(03-05-2018 03:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 01:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 12:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Agreed.

Too many people are worried about potential abuses, yet the point is that the abuses ARE happening and they're all occurring under the table.

The whole point of the Olympic model is that it allows the NCAA and colleges to get out of the way of the compensation issue completely. If a car dealer booster feels that he/she wants to pay $100,000 to an offensive lineman to sign autographs for one day, then so be it. Let that player cash in on his free market value (which, unless you're going to the NFL or NBA, is going to be higher as a college recruit than at any other point in that person's life).

Once you start having caps and limits to where and how athletes start receiving endorsement money, then that's prima facie evidence that there IS an employer-employee relationship between the universities and their athletes... which is what those universities are trying to avoid in the first place. That also brings back in Title IX issues, which those universities are also trying to avoid. So, if the Olympic model is used (and I personally think that it's probably the best solution out of a set of admittedly imperfect solutions), then it has to be free of any NCAA restrictions or oversight. Otherwise, there's no point to the Olympic model at all.

Why would you want to just substitute one fig leaf for another? Why require that booster to require that the athlete sign autographs, appear in a commercial, or perform any other service for his money? Why not just say that boosters can pay players for no reason other than agreeing to play for the booster's favorite school? Let the schools with the wealthiest and most committed boosters rule the roost out in the open.

I'm perfectly fine with what you've stated, as well. I've long been very open that college athletes should be compensated at their free market value. I honestly don't care if a booster wants to pay $x to a top recruit directly and/or there's an actual endorsement or not. In practicality, though, the "fig leaf" is often what is needed to get people to change or perceive that a system is workable, so we have to take it as it comes.

There isn't going to be any change in the competitive outcomes if there is a payment system or not. But an endorsement system and a private pay system where the funds do not flow through the university in some form is just substituting one corruption for another.

Endorsement money will be a scam and as such violate the rules the same as the under the table cash except it will be far harder to prove and punish.

Free range to pay? Not going to happen unless it flows through the university or is at least documented with the university. Coaches mostly now are required to have their outside income flow through an arm of the school and the few that don't require the coach to document payments as well as the agreements leading to those payments.

Schools aren't going to let players take money unregulated from a third party because the third party may not share the same interests as the school. The third party might prefer that the school not cover the line or the third party may prefer that the player declare early for the pros.

If you want it (and I don't think most schools want it), it needs to flow through the school and the school is going to be a bit leery when Joe Booster agrees to $150,000 a year for four years because it isn't going to have a binding relationship to insure the money gets paid if Joe Booster isn't happy with the results, or Joe Booster goes broke, gets thrown in the pen or dies.

I'm not sure that I like the idea that the booster (or shoe company) shares the same interest as the school. As much as I distrust agents in general, at least I know whose interest they are looking out for. If something could be structured where the person doing the paying doesn't benefit based on what school an athlete chooses to attend it would be a better situation than the one we have now.

Those agents would have to be regulated, both by the NCAA (or whatever body governs college sports in the future) and by the relevant pro leagues, and penalties to players for using unapproved and unscrupulous agents would have to be stiff and certain.

Arkansas State had an issue with hoops player in 2005 who refused to wear Adidas because AState switched from Nike to Adidas before his senior year. He believed wearing Adidas was the reason he tore his ACL in juco. Eventually Adidas caved to make it go away as long as the Nike logo was hidden. Luckily for Adidas the guy was wearing Nike when he tore his ankle up. Ended up playing 89 minutes the entire season after playing 647 the year before.

If a kid has a deal with a shoe company directly, odds are he is going to be pushed to bolster his stats over the results of the game.