Fixing the dark issues of football

Allow colleges to pay players and a lot of these problems go away. It is perfectly obvious why the NCAA resists that tooth and nail: they like slave labor. Who wouldn't? It's ironic that a body as PC-obsessed as the NCAA will ban team names that offend some idiot but is all in favor of exploiting thousand sof uyoung, mostly poor African-Amercian youth, so they can reap the benefits instead of sharing them with the people actually putting the product on the filed.

Another issue, related to the first, is the ridiculous ban on D-I players transferring without sitting a year. This rule gives abusive coaches far too much leverage. At the very least, the rule should be waived when the coach who recruited them leaves or is fired. How can it be fair to allow a coach to tie up recruits, then break both his contract with the school and his word to these players, with no consequences, but the players have to sit out a year if they leave.

Most of the issues regarding agents and financial management are the players' repsonsibility. No one is forcing them to spend lavishly or hire obvious dirtbags as agents. I'm not sure how much can be done to counteract immaturity, inexperience and lack of judgment or character.

HGH and steroid education is a must. However, to believe that education alone will stem the use of dangerous, but performance enhancing, drugs is a pipe dream. Enforcement through mandatory testing in conjunction with education will help. There will always be those who use. The money is too great of an incentive.

There is no real evidence that HGH poses any significant danger to players or anyone else who uses it. Anabolic steroids are a different issue. HGH has gotten thrown into the mix because we are concerned about the "sanctity" of our various records. What's next - regulating players getting Lasik surgery? Some things don't need to be fixed.

Paying players in college a few hundred bucks a month is not going to solve the problems associated with big-time marketing agents paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to prime-time players. There are millions at stake here. The only real solution is to abandon this pipe dream of "amatuer" athletics at the college level.

Great column Jack,

I had a question about the marketing advance, while I understand that it may be a smart tactic to sign a prospective client, especially one whose family may be in an unstable financial situation, but how often does this tactic fail? For example, how often does an agent front, lets say 100K against marketing dollars, and have the player fail to prove himself as a marketable player? What if an agent did that to a guy like Ryan Leaf or Tim Couch and these guys fail to earn 100K in endorsements? Do they usually end up getting that much money through marketing despite their lack of success on the field, or do they have to pay the agent back with money from their contract?

Thanks,

JT

Well,

This is a well-thought out statement and I appreciate your thoughts. Hopefully, these issues become greater priorities and we start getting some solutions

I seem to remember the late Bob Woolf, Larry Bird's agent, getting Bird to accept getting an allowance, with the remainder of his pay going to smart, sound investments that set Bird up for life. The allowance wasn't chicken feed, and he had a great house in a great neighborhood, but it protected Bird from a lot of hangers-on and helped him cope with this huge amount of money that he'd never seen before.

I'd be curious what would happen if you went to player and said you had two goals: maximize their earning power over the course of their career and maximize their security once their playing days ended, and to do that, early in your relationship, you'd agree on a specific amount of money they'd get every week after you got their check, with the remainder going to smart, sound, boring investments. Would people laugh?

Well,

This is a well-thought out statement and I appreciate your thoughts. Hopefully, these issues become greater priorities and we start getting some solutions

@Renegade & Scot
There is also no evidence that HGH boosts performance. A few studies have seen no performance increase as a result of taking HGH (a variety of different measures). Education about that would be good. Of course, people are generally more willing to believe the speculation of an individual (the person providing the HGH) than actual studies.

Jack,

The anecdote in your last section, which is probably fairly representative, suggests that education about finance and business decision making, needs to start earlier than professional sports. It is probably a violation of some NCAA rule, but coaches or sports directors should have educational seminars on the basics of these topics during the school year. I'm not talking about going into Roth IRAs, but basic concepts such as the fact that cash advances have to be paid back, the reality that stretching a big 4 year contract over a lifetime requires saving $, high risk vs low risk investments, the importance of keeping track of where your money is going, what an auditor is, the fact that 60% of NBA and 70+% of NFL players are in financial trouble within two years of retiring, etc.

You have outlined in the past (and there is an excellent SI story on this from a year or two ago) about how athletes seem unwilling to listen to the education once they get to the pros, partly because of ego, but partly because they are overwhelmed by what seems like the foreign language of finances. However, if they understand some basic concepts and have the pitfalls ingrained in them for 2-4 yrs, some percentage may take an interest in learning more. I'm not naive enough to think that a fair portion would ignore the warnings, but any education must start at the college level.

Paying the players a couple hundred bucks a month sounds easy and I wish it was easy. Title IX means that you won't be able to pay just athletes in revenue sports like football and basketball. Every scholarship athlete will be given a stipend. That extra money amounts to chump change for Penn State but what about Kent State or Louisiana-Monroe? Not every athletic program in the country is a cash machine. Many if not most are treading water at best.

Pool agents from a registry to bring them under certain forms of compliance. Nothing is free, that is the first thing they say when they meet the front office. Maybe the NCAA can recoup some of its payer play fees by that method and agents will begin to address their own exhorbitant jet set lifestyles by reducing those appearances especially when they are tied to a mileage/millage pay scale. This would encourage the institutions to better develop their own talent for those markets and create greater local interaction amongst alums, etc.

Payment is an obvious conclusion. The NCAA is lucky a union hasn't gone around and passed out vote check cards in union conferences and states. There's too much money and time not to call these people entry level workers, apprentices(tm), as it were. The term (tm) does not stand for Trump Management and he doesn't own a patent on the term apprentice. Imagine the can of worms that could apply to antitrust provisions being argued for or against the NCAA.

Getting players paid brings them under a different oversight structure. Health care becomes an obvious determination and many of the injury issues you discuss can be better monitored or prevented.

HGH is here to stay and many of the injuries come from a result of people being too large for their own physical frame. It is a collision sport. People from all walks use it now with no ties to sport. The NFPLA needs to take the measures to adress this item, for the reasons of player safety. Used right those items can improve life quality and many performance enahancers are used in post surgical recovery. Put it in the hands of doctors and schedule the items, better to admit it and move forward with better transparency and diminished standards than deny the monster in the room.

I think you missed one big idea from the last comment section (and something I had not considered either) - that a rookie wage scale means NFL players do not need an agent for the first few years. Even if you made players complete one year in the NFL before getting an agent, the scary contact between college players and agents would dramatically decrease. That said, I'm sure the agents amongst us are not big fans of that plan.

"Start educating young players in high school and college on the risk of HGH and other steroid related substances."

The problem with the HGH issue is the lack of tangible evidence of side effects associated it's use as well the inability to trace usage in current testing procedures.

Great article

I fear you may be talking too much sense for the suits in the NCAA. They want to hog all of the money and they want all of the credit for the ideas.

I also agree about concussions, although I disagree about the causes and solutions. I had at least 5-10 of my own and I wish more was done to help prevent them. Having played for 11 years, here's my take:
-> EDUCATION: I'd say that concussions boil down to educating players on concussions as soon as possible and educating coaches at EVERY level on what the signs are. I had at least 3 or 4 concussions while I was still in Pop Warner, but I didn't know what they were then, so I thought I was being soft and jumped right back into action. Eventually, my head hurt so bad sometimes that I tried to avoid contact.
-> HELMETS: I love the competition to produce the most effective and protective helmet. I think this is good for the game.
-> MOUTHPIECES: Check out Dr. Maher of Weymouth, MA - his mouth pieces are an excellent concept, especially since the helmet can only protect so much. Who knew that the end of your jaw doesn't necessarily line up with the cartilage causing bone-to-bone impact a mere 2-5mm from the lobe of your brain? Shock doctors are much cheaper ($20-30 vs. $400), but you'd have to know how to set them in place.
-> FORM/TECHNIQUE: I'd say that hitting form is the smallest part of the equation. I NEVER in 11 years of football had a coach teach the wrong form, whether it was one of my coaches or a coach from another team at one of the 5+ camps I attended. Furthermore, I think some of the penalties were ridiculous last year for helmet-to-helmet contact because the player was looking up and happened to slide up the chest of the QB or ball carrier. Take for example Patrick Chung's hit on Chad Henne in Foxborough for a 15-yard personal foul. The ONLY way Chung could have avoided helmet-to-helmet contact was to either dive at Henne's knees or hit Henne a*s*s-first.

The long term financial problems for the players could be resolved through a pension system. We all are forced to pay into a national pension system, called Social Security. No one is happy about it, but we all are forced to pay into it nonethless, and it saves Americans from themselves and their own spending/savings habits. Do the same thing for NFL players through the new CBA. Require that every player must have a certain flat percentage of their contracts held back and paid into an investment fund. The teams would have to also pay their share into the fund. The higher paid players will be required to pay in more, but they could also draw more upon retirement, and it would be a way to redistribute some of the players' wealth among themselves, just like the US government redistributes wealth through taxes and social security.

The amount you draw could be based on your years of service, so players who spend two years in the NFL, then get cut, could draw a small amount, while players who play for 10+ years would draw a significant lifelong pension. The players would not be able to draw from the fund immediately upon retiring (or getting cut) from the NFL, so players could not rely on the fund for income while they were still in their working years, but it would at least ensure that players had some income later in life. Given, this does not resolve the problem of players going broke within two years of leaving the NFL, but quite frankly, let them get a job like the rest of us if they do. This is merely a solution for long term financial stability. Part of the fund could even be paid out for disability payments for those players injured on the field, much like a part of social security is paid out to disabled workers.

A pension system might already be in place (please comment if it is and I'm rambling for no reason), but if it's not, it's a logical first step to saving the players from their own financial folly.

I really don't see how paying college players changes anything. No matter the size of the stipend, the better recruits and players will still be given additional money and benefits under the table. The only thing that will happen is that players will now make MORE money playing amateur sports and develop an even greater sense of entitlement to accompany their ever-growing egos. Besides, a scholarship worth 5 or 6 figures AND specialized training and coaching to have a shot at playing professionally are certainly reward enough for their services. It's not like most of them are even expected to attend class or do their own work in order to stay eligible.

Bill Bates:

It is funny how the enthusiasts for not paying college athletes never apply those virtues to their own professions. Most people don't think that a below market value salary (mostly as non-monetary compensation) and resume enhancement are fair compensation for their own labor in their field. However, a lot of people are quite happy to advocate that for athletes.

The only thing that keeps me from thinking that people like you are the scum of the earth is the low opinion I have of their intelligence.

Foobs,
Scum of the earth? Really? All because some of us feel that getting "paid" 5 or 6 figures to attend a college PLUS free training to make the next level PLUS whatever the boosters are paying is more than sufficient compensation for playing an NCAA sport, namely football? Also, I'm glad you think you know how I feel about my own pay and benefits. Stick to what you know, which is obviously very little for you to get that bent over a reasonable viewpoint. Must be your time of the month...

Agents do more than tenure contracts, they help bring in endorsements and counsel lifestyle improvement, plus arrange true professional itinerary for schedules, travel, appearances.

I really don't see how paying college players changes anything. No matter the size of the stipend, the better recruits and players will still be given additional money and benefits under the table. The only thing that will happen is that players will now make MORE money playing amateur sports and develop an even greater sense of entitlement to accompany their ever-growing egos. Besides, a scholarship worth 5 or 6 figures AND specialized training and coaching to have a shot at playing professionally are certainly reward enough for their services. It's not like most of them are even expected to attend class or do their own work in order to stay eligible.
-------
That's the thing: if you make it legal to pay players, then they don't have to take bribes under the table anymore.

Nick C.,
No one is suggesting that the schools be allowed to pay its players whatever amount they desire. That would be ludicrous and go a long way toward destroying college sports. The serious proposals involve ALL players receiving a uniform amount of money either from the schools or the NCAA itself. And again, that would do nothing to prevent boosters from providing additional money or benefits to lure prospects to their particular program.

HGH will always be a problem at all levels of High School, NCAA and NFL Football. I can understand why. Imagine a disadvantaged kid, with maybe three brothers and three sisters, no father and a mom who works two jobs just to put food on the table. This kid has a good football talent and could make it to the NFL if he was just a little bigger and faster. Can anyone honestly blame a kid like this for taking HGH if it will help him get drafted and maybe one day lock in the lucrative contract that secures the future of all his family members? I, as a lucky member of society, who has no such worries, cannot fault this kid for doing what he believes is the right thing for him and his family. While these cases exist, and they always will, drug taking will always play a part in sport. Who among us has the moral right to say that kids such as these are wrong and should be penalised forever for these actions.

By the way I play golf and have called many penalties on myself throughout my playing days for rule infractions. I would never partake in such activity as that described above but I understand why some do. I wonder if some agents agents have an ifluence on a kids decision to go down this road? Given some of the tactics listed by Jack above I am sure they do.

How about instituing a maximum weight limit for players?

A maximum weight limit reduces the need for immense size and may help curb the drug issues. Smaller players will also generate less force which can help with concussions.

Nick C.,
No one is suggesting that the schools be allowed to pay its players whatever amount they desire. That would be ludicrous and go a long way toward destroying college sports. The serious proposals involve ALL players receiving a uniform amount of money either from the schools or the NCAA itself. And again, that would do nothing to prevent boosters from providing additional money or benefits to lure prospects to their particular program.
---
I am. Free markets. At least let the players take unlimited endorsements (perhaps with a cut going to the school) in addition to their standard wage.

It would destroy the "charm" of college sports, but we're slowly learning that said "charm" is already dead anyways. I personally believe that they should just come out in the open with it and end the hypocrisy because right now the NCAA look like greedy b*st*rds and I don't blame the players one bit for wanting a slice of the pie.

I like this blog very much.The long term financial problems for the players could be resolved through a pension system. A maximum weight limit reduces the need for immense size and may help curb the drug issues.

There has been a lot of discussion about a rookie cap. Rather than a cap, there should be a defined pay schedule for all first year players. It would be a sliding scale based on draft position. Many corporations have similar set pay scales for entry level positions. There could be a defined bonus program given at year end based on playing time and/or other performance criteria to reward for performance.

By eliminating the negotiations for first year players, there would be no need for players to get involved with an agent until after the start of their first professional season thus taking the agents out of discussions with college players.

Players could then be allowed to negotiate with their team for salaries beginning in year 2 and beyond. Teams would have exclusive rights to those players as they do with drafted players. Negotiations could begin once the players first season is complete which would also allow teams to have a true evlaution of the young players worth rather than speculating based on their college performance.

good post!!Thanks for your suggestion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

good post!!Thanks for your suggestion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's fairly obvious that certain high school players are going to get scholarships to play in college and maybe go onto the NFL and these players really ought to have to attend certain educational classes before even being allowed to play on any college team regardless of level. Sure, it'll burden them with class work, but that's the price the should be willing to pay if they want the multi-million dollar salaries the NFL has to offer.
If they don't want to take those classes then sorry..find another occupation. The league and NCAA can foot the bill and that would insure a certain level of education before they ever think of hitting the grids, but of course we know it'll probably never happen because the people who make these kinds of decisions are probably the same who will prey on the guys involved in the first place. That leaves it up to the league and the NCAA to weed the bad people out IF they're willing to do it or not.