I just saw a Samsung TV ad on ESPN during the UCF/Cincy game that used video of ND running back C'Bo Flemister (great name) scoring a TD against Virginia last week.

They then used someone wearing his #20 ND uniform further in the commercial.

Samsung will make money using Flemister's image/likeness.

Under current NCAA rules, he gets nothing.

Can Samsung just pull Visio & use it.
Now is NCAA getting paid for copy right
If they can pull vidio, why would they pay anybody

(10-04-2019 07:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:34 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why not just pay the players in a way that maintains the current competitive balance? Right now, everyone gets "0". Pick a percentage of revenue and have the players split it evenly. This third party mess is just a bad idea. If you want to avoid the employee relationship, maybe the money can be run through the NCAA.

What balance? The fiction that anyone outside the elite is going to beat out Alabama football or Duke basketball for a recruit those schools want?

The only monetary compensation players at Bama receive is a scholarship---same as Georgia State or Clemson. Thats balanced. There is plenty that is unequal in college football---but the two things that largely keep college football somewhat competitive is equal compensation rules and the scholarship limit---both of which are undermined by the the rule some think is so great. If your whining and crying about "balance" now---just wait till pay-for-play gets rolling with boosters calling the shots.

What am I waiting to see happen. Over the past five years there have been 153 five star football recruits. 13 schools got at least five of those, meaning that 20% of the P5 schools got 82% of the very top recruits. Bama and Georgia alone accounted for one quarter of the overall total. Meanwhile, another 15 schools got at least one, and 37 - over half of the power five - did not get any.

So that's where we're at today. If the boosters are calling the shots, it's going to be Bama and Georgia and Ohio State boosters trying to outbid one another. It won't affect NC State or Maryland or TCU because those schools aren't in the running to begin with. Let alone Georgia State or Colorado State who might as well not even be playing the same sport.

(10-04-2019 08:14 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:34 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why not just pay the players in a way that maintains the current competitive balance? Right now, everyone gets "0". Pick a percentage of revenue and have the players split it evenly. This third party mess is just a bad idea. If you want to avoid the employee relationship, maybe the money can be run through the NCAA.

What balance? The fiction that anyone outside the elite is going to beat out Alabama football or Duke basketball for a recruit those schools want?

The only monetary compensation players at Bama receive is a scholarship---same as Georgia State or Clemson. Thats balanced. There is plenty that is unequal in college football---but the two things that largely keep college football somewhat competitive is equal compensation rules and the scholarship limit---both of which are undermined by the the rule some think is so great. If your whining and crying about "balance" now---just wait till pay-for-play gets rolling with boosters calling the shots.

Moreover this isn't only about football and men's basketball, where the concern is about making a bad situation worse. In other sports where there is significantly more parity, the impact on competitive balance of eliminating compensation restrictions would be far more pronounced. That's not something to just brush off. It matters to the kids who play those sports, to the fans who support them, and to the schools that have had success in them.

To me the biggest problem in this is that it destroys those other sports. Not by changes in the competitive balance, but by football and basketball soaking up all the money and sports, played by students who might actually get in the university if they weren't an athlete, get totally dropped.

Some people will say, well basketball and football generate the money. But those athletes also have the least in common with normal students who intercollegiate sports were originally intended for.

(10-04-2019 04:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 01:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

How is this different than today's system? The only difference is that today's systems funnels the money either (a) indirectly toward higher coaching staff salaries and more expensive facilities or (b) directly to the athletes under the table. The California law (and inevitably other states and the federal government) allows for direct, above the board payments to athletes.

Quote:I see so many arguments for and against the California law when in the end the whole issue boils down to just one simple question: Is it a good thing to eliminate all restrictions on people with money being able to buy championships for their favorite school by paying "market rate" for the best athletes?

Once again, how is this different than today's system? Please see reasoning above.

Quote:Anyone who thinks this debate is about doing what's best for the kids is fooling themselves. If the restrictions come off then the top 10% of players (possibly fewer) will reap almost all of the financial benefits. The rest will play for schools that are invariably outmatched competitively and in unending danger of losing their fan support. And in the long run many kids will not even have that opportunity as schools lacking a sufficient number of deep-pocket boosters to stock rosters at market rates decide it's not worth competing against semi-pros and choose instead to just eliminate scholarship athletics.

Ah yes, the horror of "semi-pros!" [sarcasm font]

Nick Saban's salary as the head of Alabama is over $8.3 million per year. My own alma mater (Illinois) is paying over $5 million per year for Lovie Smith and we'll consider ourselves lucky to get 5 wins this season, much less be bowl eligible.

No one is paying millions of dollars per year for the coach of an "amateur" operation no matter what fiction people tell themselves to make them sleep well at night.

Your point about only the top 10% of the players benefiting from this would seem to be a feature instead of a bug. If this is going to be a true free market, then it would stand to reason that only the very best and marketable athletes would be receiving endorsement, so that 10% level would indicate that things are actually being done above board and logically consistent with the free market.

Look - if people want to argue that schools should stop entering into TV contracts, start paying head coaches the equivalent of a normal professor's salary, eliminate all sponsorships for sports, and give away tickets for free, then all of this wailing about student compensation would have a little more validity. I'd personally disagree that all of the foregoing would be a positive thing, but it would least be consistent and not hypocritical, which I can respect.

I just can't wrap my head around this artificial delineation of so many fans between "amateurs" and "semi-pros," though.

WTF is an "amateur" system that pays Nick Saban $8.3 million per year... which is more than all but two coaches in the NFL (one of which is the Jon Gruden contract that the Raiders agreed to with the insane Mark Davis at the helm)?

WTF is an "amateur" system that tells athletes that they can't make money off of their own names and likenesses, which under virtually any other walk of life is something that only an employer can really tell you to do... yet they're somehow *not* employees?

WTF are we scared of the "big bad boosters from rich schools" supposedly dominating this new system when we have had essentially the *exact* same list of elite football programs for the past 50 years or more (with essentially only the Florida-based schools being added on over the past few decades)? Do we really think those elite programs have stayed on top for the past 50 years simply through good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money?

Believing that today's college sports system is anything other than a straight up professional system (much less "semi-pro") is the sports fan equivalent of still believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. "Amateur" college sports is a fiction of people's imaginations supported by a willful blindness to how things actually are today.

Well, it's pretty obvious why we disagree.

You look at the world from the standpoint of the P5 schools and your focus is on the big money sports. You conclude that because the P5 schools already have a big money-driven advantage over everyone else in those sports, there is no semblance of a level playing field in college athletics and never can be and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive or stupid. And so the question you ask is, why not blow away the obstacles to letting boosters pay players and simply accept that going forward championships in any sport can be determined based on whomever is willing to invest the most cash?

I look at the world from the standpoint of the non-P5 schools and my focus is on the entire spectrum of D-I college athletics. I see Cal State Fullerton with 18 College World Series appearances (including 3 in the past 10 years) and Coastal Carolina winning the whole thing just three years ago. I see non-P5 schools having won the NCAA title in men's ice hockey for the past 7 consecutive seasons. I see Northern Arizona dominating men's cross country competition with 3 consecutive national championships. I see Hawaii having made it to the NCAA final four in beach volleyball for the past 4 seasons, and narrowly losing to Long Beach State in the men's volleyball championship match just six months ago. I see a semblance of a level playing field in those sports, and kids fighting for championships based on "good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money" and thousands of fans rooting for them. And so the question I ask is, why should I sit back and say it's fine for boosters to pay players without restriction and simply accept that going forward championships in any and all NCAA sports will be available for purchase by whomever is willing to invest the most cash?

I'm not going to do that no matter how many shades of naive you choose to label me.

Do you really, honestly believe that there are a bunch of boosters at power conference schools who are ready to start writing checks to the best beach volleyball players and cross country runners to overturn the dominance that Hawaii and Northern Arizona are enjoying?

(10-04-2019 02:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The "Scholarships are compensation!" argument is a red herring because the NCAA regulations apply to ALL athletes, regardless of whether they are receiving a scholarship. Many Division I athletes, most Division II athletes and all Division III athletes do NOT receive scholarships, yet are still prohibited to obtain compensation for their names and likenesses. Therefore, simply stating that scholarships are enough of a compensation neglects the fact that the vast majority of NCAA athletes don't receive a scholarship at all.

As I noted elsewhere, my kids' summer swim team coach is a Division I swimmer at an Ivy League school, which does NOT provide athletic scholarships. (Repeat: this person does NOT receive an athletic scholarship despite being a Division I athlete. Do I need to repeat that again?) Despite the fact that this person does NOT receive an athletic scholarship as a Division I athlete, that person still has to abide by the NCAA's compensation rules. Therefore, that person had to coach as a volunteer without compensation despite the fact that person's twin sibling (who was not a Division I athlete) was able to get paid for doing the exact same job. This is a real life scenario that I witnessed with my very own eyes and can't be called anything other than monumentally stupid.

For the love of everything holy, please stop using the "Scholarships are compensation!" argument because it's straight up not true for the vast majority of NCAA athletes that are still subject to NCAA compensation rules.

Actually, you bring up a HUGE point I had not really considered until now.

The key to competitive balance in the NCAA D-1 is two fold. One key has been the amateur rule that limits the outside influence of money on recruiting. The other, and perhaps the most important key----is the scholarship limit. With unlimited funds sloshing around by boosters---spots that currently go to non-scholarship "walk-on" players can now in effect become paid "scholarship" slots. All a booster need do is sign the kid to a 30K "appearance fee" and that kid now has the money to pay his tuition just like any "scholarship player" (without a dime coming out of the players pocket). Using this method, a school could potentially raise it EFFECTIVE scholarship limit from 85 to 105. In other words, this change will also undermine the scholarship limit. Undermining the scholarship limit WOULD most definitely vastly change how the game looks today.

Bear Bryant is smiling down from heaven getting 105 players again like he did with Track and Field scholarships.

No one cares about soccer, beach volleyball, swimming, knitting or polo. Whatever other sports y’all are talking about.

Some people do care. NCAA Championships in sports like men's hockey, baseball, wrestling and lacrosse are incredibly well-attended with crowds of 20,000+ for NCAA Championships and ESPN audiences into the seven figures. And unlike college football or basketball that requires tens to hundreds of millions to field truly nationally competitive teams, any school that can fund D-I ice hockey, baseball, wrestling or lacrosse teams at about $2-3 million per team per year can compete for NCAA titles. I know this because my school (University of Denver) beat schools like Penn State and Notre Dame on the way to an NCAA hockey title in 2017, and beat Notre Dame and Maryland on the way to the 2015 NCAA lacrosse title. It's nice for mid-majors to still have a few relevant avenues to still compete well with the big boys.

(10-04-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 06:35 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 03:23 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  How is this different than today's system? The only difference is that today's systems funnels the money either (a) indirectly toward higher coaching staff salaries and more expensive facilities or (b) directly to the athletes under the table. The California law (and inevitably other states and the federal government) allows for direct, above the board payments to athletes.


Once again, how is this different than today's system? Please see reasoning above.


Ah yes, the horror of "semi-pros!" [sarcasm font]

Nick Saban's salary as the head of Alabama is over $8.3 million per year. My own alma mater (Illinois) is paying over $5 million per year for Lovie Smith and we'll consider ourselves lucky to get 5 wins this season, much less be bowl eligible.

No one is paying millions of dollars per year for the coach of an "amateur" operation no matter what fiction people tell themselves to make them sleep well at night.

Your point about only the top 10% of the players benefiting from this would seem to be a feature instead of a bug. If this is going to be a true free market, then it would stand to reason that only the very best and marketable athletes would be receiving endorsement, so that 10% level would indicate that things are actually being done above board and logically consistent with the free market.

Look - if people want to argue that schools should stop entering into TV contracts, start paying head coaches the equivalent of a normal professor's salary, eliminate all sponsorships for sports, and give away tickets for free, then all of this wailing about student compensation would have a little more validity. I'd personally disagree that all of the foregoing would be a positive thing, but it would least be consistent and not hypocritical, which I can respect.

I just can't wrap my head around this artificial delineation of so many fans between "amateurs" and "semi-pros," though.

WTF is an "amateur" system that pays Nick Saban $8.3 million per year... which is more than all but two coaches in the NFL (one of which is the Jon Gruden contract that the Raiders agreed to with the insane Mark Davis at the helm)?

WTF is an "amateur" system that tells athletes that they can't make money off of their own names and likenesses, which under virtually any other walk of life is something that only an employer can really tell you to do... yet they're somehow *not* employees?

WTF are we scared of the "big bad boosters from rich schools" supposedly dominating this new system when we have had essentially the *exact* same list of elite football programs for the past 50 years or more (with essentially only the Florida-based schools being added on over the past few decades)? Do we really think those elite programs have stayed on top for the past 50 years simply through good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money?

Believing that today's college sports system is anything other than a straight up professional system (much less "semi-pro") is the sports fan equivalent of still believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. "Amateur" college sports is a fiction of people's imaginations supported by a willful blindness to how things actually are today.

Agree, seriously nothing is going to change in the big scheme of things.

Players are still going to want to go to the teams that have the best coaches, facilities, and visibility. (Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, ND, etc.).

You may have a few more situations where guys like Ed Oliver choose to go to Houston. But is that really the end of the world? Ed Oliver still got an NFL contract. Who really cares of some rich dude in Houston bought him a car?

I just explained how this is patently FALSE. Not only will the money influence how recruiting goes for the 85 scholarship players on every roster---it will also undermine the 85 scholarship limit itself. Effectively, if there is unlimited booster money sloshing around, a school can offer 105 kids a free ride--not just 85. It wouldnt be an "official" scholarship---but its still a free education. There is no way to argue that is not a DRASTIC change in the current system.

And of course this is a trivial problem to solve. Hard cap roster size at 85 (or pick your favorite number). Next.

Why not just pay the players in a way that maintains the current competitive balance? Right now, everyone gets "0". Pick a percentage of revenue and have the players split it evenly. This third party mess is just a bad idea. If you want to avoid the employee relationship, maybe the money can be run through the NCAA.

Because players differ in terms of their market value. Do you think LeBron would want his shoe endorsement money thrown in to a general NBA pot and split evenly among all the players?

The impetus behind the California law is *individual* freedom to make money, not collective/socialistic payments.

(10-04-2019 06:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As a Houston fan, Im all too familiar with the idea that your coach is just a hired gun.

Well, yeah. Houston's Daddy Warbucks paid $4 million/year to buy a coach from a Big 12 school. Can every AAC team do that? Doesn't sound very competitive balance-y to me.

(10-04-2019 06:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  But the players--they are students and will one day be alums like us.

Pffft. The athletes who will be abie to make NIL money are the athletes who will turn pro in 1-3 years and not get degrees. They already think of their college more as a stepping stone to the pros than anything else.

(10-04-2019 09:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:14 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:34 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why not just pay the players in a way that maintains the current competitive balance? Right now, everyone gets "0". Pick a percentage of revenue and have the players split it evenly. This third party mess is just a bad idea. If you want to avoid the employee relationship, maybe the money can be run through the NCAA.

What balance? The fiction that anyone outside the elite is going to beat out Alabama football or Duke basketball for a recruit those schools want?

The only monetary compensation players at Bama receive is a scholarship---same as Georgia State or Clemson. Thats balanced. There is plenty that is unequal in college football---but the two things that largely keep college football somewhat competitive is equal compensation rules and the scholarship limit---both of which are undermined by the the rule some think is so great. If your whining and crying about "balance" now---just wait till pay-for-play gets rolling with boosters calling the shots.

Moreover this isn't only about football and men's basketball, where the concern is about making a bad situation worse. In other sports where there is significantly more parity, the impact on competitive balance of eliminating compensation restrictions would be far more pronounced. That's not something to just brush off. It matters to the kids who play those sports, to the fans who support them, and to the schools that have had success in them.

To me the biggest problem in this is that it destroys those other sports. Not by changes in the competitive balance, but by football and basketball soaking up all the money and sports, played by students who might actually get in the university if they weren't an athlete, get totally dropped.

Is that you, Tom McMillen?

(10-04-2019 04:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I look at the world from the standpoint of the non-P5 schools and my focus is on the entire spectrum of D-I college athletics. I see Cal State Fullerton with 18 College World Series appearances (including 3 in the past 10 years) and Coastal Carolina winning the whole thing just three years ago. I see non-P5 schools having won the NCAA title in men's ice hockey for the past 7 consecutive seasons. I see Northern Arizona dominating men's cross country competition with 3 consecutive national championships. I see Hawaii having made it to the NCAA final four in beach volleyball for the past 4 seasons, and narrowly losing to Long Beach State in the men's volleyball championship match just six months ago. I see a semblance of a level playing field in those sports, and kids fighting for championships based on "good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money" and thousands of fans rooting for them. And so the question I ask is, why should I sit back and say it's fine for boosters to pay players without restriction and simply accept that going forward championships in any and all NCAA sports will be available for purchase by whomever is willing to invest the most cash?

There's zero reason to think a California model would result in the contamination of those other sports you mention with money. If there was money itching to find its way in to those sports, it would have, in the same way it finds its way in to football - huge coaching salaries, lavish stadiums and facilities, scandals involving payments to players, etc. That's because despite the passion of those fans who follow beach volleyball and cross-country track and ice hockey, in the scheme of things they are very small potatoes.

So rest easy about that. Nobody is going to throw $100,000 at beach volleyball players and ruin the competitive balance (which if I had to bet, probably isn't very balanced, I have no idea who wins in that sport but I bet a few schools dominate).

(10-04-2019 10:02 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 04:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 01:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

How is this different than today's system? The only difference is that today's systems funnels the money either (a) indirectly toward higher coaching staff salaries and more expensive facilities or (b) directly to the athletes under the table. The California law (and inevitably other states and the federal government) allows for direct, above the board payments to athletes.

Quote:I see so many arguments for and against the California law when in the end the whole issue boils down to just one simple question: Is it a good thing to eliminate all restrictions on people with money being able to buy championships for their favorite school by paying "market rate" for the best athletes?

Once again, how is this different than today's system? Please see reasoning above.

Quote:Anyone who thinks this debate is about doing what's best for the kids is fooling themselves. If the restrictions come off then the top 10% of players (possibly fewer) will reap almost all of the financial benefits. The rest will play for schools that are invariably outmatched competitively and in unending danger of losing their fan support. And in the long run many kids will not even have that opportunity as schools lacking a sufficient number of deep-pocket boosters to stock rosters at market rates decide it's not worth competing against semi-pros and choose instead to just eliminate scholarship athletics.

Ah yes, the horror of "semi-pros!" [sarcasm font]

Nick Saban's salary as the head of Alabama is over $8.3 million per year. My own alma mater (Illinois) is paying over $5 million per year for Lovie Smith and we'll consider ourselves lucky to get 5 wins this season, much less be bowl eligible.

No one is paying millions of dollars per year for the coach of an "amateur" operation no matter what fiction people tell themselves to make them sleep well at night.

Your point about only the top 10% of the players benefiting from this would seem to be a feature instead of a bug. If this is going to be a true free market, then it would stand to reason that only the very best and marketable athletes would be receiving endorsement, so that 10% level would indicate that things are actually being done above board and logically consistent with the free market.

Look - if people want to argue that schools should stop entering into TV contracts, start paying head coaches the equivalent of a normal professor's salary, eliminate all sponsorships for sports, and give away tickets for free, then all of this wailing about student compensation would have a little more validity. I'd personally disagree that all of the foregoing would be a positive thing, but it would least be consistent and not hypocritical, which I can respect.

I just can't wrap my head around this artificial delineation of so many fans between "amateurs" and "semi-pros," though.

WTF is an "amateur" system that pays Nick Saban $8.3 million per year... which is more than all but two coaches in the NFL (one of which is the Jon Gruden contract that the Raiders agreed to with the insane Mark Davis at the helm)?

WTF is an "amateur" system that tells athletes that they can't make money off of their own names and likenesses, which under virtually any other walk of life is something that only an employer can really tell you to do... yet they're somehow *not* employees?

WTF are we scared of the "big bad boosters from rich schools" supposedly dominating this new system when we have had essentially the *exact* same list of elite football programs for the past 50 years or more (with essentially only the Florida-based schools being added on over the past few decades)? Do we really think those elite programs have stayed on top for the past 50 years simply through good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money?

Believing that today's college sports system is anything other than a straight up professional system (much less "semi-pro") is the sports fan equivalent of still believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. "Amateur" college sports is a fiction of people's imaginations supported by a willful blindness to how things actually are today.

Well, it's pretty obvious why we disagree.

You look at the world from the standpoint of the P5 schools and your focus is on the big money sports. You conclude that because the P5 schools already have a big money-driven advantage over everyone else in those sports, there is no semblance of a level playing field in college athletics and never can be and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive or stupid. And so the question you ask is, why not blow away the obstacles to letting boosters pay players and simply accept that going forward championships in any sport can be determined based on whomever is willing to invest the most cash?

I look at the world from the standpoint of the non-P5 schools and my focus is on the entire spectrum of D-I college athletics. I see Cal State Fullerton with 18 College World Series appearances (including 3 in the past 10 years) and Coastal Carolina winning the whole thing just three years ago. I see non-P5 schools having won the NCAA title in men's ice hockey for the past 7 consecutive seasons. I see Northern Arizona dominating men's cross country competition with 3 consecutive national championships. I see Hawaii having made it to the NCAA final four in beach volleyball for the past 4 seasons, and narrowly losing to Long Beach State in the men's volleyball championship match just six months ago. I see a semblance of a level playing field in those sports, and kids fighting for championships based on "good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money" and thousands of fans rooting for them. And so the question I ask is, why should I sit back and say it's fine for boosters to pay players without restriction and simply accept that going forward championships in any and all NCAA sports will be available for purchase by whomever is willing to invest the most cash?

I'm not going to do that no matter how many shades of naive you choose to label me.

Do you really, honestly believe that there are a bunch of boosters at power conference schools who are ready to start writing checks to the best beach volleyball players and cross country runners to overturn the dominance that Hawaii and Northern Arizona are enjoying?

I really, honestly believe that certain boosters at USC and UCLA don't like seeing their men's volleyball teams get their butts kicked by Hawaii and Long Beach State. Today they really can't do anything about it. With the new rule they can go out and spend money to buy a handful of top-tier players to "fix" that problem. The talent pool in the sport isn't deep, the number of players on the court is small, and it would only require landing a handful of ringers to completely change the competitive balance.

Most people across the country obviously don't care, but Hawaii put 10,000 fans in the stands to watch the Big West title match against Long Beach State, and could have sold more tickets if the arena were bigger.

Just to throw out another example, the team Minnesota-Duluth beat to win the D-I hockey national championship in 2018 was Notre Dame. You don't think Notre Dame has some deep-pocket alumni that would have been willing to spend some money to ensure the Irish had a few more top players to land that title, if that had been allowable? I think they would have, and I don't see why folks in Duluth should have to do the same to give their team a chance to match up.

(10-04-2019 07:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can already see some kid getting $1 million to do 1 billboard ad or only 1 30 sec TV ad.

Paid for by a local big bucks booster who made the promise while the kid was on the official recruiting visit. This could get out of hand and 'legitimize' a whole host of shady conduct by schools and boosters. Can also produce a lot of resentment. The O-line gets peanuts while the star QB they block for blings his way thru college? Not sure how that sells.

(10-04-2019 11:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 06:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As a Houston fan, Im all too familiar with the idea that your coach is just a hired gun.

Well, yeah. Houston's Daddy Warbucks paid $4 million/year to buy a coach from a Big 12 school. Can every AAC team do that? Doesn't sound very competitive balance-y to me.

(10-04-2019 06:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  But the players--they are students and will one day be alums like us.

Pffft. The athletes who will be abie to make NIL money are the athletes who will turn pro in 1-3 years and not get degrees. They already think of their college more as a stepping stone to the pros than anything else.

I guess Im just not yet as cynical as you are about college sports. If I ever get that cynical about college sports--I doubt I'll be watching it anymore. Frankly, I’d rather the schools pay the players directly than have this booster driven ship-show. At least then its actual free market where salaries have to make economic sense. This “name and likeness” stuff as the current bills are written is going to immediately devolve into just a shell game to legalize cheating. And just so it’s clear I think it’s bad for the sport, as you pointed out, this is coming from a a fan who roots for a school that stands to do very well under a system where boosters buy titles.

(10-05-2019 12:08 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can already see some kid getting $1 million to do 1 billboard ad or only 1 30 sec TV ad.

Paid for by a local big bucks booster who made the promise while the kid was on the official recruiting visit. This could get out of hand and 'legitimize' a whole host of shady conduct by schools and boosters. Can also produce a lot of resentment. The O-line gets peanuts while the star QB they block for blings his way thru college? Not sure how that sells.

Best course of action is to continue to financially suppress Americans that play college sports. Otherwise, people might do as they please with their own money and there might be hurt feelings among unequally paid adults that live in a capitalist country.

(10-04-2019 11:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 04:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I look at the world from the standpoint of the non-P5 schools and my focus is on the entire spectrum of D-I college athletics. I see Cal State Fullerton with 18 College World Series appearances (including 3 in the past 10 years) and Coastal Carolina winning the whole thing just three years ago. I see non-P5 schools having won the NCAA title in men's ice hockey for the past 7 consecutive seasons. I see Northern Arizona dominating men's cross country competition with 3 consecutive national championships. I see Hawaii having made it to the NCAA final four in beach volleyball for the past 4 seasons, and narrowly losing to Long Beach State in the men's volleyball championship match just six months ago. I see a semblance of a level playing field in those sports, and kids fighting for championships based on "good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money" and thousands of fans rooting for them. And so the question I ask is, why should I sit back and say it's fine for boosters to pay players without restriction and simply accept that going forward championships in any and all NCAA sports will be available for purchase by whomever is willing to invest the most cash?

There's zero reason to think a California model would result in the contamination of those other sports you mention with money. If there was money itching to find its way in to those sports, it would have, in the same way it finds its way in to football - huge coaching salaries, lavish stadiums and facilities, scandals involving payments to players, etc. That's because despite the passion of those fans who follow beach volleyball and cross-country track and ice hockey, in the scheme of things they are very small potatoes.

So rest easy about that. Nobody is going to throw $100,000 at beach volleyball players and ruin the competitive balance (which if I had to bet, probably isn't very balanced, I have no idea who wins in that sport but I bet a few schools dominate).

If there is so little money going to these sports as you claim, then it just makes it that much easier for the one guy who IS obsessed with the sport to buy a title. He probably doesn't even have to be all that rich to do it.

(10-05-2019 12:58 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 12:08 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can already see some kid getting $1 million to do 1 billboard ad or only 1 30 sec TV ad.

Paid for by a local big bucks booster who made the promise while the kid was on the official recruiting visit. This could get out of hand and 'legitimize' a whole host of shady conduct by schools and boosters. Can also produce a lot of resentment. The O-line gets peanuts while the star QB they block for blings his way thru college? Not sure how that sells.

Best course of action is to continue to financially suppress Americans that play college sports. Otherwise, people might do as they please with their own money and there might be hurt feelings among unequally paid adults that live in a capitalist country.

Im not sure government legislation forcing an amateur league to effectively become a pro league is exactly the definition freedom and liberty. The courts took a much more thoughtful and reasonable tack in the O'bannon case in dealing with the application of anti-trust law to the NCAA's unique amateur student athlete model. I suspect the courts will have their say as well before this is all over. Honestly, the only way I can see this working is if there is a shared pool that all the endorsement/appearance money goes into where it would be shared equally by all the players in that sport. In order to reward the individual, allow him to keep 20% of the endorsement/appearance fee. The taxes for that 20% are paid (so he actually gets 20% after taxes and doesnt end up with a bill at the end of the year). The rest of the fee goes to the fund. Maybe something like that would keep the name and likeness game from spiraling out of control as such a system would sort of perform the same braking function as the luxury tax in the NBA. At the very least it would make it expensive as hell to buy a championship.

(10-05-2019 01:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 12:58 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 12:08 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can already see some kid getting $1 million to do 1 billboard ad or only 1 30 sec TV ad.

Paid for by a local big bucks booster who made the promise while the kid was on the official recruiting visit. This could get out of hand and 'legitimize' a whole host of shady conduct by schools and boosters. Can also produce a lot of resentment. The O-line gets peanuts while the star QB they block for blings his way thru college? Not sure how that sells.

Best course of action is to continue to financially suppress Americans that play college sports. Otherwise, people might do as they please with their own money and there might be hurt feelings among unequally paid adults that live in a capitalist country.

Im not sure government legislation forcing an amateur league to effectively become a pro league is exactly the definition freedom and liberty. The courts took a much more thoughtful and reasonable tack in the O'bannon case in dealing with the application of anti-trust law to the NCAA's unique amateur student athlete model. I suspect the courts will have their say as well before this is all over. Honestly, the only way I can see this working is if there is a shared pool that all the endorsement/appearance money goes into where it would be shared equally by all the players in that sport. In order to reward the individual, allow him to keep 20% of the endorsement/appearance fee. The taxes for that 20% are paid (so he actually gets 20% after taxes and doesnt end up with a bill at the end of the year). The rest of the fee goes to the fund. Maybe something like that would keep the name and likeness game from spiraling out of control as such a system would sort of perform the same braking function as the luxury tax in the NBA. At the very least it would make it expensive as hell to buy a championship.

Most amateur leagues sign these sort of contracts:
“In 2016 the NCAA signed an $8.8 billion dollar contract extension with CBS and Turner that goes from 2025 to 2032. This contract extension was on top of the existing $10.8 billion that the networks agreed to pay the NCAA for the TV rights to the tournament from 2010 to 2024.”
That is just the NCAA tourney. fBall is even more valuable. Never mind the regular season contracts (in both sports), marketing deals, branding, ticket sales, vendor sales, parking, licenses, etc. The **** is hitting the fan, these athletes were not compensated for their worth and risk for years. It is coming, fast.

Whatever the case, pandora’s box is open. Schools in FL, TX, GA, OH will stand in line. It’s done. Brace yourselves. I estimate this will change faster than 2023