(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.