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.