- Dec 9, 2016
If this spreads, I think it will be detrimental to the sport, but at least interesting to watch. For a school like us, it would probably be beneficial. It's going to be wildly abused, and a school like UT with major boosters who has been in a down cycle would likely pay big money for "endorsements" and the like to sign top 10 classes. I still think it would be a disaster long run. I realize the school can't directly pay, but if the bagmen and boosters no longer have to operate in the shadows, why not go all out and get your money's worth to ensure those 4 and 5 star recruits come to your school of choice?
Your logic here is pretty sound I think. My only question is really how long can this methodology for pay to play last? Besides a top 10 class, what do these private donors and organization ultimately get as an ROI? Let's take UT for moment. There are two major donors on a level by themselves to the university. Obviously, there's some other big donors, but I think their a level down. The two are the owners of Dish Network and Pilot. My understanding is that the owner of Dish doesn't really actively take a financial role in UT football although you see the Vols a lot in his commercials. The owner of Pilot is a totally different story. But just for argument, let's say that Charlie Ergen and Jimmy Haslam cooperate and pay the players for advertisement of their products. Don't you think they will feel much more entitled than ever before to have a greater say so in what happens with UT football. They'll certainly have more leverage. Even the Charlie Anderson's and Thunder Thornton's level will demand a greater piece of who the AD is as well as howthe football team is managed. I know that happens now, but it may escalate into a situation where these guys deem themselves owners of the school ala Jerry Jones.