This Is What Frustrates Me About the Pay for Play Crowd

[ShotgunDawg]

How do they not realize that in this instance jersey sales will sky rocket when fans realize that they can attract recruits by selling more jerseys?

Yes, A&M only made this much money off Manziel's jersey, but that was because there was no motivation for fans to buy Manziel's jerseys?

Again, what prevents Phil Knight from promising a 5* recruit that he's going to produce & buy a half million dollars worth of his jersey?

Here are a few thoughts on pay for play:

1. I have no issue with players making money off their likeness so long as the speculation of money making is not used in the recruiting process. Not sure how you accomplish that.

2. Here are perhaps a few ideas to take recruiting out of the agenda:

- Make all pay for play likeness endorsements or money making have to be approved by the NCAA first. This way the NCAA can restrict the BS like a potential Phil Knight situation.

- Make all athlete payments public. For example: If Phil Knight produces & buys a half million dollars worth of the 5* recruit's jersey, then other Nike schools need to know that. Same thing for other payments. If Cannon motors wants to pay an Ole Miss player 50K to do a commercial then by making it public knowledge, Cannon motors would have to weigh the risk of losing MSU fans buying cars from their dealership. This rule would create some risk on the "employer" to keep things in line.

- This rule would likely hurt us in football, but, in baseball, it may allow us to beat the MLB draft by being able to compensate players to a certain degree.

What other rules could the NCAA institute that would make this not become a cluster 17?

1179788207451447304

https://twitter.com/colecubelic/status/1179788207451447304

[Commercecomet24]

Pay for play has been going on for years however this is going to open Pandora's box and it'll be to the highest bidder. I have no problem with people making money for their likeness been a free market supporter forever and always will be. I just don't see anyway to regulate this at all. Gonna be interesting how this plays out. You're also gonna be bringing government agencies like irs and state tax commissions into play. There's no state income tax on Florida so that should be a big draw for players. There's just so many variables involved in this. Oh it's gonna wind up being a cluster for sure.

[ShotgunDawg]

Why aren't the tweets posting when you number ?

[ShotgunDawg]

Pay for play has been going on for years however this is going to open Pandora's box and it'll be to the highest bidder. I have no problem with people making money for their likeness been a free market supporter forever and always will be. I just don't see anyway to regulate this at all. Gonna be interesting how this plays out. You're also gonna be bringing government agencies like irs and state tax commissions into play. There's no state income tax on Florida so that should be a big draw for players. There's just so many variables involved in this. Oh it's gonna wind up being a cluster for sure.

I agree. It's super complicated. Far more complicated than any of the supporters are willing to think about.

It's part of what drives me crazy about so many of the supporters. They just aren't willing to think through & see the unintended consequences.

Bo Bounds has specifically made me want to throw up this week because he speaks on it like he's stupid. Every time someone brings up an unintended consequence he talks down to them like they are stupid for having such a ridiculous fear.

There are real issues with pay for play that have to be ironed out if everyone doesn't want college sports to be destroyed from a competitive standpoint.

I'm frankly not excited to hear, "it'll level out. The market will even out" That doesn't work for me.

I want to hear a real plan on how this will actually work.

[Commercecomet24]

I agree. It's super complicated. Far more complicated than any of the supporters are willing to think about.

It's part of what drives me crazy about so many of the supporters. They just aren't willing to think through & see the unintended consequences.

Bo Bounds has specifically made me want to throw up this week because he speaks on it like he's stupid. Every time someone brings up an unintended consequence he talks down to them like they are stupid for having such a ridiculous fear.

There are real issues with pay for play that have to be ironed out if everyone doesn't want college sports to be destroyed from a competitive standpoint.

I'm frankly not excited to hear, "it'll level out. The market will even out" That doesn't work for me.

I want to hear a real plan on how this will actually work.

If you sit and think on this for awhile you can literally think of hundreds of different questions and problems that nobody has addressed on how it will be handled. And if you get the ncaa and the government both involved oh my goodness!

[TrapGame]

I agree. It's super complicated. Far more complicated than any of the supporters are willing to think about.

It's part of what drives me crazy about so many of the supporters. They just aren't willing to think through & see the unintended consequences.

Bo Bounds has specifically made me want to throw up this week because he speaks on it like he's stupid. Every time someone brings up an unintended consequence he talks down to them like they are stupid for having such a ridiculous fear.

There are real issues with pay for play that have to be ironed out if everyone doesn't want college sports to be destroyed from a competitive standpoint.

I'm frankly not excited to hear, "it'll level out. The market will even out" That doesn't work for me.

I want to hear a real plan on how this will actually work.

Jackson asked Bo yesterday: "So the guy that owns the car dealership can tell the ole miss recruit he'll put him in commercials for X amount of dollars if he signs with them?" And Bo said "Yep, nothing wrong with that now."

[dantheman4248]

I imagine we’ll see the Yankees dominate the 20s again. Time is a flat circle.

[ShotgunDawg]

Jackson asked Bo yesterday: "So the guy that owns the car dealership can tell the ole miss recruit he'll put him in commercials for X amount of dollars if he signs with them?" And Bo said "Yep, nothing wrong with that now."

Which is ridiculous.

However, to my point, if we're going to do this, then make the payments public so, as an MSU fan I can boycott that dealership.

Also make the dealership apply to the NCAA before paying the athlete.

It'll bring accountability to the process.

[ShotgunDawg]

The other thing you could do is make a rule that players can't get paid for play until their JR and SR years.

That way, it somewhat takes recruiting out of picture and makes their endorsements and likeness more about their actual success on the college field.

[Irondawg]

There is simply no good answer to this - maybe the NCAA just creates a pro division. Athletes can get paid whatever boosters want to pay them. Make whatever off their likeness. Open transfer rules. Basically the schools can run a team through their Business School, hospitality school, etc. - they "own" the team the way a NFL team would be done. Athletes can go to school, but no required classes. Furthermore no age limits. Just make it a pro league and be done with it. NFL can scoop in however and take your players even after freshman years unless you lock them down with a guaranteed contract for multiple years.

Downsides are that you cannot transfer down to a "normal" division. If you turned pro and can't cut it you get to play intramural flag football and that's it. No scholarships either for school unless you can an academic one - you pay for school out of your salary like everybody else.

I've given this all of 5 minutes of thought but I don't know any other way than to go "all in" for those that want to and let the rest of the schools play under today's rules for the most part.

[Irondawg]

The other thing you could do is make a rule that players can't get paid for play until their JR and SR years.

That way, it somewhat takes recruiting out of picture and makes their endorsements and likeness more about their actual success on the college field.

not a bad idea but not sure that would pass the legal test.

Maybe they do need a players union to help set some boundaries.

[Gutter Cobreh]

I agree with everything that has been posted here so far, so if were up to me and I was leading the Athletic Dept. through this change - I'd focus on pushing endorsement dollars to one sport. I wouldn't even entertain trying to be competitive in basketball or football because you'll lose anyway. Let the kids from our football and basketball teams make something, but take the revenue from the conference deals from football and push them to ancillary sports.

Here is a list of SEC that should just pick a sport and push all their dollars in that direction:

MSU - baseball
South Carolina - baseball
Arkansas - baseball
Kentucky - basketball
UGA - football
Bama - football
UF - football
LSU - football
Auburn - football
A&M - football (but they have enough $ and the only school in TX - they could go after 2 sports)
Missouri, Vanderbilt, and Ole Miss - pick whatever one they think they have a shot at...

Most of the list is always going to be football, because that is the most popular sport. It would give us a better advantage on what we have proven, over time, as being more competitive at - which is baseball.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Well #1 above recruiting and jersey sells cannot be decoupled, unfortunately.
The best thing that could happen is the ncaa doesn't budge on their rules for the volunteer members. Then someone can start a semipro league for schools to join if they want to leave the ncaa. The second the ncaa allows this, everyone that isnt Texas, Michigan, UF, Oregon, Bama, etc are at a severe disadvantage.

[ShotgunDawg]

not a bad idea but not sure that would pass the legal test.

Maybe they do need a players union to help set some boundaries.

It would definitely have to be collectively bargained, which takes the legal side out.

Do I believe Dak Prescott as a JR and SR and MSU should be able to do endorsements? Yes

Do I believe Jake Mangum should make some money off his jersey sales at MSU? Yes

Do I think a 5 star croot that hasn't done anything on college field should be guaranteed money by signing with a certain school? No

This is the issue. By delaying an endorsements or money making ability till a player's JR and SR year, you help take their "recruiting value" out of he picture.

At that point, a kid could legitimately ask himself, in 3 years so I have a better chance of being a star at Bama or MSU? Due to playing time, that answer could be MSU.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Its about time the ncaa turned back to the 50s. Where eligible academic students had club teams that happened to play other students from other schools for bragging rights.

[ShotgunDawg]

Well #1 above recruiting and jersey sells cannot be decoupled, unfortunately.
The best thing that could happen is the ncaa doesn't budge on their rules for the volunteer members. Then someone can start a semipro league for schools to join if they want to leave the ncaa. The second the ncaa allows this, everyone that isnt Texas, Michigan, UF, Oregon, Bama, etc are at a severe disadvantage.

I actually wonder if in time it would hurt Bama and Auburn? The state of Alabama simply doesn't have the money that Texas, Michigan, Ohio, and other states have. They'd keep up for a while but eventually get ran over financially

Wait till Microsoft gets involved with Washington football? Or Warren Buffet with Nebraska football. Bama can't compete there. Clemson would go downhill real fast

[RocketDawg]

I can see the players' points to some degree ... colleges pay coaches a small fortune for coaching, and to a great degree, exploiting the players' names. One thing to do might be to put coaches under the same restrictions they do the players ... can't advertise for pay, among other things. I don't know if Joe appears in ads in Mississippi, but here in Alabama you can't turn the television on without Saban advertising for Alfa insurance with the duck puppet, or advertising for Ford F150, or whatever. Put a cap on coaches' payments (salaries and booster payments), don't let them advertise or make money other than what the school pays. Most jobs have restrictions on using your position for personal gain. Why not coaches?

Plus ... how many players would actually benefit from payments because of their fame? In our case, maybe two or three every year. A few more at Alabama. What about the other 80 players? Their scholarships with free room and board are worth a lot more than they'd ever make off being paid. That would open the door for a lot of resentment on the team, I would think.

[RocketDawg]

Its about time the ncaa turned back to the 50s. Where eligible academic students had club teams that happened to play other students from other schools for bragging rights.

It never was quite that way in my lifetime. Maybe sometime early in the 20th century, but I don't know. Since I've been around, there have always been "meatheads" - those who are athletes but not exactly star students. And if they were good enough athletes, they would get to go to college for free, and get to take "easy" majors (or maybe even manufactured majors made with athletes in mind).

[Maroonthirteen]

I think everyone, including Bo Bounds, knows this will
Open up Pandora?s box. However that isn?t the cool, hip take at the moment in the media. He has to fit in with his liberal espn colleagues.

With that said..... I think it is ridiculous I can?t find a MSU jersey for my kids that has number 6,7 or 15.

Another silver lining, maybe somebody.... anybody out bids Alabama for players.

[dantheman4248]

If someone’s willing to pay money for it, that person can and should be able to collect the money for it. That’s called a free market and capitalism.

[ShotgunDawg]

If someone?s willing to pay money for it, that person can and should be able to collect the money for it. That?s called a free market and capitalism.

Again, for the 300th time. Sports are entertainment not the economy. They need some competitive balance to survive

I can't help people that can't understand this.

[Johnson85]

If someone’s willing to pay money for it, that person can and should be able to collect the money for it. That’s called a free market and capitalism.

Very few sports leagues work like that. There is a reason there are salary caps and revenue sharing agreements. The large market teams are better off having a league of 30 teams spread out over geographic markets where fans think their teams have a chance versus having a league of the five from the five largest markets. I don't think the NCAA will work with unregulated pay for play because of how large the disparity in markets are. Although it's not really about disparity in markets per se. It will depend on who has the wealthiest alumni willing to pay endorsement deals to players. The only chance would be that when it's above board, businesses are just hesitant to pay that much money for college players, so that while the payments to player go up, schools are less willing to break the bank outside of the biggest recruits and a lot of donations that go towards facilities instead of never made and go directly to players, with the balance ending up about where it is now, except that schools like A&M are no longer able to keep screwing up their advantages.

[sleepy dawg]

Guys are already getting paid lot of money. In the rare case we actually hear about it such as Leo Lewis or Cam Newton we have found out that players make quite a bit of money already, and that's before they even do anything or sell anything. It is very hard to artificially minimize a market value when the demand is so high. The market will find a way. You either allow near market value to occur and have a shot at controlling or you try to greatly suppress market value and let the black market flourish.

The best shot we have at having a somewhat even playing field in college football is to pay players their market value and have salary caps like the nfl. College football is already a professional sport, everyone is just pretending it isn't.

[dantheman4248]

What sports leagues regulate who can have what endorsements exactly? We’re not talking about collectively bargained salary agreements. That’s not the law that’s been approved. You’re looking at it through the wrong lens. This isn’t about schools having to pay certain wages.

So again. It’s a free market. It’s capitlaism. You can and should not limit who can pay or who can be paid. If the players want to form a union and collectively bargain their payment that’s a whole other issue if that ever gets approved. This is about being paid for who they are by outside people. The NCAA has been told by a california (and soon the whole US) that they cannot restrict that.

[Dawg61]

Start selling baseball jerseys with player's names at Dudy. Bet we can sell a whole lot more player's jerseys than Vandy can.

[ShotgunDawg]

Guys are already getting paid lot of money. In the rare case we actually hear about it such as Leo Lewis or Cam Newton we have found out that players make quite a bit of money already, and that's before they even do anything or sell anything. It is very hard to artificially minimize a market value when the demand is so high. The market will find a way. You either allow near market value to occur and have a shot at controlling or you try to greatly suppress market value and let the black market flourish.

The best shot we have at having a somewhat even playing field in college football is to pay players their market value and have salary caps like the nfl. College football is already a professional sport, everyone is just pretending it isn't.

Players already getting paid is a lousy narrative.

Yes some players get money but it's still paid by dishonest people behind closed doors. Once you open it up to the honest person with money, it'll become a completely different animal.

[ShotgunDawg]

What sports leagues regulate who can have what endorsements exactly? We’re not talking about collectively bargained salary agreements. That’s not the law that’s been approved. You’re looking at it through the wrong lens. This isn’t about schools having to pay certain wages.

So again. It’s a free market. It’s capitlaism. You can and should not limit who can pay or who can be paid. If the players want to form a union and collectively bargain their payment that’s a whole other issue if that ever gets approved. This is about being paid for who they are by outside people. The NCAA has been told by a california (and soon the whole US) that they cannot restrict that.

They don't limit endorsements but the leagues pay enough to not make that the deciding factor.

If colleges could pay football players 100K per year, then the endorsements wouldn't likely be a deciding factor.

[ShotgunDawg]

What's funny is that Bo's lack of foresight has him essentially promoting the demise of his own radio show.

Does Bo really want two awful college football teams in state?

[dantheman4248]

They don't limit endorsements but the leagues pay enough to not make that the deciding factor.

If colleges could pay football players 100K per year, then the endorsements wouldn't likely be a deciding factor.

Also which sports league has non-owner mega-rich fans that would pay to help make it matter. And add a 0 to that. Joe blow booster could double a kid’s salary at 100k. He’d have to think about it at 1M

[ShotgunDawg]

I can't wait to see what will happen when Bama gets outbid on some 5 stars by Stanford and CBS starts to lose that Bama fanbase.

And YES. Stanford can outbid Bama 3 times over every day of the week

[Coursesuper]

I can't wait to see what will happen when Bama gets outbid on some 5 stars by Stanford and CBS starts to lose that Bama fanbase.

And YES. Stanford can outbid Bama 3 times over every day of the week

Do you know which family is one of the largest donors to UA athletics? Because these folks don't get out bid.

[AROB44]

if players get paid $$$, then have them pay for the cost of going to school. One other thing, the NCAA is a voluntary organization whose rules, like them or not, were instituted by the schools that voluntarily became a member. If you don't like their rules and can't get them changed, get out of the NCAA.

[ShotgunDawg]

Do you know which family is one of the largest donors to UA athletics? Because these folks don't get out bid.

I don't think you understand the economics of this.

The Texas schools, Stanford, ND, etc can outbid Bama & Auburn all day regardless of which families are involved at Bama.

The University of Alabama system has a 1.4 billion dollar endowment. The University of Texas system has a 30 billion dollar endowment, Standord 26 billion, Texas A&M 13 Billion, Michigan 11 billion, Northwestern 11 billion, Cal 11 billion, ND 10 billion, Duke 8.5 billion, UVA 6 billion.

There is no chance Bama & Auburn would/could compete in a free market system within 10 years. No 17ing shot

That's why this MUST be a regulated market. Or else, the current powers will be destroyed in college football.

You guys thinking 1 family from Alabama will prop up Bama aren't thinking this through at all. Think Way Way Way bigger
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Which-Colleges-Have-the/245587

[dantheman4248]

The way to make it work once the eventual contract between player and school happens is to collectively bargain that every calendar year you’re at a school you get a “raise”

Example:
Year 1- 100k
Year 2- 150k
Year 3- 300k
Year 4- 600k
Year 5- 1.25 mil

Also give 5 designated 1 mil slots for Y4 or lower players. These can’t be taken away for performance and only expire once the kid leaves the school (or hits the Y5 mark) or flunks out (since this is a school and all.)
Note: you can transfer but the counter resets to 0. This would make transfers think twice.

I’m sure someone will nitpick the loopholes but I feel this is the base you should work with.

[sleepy dawg]

Players already getting paid is a lousy narrative.

Yes some players get money but it's still paid by dishonest people behind closed doors. Once you open it up to the honest person with money, it'll become a completely different animal.

It's not lousy, it is reality. It would be lousy if it wasn't that much money or it was just a small minority paying, or the NCAA could regulate or get it under control, but they can't. It's already a monster and it isn't controllable. What system could possibly be more out of control than college football already is? I can't imagine one, and it certainly isn't paying people what their value is legally.

[dantheman4248]

double post

[ShotgunDawg]

Good luck Bama!

Texas players will be endorsing the following companies:

- Dell computers
- Texas Rangers
- Southwest Airlines
- Heinz ketchup
- Carmax
- Conoco gas stations
- Six Flags
- TXU energy

Stanford players will be endorsing these companies:

- Apple
- Whatsapp
- Cisco Systems
- Google
- Trader Joe's
- Capital one
- Yahoo
- Netflix
- EA Sports
- Hewlett Packard
- Youtube
- Nike
- Instagram
- Sam Adams Beer
- Snapchat


Good luck out bidding all these companies in a free market!

[ShotgunDawg]

Again, I'm just baffled by the lack of forethought that people vouching for this are putting into it.

Even Bama & Auburn fans are probably wanting this thinking they'll get that 5 star croot from Florida by offering him 50K to do a damn car commercial.

That's great & all but what happens when Southwest Airlines offers 200K for a commercial or Google & Youtube step in with 7 figures for a 5 star? What then? huh?

Well, you say: They don't care that much. Stanford grads wouldn't offer that.

Really? You don't think some of the richest people on the planet would love to see their school win a natty if all they had to do was legally buy players? Really? Don't be dumb

[dantheman4248]

Just cause some one has money doesn’t mean this is what they’re willing to spend it on. aTm is the one to watch with the oil money cause they do care and will write the check to match.

[Coursesuper]

Good luck Bama!

Texas players will be endorsing the following companies:

- Dell computers
- Texas Rangers
- Southwest Airlines
- Heinz ketchup
- Carmax
- Conoco gas stations
- Six Flags
- TXU energy

Stanford players will be endorsing these companies:

- Apple
- Whatsapp
- Cisco Systems
- Google
- Trader Joe's
- Capital one
- Yahoo
- Netflix
- EA Sports
- Hewlett Packard
- Youtube
- Nike
- Instagram
- Sam Adams Beer
- Snapchat


Good luck out bidding all these companies in a free market!

You need to do a little research on Drummond Oil and Coal.

[ShotgunDawg]

Just cause some one has money doesn’t mean this is what they’re willing to spend it on. aTm is the one to watch with the oil money cause they do care and will write the check to match.

Stanford, Texas, & Notre Dame have alumni that find 500K in their couch. Arkansas has Walmart & Jerry Jones.

Your being delusional if you don't think they'd put up their couch money for a national championship.

Bama & Auburn would get run out of the top 20 program under a free market within 10 years. No 17ing shot they can compete with that

[Quaoarsking]

Perhaps players could be required to pay half of their endorsement money into a pool that is spread evenly among all of the scholarship players in his conference? That way everyone in the SEC benefits from, say, an Alabama booster with deep pockets.

[ShotgunDawg]

You need to do a little research on Drummond Oil and Coal.

Ok, Bama has one company that will prop them up?

that isn't going to cut against what many of these other schools can offer. They don't stand a chance

[Jarius]

Players already getting paid is a lousy narrative.

Yes some players get money but it's still paid by dishonest people behind closed doors. Once you open it up to the honest person with money, it'll become a completely different animal.


The same teams that get all the good players will continue to get the good players. Limit scholarships per school to help competitive balance and give those scholarships to baseball but a guy should be able to make money off his own name. This is not communist Russia.

[ShotgunDawg]

The same teams that get all the good players will continue to get the good players. Limit scholarships per school to help competitive balance and give those scholarships to baseball but a guy should be able to make money off his own name. This is not communist Russia.

Agree with limiting scholarships, but the same teams that currently get the best players would not continue to so within 10 years.

Bama
Auburn
Clemson and others would fall by the wayside pretty quick in legal bidding wars

Again, pull up college endowments & tell me how those schools could compete

[Coursesuper]

Ok, Bama has one company that will prop them up?

that isn't going to cut against what many of these other schools can offer. They don't stand a chance

If you knew how ignorant that remark was you never would have posted it. Also it’s a privately held company, they answer to no one.

[Dawgology]

Its about time the ncaa turned back to the 50s. Where eligible academic students had club teams that happened to play other students from other schools for bragging rights.

This. Exactly.

I think you would see whatever semi-pro athletic division that forms from this asinine law fail miserably.

[ShotgunDawg]

If you knew how ignorant that remark was you never would have posted it. Also it’s a privately held company, they answer to no one.

Again, tell me how they are going to outbid the companies that would represent Texas, Stanford, Notre Dame, Cal, etc?

You're being delusional

Do you really think they'd be the only cash flush company willing to buy players?

You may think that Stanford doesn't care, but allow those billionaires out there to sniff a way to bring a natty to Stanford & it's over

[Jarius]

Agree with limiting scholarships, but the same teams that currently get the best players would not continue to so within 10 years.

Bama
Auburn
Clemson and others would fall by the wayside pretty quick in legal bidding wars

Again, pull up college endowments & tell me how those schools could compete

They compete by boosters paying 5 star players HUGE money. The same teams have been buying players forever. That is why we have very few changes in who wins national titles. The people who care about wanting to win in football is not going to change just because something becomes legal. The ones who have been wanting to win more by paying the best players for the past 100 years are going to continue to win unless we eliminate a significant amount of roster spots. Even if you were right, letting people be a capitalist in the US is the right thing to do no matter what it does to competitive balance (that currently doesn’t exist anyway). It’s a pretty shitty thing to do to families that really need money in many instances.

[ShotgunDawg]

They compete by boosters paying 5 star players HUGE money. The same teams have been buying players forever. That is why we have very few changes in who wins national titles. The people who care about wanting to win in football is not going to change just because something becomes legal. The ones who have been wanting to win more by paying the best players for the past 100 years are going to continue to win unless we eliminate a significant amount of roster spots. Even if you were right, letting people be a capitalist in the US is the right thing to do no matter what it does to competitive balance (that currently doesn’t exist anyway).

But it's currently behind closed doors. Once it's legal & acceptable to do so, they won't be able to financially compete with significantly wealthier schools.

You guys aren't thinking this through. Your combining the new system with old system in your mind & not realizing that this would be a completely new system that would open the door to much more legitimate businesses.

In essence, it wipe all table clean & start over with who runs college football.

[Coursesuper]

Again, tell me how they are going to outbid the companies that would represent Texas, Stanford, Notre Dame, Cal, etc?

You're being delusional

Did you take the time to find out anything at that company?

[Pinto]

Here's my question: What does this do to federal/state financial aid? If a kid is making 100K then do they just become a walk on? If that happens, then does a school still have loads of scholarship money for other kids? Do you have 20 walk ons that are getting paid 100K and then 85 scholarship players? Teams could load up on 105 4 and 5 star players that way. Then you would really have a worse national championship situation than you currently have.

I could see it benefiting baseball. You could actually play all 27 (?) roster spots.

I still say the best option is to put all these kids on work study and pay them for all their workout hours, practice hours, travel hours, game hours, etc.

If we go for likeness and all those issues, then just make college sports minor leagues for professional sports.

The big monkey wrench in everything is still going to be Title IX.

[Dawgology]

The NFL instituted salary caps and the current draft model to combat the exact issues this will create.

[ShotgunDawg]

Did you take the time to find out anything at that company?

I did. They are very wealthy with $5 billion in revenue, but Walmart has $514 billion in revenue, Apple $216 billion in revenue, Dell $78 billion.

Again, why would Bama stand a chance against those companies?

Again, throw everything you think you know about college football recruiting in the garbage & tell me how, over time, Bama would financially compete in a free market?

[ShotgunDawg]

The NFL instituted salary caps and the current draft model to combat the exact issues this will create.

Of course you'd have to cap it & regulate it, which brings me to my point that people that are vouching for a free market aren't thinking this through. Like at all.

[Dawgology]

Here's my question: What does this do to federal/state financial aid? If a kid is making 100K then do they just become a walk on? If that happens, then does a school still have loads of scholarship money for other kids? Do you have 20 walk ons that are getting paid 100K and then 85 scholarship players? Teams could load up on 105 4 and 5 star players that way. Then you would really have a worse national championship situation than you currently have.

I could see it benefiting baseball. You could actually play all 27 (?) roster spots.

I still say the best option is to put all these kids on work study and pay them for all their workout hours, practice hours, travel hours, game hours, etc.

If we go for likeness and all those issues, then just make college sports minor leagues for professional sports.

The big monkey wrench in everything is still going to be Title IX.

I personally think, if this becomes reality, you just create minor-league football teams and make college football what it used to be. A club sport. No scholarships. You have to be a student first.

[ShotgunDawg]

Can't wait to see Nebraska players doing Berkshire Hathaway commercials*

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/87/b9/39/87b939d93bad2da2525336bab6e80207.jpg

http://images.thepostgame.com/sites/default/files/legends-football-league-warren.png

[Coursesuper]

I did. They are very wealthy with $5 billion in revenue, but Walmart has $514 billion in revenue, Apple $216 billion in revenue, Dell $78 billion.

Again, why would Bama stand a chance against those companies?

Again, throw everything you think you know about college football recruiting in the garbage & tell me how, over time, Bama would financially compete in a free market?

You only got the cursory view, remember it’s privately held, try to wrap your head around that fact. They answer only too themselves, no stockholders to answer too. I get where you’re coming from with the other schools but your understanding of how things really are is flawed if you think that Alabama won’t compete in that world.

[ShotgunDawg]

You only got the cursory view, remember it’s privately held, try to wrap your head around that fact. They answer only too themselves, no stockholders to answer too. I get where you’re coming from with the other schools but your understanding of how things really are is flawed if you think that Alabama won’t compete in that world.

In the long run I don't think Bama could compete in this system.

They may not completely fall apart & still be a top 10 program, but they'd have to fight for their lives against schools with much much deeper pockets.

My main point though was just to point out how ridiculous "free market" would be in this scenario & how there isn't a chance in hell it happens.

My guess is within the next 5 years the NCAA comes up with a heavily regulated way of paying players that doesn't change the current pecking order in college football in any way, including MSU's standing & then they'll slowly give players more money when the bickering rises every 3-5 years or so.

People have to stop spouting "free market" though. That ain't happening as I have illustrated in this thread.

[dantheman4248]

I’m going to say it one more time.

Just because a person / company HAS the money does not mean they will SPEND the money on college athletics. Revenue is nice but what about net profit since this is where it actually comes from?

These people got rich by making sound business decisions and not just throwing away money at sports. Sports are a recreation for the ultra rich. They generally are not about turning the best profit. Most of these business owners are about turning a profit. You made the point about boycotting the car dealership that sponsored an OM kid. Imagine that on a nationwide scale with a big company pissing off a bunch of its user base.

Again, this will be oil money and old money. Name brands will shy away.

[ShotgunDawg]

I’m going to say it one more time.

Just because a person / company HAS the money does not mean they will SPEND the money on college athletics. Revenue is nice but what about net profit since this is where it actually comes from?

These people got rich by making sound business decisions and not just throwing away money at sports. Sports are a recreation for the ultra rich. They generally are not about turning the best profit. Most of these business owners are about turning a profit. You made the point about boycotting the car dealership that sponsored an OM kid. Imagine that on a nationwide scale with a big company pissing off a bunch of its user base.

Again, this will be oil money and old money. Name brands will shy away.

Maybe so, but it's all proportional. Stanford & Texas got more of the oil & old money than Bama & Auburn as well.

It'll just have to be heavily regulated & that's where it gets really really complicated

[Jarius]

The NFL instituted salary caps and the current draft model to combat the exact issues this will create.

The nfl does not regulate how much money any of its players can get off endorsements and their own name. They regulate how Much a team can give them (like the ncaa should regulate scholarships).

[Jarius]

Maybe so, but it's all proportional. Stanford & Texas got more of the oil & old money than Bama & Auburn as well.

It'll just have to be heavily regulated & that's where it gets really really complicated

How much money one person wants to give another person should not be regulated at all by anyone except the IRS.

[Jarius]

But it's currently behind closed doors. Once it's legal & acceptable to do so, they won't be able to financially compete with significantly wealthier schools.

You guys aren't thinking this through. Your combining the new system with old system in your mind & not realizing that this would be a completely new system that would open the door to much more legitimate businesses.

In essence, it wipe all table clean & start over with who runs college football.

No it isn’t. People with huge endowments and big athletic budgets that want to be good at football are already good at football, or already put enough into recruiting that they are not good for other reasons outside of recruiting. Nothing is going to change. If you think Alabama is ever going to let someone outbid them for football players you are kidding yourself. Legit businesses can already throw their support behind the programs to hire the best coaches in the country, but they don’t at some places because they simply do not want to spend that kind of money on football.

[Jack Lambert]

The nfl does not regulate how much money any of its players can get off endorsements and their own name. They regulate how Much a team can give them (like the ncaa should regulate scholarships).

The schools will have to keep up with what is paid, the athletic department will have to keep a record and probably will be required to report the money to the IRS. There will be state auditors. There will be some over site. I think what the schools pay will be fair but what endorsement that are given will not. But it will also be reported to the IRS. I don't think it will run amok like we think. However I am against it.

[Maroonthirteen]

I can't imagine one, and it certainly isn't paying people what their value is legally.

That is the problem. College football players are apprentice that receive training from the best coaches this nation has to offer. In the best facilities with everything in place to facilitate their academic success. Yet America acts like they are victims.

[ShotgunDawg]

How much money one person wants to give another person should not be regulated at all by anyone except the IRS.

Again, for the 301st time. Sports are not the economy. They require reasonable level of competition to exist. It's entertainment.

Do you want the competition to be on the field or behind closed doors in a bidding war?

[ShotgunDawg]

No it isn’t. People with huge endowments and big athletic budgets that want to be good at football are already good at football, or already put enough into recruiting that they are not good for other reasons outside of recruiting. Nothing is going to change. If you think Alabama is ever going to let someone outbid them for football players you are kidding yourself. Legit businesses can already throw their support behind the programs to hire the best coaches in the country, but they don’t at some places because they simply do not want to spend that kind of money on football.

This is a dumb and delusional post. Completely out of touch with reality.

[dawgs]

I think everyone, including Bo Bounds, knows this will
Open up Pandora?s box. However that isn?t the cool, hip take at the moment in the media. He has to fit in with his liberal espn colleagues.

With that said..... I think it is ridiculous I can?t find a MSU jersey for my kids that has number 6,7 or 15.

Another silver lining, maybe somebody.... anybody out bids Alabama for players.

It's weird to me to get pissed at "liberals" for wanting to fairly compensate people for their work when.

I mean, here's the very next post calling it a "free market" and "capitalism".


If someone?s willing to pay money for it, that person can and should be able to collect the money for it. That?s called a free market and capitalism.

Is MSU still gonna get the short end of the stick? Yep. Is that any different than the "fair" rules we play under now? Nope. Only difference is tua and Lawrence and co. can start making a little money for all the revenue they generate for everyone around them. There is literally no argument rooted in "liberal" or "conservative" views for not paying players when coaches, sponsors, universities, etc. are all making millions/billions off their unpaid labor. The only argument is that it'll change CFB in ways we don't see yet, and that's not a valid reason to continue an immoral and wrong practice.

[dawgs]

That is the problem. College football players are apprentice that receive training from the best coaches this nation has to offer. In the best facilities with everything in place to facilitate their academic success. Yet America acts like they are victims.

Apprenticing in a profession where only ~2% of the apprentices actually get a job in the NfL and even less get a job that last more than a few years isn't a real apprenticeship. Nor do most apprenticeships come with the heath risks of playing CFB - CTE/concussions, broken bones, torn ligaments, ruptured organs, paralyzation, etc. are common enough injuries that we see them every season at some level of football. Sure, there's inherent risks in everything, including me driving to the grocery store earlier, but the level of risk playing football is different from all but a very select few high risk professions, and those professions don't for guys to work 3-4 years without pay while accepting all the risks of those jobs because that would be illegal.

[dantheman4248]

That is the problem. College football players are apprentice that receive training from the best coaches this nation has to offer. In the best facilities with everything in place to facilitate their academic success. Yet America acts like they are victims.

You don’t get any of the wages / benefits (401k, health, dental, etc.) / etc. from the product you create. You are the exploited 99.9% helping. line the pockets of the .1%. Why you go to bat for them on anything money related is beyond me.

But this is devolving quickly into political territory.

The point is, the NFL players have all those amenities PLUS they get paid AND health benefits, pension, yadda yadda. The apprentice gets a slim chance at actually becoming a master. Welders who apprentice can become masters as long as they master the skill and can market themselves way easier with more opportunities than football player. Plus those welder apprentices don’t generate near the revenue that these football player apprentices do. Bad comparison.

[turkish]

If there is such a market for semi-pro, C-grade, football, why is there no such flourishing league in the US already? Why aren’t there independent minor leagues paying players salaries, competing with NCAA, as in baseball? In a way, it seems to me the players are “using” the universities and their fanbases too.

Change is coming. I may be convinced that it’s morally the right way to go. I’m a little torn. But I can tell you, it will NOT be good for MSU, athletics or scholastics.

[sleepy dawg]

That is the problem. College football players are apprentice that receive training from the best coaches this nation has to offer. In the best facilities with everything in place to facilitate their academic success. Yet America acts like they are victims.

Apprentices still earn a legal wage. Also College football players are the reason those things exist. The coaches and the stadiums are b/c of the players. Professions that have apprentices don't exist b/c of apprentices... talk about a bad analogy.

[sleepy dawg]

But it's currently behind closed doors. Once it's legal & acceptable to do so, they won't be able to financially compete with significantly wealthier schools.

You guys aren't thinking this through. Your combining the new system with old system in your mind & not realizing that this would be a completely new system that would open the door to much more legitimate businesses.

In essence, it wipe all table clean & start over with who runs college football.

All I'm saying is at worse it stays the same. Who cares if its Alabama buying their way to success or someone else? As I've heard it so far, I don't see anything changing besides the names. Swap one unfair illegal practice for an unfair legal practice. Who gives a sh*t.

[dantheman4248]

If there is such a market for semi-pro, C-grade, football, why is there no such flourishing league in the US already? Why aren’t there independent minor leagues paying players salaries, competing with NCAA, as in baseball? In a way, it seems to me the players are “using” the universities and their fanbases too.

Change is coming. I may be convinced that it’s morally the right way to go. I’m a little torn. But I can tell you, it will NOT be good for MSU, athletics or scholastics.

Because the US sucks at it, but is also the only country that really plays this brand of football.

Baseball, Basketball, and Soccer all have way better systems for the players to actually get paid.

[Maroonthirteen]

Apprentices still earn a legal wage. Also College football players are the reason those things exist. The coaches and the stadiums are b/c of the players. Professions that have apprentices don't exist b/c of apprentices... talk about a bad analogy.

Again, people forget that they get tution, books, housing and food. Plus training for a potential million dollar job. But all
That means nothing to some.

Chicken or egg. Fortune 500s were build on the back
Of employees and remain profitable on the back of employees. Most of whom earn salaries that are fraction of the company’s profit margins.

All schools had memberships with their conference before the current players. the conferences had tv contracts way before the current players. Tua would not be a heisman candidate without Alabama. He played for Hawaii or even State very few people would know him

[ShotgunDawg]

If there is such a market for semi-pro, C-grade, football, why is there no such flourishing league in the US already? Why aren?t there independent minor leagues paying players salaries, competing with NCAA, as in baseball? In a way, it seems to me the players are ?using? the universities and their fanbases too.

Change is coming. I may be convinced that it?s morally the right way to go. I?m a little torn. But I can tell you, it will NOT be good for MSU, athletics or scholastics.

Don't think you can compare the passion business owner have for their school and college football compared to a semi-pro league.

[ShotgunDawg]

All I'm saying is at worse it stays the same. Who cares if its Alabama buying their way to success or someone else? As I've heard it so far, I don't see anything changing besides the names. Swap one unfair illegal practice for an unfair legal practice. Who gives a sh*t.

I just don't see how Alabama could financially compete with real money if a few alums at Stanford, Texas, A&M, ND, Michigan, etc decide to take the bull by the horns.

I make no mistake, they'll be asked to do so.

Clemson and Auburn are out. LSU could be as well.

[sleepy dawg]

Again, people forget that they get tution, books, housing and food. Plus training for a potential million dollar job. But all
That means nothing to some.

Chicken or egg. Fortune 500s were build on the back
Of employees and remain profitable on the back of employees. Most of whom earn salaries that are fraction of the company?s profit margins.

All schools had memberships with their conference before the current players. the conferences had tv contracts way before the current players. Tua would not be a heisman candidate without Alabama. He played for Hawaii or even State very few people would know him

It means nothing b/c the majority of football players don't go to college for an education. They're there to play football. These teams aren't made of regular college students. This isn't an amateur sport. It's a professional sport and that's why many of them are already making more under the table than a lot of full time workers make... Also, they work more hours than than most full time workers too.

[sleepy dawg]

I just don't see how Alabama could financially compete with real money if a few alums at Stanford, Texas, A&M, ND, Michigan, etc decide to take the bull by the horns.

I make no mistake, they'll be asked to do so.

Clemson and Auburn are out. LSU could be as well.

But again, what's different other than the names and it becoming legal? We get the same teams legitimately competing every year as it is. There isn't a less competitive sport than college football. How could it possibly get any more lopsided. At the minimum we'll go through a nice transition and have several competitive schools for a while and, again at worst, we'll be back to a few schools dominating again. Who gives a sh*t that some other school can now pay players more money than Alabama?

[ShotgunDawg]

But again, what's different other than the names and it becoming legal? We get the same teams legitimately competing every year as it is. There isn't a less competitive sport than college football. How could it possibly get any more lopsided. At the minimum we'll go through a nice transition and have several competitive schools for a while and, again at worst, we'll be back to a few schools dominating again. Who gives a sh*t that some other school can now pay players more money than Alabama?

Because once legitimate companies and honest people get involved with the buying of recruits, the real money will start flowing in.

[QuadrupleOption]

I think the only way this works is if all money generated is put into a general fund and redistributed by the NCAA to each school as an identical lump sum at the end of each year. Then each SA on the team gets an equal share.

It's certainly not ideal but otherwise you're basically throwing in the towel for legalized booster payments in recruiting. You think Ole Miss was bad before? They'll be 100 times worse if this goes through.

[ShotgunDawg]

While paying recruits certianly happens in college sports currently, it happens in secrecy and is somewhat limited because a recruit suddenly getting a 300K house would be pretty obvious.

Once there are no more limitations, there is no reason to be secret anymore and the real
Money will start flowing.

[Really Clark?]

It means nothing b/c the majority of football players don't go to college for an education. They're there to play football. These teams aren't made of regular college students. This isn't an amateur sport. It's a professional sport and that's why many of them are already making more under the table than a lot of full time workers make... Also, they work more hours than than most full time workers too.

About 75-80 percentage earn a degree. So a majority do go and earn an education

[Really Clark?]

One aspect of the likeness issue that can curtailed, since several mentioned jerseys and using the sales for recruiting as well, prohibit the sale of any college jerseys with numbers or make them generic, like 00 or 01.

[Mjoelner34]

If you sit and think on this for awhile you can literally think of hundreds of different questions and problems that nobody has addressed on how it will be handled.

Here are a few questions that I haven't seen discussed:

1. What do you think a $10k check by the local car dealership for a commercial by the 17 year old star after a strong game will do to the 17 year old's psyche? Think he'll play as hard and as smart the very next game with $10k burning a hole in his back pocket knowing he can get another deal? Or, do you think he'll be seeing visions of women and bling instead and be thinking more about how to spend that $10k? Just look at NFL players who are supposedly more mature after they sign a nice contract. No, its not the rule that they will tank the following year but there is definitely a down trend. Ryan Fitzpatrick is a great example of this.

2. How long will it be before jealousy pops up because one player with similar stats to another on the same team is deemed more 'marketable' by the local money people than the other guy and gets the big deal while the other guy only gets enough for beer money?

3. Will 5-star players keep back-loading the rosters of the blue-blood, rich programs just to risk waiting 2 or 3 years before getting their chance to shine and make these deals or will they start funneling down to programs where they stand a chance of starting much sooner. Maybe even as a true freshman?

[somebodyshotmypaw]

If someone?s willing to pay money for it, that person can and should be able to collect the money for it. That?s called a free market and capitalism.

But players have always been able to legally collect money from it. There is no law prohibiting Kylin Hill from making $100,000 signing autographs tomorrow at the GMC dealership. There is no law prohibiting Cam Dantzler from making $25,000 to do a commercial. It's a free market. But it would violate their agreement that they voluntarily signed with the NCAA. So go shoot the commercial, and then you can't play. Players get to make those free market choices. They aren't restricted. They already have a free market.

My employer has stipulations on me. I agreed to those stipulations when I took the job. If I don't like them I can go work somewhere else. It really is that simple.

It's like NBA players saying they are slaves. It's bull crap. An NBA player can quit any time they want and go get a job as a bank teller, a truck driver, or a construction worker if they don't like their current employer. Nobody is stopping them. They have a free market.

[ShotgunDawg]

Here is a question:

College athletes are completely free to benefit from their likeness once their career is over. Why don't more of them do that? Why are they apparently so much more valuable while they are playing than 1 minute after they are done playing?

[Dawgology]

The nfl does not regulate how much money any of its players can get off endorsements and their own name. They regulate how Much a team can give them (like the ncaa should regulate scholarships).

If you don?t believe schools will use endorsements to pay players you are living in a fantasy world.

[Jarius]

If you don?t believe schools will use endorsements to pay players you are living in a fantasy world.

If you don’t believe that players want to play on certain NFL teams because they are in a bigger market that will help them get more endorsements you are living in a fantasy land. It is no different. None of this money is coming from you or anyone else that does not want to pay for these players. Why does it bother you what other people decide to pay for and receive with their own money?

[Jarius]

Again, for the 301st time. Sports are not the economy. They require reasonable level of competition to exist. It's entertainment.

Do you want the competition to be on the field or behind closed doors in a bidding war?

I want people that have a marketable skill to get paid market value just like literally every other person in this country does.

[Jarius]

This is a dumb and delusional post. Completely out of touch with reality.

You are the delusional one, boss. You have absolutely zero clue how college football recruiting works if you think this will be a negative to schools like Alabama. Legitimate companies with more money would just go offer Nick Saban and Dabo and Urban and whoever else the big time coaches are 3 times what they are making at their current schools to go to their school if that was how this was going to go down. That is currently legal and does not happen. Alabama has about 10 more off field recruiting coaches than most anyone in the country. They are not going to get outrecruited.

[ShotgunDawg]

I want people that have a marketable skill to get paid market value just like literally every other person in this country does.

Then you want to destroy college sports because without competitive balance, there's no point in playing.

[Jarius]

Then you want to destroy college sports because without competitive balance, there's no point in playing.

Jesus Christ there is no competitive balance right now. Nothing will change. At least let people who have a marketable skill for an extremely limited time make money off what they are good at while they can. Limiting scholarships and letting People pay players would make it more competitive than it currently is in this setup.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

I want people that have a marketable skill to get paid market value just like literally every other person in this country does.

They do get paid market value. The market says so. You don't understand that the market is what it is. It's not what you say it is. Just because I think that the market for burger flippers is $400,000 annually doesn't make it so. If Tua wants to sign autographs for $5,000,000 tomorrow, there is nothing stopping him from taking that opportunity.

[maroonmania]

Yep, this will kill college football as we know it. While we are talking a cutback on football scholarships to help bring more competitiveness and parity to make college football a better overall product, this pay for play stuff is only going to concentrate the talent even more into the elite programs with the huge fanbases. Maybe the top 20 programs in the country should just form their own league and the other 110 programs can form theirs.

[maroonmania]

Jesus Christ there is no competitive balance right now. Nothing will change. At least let people who have a marketable skill for an extremely limited time make money off what they are good at while they can. Limiting scholarships and letting People pay players would make it more competitive than it currently is in this setup.

But what you are missing is that even with the lack of competitive balance we have now, it CAN and WILL get even worse if this is allowed by the NCAA. I really don't understand why the State of California had to pass this as a law anyway? There is nothing illegal about making money off your name and likeness now, it just cost you your eligibility with the NCAA.

[Schultzy]

Do you pay all of them?
How much?
Is my #15 jersey for Prescott or Sleepy or Don Smith or Grindle?
When do you pay them?
How do you know how much to pay them?

[Schultzy]

Who makes more? Fitz or Simmons?
Qb’s or DL?
What if a walk on becomes All-SEC out of nowhere?
Do we pay them by the hour, touchdown, game, TFL, INT’s?
How much to put their face on a pre-season schedule poster?
What if the Sr. starter loses his job to a freshman? Do they switch salaries?

[Coursesuper]

Yep, this will kill college football as we know it. While we are talking a cutback on football scholarships to help bring more competitiveness and parity to make college football a better overall product, this pay for play stuff is only going to concentrate the talent even more into the elite programs with the huge fanbases. Maybe the top 20 programs in the country should just form their own league and the other 110 programs can form theirs.

The top 20 or so will split from the rest of us in 10 years or less, TV money and the pooling of talent will drive this.

[ShotgunDawg]

The top 20 or so will split from the rest of us in 10 years or less, TV money and the pooling of talent will drive this.

20 isn't enough for a real league though. They'll have to go 30-40 to make it work.

[Jarius]

They do get paid market value. The market says so. You don't understand that the market is what it is. It's not what you say it is. Just because I think that the market for burger flippers is $400,000 annually doesn't make it so. If Tua wants to sign autographs for $5,000,000 tomorrow, there is nothing stopping him from taking that opportunity.

Telling someone that they can’t play in college if they take money from someone else not even affiliated with the school is not market value. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Market value is whatever someone is willing to pay you. I’m not asking the schools to pay them anything. Just stop letting people IN THE MARKET FOR PAYING THE PLAYERS pay them what they want to pay them.

[Jarius]

But what you are missing is that even with the lack of competitive balance we have now, it CAN and WILL get even worse if this is allowed by the NCAA. I really don't understand why the State of California had to pass this as a law anyway? There is nothing illegal about making money off your name and likeness now, it just cost you your eligibility with the NCAA.

What you don’t understand is how much people that go to schools that sign the best players now are getting paid under the table. It is not going to change. The only thing that should change is them not getting deemed ineligible for what the ones worth paying are already getting paid. Cam Newton got 180 thousand dollars a decade ago.....A decade ago! And that was before anyone knew he was going to be a star.

[turkish]

I think you’re probably right.

What impact will that have on the higher ed landscape in the country (rhetorical)?

[Really Clark?]

What you don?t understand is how much people that go to schools that sign the best players now are getting paid under the table. It is not going to change. The only thing that should change is them not getting deemed ineligible for what the ones worth paying are already getting paid. Cam Newton got 180 thousand dollars a decade ago.....A decade ago! And that was before anyone knew he was going to be a star.

Ok but if it?s going to be paid players and they not be in violation of NCAA rules then it has to follow the other pro sports with formal contracts and salary caps. That is different than being paid from your likeness. You are talking straight paying for players and you can?t do that in any professional sport without a structured contract and competitive balance. And you have to pay ALL players per a contract. You can?t just pay the top players legally and not pay every player a base salary or signing bonus of some sort. Legally it will not hold up, because all the players put in the same time. You have to eliminate walk-ons as well. And make so mistake, most schools do not have that kind of alum financially backing and/or budget. So D1 will shrink significantly in numbers. The number of players in a program will also shrink. And if we go that route then you have to severely punish programs for illegal payments outside of the known structure salary, and I mean severely punish those. The under the table payments have to be completely abolished and make it criminal. Especially for incoming freshman.

[Maroonthirteen]

One aspect of the likeness issue that can curtailed, since several mentioned jerseys and using the sales for recruiting as well, prohibit the sale of any college jerseys with numbers or make them generic, like 00 or 01.

Is this already done? Only Jersey I can find on campus has the number 19. As in 2019. We were lucky Dak came through in 2015.

[Really Clark?]

Is this already done? Only Jersey I can find on campus has the number 19. As in 2019. We were lucky Dak came through in 2015.

You can buy a Dak jersey from Fanatics and it’s listed that way. Usually you find players who are out of the program, like a Julio Jones Bama jersey or Baker Mayfield. They are watching that stuff closer but you still have a bunch of places where I can get a Nike 2019 Tau jersey. The hail state jersey shop still sell Fitz jerseys and while he was in school. And are Addias. Heck you can get a jersey for nearly the entire roster with their name on the back. You can get Rip Kirk in 3 different colors for Men, Women and Youth right now

[sleepy dawg]

Who makes more? Fitz or Simmons?
Qb?s or DL?
What if a walk on becomes All-SEC out of nowhere?
Do we pay them by the hour, touchdown, game, TFL, INT?s?
How much to put their face on a pre-season schedule poster?
What if the Sr. starter loses his job to a freshman? Do they switch salaries?

I understand your curiosity, but that's not our problem to figure out. Its like when people don't want to fire Moorhead b/c they want to know who we think we're going to get to replace him... That's not our problem. There are people who make a lot of money to figure out the logistics.

Why is everyone so against people making money? I realize folks are scared of what might happen to their sport. People don't like change, but these people deserve to be making money. There is a high demand for it and it is being blocked while everyone around them gets rich. Fans and TV stations are paying in the billions and the only people that matter don't make any of it.

I get there a lot of questions and fears, but most of these guys have way higher value than a scholarship and they deserve to see it.

[Jarius]

Who makes more? Fitz or Simmons?
Qb?s or DL?
What if a walk on becomes All-SEC out of nowhere?
Do we pay them by the hour, touchdown, game, TFL, INT?s?
How much to put their face on a pre-season schedule poster?
What if the Sr. starter loses his job to a freshman? Do they switch salaries?


We as in the school? I don’t want the school to pay them anything. I want people who
Own businesses to be able to pay them to do a commercial. I want some random guy on the street to be able to walk up to them and hand them a bag of cash if that is his or her prerogative. The school does plenty for them as it is. That does not mean you should be able to cut off anyone else that wants to help them.

[Jarius]

Ok but if it?s going to be paid players and they not be in violation of NCAA rules then it has to follow the other pro sports with formal contracts and salary caps. That is different than being paid from your likeness. You are talking straight paying for players and you can?t do that in any professional sport without a structured contract and competitive balance. And you have to pay ALL players per a contract. You can?t just pay the top players legally and not pay every player a base salary or signing bonus of some sort. Legally it will not hold up, because all the players put in the same time. You have to eliminate walk-ons as well. And make so mistake, most schools do not have that kind of alum financially backing and/or budget. So D1 will shrink significantly in numbers. The number of players in a program will also shrink. And if we go that route then you have to severely punish programs for illegal payments outside of the known structure salary, and I mean severely punish those. The under the table payments have to be completely abolished and make it criminal. Especially for incoming freshman.

No it does not. Continue to give every single one of them a scholarship. That is their contract and everyone’s is the same. The money that they make on their own time that has nothing to do with the school is their own business. I did not have to give MSU any of my Movie Gallery check when I was on academic scholarship and had a part time job. The money they make that someone else decides to give them is none of your business. It is none of the ncaa’s business. It is none of the school’s business. They are at school to play a sport and get an education. The way they make ends meet other than that is up to them, so long as it is legal. 90 % of this board are fiscally conservative until it is time for poor college athletes to make money. Then they want to turn into communists and socialists.

[Coursesuper]

20 isn't enough for a real league though. They'll have to go 30-40 to make it work.

It will be driven by eyes on TV sets, in football and basketball.

From the SEC - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, UGA, Kentucky, A&M

ACC - Clemson, N Carolina, FSU, Miami, Ga Tech, Cuse, BC, Duke

Big 12 - Texas, Oklahoma, Okie St, Kansas

Big 10 - Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nebraska,

Pac 12 - USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona

Indy - ND and BYU

34 schools and I'm sure that I omitted a couple, but that's who will move on into a super conference. Its all about TV revenues in football and basketball.

Let me hear your thoughts.

[dantheman4248]

It will be driven by eyes on TV sets, in football and basketball.

From the SEC - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, UGA, Kentucky, A&M

ACC - Clemson, N Carolina, FSU, Miami, Ga Tech, Cuse, BC, Duke

Big 12 - Texas, Oklahoma, Okie St, Kansas

Big 10 - Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nebraska,

Pac 12 - USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona

Indy - ND and BYU

34 schools and I'm sure that I omitted a couple, but that's who will move on into a super conference. Its all about TV revenues in football and basketball.

Let me hear your thoughts.

Too many state legislatures and conference agreements to get around. They’d need rule changing power to get out of the exorbitant buyouts and such. (OU and OSU, KU and KSU, etc.)

It would be a 64 team break-off. There’s 64 in the P5 and then good ole ND mucking everything up. So 65 would probably be the breakoff point and there wouldn’t be any realignment. Teams would only be allowed to play within the 65 most likely. 64 would be cleaner and could lead to a better league alignment structure but ND won’t be left standing at the altar.

[sleepy dawg]

They do get paid market value. The market says so. You don't understand that the market is what it is. It's not what you say it is. Just because I think that the market for burger flippers is $400,000 annually doesn't make it so. If Tua wants to sign autographs for $5,000,000 tomorrow, there is nothing stopping him from taking that opportunity.

You don't understand what market value is.

[Jack Lambert]

Too many state legislatures and conference agreements to get around. They’d need rule changing power to get out of the exorbitant buyouts and such. (OU and OSU, KU and KSU, etc.)

It would be a 64 team break-off. There’s 64 in the P5 and then good ole ND mucking everything up. So 65 would probably be the breakoff point and there wouldn’t be any realignment. Teams would only be allowed to play within the 65 most likely. 64 would be cleaner and could lead to a better league alignment structure but ND won’t be left standing at the altar.

I agree. They will just take the five big conferences to make the super conference.

[Jack Lambert]

I think if things don't change the G5's will to a extent break away from the P5's and have their own play off and NC.

[sonofozarka]

Of course you'd have to cap it & regulate it, which brings me to my point that people that are vouching for a free market aren't thinking this through. Like at all.

I agree it has to be capped and regulated, or else it will just be like college coaching salaries are now, and every time there's a new contract it's bigger than the last, and will continue to escalate until it's out of control. And everyone's trying to 1-up each other, like when some coaches have clauses now that say every time a coach gets a new contract then our coach has to make $1 more than that coach to remain the highest paid coach.

Pro sports endorsements are unlimited, but that's WAY different because companies are NOT endorsing players to GET THEM TO COME PLAY for a particular team.

The draft and salary cap regulates player pay and competitive balance, but as long as there will NEVER be a college draft OR salary cap for incentives, then the money spent to get players will become higher and higher until it's out of control

[IMissJack]

I agree with everything that has been posted here so far, so if were up to me and I was leading the Athletic Dept. through this change - I'd focus on pushing endorsement dollars to one sport. I wouldn't even entertain trying to be competitive in basketball or football because you'll lose anyway. Let the kids from our football and basketball teams make something, but take the revenue from the conference deals from football and push them to ancillary sports.

Here is a list of SEC that should just pick a sport and push all their dollars in that direction:

MSU - baseball
South Carolina - baseball
Arkansas - baseball
Kentucky - basketball
UGA - football
Bama - football
UF - football
LSU - football
Auburn - football
A&M - football (but they have enough $ and the only school in TX - they could go after 2 sports)
Missouri, Vanderbilt, and Ole Miss - pick whatever one they think they have a shot at...

Most of the list is always going to be football, because that is the most popular sport. It would give us a better advantage on what we have proven, over time, as being more competitive at - which is baseball.

It won't work that way. The teams that make most of the money in football will be able to pay all sports higher than MSU, including baseball.

[dawgs]

Here is a question:

College athletes are completely free to benefit from their likeness once their career is over. Why don't more of them do that? Why are they apparently so much more valuable while they are playing than 1 minute after they are done playing?

Because if you aren't a 1st round NFL pick, your marketability is next to nothing until you prove yourself on a NFL roster. Having your name called every Saturday 12+ times per year making big plays, you are gonna have some marketing value, the minute you stop being in a position to have your name called out every fall Saturday, your value disappears. That isn't hard to grasp. Sure, there's Tebow's and manziel's who stay relevant long after their playing days, but those are rare exceptions, not expected rules for everyone.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

Telling someone that they can’t play in college if they take money from someone else not even affiliated with the school is not market value. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Market value is whatever someone is willing to pay you. I’m not asking the schools to pay them anything. Just stop letting people IN THE MARKET FOR PAYING THE PLAYERS pay them what they want to pay them.

Nobody has every stopped people from paying them. The NCAA doesn't care if Tua or Tim Tebow get paid $100,000,000 by Nike. They are free to do so. But they just won't be eligible. So the players are free to make free market choices. It ain't hard.

What you are wanting to do is force one organization which they voluntarily chose to be a part of, to change their rules to allow something that screws with their business model. I want the free market. You want communism.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

You don't understand what market value is.

Market value is the price that an asset would fetch in the marketplace. I understand exactly what it is.

[Really Clark?]

No it does not. Continue to give every single one of them a scholarship. That is their contract and everyone’s is the same. The money that they make on their own time that has nothing to do with the school is their own business. I did not have to give MSU any of my Movie Gallery check when I was on academic scholarship and had a part time job. The money they make that someone else decides to give them is none of your business. It is none of the ncaa’s business. It is none of the school’s business. They are at school to play a sport and get an education. The way they make ends meet other than that is up to them, so long as it is legal. 90 % of this board are fiscally conservative until it is time for poor college athletes to make money. Then they want to turn into communists and socialists.

We are talking about 2 separate things then. When you brought up just straight pay (players getting money under the table) that’s straight pay for play and different than being able to make money from marketing themselves and their popularity. A separate issue but by allowing that there has to be stronger regulation from getting straight pay for play and the under the table stuff has to be abolished. What ever side of the fence you fall on, with players being able to market themselves, once that door is opened they have to eliminate the other illegal payments. Either making it contractual and open or completely abolishing it with severe penalties and enforcement. As it stands it’s illegal anyway just never been investigated by Federal and State agencies. If not the gap will widen exponentially and many schools will have to drop from D1.

ETA. I also can see issues with how transfers are handled and image contracts are made making players stay at that school and/or tampering with large schools alum offering bigger deals to sway players into leaving their original school. How is that handled because it should not be an open free agent market either. There has to be control over player movement as well.

[dawgs]

Nobody has every stopped people from paying them. The NCAA doesn't care if Tua or Tim Tebow get paid $100,000,000 by Nike. They are free to do so. But they just won't be eligible. So the players are free to make free market choices. It ain't hard.

What you are wanting to do is force one organization which they voluntarily chose to be a part of, to change their rules to allow something that screws with their business model. I want the free market. You want communism.

It's not really voluntary when it's the only real viable path to being a professional football player or basketball player. Sure nba prospects can go overseas, but when the alternative is "go live in Russia as an 18 year old", that's not a realistic alternative for the vast majority of prospects.

[dawgs]

I agree it has to be capped and regulated, or else it will just be like college coaching salaries are now, and every time there's a new contract it's bigger than the last, and will continue to escalate until it's out of control. And everyone's trying to 1-up each other, like when some coaches have clauses now that say every time a coach gets a new contract then our coach has to make $1 more than that coach to remain the highest paid coach.

Pro sports endorsements are unlimited, but that's WAY different because companies are NOT endorsing players to GET THEM TO COME PLAY for a particular team.

The draft and salary cap regulates player pay and competitive balance, but as long as there will NEVER be a college draft OR salary cap for incentives, then the money spent to get players will become higher and higher until it's out of control

I wish more folks on this board felt strongly about "capping" salary/wealth of executives and regulating companies employment and pay practices to address national inequality issues as much as they do for 18-22 year old college kids.

[Really Clark?]

I wish more folks on this board felt strongly about "capping" salary/wealth of executives and regulating companies employment and pay practices to address national inequality issues as much as they do for 18-22 year old college kids.

Not many of those people are 18-22 kids also getting an education to give them the opportunity to become a wealthy executives some day to make that kind of money. Vast difference between the two, especially when one is a sport for entertainment. The entertainment industry is full of young people making enormous amount of money (larger than most executives) but are they capped and their wealth distributed among the lower levels of the industry? Of course not even though many of them believe wealth should be distributed that way...but not them. Hypocrisy. And we already have and the majority of the public want sports to have a competitive balance for the enjoyment of the sport. This has nothing to do with how much they are able to make marketing themselves.

[dantheman4248]

Not many of those people are 18-22 kids also getting an education to give them the opportunity to become a wealthy executives some day to make that kind of money. Vast difference between the two, especially when one is a sport for entertainment. The entertainment industry is full of young people making enormous amount of money (larger than most executives) but are they capped and their wealth distributed among the lower levels of the industry? Of course not even though many of them believe wealth should be distributed that way...but not them. Hypocrisy. And we already have and the majority of the public want sports to have a competitive balance for the enjoyment of the sport. This has nothing to do with how much they are able to make marketing themselves.

Your notion that the average person can take a degree and with hard work turn into an executive is the overall problem with the American society and economy. When the 99.9% learn to realize that they aren’t temporarily embarrassed millionaires but are rather not part of the .1% then there could be real change. Till then they’ll keep buying the American dream and slowly let the wealth hoarding stack even more.

[sleepy dawg]

Market value is the price that an asset would fetch in the marketplace. I understand exactly what it is.

The demand in the market for a good college football player is very very high. They are some of the most sought after products in the country. How much would they fetch if there was not an extreme amount of control around it right now? The players are getting paid right now at the minimum of their market value due to the high barriers, laws and rules, to pay them and they're still making thousands or in some cases hundreds of thousands just to sign with a school. Some of these players would likely have a market value in the millions if there was no ncaa barrier.

[MedDawg]

The NFL instituted salary caps and the current draft model to combat the exact issues this will create.

That's what I say-if they want to be paid, do it like the NFL--salary caps and a recruiting draft:

25 rounds, 130 FBS teams, and

Bama and Clemson pick last.

[Really Clark?]

Your notion that the average person can take a degree and with hard work turn into an executive is the overall problem with the American society and economy. When the 99.9% learn to realize that they aren’t temporarily embarrassed millionaires but are rather not part of the .1% then there could be real change. Till then they’ll keep buying the American dream and slowly let the wealth hoarding stack even more.

Good grief. He brought it up so that’s what I went with. I assume that many of those players also still want to major to be teachers/coaches, lawyers, engineers, farmers, etc. So no, I don’t believe that any average American with a degree can turn into an executive.

There are many many executives (the majority of them in fact) who worked hard and did not come from money. Many from below average and poor. In fact the percentage keeps shrinking every year. And as far as just millionaires in this country, over 80% are self made and did not inherit the money. The majority of billionaires in the US are self-made (60-65%). Self made billionaires but the American Dream is dead? And the numbers keep climbing

[sleepy dawg]

Not many of those people are 18-22 kids also getting an education to give them the opportunity to become a wealthy executives some day to make that kind of money. Vast difference between the two, especially when one is a sport for entertainment. The entertainment industry is full of young people making enormous amount of money (larger than most executives) but are they capped and their wealth distributed among the lower levels of the industry? Of course not even though many of them believe wealth should be distributed that way...but not them. Hypocrisy. And we already have and the majority of the public want sports to have a competitive balance for the enjoyment of the sport. This has nothing to do with how much they are able to make marketing themselves.

This is ridiculously exaggerated and misleading.

"18-22 kids also getting an education".. you mean adults?

How many division 1 football players who never go pro do you think ever become a wealthy executive? It's likely much closer to 0% than even 0.1%. The point is, that's just dangling a nearly unachievable carrot at best.

The entertainment industry has always and will always be worth a lot of money.

you say: "even though many of them believe wealth should be distributed that way...but not them. Hypocrisy". How do you know many of them believe in wealth redistribution? And if they do, you're so sure they're against their wealth being redistributed if they had any? I'm pretty sure you've pulled this out of thin air, otherwise back it up. Another word for this is defamation.

And if a sport that makes BILLIONS can't figure out how to pay its employees a reasonable salary and still keep their sport competitive, they probably don't deserve to exist anyway.

[Really Clark?]

This is ridiculously exaggerated and misleading.

"18-22 kids also getting an education".. you mean adults?

How many division 1 football players who never go pro do you think ever become a wealthy executive? It's likely much closer to 0% than even 0.1%. The point is, that's just dangling a nearly unachievable carrot at best.

The entertainment industry has always and will always be worth a lot of money.

you say: "even though many of them believe wealth should be distributed that way...but not them. Hypocrisy". How do you know many of them believe in wealth redistribution? And if they do, you're so sure they're against their wealth being redistributed if they had any? I'm pretty sure you've pulled this out of thin air, otherwise back it up. Another word for this is defamation.

And if a sport that makes BILLIONS can't figure out how to pay its employees a reasonable salary and still keep their sport competitive, they probably don't deserve to exist anyway.

Yeah they are adults but there are very few 18-22 executives in the world without a degree wouldn’t you say? So how is that misleading in any form?

And as I stated later, he brought up executives and wealth (who by and large come from normal average back grounds not born into wealth). Why did the original poster try to correlate a college student athlete to an adult executive who most likely are in their 40-50’s and took decades to reach that point in their career? That’s kind of an absurd comparison wouldn’t you agree?

Come on, do we have pull up the quotes of a majority of film and music entertainers and what they think should be done with the wealthy income? Do we really not know that the majority of them believe in that platform pushed by the party that they with their majority endorse? And yeah I’m pretty sure that since the most of them don’t put a salary cap on themselves and require the remaining portion to be distributed among the rest of the staff and crew, including the lowest of level. They could easily demand a lower salary and redistribute their own wealth significantly. But no, they just want to tell everyone else how the wealthy should have their money redistributed. That is hypocrisy and not defamation. And about 15 secs of research would have you plenty of material from entertainers who believe that platform.

[sleepy dawg]

Yeah they are adults but there are very few 18-22 executives in the world without a degree wouldn?t you say? So how is that misleading in any form?

And as I stated later, he brought up executives and wealth (who by and large come from normal average back grounds not born into wealth). Why did the original poster try to correlate a college student athlete to an adult executive who most likely are in their 40-50?s and took decades to reach that point in their career? That?s kind of an absurd comparison wouldn?t you agree?

Come on, do we have pull up the quotes of a majority of film and music entertainers and what they think should be done with the wealthy income? Do we really not know that the majority of them believe in that platform pushed by the party that they with their majority endorse? And yeah I?m pretty sure that since the most of them don?t put a salary cap on themselves and require the remaining portion to be distributed among the rest of the staff and crew, including the lowest of level. They could easily demand a lower salary and redistribute their own wealth significantly. But no, they just want to tell everyone else how the wealthy should have their money redistributed. That is hypocrisy and not defamation. And about 15 secs of research would have you plenty of material from entertainers who believe that platform.

I thought we were talking about d1 college football players....

[Really Clark?]

I thought we were talking about d1 college football players....

Gotcha...sorry for the confusion with that portion of my post. I was not talking about the players in that part of my post.

[dantheman4248]

Good grief. He brought it up so that’s what I went with. I assume that many of those players also still want to major to be teachers/coaches, lawyers, engineers, farmers, etc. So no, I don’t believe that any average American with a degree can turn into an executive.

There are many many executives (the majority of them in fact) who worked hard and did not come from money. Many from below average and poor. In fact the percentage keeps shrinking every year. And as far as just millionaires in this country, over 80% are self made and did not inherit the money. The majority of billionaires in the US are self-made (60-65%). Self made billionaires but the American Dream is dead? And the numbers keep climbing

It’s not about being self-made or not. It’s about the fact that as a society we let .1% of the people control 90%+ of the wealth. The American Dream is not about some unattainable goal. It’s about an unrealistic goal for most Americans. 50% of America has less than 1% of the wealth. The American Dream sells you a chance to be part of this .1% when in reality 99.9% won’t be. That’s the problem with the American Dream.

It doesn’t matter that someone with 300 billion is a self made billionaire or inherited it. The problem is that there’s someone that hoards that much of the percentage of the wealth.

So to say that these kids should take the opportunity to attempt to become a .1% in one category when they already given talent to be .1% in another category is ridiculous.

[Really Clark?]

It’s not about being self-made or not. It’s about the fact that as a society we let .1% of the people control 90%+ of the wealth. The American Dream is not about some unattainable goal. It’s about an unrealistic goal for most Americans. 50% of America has less than 1% of the wealth. The American Dream sells you a chance to be part of this .1% when in reality 99.9% won’t be. That’s the problem with the American Dream.

It doesn’t matter that someone with 300 billion is a self made billionaire or inherited it. The problem is that there’s someone that hoards that much of the percentage of the wealth.

So to say that these kids should take the opportunity to attempt to become a .1% in one category when they already given talent to be .1% in another category is ridiculous.

Ok well first off we have to address that .1% of the people do not control 90% of the wealth in the US. You have used that a couple of times so I don’t think you are just using hyperbole but it’s a false and misleading number. It is not close to a fact. You also have to specify if you are talking about wages/income or total wealth which is very broad and not all liquid. Either one is still completely false and well below you numbers. The Top 1% (not .1% but 10 times more people) make 17.6% of the top income (that is people making over $500,000 per year). That well over 3 MIL people by population. By wealth it is 35% of the wealth by 1% of the people. Not anywhere close to 90% by .1%. Complete lie. Also wealth inequality percentage gap by people has only rising by 2.2% since 1962. However the actual monetary gap is larger obviously but not a huge percentage difference of actual population percentage. So you can choose to falsify numbers to make it sound extremely skewed but 17.6% is no where close to 90% of total income. People are still finding ways to be very successful in this country. ETA (those percentages are fine around 2013-15 I think, so obviously there would be some adjustments)

[Jarius]

Nobody has every stopped people from paying them. The NCAA doesn't care if Tua or Tim Tebow get paid $100,000,000 by Nike. They are free to do so. But they just won't be eligible. So the players are free to make free market choices. It ain't hard.

What you are wanting to do is force one organization which they voluntarily chose to be a part of, to change their rules to allow something that screws with their business model. I want the free market. You want communism.

The NCAA is supposed to be a nonprofit organization. They are not supposed to have a business model to make money for themselves. The ncaa is supposed to do what its members tell it to do. What its members is about to tell it to do is exactly what I am proposing.

[Coursesuper]

This thread has devolved to total bullshit. Nice job boys.

[dantheman4248]

Sorry. .1% have as much as 90% do. Still a giant gap. Point remains that you have a 50/50 shot at having only a $1 or less versus someone who lives in an ideal fantasy society where there’s no wealth inequality’s $50. 50% of Americans have 1/50 of a fair share. That’s simply crap.

To defend that and defend the notion that players are already paid their fair share because they get an opportunity at an education that, again, is a coin flip on whether you make it out, is just bullshit. These execs and high level ncaa officials and whatnot line their own pockets off the backs of the kids and we get mad that they want a fair compensation. These kids work a more than 40 hr / wk job with weekends and they are compensated under 30k a year in a lot of instances. Amazing that we think that’s fair compensation.

[Really Clark?]

Sorry. .1% have as much as 90% do. Still a giant gap. Point remains that you have a 50/50 shot at having only a $1 or less versus someone who lives in an ideal fantasy society where there’s no wealth inequality’s $50. 50% of Americans have 1/50 of a fair share. That’s simply crap.

To defend that and defend the notion that players are already paid their fair share because they get an opportunity at an education that, again, is a coin flip on whether you make it out, is just bullshit. These execs and high level ncaa officials and whatnot line their own pockets off the backs of the kids and we get mad that they want a fair compensation. These kids work a more than 40 hr / wk job with weekends and they are compensated under 30k a year in a lot of instances. Amazing that we think that’s fair compensation.

Well that is different than what you were originally stating. But it’s still not .1% of the population. It’s 1% which is millions of people not just a couple of ultra wealthy people.

Now your second point, where did I say one way or another that players are or are not compensated properly? I never touched that. The only point I made was with the idea of actual paying of players (not them marketing their image but actual paying players a salary) will have to be regulated like other pro sports for various reasons. Namely competitive balance and abolishing the under the table payments completely. The other poster brought up executives which is completely different situation and not comparable. The majority of the fans and alum do not want an unlimited pay for play that would increase the gap between teams further than it already is.

[dantheman4248]

Oh so you’re like shotgun and think that this law is about schools paying players more. It’s not. It’s about endorsements and that the ncaa restricting them is illegal. You can’t regulate endorsements. No league can. That’s what the law is saying to the ncaa. Paying players will become a necessity otherwise it becomes a game of what endorsements you get for going where.

[Really Clark?]

Oh so you’re like shotgun and think that this law is about schools paying players more. It’s not. It’s about endorsements and that the ncaa restricting them is illegal. You can’t regulate endorsements. No league can. That’s what the law is saying to the ncaa. Paying players will become a necessity otherwise it becomes a game of what endorsements you get for going where.

No. I was addressing that because another poster was talking about pay for play and the under the table payments that are already being made. Then another brought in executive salaries. Again a salary situation. 2 totally separate issues. Marketing themselves and their image for outside endorsements is one thing and totally different. I do think you have to address transfers and possible tampering by outside “schools” trying to pull players into larger market/fan bases for more lucrative endorsements. You have to find a way to keep from having a total free agent system. The straight pay for play with salary is separate issue but some keep bringing part of that up as well.

[RougeDawg]

College football will be demolished and end up hurting far many more student athletes than it helps. Thank you California. Your business model has done so well up to this point.

This is what happens when politicians pitch their points to a largely ignorant crowd. It?s seen as justice for all and helping the little guy, when in reality very few actually benefit and the majority is hurt, ending up in the majority getting a worse condition than they previously would have ended up. Hundreds of examples to prove this point. Same old same old. Cloak destruction in the words of fairness.

Eta. As with all of these policies that promise justice and equality for all, no one ever asks the simple question about the unstoppable unintended consequences. THEN WHAT? No one ever asks the “Then What” question to any of these policies. Ok, you want players to get payed for their likeliness, but then what? Start asking the then what question and you will unravel the proposition, by exposing that the policy will hurt far more than those that will ever benefit from it.