I hope you are right. I think calling it a bogeyman belittles the idea that the members of the NCAA are trying to keep athletic participation based on factors other than cash. It's a real issue for them and it should be.
CA governor signs bill to allow athletes to profit from endorsements
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
Boosters have been ALL IN for decades, man. They aren't gonna offer a kid more than they've already done in the past (cars, houses, jobs, OIL RIG [Marcus dupree] . horses, cash etc ).
Stop inventing new ways to be worried.
If the games are still played, I'm not sure many people would agree with you. There will be some who cling to the dissolving wall of amateurism, but most will likely shake it off and watch the games they love continue to unfold in exciting fashion before their eyes. It's a tough sell to assume that the same culture that tolerated years of cheating from the likes of USC, UNC, and Duke will suddenly stonewall our favorite sports that allow for 18-22 year olds to sell their image.
Also, do we have the figures for what boosters from other schools might be able to do against boosters from Kentucky or are we just guessing that this will be an issue beyond the Phil Knight example? How do we know those types aren't already involved in the Zion Williamsons and Bol Bols of the world? Seems likely that they already are.
So first it was urban schools with no basketball history that were a threat, and now it's the metropolises of places like Eugene, Oregon with their connections to billionaires. The funny thing is that Oregon is already pretty much doing what you're saying you don't want them to do. It will just be out in the open after 2023 (if it spreads to Oregon as well).
I guess I'll just take my chances that beyond the five or six billionaires in the country who might give a crap about what their college football programs end up doing, UK will turn out okay in all of this.
Like I said, if the games are still being played, most of us will still be watching. I suspect that even you might still be watching when it's all said and done.
But why would billionaires on the coast risk venturing into new markets by trying to put kids in west coast schools when they already have the markets primed and ready to go in places like Kentucky or Kansas? Nobody gives a shit about college basketball in LA until March, and even then it’s only about the brackets. All things being equal, and that being other states follow behind California, the current big market teams in college basketball will remain big market teams
That’s what I think people are missing here. You’ll have a few kids get national $1m contracts. Everyone else will be piecing together regional deals. Business owners looking to jump in and sponsor college kids are going to want some kind of benefit back for their business. So, does the LA Lexus dealership think hiring Daishen Nix will get more people in to his store than Kyle Kuzma? Rich people don’t just throw away money to have fun. At least not in the amounts that would attract top-level talent.
Many on here say boosters are already buying players so this changes nothing. So which is it, are boosters throwing away money to have good teams or are they not?
I suppose I can ask you the same thing. The only question is whether you prefer the money exchange taking place above the table or below.
Besides I explained my position clearly if you disagree, feel free to explain why.
Last edited:
Voluntary compliance will win out in the end.
College sports is not going to turn into a free for all where players cash in at way above their value.
The NCAA, the power conferences and the head coaches will still control college sports.
Phil Knight could sign all the Oregon recruits to lucrative deals but agreements will be made within the conference and the NCAA for this not to happen.
Why do you think the conferences all revenue share.
College sports is not going to turn into a free for all where players cash in at way above their value.
The NCAA, the power conferences and the head coaches will still control college sports.
Phil Knight could sign all the Oregon recruits to lucrative deals but agreements will be made within the conference and the NCAA for this not to happen.
Why do you think the conferences all revenue share.
Nice evasive response. I have explained my position very well. When you say "The only question is whether you prefer the money exchange taking place above the table or below." you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you believe boosters are buying players under the table then you must also believe they do throw away money to have fun in amounts that would attract top talent. Otherwise there is not much going on under the table that we need to worry about.
No offense but its a bad faith question. I’m not evasive, I’m disinterested in engaging in debates with someone who is actively trying to misunderstand the point.
I'm not actively trying to misunderstand anything. You made conflicting statements and can't own up to it, but its there for all to see. Many on your side of the issue rebut arguments saying this will be bad for college athletics by saying boosters are already buying teams so it doesn't really change anything. You made a similar statement yourself. That is a point you and people on your side of the debate are making. I'm not misunderstanding that particular point. You are just arguing that money flows under the table when it suits your point and also arguing that boosters won't throw away money on top talent when it suits your point.
There is a lot of talk about free markets and capitalism in this discussion. The market is currently at work in what is going on in college athletics. If the value an athlete would receive from his likeness is larger than the benefit of participating in college athletics, he or she would choose not to participate. What we see in practice would suggest that athletes believe the value they are giving up in order to participate is less than the benefit they receive from participating. Otherwise they would choose to forego college athletics and do something different that extracts the value of their likeness.
Disagree 100%. The athletes already get paid. It’s called room, board and tuition and books
When you are actively participating in an 8-page thread I make an assumption that you are generally aware of basic facts surrounding the discussion that is going on. So I don't expect I have to explain every point to you like you are a 3rd grader. Since I was apparently mistaken in this assumption I'll take my best effort at explaining it in more detail.
The bogeyman being thrown around goes something like this.... NIL laws are bad because the large metro areas will monopolize all top recruits and competitive balance will shift to LA, NY, SF, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta...... it will be the end of college sports.
I reject this bogeyman. Let's analyze the facts we now know. For the past 5 years we have seen several forms of rule breaking involving amateurism (it's been going on much longer, but I don't believe that is relevant to the discussion). First there is FBI/Adidas issue. It has come out that various players have been receiving payments from runners for shoe companies to attend specific schools. We have Brian Bowen Jr. offered $100K, DeAndre Ayton offered $100k, Silvio de Sousa offered $20k ("that was light work Hall of Fame"), Billy Preston paid $100k, Rawle Alkins paid $40k, Josh Jackson paid an undisclosed amount... $2,700 verified. Second, we have agents trying to advance money, the Andy Miller agency spreadsheet showed about $40k to Dennis Smith Jr., and other payments of lesser amounts. Third, Ole Miss was caught making payments ranging from a few hundred to low thousands to cover living expenses of Laremy Tunsil's family. Fourth, BYU basketball player Nick Emerey was found to have received over $12k from boosters in the form of concert tickets, flights, car lease, etc. Fifth, we had a loan to Cliff Alexander's family in an undisclosed amount.
So... to my point. The dollar amounts that we are aware of currently being paid to players under the table do not present any barrier to Kentucky Basketball or Football recruiting at the level they are now. Do I think Nike would be willing or able to pay a recruit $100k or $200k to go to UK? Of course they would. Do I think UK players could earn $12k from various NIL ventures? In a slow month, yes. So the only way LA presents a clear and present danger in recruiting is if sponsors open up their checkbook in amounts greater than $200k. That's where my argument comes in. People paying that kind of money expect some tangible benefit for their business in return. So, if a Lexus Dealership is wanting to get the best return for their advertising dollar, then a college athlete would be a poor investment given all of the other options available to them. However, a Lexus Dealership in Kentucky would absolutely seek endorsements from Kentucky players.
Any questions?
I love reading a good meltdown. Congratulations!
In essence you are saying boosters don't currently buy players in significant numbers; the problem is primarily shoe companies and agents. I can accept that and I agree with it. I don't agree with your assessment in the last paragraph and I think the value ($100K - $200K) you are using that a booster, or group of boosters, would have to exceed to make a difference is probably too high. Even if $100K is an accurate amount, the $12K per month in your own example, in a slow month, is $120K. In your own example, you created a scenario where a group of boosters outbid the low end of your Nike example.
I also don't agree with your premise that boosters are looking for a return on their advertising dollar. Boosters want to win championships and some are willing to pay to achieve that goal. The return is the championship.
That being said, the NCAA can do whatever they think is in the best interest of their league. If they change the rules and can regulate the change, then I have no problem with it. I just have little faith they can effectively regulate this.
If all we are doing is competing against boosters who 'want to win championships' and don't expect a return on their investment, then Kentucky won't take a bake seat to anyone.
It's a bogeyman argument meant to scare people.
