| NEWS Lawsuit has conferences quietly preparing for the likelihood of compensating players

S

SFChronicle.com

Conferences are quietly preparing for the sea-changing possibility they can compensate players above current NCAA limits, significantly altering the longstanding NCAA amateurism model, according to interviews and documents obtained by CBS Sports.

A judge in the ongoing Alston vs. NCAA trial will conduct a final hearing on Dec. 18 pertaining to closing arguments. She will then decide -- likely early in 2019 -- whether scholarship limits imposed by the association violate anti-trust laws.

If the plaintiffs win, there is concern among the Power Five that a Wild West culture could take hold. The last time conferences oversaw athlete compensation was 1956 before the advent of TV, rights fees, agents and riches from the NFL and NBA.

Part of the concern is that Power Five leagues flush with cash might not be able to help themselves.

"It's harder than ever to defend [the current NCAA model]," said Tim Nevius, a former NCAA enforcement officer currently in private practice in New York.

Fearing what would amount to an open marketplace, a handful of conferences have notified officials within their leagues not to discuss the case outside their conferences for fear of collusion accusations. If conferences shared information on how to compensate athletes, that in itself could be interpreted as a way to cap scholarship benefits. That fear of collusion is based in part on rival league administrators even speaking casually about the outcome of the case.

Example: If the plaintiffs win, as expected, the SEC could theoretically compensate athletes with cars. Meanwhile, another league could offer … better cars or apartments or …

While that's an extreme example, it cuts to the heart of that Wild West scenario. The NCAA has long defended its amateurism model that limits scholarships to room, books, board, tuition and a cost of attendance stipend. The plaintiffs argue that artificially caps the true value of a scholarship.

The stakes are laid out in a memo obtained by CBS Sports from the Sun Belt Conference's general counsel to commissioner Karl Benson.

"… it is important to avoid making public statements or participating in interviews where you could be commenting on amateurism, how amateurism may have changed over time [and] the types of relief and injunction requested by plaintiffs," the memo reads.

The memo concluded: "You also may find that other commissioners are reluctant to speak about their conferences will do if the final decision someday is that each conference will set its own grant-in-aid rules."

Sources indicate that similar concerns have been shared with administrators in the SEC and other conferences. CBS Sports approached several commissioners for reactions; their responses reflect the sensitive nature of the case.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany was coy when asked if there had been any discussion within his conference for a day when conferences are free to compensate players above current limits.

"Any discussion?" Delany responded. He did not elaborate.

Delany once said his conference would drop down to Division III before giving up on the current collegiate model.

"After the [Alston] decision, I may have some comments. Not in advance," he added.

Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby: "I don't have any expectation on it at all. I don't know what it will entail. … I'm not going to hypothesize on it. It's before the court. We're going to have to wait how it turns out."

Privately, though, there seems to be a general a feeling the plaintiffs will win, setting off alarms with which the NCAA is familiar. Alston is not the first legal challenge to the NCAA's hide-bound amateurism model. But the cumulative effect of all those court cases may be a chipping away of the NCAA's DNA. Without that one-of-a-kind amateurism model that exists nowhere else in the world, critics have wondered whether the NCAA would have any remaining worth.

Reacting to an Alston win, conferences at least have to consider what sort of compensation they would offer. That's what makes Alston unique. Those plaintiffs have found their best chances of winning are to endorse a model that leaves compensation up to the conferences.

In significant issues like this, conferences don't agree on much of anything.

In court documents, the NCAA basically confirmed what Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick suggested to CBS Sports in October. The NCAA inferred that conference autonomy in Alston would lead to a "fracturing of the existing … conferences."

Swarbrick said with conferences free to name their price, conference realignment could hinge on the compensation philosophies of those leagues. Once again, theoretically, if the SEC offered cars, how would that impact recruiting? What sort of "arms race" would that touch off with other conferences?

If the plaintiffs prevail, the NCAA is more than likely to mount a vigorous appeal process. That's what happened in O'Bannon vs. NCAA in 2014. The court ruled that the NCAA's control of an athlete's name, image and likeness were an illegal restraint of trade. On appeal, judge Claudia Wilken's ruling that $5,000 per year be put in a trust for each qualifying athlete was struck down.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused the NCAA's request to hear the case. There's little doubt the NCAA would appeal a unfavorable verdict all the way to the land's highest court once again. But that doesn't mean the Supreme Court would hear that case either.

Wilken is overseeing the Alston case as well.

"I think the plaintiffs are going to win," Nevius said.

Asked about the Alston case, NCAA president Mark Emmert said, "It's a complex legal case. We've been making our legal arguments. I like our legal arguments. It will be in the hand of the judge and then we'll wait and see what the outcome is. I have some level of confidence that no matter what the outcome, both sides are going to appeal the case so this is going to take a while."

One thing is for sure: The lawsuits will keep on coming. Shawne Alston is a former West Virginia football player who filed suit in the Northern District of California in 2014. He claimed the NCAA and Power Five conferences conspired to fix the value of a full scholarship.

That came in the same court where O'Bannon vs. NCAA was heard. That preceded White vs. NCAA in 2006. In that case, the plaintiffs similarly argued the difference between the actual cost of attendance and the NCAA caps on scholarships was an anti-trust violation. The NCAA settled for $120 million that was distributed to a class of athletes from 2002-08.

In 2015, the NCAA settled a portion of the Alston complaint for $208 million. That affected athletes who did not get the cost-of-attendance stipend from 2009-17. The average amount received by those former athletes is $6,700.

"It's not even the seven-year locust' it's the every-year locust," Tom McMillen said of the court challenges. "You're going to have litigation."

McMillen is president of Lead1 Association, the organization that represents FBS athletic directors.

The Alston plaintiffs have gone to great lengths to argue increased player compensation would not impact consumer demand. In fact, since cost of attendance was implemented in 2015, graduation rates have rose at the same time athletes are making more money just for being … athletes. Cost of attendance stipends generally average $5,000-$7,000 per player.

The plaintiffs changed their tack in Alston, arguing that compensation should be an option decided by the conferences. One expert testified it is "a fundamental economic truth … that each conference is a distinct sports league …"

Because of what amounts to those athletic fiefdoms, sometimes it's hard to get conferences to agree on much. For 50 years, 1906-56, the NCAA allowed conferences to determine compensation. Then it got complicated. The NCAA established an enforcement division. Television became more intrusive, eventually funding the conferences and the NCAA itself with its rights fees.

If conferences took over, they would most likely have to establish their own enforcement staffs. At that point, the question would have to be asked: Why is there an NCAA at all?

The plaintiffs argue that benefits over and above tuition have been paid for years without a negative impact on athletes or the amateur model. Most recently, $4,000 is available to each family of a Final Four participant to travel to the games. Bowl gifts (capped at $550 per player) seemingly are a reward for playing football.

While at Arkansas, former coach Bret Bielema once told CBS Sports that Razorbacks athletes could capitalize on such allowable benefits totaling almost $100,000 over a four-year period.

In its closing brief, the NCAA said six witnesses testified that consumers value amateurism. Yes, but exactly is amateurism? Historically, it has been a moving target that satisfies the NCAA's needs at the time. Five years ago, that current cost of attendance -- paying athletes to supplement their scholarship -- would have been a violation. Now, it's a bedrock to student-athlete welfare.

Those who believe paying players would cut into fans' interest should look around. The players are already are paid directly and indirectly in many instances. The NCAA allows schools to pay insurance premiums for high draft picks in football that can reach $80,000.

The NCAA has argued that "pay for GPA" – grade point average incentives conferences could adopt -- would establish "perverse incentives" forcing athletes to take easier classes. It should be noted that coaches regularly get contract bonuses for reaching a benchmark team GPAs. Also, in many instances, players already are encouraged to take classes that don't interfere with their sport.

But those are mere talking points for now.

"The worse thing you can do it prejudge a judge and the decision they're about to make," Delany said. "I really appreciate the arguments that have been made on our behalf. The judge will make her decision, and we'll respect that. This is a country of the rule of law."

Lawsuit has conferences quietly preparing for the likelihood of compensating players
 
Well...personally... the majority of the players are being paid. They get a free ride to school. The ones that get shafted are the stars. The Tua's and Jalen's of the world. Tyrone Prothro is another prime example. The University of Alabama still makes money off of Pro's catch, paintings and the occasional #4 Prothro jersey sale. Pro gets none of that money, yet lost his hopes of ever getting that big pay day while playing for the Tide.

Some will say, "They knew the risks going in." True, but I still do not think it fair that the Universities get ALL of the money generated by the players. So... here is my thoughts on a viable way to address this. It is solely my opinion and I am completely open to debate about it. DISCLAIMER: SOME OF THE NUMBERS I AM THROWING OUT HERE MAY BE WRONG AS I AM PULLING THEM FROM THE JULIO JONES ERA WITHOUT DOUBLE CHECKING.

STIPENDS FOR ALL STUDENT ATHLETES (EVERY SPORT)

I think a stipend should be allowed to every student athlete. On average, major colleges have about 435 student athletes on full ride scholarships. (Again, these numbers are somewhat dated, but you should get the idea). If Alabama pays each student $2,000 per month, we have a payroll of $870,000 per month. Considering the University made almost $7 mil off of Julio Jones alone his junior year, this number is easily achievable. Add in general Bama apparel sales, licensing monies and the other 3 or 4 players that generate additional millions for the University every season. So, we earmark 1 mil per year to pay stipends.

STAR PLAYERS

Most of the players that end up being stars ( I am guessing around 90%) are already on a path to that stardom before they ever get out of high school. What I am about to say is a gamble, but stay with me here... let's take Julio as an example. We knew he was going to be a star before he ever set foot on campus. Most likely he did too. In a stipend world, I think it should be up to the player to decide what he is going to do. He has 2 choices: A) Take the stipend and give up all rights to any proceeds made off of his name or likeness (much like it is today with the addition of the stipend). B) He forgoes the stipend and is allowed to sign with an agent who can negotiate what percentages of future monies may be made off of the player. This way, the school can continue to make money, but so can the kid.

SCHOOLS WHO'S ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS CANNOT AFFORD THE STIPENDS

Sure, the Alabama's and Auburn's of the world can afford this and then some, but what about Vandy (at the time I looked at this they had been operating in the red for years and required help from other avenues in the school and other sec schools to keep going)? Well, no different than it is currently...bowl sharing monies, etc already help pay for the schools that can't help themselves in every conference. Except now... the Alabama's and Auburn's of the world may have to help out a little more. The schools that make the most money, help the schools that are in the red. The NCAA (Not Capabe At All) gets much smaller cuts. They are nothing more than a homeowners association and continually have hurt college sports (IE: forcing EA sports to quit making the college football games for the gaming platforms, that was millions and millions they took away from all of these schools right there or.... spending extravagant amounts on investigations of petty crimes by these universities ).

That's my thoughts on it.... under water basket weaving players get the same stipend as the football players or basketball players at each school. All of these kids get a little pocket money. The stars have an option. The NCAA takes a pay cut and the flourishing schools help out the ones that are hurting. College sports is huge money. They can afford this.
 
Pay athletes, profitable programs help out unprofitable ones. Do you want capitalism or not? If you pay athletes fuck the poor schools and programs that lose money. Football makes the money, football kerps the money. Anything otherwise is welfare. You propose income redistribution.
 
Last edited:
Well...personally... the majority of the players are being paid. They get a free ride to school. The ones that get shafted are the stars. The Tua's and Jalen's of the world. Tyrone Prothro is another prime example. The University of Alabama still makes money off of Pro's catch, paintings and the occasional #4 Prothro jersey sale. Pro gets none of that money, yet lost his hopes of ever getting that big pay day while playing for the Tide.

Some will say, "They knew the risks going in." True, but I still do not think it fair that the Universities get ALL of the money generated by the players. So... here is my thoughts on a viable way to address this. It is solely my opinion and I am completely open to debate about it. DISCLAIMER: SOME OF THE NUMBERS I AM THROWING OUT HERE MAY BE WRONG AS I AM PULLING THEM FROM THE JULIO JONES ERA WITHOUT DOUBLE CHECKING.

STIPENDS FOR ALL STUDENT ATHLETES (EVERY SPORT)

I think a stipend should be allowed to every student athlete. On average, major colleges have about 435 student athletes on full ride scholarships. (Again, these numbers are somewhat dated, but you should get the idea). If Alabama pays each student $2,000 per month, we have a payroll of $870,000 per month. Considering the University made almost $7 mil off of Julio Jones alone his junior year, this number is easily achievable. Add in general Bama apparel sales, licensing monies and the other 3 or 4 players that generate additional millions for the University every season. So, we earmark 1 mil per year to pay stipends.

STAR PLAYERS

Most of the players that end up being stars ( I am guessing around 90%) are already on a path to that stardom before they ever get out of high school. What I am about to say is a gamble, but stay with me here... let's take Julio as an example. We knew he was going to be a star before he ever set foot on campus. Most likely he did too. In a stipend world, I think it should be up to the player to decide what he is going to do. He has 2 choices: A) Take the stipend and give up all rights to any proceeds made off of his name or likeness (much like it is today with the addition of the stipend). B) He forgoes the stipend and is allowed to sign with an agent who can negotiate what percentages of future monies may be made off of the player. This way, the school can continue to make money, but so can the kid.

SCHOOLS WHO'S ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS CANNOT AFFORD THE STIPENDS

Sure, the Alabama's and Auburn's of the world can afford this and then some, but what about Vandy (at the time I looked at this they had been operating in the red for years and required help from other avenues in the school and other sec schools to keep going)? Well, no different than it is currently...bowl sharing monies, etc already help pay for the schools that can't help themselves in every conference. Except now... the Alabama's and Auburn's of the world may have to help out a little more. The schools that make the most money, help the schools that are in the red. The NCAA (Not Capabe At All) gets much smaller cuts. They are nothing more than a homeowners association and continually have hurt college sports (IE: forcing EA sports to quit making the college football games for the gaming platforms, that was millions and millions they took away from all of these schools right there or.... spending extravagant amounts on investigations of petty crimes by these universities ).

That's my thoughts on it.... under water basket weaving players get the same stipend as the football players or basketball players at each school. All of these kids get a little pocket money. The stars have an option. The NCAA takes a pay cut and the flourishing schools help out the ones that are hurting. College sports is huge money. They can afford this.

If you pay 435 athletes $2000 per month, that's $10.8M per year. That would definitely make a dent in the budget of most programs. Also, I'm not for compensating athletes of non-revenue producing sports. Title 9 and men's soccer be damned. I think the cost of attendance stipends started down a slippery slope.

That being said, I can't blame an athlete, or anyone for that matter, from trying to get paid or protect their interest. Once emotion has been removed from the discussion, it's a one sided debate.
 
Well...personally... the majority of the players are being paid. They get a free ride to school. The ones that get shafted are the stars. The Tua's and Jalen's of the world. Tyrone Prothro is another prime example. The University of Alabama still makes money off of Pro's catch, paintings and the occasional #4 Prothro jersey sale. Pro gets none of that money, yet lost his hopes of ever getting that big pay day while playing for the Tide.

Some will say, "They knew the risks going in." True, but I still do not think it fair that the Universities get ALL of the money generated by the players. So... here is my thoughts on a viable way to address this. It is solely my opinion and I am completely open to debate about it. DISCLAIMER: SOME OF THE NUMBERS I AM THROWING OUT HERE MAY BE WRONG AS I AM PULLING THEM FROM THE JULIO JONES ERA WITHOUT DOUBLE CHECKING.

STIPENDS FOR ALL STUDENT ATHLETES (EVERY SPORT)

I think a stipend should be allowed to every student athlete. On average, major colleges have about 435 student athletes on full ride scholarships. (Again, these numbers are somewhat dated, but you should get the idea). If Alabama pays each student $2,000 per month, we have a payroll of $870,000 per month. Considering the University made almost $7 mil off of Julio Jones alone his junior year, this number is easily achievable. Add in general Bama apparel sales, licensing monies and the other 3 or 4 players that generate additional millions for the University every season. So, we earmark 1 mil per year to pay stipends.

STAR PLAYERS

Most of the players that end up being stars ( I am guessing around 90%) are already on a path to that stardom before they ever get out of high school. What I am about to say is a gamble, but stay with me here... let's take Julio as an example. We knew he was going to be a star before he ever set foot on campus. Most likely he did too. In a stipend world, I think it should be up to the player to decide what he is going to do. He has 2 choices: A) Take the stipend and give up all rights to any proceeds made off of his name or likeness (much like it is today with the addition of the stipend). B) He forgoes the stipend and is allowed to sign with an agent who can negotiate what percentages of future monies may be made off of the player. This way, the school can continue to make money, but so can the kid.

SCHOOLS WHO'S ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS CANNOT AFFORD THE STIPENDS

Sure, the Alabama's and Auburn's of the world can afford this and then some, but what about Vandy (at the time I looked at this they had been operating in the red for years and required help from other avenues in the school and other sec schools to keep going)? Well, no different than it is currently...bowl sharing monies, etc already help pay for the schools that can't help themselves in every conference. Except now... the Alabama's and Auburn's of the world may have to help out a little more. The schools that make the most money, help the schools that are in the red. The NCAA (Not Capabe At All) gets much smaller cuts. They are nothing more than a homeowners association and continually have hurt college sports (IE: forcing EA sports to quit making the college football games for the gaming platforms, that was millions and millions they took away from all of these schools right there or.... spending extravagant amounts on investigations of petty crimes by these universities ).

That's my thoughts on it.... under water basket weaving players get the same stipend as the football players or basketball players at each school. All of these kids get a little pocket money. The stars have an option. The NCAA takes a pay cut and the flourishing schools help out the ones that are hurting. College sports is huge money. They can afford this.

If you pay 435 athletes $2000 per month, that's $10.8M per year. That would definitely make a dent in the budget of most programs. Also, I'm not for compensating athletes of non-revenue producing sports. Title 9 and men's soccer be damned. I think the cost of attendance stipends started down a slippery slope.

That being said, I can't blame an athlete, or anyone for that matter, from trying to get paid or protect their interest. Once emotion has been removed from the discussion, it's a one sided debate.

Yeah...it would be a dent....but it's nothing compared to what these places take in. I mean, a crappy skybox at Auburn (and i mean crappy) is going for sometimes aas much as $70k a game. Even the out of conference, directional schools will bring $50k for that crappy skybox. (My boss is a Barnes and we were talking about that today). I stopped shy of saying it because I wasn't sure I could remember it correctly, but it seems like Bama made 7 mil of off #8 jersey sales julio's junior year. Just jersey sales for one player. It would be interesting to know what Tua and Jalen did in jersey sales this season. As for paying the soccer players or whatever... you just have to. In this day and age, you just have to. Lol.
 
Pay athletes, profitable programs help out unprofitable ones. Do you want capitalism or not? If you pay athletes fuck the poor schools and programs that lose money. Football makes the money, football kerps the money. Anything otherwise is welfare. You propose income redistribution.
It's already done this way man. Also... debate is cool being a jackass is not. We have been paying for Vandy for years. Start your own thread and make it political.
 
Why does a student athlete need $2k per month? Why is it only student athletes who are on scholarship? On scholarship already implies they are getting something.

If you pay athletes, then charge them for the meals, gym, clothing, etc.
 
When you look at the non-position the NCAA has taken with all the basketball FBI info out there, it's obvious that they are heading to pay for play. Now, how do you get that done without getting in a bidding war?
 
Why does a student athlete need $2k per month? Why is it only student athletes who are on scholarship? On scholarship already implies they are getting something.

If you pay athletes, then charge them for the meals, gym, clothing, etc.

I just used that dollar amount. That's $24k per year, not a lot by today's standards. But... I see your point....they do have free food, room and board. Knock it down to $1200 and it becomes even easier to manage.
 
When you look at the non-position the NCAA has taken with all the basketball FBI info out there, it's obvious that they are heading to pay for play. Now, how do you get that done without getting in a bidding war?

Salary caps... just as I have said. The unfairness will be with the schools like us though. If there is another Julio coming in...where is he going to go? To Alabama or Kansas St? Which school is he going to get the most fanfare from? To answer your question, it is a set amount for each player. No star makes more than a no name as far as the program goes. Though he was being a jackass....XXL tidea fan... does have a point. It is a socialist approach (which I am not, by any means, a fan of). In something like this though, I see no way of taking care of both the schools and the players, the stars and the average athletes, the big name schools and the no name schools without capping it all. That's why I put the thread out here. I thought about it and was trying to see how it might be done. My part about star players and agents... I just thought that was fair....I don't think it would be included. Too much money lost by the schools to allow that.
 
@XXL TideFan
@BamaSon25
@TUSKtimes
@planomateo
@cj6891
I wonder where...all this will go..... players getting a lot for playing sports....a lot are playing sports for the love of playing sports ( I remember how much i loved playing as a kid and as a young adult)....
i am one to think....training, education, status, physical and mental development, etc is payment enough..... of course i am not one from "gimme" generation....that for some its an investment...as is education...for payment in the future....
I still see it as a privilege to put on the uniform..... girls softball or football....any chosen sport....
......guess i will sit and watch....see who it is that decides to cut open the golden goose....
 
They should leave everything as is but just add in profit sharing to go into a trust. They get what is in the trust when they graduate or use up their eligibility or transfer. Prorate it based on years spent on the squads. 1 year they get 50% of what was put in trust(once their eligibility is up at transfer location or if they quit the sport), 2 years equals 75%, 3+ years equals 100%. If they have to leave due to career ending injury, then 100%, no matter how many years.

To calculate what goes into the trust, take 10% of the profits from each profit item, ticket sales, program sales, official merch sales, etc. For ticket sales, take that 10% and divide it amongst all those on scholarship, equal shares, an extra share if their face is on the ticket itself. For things like jersey sales, which are based usually on the popularity of a player, shares go to each player who wears that number, prorated based on total PT for each player. Program sales, equal shares to all scholarship players shown inside the program, an extra share for those on the cover.

This way they get compensated for use of their image to sell the program. Also, for the non revenue sports, well, since they turn no profits, the players do not get compensation. At Bama, football, men's basketball, baseball, softball and gymnastics would be the only ones to end up giving out any trust money and only football would be a decent amount. Like Jeudy, if he stays his three years, he may end up with something like 25K when he declares for the draft. Most players would end up with like maybe 5K. The gymnasts might end up with like 2K at the end of their 4 years at Bama.

If any of the others non revenue sports want to complain, tell them to sell their programs well enough to turn a profit.
 
They should leave everything as is but just add in profit sharing to go into a trust. They get what is in the trust when they graduate or use up their eligibility or transfer. Prorate it based on years spent on the squads. 1 year they get 50% of what was put in trust(once their eligibility is up at transfer location or if they quit the sport), 2 years equals 75%, 3+ years equals 100%. If they have to leave due to career ending injury, then 100%, no matter how many years.

To calculate what goes into the trust, take 10% of the profits from each profit item, ticket sales, program sales, official merch sales, etc. For ticket sales, take that 10% and divide it amongst all those on scholarship, equal shares, an extra share if their face is on the ticket itself. For things like jersey sales, which are based usually on the popularity of a player, shares go to each player who wears that number, prorated based on total PT for each player. Program sales, equal shares to all scholarship players shown inside the program, an extra share for those on the cover.

This way they get compensated for use of their image to sell the program. Also, for the non revenue sports, well, since they turn no profits, the players do not get compensation. At Bama, football, men's basketball, baseball, softball and gymnastics would be the only ones to end up giving out any trust money and only football would be a decent amount. Like Jeudy, if he stays his three years, he may end up with something like 25K when he declares for the draft. Most players would end up with like maybe 5K. The gymnasts might end up with like 2K at the end of their 4 years at Bama.

If any of the others non revenue sports want to complain, tell them to sell their programs well enough to turn a profit.

A profit sharing idea would work if there wouldn't be so much opposition from A) the schools operating in the red. B) The other sports that would get left out at most schools. C) Come on man....lol... you know we live in an age where they are trying to not allow kids to keep score in little league games right? The public outcry on ANY KID LEFT BEHIND would be too much to handle.The trust idea...while I like it, almost defeats the purpose. The kids are needing the money while they are in school, not after. Maybe a stipend against what is in the trust? A draw against future monies? I also think there you should be strictly enforced GPA minimums that these athletes would have to adhere to for eligibility to the dollars.

Good post man... this is what I was hoping to see. Other ideas at how to approach this. I think some combination of my original post and yours could be feasible. I just don't see it ever being able to leave anybody out.
 
They should leave everything as is but just add in profit sharing to go into a trust. They get what is in the trust when they graduate or use up their eligibility or transfer. Prorate it based on years spent on the squads. 1 year they get 50% of what was put in trust(once their eligibility is up at transfer location or if they quit the sport), 2 years equals 75%, 3+ years equals 100%. If they have to leave due to career ending injury, then 100%, no matter how many years.

To calculate what goes into the trust, take 10% of the profits from each profit item, ticket sales, program sales, official merch sales, etc. For ticket sales, take that 10% and divide it amongst all those on scholarship, equal shares, an extra share if their face is on the ticket itself. For things like jersey sales, which are based usually on the popularity of a player, shares go to each player who wears that number, prorated based on total PT for each player. Program sales, equal shares to all scholarship players shown inside the program, an extra share for those on the cover.

This way they get compensated for use of their image to sell the program. Also, for the non revenue sports, well, since they turn no profits, the players do not get compensation. At Bama, football, men's basketball, baseball, softball and gymnastics would be the only ones to end up giving out any trust money and only football would be a decent amount. Like Jeudy, if he stays his three years, he may end up with something like 25K when he declares for the draft. Most players would end up with like maybe 5K. The gymnasts might end up with like 2K at the end of their 4 years at Bama.

If any of the others non revenue sports want to complain, tell them to sell their programs well enough to turn a profit.

A profit sharing idea would work if there wouldn't be so much opposition from A) the schools operating in the red. B) The other sports that would get left out at most schools. C) Come on man....lol... you know we live in an age where they are trying to not allow kids to keep score in little league games right? The public outcry on ANY KID LEFT BEHIND would be too much to handle.The trust idea...while I like it, almost defeats the purpose. The kids are needing the money while they are in school, not after. Maybe a stipend against what is in the trust? A draw against future monies? I also think there you should be strictly enforced GPA minimums that these athletes would have to adhere to for eligibility to the dollars.

Good post man... this is what I was hoping to see. Other ideas at how to approach this. I think some combination of my original post and yours could be feasible. I just don't see it ever being able to leave anybody out.

I agree with the GPA requirement, just not the "kids need it now" thing, at least at the P5 level. The P5 schools already give out all you can eat meals, athletic clothing and provide a monthly stipend. The trust is really there just to quiet the "use of image" crowd. Now maybe, in the event of an emergency, they can borrow against the trust with the idea of paying back into it or facing a percentage loss, just like with a 401K plan.
 
They just need to increase the stipend. Inflation has hit and the current stipend isn’t enough. I agree with some on here that they are getting paid with education, world class training and coaching, incredible facilities, places to live, first class nutrition and all of the other advantages. So to pay is inappropriate and kills amateurism and the spirit of playing for your school.
That said again I would be in favor of an increased stipend for all scholarship athletes to 1200 per month or so. That’s is 300 per week or equivalent to a 30/40 hr a week job that the athlete doesn’t have time to get. So they can go on dates, but a pizza or get a roommate and live off campus.
 
Back
Top Bottom