Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #61
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(05-04-2018 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What would payroll be collegiate semi-pro football?

Are colleges really going to be willing to eschew all traces of amateurism and strike out with a bold new plan like this?

In the South you could concievably have a a fall amateur season and then in spring hold a semi-pro, 10 week season where seniors, underclassmen declaring for the draft, and alums playing.

The trouble with previous start up leagues is finding a fan base but if the teams were directly tied to major universities with big fan bases the fans are already built in. Finding fans for a Birmingham XFL or AAF team might be a challenge but if you put that team in Crimson I think you pick up a substantial following. Eventually you might see a shift to where fans care more about the spring league than the fall league and the top H.S. players skip he amateur team and go straight to semi-pro.

Also, they are closer to being student-athletes than they were a generation ago. You can't get somebody through now who can't read like Dexter Manley. NCAA minimums exist.

You can get a star athlete into college who acquired his HS diploma a year early by taking lightly-regulated online courses, and then, if he's a basketball player, all that same athlete has to do is stay barely eligible for one semester before turning pro after March Madness.

Also, maybe other schools don't have an institutionalized easy path for athletes that is quite as egregious as what was uncovered at North Carolina, but IMO it's very likely that many other schools have their own easy path for athletes to stay eligible for 3 or 4 years, even if it stays a little or a lot closer to a legitimate college curriculum than UNC's path did.

So I'm still going to roll my eyes when Mark Emmert or some conference commissioner uses the phrase "student-athlete" two or three times in each sentence.

With the available rules for most regular students being utilized (including academic probation) by athletes as well just about any kind of a recruit can stay in school and play for a year, particularly in football where the semester starts in the Fall. Toss in enough crip courses and keep the course load to a minimum and two years is easily doable by simply keeping the gpa up and it doesn't mean a darn thing about how well the kid can perform in the classroom. The third year is the toughest to get by. That's when tutors basically drill test questions into their heads. Some actually don't make that cut and the fact that they don't make it is astounding considering what they are taking and how much help they have at their disposal.

So no, I'm not buying the "student-athlete" moniker at all. It's all fan fiction to believe that the bulk of these kids are getting it done in the classroom. As with Auburn basketball this year we had 1 kid (Mclemore) who passed admission at M.I.T.. Those kids can go anywhere, play anywhere, and still succeed. But that's 1 in 500 maybe. Then you have those who can play and remain average or slightly above in the classroom. That's maybe 1 in 50. The rest, not so much, and then the blame is at the high school level where they were permitted to slide in order to please the local touchdown and hoops clubs.

I don't know the current data but it used to be the hardest athletes to keep academically eligible were men's basketball, track and field (men and women), women's hoops, and football in that order.

With 85 rides in football you always end up with a decent number of serious students. It's rare to have a good offensive lineman, punter, placekicker, or QB with academic issues.

The other sports having academic issues is unusual.
05-05-2018 01:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #62
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(05-04-2018 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What would payroll be collegiate semi-pro football?

Are colleges really going to be willing to eschew all traces of amateurism and strike out with a bold new plan like this?

In the South you could concievably have a a fall amateur season and then in spring hold a semi-pro, 10 week season where seniors, underclassmen declaring for the draft, and alums playing.

The trouble with previous start up leagues is finding a fan base but if the teams were directly tied to major universities with big fan bases the fans are already built in. Finding fans for a Birmingham XFL or AAF team might be a challenge but if you put that team in Crimson I think you pick up a substantial following. Eventually you might see a shift to where fans care more about the spring league than the fall league and the top H.S. players skip he amateur team and go straight to semi-pro.

Also, they are closer to being student-athletes than they were a generation ago. You can't get somebody through now who can't read like Dexter Manley. NCAA minimums exist.

You can get a star athlete into college who acquired his HS diploma a year early by taking lightly-regulated online courses, and then, if he's a basketball player, all that same athlete has to do is stay barely eligible for one semester before turning pro after March Madness.

Also, maybe other schools don't have an institutionalized easy path for athletes that is quite as egregious as what was uncovered at North Carolina, but IMO it's very likely that many other schools have their own easy path for athletes to stay eligible for 3 or 4 years, even if it stays a little or a lot closer to a legitimate college curriculum than UNC's path did.

So I'm still going to roll my eyes when Mark Emmert or some conference commissioner uses the phrase "student-athlete" two or three times in each sentence.

With the available rules for most regular students being utilized (including academic probation) by athletes as well just about any kind of a recruit can stay in school and play for a year, particularly in football where the semester starts in the Fall. Toss in enough crip courses and keep the course load to a minimum and two years is easily doable by simply keeping the gpa up and it doesn't mean a darn thing about how well the kid can perform in the classroom. The third year is the toughest to get by. That's when tutors basically drill test questions into their heads. Some actually don't make that cut and the fact that they don't make it is astounding considering what they are taking and how much help they have at their disposal.

So no, I'm not buying the "student-athlete" moniker at all. It's all fan fiction to believe that the bulk of these kids are getting it done in the classroom. As with Auburn basketball this year we had 1 kid (Mclemore) who passed admission at M.I.T.. Those kids can go anywhere, play anywhere, and still succeed. But that's 1 in 500 maybe. Then you have those who can play and remain average or slightly above in the classroom. That's maybe 1 in 50. The rest, not so much, and then the blame is at the high school level where they were permitted to slide in order to please the local touchdown and hoops clubs.

They are way below the average. But they are still better than they used to be. Most of them can use the English language (you remember how painful it was to listen to a lot of those interviews in the 70s and 80s). They can read, unlike Dexter Manley (and he probably wasn't the only one). Its a lot tougher to do what Jan Kemp exposed at Georgia. We did have prop 16 getting rid of the people who had no business being in a 4 year college.
05-05-2018 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #63
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(05-05-2018 01:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What would payroll be collegiate semi-pro football?

Are colleges really going to be willing to eschew all traces of amateurism and strike out with a bold new plan like this?

In the South you could concievably have a a fall amateur season and then in spring hold a semi-pro, 10 week season where seniors, underclassmen declaring for the draft, and alums playing.

The trouble with previous start up leagues is finding a fan base but if the teams were directly tied to major universities with big fan bases the fans are already built in. Finding fans for a Birmingham XFL or AAF team might be a challenge but if you put that team in Crimson I think you pick up a substantial following. Eventually you might see a shift to where fans care more about the spring league than the fall league and the top H.S. players skip he amateur team and go straight to semi-pro.

Also, they are closer to being student-athletes than they were a generation ago. You can't get somebody through now who can't read like Dexter Manley. NCAA minimums exist.

You can get a star athlete into college who acquired his HS diploma a year early by taking lightly-regulated online courses, and then, if he's a basketball player, all that same athlete has to do is stay barely eligible for one semester before turning pro after March Madness.

Also, maybe other schools don't have an institutionalized easy path for athletes that is quite as egregious as what was uncovered at North Carolina, but IMO it's very likely that many other schools have their own easy path for athletes to stay eligible for 3 or 4 years, even if it stays a little or a lot closer to a legitimate college curriculum than UNC's path did.

So I'm still going to roll my eyes when Mark Emmert or some conference commissioner uses the phrase "student-athlete" two or three times in each sentence.

With the available rules for most regular students being utilized (including academic probation) by athletes as well just about any kind of a recruit can stay in school and play for a year, particularly in football where the semester starts in the Fall. Toss in enough crip courses and keep the course load to a minimum and two years is easily doable by simply keeping the gpa up and it doesn't mean a darn thing about how well the kid can perform in the classroom. The third year is the toughest to get by. That's when tutors basically drill test questions into their heads. Some actually don't make that cut and the fact that they don't make it is astounding considering what they are taking and how much help they have at their disposal.

So no, I'm not buying the "student-athlete" moniker at all. It's all fan fiction to believe that the bulk of these kids are getting it done in the classroom. As with Auburn basketball this year we had 1 kid (Mclemore) who passed admission at M.I.T.. Those kids can go anywhere, play anywhere, and still succeed. But that's 1 in 500 maybe. Then you have those who can play and remain average or slightly above in the classroom. That's maybe 1 in 50. The rest, not so much, and then the blame is at the high school level where they were permitted to slide in order to please the local touchdown and hoops clubs.

I don't know the current data but it used to be the hardest athletes to keep academically eligible were men's basketball, track and field (men and women), women's hoops, and football in that order.

With 85 rides in football you always end up with a decent number of serious students. It's rare to have a good offensive lineman, punter, placekicker, or QB with academic issues.

The other sports having academic issues is unusual.

That sounds about right, but there are a few other sports that have problems. Its the "country club" sports that usually have minimal problems-tennis, golf, swimming.
05-05-2018 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #64
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(05-05-2018 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  Also, they are closer to being student-athletes than they were a generation ago. You can't get somebody through now who can't read like Dexter Manley. NCAA minimums exist.

You can get a star athlete into college who acquired his HS diploma a year early by taking lightly-regulated online courses, and then, if he's a basketball player, all that same athlete has to do is stay barely eligible for one semester before turning pro after March Madness.

Also, maybe other schools don't have an institutionalized easy path for athletes that is quite as egregious as what was uncovered at North Carolina, but IMO it's very likely that many other schools have their own easy path for athletes to stay eligible for 3 or 4 years, even if it stays a little or a lot closer to a legitimate college curriculum than UNC's path did.

So I'm still going to roll my eyes when Mark Emmert or some conference commissioner uses the phrase "student-athlete" two or three times in each sentence.

With the available rules for most regular students being utilized (including academic probation) by athletes as well just about any kind of a recruit can stay in school and play for a year, particularly in football where the semester starts in the Fall. Toss in enough crip courses and keep the course load to a minimum and two years is easily doable by simply keeping the gpa up and it doesn't mean a darn thing about how well the kid can perform in the classroom. The third year is the toughest to get by. That's when tutors basically drill test questions into their heads. Some actually don't make that cut and the fact that they don't make it is astounding considering what they are taking and how much help they have at their disposal.

So no, I'm not buying the "student-athlete" moniker at all. It's all fan fiction to believe that the bulk of these kids are getting it done in the classroom. As with Auburn basketball this year we had 1 kid (Mclemore) who passed admission at M.I.T.. Those kids can go anywhere, play anywhere, and still succeed. But that's 1 in 500 maybe. Then you have those who can play and remain average or slightly above in the classroom. That's maybe 1 in 50. The rest, not so much, and then the blame is at the high school level where they were permitted to slide in order to please the local touchdown and hoops clubs.

I don't know the current data but it used to be the hardest athletes to keep academically eligible were men's basketball, track and field (men and women), women's hoops, and football in that order.

With 85 rides in football you always end up with a decent number of serious students. It's rare to have a good offensive lineman, punter, placekicker, or QB with academic issues.

The other sports having academic issues is unusual.

That sounds about right, but there are a few other sports that have problems. Its the "country club" sports that usually have minimal problems-tennis, golf, swimming.

Baseball GPA's are usually good as well. Under Cliff Ellis we had a kid from Macon Georgia that made every Auburn fan cringe when he was interviewed. He couldn't form a sentence and if he did you couldn't understand half of what he was saying.

The same was true when Georgia recruited Pulpwood Smith out of Coffee County. The kid had a stellar freshman season on the field but didn't survive his freshman year at UGA. I was particularly interested in that case because of recruiting violations that were present for multiple schools including UGA.
05-05-2018 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #65
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
Not many places where faculty would feel concerned about flunking a baseball player. Plus most baseball players take a minimal course load in the spring and heavy in the fall. You have to hustle to stay eligible for spring.
05-05-2018 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #66
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(04-30-2018 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What would the college football world look like if a Federal Court rules that there can be no cap on "Stipends"?

First of all why would they make this ruling? That answer is simple. Taxing the under the table revenue earned by "student athletes" cleans up a lot of corruption. Suddenly apparel companies could operate above board for sponsorship. The Federal Government could tax the revenue and acknowledge the business overhead on returns. For them it solves a lot of issues related to the surreptitious nature of college recruiting and corporate sponsorship.

What would such a ruling mean for the P5 and more generally for FBS football? It would mean a colossal shift between the myth of amateurism and the reality of pay for play. It would essentially make the competition for players much more lucrative for the players and at the same time much more costly for the programs.

Without a relatively low cost in terms of player overhead the profits of college football programs could be severely curtailed for many mid tier programs, too much to handle for many privates and less funded P5 and lower tier FBS programs, and it would create a totally competitive market for talent by those who accepted their new quasi professional programs. The choice to compete squarely as amateurs would be a compelling avenue to pursue for those who don't want, and can't afford, bidding wars for talent. Notre Dame's administration has already stated they wouldn't pursue a pay for play world.

There is no way to know which schools would pursue football at the more expensive level of play, and which ones would abandon football, or try to pursue it more strictly upon amateur guidelines. My suspicion is that amateurism would be much more enforceable in a CFB world that segregated pay for play from scholarship only athletes. Why? Fear of prosecution by the IRS.

No doubt some of the wealthiest brands would use this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the rest of the FBS and would enjoy a lucrative enough TV contract that it would likely assist the formation of a new League as opposed to conferences.

What I am going to make now is merely a guess as to what that might look like.

From the SEC: Everyone with the exception of Vanderbilt would likely opt to pay players.

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and possibly T.C.U. might purse this. For the cost I don't see Kansas or Kansas State pursuing pay for play but that's just my guess. I think Baylor would bow out and possibly Iowa State as well.

From the PAC: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Utah might pursue it.

From the Big 10: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State might pursue it.

From the ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State, possibly North Carolina might pursue it.

So if this guess is anywhere close to being true we might well see 40 of the present 65 P5 schools make the jump to pay for play.

This could open the door for the top G5 programs who were willing to make that commitment to step up.

But anyway you cut it, if this occurs the shift creates an entirely new world and a somewhat more realistic division of schools than the current system provides.

The ruling on the cap of stipends likely has everything on hold with regards to realignment because if the cap is removed then the realignment efforts and the corresponding rights renewals and negotiations are rendered entirely moot.

If the stipend is removed the FBI investigations can stop except for the completion of the investigations into past transgressions.

So it seems to me that everything will hinge upon this decision. If status quo is maintained then possible movement during the upcoming rights negotiations is likely. If the caps are removed then we head into a completely new era, and one that will likely sweep away conferences as we have known them. Then the ushering in of a new Upper Tier Pay for Play League will likely become a reality and it could be comprised of anywhere between a couple of dozen to four dozen schools.

As much as I hate change, if this happens, it will at least be more honest than the representation of so called amateurism we pretend to have today. And perhaps the pay and the paying of taxes teaches the young men who play that society doesn't have to be a dodge or scam and that their integrity is something that can be built instead of something they have to deny in order to get ahead.

I wanted to bump this old thread up. With what happened in California yesterday, get ready to see what JRSEC posted as a result. JR, I hate to say this, but you were right. The NCAA is about to go through a major seismic shift.
10-01-2019 01:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #67
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 01:16 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What would the college football world look like if a Federal Court rules that there can be no cap on "Stipends"?

First of all why would they make this ruling? That answer is simple. Taxing the under the table revenue earned by "student athletes" cleans up a lot of corruption. Suddenly apparel companies could operate above board for sponsorship. The Federal Government could tax the revenue and acknowledge the business overhead on returns. For them it solves a lot of issues related to the surreptitious nature of college recruiting and corporate sponsorship.

What would such a ruling mean for the P5 and more generally for FBS football? It would mean a colossal shift between the myth of amateurism and the reality of pay for play. It would essentially make the competition for players much more lucrative for the players and at the same time much more costly for the programs.

Without a relatively low cost in terms of player overhead the profits of college football programs could be severely curtailed for many mid tier programs, too much to handle for many privates and less funded P5 and lower tier FBS programs, and it would create a totally competitive market for talent by those who accepted their new quasi professional programs. The choice to compete squarely as amateurs would be a compelling avenue to pursue for those who don't want, and can't afford, bidding wars for talent. Notre Dame's administration has already stated they wouldn't pursue a pay for play world.

There is no way to know which schools would pursue football at the more expensive level of play, and which ones would abandon football, or try to pursue it more strictly upon amateur guidelines. My suspicion is that amateurism would be much more enforceable in a CFB world that segregated pay for play from scholarship only athletes. Why? Fear of prosecution by the IRS.

No doubt some of the wealthiest brands would use this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the rest of the FBS and would enjoy a lucrative enough TV contract that it would likely assist the formation of a new League as opposed to conferences.

What I am going to make now is merely a guess as to what that might look like.

From the SEC: Everyone with the exception of Vanderbilt would likely opt to pay players.

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and possibly T.C.U. might purse this. For the cost I don't see Kansas or Kansas State pursuing pay for play but that's just my guess. I think Baylor would bow out and possibly Iowa State as well.

From the PAC: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Utah might pursue it.

From the Big 10: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State might pursue it.

From the ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State, possibly North Carolina might pursue it.

So if this guess is anywhere close to being true we might well see 40 of the present 65 P5 schools make the jump to pay for play.

This could open the door for the top G5 programs who were willing to make that commitment to step up.

But anyway you cut it, if this occurs the shift creates an entirely new world and a somewhat more realistic division of schools than the current system provides.

The ruling on the cap of stipends likely has everything on hold with regards to realignment because if the cap is removed then the realignment efforts and the corresponding rights renewals and negotiations are rendered entirely moot.

If the stipend is removed the FBI investigations can stop except for the completion of the investigations into past transgressions.

So it seems to me that everything will hinge upon this decision. If status quo is maintained then possible movement during the upcoming rights negotiations is likely. If the caps are removed then we head into a completely new era, and one that will likely sweep away conferences as we have known them. Then the ushering in of a new Upper Tier Pay for Play League will likely become a reality and it could be comprised of anywhere between a couple of dozen to four dozen schools.

As much as I hate change, if this happens, it will at least be more honest than the representation of so called amateurism we pretend to have today. And perhaps the pay and the paying of taxes teaches the young men who play that society doesn't have to be a dodge or scam and that their integrity is something that can be built instead of something they have to deny in order to get ahead.

I wanted to bump this old thread up. With what happened in California yesterday, get ready to see what JRSEC posted as a result. JR, I hate to say this, but you were right. The NCAA is about to go through a major seismic shift.

The effect of permitting players to get NIL endorsements won't have that much of an effect on recruiting. Especially in football.

Endorsement value requires name recognition. 99.99% of college football players have no general recognition when they first walk on campus. Who is going to pay them significant money before anyone knows if they'll even start? Those who become recognized stars can get money once they are stars, but that will have little or no impact on recruiting. Even the shoe companies don't need football players who are freshmen, because they are 3 years from being able to turn pro.

Remember: The schools are extremely unlikely to license school names and logos to athletes for use in advertising, so the athletes have only the recognition value of their own name and face. Joe Montana used to do commercials wearing a red shirt with no 49ers identification attached, but after being the starting QB who won 4 Super Bowls, even non-fans in the Bay Area know who he is. A college freshman who has not yet played at Ohio State, for example, will have little or no recognition value in a commercial wearing a plain red shirt. He won't be able to wear his Buckeyes uniform and helmet, won't even be able to be ID'd in the advertising as an Ohio State football player.

Men's basketball is a unique case. One and done players will still be sought after by the shoe companies, because they can turn pro after being in college for six months. They don't need to be famous with the public the day they step on campus, because the shoe companies see value in locking them up before they are drafted into the NBA. The change will be that one and done stars like Zion Williamson can be paid directly instead of under the table through skeezy street agents or shoe company reps.

There are a few isolated cases in other sports. Future Olympic stars in swimming, skiing, track, etc. can get endorsements. But again, over 99% of the college athletes in those sports have no chance of making an Olympic team and won't be candidates for significant endorsement money.
10-01-2019 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #68
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 10:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 01:16 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What would the college football world look like if a Federal Court rules that there can be no cap on "Stipends"?

First of all why would they make this ruling? That answer is simple. Taxing the under the table revenue earned by "student athletes" cleans up a lot of corruption. Suddenly apparel companies could operate above board for sponsorship. The Federal Government could tax the revenue and acknowledge the business overhead on returns. For them it solves a lot of issues related to the surreptitious nature of college recruiting and corporate sponsorship.

What would such a ruling mean for the P5 and more generally for FBS football? It would mean a colossal shift between the myth of amateurism and the reality of pay for play. It would essentially make the competition for players much more lucrative for the players and at the same time much more costly for the programs.

Without a relatively low cost in terms of player overhead the profits of college football programs could be severely curtailed for many mid tier programs, too much to handle for many privates and less funded P5 and lower tier FBS programs, and it would create a totally competitive market for talent by those who accepted their new quasi professional programs. The choice to compete squarely as amateurs would be a compelling avenue to pursue for those who don't want, and can't afford, bidding wars for talent. Notre Dame's administration has already stated they wouldn't pursue a pay for play world.

There is no way to know which schools would pursue football at the more expensive level of play, and which ones would abandon football, or try to pursue it more strictly upon amateur guidelines. My suspicion is that amateurism would be much more enforceable in a CFB world that segregated pay for play from scholarship only athletes. Why? Fear of prosecution by the IRS.

No doubt some of the wealthiest brands would use this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the rest of the FBS and would enjoy a lucrative enough TV contract that it would likely assist the formation of a new League as opposed to conferences.

What I am going to make now is merely a guess as to what that might look like.

From the SEC: Everyone with the exception of Vanderbilt would likely opt to pay players.

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and possibly T.C.U. might purse this. For the cost I don't see Kansas or Kansas State pursuing pay for play but that's just my guess. I think Baylor would bow out and possibly Iowa State as well.

From the PAC: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Utah might pursue it.

From the Big 10: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State might pursue it.

From the ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State, possibly North Carolina might pursue it.

So if this guess is anywhere close to being true we might well see 40 of the present 65 P5 schools make the jump to pay for play.

This could open the door for the top G5 programs who were willing to make that commitment to step up.

But anyway you cut it, if this occurs the shift creates an entirely new world and a somewhat more realistic division of schools than the current system provides.

The ruling on the cap of stipends likely has everything on hold with regards to realignment because if the cap is removed then the realignment efforts and the corresponding rights renewals and negotiations are rendered entirely moot.

If the stipend is removed the FBI investigations can stop except for the completion of the investigations into past transgressions.

So it seems to me that everything will hinge upon this decision. If status quo is maintained then possible movement during the upcoming rights negotiations is likely. If the caps are removed then we head into a completely new era, and one that will likely sweep away conferences as we have known them. Then the ushering in of a new Upper Tier Pay for Play League will likely become a reality and it could be comprised of anywhere between a couple of dozen to four dozen schools.

As much as I hate change, if this happens, it will at least be more honest than the representation of so called amateurism we pretend to have today. And perhaps the pay and the paying of taxes teaches the young men who play that society doesn't have to be a dodge or scam and that their integrity is something that can be built instead of something they have to deny in order to get ahead.

I wanted to bump this old thread up. With what happened in California yesterday, get ready to see what JRSEC posted as a result. JR, I hate to say this, but you were right. The NCAA is about to go through a major seismic shift.

The effect of permitting players to get NIL endorsements won't have that much of an effect on recruiting. Especially in football.

Endorsement value requires name recognition. 99.99% of college football players have no general recognition when they first walk on campus. Who is going to pay them significant money before anyone knows if they'll even start? Those who become recognized stars can get money once they are stars, but that will have little or no impact on recruiting. Even the shoe companies don't need football players who are freshmen, because they are 3 years from being able to turn pro.

Remember: The schools are extremely unlikely to license school names and logos to athletes for use in advertising, so the athletes have only the recognition value of their own name and face. Joe Montana used to do commercials wearing a red shirt with no 49ers identification attached, but after being the starting QB who won 4 Super Bowls, even non-fans in the Bay Area know who he is. A college freshman who has not yet played at Ohio State, for example, will have little or no recognition value in a commercial wearing a plain red shirt. He won't be able to wear his Buckeyes uniform and helmet, won't even be able to be ID'd in the advertising as an Ohio State football player.

Men's basketball is a unique case. One and done players will still be sought after by the shoe companies, because they can turn pro after being in college for six months. They don't need to be famous with the public the day they step on campus, because the shoe companies see value in locking them up before they are drafted into the NBA. The change will be that one and done stars like Zion Williamson can be paid directly instead of under the table through skeezy street agents or shoe company reps.

There are a few isolated cases in other sports. Future Olympic stars in swimming, skiing, track, etc. can get endorsements. But again, over 99% of the college athletes in those sports have no chance of making an Olympic team and won't be candidates for significant endorsement money.

Jay Bilas thinks that initially what you say will be true, but that the star athletes who can get endorsements might likely get endorsements for rival products to those endorsing the schools setting up a conflict of interest and that simply paying them from the school will be the quickest legal fix to the problem and one that the top brand schools would opt for to resolve such conflicts.

I think there is merit in that line of thinking. So in the end the result no matter how these kinds of bills might start out will all end at the same destination, pay for play for all athletes in money making sports. And the end result will a dichotomy of classifications for college sports and likely under 2 different governance structures. Pay for play football, basketball, and possibly baseball. Scholarships for all others. So the pay for play will end up with a separate governance and will likely remain under the auspices of separate structures adjunct to the university and scholarship sports will remain under the direct purview of the schools and likely the NCAA.
10-01-2019 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #69
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 10:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 01:16 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What would the college football world look like if a Federal Court rules that there can be no cap on "Stipends"?

First of all why would they make this ruling? That answer is simple. Taxing the under the table revenue earned by "student athletes" cleans up a lot of corruption. Suddenly apparel companies could operate above board for sponsorship. The Federal Government could tax the revenue and acknowledge the business overhead on returns. For them it solves a lot of issues related to the surreptitious nature of college recruiting and corporate sponsorship.

What would such a ruling mean for the P5 and more generally for FBS football? It would mean a colossal shift between the myth of amateurism and the reality of pay for play. It would essentially make the competition for players much more lucrative for the players and at the same time much more costly for the programs.

Without a relatively low cost in terms of player overhead the profits of college football programs could be severely curtailed for many mid tier programs, too much to handle for many privates and less funded P5 and lower tier FBS programs, and it would create a totally competitive market for talent by those who accepted their new quasi professional programs. The choice to compete squarely as amateurs would be a compelling avenue to pursue for those who don't want, and can't afford, bidding wars for talent. Notre Dame's administration has already stated they wouldn't pursue a pay for play world.

There is no way to know which schools would pursue football at the more expensive level of play, and which ones would abandon football, or try to pursue it more strictly upon amateur guidelines. My suspicion is that amateurism would be much more enforceable in a CFB world that segregated pay for play from scholarship only athletes. Why? Fear of prosecution by the IRS.

No doubt some of the wealthiest brands would use this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the rest of the FBS and would enjoy a lucrative enough TV contract that it would likely assist the formation of a new League as opposed to conferences.

What I am going to make now is merely a guess as to what that might look like.

From the SEC: Everyone with the exception of Vanderbilt would likely opt to pay players.

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and possibly T.C.U. might purse this. For the cost I don't see Kansas or Kansas State pursuing pay for play but that's just my guess. I think Baylor would bow out and possibly Iowa State as well.

From the PAC: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Utah might pursue it.

From the Big 10: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State might pursue it.

From the ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State, possibly North Carolina might pursue it.

So if this guess is anywhere close to being true we might well see 40 of the present 65 P5 schools make the jump to pay for play.

This could open the door for the top G5 programs who were willing to make that commitment to step up.

But anyway you cut it, if this occurs the shift creates an entirely new world and a somewhat more realistic division of schools than the current system provides.

The ruling on the cap of stipends likely has everything on hold with regards to realignment because if the cap is removed then the realignment efforts and the corresponding rights renewals and negotiations are rendered entirely moot.

If the stipend is removed the FBI investigations can stop except for the completion of the investigations into past transgressions.

So it seems to me that everything will hinge upon this decision. If status quo is maintained then possible movement during the upcoming rights negotiations is likely. If the caps are removed then we head into a completely new era, and one that will likely sweep away conferences as we have known them. Then the ushering in of a new Upper Tier Pay for Play League will likely become a reality and it could be comprised of anywhere between a couple of dozen to four dozen schools.

As much as I hate change, if this happens, it will at least be more honest than the representation of so called amateurism we pretend to have today. And perhaps the pay and the paying of taxes teaches the young men who play that society doesn't have to be a dodge or scam and that their integrity is something that can be built instead of something they have to deny in order to get ahead.

I wanted to bump this old thread up. With what happened in California yesterday, get ready to see what JRSEC posted as a result. JR, I hate to say this, but you were right. The NCAA is about to go through a major seismic shift.

The effect of permitting players to get NIL endorsements won't have that much of an effect on recruiting. Especially in football.

Endorsement value requires name recognition. 99.99% of college football players have no general recognition when they first walk on campus. Who is going to pay them significant money before anyone knows if they'll even start? Those who become recognized stars can get money once they are stars, but that will have little or no impact on recruiting. Even the shoe companies don't need football players who are freshmen, because they are 3 years from being able to turn pro.

Remember: The schools are extremely unlikely to license school names and logos to athletes for use in advertising, so the athletes have only the recognition value of their own name and face. Joe Montana used to do commercials wearing a red shirt with no 49ers identification attached, but after being the starting QB who won 4 Super Bowls, even non-fans in the Bay Area know who he is. A college freshman who has not yet played at Ohio State, for example, will have little or no recognition value in a commercial wearing a plain red shirt. He won't be able to wear his Buckeyes uniform and helmet, won't even be able to be ID'd in the advertising as an Ohio State football player.

Men's basketball is a unique case. One and done players will still be sought after by the shoe companies, because they can turn pro after being in college for six months. They don't need to be famous with the public the day they step on campus, because the shoe companies see value in locking them up before they are drafted into the NBA. The change will be that one and done stars like Zion Williamson can be paid directly instead of under the table through skeezy street agents or shoe company reps.

There are a few isolated cases in other sports. Future Olympic stars in swimming, skiing, track, etc. can get endorsements. But again, over 99% of the college athletes in those sports have no chance of making an Olympic team and won't be candidates for significant endorsement money.

Jay Bilas thinks that initially what you say will be true, but that the star athletes who can get endorsements might likely get endorsements for rival products to those endorsing the schools setting up a conflict of interest and that simply paying them from the school will be the quickest legal fix to the problem and one that the top brand schools would opt for to resolve such conflicts.

The California law doesn't allow what is bolded above. It prevents athletes from endorsing a product at a competition site if that product conflicts with one that is tied to the university. For example, a Cal athlete couldn't endorse adidas by wearing an adidas shirt or hat at the stadium or arena, because of Cal's deal with Under Armour. The university could also prohibit such conflicting endorsements anywhere on campus.

The interesting issue is whether the NCAA would prohibit schools from permitting their own athletes to use the school's name and logos in advertising. That kind of permission would be another way around the "conflict", and a very effective way: Alabama tells Tua, for example, you can wear your Tide jersey and be identified as the Alabama QB in advertising, but only in advertising for products (such as Nike) that have their own deal with the university. That would greatly increase the value to the athlete of any endorsement. I still think the universities won't do that, but it would be an interesting twist.
10-01-2019 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #70
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(04-30-2018 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What would the college football world look like if a Federal Court rules that there can be no cap on "Stipends"?

First of all why would they make this ruling? That answer is simple. Taxing the under the table revenue earned by "student athletes" cleans up a lot of corruption. Suddenly apparel companies could operate above board for sponsorship. The Federal Government could tax the revenue and acknowledge the business overhead on returns. For them it solves a lot of issues related to the surreptitious nature of college recruiting and corporate sponsorship.

What would such a ruling mean for the P5 and more generally for FBS football? It would mean a colossal shift between the myth of amateurism and the reality of pay for play. It would essentially make the competition for players much more lucrative for the players and at the same time much more costly for the programs.

Without a relatively low cost in terms of player overhead the profits of college football programs could be severely curtailed for many mid tier programs, too much to handle for many privates and less funded P5 and lower tier FBS programs, and it would create a totally competitive market for talent by those who accepted their new quasi professional programs. The choice to compete squarely as amateurs would be a compelling avenue to pursue for those who don't want, and can't afford, bidding wars for talent. Notre Dame's administration has already stated they wouldn't pursue a pay for play world.

There is no way to know which schools would pursue football at the more expensive level of play, and which ones would abandon football, or try to pursue it more strictly upon amateur guidelines. My suspicion is that amateurism would be much more enforceable in a CFB world that segregated pay for play from scholarship only athletes. Why? Fear of prosecution by the IRS.

No doubt some of the wealthiest brands would use this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the rest of the FBS and would enjoy a lucrative enough TV contract that it would likely assist the formation of a new League as opposed to conferences.

What I am going to make now is merely a guess as to what that might look like.

From the SEC: Everyone with the exception of Vanderbilt would likely opt to pay players.

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and possibly T.C.U. might purse this. For the cost I don't see Kansas or Kansas State pursuing pay for play but that's just my guess. I think Baylor would bow out and possibly Iowa State as well.

From the PAC: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Utah might pursue it.

From the Big 10: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State might pursue it.

From the ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State, possibly North Carolina might pursue it.

So if this guess is anywhere close to being true we might well see 40 of the present 65 P5 schools make the jump to pay for play.

This could open the door for the top G5 programs who were willing to make that commitment to step up.

But anyway you cut it, if this occurs the shift creates an entirely new world and a somewhat more realistic division of schools than the current system provides.

The ruling on the cap of stipends likely has everything on hold with regards to realignment because if the cap is removed then the realignment efforts and the corresponding rights renewals and negotiations are rendered entirely moot.

If the stipend is removed the FBI investigations can stop except for the completion of the investigations into past transgressions.

So it seems to me that everything will hinge upon this decision. If status quo is maintained then possible movement during the upcoming rights negotiations is likely. If the caps are removed then we head into a completely new era, and one that will likely sweep away conferences as we have known them. Then the ushering in of a new Upper Tier Pay for Play League will likely become a reality and it could be comprised of anywhere between a couple of dozen to four dozen schools.

As much as I hate change, if this happens, it will at least be more honest than the representation of so called amateurism we pretend to have today. And perhaps the pay and the paying of taxes teaches the young men who play that society doesn't have to be a dodge or scam and that their integrity is something that can be built instead of something they have to deny in order to get ahead.

I could see the entire Big 10 saying no. I could see the entire ACC except FSU and Clemson saying no. Very few of the G5 could afford it. If Big 10 and ACC mostly say no, it could be the Sugar Bowl for the national championship between the Big 12 and SEC.
10-01-2019 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #71
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 11:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 10:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 01:16 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What would the college football world look like if a Federal Court rules that there can be no cap on "Stipends"?

First of all why would they make this ruling? That answer is simple. Taxing the under the table revenue earned by "student athletes" cleans up a lot of corruption. Suddenly apparel companies could operate above board for sponsorship. The Federal Government could tax the revenue and acknowledge the business overhead on returns. For them it solves a lot of issues related to the surreptitious nature of college recruiting and corporate sponsorship.

What would such a ruling mean for the P5 and more generally for FBS football? It would mean a colossal shift between the myth of amateurism and the reality of pay for play. It would essentially make the competition for players much more lucrative for the players and at the same time much more costly for the programs.

Without a relatively low cost in terms of player overhead the profits of college football programs could be severely curtailed for many mid tier programs, too much to handle for many privates and less funded P5 and lower tier FBS programs, and it would create a totally competitive market for talent by those who accepted their new quasi professional programs. The choice to compete squarely as amateurs would be a compelling avenue to pursue for those who don't want, and can't afford, bidding wars for talent. Notre Dame's administration has already stated they wouldn't pursue a pay for play world.

There is no way to know which schools would pursue football at the more expensive level of play, and which ones would abandon football, or try to pursue it more strictly upon amateur guidelines. My suspicion is that amateurism would be much more enforceable in a CFB world that segregated pay for play from scholarship only athletes. Why? Fear of prosecution by the IRS.

No doubt some of the wealthiest brands would use this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the rest of the FBS and would enjoy a lucrative enough TV contract that it would likely assist the formation of a new League as opposed to conferences.

What I am going to make now is merely a guess as to what that might look like.

From the SEC: Everyone with the exception of Vanderbilt would likely opt to pay players.

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and possibly T.C.U. might purse this. For the cost I don't see Kansas or Kansas State pursuing pay for play but that's just my guess. I think Baylor would bow out and possibly Iowa State as well.

From the PAC: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Utah might pursue it.

From the Big 10: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State might pursue it.

From the ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State, possibly North Carolina might pursue it.

So if this guess is anywhere close to being true we might well see 40 of the present 65 P5 schools make the jump to pay for play.

This could open the door for the top G5 programs who were willing to make that commitment to step up.

But anyway you cut it, if this occurs the shift creates an entirely new world and a somewhat more realistic division of schools than the current system provides.

The ruling on the cap of stipends likely has everything on hold with regards to realignment because if the cap is removed then the realignment efforts and the corresponding rights renewals and negotiations are rendered entirely moot.

If the stipend is removed the FBI investigations can stop except for the completion of the investigations into past transgressions.

So it seems to me that everything will hinge upon this decision. If status quo is maintained then possible movement during the upcoming rights negotiations is likely. If the caps are removed then we head into a completely new era, and one that will likely sweep away conferences as we have known them. Then the ushering in of a new Upper Tier Pay for Play League will likely become a reality and it could be comprised of anywhere between a couple of dozen to four dozen schools.

As much as I hate change, if this happens, it will at least be more honest than the representation of so called amateurism we pretend to have today. And perhaps the pay and the paying of taxes teaches the young men who play that society doesn't have to be a dodge or scam and that their integrity is something that can be built instead of something they have to deny in order to get ahead.

I wanted to bump this old thread up. With what happened in California yesterday, get ready to see what JRSEC posted as a result. JR, I hate to say this, but you were right. The NCAA is about to go through a major seismic shift.

The effect of permitting players to get NIL endorsements won't have that much of an effect on recruiting. Especially in football.

Endorsement value requires name recognition. 99.99% of college football players have no general recognition when they first walk on campus. Who is going to pay them significant money before anyone knows if they'll even start? Those who become recognized stars can get money once they are stars, but that will have little or no impact on recruiting. Even the shoe companies don't need football players who are freshmen, because they are 3 years from being able to turn pro.

Remember: The schools are extremely unlikely to license school names and logos to athletes for use in advertising, so the athletes have only the recognition value of their own name and face. Joe Montana used to do commercials wearing a red shirt with no 49ers identification attached, but after being the starting QB who won 4 Super Bowls, even non-fans in the Bay Area know who he is. A college freshman who has not yet played at Ohio State, for example, will have little or no recognition value in a commercial wearing a plain red shirt. He won't be able to wear his Buckeyes uniform and helmet, won't even be able to be ID'd in the advertising as an Ohio State football player.

Men's basketball is a unique case. One and done players will still be sought after by the shoe companies, because they can turn pro after being in college for six months. They don't need to be famous with the public the day they step on campus, because the shoe companies see value in locking them up before they are drafted into the NBA. The change will be that one and done stars like Zion Williamson can be paid directly instead of under the table through skeezy street agents or shoe company reps.

There are a few isolated cases in other sports. Future Olympic stars in swimming, skiing, track, etc. can get endorsements. But again, over 99% of the college athletes in those sports have no chance of making an Olympic team and won't be candidates for significant endorsement money.

Jay Bilas thinks that initially what you say will be true, but that the star athletes who can get endorsements might likely get endorsements for rival products to those endorsing the schools setting up a conflict of interest and that simply paying them from the school will be the quickest legal fix to the problem and one that the top brand schools would opt for to resolve such conflicts.

The California law doesn't allow what is bolded above. It prevents athletes from endorsing a product at a competition site if that product conflicts with one that is tied to the university. For example, a Cal athlete couldn't endorse adidas by wearing an adidas shirt or hat at the stadium or arena, because of Cal's deal with Under Armour. The university could also prohibit such conflicting endorsements anywhere on campus.

The interesting issue is whether the NCAA would prohibit schools from permitting their own athletes to use the school's name and logos in advertising. That kind of permission would be another way around the "conflict", and a very effective way: Alabama tells Tua, for example, you can wear your Tide jersey and be identified as the Alabama QB in advertising, but only in advertising for products (such as Nike) that have their own deal with the university. That would greatly increase the value to the athlete of any endorsement. I still think the universities won't do that, but it would be an interesting twist.

They wouldn't allow their logos in any ads they weren't involved in. They have to stop that to keep their trademark. The player would have to be in a generic outfit.
10-01-2019 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #72
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 11:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 10:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 01:16 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I wanted to bump this old thread up. With what happened in California yesterday, get ready to see what JRSEC posted as a result. JR, I hate to say this, but you were right. The NCAA is about to go through a major seismic shift.

The effect of permitting players to get NIL endorsements won't have that much of an effect on recruiting. Especially in football.

Endorsement value requires name recognition. 99.99% of college football players have no general recognition when they first walk on campus. Who is going to pay them significant money before anyone knows if they'll even start? Those who become recognized stars can get money once they are stars, but that will have little or no impact on recruiting. Even the shoe companies don't need football players who are freshmen, because they are 3 years from being able to turn pro.

Remember: The schools are extremely unlikely to license school names and logos to athletes for use in advertising, so the athletes have only the recognition value of their own name and face. Joe Montana used to do commercials wearing a red shirt with no 49ers identification attached, but after being the starting QB who won 4 Super Bowls, even non-fans in the Bay Area know who he is. A college freshman who has not yet played at Ohio State, for example, will have little or no recognition value in a commercial wearing a plain red shirt. He won't be able to wear his Buckeyes uniform and helmet, won't even be able to be ID'd in the advertising as an Ohio State football player.

Men's basketball is a unique case. One and done players will still be sought after by the shoe companies, because they can turn pro after being in college for six months. They don't need to be famous with the public the day they step on campus, because the shoe companies see value in locking them up before they are drafted into the NBA. The change will be that one and done stars like Zion Williamson can be paid directly instead of under the table through skeezy street agents or shoe company reps.

There are a few isolated cases in other sports. Future Olympic stars in swimming, skiing, track, etc. can get endorsements. But again, over 99% of the college athletes in those sports have no chance of making an Olympic team and won't be candidates for significant endorsement money.

Jay Bilas thinks that initially what you say will be true, but that the star athletes who can get endorsements might likely get endorsements for rival products to those endorsing the schools setting up a conflict of interest and that simply paying them from the school will be the quickest legal fix to the problem and one that the top brand schools would opt for to resolve such conflicts.

The California law doesn't allow what is bolded above. It prevents athletes from endorsing a product at a competition site if that product conflicts with one that is tied to the university. For example, a Cal athlete couldn't endorse adidas by wearing an adidas shirt or hat at the stadium or arena, because of Cal's deal with Under Armour. The university could also prohibit such conflicting endorsements anywhere on campus.

The interesting issue is whether the NCAA would prohibit schools from permitting their own athletes to use the school's name and logos in advertising. That kind of permission would be another way around the "conflict", and a very effective way: Alabama tells Tua, for example, you can wear your Tide jersey and be identified as the Alabama QB in advertising, but only in advertising for products (such as Nike) that have their own deal with the university. That would greatly increase the value to the athlete of any endorsement. I still think the universities won't do that, but it would be an interesting twist.

They wouldn't allow their logos in any ads they weren't involved in. They have to stop that to keep their trademark. The player would have to be in a generic outfit.

Yes, but keeping track of the player's individual endorsements would be a tedious process. I think what Bilas was saying is that it would be much simpler for everyone to just put the players under contract and control the advertising from the AD's position. Players could be given a % of endorsements in which they appeared personally. Plus they would be paying taxes and would be completely above board. Compliance would be largely taken care of vIa the IRS. I think he's right about this and have felt that way all along.

As to your other post, I think the Big 10 goes all in maybe minus Northwestern or Purdue or Illinois, but such a reduction would just mean more for the remainder. In the SEC I could see the only dropout being Vandy. XLance is wrong about the ACC. Virginia Tech, possibly N.C. State, Louisville, and definitely North Carolina would be in with Clemson and Florida State and possibly Miami and Georgia Tech. You might see Duke dropping football but going all in for Hoops. It's hard to say what the others would do. But simply for the sake of national branding most will not risk losing that exposure. It's to valuable to their enrollment.

So in short I think you would see maybe half a dozen schools drop out and Notre Dame and North Carolina would not be two of them.
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2019 01:49 PM by JRsec.)
10-01-2019 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #73
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, but keeping track of the player's individual endorsements would be a tedious process. I think what Bilas was saying is that it would be much simpler for everyone to just put the players under contract and control the advertising from the AD's position. Players could be given a % of endorsements in which they appeared personally. Plus they would be paying taxes and would be completely above board. Compliance would be largely taken care of vIa the IRS. I think he's right about this and have felt that way all along.

Bilas is thinking of basketball, where there are fewer players, and even there he is worrying too much. As for football, few if any college football teams are going to want to pay every single player, and it's not worth it for every player. A Nike school doesn't have to worry about their football team's long snapper signing with adidas, because adidas would get no value out of it.

Or, the school can simply bar its athletes from using the school's name and logos in their endorsements, or more likely the NCAA will require its members to do that. That alone will reduce the value of college athlete endorsements so much that there would rarely, if ever, be conflicting endorsements. How many college athletes are so recognizable that their endorsement would have substantial value without the association with their team's name and/or logos? Very, very few.
10-01-2019 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #74
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 10:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 01:16 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What would the college football world look like if a Federal Court rules that there can be no cap on "Stipends"?

First of all why would they make this ruling? That answer is simple. Taxing the under the table revenue earned by "student athletes" cleans up a lot of corruption. Suddenly apparel companies could operate above board for sponsorship. The Federal Government could tax the revenue and acknowledge the business overhead on returns. For them it solves a lot of issues related to the surreptitious nature of college recruiting and corporate sponsorship.

What would such a ruling mean for the P5 and more generally for FBS football? It would mean a colossal shift between the myth of amateurism and the reality of pay for play. It would essentially make the competition for players much more lucrative for the players and at the same time much more costly for the programs.

Without a relatively low cost in terms of player overhead the profits of college football programs could be severely curtailed for many mid tier programs, too much to handle for many privates and less funded P5 and lower tier FBS programs, and it would create a totally competitive market for talent by those who accepted their new quasi professional programs. The choice to compete squarely as amateurs would be a compelling avenue to pursue for those who don't want, and can't afford, bidding wars for talent. Notre Dame's administration has already stated they wouldn't pursue a pay for play world.

There is no way to know which schools would pursue football at the more expensive level of play, and which ones would abandon football, or try to pursue it more strictly upon amateur guidelines. My suspicion is that amateurism would be much more enforceable in a CFB world that segregated pay for play from scholarship only athletes. Why? Fear of prosecution by the IRS.

No doubt some of the wealthiest brands would use this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the rest of the FBS and would enjoy a lucrative enough TV contract that it would likely assist the formation of a new League as opposed to conferences.

What I am going to make now is merely a guess as to what that might look like.

From the SEC: Everyone with the exception of Vanderbilt would likely opt to pay players.

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and possibly T.C.U. might purse this. For the cost I don't see Kansas or Kansas State pursuing pay for play but that's just my guess. I think Baylor would bow out and possibly Iowa State as well.

From the PAC: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Utah might pursue it.

From the Big 10: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State might pursue it.

From the ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State, possibly North Carolina might pursue it.

So if this guess is anywhere close to being true we might well see 40 of the present 65 P5 schools make the jump to pay for play.

This could open the door for the top G5 programs who were willing to make that commitment to step up.

But anyway you cut it, if this occurs the shift creates an entirely new world and a somewhat more realistic division of schools than the current system provides.

The ruling on the cap of stipends likely has everything on hold with regards to realignment because if the cap is removed then the realignment efforts and the corresponding rights renewals and negotiations are rendered entirely moot.

If the stipend is removed the FBI investigations can stop except for the completion of the investigations into past transgressions.

So it seems to me that everything will hinge upon this decision. If status quo is maintained then possible movement during the upcoming rights negotiations is likely. If the caps are removed then we head into a completely new era, and one that will likely sweep away conferences as we have known them. Then the ushering in of a new Upper Tier Pay for Play League will likely become a reality and it could be comprised of anywhere between a couple of dozen to four dozen schools.

As much as I hate change, if this happens, it will at least be more honest than the representation of so called amateurism we pretend to have today. And perhaps the pay and the paying of taxes teaches the young men who play that society doesn't have to be a dodge or scam and that their integrity is something that can be built instead of something they have to deny in order to get ahead.

I wanted to bump this old thread up. With what happened in California yesterday, get ready to see what JRSEC posted as a result. JR, I hate to say this, but you were right. The NCAA is about to go through a major seismic shift.

The effect of permitting players to get NIL endorsements won't have that much of an effect on recruiting. Especially in football.

Endorsement value requires name recognition. 99.99% of college football players have no general recognition when they first walk on campus. Who is going to pay them significant money before anyone knows if they'll even start? Those who become recognized stars can get money once they are stars, but that will have little or no impact on recruiting. Even the shoe companies don't need football players who are freshmen, because they are 3 years from being able to turn pro.

Remember: The schools are extremely unlikely to license school names and logos to athletes for use in advertising, so the athletes have only the recognition value of their own name and face. Joe Montana used to do commercials wearing a red shirt with no 49ers identification attached, but after being the starting QB who won 4 Super Bowls, even non-fans in the Bay Area know who he is. A college freshman who has not yet played at Ohio State, for example, will have little or no recognition value in a commercial wearing a plain red shirt. He won't be able to wear his Buckeyes uniform and helmet, won't even be able to be ID'd in the advertising as an Ohio State football player.

Men's basketball is a unique case. One and done players will still be sought after by the shoe companies, because they can turn pro after being in college for six months. They don't need to be famous with the public the day they step on campus, because the shoe companies see value in locking them up before they are drafted into the NBA. The change will be that one and done stars like Zion Williamson can be paid directly instead of under the table through skeezy street agents or shoe company reps.

There are a few isolated cases in other sports. Future Olympic stars in swimming, skiing, track, etc. can get endorsements. But again, over 99% of the college athletes in those sports have no chance of making an Olympic team and won't be candidates for significant endorsement money.

Jay Bilas thinks that initially what you say will be true, but that the star athletes who can get endorsements might likely get endorsements for rival products to those endorsing the schools setting up a conflict of interest and that simply paying them from the school will be the quickest legal fix to the problem and one that the top brand schools would opt for to resolve such conflicts.

I think there is merit in that line of thinking. So in the end the result no matter how these kinds of bills might start out will all end at the same destination, pay for play for all athletes in money making sports. And the end result will a dichotomy of classifications for college sports and likely under 2 different governance structures. Pay for play football, basketball, and possibly baseball. Scholarships for all others. So the pay for play will end up with a separate governance and will likely remain under the auspices of separate structures adjunct to the university and scholarship sports will remain under the direct purview of the schools and likely the NCAA.

Baseball isn't a money maker. Except just maybe at Texas, LSU and a handful of others. With the minor leagues, there's a lot better argument against paying players. The best already go pro. Its really just football and men's and women's basketball that have issues.
10-01-2019 08:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #75
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 08:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 10:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 01:16 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What would the college football world look like if a Federal Court rules that there can be no cap on "Stipends"?

First of all why would they make this ruling? That answer is simple. Taxing the under the table revenue earned by "student athletes" cleans up a lot of corruption. Suddenly apparel companies could operate above board for sponsorship. The Federal Government could tax the revenue and acknowledge the business overhead on returns. For them it solves a lot of issues related to the surreptitious nature of college recruiting and corporate sponsorship.

What would such a ruling mean for the P5 and more generally for FBS football? It would mean a colossal shift between the myth of amateurism and the reality of pay for play. It would essentially make the competition for players much more lucrative for the players and at the same time much more costly for the programs.

Without a relatively low cost in terms of player overhead the profits of college football programs could be severely curtailed for many mid tier programs, too much to handle for many privates and less funded P5 and lower tier FBS programs, and it would create a totally competitive market for talent by those who accepted their new quasi professional programs. The choice to compete squarely as amateurs would be a compelling avenue to pursue for those who don't want, and can't afford, bidding wars for talent. Notre Dame's administration has already stated they wouldn't pursue a pay for play world.

There is no way to know which schools would pursue football at the more expensive level of play, and which ones would abandon football, or try to pursue it more strictly upon amateur guidelines. My suspicion is that amateurism would be much more enforceable in a CFB world that segregated pay for play from scholarship only athletes. Why? Fear of prosecution by the IRS.

No doubt some of the wealthiest brands would use this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the rest of the FBS and would enjoy a lucrative enough TV contract that it would likely assist the formation of a new League as opposed to conferences.

What I am going to make now is merely a guess as to what that might look like.

From the SEC: Everyone with the exception of Vanderbilt would likely opt to pay players.

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and possibly T.C.U. might purse this. For the cost I don't see Kansas or Kansas State pursuing pay for play but that's just my guess. I think Baylor would bow out and possibly Iowa State as well.

From the PAC: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Utah might pursue it.

From the Big 10: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State might pursue it.

From the ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State, possibly North Carolina might pursue it.

So if this guess is anywhere close to being true we might well see 40 of the present 65 P5 schools make the jump to pay for play.

This could open the door for the top G5 programs who were willing to make that commitment to step up.

But anyway you cut it, if this occurs the shift creates an entirely new world and a somewhat more realistic division of schools than the current system provides.

The ruling on the cap of stipends likely has everything on hold with regards to realignment because if the cap is removed then the realignment efforts and the corresponding rights renewals and negotiations are rendered entirely moot.

If the stipend is removed the FBI investigations can stop except for the completion of the investigations into past transgressions.

So it seems to me that everything will hinge upon this decision. If status quo is maintained then possible movement during the upcoming rights negotiations is likely. If the caps are removed then we head into a completely new era, and one that will likely sweep away conferences as we have known them. Then the ushering in of a new Upper Tier Pay for Play League will likely become a reality and it could be comprised of anywhere between a couple of dozen to four dozen schools.

As much as I hate change, if this happens, it will at least be more honest than the representation of so called amateurism we pretend to have today. And perhaps the pay and the paying of taxes teaches the young men who play that society doesn't have to be a dodge or scam and that their integrity is something that can be built instead of something they have to deny in order to get ahead.

I wanted to bump this old thread up. With what happened in California yesterday, get ready to see what JRSEC posted as a result. JR, I hate to say this, but you were right. The NCAA is about to go through a major seismic shift.

The effect of permitting players to get NIL endorsements won't have that much of an effect on recruiting. Especially in football.

Endorsement value requires name recognition. 99.99% of college football players have no general recognition when they first walk on campus. Who is going to pay them significant money before anyone knows if they'll even start? Those who become recognized stars can get money once they are stars, but that will have little or no impact on recruiting. Even the shoe companies don't need football players who are freshmen, because they are 3 years from being able to turn pro.

Remember: The schools are extremely unlikely to license school names and logos to athletes for use in advertising, so the athletes have only the recognition value of their own name and face. Joe Montana used to do commercials wearing a red shirt with no 49ers identification attached, but after being the starting QB who won 4 Super Bowls, even non-fans in the Bay Area know who he is. A college freshman who has not yet played at Ohio State, for example, will have little or no recognition value in a commercial wearing a plain red shirt. He won't be able to wear his Buckeyes uniform and helmet, won't even be able to be ID'd in the advertising as an Ohio State football player.

Men's basketball is a unique case. One and done players will still be sought after by the shoe companies, because they can turn pro after being in college for six months. They don't need to be famous with the public the day they step on campus, because the shoe companies see value in locking them up before they are drafted into the NBA. The change will be that one and done stars like Zion Williamson can be paid directly instead of under the table through skeezy street agents or shoe company reps.

There are a few isolated cases in other sports. Future Olympic stars in swimming, skiing, track, etc. can get endorsements. But again, over 99% of the college athletes in those sports have no chance of making an Olympic team and won't be candidates for significant endorsement money.

Jay Bilas thinks that initially what you say will be true, but that the star athletes who can get endorsements might likely get endorsements for rival products to those endorsing the schools setting up a conflict of interest and that simply paying them from the school will be the quickest legal fix to the problem and one that the top brand schools would opt for to resolve such conflicts.

I think there is merit in that line of thinking. So in the end the result no matter how these kinds of bills might start out will all end at the same destination, pay for play for all athletes in money making sports. And the end result will a dichotomy of classifications for college sports and likely under 2 different governance structures. Pay for play football, basketball, and possibly baseball. Scholarships for all others. So the pay for play will end up with a separate governance and will likely remain under the auspices of separate structures adjunct to the university and scholarship sports will remain under the direct purview of the schools and likely the NCAA.

Baseball isn't a money maker. Except just maybe at Texas, LSU and a handful of others. With the minor leagues, there's a lot better argument against paying players. The best already go pro. Its really just football and men's and women's basketball that have issues.

As of several years ago there wasn't 1 single program for women's hoops that made a profit, not one.

Baseball at the majority of SEC schools operates in the black. The draft now considers college talent to be on the level of AA clubs. And many players are now opting for college to get an education, and also to be seen on TV which minor league clubs aren't. So not all of the best are turning pro first and that has helped the SEC and ACC clubs to grow in both strength and popularity. Oklahoma and Texas match this quality as do some of the other Big 12 teams and the CWS reflects this.
10-01-2019 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #76
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 08:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  Baseball isn't a money maker. Except just maybe at Texas, LSU and a handful of others. With the minor leagues, there's a lot better argument against paying players. The best already go pro. Its really just football and men's and women's basketball that have issues.

That's an argument that there's no reason to *not* permit NIL endorsements.

If there's not enough money in any sport except football or men's hoops, then no one is going to pay those athletes in other sports to endorse anything, with a handful of exceptions in any sport (such as potential Olympic stars, as I mentioned above).

Even in football, how many programs are profitable if you don't include donations as revenue? I'd bet it's less than ten. Absolutely it's less than 20. And as I mentioned above, no booster or advertiser is going to hand endorsement money to more than a handful of football players on any team. There's just too many players. The only ones with endorsement value are the ones who have proven themselves in college, not the freshmen who showed up on campus a few weeks ago.

So the notion that boosters are waiting to shower every football or men's basketball recruit at every top school with hundreds of thousands of dollars if NIL endorsements are permitted... that is flat-out hysteria. It's paranoid over-reaction.
10-01-2019 09:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #77
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 11:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 10:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The effect of permitting players to get NIL endorsements won't have that much of an effect on recruiting. Especially in football.

Endorsement value requires name recognition. 99.99% of college football players have no general recognition when they first walk on campus. Who is going to pay them significant money before anyone knows if they'll even start? Those who become recognized stars can get money once they are stars, but that will have little or no impact on recruiting. Even the shoe companies don't need football players who are freshmen, because they are 3 years from being able to turn pro.

Remember: The schools are extremely unlikely to license school names and logos to athletes for use in advertising, so the athletes have only the recognition value of their own name and face. Joe Montana used to do commercials wearing a red shirt with no 49ers identification attached, but after being the starting QB who won 4 Super Bowls, even non-fans in the Bay Area know who he is. A college freshman who has not yet played at Ohio State, for example, will have little or no recognition value in a commercial wearing a plain red shirt. He won't be able to wear his Buckeyes uniform and helmet, won't even be able to be ID'd in the advertising as an Ohio State football player.

Men's basketball is a unique case. One and done players will still be sought after by the shoe companies, because they can turn pro after being in college for six months. They don't need to be famous with the public the day they step on campus, because the shoe companies see value in locking them up before they are drafted into the NBA. The change will be that one and done stars like Zion Williamson can be paid directly instead of under the table through skeezy street agents or shoe company reps.

There are a few isolated cases in other sports. Future Olympic stars in swimming, skiing, track, etc. can get endorsements. But again, over 99% of the college athletes in those sports have no chance of making an Olympic team and won't be candidates for significant endorsement money.

Jay Bilas thinks that initially what you say will be true, but that the star athletes who can get endorsements might likely get endorsements for rival products to those endorsing the schools setting up a conflict of interest and that simply paying them from the school will be the quickest legal fix to the problem and one that the top brand schools would opt for to resolve such conflicts.

The California law doesn't allow what is bolded above. It prevents athletes from endorsing a product at a competition site if that product conflicts with one that is tied to the university. For example, a Cal athlete couldn't endorse adidas by wearing an adidas shirt or hat at the stadium or arena, because of Cal's deal with Under Armour. The university could also prohibit such conflicting endorsements anywhere on campus.

The interesting issue is whether the NCAA would prohibit schools from permitting their own athletes to use the school's name and logos in advertising. That kind of permission would be another way around the "conflict", and a very effective way: Alabama tells Tua, for example, you can wear your Tide jersey and be identified as the Alabama QB in advertising, but only in advertising for products (such as Nike) that have their own deal with the university. That would greatly increase the value to the athlete of any endorsement. I still think the universities won't do that, but it would be an interesting twist.

They wouldn't allow their logos in any ads they weren't involved in. They have to stop that to keep their trademark. The player would have to be in a generic outfit.

Yes, but keeping track of the player's individual endorsements would be a tedious process. I think what Bilas was saying is that it would be much simpler for everyone to just put the players under contract and control the advertising from the AD's position. Players could be given a % of endorsements in which they appeared personally. Plus they would be paying taxes and would be completely above board. Compliance would be largely taken care of vIa the IRS. I think he's right about this and have felt that way all along.

As to your other post, I think the Big 10 goes all in maybe minus Northwestern or Purdue or Illinois, but such a reduction would just mean more for the remainder. In the SEC I could see the only dropout being Vandy. XLance is wrong about the ACC. Virginia Tech, possibly N.C. State, Louisville, and definitely North Carolina would be in with Clemson and Florida State and possibly Miami and Georgia Tech. You might see Duke dropping football but going all in for Hoops. It's hard to say what the others would do. But simply for the sake of national branding most will not risk losing that exposure. It's to valuable to their enrollment.

So in short I think you would see maybe half a dozen schools drop out and Notre Dame and North Carolina would not be two of them.

Even though the state of California is the state that passed the law, I can see Stanford at best, doing this only a few years before finally saying "this is against everything we stand for.". This is the best case scenario for the PAC 12 though. USC is different, and will support the law as pay for play. Cal & UCLA have no choice on this, but UCLA generally follows USC anyway.

Ironically, this could be the very thing that actually saves the Big XII.
10-01-2019 11:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #78
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
The thing about the CA law is, of course, it only applies to the state of California. It's true that other states will adopt legislation, but no two states will have precisely the same set of laws. That could be problematic for several reasons.

We're heading for one of two outcomes, either the NCAA will have to adopt sweeping changes when it comes to compensation or the Federal government will have to regulate the process on the basis of interstate commerce. I think Congress getting involved is a distinct possibility and one of the NC reps is already on it.

Some in CA have already stated they intentionally delayed the implementation of the law in order to provide the NCAA time to adjust their rules. This law is designed to force the NCAA's hand.

Now the NCAA, notoriously slow even when not being stubborn, is unlikely to give us something reasonable in the next 3 years or so. They'll fight this out in court before they intentionally devise a better system. Amazingly...shockingly...the best agent of change here is actually Congress. The Feds have the power to force the same rules on everyone. That in and of itself is important, but they're more likely to throw something together for the sake of populist appeal.
10-02-2019 05:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #79
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
Wedge, my only disagreement with your assessment is that inevitably kids will be making money from practices other than just doing endorsements.

They'll sign autographs, sign memorabilia, and provide other services like coaching outside the purview of anything school related. That could be a significant source of income for a whole host of athletes in a variety of sports.

The operative dynamic here is that the smaller the community and the more passionate the fan base, the more opportunities these kids are going to have.

Some random UCLA athlete will likely get lost in the shuffle of Los Angeles. In Tuscaloosa, the odds are a healthy portion of fans will actually know who the long snapper is...just an example.

You won't have any big shoe companies offering deals to non-stars, I agree with that, but you'll have small business owners marketing player appearances to fans. "Come on out this Friday and meet your favorite linebacker! Get an autograph and eat a burrito while you're here!" That sort of thing is highly likely I think.

Also, I'm not sure you're right about the schools not licensing their logos and such. For one, a public institution can't keep a kid from saying where he attends school and plays football. On what grounds would they argue the athlete is coopting the school's name for personal profit? At least, in what manner would the player be using the school to profit in a way that potentially cuts into the school's revenue stream? I think that's more likely to be the standard. I mean technically, he's profiting off the fact he plays for State U, but State U doesn't really have a way to create a revenue stream through such means anyway. I think it's very different than allowing a 3rd party to put your logo on a t-shirt, for example.

More than that, is it really worth the trouble to fight these kids on that front? The schools gain nothing from that tactic. It's a PR problem at best, and a smart athletic department is going to eventually figure out they can out recruit the in-state rival if they just leave it alone. "Don't go to that school! They won't even let you make a little cash on the side. Do you really want to deal with that for 4 years? Come here and we'll let you do your thing."

Also, if the school is really smart then they'll have no problem going the extra mile and actually licensing their logos and such. All they have to do is offer the athlete the opportunity to work a network of donors and business owners to help the kid get plenty of opportunities. The school also has the resources to handle the tax side of it which makes things simple and easy for the athlete. Business owners get the full blessing of State U, the kid gets some cash, and the school gets a cut. Everybody wins.

***EDIT

The other thing is that kids can grant permission to put their name on jerseys and other products. The schools will be motivated to play ball with them on that front alone because they'll make more money from apparel and memorabilia. The schools will no longer be able to do anything like that without the kids signing off on it going forward so the athlete is going to need some motivation to agree to that.

The way I see it, it's a 2 way street. The positive thing here is that there's no reason everyone can't profit of a system like this.
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2019 06:01 AM by AllTideUp.)
10-02-2019 05:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #80
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-02-2019 05:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Wedge, my only disagreement with your assessment is that inevitably kids will be making money from practices other than just doing endorsements.

They'll sign autographs, sign memorabilia, and provide other services like coaching outside the purview of anything school related. That could be a significant source of income for a whole host of athletes in a variety of sports.

The operative dynamic here is that the smaller the community and the more passionate the fan base, the more opportunities these kids are going to have.

Some random UCLA athlete will likely get lost in the shuffle of Los Angeles. In Tuscaloosa, the odds are a healthy portion of fans will actually know who the long snapper is...just an example.

You won't have any big shoe companies offering deals to non-stars, I agree with that, but you'll have small business owners marketing player appearances to fans. "Come on out this Friday and meet your favorite linebacker! Get an autograph and eat a burrito while you're here!" That sort of thing is highly likely I think.

Also, I'm not sure you're right about the schools not licensing their logos and such. For one, a public institution can't keep a kid from saying where he attends school and plays football. On what grounds would they argue the athlete is coopting the school's name for personal profit? At least, in what manner would the player be using the school to profit in a way that potentially cuts into the school's revenue stream? I think that's more likely to be the standard. I mean technically, he's profiting off the fact he plays for State U, but State U doesn't really have a way to create a revenue stream through such means anyway. I think it's very different than allowing a 3rd party to put your logo on a t-shirt, for example.

More than that, is it really worth the trouble to fight these kids on that front? The schools gain nothing from that tactic. It's a PR problem at best, and a smart athletic department is going to eventually figure out they can out recruit the in-state rival if they just leave it alone. "Don't go to that school! They won't even let you make a little cash on the side. Do you really want to deal with that for 4 years? Come here and we'll let you do your thing."

Also, if the school is really smart then they'll have no problem going the extra mile and actually licensing their logos and such. All they have to do is offer the athlete the opportunity to work a network of donors and business owners to help the kid get plenty of opportunities. The school also has the resources to handle the tax side of it which makes things simple and easy for the athlete. Business owners get the full blessing of State U, the kid gets some cash, and the school gets a cut. Everybody wins.

***EDIT

The other thing is that kids can grant permission to put their name on jerseys and other products. The schools will be motivated to play ball with them on that front alone because they'll make more money from apparel and memorabilia. The schools will no longer be able to do anything like that without the kids signing off on it going forward so the athlete is going to need some motivation to agree to that.

The way I see it, it's a 2 way street. The positive thing here is that there's no reason everyone can't profit of a system like this.

I agree with you. I believe Wedge is in California where there just isn't the same level of enthusiasm for college (or HS) sports.

Plenty of people recognize players other than the QB. We're on the streets of New Orleans and my wife recognizes a cornerback and a 2nd string linebacker from UGA.
10-02-2019 07:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.