Should semipro/college players be paid, or allowed to sell their stuff? (NIL and Revenue Sharing)

[Jaxbuck]

What I know is that businessmen (boosters) are quite willing to part with many thousands of dollars each year for their guys. Once it’s an above board deal, I don’t think their wallets will shrink and their support for “State U” will fall.

No one pays more for something than it's worth if they don't get any value out of it. Why pay a million for something you could have for half a million? This is what I mean by matter of degrees. We don't know what the market will be.

It is also no easy thing for a large business to just start spending money on something on a whim by one guy. Not every business is a sole proprietor. Most have partners/board members/accountants and auditors they have to explain expenditures to.

Investors/Partners will tell Mr CEO to express his love for State U through a donation of his own goddamn money, not the company's resources.

And I can tell you that (the guys I know that like this shit) they aren’t worried about the “accounting”

Trust me, they will be when the kid they pay the money to reports it to the IRS as part of his tax obligations for receiving it.

The tax angle is how I would guess they police the whole thing.

Also I suspect that guys right now that won’t play the game because it’s “dirty” will now play the game because it’s “clean”. So it seems to me that the overall $ invested will go up significantly. Now that might be spread over a broader group of fellas...

It's simple economics really, no one has unlimited resources so when he pays too much for one guy, he won't have enough for something else I(like another player or things for his business). It's one of those self correcting things that help get to the "right price" quickly. Out of the gate some people will go nuts and some kid will get way too much but sooner, rather than later, the market will correct and the right price for a 5 star QB, 4 star every down back, 3 star linemen etc will emerge.

Cam Newton's dad got a few hundred K when it was an inefficient market, when Auburn has easy access to the real value of a 5 star QB they may decide to outbid Alabama but they won't miss by much. Maybe now he's only worth 75K? That's what we may get to find out.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

No one pays more for something than it's worth if they don't get any value out of it. Why pay a million for something you could have for half a million? This is what I mean by matter of degrees. We don't know what the market will be.

It is also no easy thing for a large business to just start spending money on something on a whim by one guy. Not every business is a sole proprietor. Most have partners/board members/accountants and auditors they have to explain expenditures to.

Investors/Partners will tell Mr CEO to express his love for State U through a donation of his own goddamn money, not the company's resources.



Trust me, they will be when the kid they pay the money to reports it to the IRS as part of his tax obligations for receiving it.

The tax angle is how I would guess they police the whole thing.




It's simple economics really, no one has unlimited resources so when he pays too much for one guy, he won't have enough for something else I(like another player or things for his business). It's one of those self correcting things that help get to the "right price" quickly. Out of the gate some people will go nuts and some kid will get way too much but sooner, rather than later, the market will correct and the right price for a 5 star QB, 4 star every down back, 3 star linemen etc will emerge.

Cam Newton's dad got a few hundred K when it was an inefficient market, when Auburn has easy access to the real value of a 5 star QB they may decide to outbid Alabama but they won't miss by much. Maybe now he's only worth 75K? That's what we may get to find out.

I don't know much about large businesses. My sense is that football booster business is run through a lot of guys making $2 million or less, not the big buck guys. That's my sense from the people I know who seem to think this is cool. They aren't looking at this as a business venture - they just want some kid to play for their team. You make a good point on the taxes. Although the glad handshakes for caddying and dog sitting aren't necessarily going away either.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I don't know much about large businesses. My sense is that football booster business is run through a lot of guys making $2 million or less, not the big buck guys. That's my sense from the people I know who seem to think this is cool. They aren't looking at this as a business venture - they just want some kid to play for their team. You make a good point on the taxes. Although the glad handshakes for caddying and dog sitting aren't necessarily going away either.

No they aren't but then again those handshakes paying tips for personal services rendered aren't done for real money nor is there a contract in place to assure Johnny Gun he will receive what you promised him.

Bottom line is that you aren't likely going to be able to compete for the top talent by running it like a small business.There are hundreds of millions of dollars at play here for a school like OSU. You think they are going to fuck around with small time operators when it comes to procuring the talent required to put a product on the field that drives that kind of revenue?

Look at the pot business since it's been legalized. Legit, shrewd business people run operations at scale. The neighborhood stoner didn't last 5 minutes once it went above board.

2MM top line businesses aren't going to be throwing 200K at a football player because they think it's cool unless that endorsement actually brings them back more than 200K for doing the ad. If they do, they won't be in business long because that's 200K they now do not have for their other needs.

 

[kujirakira]

I think this restores some parity. Everyone talking about the imbalance... but CFB is about as imbalanced as it can get.
Right now, there is 0 reason to go to a bottom feeder over a Mid Major. And about half of every conference are bottom feeders. What is IU's recruiting compared to NIU's ? I bet it's a lot closer than IU's is to ours.
This will make the disparity between P5 and Mid Major even more stark... but within P5, it will lift up the bottom half of conferences. A few kids that would have gone to Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, OU will discover their low 4* won't get them paid much or at all ... they'd be buried on the depth chart... but they'd get Tier 1 pay in Kansas and take their shot. Adds another dimension to the transfer portal, too.
I'm not sure how I feel about all of it... but the current model hasn't been working for a long time. The NCAA has had ample opportunity to do anything and refused, now change is being forced on them by outside powers. This is what happens when you fail to adapt and overcome.

 

[ScriptOhio]

FWIW, here is a text of the "California bill":

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

This is going to be a financial windfall for a lot of male football and basketball players. Here's a question for someone: What happens when the "Title IX advocates" realize that the school's male athletes are making a lot more money on "selling their name, image, or likeness" than any of the female athletes at the school? Is that going to be a problem?

 

[Jaxbuck]

Here's a question for someone: What happens when the "Title IX advocates" realize that the school's male athletes are making a lot more money on "selling their name, image, or likeness" than any of the female athletics at the school?

You could raise the price of sammiches and get the women folk paid more that way.

 

[kujirakira]

FWIW, here is a text of the "California bill":

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

This is going to be a financial windfall for a lot of male football and basketball players. Here's a question for someone: What happens when the "Title IX advocates" realize that the school's male athletes are making a lot more money on "selling their name, image, or likeness" than any of the female athletes at the school? Is that going to be a problem?

Same thing that happens when the EO and HR offices realize males majoring in STEM are making a lot more than females - even during school when they can engage in entrepreneurial endeavors that make good money.

That is, they will throw some money at it. Put a few women up in a free campus house and give out a few more free rides. But ultimately, nothing, because women and men choose very different lifestyles for themselves...

 

[Jaxbuck]

Put a few women up in a free campus house and give out a few more free rides.

tell me more about these women forced to give "free rides"

 

[ScriptOhio]

I think this restores some parity. Everyone talking about the imbalance... but CFB is about as imbalanced as it can get.
Right now, there is 0 reason to go to a bottom feeder over a Mid Major. And about half of every conference are bottom feeders. What is IU's recruiting compared to NIU's ? I bet it's a lot closer than IU's is to ours.
This will make the disparity between P5 and Mid Major even more stark... but within P5, it will lift up the bottom half of conferences. A few kids that would have gone to Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, OU will discover their low 4* won't get them paid much or at all ... they'd be buried on the depth chart... but they'd get Tier 1 pay in Kansas and take their shot. Adds another dimension to the transfer portal, too.
I'm not sure how I feel about all of it... but the current model hasn't been working for a long time. The NCAA has had ample opportunity to do anything and refused, now change is being forced on them by outside powers. This is what happens when you fail to adapt and overcome.

Re: Adds another dimension to the transfer portal, too.

I'm not sure there will be enough "selling their name, image, or likeness" opportunities for everyone on the football team. The stars of the top positions i.e. QB, RB, WR, pass rushing DE, and shutdown CB, etc. may get lucrative fanatical opportunities; but maybe not all the OL, DTs, or LBs etc. This is bound to cause some "team chemistry" problems with jealousy between the "haves" and "have nots". Regardless, it will definitely cause more players to opt to transfer in hope of finding greener (as in greenbacks) pastures on another team; especially if the NCAA gives everyone one free transfer without having to sit out a year as they are considering.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Re: Adds another dimension to the transfer portal, too.

I'm not sure there will be enough "selling their name, image, or likeness" opportunities for everyone on the football team. The stars of the top positions i.e. QB, RB, WR, pass rushing DE, and shutdown CB, etc. may get lucrative fanatical opportunities; but maybe not all the OL, DTs, or LBs etc. This is bound to cause some "team chemistry" problems with jealousy between the "haves" and "have nots". Regardless, it will definitely cause more players to opt to transfer in hope of finding greener (as in greenbacks) pastures on another team; especially if the NCAA gives everyone one free transfer without having to sit out a year as they are considering.

It could also, ironically enough, raise the value of the free education to the guys who aren't going to make any endorsement money.

 

[kujirakira]

Re: Adds another dimension to the transfer portal, too.

I'm not sure there will be enough "selling their name, image, or likeness" opportunities for everyone on the football team. The stars of the top positions i.e. QB, RB, WR, pass rushing DE, and shutdown CB, etc. may get lucrative fanatical opportunities; but maybe not all the OL, DTs, or LBs etc. This is bound to cause some "team chemistry" problems with jealousy between the "haves" and "have nots". Regardless, it will definitely cause more players to opt to transfer in hope of finding greener (as in greenbacks) pastures on another team; especially if the NCAA gives everyone one free transfer without having to sit out a year as they are considering.

I was thinking more specifically about the QB merry-go-round. That is one position I could definitely see some deals being cut to attract a new Freshman every year... two years in he doesn't win the job "...but I want to play"... but he'd have to give up his cut to do so.
It also makes sense that a business would take a punt on 2-3 QBs in a row, betting 1 of them will win the job and pay for the whole QB room.
Hyped up transfers like Sheila Patterson would still get paid... but would a guy like Baldwin to TCU? Or Peters to Illinois? I have some doubts about that...

 

[ScriptOhio]

Put a few women up in a free campus house and give out a few more free rides. But ultimately, nothing, because women and men choose very different lifestyles for themselves...

I was thinking that they would charge for "the rides". Here's what already goes on at Texas A & M:

 

[buchtelgrad04]

FWIW, here is a text of the "California bill":

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

This is going to be a financial windfall for a lot of male football and basketball players. Here's a question for someone: What happens when the "Title IX advocates" realize that the school's male athletes are making a lot more money on "selling their name, image, or likeness" than any of the female athletes at the school? Is that going to be a problem?

Shouldn’t be a problem because Title IX only applies to programs that receive federal funding. They have no grounds to stand on with regards to endorsements from private businesses.

 

[Ryan36_1]

It's been mentioned several times in the past few pages, but, in my opinion, if legislators want to take action to prevent these kids from being exploited (and I am fully in agreement that the current system does so), then the first organization that they need to take aim at is the NFL. The NFL and NFLPA have been able to create a system that locks out these players.

MoC lost his antitrust case because the NFL was able to argue that the draft restrictions had legitimate business reasons and are not overly restrictive. I am fully in support of the interpretation of the law that the NFL used to win. However, I find the arguments that they used to argue their case are complete BS. There is no safety issue, there is no legitimate business reason and the existing rules are unfair and overly restrictive.

A minor league system would provide an alternative for the best athletes to be paid while allowing the college game to remain amateur. You'll never be able to convince me that the NFL couldn't run a minor league at breakeven or at a loss that is infinitesimal compared to the profits that they are bringing in. Of course they don't want to; they have the goose laying golden eggs by farming this out to colleges. They will fight the changing the draft rules tooth and nail.

Big name programs will still be making millions off of the effort of the unpaid players, but there would be an alternative to these players. This would mirror the other members of the student body, such as academic research IMO. This is the point where I think meaningful rules can be created for allowing players to be paid, not when you have the Chase Young's of the world forced to be an amateur because of the date on his birth certificate.

 

[BayBuck]

Olympic athletes are already compensated and retain their eligibility. Otherwise Katie Ledecky would not have been able to swim for Stanford.

No, that’s not accurate. Katie Ledecky specifically retained her amateur status until 2018 to keep swimming for Stanford, then went pro but continues to train there (like Phelps did at scUM).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/sports/katie-ledecky-swimming.html