These athletes already profiting from NCAA rule change

[More Cowbell]

On 7/4/2021 at 9:00 AM, Larz said:

So if scholarships are based on need, do the schools get to waive scholarships for the big earners?

Crazy times for sure 

I don't  think athletic  scholarships are need based unless you are talking about the schools need.

[Embrace the Suck]

3 minutes ago, More Cowbell said:

I don't  think athletic  scholarships are need based unless you are talking about the schools need.

I believe you're correct. Some may need it, but they're just enticements to go to one school over the other. It won't be the windfall for most athlete students that people want to believe either. Some will make out very well, but there are only so many products and markets whereas the amount of student athletes is quite large. 

[sec101row23]

12 minutes ago, extmenace said:

I read a few articles about this a few days ago. Maybe someone can post a link that can better explain it than me but in a nutshell, I believe the NCAA will allow student athletes to hire agents that will be limited to to being able to help with endorsement contracts and marketing. They will not be allowed to be in contact with pro teams and etc. I do think some of these kids being young and inexperienced will inevitably fall into some bad deals and we could see lawsuits pop up here and there but in theory, most of these kids should at least have the option to deal with the right people to make sure they don't get stuck in bad deals. 

I think it’s going to be a small percentage of athletes that will be signing with these agencies.  The vast majority of these kids will be getting local deals from various businesses, some won’t even have cash involved, they’ll just receive some merchandise in exchange for their picture with the product, like the tweet I posted earlier.  
 

 

[jgb]

2 minutes ago, Embrace the Suck said:

I believe you're correct. Some may need it, but they're just enticements to go to one school over the other. It won't be the windfall for most athlete students that people want to believe either. Some will make out very well, but there are only so many products and markets whereas the amount of student athletes is quite large. 

Gotta be a rule against using need scholarships on athletes. Would be too easy to get around scholarship cap...

[jgb]

1 minute ago, sec101row23 said:

I think it’s going to be a small percentage of athletes that will be signing with these agencies.  The vast majority of these kids will be getting local deals from various businesses, some won’t even have cash involved, they’ll just receive some merchandise in exchange for their picture with the product, like the tweet I posted earlier.  
 

 

What happens if a booster owns an ice cream shop and pays an athlete $200,000 to put his name on their banana split? Assume there will be some conflict-of-interest enforcement?

Not trying to dig on you, you seem knowledgeable about it. Wondering if anyone has considered some of these issues.

[Matt39]

Media- “Pay college athletes now!”

Barstool Sports - “Ok”

Media “No! Not like that!”

[Embrace the Suck]

2 minutes ago, jgb said:

Gotta be a rule against using need scholarships on athletes. Would be too easy to get around scholarship cap...

I would imagine a scholarship is a scholarship regardless and you get x amount for athletes.   

[sec101row23]

1 minute ago, jgb said:

Gotta be a rule against using need scholarships on athletes. Would be too easy to get around scholarship cap...

There should be, look at the Vanderbilt baseball program and see how they circumvent it.   A lot depends on state law.  
 

This is an interesting documentary.  
 

 

[Embrace the Suck]

3 hours ago, Matt39 said:

Media- “Pay college athletes now!”

Barstool Sports - “Ok”

Media “No! Not like that!”

I guess the media was expecting a socialist approach where every athlete gets a tiny equal amount regardless of their exposure, appeal, or marketing value as opposed to the capitalist approach where those who create a market "influencers" and show value get paid.  

[sec101row23]

5 minutes ago, jgb said:

What happens if a booster owns an ice cream shop and pays an athlete $200,000 to put his name on their banana split? Assume there will be some conflict-of-interest enforcement?

Not trying to dig on you, you seem knowledgeable about it. Wondering if anyone has considered some of these issues.

There is no conflict of interest, booster money has been funneled to athletes for a very long time, now it’s just “legal” and can be done out in the open.  

[More Cowbell]

9 minutes ago, Embrace the Suck said:

I believe you're correct. Some may need it, but they're just enticements to go to one school over the other. It won't be the windfall for most athlete students that people want to believe either. Some will make out very well, but there are only so many products and markets whereas the amount of student athletes is quite large. 

This is actually a bigger deal for the sponsors.  They are getting well known athletes  to pitch their products  at a fraction of the price it would cost for big name pro to do it. They basically  can get endorsements now where they couldn't  before due to the cost a millionaire  would expect. 

[jgb]

36 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

There is no conflict of interest, booster money has been funneled to athletes for a very long time, now it’s just “legal” and can be done out in the open.  

There would be a conflict. The deal I describe would not be a bona fide sponsorship but a recruiting inducement. The booster doesn't care about the business impact of the sponsorship, he cares about bringing to and keeping athletes at the university.

The NCAA is going to have to come up with a flurry of rules like contracts must be at "fair market value" and can't be entered into with entities that have a "relationship with the university."

Many will be challenged in court. This is just the beginning. Lawyers gotta get theirs!

[Embrace the Suck]

7 minutes ago, More Cowbell said:

This is actually a bigger deal for the sponsors.  They are getting well known athletes  to pitch their products  at a fraction of the price it would cost for big name pro to do it. They basically  can get endorsements now where they couldn't  before due to the cost a millionaire  would expect. 

I completely agree, and I didn't think of that angle actually. An athlete in college is a direct plug to 10's of thousands of students with their parents' cash and student loan money to spend on stuff they don't really need. The social pressure to have what the kid in the room next door has is tremendous. I'm waiting for the first student athletes who sponsor cannabis products or alcohol (though weed still has some taboo to it for some).

[32EBoozer]

4 minutes ago, Embrace the Suck said:

. I'm waiting for the first student athletes who sponsor cannabis products or alcohol (though weed still has some taboo to it for some).

Not allowed under the NCAA rules related to student athlete compensation, although that will probably be challenged. This is going to be one big C.F.

[jgb]

6 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Not allowed under the NCAA rules related to student athlete compensation, although that will probably be challenged. This is going to be one big C.F.

Forget end zone dances. Lawyers:

[Embrace the Suck]

24 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Not allowed under the NCAA rules related to student athlete compensation, although that will probably be challenged. This is going to be one big C.F.

Didn't know that. Yeah, that'll get changed soon enough.

[Sperm Edwards]

28 minutes ago, jgb said:

The NCAA is going to have to come up with a flurry of rules like contracts must be at "fair market value" and can't be entered into with entities that have a "relationship with the university."

Many will be challenged in court. This is just the beginning. Lawyers gotta get theirs!

Maybe something like a NIL license signed during/before college can't extend past college (or past their bowl game or something, since many do legitimately need representation to help get their name out & help boost draft stock).

I don't know if that'd then influence agents to pressure kids into leaving school early for a payday, since agents would freely have their players' ears, but that part would be no different than it'd been in the past. Still might be better, because they surely talk to teammates and hear what others are & aren't getting from their agents.

Better to make a mistake-signing during those lower-$ NCAA years (lower compared to those that become pro stars/starters), that expires right after your bowl game, than signing a contract that has the wrong guy taking you to the draft (or a too-long contract with a "predatory" type of early-in agreement) just because they got to you first.

I don't have answers, but something like that seems in their interest. I don't know that it's any more constitutional than forbidding contracts like before, though. Legally, they're adults. Maybe schools can make it a rule for their athletes; it'd seem the law can't constitutionally stipulate such limitations so it'd have to be the schools doing it. I don't know if that'd even work, if they all do it in collusion with each other, even if done with the athletes' best interests in mind, someone could have standing because the school got in the way of a $20MM contract for a kid who blows out his knee as a soph and is never the same again.

No one wants to see agents taking advantage of kids without good/family guidance, who individually may not be equipped to make wise long-term decisions yet. 

[jgb]

20 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Maybe something like a NIL license signed during/before college can't extend past college (or past their bowl game or something, since many do legitimately need representation to help get their name out & help boost draft stock).

I don't know if that'd then influence agents to pressure kids into leaving school early for a payday, since agents would freely have their players' ears, but that part would be no different than it'd been in the past. Still might be better, because they surely talk to teammates and hear what others are & aren't getting from their agents.

Better to make a mistake-signing during those lower-$ NCAA years (lower compared to those that become pro stars/starters), that expires right after your bowl game, than signing a contract that has the wrong guy taking you to the draft (or a too-long contract with a "predatory" type of early-in agreement) just because they got to you first.

I don't have answers, but something like that seems in their interest. I don't know that it's any more constitutional than forbidding contracts like before, though. Legally, they're adults. Maybe schools can make it a rule for their athletes; it'd seem the law can't constitutionally stipulate such limitations so it'd have to be the schools doing it. I don't know if that'd even work, if they all do it in collusion with each other, even if done with the athletes' best interests in mind, someone could have standing because the school got in the way of a $20MM contract for a kid who blows out his knee as a soph and is never the same again.

No one wants to see agents taking advantage of kids without good/family guidance, who individually may not be equipped to make wise long-term decisions yet. 

Another interesting Constitutional issue... private enterprises can restrict free speech in lots of ways (such as you can't go preach in the produce aisle of your local grocery store) but government entities are much more limited in the restrictions they can impose. Will this create a situation where private colleges are able to restrict how and to whom their athletes contract but public universities can't without infringing free speech protections? What about when a female athlete promotes onlyfans or another adult website? It's bound to happen since female athletes risk much less future earnings by being seen as a rebel and have greater incentive to cash in immediately. Those will probably be the biggest dollar deals in the future lol.

Lots of things are considered "speech." Quite confident a restriction by a state actor on who you can promote (like no gambling, alcohol, tobacco, porn site endorsements) would not pass Constitutional muster. But I only took one semester of Constitutional Law in Law School so not an expert.

[jgb]

2 hours ago, sec101row23 said:

Contrast the DJ Uiagalelei signing with a big sports agency to defensive end Xavier Thomas getting an upgrade to his gaming PC.....Lol..

 

 

If schools wanted to they could forbid players from wearing school attire in these types of promos since they own those marks... We've only seen the tip of the iceberg of this situation. Gonna be a doozie.

[isired]

I completely agree, and I didn't think of that angle actually. An athlete in college is a direct plug to 10's of thousands of students with their parents' cash and student loan money to spend on stuff they don't really need. The social pressure to have what the kid in the room next door has is tremendous. I'm waiting for the first student athletes who sponsor cannabis products or alcohol (though weed still has some taboo to it for some).

As long as weed is still illegal on the Federal level, colleges won't allow it even in states where it's completely legal. They'd forfeit they're federal funding, which even private institutions rely on.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, jgb said:

Another interesting Constitutional issue... private enterprises can restrict free speech in lots of ways (such as you can't go preach in the produce aisle of your local grocery store) but government entities are much more limited in the restrictions they can impose. Will this create a situation where private colleges are able to restrict how and to whom their athletes contract but public universities can't without infringing free speech protections? What about when a female athlete promotes onlyfans or another adult website? It's bound to happen since female athletes risk much less future earnings by being seen as a rebel and have greater incentive to cash in immediately. Those will probably be the biggest dollar deals in the future lol.

Lots of things are considered "speech." Quite confident a restriction by a state actor on who you can promote (like no gambling, alcohol, tobacco, porn site endorsements) would not pass Constitutional muster. But I only took one semester of Constitutional Law in Law School so not an expert.

I'd think this is more of a freedom of association or a commerce thing than a free speech issue, but your one semester of constitutional law is one more semester than I took. I was too busy taking upper level douchebaggery classes which, I'm proud to say, I aced even as a first year right out of HS. 

[thebuzzardman]

7 hours ago, KRL said:

The scandals and corruption that are going to come from this is going to
be amazing.  Good luck

I think it'll eventually sort it but there should be a nice corruption run in the  middle of it all

[isired]

If schools wanted to they could forbid players from wearing school attire in these types of promos since they own those marks... We've only seen the tip of the iceberg of this situation. Gonna be a doozie.

I was thinking that would be the biggest restriction - I assumed players wouldn't be allowed to wear their jerseys, use the team name/logo/identity. If so, that would restrict opportunities to local contracts for the 99.9% of players whose fame doesn't expand beyond their campus, or their hometown. Especially for football players, whose faces are seldom seen.

I heard an interview with a college AD and a conference exec, don't know which said it but when asked how prepared they were for July 1, one of them used the old "we'll be building the plane while flying it" metaphor...

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

The back-up QB's first sponsor :

[jgb]

Just wait until pornhub’s 20% off sale brought to you by the Lady Nittany Lion’s gymnastics team.

[rex-n-effect]

My employer is already trying to set deals with football players around the state to do hyper local ads in the towns where the colleges reside. Nobody has a great idea what these contracts should be worth so I'm sure we'll pay next to nothing for an hour of the players' time. 

[Larz]

Miami is lining up a deal for every player?

so if a huge corporation wants a title just give the boosters a blank check?

[jgb]

8 hours ago, rex-n-effect said:

My employer is already trying to set deals with football players around the state to do hyper local ads in the towns where the colleges reside. Nobody has a great idea what these contracts should be worth so I'm sure we'll pay next to nothing for an hour of the players' time. 

Most of these deals won’t even be cash related. Players will just walk into bars and restaurants and say “free meal/drink and I put a selfie with a hashtag on my insta?” Going to be roving bands of entitled influencers shaking down local businesses for free crap.

[Defense Wins Championships]

When I went to school @ USF I wasn't an athlete grew up playing high school basketball but wasn't good enough for college but I really struggled to pay for all my books and classes and what not to the point of @ times hurting my grades because I had to work late nights after school and barely had any sleep. I think it's awesome these kids can make money off their name and these girls can make money off their looks by both doing it the honest way. As an FSU fan maybe Winston wouldn't of had to accept or steal foods to eat. 

One time I was hungry I went to Publix. Had them make me two Public subs loaded with extra bacon. Two foot longs. And walked right out of Publix without paying so I can't judge. However two weeks later I went back to the store and spoke with one of the managers and told him what happened and offered him $20 for the store not only did he refuse to accept he bought me two more sub sandwiches (no bacon) and paid for it himself a story I'll never forget.

[#27TheDominator]

Who gave Dickerson the Cadillac?  Oklahoma State?  He said he had to go there, or they'd take the car, so SMU just took over the payments.

[sec101row23]

33 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Who gave Dickerson the Cadillac?  Oklahoma State?  He said he had to go there, or they'd take the car, so SMU just took over the payments.

I think it was Texas A&M, and it was a Trans Am I believe. 

[#27TheDominator]

15 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

I think it was Texas A&M, and it was a Trans Am I believe. 

Make up your mind dude.  Is he gonna sh*t or is he gonna kill us? 

[sec101row23]

5 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Make up your mind dude.  Is he gonna sh*t or is he gonna kill us? 

Lol...first he’s gonna s**t, then he’s gonna kill us.  

[Embrace the Suck]

On 7/5/2021 at 11:29 AM, sec101row23 said:

Now with this whole NIL being legal, I fear he will be even more concerned with his “image”.  Talent wise, he’s got it, I’m just not sure if he is the worker or leader that Deshaun and Trevor were.   We’ll see soon enough. 

Actually, in that respect it's a good thing. Those guys exist now, but often aren't found out until after they sign a big contract. It'll probably be easier to figure out who's a player and who's a self promoter looking for an advertising career.

[#27TheDominator]

Back in the early 09's, didn't Greg Anthony have some kind of weird deal where he forfeited his scholarship at UNLV, but made the money up with interest in some company selling t-shirts?