Wedge
Moderator
Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
|
RE: The 800lb Gorilla That Nobody is Talking About Which Could Turn the P5 On Its Ear!
(10-01-2019 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote: (10-01-2019 10:55 AM)Wedge Wrote: (10-01-2019 01:16 AM)DawgNBama Wrote: (04-30-2018 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote: What would the college football world look like if a Federal Court rules that there can be no cap on "Stipends"?
First of all why would they make this ruling? That answer is simple. Taxing the under the table revenue earned by "student athletes" cleans up a lot of corruption. Suddenly apparel companies could operate above board for sponsorship. The Federal Government could tax the revenue and acknowledge the business overhead on returns. For them it solves a lot of issues related to the surreptitious nature of college recruiting and corporate sponsorship.
What would such a ruling mean for the P5 and more generally for FBS football? It would mean a colossal shift between the myth of amateurism and the reality of pay for play. It would essentially make the competition for players much more lucrative for the players and at the same time much more costly for the programs.
Without a relatively low cost in terms of player overhead the profits of college football programs could be severely curtailed for many mid tier programs, too much to handle for many privates and less funded P5 and lower tier FBS programs, and it would create a totally competitive market for talent by those who accepted their new quasi professional programs. The choice to compete squarely as amateurs would be a compelling avenue to pursue for those who don't want, and can't afford, bidding wars for talent. Notre Dame's administration has already stated they wouldn't pursue a pay for play world.
There is no way to know which schools would pursue football at the more expensive level of play, and which ones would abandon football, or try to pursue it more strictly upon amateur guidelines. My suspicion is that amateurism would be much more enforceable in a CFB world that segregated pay for play from scholarship only athletes. Why? Fear of prosecution by the IRS.
No doubt some of the wealthiest brands would use this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the rest of the FBS and would enjoy a lucrative enough TV contract that it would likely assist the formation of a new League as opposed to conferences.
What I am going to make now is merely a guess as to what that might look like.
From the SEC: Everyone with the exception of Vanderbilt would likely opt to pay players.
From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and possibly T.C.U. might purse this. For the cost I don't see Kansas or Kansas State pursuing pay for play but that's just my guess. I think Baylor would bow out and possibly Iowa State as well.
From the PAC: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Utah might pursue it.
From the Big 10: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Penn State might pursue it.
From the ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State, possibly North Carolina might pursue it.
So if this guess is anywhere close to being true we might well see 40 of the present 65 P5 schools make the jump to pay for play.
This could open the door for the top G5 programs who were willing to make that commitment to step up.
But anyway you cut it, if this occurs the shift creates an entirely new world and a somewhat more realistic division of schools than the current system provides.
The ruling on the cap of stipends likely has everything on hold with regards to realignment because if the cap is removed then the realignment efforts and the corresponding rights renewals and negotiations are rendered entirely moot.
If the stipend is removed the FBI investigations can stop except for the completion of the investigations into past transgressions.
So it seems to me that everything will hinge upon this decision. If status quo is maintained then possible movement during the upcoming rights negotiations is likely. If the caps are removed then we head into a completely new era, and one that will likely sweep away conferences as we have known them. Then the ushering in of a new Upper Tier Pay for Play League will likely become a reality and it could be comprised of anywhere between a couple of dozen to four dozen schools.
As much as I hate change, if this happens, it will at least be more honest than the representation of so called amateurism we pretend to have today. And perhaps the pay and the paying of taxes teaches the young men who play that society doesn't have to be a dodge or scam and that their integrity is something that can be built instead of something they have to deny in order to get ahead.
I wanted to bump this old thread up. With what happened in California yesterday, get ready to see what JRSEC posted as a result. JR, I hate to say this, but you were right. The NCAA is about to go through a major seismic shift.
The effect of permitting players to get NIL endorsements won't have that much of an effect on recruiting. Especially in football.
Endorsement value requires name recognition. 99.99% of college football players have no general recognition when they first walk on campus. Who is going to pay them significant money before anyone knows if they'll even start? Those who become recognized stars can get money once they are stars, but that will have little or no impact on recruiting. Even the shoe companies don't need football players who are freshmen, because they are 3 years from being able to turn pro.
Remember: The schools are extremely unlikely to license school names and logos to athletes for use in advertising, so the athletes have only the recognition value of their own name and face. Joe Montana used to do commercials wearing a red shirt with no 49ers identification attached, but after being the starting QB who won 4 Super Bowls, even non-fans in the Bay Area know who he is. A college freshman who has not yet played at Ohio State, for example, will have little or no recognition value in a commercial wearing a plain red shirt. He won't be able to wear his Buckeyes uniform and helmet, won't even be able to be ID'd in the advertising as an Ohio State football player.
Men's basketball is a unique case. One and done players will still be sought after by the shoe companies, because they can turn pro after being in college for six months. They don't need to be famous with the public the day they step on campus, because the shoe companies see value in locking them up before they are drafted into the NBA. The change will be that one and done stars like Zion Williamson can be paid directly instead of under the table through skeezy street agents or shoe company reps.
There are a few isolated cases in other sports. Future Olympic stars in swimming, skiing, track, etc. can get endorsements. But again, over 99% of the college athletes in those sports have no chance of making an Olympic team and won't be candidates for significant endorsement money.
Jay Bilas thinks that initially what you say will be true, but that the star athletes who can get endorsements might likely get endorsements for rival products to those endorsing the schools setting up a conflict of interest and that simply paying them from the school will be the quickest legal fix to the problem and one that the top brand schools would opt for to resolve such conflicts.
The California law doesn't allow what is bolded above. It prevents athletes from endorsing a product at a competition site if that product conflicts with one that is tied to the university. For example, a Cal athlete couldn't endorse adidas by wearing an adidas shirt or hat at the stadium or arena, because of Cal's deal with Under Armour. The university could also prohibit such conflicting endorsements anywhere on campus.
The interesting issue is whether the NCAA would prohibit schools from permitting their own athletes to use the school's name and logos in advertising. That kind of permission would be another way around the "conflict", and a very effective way: Alabama tells Tua, for example, you can wear your Tide jersey and be identified as the Alabama QB in advertising, but only in advertising for products (such as Nike) that have their own deal with the university. That would greatly increase the value to the athlete of any endorsement. I still think the universities won't do that, but it would be an interesting twist.
|
|