I thought maybe these proposals to let players get paid for their name, likeness, and image would hurt the MAC, but Jon Steinbrecher didn't talk about it that way on this Cleveland radio interview. He's wary, but the MAC hasn't taken an official position.

https://923thefan.radio.com/articles/mac...vTAUtYpbaM

So you're a top-flight athlete, going through the recruiting process. Adidas wants me to sign with Louisville, and Nike wants me at Arizona. They'll pass some money through to me under the table. But if I sign with UCLA, I just need to sign the Reebok contract and get my $$$ legal?

They have not even remotely come close to working out the details and won’t for a while since it doesn’t go into effect until 2023. Any guesses as to how it will work are just guesses until they and the other states try to figure it all out, something nobody has done yet.

An Ohio legislator is preparing to introduce a similar bill soon.

If it's limited to profiting one's likeness and not an actual salary paid out of the school's budget on top of tuition (which opens up a massive can of worms), it may actually end up benefiting conferences like the MAC. Are you more likely to get more out of a shoe contract if you're a star player on a MAC team for three seasons, or a bench player in the Big Ten that might get to start as a senior? The key for the MAC to take advantage of this is in TV exposure. Guarantee your players an audience so they can take advantage of their likenesses.

Slightly different angle, kind of a pivot, about how these changes could affect the competitive landscape between the big rich schools and say conferences like the MAC.

I worried about the Cost of Attendance monies for FB and MBB and WBB which started a few years ago.

The first thing going through my mind is would small conferences, esp. FCS, participate? and Secondly, would some schools set their figure high (as a way to increase the payout to their student athletes)?

Would UofM (Ann Arbor) set their Cost of Attendance much higher than EMU (Ypsilanti)?

Or how about a MBB example: Temple (Philadelphia) and LaSalle (Philadelphia). Would Temple offer much larger stipend?

(10-04-2019 03:35 PM)emu steve Wrote:  The first thing going through my mind is would small conferences, esp. FCS, participate? and Secondly, would some schools set their figure high (as a way to increase the payout to their student athletes)?

REMEMBER: COA numbers are the same for a student-athlete and a non-athlete. Financial aid is based on the Cost of Attendance.

(10-04-2019 03:04 PM)axeme Wrote:  They have not even remotely come close to working out the details and won’t for a while since it doesn’t go into effect until 2023. Any guesses as to how it will work are just guesses until they and the other states try to figure it all out, something nobody has done yet.

An Ohio legislator is preparing to introduce a similar bill soon.

To clarify that, former OSU star Anthony Gonzalez is a US congressman and his bill would be a national law if passed, not a state law.

Personally, I liked one suggestion which I read which was that all the money would be thrown into a team pool and shared among all team members, not just the few stars who might generate some big money.

(10-04-2019 11:02 PM)DICK Wrote:  Personally, I liked one suggestion which I read which was that all the money would be thrown into a team pool and shared among all team members, not just the few stars who might generate some big money.

Ain't that the whole thing they're trying to fix? If my image is worth $X, then I should get $X.

That whole "we're all one team, and we'll share in everything together" thing went out a while ago. The new thing is "I've produced enough to get drafted in the first round, so have fun at the bowl, teammates. I'll be watching you. A knee injury might cost me $1,000,000, so I'm not risking it"