re: Cali legislation topic: Whose Boosters are best equipped to buy recruits?

Yea but in those cities that you said
There are already large alumni bases of already powerful football programs

Orlando is also not what you’d call a big market

It’s not the boosters I would worry about! Corporations will offer more

your post reeks of Eco 101 but then you end with......

quote:

---

We are talking about multibillion empire that is about to transform then crumble

---

I think you just shot over most folks head.

quote:

---

no but UCF has 50k enrollment. It doesn't necessarily have to do with local markets. It is about alumni base. Why do you not understand this. I am talking about a long term investment into a university with an enormous almuni base and building that program up.

---

Yea a large alumni base from a shitty school in a shitty conference
Sure they have the numbers, but they don’t have the power the big boys do.


Nothing will change if this happens in terms of the shifts of power

Alabama OSU Michigan etc will just keep trucking with the recruits

quote:

---

Tech is with Adidas now

---

Well, if you assume contract saturation will eventually equal market share of players (There really isn't any other metric to go on yet), then GT will only have access to 16% of recruits.

All of you guys seem to be missing on reality here. The apparel companies will sign the best players (Nike will get most of them). Those players will only be allowed to sign with Nike schools (school/apparel company exclusivity is actually written into the California law.) Of course, some players will select a school and then sign a contract with the school's apparel dealer. Boosters will, on the local level, also will sign players to marketing contracts, many, if not most, illegitimate.

The NCAA will step in, require all contracts to be disclosed, and implement a salary cap (or multiple levels of salary cap by division) in an attempt to maintain parity, just as they did with scholarship limits. Booster agreements will go underground, and we will end up with the same situation we have now.

The only wrench in the works will be the Title IX suits. Almost zero female athletes will be able to capitalize on selling their likeness, name, etc., while in college. This will lead to lawsuits. They will be completely unfounded, but, depending on where they are filed, will be a headache for anyone trying to bring a reasonable resolution to the situation.

I mean you may be right but you’re also making a lot of big assumptions here, too.