(10-03-2019 04:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.

Honestly, based on actual real world economics almost no college athletes are worth endorsement dollars. NFL players are far more well known and popular than college players---yet only a handful of NFL players per team have endorsement deals. The vast majority of NFL players do not. So college football, that has about 10% of the ratings of the NFL, is unlikley to have many players at all that could attract endorsement deals that actually make economic sense for a corporate entity or business. Additionally, part of the risk of a player endorsement deal is that the player will do something that attracts negative attention. The risk of something like that occurring a deal with a 28 year old NFL player is moderately high---but its exponentially higher with a 19 year old kid just barely out of high school. There would certainly be ZERO real world endorsement value for a high school recruit thats never even played a college game or ever appeared on television.

Thus any endorsement deals given to recruits would basically be enticements to come play for the school (pay for play) and not actually "endorsements". Thats why the olympic model wont work in college sports. Its a different world.

As Triple A said, endorsements are likely to be local, and those can be very real. E.g., I can assure you that when an LSU player is a big star, like QB Joe Burrow is right now, there are plenty of local businesses that would like to have him do a TV commercial for them. That celebrity is Real.

Also, big time college athletics is Big Time. I daresay that in late 2012, Johnny Manziel was a LOT more well known than the average NFL player. Jameis Winston was the next year as well, and Baker Mayfield was two years ago. Last year, Zion was a LOT more well known than the typical NBA player. For several months last winter, Zion was getting almost as many mentions on SportsCenter as LeBron. There were probably only 15 - 20 NBA players with greater celebrity status. Again, it's a small number, but the celebrity is real.

I think people are still vastly overestimating the real world economic value of these players. Johnny Manziel was a hugely well known college player who played for a school that routinely packs 100K into their stadium. Sports business writer Kristi Dosh just tweeted that in 2012-2013, at the height of "Johnny Football" fever---Texas A&M made just $59,690 on jersey sales. Thats not just Johnny Manziel jersey sales---that ALL jersey sales for that year. That just confirms my suspicion that this is just going to be pay for play with a third party footing the bill. Its essentially legalizing what SMU got the death penalty for. My guess is a lot of it will be one-time lump sum payments cloaked as "appearance" fees.

I disagree, I think Manziel could have made a lot of money off endorsements during his run of Heisman year fame.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct on both counts: First, there really is very little actual market for endorsements by college athletes, but second, there still WILL be a ton of money thrown at players by boosters and businesses cloaked as name/likeness money but in reality it is pay-for-play money of the kind SMU was offering. A car dealership tells a big recruit "come to Alabama and we'll put your face on these billboards, and you'll get $5,000 a month spending cash and momma gets a new car".

So what? If a 5-star recruit is worth $150,000 to Alabama to sign him, because Coach Saban says he really needs him, and because it keeps him from going to Auburn or Clemson, why shouldn't he get that $150,000? And better from a business so as to keep the school out of the picture (hence no Title IX and other regulatory headaches).

Heck, this might even have the "level playing field" impact that G5 fans have always wanted. A school like Temple can't compete for a top recruit on prestige and legacy and name brand value with a Penn State, but if Temple happens to have a billionaire alumnus, they might be able to throw more money at him and lure the kid away. Even in Florida, schools like UCF and USF are short on the current coin of the realm - history and legacy and prestige - but we do churn out gobs and gobs of graduates, many making good money and hungry to see us reach parity with the P5 powers, which means we might have the money to compete with the Miamis and FSUs and Floridas if a "wild west" scenario develops. Memphis has shamelessly tried yo buy its way in to conferences via FedEx, so they could presumably help pay big money for recruits.

There's no easy way to overcome a legacy/prestige/conference affiliation disadvantage, as those things take decades to build. And that's basically the difference between a Florida and a UCF. But if money enters the fray, that could be a game-changer.

Really, a Wild West free for all could be the one thing that busts up the "cartel" as G5 fans call it. It could hardly make things worse.