(06-19-2014 12:50 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 12:33 PM)PirateHeist Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 12:26 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Programs that can scrape up the biggest "endosements" get the best recruits. Let the Endorsement Wars begin.

Essentially it would shift some endorsement money from schools to players. Peoples eyes are on the players much more than on signs/video in the stadium. This seems to be the most equitable solution and let's smaller schools off the hook. It would also directly represent a players monetary value to the institution. Seems like the fairest method to me.

Welcome to Big Boosterville. A boosters dream come true. Crap -sham "businesses" could be created just to do this sort of thing. In any event, players could be represented using agents with the true stars going to programs bidding the best multi-year guaranteed "endorsement." A five star QB or Power Forward might demand 6 figures and beyond. The best programs will have businesses who offer the best endorsements. The opportunities here are endless.

This is exactly what would happen. Every big booster out there would have a little side "business" with endorsement deals ready to go the moment these high school kids sign their LOI with the right school.

(06-19-2014 12:34 PM)Knightshift Wrote:  So you have a "star" player getting endorsement money, while the guard who helps open the holes for him to run through gets diddly-squat. Yeah, that's great for team chemistry.

I'd have to agree with this. Could create more issues.

What happens when that Star QB at Michigan throws a pick 6 to lose a game against Ohio State and the "sponsors" want to pull the money they invested because the QB cost them the chance at the Rose Bowl? Or if that kid gets hurt halfway through the season and sponsors want to go with another guy?

What about the Tight End that's caught more passes and more touchdowns than another Wide Receiver, but the WR gets a deal because he's more "marketable" (better looking)??
To make it "simple", I'd say that each scholarship player can get 1-2k a semester, but the NCAA should limit the number of scholarship players than can be signed each year and limit the number of scholarship players that can be on a team. Instead of signing 25 per year, schools could only sign 18 or 20 per year and have a total of 65 or 70 total scholarships. This would allow the talent pool to be spread out. Those last few 3 or 4-star players that USC would normally get could sign with Fresno or Washington State or Boise State and would enhance their programs.

(06-19-2014 11:45 AM)PirateHeist Wrote:  Let companies pay the players. Give them an area of their jerseys to place logos etc. Also let players do commercial/sneaker deals.

The local car dealer in Auburn can't be allowed to pay the Auburn running back $250K a year in endorsement money. Surely you get that, right?

(06-19-2014 12:19 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  How is that "simple?" The issue is they want a level playing field. That would not be level.

Huh? So how about everybody on the team gets the exact same playing time? The issue is that they want money, period, not a level playing field.

What? The "they" I am talking about is those who govern the sport. By allowing companies to offer sponsorships, what you get are companies/booster affiliated with one school choosing to only "sponsor" kids who sign with that school. Thus the field is not level, because 8-10 schools will have every major player get sponsorships, that other schools cannot compete with. Surely you can't think sponsorships won't be tied to what school you attend do you? This idea assuming the sponsorships would come after a kid enrolls in school, and completely ignores that the promise of said deals would be used to lure kids to certain schools. Similar to what likely happens now, only legalized, and a blatant way for boosters to pay players.

(06-19-2014 02:45 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:45 AM)PirateHeist Wrote:  Let companies pay the players. Give them an area of their jerseys to place logos etc. Also let players do commercial/sneaker deals.

The local car dealer in Auburn can't be allowed to pay the Auburn running back $250K a year in endorsement money. Surely you get that, right?

That's exactly what I was getting at. This idea makes the assumption that corporate sponsorship won't at all be used ot dictate which school you go to, when in actuality about 98% of the time it would be. Go to Auburn, and you are guaranteed to get a sponsorship deal from Dealer X as soon as you get on campus. Or Bank Y calls a high school kid, and tells them they would love to sign them to an endorsement deal. But this is only good if you sign with Tennessee. And so forth.

I've got a much better idea. Total up the full cost of their scholarship, books, meals, and all other items that they currently don't have to pay for. Take that amount and whatever the NCAA allows for miscellaneous items and cut them a check each and every week; then bill them for tuition, books, meals, and everything else. It's a zero sum total, but they still get paid. End of story.

(06-20-2014 10:00 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I've got a much better idea. Total up the full cost of their scholarship, books, meals, and all other items that they currently don't have to pay for. Take that amount and whatever the NCAA allows for miscellaneous items and cut them a check each and every week; then bill them for tuition, books, meals, and everything else. It's a zero sum total, but they still get paid. End of story.

That is ripe for exploitation too. You have legally given the schools the right to give them a check for the tuition. Then some schools simply tell them not to pay the "tuition" part of the bill (or anything else), and have someone else pay it for them on their behalf. They can even get a cashier's check from the same bank the student uses and put it in his name. Now the player gets to pocket the cost of tuition every semester. That would be more ripe to exploitation that the sponsorship idea.

On the flip side, that would certainly allow private schools a lot of pull. They could legally pay players more than anyone else.

(06-20-2014 10:04 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:00 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I've got a much better idea. Total up the full cost of their scholarship, books, meals, and all other items that they currently don't have to pay for. Take that amount and whatever the NCAA allows for miscellaneous items and cut them a check each and every week; then bill them for tuition, books, meals, and everything else. It's a zero sum total, but they still get paid. End of story.

That is ripe for exploitation too. You have legally given the schools the right to give them a check for the tuition. Then some schools simply tell them not to pay the "tuition" part of the bill (or anything else), and have someone else pay it for them on their behalf. They can even get a cashier's check from the same bank the student uses and put it in his name. Now the player gets to pocket the cost of tuition every semester. That would be more ripe to exploitation that the sponsorship idea.

On the flip side, that would certainly allow private schools a lot of pull. They could legally pay players more than anyone else.

Have the school's establish an account for each player with an automatic deposit and automatic withdrawal. If a player gets behind a couple weeks for one reason or another they become ineligible to play. A certain number of 'overdrafts' cause them to lose their scholarship.

(06-19-2014 11:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  How is that "simple?" The issue is they want a level playing field. That would not be level.

Who is it that wants the level playing field? The P5? No. Or at least not everyone in the P5.

Honestly, this would be the easiest way to keep the model intact and avoid Title IX complications. The Olympics pay their athletes nothing, despite the IOC getting billions for TV contracts and corporate sponsorships. The athletes basically get uniforms and room & board & travel expenses covered by their countries' individual Olympic committees, as well as a bonus (up to each country as to how much) for winning medals. They get nothing for appearing in anything. That is, unless they get a sponsorship or sell their likeness. I think this is the direction that college sports is heading. The schools won't pay the players beyond tuition, room, board, books, and some other expenses, but the athletes can get representation and be able to sell their likenesses for commercial gain.

(06-19-2014 02:45 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:45 AM)PirateHeist Wrote:  Let companies pay the players. Give them an area of their jerseys to place logos etc. Also let players do commercial/sneaker deals.

The local car dealer in Auburn can't be allowed to pay the Auburn running back $250K a year in endorsement money. Surely you get that, right?

Why not? If the marketplace can command that, then why couldn't he get that? I understand why people would be scared of having the athletes getting paid by outside influences, but let's be honest - they already are anyway. Let's just legitimize it.

(06-20-2014 11:36 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 02:45 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:45 AM)PirateHeist Wrote:  Let companies pay the players. Give them an area of their jerseys to place logos etc. Also let players do commercial/sneaker deals.

The local car dealer in Auburn can't be allowed to pay the Auburn running back $250K a year in endorsement money. Surely you get that, right?

Why not? If the marketplace can command that, then why couldn't he get that? I understand why people would be scared of having the athletes getting paid by outside influences, but let's be honest - they already are anyway. Let's just legitimize it.

When this happens. I stop watching college sports and start watching something else. I may be the only one, but paying players while students suffer tuition hikes disgusts me.

The money should go to institutions with the stipulation that IT HAS TO BE USED TO BETTER THE INSTITUTION and not to buy the:

President's Porsche
AD's Mercedes
Coach's BMW

Or any other school admin's anything.

(06-19-2014 02:45 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:45 AM)PirateHeist Wrote:  Let companies pay the players. Give them an area of their jerseys to place logos etc. Also let players do commercial/sneaker deals.

The local car dealer in Auburn can't be allowed to pay the Auburn running back $250K a year in endorsement money. Surely you get that, right?

Better example would be Auburn (or Alabama, A&M, etc...) Boosters that pay $100,00 to OL...for, oh yeah, endorsement $$$$$. (NOT!)

Boosters would instantly take over...working up deals BEFORE signing day...and for many, there would be basically zero pr/endorsement activities...it would be just straight cash to players.

(06-20-2014 11:26 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:04 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  That is ripe for exploitation too. You have legally given the schools the right to give them a check for the tuition. Then some schools simply tell them not to pay the "tuition" part of the bill (or anything else), and have someone else pay it for them on their behalf. They can even get a cashier's check from the same bank the student uses and put it in his name. Now the player gets to pocket the cost of tuition every semester. That would be more ripe to exploitation that the sponsorship idea.

Have the school's establish an account for each player with an automatic deposit and automatic withdrawal. If a player gets behind a couple weeks for one reason or another they become ineligible to play. A certain number of 'overdrafts' cause them to lose their scholarship.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having the system you set in place?

(06-20-2014 11:33 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  How is that "simple?" The issue is they want a level playing field. That would not be level.

Who is it that wants the level playing field? The P5? No. Or at least not everyone in the P5.

I addressed it above. Those who are overseeing it. Whether the current NCAA or the new proposed division IV. They want a level playing field within the genre. Otherwise the proposals to pay players would not all have set amounts. They would propose a free market. They may not want it to be level among ALL divisions: but the governance wants it level among themselves. Allowing sponsorships essentially would make college football and basketball be like the MLB was up until the luxury tax was adopted. You'd have 2-3 teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers who can pay the most money, and buy up the best prospects. Add in a relaxed transfer rule, and sponsorships buy free agents. It would actually be worse than free agency in pro sports if you combine this with relaxed transfer rules.

The biggest problem with this idea is seeing it purely as companies signing endorsement deals. And not realizing how it allows boosters and schools the legal ability to pay for players in auction style bidding.

(06-20-2014 12:34 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  [quote='CougarRed' pid='10846604' dateline='1403207103']
The local car dealer in Auburn can't be allowed to pay the Auburn running back $250K a year in endorsement money. Surely you get that, right?


Better example would be Auburn (or Alabama, A&M, etc...) Boosters that pay $100,00 to OL...for, oh yeah, endorsement $$$$$. (NOT!)

Boosters would instantly take over...working up deals BEFORE signing day...and for many, there would be basically zero pr/endorsement activities...it would be just straight cash to players.

Exactly! That is what I am saying.

(06-20-2014 12:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 11:26 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:04 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  That is ripe for exploitation too. You have legally given the schools the right to give them a check for the tuition. Then some schools simply tell them not to pay the "tuition" part of the bill (or anything else), and have someone else pay it for them on their behalf. They can even get a cashier's check from the same bank the student uses and put it in his name. Now the player gets to pocket the cost of tuition every semester. That would be more ripe to exploitation that the sponsorship idea.

Have the school's establish an account for each player with an automatic deposit and automatic withdrawal. If a player gets behind a couple weeks for one reason or another they become ineligible to play. A certain number of 'overdrafts' cause them to lose their scholarship.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having the system you set in place?

(06-20-2014 11:33 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  How is that "simple?" The issue is they want a level playing field. That would not be level.

Who is it that wants the level playing field? The P5? No. Or at least not everyone in the P5.

I addressed it above. Those who are overseeing it. Whether the current NCAA or the new proposed division IV. They want a level playing field within the genre. Otherwise the proposals to pay players would not all have set amounts. They would propose a free market. They may not want it to be level among ALL divisions: but the governance wants it level among themselves. Allowing sponsorships essentially would make college football and basketball be like the MLB was up until the luxury tax was adopted. You'd have 2-3 teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers who can pay the most money, and buy up the best prospects. Add in a relaxed transfer rule, and sponsorships buy free agents. It would actually be worse than free agency in pro sports if you combine this with relaxed transfer rules.

The biggest problem with this idea is seeing it purely as companies signing endorsement deals. And not realizing how it allows boosters and schools the legal ability to pay for players in auction style bidding.

That activity goes on now, and would continue no matter what setup goes forward. Why not at least try to bring it out in the open and try to regulate and monitor the activity? I think if anything making it more open would reduce some of the underhanded and backroom deals that go on today.

(06-20-2014 11:33 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  How is that "simple?" The issue is they want a level playing field. That would not be level.

Who is it that wants the level playing field? The P5? No. Or at least not everyone in the P5.

Honestly, this would be the easiest way to keep the model intact and avoid Title IX complications. The Olympics pay their athletes nothing, despite the IOC getting billions for TV contracts and corporate sponsorships. The athletes basically get uniforms and room & board & travel expenses covered by their countries' individual Olympic committees, as well as a bonus (up to each country as to how much) for winning medals. The Olympians get nothing for appearing in anything. That is, unless they get a sponsorship or sell their likeness. I think this is the direction that college sports is heading. The schools won't pay the players beyond tuition, room, board, books, and some other expenses, but the athletes can get representation and be able to sell their likenesses for commercial gain.

Apples and oranges.

Those Olympic athletes can't choose to compete for Canada if offered a better endorsement deal.

(06-20-2014 12:46 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 12:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 11:26 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:04 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  That is ripe for exploitation too. You have legally given the schools the right to give them a check for the tuition. Then some schools simply tell them not to pay the "tuition" part of the bill (or anything else), and have someone else pay it for them on their behalf. They can even get a cashier's check from the same bank the student uses and put it in his name. Now the player gets to pocket the cost of tuition every semester. That would be more ripe to exploitation that the sponsorship idea.

Have the school's establish an account for each player with an automatic deposit and automatic withdrawal. If a player gets behind a couple weeks for one reason or another they become ineligible to play. A certain number of 'overdrafts' cause them to lose their scholarship.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having the system you set in place?

(06-20-2014 11:33 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  How is that "simple?" The issue is they want a level playing field. That would not be level.

Who is it that wants the level playing field? The P5? No. Or at least not everyone in the P5.

I addressed it above. Those who are overseeing it. Whether the current NCAA or the new proposed division IV. They want a level playing field within the genre. Otherwise the proposals to pay players would not all have set amounts. They would propose a free market. They may not want it to be level among ALL divisions: but the governance wants it level among themselves. Allowing sponsorships essentially would make college football and basketball be like the MLB was up until the luxury tax was adopted. You'd have 2-3 teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers who can pay the most money, and buy up the best prospects. Add in a relaxed transfer rule, and sponsorships buy free agents. It would actually be worse than free agency in pro sports if you combine this with relaxed transfer rules.

The biggest problem with this idea is seeing it purely as companies signing endorsement deals. And not realizing how it allows boosters and schools the legal ability to pay for players in auction style bidding.

That activity goes on now, and would continue no matter what setup goes forward. Why not at least try to bring it out in the open and try to regulate and monitor the activity? I think if anything making it more open would reduce some of the underhanded and backroom deals that go on today.

The same argument can be made for any "questionable, but profitable" activity. I.E. drug use, prostitution etc...

There's a reason this stuff was decided to be banned in the first place. It's because it isn't good for society.

And we think that an organization as inept as we've observed the NCAA to be at times is going to be able to try and regulate a non-banned activity, when they can't even regulate a banned activity?

(06-20-2014 12:46 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  That activity goes on now, and would continue no matter what setup goes forward. Why not at least try to bring it out in the open and try to regulate and monitor the activity? I think if anything making it more open would reduce some of the underhanded and backroom deals that go on today.

That activity that goes on now is illegal, and therefore the schools have a disincentive to engage in it for fear of punishment.

Officially blessing the activity without any restraint would ruin the sport for many.

The game of college football should not be directly about which alumni base has the most money. It plays a role now, but your model makes it the #1 factor.

(06-20-2014 01:00 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 12:46 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  That activity goes on now, and would continue no matter what setup goes forward. Why not at least try to bring it out in the open and try to regulate and monitor the activity? I think if anything making it more open would reduce some of the underhanded and backroom deals that go on today.

That activity that goes on now is illegal, and therefore the schools have a disincentive to engage in it for fear of punishment.

Officially blessing the activity without any restraint would ruin the sport for many.

The game of college football should not be directly about which alumni base has the most money. It plays a role now, but your model makes it the #1 factor.

Giving money to players is not illegal. It is only against the rules of the NCAA. You can't go to jail for giving money to players.

And I agree that it shouldn't be about the money.