Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#8,151
#8,151
to be honest, this is the easiest out for the NCAA and the schools. it costs the NCAA nor the schools nothing

and it'll totally be dependent on what kind of market exists as to how much money a player can make.

you want to sell autographs? cool. you want royalties from gear or video games or TV networks? cool, if you can swing it, go for it.
maybe the NCAA gets involved on the front end to maybe provide some structure?

the bad side to this is for the kids that might sign with an agent or get run over by outsiders or fall for the "get rich quuick" stuff.

so there's an oppportunity for the NCAA, conferences and schools to actually help vs. just be d**ks about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: utkevdawg1
#8,152
#8,152
The sticky area, is schools selling jerseys. You can brush off Likeness payment to EA Sports for a video game, but if you're school sells a jersey (even if just their number) then you may run into issues there. Cause different schools could tweak % and some could pay more than others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rishvol
#8,154
#8,154
Kingston Vol said:
Again I’ll ask - what’s wrong with any of this?
Click to expand...

I’m not saying they shouldn’t get something. I’m saying it’s going to be tough to police. Do they put a cap on how much they can earn?

What’s happens when Mercedes Benz dealerships pays Bama players north of a million for a single commercial. What if we can’t pay as much as Bama or Texas schools for players and we can only get those 3stars every year
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc and Rishvol
#8,155
#8,155
I personally would like to see players be able to use their own personal brand to get paid and I think it would benefit us in recruiting. We have been very bad for a while now and our football team always generates top 5 revenue. With the lack of pro sports teams also there would be plenty of marketing opportunities for star players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga and Kingston Vol
#8,156
#8,156
MoCo_Vol said:
The sticky area, is schools selling jerseys. You can brush off Likeness payment to EA Sports for a video game, but if you're school sells a jersey (even if just their number) then you may run into issues there. Cause different schools could tweak % and some could pay more than others.
Click to expand...
that's where it'll need some structure, and thats where the conf/ncaa and schools have the chance to be helpful and part of the process.......
 
#8,159
#8,159
#JuanVol said:
I’m not saying they shouldn’t get something. I’m saying it’s going to be tough to police. Do they put a cap on how much they can earn?

What’s happens when Mercedes Benz dealerships pays Bama players north of a million for a single commercial. What if we can’t pay as much as Bama or Texas schools for players and we can only get those 3stars every year
Click to expand...
it's not a "we" or "them" proposition at that point. it's not the school issuing the payment.

it shouldnt' be free for all, siap, but this is where the powers that be have an opportunity to actually help with this process.
 
#8,160
#8,160
Weezer said:
Yeah, it might draw some players at first due to novelty, but if the NCAA stands firm, which really depends on their member universities, it will die a quick death. There are not enough college teams in California to sustain a league. They would need other states and schools to jump on board NOW, and if that doesn't happen, it goes no where.
Click to expand...
I really don’t think so. We know top players get paid by the school and by boosters already. There will be very little additional capital spent on this.

What happens when 25 of the top 30 Texas recruits sign with USC and UCLA? The Texas Board of Regents get together and get a similar bill passed by midnight the same night.
 
#8,161
#8,161
Weezer said:
Why would universities that can't keep up financially field a team? It makes no sense. You're creating a monopoly for bigger schools with boosters willing to shell out cash. It kills competition.
Click to expand...

You're argument is very flawed. How is that different than current situation? You think selling likeness is suddenly going to change a kid going to Tennessee State into going to Bama? Come on. It might actually help certain schools, if your the starting QB at Wyoming for example you'll (at least locally) be a hero and have more chances to earn pocket money from local appearances.

It'll allow a few schools an advantage, but not much. And there is still limits to how many players each school can take. USC would benefit a ton, as would UCLA being that kids could get local commercial shoots etc. Schools in big cities with plenty of advertisement opportunities will be able to use this as an advantage, but I don't see it really changing anything for the lesser schools who rarely "win" recruiting over the big dogs anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nash_Vol97 and SoilVol
#8,162
#8,162
Weezer said:
Why would universities that can't keep up financially field a team? It makes no sense. You're creating a monopoly for bigger schools with boosters willing to shell out cash. It kills competition.
Click to expand...
That’s literally the system we have now.

Good players go to big schools that can pay them. Mediocre players go to small schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nash_Vol97, franklinpence, VolInDayton and 1 other person
#8,163
#8,163
I'm not against allowing players a set stipend given how much money college football generates, but you create an unfair power structure with this idea of endorsements and unlimited spending. This isn't the NFL where you only have 32 teams. We're talking hundreds of schools that are not on equal financial footing. It's a bad idea, and it will ruin college football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, JacketVol, xtremevolfan and 3 others
#8,164
#8,164
Kingston Vol said:
I really don’t think so. We know top players get paid by the school and by boosters already. There will be very little additional capital spent on this.

What happens when 25 of the top 30 Texas recruits sign with USC and UCLA? The Texas Board of Regents get together and get a similar bill passed by midnight the same night.
Click to expand...
99.99% of college fans couldnt name the last 5 top recruits in the country. Again, this isnt player driven and usc and ucla would lose millions and for what? At best, by the time they could get a new tv deal, they are now competing with Bama, Clemson, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Oregon (Nike) and others and CA schools simply lost millions for being a maverick. Wont. Happen.
 
#8,165
#8,165
Kingston Vol said:
That’s literally the system we have now.

Good players go to big schools that can pay them. Mediocre players go to small schools.
Click to expand...

Also small schools make lots of money. TTU for example, even with students getting into games free and the program only winning a single game last season their worse home attendance was 4400 people. Even at $10 a ticket that's 44k for a single game. Tickets are more than $10 and a portion of the crowd got in free, but then you have concession sales as well.

Small schools will still field teams because people will still pay to watch sports and not everyone wants to travel to big cities to do so.
 
#8,166
#8,166
Kingston Vol said:
I really don’t think so. We know top players get paid by the school and by boosters already. There will be very little additional capital spent on this.

What happens when 25 of the top 30 Texas recruits sign with USC and UCLA? The Texas Board of Regents get together and get a similar bill passed by midnight the same night.
Click to expand...
That depends on the intelligence of the Texas Board of Regents. They could panic and do something stupid, or they could call the Cali bluff. The California schools gain nothing unless other states are willing to go along NOW. Like I said, who are they going to play? If they can't play NCAA schools, they have nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jakez4ut
#8,167
#8,167
Kingston Vol said:
That’s literally the system we have now.

Good players go to big schools that can pay them. Mediocre players go to small schools.
Click to expand...
yeah, it's just all under the table. not a lot would change, at least from the standpoint of who the power players are.

there would need to be some structure to it though.

i could get out of hand, really, really quickly with folks outside the program being able to do what they want in front of God and everybody lol..........

there's extremes everywhere, and that's what you'd have to manage against.

the thing that i think most people would agree with is is you're selling a shirt with the kids name on it, he should get something for it. if he wants to auction off a jersey, let him....sell a bowl or championship ring,...go for it...someone want's to pay him for doing autographs...fine................or if you have a business you make money on outside of football you should be able to maintain your eligibility.....

you start talking about contracts for marketing and adversting etc....then you start getting in to the realm of the kid being taken advantage of, regardless of the money being talked about. which is why even if this became a thing, conferences, universties and the NCAA should be part of it.
 
#8,168
#8,168
utvols88 said:
99.99% of college fans couldnt name the last 5 top recruits in the country. Again, this isnt player driven and usc and ucla would lose millions and for what? At best, by the time they could get a new tv deal, they are now competing with Bama, Clemson, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Oregon (Nike) and others and CA schools simply lost millions for being a maverick. Wont. Happen.
Click to expand...
Players make teams competitive. If the University of Texas loses players at a rate high enough to affect its wins and losses they will make a change.

USC and UCLA are already competing with the schools you mentioned for TV time. The NCAA doesn’t negotiate those deals - the conferences do.

If California passes this bill, then Texas will do the same. And if the NCAA doesn’t cave immediately then California schools can play each other - then play Texas schools. Then Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. will all want in.

The NCAA is going to cave on this issue.
 
#8,171
#8,171
Weezer said:
That depends on the intelligence of the Texas Board of Regents. They could panic and do something stupid, or they could call the Cali bluff. The California schools gain nothing unless other states are willing to go along NOW. Like I said, who are they going to play? If they can't play NCAA schools, they have nothing.
Click to expand...
i do agree with that.
 
#8,173
#8,173
Weezer said:
That depends on the intelligence of the Texas Board of Regents. They could panic and do something stupid, or they could call the Cali bluff. The California schools gain nothing unless other states are willing to go along NOW. Like I said, who are they going to play? If they can't play NCAA schools, they have nothing.
Click to expand...
They’d lose a year or two, tops. There are enough teams in California to have a pretty good 12 game schedule regardless. And it’ll only get better when a team like Fresno State can go into Texas, Nevada and Arizona and poach players because they now have an advantage over all those in state schools.
 
#8,174
#8,174
MoCo_Vol said:
You're argument is very flawed. How is that different than current situation? You think selling likeness is suddenly going to change a kid going to Tennessee State into going to Bama? Come on. It might actually help certain schools, if your the starting QB at Wyoming for example you'll (at least locally) be a hero and have more chances to earn pocket money from local appearances.

It'll allow a few schools an advantage, but not much. And there is still limits to how many players each school can take. USC would benefit a ton, as would UCLA being that kids could get local commercial shoots etc. Schools in big cities with plenty of advertisement opportunities will be able to use this as an advantage, but I don't see it really changing anything for the lesser schools who rarely "win" recruiting over the big dogs anyway.
Click to expand...
All the top recruits in the nation would end up at a handful of schools. Take Oregon alone. Phil Knight would have all of those kids signed up to endorse Nike. The system as is, is not perfect, but it prevents wholesale buying of players. Take that away and schools like UT, where we know our boosters can be relatively cheap(look at our coaching hires) would never compete.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top