Started By
Message
Boston globe article on Gurley situation
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:14 pm
Kills it LINK
quote:
This is the way college sports work. Everybody benefits from a high-profile athlete’s ability, but the moment that athlete tries to benefit from their own talent beyond their scholarship he or she is buried under the weight of the NCAA rule book. If you’re a major college football star you’re better off being accused of rape or shoplifting or breaking a university statute than trying to profit from your own name, the one you made valuable through your performance. And so the absurdity of the moral value system of college sports is exposed yet again.
quote:
Under those principles, not the specious, self-serving commercial servitude served up by the NCAA, Gurley has a right to profit off his name. He is the one who made it valuable. Gurley’s name wouldn’t be any less valuable if he were playing at Tennessee or Miami or USC.
Georgia plays in the Southeastern Conference, which is the Apple of college football, a valued brand with the license to print money. SEC schools have the best facilities, the most fervent fans, and the highest-paid coaches. This year, the conference introduced its own 24-hour television network, which is available in more than 90 million homes, and estimated to generate more than $600 million in revenue.
quote:
The NCAA should want athletes such as Gurley to be able to subsidize themselves. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach to ancillary compensation, the NCAA could just outsource it, let the market decide which players are worthy of additional benefits. It would be a meritocracy, with the most talented players able to market themselves for compensation. Autographs, shoe deals, endorsement deals, it should all be fair game.
1
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:26 pm to Chef Leppard
quote:
Autographs, shoe deals, endorsement deals, it should all be fair game.
I have to disagree with the article. Oregon (just as an example, there are others) could tell every high school five star recruit that Phil Knight had a million waiting for their first autograph after they signed with the Ducks. It becomes a pay for recruits free-for-all and deep pockets win every time. Not even the NFL would survive that sort of incentive system, which is why they have a draft.
This post was edited on 10/13/14 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:30 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
I have to disagree with the article. Oregon (just as an example, there are others) could tell every high school five star recruit that Phil Knight had a million waiting for their first autograph after they signed with the Ducks. It becomes a pay for recruits free-for-all and deep pockets win every time. Not even the NFL would survive that sort of incentive system, which is why they have a draft.
You think Phil Knight would agree to that? That's bad business.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:37 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
You think Phil Knight would agree to that? That's bad business.
He has poured many millions into that program. Same with other big dollar donors, like Pickens at Oklahoma State (has donated $250 million to OSU athletics, at least). It basically reduces recruiting to which program can promise athletes the most money for their services. Like I said, even the NFL knows that such a system would be unworkable.
This post was edited on 10/13/14 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:43 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
He has poured many millions into that program. Same with other big dollar donors, like Pickens at Oklahoma State. It basically reduces recruiting to which program can promise athletes the most money for their services. Like I said, even the NFL knows that such a system would be unworkable.
He poured millions into football investments that provide a much more steady and predictable return for himself, Nike, and the Oregon program. There's no guarantee that paying a kid $1M will help the Oregon program or Nike. There have been very few athletes all time who would have proved worth that kind of investment. Facilities, uniforms, etc. are a different deal.
Phil Knight (like other mega-boosters) is a businessman. He isn't spending that money blindly.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:51 pm to Crowknowsbest
There may not be any guarantees, but do you believe that will stop schools with a large wealthy fan base from lavishing new players with massive benefits after they sign? I don't. T. Boone Pickens is an old man with billions. If he wants to see OSU win a championship before he dies, he can make it more likely, at the very least, by continuing to spend, except spend it directly on athletes.
Schools don't even have to make a promise, just point to how much their players make every year in local endorsements, memorabilia, etc. It's a bidding system for recruits.
Schools don't even have to make a promise, just point to how much their players make every year in local endorsements, memorabilia, etc. It's a bidding system for recruits.
This post was edited on 10/13/14 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:54 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
There may not be any guarantees, but do you believe that will stop schools with a large wealthy fan base from lavishing new players with massive benefits after they sign?
No, but I tend to think it's their right to do so.
quote:
Schools don't even have to make a promise, just point to how much their players make every year in local endorsements, memorabilia, etc. It's a bidding system for recruits.
I think this is fair game. It's not all that different from teams pitching the draft status and pro contracts of their former players.
This would work out for UGA, imo. Atlanta is a big media market with lots of business advertising opportunities.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:58 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
This would work out for UGA
I disagree. Every program in the country would come after Georgia athletes, with big offers. Competition for Ga recruits would soar and players would disperse to areas with fewer top athletes but plenty of big bucks.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:18 pm to wdhalgren
If what ur saying even happened, which I doubt, the market and those practices would adjust itself. And fast. These hyped kids don't pan out all the time. And plenty of em get booted off programs for other reasons. Hell, if some of them saw more incentive financially for maintaining their "brand" and conduct themselves off field accordingly. SOME of them anyway
You can't continue to rake in billions only compensating them with seats in a classroom AND prevent them from profiting from their own hard work. That's the most hypocritical outdated bullshite I've ever heard. The system is broken. Calling these guys "amateurs" and dropping up to 10 mil a yr on athletic staff is ridiculous as hell. And the players can't even accept a meal? lol
You can't continue to rake in billions only compensating them with seats in a classroom AND prevent them from profiting from their own hard work. That's the most hypocritical outdated bullshite I've ever heard. The system is broken. Calling these guys "amateurs" and dropping up to 10 mil a yr on athletic staff is ridiculous as hell. And the players can't even accept a meal? lol
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:23 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Every program in the country would come after Georgia athletes, with big offers.
What's to stop UGA from doing the same? There is no market where the potential marketing value of college football players is higher than Atlanta.
Whose players would be on local TV commercials in front of recruits?
There might be a couple years where recruits get bought out, but once people figure out how bad of business that is, it would calm down. Players from GA are more valuable to GA businesses than they are to businesses in CA.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:28 pm to Chef Leppard
Of course it would happen, and it would not burn itself out. Football fans will spend a lot of money for a winning team. How much money do you think a wealthy fan base could allocate to 25 (or 5 or 10 highly ranked) recruits per year without breaking a sweat? It's a lot of money, every year, without causing any hardship to the donors. Even a few very wealthy individuals could have a huge impact for a program, once again without feeling any pinch.
I suppose they could pay players a salary, not based on talent or fame. But any kind of bidding system, which is exactly what would happen if you allow players to sell their name, would undermine the recruiting process. College football would have to go to some kind of draft system.
I suppose they could pay players a salary, not based on talent or fame. But any kind of bidding system, which is exactly what would happen if you allow players to sell their name, would undermine the recruiting process. College football would have to go to some kind of draft system.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:31 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
It becomes a pay for recruits free-for-all and deep pockets win every time
This already happens. And more than you would like to know.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:32 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
What's to stop UGA from doing the same? There is no market where the potential marketing value of college football players is higher than Atlanta.
Nothing, I'm sure UGA fans would do their best to keep top talent in state. But if you take a national map of football talent distribution, and lay it over a national map of wealth distribution, you'll see two very different pictures. The south has the players, the rest of the country has the wealth. Talent would gravitate toward the money. Not all of it, but it would hurt UGA.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:33 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
How much money do you think a wealthy fan base could allocate to 25 (or 5 or 10 highly ranked) recruits per year without breaking a sweat?
This isn't a pass the hat deal. This is about companies using athletes for marketing. At least that's where the big bucks would be. Companies won't pay a lot of money to guarantee recruits endorsement deals because it's bad business.
quote:
It's a lot of money, every year, without causing any hardship to the donors. Even a few very wealthy individuals could have a huge impact for a program, once again without feeling any pinch.
This also would apply to UGA's program, but my point boils down to, rich peoples don't get rich by making bad investments. Paying a recruit hundreds of thousands of dollars is a bad investment.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:34 pm to HinesvilleThrill
quote:
This already happens. And more than you would like to know.
I know it happens, but it would increase by an order of magnitude under the system proposed in the OP.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:35 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Nothing, I'm sure UGA fans would do their best to keep top talent in state. But if you take a national map of football talent distribution, and lay it over a national map of wealth distribution, you'll see two very different pictures. The south has the players, the rest of the country has the wealth. Talent would gravitate toward the money. Not all of it, but it would hurt UGA.
If you looked at a map of college football popularity, it would more closely mirror the map of talent. The South cares more about college football.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:41 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
This also would apply to UGA's program, but my point boils down to, rich peoples don't get rich by making bad investments. Paying a recruit hundreds of thousands of dollars is a bad investment.
Paying a top recruit hundreds of thousands of dollars might seem like a bad investment to you, but these are pittances in the bigger scheme of things, and the investment value is in the eye of the donors. People spend money on what makes them happy, and the more they have the more they can spend. If this was made legal, cash would pour in overnight, and the money available for UGA athletes would be a very small slice of the big pie..
This post was edited on 10/13/14 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:45 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
If you looked at a map of college football popularity, it would more closely mirror the map of talent. The South cares more about college football.
Nevertheless, the South would not be able to compete favorably in a monetary race. Pro football is popular everywhere, and college popularity would quickly adapt as the talent followed the money.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:48 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Paying a top recruit hundreds of thousands of dollars might seem like a bad investment to you, but these are pittances in the bigger scheme of things, and the investment value is in the eye of the donors. People spend money on what makes them happy. If this was made legal, cash would pour in overnight, and the money available for UGA athletes would be a very small slice of the big pie..
Right, so it might happen that way at first, but after a donor watches seven of his ten $100K investments bust on the field, he would stop, provided he is rational.
Also, as far as I know, they're not talking about letting boosters pay recruits. They're talking about letting players market themselves.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 4:52 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Also, as far as I know, they're not talking about letting boosters pay recruits. They're talking about letting players market themselves.
Was about to basically say this. There's obviously a way to regulate this without it becoming a free for all. What we have now and conveniently calling these guys amateur athletes is ridiculous. Everyone knows the system will change. Its a do it today or do it tomorrow thing
Page 1 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News