SeaTown Showdown - College Athletes Being Paid

We discuss and debate the future of the NCAA

Photo by Ben Hershey on Unsplash

The NCAA and its power conferences recently agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit which, if approved, would mark an end to the NCAA’s amateur model, and the beginning of college athletes receiving direct compensation from their schools. Below we discuss the potential implications of a world where college athletes are paid.

Will paying college athletes create an unfair advantage for larger, wealthier universities?

Cacabelos: There has got be some type of salary cap structure in place. Otherwise, paying college athletes will further widen the gap between the haves and the have nots in the NCAA. If the House settlement is ultimately approved and implemented, schools will reportedly have up to around $20 million to distribute amongst its athletes. This amount could rise if revenue improves. Assuming some type of cap remains in place, I don’t think that paying college athletes will create an unfair advantage. In fact, an unfair advantage already exists. Some schools have more resources and booster money to help fund new and remodeled facilities. Some school don’t have these resources. Moreover, some schools have an advantage in regards to NIL opportunities. These NIL opportunities likely will remain.

Elsner: I doubt that a salary cap ever gets implemented. The days of salary cap creation were when athletes possessed less power than they do now, including at the collegiate level. It is actually amazing that the NFL has such a strict, anti-player, salary cap still in place. However, I do agree that a salary cap would be a good idea and to do so requires the NCAA to disband and become something else. They need a comissioner, a league and divisions. The best idea I heard is a Premier League type relegation system. Every year, one team gets promoted up to the top league.

How might this impact smaller schools and their athletic programs?'

Elsner: This ruling is going to lead to the destruction of college athletics as we know it. While I don’t think it is an incorrect ruling, I do think it is naive to believe college athletics is going to continue as we know it. Why would football continue to subsidize other college sports if now they have to pay players (and partly based on TV revenue)? Football and basketball are going to break off and create a new league. It won’t be amateur but they will be associated with schools. I don’t know what this means for softball, tennis, and other sports who don’t bring in much revenue. Someone will need to supplement these sports. But who? And why would they? So if a school doesn’t have football (or maybe at least men’s basketball), it could mean the end of the current college model as we know it.

Cacabelos: Damn! No need to be so apocalyptic. But yeah, you’re probably right. The settlement hasn’t been approved yet, but it’s really going to just accelerate what was surely inevitable. Back in January, my alma mater, Loyola Marymount University (LMU), cut six of their sports programs: men’s track, women’s track, women’s swimming, men’s cross country, men’s rowing, women’s rowing. LMU’s official reasoning was a need to “adapt to the quickly evolving NCAA landscape” and “concentrate its resources on remaining programs.” Translation: our men’s basketball team continues to struggle and we need more money. So, this is the first step for small schools. They are going to have to make sacrifices at the behest of their big money sports: either men’s basketball or football (if they have it). The second step is going to have to be reactionary based on how the money grab goes the next five to ten years. If the financial gap between a place like LMU and a place like UCLA continues to widen, I don’t see how the two schools remain competing against each other in Division I. And that’s a shame because it will eventually lead to a restructuring of March Madness. Okay, so I guess there is a need to be apocalyptic.

How might the distribution of revenue to college athletes be managed to ensure fairness across different sports and conferences?

Elsner: To refer to the proposal I referenced earlier, this is what I would do with football. The Big 10, Big 12, SEC and ACC plus Notre Dame create a super league with a commissioner. That is 68 teams with 8 divisions. Divide these divisions geographically around the country and then the league office (like they do in the NFL) schedules four games out of division. The eight division winners make the playoffs plus seven more wild card teams. That creates an awesome 16-team playoff that everyone will watch.

The rest of the schools play in a lower league with a commissioner but they play a shorter season that ends after nine weeks. The top four teams in their league play a mini-playoff and the winner is the 16th team in the “big boy” bracket above.

I have no answer for other sports. That’s up to you Kev.

Cacabelos: I love this. I think you can also make some sort of rule where the small schools can be promoted into the big boy league and the big schools can be demoted into the other league. They could have the Pac-8: Washington; Washington St.; Oregon; Oregon St.; Stanford; Cal; UCLA; USC.

As to the other sports? Maybe the solution is the same. The Big 10, Big 12, SEC and ACC plus Notre Dame functions as one division. The rest of the leagues create another division. The NCAA tournament remains the same. You pull automatic qualifiers, and at-large bids are split evenly between the two divisions.

Somewhat related, if we want to create more revenue streams for the have nots, I want to see some type of MLB TV service where you could buy a streaming package to literally watch every game. Proceeds would go to the schools. Probably still not enough to save LMU, but doesn’t hurt to try.