The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(10-03-2019 09:40 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:20 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 08:51 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  Let's see, how might this work...for example a "school" like, say, Louisville, will recruit like this: Identify prospect, have him meet with Joe Car Dealer donor. In exchange for Car dealer donor to have rights to display picture of recruit in his showroom he pays recruit whatever his previous highest bid has been plus whatever...let's just say in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Every player will have a price to sign. Some may be insignificant but others will be huge. It may be free market (surprised Newsome would be for this) but it simply turns college sports totally professional and maybe worse. What is the point of a college sponsoring a professional football or basketball team?

I think you are blowing this WAY out of proportion...there is no chance that Joe Somebody, a 3* OT from Stebuenville, OH will be out there searching for sponsorship deals, because he ain't worth it, same as the #101 rated basketball recruit from BFN Iowa. This is only going to likely impact the recruitment of say, 100 football players and 60 or so basketball players every year...and we aren't getting those guys anyways (just like 90% of the colleges in the country anyways). Plus, what you fail to notice is that there is no way in hell the numbers you're throwing out would be used for High Schoolers outside of the Top 10 or so kids in each class for football, and any particularly nationally recognizable basketball recruits. Brian Bowen (who you're referencing by the Louisville comment) was paid for by a rogue agent with ties Adidas, one of the largest sporting equipment and apparel brands in the world, not some car dealer down in Bardstown. 90% of the companies in the pockets of colleges can't afford, or wouldn't pay for, a high schooler to play a sport. Skyline isn't going to cut a $50,000 a year check to Desmond Ridder to eat a coney...let's be real here. We're talking about maybe numbers in the $1,000-$10,000 range at most for all but the most highly 'promotable' assets (Tua, Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields etc.)

It's been going on for years but under the table. Now it's legal and there is no risk to the university for infractions. I'm not talking about companies like Skyline actually expecting to use the likeness or whatever to make money--that might happen. What I'm saying is Joe Somebody will have several offers and there will be bidding from well heeled donors and he will go for the best offer. It's simply professional and I don't know why colleges should be sponsoring professional teams. The amount of money is irrelevant. I used Louisville simply because, in my opinion, they represent the nadir of corruption in college sports.

Dude...have you actually read the California legislation? It sure sounds like you haven't.

The only activities that it "legalizes" (they weren't illegal to begin with, just not acceptable by the NCAA) are the payment to student athletes for the express use of their likeness in marketing, advertising, and business ventures in visual, digital, and physical media.

No where in there does this specific act promote donors lining up checks for players, and it implicitly states that that's not an activity this act promotes. This act explicitly allows students to profit off of the use of their likeness and nothing more. And the amount of money is absolutely relevant...you can't throw out hypothetical $100,000 checks and say "THIS WILL HAPPEN I HATE IT GIVE ME BACK MY AMATEUR ATHLETICS" when that literally only happens at like 6 schools in the country. Numbers like that are meant to demonize the act and shift the scope of the conversation so people who make less than that amount think "Why is the WR on SE North Dakota Tech going to make double what I make in a year to play football!"...just stop man, you clearly aren't well versed on the issue.

Ill start by saying im very petty. So with that said..Man it would be absolutely hilarious if UCLA couldnt be in the NCAA tournament. Mick wouldnt care though since the tournament is for the fans

(10-03-2019 10:08 AM)coachpipe Wrote:  Ill start by saying im very petty. So with that said..Man it would be absolutely hilarious if UCLA couldnt be in the NCAA tournament. Mick wouldnt care though since the tournament is for the fans

Comment of the day

Biggest benefit for me personally is that this will almost certainly allow for EA NCAA Football to return.

To compare, EA disburses royalty payments of $5,000 to every NFL player, which comes out to about $8.5M/year of their roughly $50M/year license. If EA pays the NCAA a license rights deal of $50M/year (which they would more than make back) that would equate to about $1000 royalty checks for each player in the game along with a $20M disbursement to the NCAA every year. Is anyone going to be pissed about kids getting a blanket $1,000 check? I'm certainly not...after taxes, that's enough to go out to dinner 2 times a month every year.

(10-02-2019 04:06 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 03:44 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:19 PM)ZCat Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:51 PM)eroc Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:21 PM)dubcat14 Wrote:  I felt that way at first but now I'm not so sure.. These recruits we're currently taking from the MSU's and UK's of the world; they may not always be there if the SEC or Big 10 schools decide to throw some cash at these recruits we're in on and UC won't be able to match the funds due to our tighter budgets.

It's my belief that if boosters can begin playing athletes, it will further separate the haves from the have-nots.

i don't think the schools are allowed to directly pay athletes. Second, there is a limit to how much money is out there. Sure you hear about some larger sums out there but they tend to be one off type payments. I posted earlier about instagram jokingly but in reality being an instagram influencer is probably the most direct way that a lot of non-elite athletes (think Zion) will make their money. i can also see shoe and apparel companies having WAY more influence now that this becomes all above board. i believe the schools are protected in the sense that student-athletes are unable to engage in sponsorships/endorsements that conflict with those maintained by the institution. That said, i can see a lot of sneaker company affiliated aau teams directing prospects to specific institutions (ergo, nike routing bball players to Oregon and Duke, etc) with the promise of endorsement money. Even that has limits though. Not every prep school prospect ends up being Zion.

Schools can’t , but companies can. I also fear this will hurt Cincinnati in some way because we don’t have as many big donors.

We have 9 Fortune 500 companies in Cincinnati, and 11 in the Tri-State area...5 of which are helmed by UC alumni. If it gets into a coporate situation, I'd say we're in a better situation than the Wake Forests, Utah's, and Kansas's of the world

I was thinking the same thing about that. If anything, I could see this move benefit the likes of UC, Houston, UCF, Memphis, Temple, San Diego State and a couple others at the expense of the likes of Washington State, Kansas State, Oregon State, Mississippi State, and of course Wake. The public schools I mentioned are all located in extremely small states, primarily in small towns and are basically where they are in the college athletic universe due to associations and partnerships forged 100 years ago. Throw in legislation like the one in California on a national level and suddenly a half-way decent recruit would be an idiot to pick one of those schools for a revenue sport- and then the rest of the P5 have less need for those schools anymore.

Thus the P5 sheds schools and splits the pot among a smaller group...just like I've been saying for years.

The top-tier schools will be the beneficiaries here and this will shove out the poorer schools. At the end of the day, what will matter is the size of the body of alumni and who they work for. You also have to factor in the quality of the program--more $$$ means better athletes and better coaches, which means more 4 and 5-star athletes to the cream of the current P5.

Everybody else will be tossed in the garbage can.

(10-03-2019 10:06 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:40 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:20 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 08:51 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  Let's see, how might this work...for example a "school" like, say, Louisville, will recruit like this: Identify prospect, have him meet with Joe Car Dealer donor. In exchange for Car dealer donor to have rights to display picture of recruit in his showroom he pays recruit whatever his previous highest bid has been plus whatever...let's just say in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Every player will have a price to sign. Some may be insignificant but others will be huge. It may be free market (surprised Newsome would be for this) but it simply turns college sports totally professional and maybe worse. What is the point of a college sponsoring a professional football or basketball team?

I think you are blowing this WAY out of proportion...there is no chance that Joe Somebody, a 3* OT from Stebuenville, OH will be out there searching for sponsorship deals, because he ain't worth it, same as the #101 rated basketball recruit from BFN Iowa. This is only going to likely impact the recruitment of say, 100 football players and 60 or so basketball players every year...and we aren't getting those guys anyways (just like 90% of the colleges in the country anyways). Plus, what you fail to notice is that there is no way in hell the numbers you're throwing out would be used for High Schoolers outside of the Top 10 or so kids in each class for football, and any particularly nationally recognizable basketball recruits. Brian Bowen (who you're referencing by the Louisville comment) was paid for by a rogue agent with ties Adidas, one of the largest sporting equipment and apparel brands in the world, not some car dealer down in Bardstown. 90% of the companies in the pockets of colleges can't afford, or wouldn't pay for, a high schooler to play a sport. Skyline isn't going to cut a $50,000 a year check to Desmond Ridder to eat a coney...let's be real here. We're talking about maybe numbers in the $1,000-$10,000 range at most for all but the most highly 'promotable' assets (Tua, Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields etc.)

It's been going on for years but under the table. Now it's legal and there is no risk to the university for infractions. I'm not talking about companies like Skyline actually expecting to use the likeness or whatever to make money--that might happen. What I'm saying is Joe Somebody will have several offers and there will be bidding from well heeled donors and he will go for the best offer. It's simply professional and I don't know why colleges should be sponsoring professional teams. The amount of money is irrelevant. I used Louisville simply because, in my opinion, they represent the nadir of corruption in college sports.

Dude...have you actually read the California legislation? It sure sounds like you haven't.

The only activities that it "legalizes" (they weren't illegal to begin with, just not acceptable by the NCAA) are the payment to student athletes for the express use of their likeness in marketing, advertising, and business ventures in visual, digital, and physical media.

No where in there does this specific act promote donors lining up checks for players, and it implicitly states that that's not an activity this act promotes. This act explicitly allows students to profit off of the use of their likeness and nothing more. And the amount of money is absolutely relevant...you can't throw out hypothetical $100,000 checks and say "THIS WILL HAPPEN I HATE IT GIVE ME BACK MY AMATEUR ATHLETICS" when that literally only happens at like 6 schools in the country. Numbers like that are meant to demonize the act and shift the scope of the conversation so people who make less than that amount think "Why is the WR on SE North Dakota Tech going to make double what I make in a year to play football!"...just stop man, you clearly aren't well versed on the issue.

Dude...you've gone hysterical. I gave an example of a payment to a player for express use of his likeness in marketing or advertising. Is the NCAA going to employ valuation experts to determine whether every one of these are proper? I said every player will have a price, some insignificant and some huge. That makes it professional and I don't understand why colleges are sponsoring professional sports. I won't bother responding to the rest of your rant.

(10-03-2019 10:22 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Biggest benefit for me personally is that this will almost certainly allow for EA NCAA Football to return.

To compare, EA disburses royalty payments of $5,000 to every NFL player, which comes out to about $8.5M/year of their roughly $50M/year license. If EA pays the NCAA a license rights deal of $50M/year (which they would more than make back) that would equate to about $1000 royalty checks for each player in the game along with a $20M disbursement to the NCAA every year. Is anyone going to be pissed about kids getting a blanket $1,000 check? I'm certainly not...after taxes, that's enough to go out to dinner 2 times a month every year.

From your keyboard to all the deities ears.

(10-03-2019 10:46 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 10:06 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:40 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:20 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 08:51 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  Let's see, how might this work...for example a "school" like, say, Louisville, will recruit like this: Identify prospect, have him meet with Joe Car Dealer donor. In exchange for Car dealer donor to have rights to display picture of recruit in his showroom he pays recruit whatever his previous highest bid has been plus whatever...let's just say in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Every player will have a price to sign. Some may be insignificant but others will be huge. It may be free market (surprised Newsome would be for this) but it simply turns college sports totally professional and maybe worse. What is the point of a college sponsoring a professional football or basketball team?

I think you are blowing this WAY out of proportion...there is no chance that Joe Somebody, a 3* OT from Stebuenville, OH will be out there searching for sponsorship deals, because he ain't worth it, same as the #101 rated basketball recruit from BFN Iowa. This is only going to likely impact the recruitment of say, 100 football players and 60 or so basketball players every year...and we aren't getting those guys anyways (just like 90% of the colleges in the country anyways). Plus, what you fail to notice is that there is no way in hell the numbers you're throwing out would be used for High Schoolers outside of the Top 10 or so kids in each class for football, and any particularly nationally recognizable basketball recruits. Brian Bowen (who you're referencing by the Louisville comment) was paid for by a rogue agent with ties Adidas, one of the largest sporting equipment and apparel brands in the world, not some car dealer down in Bardstown. 90% of the companies in the pockets of colleges can't afford, or wouldn't pay for, a high schooler to play a sport. Skyline isn't going to cut a $50,000 a year check to Desmond Ridder to eat a coney...let's be real here. We're talking about maybe numbers in the $1,000-$10,000 range at most for all but the most highly 'promotable' assets (Tua, Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields etc.)

It's been going on for years but under the table. Now it's legal and there is no risk to the university for infractions. I'm not talking about companies like Skyline actually expecting to use the likeness or whatever to make money--that might happen. What I'm saying is Joe Somebody will have several offers and there will be bidding from well heeled donors and he will go for the best offer. It's simply professional and I don't know why colleges should be sponsoring professional teams. The amount of money is irrelevant. I used Louisville simply because, in my opinion, they represent the nadir of corruption in college sports.

Dude...have you actually read the California legislation? It sure sounds like you haven't.

The only activities that it "legalizes" (they weren't illegal to begin with, just not acceptable by the NCAA) are the payment to student athletes for the express use of their likeness in marketing, advertising, and business ventures in visual, digital, and physical media.

No where in there does this specific act promote donors lining up checks for players, and it implicitly states that that's not an activity this act promotes. This act explicitly allows students to profit off of the use of their likeness and nothing more. And the amount of money is absolutely relevant...you can't throw out hypothetical $100,000 checks and say "THIS WILL HAPPEN I HATE IT GIVE ME BACK MY AMATEUR ATHLETICS" when that literally only happens at like 6 schools in the country. Numbers like that are meant to demonize the act and shift the scope of the conversation so people who make less than that amount think "Why is the WR on SE North Dakota Tech going to make double what I make in a year to play football!"...just stop man, you clearly aren't well versed on the issue.

Dude...you've gone hysterical. I gave an example of a payment to a player for express use of his likeness in marketing or advertising. Is the NCAA going to employ valuation experts to determine whether every one of these are proper? I said every player will have a price, some insignificant and some huge. That makes it professional and I don't understand why colleges are sponsoring professional sports. I won't bother responding to the rest of your rant.

You gave an example of a car dealer giving a kid $100,000...which won't happen EVER ...I responded in kind with what likely actually will happen and what the law actually states to ensure that the mass hysteria that this will destroy college sports is struck down the way it should be. All of these people yelling about "our amateur sports" who were never involved in said amateur sports at the college level just reek of Old Man Shouts At Cloud Syndrome.

Memphis has Smith and Fedex to fund them.
Houston has Tilman Fertitta and his Casinos, Landry's/ Del Friscos, etc.
WSU has one Koch brother.
The Lindner Group has FCC to distract them.

We are toast.

(10-02-2019 08:17 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:28 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Let them earn. That’s the American way.

That's certainly an option for those athletes good enough to be drafted by one of the professional leagues. Those who aren't can opt to utilize their scholarships to the fullest, earn a degree (or more), and like the vast majority of us, seek a rewarding job and career in a non-athletic pursuit.

Then the NBA and NFL need to remove their draft restrictions. If the NCAA won't allow kids to get paid, they should be able to go pro out of high school. You don't need a degree to play professional basketball or football.

(10-03-2019 11:44 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 10:46 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 10:06 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:40 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:20 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I think you are blowing this WAY out of proportion...there is no chance that Joe Somebody, a 3* OT from Stebuenville, OH will be out there searching for sponsorship deals, because he ain't worth it, same as the #101 rated basketball recruit from BFN Iowa. This is only going to likely impact the recruitment of say, 100 football players and 60 or so basketball players every year...and we aren't getting those guys anyways (just like 90% of the colleges in the country anyways). Plus, what you fail to notice is that there is no way in hell the numbers you're throwing out would be used for High Schoolers outside of the Top 10 or so kids in each class for football, and any particularly nationally recognizable basketball recruits. Brian Bowen (who you're referencing by the Louisville comment) was paid for by a rogue agent with ties Adidas, one of the largest sporting equipment and apparel brands in the world, not some car dealer down in Bardstown. 90% of the companies in the pockets of colleges can't afford, or wouldn't pay for, a high schooler to play a sport. Skyline isn't going to cut a $50,000 a year check to Desmond Ridder to eat a coney...let's be real here. We're talking about maybe numbers in the $1,000-$10,000 range at most for all but the most highly 'promotable' assets (Tua, Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields etc.)

It's been going on for years but under the table. Now it's legal and there is no risk to the university for infractions. I'm not talking about companies like Skyline actually expecting to use the likeness or whatever to make money--that might happen. What I'm saying is Joe Somebody will have several offers and there will be bidding from well heeled donors and he will go for the best offer. It's simply professional and I don't know why colleges should be sponsoring professional teams. The amount of money is irrelevant. I used Louisville simply because, in my opinion, they represent the nadir of corruption in college sports.

Dude...have you actually read the California legislation? It sure sounds like you haven't.

The only activities that it "legalizes" (they weren't illegal to begin with, just not acceptable by the NCAA) are the payment to student athletes for the express use of their likeness in marketing, advertising, and business ventures in visual, digital, and physical media.

No where in there does this specific act promote donors lining up checks for players, and it implicitly states that that's not an activity this act promotes. This act explicitly allows students to profit off of the use of their likeness and nothing more. And the amount of money is absolutely relevant...you can't throw out hypothetical $100,000 checks and say "THIS WILL HAPPEN I HATE IT GIVE ME BACK MY AMATEUR ATHLETICS" when that literally only happens at like 6 schools in the country. Numbers like that are meant to demonize the act and shift the scope of the conversation so people who make less than that amount think "Why is the WR on SE North Dakota Tech going to make double what I make in a year to play football!"...just stop man, you clearly aren't well versed on the issue.

Dude...you've gone hysterical. I gave an example of a payment to a player for express use of his likeness in marketing or advertising. Is the NCAA going to employ valuation experts to determine whether every one of these are proper? I said every player will have a price, some insignificant and some huge. That makes it professional and I don't understand why colleges are sponsoring professional sports. I won't bother responding to the rest of your rant.

You gave an example of a car dealer giving a kid $100,000...which won't happen EVER ...I responded in kind with what likely actually will happen and what the law actually states to ensure that the mass hysteria that this will destroy college sports is struck down the way it should be. All of these people yelling about "our amateur sports" who were never involved in said amateur sports at the college level just reek of Old Man Shouts At Cloud Syndrome.

Just to humor you...any idea how big car dealership groups in Cincinnati are? You think $100k is big money to them? Have any dealership groups in Cincinnati ever been implicated in aiding UC recruiting? But it doesn't matter who or exactly how much. The point, again, is that players services will be bid for and that makes it entirely professional. No crime in that but I'm still trying to understand why academic institutions would be in the professional sports business.

(10-03-2019 12:45 PM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 11:44 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 10:46 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 10:06 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:40 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  It's been going on for years but under the table. Now it's legal and there is no risk to the university for infractions. I'm not talking about companies like Skyline actually expecting to use the likeness or whatever to make money--that might happen. What I'm saying is Joe Somebody will have several offers and there will be bidding from well heeled donors and he will go for the best offer. It's simply professional and I don't know why colleges should be sponsoring professional teams. The amount of money is irrelevant. I used Louisville simply because, in my opinion, they represent the nadir of corruption in college sports.

Dude...have you actually read the California legislation? It sure sounds like you haven't.

The only activities that it "legalizes" (they weren't illegal to begin with, just not acceptable by the NCAA) are the payment to student athletes for the express use of their likeness in marketing, advertising, and business ventures in visual, digital, and physical media.

No where in there does this specific act promote donors lining up checks for players, and it implicitly states that that's not an activity this act promotes. This act explicitly allows students to profit off of the use of their likeness and nothing more. And the amount of money is absolutely relevant...you can't throw out hypothetical $100,000 checks and say "THIS WILL HAPPEN I HATE IT GIVE ME BACK MY AMATEUR ATHLETICS" when that literally only happens at like 6 schools in the country. Numbers like that are meant to demonize the act and shift the scope of the conversation so people who make less than that amount think "Why is the WR on SE North Dakota Tech going to make double what I make in a year to play football!"...just stop man, you clearly aren't well versed on the issue.

Dude...you've gone hysterical. I gave an example of a payment to a player for express use of his likeness in marketing or advertising. Is the NCAA going to employ valuation experts to determine whether every one of these are proper? I said every player will have a price, some insignificant and some huge. That makes it professional and I don't understand why colleges are sponsoring professional sports. I won't bother responding to the rest of your rant.

You gave an example of a car dealer giving a kid $100,000...which won't happen EVER ...I responded in kind with what likely actually will happen and what the law actually states to ensure that the mass hysteria that this will destroy college sports is struck down the way it should be. All of these people yelling about "our amateur sports" who were never involved in said amateur sports at the college level just reek of Old Man Shouts At Cloud Syndrome.

Just to humor you...any idea how big car dealership groups in Cincinnati are? You think $100k is big money to them? Have any dealership groups in Cincinnati ever been implicated in aiding UC recruiting? But it doesn't matter who or exactly how much. The point, again, is that players services will be bid for and that makes it entirely professional. No crime in that but I'm still trying to understand why academic institutions would be in the professional sports business.

Lets look at the Jeff Wyler Auto Group, the largest auto distributor in the area, and just so happens to be helmed by one of our trustees. Well, at the current dealership margin of 5.9% according to NADA data for FY18, they'd have to pull $1B in revenue, converted to $60,000,000 in sales profit to simply make enough to cover their payroll at $48,000 average salary for their 1,200 employees (that $60,000,000 in gross sales profit would come from an average sales/leasing service for right around 30,000 cars a year, just under 1% of all auto sales in 2018 in the US, which seems reasonable for a metropolitan area with roughly 3,000,000 citizens (.8% of the US Population).

Now, since some of their dealerships also have attached auto/body shops, I'd say the company likely pulls in $45,000,000-$50,000,000 in gross profit from all products and services per year. Taking down inventory management, insurance, and, employer benefits, and all the other fun stuff involved in being a private business, I'd say after it's ALL said and done, there's probably $8,000,000 for Jeff pre-tax. I'm guessing he isn't going to want to blow 2% of his yearly salary on John Smith to come catch footballs for the Bearcats...but that's just because that doesn't make good business sense, and anyone who is in the auto industry with the current numbers staring them in the face will probably be more cautious with spending nowadays anyways.

Alas, we are not here to discuss the finer points of auto sales, I simply think that implying that programs have Buddy Gerrity type guys popping out of the weeds to write checks to people is insane. Sure there may be one or two...but it's not going to bring down the house just because people are asking to make money of their own identity rather than being rolled out there with no financial recourse outside of a scholarship which precludes them from making ANY money outside of that. I still laugh about the fact that my first two co-ops in Civil Engineering had to be unpaid because Compliance could not prove that I was not personally benefiting due to my status as a college athlete. Luckily the NCAA got their heads out of their asses when they finally realized that it was a mandatory component of my education.

(10-03-2019 01:53 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 12:45 PM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 11:44 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 10:46 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 10:06 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Dude...have you actually read the California legislation? It sure sounds like you haven't.

The only activities that it "legalizes" (they weren't illegal to begin with, just not acceptable by the NCAA) are the payment to student athletes for the express use of their likeness in marketing, advertising, and business ventures in visual, digital, and physical media.

No where in there does this specific act promote donors lining up checks for players, and it implicitly states that that's not an activity this act promotes. This act explicitly allows students to profit off of the use of their likeness and nothing more. And the amount of money is absolutely relevant...you can't throw out hypothetical $100,000 checks and say "THIS WILL HAPPEN I HATE IT GIVE ME BACK MY AMATEUR ATHLETICS" when that literally only happens at like 6 schools in the country. Numbers like that are meant to demonize the act and shift the scope of the conversation so people who make less than that amount think "Why is the WR on SE North Dakota Tech going to make double what I make in a year to play football!"...just stop man, you clearly aren't well versed on the issue.

Dude...you've gone hysterical. I gave an example of a payment to a player for express use of his likeness in marketing or advertising. Is the NCAA going to employ valuation experts to determine whether every one of these are proper? I said every player will have a price, some insignificant and some huge. That makes it professional and I don't understand why colleges are sponsoring professional sports. I won't bother responding to the rest of your rant.

You gave an example of a car dealer giving a kid $100,000...which won't happen EVER ...I responded in kind with what likely actually will happen and what the law actually states to ensure that the mass hysteria that this will destroy college sports is struck down the way it should be. All of these people yelling about "our amateur sports" who were never involved in said amateur sports at the college level just reek of Old Man Shouts At Cloud Syndrome.

Just to humor you...any idea how big car dealership groups in Cincinnati are? You think $100k is big money to them? Have any dealership groups in Cincinnati ever been implicated in aiding UC recruiting? But it doesn't matter who or exactly how much. The point, again, is that players services will be bid for and that makes it entirely professional. No crime in that but I'm still trying to understand why academic institutions would be in the professional sports business.

Lets look at the Jeff Wyler Auto Group, the largest auto distributor in the area, and just so happens to be helmed by one of our trustees. Well, at the current dealership margin of 5.9% according to NADA data for FY18, they'd have to pull $1B in revenue, converted to $60,000,000 in sales profit to simply make enough to cover their payroll at $48,000 average salary for their 1,200 employees (that $60,000,000 in gross sales profit would come from an average sales/leasing service for right around 30,000 cars a year, just under 1% of all auto sales in 2018 in the US, which seems reasonable for a metropolitan area with roughly 3,000,000 citizens (.8% of the US Population).

Now, since some of their dealerships also have attached auto/body shops, I'd say the company likely pulls in $45,000,000-$50,000,000 in gross profit from all products and services per year. Taking down inventory management, insurance, and, employer benefits, and all the other fun stuff involved in being a private business, I'd say after it's ALL said and done, there's probably $8,000,000 for Jeff pre-tax. I'm guessing he isn't going to want to blow 2% of his yearly salary on John Smith to come catch footballs for the Bearcats...but that's just because that doesn't make good business sense, and anyone who is in the auto industry with the current numbers staring them in the face will probably be more cautious with spending nowadays anyways.

Alas, we are not here to discuss the finer points of auto sales, I simply think that implying that programs have Buddy Gerrity type guys popping out of the weeds to write checks to people is insane. Sure there may be one or two...but it's not going to bring down the house just because people are asking to make money of their own identity rather than being rolled out there with no financial recourse outside of a scholarship which precludes them from making ANY money outside of that. I still laugh about the fact that my first two co-ops in Civil Engineering had to be unpaid because Compliance could not prove that I was not personally benefiting due to my status as a college athlete. Luckily the NCAA got their heads out of their asses when they finally realized that it was a mandatory component of my education.

Tuition, room and board paid for, stipend for living expenses, tutors and I don't know what else, and a leg up in the local job market when they graduate...I'm surprised any athlete would sign up for that...I'll throw some money onto the field after the game Friday night.

(10-03-2019 03:39 PM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 01:53 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 12:45 PM)cmhcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 11:44 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 10:46 AM)cmhcat Wrote:  Dude...you've gone hysterical. I gave an example of a payment to a player for express use of his likeness in marketing or advertising. Is the NCAA going to employ valuation experts to determine whether every one of these are proper? I said every player will have a price, some insignificant and some huge. That makes it professional and I don't understand why colleges are sponsoring professional sports. I won't bother responding to the rest of your rant.

You gave an example of a car dealer giving a kid $100,000...which won't happen EVER ...I responded in kind with what likely actually will happen and what the law actually states to ensure that the mass hysteria that this will destroy college sports is struck down the way it should be. All of these people yelling about "our amateur sports" who were never involved in said amateur sports at the college level just reek of Old Man Shouts At Cloud Syndrome.

Just to humor you...any idea how big car dealership groups in Cincinnati are? You think $100k is big money to them? Have any dealership groups in Cincinnati ever been implicated in aiding UC recruiting? But it doesn't matter who or exactly how much. The point, again, is that players services will be bid for and that makes it entirely professional. No crime in that but I'm still trying to understand why academic institutions would be in the professional sports business.

Lets look at the Jeff Wyler Auto Group, the largest auto distributor in the area, and just so happens to be helmed by one of our trustees. Well, at the current dealership margin of 5.9% according to NADA data for FY18, they'd have to pull $1B in revenue, converted to $60,000,000 in sales profit to simply make enough to cover their payroll at $48,000 average salary for their 1,200 employees (that $60,000,000 in gross sales profit would come from an average sales/leasing service for right around 30,000 cars a year, just under 1% of all auto sales in 2018 in the US, which seems reasonable for a metropolitan area with roughly 3,000,000 citizens (.8% of the US Population).

Now, since some of their dealerships also have attached auto/body shops, I'd say the company likely pulls in $45,000,000-$50,000,000 in gross profit from all products and services per year. Taking down inventory management, insurance, and, employer benefits, and all the other fun stuff involved in being a private business, I'd say after it's ALL said and done, there's probably $8,000,000 for Jeff pre-tax. I'm guessing he isn't going to want to blow 2% of his yearly salary on John Smith to come catch footballs for the Bearcats...but that's just because that doesn't make good business sense, and anyone who is in the auto industry with the current numbers staring them in the face will probably be more cautious with spending nowadays anyways.

Alas, we are not here to discuss the finer points of auto sales, I simply think that implying that programs have Buddy Gerrity type guys popping out of the weeds to write checks to people is insane. Sure there may be one or two...but it's not going to bring down the house just because people are asking to make money of their own identity rather than being rolled out there with no financial recourse outside of a scholarship which precludes them from making ANY money outside of that. I still laugh about the fact that my first two co-ops in Civil Engineering had to be unpaid because Compliance could not prove that I was not personally benefiting due to my status as a college athlete. Luckily the NCAA got their heads out of their asses when they finally realized that it was a mandatory component of my education.

Tuition, room and board paid for, stipend for living expenses, tutors and I don't know what else, and a leg up in the local job market when they graduate...I'm surprised any athlete would sign up for that...I'll throw some money onto the field after the game Friday night.

The blue-chippers only care about the $$$$ and a chance at the pros. It's why athletic scholarships exist.

This is an argument as old as college athletics...the "student athlete" is largely an illusion...unless you look at the ivys.

Tell me I'm wrong.