CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: betarhoalphadelta on October 01, 2019, 02:22:28 PM
-
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.
-
this would be fine, but if the Universities have nothing to do with it, then Zion Williamson can find someone to make a jersey for him to sell, but NOT with "Duke" on the front of it
I simply don't like the idea, because the other receivers, the QB, or the O-line at Purdue don't get a dime while Rondale profits from their efforts
Coach Frost was asked about paying players yesterday. He thought is that all athletes regardless of gender or sport will want to get paid.
-
The NCAA CANNOT be forced to let players get paid by any legal entity.
CANNOT. This is a nothing.
-
I don't think it has a major major impact on football simply because of how many players it takes to field a good team. Like you said, Rondale Moore might be the best WR in the country, and he's at Purdue, and even with him, Purdue wasn't all that good.
In basketball, you bring in a couple big time recruits, that makes much bigger waves. You take Zion, Barrett and Reddish, put them on NC State, NC State is every bit as good as Duke was last year. You put Tee Higgins and Travis Etienne on NC State, eh, they are still a 7-5 team at best. I think the only true "bidding wars" might be between helmet schools, which already exists, this is just a new factor.
-
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.
-
Was being paid for one's likeness illegal previously?
-
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
-
Was being paid for one's likeness illegal previously?
I think everyone gets the specific legalities of it, and there's really no point in discussing that, because what you say is correct. I think people are just more interested in what the ramifications are if we go in this direction
-
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.
-
I think everyone gets the specific legalities of it, and there's really no point in discussing that, because what you say is correct. I think people are just more interested in what the ramifications are if we go in this direction
What he's saying isn't really correct, though. It's always been "legal" but has been against the NCAA rules. What the state of California has written, is that nobody can tell an athlete he or she can't profit from his or her own likeness. Athletes in the state of California, and the 3rd party endorsement providers, are free to do whatever they like.
The university can't legally stop it. They can't bar one of their own athletes from participating because then they'd be breaking state laws.
The PAC or the NCAA would have to ban a school like, say, UCLA that allowed these 3rd-party-paid players to take the field. And the moment that happens, they're opening themselves up to heavy antitrust enforcement.
-
The university can bar the player from participating, owing to a previous contract with the NCAA.
I get your point.
-
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 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...
-
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.
-
I think that both @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) and @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) have interesting points.
First, on ELA's point, I think that it creates a lot more havoc in BB because one player makes a MUCH bigger difference in BB than in football. Consider LeBron James. If he had graduated HS in this modern era where the NBA requires kids to play a year after HS somewhere else, that would have been an enormous bidding war. LeBron James could probably have single-handedly taken any P5 program to AT LEAST the Sweet 16 and possibly more. For an even decent team, LeBron would easily have been the difference between a first or second round NCAA exit and a likely Final Four.
Second, I completely agree with @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) . One of the major problems with this is that there is simply no way for the NCAA to police the difference between a "legitimate" payment for a likeness and an "illegitimate" recruiting bonus.
-
I think that both @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) and @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) have interesting points.
First, on ELA's point, I think that it creates a lot more havoc in BB because one player makes a MUCH bigger difference in BB than in football. Consider LeBron James. If he had graduated HS in this modern era where the NBA requires kids to play a year after HS somewhere else, that would have been an enormous bidding war. LeBron James could probably have single-handedly taken any P5 program to AT LEAST the Sweet 16 and possibly more. For an even decent team, LeBron would easily have been the difference between a first or second round NCAA exit and a likely Final Four.
Second, I completely agree with @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) . One of the major problems with this is that there is simply no way for the NCAA to police the difference between a "legitimate" payment for a likeness and an "illegitimate" recruiting bonus.
Oh yeah, even bigger impact in basketball and potentially more treacherous bidding simply due to the smaller market size. Excellent points.
Personally I'm focusing more on football than on basketball, because I just don't care all that much about basketball.
-
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.
The point for me is that if you decide to make it a market, and money becomes an impact, it might give lesser schools more chance at winning recruiting battles. Today the helmets / blue bloods have enormous recruiting advantages BECAUSE they're helmets / blue bloods. Making it about money is a battlefield that is easier to level than the reputational values created by 100 years of college sports history.
Second, I completely agree with @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) . One of the major problems with this is that there is simply no way for the NCAA to police the difference between a "legitimate" payment for a likeness and an "illegitimate" recruiting bonus.
Well, the problem is that what we call "illegitimate" wouldn't be illegitimate. The dividing line would be university-provided benefits [which likely also involve Title IX] and third-party benefits. I think the NCAA would have to just throw its hands up regarding what we call illegitimate benefits because they can't be policed.
-
Schools with the largest fan bases would benefit the most. Blue chips will make the most there.
-
What happens when Bartholomew "The Bag Man" Manchester crosses Joe Texas Big-Hat Billionaire Booster and he starts to realize that Johnny Armcannon, the 5* QB,has changed allegiance what are the legal ramifications because the NCAA has anal cerebral inversion as usual
-
The point for me is that if you decide to make it a market, and money becomes an impact, it might give lesser schools more chance at winning recruiting battles. Today the helmets / blue bloods have enormous recruiting advantages BECAUSE they're helmets / blue bloods. Making it about money is a battlefield that is easier to level than the reputational values created by 100 years of college sports history.
Well, the problem is that what we call "illegitimate" wouldn't be illegitimate. The dividing line would be university-provided benefits [which likely also involve Title IX] and third-party benefits. I think the NCAA would have to just throw its hands up regarding what we call illegitimate benefits because they can't be policed.
First point highlighted in red-- well, maybe? But I'm not sure. In many cases the bluebloods ARE the deep pockets and free market or not, they're still going to be able-- and more importantly willing-- to pay top dollar. I guess we'll see how it works out because I'm rpetty sure now, that it's going to happen.
Second point highlighted in green-- yeah, for sure, that's why I specifically couched my language in some qualifiers. It wouldn't actually be illegitimate and certainly wouldn't be in any way enforceable or realistically even measurable. I simply called it that, because I don't believe that creating a bidding war in recruiting by paying players for their likeness even when their likeness has no real market value in the traditional sense of the phrase, is the primary goal of this legislation. But it WILL be a resultant effect and possibly a much more influential one than the primary goal.
-
Well, the problem is that what we call "illegitimate" wouldn't be illegitimate. The dividing line would be university-provided benefits [which likely also involve Title IX] and third-party benefits. I think the NCAA would have to just throw its hands up regarding what we call illegitimate benefits because they can't be policed.
I get it, but that is my point. I can't figure out a way to police it so it is an all-or-nothing thing. I'm not really all that strongly opposed to what @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) and I are referring to as "legitimate" benefits but I am strongly opposed to what he and I are referring to as "illegitimate" benefits and I can't see any way to define the difference in an enforceable way so I am opposed to it generally.
Finally, I disagree with your theory that it will benefit smaller schools. In the end I think it would benefit the big helmets simply because they have the most fans/boosters. I'm not sure how specifically it would work out but I assume that it would work to the benefit of the big helmets like my school. That said, while I generally like things that are good for my school, I don't like this because I think it could just completely flatline the non-helmets and make it such that the Ohio State's, Alabama's, Texas', and USC's of CFB have virtually zero in-conference competition, much worse than it is now. At the end of the day I want my team to win every game, but I do't want it to get to the point where the B1G's non-helmets permanently don't even have a prayer.
-
I get it, but that is my point. I can't figure out a way to police it so it is an all-or-nothing thing. I'm not really all that strongly opposed to what @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) and I are referring to as "legitimate" benefits but I am strongly opposed to what he and I are referring to as "illegitimate" benefits and I can't see any way to define the difference in an enforceable way so I am opposed to it generally.
Finally, I disagree with your theory that it will benefit smaller schools. In the end I think it would benefit the big helmets simply because they have the most fans/boosters. I'm not sure how specifically it would work out but I assume that it would work to the benefit of the big helmets like my school. That said, while I generally like things that are good for my school, I don't like this because I think it could just completely flatline the non-helmets and make it such that the Ohio State's, Alabama's, Texas', and USC's of CFB have virtually zero in-conference competition, much worse than it is now. At the end of the day I want my team to win every game, but I do't want it to get to the point where the B1G's non-helmets permanently don't even have a prayer.
Except for Michigan, I'm assuming? ;)
Well here's one way it would work to Big Money U's advantage, over Scrappy State. To go with bwar's example of 5* Johnny Armcannon once again, let's assume he's right and the real asking price for his services is going to be $250,000. That's not so far-fetched, as we all know the LOSING bid for Cam Newton's services was $180,000 so Auburn paid something north of that to buy their player and the resulting national championship.
So Armcannon wants $250,000. Now that's a lot even for Big Hat from Big Money U, and it's even more to expect from BagMan Manchester, since Scrappy State doesn't have the same resources. But, knowing that the star QB for Big Money U is going to be able to sell his likeness to all 500,000 living alumni of the university, it's less of a gamble for Big Hat, than it would be for BagMan Manchester from Scrappy State, since they only have 200,000 living alumni and bring in maybe 25% of the licensing revenue that Big Money U does on an annual basis.
You see, Big Hat certainly has to front the money, but he's also making an investment with an expected financial ROI down the line, and not just buying a player to win football games. And the expected ROI for a starting QB at Big Money U is naturally going to be a lot more than it will be for the starting QB at Scrappy State. So Big Hat has a lot more money to play with in setting up his portfolio of bought-and-paid-for recruits.
Maybe. It's just a working theory anyway. :)
What happens when Bartholomew "The Bag Man" Manchester crosses Joe Texas Big-Hat Billionaire Booster and he starts to realize that Johnny Armcannon, the 5* QB,has changed allegiance what are the legal ramifications because the NCAA has anal cerebral inversion as usual
Oh, you mean like the time that Texas A&M boosters gave Eric Dickerson a brand new gold Trans Am, and Dickerson drove that thing right up to Dallas where he played for SMU to the tune of $1,000,000? And that was back in 1983...
In reality, Armcannon doesn't get a dime of his money until he signs, or steps on campus, or whatever. With everything above the table and legal, it's not hard simply to write all of that into the contract.
-
Are any other states considering this legislation? The NCAA could just go hardball if it's only CA and NY.
"Our rules will not change, and team that violates them will be penalized."
-
Finally, I disagree with your theory that it will benefit smaller schools.
I'm not sure it's even a theory... More of a conjecture or a hypothesis. And I'm not sure I agree with my own conjecture ;-)
I certainly think it might be possible though.
-
Are any other states considering this legislation? The NCAA could just go hardball if it's only CA and NY.
"Our rules will not change, and team that violates them will be penalized."
Let's move that question to the California law thread... I'm deliberately trying to make this more a theoretical discussion about the effects on recruiting than the ensuing legal battle between the NCAA and California [or other states].
-
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.
What does this mean?
-
Well here's one way it would work to Big Money U's advantage, over Scrappy State. To go with bwar's example of 5* Johnny Armcannon once again, let's assume he's right and the real asking price for his services is going to be $250,000. That's not so far-fetched, as we all know the LOSING bid for Cam Newton's services was $180,000 so Auburn paid something north of that to buy their player and the resulting national championship.
So Armcannon wants $250,000. Now that's a lot even for Big Hat from Big Money U, and it's even more to expect from BagMan Manchester, since Scrappy State doesn't have the same resources. But, knowing that the star QB for Big Money U is going to be able to sell his likeness to all 500,000 living alumni of the university, it's less of a gamble for Big Hat, than it would be for BagMan Manchester from Scrappy State, since they only have 200,000 living alumni and bring in maybe 25% of the licensing revenue that Big Money U does on an annual basis.
You see, Big Hat certainly has to front the money, but he's also making an investment with an expected financial ROI down the line, and not just buying a player to win football games. And the expected ROI for a starting QB at Big Money U is naturally going to be a lot more than it will be for the starting QB at Scrappy State. So Big Hat has a lot more money to play with in setting up his portfolio of bought-and-paid-for recruits.
What if Big Hat doesn't have a licensing deal with Big Money U? He might be able to sell the likeness, but not the jersey.
What if Big Hat invests $500K into Johnny Armcannon, but like, say, Kelly Bryant at Clemson, he finds himself 2nd on the depth chart to a younger player and won't ever see the field. Long Horn Moustache pays the next class's top QB to come to Big Money U and reaps all the benefits of his investment and Big Hat gets nothing back.
Or what if Johnny Armcannon gets a career-ending injury as a freshman. All of a sudden than investment goes up in smoke. How many more times is Big Hat going to invest $500K in fickle teenagers who may never even pan out?
At least at Scrappy State, you're a HECK of a lot more convinced that Johnny Armcannon is going to end up a multi-year starter, because there isn't anyone else at Scrappy State that is close to him talent-wise. And you know at Scrappy State that once they've signed Johnny Armcannon, other boosters are going to be less likely to try to pay for the next great QB because they're rooting for Johnny Armcannon too. So maybe a booster is more willing to "overpay" for more of a sure thing since he's at Scrappy State. Maybe the other boosters will choose to pay up for a good RB or WR recruit since QB is handled.
All sorts of ways this can play out.
-
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.
This is for the most part how college football works now. Success tied to money, money tied to success.
If the answer is, this rule makes it less fair, this sport is hilariously already unfair. We literally have half the top division that is considered second division because of money/fanbase size/brand value.
Nowadays, since kids aren't paid, boosters by schools sleep pods and lavish locker rooms. Schools take a cut of the top, paying everyone, and we pay people in different ways.
-
I think that both @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) and @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) have interesting points.
First, on ELA's point, I think that it creates a lot more havoc in BB because one player makes a MUCH bigger difference in BB than in football. Consider LeBron James. If he had graduated HS in this modern era where the NBA requires kids to play a year after HS somewhere else, that would have been an enormous bidding war. LeBron James could probably have single-handedly taken any P5 program to AT LEAST the Sweet 16 and possibly more. For an even decent team, LeBron would easily have been the difference between a first or second round NCAA exit and a likely Final Four.
Second, I completely agree with @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) . One of the major problems with this is that there is simply no way for the NCAA to police the difference between a "legitimate" payment for a likeness and an "illegitimate" recruiting bonus.
So my question is, does this matter?
It's always been a low-parity sport, and it seems the majority of fans don't care that much for parity. Your new money programs like Boise and Oregon get pilloried on the regular. I suppose the big downside is you might have a more direct Oregon. Is that bad?
The main hope is the market sorts it out. People get tired of paying third-string receivers. Life would be weird for a bit, but it's weird with $9 million coaches, $2 million assistants and slides and waterfalls in palatial new buildings. (That slide is the best piece of marketing in the sport, BTW)
-
So my question is, does this matter?
It's always been a low-parity sport, and it seems the majority of fans don't care that much for parity. Your new money programs like Boise and Oregon get pilloried on the regular. I suppose the big downside is you might have a more direct Oregon. Is that bad?
The main hope is the market sorts it out. People get tired of paying third-string receivers. Life would be weird for a bit, but it's weird with $9 million coaches, $2 million assistants and slides and waterfalls in palatial new buildings. (That slide is the best piece of marketing in the sport, BTW)
Yup. It might not matter. It might not make any difference at all to the competitive value of the sport. And the end result is some transfer of wealth, either great or small, from a rich booster, to a college kid. Completely legal and above board. If that's all that comes of it, then I'd call that a net positive.
But I think it's the unintended consequences, and especially the unknowable ones, that worry folks. At least that's what I worry about.
-
if the kids grabbing the $$$ just to sign are not required to sign a 4 year binding contract.............
enter the transfer portal and let the bidding start again
-
I'm really glad we talk about a lot of other things on this board away from football. Because that last thing is not going to be around much longer to talk about. It's been on its way down anyway, for a number of reasons, including health concerns.
This will be the nail in the coffin for the game as we know it.
-
unless the large majority of the NCAA's institutions band together and shut this down
simply ban the CA schools from competition
the TV networks would void contracts
no more money
-
unless the large majority of the NCAA's institutions band together and shut this down
simply ban the CA schools from competition
the TV networks would void contracts
no more money
I think the schools are coming around to the idea as well. They don't want to pay the players directly and get their hands dirty with liability, tax implications, etc. (and more importantly, give up any of that multi billion dollar pie). So allowing the athletes to profit from their own likeness is the simplest, easiest, "cleanest" way to do it, at least from their hands-off perspective.
And if a majority of the big schools want it, then it'll happen. If the NCAA fights it, the member institutions will simply revoke that power and place it somewhere else. The member institutions get to make the decisions, not the NCAA administration.
-
unless the large majority of the NCAA's institutions band together and shut this down
simply ban the CA schools from competition
the TV networks would void contracts
no more money
Other states are already jumping in. The horse has left the barn, although I don't think this has much of a chance at passage in Florida anytime soon.
FLORIDA:
Kionne McGhee, the Democratic Minority Leader of Florida’s House of Representatives, filed a proposal Monday that follows the lead of the bill signed into law in California (https://sports.yahoo.com/california-governor-bill-signs-bill-that-will-allow-college-athletes-to-paid-for-their-likeness-150321884.html). Like in California, McGhee’s proposal would prohibit universities in the state from preventing student-athletes, based on NCAA rules, from earning compensation “as a result of the use of the student’s name, image or likeness” or obtaining an agent.
ILLINOIS:
Calumet City Democratic state Rep. Thaddeus Jones filed HB 3898 last Wednesday to keep a university or college from “upholding any rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation that prevents a student athlete of that institution from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student's name, image, or likeness,” as well as placing other protections on athletes against punishment for being compensated. Jones has filed a similar bill in previous General Assemblies.
State Rep. Chris Welch, D-Westchester filed legislation Monday doing essentially the same.
Many/most NCAA members will cancel sports and concentrate on education and research.
-
And if a majority of the big schools want it, then it'll happen. If the NCAA fights it, the member institutions will simply revoke that power and place it somewhere else. The member institutions get to make the decisions, not the NCAA administration.
Probably, so Texas, OU, USC, Michigan, Bama, OSU and ND get to keep playing football. Maybe the next tier too (schools like mine and such). The NCAA will no longer exist.
-
I think the schools will want to protect the multi billion dollar pie
it's a slippery slope that slides to the unknown
guys holding big money don't like the unknown because they aren't assured the money won't go away
you know, like the end of the sport
I would guess the networks are also worried about the unknown and how it will affect their revenue
-
I think the schools will want to protect the multi billion dollar pie
it's a slippery slope that slides to the unknown
guys holding big money don't like the unknown because they aren't assured the money won't go away
you know, like the end of the sport
I would guess the networks are also worried about the unknown and how it will affect their revenue
I just don't think a state like Texas can take a chance that all of the schools in California will receive the ability to pay players, while they cannot. At that point the Big Money Donors at EVERY Texas school, not just UT, shift from fighting pay-for-play, to allowing it in whatever the most limited form possible. Which is effectively what trading on your own likeness is. So those BMD's that previously had the legislators in their pockets fighting alongside the NCAA for the purity of "amateurism" will now take those pocketed politicians and turn them loose on "Fair Pay for Play" or whatever you want to call it.
Texas isn't going to let UCLA and USC and Berkelery and Stanford and Fresno State and all of the others gain an enormous recruiting advantage, it's just not going to happen.
Like badge said, the horse is out of the barn on this one.
-
I think the schools will want to protect the multi billion dollar pie
it's a slippery slope that slides to the unknown
guys holding big money don't like the unknown because they aren't assured the money won't go away
you know, like the end of the sport
I would guess the networks are also worried about the unknown and how it will affect their revenue
I believe you are correct. But also remember, that the big money only goes so far in that most schools operate their Athletic Dept's in the red. There are only a few institutions that actually see a profit. I don't know how much this will affect decisions going forward, but we cannot assume that every school is rolling in money like Texas, Alabama or Ohio State.
-
That's part of the point, programs with big donors will start "donating" to car dealerships (etc.) to promise to pay recruits
Kansas won't have much of that to offer.
It would make the rich richer. Of course, the rich already dominate the 5 star players anyway, and most of the 4s.
The reason to go to Alabama is not as much to make a few bucks selling cars, but to spend three years and then play on Sunday for millions.
-
I'm looking at the 247 2019 recruiting rankings. Only a very few got a 5 star who is ranked below 15. They are concentrated in the top ten, Ohio State is at 14th but because they only signed 17, 3 five stars. The top two teams got 8 five stars.
Below about 30th, teams get between 0 and 4 four star rated players. Below 50th, there are almost no 4 stars.
Will this new thing change any of that very much? Maybe at an Oklahoma State or Oregon, a Big Donor can "buy" more players, but they will be competing with Bama and OSU and UGA et al.
I know some players may choose Bama over LSU because they got a better offer, but will they choose Ole Miss over Bama?
-
I'm looking at the 247 2019 recruiting rankings. Only a very few got a 5 star who is ranked below 15. They are concentrated in the top ten, Ohio State is at 14th but because they only signed 17, 3 five stars. The top two teams got 8 five stars.
Below about 30th, teams get between 0 and 4 four star rated players. Below 50th, there are almost no 4 stars.
Will this new thing change any of that very much? Maybe at an Oklahoma State or Oregon, a Big Donor can "buy" more players, but they will be competing with Bama and OSU and UGA et al.
I know some players may choose Bama over LSU because they got a better offer, but will they choose Ole Miss over Bama?
Yeah, I think these are the right questions to ask. How many high-impact recruits would be affected, and would it really make much difference to the overall balance?
I'm inclined to say it won't matter much. But on the flipside, would Auburn have won the national championship a few years back, without buying off Cam Newton and his handlers? Where would Cam have gone if there were no competing offers, or if all competing offers were roughly the same?
-
I think one key would be the 4 games then the portal for a few players. But, we're seeing that anyway.
There would be some change a guy with Deep Pockets could "buy a team" at say Ole Miss, to pick a program completely at random. He contacts agents of freshman who have looked pretty good out there and suggests they have an opportunity at Ole Miss to play more and get paid and get to the NFL in 3. That tactic is a bit more difficult today. Now, it would be in the open, and become widely known among players.
"Did you hear that Barton got $250 large for his likeness at Ole Miss?"
-
North Carolina lawmaker set to introduce bill that would require NCAA to allow student-athletes to profit from likeness
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/north-carolina-lawmaker-set-to-introduce-bill-that-would-require-ncaa-to-allow-student-athletes-to-profit-from-likeness/ (https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/north-carolina-lawmaker-set-to-introduce-bill-that-would-require-ncaa-to-allow-student-athletes-to-profit-from-likeness/)
This is a federal law, not state. It's coming whether good or bad.
-
It is officially a stampede.
-
Former OSU Receiver State Rep - Gonzalez
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2856326-us-rep-ex-ohio-state-wr-anthony-gonzalez-proposing-fair-pay-to-play-law (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2856326-us-rep-ex-ohio-state-wr-anthony-gonzalez-proposing-fair-pay-to-play-law)
Prolly covering tOSU butt in this mess
-
As much I hate the idea of this happening I can’t come up with good enough reasons for why it shouldn’t happen. The reasons I hate it are rooted in my own self interest. I don’t want two sports I love and follow closely to be impacted. I absolutely believe there will be unintended consequences that negatively impact the college game because of it but I still don’t think those reasons are enough for this not to happen.
If a local car dealership wants to use a cute coed to do commercials they can get an education major on an academic scholarship and be good to go. An education major on a women’s basketball scholarship can’t. I can’t reconcile that in my mind as much I really want to.
As far as I can tell athletes affiliated with the NCAA are about the only adults on earth not able to profit from their image and likeness being used if they are in a position to profit from that.
-
I'd like to see this done nationally at some point and with some thoughtfulness, which is the last thing that will happen.
Perhaps the players could have the money put into a "trust" they could access when they are no longer amateurs.
-
As much I hate the idea of this happening I can’t come up with good enough reasons for why it shouldn’t happen. The reasons I hate it are rooted in my own self interest. I don’t want two sports I love and follow closely to be impacted. I absolutely believe there will be unintended consequences that negatively impact the college game because of it but I still don’t think those reasons are enough for this not to happen.
If a local car dealership wants to use a cute coed to do commercials they can get an education major on an academic scholarship and be good to go. An education major on a women’s basketball scholarship can’t. I can’t reconcile that in my mind as much I really want to.
As far as I can tell athletes affiliated with the NCAA are about the only adults on earth not able to profit from their image and likeness being used if they are in a position to profit from that.
Yup, I feel similarly.
In theory I'm "for" this because I believe in Capitalism and this NCAA rule is severely anti-Capitalist. I do of course understand the history behind it and the "case law" of exploitation that led to the clamp-down and forced amateurism model, but I still don't see that as reason enough to treat these students differently than the other 99% of the population.
But I can't help but feel vaguely uneasy about where we will find ourselves, once this kind of law becomes prevalent across the country and everyone is allowed to do it. I know for certain there will be unintended consequences. I'm hopeful the negative ones will be minimal, and that there will be some positives ones we don't expect, to help balance it out.
-
Capitalism does tend to enable monopolies if unrestrained. The term "free market economics" is one I prefer to capitalism.
None of this is a free market either of course, no real competition.
What are the odds the NCAA breaks "in half" with schools forming an "NAIA" separate organization and still having the NCAA?
-
Capitalism does tend to enable monopolies if unrestrained. The term "free market economics" is one I prefer to capitalism.
None of this is a free market either of course, no real competition.
What are the odds the NCAA breaks "in half" with schools forming an "NAIA" separate organization and still having the NCAA?
There's a reason I didn't use the term "free market" and it's because this one is decidedly not so. And I'm quite comfortable using the word "Capitalism" which is why I did so.
I don't think the NCAA can survive such a break. It's basically funded entirely on the NCAA basketball tournament, which brings in close to a billion dollars per year (edit-- the NCAA obviously pays the schools/conferences and doesn't retain all of this, not trying to imply that they do).
Any "breakaway" from the NCAA over this specific issue would necessarily include the top basketball programs, so I don't see the NCAA existing beyond such a break, at least not in any relevant, meaningful way.
-
Well, I don't know what will happen obviously, but some scenarios to me look dire.
-
cross my fingers, just for luck