Big XII leading the way

[Mr Janny]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-take-stand-pay-players-for-name-and-likeness

Small steps, but steps nonetheless. I think they're starting to see the writing on the wall. The NCAA model is outdated, misguided, and possibly illegal. 5 years from now, college athletics are going to be a lot different.

 

[im4cyclones]

Paying athletes for their names and likenesses is absolutely correct. The mutually beneficial agreement happens on the field -- George gets training and coaching and, in return, George delivers a high level of play. It is a sham that ISU could sell Jeremiah George jerseys and profit off of him in ancillary goods like merchandise.

 

[RubyClone]

Creating a workable model that pays players while sustaining the NCAA's precious 'competitive equity'...well, officials don't seem ready to go there yet.

This. Somebody needs to explain to me how we start paying players for their likeness and name, and not expect that the major players like tOSU, Alabama, FSU, OU, Texas - who already dominate the money game, won't actually increase their advantage when they can afford to pay more for a likeness.

Seems to me that once the money starts getting handed out, it'll be way to easy to funnel more and more to the top players. And as such - we may as well let the top 10 (money) programs just play in their own league, because there will be no chance at parity.

 

[Tre4ISU]

This. Somebody needs to explain to me how we start paying players for their likeness and name, and not expect that the major players like tOSU, Alabama, FSU, OU, Texas - who already dominate the money game, won't actually increase their advantage when they can afford to pay more for a likeness.

Seems to me that once the money starts getting handed out, it'll be way to easy to funnel more and more to the top players. And as such - we may as well let the top 10 (money) programs just play in their own league, because there will be no chance at parity.

Stupid argument. They can still only roster so many players and a lot of those players are going to go to one of those "10" schools anyway.

 

[mj4cy]

Paying athletes for their names and likenesses is absolutely correct. The mutually beneficial agreement happens on the field -- George gets training and coaching and, in return, George delivers a high level of play. It is a sham that ISU could sell Jeremiah George jerseys and profit off of him in ancillary goods like merchandise.

But ISU also gave George the platform to showcase his talents and now he's making 6-7 figures.

 

[Bigman38]

This. Somebody needs to explain to me how we start paying players for their likeness and name, and not expect that the major players like tOSU, Alabama, FSU, OU, Texas - who already dominate the money game, won't actually increase their advantage when they can afford to pay more for a likeness.

Seems to me that once the money starts getting handed out, it'll be way to easy to funnel more and more to the top players. And as such - we may as well let the top 10 (money) programs just play in their own league, because there will be no chance at parity.

If it happens that is exactly what will happen. I like the idea, in theory, for paying players but still haven't seen a model that won't make the rich a lot richer.

 

[RubyClone]

Stupid argument. They can still only roster so many players and a lot of those players are going to go to one of those "10" schools anyway.

So you think if Allen Lazard could get paid in college, he's not going to the highest bidder? Which almost certainly isn't ISU?

We're lucky when we get a top prospect. Throw money into the equation - we have no chance. This happens, and we may as well another division because the "have nots" will be even worse off.

And I'm not saying kids in college shouldn't get a little something - but IMO it has to be even across all, and not some sort of tiered system.

 

[Tre4ISU]

So you think if Allen Lazard could get paid in college, he's not going to the highest bidder? Which almost certainly isn't ISU?

We're lucky when we get a top prospect. Throw money into the equation - we have no chance. This happens, and we may as well another division because the "have nots" will be even worse off.

And I'm not saying kids in college shouldn't get a little something - but IMO it has to be even across all, and not some sort of tiered system.

Do you think Lazard didn't have the option of taking some money from someone and do you think under a different system ISU wouldn't offer the same for someone like him?

 

[Tre4ISU]

But ISU also gave George the platform to showcase his talents and now he's making 6-7 figures.

Right. This is the issue I have BUT it's a different issue. I don't like that people don't consider the opportunity these guys are given to showcase and that people don't consider the value of a degree, but likeness is a different issue.

 

[Bigman38]

Stupid argument. They can still only roster so many players and a lot of those players are going to go to one of those "10" schools anyway.

Huh? You really don't think big schools being able to pay big money is going to create even worse parity then there already is in college football?

 

[RubyClone]

Do you think Lazard didn't have the option of taking some money from someone and do you think under a different system ISU wouldn't offer the same for someone like him?

Well - right now he can't take money by rule. So there's a consequence he's perhaps not willing to accept.

But if it's within the rules, and somehow contingent upon worth (whatever you want to call it, but not equal among all players, all schools) then there's a bidding war. And you really think ISU could offer as much (to as many players) as an Alabama or Texas or X other schools.

The competitive gap will open even further. Worse yet, once this happens in FB, it'll extend to every other sport too and we can then kiss a lot of top prospects in MBB goodbye as well.

Face it - money corrupts everything and we don't have the money.

 

[JohnnyFive]

The only model that works IMO is the so-called Division 4, where total revenue is spilt evenly and divided among everyone on that level equally. Every athlete and every school receives the same amount, sort of like the NFL's merchandise agreement. Do the Cowboys sell more stuff/generate more interest than the Jags? Of course they so. All teams divide it evenly though. Without an agreement like this, the same universities that can offer the most money will always dominate recruiting and any semblance of a fair competition is out the door.

I dont think any of this ever happens though. Schools like Texas make it's money, schools like Texas will want to keep its money.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

Ok - well **** you too.

So you think if Allen Lazard could get paid in college, he's not going to the highest bidder? Which almost certainly isn't ISU?

We're lucky when we get a top prospect. Throw money into the equation - we have no chance. This happens, and we may as well another division because the "have nots" will be even worse off.

And I'm not saying kids in college shouldn't get a little something - but IMO it has to be even across all, and not some sort of tiered system.

Paying players is actually an equalizer (especially if done with a salary cap). Look at recruiting the past 30-50 years- it is not an open market now, as the currencies are tradition, location, and arms-race spending. Paying players removes barriers to entry. It is a lot easier for a school to sneak in a better offer last minute than change tradition or location.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Huh? You really don't think big schools being able to pay big money is going to create even worse parity then there already is in college football?

Well - right now he can't take money by rule. So there's a consequence he's perhaps not willing to accept.

But if it's within the rules, and somehow contingent upon worth (whatever you want to call it, but not equal among all players, all schools) then there's a bidding war. And you really think ISU could offer as much (to as many players) as an Alabama or Texas or X other schools.

The competitive gap will open even further. Worse yet, once this happens in FB, it'll extend to every other sport too and we can then kiss a lot of top prospects in MBB goodbye as well.

Face it - money corrupts everything and we don't have the money.

You guys aren't getting it. Where are the best recruits going right now? They are already going to those programs. They will just get paid more by going to them now. When's the last time we beat those guys for a recruit under the current system? The recruit distribution would be the same. There are only so many spots at those schools. It's not like they can just pay however many players they want and it wouldn't surprise me to see scholarship limits reduced slightly actually increasing parity.

 

[RubyClone]

Right. This is the issue I have BUT it's a different issue. I don't like that people don't consider the opportunity these guys are given to showcase and that people don't consider the value of a degree, but likeness is a different issue.

This I agree with as well. And I expect that the NCAA and other institutions will try to circumvent this by no longer allowing such likenesses. But that train has already left the station.

What are some examples of where Jeremiah should get some $$ for use of his likeness? Or even go back to Seneca, probably the most marketable ISU FB in recent memory.

 

[RubyClone]

You guys aren't getting it. Where are the best recruits going right now? They are already going to those programs. They will just get paid more by going to them now. When's the last time we beat those guys for a recruit under the current system? The recruit distribution would be the same. There are only so many spots at those schools. It's not like they can just pay however many players they want and it wouldn't surprise me to see scholarship limits reduced slightly actually increasing parity.

I believe Lazard is on campus right now.

We get it just fine. It's not just that we can't afford them. It's that they can afford MORE.

Sure - we and the other bottom 90 schools get the scraps - mostly cause of playing time, or some other loyalty. But again, money will change that.

Let me just ask straight out. Are you advocating that players get paid something (evenly), or get paid based on some marketing value?

What does scholarship limit have to do with this? You're paying kids. So you just pay them to pay their own way.

 

[Bigman38]

You guys aren't getting it. Where are the best recruits going right now? They are already going to those programs. They will just get paid more by going to them now. When's the last time we beat those guys for a recruit under the current system? The recruit distribution would be the same. There are only so many spots at those schools. It's not like they can just pay however many players they want and it wouldn't surprise me to see scholarship limits reduced slightly actually increasing parity.

So you think Lazard signs with ISU if Notre Dame can offer him a lot more money? That's just the ISU example, there are dozens of schools that aren't elite that get a couple top recruits every year. Does that still happen if they can't pay as much as the elite schools? Of course not.

The elite schools will get even more of the top recruits unless you can figure out how to cap it a price most schools can afford to pay. In the list of priorities money would be #1, creating a new huge advantage for the big schools.

 

[jbhtexas]

Paying players is actually an equalizer (especially if done with a salary cap). Look at recruiting the past 30-50 years- it is not an open market now, as the currencies are tradition, location, and arms-race spending. Paying players removes barriers to entry. It is a lot easier for a school to sneak in a better offer last minute than change tradition or location.

Paying players isn't going to equalize anything. The traditional powers that have all those things you mention going for them also typically have the most money, and will be able to pay the most. ISU isn't all of a sudden going to be able to "out-stipend" UT, OU, or any other current power team in order to snag 5-star recruits.

 

[RubyClone]

The only model that works IMO is the so-called Division 4, where total revenue is spilt evenly and divided among everyone on that level equally. Every athlete and every school receives the same amount, sort of like the NFL's merchandise agreement. Do the Cowboys sell more stuff/generate more interest than the Jags? Of course they so. All teams divide it evenly though. Without an agreement like this, the same universities that can offer the most money will always dominate recruiting and any semblance of a fair competition is out the door.

I dont think any of this ever happens though. Schools like Texas make it's money, schools like Texas will want to keep its money.

I meant to ask what you just addressed. If I go to nfl.com and purchase a Troy Polomalu jersey - does Troy get a little check for that sale? Or is it dispersed somehow equally? You're saying equally.... That's the only way I see this working in NCAA and not turning into a complete bidding war.

And say we manage to get a kid who comes in under the radar and blows up into a top player - how does the transfer system not turn into a free agent market? Players are already transferring like never before. Money will only exasperate that further, and programs that develop players will be more apt to lose them.

 

[RubyClone]

Paying players is actually an equalizer (especially if done with a salary cap). Look at recruiting the past 30-50 years- it is not an open market now, as the currencies are tradition, location, and arms-race spending. Paying players removes barriers to entry. It is a lot easier for a school to sneak in a better offer last minute than change tradition or location.

Well - that's what I'm asking. If there's a cap - that's some sort of equality. I'm not really seeing that in many discussions.

Of course the cap has to be palatable by all institutions. ISU already is suffering in the money wars. Imagine the likes of the smaller conferences in D1