(07-09-2021 09:03 PM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ]If there are three mutually exclusive offers to a player, then that would establish the highest offer as market value - unless there was collusion among the bidders.
That's one aspect of consideration of market value but it could also be similar status between athletes at different schools for a similar opportunity.
(07-09-2021 05:37 PM)aardWolf Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 05:22 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 03:55 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ]You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.
For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).
And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.
But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.
EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.
OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.
But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.
Don't disagree there should be some controlled means of additional compensation for athletes but I can't forget that these athletes already get paid tuition, books, room & board, health care, tutors, limited per diem, and leading edge training in their current vocation. That's probably worth $100K+ annually at Memphis, $200K+ at some other schools like Duke. That alone gives these athletes an excellent education & experience that can give them a head start for a lucrative career in coaching or sports marketing with no additional compensation. So let's not forget we are really talking about additional direct compensation to the athletes. What exactly is a market rate for the stars? And should the bench guys get anything else, considering this is market driven?
That battle about a scholarship being substantial was lost in the courts a long time ago, with the O'Bannon case.
And market is driven by payments for like work, not by individuals. Where that comes into play is the star is likely to get more gigs, but he has to be paid the same as anybody else doing the same work.
I’m going to pay the starting QB whatever I want to advertise my hot dog brand. There’s no “like work” if I don’t hire any other athletes to sell my hot dogs.
You don't think anybody ever hired somebody to sell hot dogs before?
(07-09-2021 05:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 05:22 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 03:55 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ]You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.
For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).
And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.
But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.
EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.
OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.
But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.
Don't disagree there should be some controlled means of additional compensation for athletes but I can't forget that these athletes already get paid tuition, books, room & board, health care, tutors, limited per diem, and leading edge training in their current vocation. That's probably worth $100K+ annually at Memphis, $200K+ at some other schools like Duke. That alone gives these athletes an excellent education & experience that can give them a head start for a lucrative career in coaching or sports marketing with no additional compensation. So let's not forget we are really talking about additional direct compensation to the athletes. What exactly is a market rate for the stars? And should the bench guys get anything else, considering this is market driven?
That battle about a scholarship being substantial was lost in the courts a long time ago, with the O'Bannon case.
And market is driven by payments for like work, not by individuals. Where that comes into play is the star is likely to get more gigs, but he has to be paid the same as anybody else doing the same work.
Generally speaking only the stars get the gigs, as you say, or maybe get a better rate of pay for an endorsement based upon their performance in the pros. Don't see many linemen or 2nd-3rd stringers getting endorsement deals at all in the pros. So in that sense, it is payments based upon performance, right?
No, it's payment based on who the advertiser thinks will sell more products. In fact, there's a phrase in one of the articles I read that says specifically it cannot be based on performance, points scored, etc.
Now that usually means the stars, but not necessarily. I can see a big lineman getting hired for a spot by a food products company, lol.
Ok, y'all can stop trying to convince me that NIL is a bad idea, lol. No more debate. The courts have ruled, and it's reality. To each his own.
(07-10-2021 05:04 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 05:37 PM)aardWolf Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 05:22 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 03:55 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).
And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.
But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.
EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.
OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.
But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.
Don't disagree there should be some controlled means of additional compensation for athletes but I can't forget that these athletes already get paid tuition, books, room & board, health care, tutors, limited per diem, and leading edge training in their current vocation. That's probably worth $100K+ annually at Memphis, $200K+ at some other schools like Duke. That alone gives these athletes an excellent education & experience that can give them a head start for a lucrative career in coaching or sports marketing with no additional compensation. So let's not forget we are really talking about additional direct compensation to the athletes. What exactly is a market rate for the stars? And should the bench guys get anything else, considering this is market driven?
That battle about a scholarship being substantial was lost in the courts a long time ago, with the O'Bannon case.
And market is driven by payments for like work, not by individuals. Where that comes into play is the star is likely to get more gigs, but he has to be paid the same as anybody else doing the same work.
I’m going to pay the starting QB whatever I want to advertise my hot dog brand. There’s no “like work” if I don’t hire any other athletes to sell my hot dogs.
You don't think anybody ever hired somebody to sell hot dogs before?
Yes, OF COURSE. But how much Penny got paid to sell hot dogs has nothing to do with how much I’m allowed to pay someone.
(07-10-2021 05:09 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, y'all can stop trying to convince me that NIL is a bad idea, lol. No more debate. The courts have ruled, and it's reality. To each his own.
I haven't read here an argument that it's a bad idea. But reality says it will be very uneven in application, favoring the stars of the teams, greatly favoring the top P-5 programs with boosters who have a lot of discretionary income produced by the companies they own or control & will likely cause some friction among those that get the deals from those that don't.
(07-08-2021 12:03 PM)cmt Wrote: [ -> ]You know you won the argument when the other side resorts to name calling.
No you have lost when you engage.
Ignoring him is how you win and that will be a win for us all
(07-09-2021 04:49 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 03:37 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.
But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.
P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.
You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.
For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).
And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.
But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.
EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.
OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.
But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.
That is the key phrase. What is the market value though? This is literally an unprecedented market. Isn't market rate whatever I am willing to pay as a business owner because I believe there will be a return on value? And wont every school theoretically have a different market value for their players? Ala, DeAndre Williams has a much higher market value at Memphis than he had at Evansville despite being the exact same player.
All I am pointing out is that you are technically correct but "market value" is completely undefined and we are creating a brand new market so there is absolutely no standard to base "market value" off of. It will be impossible for the NCAA to regulate or legislate this. They have opened Pandora's box and there is no closing the lid back...
Not true. No player is performing an act that hasn't been done before. It isn't based on the player. It's based on the act. If some local celebrity did a local car ad and got paid $500 for a 30-second spot, you can't pay the football player $20,000 to do the same thing. You also can't pay the QB more for doing the same thing as an OL.
I do agree market value is local. You can likely earn more money for a car spot in California than you can in Memphis. Again, people have done those before. Both places.
I also agree that it will be hard to regulate, but the courts don't see that as a reason not to allow the players to earn money.
Put it another way. Why is it okay for any other student to have a part time job, but not an athlete on scholarship? Until now, you couldn't even buy a kid a hot dog, much less offer him pay for a legit job.
I am not arguing whether it is good or bad. I am arguing that you cannot define market value.
Yes. People have done advertising for years. But what someone will pay my daughter to advertise for a car dealership is wildly different than what they will pay Lebron James. Market value is very much driven by the individual and not just the act performed.
Bigger name = bigger brand recognition = higher market value
That is why I am saying a new market is being created. College athletes have never been allowed to do this so you cannot base market value on what the average Joe is getting paid for a car ad. That is not a reasonable comparison to base market value off of. A player and the recognition he brings defines market value and not just the act. Hence, why Lebron James got a $99 million Nike deal the day he graduated and other players in his high school class jumping straight to the pros were lucky to get anything...
I am just pointing out this will be the wild west and impossible to regulate and pay for play will very easily be worked around.
As a business owner I would absolutely be willing to pay more money for Lester Q to appear in ad for me than I would the walk-on that nobody has heard of.
(07-10-2021 10:14 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 04:49 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 03:37 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ]You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.
For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).
And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.
But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.
EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.
OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.
But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.
That is the key phrase. What is the market value though? This is literally an unprecedented market. Isn't market rate whatever I am willing to pay as a business owner because I believe there will be a return on value? And wont every school theoretically have a different market value for their players? Ala, DeAndre Williams has a much higher market value at Memphis than he had at Evansville despite being the exact same player.
All I am pointing out is that you are technically correct but "market value" is completely undefined and we are creating a brand new market so there is absolutely no standard to base "market value" off of. It will be impossible for the NCAA to regulate or legislate this. They have opened Pandora's box and there is no closing the lid back...
Not true. No player is performing an act that hasn't been done before. It isn't based on the player. It's based on the act. If some local celebrity did a local car ad and got paid $500 for a 30-second spot, you can't pay the football player $20,000 to do the same thing. You also can't pay the QB more for doing the same thing as an OL.
I do agree market value is local. You can likely earn more money for a car spot in California than you can in Memphis. Again, people have done those before. Both places.
I also agree that it will be hard to regulate, but the courts don't see that as a reason not to allow the players to earn money.
Put it another way. Why is it okay for any other student to have a part time job, but not an athlete on scholarship? Until now, you couldn't even buy a kid a hot dog, much less offer him pay for a legit job.
I am not arguing whether it is good or bad. I am arguing that you cannot define market value.
Yes. People have done advertising for years. But what someone will pay my daughter to advertise for a car dealership is wildly different than what they will pay Lebron James. Market value is very much driven by the individual and not just the act performed.
Bigger name = bigger brand recognition = higher market value
That is why I am saying a new market is being created. College athletes have never been allowed to do this so you cannot base market value on what the average Joe is getting paid for a car ad. That is not a reasonable comparison to base market value off of. A player and the recognition he brings defines market value and not just the act. Hence, why Lebron James got a $99 million Nike deal the day he graduated and other players in his high school class jumping straight to the pros were lucky to get anything...
I am just pointing out this will be the wild west and impossible to regulate and pay for play will very easily be worked around.
As a business owner I would absolutely be willing to pay more money for Lester Q to appear in ad for me than I would the walk-on that nobody has heard of.
But how much more would you be willing to pay vs the cost a professional actor? How much more COULD you pay without raising a red flag? The union wage is less than $100 per hour. Non-union is less. Total cost of a local ad can be a few thousand dollars. How much extra would someone be willing to pay to sub in a Quiñones, who likely has no acting skills whatsoever but could say “I like (x brand) hot dogs?” A couple hundred dollars? I realize you were only using that as an example, but I’m just not seeing this plethora of opportunities that others are. Rogue boosters or not. Sure, there will be exceptions and the dollars for the elite few could be eye popping.
They are still figuring all of this out and most likely some unthought of opportunities will present themselves. I think it will take time, but all of the above is simply my opinion. Quiñones could be driving around in a 911 right now for all I know.
(07-09-2021 04:49 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 03:37 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.
But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.
P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.
You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.
For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).
And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.
But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.
EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.
OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.
But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.
That is the key phrase. What is the market value though? This is literally an unprecedented market. Isn't market rate whatever I am willing to pay as a business owner because I believe there will be a return on value? And wont every school theoretically have a different market value for their players? Ala, DeAndre Williams has a much higher market value at Memphis than he had at Evansville despite being the exact same player.
All I am pointing out is that you are technically correct but "market value" is completely undefined and we are creating a brand new market so there is absolutely no standard to base "market value" off of. It will be impossible for the NCAA to regulate or legislate this. They have opened Pandora's box and there is no closing the lid back...
Not true. No player is performing an act that hasn't been done before. It isn't based on the player. It's based on the act. If some local celebrity did a local car ad and got paid $500 for a 30-second spot, you can't pay the football player $20,000 to do the same thing. You also can't pay the QB more for doing the same thing as an OL.
I do agree market value is local. You can likely earn more money for a car spot in California than you can in Memphis. Again, people have done those before. Both places.
I also agree that it will be hard to regulate, but the courts don't see that as a reason not to allow the players to earn money.
Put it another way. Why is it okay for any other student to have a part time job, but not an athlete on scholarship? Until now, you couldn't even buy a kid a hot dog, much less offer him pay for a legit job.
Couldn't a company or booster theorize that the players are wholly responsible for the athletic department's revenues, and base payments on that? The local celebrity getting $500 might be responsible for 5% of sales. The player are responsible for 100% of revenues.
(07-09-2021 04:49 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 03:37 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.
But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.
P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.
You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.
For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).
And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.
But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.
EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.
OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.
But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.
That is the key phrase. What is the market value though? This is literally an unprecedented market. Isn't market rate whatever I am willing to pay as a business owner because I believe there will be a return on value? And wont every school theoretically have a different market value for their players? Ala, DeAndre Williams has a much higher market value at Memphis than he had at Evansville despite being the exact same player.
All I am pointing out is that you are technically correct but "market value" is completely undefined and we are creating a brand new market so there is absolutely no standard to base "market value" off of. It will be impossible for the NCAA to regulate or legislate this. They have opened Pandora's box and there is no closing the lid back...
Not true. No player is performing an act that hasn't been done before. It isn't based on the player. It's based on the act. If some local celebrity did a local car ad and got paid $500 for a 30-second spot, you can't pay the football player $20,000 to do the same thing. You also can't pay the QB more for doing the same thing as an OL.
I do agree market value is local. You can likely earn more money for a car spot in California than you can in Memphis. Again, people have done those before. Both places.
I also agree that it will be hard to regulate, but the courts don't see that as a reason not to allow the players to earn money.
Put it another way. Why is it okay for any other student to have a part time job, but not an athlete on scholarship? Until now, you couldn't even buy a kid a hot dog, much less offer him pay for a legit job.
I should have read the rest of the thread. I mostly agree with TripleA, but I haven’t read the first opinion piece (other than here) or news article about this. I suspect it is mostly speculative commentary from everyone. Time will tell. The only thing I’m sure of is mass confusion.
After engaging, I realized I don't really care at all. I was simply trying to explain that it's not rocket science to set fair market value, and it's not a mystery. If you want to believe otherwise, cool. We just disagree.
At worst, it's pretty easy to see if a payment makes sense, or if it seems way out of line and is really just a veiled inducement, which is the only reason to figure market value.
As for NIL, I have always believed the players should be allowed to earn money on the side. Will it be a mess with the NCAA and schools involved in any manner? Of course. Hopefully, the feds will eventually write one law, but don't count on that, either. They can't agree on what time to break for lunch.
Will NIL really change the college game? I don't think so. Stars have gotten paid under the table for decades. Now it's just more out in the open, and legal.
(07-10-2021 03:09 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]After engaging, I realized I don't really care at all. I was simply trying to explain that it's not rocket science to set fair market value, and it's not a mystery. If you want to believe otherwise, cool. We just disagree.
At worst, it's pretty easy to see if a payment makes sense, or if it seems way out of line and is really just a veiled inducement, which is the only reason to figure market value.
As for NIL, I have always believed the players should be allowed to earn money on the side. Will it be a mess with the NCAA and schools involved in any manner? Of course. Hopefully, the feds will eventually write one law, but don't count on that, either. They can't agree on what time to break for lunch.
Will NIL really change the college game? I don't think so. Stars have gotten paid under the table for decades. Now it's just more out in the open, and legal.
$6K for everyone who goes to Miami. Does that seem fair market driven?
Athletes have been paid under the table for years. 6K doesn't seem like much.
My friend's dad was a DLineman for a PAC university ( should probably not identify which one...lol). He got paid 2K a season (in the 80s).
$1,000 in 1980 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,266.93 today.
(07-10-2021 08:32 PM)snowtiger Wrote: [ -> ]Athletes have been paid under the table for years. 6K doesn't seem like much.
My friend's dad was a DLineman for a PAC university ( should probably not identify which one...lol). He got paid 2K a season (in the 80s).
$1,000 in 1980 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,266.93 today.
Archie Cobb told me he took a pay cut going from Nebraska to the NFL. I believe it.
(07-10-2021 08:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2021 03:09 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]After engaging, I realized I don't really care at all. I was simply trying to explain that it's not rocket science to set fair market value, and it's not a mystery. If you want to believe otherwise, cool. We just disagree.
At worst, it's pretty easy to see if a payment makes sense, or if it seems way out of line and is really just a veiled inducement, which is the only reason to figure market value.
As for NIL, I have always believed the players should be allowed to earn money on the side. Will it be a mess with the NCAA and schools involved in any manner? Of course. Hopefully, the feds will eventually write one law, but don't count on that, either. They can't agree on what time to break for lunch.
Will NIL really change the college game? I don't think so. Stars have gotten paid under the table for decades. Now it's just more out in the open, and legal.
$6K for everyone who goes to Miami. Does that seem fair market driven?
On the surface, without context, no. He even says he's looking to improve the performance of the football team, and he doesn't care how much he spends.
Right now, that's the exception, not the rule. Personally, I think that shouldn't be allowed.
But if he actually has them perform services for his business that would normally be paid in that range over a year, then it's fine. But I doubt that happens.
This example is the issue I have with how unprepared the NCAA was to handle this when the state laws forced a July 1 rollout. This clearly is not in the spirit of the NIL law, but who is going to stop it?
Kavanaugh made it clear that the NCAA would lose in court if they restricted NIL, although this example seems like one they could stop, even with the limited rules they have in place now.
It is clearly a recruiting inducement. But the NCAA never has been consistent or competent when enforcing rules. That's why I said earlier that the rollout is going to have rough patches.
OTOH, that one example is certainly not a reason to say NIL shouldn't be allowed. Like always, most people will follow the rules, but some won't. This particular booster has reportedly been a wild card for a long time. But it doesn't change the fact of how the courts ruled, or what the anti-trust laws are.
(07-10-2021 08:32 PM)snowtiger Wrote: [ -> ]Athletes have been paid under the table for years. 6K doesn't seem like much.
My friend's dad was a DLineman for a PAC university ( should probably not identify which one...lol). He got paid 2K a season (in the 80s).
$1,000 in 1980 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,266.93 today.
I'm shocked to hear this.
1) Boosters who are simply individuals will not receive any tax write off unless they are filing their taxes as a LLC or Sole Proprietorship unless the tax law changes.
2) If boosters start giving money to athletes rather than the university it obviously hurts the university in some areas and possibly helps in other areas unforseen right now because this is just starting.
3) National Brand companies like (Example because it's Memphis based) FedEx and FedEx showing some type of local love which gets far more on a National Brand level its hard for me to think in the long run this has been fully worked out and the unknown ramifications. What happens when company employees want to protest FedEx or Amazon backing some players or teams then those teams or players make or have some type of drama related to their personal lives or what they said or did on social medial. Lots of hidden landmines here. Fast forward ten years, this will be a fully greased wheel that is a multi-billion dollar business.
4) Big teams and conference will gain more and teams like Memphis could see a step back or two - a lot left to uncover.
Reality, Memphis money wise can't compete even with a lower level SEC school. We can out coach them and out play them but we will never as it is now be able to get more revenue.
(07-09-2021 04:49 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 03:37 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.
But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.
P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.
You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.
For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).
And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.
But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.
EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.
OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.
But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.
That is the key phrase. What is the market value though? This is literally an unprecedented market. Isn't market rate whatever I am willing to pay as a business owner because I believe there will be a return on value? And wont every school theoretically have a different market value for their players? Ala, DeAndre Williams has a much higher market value at Memphis than he had at Evansville despite being the exact same player.
All I am pointing out is that you are technically correct but "market value" is completely undefined and we are creating a brand new market so there is absolutely no standard to base "market value" off of. It will be impossible for the NCAA to regulate or legislate this. They have opened Pandora's box and there is no closing the lid back...
Not true. No player is performing an act that hasn't been done before. It isn't based on the player. It's based on the act. If some local celebrity did a local car ad and got paid $500 for a 30-second spot, you can't pay the football player $20,000 to do the same thing. You also can't pay the QB more for doing the same thing as an OL.
I just don't think that's a valid argument that will hold-up anywhere. It's "Name, Image, Likeness". By definition, it will be based upon the player and not the act. Certainly there are differing degrees of "celebrity". And FMV will follow that. There are plenty of examples of this.
It would cost King Cotton more to hire Tom Brady for an ad than it would to hire Bradley Pinion (Tampa's punter, I think). Pinion though, would get more than my son would get.
If Landers Ford wanted to pay someone to serve hot dogs and sign autographs at an event, then Brady White would provide more value than a member of the rifle squad.
Social media will pay influencers based upon followers. There will be yuge disparity between athletes. Right now, projections are that a female gymnast from LSU will make more than just about any other NCAA athlete. She has 3M followers. I promise you she will make much more than her peer gymnasts.
