KY Legislature Moves to Create Comparable Bill to CA Fair Pay to Play

[Son_Of_Saul]

Who says they are not walking away now? Attendance is down and at least a year or two ago there was a downward trend in viewership. I'm not sure if it has rebounded some or not during the 2018-2019 season.

They aren't walking away when it comes to the tournament. I guess the supposed puritanical outrage only lasts until the first weekend of March?


"As a whole, the tournament is averaging a 6.7 rating/15 share in metered-market households through Sunday, up 8 percent over last year's 6.2/13 and tied for the third-best mark since 1993. Over that 26-year span, only the 2015 and 2011 tournaments delivered bigger ratings through the Elite Eight round (this year is tied with the 2013 and 2005 tourneys)."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/ncaa-tournament-2019-tv-ratings-rise-elite-eight-1198505

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Without googling (I don’t trust that you won’t but whatevs) can you name 1 17-18 year old swimmer than could have taken advantage of this? 1 field hockey player? 1 interpretive swim dancer?

Nope and I enjoy Olympic sports.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

the last tournament ratings averaged 10.5 million viewers across TBS, CBS, TNT and truTV, an 8% increase. NCAA March Madness live also set new records, as livestreams were up by 31% and live hours consumed increased 29%.

decline in attendance is because people are poor.

I'm not talking about tournament ratings. The TV viewership of college basketball games was in decline a couple of years ago, along with attendance. Perhaps it rebounded in the 2018-2019 season like the tournament ratings did. I have not seen data for the last season.

 

[BostonCat2001]

Without googling (I don’t trust that you won’t but whatevs) can you name 1 17-18 year old swimmer than could have taken advantage of this? 1 field hockey player? 1 interpretive swim dancer?

so googling it makes it invalid? lol am i interested in womens swimming or soccer? nope. but the local sports complex that allows youth girls soccer teams to play might love the idea of having a college standout all american come over for an after to shake hands. who am i to say different.

and since i did google it....katie ledecky. went to the london games and won a ton of medals. attended and competed at stanford. yeah...i'm sure no one wanted to endorse her.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Why aren't they walking away now? We've witnessed a system that rewards cheaters (Duke, UNC, Oregon, etc.). None of our fans have walked away yet, have they?

Did they walk away after years of getting intentionally screwed by the likes of Higgins, Showes, or Emmert?

You might walk away, but I can almost guarantee you'll be reserving a table for one (maybe two if you have a significant other) in whatever venue you choose as an alternative to the UK game.

Totally different but you could be right.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

They aren't walking away when it comes to the tournament. I guess the supposed puritanical outrage only lasts until the first weekend of March?


"As a whole, the tournament is averaging a 6.7 rating/15 share in metered-market households through Sunday, up 8 percent over last year's 6.2/13 and tied for the third-best mark since 1993. Over that 26-year span, only the 2015 and 2011 tournaments delivered bigger ratings through the Elite Eight round (this year is tied with the 2013 and 2005 tourneys)."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/ncaa-tournament-2019-tv-ratings-rise-elite-eight-1198505

Or perhaps people who aren't big basketball fans tune in to watch a few games at tournament time. Who knows why.

 

[loublue22]

Saying something similar to this in the other thread. The money in this won’t automatically shift to large markets. It will go to the big brands, and Kentucky is a big brand in college basketball

Thanks, I'd rather our campus, tradition, fan support, coaches, and track record on producing pros help us convince recruits to come here, rather than a bidding war.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Saying something similar to this in the other thread. The money in this won’t automatically shift to large markets. It will go to the big brands, and Kentucky is a big brand in college basketball

I'm not sure this is true. Except for the super elite players the market for their images are very localized. I think you are also mistakenly approaching this as if most endorsements will be legitimate attempts to gain economic advantage from having a celebrity endorse a business, etc. I'm not sure this is how it will play out. It might for the elite few, but for the majority the transactions will be about boosters who want the best team they can buy.

 

[FrankUnderwood]

I don't get the faux outrage.

So if you have an tournament in March with 68 teams featuring players who make a total package worth, say, $50,000/year in stipend/tuition (with maybe 10-20 guys making $100,000 or more behind the scenes), that's fine; but if a very small group of those same players make, say, $100,000 additional dollars in endorsements out in the open, you guys suddenly won't watch the tournament?

Did you guys stop watching after DeAndre Ayton, Higgins-gate, UNC's exoneration, Duke's payments to Zion, the Lance Thomas scandal, etc.?

No, you didn't stop watching. You raised your Puritanical fists to the sky just like you are now but then you settled down, sat back, popped some popcorn, and watched another March Madness just like the rest of us.

I bet almost all of you will do the same after 2023, too.

You have made a lot of very solid points in regards to this situation. As have others.

Nobody is really “ outraged” in this thread though, as those who disagree with your viewpoint are simply doing just that. Disagreeing. That doesn’t make it “faux outrage.”

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Whatever it is we can’t have other schools having a recruiting advantage over us. The arms race continues.

Rack. Not much more needs to be said. Like it or not, the state of Kentucky needs to get ahead of this, yesterday. I suspect California is about to get a influx of talent while other states figure it out, or worse, plant their feet.

Best news I've heard all night. And I suspect Cal made a few choice phones, too.

 

[jockstrap_mcgee]

I'm not sure this is true. Except for the super elite players the market for their images are very localized. I think you are also mistakenly approaching this as if most endorsements will be legitimate attempts to gain economic advantage from having a celebrity endorse a business, etc. I'm not sure this is how it will play out. It might for the elite few, but for the majority the transactions will be about boosters who want the best team they can buy.

Even then, I doubt boosters will invest heavily in college basketball in California. More likely it will be football. And I do think there’s still a lot to be said about national players investing in local markets to sell aparrel

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

You have made a lot of very solid points in regards to this situation. As have others.

Nobody is really “ outraged” in this thread though, as those who disagree with your viewpoint are simply doing just that. Disagreeing. That doesn’t make it “faux outrage.”

Some fans are saying they might leave the sport for good because of this. Outrage might be too strong a word. I'll switch over to "hissy fit" instead.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Even then, I doubt boosters will invest heavily in college basketball in California. More likely it will be football. And I do think there’s still a lot to be said about national players investing in local markets to sell aparrel

Time will tell. If I'm the AD at UCLA I think I would be capable of rounding up a few Sam Gilberts to put my program over the top.

 

[CatEye2010]

Rack. Not much more needs to be said. Like it or not, the state of Kentucky needs to get ahead of this, yesterday. I suspect California is about to get a influx of talent while other states figure it out, or worse, plant their feet.

Best news I've heard all night. And I suspect Cal made a few choice phones, too.

Again, Ca LAW DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT TIL 2023, SO RELAX.

 

[RobJones1978]

The coaches are making millions, the coaches are more important than the players. People act like there's some college football CEO making $50 million a year, most of the the money goes back to the schools and is used for non-revenue sports and academic efforts. This is just people looking for oppression where it doesn't exist, what a shock.

So like socialism?

 

[Xception]

If it goes sideways I can walk away, the best days of cbb have already passed anyway. I’m fine with athletes making money, everybody else can. I just don’t like the possibility of Nike or rich boosters deciding rosters, I doubt Nike will extend a contract without input on where the player should go. Recruiting will be reduced to a bidding war between big corporations.

On the good news front schools should end the facilities arms race, elite players aren’t going to pick a school based on anything other than who their endorsement suggests. The only change to cbb will be how each team is assembled, the idea that a coach goes out recruiting seems superfluous.

 

[Xception]

Again, Ca LAW DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT TIL 2023, SO RELAX.

Florida is pushing a bill that would go into effect next year, if it does pass I suspect California will make a change in their timeline.

 

[jockstrap_mcgee]

Time will tell. If I'm the AD at UCLA I think I would be capable of rounding up a few Sam Gilberts to put my program over the top.

Your argument also presupposes the idea that the local wealth in an area graduated from the local universities. That might be true in some places, but in California, wealthy people went to school all over the country.

 

[UK-chulo]

Rack. Not much more needs to be said. Like it or not, the state of Kentucky needs to get ahead of this, yesterday. I suspect California is about to get a influx of talent while other states figure it out, or worse, plant their feet.

Best news I've heard all night. And I suspect Cal made a few choice phones, too.

Didn't FL already write up the bill? Think if it passes it goes into effect next year or something like that. Way before CA bill goes into effect in 2023. No way in the world Cal/UK will sit by with that kind of recruiting advantage in the SEC.

 

[kybassfan]

Without googling (I don’t trust that you won’t but whatevs) can you name 1 17-18 year old swimmer than could have taken advantage of this? 1 field hockey player? 1 interpretive swim dancer?

Michael Phelps. I get your point though. This misguided legislation will only make the rich richer. Won’t be long till the social reform and title 9 mobs stick their hands out.

 

[UKnCincy]

Without googling (I don’t trust that you won’t but whatevs) can you name 1 17-18 year old swimmer than could have taken advantage of this? 1 field hockey player? 1 interpretive swim dancer?

Sydney McLaughlin

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Your argument also presupposes the idea that the local wealth in an area graduated from the local universities. That might be true in some places, but in California, wealthy people went to school all over the country.

Not really. It presupposes that in an area as large as LA there are enough wealthy people who are graduates or fans of UCLA sports that an AD can come up with a significant amount of cash if he puts in the effort.

 

[Cal-4-Three]

I don't see what is wrong. They are not paying players regarding coming to a particular school or program. But, if you are a superstar and/or popular where they create shirts, action figures, or other stuff with your name and likeness you should be entitled to be compensated. Who should get that money, the NCAA? That has always been ridiculous.

So say a booster says I'll give you $1 million to come to UK to shoot commercials for my business. You don't see how that just gives an unfair advantage to the larger markets? LA has much more money than Kentucky does. People better think about this. The NCAA needs to have a cap on the amount or something.

 

[UKnCincy]

Not really. It presupposes that in an area as large as LA there are enough wealthy people who are graduates or fans of UCLA sports that an AD can come up with a significant amount of cash if he puts in the effort.

Maybe, maybe not. The amateurism rule you are defending is a rule that restricts the right of an individual to earn money in their free time as that individual sees fit. There’s a high bar to clear in order to justify placing that type of limit on the ability of anyone to make their own choices.

And hypothetical fears about boosters who may or may not shift competitive balance in sports where competitive balance has never existed in the first place simply does not clear that bar. It doesn’t even come close.

Look outside the two big revenue sports and you’ll see that competitive balance is often far worse than in men's basketball or football. How many championships has Iowa wrestling won? How many championships has UNC women’s soccer won? How much balance is there in women’s basketball when UCONN can seemingly win the title every year? It’s impossible for competitive balance to get any worse than it already is in many sports.

Are you truly concerned about competitive balance, or are you really only concerned that the lack of competitive balance we have today will persist but simply with a different set of teams?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Maybe, maybe not. The amateurism rule you are defending is a rule that restricts the right of an individual to earn money in their free time as that individual sees fit. There’s a high bar to clear in order to justify placing that type of limit on the ability of anyone to make their own choices.

And hypothetical fears about boosters who may or may not shift competitive balance in sports where competitive balance has never existed in the first place simply does not clear that bar. It doesn’t even come close.

Look outside the two big revenue sports and you’ll see that competitive balance is often far worse than in men's basketball or football. How many championships has Iowa wrestling won? How many championships has UNC women’s soccer won? How much balance is there in women’s basketball when UCONN can seemingly win the title every year? It’s impossible for competitive balance to get any worse than it already is in many sports.

Are you truly concerned about competitive balance, or are you really only concerned that the lack of competitive balance we have today will persist but simply with a different set of teams?

The NCAA is a private organization. They can implement whatever rules they see fit for people who participate in their events. There is no bar to clear or restriction of rights taking place. If an athlete doesn't want to participate in college athletics he or she doesn't have to. If that's your argument, it's pretty weak.

 

[kybassfan]

so googling it makes it invalid? lol am i interested in womens swimming or soccer? nope. but the local sports complex that allows youth girls soccer teams to play might love the idea of having a college standout all american come over for an after to shake hands. who am i to say different.

and since i did google it....katie ledecky. went to the london games and won a ton of medals. attended and competed at stanford. yeah...i'm sure no one wanted to endorse her.

And remained amateur by her choice to attend college. This in contrast to Michael Phelps, who chose to go pro. These kids have options today. They don’t need saving from a corrupt NCAA by a vastly more corrupt government. Better to clean up the NCAA than make the whole thing FUBAR.

 

[UKnCincy]

The NCAA is a private organization. They can implement whatever rules they see fit for people who participate in their events. There is no bar to clear or restriction of rights taking place. If an athlete doesn't want to participate in college athletics he or she doesn't have to. If that's your argument, it's pretty weak.

It is a private organization comprised of state agencies and other institutions that are heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

The NCAA’s rules are created by the school presidents. For Division I, two-thirds of those schools are public, which means that it is unelected, public employees dictating to citizens how they can or cannot earn money. This isn’t simply a “private organization” in the same sense that a local club is a private organization. These are largely state actors who are exercising overreach, so a high bar absolutely applies.

If the NCAA wants to have the freedom to implement the types of rules you advocate then they need to stop accepting state and federal funding first. Otherwise, they have no business making this type of rule.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

It is a private organization comprised of state agencies and other institutions that are heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

The NCAA’s rules are created by the school presidents. For Division I, two-thirds of those schools are public, which means that it is unelected, public employees dictating to citizens how they can or cannot earn money. This isn’t simply a “private organization” in the same sense that a local club is a private organization. These are largely state actors who are exercising overreach, so a high bar absolutely applies.

If the NCAA wants to have the freedom to implement the types of rules you advocate then they need to stop accepting state and federal funding first. Otherwise, they have no business making this type of rule.

I'm not sure that many being public institutions has any bearing on the conclusion that the NCAA should have the authority to set its own rules for participation.

Please explain how the the NCAA is heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars? Many universities that belong definitely receive taxpayer support for their academic mission. Do many also receive taxpayer support for their athletic departments? I'm not sure it matters in terms of what the NCAA can and can't require, but I'm not aware of widespread taxpayer support of athletic programs.

 

[K_TIME]

Pro:
1. There is a movement that players get a bigger piece of revenue...this will settle those feelings a bit that poor players are getting screwed while NCAA and coaches are piling up money.
2. UK won't be behind other schools that have state legislatures that have this law in place...so I'd imagine this keeps us ahead of the curve on keeping big time talent to UK.

Con:
1 There is always un-intended consequences...one could be guys worrying more about how much money they can make vs. winning if they feel they're getting less endorsements because they aren't getting more shots/noterioty.
- Case in point...we don't win NCAA title without the top 6 guys playing their roles. Terrance Jones became a guy that did all the little things (with less shots). He took Thomas Robinson in title game and just neutralized him totally while our guards balled out. If Jones is in a scenario where he's worried about other things....is he as willing to be doing the little things?

 

[GonzoCat90]

There's a reason none of these situations or solutions fit neatly or have a clear answer, but too many folks aren't willing to acknowledge that it's because the very system and structure is broken and unnatural.

You simply can't (or shouldn't) tie state-funded universities, a private organization with a monopoly, sports, and billions of dollars together. It's the old riddle about getting the wheat, sheep, and wolf across the river with a boat only big enough to hold one at a time.

 

[bthaunert]

Sydney McLaughlin

I honestly believe she could have brought in $1 million dollars in her one year at UK.

 

[BlueCat43]

i just don't want the bill to pass then one of UKs stud players gets paid for an ad then is declared ineligible by the UNCAA right before the FF!

This is my concern. With pay out in the open and the NCAA's history of selective enforcement and interpretation of the rules, the NCAA could really create havoc. Athlete A could be paid $10000 for a shoe commercial and found eligible while Athlete B is paid $1000 for a shoe ad in a magazine and found ineligible.

 

[UKnCincy]

I'm not sure that many being public institutions has any bearing on the conclusion that the NCAA should have the authority to set its own rules for participation.

Please explain how the the NCAA is heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars? Many universities that belong definitely receive taxpayer support for their academic mission. Do many also receive taxpayer support for their athletic departments? I'm not sure it matters in terms of what the NCAA can and can't require, but I'm not aware of widespread taxpayer support of athletic programs.

It absolutely has bearing. NCAA has the authority to set its rules, as long as those rules are within reason. They don’t have absolute freedom to dictate whatever rule they wish. For example, it would be absurd to suggest that the NCAA could mandate solitary confinement for eligibility violations simply because they are a private organization. There are certain bounds they have to remain within, and the fact that they are predominantly state agencies exercising market power narrows the bounds of what they can and cannot do.

Whether tax dollars are earmarked for the athletic department specifically is irrelevant. The athletic department is part of the university and the university as a whole is either a state agency directly or heavily funding by public dollars.

The NCAA rules also are not drafted by athletic departments. It is the school presidents who drive this and for all of the public schools, the presidents are public employees. Public employees have no business telling citizens how they can earn money on their own time. Simply forming an organization that they deem as “private” in order to implement that type of rule does not then suddenly justify the rule’s validity.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

It absolutely has bearing. NCAA has the authority to set its rules, as long as those rules are within reason. They don’t have absolute freedom to dictate whatever rule they wish. For example, it would be absurd to suggest that the NCAA could mandate solitary confinement for eligibility violations simply because they are a private organization. There are certain bounds they have to remain within, and the fact that they are predominantly state agencies exercising market power narrows the bounds of what they can and cannot do.

Whether tax dollars are earmarked for the athletic department specifically is irrelevant. The athletic department is part of the university and the university as a whole is either a state agency directly or heavily funding by public dollars.

The NCAA rules also are not drafted by athletic departments. It is the school presidents who drive this and for all of the public schools, the presidents are public employees. Public employees have no business telling citizens how they can earn money on their own time. Simply forming an organization that they deem as “private” in order to implement that type of rule does not then suddenly justify the rule’s validity.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think they have every right to do it. Obviously, it must be worth the trade off to play college sports because the vast majority of student athletes agree to the terms and participate. If the the trade-off was to great, they would do something different. So the market would seem to suggest the value they are giving up to participate in college athletics is less then what they receive from participating.

 

[UKnCincy]

I honestly believe she could have brought in $1 million dollars in her one year at UK.

Most likely. A lot of people were surprised she didn’t turn pro straight out of high school.

I also think that it might’ve actually benefited UK track if she were able to earn endorsement money while in college. She could’ve appeared in ads and been identified as an athlete at the University of Kentucky. Would’ve been nice additional exposure for the women’s track team.

 

[UKnCincy]

We will have to agree to disagree. I think they have every right to do it. Obviously, it must be worth the trade off to play college sports because the vast majority of student athletes agree to the terms and participate. If the the trade-off was to great, they would do something different. So the market would seem to suggest the value they are giving up to participate in college athletics is less then what they receive from participating.

Under that line of reasoning, then there’s no justification for laws that place limits on things like non-compete clauses for at-will employees.

In reality, the fact is that there are situations where one party can acquire levels of market power that enable them to effectively compel agreement from an individual. In those situations, it is entirely appropriate to ask whether the demands from the party with leverage are reasonable or represent overreach.

And if they represent overreach, then it’s also entirely appropriate for elected officials to intervene, especially in instances when the party in question is a government agency.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Under that line of reasoning, then there’s no justification for laws that place limits on things like non-compete clauses for at-will employees.

In reality, the fact is that there are situations where one party can acquire levels of market power that enable them to effectively compel agreement from an individual. In those situations, it is entirely appropriate to ask whether the demands from the party with leverage are reasonable or represent overreach.

And if they represent overreach, then it’s also entirely appropriate for elected officials to intervene, especially in instances when the party in question is a government agency.

I agree with you 100%. I just don't think this is one of those situations.

 

[UKnCincy]

I agree with you 100%. I just don't think this is one of those situations.

Fair enough.

 

[shutzhund]

http://kentuckysportsradio.com/main...parable-bill-to-californias-fair-pay-to-play/

"The California state legislation that challenges the NCAA’s amateurism model could soon come to the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

KSR’s Matt Jones reports a Kentucky state legislator is currently working on writing and pre-filing a bill that is similar to California’s “Fair Pay to Play” legislation."

More evidence that politicians are dumber than sacks of rocks.

 

[KoraeyCat]

College sports aren't dying at all, but this could certainly kill them. I'm not interested in semi-pro sports. I dont watch pro sports at all.

Preferring a sub-par product to professional sports is a strange way to live, but do your thing. Attendance is down in college sports and so is viewership, especially college basketball.

Sounds like you hate the idea of athletes getting paid to play a game.

Hate to burst your bubble, but college athletes have been getting paid under the table for decades at every major school. Bills like these would hopefully make it less shady.

I’m sick of colleges and TV networks making millions off these kids. Burn it all to the ground.