Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 71
  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GophersInIowa View Post
    My concern is this will just create a bigger gap between the elite programs and everyone else. You're not going to have as many boosters who are willing to pay $1000 for an autograph at places like Minnesota, Iowa St, Boise St, and Syracuse. Do the Gophers land a guy like Bateman under this set up when he probably makes a lot more money at a place like Georgia?
    Since this is looking inevitable, my hope is that with the large metro area the U has and all the local companies, there will be plenty of endorsement opportunities for gopher players. Thats something they can sell to recruits.

    We probably wouldn't be nearly as competitive with boosters directly paying recruits but maybe with endorsements, we have a shot.


  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GophersInIowa View Post
    My concern is this will just create a bigger gap between the elite programs and everyone else. You're not going to have as many boosters who are willing to pay $1000 for an autograph at places like Minnesota, Iowa St, Boise St, and Syracuse. Do the Gophers land a guy like Bateman under this set up when he probably makes a lot more money at a place like Georgia?
    Hmmmmmm. Paying someone cash for an autograph is definitely a case study that the NCAA needs to flesh out.

    I would have to say "NO" to that one.


    Way too easy. "Hey Mr. Ballplayer, can you scribble your name on this piece of paper that I'm just going to throw away afterward, oh and here is $1000 for your troubles. Great game!". That falls outside the spirit of the new law, in my opinion!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by die hard gopher View Post
    Since this is looking inevitable, my hope is that with the large metro area the U has and all the local companies, there will be plenty of endorsement opportunities for gopher players. Thats something they can sell to recruits.

    We probably wouldn't be nearly as competitive with boosters directly paying recruits but maybe with endorsements, we have a shot.
    I’d say tough sell unless gophers get more popular because I’d go with the majority of the city has no idea who Bateman is, much less recognizes him. Too many pros to go around

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by die hard gopher View Post
    Since this is looking inevitable, my hope is that with the large metro area the U has and all the local companies, there will be plenty of endorsement opportunities for gopher players. Thats something they can sell to recruits.

    We probably wouldn't be nearly as competitive with boosters directly paying recruits but maybe with endorsements, we have a shot.
    No there won't. Very few players would get anything meaningful.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Livingat45north View Post
    No there won't. Very few players would get anything meaningful.
    I mean relative to other schools.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    Hmmmmmm. Paying someone cash for an autograph is definitely a case study that the NCAA needs to flesh out.

    I would have to say "NO" to that one.


    Way too easy. "Hey Mr. Ballplayer, can you scribble your name on this piece of paper that I'm just going to throw away afterward, oh and here is $1000 for your troubles. Great game!". That falls outside the spirit of the new law, in my opinion!
    Is it dawning on you now on how this is going to go? There is no stipulation that deals be market value or otherwise bonafide and I’m not sure of the compliance system necessary to regulate that. You let agents in the door...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Windom, MN
    Posts
    7,966

    Default

    So, the argument is that players generate revenue through their efforts, but they don't share in that revenue.

    My personal opinion is that players are compensated through a full-ride scholarship which is equivalent in some cases to $50,000 or more a year. To be blunt, most P5 football and basketball players would probably not be receiving academic scholarships, or even going to college if they were not athletes. they are essentially being paid to play sports for the college that gave them a scholarship. And this is about football and basketball. top-level HS baseball and hockey players can go pro right out of HS.

    Now, if you want to give players a larger stipend for living expenses/walking-around money, I'm OK with that.

    but I see a lot of potential problems with allowing players to get money from endorsements, posters, jersey sales, etc. A handful of players on each team would benefit, but many players would not. And players from the marquee teams would benefit the most.

    are people really OK with a system that could mean a player like Tua at 'Bama receiving (possibly) millions of dollars a year, while some of his teammates get nothing?

    IMHO, either all the players benefit or none of them should benefit. I don't like a system that divides athletes into financial winners and losers.

    And, it would impact recruiting. Imagine schools fighting over a recruit by lining up endorsement deals for them. 'sign with school X and get a shoe deal from Company Y.' sign with School XYZ and get a Video game deal from Company ABC.'

    Bottom line - if you think it's unfair that the NCAA and its member schools haul in big bucks from TV deals, etc - then mandate that the athletes have to receive a certain percentage of all NCAA and School revenues - with the money going into a fund that is divided evenly among players. But keep the outside companies out of the deal.

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pompous Elitist View Post
    Is it dawning on you now on how this is going to go? There is no stipulation that deals be market value or otherwise bonafide and I’m not sure of the compliance system necessary to regulate that. You let agents in the door...
    It doesn't have to be so simple as you're making it out to be.

    Again, the NCAA gets a crack to come up with the rules framework, before any green light switch is officially pushed.


    They have to include something about bona fide in the language. Otherwise, it's barely anything more than simply walking up to a player and pushing a cash-stuffed envelope into his hand.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by short ornery norwegian View Post
    So, the argument is that players generate revenue through their efforts, but they don't share in that revenue.

    My personal opinion is that players are compensated through a full-ride scholarship which is equivalent in some cases to $50,000 or more a year. To be blunt, most P5 football and basketball players would probably not be receiving academic scholarships, or even going to college if they were not athletes. they are essentially being paid to play sports for the college that gave them a scholarship. And this is about football and basketball. top-level HS baseball and hockey players can go pro right out of HS.

    Now, if you want to give players a larger stipend for living expenses/walking-around money, I'm OK with that.

    but I see a lot of potential problems with allowing players to get money from endorsements, posters, jersey sales, etc. A handful of players on each team would benefit, but many players would not. And players from the marquee teams would benefit the most.

    are people really OK with a system that could mean a player like Tua at 'Bama receiving (possibly) millions of dollars a year, while some of his teammates get nothing?

    IMHO, either all the players benefit or none of them should benefit. I don't like a system that divides athletes into financial winners and losers.

    And, it would impact recruiting. Imagine schools fighting over a recruit by lining up endorsement deals for them. 'sign with school X and get a shoe deal from Company Y.' sign with School XYZ and get a Video game deal from Company ABC.'

    Bottom line - if you think it's unfair that the NCAA and its member schools haul in big bucks from TV deals, etc - then mandate that the athletes have to receive a certain percentage of all NCAA and School revenues - with the money going into a fund that is divided evenly among players. But keep the outside companies out of the deal.
    What do you say about the idea that the player can't withdraw or spend the money while he has eligibility remaining, but once he's done then he can?

    That way, you don't lose out on the money, but it avoids some of the issues you bring up.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    What do you say about the idea that the player can't withdraw or spend the money while he has eligibility remaining, but once he's done then he can?

    That way, you don't lose out on the money, but it avoids some of the issues you bring up.
    except that he can still be getting millions that have him set for life once he's done with college, while his buddy still gets nothing. Just delaying the gratification doesn't make the gratification less (ie if I can sign for 500k out of HS or 100k, I'm going to the place that give me 500k because the NFL dream is not guaranteed)

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Corn Field
    Posts
    23,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    Hmmmmmm. Paying someone cash for an autograph is definitely a case study that the NCAA needs to flesh out.

    I would have to say "NO" to that one.


    Way too easy. "Hey Mr. Ballplayer, can you scribble your name on this piece of paper that I'm just going to throw away afterward, oh and here is $1000 for your troubles. Great game!". That falls outside the spirit of the new law, in my opinion!
    How do you prevent that from happening? Or selling a jersey for $5K. Do you set a limit on it? How do you monitor that? Once you open up the can of worms, it's going to be a free for all. The rich will get richer.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    It doesn't have to be so simple as you're making it out to be.

    Again, the NCAA gets a crack to come up with the rules framework, before any green light switch is officially pushed.


    They have to include something about bona fide in the language. Otherwise, it's barely anything more than simply walking up to a player and pushing a cash-stuffed envelope into his hand.



    I believe you’re on record that this is already commonplace. Besides, if for example Casa de Autos offers to pay a recruit 10k per year for promotional appearances/ad spots but Bret Favre Cadillac offers 50k per year I’m not sure how one would prove or assert it is above fair market value as market value is sort of a hazy concept. Maybe the player will make more appearances or the demographics of that market are different. Maybe the car lot argues they feel a player will drive more business into their high margin SUV business and is worth a higher contract.

    I guess we’ll see how the nuts and bolts shake out in CA.

  13. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pompous Elitist View Post
    [/B]

    I believe you’re on record that this is already commonplace. Besides, if for example Casa de Autos offers to pay a recruit 10k per year for promotional appearances/ad spots but Bret Favre Cadillac offers 50k per year I’m not sure how one would prove or assert it is above fair market value as market value is sort of a hazy concept. Maybe the player will make more appearances or the demographics of that market are different. Maybe the car lot argues they feel a player will drive more business into their high margin SUV business and is worth a higher contract.

    I guess we’ll see how the nuts and bolts shake out in CA.
    Maybe if we are going to call it college sports we could start with the athletes actually meeting the same admission standards as the other students.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Woodbury, MN
    Posts
    855
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GophersInIowa View Post
    My concern is this will just create a bigger gap between the elite programs and everyone else. You're not going to have as many boosters who are willing to pay $1000 for an autograph at places like Minnesota, Iowa St, Boise St, and Syracuse. Do the Gophers land a guy like Bateman under this set up when he probably makes a lot more money at a place like Georgia?
    My concern as well, but more so then what it will lead to. If the imbalance becomes too great then why would anyone watch or care about NCAA athletics? It could lead to there being only relatively few viable teams, or else a collapse of the whole system. Then where are these players going to go? The vast majority can't go pro out of high school. Any replacement league would not capture imaginations, any more than A level baseball or junior hockey.

  15. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    His words were speaking to the idea of paying college athletes a salary, instead of a scholarship. Which is a completely, totally different discussion.
    Always gives me a headache at how low the bar is to become a state Rep in Minnesota. Here’s a guy who can’t manage to avoid conflating two totally separate issues. And he is advocating for a practice that is actually LESS likely to happen BECAUSE of the legislation he is working on. If college athletes get NIL Pay they will almost certainly never revive any additional “compensation” from their schools (who they will effectively be in competition with for revenue).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •