Those of you who would have had your enjoyment of college athletics ruined by Katie Ledecky staying on scholarship at Stanford while receiving third-party endorsement money really should send Mark Emmert a thank-you note. I mean, think about what’s been saved.
Katie Ledecky, the five-time gold medalist, 14-time world champion and the most marketable swimmer in America not named Michael Phelps, turned professional on Monday.
In doing so she will be allowed to tap into considerable endorsement and sponsorship opportunities. In the build-up to the 2020 Olympics, that could mean millions.
It was done, however, begrudgingly because she can no longer compete for Stanford. The 21-year-old just completed her sophomore season, winning two individual NCAA titles, one relay title and helping the Cardinal to consecutive team championships.
Ledecky plans to remain enrolled at the university and continue to train with her old teammates and coaches at the Avery Aquatics Center. She wants to be a student-athlete. She also can’t pass up the money.
So, to recap: she’s staying in school to get her degree, training with her old teammates and coaches and preparing for the Olympics, all as she would have done anyway. The only thing that’s changed is that she’s not swimming for Stanford anymore because she needs the money. The Republic is saved!
Man, to think the apocalypse was this close. Thank Gawd the NCAA was there to protect us.
Her, too, you know. Let’s hope Ledecky doesn’t crack under the pressure of having to hire an accountant.
Get The Picture 
Ledecky is a bad @$$ female swimmer. Some of her Olympic races from Rio looked like a kid’s swim meet where the one with talent would lap the field.
Good for her. I hope she makes a ton of cash leading up to Tokyo and gets her degree from a fine institution of higher learning.
Fire Jack Bauerle for not signing her!
LikeLike
3rd party money, none from Stanford or their boosters. The real problem for the NCAA is that it is not being kicked back to Stanford.
LikeLike
This is an interesting case given that it’s in an Olympic sport. I’m a fan of allowing compensation to the NCAA’s “minor league” players in football & basketball (etc?), but I hadn’t really thought about the other sports much. Since there isn’t an artificial lower-age limit for being a pro swimmer, Ledecky had the choice of when cashing in made sense. Owing to that, I surprised to find that I’m fine with it.
LikeLike
Trying to find the logic in that made my head hurt.
LikeLike
For the TL;DR crowd: She got to choose when she went pro w/o having the decision forced on her. Yay!
LikeLike
What swimming league is she joining?
LikeLike
“Amateurism was conceived in Britain to keep the unwashed masses from competing. “Historian Allen Guttmann explains that in its earliest institution, rules of amateurism were invented by the Victorian middle and upper classes to “exclude the ‘lower orders’ from the play of the leisure class.” When Pierre de Coubertin called for the revival of the Olympic Games in 1892, the primary discussion amongst the elite group of educators and public figures who formed the first version of the Olympic committee was to determine who would be allowed to compete in the Games. Historically, classism ruled the sports and athletic activities practiced by the gentry, not only to prevent the mingling of the higher echelons with the common masses, but because many of the elite insisted that the ‘plebeians’ had no concept of sportsmanship and fair play.
LikeLike
Never underestimate the proclivity of the general populace to side with the financial elites over their fellow man for no other reason than maintaining the status quo – even if it’s against their own self-interest.
LikeLike
I won’t!
LikeLike
You think they took a vote on amateurism protocols?
LikeLike
I bring up the dark side of the foundations of amateurism quite a bit when it is topic of the Senators blog. Personally, I think all athletes on scholarship should be allowed to profit from their likeness. I think there is enough money at Division 1 that they all should be paid something.
Even IOC has all but abandoned amateurism. I am not certain of all of the amateurism rules for all of the sport federations, but most of the higher-profile sports in the Olympic program allow for professionals to compete.
Eventually, I think the NCAA will allow a compromise. They will allow scholarship athletes to profit off of their likeness – but the trade-off is that they will not be allowed to profit of their likeness provided the likeness doesn’t use marks of the University. There might be some caveats about the $$ amounts an athlete can earn and it might come with some increases in the COA stipends.
I also could be completely wrong about this and the system will never change.
Either way it doesn’t change my believe that since amateurism is fundamentally rooted in a flawed system no amount of tinkering etc of the rules (short of outright salaries for athletes) will ever satisfy the system. It will always be flawed and corrupt.
LikeLike
In other news, {insert random coach’s name here} just signed a contract worth millions.
LikeLike
I have mixed thoughts on this. She doesn’t need the scholarship if she’s getting millions from endorsements, and it’s in the same sport to boot. On the other hand, she’s probably a legitimate student unlike some who are only in college because they have to wait 3 years. What to do, what to do……
Unfortunately if you let her compete, then anyone with endorsements in the same sport can compete. Think about the next LeBron James enrolling in college while playing in the NBA; nobody wants to see this. So sorry Senator but when you can compete in the olympics you’re at a whole other level. Be happy for your accomplishment and don’t try to have your cake and eat it too.
Nothing I said above in any way absolves the NCAA or anyone under its umbrella from being a jerk the other 99.99999% of the time.
LikeLike
Er, wut?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wut wut? If you allow this for swimming you have to allow it for everything else. These college swimmers have been known to take a year off to train and take part in the olympics, then resume their college eligibility. OK fine, they maintain their amateur status by not taking endorsement money. Now pretend it’s basketball….all it would take is for a team to arrange endorsement money to help a player keep his eligibility and to back to college. Just pick one.
LikeLike
This isn’t making any more sense the second go ’round. Why would a player go back and forth between college and the NBA?
LikeLike
There is no worry concerning this. NO NBA team would sign any player to a contract that allowed him/her to jump back and forth. If an NBA team did allow this it might be one of the only NCAA rules that makes since if the NCAA disallowed jumping. Easy to settle this. Except.. if a pro team signed a good looking player but realized he needed coaching. Therefore he was only paid and not really on the team. OK, this gets more complicated than I first thought…
LikeLike
You’re saying that if Ledecky gets endorsement money, that she should still be allowed to compete in college, right? What if a basketball player works out an endorsement deal? Whether it’s probable is another matter but say it happens. I think you are looking at Ledecky who is a sympathetic figure, but the next person that gets endorsed might not be. In my opinion whatever standard is applied should consider both.
Love the blog, thanks.
LikeLike
Okay, I understand where you’re coming from now. Not saying I agree with you, but that’s as valid an opinion as is mine.
LikeLike
This comparison would be brilliant if it weren’t enormously stupid. “THink about the next Lebron enrolling in college while playing in the NBA; nobody wants to see this… when you can compete in the olympics you’re at a whole other level.” Olympians are already competing in the NCAA. It’s an amateur competition. They are not paid to compete. In fact probably the majority of US olympians will also compete for a college. How do you not know this? Or do you know it and you still tried to make that absurd comparison?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chile and CB, if you’re going to call people stupid you should demonstrate your own high intelligence. I’ll wait.
LikeLike
OK – try this on for size: nowhere in my comment did I call you stupid. You’d think someone demanding a demonstration of “high intelligence” would have noted that.
LikeLike
Still waiting 🙂
LikeLike
Are you suggesting that the next Lebron would simultaneously play in the NBA and the NCAA? Go back to bed and start your day over.
LikeLike
So let me see if I have this straight. A talented high school athlete with minimal earning potential accepts a scholarship to further her training/education in the hopes of becoming a professional in her career. This athlete uses the resources provided by this scholarship (and her natural ability) to achieve her goal as a professional. The professional athlete can no longer use this scholarship because it is for amateurs. The scholarship now goes to the next high school athlete without any earning potential and the pro athlete must pay for their own training/education.
What is the problem here? Are you trying to demonstrate how the NCAA is supposed to work?
LikeLike
I’d say you have it completely back-asswards, but I highly doubt you’re interested in getting it straight.
LikeLike
As the old saying goes, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
LikeLike
How apt
LikeLike
Cool snark, brah. If it only meant something…
LikeLike
Never needed to go to Stanford to go pro. She was a 4 time gold medalist before ever swimming in college. You call that minimal earning potential?
LikeLike
Its women’s swimming so yes. Its the Olympic medals that give her the earning potential. She should cash in on those but that makes her not eligible to be a college swimmer. People should quit acting like this is a big deal. You go to college to gain skills that help you earn money. Once you obtain the skills you don’t need to be in college. Its time for her to move on to greater competition.
LikeLike
We’re not acting like it’s a big deal, we’re just pointing out the obvious stupidity of the current system and the fact that she has to choose. Nobody would be hurt if she continued to swim for Stanford. She didn’t magically become better because she signed an endorsement deal. “That’s just the way it is” shouldn’t be a good enough reason for anyone with a brain of their own.
LikeLike
So why should there be restrictions on student-athletes making money while gaining those skills?
LikeLike
Because those are the rules of a college scholarship. I don’t like a lot of rules that I have to follow. Some I think are dumb and arbitrary and some I understand but still hate.
LikeLike
I’m not asking what the rule is. I’m asking what the justification for the rule is.
But I suspect you already knew that.
LikeLike
Are you aware of the intellectual bankruptcy of your position, here?
LikeLike
are you two working from the same computer?
LikeLike
Also, Ledecky turned down $5 million in annual endorsement money to go to Stanford. You don’t know shit about earning potential sir. Kindly f*-k off.
LikeLike
In case you doubt. http://www.businessinsider.com/katie-ledecky-endorsements-college-swimmer-stanford-2016-8
LikeLike
A lot of replies and foul language for something that is not a big deal. Of course a multiple Olympic medalist has earning potential. Take the money or the scholarship, not both.
LikeLike
“Of course a multiple Olympic medalist has earning potential.”
Now you’re embarrassing yourself. You started by claiming she had “minimal earning potential” and when I called you on it you doubled down. At what point do you admit that you didn’t have all or any facts before your ill advised initial comment and go about your day?
The scholarship and the endorsements come from two separate sources. Why would one effect the other? Answer: it doesn’t.
LikeLike
A high school swimmer doesn’t have earning potential, an Olympic medalist does. I don’t know when she won medals but my original post wasn’t specifically about her.
“The scholarship and the endorsements come from two separate sources. Why would one effect the other? Answer: it doesn’t.”
It does because the rules of a scholarship say you can’t take endorsements. If you want the endorsements, give up the scholarship. Its very simple.
LikeLike
It’s a stupid rule, how are you not getting that? What if your job told you that you could no longer earn a salary but you could go to school for free? Would you be cool with that? Of course you wouldn’t. Because that is stupid.
LikeLike
Agree.
LikeLike
You, sir, have no idea what you are talking about on this subject. Katie Ledecky didn’t need to go to college to improve her position in the world of swimming … she was already the best American swimmer before she stepped foot in Palo Alto.
LikeLike
Are you the president of her fan club? I am clearly not as knowledgeable as you in the world of women’s swimming. If she didn’t need Stanford then why did she go there? Clearly she sees something there of value…
LikeLike
Of course there is something of value in swimming for Sanford. The question is why can’t she have both the things of value that she has earned?
LikeLike
Why can’t I have everything I want? Its not fair.
LikeLike
Damn, dude. Look at the last word of my post.
LikeLike
She saw something of value. That’s why she’s continuing to attend and pay her own way while she trains for Tokyo. I’m sure she would have been more than happy to have continued to swim for Stanford while receiving compensation for the use of her name and likeness for her immense talent as one of the world’s best athletes.
It’s exactly the same reason Tiger Woods and Michelle Wie left Stanford as sophomores.
LikeLike
Not to mention the benefit that Stanford would incur if she kept helping them bang out records and titles. I suppose the NCAA would rather screw over Sanford swimming and have kids leave school early to pursue their fortune before it vanishes than allow them the laurels their notoriety has brought them. You know, encouraging and enabling them to complete their course of study. It’s all about the kids anyway, right? It’s a stupid rule.
FWIW I thought of Tiger as well when I first read the post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She needed to “strike while the iron is hot”. Right or wrong, a woman in a minor sport’s marketable fame is likely fleeting. Had she stayed an amateur she may have seen her advertising appeal diminished over time. Good move for her.
LikeLike
Do not see why this confusing to some, she is no longer part of Stanford”s swim team. She pays her own expenses to attend Stanford and assume she pays extra for using their training facility even though she is an enrolled student taking classes. What am I missing?
LikeLike
I’m not confused. Why does she have to choose?
LikeLike
Because the NCAA rules say she can’t be a professional athlete on an athletic scholarship or compete in college swim competitions, that’s why. Without some arbitrary rule by whatever body governs swimming or some union that dictates who can and cannot be paid to swim restricting her right as an adult to get paid for a talent she possesses, she is able to turn pro whenever she wants to. Wouldn’t that be a novel concept in football or basketball?
LikeLike
Oh, FFS.
I quit using “because I said so” as a reason for my kids when they were six years old.
LikeLike
I’d say NCAA rules are a little more than “because I said so”. That retort could be used against any rule by any organization that applies to it’s members or really any law for that matter. You asked why she has to choose, that is why.
Letting 18 year old adults who can enter into legal contracts, vote, serve in the military, own real property and be sentenced to adult prisons have the ability to earn money with their talent as football or basketball players would be the best step I can think of to remedy the grave injustice being perpetrated against them now. Miss Ledecky is very fortunate her skill is in swimming and not in football or she would not be allowed to be a pro in her field because of a union contract.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I must have missed when the NFLPA prohibited 21-year olds still in college from signing endorsement deals.
Accuracy goes out the window when you’ve got an ideological nail to hit.
LikeLike
The Senator wrote,
“Accuracy goes out the window when you’ve got an ideological nail to hit”
I think he’s been watching the news.
LikeLike
Today, in metaphors.
LikeLike
Are you defending the NFLPA agreement that keeps 18 year olds from playing professional sports? This is what is forcing these athletes onto the NCAA plantation. Fix the pro rules and all your NCAA problems go away.
LikeLike
And I thought you were sharper than this…
LikeLike
Cool snark, brah. If it only meant something…
LikeLike
You really think I’m defending the NFLPA there?
LikeLike
I know you are not but the rest of my reply was what you should have focused on. I will repeat, Fix the pro rules and all your NCAA problems go away. If the players who can earn money have the ability to go pro, then there is no NCAA monopoly. The NCAA would have to raise scholarship amounts (pay more wages) to entice the best talent to go to college. A scholarship is compensation, just not enough for certain players.
LikeLike
Eh, maybe, maybe not. As much as everyone points at one-and-done, how many kids would the NBA draft out of high school? There would still be plenty of stars playing college basketball who would be entitled to a piece of the action.
And I doubt the NFL would draft any kids straight out of high school.
Besides, it’s a moot point. What reason do the pros have to “fix” a free development system?
All you’re really doing with this argument is making an excuse for NCAA inaction.
LikeLike
I personally don’t like the NCAA. They hammer SC and let UNC walk. They are greedy and corrupt. I don’t want to defend them but the current situation is not their fault (unless they colluded with pro leagues). The pro leagues are forcing the most talented players into college for up to 3 years. I don’t know how that is legal and I don’t think it should be (maybe you know better than me).
Remember that colleges do compensate players. Some get more than their market value and some get less. If the ones that aren’t being compensated enough should be able to hit the open market. This is being prevented by the pro leagues, creating a monopoly for the NCAA. The NCAA should have the right to place rules on the people who accept their scholarship.
Do you think Clowney would have been drafted? Would Chubb have been at UGa long enough to hurt his knee? AJ Green would have been pro before he took the money. Same with Gurley.
LikeLike
How is amateurism not the NCAA’s fault?
Like I said, all this amounts to is you excusing the status quo.
It’s against the law in this country to collude to fix prices. That ain’t the NFL’s fault, either.
LikeLike
As long as there is competition then there is no monopoly or price fixing cartel. The NCAA is offering compensation, just like the pro leagues. The pro leagues decided to discriminate based on age, leaving 18 year old athletes (not students because I can’t think of any jobs that discriminate like this) without any options. If the NCAA had to compete against other leagues for talent then we would see compensation meet the market value. I do not like the status quo, I just don’t think unionizing the NCAA fixes the problem. I think you should attack the pro leagues.
Of course it is against the law to fix prices. I don’t see how the NCAA has done this. A Stanford scholarship is clearly worth more than a Georgia scholarship which is worth more than a Georgia state scholarship (no offense to anyone). If the NCAA and NFL agreed to the age limit then they have colluded to fix prices in the market. I consider the NCAA and NFL/MLB/NBA in competition for athletes. If these pro leagues were taking the NCAA talent, then NCAA would increase scholarships.
Go ahead and pick out one sentence and try to discredit everything I say. I think your crusade against the NCAA is not the best way to achieve your goals. I think you should attack the pro leagues, they have created this environment with a surely illegal agreement.
LikeLike
You say the NCAA doesn’t price fix. The courts have disagreed.
You say the NFL and the NBA have illegal arrangements, but the courts have upheld them.
Am I okay if I picked out two sentences?
LikeLike
I am sure all will be challenged again in court.
LikeLike
Well, if by that you mean Jeffrey Kessler, you’re right.
LikeLike
https://insidetrade.com/trade/trump-picks-trade-attorney-commerce-enforcement-and-compliance-slot
Is this the guy? I like him already. What happens when he quits this crap and puts America first?
LikeLike
I have another honest legal question. If a real marketable college freshman (not Maurice clarett) challenged the NFL age rule in this political climate do you think they could win?
LikeLike
As long as there’s a CBA, I doubt it.
That’s why you’ll see the NFLPA occasionally threaten to decertify, because if it really did so, the CBA would be nullified and the NFL would no longer have that protection.
LikeLike
Why am I not surprised that someone who supports screwing the little guy in favor of the elite is a Trump fan?
LikeLike
That she can no longer compete for Stanford because she signed an endorsement deal, even though she’s still a student.
LikeLike
Are you two now dating? You are now finishing each others sentences.
LikeLike
Jealous?
LikeLike
not after a chilidawg….
LikeLike
NOW who’s the communist?
LikeLike
“The Republic is saved!”
“As the old saying goes, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.”
Yup
LikeLike
Golf (!) permits amateurs and professionals to play side-by-side in some events. The pros are compensated, the amateurs are not. Pros are also excluded from some amateur events, and amateurs must qualify or be invited to participate in some pro events.
It’s a working model. Not sure how it can apply to NCAA events, especially in football and basketball, but some lessons can be learned from it I’m sure.
LikeLike
Where I see a difference, even if there is not tangible way of differentiating or policing this: we can be certain that Ledecky is earning her money because of her sheer talent and gifts. No booster is handing a money bag for a female swimmer to enroll. She is a spectacular talent who has value in the marketplace because of her spectacular talent, not because of some fanboy’s crazy love of Stanford.
Now, how do you say who is and is not “earning it” (the hard way, for lack of a better phrase) ? That’s tough. In a hypothetical world, if a huge Auburn alum owned Athens Ford but wanted to pay Fromm for some commercials, I would view that as more of an above board transaction than if a Georgia-fan-owner paid an unsigned high school prospect, hasn’t-played-a-down Jake Fromm up front money for “future commercials.”
Is it possible to be OK with somebody earning legitimate money off of their talent but not be OK with a booster merely paying a high school kid to enroll ?
LikeLike
Fretting about what earnings are legitimate and what earnings aren’t leads to declaring peanut butter on bagels verboten. Do you know the difference between General Mills paying Roquan Smith $1 million to be on a Wheaties box and an Athens car dealer paying Justin Fields $1,000 to hang out and sign autographs? Absolutely nothing. They’re both fair exchange. If Hypothetical Booster wants to pay $15 million for 5 Star Recruit to play in Athens, or Knoxville, or Tuscaloosa, then they can work that out amongst themselves. The booster obviously believes he’ll get something valuable in exchange for his money.
LikeLike
Well she’s white and has a good head on her shoulders so it probably would be ok in her case, but certainly we can’t allow all these young black guys with their rap music and guns and gangs having access to this much money that young.
LikeLike
Already in a daydream………..
(Phone rings): “Go for Cowdog”
“Hi Mr. Cowdog, this is Janet with the Guiness Brewing Company! How are you today?”
“Do I owe you money?”
“No Mr. Cowdog. The reason I am calling is we have noticed you’ve won your regional St. Patrick’s day hands down for three years running. The Guiness company would like to sponsor you in the National St. Patrick’s day! How does that sound?”
“What’s it pay?”
“$75.00 yearly plus expenses. We plan on putting your picture on every cardboard box of Guiness that leaves the brewery for the next year.”
“What’s the catch?”
“Well, unfortunately with your paid sponsorship you will be considered a professional and no longer be able to compete at your current level.”
“75 bucks a week, you say?”
“Absolutely Mr. Cowdog. If you don’t mind me asking, what were your winnings last St. Paddy’s day?”
” I don’t remember”
“Isn’t that nice! I would like to remind you that you would still be allowed to practice with your local club as often as you like, but you won’t be considered in any amateur competition.”
“Where do I sign?”
Take the Money and run, Katie. I hope we see you on the Wheaties box soon!
LikeLike
What all this discussion leaves behind is the fact that opening the door a little bit actually opens it wide open. Once you allow students endorsement deals in football, and then allow wide open transfers between schools, you are then participating in a professional league. Do you have any doubt in that scenario that an Auburn alum would have opened up the checkbook with an endorsement deal for Todd Gurley if he would have agreed to transfer to Auburn?
How does college football stay a little bit pregnant?
And Senator, I apologize if this has been previously asked and answered and I didn’t see it – what is your solution for D1 P5 college football?
LikeLike
I told someone else in the comments that I’m not really in a position to offer a solution, since I’m not Emmert or a conference commissioner. Right now, it’s impossible to offer much of a final suggestion because the NCAA’s taken a maximalist position.
What I’d start with is that players deserve to have more control over their personal rights. That means allowing professional advisors to represent them, to start with. And it also means that some realistic way of allowing them to capitalize on their names and likenesses has to be recognized.
Get me past that point, and I’m happy to start figuring out what to do on the direct payment front.
LikeLike
Like the pro leagues, the NCAA could definitely create strict rules and procedures for player representatives to be licensed (revenue opportunity!). The agents would be subject to oversight of their books and records, but able to sign endorsement deals for their college athletes. Frankly, this will let the free market work…All-American players are going to get deals, but probably not 3rd stringers. The schools still own their logo licensing rights, so a sponsor is going to have to pay UGA for Jake Fromm to wear his jersey while promoting his product. In the end, this will likely have little impact on most scholarship athletes as only the “best personalities” will get endorsement arrangements. And I would not think the deals will be that big. Why pay Fromm $1MM when I can probably get him to sign a deal for $100k or maybe Holyfield would take just $75k and that’s good enough for my commercial needs? There will be abuses for sure among the agents…but I submit no more than what occurs now. With a structure in place, perhaps there will be less incentive to cheat.
Open, transparent, regulated and focused on protecting the rights of the SA…this is all about the children, no?
LikeLike
If we do go down this road, it’s going to be about 20 years of complete chaos as the market and market participants finally settle after a shakeup. Ticket prices will swing wildly as they try and figure out the new metric of supply and demand and the conferences that can may even implement a pure (and expensive) pay-per-view model to help make up for revenue lost by booster payments directly to players.
It is what it is—-judge all you want on either side, we’ve hashed out all the arguments. Of course the universities / ncaa are probably overly-selfish under the current status quo. But they will begin to relentlessly chase large chunks of lost revenue (money is always a zero sum game) and it will take about 20 years for the market to settle— in the meantime, you’ll see wild swings in attendance and viewing as conferences and schools begin to try and deliver the product in the most profitable way possible.
As big brother type data metrics become increasingly detailed and accurate, the mega power schools within each conference will break away and form their own conference to better control revenue, leaving the Purdues and Mississippi States in the land of the unknown. No more Big Ten and SEC, just money makers …..and then everybody else.
LikeLike
I read this and it’s as if you haven’t been paying attention to the last twenty years of college football commercialization.
Just say you don’t like players getting paid. The rest of this is irrelevant — again, Ledecky isn’t being paid by a school, but by third-party sponsors, so your touching concern about chaos is misdirected at best.
LikeLike
So what is the point in all of your posts ? I’m thinking you just like being a gigantic effing asshole instead of having a diplomatic debate…….the reason my post is very concise and conclusive is because we’ve already hashed all this out. I’m trying to come up with a new angle of discussion and you’re acting like a jerk off lawyer. Don’t be a jerk off lawyer.
LikeLike
errr…. concise, not so much.
LikeLike
Thanks for not getting personal.
We’ve just gone through a period where the grand poobahs of college sports have ripped up conferences, trashed schedules and playing times to accommodate “broadcast partners”, wedged schools like Rutgers in to places they don’t belong solely to chase TV eyeballs, put kids on ridiculous travel schedules, all to chase every fucking dollar they can so they can turn around and blow it on bloated administrative salaries and obscene capital improvements and now you’re worried about the financial chaos that will be caused by letting Todd Gurley make a few bucks on the side selling his autograph?
Spare me, please. Like I said, just stick to saying you don’t like it. It’s the trappings you cloak your feelings in that are nonsensical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then you’re going to have to be the one to define where the line is between obscene capex and DooDoo ice. Because there is no argument that money is a zero sum game. You don’t think there are plenty of boosters right now who are just not quite ready enough to totally disregard NCAA rules but will certainly re-route IPF money to a running back.
What I have said over and over is that I want the university to be in CONTROL of the situation. Not getting leapfrogged. If that makes me crazy……..well, you’re the one arguing for a revolutionary rule change. Seems at least some people think that would be pretty wise. People who still get you to spend money, btw.
LikeLike
You don’t get it. I don’t care how the schools spend their profits. That’s their business.
I care that they’re screwing the kids who have a major hand in earning those profits.
The rest of this is nothing but rank speculation on your part about how things will turn out because you don’t like paying players.
LikeLike
I admit that I don’t like the idea of wealthy boosters paying players to sign with their desired school. I think that’s a tortured interpretation of “name and likeness” built primarily on the foundation of the “G” and the “G” should have every right to control that ………Ledecky made her own road, unless I missed the swimming fanboy who paid Ledecky in order to make sure she wore a fir tree on her suit.
LikeLike
Believe it or not, I get where you’re coming from there and respect that… not that I agree with it. 😉
LikeLike
Here are your 26 future conference members of the Money League:
former ACC members: Clemson, FSU, Notre Dame(ish), UNC, Duke, Miami
former SEC members: Georgia, Florida, Tennessee (maybe), Auburn, Alabama, LSU, aTM
former Big 10 members: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan state
former Big 12 members: Texas, OU, Ok State
former Pac 12 members: USC, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford
LikeLike
Duke?
You don’t have a clue.
LikeLike
that’s extreme…….debatable, yes. My internet sleuthing (since Duke is private) tells me they are Top 48ish in athletic revenue. Certainly low compared to their proposed peer group, but not out of the realm of possibility given their stature.
LikeLike
If you include Duke, how do you leave out Louisville and Kentucky, both of which generate as much bball revenue as Duke (Louisville, in fact, generates more)?
You simply have no way of knowing specifics, even assuming your general prediction has any basis in reality.
LikeLike
If you’re worried about open transfers, all of that gets negotiated into the contract between the university and the student-athlete. It’s a non-compete clause.
Todd Gurley likely signs a 4-year contract to run the football for the University of Georgia in exchange for a college scholarship plus some level of compensation. He is able to retain the rights to his name & likeness to earn any additional income related to endorsements and personal appearances. Throw in that we still have EA Sports NCAA Football in this scenario … everyone wins.
LikeLike
This is brilliance. This is Emmert”s (Custer’s) Last Stand on amateurism….sorry Mark, but checkmate.
LikeLike
I doubt this will be the hill the NCAA dies on.
LikeLike
Pingback: Today, in they’re already being paid | Get The Picture