Why Not Allow Boosters?

[Goose]

With the whole USC/NCAA email thing going down - combined with the fact that the NCAA isn't allowing Hardship Transfers anymore - I was thinking last night about all of the restrictions that the athletes face. And I kept coming back to "illegal funds from boosters". What if those funds weren't illegal? What if boosters could give kids whatever they wanted? Would that really change anything? Think about the current situation. Does anyone here honestly believe that recruits aren't getting money illegally right now at every school in the country? For God's sake, I knew kids at Northern Colorado who were getting money from boosters and that was when they were 1-AA. So what would change if we just allowed boosters to give what they want? Obviously the school wouldn't be able to, but if George Solich wanted to give De'Ron Davis $50k, what would it matter?

I'm seriously struggling to see why this shouldn't be allowed. "Only certain schools would get the best recruits" - well, have you looked at the current landscape? The kids get paid, the boosters get what they want, everyone wins. What's the downside here? If someone gives a recruits mom a no-show job for big bucks, and then screws her over word will get out. This will hurt the reputation of the booster/school with other recruits. Listen, these kids are now signing legally binding documents that force them to stay at a school for 4 years or risk losing a year of their life. Coaches are allowed to move freely. AD's are. Presidents are. NON-ATHLETE STUDENTS ARE. But we're gonna make an 18 year old stay at a school even though the coach he liked left and he hates the place and isn't playing? Let's let them earn some money at least to offset that.

I don't know, maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I think it's about time we start considering things like this.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotten WAY too close to a Libertarian point of view on this to feel good about myself, so I need to go take a shower. But what's the downside?

 

[dply]

title 9?

I agree with you though I don't have any issues with it.

 

[Goose]

title 9?

I agree with you though I don't have any issues with it.

As long as the school isn't giving the money - and I believe the schools shouldn't - I don't think Title 9 matters. Hell, UCONN's women's team may make more money than their men's some years.

 

[Duff Man]

Who is the athlete playing for in that scenario?

 

[Goose]

Who is the athlete playing for in that scenario?

Himself/Herself.

 

[dply]

As long as the school isn't giving the money - and I believe the schools shouldn't - I don't think Title 9 matters. Hell, UCONN's women's team may make more money than their men's some years.

I think the Darths and the Livers of the world would make that all mucky. But who knows?

 

[BuffaloSoldier76]

I mean, if you really want to just open up an open bidding war on kids, then by all means. If George Solich decides to give De'Ron Davis $50K with the express reason being to get him to go to school at CU, what is going to happen when a Baylor booster comes in and gives him $60K at the last minute and he opts to go there instead? How long do you think those boosters are going to provide money to those kids and their families without wanting a guarantee on the services they are buying? Do you want a kid to be forced by his family to stay in a bad/abusive coaching situation just because a booster from that school is paying the family's rent? Is the kid on the hook for paying back a booster that he stiffs if a bidding war for his services was going on before he signed someplace?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I just think, if allowed, it would become a slippery slope and essentially athletes being legitimately paid to play in an uncontrolled manner. The bidding wars for recruits would be outrageous and would dwarf even the NFL free agency, which at least has constraints by salary cap provisions. Imagine the top recruit in the country having George Solich offering an $80k Mercedes and free food for 4 years, while T Boone Pickens offering $50k/season + a $70k Range Rover and then Phil Knight (or whoever at Nike) offering $100k/season and free Nike for life.

I don't necessarily disagree that these athletes should be paid in some way or allowed to transfer at will (which is a completely separate issue unrelated to this), but to just allow booster to "give kids whatever they want", is not a precedent anyone wants to deal with, IMO.

 

[Duff Man]

Himself/Herself.

Sounds great in theory.

 

[Goose]

I mean, if you really want to just open up an open bidding war on kids, then by all means. If George Solich decides to give De'Ron Davis $50K with the express reason being to get him to go to school at CU, what is going to happen when a Baylor booster comes in and gives him $60K at the last minute and he opts to go there instead? How long do you think those boosters are going to provide money to those kids and their families without wanting a guarantee on the services they are buying? Do you want a kid to be forced by his family to stay in a bad/abusive coaching situation just because a booster from that school is paying the family's rent? Is the kid on the hook for paying back a booster that he stiffs if a bidding war for his services was going on before he signed someplace?

I just think, if allowed, it would become a slippery slope and essentially athletes being legitimately paid to play in an uncontrolled manner. The bidding wars for recruits would be outrageous and would dwarf even the NFL free agency, which at least has constraints by salary cap provisions. Imagine the top recruit in the country having George Solich offering an $80k Mercedes and free food for 4 years, while T Boone Pickens offering $50k/season + a $70k Range Rover and then Phil Knight (or whoever at Nike) offering $100k/season and free Nike for life.

I don't necessarily disagree that these athletes should be paid in some way or allowed to transfer at will (which is a completely separate issue unrelated to this), but to just allow booster to "give kids whatever they want", is not a precedent anyone wants to deal with, IMO.

What makes you guys think that this stuff isn't already going on? At least this way there'd be visibility on it. That's my big point.

 

[Duff Man]

What makes you guys think that this stuff isn't already going on? At least this way there'd be visibility on it. That's my big point.

It goes on right now, but boosters still know they somewhat have to toe the company line.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

What makes you guys think that this stuff isn't already going on? At least this way there'd be visibility on it. That's my big point.

It may go on to a certain extent right now, but at a fraction of the rate that it would get to if it were to become legal.

People are amazed by all the benefits brought to Miami recruits/players by Nevin Shapiro. That would look like peanuts compared to the type of money/cars/houses/other perks that'd be thrown around if it was made legal.

 

[Goose]

It goes on right now, but boosters still know they somewhat have to toe the company line.

But with the increased visibility, they still would. In the era of twitter/facebook/the googles/etc, nothing is a secret really. If a guy is paying a kid, and then screws him over it'll all be out there. It will hurt the school's ability to recruit and others will step in.

 

[Duff Man]

But with the increased visibility, they still would. In the era of twitter/facebook/the googles/etc, nothing is a secret really. If a guy is paying a kid, and then screws him over it'll all be out there. It will hurt the school's ability to recruit and others will step in.

Very possible. I guess I view your plan as shifting the power/money around, without actually helping the student athletes much.

 

[Goose]

Very possible. I guess I view your plan as shifting the power/money around, without actually helping the student athletes much.

That could be too. It's not perfect, I'll be the first to admit it, but something has to be better than the status quo.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

But with the increased visibility, they still would. In the era of twitter/facebook/the googles/etc, nothing is a secret really. If a guy is paying a kid, and then screws him over it'll all be out there. It will hurt the school's ability to recruit and others will step in.

There would be no company line to toe anymore, though. No restrictions and nothing to hold them back from offering literally anything to get a few top recruits. The issue isn't necessarily screwing a kid over, as I agree with you on that. I just see this getting to the point where a recruit could literally be offered $1mm+ to play for a school. With zero limitations, I don't see how that is good for the game at all. Even professional sports has a limit to how much a team can "bribe" a guy to play for them.

 

[Duff Man]

That could be too. It's not perfect, I'll be the first to admit it, but something has to be better than the status quo.

Fair. Any solution to the current problems is not going to be perfect. Ideally, I would like to see the schools themselves foot the bill rather than passing it on to boosters.

 

[Goose]

There would be no company line to toe anymore, though. No restrictions and nothing to hold them back from offering literally anything to get a few top recruits. The issue isn't necessarily screwing a kid over, as I agree with you on that. I just see this getting to the point where a recruit could literally be offered $1mm+ to play for a school. With zero limitations, I don't see how that is good for the game at all. Even professional sports has a limit to how much a team can "bribe" a guy to play for them.

Not all pro sports do. Baseball doesn't, and even though the sport is stupid it doesn't stop people from loving it. And pro sports shouldn't have a limit - why does LeBron be limited in what he can make? Do any of us in our jobs have limits? Do CEO's? The market is whatever someone will pay for them.

Fair. Any solution to the current problems is not going to be perfect. Ideally, I would like to see the schools themselves foot the bill rather than passing it on to boosters.

The thing with the schools is, as dply pointed out, they have Title 9 issues. That could make it messy. However, I do think they should be getting stipends.

 

[BuffaloSoldier76]

There would be no company line to toe anymore, though. No restrictions and nothing to hold them back from offering literally anything to get a few top recruits. The issue isn't necessarily screwing a kid over, as I agree with you on that. I just see this getting to the point where a recruit could literally be offered $1mm+ to play for a school. With zero limitations, I don't see how that is good for the game at all. Even professional sports has a limit to how much a team can "bribe" a guy to play for them.

Agree. If the schools can just step back from it and say that the player payments aren't their concern, that becomes a bigger concern for the kids themselves as they are left dealing with people more unscrupulous than college coaches and administrators who are being left to do their business unchecked. With all the problems that NCAA schools have, at least there is a rulebook in place and theoretical punishments for breaking those rules. Whether or not that system is working currently (it isn't) is a another debate.

 

[dply]

I think tax accountants would love this too.

 

[TDbuff]

Booster payments are inherently shady. Making them NCAA legal wouldn't make them less so. I'm sure there's plenty of innocent $100 handshakes, but you also have sleazeballs like Nevin Shapiro around these kids. I'd hate to see what things would look like if every potential street agent wasn't worried about getting caught. Things are bad now, but they could get worse.

That said, the whole NCAA system is screwed up, the booster payments are just a symptom of the corruption, and I have no idea how you fix it without blowing everything up.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Not all pro sports do. Baseball doesn't, and even though the sport is stupid it doesn't stop people from loving it. And pro sports shouldn't have a limit - why does LeBron be limited in what he can make? Do any of us in our jobs have limits? Do CEO's? The market is whatever someone will pay for them..

Pro sports leagues are there to create a product of competition between multiple franchises. They construct rules and regulations to keep competitive balance (for the most part) among the organizations in order to keep all the fan bases in tune with their product. One piece of that is making a salary cap to which teams need to stay under in order to ensure they aren't just paying every single player on their team the most money in the league and forming all-star teams. Yes, baseball is an exception to this (and it's the 3rd highest rated sport out of the big 4), but football is not. College football is already one of the most competitively unbalanced sports leagues, and allowing boosters to pay whatever they want to 18 year old kids will only widen that gap.

 

[dply]

I've always thought it was funny that American sports are socialist in nature and the european sports (soccer) are capitalist in nature.

 

[Goose]

Pro sports leagues are there to create a product of competition between multiple franchises. They construct rules and regulations to keep competitive balance (for the most part) among the organizations in order to keep all the fan bases in tune with their product. One piece of that is making a salary cap to which teams need to stay under in order to ensure they aren't just paying every single player on their team the most money in the league and forming all-star teams. Yes, baseball is an exception to this (and it's the 3rd highest rated sport out of the big 4), but football is not. College football is already one of the most competitively unbalanced sports leagues, and allowing boosters to pay whatever they want to 18 year old kids will only widen that gap.

Man, I hate to tell you this, but pro sports leagues are designed to make ridiculous amounts of money. The only reason - ONLY reason - the NFL, NBA & NHL have a salary cap is to maximize the profit that they can make. If you honestly think the NFL owners are sitting around a room thinking about the interest of the game over money, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

 

[Darth Snow]

Man, I hate to tell you this, but pro sports leagues are designed to make ridiculous amounts of money. The only reason - ONLY reason - the NFL, NBA & NHL have a salary cap is to maximize the profit that they can make. If you honestly think the NFL owners are sitting around a room thinking about the interest of the game over money, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

salary caps exist to prevent the players from making too much money. Competitive balance is a nice side benefit.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Man, I hate to tell you this, but pro sports leagues are designed to make ridiculous amounts of money. The only reason - ONLY reason - the NFL, NBA & NHL have a salary cap is to maximize the profit that they can make. If you honestly think the NFL owners are sitting around a room thinking about the interest of the game over money, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

Correct. Making money is priority #1 and the NFL is far and away the best American sports league at doing it. It's also the most competitively balanced league in our country, and you think that's a coincidence? Those two absolutely go hand-in-hand. Salary Cap = Competitive balance = Better product = More viewers and better ratings = More $$$

 

[prf]

This article lays out really well how most kids are getting paid:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

Very few are Cam Newton getting offered a church, because payouts that large will inherently attract more red flags then a few hundred bucks or rent here and there. Legitimizing those payments removes those red flags and would immediately funnel much much more money to players (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but I would find it disturbing, mostly because I'm selfish and I doubt we could ever match a payment)

Just speculating, but the larger problem would seem to me to be agents. I guarantee you Scott Boras would have an all star team at USC, especially because they don't get full scholarships. Hell, he already bought an entire high school baseball program. For sure you'd have a ton of shady dudes coming out of the woodwork, getting a bunch of shady contracts signed, which would end up screwing the athlete, and steering players to schools where they are close by and maybe have other financial interests.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

This article lays out really well how most kids are getting paid:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

Very few are Cam Newton getting offered a church, because payouts that large will inherently attract more red flags then a few hundred bucks or rent here and there. Legitimizing those payments removes those red flags and would immediately funnel much much more money to players (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but I would find it disturbing, mostly because I'm selfish and I doubt we could ever match a payment)

Just speculating, but the larger problem would seem to me to be agents. I guarantee you Scott Boras would have an all star team at USC, especially because they don't get full scholarships. Hell, he already bought an entire high school baseball program. For sure you'd have a ton of shady dudes coming out of the woodwork, getting a bunch of shady contracts signed, which would end up screwing the athlete, and steering players to schools where they are close by and maybe have other financial interests.

Good post. I just think removing the red tape completely opens up far too many issues

 

[MtnBuff]

What makes you guys think that this stuff isn't already going on? At least this way there'd be visibility on it. That's my big point.

It goes on right now, but boosters still know they somewhat have to toe the company line.

It may go on to a certain extent right now, but at a fraction of the rate that it would get to if it were to become legal.

People are amazed by all the benefits brought to Miami recruits/players by Nevin Shapiro. That would look like peanuts compared to the type of money/cars/houses/other perks that'd be thrown around if it was made legal.

Very possible. I guess I view your plan as shifting the power/money around, without actually helping the student athletes much.

College football and basketball is a huge money operation that makes millions of dollars. A big chunk of that money ends up going back to athletes in non-revenue producing sports and at many schools even funds a lot of other non athletic activities.

Certainly boosters play a big role and a lot of stuff happens already. At the same time under the current system there is at least a semblance of control and some incentive to try to keep things somewhat under control.

Opening the door to the highest bidder without restriction would kill college sports as we know them. How many schools could truly compete under those conditions, 10, 15, maybe 20. For everyone else the game would be over. Go to a lower level (where the highest dollar also runs the show,) eliminate most of athletics all together.

I have no illusions that college sports are some pure bastion of fairness and caring for the interest of the student athlete. Money runs the show. At the same time the system as it stands serves to support thousands of young people in having a college experience. Much if not most of this would go away in the name of some rich guys egos.

If these donors want to be pro sports owners, be big shots, run the show let them go form minor league pro franchises and they can do what they want. As fans we have already seen what money creates in the NFL. Yes it is the biggest show in town but for many of us it lacks the connection, the spirit, the belonging that the college game gives us. We have also seen that the pro owners themselves have had to put restrictions on themselves in the form of salary caps and tampering rules to keep them from destroying the balance that makes them as popular as they are.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

Because CU would suck at it.