How will Nike feel if star players on teams they have a contract with start appearing in ads promoting Adidas? Will they conclude it's cheaper for them to just pay a select number of star players rather than pay the whole school the way they do now?

And how will the schools feel if their stars shill for the competing apparel brand? Will players in that situation be "encouraged" to transfer to a school with the "right" brand?

(01-20-2021 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  How will Nike feel if star players on teams they have a contract with start appearing in ads promoting Adidas?

Yep, that has to be worked out. I would imagine that if a school is a "Nike school", a recruit would have to agree that he doesn't do any NIL that violates the school's contract with Nike. Athletes unwilling to do that will have to go elsewhere. But this is unlikely to happen, because especially top recruits have a lot of leverage. The first time Alabama loses a 5-star recruit to Georgia or Clemson or LSU because it tries to play hardball on NIL, the school's policy will soften considerably.

So if (a) a court rules that the school's contract cannot bind an athlete, or (b) if a school finds that it is losing top recruits because they are unwilling to subsume their NIL rights to the school's official clothing company, then in the case of (a) this will result in school contracts being significantly reduced in value to the clothing company and the number renegotiated downwards (why would Nike pay Duke top dollar if a Zion on the roster can wear Adidas anyway?) or (b) the school will seek to end its relationship with the clothing company and sign with another that recruits prefer, or will insist that the clothing company allow recruits to do their own NIL deals, again resulting in receiving much less money from the clothing company.

All this will have to be sorted. But I think it's a certainty NIL will have an impact on these clothing deals. The huge money for clothing deals that a few schools signed circa 2015 are unlikely to be repeated in any event.

(01-20-2021 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  How will Nike feel if star players on teams they have a contract with start appearing in ads promoting Adidas?

Yep, that has to be worked out. I would imagine that if a school is a "Nike school", a recruit would have to agree that he doesn't do any NIL that violates the school's contract with Nike. Athletes unwilling to do that will have to go elsewhere. But this is unlikely to happen, because especially top recruits have a lot of leverage. The first time Alabama loses a 5-star recruit to Georgia or Clemson or LSU because it tries to play hardball on NIL, the school's policy will soften considerably.

So if (a) a court rules that the school's contract cannot bind an athlete, or (b) if a school finds that it is losing top recruits because they are unwilling to subsume their NIL rights to the school's official clothing company, then in the case of (a) this will result in school contracts being significantly reduced in value to the clothing company and the number renegotiated downwards (why would Nike pay Duke top dollar if a Zion on the roster can wear Adidas anyway?) or (b) the school will seek to end its relationship with the clothing company and sign with another that recruits prefer, or will insist that the clothing company allow recruits to do their own NIL deals, again resulting in receiving much less money from the clothing company.

All this will have to be sorted. But I think it's a certainty NIL will have an impact on these clothing deals. The huge money for clothing deals that a few schools signed circa 2015 are unlikely to be repeated in any event.

To the extent that any of these deals are long-term, going beyond the date that NIL is legislated, would those companies be able to void the contracts immediately or would they have to wait until they run their course?

(01-20-2021 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  How will Nike feel if star players on teams they have a contract with start appearing in ads promoting Adidas?

Yep, that has to be worked out. I would imagine that if a school is a "Nike school", a recruit would have to agree that he doesn't do any NIL that violates the school's contract with Nike. Athletes unwilling to do that will have to go elsewhere. But this is unlikely to happen, because especially top recruits have a lot of leverage. The first time Alabama loses a 5-star recruit to Georgia or Clemson or LSU because it tries to play hardball on NIL, the school's policy will soften considerably.

So if (a) a court rules that the school's contract cannot bind an athlete, or (b) if a school finds that it is losing top recruits because they are unwilling to subsume their NIL rights to the school's official clothing company, then in the case of (a) this will result in school contracts being significantly reduced in value to the clothing company and the number renegotiated downwards (why would Nike pay Duke top dollar if a Zion on the roster can wear Adidas anyway?) or (b) the school will seek to end its relationship with the clothing company and sign with another that recruits prefer, or will insist that the clothing company allow recruits to do their own NIL deals, again resulting in receiving much less money from the clothing company.

All this will have to be sorted. But I think it's a certainty NIL will have an impact on these clothing deals. The huge money for clothing deals that a few schools signed circa 2015 are unlikely to be repeated in any event.

To the extent that any of these deals are long-term, going beyond the date that NIL is legislated, would those companies be able to void the contracts immediately or would they have to wait until they run their course?

Some top recruits have a lot of leverage, but clearly some have a lot less than others. I think that there's a limit for what Nike will pay a top offensive guard compared to what they'll pay for a stud QB, RB or WR. That guard may prove to be more instrumental in the team's on field success, but he's probably going to have to settle for being paid by local boosters rather than apparel companies. The boosters care more about winning than about their endorsers helping their bottom line. Nike only cares indirectly about winning and more about building their own brand.

(01-20-2021 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  How will Nike feel if star players on teams they have a contract with start appearing in ads promoting Adidas?

Yep, that has to be worked out. I would imagine that if a school is a "Nike school", a recruit would have to agree that he doesn't do any NIL that violates the school's contract with Nike. Athletes unwilling to do that will have to go elsewhere. But this is unlikely to happen, because especially top recruits have a lot of leverage. The first time Alabama loses a 5-star recruit to Georgia or Clemson or LSU because it tries to play hardball on NIL, the school's policy will soften considerably.

So if (a) a court rules that the school's contract cannot bind an athlete, or (b) if a school finds that it is losing top recruits because they are unwilling to subsume their NIL rights to the school's official clothing company, then in the case of (a) this will result in school contracts being significantly reduced in value to the clothing company and the number renegotiated downwards (why would Nike pay Duke top dollar if a Zion on the roster can wear Adidas anyway?) or (b) the school will seek to end its relationship with the clothing company and sign with another that recruits prefer, or will insist that the clothing company allow recruits to do their own NIL deals, again resulting in receiving much less money from the clothing company.

All this will have to be sorted. But I think it's a certainty NIL will have an impact on these clothing deals. The huge money for clothing deals that a few schools signed circa 2015 are unlikely to be repeated in any event.

To the extent that any of these deals are long-term, going beyond the date that NIL is legislated, would those companies be able to void the contracts immediately or would they have to wait until they run their course?

Some of these deals are long term. UCLA's (in)famous deal with Under Armour, that Under Armour just terminated and is being litigated, was for 15 years.

I would imagine that if a school has a choice about NIL and chooses not to do NIL then there would be no automatic breach allowing a company to opt out. But if NIL is imposed by the courts or congress, then this would likely allow companies to opt out as that would significantly alter the value of their contract. I don't think a court would force a company to stick with the original terms when the school itself is not in compliance with the terms.

As for recruits, yes, some have leverage, some don't. A random 3-star guy isn't going to have the same leverage as a Trevor Lawrence or a Zion coming out of high school.

(01-20-2021 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  How will Nike feel if star players on teams they have a contract with start appearing in ads promoting Adidas? Will they conclude it's cheaper for them to just pay a select number of star players rather than pay the whole school the way they do now?

And how will the schools feel if their stars shill for the competing apparel brand? Will players in that situation be "encouraged" to transfer to a school with the "right" brand?

Absolutely. The marketing budget is the marketing budget. NIL dollars will come from that fixe$ dollar pool. I suspect it will also affect athletic department donations as well. Money that may have gone to buying stadium signage or that would have been a simple donation to the athletic department will now be redirected by donors to fight the new free agency NIL recruiting wars.

Have figured for years, a more Olympic model of pay would reduce money going to the athletic departments for facilities and coaches (the current way to get top players) and shift it directly to the players. I'm not sure the competitive landscape between schools will be that different (although it will change some), but the mechanisms will.

I'd figure most scholarship offers could be tied up with the verbal agreement to not going against the brand that offers the school uniforms. Most scholarship offers are done year by year and I could see offers not being renewed and the players having to transfer and waste a year. Heck it could be a recruiting pitch to say we're with Nike or UA. A foot in the door for a pro deal type of thing.

(01-20-2021 12:57 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'd figure most scholarship offers could be tied up with the verbal agreement to not going against the brand that offers the school uniforms. Most scholarship offers are done year by year and I could see offers not being renewed and the players having to transfer and waste a year. Heck it could be a recruiting pitch to say we're with Nike or UA. A foot in the door for a pro deal type of thing.

And what is wrong with this picture? Lawyers and Corporations make it about them, not about the athlete, not about the school, and not about the game. Herein lies the root of fan discontent. Fans want the players to stay with the school, the school to be the focal point for them, and for it all to be about the game. Instead it has all slowly become a wall space for corporations to graffiti their logos in such large ways as to obscure the players, the schools, and the games. Then when ESPN announces the game it is obscured with all things Disney even in the play by play.

We have permitted corporations into every aspect of our lives and the few places they can't reach like worship, hunting, fishing, social gatherings, etc, are being more and more controlled and not due to simply virus. Fishing is more restricted, hunting has far less public land, worship has been under pressure to conform to society for quite sometime, and social gatherings find more and more corporate spaces in which to meet. Midas is turning all living things into dead gold.

I don't think this will ultimately be a big deal. A team will always have the right to keep an athlete from displaying a competing sponsor on the court or field. And I suppose the athletes can try to make the team's sponsor less conspicuous when they have to wear team gear, as many olympic athletes have done when they have a personal sponsor who is a competitor of a USOC corporate sponsor.

(01-20-2021 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 12:57 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'd figure most scholarship offers could be tied up with the verbal agreement to not going against the brand that offers the school uniforms. Most scholarship offers are done year by year and I could see offers not being renewed and the players having to transfer and waste a year. Heck it could be a recruiting pitch to say we're with Nike or UA. A foot in the door for a pro deal type of thing.

And what is wrong with this picture? Lawyers and Corporations make it about them, not about the athlete, not about the school, and not about the game. Herein lies the root of fan discontent. Fans want the players to stay with the school, the school to be the focal point for them, and for it all to be about the game. Instead it has all slowly become a wall space for corporations to graffiti their logos in such large ways as to obscure the players, the schools, and the games. Then when ESPN announces the game it is obscured with all things Disney even in the play by play.

We have permitted corporations into every aspect of our lives and the few places they can't reach like worship, hunting, fishing, social gatherings, etc, are being more and more controlled and not due to simply virus. Fishing is more restricted, hunting has far less public land, worship has been under pressure to conform to society for quite sometime, and social gatherings find more and more corporate spaces in which to meet. Midas is turning all living things into dead gold.

Well it really started with the expansion of the obscene tv deals and video game revenue.(the conferences and schools had to be making something from the NCAA games) I'm sure some radio makes a small amount of money for schools. It's been a money thing for awhile. If it wasn't a money or ratings game then the Sun Belt would have the same tv time and revenue as any SEC school.

I don't mind this as long as everything is above the board. I actually don't think it's going to change much. While the big names could shop around I think most recruiting stays the same. Some 3 or 4 stars might go to a smaller school so they could market themselves better as a star of the team. They could make money appearing at a car dealership or local commericals. The farce of Amateur sports at least in football and basketball will finally end.

(01-20-2021 01:56 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 12:57 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'd figure most scholarship offers could be tied up with the verbal agreement to not going against the brand that offers the school uniforms. Most scholarship offers are done year by year and I could see offers not being renewed and the players having to transfer and waste a year. Heck it could be a recruiting pitch to say we're with Nike or UA. A foot in the door for a pro deal type of thing.

And what is wrong with this picture? Lawyers and Corporations make it about them, not about the athlete, not about the school, and not about the game. Herein lies the root of fan discontent. Fans want the players to stay with the school, the school to be the focal point for them, and for it all to be about the game. Instead it has all slowly become a wall space for corporations to graffiti their logos in such large ways as to obscure the players, the schools, and the games. Then when ESPN announces the game it is obscured with all things Disney even in the play by play.

We have permitted corporations into every aspect of our lives and the few places they can't reach like worship, hunting, fishing, social gatherings, etc, are being more and more controlled and not due to simply virus. Fishing is more restricted, hunting has far less public land, worship has been under pressure to conform to society for quite sometime, and social gatherings find more and more corporate spaces in which to meet. Midas is turning all living things into dead gold.

Well it really started with the expansion of the obscene tv deals and video game revenue.(the conferences and schools had to be making something from the NCAA games) I'm sure some radio makes a small amount of money for schools. It's been a money thing for awhile. If it wasn't a money or ratings game then the Sun Belt would have the same tv time and revenue as any SEC school.

I don't mind this as long as everything is above the board. I actually don't think it's going to change much. While the big names could shop around I think most recruiting stays the same. Some 3 or 4 stars might go to a smaller school so they could market themselves better as a star of the team. They could make money appearing at a car dealership or local commericals. The farce of Amateur sports at least in football and basketball will finally end.

My guess is it cant really be controlled. You'll go from "bagmen" to a group of well heeled alums with commercial enterprises that can offer players varying levels of NIL income based on the value of the player to the team.

(01-20-2021 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:56 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 12:57 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'd figure most scholarship offers could be tied up with the verbal agreement to not going against the brand that offers the school uniforms. Most scholarship offers are done year by year and I could see offers not being renewed and the players having to transfer and waste a year. Heck it could be a recruiting pitch to say we're with Nike or UA. A foot in the door for a pro deal type of thing.

And what is wrong with this picture? Lawyers and Corporations make it about them, not about the athlete, not about the school, and not about the game. Herein lies the root of fan discontent. Fans want the players to stay with the school, the school to be the focal point for them, and for it all to be about the game. Instead it has all slowly become a wall space for corporations to graffiti their logos in such large ways as to obscure the players, the schools, and the games. Then when ESPN announces the game it is obscured with all things Disney even in the play by play.

We have permitted corporations into every aspect of our lives and the few places they can't reach like worship, hunting, fishing, social gatherings, etc, are being more and more controlled and not due to simply virus. Fishing is more restricted, hunting has far less public land, worship has been under pressure to conform to society for quite sometime, and social gatherings find more and more corporate spaces in which to meet. Midas is turning all living things into dead gold.

Well it really started with the expansion of the obscene tv deals and video game revenue.(the conferences and schools had to be making something from the NCAA games) I'm sure some radio makes a small amount of money for schools. It's been a money thing for awhile. If it wasn't a money or ratings game then the Sun Belt would have the same tv time and revenue as any SEC school.

I don't mind this as long as everything is above the board. I actually don't think it's going to change much. While the big names could shop around I think most recruiting stays the same. Some 3 or 4 stars might go to a smaller school so they could market themselves better as a star of the team. They could make money appearing at a car dealership or local commericals. The farce of Amateur sports at least in football and basketball will finally end.

My guess is it cant really be controlled. You'll go from "bagmen" to a group of well heeled alums with commercial enterprises that can offer players varying levels of NIL income based on the value of the player to the team.

This is why I am for pay for play. It's the only viable way to clean up the sport. Pay them under contract and let them pay taxes. This cleans up much of the bag man problem because boosters would rather get a tax break by donating to the University. It also keeps players obligated to play all games. If they want to depart early it also provides the school remedy in that the Professional team wanting them would have to buy out the remainder of the contract.

Pretending that amateurism exists has been the greatest cover for illegal activity around college sports from point shaving to payola, to tax evasion. It's beyond absurd that we keep this farce up.

(01-20-2021 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  How will Nike feel if star players on teams they have a contract with start appearing in ads promoting Adidas? Will they conclude it's cheaper for them to just pay a select number of star players rather than pay the whole school the way they do now?

And how will the schools feel if their stars shill for the competing apparel brand? Will players in that situation be "encouraged" to transfer to a school with the "right" brand?

This already happens on the AAU circuit even without player compensation: AAU teams sponsored by Nike/adidas/etc. already get disproportionately funneled to schools where they have relationships.

You hit on an important point, though. I think a lot of discussions I have regarding NIL compensation are with people that tend to focus on the local endorsement money for football players (e.g. the local car dealer that’s a football booster), but don’t seem to focus on the national shoe money for basketball players. I think the latter will have a much bigger impact once it’s clear NIL compensation is allowed everywhere.

(01-20-2021 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:56 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 12:57 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'd figure most scholarship offers could be tied up with the verbal agreement to not going against the brand that offers the school uniforms. Most scholarship offers are done year by year and I could see offers not being renewed and the players having to transfer and waste a year. Heck it could be a recruiting pitch to say we're with Nike or UA. A foot in the door for a pro deal type of thing.

And what is wrong with this picture? Lawyers and Corporations make it about them, not about the athlete, not about the school, and not about the game. Herein lies the root of fan discontent. Fans want the players to stay with the school, the school to be the focal point for them, and for it all to be about the game. Instead it has all slowly become a wall space for corporations to graffiti their logos in such large ways as to obscure the players, the schools, and the games. Then when ESPN announces the game it is obscured with all things Disney even in the play by play.

We have permitted corporations into every aspect of our lives and the few places they can't reach like worship, hunting, fishing, social gatherings, etc, are being more and more controlled and not due to simply virus. Fishing is more restricted, hunting has far less public land, worship has been under pressure to conform to society for quite sometime, and social gatherings find more and more corporate spaces in which to meet. Midas is turning all living things into dead gold.

Well it really started with the expansion of the obscene tv deals and video game revenue.(the conferences and schools had to be making something from the NCAA games) I'm sure some radio makes a small amount of money for schools. It's been a money thing for awhile. If it wasn't a money or ratings game then the Sun Belt would have the same tv time and revenue as any SEC school.

I don't mind this as long as everything is above the board. I actually don't think it's going to change much. While the big names could shop around I think most recruiting stays the same. Some 3 or 4 stars might go to a smaller school so they could market themselves better as a star of the team. They could make money appearing at a car dealership or local commericals. The farce of Amateur sports at least in football and basketball will finally end.

My guess is it cant really be controlled. You'll go from "bagmen" to a group of well heeled alums with commercial enterprises that can offer players varying levels of NIL income based on the value of the player to the team.

This is why I am for pay for play. It's the only viable way to clean up the sport. Pay them under contract and let them pay taxes. This cleans up much of the bag man problem because boosters would rather get a tax break by donating to the University. It also keeps players obligated to play all games. If they want to depart early it also provides the school remedy in that the Professional team wanting them would have to buy out the remainder of the contract.

Pretending that amateurism exists has been the greatest cover for illegal activity around college sports from point shaving to payola, to tax evasion. It's beyond absurd that we keep this farce up.

There is no question that this is true. Which should be obvious to all the players in position to change the system, including legislators. And yet, here we are, still acting foolishly. What that says to me is that those legislators are directly benefiting from the system, and in a meaningful way. The same people who are funding questionable recruiting practices are also funding political campaigns.

I agree pay for play would help clean up the sport. Probably not completely, though. I would love to see transparency in athlete compensation, including NIL. Some schools will likely always have boosters who are more willing to shell out to support their team's success, if only for the vicarious thrill being associated with a champion, than are the boosters at other (most) schools.

What I would like to see is some sort of requirement that athletes receiving compensation be required to disclose how much they are getting and from whom. It would be edifying to know if Ohio State's success has been aided by a roster getting collectively paid twice as much as Michigan's, or if Iowa is winning almost as often despite having a payroll half of the Buckeye's.

(01-20-2021 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:56 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And what is wrong with this picture? Lawyers and Corporations make it about them, not about the athlete, not about the school, and not about the game. Herein lies the root of fan discontent. Fans want the players to stay with the school, the school to be the focal point for them, and for it all to be about the game. Instead it has all slowly become a wall space for corporations to graffiti their logos in such large ways as to obscure the players, the schools, and the games. Then when ESPN announces the game it is obscured with all things Disney even in the play by play.

We have permitted corporations into every aspect of our lives and the few places they can't reach like worship, hunting, fishing, social gatherings, etc, are being more and more controlled and not due to simply virus. Fishing is more restricted, hunting has far less public land, worship has been under pressure to conform to society for quite sometime, and social gatherings find more and more corporate spaces in which to meet. Midas is turning all living things into dead gold.

Well it really started with the expansion of the obscene tv deals and video game revenue.(the conferences and schools had to be making something from the NCAA games) I'm sure some radio makes a small amount of money for schools. It's been a money thing for awhile. If it wasn't a money or ratings game then the Sun Belt would have the same tv time and revenue as any SEC school.

I don't mind this as long as everything is above the board. I actually don't think it's going to change much. While the big names could shop around I think most recruiting stays the same. Some 3 or 4 stars might go to a smaller school so they could market themselves better as a star of the team. They could make money appearing at a car dealership or local commericals. The farce of Amateur sports at least in football and basketball will finally end.

My guess is it cant really be controlled. You'll go from "bagmen" to a group of well heeled alums with commercial enterprises that can offer players varying levels of NIL income based on the value of the player to the team.

This is why I am for pay for play. It's the only viable way to clean up the sport. Pay them under contract and let them pay taxes. This cleans up much of the bag man problem because boosters would rather get a tax break by donating to the University. It also keeps players obligated to play all games. If they want to depart early it also provides the school remedy in that the Professional team wanting them would have to buy out the remainder of the contract.

Pretending that amateurism exists has been the greatest cover for illegal activity around college sports from point shaving to payola, to tax evasion. It's beyond absurd that we keep this farce up.

There is no question that this is true. Which should be obvious to all the players in position to change the system, including legislators. And yet, here we are, still acting foolishly. What that says to me is that those legislators are directly benefiting from the system, and in a meaningful way. The same people who are funding questionable recruiting practices are also funding political campaigns.

I agree pay for play would help clean up the sport. Probably not completely, though. I would love to see transparency in athlete compensation, including NIL. Some schools will likely always have boosters who are more willing to shell out to support their team's success, if only for the vicarious thrill being associated with a champion, than are the boosters at other (most) schools.

What I would like to see is some sort of requirement that athletes receiving compensation be required to disclose how much they are getting and from whom. It would be edifying to know if Ohio State's success has been aided by a roster getting collectively paid twice as much as Michigan's, or if Iowa is winning almost as often despite having a payroll half of the Buckeye's.

I strongly agree with your assessment of the common denominator of interest in keeping status quo. I also realize that it wouldn't completely stop illegal or impermissible benefits, but it would give all parties a legal pathway. And for the sake of the kids I find this to be the critical factor. It's truly a dereliction of duty all the way around to let recruits think that the way life works is that everyone games the system. They get money and keep it on the down low, the Universities profit from the exposure but don't have to share as long as boosters do the dirty work.

It wreaks all the way around and teaches all of the wrong life lessons, and makes future corruption almost impossible to resist. It doesn't just need to end, it must end. Above board dealings is the best life lesson for the kids. It also gets them started on the up and up and builds trust in society. Then prosecuting offenders is a matter of law, not NCAA enforcement. All parties know what is expected once grant and aids are replaced by contracts.

The fact that Congress, the NCAA, and most schools don't want to pursue it should be revealing evidence that they have indeed profited disproportionately from the shady side of how things are. It should also be an indictment against those who don't want to handle it the above board way.

This also ends the hoopla that is recruiting. Make all contact illegal while kids are still in high school and let the kids upon graduation decide when and where to sign a contract.

(01-20-2021 01:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't think this will ultimately be a big deal. A team will always have the right to keep an athlete from displaying a competing sponsor on the court or field. And I suppose the athletes can try to make the team's sponsor less conspicuous when they have to wear team gear, as many olympic athletes have done when they have a personal sponsor who is a competitor of a USOC corporate sponsor.

I agree.

I also think that no football recruit will earn endorsement money even close to what the top teams do. Especially not as a freshman - they're a completely unknown quantity, and a lot of them don't pan out.

In college football, fans (aka the advertiser's target market) care a lot more about the name on the front of the jersey than the name on the back. It's much more parochial than the pros, where fans will follow a player as he jumps from team to team.

Basketball is whole other thing though.

(01-20-2021 07:07 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't think this will ultimately be a big deal. A team will always have the right to keep an athlete from displaying a competing sponsor on the court or field. And I suppose the athletes can try to make the team's sponsor less conspicuous when they have to wear team gear, as many olympic athletes have done when they have a personal sponsor who is a competitor of a USOC corporate sponsor.

I agree.

I also think that no football recruit will earn endorsement money even close to what the top teams do. Especially not as a freshman - they're a completely unknown quantity, and a lot of them don't pan out.

In college football, fans (aka the advertiser's target market) care a lot more about the name on the front of the jersey than the name on the back. It's much more parochial than the pros, where fans will follow a player as he jumps from team to team.

Basketball is whole other thing though.

Really? I root for several pro sports teams, and once a guy leaves us he's gone, just another opponent. Sure, there's the once a decade exception for a guy who did so much good for you, but by and large, pro sports fans root for the jersey.

(01-20-2021 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:56 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 12:57 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'd figure most scholarship offers could be tied up with the verbal agreement to not going against the brand that offers the school uniforms. Most scholarship offers are done year by year and I could see offers not being renewed and the players having to transfer and waste a year. Heck it could be a recruiting pitch to say we're with Nike or UA. A foot in the door for a pro deal type of thing.

And what is wrong with this picture? Lawyers and Corporations make it about them, not about the athlete, not about the school, and not about the game. Herein lies the root of fan discontent. Fans want the players to stay with the school, the school to be the focal point for them, and for it all to be about the game. Instead it has all slowly become a wall space for corporations to graffiti their logos in such large ways as to obscure the players, the schools, and the games. Then when ESPN announces the game it is obscured with all things Disney even in the play by play.

We have permitted corporations into every aspect of our lives and the few places they can't reach like worship, hunting, fishing, social gatherings, etc, are being more and more controlled and not due to simply virus. Fishing is more restricted, hunting has far less public land, worship has been under pressure to conform to society for quite sometime, and social gatherings find more and more corporate spaces in which to meet. Midas is turning all living things into dead gold.

Well it really started with the expansion of the obscene tv deals and video game revenue.(the conferences and schools had to be making something from the NCAA games) I'm sure some radio makes a small amount of money for schools. It's been a money thing for awhile. If it wasn't a money or ratings game then the Sun Belt would have the same tv time and revenue as any SEC school.

I don't mind this as long as everything is above the board. I actually don't think it's going to change much. While the big names could shop around I think most recruiting stays the same. Some 3 or 4 stars might go to a smaller school so they could market themselves better as a star of the team. They could make money appearing at a car dealership or local commericals. The farce of Amateur sports at least in football and basketball will finally end.

My guess is it cant really be controlled. You'll go from "bagmen" to a group of well heeled alums with commercial enterprises that can offer players varying levels of NIL income based on the value of the player to the team.

This is why I am for pay for play. It's the only viable way to clean up the sport. Pay them under contract and let them pay taxes. This cleans up much of the bag man problem because boosters would rather get a tax break by donating to the University. It also keeps players obligated to play all games. If they want to depart early it also provides the school remedy in that the Professional team wanting them would have to buy out the remainder of the contract.

Pretending that amateurism exists has been the greatest cover for illegal activity around college sports from point shaving to payola, to tax evasion. It's beyond absurd that we keep this farce up.

I fully support the idea of pay for play, as long as there is an alternative for schools for whom that’s simply not financially feasible. The question is, how do we get there from here?

Many fans are philosophically opposed to giving the federal government any say in college athletics. What most of them don’t understand is that the government is already heavily involved, and have been for more than a century. When they first became involved, that involvement was critical to ensuring that college athletics, especially football, had a future. Fifty years ago their involvement was benign, and still made some sense.

That was when money didn’t play nearly as great a role in sports as it does today. Now the landscape has changed, and federal policies which exempt college sports from tax laws that govern every other enterprise are now part of the problem rather than the solution. The federal government, mostly through the IRS, is going to be involved. IMO, those tax laws need to be completely rethought.

I believe that collegiate revenue sports should be deemed “unrelated business activities” with respect to their sponsoring institutions. But in making this determination, it’s not necessary or desirable that all sports be lumped together. I think there should be a safe haven for non-revenue sports and for revenue sports at individual schools where the gross revenues fall below some reasonable threshold.

I have no problem with the idea that ULM’s football program would have a safe harbor while Purdue’s doesn’t. Or that Valparaiso’s basketball program is exempt but Wake Forest’s is not. For those schools who exceed the threshold, their profits should be taxed like any corporation and their athletes should be consider employees and their compensation taxed the same way yours and mine are.

There is a threshold now for non-profits below which they can obtain revenue from activities not related to their tax-exempt purpose without being subject to tax. Why can’t there be one specifically for collegiate sports, with a higher threshold more fitting to the nature of that activity?

(01-21-2021 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:56 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(01-20-2021 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And what is wrong with this picture? Lawyers and Corporations make it about them, not about the athlete, not about the school, and not about the game. Herein lies the root of fan discontent. Fans want the players to stay with the school, the school to be the focal point for them, and for it all to be about the game. Instead it has all slowly become a wall space for corporations to graffiti their logos in such large ways as to obscure the players, the schools, and the games. Then when ESPN announces the game it is obscured with all things Disney even in the play by play.

We have permitted corporations into every aspect of our lives and the few places they can't reach like worship, hunting, fishing, social gatherings, etc, are being more and more controlled and not due to simply virus. Fishing is more restricted, hunting has far less public land, worship has been under pressure to conform to society for quite sometime, and social gatherings find more and more corporate spaces in which to meet. Midas is turning all living things into dead gold.

Well it really started with the expansion of the obscene tv deals and video game revenue.(the conferences and schools had to be making something from the NCAA games) I'm sure some radio makes a small amount of money for schools. It's been a money thing for awhile. If it wasn't a money or ratings game then the Sun Belt would have the same tv time and revenue as any SEC school.

I don't mind this as long as everything is above the board. I actually don't think it's going to change much. While the big names could shop around I think most recruiting stays the same. Some 3 or 4 stars might go to a smaller school so they could market themselves better as a star of the team. They could make money appearing at a car dealership or local commericals. The farce of Amateur sports at least in football and basketball will finally end.

My guess is it cant really be controlled. You'll go from "bagmen" to a group of well heeled alums with commercial enterprises that can offer players varying levels of NIL income based on the value of the player to the team.

This is why I am for pay for play. It's the only viable way to clean up the sport. Pay them under contract and let them pay taxes. This cleans up much of the bag man problem because boosters would rather get a tax break by donating to the University. It also keeps players obligated to play all games. If they want to depart early it also provides the school remedy in that the Professional team wanting them would have to buy out the remainder of the contract.

Pretending that amateurism exists has been the greatest cover for illegal activity around college sports from point shaving to payola, to tax evasion. It's beyond absurd that we keep this farce up.

I fully support the idea of pay for play, as long as there is an alternative for schools for whom that’s simply not financially feasible. The question is, how do we get there from here?

Many fans are philosophically opposed to giving the federal government any say in college athletics. What most of them don’t understand is that the government is already heavily involved, and have been for more than a century. When they first became involved, that involvement was critical to ensuring that college athletics, especially football, had a future. Fifty years ago their involvement was benign, and still made some sense.

That was when money didn’t play nearly as great a role in sports as it does today. Now the landscape has changed, and federal policies which exempt college sports from tax laws that govern every other enterprise are now part of the problem rather than the solution. The federal government, mostly through the IRS, is going to be involved. IMO, those tax laws need to be completely rethought.

I believe that collegiate revenue sports should be deemed “unrelated business activities” with respect to their sponsoring institutions. But in making this determination, it’s not necessary or desirable that all sports be lumped together. I think there should be a safe haven for non-revenue sports and for revenue sports at individual schools where the gross revenues fall below some reasonable threshold.

I have no problem with the idea that ULM’s football program would have a safe harbor while Purdue’s doesn’t. Or that Valparaiso’s basketball program is exempt but Wake Forest’s is not. For those schools who exceed the threshold, their profits should be taxed like any corporation and their athletes should be consider employees and their compensation taxed the same way yours and mine are.

There is a threshold now for non-profits below which they can obtain revenue from activities not related to their tax-exempt purpose without being subject to tax. Why can’t there be one specifically for collegiate sports, with a higher threshold more fitting to the nature of that activity?

I don't have a problem with classifying revenue and non revenue sports differently, because they are. But if you are to have the two there must be no point of intersection. Revenue athletes are paid and under contract. Non-revenue athletes aren't paid in any form, including scholarships. The problem all along has been that with amateurism you can't be half pregnant. You are either rewarded for your contribution or you are not. Scholarships are really a bartered form of compensation. As are room and board, and full cost of education. Tennis, Golf, Volleyball, Track & Field (indoor & outdoor), swimming and diving, wrestling, etc. could have separate classifications as well. True Olympic sports could be under the auspices of the AOC (not the House member by the same initials). Country club sports could be either club level or also under the AOC, but non revenue to the school, meaning Corporate Olympic Sponsors could cover them as feeder programs or they would be up to the student to participate at their own expense. So if we have pay for play for revenue sports, let's either put Olympic sports under the American Olympic Committee's governance (not the NCAA) or make them club level in nature. Schools would administer all non revenue sports and the Athletic Department all revenue sports.