Inconceivable

It’s amazing to consider that in just a few short weeks, Nick Chubb’s market value went from being impossible to calculate to this.

I tells ‘ya, those Nike folks are wizards.

It’s either that, or some of you are full of shit when it comes to wondering out loud how in the world a student-athlete would be able to establish his market value.

69 Comments

Filed under It's All Just Made Up And Flagellant, It's Just Bidness, The NCAA

69 responses to “Inconceivable

  1. DawgTC

    Senator, you keep posting about paying athletes and endorsement deals. Is your argument that we should allow an open field on paying players? Or is your argument that clearly: the market value of their compensation is certainly way more than a free education?

    Like

    • The last is true, at least for kids like Chubb.

      Like

      • TC405

        100% right. I think we’re on the same page.

        Anyone who argues that players like Chubb/etc. don’t have a market value well above “just a free education” is a complete fool. I’d even argue every player with a scholarship has a market value above “free tuition”.

        But allowing a completely open market would be terrible for college football. It’d turn into a form of the MLB, where some schools with money would just buy teams like the Yankees. I firmly believe the solution is pay players, but every school must pay the exact same amount.

        Like

    • Those two questions you pose are not either/or, FWIW. The latter – answered in some form like “yes, player market value is greater than what they receive” is per se a part of any argument along the lines of the former.

      Like

  2. Some guy

    Then do something about it. Your dollar bills speak louder than your mouth.

    Like

  3. TN Dawg

    The misnomer is that paying the players money, any amount of money, would ever stop them from bitching about it being “unfair”.

    Adrian Peterson was calling himself a “modern day slave” in the same calendar year that he was knocking down $20 million.

    Let ’em go play in the LaVar Ball Football League if they don’t like the college package.

    Like

    • That’s not what misnomer means. Also, that argument is a straw man. It doesn’t matter if some players continue to “whine” about fairness, nor should # of players “whining” about fairness be counted as an applicable standard for anything.

      Like

    • Former Fan

      No way you would agree to such an arrangement with your employer where all the other employers in your field agreed to pay the same exact wage to everyone, regardless of ability, experience, etc. Far past time to break up the college cartel and force them to compete.

      Like

    • AthensHomerDawg

      “There is unfortunately actually still slavery existing in our world.. Literal modern day slavery.. That was a very misinformed statement. I understand what point he was trying to make.. I just feel like he should have been advised a little differently.”

      Peterson will be given the chance to clarify his comments, and we’re sure he’ll put it into better context. For now, it looks like another comment to add to the mix from players and owners that lacks perspective.

      We keep hearing about this fight in the context of future generations of players. Of fighting for rights.

      Let’s just call it what it is: Both sides are trying to equitably distribute a lot of money. More money than previous generations of players could imagine.

      That’s worth fighting over, but let’s stop trying to make it sound heroic.”

      Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      Yes, it’s unreasonable for Peterson to call himself a slave. But it’s also unreasonable for colleges to make millions while claiming that the labor force shouldn’t be compensated. When your position sounds less reasonable than LaVar Ball, maybe you should take stock.

      Like

  4. Dave

    It’s an absolute crime that these kids have to wait until they’re 21 or 22 before reaping the monetary rewards of living, eating,health care, and getting a college education for free for the previous 3-4 years.

    Snark aside, I do think the allowance for endorsements/sponsorship is stronger than just having the colleges give money to the players. But, I still don’t like the slippery slope of it. If it does go that way, then Fish Fry will be all the more glad Tech’s partnership w/ Russell went south. Could never get recruits that way.

    Like

    • Remind me how fantastic that health care is for them ten years out from school when their bodies (and brains) start breaking down from the punishment of college football play.

      Like

      • Dave

        You’re better than that, Bluto.

        Aside from that not being my main point, and aside from the fact that 2-3 years of football for the vast majority of players who never play again after college don’t experience any significant issues, I’m not sure how a $30,000 endorsement from Nike pre-tax is going to help that.

        Like

        • TN Dawg

          Surely there is money for high school football players, too.

          Those high school knee injuries do leave scars you know…

          Like

          • Dave

            Football in any semblance of the form we know it today is already becoming endangered. Mind your rhetoric, TN Dawg.

            Like

          • If you’re so worried about entertainers being paid, maybe you should quit paying for entertainment.

            Just sayin’.

            Like

            • Dave

              Would you believe that some kids actually play high school football for the following:

              A) Fun
              B) Chicks
              C) Competition
              D) Chicks
              E) Scholarship Opportunities
              F) Chicks
              G) Fun

              Like

              • LOL. We’re not talking about why they’re playing. We’re talking about why you want them to play.

                Like

                • Dave

                  We’ve derailed, the both of us. Of course, I am day-drinking, so it’s probably more on me.

                  They’re playing nonetheless, but I don’t think most football coaches outside of Texas get fired for poor attendance.

                  Like

                  • Speak for yourself. Just be straight about it and say paying players isn’t aesthetically pleasing to you. I get that.

                    The rest of this is an attempt to dress up your romanticism in some sort of economic concern trolling.

                    Like

                    • Dave

                      No aesthetics. No romanticism. If you can’t see the problems incumbent in paying college players and the road it leads down, then you probably ought to stop following college football if it ever starts to happen, because it will negatively change the game for which you clearly have an affinity.

                      If you want college players to be paid, regardless of what happens, then just say it. I’m cool with that.

                      Like

                    • FFS. You don’t get it. They’re already paying players. We’re just arguing over how much and how openly.

                      Like

                    • Dave

                      To reply to your FFS, yes, we are, and that’s why I said we totally derailed.

                      Like

                    • “Yes, we are”? But you just said this:

                      If you can’t see the problems incumbent in paying college players and the road it leads down, then you probably ought to stop following college football if it ever starts to happen

                      Man, you are all over the place on this.

                      Like

                    • Dave

                      “Man, you are all over the place on this.”

                      How so? I thought that my point was that the free education, housing, eating, etc. was enough “pay,” and you believe the players should be allowed to make money off of any endorsements any company was willing to pay.

                      They’re not allowed to at this point, so, yes, “If this ever happens.”

                      I’d like to get you on my podcast once I get it up and running. I think that, while we differ on certain issues, you have always tended to make some valid points. Just so happens that you’re wrong here. 😉

                      Like

                    • If that’s your point, it’s poorly made. Again, that isn’t how you phrased the last comment I referred to.

                      You deny that romance or aesthetics plays a part in your stance, but you warn me about not liking college football if the players get paid. If the discussion is about personal preference, how is that not a matter of aesthetics?

                      I have put up with ESPN’s oversized role in remaking the sport. I’ve held my nose as conference expansion went its merry way. I’m stomaching, at least for the moment, how the CFP is changing college football’s orientation for the worse, from regional passion to national interest. But somehow you want me to believe that Nick Chubb signing a Nike contract while he’s at Georgia would be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back.

                      I tell you what I think. I think I prefer Chubb getting paid to Green and Gurley getting suspended for four games for getting a pittance for their personal property. YMMV.

                      Like

                    • Dave

                      I’m not able to reply to your replies on this setup. Irregardless (sic), it’s not aesthetics. That implies a superficial, even inconsequential notion.

                      You think that I’m worried about how it looks. I couldn’t care less about the aesthetic of amateurism in college athletics. I just don’t want to see Nike having a say in Justin Fields going to Auburn because they’ve already spent their budgeted allotment on Georgia players. I don’t want to see Georgia not getting a power forward because Reebok has some money left for Kansas. Again, not aesthetics. That’s only the tip of the iceberg, mind you.

                      I tell you what I think. I think the rules as they stand right now for pay-for-play and any iteration thereafter are fine. If you are a player whose jersey w/ a signature is worth a damn, then you’re about to make a few hundred thousand or a million dollars in the NFL anyway. If you don’t believe that, then let me sell you an autographed Prather Hudson (who I love) jersey for fifty grand. I promise I’ll give him half.

                      Look, those couple points are over the top. I get that. But, again, it’s not about any kind of aesthetics or longing for the way things were. For me, it’s about a very real probability that college football will be FUBAR. Things change. I get that, too. But it’s not romanticism to want to maintain some semblance of things that are actually good.

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      How many millions did Maurice Clarett make in the NFL?

                      You’re not making a legal argument against paying players and you’re not making an economic argument. You’re just saying that you don’t want it to happen, “just because,” and then stating that your position isn’t personal.

                      Like

        • This is one of the things I love about this debate. Since we can’t figure out how to deal with the aftermath — slippery slope! Pandora’s Box! — let’s just let the NCAA keep screwing players.

          Those of you who are worried about unforeseen consequences are the ones who should be speaking out now about the NCAA getting its collective head out of its collective ass and taking the lead to come up with a more equitable alternative to amateurism. It’s likely to make you happier than what’ll come in a post-Kessler world.

          Like

          • Dave

            Bullshit.

            I can see some consequences, but there are too many to type out, so I’d rather just combine them into the proverbial slippery slope.

            If you can’t see the collective ill-effects of going down that road, then I’m not going to change your mind, especially not in a forum such as this.

            Question is, have you considered the ill-effects and dismissed them, or have you decided that paying players in one form or another is the right thing to do, ill-effects be damned?

            Like

            • TN Dawg

              You could start with just one, Title IX, and leave it there.

              #paymetoo

              Like

            • Why… you’ve got me. I haven’t ever given the slightest consideration to that. Nor have any of the economists who’ve weighed in.

              People get paid for their services in every walk of life, other than college athletes. Somehow the Republic has survived that. I suspect they’ll work things out.

              Look, just say you don’t like players getting paid and leave it at that. I’m cool with it.

              Like

    • PTC DAWG

      Agree, it must suck to go to College for FREE..

      Like

  5. PTC DAWG

    Good for Nick…

    Like

  6. Biggen

    I’m not for schools paying players. But I’m for private endorsement deals if the caliber of the player warrants it. If Nike wants to sponsor Jake Fromm while he plays at UGA, more power to them/him.

    Like

  7. Truckin

    Never pay players. Opens up too much shit like competing money wise. I do think these guys deserve some walking around money.

    Like

  8. Ozam

    I think one of the issues (of which there are literally hundreds) is the fact kids have no alternative to college football. Given that no one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to set up a professional league for those not interested in attending college is both surprising and telling. What it says to me is the product wouldn’t make enough money to be worth the sizable investment. Does the NFL use the NCAA as their de facto minor leagues…..yes. But, that is not the NCAA’s fault. Kids might have some theoretical market value IF there was competition, but unless and until it exists it is just that.

    Obviously, I cannot control whether the kids get paid, but the college sports will radically change if they do. Will the Dawgs ultimately become “The Bulldogs sponsored by University of Georgia”

    Like

    • Dave

      Ozam, there are semi-pro leagues that almost nobody ‘graduates’ to the NFL from, and they’ve tried tying the World League of American Football to NFL teams.

      I think the interesting scenario is MLB, where you see a significant amount of players from both the college and straight-to-the-minors ranks, although the international community plays a big part in the latter.

      Football is different for a lot of reasons. The NFL teams do enjoy having a “farm system” that they don’t have to invest any money in. At the same time, the Gwinnett Braves do not give their players a free college education.

      Like

      • Ozam

        I am not sure we are disagreeing, although the WFL and similar leagues are/were post college. Not that this is on point, but I’ve read that the minor leaguers, for the most part, make minimum wage at best when you factor in all the hours

        Like

  9. Chopdawg

    Two questions: how much did Chubb get from Nike?…also, what exactly IS your proposal for further compensating college athletes?

    Like

  10. TN Dawg

    I understand they are rehashing the XFL.

    Perhaps McMahon will leave it open to 18 year olds. It’s set to roll out in 2020 and McMahon is soliciting feedback from football fans.

    Maybe the Senator could post a link so that regular readers could all suggest the league accept 18 year olds alleviating players of the screwing they receive from the NCAA

    Like

  11. Sides

    He should have gone pro the year before his knee injury. That’s not NCAA fault.

    Like

  12. Squatchdawg

    Simple solution.

    Start a semipro league with all the money and sponsorships your heart can bear.

    For college, allow students that were otherwise admitted for their academic standards – and are enrolled taking the same classes and meeting the same criteria as everyone else, living in the same dorms and taking the same classes as everyone else – play football for a scholarship which grants free tuition, room and board.

    I can tell you which one of those I would still watch and which one I wouldn’t give a shit about.

    Like

    • CB

      Which one? I feel like you’re being sarcastic, but I seriously can’t tell. With your second option you basically just described the club teams that already exist and that nobody gives a shit about (and never will). The first option is where players like Todd Gurley, AJ Green, and Knowshon Moreno would end up. That’s what everyone would watch and that’s where the TV money would go. Don’t believe me? When’s the last time you saw a nationally televised game between former football powerhouses Yale and Harvard on a prime time broadcast (or any channel at any time). Whaaaat? You mean their commitment to academic excellence doesn’t trump their complete lack of talent compared to the SEC??? How shocking!!!

      Like

  13. Bamadawg

    I have a solution. To me this comes down to choice. So lets give them a choice.

    Remove the time requirement to get drafted. Allow these young men to declare for the pros right out of high school if they feel so inclined. If they decide not to then their options are to get paid whatever they are paying in the canadian league or some other semi-pro team, or they can take a scholarship that is offered them and follow the rules that come with it. At least this way they have a choice, same as any other working stiff. For those that argue that most kids are not physically, and emotionally, mature enough for the pros right out of high school, I would agree. Hence my argument that college serves a purpose toward their final goal. I have known people who have interned during, and after, college just practically nothing just for the experience. Same, same.

    As for possible medical problems 10 years down the road, again that is a choice they have made.

    Like

  14. So if their value is so much more than a scholarship then let them pay back their scholarship before they make anything themselves.

    Like

  15. MERK

    Simple solution, create an entity that every team pays, which then pays every scholarship player equally. Easy solution for how much is put it would be to set it to 10% of all coaching salaries. This ensures that places that are cool throwing money around because they have it will eat the brunt, while schools that can barely afford a coach are not stuck with a bill that forces them to lose more money.

    Like

    • CB

      That’s Fidel Castro level socialism dude. What if your job decided to pay everyone the exact same amount regardless of performance?

      Like

  16. Will Trane

    Good move by NIke. Especially in the recent history of professional sports.
    Chubb comes across as a very solid person…class and character.
    Once he commits he is in. A legit, bona fide team player.
    Not discounting he can damn sure play football.
    Nike like the SEC has to compete hard. Few compete as hard as Chubb.
    NCAA cannot and should not put value on teams, colleges, and its players.
    Do so and you destroy a lot of its value.
    FMV for Chubb and Nike, negotiating once he hit the market, the professional sports market.

    Like

  17. In other news, thousands of college athletes who are not named Nick Chubb will not get one single dime from Nike or anybody else.

    Like

  18. Rival

    Get paid, Nick! DGD.

    Like

  19. I happen to agree with you Senator, payers should be paid. However, I would not be so dismissive of the “slippery slope ” argument. Ever heard of Vietnam? What could possibly go wrong if we just send a few “advisors ” to help out South Vietnam?

    Like

    • CB

      Yeah Senator, all slippery slopes are the same. Paying players could basically become the equivalent of a South Asian military campaign.

      Like

  20. Got Cowdog

    I’m late to this discussion, but doesn’t UGA have a 35-40 million deal with Nike? Would there be a COI factor in endorsing individual players?

    Like