How is the Miami deal different from pay for play - which is still prohibited by the NCAA? You come to Miami, you get $6K. I'm guessing when someone does sue the NCAA over their pay for play prohibition & wins (Kavanaugh has essentially said so), then the new wild west will become full blown 'play for the highest bidder' & college FB-MBB will simply become minor league pro.

(07-09-2021 11:39 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 10:48 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 08:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 01:23 AM)CRM114 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 04:55 PM)Stammers Wrote:  That will work perfectly fine. If the products are good, great; if not, nobody will care. 40 schools generate over $100 million of revenue; which is roughly twice the revenue that we generate. Miami is paying $6,000. For $5 million per year, the heavy hitters can arrange to have every scholarship football and basketball player paid $50,000 per year.

You keep bringing up these 40 schools like there’s about to be some big change in the balance of power. Those schools get the players they really want already in football. Now they can just funnel more money to the 5 stars and do it above board. The big boys, through their boosters’ business or shell companies, will go crazy trying to outbid one another for the blue chippers. They aren’t going to throw the same kind of bucks at the hundreds of 3 star guys that would be warming their benches, nor could they sign them all. Those are the players we’ll be able to pick up, just like today.

As for basketball, you’re talking about a smaller number of players so a school of Memphis’s resources can come up with the deals to pull in a few big names, especially if our boosters care more about basketball than your average “Power 40” school, which they do. How do you think we’ve been able to outfight those schools for top recruits up to now?

While you are right...They can only sign so many.

This combined with the transfer rules makes it easier for them to retain players and attract new players from other schools who cannot pay as much.

So you get a unheralded 3* develop him through a redshirt year and he is successful as a freshman...Are we going to be willing to match the $s.

Let's say our players are being paid $5,000 and a P5 school's players get paid $20,000. Before this, it had to be under the table, discreet and it wasn't legal. You could maybe do it every now and then but you couldn't do it across the board. Now it is legal. We can't make exceptions. We have to settle on an amount and pay everyone the same.

There is no way we can afford to pay the $20,000 and there is no way you can blame the player for leaving.

I don't understand what you are saying in the bold comment. (Granted, I have not read every back-and-forth post in this thread.)

NIL allows each player to structure their own deals. Everyone certainly will not get paid the same. What am I missing?

I think you are right. You aren't missing anything. The Miami deal is just a deal for all players, but that doesn't stop a QB from advertising cars on TV.

We need to start a marketing firm patterned after the injury lawyer's advertising firms. Make a package for QB's, RB's, and so on that gets run in every market. This is an opportunity.

(07-09-2021 11:39 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 10:48 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 08:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 01:23 AM)CRM114 Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 04:55 PM)Stammers Wrote:  That will work perfectly fine. If the products are good, great; if not, nobody will care. 40 schools generate over $100 million of revenue; which is roughly twice the revenue that we generate. Miami is paying $6,000. For $5 million per year, the heavy hitters can arrange to have every scholarship football and basketball player paid $50,000 per year.

You keep bringing up these 40 schools like there’s about to be some big change in the balance of power. Those schools get the players they really want already in football. Now they can just funnel more money to the 5 stars and do it above board. The big boys, through their boosters’ business or shell companies, will go crazy trying to outbid one another for the blue chippers. They aren’t going to throw the same kind of bucks at the hundreds of 3 star guys that would be warming their benches, nor could they sign them all. Those are the players we’ll be able to pick up, just like today.

As for basketball, you’re talking about a smaller number of players so a school of Memphis’s resources can come up with the deals to pull in a few big names, especially if our boosters care more about basketball than your average “Power 40” school, which they do. How do you think we’ve been able to outfight those schools for top recruits up to now?

While you are right...They can only sign so many.

This combined with the transfer rules makes it easier for them to retain players and attract new players from other schools who cannot pay as much.

So you get a unheralded 3* develop him through a redshirt year and he is successful as a freshman...Are we going to be willing to match the $s.

Let's say our players are being paid $5,000 and a P5 school's players get paid $20,000. Before this, it had to be under the table, discreet and it wasn't legal. You could maybe do it every now and then but you couldn't do it across the board. Now it is legal. We can't make exceptions. We have to settle on an amount and pay everyone the same.

There is no way we can afford to pay the $20,000 and there is no way you can blame the player for leaving.

I don't understand what you are saying in the bold comment. (Granted, I have not read every back-and-forth post in this thread.)

NIL allows each player to structure their own deals. Everyone certainly will not get paid the same. What am I missing?

I don't think it works if Wiseman makes $1 million, Precious makes $10,000 and the rest make $3,000 each. I don't think it works if the basketball team makes $10,000 each and the football team makes $3,000 each.

Players for sure will make more than others, but I think there has to be a base that everyone makes if there is going to be team unity. I don't think you can have half the basketball team driving Escallades and most of the football team isn't making anything. I think perception takes a major hit if our basketball team is making $10,000 each, and most of our football team is only making $2,000.

(07-09-2021 12:06 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 11:39 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 10:48 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 08:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 01:23 AM)CRM114 Wrote:  You keep bringing up these 40 schools like there’s about to be some big change in the balance of power. Those schools get the players they really want already in football. Now they can just funnel more money to the 5 stars and do it above board. The big boys, through their boosters’ business or shell companies, will go crazy trying to outbid one another for the blue chippers. They aren’t going to throw the same kind of bucks at the hundreds of 3 star guys that would be warming their benches, nor could they sign them all. Those are the players we’ll be able to pick up, just like today.

As for basketball, you’re talking about a smaller number of players so a school of Memphis’s resources can come up with the deals to pull in a few big names, especially if our boosters care more about basketball than your average “Power 40” school, which they do. How do you think we’ve been able to outfight those schools for top recruits up to now?

While you are right...They can only sign so many.

This combined with the transfer rules makes it easier for them to retain players and attract new players from other schools who cannot pay as much.

So you get a unheralded 3* develop him through a redshirt year and he is successful as a freshman...Are we going to be willing to match the $s.

Let's say our players are being paid $5,000 and a P5 school's players get paid $20,000. Before this, it had to be under the table, discreet and it wasn't legal. You could maybe do it every now and then but you couldn't do it across the board. Now it is legal. We can't make exceptions. We have to settle on an amount and pay everyone the same.

There is no way we can afford to pay the $20,000 and there is no way you can blame the player for leaving.

I don't understand what you are saying in the bold comment. (Granted, I have not read every back-and-forth post in this thread.)

NIL allows each player to structure their own deals. Everyone certainly will not get paid the same. What am I missing?

I think you are right. You aren't missing anything. The Miami deal is just a deal for all players, but that doesn't stop a QB from advertising cars on TV.

He is 100% right. All I'm saying is that the bar has been set at $6,000 for everyone; and that is one booster at one school. Remember the good old days when boosters would get in trouble for buying a meal or paying for a hotel room for players? Now they can legally throw giant parties for them. They can probably pay for vacations for them, lend or lease them sports cars, if not give them to them outright.

(07-09-2021 12:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:06 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 11:39 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 10:48 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 08:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  While you are right...They can only sign so many.

This combined with the transfer rules makes it easier for them to retain players and attract new players from other schools who cannot pay as much.

So you get a unheralded 3* develop him through a redshirt year and he is successful as a freshman...Are we going to be willing to match the $s.

Let's say our players are being paid $5,000 and a P5 school's players get paid $20,000. Before this, it had to be under the table, discreet and it wasn't legal. You could maybe do it every now and then but you couldn't do it across the board. Now it is legal. We can't make exceptions. We have to settle on an amount and pay everyone the same.

There is no way we can afford to pay the $20,000 and there is no way you can blame the player for leaving.

I don't understand what you are saying in the bold comment. (Granted, I have not read every back-and-forth post in this thread.)

NIL allows each player to structure their own deals. Everyone certainly will not get paid the same. What am I missing?

I think you are right. You aren't missing anything. The Miami deal is just a deal for all players, but that doesn't stop a QB from advertising cars on TV.

He is 100% right. All I'm saying is that the bar has been set at $6,000 for everyone; and that is one booster at one school. Remember the good old days when boosters would get in trouble for buying a meal or paying for a hotel room for players? Now they can legally throw giant parties for them. They can probably pay for vacations for them, lend or lease them sports cars, if not give them to them outright.

Cars. Man oh man. Car dealers can hand out leases like popcorn.

(07-09-2021 12:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:06 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 11:39 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 10:48 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-08-2021 08:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  While you are right...They can only sign so many.

This combined with the transfer rules makes it easier for them to retain players and attract new players from other schools who cannot pay as much.

So you get a unheralded 3* develop him through a redshirt year and he is successful as a freshman...Are we going to be willing to match the $s.

Let's say our players are being paid $5,000 and a P5 school's players get paid $20,000. Before this, it had to be under the table, discreet and it wasn't legal. You could maybe do it every now and then but you couldn't do it across the board. Now it is legal. We can't make exceptions. We have to settle on an amount and pay everyone the same.

There is no way we can afford to pay the $20,000 and there is no way you can blame the player for leaving.

I don't understand what you are saying in the bold comment. (Granted, I have not read every back-and-forth post in this thread.)

NIL allows each player to structure their own deals. Everyone certainly will not get paid the same. What am I missing?

I think you are right. You aren't missing anything. The Miami deal is just a deal for all players, but that doesn't stop a QB from advertising cars on TV.

He is 100% right. All I'm saying is that the bar has been set at $6,000 for everyone; and that is one booster at one school. Remember the good old days when boosters would get in trouble for buying a meal or paying for a hotel room for players? Now they can legally throw giant parties for them. They can probably pay for vacations for them, lend or lease them sports cars, if not give them to them outright.

Shapiro at Miami was just a little ahead of his time...

I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

(07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.

(07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.

For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).

And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.

But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.

EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.

OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.

But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.

(07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.

For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).

And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.

But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.

EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.

OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.

But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.

That is the key phrase. What is the market value though? This is literally an unprecedented market. Isn't market rate whatever I am willing to pay as a business owner because I believe there will be a return on value? And wont every school theoretically have a different market value for their players? Ala, DeAndre Williams has a much higher market value at Memphis than he had at Evansville despite being the exact same player.

All I am pointing out is that you are technically correct but "market value" is completely undefined and we are creating a brand new market so there is absolutely no standard to base "market value" off of. It will be impossible for the NCAA to regulate or legislate this. They have opened Pandora's box and there is no closing the lid back...

(07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.

For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).

And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.

But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.

EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.

OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.

But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.

Don't disagree there should be some controlled means of additional compensation for athletes but I can't forget that these athletes already get paid tuition, books, room & board, health care, tutors, limited per diem, and leading edge training in their current vocation. That's probably worth $100K+ annually at Memphis, $200K+ at some other schools like Duke. That alone gives these athletes an excellent education & experience that can give them a head start for a lucrative career in coaching or sports marketing with no additional compensation. So let's not forget we are really talking about additional direct compensation to the athletes. What exactly is a market rate for the stars? And should the bench guys get anything else, considering this is market driven?

(07-09-2021 03:37 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.

For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).

And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.

But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.

EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.

OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.

But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.

That is the key phrase. What is the market value though? This is literally an unprecedented market. Isn't market rate whatever I am willing to pay as a business owner because I believe there will be a return on value? And wont every school theoretically have a different market value for their players? Ala, DeAndre Williams has a much higher market value at Memphis than he had at Evansville despite being the exact same player.

All I am pointing out is that you are technically correct but "market value" is completely undefined and we are creating a brand new market so there is absolutely no standard to base "market value" off of. It will be impossible for the NCAA to regulate or legislate this. They have opened Pandora's box and there is no closing the lid back...

Not true. No player is performing an act that hasn't been done before. It isn't based on the player. It's based on the act. If some local celebrity did a local car ad and got paid $500 for a 30-second spot, you can't pay the football player $20,000 to do the same thing. You also can't pay the QB more for doing the same thing as an OL.

I do agree market value is local. You can likely earn more money for a car spot in California than you can in Memphis. Again, people have done those before. Both places.

I also agree that it will be hard to regulate, but the courts don't see that as a reason not to allow the players to earn money.

Put it another way. Why is it okay for any other student to have a part time job, but not an athlete on scholarship? Until now, you couldn't even buy a kid a hot dog, much less offer him pay for a legit job.

(07-09-2021 04:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 03:37 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.

For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).

And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.

But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.

EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.

OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.

But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.

That is the key phrase. What is the market value though? This is literally an unprecedented market. Isn't market rate whatever I am willing to pay as a business owner because I believe there will be a return on value? And wont every school theoretically have a different market value for their players? Ala, DeAndre Williams has a much higher market value at Memphis than he had at Evansville despite being the exact same player.

All I am pointing out is that you are technically correct but "market value" is completely undefined and we are creating a brand new market so there is absolutely no standard to base "market value" off of. It will be impossible for the NCAA to regulate or legislate this. They have opened Pandora's box and there is no closing the lid back...

Not true. No player is performing an act that hasn't been done before. It isn't based on the player. It's based on the act. If some local celebrity did a local car ad and got paid $500 for a 30-second spot, you can't pay the football player $20,000 to do the same thing. You also can't pay the QB more for doing the same thing as an OL.

I do agree market value is local. You can likely earn more money for a car spot in California than you can in Memphis. Again, people have done those before. Both places.

I also agree that it will be hard to regulate, but the courts don't see that as a reason not to allow the players to earn money.

Put it another way. Why is it okay for any other student to have a part time job, but not an athlete on scholarship? Until now, you couldn't even buy a kid a hot dog, much less offer him pay for a legit job.

Of COURSE you can pay the QB more than the OL, because the real minimum wage is zero. You just hire the quarterback for an endorsement, not the center. The starting quarterback's name is different from the offensive linemen's names, so the fair market value is different.

(07-09-2021 03:55 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.

For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).

And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.

But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.

EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.

OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.

But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.

Don't disagree there should be some controlled means of additional compensation for athletes but I can't forget that these athletes already get paid tuition, books, room & board, health care, tutors, limited per diem, and leading edge training in their current vocation. That's probably worth $100K+ annually at Memphis, $200K+ at some other schools like Duke. That alone gives these athletes an excellent education & experience that can give them a head start for a lucrative career in coaching or sports marketing with no additional compensation. So let's not forget we are really talking about additional direct compensation to the athletes. What exactly is a market rate for the stars? And should the bench guys get anything else, considering this is market driven?

That battle about a scholarship being substantial was lost in the courts a long time ago, with the O'Bannon case.

And market is driven by payments for like work, not by individuals. Where that comes into play is the star is likely to get more gigs, but he has to be paid the same as anybody else doing the same work.

(07-09-2021 05:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 03:55 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.

For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).

And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.

But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.

EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.

OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.

But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.

Don't disagree there should be some controlled means of additional compensation for athletes but I can't forget that these athletes already get paid tuition, books, room & board, health care, tutors, limited per diem, and leading edge training in their current vocation. That's probably worth $100K+ annually at Memphis, $200K+ at some other schools like Duke. That alone gives these athletes an excellent education & experience that can give them a head start for a lucrative career in coaching or sports marketing with no additional compensation. So let's not forget we are really talking about additional direct compensation to the athletes. What exactly is a market rate for the stars? And should the bench guys get anything else, considering this is market driven?

That battle about a scholarship being substantial was lost in the courts a long time ago, with the O'Bannon case.

And market is driven by payments for like work, not by individuals. Where that comes into play is the star is likely to get more gigs, but he has to be paid the same as anybody else doing the same work.

I’m going to pay the starting QB whatever I want to advertise my hot dog brand. There’s no “like work” if I don’t hire any other athletes to sell my hot dogs.

(07-09-2021 05:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 03:55 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 01:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I know there is some debate on this, and I know a few states have laws that don't address it, so it might be the wild west in those states, but the NCAA guidelines (which currently apply to 43 states) require a quid pro quo at market value. Otherwise, it is labeled a recruiting inducement, which is still against the rules, although later laws or court rulings may run it over.

But for now, a booster cannot just hand out car leases like popcorn, for example. In most states. The few with laws already on the books, some of them don't spell it out, so it could be challenged, but the NCAA spells it out clearly.

P.S. I'm not getting into any stupid debates with name calling. If you don't believe what I think I read, fine. Doesn't bother me. And no, I don't save links for everything I read, but that's my belief.

You slap a wrap on the car with Miami Football drives Rusty Wallace Toyotas and your done. Have individual supporters pay for the lease and insurance. Do a TV ad or two showing all those cars parked next to each other. Have a special lease return sale where you buy back a players car. This is very doable.

For now, the NCAA gets to define that, not the courts. We both know that's an inducement, not a real ad campaign. I'm sure something like that would be a battle. All those 100 football players or so theoretically have to appear in ads or do other typical work at going market rates. Otherwise, it can be challenged by the NCAA (if they have the heart).

And yes, I imagine someone will try almost anything.

But to state definitively one way or the other now things will go, seems to be jumping the gun, until this shakes out a bit more. Our opinions vary. Just my two cents.

EDIT: I agree this thing will be a mess until somebody brings a sense of order to it, probably by federal law at some point, or at least by court rulings. It's a mess b/c the NCAA can't manage anything well, they waited too long to put out guidelines, we have no federal law, and we have lots of different state laws in different states of flux.

OTOH, do you guys prefer that, in the 2 sports where the billions are generated, that the NCAA and universities keep all of it, as opposed to somehow compensating players at some level? That seems a lot more odd to me than letting players earn money on their NIL, which the courts have ruled is legal, even if some boosters will move to break the spirit of the guidelines. Hell, they do that now under the table, and nobody much complained before.

But college sports stopped being "amateur" when the NCAA and the universities started hauling in billions. They just tried not to share, but as Kavanaugh pointed out, that's against anti-trust laws in this country.

Don't disagree there should be some controlled means of additional compensation for athletes but I can't forget that these athletes already get paid tuition, books, room & board, health care, tutors, limited per diem, and leading edge training in their current vocation. That's probably worth $100K+ annually at Memphis, $200K+ at some other schools like Duke. That alone gives these athletes an excellent education & experience that can give them a head start for a lucrative career in coaching or sports marketing with no additional compensation. So let's not forget we are really talking about additional direct compensation to the athletes. What exactly is a market rate for the stars? And should the bench guys get anything else, considering this is market driven?

That battle about a scholarship being substantial was lost in the courts a long time ago, with the O'Bannon case.

And market is driven by payments for like work, not by individuals. Where that comes into play is the star is likely to get more gigs, but he has to be paid the same as anybody else doing the same work.

Generally speaking only the stars get the gigs, as you say, or maybe get a better rate of pay for an endorsement based upon their performance in the pros. Don't see many linemen or 2nd-3rd stringers getting endorsement deals at all in the pros. So in that sense, it is payments based upon performance, right?

If there are three mutually exclusive offers to a player, then that would establish the highest offer as market value - unless there was collusion among the bidders.

Is this the right time to start talking some sort of 'salary cap' that players could earn?
Otherwise, this could get really ugly soon.

Another thought...what's to stop players from forming unions...to share in tv rights or video games? The NCAA is in for a world of hurt.