Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
Author Message
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,463
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 206
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #81
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I agree. The NCAA takes this one once it reaches Supreme Court.
10-02-2019 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,956
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 548
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA
Post: #82
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I agree, but find it very amusing that an "amateur" sports association will argue the impact of this law on "interstate commerce".
10-02-2019 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 82
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #83
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 08:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I agree, but find it very amusing that an "amateur" sports association will argue the impact of this law on "interstate commerce".

Reminds me, Ted Tatos, an economist, recently pointed out that in O'Bannon the NCAA claimed its compensation rules "do not regulate any commercial activity." Pfft
10-02-2019 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,618
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 732
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #84
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 08:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I think that Title IX will be the deal breaker for this entire thing. Commerce Clause is a very intriguing argument as well.

I don't see Title IX mattering if the money is from third-parties rather than the institution.

Female athletes will be able to market themselves for name and likeness money, the market will price it.

Different issue from school giving educational opportunities.
10-03-2019 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,618
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 732
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #85
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 09:01 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Why does everybody keep saying that schools have to pay players? No, the state legislation now being passed gives athletes the opportunity to earn outside income from third parties by doing commercials, signing autographs, etc.

It has nothing to do with schools paying players, and thus nothing to do with Title IX.

Bumping cause its not making headway
10-03-2019 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,618
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 732
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #86
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 09:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.


The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.

I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.

No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.

As long as it is arm's length transactions very few players will make anything. Name and likeness revenue is generally insignificant unless you are a big star.

If "boosters" were banned from entering into name and likeness agreements with anyone at the school they are a booster of then very few make anything, unless they are a Zion who has every shoe and apparel company lined up making offers.

Problem is my understanding of the Cali law is player can't endorse a product in conflict with an endorsement of the school. Then Zion would be limited to signing with Nike or no one while in college.

I hope there is no one out there that thinks it is a terrible deal if Joe Fourstar gets a couple bucks if fans buy a jersey with his name on it. Most fans I know would LOVE it because now you can only get a jersey with that player's number. To get the name you have to hope to snatch up a game worn when the school sells them off.
10-03-2019 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,883
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1516
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #87
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 09:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.

I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.

No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.

Honestly, based on actual real world economics almost no college athletes are worth endorsement dollars. NFL players are far more well known and popular than college players---yet only a handful of NFL players per team have endorsement deals. The vast majority of NFL players do not. So college football, that has about 10% of the ratings of the NFL, is unlikley to have many players at all that could attract endorsement deals that actually make economic sense for a corporate entity or business. Additionally, part of the risk of a player endorsement deal is that the player will do something that attracts negative attention. The risk of something like that occurring a deal with a 28 year old NFL player is moderately high---but its exponentially higher with a 19 year old kid just barely out of high school. There would certainly be ZERO real world endorsement value for a high school recruit thats never even played a college game or ever appeared on television.

Thus any endorsement deals given to recruits would basically be enticements to come play for the school (pay for play) and not actually "endorsements". Thats why the olympic model wont work in college sports. Its a different world.

Most college players aren't going to do national commercials. It will be mostly local stuff.
10-03-2019 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,618
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 732
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #88
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
Justice White in Board of Regents v NCAA talked a bit about how the NCAA was a viable enterprise because it offered amateur football rather than professional.
10-03-2019 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,481
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #89
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 09:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.

I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.

No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.

Honestly, based on actual real world economics almost no college athletes are worth endorsement dollars. NFL players are far more well known and popular than college players---yet only a handful of NFL players per team have endorsement deals. The vast majority of NFL players do not. So college football, that has about 10% of the ratings of the NFL, is unlikley to have many players at all that could attract endorsement deals that actually make economic sense for a corporate entity or business. Additionally, part of the risk of a player endorsement deal is that the player will do something that attracts negative attention. The risk of something like that occurring a deal with a 28 year old NFL player is moderately high---but its exponentially higher with a 19 year old kid just barely out of high school. There would certainly be ZERO real world endorsement value for a high school recruit thats never even played a college game or ever appeared on television.

Thus any endorsement deals given to recruits would basically be enticements to come play for the school (pay for play) and not actually "endorsements". Thats why the olympic model wont work in college sports. Its a different world.

As Triple A said, endorsements are likely to be local, and those can be very real. E.g., I can assure you that when an LSU player is a big star, like QB Joe Burrow is right now, there are plenty of local businesses that would like to have him do a TV commercial for them. That celebrity is Real.

Also, big time college athletics is Big Time. I daresay that in late 2012, Johnny Manziel was a LOT more well known than the average NFL player. Jameis Winston was the next year as well, and Baker Mayfield was two years ago. Last year, Zion was a LOT more well known than the typical NBA player. For several months last winter, Zion was getting almost as many mentions on SportsCenter as LeBron. There were probably only 15 - 20 NBA players with greater celebrity status. Again, it's a small number, but the celebrity is real.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 04:28 PM by quo vadis.)
10-03-2019 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,870
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #90
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-03-2019 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.

No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.

Honestly, based on actual real world economics almost no college athletes are worth endorsement dollars. NFL players are far more well known and popular than college players---yet only a handful of NFL players per team have endorsement deals. The vast majority of NFL players do not. So college football, that has about 10% of the ratings of the NFL, is unlikley to have many players at all that could attract endorsement deals that actually make economic sense for a corporate entity or business. Additionally, part of the risk of a player endorsement deal is that the player will do something that attracts negative attention. The risk of something like that occurring a deal with a 28 year old NFL player is moderately high---but its exponentially higher with a 19 year old kid just barely out of high school. There would certainly be ZERO real world endorsement value for a high school recruit thats never even played a college game or ever appeared on television.

Thus any endorsement deals given to recruits would basically be enticements to come play for the school (pay for play) and not actually "endorsements". Thats why the olympic model wont work in college sports. Its a different world.

As Triple A said, endorsements are likely to be local, and those can be very real. E.g., I can assure you that when an LSU player is a big star, like QB Joe Burrow is right now, there are plenty of local businesses that would like to have him do a TV commercial for them. That celebrity is Real.

Also, big time college athletics is Big Time. I daresay that in late 2012, Johnny Manziel was a LOT more well known than the average NFL player. Jameis Winston was the next year as well, and Baker Mayfield was two years ago. Last year, Zion was a LOT more well known than the typical NBA player. For several months last winter, Zion was getting almost as many mentions on SportsCenter as LeBron. There were probably only 15 - 20 NBA players with greater celebrity status. Again, it's a small number, but the celebrity is real.

I think people are still vastly overestimating the real world economic value of these players. Johnny Manziel was a hugely well known college player who played for a school that routinely packs 100K into their stadium. Sports business writer Kristi Dosh just tweeted that in 2012-2013, at the height of "Johnny Football" fever---Texas A&M made just $59,690 on jersey sales. Thats not just Johnny Manziel jersey sales---that ALL jersey sales for that year. That just confirms my suspicion that this is just going to be pay for play with a third party footing the bill. Its essentially legalizing what SMU got the death penalty for. My guess is a lot of it will be one-time lump sum payments cloaked as "appearance" fees.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 04:54 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-03-2019 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,982
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #91
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-03-2019 04:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.

Honestly, based on actual real world economics almost no college athletes are worth endorsement dollars. NFL players are far more well known and popular than college players---yet only a handful of NFL players per team have endorsement deals. The vast majority of NFL players do not. So college football, that has about 10% of the ratings of the NFL, is unlikley to have many players at all that could attract endorsement deals that actually make economic sense for a corporate entity or business. Additionally, part of the risk of a player endorsement deal is that the player will do something that attracts negative attention. The risk of something like that occurring a deal with a 28 year old NFL player is moderately high---but its exponentially higher with a 19 year old kid just barely out of high school. There would certainly be ZERO real world endorsement value for a high school recruit thats never even played a college game or ever appeared on television.

Thus any endorsement deals given to recruits would basically be enticements to come play for the school (pay for play) and not actually "endorsements". Thats why the olympic model wont work in college sports. Its a different world.

As Triple A said, endorsements are likely to be local, and those can be very real. E.g., I can assure you that when an LSU player is a big star, like QB Joe Burrow is right now, there are plenty of local businesses that would like to have him do a TV commercial for them. That celebrity is Real.

Also, big time college athletics is Big Time. I daresay that in late 2012, Johnny Manziel was a LOT more well known than the average NFL player. Jameis Winston was the next year as well, and Baker Mayfield was two years ago. Last year, Zion was a LOT more well known than the typical NBA player. For several months last winter, Zion was getting almost as many mentions on SportsCenter as LeBron. There were probably only 15 - 20 NBA players with greater celebrity status. Again, it's a small number, but the celebrity is real.

I think people are still vastly overestimating the real world economic value of these players. Johnny Manziel was a hugely well known college player who played for a school that routinely packs 100K into their stadium. Sports business writer Kristi Dosh just tweeted that in 2012-2013, at the height of "Johnny Football" fever---Texas A&M made just $59,690 on jersey sales. Thats not just Johnny Manziel jersey sales---that ALL jersey sales for that year. That just confirms my suspicion that this is just going to be pay for play with a third party footing the bill. Its essentially legalizing what SMU got the death penalty for. My guess is a lot of it will be one-time lump sum payments cloaked as "appearance" fees.


There is a difference between a Johnny Manziel than other players. He came from a wealthy family that is rich. He did not need the money than say someone living in a rundown neighborhood. Johnny was nothing but a spoil brat.
10-03-2019 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,481
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #92
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-03-2019 04:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.

Honestly, based on actual real world economics almost no college athletes are worth endorsement dollars. NFL players are far more well known and popular than college players---yet only a handful of NFL players per team have endorsement deals. The vast majority of NFL players do not. So college football, that has about 10% of the ratings of the NFL, is unlikley to have many players at all that could attract endorsement deals that actually make economic sense for a corporate entity or business. Additionally, part of the risk of a player endorsement deal is that the player will do something that attracts negative attention. The risk of something like that occurring a deal with a 28 year old NFL player is moderately high---but its exponentially higher with a 19 year old kid just barely out of high school. There would certainly be ZERO real world endorsement value for a high school recruit thats never even played a college game or ever appeared on television.

Thus any endorsement deals given to recruits would basically be enticements to come play for the school (pay for play) and not actually "endorsements". Thats why the olympic model wont work in college sports. Its a different world.

As Triple A said, endorsements are likely to be local, and those can be very real. E.g., I can assure you that when an LSU player is a big star, like QB Joe Burrow is right now, there are plenty of local businesses that would like to have him do a TV commercial for them. That celebrity is Real.

Also, big time college athletics is Big Time. I daresay that in late 2012, Johnny Manziel was a LOT more well known than the average NFL player. Jameis Winston was the next year as well, and Baker Mayfield was two years ago. Last year, Zion was a LOT more well known than the typical NBA player. For several months last winter, Zion was getting almost as many mentions on SportsCenter as LeBron. There were probably only 15 - 20 NBA players with greater celebrity status. Again, it's a small number, but the celebrity is real.

I think people are still vastly overestimating the real world economic value of these players. Johnny Manziel was a hugely well known college player who played for a school that routinely packs 100K into their stadium. Sports business writer Kristi Dosh just tweeted that in 2012-2013, at the height of "Johnny Football" fever---Texas A&M made just $59,690 on jersey sales. Thats not just Johnny Manziel jersey sales---that ALL jersey sales for that year. That just confirms my suspicion that this is just going to be pay for play with a third party footing the bill. Its essentially legalizing what SMU got the death penalty for. My guess is a lot of it will be one-time lump sum payments cloaked as "appearance" fees.

I disagree, I think Manziel could have made a lot of money off endorsements during his run of Heisman year fame.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct on both counts: First, there really is very little actual market for endorsements by college athletes, but second, there still WILL be a ton of money thrown at players by boosters and businesses cloaked as name/likeness money but in reality it is pay-for-play money of the kind SMU was offering. A car dealership tells a big recruit "come to Alabama and we'll put your face on these billboards, and you'll get $5,000 a month spending cash and momma gets a new car".

So what? If a 5-star recruit is worth $150,000 to Alabama to sign him, because Coach Saban says he really needs him, and because it keeps him from going to Auburn or Clemson, why shouldn't he get that $150,000? And better from a business so as to keep the school out of the picture (hence no Title IX and other regulatory headaches).

Heck, this might even have the "level playing field" impact that G5 fans have always wanted. A school like Temple can't compete for a top recruit on prestige and legacy and name brand value with a Penn State, but if Temple happens to have a billionaire alumnus, they might be able to throw more money at him and lure the kid away. Even in Florida, schools like UCF and USF are short on the current coin of the realm - history and legacy and prestige - but we do churn out gobs and gobs of graduates, many making good money and hungry to see us reach parity with the P5 powers, which means we might have the money to compete with the Miamis and FSUs and Floridas if a "wild west" scenario develops. Memphis has shamelessly tried yo buy its way in to conferences via FedEx, so they could presumably help pay big money for recruits.

There's no easy way to overcome a legacy/prestige/conference affiliation disadvantage, as those things take decades to build. And that's basically the difference between a Florida and a UCF. But if money enters the fray, that could be a game-changer.

Really, a Wild West free for all could be the one thing that busts up the "cartel" as G5 fans call it. It could hardly make things worse.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 07:19 PM by quo vadis.)
10-03-2019 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.