(09-27-2017 09:56 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I would rather the schools just give the kids a stipend and be done with it. Just publicize the amount - and get the middle men out of the game.

An SEC program can give $30k, an American/A10/Big East program maybe like $15k, and a MAAC program maybe $2-3k. Let's just do this above board and regulate it.

Shady boosters and agents etc would still slip them more money to go to a certain school. You give a kid 30K a year and a booster gives him an extra 100k to go to school x over school y. Also how do you get around Title IX? Paying just male athletes is pretty illegal.

(09-28-2017 10:43 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My primary concern with deterring the shoe companies is that there are so few of them. It would be way too easy for them to affect the competitive balance of college athletics if they decided to do so.

The shoe companies already affect the competitive balance of college basketball.

Look at the programs that get a steady stream of elite recruits. Would some, most, or all of those recruits go elsewhere if not for the shoe money? If there was no money changing hands at all, would we see so many 5-star recruits playing college hoops (at least for one season) 2,000 miles from their high school?

At least two of the programs mentioned in the federal investigation hired an assistant coach within the past few years who has strong connections to the shoe money. We already knew the shoe companies have a hand in head coaching moves, e.g., many head coaches with Nike connections who move to a new school will only move to a school also signed up with Nike.

I understand. What I'm saying is that they currently have to do it behind closed doors. If we deregulated endorsement money then they could do it openly and I think the effects would be magnified.

If we deregulate endorsement money then we also should counterbalance that with a way to deter the shoe companies from getting too deeply involved with the athletes. That was my proposal.

Their involvement with coaches is another matter though. Coaches are purely professional so there's no way to regulate that contact and I can't say that there should be.

I don't have a problem with that, but as far as shoe money flowing to the schools, I think that the genie is out of the bottle. Louisville's new deal with adidas (if it's not cancelled because of legal fallout) is worth $16 million/year to Louisville, which is $7 million/year more than the shoe/apparel deal for any other ACC program. There are a few other schools whose deals are far ahead of their conference peers. I don't see Texas sharing 90% of its Nike money with the rest of the Big 12, or Ohio State giving 13/14 of its Nike revenue up to conference mates whose own deals are only a small fraction of what the Buckeyes get.

This scandal may actually reinforce amateurism.

Nike, Adidas, UA, want these kids wearing their apparel. If you scrap amateurism the net result is each company will blow off this business of competing to align with enough schools to insure they are covering the best players.

With amateurism gone the player is free to sign the outside contract and why would Nike invest in 44 NCAA Tournament bound schools out of 68? Put your money into 4 to 8 regional schools with national appeal. Place your wager (investment) on 50 to 100 prospects work with them and the coaches to place them in the 4 to 8 schools based on their preferences and have your super teams in the NCAA tournament facing the Adidas and UA super teams.

If your favorite school isn't a top 10 brand just accept you won't win the NCAA tournament and you probably will never see your team in the Final Four.

Or just go sponsor the D now G League with the understanding that anyone who has completed high school is eligible to sign and while the NBA might not pay the kid much to play in the G League, he can get a shoe deal. If a probable one and done is worth $100,000 or $150,000 to sign with an affiliated school, why not cut the kid that check and send him on to the G League with a four year sponsorship deal.

Why don't we just call football and men's basketball what they really are--a marketing wing of the institutions they represent. Take them out of the athletic departments and stop counting their participation towards title IX. Their compensation package can include student housing, tuition, and a stipend. They can be free to pursue any entrepreneurial pursuits they wanted. Athletes at major programs have moved beyond the amateur model.

There would probably have to be a new divisional structure for programs who had the means to move to this model to participate in--for football we are probably talking the Power 5, AAC, and MWC. basketball would include some more. One stipulation would have to be that once you signed with one of these programs and recieved a stipend athletes would lose their eligibility to play in a traditional, amateur collegiate athletic program.

(09-28-2017 01:31 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 09:56 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I would rather the schools just give the kids a stipend and be done with it. Just publicize the amount - and get the middle men out of the game.

An SEC program can give $30k, an American/A10/Big East program maybe like $15k, and a MAAC program maybe $2-3k. Let's just do this above board and regulate it.

Shady boosters and agents etc would still slip them more money to go to a certain school. You give a kid 30K a year and a booster gives him an extra 100k to go to school x over school y. Also how do you get around Title IX? Paying just male athletes is pretty illegal.

Hmm.

We could just make them employees, with a salary/tuition support/benefits. They could be hired/transfer/fired at-will. They could be students as well, but that's a decision the athlete would make.

Perhaps market forces should dictate the wage.