Started By
Message
re: California Law - Thoughts?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 7:01 pm to wdhalgren
Posted on 9/30/19 at 7:01 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
College athletes can be quite famous. I'm not sure why a public company can make money from well known professional athletes endorsing their product but not well known college athletes. I didn't say they'd do it in an unprofitable manner.
There are more lucrative platforms to put their sponsored college athletes on than the one in Eugene, Oregon. Nike sponsors a ton of major programs including many with far more customer eyeballs on them than Oregon. Not to mention many customers who would be upset if Nike were to ever create a dynasty program that wasn't their team.
Creating one superpower program is not in Nike's or Phil Knight's best interest.
1
Posted on 9/30/19 at 7:10 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
There are more lucrative platforms to put their sponsored college athletes on than the one in Eugene, Oregon. Nike sponsors a ton of major programs including many with far more customer eyeballs on them than Oregon. Not to mention many customers who would be upset if Nike were to ever create a dynasty program that wasn't their team. Creating one superpower program is not in Nike's or Phil Knight's best interest.
Nike can use any athlete who has enough name recognition to draw customers, either for regional or national promotions. If the University or Oregon in Eugene recruits well enough to draw top athletes and win championships, then Nike will use them too.
I'm not sure how you think public companies operate, but I've been researching them for decades and they don't avoid making money just because some segment of the market might pay close enough attention to dislike their methods. And their decision making is influenced by management's personal opinion. Nike wouldn't, of course, contract only Oregon players, but that doesn't mean that having Phil Knight as their biggest fan means nothing.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 7:29 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Nike wouldn't, of course, contract only Oregon players, but that doesn't mean that having Phil Knight as their biggest fan means nothing.
It doesn’t mean nothing, but Nike has no interest in the large scale alienation of college sports fans to benefit Oregon.
They want to sell jerseys at Alabama, Clemson, and Georgia far more than they want Oregon to win football games.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 7:46 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Nike has no interest in the large scale alienation of college sports fans to benefit Oregon.
You assume that people in general, sports fans in particular, are capable of knowing when the table is being tilted. It's being tilted right now, with the passage of this law, in ways very few of us even recognize yet. There will be national, regional and local economic effects, as well as the obvious reshuffling of winners and losers in the sporting contests. Rest assured that people have already spent many hours figuring how that will play out and lobbying behind the scenes to make it happen.
Big business operates that way on a regular basis, spending billions on marketing departments to sell people things they don't need, can't afford and frequently wouldn't even use if they understood the full impact on their lives. Nike is just one example of many, but if they decide to use this new system to tilt things a bit in Oregon's favor, some guy in an Alabama Walmart has very little chance of figuring that out.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 7:54 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 7:53 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
You assume that people in general, sports fans in particular, are capable of knowing when the table is being tilted.
Nike sponsoring a bunch of 5*s who then sign with Oregon at a very high rate would be very hard to hide.
I would argue that any national company will want their reps distributed at major programs across the country.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 7:53 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
some guy in an Alabama Walmart has very little chance of figuring that out.
He just has to read 247sports or Rivals.com
Posted on 9/30/19 at 8:08 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Nike sponsoring a bunch of 5*s who then sign with Oregon at a very high rate would be very hard to hide.
Well that's cart before the horse. If Oregon, or any other program with big money opportunities, gradually starts to sign better athletes and their program becomes more successful, then there's no reason for Nike not to sponsor them. I don't think it would be as obvious as Phil Knight offering contracts on recruiting trips.
quote:
I would argue that any national company will want their reps distributed at major programs across the country.
You might argue that, but you will almost certainly be wrong. Some markets will be favored over others. No law, especially a law that concerns money, has ever been passed so that the distribution could remain unchanged. If you mean evenly distributed across the country, instead of the current predominance of southern football power, then you're getting closer to the truth.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 8:14 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Some markets will be favored over others.
I should have worded that differently. I would want them distributed in places like LA, the northeast, Atlanta, Texas, etc. I would not necessarily want them in Eugene when compared to those other options.
quote:
Well that's cart before the horse.
I’m not sure what we’re arguing over here. Oregon would need financial help to recruit the kind of players we’re talking about on any kind of meaningful scale.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 8:25 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
I would want them distributed in places like LA, the northeast, Atlanta, Texas, etc. I would not necessarily want them in Eugene when compared to those other options.
If Trevor Lawrence plays for Oregon and he's the best qb in the country, wins a national championship, then he'll make a lot of money under this new law. Companies will pay for top players wherever they are. Sure they may sign deals with players from other markets, but the big names get the big marketing money.
quote:
I’m not sure what we’re arguing over here. Oregon would need financial help to recruit the kind of players we’re talking about on any kind of meaningful scale.
If players think Oregon gives them a chance to make more money, they'll go to Oregon. Nobody will be handing written contracts to recruits, but coaches and influencers will be talking about future opportunities. That's what I said in the original post.
quote:
I'd guess some players will start listening to sales pitches for what they might earn in their last year of college.
I didn't mean Phil Knight or any other potential sponsor would be personally making the sales pitch or offering contracts to recruits.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 8:47 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Companies will pay for top players wherever they are.
Of course. Never said anything to dispute that.
quote:
Nobody will be handing written contracts to recruits
Joe Booster who owns the local car dealerships probably will. The people who already pay recruits will continue to do so.
quote:
coaches and influencers will be talking about future opportunities.
They already do that.
quote:
I didn't mean Phil Knight or any other potential sponsor would be personally making the sales pitch or offering contracts to recruits.
Previously mentioned Joe Booster in Birmingham will, though, and that will continue to carry more weight than some possibility of a Nike contract that is essentially just as likely to happen at whatever Nike SEC school.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 9:00 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Joe Booster in Birmingham will, though, and that will continue to carry more weight than some possibility of a Nike contract that is essentially just as likely to happen at whatever Nike SEC school.
We'll have to disagree. Nike is just an example and I don't know that they'll play favorites. But some huge players will, they'll do it publicly so that every top recruit everywhere knows that a star athlete can make more money at that school than you will ever get for appearing in local news break commercials. There will be a redistribution of talent based on financial incentives.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 11:13 pm to LSUHobNailBoot
It’s California.
They are literally the epitome of passing legislation without having any idea of how to enact it or the consequences that could arise.
It’s political posturing so they can say “We got the conversation started.” But they have no idea what the hell to do now.
They are literally the epitome of passing legislation without having any idea of how to enact it or the consequences that could arise.
It’s political posturing so they can say “We got the conversation started.” But they have no idea what the hell to do now.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:51 am to wdhalgren
quote:
But some huge players will, they'll do it publicly so that every top recruit everywhere knows that a star athlete can make more money at that school than you will ever get for appearing in local news break commercials. There will be a redistribution of talent based on financial incentives.
Basketball already is somewhat of a proxy for the potential distribution. Nike and Adidas have been funneling kids to different places for years, but it’s mostly been to traditional powers and not all to one place. It’s been mostly to their biggest basketball brands and star coaches, not Oregon.
That’s also basketball, where the impact of one player is much more pronounced and easier to project. I don’t see how a Nike would want to spend much money getting players to any particular school. Once they’re a big star, it really doesn’t matter much which power program they’re at. What’s important is establishing the relationship for when they hit the NFL.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 4:56 am
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:33 am to LSUHobNailBoot
Leave it to California to think they need to fix things.
The compliance and management of this would be a nightmare. The trickle down impacts would be unfortunate.
NCAA and college athletics created the platform for these young men and women to succeed. There is not a mandate for them to attend a college or university. They do so at their choosing.
I agree it disregards the purpose of collegiate athletics and creates exception for a small few. A few that in no way have to attend these institutions. A few that have the capacity, should they choose, to go professional without actually attending a college at all. To accept contracts whenever they like with an understanding of the consequences of no longer being an amateur.
Each school fully understands the impossibly scenarios this would create on campus and "students" being larger than the programs they attend.
The compliance and management of this would be a nightmare. The trickle down impacts would be unfortunate.
NCAA and college athletics created the platform for these young men and women to succeed. There is not a mandate for them to attend a college or university. They do so at their choosing.
I agree it disregards the purpose of collegiate athletics and creates exception for a small few. A few that in no way have to attend these institutions. A few that have the capacity, should they choose, to go professional without actually attending a college at all. To accept contracts whenever they like with an understanding of the consequences of no longer being an amateur.
Each school fully understands the impossibly scenarios this would create on campus and "students" being larger than the programs they attend.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:57 am to LSUHobNailBoot
I have a thread on the SEC OT with lots of links Pay for play thread LINK
(While it should be a sticky, tRant was not the place to get a sticky)
This may be the single biggest issue of college sports and so many are not paying attention
I will add this thread to tag thread as well
(While it should be a sticky, tRant was not the place to get a sticky)
This may be the single biggest issue of college sports and so many are not paying attention
I will add this thread to tag thread as well
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:53 am to Cheese Grits
When the star QB is making big bucks from endorsements and the backup OL is making nothing, how many blitzing LBs will get the big sack? That star QB or RB better share his wealth or get ready to run for his life.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:04 am to AlaCowboy
quote:
When the star QB is making big bucks from endorsements and the backup OL is making nothing, how many blitzing LBs will get the big sack?
you really think on OL will give up a sack mid-game for no other reason than he hates how much money his QB makes? If so, you’re dumb.This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 10:05 am
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:19 am to wdhalgren
quote:
I'm not sure how you think public companies operate, but I've been researching them for decades and they don't avoid making money just because some segment of the market might pay close enough attention to dislike their methods
We respectfully disagree.
- Dick's Sporting Goods, Gillette
Posted on 10/1/19 at 10:38 am to BranchDawg
The bigger issue would likely come up when the QB/RB/WR that Nike has paid a boatload of money faces off against the LB that Nike has paid a boatload of money.
Because of course companies won't be "advising" the people they pay to ease up on the other people they pay. A career-ending or career-limiting injury doesn't help anyone, does it?
Because of course companies won't be "advising" the people they pay to ease up on the other people they pay. A career-ending or career-limiting injury doesn't help anyone, does it?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 11:33 am to FaCubeItches
quote:
- Dick's Sporting Goods, Gillette
Those are companies that used controversial strategies that some customers might not like. It doesn't disprove my point, in fact reinforces it. Maybe my use of the word avoid confused you. Quite frequently public companies use a marketing strategy that is profitable (or in some cases unprofitable), even though some customers may find reasons to dislike it.
Nike is based in Oregon and has a relationship with the University of Oregon. This is from wikipedia.
quote:
The company maintains strong ties, both directly and indirectly (through partnership with Phil Knight), with the University of Oregon. Nike designs the University of Oregon football program's team attire. New unique combinations are issued before every game day.[154] Tinker Hatfield, who also redesigned the university's logo, leads this effort.[155]
quote:
More recently, the corporation donated $13.5 million towards the renovation and expansion of Hayward Field.[156]
quote:
Phil Knight has invested substantial personal funds towards developing and maintaining the university's athletic apparatus.[157] His university projects often involve input from Nike designers and executives, such as Tinker Hatfield.[155]
If more top athletes end up at Oregon under this new system, and if Nike decides to enter into contracts with college athletes, then I'd imagine some will be with Oregon players. Will Oregon players get more or bigger Nike contracts than other teams; maybe. Even if Nike doesn't play favorites (other than what they already obviously do), other big companies will.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 11:37 am
Page 3 of 4
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News