Athletic eligibility, NIL and free agency

[George64]

I can't believe that I'm agreeing with the intent of something that our president did, if not necessarily the means, but —

As reported in the Washington Post on Friday, he signed an executive order that says there should be a 5-year window for student athletes to complete their athletic careers, establish limits on transfers (one penalty-free, subsequent transfers have to sit out a year), NIL compensation rules, including possible caps or "fair market value" standards and regulation of third-party collectives paying athletes.   

Elements of his order parallel legislation introduced last week by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an ally and former college football coach. Tuberville's bill would restore stricter transfer rules by allowing one penalty-free move while requiring athletes to sit out a season after a second transfer. It would also establish a five-year window for five seasons of eligibility.

WASHINGTON, April 3 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Friday that aims to reinforce the rules of college sports in a bid to restore financial stability and protect the future of college athletics. Friday's order directs ‌federal agencies to bolster the effectiveness of key college-sports rules on transferring, eligibility and pay-for-play. It seeks evaluations on whether any violations of such rules render a university unfit for federal grants and contracts. It calls on the relevant governing bodies to update rules by establishing clear eligibility limits, setting transfer rules as ⁠well as banning "improper" financial arrangements including pay-for-play agreements facilitated by collectives and similar entities. The order also calls on Congress to quickly pass legislation to address these critical issues.

[jjanow99]

I can't believe that I'm agreeing with the intent of something that our president did, if not necessarily the means, but —

As reported in the Washington Post on Friday, he signed an executive order that says there should be a 5-year window for student athletes to complete their athletic careers, establish limits on transfers (one penalty-free, subsequent transfers have to sit out a year), NIL compensation rules, including possible caps or "fair market value" standards and regulation of third-party collectives paying athletes. 

Elements of his order parallel legislation introduced last week by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an ally and former college football coach. Tuberville's bill would restore stricter transfer rules by allowing one penalty-free move while requiring athletes to sit out a season after a second transfer. It would also establish a five-year window for five seasons of eligibility.

WASHINGTON, April 3 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Friday that aims to reinforce the rules of college sports in a bid to restore financial stability and protect the future of college athletics. Friday's order directs ‌federal agencies to bolster the effectiveness of key college-sports rules on transferring, eligibility and pay-for-play. It seeks evaluations on whether any violations of such rules render a university unfit for federal grants and contracts. It calls on the relevant governing bodies to update rules by establishing clear eligibility limits, setting transfer rules as ⁠well as banning "improper" financial arrangements including pay-for-play agreements facilitated by collectives and similar entities. The order also calls on Congress to quickly pass legislation to address these critical issues.

I assume this would include salary caps & FMV standards for coaches, and limits on their movements...

[mike1960]

I stopped reading and threw up in my mouth a little bit with the words "our president."

[ugarte]

... including possible caps or "fair market value" standards and regulation of third-party collectives paying athletes ...

nothing says "fair market value" like centralized wage determination

[upprdeck]

the only way college sports work is if there is some idea of balance in the chance to compete.  Capping in NIL is a start.

That just pushes it back onto the shadows though

[ugarte]

the only way college sports work is if there is some idea of balance in the chance to compete.

what is this based on? vibes? there is no equal chance to compete and there never has been. "everyone gets paid what they can bargain but the players" is exploitation.

[BearLover]

the only way college sports work is if there is some idea of balance in the chance to compete.

what is this based on? vibes? there is no equal chance to compete and there never has been. "everyone gets paid what they can bargain but the players" is exploitation.

There are many examples in modern society where we do not let people freely bargain for whatever they want due to the steep externalities involved. I (and most on the left) wish we were stricter in policing the "free market."

In this case, the "exploitation" you describe is attending college for free (which can be worth as much as $400K), incredible resources to pursue the sport you love, and the publicity to get drafted/hired to a professional career, where many of these same players will go on to make millions regardless.

The beneficiaries under the current system are .1% of NCAA athletes, basically just extremely high-end men's basketball and football players. Everyone else - athletes in other sports, athletes in men's basketball and football not on Power 4 teams, fans of any team outside the Power 4 - suffers.

[ugarte]

the only way college sports work is if there is some idea of balance in the chance to compete.

what is this based on? vibes? there is no equal chance to compete and there never has been. "everyone gets paid what they can bargain but the players" is exploitation.

There are many examples in modern society where we do not let people freely bargain for whatever they want due to the steep externalities involved. I (and most on the left) wish we were stricter in policing the "free market."

In this case, the "exploitation" you describe is attending college for free (which can be worth as much as $400K), incredible resources to pursue the sport you love, and the publicity to get drafted/hired to a professional career, where many of these same players will go on to make millions regardless.

The beneficiaries under the current system are .1% of NCAA athletes, basically just extremely high-end men's basketball and football players. Everyone else - athletes in other sports, athletes in men's basketball and football not on Power 4 teams, fans of any team outside the Power 4 - suffers.

that's because we don't, as a society, actually value those things other than romantically. universal healthcare, this is not. there's no reason football players should be subsidizing fencers.

[BearLover]

the only way college sports work is if there is some idea of balance in the chance to compete.

what is this based on? vibes? there is no equal chance to compete and there never has been. "everyone gets paid what they can bargain but the players" is exploitation.

There are many examples in modern society where we do not let people freely bargain for whatever they want due to the steep externalities involved. I (and most on the left) wish we were stricter in policing the "free market."

In this case, the "exploitation" you describe is attending college for free (which can be worth as much as $400K), incredible resources to pursue the sport you love, and the publicity to get drafted/hired to a professional career, where many of these same players will go on to make millions regardless.

The beneficiaries under the current system are .1% of NCAA athletes, basically just extremely high-end men's basketball and football players. Everyone else - athletes in other sports, athletes in men's basketball and football not on Power 4 teams, fans of any team outside the Power 4 - suffers.

that's because we don't, as a society, actually value those things other than romantically. universal healthcare, this is not. there's no reason football players should be subsidizing fencers.

I dunno, I feel like you could say that about, like, national parks or other things we preserve. We value those things romantically, not due to any innate desire for survival or safety. Yet we (rightly) don't allow unchecked capitalism/development in those spaces. I guess I don't really see the distinction you're drawing why traditional/fairer college athletics shouldn't be protected.

[ugarte]

the only way college sports work is if there is some idea of balance in the chance to compete.

what is this based on? vibes? there is no equal chance to compete and there never has been. "everyone gets paid what they can bargain but the players" is exploitation.

There are many examples in modern society where we do not let people freely bargain for whatever they want due to the steep externalities involved. I (and most on the left) wish we were stricter in policing the "free market."

In this case, the "exploitation" you describe is attending college for free (which can be worth as much as $400K), incredible resources to pursue the sport you love, and the publicity to get drafted/hired to a professional career, where many of these same players will go on to make millions regardless.

The beneficiaries under the current system are .1% of NCAA athletes, basically just extremely high-end men's basketball and football players. Everyone else - athletes in other sports, athletes in men's basketball and football not on Power 4 teams, fans of any team outside the Power 4 - suffers.

that's because we don't, as a society, actually value those things other than romantically. universal healthcare, this is not. there's no reason football players should be subsidizing fencers.

I dunno, I feel like you could say that about, like, national parks or other things we preserve. We value those things romantically, not due to any innate desire for survival or safety. Yet we (rightly) don't allow unchecked capitalism/development in those spaces. I guess I don't really see the distinction you're drawing why traditional/fairer college athletics shouldn't be protected.

i started to respond to this, and perhaps this falls into one or another category of logical fallacy but i am instead going to respond "that comparison is too stupid to bother responding to."

[BearLover]

the only way college sports work is if there is some idea of balance in the chance to compete.

what is this based on? vibes? there is no equal chance to compete and there never has been. "everyone gets paid what they can bargain but the players" is exploitation.

There are many examples in modern society where we do not let people freely bargain for whatever they want due to the steep externalities involved. I (and most on the left) wish we were stricter in policing the "free market."

In this case, the "exploitation" you describe is attending college for free (which can be worth as much as $400K), incredible resources to pursue the sport you love, and the publicity to get drafted/hired to a professional career, where many of these same players will go on to make millions regardless.

The beneficiaries under the current system are .1% of NCAA athletes, basically just extremely high-end men's basketball and football players. Everyone else - athletes in other sports, athletes in men's basketball and football not on Power 4 teams, fans of any team outside the Power 4 - suffers.

that's because we don't, as a society, actually value those things other than romantically. universal healthcare, this is not. there's no reason football players should be subsidizing fencers.

I dunno, I feel like you could say that about, like, national parks or other things we preserve. We value those things romantically, not due to any innate desire for survival or safety. Yet we (rightly) don't allow unchecked capitalism/development in those spaces. I guess I don't really see the distinction you're drawing why traditional/fairer college athletics shouldn't be protected.

i started to respond to this, and perhaps this falls into one or another category of logical fallacy but i am instead going to respond "that comparison is too stupid to bother responding to."

Uh, okay. Your argument kinda sucks? It seems you said the government shouldn't regulate this area because society only values that area out of romantic tendencies rather than a desire for safety and security. That distinction doesn't make sense. I'm glad the government protects (and wish it did more protecting of) all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with my safety and security. National parks, an endangered minnow in a river somewhere, the style of house that can be built on a street. I'm sure there are many better examples of things we limit, at the expense of a small group of people profiting, because of some emotional or romantic feeling. The current system of college sports is a total joke, and this is facially obvious to almost anyone following it. It's good to preserve our favorite things.

[ugarte]

it's apples and oranges. there are no "maximum salaries" imposed on any other labor.

[BearLover]

This change is going to nuke the Ivy League unless they reverse the ban on grad students:

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/ncaa-proposing-major-changes-to-eligibility-rules-including-age-limits-121509806.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA8SSlGsAIcZiG4Dn2RVSWtWiHbuYgDCeOS2Yxs6GqOomLExzv9gH4k4M2XO-Txc2hXphnJyZOsp0GI8VPHVDIWAR50cGw6_Ln_X4YfRRWJ1knGKGp4LVbQAPNsGZ0plga0T33r_tipcOdPugKdtr0lxen6u0usIw0QJoEzU1uGb

[stereax]

Five year clock, starting from 19 or high school graduation, whichever is earlier. That's the proposal.

For Cornell hockey, that shouldn't be too painful - most of our guys come in at 20, don't they? So four years from there.

I am almost certain that the majority of hockey players in that good-but-not-great tier would simply repeat a year of high school so as to not be caught in the eligibility web.

While I think this is a good idea in principle - because some of the football, basketball, etc cases have been wild - I think the implementation of it as it stands is gonna lead to many athletes taking extra years in high school specifically to preserve eligibility. Which is dumb and not what should be enforced. If you want to do a flat five years of eligibility, cool. Tie it directly to age then and keep your limited maternity/military exemptions. Cause under this system, a guy who graduates high school at 15 and pursues, say, hockey as a full-time junior athlete gets screwed over when he wants to apply for college eligibility as an 18-year-old. ("No hockey player would graduate high school at 15" may I introduce you to Zayne Parekh?)

[BearLover]

Five year clock, starting from 19 or high school graduation, whichever is earlier. That's the proposal.

For Cornell hockey, that shouldn't be too painful - most of our guys come in at 20, don't they? So four years from there.

I am almost certain that the majority of hockey players in that good-but-not-great tier would simply repeat a year of high school so as to not be caught in the eligibility web.

While I think this is a good idea in principle - because some of the football, basketball, etc cases have been wild - I think the implementation of it as it stands is gonna lead to many athletes taking extra years in high school specifically to preserve eligibility. Which is dumb and not what should be enforced. If you want to do a flat five years of eligibility, cool. Tie it directly to age then and keep your limited maternity/military exemptions. Cause under this system, a guy who graduates high school at 15 and pursues, say, hockey as a full-time junior athlete gets screwed over when he wants to apply for college eligibility as an 18-year-old. ("No hockey player would graduate high school at 15" may I introduce you to Zayne Parekh?)

Flat five years without age restrictions would be an extinction-level event for Ivy national competitiveness. Sports are zero-sum, so even if it doesn't impact our own players directly, if all our opponents are able to get five years out of their best players or bring in the best fifth-year grad student transfers, they'll have a massive edge over the Ivies.

With age restrictions, it is a little better for the Ivies but still very bad. As you rightly pointed out, kids can now just repeat a year in high school and get five years even if they start college at age 19. If kids couldn't do that, then hockey would be okay, since only the true freshmen coming straight from high school would get 5 years. Those kids are usually the very best recruits who wouldn't want to stay 5 years anyway.

In other sports like lacrosse, this would be a complete disaster for the Ivies. Maryland, Duke, Johns Hopkins et al would be stacked with the most elite fifth years, and we'd be severely disadvantaged. The silver lining to me is that this could get the Ivy League to allow grad student athletes. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but at least this is a possible impetus for them finally changing it.

The only Ivy sport that benefits from this rule change is basketball. Now we would be less likely to see players like Fiegen graduate early since they'd still have a fifth year at the end regardless. But this comes at the expense of nuking the competitiveness of every other sport - hockey, lacrosse, wrestling, etc.