True or false

Two reasons are raised as potential road blocks to player compensation in this article about the NCAA’s probe of giving players some control over their names, likenesses and images.  See if you can pick out the bullshit one.

Coaches, though, almost have to take that approach. Any coach who made a public statement against it would have it used against him on the recruiting trail. Privately, most coaches have the same concerns Tanner has. What happens if a local car dealer decides to the star quarterback or star running back is worth $20,000 per year as a spokesman? How do the offensive linemen feel about that?

“How does that work in your locker room?” Tanner wondered.

He also wondered if some of a school’s donor base might decide to invest their money straight into athletes instead of, say, donating for a $50 million football operations center.

Yeah, I know that’s a tough call.

(h/t)

Advertisements

25 Comments

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

25 responses to “True or false

  1. To answer your question, the first is the bullshit one.

    Like

  2. Junkyardawg41

    “What happens if a local car dealer decides to the star quarterback or star running back is worth $20,000 per year as a spokesman? How do the offensive linemen feel about that?”
    — I don’t think that dynamic would be a problem unless the paid player isn’t contributing and impacting others abilities to make money at the next level. Although I could see a problem if the paid spokesman gets a lot of peer pressure to redistribute the wealth + taxes — but again, I think that could be worked out.
    “He also wondered if some of a school’s donor base might decide to invest their money straight into athletes…” I think this probably worries ADs more than anything else discussed.

    I still think the turd in the punch bowl to all of this is the endorsements for high school players prior to going to schools… E.g. Nike paying seven figures to make sure Zion Williamson goes to a marquee basketball school with a Nike relationship. Nike would start to pick winners and losers and realize quickly they would rather pay endorsements to players rather than schools.

    Like

  3. CB

    How tf does David Andrews keep it together knowing Tom Brady makes more money than him? Just not fair I tell ya. How do these hs school teams hold it together knowing some of their teammates have D I offers while others don’t?

    S/O to Boom and Crean for taking the most obvious player friendly position. Hopefully Kirby will follow suit.

    Like

    • Gurkha Dawg

      Your comment about Andrews and Brady is exactly what I was thinking. Increased compensation because what you bring to the table is more valuable than the next guy? What an interesting concept.

      Like

  4. ASEF

    The NBA and NFL ran into issues with money flowing to “potential” over “production,” which is why both heavily restructured their draft rules and/or compensation packages via collective bargaining. Current players and owners had an overlapping interest in not overpaying players coming out of college.

    If and when it becomes legal for people to throw money at recruits, and you get issues like recruiting titles and #1 recruits in play, then it gets really interesting. Money is already flowing into those endeavors, but it definitely restructures how recruiting budgets and resources work – especially with the transparency of it. Now, throw in the Transfer Portal. So, yeah, I can see the potential for mismanaged situations where a crucial OL starter who worked his way into that position is looking at a 5-star true Fresh getting bank and comparing leverage. The 5-star’s leverage is, “Where do I sign?” The starter’s leverage is in a potential transfer. It’s really no different than the established and valued employee realizing someone new walked in the door at a better salary and going, “Now wait a damn minute.”

    I am not arguing against the idea of players getting paid, but I do think the donor issue is easily circumvented – ADs will use the same leverage they are using now, which is access.

    So, honestly, the player compensation comparison issue probably is the more complicated and potentially thornier issue over time. But they’ll work it out.

    Like

  5. MDDawg

    Tell those donors “it’s the name on the front of the jersey that matters.”

    Like

  6. Timphd

    I do see an issue as far as recruiting can go, but I am not sure if it isn’t already done to some degree. Say you are a head coach and you can say to a recruit “Our donor owns the largest car dealership in GA and he will hire you for $100K per year to be his spokesman if you sign with us”. Does that create an unfair recruiting advantage? Seems to me it would. Now, don’t get me wrong, I would be in favor of the kid getting whatever he can, and I guess the market would adjust as to whom the Donor would be willing to pay to be spokesman, but it does seem that a door opens for donors to “buy” recruits.

    Like

    • That is the reason the athletes in the bigger sports are not allowed to have jobs now because that very thing was happening.

      Like

    • Former Fan

      How is that any more unfair than “our stadium sits more people, we are on TV more, we have a bigger weight room”, etc. All things coaches tell players about a particular school. Are you arguing it is unfair that Southern Miss cannot compete with Alabama because they have more things to offer?

      Like

    • Snoop Dawgy Dawg

      If that guy wants to do that for 10 guys a year and pay out a million dollars a year, then it seems like that’s a great deal for those athletes.

      if that isn’t sustainable in the long term, then the markets will adjust accordingly. If it’s all legal and they are getting 1099ed, then why not?

      Like

  7. Cojones

    Compensation towards a recruit will tear everything apart. It’s simple to not let any monies get discussed until after commit and with the stipulation that prior knowledge would invalidate the deal, but not the commit. After they are on board, their likeness is theirs and UGAs because our team name sponsors the support payments as well as the student/ athlete’s work on the playing field.

    Donor base funding, aka “bagging”, is opening Pandora’s Box to the gambling crooks that would infiltrate from the start and open the sport up to accusations of throwing games, etc., for money. I hear from good authority that this could happen. 🙂

    Like

  8. PTC DAWG

    Are the players griping? Or just bloggers?

    Like

    • Does filing multiple antitrust suits count as griping?

      Christ, how many folks do you know who turn down money…

      Like

      • PTC DAWG

        Nobody forces the players, they know the deal…must be tough, free College and all.

        Like

        • You keep saying this like it settles something. You think they’ll turn down money if they’re entitled to it? They haven’t so far.

          Like

        • Former Fan

          Free college? There’s nothing free about it. Those kids work hard for that scholarship and it is way less than they would be paid on the open market. Once the kids have been granted economic freedom when the courts bust up the cartel, then we will see what their efforts are really worth.

          Like

          • Gurkha Dawg

            “Less than they would be paid on the open market”. Not necessarily true. Sure the players at UGA, Bama, etc would get more. What about the about the second string at Wake Forest or Tech? Most of those are probably significantly over compensated at the present. I don’t really have a problem with 1/2 scholarship for a third string OL at tech. It would be closer the the free market. But I don’t think a lot of players would think it is all that great.

            Like

  9. Huntindawg

    This makes me wonder – what percentage of NFL players have substantial endorsement contracts? Or any endorsement contracts? Someone mentioned David Andrews above. Does he have any such deal?

    What we will see with P5 college football IS different from the NFL in that your big schools will indirectly pay the players to stack their teams. Yeah, I know, the “rich get richer” argument; you will still have Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, and everyone else.

    The difference – as far as I can see – is that in the NFL the teams have the ability to draft and thereby (theoretically) equalize the talent gaps. The teams draft and directly pay their players and then the endorsement deals follow.

    Since we are moving in the direction of out-of-the-closet professional college sports, let’s just go full monty. Let the P5 colleges draft. Have a salary cap. Establish rookie salaries. In other words, follow the NFL model. Have the athletes live off campus and overtly segregate them unless they decide to be actual students.

    For the actual students that want an education, work that into the deal. Or even mandate it.

    This is all pulled from air this morning. But it does follow my general idea that if it’s pro, make it pro. It would be a heck of a lot more fun to see 10-15 teams competing for the national title instead of 3.

    The major drawback that I see is that this blog site would have way fewer posts.

    Like

    • Since we are moving in the direction of out-of-the-closet professional college sports, let’s just go full monty. Let the P5 colleges draft. Have a salary cap. Establish rookie salaries. In other words, follow the NFL model.

      You’d need an antitrust exemption for that. And if the NCAA had an antitrust exemption, they wouldn’t do anything but keep the status quo.

      The major plus to that is that I’d see way less uninformed comments. 😉

      Like

      • Huntindawg

        I would rather do just about anything than learn Sherman Act stuff. With the money involved I would think the interested parties would figure out a work around. My primary point is the concept that it should just be pro OR amateur, and that if we recognize and accept the current reality perhaps it would even make college football more competitive.

        By the way, reading your blog everyday has changed me from “OMG DID YOU SEE WE SIGNED ANOTHER 5 STAR WAR DADDY WE ARE GOING TO DESTROY THE HEATHEN HUNS!!!!” to “oh. I see we signed another pro receiver masquerading as a student. yay.”

        I would quit reading but (a) the damage is done, and (b) I haven’t found another site that has as much daily Dawg material. So don’t criticize the cynic you created.

        Like

        • Former Fan

          You think it is not pro already? Amatuer… just another word for keeping labor cheaper through collusion than the market would otherwise allow. If the colleges really want an amatuer feel to the game, then lets go back to the way it was before all the money started raining on the schools. That won’t happen. The right thing to do at this point is to pay the piper or go back to really being about education rather than that almighty dollar at the university sport level. The latter is not going to happen. The former will. Just a matter of time.

          Like

        • With the money involved I would think the interested parties would figure out a work around.

          I had the same thought when the owners and players cancelled the 1994 World Series. Never underestimate the power of greed.

          Like

    • Junkyardawg41

      “Since we are moving in the direction of out-of-the-closet professional college sports, let’s just go full monty. Let the P5 colleges draft. Have a salary cap. Establish rookie salaries. In other words, follow the NFL model. Have the athletes live off campus and overtly segregate them unless they decide to be actual students.” — isn’t that minor league baseball without the school affiliation? And if you tell me going to college is a term of employment, their might be a legal challenge or two… or if the money is good enough, why wouldn’t I stay in college for say 10 years before moving on into the private sector. E.g. Good enough to play college football but not quite good enough to play professional. QBs come to mind.

      Like

  10. Mayor

    Personally, I think both are bullshit.

    Like