He may not have cred but he has some evidence of interest

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Is everyone being willfully ignorant?

Is this part of the Avenatti defense from his being indicted for attempted bribery of Nike? If so, it seems he's just confirming the indictment that he communicated to Nike that he would release this evidence if Nike didn't pay the ransom demands.

(08-17-2019 07:13 PM)MemDawg91 Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 02:44 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 10:24 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 08:17 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  It only matters to me if we are involved.

Honestly I don’t care at all. High level college recruits should be paid anyway for the revenue they create and should be able to profit on their own likeness.

Biggest problem with profiting from your likeness is that UCLA and schools in New York and Chicago will benefit the most. In those markets, due to size, your likeness is worth more than it would be worth in Ames, Iowa. Seems like recruits would start signing up with schools in the largest markets...where they can make the most amount of money.

I think in the long term it would benefit programs located in cities that have professional teams (the ones with higher populations) and would destabilize the P5 with such backwater towns as Miss. St in Starkville, MS, Iowa in Iowa City, Baylor in Lubbock.

Would benefit AAC with Philadelphia, Orlando, Dallas, Tampa, Cincinnati, Memphis, New Orleans-who did I leave out? Probably would take at a minimum 2 four year recruiting classes (and a new TV contract) to start to have an effect IMO.

I’m thinking it would be the opposite. With the exception of Memphis where the tigers are more loved than the Grizzlies, would there be enough interest in those bigger cities that have multiple pro and college teams for players to see a real profit? For example, UCLA is probably the 5th most important team in that market so there wouldn’t be that much interest in buying an autograph or a jersey with the star player’s name on it. In smaller college towns like Starkville, Oxford, Tuscaloosa, etc. where there’s nothing but the college, those players would see more potential earnings and fan interest if they’re the stars of their respective teams. Thoughts?

It would simply be the big donors of the school. The problem with “likeness” is how to prevent the big boosters from paying a kid $200,000 for a signed jersey?

(08-17-2019 10:24 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 08:17 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  It only matters to me if we are involved.

Honestly I don’t care at all. High level college recruits should be paid anyway for the revenue they create and should be able to profit on their own likeness.

Biggest problem with profiting from your likeness is that UCLA and schools in New York and Chicago will benefit the most. In those markets, due to size, your likeness is worth more than it would be worth in Ames, Iowa. Seems like recruits would start signing up with schools in the largest markets...where they can make the most amount of money.

Why is that a problem?

(08-18-2019 06:59 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 07:13 PM)MemDawg91 Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 02:44 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 10:24 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 08:17 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  It only matters to me if we are involved.

Honestly I don’t care at all. High level college recruits should be paid anyway for the revenue they create and should be able to profit on their own likeness.

Biggest problem with profiting from your likeness is that UCLA and schools in New York and Chicago will benefit the most. In those markets, due to size, your likeness is worth more than it would be worth in Ames, Iowa. Seems like recruits would start signing up with schools in the largest markets...where they can make the most amount of money.

I think in the long term it would benefit programs located in cities that have professional teams (the ones with higher populations) and would destabilize the P5 with such backwater towns as Miss. St in Starkville, MS, Iowa in Iowa City, Baylor in Lubbock.

Would benefit AAC with Philadelphia, Orlando, Dallas, Tampa, Cincinnati, Memphis, New Orleans-who did I leave out? Probably would take at a minimum 2 four year recruiting classes (and a new TV contract) to start to have an effect IMO.

I’m thinking it would be the opposite. With the exception of Memphis where the tigers are more loved than the Grizzlies, would there be enough interest in those bigger cities that have multiple pro and college teams for players to see a real profit? For example, UCLA is probably the 5th most important team in that market so there wouldn’t be that much interest in buying an autograph or a jersey with the star player’s name on it. In smaller college towns like Starkville, Oxford, Tuscaloosa, etc. where there’s nothing but the college, those players would see more potential earnings and fan interest if they’re the stars of their respective teams. Thoughts?

It would simply be the big donors of the school. The problem with “likeness” is how to prevent the big boosters from paying a kid $200,000 for a signed jersey?

Why is that a problem? If a rich guy is dumb enough to make that transaction he should be allowed to do it. People should be allowed to enter into financial transactions within the law(which paying NCAA students isn't illegal in itself).

If the NCAA and schools can take 200k from this booster and celebrate it why shouldnt a 5 star recruit be able to celebrate taking the same money from the same source?

Wake me up when Duke gets in trouble about playing ineligible Zion. Or, when Duke gets in trouble about anything.

So what is this? An acknowledgement that high school players are actually paid $$$ by Nike?

If so, does this not impact amateur status?

Just such a tricky thing...

Why can't Nike pay someone to wear their gear without hurting their amateur status? They are not being paid to play, they are being paid to advertise.

If the kid worked at a local store where he wore a clown suit flipping a sign around, he is getting paid to do the exact same thing Nike is paying him to do.

(08-19-2019 11:29 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  Just such a tricky thing...

Why can't Nike pay someone to wear their gear without hurting their amateur status? They are not being paid to play, they are being paid to advertise.

If the kid worked at a local store where he wore a clown suit flipping a sign around, he is getting paid to do the exact same thing Nike is paying him to do.

Its all about money. The only reason that kid cant be paid--- within NCAA rules--- by Nike is that the NCAA and its member schools would rather have that money themselves. They just use the ruse of amateurism to protect their racket.

(08-19-2019 08:09 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 06:59 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 07:13 PM)MemDawg91 Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 02:44 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 10:24 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  Biggest problem with profiting from your likeness is that UCLA and schools in New York and Chicago will benefit the most. In those markets, due to size, your likeness is worth more than it would be worth in Ames, Iowa. Seems like recruits would start signing up with schools in the largest markets...where they can make the most amount of money.

I think in the long term it would benefit programs located in cities that have professional teams (the ones with higher populations) and would destabilize the P5 with such backwater towns as Miss. St in Starkville, MS, Iowa in Iowa City, Baylor in Lubbock.

Would benefit AAC with Philadelphia, Orlando, Dallas, Tampa, Cincinnati, Memphis, New Orleans-who did I leave out? Probably would take at a minimum 2 four year recruiting classes (and a new TV contract) to start to have an effect IMO.

I’m thinking it would be the opposite. With the exception of Memphis where the tigers are more loved than the Grizzlies, would there be enough interest in those bigger cities that have multiple pro and college teams for players to see a real profit? For example, UCLA is probably the 5th most important team in that market so there wouldn’t be that much interest in buying an autograph or a jersey with the star player’s name on it. In smaller college towns like Starkville, Oxford, Tuscaloosa, etc. where there’s nothing but the college, those players would see more potential earnings and fan interest if they’re the stars of their respective teams. Thoughts?

It would simply be the big donors of the school. The problem with “likeness” is how to prevent the big boosters from paying a kid $200,000 for a signed jersey?

Why is that a problem? If a rich guy is dumb enough to make that transaction he should be allowed to do it. People should be allowed to enter into financial transactions within the law(which paying NCAA students isn't illegal in itself).

If the NCAA and schools can take 200k from this booster and celebrate it why shouldnt a 5 star recruit be able to celebrate taking the same money from the same source?

It is a problem for parity. Nike, Adidas, etc. all have schools that are more marketable than others. How do you prevent Nike from paying all of the top level prospects more money to attend the schools they want them to?

I am not against the players making money. I just do not know how it can be done and you do not end up with 5 to 10 schools that hoard all of the top players and you wind up with absolutely no real parity in the NCAA.

Sorry, if this is a repeat question, but, I'm assuming Memphis isn't part of the investigation. Am I right?

(08-19-2019 12:53 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:29 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  Just such a tricky thing...

Why can't Nike pay someone to wear their gear without hurting their amateur status? They are not being paid to play, they are being paid to advertise.

If the kid worked at a local store where he wore a clown suit flipping a sign around, he is getting paid to do the exact same thing Nike is paying him to do.

Its all about money. The only reason that kid cant be paid--- within NCAA rules--- by Nike is that the NCAA and its member schools would rather have that money themselves. They just use the ruse of amateurism to protect their racket.

There is some truth to that...But I don't think they care much about amateurism...I think they want to keep hope alive in as many places as possible.

The best way to do that is to limit what the have's can do with all that extra money. If you let Alabama, Texas, Michigan, N. Dame... Spend all the money they want to pay players it would really shrink the market because so many schools would just disappear.

Say Alabama can have X# of football scholarships...But if they pay their players 50k a year the players can pay their own way and they would no longer be limited by scholarship numbers.

(08-19-2019 02:40 PM)rc0213 Wrote:  Sorry, if this is a repeat question, but, I'm assuming Memphis isn't part of the investigation. Am I right?

Nope and this will predate the Penny era.

(08-19-2019 02:12 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:09 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 06:59 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 07:13 PM)MemDawg91 Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 02:44 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  I think in the long term it would benefit programs located in cities that have professional teams (the ones with higher populations) and would destabilize the P5 with such backwater towns as Miss. St in Starkville, MS, Iowa in Iowa City, Baylor in Lubbock.

Would benefit AAC with Philadelphia, Orlando, Dallas, Tampa, Cincinnati, Memphis, New Orleans-who did I leave out? Probably would take at a minimum 2 four year recruiting classes (and a new TV contract) to start to have an effect IMO.

I’m thinking it would be the opposite. With the exception of Memphis where the tigers are more loved than the Grizzlies, would there be enough interest in those bigger cities that have multiple pro and college teams for players to see a real profit? For example, UCLA is probably the 5th most important team in that market so there wouldn’t be that much interest in buying an autograph or a jersey with the star player’s name on it. In smaller college towns like Starkville, Oxford, Tuscaloosa, etc. where there’s nothing but the college, those players would see more potential earnings and fan interest if they’re the stars of their respective teams. Thoughts?

It would simply be the big donors of the school. The problem with “likeness” is how to prevent the big boosters from paying a kid $200,000 for a signed jersey?

Why is that a problem? If a rich guy is dumb enough to make that transaction he should be allowed to do it. People should be allowed to enter into financial transactions within the law(which paying NCAA students isn't illegal in itself).

If the NCAA and schools can take 200k from this booster and celebrate it why shouldnt a 5 star recruit be able to celebrate taking the same money from the same source?

It is a problem for parity. Nike, Adidas, etc. all have schools that are more marketable than others. How do you prevent Nike from paying all of the top level prospects more money to attend the schools they want them to?

I am not against the players making money. I just do not know how it can be done and you do not end up with 5 to 10 schools that hoard all of the top players and you wind up with absolutely no real parity in the NCAA.

There isnt parity in the NCAA or its member institutions now. Nike is paying top level schools more than smaller schools already. The issue isnt the financial inequality of any sort but where the money goes. I'd prefer the players get it instead of Coach K and Coach Cal making another couple of million.

(08-19-2019 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 12:53 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:29 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  Just such a tricky thing...

Why can't Nike pay someone to wear their gear without hurting their amateur status? They are not being paid to play, they are being paid to advertise.

If the kid worked at a local store where he wore a clown suit flipping a sign around, he is getting paid to do the exact same thing Nike is paying him to do.

Its all about money. The only reason that kid cant be paid--- within NCAA rules--- by Nike is that the NCAA and its member schools would rather have that money themselves. They just use the ruse of amateurism to protect their racket.

There is some truth to that...But I don't think they care much about amateurism...I think they want to keep hope alive in as many places as possible.

The best way to do that is to limit what the have's can do with all that extra money. If you let Alabama, Texas, Michigan, N. Dame... Spend all the money they want to pay players it would really shrink the market because so many schools would just disappear.

Say Alabama can have X# of football scholarships...But if they pay their players 50k a year the players can pay their own way and they would no longer be limited by scholarship numbers.

Those schools already get all the recruits they want. Very little would change other that perhaps those schools would have pay Saban, Harbaugh, Calipari, and Coach K 7 million instead of 10 million a year.

This 'practice' can only be NCAA controlled, i.e. punished in the schools that have little to no clout.

The Boys at the Big Table don't mind when the NCAA busts the little table schools. It helps keep the wannabes down. Bluebloods are at the top and want to rule forever. The NCAA wants a cut forever. It's a symbiotic relationship.


We get all excited thinking this is the time--this is the time the NCAA or FBI will even the playing field.... Name one playing field that has been evened out...lol

(08-19-2019 03:24 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 02:12 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:09 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 06:59 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 07:13 PM)MemDawg91 Wrote:  I’m thinking it would be the opposite. With the exception of Memphis where the tigers are more loved than the Grizzlies, would there be enough interest in those bigger cities that have multiple pro and college teams for players to see a real profit? For example, UCLA is probably the 5th most important team in that market so there wouldn’t be that much interest in buying an autograph or a jersey with the star player’s name on it. In smaller college towns like Starkville, Oxford, Tuscaloosa, etc. where there’s nothing but the college, those players would see more potential earnings and fan interest if they’re the stars of their respective teams. Thoughts?

It would simply be the big donors of the school. The problem with “likeness” is how to prevent the big boosters from paying a kid $200,000 for a signed jersey?

Why is that a problem? If a rich guy is dumb enough to make that transaction he should be allowed to do it. People should be allowed to enter into financial transactions within the law(which paying NCAA students isn't illegal in itself).

If the NCAA and schools can take 200k from this booster and celebrate it why shouldnt a 5 star recruit be able to celebrate taking the same money from the same source?

It is a problem for parity. Nike, Adidas, etc. all have schools that are more marketable than others. How do you prevent Nike from paying all of the top level prospects more money to attend the schools they want them to?

I am not against the players making money. I just do not know how it can be done and you do not end up with 5 to 10 schools that hoard all of the top players and you wind up with absolutely no real parity in the NCAA.

There isnt parity in the NCAA or its member institutions now. Nike is paying top level schools more than smaller schools already. The issue isnt the financial inequality of any sort but where the money goes. I'd prefer the players get it instead of Coach K and Coach Cal making another couple of million.

If you make a kid make a decision between getting run as a freshman @ Memphis and making 10k or Redshirting at UT and making 30k...He likely is going to redshirt.

(08-19-2019 03:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 12:53 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:29 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  Just such a tricky thing...

Why can't Nike pay someone to wear their gear without hurting their amateur status? They are not being paid to play, they are being paid to advertise.

If the kid worked at a local store where he wore a clown suit flipping a sign around, he is getting paid to do the exact same thing Nike is paying him to do.

Its all about money. The only reason that kid cant be paid--- within NCAA rules--- by Nike is that the NCAA and its member schools would rather have that money themselves. They just use the ruse of amateurism to protect their racket.

There is some truth to that...But I don't think they care much about amateurism...I think they want to keep hope alive in as many places as possible.

The best way to do that is to limit what the have's can do with all that extra money. If you let Alabama, Texas, Michigan, N. Dame... Spend all the money they want to pay players it would really shrink the market because so many schools would just disappear.

Say Alabama can have X# of football scholarships...But if they pay their players 50k a year the players can pay their own way and they would no longer be limited by scholarship numbers.

Those schools already get all the recruits they want. Very little would change other that perhaps those schools would have pay Saban, Harbaugh, Calipari, and Coach K 7 million instead of 10 million a year.

Nope what would happen is they would gather all the young talent they could and jettison the ones that don't work out. Then they would come and take our good players by offering more cash. Make that legal and football and basketball would be like the olympic sports at Memphis...

(08-19-2019 03:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 12:53 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:29 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  Just such a tricky thing...

Why can't Nike pay someone to wear their gear without hurting their amateur status? They are not being paid to play, they are being paid to advertise.

If the kid worked at a local store where he wore a clown suit flipping a sign around, he is getting paid to do the exact same thing Nike is paying him to do.

Its all about money. The only reason that kid cant be paid--- within NCAA rules--- by Nike is that the NCAA and its member schools would rather have that money themselves. They just use the ruse of amateurism to protect their racket.

There is some truth to that...But I don't think they care much about amateurism...I think they want to keep hope alive in as many places as possible.

The best way to do that is to limit what the have's can do with all that extra money. If you let Alabama, Texas, Michigan, N. Dame... Spend all the money they want to pay players it would really shrink the market because so many schools would just disappear.

Say Alabama can have X# of football scholarships...But if they pay their players 50k a year the players can pay their own way and they would no longer be limited by scholarship numbers.

Those schools already get all the recruits they want. Very little would change other that perhaps those schools would have pay Saban, Harbaugh, Calipari, and Coach K 7 million instead of 10 million a year.

In our world of equality, you can't just pay those student athletes that bring in revenue. You would have to pay all student athletes. It would cost far more than $3M/institution and the players still wouldn't be getting paid what some think they should get paid. I'm good with colleges paying student athletes if someone develops a system that works. I'm yet to hear one, however.