(10-05-2019 12:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The people who support these laws are in favor of corrupt boasters to get the best players at the top 10 football schools who have the money. These bills are making money laundering, wire fraud and what got Aunt Becky and Felicity Huffman legalized. These crybaby players are already being paid in scholarships, free room and board, free education and spending cash. Even walk ons winding up with a scholarship when they worked hard for it. These bills would make the star players work less for their starting job because they are making money.

And NONE of that really impacts your life. NONE.

If college sports is a must-watch for you now, when you know payments go on under the current rules/bylaws, then it will continue to be must-watch in the future. You're addicted to the narcotic known as Intercollegiate Athletics and none of these laws will make you, "DavidSt" quit cold turkey.

As we've seen with individual state legislation, this is not a Blue State or Red State issue. This is an issue which those who prefer free markets, those who favor labor, AND those who seek to eliminate racial injustice all seem to agree on: The NCAA's current system is a clusterf*.

*credit to Andy Staples who said it, not on his own podcast, but on the AP College Football podcast
https://podcastone.com/AP-Top-25-College...ll-Podcast

(10-05-2019 07:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 06:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

(10-05-2019 12:58 AM)chester Wrote:  

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

IMO, your model is a non-starter, because it's anti-American, socialistic. The only way you could even do it is there was collective bargaining with the players as a union, and no player would want to do that - does Kobe want to throw his endorsement money in to a pot to be split between all the other players? Of course not.

Also, the issue isn't the "liberty" of schools to create a unique monopolistic cartel that is built on everyone making a lot of money except the players, it's the liberty of players to make monetize their market value. I don't see your argument as being a compelling argument with anyone. But we shall see. As of now, for all the sturm and drang, only California has passed a law.

Let’s just remember, the last time this was litigated, the courts came to the conclusion that the NCAA was in violation of anti trust law but that a scholarship that included FCOA was the remedy. The decision left all other NCAA rules designed to protect its amateur model stand. Furthermore, in the decision, the court indicated that the NCAA was well within its rights to act in a monopolistic way if the rules were designed to create completive balance. So, it would seem precedent is on the NCAA’s side this time around. That said—who knows what the next judge has to say.

I think this past litigation would be relevant if someone was filing a lawsuit against the NCAA, challenging its rules against players being able to exploit their name and likenesses. But that's not what is happening, rather, Cali passed a law instructing their schools to allow players to make money this way.

That's an entirely different animal, as what California is doing doesn't depend on whether a court would uphold or reject the NCAA's policy against pay for names/likenesses. The policy could be perfectly acceptable under anti-trust law, and Cali could still tell its schools not to abide by it because, well, they disagree with it.

(10-05-2019 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 07:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 06:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

(10-05-2019 12:58 AM)chester Wrote:  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.

IMO, your model is a non-starter, because it's anti-American, socialistic. The only way you could even do it is there was collective bargaining with the players as a union, and no player would want to do that - does Kobe want to throw his endorsement money in to a pot to be split between all the other players? Of course not.

Also, the issue isn't the "liberty" of schools to create a unique monopolistic cartel that is built on everyone making a lot of money except the players, it's the liberty of players to make monetize their market value. I don't see your argument as being a compelling argument with anyone. But we shall see. As of now, for all the sturm and drang, only California has passed a law.

Let’s just remember, the last time this was litigated, the courts came to the conclusion that the NCAA was in violation of anti trust law but that a scholarship that included FCOA was the remedy. The decision left all other NCAA rules designed to protect its amateur model stand. Furthermore, in the decision, the court indicated that the NCAA was well within its rights to act in a monopolistic way if the rules were designed to create completive balance. So, it would seem precedent is on the NCAA’s side this time around. That said—who knows what the next judge has to say.

I think this past litigation would be relevant if someone was filing a lawsuit against the NCAA, challenging its rules against players being able to exploit their name and likenesses. But that's not what is happening, rather, Cali passed a law instructing their schools to allow players to make money this way.

That's an entirely different animal, as what California is doing doesn't depend on whether a court would uphold or reject the NCAA's policy against pay for names/likenesses. The policy could be perfectly acceptable under anti-trust law, and Cali could still tell its schools not to abide by it because, well, they disagree with it.

We don’t know what shape the suit will take. It may be Stanford, USC, and the NCAA sueing the state of California. It may be California filing suit against the NCAA over Cal being barred from the post season Another interesting situation to watch is how the other Pac12 and MW schools decide to handle the new recruiting advantage their California schools have been handed.

(10-05-2019 11:35 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

So dramatic lol

Poor football players wahhh

It is nice of you to want other people to not make money.

(10-05-2019 10:59 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....this notion that the schools are making big money off sports is the revisionist history. Yeah--a bunch of money comes into the system---but it also gets spent on expenses. Most schools lose money or barely break even on athletics. A handful actually make any meaningful "profit" at all---and that is typically returned to the school for academic use where it provides other scholarship opportunities or facilities. Lets keep in mind---these are NON-PROFIT schools---not sports franchises. The entire purpose of their existence is to to educate---not build sports franchises. The basic public good here is thousands of kids get an education. The sports that actually have a following provide the funds to provide educations to even more kids (mostly women due government mandated Ttile9 requirements)---who likely would not receive a sports scholarship if this were a purely free market economic endeavor. And while people point to the nice "pro like" facilities---lets also remember that much of the money that built those facilties was donated and had nothing to do with actual free market earnings from the ticket sales and rights fees.

Everyone knows that the "schools" aren't making tons of money. And we all know that literally thousands of people are become rich off of amateur sports.

The schools subverted the academic mission in favor of building sports franchises long, long ago. Any claim to the contrary is, at best, patent hypocrisy on their part. When the schools stop paying coaches and administrators millions of dollars, when they take a hard stance on scandals (and not pay for play) in the sport, when they stop chasing money from TV and shoe companies, when they stop scheduling games across the country on a weeknight when "student-athletes" are supposed to be in classes, when they stop with lavish facilities projects, and when they start recruiting the best students for their school rather than the best athletes, then let's talk about what the core mission of the school is.

I'd like to see that too, but winning big leads to big name donations towards academic departments. I remember Michigan's president or AD or something talking about how they saw a noticeable drop in academic donations after the App State loss, one that was felt all through the Rich Rod years. So, strangely enough, there's an academic advantage to compromise your academic standards on the athletic front.
If that's what you want to see, there's the Patriot League, Ivy League, or UAA. You really won't see that otherwise until you can start talking boosters into distancing athletic success from their school spirit.

(10-05-2019 04:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 07:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 06:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

IMO, your model is a non-starter, because it's anti-American, socialistic. The only way you could even do it is there was collective bargaining with the players as a union, and no player would want to do that - does Kobe want to throw his endorsement money in to a pot to be split between all the other players? Of course not.

Also, the issue isn't the "liberty" of schools to create a unique monopolistic cartel that is built on everyone making a lot of money except the players, it's the liberty of players to make monetize their market value. I don't see your argument as being a compelling argument with anyone. But we shall see. As of now, for all the sturm and drang, only California has passed a law.

Let’s just remember, the last time this was litigated, the courts came to the conclusion that the NCAA was in violation of anti trust law but that a scholarship that included FCOA was the remedy. The decision left all other NCAA rules designed to protect its amateur model stand. Furthermore, in the decision, the court indicated that the NCAA was well within its rights to act in a monopolistic way if the rules were designed to create completive balance. So, it would seem precedent is on the NCAA’s side this time around. That said—who knows what the next judge has to say.

I think this past litigation would be relevant if someone was filing a lawsuit against the NCAA, challenging its rules against players being able to exploit their name and likenesses. But that's not what is happening, rather, Cali passed a law instructing their schools to allow players to make money this way.

That's an entirely different animal, as what California is doing doesn't depend on whether a court would uphold or reject the NCAA's policy against pay for names/likenesses. The policy could be perfectly acceptable under anti-trust law, and Cali could still tell its schools not to abide by it because, well, they disagree with it.

We don’t know what shape the suit will take. It may be Stanford, USC, and the NCAA suiting the state of California. It may be California filing suit against the NCAA over Cal being barred from the post season Another interesting situation to watch is how the other Pac12 and MW schools decide to handle the new recruiting advantage their California schools have been handed.

No doubt, there are lots of unanswered questions right now.

I just don't see any federal place - congress or the courts - that are likely to rescue the status quo model.

I suspect the battle will be fought at the state level. California realizes it can't go it alone on this, if it is just California, their schools will face NCAA sanctions and have to give in. But if other states adopt similar laws, then the NCAA will have to capitulate. That's why they have a 2023 start date, to allow time for other states to become allies before the rubber hits the road.

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:32 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The way I understand it, they can work--but only within certain very strict limits. In fact, its such a compliance headache for the schools that many schools simply forbid their athletes from working. Additionally, with the year round demands of many sports these days---it would be almost impossible for the athletes to find the time or, for that matter, a workplace willing to be flexible enough to deal with the outside demands of the athletes school/athletic schedule.

Does anything prevent someone who is on an academic scholarship from being in a commercial? From having their picture used in an advertisement and getting reimbursed for it?

If it's within strict limits for the amount of time they can spend doing it, then let them do commercials, pose for pictures, etc. within those time limits. This isn't "the athlete has a full time job" - it's "the athlete spent an hour shooting a commercial and gets compensated every time the commercial airs" (which is fairly standard for actors and spokespeople).

Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They dont want boosters paying players 10K a month to turn the sprinklers on an off. They arent trying to screw over players--they are trying to maintain a competitive balance in the league where everyone is on a relatively similar footing. That said--Im very open to options that share some revenue with players without upsetting the current competitive balance and character of college sports. Unfortunately, this "olympic model" concept being batted about does not do that.

So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:32 AM)e-parade Wrote:  Does anything prevent someone who is on an academic scholarship from being in a commercial? From having their picture used in an advertisement and getting reimbursed for it?

If it's within strict limits for the amount of time they can spend doing it, then let them do commercials, pose for pictures, etc. within those time limits. This isn't "the athlete has a full time job" - it's "the athlete spent an hour shooting a commercial and gets compensated every time the commercial airs" (which is fairly standard for actors and spokespeople).

Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They dont want boosters paying players 10K a month to turn the sprinklers on an off. They arent trying to screw over players--they are trying to maintain a competitive balance in the league where everyone is on a relatively similar footing. That said--Im very open to options that share some revenue with players without upsetting the current competitive balance and character of college sports. Unfortunately, this "olympic model" concept being batted about does not do that.

So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

Yes, the California model could help close the G5 - P5 gap, especially for the upper crust G5. Too bad many G5 fans can't see it.

(10-05-2019 10:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They dont want boosters paying players 10K a month to turn the sprinklers on an off. They arent trying to screw over players--they are trying to maintain a competitive balance in the league where everyone is on a relatively similar footing. That said--Im very open to options that share some revenue with players without upsetting the current competitive balance and character of college sports. Unfortunately, this "olympic model" concept being batted about does not do that.

So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

Yes, the California model could help close the G5 - P5 gap, especially for the upper crust G5. Too bad many G5 fans can't see it.

I don't think so. The California law is for image usage only. The best players will want to go to the schools with the largest fan base reach and the broadest TV markets because that is where they will be able to monetize the value of their image the best.

So the Cali law will help USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida State and other schools with national draw far more than it would help Clemson, Auburn, Michigan State, U.C.L.A., Oregon, etc.

The very last people it will help is the G5. Why? The G5 don't have national draws. Some players would make some money in their regional markets. But they wouldn't make nearly as much as one sporting the uni from one of the national brands.

It's not pay for play like the New York proposal which would actually apportion revenue to all collegiate players in the state from the combined pot of all of the state schools, which would absolutely screw Syracuse and Buffalo.

The best way for the G5 to benefit from any of this is if there is a flat salary cap established for all FBS players. That way their scholarships are as valuable in goods and services and cash as anyone else's would be.

Division III golfer kicked out of the NCAA for....writing a book.

https://www.golf.com/news/features/2019/...hier-ncaa/


"The language in the NCAA’s bylaws has changed slightly since then, but in 2013 I was deemed to have used my athletic ability for commercial gain (only the NCAA’s corporate partners are allowed to profit from said ability). In their defense, I was a college golfer, and the book involved golf."

(10-05-2019 04:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:35 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

So dramatic lol

Poor football players wahhh

It is nice of you to want other people to not make money.

Wouldn't the better option for payment though be through the creation of a minor league or the elimination of the age restriction in the NFL and NBA? I think we are easily dismissing that much of the perceived revenue opportunity stems from the name on the front of the jersey.

(10-05-2019 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

Yes, the California model could help close the G5 - P5 gap, especially for the upper crust G5. Too bad many G5 fans can't see it.

I don't think so. The California law is for image usage only. The best players will want to go to the schools with the largest fan base reach and the broadest TV markets because that is where they will be able to monetize the value of their image the best.

So the Cali law will help USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida State and other schools with national draw far more than it would help Clemson, Auburn, Michigan State, U.C.L.A., Oregon, etc.

The very last people it will help is the G5. Why? The G5 don't have national draws. Some players would make some money in their regional markets. But they wouldn't make nearly as much as one sporting the uni from one of the national brands.

It's not pay for play like the New York proposal which would actually apportion revenue to all collegiate players in the state from the combined pot of all of the state schools, which would absolutely screw Syracuse and Buffalo.

The best way for the G5 to benefit from any of this is if there is a flat salary cap established for all FBS players. That way their scholarships are as valuable in goods and services and cash as anyone else's would be.

Exactly. Thank you for the dose of reality.

(10-05-2019 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

Yes, the California model could help close the G5 - P5 gap, especially for the upper crust G5. Too bad many G5 fans can't see it.

I don't think so. The California law is for image usage only. The best players will want to go to the schools with the largest fan base reach and the broadest TV markets because that is where they will be able to monetize the value of their image the best.

So the Cali law will help USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida State and other schools with national draw far more than it would help Clemson, Auburn, Michigan State, U.C.L.A., Oregon, etc.

The very last people it will help is the G5. Why? The G5 don't have national draws. Some players would make some money in their regional markets. But they wouldn't make nearly as much as one sporting the uni from one of the national brands.

It's not pay for play like the New York proposal which would actually apportion revenue to all collegiate players in the state from the combined pot of all of the state schools, which would absolutely screw Syracuse and Buffalo.

The best way for the G5 to benefit from any of this is if there is a flat salary cap established for all FBS players. That way their scholarships are as valuable in goods and services and cash as anyone else's would be.

The traditional drivers of endorsement money may be a minor influence on recruiting behavior, but Im pretty sure traditional endorsement economics arent going to drive this market for the most part. Booster money and emotion is going to drive it. Whoever has the richest, craziest, most committed boosters will benefit the most. It dont think it will matter much that the town where the school is located has the GNP of a lemonade stand---as long as the recruit is getting a crap load of money from a booster (who might be a wealthy booster living in New York or Chicago), the recruit will go where ever the money leads. Be it $50K for a TV commercial---$50K for a signed photo---or $50K to visit a birthday party---its all theoretically image and likeness money.

(10-05-2019 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

Yes, the California model could help close the G5 - P5 gap, especially for the upper crust G5. Too bad many G5 fans can't see it.

I don't think so. The California law is for image usage only. The best players will want to go to the schools with the largest fan base reach and the broadest TV markets because that is where they will be able to monetize the value of their image the best.

So the Cali law will help USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida State and other schools with national draw far more than it would help Clemson, Auburn, Michigan State, U.C.L.A., Oregon, etc.

The very last people it will help is the G5. Why? The G5 don't have national draws. Some players would make some money in their regional markets. But they wouldn't make nearly as much as one sporting the uni from one of the national brands.

It's not pay for play like the New York proposal which would actually apportion revenue to all collegiate players in the state from the combined pot of all of the state schools, which would absolutely screw Syracuse and Buffalo.

The best way for the G5 to benefit from any of this is if there is a flat salary cap established for all FBS players. That way their scholarships are as valuable in goods and services and cash as anyone else's would be.

Wrong on that account. Oregon's going to be a major winner as long as Phil Knight's still around. You know Nike's going to try to get a hold of 5* recruits in high school and steer them to Nike U. I've said for a while that any team with an apparel contract with Nike is putting money directly into Oregon's recruiting budget (and it'd be stupid for Pac-12 teams to), and the California proposal would make that exponentially worse.

(10-06-2019 08:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Division III golfer kicked out of the NCAA for....writing a book.

https://www.golf.com/news/features/2019/...hier-ncaa/


"The language in the NCAA’s bylaws has changed slightly since then, but in 2013 I was deemed to have used my athletic ability for commercial gain (only the NCAA’s corporate partners are allowed to profit from said ability). In their defense, I was a college golfer, and the book involved golf."

A ridiculously appropriate example of Bureaucratic intrusion into the aspects of an individual's life in which they should have no oversight, and as an act it is reprehensible.

(10-06-2019 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

Yes, the California model could help close the G5 - P5 gap, especially for the upper crust G5. Too bad many G5 fans can't see it.

I don't think so. The California law is for image usage only. The best players will want to go to the schools with the largest fan base reach and the broadest TV markets because that is where they will be able to monetize the value of their image the best.

So the Cali law will help USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida State and other schools with national draw far more than it would help Clemson, Auburn, Michigan State, U.C.L.A., Oregon, etc.

The very last people it will help is the G5. Why? The G5 don't have national draws. Some players would make some money in their regional markets. But they wouldn't make nearly as much as one sporting the uni from one of the national brands.

It's not pay for play like the New York proposal which would actually apportion revenue to all collegiate players in the state from the combined pot of all of the state schools, which would absolutely screw Syracuse and Buffalo.

The best way for the G5 to benefit from any of this is if there is a flat salary cap established for all FBS players. That way their scholarships are as valuable in goods and services and cash as anyone else's would be.

The traditional drivers of endorsement money may be a minor influence on recruiting behavior, but Im pretty sure traditional endorsement economics arent going to drive this market for the most part. Booster money and emotion is going to drive it. Whoever has the richest, craziest, most committed boosters will benefit the most. It dont think it will matter much that the town where the school is located has the GNP of a lemonade stand---as long as the recruit is getting a crap load of money from a booster (who might be a wealthy booster living in New York or Chicago), the recruit will go where ever the money leads. Be it $50K for a TV commercial---$50K for a signed photo---or $50K to visit a birthday party---its all theoretically image and likeness money.

And you are focusing on the loopholes that are likely to be closed in the law if passed. I'm looking at the legitimate value based on a school's size of national audience that advertiser's will be trying to reach. A million bucks for a signed picture from a wealthy booster is the downside to this kind of law, and while I agree that aspect is there I don't think this law has shot at becoming law unless autographs and the like are omitted and only contracted endorsements remain.

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:32 AM)e-parade Wrote:  Does anything prevent someone who is on an academic scholarship from being in a commercial? From having their picture used in an advertisement and getting reimbursed for it?

If it's within strict limits for the amount of time they can spend doing it, then let them do commercials, pose for pictures, etc. within those time limits. This isn't "the athlete has a full time job" - it's "the athlete spent an hour shooting a commercial and gets compensated every time the commercial airs" (which is fairly standard for actors and spokespeople).

Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They dont want boosters paying players 10K a month to turn the sprinklers on an off. They arent trying to screw over players--they are trying to maintain a competitive balance in the league where everyone is on a relatively similar footing. That said--Im very open to options that share some revenue with players without upsetting the current competitive balance and character of college sports. Unfortunately, this "olympic model" concept being batted about does not do that.

So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

(10-06-2019 02:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 04:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:35 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

So dramatic lol

Poor football players wahhh

It is nice of you to want other people to not make money.

Wouldn't the better option for payment though be through the creation of a minor league or the elimination of the age restriction in the NFL and NBA? I think we are easily dismissing that much of the perceived revenue opportunity stems from the name on the front of the jersey.

That name on the jersey became the name on the jersey through the efforts of generations of unpaid players.

Why don't we let these guys start to have the ability to make money?

(10-06-2019 05:30 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They dont want boosters paying players 10K a month to turn the sprinklers on an off. They arent trying to screw over players--they are trying to maintain a competitive balance in the league where everyone is on a relatively similar footing. That said--Im very open to options that share some revenue with players without upsetting the current competitive balance and character of college sports. Unfortunately, this "olympic model" concept being batted about does not do that.

So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

(10-06-2019 02:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 04:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:35 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

So dramatic lol

Poor football players wahhh

It is nice of you to want other people to not make money.

Wouldn't the better option for payment though be through the creation of a minor league or the elimination of the age restriction in the NFL and NBA? I think we are easily dismissing that much of the perceived revenue opportunity stems from the name on the front of the jersey.

That name on the jersey became the name on the jersey through the efforts of generations of unpaid players.

Why don't we let these guys start to have the ability to make money?

Nope. There will be athletes will be opened up for them to make money illegally. These laws do not help the G5, FCS, 1AAA, D2, D3, NAIA or the have nots in the P5. All the good athletes will go to only the top 15 to 20 schools. These laws by these lawmakers is opening up a can of worms with corruptions by the boosters, the top schools, the top ADs and the top coaches at the elite schools in the P5. The lawmakers are the idiots who do not know all the scandals that takes place. All the NCAA have to show the courts to fight this are all the illegal stuff that they cracked down on from the men's basketball shoe scandals, boosters like that ponzi scammer for Miami Florida, the booster who courted Reggie Bush's parents who got the gifts for him to attend USC and so forth.

(10-06-2019 05:46 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 05:30 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

(10-06-2019 02:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 04:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:35 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  So dramatic lol

Poor football players wahhh

It is nice of you to want other people to not make money.

Wouldn't the better option for payment though be through the creation of a minor league or the elimination of the age restriction in the NFL and NBA? I think we are easily dismissing that much of the perceived revenue opportunity stems from the name on the front of the jersey.

That name on the jersey became the name on the jersey through the efforts of generations of unpaid players.

Why don't we let these guys start to have the ability to make money?

Nope. There will be athletes will be opened up for them to make money illegally. These laws do not help the G5, FCS, 1AAA, D2, D3, NAIA or the have nots in the P5. All the good athletes will go to only the top 15 to 20 schools. These laws by these lawmakers is opening up a can of worms with corruptions by the boosters, the top schools, the top ADs and the top coaches at the elite schools in the P5. The lawmakers are the idiots who do not know all the scandals that takes place. All the NCAA have to show the courts to fight this are all the illegal stuff that they cracked down on from the men's basketball shoe scandals, boosters like that ponzi scammer for Miami Florida, the booster who courted Reggie Bush's parents who got the gifts for him to attend USC and so forth.

Now, now. They can benefit very well by doing a $500 spot for Bill's Tire and Auto for the local 10 o'clock news. This will work for them. Just ignore that we're going to see the Oregon Nikes vs. the Alabama Disneys as a result of this. It's for the better.

(10-06-2019 04:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Regardless of cheating, the imbalance is there, and always has been. It's worse now than ever. This might actually help.

Yes, the California model could help close the G5 - P5 gap, especially for the upper crust G5. Too bad many G5 fans can't see it.

I don't think so. The California law is for image usage only. The best players will want to go to the schools with the largest fan base reach and the broadest TV markets because that is where they will be able to monetize the value of their image the best.

So the Cali law will help USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida State and other schools with national draw far more than it would help Clemson, Auburn, Michigan State, U.C.L.A., Oregon, etc.

The very last people it will help is the G5. Why? The G5 don't have national draws. Some players would make some money in their regional markets. But they wouldn't make nearly as much as one sporting the uni from one of the national brands.

It's not pay for play like the New York proposal which would actually apportion revenue to all collegiate players in the state from the combined pot of all of the state schools, which would absolutely screw Syracuse and Buffalo.

The best way for the G5 to benefit from any of this is if there is a flat salary cap established for all FBS players. That way their scholarships are as valuable in goods and services and cash as anyone else's would be.

The traditional drivers of endorsement money may be a minor influence on recruiting behavior, but Im pretty sure traditional endorsement economics arent going to drive this market for the most part. Booster money and emotion is going to drive it. Whoever has the richest, craziest, most committed boosters will benefit the most. It dont think it will matter much that the town where the school is located has the GNP of a lemonade stand---as long as the recruit is getting a crap load of money from a booster (who might be a wealthy booster living in New York or Chicago), the recruit will go where ever the money leads. Be it $50K for a TV commercial---$50K for a signed photo---or $50K to visit a birthday party---its all theoretically image and likeness money.

And you are focusing on the loopholes that are likely to be closed in the law if passed. I'm looking at the legitimate value based on a school's size of national audience that advertiser's will be trying to reach. A million bucks for a signed picture from a wealthy booster is the downside to this kind of law, and while I agree that aspect is there I don't think this law has shot at becoming law unless autographs and the like are omitted and only contracted endorsements remain.

To be fair, I’m focusing these loopholes because that’s how the law is written and because previous abuse of the system by boosters is why the current seemingly overly restrictive rules exist in the first place. I’d like to think there is way to close the loopholes—but for the life of me—I can’t think of a way to protect legitimate NIL that can’t be abused by those who wish to game the system. Maybe someone more imaginative can come up with a solution. I do know none of the laws proposed to date appear to even consider the issue of booster abuse.