(08-19-2019 04:04 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 03:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 12:53 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:29 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  Just such a tricky thing...

Why can't Nike pay someone to wear their gear without hurting their amateur status? They are not being paid to play, they are being paid to advertise.

If the kid worked at a local store where he wore a clown suit flipping a sign around, he is getting paid to do the exact same thing Nike is paying him to do.

Its all about money. The only reason that kid cant be paid--- within NCAA rules--- by Nike is that the NCAA and its member schools would rather have that money themselves. They just use the ruse of amateurism to protect their racket.

There is some truth to that...But I don't think they care much about amateurism...I think they want to keep hope alive in as many places as possible.

The best way to do that is to limit what the have's can do with all that extra money. If you let Alabama, Texas, Michigan, N. Dame... Spend all the money they want to pay players it would really shrink the market because so many schools would just disappear.

Say Alabama can have X# of football scholarships...But if they pay their players 50k a year the players can pay their own way and they would no longer be limited by scholarship numbers.

Those schools already get all the recruits they want. Very little would change other that perhaps those schools would have pay Saban, Harbaugh, Calipari, and Coach K 7 million instead of 10 million a year.

In our world of equality, you can't just pay those student athletes that bring in revenue. You would have to pay all student athletes. It would cost far more than $3M/institution and the players still wouldn't be getting paid what some think they should get paid. I'm good with colleges paying student athletes if someone develops a system that works. I'm yet to hear one, however.

What the school pays is insignificant. It can be whatever it needs to be to satisfy Title IX. The real money would be in letting players benefit off of their likeness. That money comes from the boosters and not from the schools and wouldnt be subject to Title IX rules just as my side job in college wasnt subject to any Title IX regulations.

Since most of the salary a coach gets is from boosters and not the university, that money that would now go to the players would most likely come from the same pool as the coaches salary.

(08-19-2019 03:51 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 03:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 12:53 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:29 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  Just such a tricky thing...

Why can't Nike pay someone to wear their gear without hurting their amateur status? They are not being paid to play, they are being paid to advertise.

If the kid worked at a local store where he wore a clown suit flipping a sign around, he is getting paid to do the exact same thing Nike is paying him to do.

Its all about money. The only reason that kid cant be paid--- within NCAA rules--- by Nike is that the NCAA and its member schools would rather have that money themselves. They just use the ruse of amateurism to protect their racket.

There is some truth to that...But I don't think they care much about amateurism...I think they want to keep hope alive in as many places as possible.

The best way to do that is to limit what the have's can do with all that extra money. If you let Alabama, Texas, Michigan, N. Dame... Spend all the money they want to pay players it would really shrink the market because so many schools would just disappear.

Say Alabama can have X# of football scholarships...But if they pay their players 50k a year the players can pay their own way and they would no longer be limited by scholarship numbers.

Those schools already get all the recruits they want. Very little would change other that perhaps those schools would have pay Saban, Harbaugh, Calipari, and Coach K 7 million instead of 10 million a year.

Nope what would happen is they would gather all the young talent they could and jettison the ones that don't work out. Then they would come and take our good players by offering more cash. Make that legal and football and basketball would be like the olympic sports at Memphis...

Ummmm, all of this stuff already happens. You think Coach K goes, "Ya know what...I've got 2 really good recruits. Now Im just going to get some mediocre ones so everyone else has a shot." Please. Great recruits go to place that (a)give them exposure, (b) give them playing time, ©give them a chance to win, or (d) pay them. And when they dont get one of those things then they leave.

As long there are only 5 players on the court and scholarship limits there will be very little change on the court.

aTxTIGER is killing this thread

(08-20-2019 07:43 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 03:51 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 03:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 12:53 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Its all about money. The only reason that kid cant be paid--- within NCAA rules--- by Nike is that the NCAA and its member schools would rather have that money themselves. They just use the ruse of amateurism to protect their racket.

There is some truth to that...But I don't think they care much about amateurism...I think they want to keep hope alive in as many places as possible.

The best way to do that is to limit what the have's can do with all that extra money. If you let Alabama, Texas, Michigan, N. Dame... Spend all the money they want to pay players it would really shrink the market because so many schools would just disappear.

Say Alabama can have X# of football scholarships...But if they pay their players 50k a year the players can pay their own way and they would no longer be limited by scholarship numbers.

Those schools already get all the recruits they want. Very little would change other that perhaps those schools would have pay Saban, Harbaugh, Calipari, and Coach K 7 million instead of 10 million a year.

Nope what would happen is they would gather all the young talent they could and jettison the ones that don't work out. Then they would come and take our good players by offering more cash. Make that legal and football and basketball would be like the olympic sports at Memphis...

Ummmm, all of this stuff already happens. You think Coach K goes, "Ya know what...I've got 2 really good recruits. Now Im just going to get some mediocre ones so everyone else has a shot." Please. Great recruits go to place that (a)give them exposure, (b) give them playing time, ©give them a chance to win, or (d) pay them. And when they dont get one of those things then they leave.

As long there are only 5 players on the court and scholarship limits there will be very little change on the court.

You missed my point above that if there are no pay limitations then essentially there are no scholarship limits.

Secondly good kids may pass up coach K because they want to play as freshman...Everything else being equal. When there is an extra 50k on the table they may decide to go ahead and redshirt (said this above as well)

(08-19-2019 03:24 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 02:12 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:09 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 06:59 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 07:13 PM)MemDawg91 Wrote:  I’m thinking it would be the opposite. With the exception of Memphis where the tigers are more loved than the Grizzlies, would there be enough interest in those bigger cities that have multiple pro and college teams for players to see a real profit? For example, UCLA is probably the 5th most important team in that market so there wouldn’t be that much interest in buying an autograph or a jersey with the star player’s name on it. In smaller college towns like Starkville, Oxford, Tuscaloosa, etc. where there’s nothing but the college, those players would see more potential earnings and fan interest if they’re the stars of their respective teams. Thoughts?

It would simply be the big donors of the school. The problem with “likeness” is how to prevent the big boosters from paying a kid $200,000 for a signed jersey?

Why is that a problem? If a rich guy is dumb enough to make that transaction he should be allowed to do it. People should be allowed to enter into financial transactions within the law(which paying NCAA students isn't illegal in itself).

If the NCAA and schools can take 200k from this booster and celebrate it why shouldnt a 5 star recruit be able to celebrate taking the same money from the same source?

It is a problem for parity. Nike, Adidas, etc. all have schools that are more marketable than others. How do you prevent Nike from paying all of the top level prospects more money to attend the schools they want them to?

I am not against the players making money. I just do not know how it can be done and you do not end up with 5 to 10 schools that hoard all of the top players and you wind up with absolutely no real parity in the NCAA.

There isnt parity in the NCAA or its member institutions now. Nike is paying top level schools more than smaller schools already. The issue isnt the financial inequality of any sort but where the money goes. I'd prefer the players get it instead of Coach K and Coach Cal making another couple of million.

Lack of parity simply is not true. Watch the NCAA tournament go look at team recruiting rankings.

Again, I do not have a problem with it, I just do not see how you design system where you do not have basically "free agency" among high school recruits except there is no salary cap for teams. So, you end up with a rigged system more or less and an extreme concentration of talent.

(08-20-2019 08:25 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 07:43 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 03:51 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 03:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  There is some truth to that...But I don't think they care much about amateurism...I think they want to keep hope alive in as many places as possible.

The best way to do that is to limit what the have's can do with all that extra money. If you let Alabama, Texas, Michigan, N. Dame... Spend all the money they want to pay players it would really shrink the market because so many schools would just disappear.

Say Alabama can have X# of football scholarships...But if they pay their players 50k a year the players can pay their own way and they would no longer be limited by scholarship numbers.

Those schools already get all the recruits they want. Very little would change other that perhaps those schools would have pay Saban, Harbaugh, Calipari, and Coach K 7 million instead of 10 million a year.

Nope what would happen is they would gather all the young talent they could and jettison the ones that don't work out. Then they would come and take our good players by offering more cash. Make that legal and football and basketball would be like the olympic sports at Memphis...

Ummmm, all of this stuff already happens. You think Coach K goes, "Ya know what...I've got 2 really good recruits. Now Im just going to get some mediocre ones so everyone else has a shot." Please. Great recruits go to place that (a)give them exposure, (b) give them playing time, ©give them a chance to win, or (d) pay them. And when they dont get one of those things then they leave.

As long there are only 5 players on the court and scholarship limits there will be very little change on the court.

You missed my point above that if there are no pay limitations then essentially there are no scholarship limits.

Secondly good kids may pass up coach K because they want to play as freshman...Everything else being equal. When there is an extra 50k on the table they may decide to go ahead and redshirt (said this above as well)

A kid getting paid a couple 100k isnt spending 60k of it to redshirt at Duke while not on scholarship when he can make the same amount of money(140-200k) at another school where he can play on scholly and not have to pay for his own school. Furthermore, a kid who thinks he is good enough to play professionally isnt going to delay his NBA earning potential of millions per year for an extra 50k.

Once again to everyone:

high level kids are already getting paid under the table by shoe companies and boosters.

High level kids are already choosing the same schools where they can get the most exposure and playing time. That's why before this year UK and Duke had the number 1 recruiting classes for the last decade and also why not every kid goes to those schools.

Kids already transfer from lower level schools to higher level schools if they are better than their current level of play(Brandon Clarke being a prime example).

Kids already transfer from the KUs and Louisvilles of the world to smaller profile schools when they get run off. for behavior or performance issues(KJ Lawson from KU; Lance Thomas from UL).



All of this stuff already happens. What doesnt happen is the people who produce the wealth that coaches, administrators, and the NCAA collect do not get the ability to earn for themselves without the sanction of a lifetime ban from the NCAA

(08-19-2019 02:52 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 02:40 PM)rc0213 Wrote:  Sorry, if this is a repeat question, but, I'm assuming Memphis isn't part of the investigation. Am I right?

Nope and this will predate the Penny era.

Thank you, Tubby for not recruiting.