Started By
Message
re: Boston globe article on Gurley situation
Posted on 10/13/14 at 5:15 pm to Crowknowsbest
Posted on 10/13/14 at 5:15 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
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.
Why would he stop? He has the same odds of success as donors for every other top program. If anything, the more money you spend relative to everyone else, the greater your odds of buying successful talent. That's what drives the cheating that happens already in cfb. It's a risk, but people still take risks. They spend hundreds of billions per year on various forms of "investments" with returns based on entertainment value. Some donate to the local opera or dance company, helping them hire (hopefully) better performers. Some spend $50 million on high tech sailboats to run in the America's cup, or a balloon to sail around the world. Some blow millions in Las Vegas at the craps tables, for entertainment with a net negative return. Some buy expensive cars that depreciate in value over time. Money will be spent on paying top players, in very large quantities and it will have a big impact on recruiting.
quote:
they're not talking about letting boosters pay recruits. They're talking about letting players market themselves.
Suppose the booster owns a local business? Is he prevented from participating. What if he's a memorabilia collector; is he forbidden from collecting signed jerseys? Can he buy them from third parties? This can't be effectively regulated, and it will have a huge impact on recruiting and talent distribution.
This post was edited on 10/13/14 at 5:31 pm
1
Posted on 10/13/14 at 5:33 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Suppose the booster owns a local business? Is he prevented from participating. What if he's a memorabilia collector; is he forbidden from collecting signed jerseys? Can he buy them from third parties? This can't be effectively regulated, and it will have a huge impact on recruiting and talent distribution.
If they want to run their business into the ground by paying excessive marketing deals to recruits, then have at it.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 5:37 pm to Crowknowsbest
Wouldn't happen that way. And yes, it absolutely could be regulated and limited
Posted on 10/13/14 at 6:23 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
If they want to run their business into the ground by paying excessive marketing deals to recruits, then have at it.
Why would he have to run his business into the ground? If he could afford an 80 foot pleasure craft, maybe he could afford to pay three or four recruits. Or he could forego the $30,000 a night vacation in Monaco, or the live band at his next party. People have discretionary money, quite a lot of it in some quarters. Not every dollar of expenditure has to produce a positive ROI for every person. There are lots of people who could pay top athletes a tidy sum, write it off and enjoy their box seats next season.
And there are plenty more folks who could afford varying amounts for an autograph, which collectively turn into very large sums. Some of them undoubtedly hang out on this board, but there are a lot more who live in other places and would dearly love to sit in the endzone upper deck and watch guys like Lorenzo Carter and Nick Chubb play for their local team. Money has a very effective knack for redistributing talent.
This post was edited on 10/13/14 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 10/13/14 at 7:06 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Why would he have to run his business into the ground? If he could afford an 80 foot pleasure craft, maybe he could afford to pay three or four recruits. Or he could forego the $30,000 a night vacation in Monaco, or the live band at his next party.
None of those expenses differ from the current amount of money changing hands in college football recruiting. They don't change anything.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 7:15 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
None of those expenses differ from the current amount of money changing hands in college football recruiting. They don't change anything.
Sure it does. Under the new scenario proposed in the article, money from individuals and businesses can go to athletes in the open. No sneaking around with envelopes of cash. No worries about getting the institution in trouble. The rule would change everything, especially the amounts going directly to players from individuals and businesses, which will explode. And recruits will find out, one way or another, how much players are getting reimbursed for their services at various institutions.
This post was edited on 10/13/14 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 10/13/14 at 7:27 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Under the new scenario proposed in the article, money from individuals and businesses can go to athletes in the open. No sneaking around with envelopes of cash. No worries about getting the institution in trouble.
That's all good.
quote:
The rule would change everything, especially the amounts going directly to players from individuals and businesses, which will explode.
You have no way of knowing that, but the players should get more money.
quote:
And recruits will find out, one way or another, how much players are getting reimbursed for their services at various institutions.
They already do, indirectly.
Page 2 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News