I’m just going to repost this question sent to Andy Staples ($$):
Ok, so we’ve heard you and Stew and others like Nicole going on for nearly a year about how awesome it’s going to be that the best swimmer at State U is going to get to make $5k by becoming a “micro-influencer” on social media. And so can the national champion gymnast and the second-string left tackle. And we all know the Tuas and Trevors will have seven-figure annual deals (easily), but you guys kind of skip over that.
And all of that is fine, and great for those kids, and NOBODY cares. In every one of those cases, the athlete has established themselves and is already committed to their school (for now). You guys act like people are up in arms over any of that — and I can’t find anyone who is.
But you all also completely skip over the actual problem — recruiting. Swimming and gymnastics don’t have multimillion-dollar industries just around recruiting high school candidates that have never competed at the college level. There are no 5-star golfers.
It would be EASY for a major D-1 SEC school’s booster community to get $5-10 million a year in the pot to “sign” recruits who sign their letter with the school to immediately receive six-figure deals (for the 5* and 4* guys).
How are they going to ensure that this doesn’t further degrade recruiting for football and basketball? Will incoming freshmen not be eligible? Or will they just let the most money win in the end because it’s too hard to regulate?
And then ask you guys — especially those who are up in arms over what college athlete compensation will mean to the sport — a few questions of my own.
- Do you agree with the second paragraph, that nobody cares about what a kid can raise for themselves on social media, based on their brand as an athlete?
- With regard to boosters raising money to offer recruits to sign, do you not see any limitations on how that would play out? What about NCAA regulations? What about, as Staples suggests, a coach who’s really poor at evaluating talent? (For that matter, how would it work if boosters ignored the coach in making those sorts of offers?)
- Given what we’ve seen from the FBI investigation of college basketball, how would this booster activity “further degrade” recruiting?
- Ultimately, what is bad about paying people who are good at sports? After all, aren’t we already paying to watch people who are good at sports?
I’m not here to say what the right answers are. (Staples is fairly benign on their impact, for what that’s worth.) I’m simply interested in what everyone’s specific concerns are — and whether those concerns should trump an athlete’s opportunity to earn some money when they can. Maybe there’s a middle ground, maybe not. But I’m interested.
Get The Picture 
My concerns all relate to recruiting. Anything that isn’t direct, equal payments from the university to all scholarship athletes are at risk of being corrupted.
Sure Tua could have signed with Nike and it be completely legit. You can’t write a rule that allows that and prohibits the sort of booster insanity I’d think we’d all like to avoid.
I suppose if you had some sort of clearinghouse that decided which contracts to approve, and all contracts were prohibited before stepping on campus, that might be workable.
LikeLike
Why not? (Not asking snarkily here.)
LikeLike
How do write a rule that says Nike is a legit sponsor and that Bammer’s Crimson Haberdashery isn’t?
Can you legally limit sponsors to only publicly traded companies?
You’d also need to have the “approved” companies prohibited from directing players to certain programs. That might be very hard to enforce.
How do you police a Nike rep whispering in a recruits uncle’s ear: The kid needs to pick X school or he’s costing himself $Y?
Its because of the risks involved that are very apparent that I think its prudent to keep Pandora’s Box closed.
Better to pay an across the board stipend or salary.
LikeLike
Here’s the problem I have with that: conceptually, you’re saying it’s fair for college athletes to be paid, but we can’t do it because the schools can’t police it.
LikeLike
How is that different conceptually from say the “right to die?”
If everyone thought that every “Kevorkian” was legit, wouldn’t it be legal by now? How many proponents of old age suffering are there?
The main rationale that has prevented right to die from taking a foothold has been an inability to effectively police it.
If I have a script for lortabs can I buy them from an unlicensed dealer, i.e, a criminal? Can I sell a portion of my Walgreens obtained lortabs to someone who shows me that they also have a script?
This concept of “we can’t police it” is far from rare.
“The masters make the rules for the wise men and the fools.”
Bob
LikeLike
Let them sign any endorsement deal or NIL pay plan they like. Take all the money generated by each player, put it in a pot, and divide it up evenly among all players on the roster. Just like tip sharing in bars and restaurants.
LikeLike
Is that what you do at your place of work?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I negotiate my salary but have to abide by certain criteria – for example, i can’t accept cash or gifts from a vendor who wants to benefit from bribing me.. For the record, I’m in favor of players getting compensation. I just think there needs to be legitimate oversight to avoid even the appearance of corruption. Again, I’m for the players getting all they can but there needs to be some sort of control.
LikeLike
Here’s how the NCAA defines “boosters”.
LikeLike
And the draft right? The mandatory, inevitable college football draft that all the experts are talking about because it will definitely be implemented as soon as players are compensated?
LikeLike
Anybody that doesn’t understand how booster money is currently being funneled to star athletes is naive at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why doesn’t this “logic” apply to drug prohibition?
LikeLike
Because it’s different.
LikeLike
It should. Why do we give af if a kid smokes weed? I know I don’t care at all.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that some of the richest boosters see paying athletes as “investments.” Boosters would entice recruits to a school just because the booster loves his school–at least, that’s how I see this situation playing out, unless the NCAA includes NAIA-type language in its guidelines, language that stipulates the athlete can’t be paid any more $$ than fair-market value for endorsements. (I’m not talking about national conglomerates like Nike paying recruits, I’m talking about the local yokel who’s got plenty of money, loves his school, and needs a tax write-off. This is the guy who’s going to pay 10-20K, to get his favorite recruits to his favorite school.)
LikeLike
Again, I’m not trying to be contentious here, but why is that a bad thing? Boosters pony up for things like this to sway recruits every day. What about eliminating the middleman makes it worse?
LikeLike
Rooftop golf course? I’m calling a press conference for 10AM, at which time I will grit my teeth and pull on an orange and blue hat and sign my LOI.
Local TV-commercial appearance for 10K? I’m calling the press conference for 9:30. Because that money’s going to be MINE AND MINE ALONE, bwahahaha.
All seriousness aside, I think the booster money’s a bad thing because for a lot of 18-year-olds, it’ll be the only thing. College teams will rise and fall based on their numbers of rich nutty boosters.
LikeLike
For #1, I personally don’t care, though there is some argument to be made that the kid’s “value” on social media that makes them an influencer is/could be directly tied to the school they play for. As in they wouldn’t have the value if they weren’t playing for the school, therefore the school should get at least a cut of the social media compensation.
The bigger question for me, is do high school athletes have the same restrictions on social media compensation?
LikeLike
I’m sure lots of regular students can make a buck off of social media or some artistic talent they have and it doesn’t seem to bother anyone (as long as they’re not breaking any copyright laws). If Sony Michel wanted to sell copies of his rap CDs, or Chris Conley wanted to get a few bucks off of his fan-made Star Wars film, why not? I don’t think there’s a lot of opposition to that. Although I could see that process being abused some as well. Like some booster buying a thousand copies of some kid’s artwork just to keep him from going pro early. I’m not sure if that’s actually likely to happen or just an out-of-this-world scenario.
I’m sure the NCAA would try to regulate it, and I agree that it would need some regulation. I don’t think the NCAA would get it right though, whatever “right” even is in this context.
I have no idea what goes on in the “underground” world of recruiting, but it’s probably more shocking than I could imagine.
For some inexplicable reason, I still cling to a sliver of some romantic view about college sports. I’m all for players exercising their NIL rights, but I stop short of straight-up pay-for-play. I’d prefer the NCAA take steps to actually implement/restore some semblance of amateurism and focus on the educational opportunities that are being provided to these kids. But as the coaching/facilities arms race continues to escalate, I find myself siding with the players more and more.
LikeLike
I had my responses numbered to correspond to your question, not sure why that didn’t go through.
LikeLike
Here is the problem as I see it. The NCAA fing created this problem in the first place with a rule book that looks like the IRS code. Now when it gets complex in the arena of schools/boosters just buying recruits are we really looking to to the NCAA to solve it. See Einstein’s definition of insanity. Get rid of any age restrictions on going pro(meaning go pro whenever you want) and keep the amateur/NCAA rules the way they are. I can and will live with the hypocrisy, we all do it everyday. I do want A.J.’s 4 games back though fing NCAA.See what I did there …I’m being a hypocrite but I can live with that. IT WAS HIS JERSEY…..just damn.
LikeLike
I hope ESPN posts $ figures by players names and school names, and uses it in talking points.
Here comes #1 recruiting and number one gross salary Alabama! Led by #1 paid Tua Tua. can you see the dollars falling from the sky!
LikeLike
Nick Saban interview: we need our fans to stay all for quarters! And give more money to our players! You want an NC, act like you do!
Alabama #48 in the nation financially, is the leading state to donate to player salary….”jimbob, why do you donate” “well, me and the mrs talked about it, we just decided we can do without and help the team where we can. Roll tide”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the NCAA is going to lose this argument.
Just for grins how would they handle or regulate this hypothetical scenario?
Jake Fromm established a YouTube channel on fishing / hunting while he was in high school. He monetized the channel in the summer before his senior year in high school and had a following that allowed him to make $500,000 a year. He signs with UGA and the NCAA decides he can no longer post videos about fishing / hunting or at the very least must put the money in some sort of escrow account or worse yet into a pool to be shared with the entire football team. How long would it take the lawyers to turn this into a PR nightmare for the NCAA?
LikeLike
I am fine with a totally free market approach which will make many athletes better off. This means NO NCAA regulations at all to try to govern the impact. Here is the only thing I am worried about. All of the inevitable whining about how the free market is not fair. Eg. It’s not fair that the rich will get richer – the most commercially viable programs will get even more top talent. And its not fair that some college athletes toil in obscurity while others are (now publicly) rolling in it. And I don’t want to see sanctimonious politicians and NCAA regulators making rules to try to “level the playing field”. I DO want to see the feel good stories like how Todd Gurley used all of his earnings to get his Mom and brother out of that trailer.
LikeLike
If money is the root of many of the evils in college athletics (ADs, college presidents, commissioners and the NCAA) how is throwing more money into the mix with players getting paid and free agency going to make it better? Pro sports are heavily socialistic models with salary caps, revenue sharing, slotted salaries and most importantly, a strong central commissioner who has extra-legal authority. How is introducing a much more laissez faire model combining 17 year old kids, greedy family members, fan-boy boosters and feckless NCAA governance going to work?
“The system is corrupt, so players might as well get something out of it.” Just because the social contract is hypocritical doesn’t mean the Hobbesian nightmare won’t be worse. How do you put the Genie back in the bottle then?
The third leg of this business model are the fans. Unlike a parity-centered pro model, this proposed model will create a football oligarchy. Fans of mid-tier schools will have no incentive to watch. Southern schools will be kings of an empty kingdom. College football fans won’t be rabid to watch a minor league sports team with free agent players every year or a reality TV show with diva 19 year olds who have zero connection to their school.
It’s not about morality, its about function. The immorality is in destroying our institutions by elevating virtue signalling above sound, thoughtful practice.
LikeLike
Unlike the way things are now.
LikeLike
Yep – that Akron fan out there is gonna stop watching as schools with the deepest pockets like Alabama, Ohio State, and Georgia get all the best players. Totally different than how the power structure currently exists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow…maybe all the doomsday predictions will be right, given the NCAA’s and college administrators unending ability to screw things up, but…
…the laws of economics may just keep things sane. There are just not that many boosters willing to throw millions at a 17/18 year olds. And that money is strongly desired by the AD and coaches to build their palaces and continue to attract the best talent to fill-in positions like the offensive line. There will be checks and balances. Phil Knight can certainly “buy” the very best team in the country, but will he really bother? There’s only so much even a billionaire is willing to toss around when there are so many other hobbies to invest in. Will Tiger Woods call Phil and say, “Hey, I’m trying to buy Stanford a championship this year, can you please back down or I’ll be giving Adidas a call about my endorsements”? Yes, it’s going to be the wild, wild west. Yes things will seem very unfair with some top heavy schools winning more than others.(Hmmm…that seems familiar.) But it will settle down, even out and find equilibrium if there is not too much outside tinkering by “insiders” trying to artificially correct the market.
Remember, it’s for the children…
LikeLike
If we make the college branded sports entertainment industry (remember that’s what college football and basketball are, a for profit industry with non profit tax exemption) play by the same rules as every industry and employer in America (aka has to compete for employee talent in an open market not as part of a cartel) it’s gonna be the end of college football because….er…..
We’re doing this for the kids damnit!!!
LikeLike
“play by the same rules as every industry and employer in America” — but they are not employees, they are students. But for arguments sake, let’s say they are.
1. Why would employees be forced to go to class?
2. Why would employees only be allowed to work for 4 years? For example, I know I am not good to go NFL but I like the endorsement deals. And if i build my brand, every year I will get more endorsement money. 12 years at a place and I can have a pretty good gig.
3. Furthermore, if it is a place of employment, why wouldn’t I expand my payroll to 500-700 workers vs the 85?
LikeLike
“5 Star Golfers” is the name of my Memory/Dean cover band.
LikeLike
Kirby, Saban, and Dabo all do well at recruiting because they win and have a great recruiting system and method that they invented or learned or a mixture of both. Do you really want Notre Dames recruiting and USC’s recruiting to go through the roof while the other threes suffer just because those two or any other’s have the wealthiest boosters and the largest endowments? That sounds nothing like the sport I have loved for the last 48 years.
LikeLike
This is one of the funnier comments I’ve seen on the subject.
IPTAY means Dabo won’t be missing any meals, recruiting wise.
The idea that Alabama and Georgia won’t be able to keep up is delusional.
LikeLike
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that FL and CA having NIL laws passed is going to some how benefit their schools. Because kids will go there for a few thousand dollars rather than AL or GA. But think this being truly opened up to the highest bidder will change nothing. That is not logical.
LikeLike
If everyone can spend the same, it won’t change anything. Sorry if you don’t see the logic in that.
LikeLike
Where are you getting that they can spend the same?
LikeLike
If you really believe there’s an inherent disparity, why aren’t the coaches at USC and Notre Dame the highest paid in the country right now? Why don’t they have the most opulent facilities? Why don’t they spend more on recruiting than Georgia or Alabama?
Look, I get that you want to believe what you want to believe, but just because somebody has a bank account doesn’t mean they’re going to spend the money.
LikeLike
I see the point if the discussion is about recruiting and brand value. If Nike says that a 5 star player at ND is worth $5M in merchandise sales versus $3.75M at Clemson, I think Nike will pay endorsement deals to steer the kid to ND — not related to boosters of the school. (although, if the point is not about apparel companies steering kids to certain schools, then forget my point)
LikeLike
If the rules change everything else is subject to and most things will change. It has nothing to do with what any of us believe. It only has to do with the fact that most people will play by the rules they have. When they change then everything that they were affecting will change as well.
“just because somebody has a bank account doesn’t mean they’re going to spend the money.” It doesn’t mean they won’t either.
LikeLike
That gets back to my first point : why aren’t they doing that already?
LikeLike
Because they do not view the success of the program. If these rules change that will no longer be true and everyone will know it.
LikeLike
For specific answers to your questions.
Conceptually, I agree though I am not well read enough on the subject of monetized social media to be passionate about my answer.
You bring up some great questions. How about this one. If a coach is limited to 85 scholarships, how many “paid booster” walk-ons could there be? What does that do the the calculus. A booster might not pay $200K for a top 4 star player but paying a 3 star player $10K as a back up plan — I could see a lot of that.
Much much worse — though I see it as a apparel company deal moreso than a booster deal.Right now you have to have a under the table deal between a rogue company employee, a player and a team who lives in moral ambiguity. Remove the ambiguity and it could significantly degrade recruiting.
Your last question is interesting. I support the idea of more compensation for athletes. I am just not sure what that means quite yet.
LikeLike
Ive got to tell you, if this leads to walk on players getting a little bit of cash, that would be a positive result.
LikeLike
Guarantee you Hotrod would have made enough he wouldn’t have needed a scholarship.
LikeLike
NFL has a hard salary cap, NBA has a soft cap with luxury tax, MLB has no cap with luxury tax. The models are there to follow.
LikeLike