The concern among opponents is
by KeoughCharles05 (2019-02-05 11:14:07)

In reply to: How many players are actually going to benefit from  posted by TWO


that boosters are going to use a "Likeness" loophole to pay players to use their image, and thus legalize booster payments to players.

While I agree that that is a likely result, I don't agree that that concern is sufficient to prohibit players from profiting from their likeness.

I believe Swarbrick has proposed that any moneys received from likeness payments would be placed in a trust that could only be accessed by forfeiting amateur eligibility. That might be how things start, but such an arrangement won't actually prohibit players from accessing benefits while in school. The trust would be a financial tool that any financial institution could take into account when issuing a loan to the player. What will inevitably happen is players will access cash on the basis of their trust assets (and the NCAA really can't do anything about that), and the position will be "Why are we letting banks profit off of these players instead of just letting them access their own money?" And then poof, away go the trusts.


I absolutely could see a lot of room for
by TWO  (2019-02-05 12:50:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

boosters to use the rule to funnel money legally to high profile players and recruits. Once that's out of the bag, then I have no doubt parents of HS players will be demanding to have things set up for them to make money on their images. It'll be another part of recruiting. I don't know how that will be handled as boosters aren't allowed as part of the recruiting process, but you can bet top rated players aren't signing anywhere without guarantees of money for their image.


Absolutely
by Domer01  (2019-02-05 13:23:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

“Hey kid, my car dealership is prepared to buy $100k worth of jerseys with your name on the back as long as it says ‘Ohio State’ on the front...”


Yes, there's just an endless supply of boosters willing to
by jt  (2019-02-05 13:49:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

pay millions of dollars to every single recruit, regardless if the kid actually pans out or not.

We've gone from the bag man to the boogey man. The Nike/Oregon concern is valid but even then Nike isn't in the business of just wasting money on kids that may not pan out.

Realistically speaking the best thing that would come of it would be less money to guys like Gene Smith and more money to the kids.


You see folks no longer paying busts as ...
by debo  (2019-02-06 09:57:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

... a feature not a bug? John Townie plays Blue Chip Bill to "endorse" his car dealership with insinuations of more to come, so Bill signs with School X. Bill doesn't live up to the hype and Joe Townie moves on. At least when the player makes his decision at least partially based on the school, and most schools honor a 4-year commitment to the athlete, the athlete isn't completely SOL.


Where's the harm?
by KeoughCharles05  (2019-02-07 16:07:14)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

A guy who never performed gets an endorsement deal on top of his scholarship.

Who, exactly, is hurt by this arrangement? Is Blue Chip Bill worse off because John Townie paid him some money when he was 18?


here's a wild guess
by jt  (2019-02-06 10:29:22)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

if someone was willing to pay you to endorse their car dealership you wouldn't have a problem with it.

If people want to waste their money, they're going to waste their money. I tend to think that these boogey men that you and others create are unlikely to be a very big deal or big in scale, but it sure makes people comfortable with the status quo. Just like baseball owners in the late 60s and early 70s, I might add.


Wouldn't this increase the supply of payers?
by rockmcd  (2019-02-05 14:39:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Before:
A few rogue boosters paying athletes under the table, putting the programs at risk for violations.

After:
Now that it's all on the up-and-up, all boosters can chip in. NDN posters can start a GoFundMe account for the fullback recruit to come to ND and we'll put his picture on the website to legitimize it.

Or more significantly, Under Armour and ND mutually decide to re-allocate where the money goes in their major contract so that they're endorsing both the team and its individual players. UA wouldn't be just wasting money on kids, they would be spending the same amount of money as before but just allocated in the way that ND asks them to for the benefit of recruiting.

Another example might be someone like Chris Finke gets no endorsement money when he signs as a preferred walk on and maybe a very small amount in his 4th year. But prior to his 5th year, UA gets into a bidding war with Nike and Adidas who are trying to steer him to one of their schools.

Yet another example might be Ian Book not getting very much endorsement money when he was expected to spend his career behind Wimbush and Jurkovec. After coming off the bench and leading them to the CFP in 2018, Book demands to "renegotiate his endorsement deal" or else he'll transfer.

Again, maybe that's all fine to let the free market decide these things. Curious to see if people think these types of hypotheticals are realistic outcomes or outlandish.


yeah, there are so many people excited to spend money
by jt  (2019-02-05 15:06:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

on players that might not even play.

There is almost an endless supply of guys that won't even donate $50 to rid themselves of ads on the website ready to sign up for a go fund me account!


Who said anything about guys who might not play?
by rockmcd  (2019-02-05 15:14:48)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

My reference to a fullback was a joke. We all know that fullbacks don't play at ND.

I could definitely see SEC fans zealously setting up GoFundMe accounts or doing other similar things for current players and/or recruits if it became legal to do so.


hey, if people are stupid and want to waste their money
by jt  (2019-02-05 15:15:46)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

that's life in the big city.

My guess is that will end up not being a big deal.


I think I agree. We'll get used to it real fast.
by rockmcd  (2019-02-05 15:30:20)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

At first people will be taken aback at celebrity college athletes living celebrity lifestyles. "Why does the Quarterback make more than his English teacher?" "Back when I went to school, the athletes were part of the student body." But if them's the rules then people will get over it and eventually it'll just become the way it's always been, for better or worse. And I'm not really sure that it's worse.

I think you're underestimating what ND fans will help pay for. Maybe not with recruits, but for existing student-athletes. I think there would be tremendous support for things like "Help Dexter's dying mother relocate to South Bend." "Help Nix's mom travel to his games." "Help Manti fly to LA for Lennay's funeral."


I would think that the value of the Notre Dame education
by jt  (2019-02-05 15:48:10)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

will be what really sways the majority of kids.

That's what it should be now, anyway, but with all the bullshit under the table crap it can get confusing. If someone really wants to make some money and market themselves and can do it above the table than the value of the institution might become the tipping point.


The explicit connection between
by KeoughCharles05  (2019-02-05 14:49:22)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

a school's apparel provider hiring players for endorsements placed into a school's contract with the provider could still be prohibited.

Frankly, the better solution to prevent the problems you're discussing would be to prohibit requirements that the athletes wear specific apparel other than that needed for purposes of team identification (e.g., shoes would be up to the player).

Players could then freely negotiate with companies for those items, regardless of the contract the providers have with the schools. This would be a good thing, as it would properly split the value that the school's brand is providing the apparel company versus the value the individual player is providing.


Somebody was willing to pay Cam Newton's dad
by TWO  (2019-02-05 14:07:46)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

80K, so I think there are more than a few of those guys out there. I'm not saying millions of dollars but I'll bet Trevor Lawrence or Justin Fields could have gotten at least what Cam got from Clemson or Georgia Boosters.


you're making my point
by jt  (2019-02-05 15:13:11)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

a few kids would undoubtedly profit.

the vast majority would not. There are a lot more Bryce Givins than there are Cam Newton's.

If the top 5%-10% are able to make a decent amount of money off of the deal, more power to them.


Exactly. Cam Newton.
by KeoughCharles05  (2019-02-05 14:37:08)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Cam Newton, future NFL rookie of the year, NFL MVP, three time pro-bowler, and QB who elevated Auburn to a national title, was thought by his own father to be worth between $100K-$180K after already having played some D1 football. No evidence was ever found that any school or booster agreed to that sum.

The idea that there's millions of dollars out there for your random players is silly. Your local car dealer boosters aren't going to have the kind of cash necessary to have the kind of corruption people are afraid of, and the big companies like Nike aren't emotionally invested enough/financially stupid enough to shower game-changing amounts of money on unproven players.


Sure
by KeoughCharles05  (2019-02-05 13:38:25)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

But such promises would be unenforceable. And coordination or involvement of boosters in the recruitment process would still be banned.

Boosters aren't going to go handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars willy-nilly. For a few select top recruits? Maybe. For 20 guys each year? No way. They'll want to see and reward performance.