service obligation.
The thing that is mind-blowing to me as a college professor:
All colleges and universities have a set of rules that define what counts as satisfactory academic progress for a student, along with a whole litany of rules about conduct, etc. Students who are outside of these rules get kicked out of the college - this is how we keep deadbeats from living in the dorms for a decade (trust me they try it), There's also rules about hours to maintain full time status and scholarship eligibility, etc.
It feels like we've completely forgone any attempt to enforce the academic standards. - I'm so old I remember students not being allowed to participate in bowl games because they didn't carry a passing average for the fall semester. And unlike the NIL and payment debate, these are the academic standards of an institution and are a separate issue from paying players. I wouldn't be surprised to see at some point a nonathlete sue to have the same nonenforcement of academic standards as players appear to be currently benefiting from.
All colleges and universities have a set of rules that define what counts as satisfactory academic progress for a student, along with a whole litany of rules about conduct, etc. Students who are outside of these rules get kicked out of the college - this is how we keep deadbeats from living in the dorms for a decade (trust me they try it), There's also rules about hours to maintain full time status and scholarship eligibility, etc.
It feels like we've completely forgone any attempt to enforce the academic standards. - I'm so old I remember students not being allowed to participate in bowl games because they didn't carry a passing average for the fall semester. And unlike the NIL and payment debate, these are the academic standards of an institution and are a separate issue from paying players. I wouldn't be surprised to see at some point a nonathlete sue to have the same nonenforcement of academic standards as players appear to be currently benefiting from.
This is what I was alluding to above. The NCAA does still have academic progress requirements, but maybe thats the next standard to Fall.
So how long could an athlete remain in school if they maintain a C average and with a course load designed to achieve a degree?
This is where the NCAA has been able to win eligibility cases in the past, by relying on the "student" part of student athlete. I just dont know how much longer that will remain.
And the NCAA has not helped its own case by constantly granting waivers, and then giving everyone a " Covid year".
I actually don’t see how unionizing would fix it. The vast majority of those joining the player’s union would be those without hope of making it to the NBA, MLB or NFL. What would be their incentive to limit their own eligibility? Take Pavia, he can make $1-2mil per year for the next 8 years and never work a real job. He wouldn’t make an NFL practice roster though.
Ok, another example, Victoria Vivians couldn’t last in the WNBA, but coulda made a couple hundred thousand a year staying in college at South Carolina or LSU.
Hubbard, much more value in college than the pros.
All that to say, we’re already seeing it. Why unionize and then the people forming the first union limit themselves to 4-6 years? They’d, by and large, say screw the ones behind me. I’m getting mine.
Hell, our 2021 baseball team may end up with zero big leaguers… but everyone of those guys would vote to stay in college and make $150k+/year for the next 10 years.
Adding for clarity: except for the ones with great real world job prospects. Yeah, Vick Ballard being an engineer is better long term, than making 5-600k over a few more years.
But most of the athletes in the power 5 are going to choose making a living playing their sport in college for 6-7-8 more years rather than selling insurance for Northwestern Mutual or jumping into teaching PE at Eupora High. Those jobs will still be there when they retire from college sports at 34.
You’re looking at things through the lens of a State fan. Take a roster of a team actually competing for a title like UGA or OSU, and there isn’t a player of their starting 22 making less than six figures. Probably not even on their entire two deep if we’re being realistic
Money and attorneys have killed college sports. I want to watch the next potential pro superstar, not some washed up *******.
1. If college sports are “professional” sports, and that seems undebateable now, you cannot prevent professionals from coming back to play in them.
2. Likewise, you can’t prevent college players from earning a living based on “eligibility” limits. That’s all for amateur athletics. And that’s not what this is anymore.
3. The only solution is collective bargaining. And why would the Diego Pavia’s of the world negotiate this away? You have to make it a better deal for the average run of the mill NCAA athlete than they’re getting today. Maybe it’s group collective bargaining that encompasses all NCAA athletics and not just money makers. Or maybe you just have to make that 2nd string offensive tackle at Southern Miss get a much sweeter gig than he gets today. And you have to just tell the Diego Pavia’s of the world that they either play under these rules that benefit the common man or take a hike.
2. Likewise, you can’t prevent college players from earning a living based on “eligibility” limits. That’s all for amateur athletics. And that’s not what this is anymore.
3. The only solution is collective bargaining. And why would the Diego Pavia’s of the world negotiate this away? You have to make it a better deal for the average run of the mill NCAA athlete than they’re getting today. Maybe it’s group collective bargaining that encompasses all NCAA athletics and not just money makers. Or maybe you just have to make that 2nd string offensive tackle at Southern Miss get a much sweeter gig than he gets today. And you have to just tell the Diego Pavia’s of the world that they either play under these rules that benefit the common man or take a hike.
For every Pavia, there are 100+ teenagers who believe they are a year or 2 away from starting, and they don't want guys in their mid-20s taking up the starting spots. They would control the union and what it fights for.
In the professional sports, there are a whole lot more scrubs than stars, which is why those unions fight for higher minimum salaries and agree to salary caps, and other policies that help the borderline players more than the very top.
Nah. College is more of the bell curve. Your middle 60% will vote to play and make a good living until they’re 32-33 and age out because of physical limitations. They’d be idiots not to do that.
A lot better making 200k as a starting left guard than strapped to a cubicle. And a lot better making 85k as a back up left guard than teaching 8th grade math at Kemper County Middle School for 36k.
It would be in all their best interests to pull the ladder up behind them. Because… from Dan Mullen to Kirby Smart, they’d all take a 25 year old Dillon Day over a 19 year old Jimothy Lewis.
Additionally, the ones not good enough to play… the ones at the bottom of the bell curve, won’t be making enough NIL to justify the union dues.
The problem is that every damn one of those 100+ teenagers in P4 football and basketball is already making well into the 6 figures annually in NIL and the revenue share, even if they are 2nd or 3rd string. They are getting rich as hell off the current system, too. They have nothing to gain other than artificially limiting their own pay as well.
If you have a CBA, you have to have long term contracts with fixed terms as part of that agreement. Period. That means the portal goes away. Otherwise, there is no point. You also have to have a draft, as that serves as an objective valuation of each player to set what their max salary can be. And we all know that shít ain’t happening. A CBA also requires buy-in from the schools, too, and the big boys aren’t going to want a salary cap. And even if it somehow passes, everything will just move back under the table again. There’s no enforcement body to prevent that from happening.
We are a long way from a CBA even being a legal possibility, so getting bogged down in the possible details of the give and take is pointless.
But there are deals to be made, and the issues will become more evident in the next few years.
Everyone involved would benefit from stability and predictability. And fan interest will likely improve from at least an appearance of fairness.
I dont know any current athletes, but I doubt many of them look forward to negotiating new deals every year. It might stroke their ego a lot, and the possibility of trading up to a bigger program is probably enjoyable, but every single year?
And even the big programs would probably prefer roster and budgeting stability. Does Texas Tech really want all that money going to the players and not into facilities....or adults' pockets?
So the schools could offer financial transparency, guarantees, higher overall salaries, and no more fake NIL appearances, while the players could give limited transfers, more practice time, and limits on eligibility. Probably a lot other deals to be made as well.
But there are deals to be made, and the issues will become more evident in the next few years.
Everyone involved would benefit from stability and predictability. And fan interest will likely improve from at least an appearance of fairness.
I dont know any current athletes, but I doubt many of them look forward to negotiating new deals every year. It might stroke their ego a lot, and the possibility of trading up to a bigger program is probably enjoyable, but every single year?
And even the big programs would probably prefer roster and budgeting stability. Does Texas Tech really want all that money going to the players and not into facilities....or adults' pockets?
So the schools could offer financial transparency, guarantees, higher overall salaries, and no more fake NIL appearances, while the players could give limited transfers, more practice time, and limits on eligibility. Probably a lot other deals to be made as well.
Last edited: