(10-04-2019 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 09:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can already see some kid getting $1 million to do 1 billboard ad or only 1 30 sec TV ad.

OK, let's say you're correct, that there really is no valid name/likeness market for college athletes, so there will be a lot of sham situations where a player gets a wad of cash from a business or booster ostensibly for his likeness, but it's really a recruit signing bonus, or a payment to make sure he doesn't transfer to another school.

So what? If the value in a athlete is that he come to our school and play for us, and him coming is worth $200,000 or whatever to the boosters, why shouldn't he be able to capture that value?

In other words, why shouldn’t we make what SMU got the death penalty for legal? Let me flip the question—if the schools want to have an amateur league with competitive balance where booster don’t have undue influence, why can’t they? To the best of my knowledge—not a single player has ever been forced to play for a school. In fact, these kids show up in droves to camps where they PAY just to be seen by coaches in the hopes they will be recruited. The model has resulted in a successful product that’s been a useful tool for getting many kids an education they may not have received otherwise. Let’s keep in mind that only a tiny percentage of these kids go on to be pro athletes. Most college athletes will make their living off the degree they earn—not their athletic ability.

Yes, IOW's, legalize what SMU got the death penalty for. That often happens as values and societies change. E.g., at one point in our history, people were, under the color of law, burned at the stake for being witches, LOL.

Second, if the kids don't really want to be paid above and beyond the value of their scholarship (which I agree is a form of payment) then it won't be a problem, will it? Kids will gladly turn down the offer of booster money, they will say "sorry pal, I don't need your $25,000, I am very happy with my room and board and tuition and so are all the rest of us who have turned up in droves in hopes of playing for UCF for that and nothing more". So rest easy on that.

Third, remember, the public schools at least do not govern themselves, they are organs of their states, and now, at least one state, California, has said that it doesn't want its schools participating in any "amateur leagues" where players are limited the way you want them to be.

Also, as a G5 fan, maybe you should consider that this could be a big opportunity for UCF/USF/Memphis types that are frozen out by the 'cartel'. If anything can upset a cartel, it is an infusion of money. UCF and Memphis can't compete with Alabama for 5-star athletes because the athletes want to go to the schools with the legacy and prestige and status and *approved* money in the form of big athletic budgets**. UCF and Memphis can't compete on that basis. But if boosters can pay players for endorsements maybe schools like Memphis that have a sugar daddy like Fed Ex, or schools that turn out enormous amounts of graduates like UCF and USF, can raise the money to compete on a more equal footing?

** E.g., see LSU's new locker room for football:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKyG4nq2s4o

Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

I see so many arguments for and against the California law when in the end the whole issue boils down to just one simple question: Is it a good thing to eliminate all restrictions on people with money being able to buy championships for their favorite school by paying "market rate" for the best athletes?

Anyone who thinks this debate is about doing what's best for the kids is fooling themselves. If the restrictions come off then the top 10% of players (possibly fewer) will reap almost all of the financial benefits. The rest will play for schools that are invariably outmatched competitively and in unending danger of losing their fan support. And in the long run many kids will not even have that opportunity as schools lacking a sufficient number of deep-pocket boosters to stock rosters at market rates decide it's not worth competing against semi-pros and choose instead to just eliminate scholarship athletics.