Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I've been thinking about this. I deliberately split this apart from the California law thread because I think it's a wider topic.

Let's assume that the NCAA is forced to relent and allow athletes to profit from their likenesses. For the sake of argument, this will be limited to ONLY third-party payments. The schools themselves will still be barred to provide nothing to the athletes beyond the scholarship, stipend, etc that are all agreed upon currently. 

What does this mean for recruiting? Who benefits the most? 

• My initial thought would be that the helmets / blue bloods would benefit the most. After all, they have the largest fan bases and the most money. A Zion Williamson jersey with "Duke" on the front of it will garner him greater value from his likeness rights than a Zion Williamson jersey with "Wichita State" on the front of it.
• However, the counterpoint is that while this means bigger value for the highest of high-end stars, it also means that if you're at one of those bigger schools but you're not a top-end star, you'd have little value. At a smaller school, you might be *the* star. I.e. Rondale Moore is an absolutely beloved star at Purdue, and sells jerseys. If he were at Texas, or Ohio State, or Alabama, he'd be just another receiver. 

So it seems like this will allow the top-end stars at the absolute helmet/blue-blood schools to earn tons of money. But I wonder if it actually *helps* the downstream tiers because players know that sometimes it's better to be a big fish in a smaller pond than to be a small fish in the ocean. 

I realize this is purely hypothetical, so I don't know if we'll agree on an answer here. But I wanted to open it up for discussion.

The NCAA CANNOT be forced to let players get paid by any legal entity.

CANNOT.  This is a nothing.

I've been thinking about this. I deliberately split this apart from the California law thread because I think it's a wider topic.

Let's assume that the NCAA is forced to relent and allow athletes to profit from their likenesses. For the sake of argument, this will be limited to ONLY third-party payments. The schools themselves will still be barred to provide nothing to the athletes beyond the scholarship, stipend, etc that are all agreed upon currently.

What does this mean for recruiting? Who benefits the most?

• My initial thought would be that the helmets / blue bloods would benefit the most. After all, they have the largest fan bases and the most money. A Zion Williamson jersey with "Duke" on the front of it will garner him greater value from his likeness rights than a Zion Williamson jersey with "Wichita State" on the front of it.
• However, the counterpoint is that while this means bigger value for the highest of high-end stars, it also means that if you're at one of those bigger schools but you're not a top-end star, you'd have little value. At a smaller school, you might be *the* star. I.e. Rondale Moore is an absolutely beloved star at Purdue, and sells jerseys. If he were at Texas, or Ohio State, or Alabama, he'd be just another receiver.

So it seems like this will allow the top-end stars at the absolute helmet/blue-blood schools to earn tons of money. But I wonder if it actually *helps* the downstream tiers because players know that sometimes it's better to be a big fish in a smaller pond than to be a small fish in the ocean.

I realize this is purely hypothetical, so I don't know if we'll agree on an answer here. But I wanted to open it up for discussion.

I think this is all true for what I'll call the LEGITIMATE uses of this legislation-- that is, the cases where a player's merit or his popularity gain him a reasonable, like-sized, proportionate promotional value.  And "reasonable" and "like-sized" and "proportionate" are all certainly subjective and mutable, but at the very least we can agree that it's coming from on-field performance or general popularity.

But I also see a class of what I'll call ILLEGITIMATE uses of the legislation, and it would be most effective in recruiting.  For example, what's to stop Joe Texas Big-Hat Billionaire Booster from telling all recruits, "I'm offering you a non-exclusive contract for your likeness set at $25,000 per year, that will be available to you on signing."  For a wealthy fanbase, it would be quite easy for one booster, or multiple boosters, to pay out that kind of money to every single signee.  Beyond that, if a player actually gains popularity and his likeness becomes worth MORE than that basis, then the contract could allow that player to earn for himself anything above the already-agreed upon value.

I'm specifically calling that an "illegitimate" use case, because it wouldn't be illegal or against the rules, but could be a realistic consequence.  And in that case, the very richest schools would have the largest competitive advantage, simply because they could afford to pay more.  In many cases the richest schools coincide with the blue bloods, but not in all cases.  Stanford comes to mind as a school with an extremely wealthy fanbase that could take advantage of this.  I'm not sure they're football-crazy enough to do it, but it would really only take one...

In effect this creates a completely legal and permissible recruiting bidding war.  And long term, I'm not sure how that works out for the sport.

I think this is all true for what I'll call the LEGITIMATE uses of this legislation-- that is, the cases where a player's merit or his popularity gain him a reasonable, like-sized, proportionate promotional value.  And "reasonable" and "like-sized" and "proportionate" are all certainly subjective and mutable, but at the very least we can agree that it's coming from on-field performance or general popularity.

But I also see a class of what I'll call ILLEGITIMATE uses of the legislation, and it would be most effective in recruiting.  For example, what's to stop Joe Texas Big-Hat Billionaire Booster from telling all recruits, "I'm offering you a non-exclusive contract for your likeness set at $25,000 per year, that will be available to you on signing."  For a wealthy fanbase, it would be quite easy for one booster, or multiple boosters, to pay out that kind of money to every single signee.  Beyond that, if a player actually gains popularity and his likeness becomes worth MORE than that basis, then the contract could allow that player to earn for himself anything above the already-agreed upon value.

I'm specifically calling that an "illegitimate" use case, because it wouldn't be illegal or against the rules, but could be a realistic consequence.  And in that case, the very richest schools would have the largest competitive advantage, simply because they could afford to pay more.  In many cases the richest schools coincide with the blue bloods, but not in all cases.  Stanford comes to mind as a school with an extremely wealthy fanbase that could take advantage of this.  I'm not sure they're football-crazy enough to do it, but it would really only take one...

In effect this creates a completely legal and permissible recruiting bidding war.  And long term, I'm not sure how that works our for the sport.

I fully assume that this is how the majority of the bunny it is now out in the open pursuant to this bill will be passed

I see zero evidence the NCAA is "going in this direction", but carry on.

As noted, it would open ENORMOUS holes in leveling the recruiting field.

The university can bar the player from participating, owing to a previous contract with the NCAA.

I get your point.

I think what happens is that Joe Texas Billionaire starts to realize there's a market there. Johnny Armcannon, the 5* QB, won't even entertain $25K/year. He wants $500K, and he knows that someone will pay it.

That might not be right, but at some point even the bluebloods run out of money, and realize that they *only* want to pay a low-4* OG $10K while the next tier down can find someone to give him $25K.

If you make it a market, I think you'll find that there ARE limits to what even the bluebloods will spend. Will the final result be more or less parity than we have now? I don't know...

Well sure, but Johnny Armcannon is also a better bet to bring in more on his own likeness, anyway.  Depending on the entire market, that might be a relatively safe bet in Joe Big-Hat Billionaire's "portfolio" of paid college athletes, know what I mean? He can afford to pay Armcannon more upfront because he expects a much larger return in the long term.

In general though I'm agreeing with you, there are going to be a lot of nuances and I don't expect every Big Hat out there to be able to untangle them immediately.  It will take years to peel back the layers and see where the market is going.