The arms race

I retweeted this Saturday, but thought it deserved its own post.

Waste of money. Give it to the athletes https://t.co/FDManqLCXz

— Damien Woody (@damienwoody) April 15, 2017

Woody is right. This sort of thing is an enormous misuse of funds. The costs of those flat screens should go directly to the players. Seeing this sort of misguided largesse is also a reminder BC is taking the wrong approach.

Publicly BC's leadership has been against official payments to players. The only problem is players are getting paid illegally and through stupid benefits like 10K flat screens on their lockers. BC -- because of our revenue and our philosophy -- will never be able to keep up with all this nonsense. The indoor facility is nice but it won't have the bells and whistles the power programs have. So instead of keeping up with the Joneses, BC needs to argue for a true salary program for players and true direct benefits. It is only fair and will correct the market. Currently we have an inefficient black market where things like high-tech lockers are considered a good investment. If players were allowed to negotiate or get a salary, they would probably take much less cash into their pocket and hang their things on a hook!

More Cost of Attendence details and what it means

CBS put out a huge article with survey results on the how the various FBS schools plan to pay players under the new Cost of Attendance program. Long story short, all the Power 5 are paying players and most of the non-power 5 will pay too. But even as the system changes, the whole Cost of Attendance program still leaves so much up to the schools and lacks any consistent rule or calculations. And BC is still caught between trying to do what's right financially, competitively and upholds the school's values.

If you remember, BC voted against paying players when the issue first came to a vote. At the time we all recognized it as a protest vote. But even now as BC rolls out its plan, it remains clear we are doing so begrudgingly. Look at how BC is complicating its own process:

Boston College, the only Power Five school to vote against COA last January, will hand out new scholarship money. BC said it's providing $1,250 for miscellaneous expenses plus an unspecified travel allowance if the player is from outside New England. Partial-scholarship athletes on a percentage scholarship will receive the percentage of their dominator, and athletes on a dollar-figured scholarship will receive the dollar amount. Boston College declined to say how much money it's budgeting.

Imagine explaining that policy to recruits.

This can't last. Not just at BC. But everywhere. Even though the stipends/payments are relatively low, the disparity between schools will be exploited in recruiting.

I understand why BC structured the pay this way. But I think they are going to up their budgets shortly to keep up with our rivals. I also think BC should lead the charge to bring uniformity so that we can continue to compete.

Problems with paying players

Chad Scott wrote a good piece on the head scratching math that goes into the NCAA's new cost of attendance policy. The money is supposed to be related to the cost of living in that particular area for a student, not related to tuition or already covered room, board and books. In the current world it is more costly to attend the University of Tennessee ($5,666) than Boston College ($1,400). In the spirit of the new rules, Tennessee would be able to hand out more than $4,000 to a student athlete than BC would be able to offer to the same athlete. How do you think that is going to play out?

Scott noted that these numbers were not cooked up by some scheming SEC Football recruiter, but by each university's office of financial aid and collected by the Department of Education. That explains why school that would seemingly be inline with one another (USC and UCLA) or (Auburn and Alabama) are so different.

The good news is that this calculation won't last. Forget the bad math and worse logic behind Knoxville being more costly than Chestnut Hill. The reason this won't last is that the SEC won't allow one school to have a leg up on another. I expect that eventually there will be a flattening of the cost of attendance stipend and all schools will offer the same thing.

When BC voted against the pay players plan, they never mentioned this issue. They were thinking big picture and where the paying players will creep, but they should have included this aspect of the issue in their protest. It might have generated a little more support and slowed the movement down.

BC explains its protest vote

The New York Times featured BC and Brad Bates in Monday's article on paying college athletes. As most inferred, Bates and Father Leahy knew the initiative would pass and felt they needed to send a message with their vote. I am all for being a contrarian, but I have a problem with how BC is playing this.

College athletics is headed down a path where things are going to become more professional and more commercial. It is only fair and probably in the best interest of the athletes. BC's leadership is smart. We know they see the big picture, hence the "We clearly wanted people to pause." Who does the "pausing" benefit? The current power brokers (i.e. schools, coaches, admins). It doesn't really benefit the athletes. The oncoming changes are disruptive but inevitable and trying to stop the inevitable is wasted energy.

Instead of trying to maintain the status quo even through protest votes, BC's leadership should decide where they want to be in the new world. It is not an easy decision, but coming up with real answers is more brave and shows more leadership than an "I told you so" vote among college administrators.

BC makes statement on paying players

The Power 5 moved closer to paying players. All the schools are for the effort -- except one: BC. We were the only Power 5 to vote against the stipend. Clearly BC knew the initiative would pass. So I have no problem filing a protest vote. Paying players will pass and BC will pay players too.

I am not sure why BC felt the need to vote against this. Maybe they wanted to make a statement too our own fans. We're the only people who really care about the BC vote anyway.

Video Game Settlement: one step closer to paying players?

EA Sports settled their class action lawsuit with former college players. Ed O'Bannon was the named plaintiff and there wasn't a high-profile BC athlete attached, but this should impact BC sports. This pretty much ends any chance of future NCAA video games. But it also sets a precedent for former players to recoup revenue from their likenesses.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think something like this has more legs than Northwestern players unionizing. The unionizing will take multiple teams joining in and could get caught up in courts. This settlement will put a check (albeit a small one) in the hands of former players.

Who knows how this will all play out? My only real prediction is that we will follow the lead of the schools we want to be associated with (like Duke and Notre Dame). But what the means or when change happens is a mystery.

Boston Politics get involved in college sports

With Former athletes suing the NCAA and Northwestern players exploring labor options, it is open season on taking on the hypocrisy of the NCAA. Now Boston City Councilor Josh Zakim wants to impose a “College Athlete Bill of Rights" on NCAA athletes that play within the city limits of Boston. His laws would apply to all schools but would have the biggest impact on BC since we host some of the most high-profile college teams in the country due to the ACC schedules. While I am for paying athletes and potentially disbanding the NCAA, I don't have much faith in Zakim's intentions or his motivation.

The issues that he's attacking are not really relevant to the current situation. Most athletes have plenty of time to graduate. A fifth year for players who don't work out on the field, is a small, small issue. Medically most of these guys are essentially covered year round. The head trauma debate is relevant, but I would say the NCAA and the teams in Boston are relatively ahead of the game. BC has been granting full medical waivers to head injury victims for two decades (think of Jim Unis). Why isn't Zakim mandating head injury policies for Massachusetts High School sports, the NHL, MLS, and NFL?

I don't mind attacking the system. But the real issue isn't health. It isn't safety. It's money. When Zakim figures out a way to mandate payment for players, then he will have my attention. Right now he just feels like someone trying to make a name for himself.

BC has a lot at risk in this process, but I predict these laws are a long way from being passed and then enforced.

Union movement just another sign that College Sports will change

The big college news of the day was Northwestern players attempting to unionize. I am not a lawyer or labor expert so I don't know how this case will play out (follow Warren Zola for a better read). But I think this case along with the Ed O'Bannon suit are just more signs that the current NCAA model will not last. There is just too much money changing hands and not enough going to the players. Lawyers are circling and someone will find an angle and case. The same thing happened in baseball. Curt Flood didn't win his case, but it opened the floodgates for future baseball free agency.

I love college sports, but I don't think the system is fair. Eventually players are going to get paid. For most of the factories this won't be an issue. They will pay and not think twice about it. I always wonder how BC will handle it. I don't think we will lack funds. I just wonder if we will think better of crossing the line. But until we know what the system is, it is really hard for any person or school to take a stand.

While I would like BC to take a leadership position on the issue, ultimately working the channels with like-minded universities is probably the best strategy. If history is any indicator, BC will endorse the same model that schools like Notre Dame, Duke, Syracuse and others advocate.

The NCAA Answers to no one: Momah's appeal denied

The NCAA denied Ifeanyi Momah's appeal for a sixth year of eligibility. BC and Momah were not given an explanation for the denial. A written explanation will be mailed in two to three weeks. There is no one for the media to question as the decision was not made by a standard committee out of NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis. The applications for sixth years are made by a panel of peers from other NCAA schools. This is final. There is no further appealing. Ifeanyi can make a stink out of it publicly but he won't see the field. BC could cry of selective enforcement, but that won't get Momah on the field.

Because there is no current explanation everyone involved is left to assume that the panel considered Momah's 2009 redshirt as selective. He did practice that fall and did experiment with a new position. Should BC have been more careful and called it an injury redshirt? Perhaps. We will know for sure...in two to three weeks.

As the NCAA hands out sixth years to guys who took booster money, yet denies a clean kid who has his degree, the whole purpose of the governing body comes into question. They are not punishing BC for shoddy paperwork. They are punishing one of the good apples. BC even asked that Momah be given a sixth year to play anywhere to help the case. It didn't matter.

Momah has enough raw talent and size that he will get a look from NFL teams. It is just too bad that a good college football player was jerked around by the organization that should be holding him up as a shining example.

Flutie could be key benefactor in O'Bannon case

For those not following it, former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon is suing the NCAA for not sharing revenue generated from his likeness. This is a potential huge lawsuit impacting thousands of former college athletes given the millions of dollars of royalties at stake. As for Fluite, being part of one of the most famous plays in college football certainly has its benefits, but Doug does not receive any money from the NCAA. So every time that highlight is shown, ever time his picture is put on some memorabilia or he is used in a video game, he does not get paid but the NCAA does. Heck even Phelan and Bicknell Jr could be on the receiving end of some nice pay days due to their involvement.

I know there are many lawyers who read this blog, so feel free to chime in in the comments. Although O'Bannon brought the case, I imagine the class action nature of the suit will complicate things and dilute some payouts. But Flutie definitely should have money coming to him given how much others have made off of his play over the years.

I don't think this will change the nature of paying current student athletes. Hopefully it will be resolved with some clear guidelines for future use. These kids put a lot on the line and deserve to share in some of the wealth they generate.