(10-02-2019 12:03 PM)niu79 Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:54 AM)randyfensfanclub1 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:11 PM)Rabid Squirrel Wrote:  The fears Im hearing sound very similar to the fears when pro sports got heavy into free agency. "the Yankees will just buy all the stars and the Brewers won't get any good players". It's the same thing. Rules will be put into place to "try" and keep things fair. It's not a free market where every player is just open to be bought. It's all gonna be regulated and all deals will be run through a committee and Im guessing subject to conditions. I have zero idea but maybe things like a hard cap for each school per endorser. So Nike can't come in and sign every freshman on Bama because they'd have nothing left to sign tagovailoa. Or vice versa. Maybe a limit on the # of deals a player can sign in a year or career? Take the biggest college star you can ever imagine. There's no way the NCAA or the NFL would let NIKE sign him to a huge contract that pays more than he'd make in the NFL now that draft spots have slotted pay. They're going to let kids get paid but I don't think it will be fair market value. They'll allow them a small percent of what their name rights generate in revenue. It may end up being much less than we think.

The NCAA is going to consider every possible scam that could occur and try to put rules into place to prevent them. Yes, it will get circumvented and someone will find a cheat. But I don't think it will create the chaos some of you feel. Big stars will get most of [/i]the money. Smaller stars will get scraps. and the average player will get nada.

How do you know this? Is there a set #? I mean the NCAA doesn't wan this and will challenge.

I guess the logic is they both play ball with each other and set a max which again becomes a whole new argument. It goes from unfair to not let them earn any money to unfair to cap them.

And let's not kid ourselves. This is just another way for wonderful politicians to find tax revenue.

The NCAA could not win a court challenge to cap the endorsement money. Such a cap would be have to be collectively bargained, and college athletes are not part of a union, let alone employees.

Im sure even a labor lawyer would have a hard time with this. And I'm not even close to one of those so Im just trying to common sense my way through this. But you are right, the athletes are not employees so a cap that is traditionally collectively bargained would not even apply. There is no "salary" to cap. They'd be restricting their outside school related revenue. Which they are already doing. That cap is currently set at zero. I think its easy to cap anything that has the school logo and student's name on it. Jersey, Video game, whatever. Thats easy. You get X% of "school related" revenue you're associated with. The hard part will be the solo stuff like commercials. But if the student wears anything team related or says the team name he will be restricted to the previous X%. And if he can't say or wear his team, is anyone going to pay a low profile player to endorse something??

Just because there is a fair pay to play law doesn't mean the NCAA doesn't have some control. I.E. - Yes...you are free to earn endorsement dollars, but the scholarship you signed says you forfeit tuition when you do so. You can still play and attend school here but it is on you're own dime now. Stuff like that.

From my understanding, a lot of this has to do with a players ability to make money of his likeness. For example, if Illini Tire wanted to pay an Illini player to be in their commercial, they could pay them for their service. Luckily Illini tire closed and the Illini have no players that people want to see.

This change is going to have an effect all the way down to recruiting. The best (e.g., 3 stars and up) will add another factor to their (and their parents') evaluation of which school is best for them: which earns them the most endorsement money or opportunity for the most earnings. Coaches will add that to their pitch on the recruiting trail. Therefore, athletic departments are going to have to act as agents to line up supporters willing to cough up cash. I can see schools putting together donor lists and packages.

A few years ago, a high-rise condo building was approved a few blocks from the Alabama stadium. Every single high-priced unit was sold before the contractor put Shovel One into the ground. The buyers were people who just wanted a guaranteed place to stay for 6-7-8 home games. That's all. The rest of the year the condos sit vacant. Point is, schools like Alabama have alumni with massive bank accounts who will endorse someone just for the pride/bragging rights of saying they endorse someone, people for whom $20,000 for an endorsement "deal" is pocket change.

All that said, imo, there are opponents of this who just don't like California dictating to the rest of the country. While I think some means needs to be found to be more equitable, I don't like the California thing either.

This will also obviously widen the gap between the haves and have-nots and, I think, push the P5 further toward a break-off from the NCAA and the rest of college football.

This is just my opinion but I think this new California law is idiotic, will cause more problems than benefits, may not be legally enforceable and will be impossible to implement.

As an example, The San Diego County Credit Union paid millions of dollars for the exclusive naming rights to what used to be Jack Murphy Stadium, the home stadium of the San Diego State Aztecs. The contract language of the naming rights agreement bans all other financial institutions from advertising or having a presence in the stadium. Do you think the San Diego County Credit Union would allow a player sponsored by Citibank in the stadium? Numerous universities sign corporate sponsorship deals. Do you think for a second that they would tolerate a player being sponsored by a rival company. NIU has a great sponsorship partner in Northwestern Medicine who gave NIU $500,000 to build a sports nutrition center. Would NIU jeopardize that relationship by allowing a player to be sponsored by the Rush Copley Health Network? I highly doubt the MAC Conference would tolerate a player being sponsored by Shell or Speedway because the MAC's primary sponsor is Marathon Oil.

I would also like to see what happens when Victoria's Secret or Fredrick's of Hollywood sponsors every cute female athlete they can sign up and has them pose for marketing photos in skimpy underwear. That's a great image that a university would want.

What if Smith and Wesson sponsors athletes by giving them free hand guns? Another great image a university would want.

I do not see how this can be implemented and operate in an effective way due to the myriad of conflicts that result from the exclusive sponsorship deals that schools, conferences, bowl games and the NCAA basketball Tournament have.

(10-02-2019 09:04 PM)Big_Man Wrote:  From my understanding, a lot of this has to do with a players ability to make money of his likeness. For example, if Illini Tire wanted to pay an Illini player to be in their commercial, they could pay them for their service. Luckily Illini tire closed and the Illini have no players that people want to see.

Ah, fond memories on this board.

The shoe companies will lead the charge down this very slippery slope.

(10-03-2019 12:48 PM)pvk75 Wrote:  This change is going to have an effect all the way down to recruiting. The best (e.g., 3 stars and up) will add another factor to their (and their parents') evaluation of which school is best for them: which earns them the most endorsement money or opportunity for the most earnings. Coaches will add that to their pitch on the recruiting trail. Therefore, athletic departments are going to have to act as agents to line up supporters willing to cough up cash. I can see schools putting together donor lists and packages.

A few years ago, a high-rise condo building was approved a few blocks from the Alabama stadium. Every single high-priced unit was sold before the contractor put Shovel One into the ground. The buyers were people who just wanted a guaranteed place to stay for 6-7-8 home games. That's all. The rest of the year the condos sit vacant. Point is, schools like Alabama have alumni with massive bank accounts who will endorse someone just for the pride/bragging rights of saying they endorse someone, people for whom $20,000 for an endorsement "deal" is pocket change.

All that said, imo, there are opponents of this who just don't like California dictating to the rest of the country. While I think some means needs to be found to be more equitable, I don't like the California thing either.

This will also obviously widen the gap between the haves and have-nots and, I think, push the P5 further toward a break-off from the NCAA and the rest of college football.

Agreed. Points very well stated.

Again- this is a law that passed unanimously. And there are comparable bills in Colorado, South Carolina, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Nevada, Washington, Maryland, PA, and MN. It is a literally non-partisan issue that everyone outside the college sports fan bubble agrees on. Being against this is spitting in the wind.

What ticks people off most, imo, is the way California did it, like with trumpets blaring, like they were (again) saving us from ourselves (I'm terrible at sarcasm). They politically co-opted the whole issue while -- as you pointed out -- it is not unique.

Reality says something needs to change to compensate student-athletes, and (naturally) I have my own idea: use the Cost of Attendance Allowance, and allow potential sponsors etc. to contribute to that pool. Funds are distributed equally per student-athete in all sports, avoiding any conflict with Title IX.

Here is a CBSSports analysis of the COA, by conference and school, using 2015-16 figures (scroll down for MAC and NIU).

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-database/

Right now the COA is given as a financial aid allowance, calculated on actual local costs using a US Dept. of Education formula. I think that allows it to sidestep state and federal income taxes, so some method would have to be found to continue that. The philosopy when enacted, as I recall, was to compensate some students who could not afford basic needs and could not work part-time because of the time requirements of their academics and athletics combined.

As to additional endorsement, I think that would affect very few student-athletes, who would have to pay taxes on that income.

Just some thoughts ... and we'll see a zillion ideas sprouting everywhere.