Why should Manziel or any NCAA athlete be able to see their signature?

[ShotgunDawg]

After hearing numerous experts offer their opinions over the last 24 hours on TV or twitter about why its a dumb rule that Johnny Manziel can't make money off his signature, I can't help think they are making a very short sided argument. They go no deeper into the repercussions of allowing players to make money off their signature than saying a human being should have that right.

Here is the problem, if you allow players to make money off their signatures, then the competitive balance in recruiting, or what little there is, will vanish. Every good player in the country will go to the school with the most fans and money - more fans and money = more chance to sign autographs for money.

Boosters will make promises of autograph signings during the recruiting process in order basically promise pay for play, which is against the most basic of all NCAA rules, and its near impossible for the NCAA to set a price for what a player should make off an autograph.

I don't have a problem with the top level D1 schools breaking away from the lower level D1 schools, and thus paying stipends or "full cost of attendance to players", so long as all of the top level schools can pay the same amount.

Mark my word, if a free market system enters college football, MSU and Ole Miss are done! We ain't getting Chris Jones and they ain't getting RK.

The Jay Bilases of the world sit on their high perch and complain about this everyday, but it just won't work. A free market system won't work in college football, unless their is a draft instead of recruiting.

There! I feel better now that I have vented this morning about this ridiculous argument.

[maroonmania]

After hearing numerous experts offer their opinions over the last 24 hours on TV or twitter about why its a dumb rule that Johnny Manziel can't make money off his signature, I can't help think they are making a very short sided argument. They go no deeper into the repercussions of allowing players to make money off their signature than saying a human being should have that right.

Here is the problem, if you allow players to make money off their signatures, then the competitive balance in recruiting, or what little there is, will vanish. Every good player in the country will go to the school with the most fans and money - more fans and money = more chance to sign autographs for money.

Boosters will make promises of autograph signings during the recruiting process in order basically promise pay for play, which is against the most basic of all NCAA rules, and its near impossible for the NCAA to set a price for what a player should make off an autograph.

I don't have a problem with the top level D1 schools breaking away from the lower level D1 schools, and thus paying stipends or "full cost of attendance to players", so long as all of the top level schools can pay the same amount.

Mark my word, if a free market system enters college football, MSU and Ole Miss are done! We ain't getting Chris Jones and they ain't getting RK.

The Jay Bilases of the world sit on their high perch and complain about this everyday, but it just won't work. A free market system won't work in college football, unless their is a draft instead of recruiting.

There! I feel better now that I have vented this morning about this ridiculous argument.

I don't see how anyone can say its a dumb rule and I agree with you. If I'm an alumni and I want to give MSU players money, I will just tell player X to autograph something for me and I'll give him $1000 for it. If you make selling an autograph or some other memorabilia legal then you might as well throw out the rules about alumni and boosters funneling money to players. To make it legal all the booster would have to do is get the player to sign a piece of paper for him or get him a jersey. And heaven forbid the chaos if you tried to make the rule that the sold autograph couldn't go to a "recognized" member of the school's alumni or boosters.

[ShotgunDawg]

I don't see how anyone can say its a dumb rule and I agree with you. If I'm an alumni and I want to give MSU players money, I will just tell player X to autograph something for me and I'll give him $1000 for it. If you make selling an autograph or some other memorabilia legal then you might as well throw out the rules about alumni and boosters funneling money to players. To make it legal all the booster would have to do is get the player to sign a piece of paper for him or get him a jersey. And heaven forbid the chaos if you tried to make the rule that the sold autograph couldn't go to a "recognized" member of the school's alumni or boosters.


Great point! Its just a completely short sided argument that the talking heads haven't though through.

NOW...., if SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12, ACC, and Pac 10 all broke away from the NCAA and decided to have a 25 round high school draft, then a free market system could exist because there would be no recruiting or competitive balance advantage. The analogy to this would be playing baseball for the New York Yankees vs playing of the Astros. Players don't have any choice who drafts them, but, if you play for the Yankees, your autograph will likely be worth more money.

Therefore, IMO college football players will either have to choose between getting to choose which school they want to go to, or getting paid like an NFL players. I don't believe they can have it both ways.

[hacker]

No, you have it wrong. The free market would help us. The bigger schools already pay these kids and get away with it. If we could do it out in the open, then we'd land the kids who want to come here but are getting paid to go elsewhere. There are still only so many spots on a roster.

[ShotgunDawg]

No, you have it wrong. The free market would help us. The bigger schools already pay these kids and get away with it. If we could do it out in the open, then we'd land the kids who want to come here but are getting paid to go elsewhere. There are still only so many spots on a roster.

This is an interesting debate.... The 25 player scholarship limit would certainly help us, and I think we would still attract good players, but I don't feel like we would have any shot at the elite players. I also believe the schools that already cheat, cheat because they care more, and due to caring more, they are likely to guarantee and offer more money for autographs.

I don't think we would catch up, I just think the price would escalate

[hacker]

This is an interesting debate.... The 25 player scholarship limit would certainly help us, and I think we would still attract good players, but I don't feel like we would have any shot at the elite players. I also believe the schools that already cheat, cheat because they care more, and due to caring more, they are likely to guarantee and offer more money for autographs.

I don't think we would catch up, I just think the price would escalate

Just because Texas has twice our athletic department revenue doesn't mean they're going to offer twice as much to all the kids. That's how a free market works -- they're going to pay the minimum they can get away with. Maybe they can afford to bid more on average, but MSU still has enough revenue to make a big offer to a kid we really want. Say we're really high on some 4-star, but he's further down Texas or Bama's board -- we can come in and make a competitive offer and show him some real love. I really think this would even the playing field rather than the opposite.