Is college football near the end as we know it.

[bke1984]

One major consequence that no one is talking about is that it renders scholarship limits useless. Big money schools can now just have as many walk on players as they want that are paid 50 k per year from “endorsements.”

We will be back to where teams like Notre Dame used to have three times the players as they opponents when there were no scholarship limits.

 

[bke1984]

I mean it’s a definite cart before the horse situation. They aren’t ready for it, but it will be forced on them. Then it will screw up the game.

 

[flak]

Of course they will and it will hurt Tech imo

 

[BonafideJacket]

And I’m certain a breach of contract with the TV deals would follow

Who would be the defendant here? The parties to the TV contract are the network and PAC-12. Neither of those breached the contract. Good luck pursuing a tortuous interference lawsuit against the NCAA. You certainly would have a hard time proving that sabotaging the TV deal was the motivation behind their actions. All this to say, what a giant cluster this is all going to be.

 

[bke1984]

How much money does the NCAA make on merchandise and TV licensing?
Take that money and divide it up evenly among all the players.

Umm...they kind of already do that. Some of the arguments like this make it clear that many don’t understand how non profits work. The vast majority of the NCAA’s revenues are distributed back to the schools and athletic programs. The only individuals that of significant benefit financially are coaches...and maybe you could argue AD’s

 

[GT_05]

And I’m certain a breach of contract with the TV deals would follow

Maybe so. If the NCAA wanted to stop it, what other choices do they have?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ibeeballin]

Who would be the defendant here? The parties to the TV contract are the network and PAC-12. Neither of those breached the contract. Good luck pursuing a tortuous interference lawsuit against the NCAA. You certainly would have a hard time proving that sabotaging the TV deal was the motivation behind their actions. All this to say, what a giant cluster this is all going to be.

Only people making this a cluster is those trying to preserve this faux- amateurism.

If some outside entity wants to pay me $1mil for my likeness, why should the NCAA should the power the stop me?

 

[GT_05]

Only people making this a cluster is those trying to preserve this faux- amateurism.

If some outside entity wants to pay me $1mil for my likeness, why should the NCAA should the power the stop me?

Simple. The NCAA provides the platform that allows them to make that money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BonafideJacket]

Only people making this a cluster is those trying to preserve this faux- amateurism.

If some outside entity wants to pay me $1mil for my likeness, why should the NCAA should the power the stop me?

I agree whole-heartedly. They shouldn't. I just want to pump the brakes on the idea that this is a simple switch to flip and CFB will carry on as we know it. There are major implementation challenges and potential ramifications that should be carefully considered before embarking on this. I see very few decision-makers acknowledging those issues much less actually discussing these (the law passed unanimously with little debate). What I do see are actual college football coaches still believing this law requires schools to pay players and media members all parroting the same talking points on the other side.

 

[GT_05]

I agree whole-heartedly. What I do see are actual college football coaches still believing this law requires schools to pay players and media members all parroting the same talking points on the other side.

I think they see what this decision can lead to. Even if this whacko idea never makes it out of Cali, I’m assuming that there are donors out there with deep pockets and they will basically pay players to move there. You think we have trouble getting elite talent now...just wait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chris975d]

I agree whole-heartedly. They shouldn't. I just want to pump the brakes on the idea that this is a simple switch to flip and CFB will carry on as we know it. There are major implementation challenges and potential ramifications that should be carefully considered before embarking on this. I see very few decision-makers acknowledging those issues much less actually discussing these (the law passed unanimously with little debate). What I do see are actual college football coaches still believing this law requires schools to pay players and media members all parroting the same talking points on the other side.

Yeah. Most people aren’t fully aware of what this is, or how it could potentially impact things. As mentioned above, I think one of the biggest potential impacts is boosters/donors who currently give to the athletic associations (which helps all the schools’ programs, men’s and women’s, big and small) now maybe choosing to not give, or not give as much, and instead direct their money directly toward the players for the sports they enjoy the most...men’s football and men’s basketball. If that money is funneled more at the players directly, and less toward the athletic associations, will smaller, less revenue generating programs have to be cut (golf, lacrosse, most women’s sports) as funds available are smaller? Or will all sports programs get less money?

 

[GTjunkie]

Ah, I understand... Booster says, "Come play for u(sic)ga and I will buy an autographed picture from you for $1,000,000.00" and it will be all above board...

Bingo!

 

[Wrecked]

I like the rule for many of the reasons that are mentioned here. First, it makes it transparent. If Tre Swilling sells his autograph for 100K he has to pay taxes on it. If the local car dealer gets him to endorse the dealer, he gets paid but it goes on the books. Also I believe the law says a player can't endorse a product that is a competitor of who the school has a contract with. So Swilling can't endorse Nike. Also the school owns the trademarks on the team names and logos. So Swilling can endorse the car dealer, but he can't wear a Tech jersey (think of the old football cards from the seventies without logos). And if Tech sells a three jersey without his name he gets nothing. There is no Title IX issue as a softball player can do the exact same thing. Yes the big schools could benefit more, but now it is all out in the open. If a big donor wants to "gift" a player money, thats taxable over a certain amount and honestly how much money you think some of these big donors are going to pay these players. Would a donor drop a million for one player? If so he ain't going to be a millionaire long.

 

[stech81]

Only people making this a cluster is those trying to preserve this faux- amateurism.

If some outside entity wants to pay me $1mil for my likeness, why should the NCAA should the power the stop me?

Ballin I'm not saying the player should not get paid. I'm saying it ends college football as we know it.
Be honest here you played for Tech and we are glad you did . But if Tech had come to you and said we would love you to come play LB at our school. Now 2 weeks later a college in SC comes to you and they say we need and want you to come to our school and play for us. Dabo's used cars can pay you 15K a year to endorse his company as long as you play here all 4 years. Now which do you pick ( yes I know you love Tech and would pick us ) but what about another 18 year old which would he pick?

 

[stech81]

I like the rule for many of the reasons that are mentioned here. First, it makes it transparent. If Tre Swilling sells his autograph for 100K he has to pay taxes on it. If the local car dealer gets him to endorse the dealer, he gets paid but it goes on the books. Also I believe the law says a player can't endorse a product that is a competitor of who the school has a contract with. So Swilling can't endorse Nike. Also the school owns the trademarks on the team names and logos. So Swilling can endorse the car dealer, but he can't wear a Tech jersey (think of the old football cards from the seventies without logos). And if Tech sells a three jersey without his name he gets nothing. There is no Title IX issue as a softball player can do the exact same thing. Yes the big schools could benefit more, but now it is all out in the open. If a big donor wants to "gift" a player money, thats taxable over a certain amount and honestly how much money you think some of these big donors are going to pay these players. Would a donor drop a million for one player? If so he ain't going to be a millionaire long.

No but he would drop a million to get a good number of players. Offer an 18 year old 50k and see what most do. So now the 1 million just got you 20 good players

 

[Scubapro]

Umm...they kind of already do that. Some of the arguments like this make it clear that many don’t understand how non profits work. The vast majority of the NCAA’s revenues are distributed back to the schools and athletic programs. The only individuals that of significant benefit financially are coaches...and maybe you could argue AD’s

You're right...I don't understand how that works. So the NCAA doesn't protect its revenue stream to generate large salaries for its employees?
My argument is the NCAA doesn't act anything like a non profit IMO.
I dont know what the answer is but maybe its time to dismantle the NCAA.

 

[Vespidae]

Ballin I'm not saying the player should not get paid. I'm saying it ends college football as we know it.
Be honest here you played for Tech and we are glad you did . But if Tech had come to you and said we would love you to come play LB at our school. Now 2 weeks later a college in SC comes to you and they say we need and want you to come to our school and play for us. Dabo's used cars can pay you 15K a year to endorse his company as long as you play here all 4 years. Now which do you pick ( yes I know you love Tech and would pick us ) but what about another 18 year old which would he pick?

I’m fine with this with one caveat.

Atheletes sign up with a school that immediately issues a tuition waiver. If the school in SC offers money ... fine. And if the SA leaves, the SA must reimburse the AA for the value of the tuition waiver.

A better way to do this is through revenue sharing ... to pay it all into a general fund with 40% going to an individual, 60% to all others. Easy. If an SA wants more, turn pro.

 

[tmhunter52]

Full employment for attorneys to act as agents...

 

[GTpdm]

One major consequence that no one is talking about is that it renders scholarship limits useless. Big money schools can now just have as many walk on players as they want that are paid 50 k per year from “endorsements.”

We will be back to where teams like Notre Dame used to have three times the players as they opponents when there were no scholarship limits.

This is my concern as well. If a car dealership wants to pay $75k per year to four 5* players, why does the coach need to offer that player a scholarship? The program can save the schollies for all the 4* athletes that that sign with the program, and let the 5*s be “walk-ons”.

Now sure, an honorable program like Alabama or (u)GA would never do something like that, but there are renegade programs out there like Georgia Tech, who are habitual offenders of the (college sports pretend-governing body)’s guidelines, and would assuredly exploit such a loophole...

 

[ilovetheoption]

This will absolutely hurt the Georgia techs of the world.

To make up for the difference in motivated fanbase willing to pay players off, you would need some sort of schematic advantage to offset the talent difference.

Can anyone think of a good Option to do that?