• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

NCAA moves closer to allowing players to profit from endorsements

Da Coach

Da Coach

Moderator
Staff member
The NCAA Board of Governors, the highest governing body within the NCAA, at their quarterly meeting this week, "supported rule changes to allow student-athletes to receive compensation for third-party endorsements both related to and separate from athletics. It also supports compensation for other student-athlete opportunities, such as social media, businesses they have started and personal appearances within the guiding principles originally outlined by the board in October."
https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...and-promotions

The following is purely my opinion-
I have always been for more freedoms for the athletes, and I support the idea of compensating kids. However, there is a downside to this idea of allowing individual student-athletes to profit from endorsements and commercial promotions. The obvious one is that because of the way the sports media covers teams like Duke, North Carolina, UCLA, etc, even the walk-ons for the Power 6 conference teams and teams located in large population areas will be able to profit exponentially more that the top players at schools in lower conferences and located away from population areas.
IMO, this rule will draw kids even more to the rich and powerful schools where they will be able to make a lot more money. It will further hurt schools like Bradley and any school trying to build a team to compete at a higher level. Combined with the one-time transfer rule without penalty, which the NCAA seems ready to pass, the two rules will further turn every non-major school into a farm team for the big boys to recruit players from.
Enforcing this rule will become another nightmare. It will be taken advantage of to pay players openly, instead of "under the table". How will the NCAA prohibit boosters from hiring a player for commercial endorsements solely as a way to bribe them to play for his favorite team? It would suddenly make "impermissible benefits" completely legal, and the schools with the wealthy benefactors and boosters could get away with just about anything to entice players to play for them.
And of course, pretty much the only athletes who would benefit would be the major college football and basketball players. All other athletes, and women athletes would be unlikely to see any benefits. I expect we'll see a bunch of Title IX lawsuits coming.
 
Good points DC! I agree.
Another big worry for me is the equity. Will student-athletes be more concerned about their personal performance (stats) and lose sight of the "team"? If compensation is partially based on performance, then I think very much this will affect team unity, and even put more pressure on individuals - more strife among players who get limited minutes and think they deserve more P.T., etc.
 
I think it is a terrible idea to allow individual student-athletes to profit from endorsements and commercial promotions. I believe student-athletes are already being adequately compensated by receiving free college educations and having the opportunity to experience life changing team activities. In addition to Da Coach's listed downsides some teams might also be negatively impacted because of player jealously.

I am also not a fan of the one-time transfer rule without penalty. Coaches invest a tremendous amount of time recruiting and training their student-athletics. Whatever happened to being loyal to your school and/or the coaches that made it possible for an athletic to improve their skills? Don't get me wrong, there are many reasons that a student-athlete should be allowed to transfer, provided they sit out a year.

I agree these two rules could turn non-major schools like Bradley into farm teams for the big boys to recruit from. It is not clear to me how the NCAA can enforce these rules.
 
I love it. More freedom is a good thing, and these schools make millions/billions off the backs of these kids. They will only get what someone thinks they're worth, and the market will adjust accordingly.

At face value it would seem that this would greatly favor the bigger schools and that could very well be the case, but in the end isn't this really what's happening now? Does anyone really believe many Power conference teams aren't already paying their players one way or another already? Let's get it out in the open and let the free market play it out.

My point is this: fairness has been gone for ages and the NCAA has far too much control. By allowing players to make money, this would transfer some of the power from the NCAA to the players, so I'm all for that. In the end, these kids deserve to make whatever someone is willing to pay them to do whatever it is they're good at, and the argument about the education being enough, who are we to decide that? Some of these kids undoubtedly come from very poor families, and the money they could make could help pull them and their families out of poverty, but even if they aren't poor, why should someone be held back from bettering themselves? As it stands now, even the greatest college hoopers are one serious injury from losing out on any chance at getting a million dollar contract, so they should be able to bring in what they're worth now while risking their future for these schools.

The entire argument about not paying amateur athletes has always been used to maintain complete power and control over these kids and use them as assets and it's long past due for that to come to an end.
 
Also today, the NCAA clarified for the Division I members that there will be no schools credited with an NCAA Tournament appearance in 2019-20. This specifically refers to the teams who had already won their conference tournaments before the NCAA shut down all competition (Bradley, Liberty, Winthrop, Hofstra, Northern Kentucky, Yale, Utah State, Robert Norris, Belmont, Boston U., East Tennessee State, North Dakota State, and Gonzaga). Those schools do not get to claim an NCAA Tournament appearance this season.

This is meaningful, since many coaches have bonus clauses in their contracts that reward them for an NCAA Tournament bid. I believe Coach Wardle has such a bonus clause. It also applies to NCAA Tournament records kept by each school and by the NCAA.
​​​​​​https://twitter.com/BryanDFischer/status/1255548989023195138

I think the NCAA should have made some compromise designation for the schools who won their conference tournaments, and would have automatically qualified.
 
Da Coach said:
I think the NCAA should have made some compromise designation for the schools who won their conference tournaments, and would have automatically qualified.
Click to expand...

I guarantee if all of the conference tournaments had happened they would have.
 
The NCAA Board of Directors has released their recommendation regarding the one-time waiver-free transfer proposal that has been proposed by a lower committee.
The Board of Directors have recommended not to allow 1-time waivers as earlier suggested by the NCAA working group-
https://www.espn.com/college-sports...not-recommend-changes-transfer-waiver-process

It will still be voted on by the Division I Council on May 20, but this appears to make it less likely the proposal will pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top