The stupidity of paying teens six figures in an amateur sport is astounding. Utterly moronic.
The NCAA still doesn't get it
- Thread starter Titpwhami2014
- Start date
The stupidity of paying teens six figures in an amateur sport is astounding. Utterly moronic.
They will if they can get a return on their money and this definitely does...
The schools in the largest markets will win every time because they have more marketing opportunities. Schools will create athletic marketing departments fro the players to allow them more marketing opportunities. Schools in more rural areas will be hurting...
ESPN is a partner of the NBA. State Farm is not. Easy to see and understand why one would be allowed to use an official team uniform and the other is not allowed.
Anyone who is saying “no money” or “don’t pay them” has not been paying attention for the past 20-30 years.
Mayberry is gone. If you don’t believe me, Google “UK salary database” and look at Rachel Lawson or Matthew Mitchell’s salaries. These are 2 UK coaches who oversee programs that LOSE money every single year for UK Athletics. It’s absolutely absurd.
Maybe I’m being harsh towards the NCAA, but I am so ready for the whole thing to go up in flames. I am not giving them credit for this proposal, because it’s the same as a wounded animal being cornered by a hunter. They DON’T want to do this, but the choice isn’t really theirs to make anymore because they have been exposed. Is the proposal a step in the right direction? Absolutely, but they are still trying to water it down. I haven’t even mentioned the agent part yet, that’s just dumb. You really think Scott Boras is going to negotiate a t-shirt deal for BJ Boston without a “wink-wink?” C’mon.
Mayberry is gone. If you don’t believe me, Google “UK salary database” and look at Rachel Lawson or Matthew Mitchell’s salaries. These are 2 UK coaches who oversee programs that LOSE money every single year for UK Athletics. It’s absolutely absurd.
Maybe I’m being harsh towards the NCAA, but I am so ready for the whole thing to go up in flames. I am not giving them credit for this proposal, because it’s the same as a wounded animal being cornered by a hunter. They DON’T want to do this, but the choice isn’t really theirs to make anymore because they have been exposed. Is the proposal a step in the right direction? Absolutely, but they are still trying to water it down. I haven’t even mentioned the agent part yet, that’s just dumb. You really think Scott Boras is going to negotiate a t-shirt deal for BJ Boston without a “wink-wink?” C’mon.
Thank you for the explanation. Someone earlier was saying they “never” wear uniforms, which I knew was not true.
The agent thing - I read that as during their college career not after turning pro. Will be very interesting to see how that's policed.
Youre done with the NCAA over them proposing a logical solution? THIS is where you draw the line? Who gets mad over this? Are you getting a check we didnt know about. Who the **** cares. Zero ***** given about who gets the money. Shut up and play ball.
Disagree 1000% with this. Let’s take UCLA basketball as an example. They are probably the 10th most popular team in LA behind the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Rams, Chargers, Galaxy, USC football and UCLA football. The players that benefit the most are from programs like Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Nebraska, etc that are the only show in town and in the whole state.
It's not the school that is going to make the athlete the most money, it will be the market that they play in. A popular player in LA is going to make more money off of endorsements than Lawrence, Kansas or Lexington, KY.
Why do you think NBA players want to play for big market teams?...More opportunities to make money through endorsements.
Why do you think NBA players want to play for big market teams?...More opportunities to make money through endorsements.
Oh no, I’ll continue to watch. Although I will say, if the Power 5 ever breaks off and forms their own league — and there’s no more 68-team March Madness — I will probably not watch as much.
This isn't personal sports, LA/NYC etc dont care about college ball. Ever seen attendance at a St. Johns game? UCLA was ranked #1 with Lonzo Ball (a hometown kid/ McAA) and still couldn't fill their 12,000 seat capacity arena.
Those markets are competing with PRO teams, with players who are under contract for long term deals. Then Comes college football. The Kentucky, Kansas, Duke will remain king in this sport.
Last edited:
Yep. This is what I think's gonna happen, the schools with the richest boosters are gonna be in the drivers seat. Which may be good news for Phil Knight's Oregon Ducks or Mark Cuban's Hoosiers ...but I'm not sure it's so good for the sport overall.
Just proved my point...there is no return on their money. Give $1m to the Bama QB but you are not going to get a return on those dollars while he is at Alabama. Rich people like being rich and giving away money with little return isn't going to happen.
Kinda like your post. Why can't a teenager make six figures? NBA still drafts kids that are 19-20 years old that become instant millionaires and they are doing fine. Teen actors are not criticized in this way. Taylor Swift sold 8 million albums at the age of 17 and was fine. What exactly is the issue with this?
I enjoy my anonymity on this board and do not wish to discuss the origins of my NCAA disdain. So go consume your sports and not care about what happens outside the lines. I don’t think the proposal is good enough to make up for decades of corruption, inconsistent sanctions and blatant favoritism and still hints at overstepping their jurisdiction. I guess we’ll see how it plays out, but I have ZERO faith in this organization to do the right thing from here on out.
You are hopelessly naive if you don't think rich boosters are gonna be using this as a way to pay players to play for their school.
That is absolutely gonna happen.
No return on his investment?...A rich alum is not paying money out of his own pockets...it's coming from his business. The rich alum doesn't lose anything but gains a marketable athlete to promote his business.
Need to take a business class or two at Berea...
Then you should support it. BBN has the most passionate fan base so this could only help recruiting. Here's to Joe Craft and Luther Deaton paying a bunch of basketball players...let's get #9!
This could be moronic that the post above that I called out. Rich alum can be even richer when said business is more profitable.
You don't understand. The bigger the city, the more opportunities for endorsements. Take the team out of it. They don't matter. Bigger cities have more companies who have more money to throw at endorsements. Hence the reason why NBA players go to the bigger markets. They don't care about the teams in these big markets. The bigger cities offer more marketable opportunities.
This bears repeating. You have a robust contractual regime governing use of universities’ logos and marks. And huge money.
If you don’t keep that separate from this new stuff, you set up a situation where UK (or more likely JMI on UK’s behalf) potentially has to take legal action against its own students to enforce exclusive IP rights.
You keep calling my posts moronic without refutable evidence. I find all kinds of evidence why NBA players want to become more marketable in the bigger markets...
Where are all of the marketing firms...Bloomington, Indiana or New York City?
I never said that I didn't support it.
But I think it fair to address what its unintended consequences will be, unlike your approach of sticking your head in the sand about that stuff. This is likely to spiral out of control, and the schools with the Phil Knight type boosters are gonna have an even bigger unfair advantage than they already do. I'm not sure that's the healthiest thing for the sport overall.
Last edited:
Alumni are there for the school. If they need new facilities, the school goes to their deep-pocketed alumni. All a coach needs to do is ask an alumni who owns a big company to agree to use his highly ranked recruit in a National advertising campaign. The bigger the school, the more alumni they have. The bigger the market the school is in, the more businesses there are. The more businesses, the more opportunities are available. It's actually a pretty easy concept...
And the NCAA committee explicitly said today that those sort of inducements will not be permitted. You cannot utilize these payments to aid in recruiting.
How many titles has Oregon won thanks to Phil? I'll wait for you to look it up.
How many titles has Indiana won thanks to Cuban? I'll wait for you to look it up.
How many titles has Indiana won thanks to Cuban? I'll wait for you to look it up.
Umm ...what relevance does that have to this issue? We were discussing what the consequences WILL be in the future if this passes, not what has happened in the past without it. If anything, you're undermining your own argument here.
Your logic skills suck.
Last edited:
Probably because they cannot use their money in the way that the NCAA is proposing. You just made my point...
We all understand that. Its just that who cares? I mean really, who the hell cares? I buy tickets to go watch football basketball and baseball be played. I could give a **** less whos getting paid, cheating on tests, getting cars, etc. I. Do. Not. Care. Just play ball.
No...you guys just don't know what you are talking about. Val Ackerman said today: "It's vitally important that we maintain some level of integrity and fairness. We believe guardrails on boosters will help us mitigate the potential of recruiting inducements."
Schools will not be able to buy titles and talent. Period.
Schools will not be able to buy titles and talent. Period.
Again, you are hopelessly naive. The NCAA can't even effectively enforce the most simple of its rules today, there's no way they're gonna be able to properly police this, not with how easy it will be to disguise payments as permissible endorsement or image licensing deals.
Last edited:
Population size and market size are not the same thing.
Los Angeles is more than twice the size of Auckland, New Zealand. However endorsement opportunities for a professional rugby player will be far greater in Auckland.
There are two parts to what drives the amount of endorsements someone could earn in a given geography. One part, which you mentioned, is the number of businesses and the amount of cash they can spend. The other part is the size of the audience that these businesses are trying to reach.
Both have to be in place and large population does not always mean large audience. It does a business no good to spend money on an endorsement if no one cares who the endorser is and the endorsement fails to drive additional revenue.
It doesn't matter if the athlete is a good endorser. The alumni only cares that they are helping their team win by allowing a recruit make a lot of money if that persuades them to come to their school. A coach will be selling that they are located in a large market area therefore the player would have more marketing opportunities.
No, YOU don't understand. Why would a company give money to a far less popular/ recognized NCAA player when they could give it/have a PRO endorse them? Minus Zion, no high school/college basketball player has a following like STAR pro players.
Greek Freak > Obi Toppin
Lebron > Imannuel Quickley
Simply being in a big city guarantees nothing if there's no demand for you. Ask the millions of failed actresses/ musicians/ etc who thought they'd instantly make it big traveling to NYC/LA/etc.
Legitimate businesses will not use athletes to endorse because almost none of their potential customers care about college basketball. Those businesses would be wasting the cash and they know that.
So that only leaves these supposed alumni that you’re concerned about. So let’s use UCLA as an example here.
If UCLA had all of these boosters that people seem to be worried about, then the basketball team wouldn’t have been flying commercial to away games and they wouldn’t have been stuck hiring Mick Cronin. Very few care about UCLA basketball, boosters or otherwise.
It depends on the market. Thats why this is good for UK. In LA, sure, there'll be some affluent boosters/alums who want to do that stuff. The reality is as you say, a legit business wants return on their investment. Why pay a UCLA guy when you can pay someone from the Lakers or Dodgers. Thats who rules that city. Even then, USC football players would come before UCLA basketball in LA.
However in Lexington, or Tuscaloosa, or Baton Rouge, etc....the market is totally different. For schools like ours, its a big win.
When you are in the military do you get private planes for all your travel, all food paid for, top notch training with personal trainers as well as tutors for your schooling. You also decide to do both knowing exactly the deal up front ( unless you are old and got drafted in which case, Thank you) Jalen Green got paid what 500k to play in the G-league next year? I guarantee you Kentucky will be spending more money that that overall when it comes to Terrance Clarke next year, but we will also make more than a G-league team. People need to stop feeling entitled to money before they have accomplished the prerequisites for that job.