Not hard to imagine a scenario where a P5 recruiting pitch includes something like this:

"Sign with us, we have contracts in place with other 50 businesses to supply players for marketing and advertising events. We can guarantee you an extra 10,000 year as a roster member, $50,000 year as a starter, and $100,000 year as a returning all conference player"

Once you say the players can profit from their fame, what's to keep the schools from serving as the go between or at least steering the players to the "right places". What's too keep a booster that owns a business from simply paying players to appear in worthless or over-priced advertisements as a way to lure blue chip recruits. Is the NCAA going to regulate intent and fair market value and what's compensation versus a "signing bonus"?

Are schools in small media markets being placed at a disadvantage? Are kids going to pick schools based on their in-house media relations department and ability to funnel gigs to players?

Colleges like W&M won't have to worry about lucrative endorsements for it's student-athletes. This will tremendously widen the gap between the big conferences and the rest of college athletics and eventually force even some schools in the Big Five to reassess
their programs. I doubt that Vanderbilt players will approach the huge endorsement fees a player at Georgia will receive.

(11-12-2019 12:14 AM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  Not hard to imagine a scenario where a P5 recruiting pitch includes something like this:

"Sign with us, we have contracts in place with other 50 businesses to supply players for marketing and advertising events. We can guarantee you an extra 10,000 year as a roster member, $50,000 year as a starter, and $100,000 year as a returning all conference player"

Once you say the players can profit from their fame, what's to keep the schools from serving as the go between or at least steering the players to the "right places". What's too keep a booster that owns a business from simply paying players to appear in worthless or over-priced advertisements as a way to lure blue chip recruits. Is the NCAA going to regulate intent and fair market value and what's compensation versus a "signing bonus"?

Are schools in small media markets being placed at a disadvantage? Are kids going to pick schools based on their in-house media relations department and ability to funnel gigs to players?

Yes to all of this, but the problem is mostly that the NCAA spent all their time trying to keep the money they make away from the students and schools instead of getting out in front of this 15-20 years ago. Good solutions take time, and instead of figuring them out the NCAA kept their fingers in their ears anytime someone brought it up. The biggest difference is that the students might benefit at the expense of schools this time.

and then there's the part about how much time do these "student" athletes spend on marketing themselves vs. practice/training/games vs. studying and going to class. Pandora's box open IMO. How do you think a freshman hoops player at Duke is going to spend their second semester if they know they are going pro?

(11-12-2019 10:40 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  How do you think a freshman hoops player at Duke is going to spend their second semester if they know they are going pro?

Probably spend it the same way they do now. Let's not kid ourselves that NBA minded kids declaring early are focused on finishing the semester strong. They are working out and marketing. If making some marketing revenue is their goal, lottery picks aren't going to need to recruit business opportunities.

(11-12-2019 10:46 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:40 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  How do you think a freshman hoops player at Duke is going to spend their second semester if they know they are going pro?

Probably spend it the same way they do now. Let's not kid ourselves that NBA minded kids declaring early are focused on finishing the semester strong. They are working out and marketing. If making some marketing revenue is their goal, lottery picks aren't going to need to recruit business opportunities.

So my nuance wasn't clear. Take Zion Williamson. How much time would he spend on the marketing stuff as opposed to playing. Would he have even tried to come back for the tournament or would he have been spending more time on his own brand?

(11-12-2019 10:55 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:46 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:40 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  How do you think a freshman hoops player at Duke is going to spend their second semester if they know they are going pro?

Probably spend it the same way they do now. Let's not kid ourselves that NBA minded kids declaring early are focused on finishing the semester strong. They are working out and marketing. If making some marketing revenue is their goal, lottery picks aren't going to need to recruit business opportunities.

So my nuance wasn't clear. Take Zion Williamson. How much time would he spend on the marketing stuff as opposed to playing. Would he have even tried to come back for the tournament or would he have been spending more time on his own brand?

I think it's case by case. A consensus #1 pick may be hurt less than a player trying to up their stock. I also think having a strong tournament is marketing his brand. Think about the negative PR when a player skips an end of Year tourney or bowl game. I think it would hurt the brand. We think the transfer portal is a problem now. Just wait until their is real money being thrown around. You'd be a fool to stick with a midmajor if you can generate a serious income at a P5. I wouldn't be suprised if there is someone at those schools that functions as an unofficial marketing manager matching up players to paying gigs.

Like I said.....Pandora's box. It will change everything forever.

(11-12-2019 09:07 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:14 AM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  Not hard to imagine a scenario where a P5 recruiting pitch includes something like this:

"Sign with us, we have contracts in place with other 50 businesses to supply players for marketing and advertising events. We can guarantee you an extra 10,000 year as a roster member, $50,000 year as a starter, and $100,000 year as a returning all conference player"

Once you say the players can profit from their fame, what's to keep the schools from serving as the go between or at least steering the players to the "right places". What's too keep a booster that owns a business from simply paying players to appear in worthless or over-priced advertisements as a way to lure blue chip recruits. Is the NCAA going to regulate intent and fair market value and what's compensation versus a "signing bonus"?

Are schools in small media markets being placed at a disadvantage? Are kids going to pick schools based on their in-house media relations department and ability to funnel gigs to players?

Yes to all of this, but the problem is mostly that the NCAA spent all their time trying to keep the money they make away from the students and schools instead of getting out in front of this 15-20 years ago. Good solutions take time, and instead of figuring them out the NCAA kept their fingers in their ears anytime someone brought it up. The biggest difference is that the students might benefit at the expense of schools this time.

Good point TITB, I agree. NCAA should have stepped in 20 years ago and had each incoming college athlete fill out an NCAA financial aide need form, similar to the FAFSA form. The NCAA could have directly subsidized athletic scholarships to cover costs for things such as travel home, gas and car insurance, laundry, haircuts, etc. based on a financial need formula. Instead, well intentioned folks are going to blow up college athletics and any pretense of a level playing field . Of course this "solution" will only help athletes at the top DI schools and do nothing for FCS, DII and DIII athletes also struggling to make ends meet while going to school and pursuing their athletic dreams. It's sad and they'll be no going back.

(11-12-2019 06:26 AM)bubbadog57 Wrote:  Colleges like W&M won't have to worry about lucrative endorsements for it's student-athletes. This will tremendously widen the gap between the big conferences and the rest of college athletics and eventually force even some schools in the Big Five to reassess
their programs. I doubt that Vanderbilt players will approach the huge endorsement fees a player at Georgia will receive.

Vanderbilt already can't hang with Georgia on the recruiting trail. They don't care. I agree it will widen the gap between conferences, but I think the Vanderbilts and Northwesterns of the world will continue to be thrilled to let the UGAs and Ohio States of the world do the dirty work while they cash their membership checks.

I think the real losers are the non-revenue sports. Maybe a college scholarship is underpaying some football and basketball players, but it's almost certainly overpaying, say, a lot of swimmers. The closer we move to a true market, the closer I think we get to a world where athletic departments are funding only football, men's basketball, and the women's sports necessary to satisfy Title IX.

(11-12-2019 12:53 PM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 09:07 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:14 AM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  Not hard to imagine a scenario where a P5 recruiting pitch includes something like this:

"Sign with us, we have contracts in place with other 50 businesses to supply players for marketing and advertising events. We can guarantee you an extra 10,000 year as a roster member, $50,000 year as a starter, and $100,000 year as a returning all conference player"

Once you say the players can profit from their fame, what's to keep the schools from serving as the go between or at least steering the players to the "right places". What's too keep a booster that owns a business from simply paying players to appear in worthless or over-priced advertisements as a way to lure blue chip recruits. Is the NCAA going to regulate intent and fair market value and what's compensation versus a "signing bonus"?

Are schools in small media markets being placed at a disadvantage? Are kids going to pick schools based on their in-house media relations department and ability to funnel gigs to players?

Yes to all of this, but the problem is mostly that the NCAA spent all their time trying to keep the money they make away from the students and schools instead of getting out in front of this 15-20 years ago. Good solutions take time, and instead of figuring them out the NCAA kept their fingers in their ears anytime someone brought it up. The biggest difference is that the students might benefit at the expense of schools this time.

Good point TITB, I agree. NCAA should have stepped in 20 years ago and had each incoming college athlete fill out an NCAA financial aide need form, similar to the FAFSA form. The NCAA could have directly subsidized athletic scholarships to cover costs for things such as travel home, gas and car insurance, laundry, haircuts, etc. based on a financial need formula. Instead, well intentioned folks are going to blow up college athletics and any pretense of a level playing field . Of course this "solution" will only help athletes at the top DI schools and do nothing for FCS, DII and DIII athletes also struggling to make ends meet while going to school and pursuing their athletic dreams. It's sad and they'll be no going back.

Maybe boosters blow up college sports, but I think it's too obvious to be allowed to happen. I don't know how it'll be prevented, but I suspect there will be something written in the next two years that will be in direct response to the laws being passed.

Ramping up to a federal debate
https://www.si.com/college/2020/04/27/nc...e-congress

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...sation-law

"They encouraged federal lawmakers not to wait for the NCAA process to play out before passing a national law that would set parameters for college athletes to be compensated for use of their names, images and likenesses (NIL)."

P5 stomping all over the NCAA here.

US Supreme Court agrees to hear NCAA's appeal from lower court ruling striking down across the board limits on D1 athletes' compensation: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2...mpensation

Just heard about this startup US Bball Pro league with education somehow tied into business. Supposedly to challenge the NCAA "business" model.
https://thepcleague.com/

"The PCL provides college basketball players a US-based basketball opportunity built around education and compensation.

The inaugural season will feature teams in 8 cities: Atlanta, GA; Baltimore, MD; Charlotte, NC; Norfolk, VA; Philadelphia, PA; Raleigh, NC; Richmond, VA; Washington, DC.

To participate in the PCL, players will be required to attend a university, junior college, or technical school (4-year or 2-year) in the city that they play or an accredited online program."

Summertime league to avoid conflict with classes.

I think this idea is wonderful. It may be the exact solution for the most elite high school players who really want to play hoops for money and still get a degree.

very interesting to see how / if it is able to develop. Not sure why the restrictions on school location if the league is in the summer?

(11-12-2019 09:07 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:14 AM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  Not hard to imagine a scenario where a P5 recruiting pitch includes something like this:

"Sign with us, we have contracts in place with other 50 businesses to supply players for marketing and advertising events. We can guarantee you an extra 10,000 year as a roster member, $50,000 year as a starter, and $100,000 year as a returning all conference player"

Once you say the players can profit from their fame, what's to keep the schools from serving as the go between or at least steering the players to the "right places". What's too keep a booster that owns a business from simply paying players to appear in worthless or over-priced advertisements as a way to lure blue chip recruits. Is the NCAA going to regulate intent and fair market value and what's compensation versus a "signing bonus"?

Are schools in small media markets being placed at a disadvantage? Are kids going to pick schools based on their in-house media relations department and ability to funnel gigs to players?

Yes to all of this, but the problem is mostly that the NCAA spent all their time trying to keep the money they make away from the students and schools instead of getting out in front of this 15-20 years ago. Good solutions take time, and instead of figuring them out the NCAA kept their fingers in their ears anytime someone brought it up. The biggest difference is that the students might benefit at the expense of schools this time.

Harmful side effects of the pay for play movement detailed by one former student athlete...

https://theundefeated.com/features/colle...s-to-play/

(03-21-2021 10:06 AM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 09:07 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:14 AM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  Not hard to imagine a scenario where a P5 recruiting pitch includes something like this:

"Sign with us, we have contracts in place with other 50 businesses to supply players for marketing and advertising events. We can guarantee you an extra 10,000 year as a roster member, $50,000 year as a starter, and $100,000 year as a returning all conference player"

Once you say the players can profit from their fame, what's to keep the schools from serving as the go between or at least steering the players to the "right places". What's too keep a booster that owns a business from simply paying players to appear in worthless or over-priced advertisements as a way to lure blue chip recruits. Is the NCAA going to regulate intent and fair market value and what's compensation versus a "signing bonus"?

Are schools in small media markets being placed at a disadvantage? Are kids going to pick schools based on their in-house media relations department and ability to funnel gigs to players?

Yes to all of this, but the problem is mostly that the NCAA spent all their time trying to keep the money they make away from the students and schools instead of getting out in front of this 15-20 years ago. Good solutions take time, and instead of figuring them out the NCAA kept their fingers in their ears anytime someone brought it up. The biggest difference is that the students might benefit at the expense of schools this time.

Harmful side effects of the pay for play movement detailed by one former student athlete...

https://theundefeated.com/features/colle...s-to-play/

It's a strawman article, assuming that paying the athletes is unlimited and would result in arms races like the boosters of yore. That's not the case that's being made by the proponents of paying the athletes. I don't know how an article like that gets published, unless it's a favor to the NCAA.

(03-21-2021 10:33 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 10:06 AM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 09:07 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:14 AM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  Not hard to imagine a scenario where a P5 recruiting pitch includes something like this:

"Sign with us, we have contracts in place with other 50 businesses to supply players for marketing and advertising events. We can guarantee you an extra 10,000 year as a roster member, $50,000 year as a starter, and $100,000 year as a returning all conference player"

Once you say the players can profit from their fame, what's to keep the schools from serving as the go between or at least steering the players to the "right places". What's too keep a booster that owns a business from simply paying players to appear in worthless or over-priced advertisements as a way to lure blue chip recruits. Is the NCAA going to regulate intent and fair market value and what's compensation versus a "signing bonus"?

Are schools in small media markets being placed at a disadvantage? Are kids going to pick schools based on their in-house media relations department and ability to funnel gigs to players?

Yes to all of this, but the problem is mostly that the NCAA spent all their time trying to keep the money they make away from the students and schools instead of getting out in front of this 15-20 years ago. Good solutions take time, and instead of figuring them out the NCAA kept their fingers in their ears anytime someone brought it up. The biggest difference is that the students might benefit at the expense of schools this time.

Harmful side effects of the pay for play movement detailed by one former student athlete...

https://theundefeated.com/features/colle...s-to-play/

It's a strawman article, assuming that paying the athletes is unlimited and would result in arms races like the boosters of yore. That's not the case that's being made by the proponents of paying the athletes. I don't know how an article like that gets published, unless it's a favor to the NCAA.

Am unsympathetic to Mr. Emmert at $2.7M/yr and the other nine NCAA execs making more than $500K/yr. Do not, however, think the articles on the other side of this topic reflect the NCAA calling in favors.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/...-the-glass