I foresee a rapid acceleration of change in the College Sports Industry resulting from California's actions.

The Industry had already morphed from true amateurism into a business during the last half of the 20th Century. The advent of huge ESPN/Fox media deals hastened that change in the beginning of the 21st century. The college sports business is now going to change a lot more and a lot more quickly.

There's nothing particularly "good" or "bad" about these changes. It's just natural progression.

I see significant parallels to the way the Motion Picture Industry changed (starting in about 1940 with Olivia De Havilland's contract win over Warner Brothers). Prior to the 1950's Movie Studios (MGM, Fox, RKO, Columbia, Warner Brothers, etc) used to control all the inputs and outputs and they basically restricted competition through control of actors, of distribution/theatre channels/chains/screens and of production. Profits in the studio system inured mainly to the studios.

Beginning in about 1953, the movie studios no longer had control. They all ultimately became little more than virtual studios. The former places they played their "movie games" no longer exist. Movies are now financed on an ad hoc basis, with any actors the financier chooses, and distribution deals are set up with theatre chains. The movies are filmed anywhere and everywhere. Rarely shooting more than 5% of a movie in a "physical studio".

Beginning in the early 1950's Actors were now "in control". Actors' unions were now in control. Actors' agents were now in control.

Interestingly this major changeover in control occurred at the same time that the new TV Medium came into common use.

The simple analogies between movies and college athletics are in distribution and control and in unions.

It took about 20 years for the movie system to be changed to one in which the actors were finally in complete in control. The parallel changeover in college athletics is going to move much more quickly.

At its heart will be the individual athletes and their agents and unions getting control. This will happen side-by-side with coincident changes in distribution control. The full democriticization of viewing changeover from long term deals to ad hoc deals and from "cable networks" to "streaming content" will enhance the athlete/agent/lawyer control change.

College Teams as we know them now will become less important, while the individual players will become more important. Very like the changes already in the Pros, but occurring more swiftly and profoundly.

The "College Athletics Studio System" will die a pretty rapid death.

Likely mortally harmed will be the Teams, the Programs, the Conferences and the NCAA.

But the 5-Star Athlete will be the Winner.

Fans will switch their allegiances away from following "Teams" and "Programs" and Universities to following individual Athletes as they develop throughout their careers.

Dup

(10-02-2019 05:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Wedge, my only disagreement with your assessment is that inevitably kids will be making money from practices other than just doing endorsements.

They'll sign autographs, sign memorabilia, and provide other services like coaching outside the purview of anything school related. That could be a significant source of income for a whole host of athletes in a variety of sports.

The operative dynamic here is that the smaller the community and the more passionate the fan base, the more opportunities these kids are going to have.

Some random UCLA athlete will likely get lost in the shuffle of Los Angeles. In Tuscaloosa, the odds are a healthy portion of fans will actually know who the long snapper is...just an example.

Unless a player is a well-known star, the only money to be made by signing autographs (which is endorsement money) is pocket money. The same spending money amounts that boosters used to hand out to football players or star basketball players (probably still do). Not anywhere near the kind of money it "allegedly" takes for Nike or adidas to direct a basketball star like Zion Williamson to the school of their choice. Just enough for a college kid to spend while he's out being a college kid.

Same is true for a college tennis player or swimmer, for example, making a few bucks on the side by giving private lessons or coaching a kids' team.

I agree that it's a good thing if athletes are allowed to do this. I just don't think it upends the order of which athletes choose to go to which schools. The so-called 5-star players all end up on the same handful of teams in football and men's basketball today, and they'll be on those same teams if they are permitted to take NIL money.

(10-02-2019 10:53 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 05:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Wedge, my only disagreement with your assessment is that inevitably kids will be making money from practices other than just doing endorsements.

They'll sign autographs, sign memorabilia, and provide other services like coaching outside the purview of anything school related. That could be a significant source of income for a whole host of athletes in a variety of sports.

The operative dynamic here is that the smaller the community and the more passionate the fan base, the more opportunities these kids are going to have.

Some random UCLA athlete will likely get lost in the shuffle of Los Angeles. In Tuscaloosa, the odds are a healthy portion of fans will actually know who the long snapper is...just an example.

Unless a player is a well-known star, the only money to be made by signing autographs (which is endorsement money) is pocket money. The same spending money amounts that boosters used to hand out to football players or star basketball players (probably still do). Not anywhere near the kind of money it "allegedly" takes for Nike or adidas to direct a basketball star like Zion Williamson to the school of their choice. Just enough for a college kid to spend while he's out being a college kid.

Same is true for a college tennis player or swimmer, for example, making a few bucks on the side by giving private lessons or coaching a kids' team.

I agree that it's a good thing if athletes are allowed to do this. I just don't think it upends the order of which athletes choose to go to which schools. The so-called 5-star players all end up on the same handful of teams in football and men's basketball today, and they'll be on those same teams if they are permitted to take NIL money.

I would agree that it won't upend the order. I have no issue with kids making money off their name and likeness.

My only point is that some kids will be able to make decent money from practices that don't include getting an endorsement deal with major brands. The latter will be reserved for true stars of the game, but I think a large number of kids will be able to supplement. I'm not saying they'd make something equivalent to a large salary, but I think they'll get more than a little spending money if they know what they're doing.

(10-02-2019 08:18 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I foresee a rapid acceleration of change in the College Sports Industry resulting from California's actions.

The Industry had already morphed from true amateurism into a business during the last half of the 20th Century. The advent of huge ESPN/Fox media deals hastened that change in the beginning of the 21st century. The college sports business is now going to change a lot more and a lot more quickly.

There's nothing particularly "good" or "bad" about these changes. It's just natural progression.

I see significant parallels to the way the Motion Picture Industry changed (starting in about 1940 with Olivia De Havilland's contract win over Warner Brothers). Prior to the 1950's Movie Studios (MGM, Fox, RKO, Columbia, Warner Brothers, etc) used to control all the inputs and outputs and they basically restricted competition through control of actors, of distribution/theatre channels/chains/screens and of production. Profits in the studio system inured mainly to the studios.

Beginning in about 1953, the movie studios no longer had control. They all ultimately became little more than virtual studios. The former places they played their "movie games" no longer exist. Movies are now financed on an ad hoc basis, with any actors the financier chooses, and distribution deals are set up with theatre chains. The movies are filmed anywhere and everywhere. Rarely shooting more than 5% of a movie in a "physical studio".

Beginning in the early 1950's Actors were now "in control". Actors' unions were now in control. Actors' agents were now in control.

Interestingly this major changeover in control occurred at the same time that the new TV Medium came into common use.

The simple analogies between movies and college athletics are in distribution and control and in unions.

It took about 20 years for the movie system to be changed to one in which the actors were finally in complete in control. The parallel changeover in college athletics is going to move much more quickly.

At its heart will be the individual athletes and their agents and unions getting control. This will happen side-by-side with coincident changes in distribution control. The full democriticization of viewing changeover from long term deals to ad hoc deals and from "cable networks" to "streaming content" will enhance the athlete/agent/lawyer control change.

College Teams as we know them now will become less important, while the individual players will become more important. Very like the changes already in the Pros, but occurring more swiftly and profoundly.

The "College Athletics Studio System" will die a pretty rapid death.

Likely mortally harmed will be the Teams, the Programs, the Conferences and the NCAA.

But the 5-Star Athlete will be the Winner.

Fans will switch their allegiances away from following "Teams" and "Programs" and Universities to following individual Athletes as they develop throughout their careers.

That's the crux. That doesn't benefit the universities, so why should they continue doing it? And a lot of the support is because they are universities. That's why South Carolina and Kentucky can draw 60-80,000. A good part of that support goes away.

(10-02-2019 12:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:18 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I foresee a rapid acceleration of change in the College Sports Industry resulting from California's actions.

The Industry had already morphed from true amateurism into a business during the last half of the 20th Century. The advent of huge ESPN/Fox media deals hastened that change in the beginning of the 21st century. The college sports business is now going to change a lot more and a lot more quickly.

There's nothing particularly "good" or "bad" about these changes. It's just natural progression.

I see significant parallels to the way the Motion Picture Industry changed (starting in about 1940 with Olivia De Havilland's contract win over Warner Brothers). Prior to the 1950's Movie Studios (MGM, Fox, RKO, Columbia, Warner Brothers, etc) used to control all the inputs and outputs and they basically restricted competition through control of actors, of distribution/theatre channels/chains/screens and of production. Profits in the studio system inured mainly to the studios.

Beginning in about 1953, the movie studios no longer had control. They all ultimately became little more than virtual studios. The former places they played their "movie games" no longer exist. Movies are now financed on an ad hoc basis, with any actors the financier chooses, and distribution deals are set up with theatre chains. The movies are filmed anywhere and everywhere. Rarely shooting more than 5% of a movie in a "physical studio".

Beginning in the early 1950's Actors were now "in control". Actors' unions were now in control. Actors' agents were now in control.

Interestingly this major changeover in control occurred at the same time that the new TV Medium came into common use.

The simple analogies between movies and college athletics are in distribution and control and in unions.

It took about 20 years for the movie system to be changed to one in which the actors were finally in complete in control. The parallel changeover in college athletics is going to move much more quickly.

At its heart will be the individual athletes and their agents and unions getting control. This will happen side-by-side with coincident changes in distribution control. The full democriticization of viewing changeover from long term deals to ad hoc deals and from "cable networks" to "streaming content" will enhance the athlete/agent/lawyer control change.

College Teams as we know them now will become less important, while the individual players will become more important. Very like the changes already in the Pros, but occurring more swiftly and profoundly.

The "College Athletics Studio System" will die a pretty rapid death.

Likely mortally harmed will be the Teams, the Programs, the Conferences and the NCAA.

But the 5-Star Athlete will be the Winner.

Fans will switch their allegiances away from following "Teams" and "Programs" and Universities to following individual Athletes as they develop throughout their careers.

That's the crux. That doesn't benefit the universities, so why should they continue doing it? And a lot of the support is because they are universities. That's why South Carolina and Kentucky can draw 60-80,000. A good part of that support goes away.

This is why the move that needs to be made is the equal paying of all players and the retention of rights to image and logos with the universities. Failure to get out in front of this now has opened the door for the kind of divisiveness that will destroy the team as a social icon. The AD's and presidents should have insisted that the Alston ruling bring change and should have opposed the NCAA's lawsuit.

When change is inevitable the best possible course of action is to get out ahead of it so that you can preserve important facets of your industry while focusing the change in areas that are healthy for all.

The fight to hang onto the NCAA's hegemony should have been abandoned in 1983 with OU/UGA. Watching this unfold is reminiscent of watching the South hang onto Jim Crow. if they had gotten out ahead of it a lot of culture would have been preserved and a lot of pain for all avoided.

(10-02-2019 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 12:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:18 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I foresee a rapid acceleration of change in the College Sports Industry resulting from California's actions.

The Industry had already morphed from true amateurism into a business during the last half of the 20th Century. The advent of huge ESPN/Fox media deals hastened that change in the beginning of the 21st century. The college sports business is now going to change a lot more and a lot more quickly.

There's nothing particularly "good" or "bad" about these changes. It's just natural progression.

I see significant parallels to the way the Motion Picture Industry changed (starting in about 1940 with Olivia De Havilland's contract win over Warner Brothers). Prior to the 1950's Movie Studios (MGM, Fox, RKO, Columbia, Warner Brothers, etc) used to control all the inputs and outputs and they basically restricted competition through control of actors, of distribution/theatre channels/chains/screens and of production. Profits in the studio system inured mainly to the studios.

Beginning in about 1953, the movie studios no longer had control. They all ultimately became little more than virtual studios. The former places they played their "movie games" no longer exist. Movies are now financed on an ad hoc basis, with any actors the financier chooses, and distribution deals are set up with theatre chains. The movies are filmed anywhere and everywhere. Rarely shooting more than 5% of a movie in a "physical studio".

Beginning in the early 1950's Actors were now "in control". Actors' unions were now in control. Actors' agents were now in control.

Interestingly this major changeover in control occurred at the same time that the new TV Medium came into common use.

The simple analogies between movies and college athletics are in distribution and control and in unions.

It took about 20 years for the movie system to be changed to one in which the actors were finally in complete in control. The parallel changeover in college athletics is going to move much more quickly.

At its heart will be the individual athletes and their agents and unions getting control. This will happen side-by-side with coincident changes in distribution control. The full democriticization of viewing changeover from long term deals to ad hoc deals and from "cable networks" to "streaming content" will enhance the athlete/agent/lawyer control change.

College Teams as we know them now will become less important, while the individual players will become more important. Very like the changes already in the Pros, but occurring more swiftly and profoundly.

The "College Athletics Studio System" will die a pretty rapid death.

Likely mortally harmed will be the Teams, the Programs, the Conferences and the NCAA.

But the 5-Star Athlete will be the Winner.

Fans will switch their allegiances away from following "Teams" and "Programs" and Universities to following individual Athletes as they develop throughout their careers.

That's the crux. That doesn't benefit the universities, so why should they continue doing it? And a lot of the support is because they are universities. That's why South Carolina and Kentucky can draw 60-80,000. A good part of that support goes away.

This is why the move that needs to be made is the equal paying of all players and the retention of rights to image and logos with the universities. Failure to get out in front of this now has opened the door for the kind of divisiveness that will destroy the team as a social icon. The AD's and presidents should have insisted that the Alston ruling bring change and should have opposed the NCAA's lawsuit.

When change is inevitable the best possible course of action is to get out ahead of it so that you can preserve important facets of your industry while focusing the change in areas that are healthy for all.

The fight to hang onto the NCAA's hegemony should have been abandoned in 1983 with OU/UGA. Watching this unfold is reminiscent of watching the South hang onto Jim Crow. if they had gotten out ahead of it a lot of culture would have been preserved and a lot of pain for all avoided.

Likeness is an issue. But on pay there's a very strong argument that anybody other than football or basketball has alternatives to college. And the basketball options are limited mainly by the NBA itself. I don't think the age limit holds up if anyone tests it. Union contracts aren't enough. Not really non-international options on the women's side, but there's not a lot of money there anyway.

So it comes down to football. And maybe that is what happens. Football separates from the NCAA (although its hard to see them leaving March madness $$s with the NCAA if they go to the trouble of moving football).

(10-02-2019 08:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 12:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:18 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I foresee a rapid acceleration of change in the College Sports Industry resulting from California's actions.

The Industry had already morphed from true amateurism into a business during the last half of the 20th Century. The advent of huge ESPN/Fox media deals hastened that change in the beginning of the 21st century. The college sports business is now going to change a lot more and a lot more quickly.

There's nothing particularly "good" or "bad" about these changes. It's just natural progression.

I see significant parallels to the way the Motion Picture Industry changed (starting in about 1940 with Olivia De Havilland's contract win over Warner Brothers). Prior to the 1950's Movie Studios (MGM, Fox, RKO, Columbia, Warner Brothers, etc) used to control all the inputs and outputs and they basically restricted competition through control of actors, of distribution/theatre channels/chains/screens and of production. Profits in the studio system inured mainly to the studios.

Beginning in about 1953, the movie studios no longer had control. They all ultimately became little more than virtual studios. The former places they played their "movie games" no longer exist. Movies are now financed on an ad hoc basis, with any actors the financier chooses, and distribution deals are set up with theatre chains. The movies are filmed anywhere and everywhere. Rarely shooting more than 5% of a movie in a "physical studio".

Beginning in the early 1950's Actors were now "in control". Actors' unions were now in control. Actors' agents were now in control.

Interestingly this major changeover in control occurred at the same time that the new TV Medium came into common use.

The simple analogies between movies and college athletics are in distribution and control and in unions.

It took about 20 years for the movie system to be changed to one in which the actors were finally in complete in control. The parallel changeover in college athletics is going to move much more quickly.

At its heart will be the individual athletes and their agents and unions getting control. This will happen side-by-side with coincident changes in distribution control. The full democriticization of viewing changeover from long term deals to ad hoc deals and from "cable networks" to "streaming content" will enhance the athlete/agent/lawyer control change.

College Teams as we know them now will become less important, while the individual players will become more important. Very like the changes already in the Pros, but occurring more swiftly and profoundly.

The "College Athletics Studio System" will die a pretty rapid death.

Likely mortally harmed will be the Teams, the Programs, the Conferences and the NCAA.

But the 5-Star Athlete will be the Winner.

Fans will switch their allegiances away from following "Teams" and "Programs" and Universities to following individual Athletes as they develop throughout their careers.

That's the crux. That doesn't benefit the universities, so why should they continue doing it? And a lot of the support is because they are universities. That's why South Carolina and Kentucky can draw 60-80,000. A good part of that support goes away.

This is why the move that needs to be made is the equal paying of all players and the retention of rights to image and logos with the universities. Failure to get out in front of this now has opened the door for the kind of divisiveness that will destroy the team as a social icon. The AD's and presidents should have insisted that the Alston ruling bring change and should have opposed the NCAA's lawsuit.

When change is inevitable the best possible course of action is to get out ahead of it so that you can preserve important facets of your industry while focusing the change in areas that are healthy for all.

The fight to hang onto the NCAA's hegemony should have been abandoned in 1983 with OU/UGA. Watching this unfold is reminiscent of watching the South hang onto Jim Crow. if they had gotten out ahead of it a lot of culture would have been preserved and a lot of pain for all avoided.

Likeness is an issue. But on pay there's a very strong argument that anybody other than football or basketball has alternatives to college. And the basketball options are limited mainly by the NBA itself. I don't think the age limit holds up if anyone tests it. Union contracts aren't enough. Not really non-international options on the women's side, but there's not a lot of money there anyway.

So it comes down to football. And maybe that is what happens. Football separates from the NCAA (although its hard to see them leaving March madness $$s with the NCAA if they go to the trouble of moving football).

I agree that football would be much better off as a pay for play arrangement where schools retained endorsement rights. Instead of signing grant & aids there would be a contract signing period for high school seniors only. Let's quit this recruitment of Sophomores and below as it is absolutely disruptive and stupid. Contracts can be signed for a 4 year period with a buyout.

That way a really fine kid that the school develops keeps his right to depart to the NFL, but the NFL buys out his contract compensating the school for the loss. We can keep the redshirt year as part of the athletes development and if a redshirt leaves early we get compensated for the redshirt year in addition to the standard buyout.

This needs to be done for men's hoops and absolutely that needs to be taken away from the NCAA so that schools are properly rewarded for their tournament appearances.

If we moved to 4 conferences we could host a tournament that consisted of 16 schools (the top 4 from each conference), or 32 (taking the top half of each conference).

But there is no reason to leave that money on the table.

Ultimately another issue will arise regarding Title IX. Logically the way to handle it is to pay for women's softball, basketball and soccer and try to work out rights negotiations with the networks to offset some of that loss.

All other sports would remain scholarship only and those Title IX matters could be worked out the usual way.

The matter on the fence is baseball. I'm thinking it goes pay, but just much less than football or basketball.

(10-01-2019 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, but keeping track of the player's individual endorsements would be a tedious process. I think what Bilas was saying is that it would be much simpler for everyone to just put the players under contract and control the advertising from the AD's position. Players could be given a % of endorsements in which they appeared personally. Plus they would be paying taxes and would be completely above board. Compliance would be largely taken care of vIa the IRS. I think he's right about this and have felt that way all along.

Bilas is thinking of basketball, where there are fewer players, and even there he is worrying too much. As for football, few if any college football teams are going to want to pay every single player, and it's not worth it for every player. A Nike school doesn't have to worry about their football team's long snapper signing with adidas, because adidas would get no value out of it.

Or, the school can simply bar its athletes from using the school's name and logos in their endorsements, or more likely the NCAA will require its members to do that. That alone will reduce the value of college athlete endorsements so much that there would rarely, if ever, be conflicting endorsements. How many college athletes are so recognizable that their endorsement would have substantial value without the association with their team's name and/or logos? Very, very few.

Given that the major shoe companies don't even bother to sign every NBA player and most who do get signed only get a store credit, very safe to say that if the transactions are arm's length that there won't be a lot of tracking required.

I have not bothered to read the California law but I've seen the claim that it would permit schools to bar an athlete from endorsing a product competing with a college endorsement.

I suspect Nike would have loved the ability to throw a bundle at Zion and lock him up to a contract when he was at Duke if his choices were sign with Nike or wait a year.

Here’s my take:

It needs to be explicit that the athletes are not employees of the schools or the 3rd party; they are independent contractor. Any 3rd party who pays an athlete $600.00 or more needs to issue the athlete a 1099 reporting the income.

3rd parties who do not have endorsement agreements with the university for which the athlete attends must provide the university a licensing fee if they want to be able to use university logos, uniforms, apparel, etc in the promotion (and maybe even the name of the school as well)

Athletes and the 3rd party must notify the NCAA and the university of all endorsements, disclosing all of the terms of the agreement.

Schools ought to have the right to either nix an endorsement deal or nix the athlete if they make an endorsement that they feel positively represents the university (no porn sites, etc)

(10-03-2019 02:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, but keeping track of the player's individual endorsements would be a tedious process. I think what Bilas was saying is that it would be much simpler for everyone to just put the players under contract and control the advertising from the AD's position. Players could be given a % of endorsements in which they appeared personally. Plus they would be paying taxes and would be completely above board. Compliance would be largely taken care of vIa the IRS. I think he's right about this and have felt that way all along.

Bilas is thinking of basketball, where there are fewer players, and even there he is worrying too much. As for football, few if any college football teams are going to want to pay every single player, and it's not worth it for every player. A Nike school doesn't have to worry about their football team's long snapper signing with adidas, because adidas would get no value out of it.

Or, the school can simply bar its athletes from using the school's name and logos in their endorsements, or more likely the NCAA will require its members to do that. That alone will reduce the value of college athlete endorsements so much that there would rarely, if ever, be conflicting endorsements. How many college athletes are so recognizable that their endorsement would have substantial value without the association with their team's name and/or logos? Very, very few.

Given that the major shoe companies don't even bother to sign every NBA player and most who do get signed only get a store credit, very safe to say that if the transactions are arm's length that there won't be a lot of tracking required.

I have not bothered to read the California law but I've seen the claim that it would permit schools to bar an athlete from endorsing a product competing with a college endorsement.

I suspect Nike would have loved the ability to throw a bundle at Zion and lock him up to a contract when he was at Duke if his choices were sign with Nike or wait a year.

Maybe a little more than a store credit. Kyle Kuzma's NBA rookie shoe contract with Nike paid him a base of only $25,000 per year, and that was after he was selected near the end of the first round of the draft.

Agreed that this means the shoe companies are not going to sign up more than a handful of college basketball players in any given season.

(10-03-2019 03:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 02:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, but keeping track of the player's individual endorsements would be a tedious process. I think what Bilas was saying is that it would be much simpler for everyone to just put the players under contract and control the advertising from the AD's position. Players could be given a % of endorsements in which they appeared personally. Plus they would be paying taxes and would be completely above board. Compliance would be largely taken care of vIa the IRS. I think he's right about this and have felt that way all along.

Bilas is thinking of basketball, where there are fewer players, and even there he is worrying too much. As for football, few if any college football teams are going to want to pay every single player, and it's not worth it for every player. A Nike school doesn't have to worry about their football team's long snapper signing with adidas, because adidas would get no value out of it.

Or, the school can simply bar its athletes from using the school's name and logos in their endorsements, or more likely the NCAA will require its members to do that. That alone will reduce the value of college athlete endorsements so much that there would rarely, if ever, be conflicting endorsements. How many college athletes are so recognizable that their endorsement would have substantial value without the association with their team's name and/or logos? Very, very few.

Given that the major shoe companies don't even bother to sign every NBA player and most who do get signed only get a store credit, very safe to say that if the transactions are arm's length that there won't be a lot of tracking required.

I have not bothered to read the California law but I've seen the claim that it would permit schools to bar an athlete from endorsing a product competing with a college endorsement.

I suspect Nike would have loved the ability to throw a bundle at Zion and lock him up to a contract when he was at Duke if his choices were sign with Nike or wait a year.

Maybe a little more than a store credit. Kyle Kuzma's NBA rookie shoe contract with Nike paid him a base of only $25,000 per year, and that was after he was selected near the end of the first round of the draft.

Agreed that this means the shoe companies are not going to sign up more than a handful of college basketball players in any given season.

Football will be a different matter in terms of revenue generated, number of viewers reached, and exposure. Still it won't be all of the players, but the issue isn't the number of players who will benefit. The issue will be the number of players that don't benefit. Hence the need to pay them all a bit, and keep the personal endorsements out. Otherwise we are going to have a great degree of disgruntlement from those who don't get the deal and that strikes at the heart of what team sports are supposed to be about. Fully professional sports are another matter entirely.

So for uniformity, and control, I think we go the route of contracts between the athletes and the schools of which a portion of the compensation will be room & board, tuition, books or computer access to books, and other such expenses, plus a salary instead of a stipend. It's above board, spelled out, legal, and comes with much lower negatives than other options.

When it is all over and done with college sports will not be about just the money for all of the athletes. For some it might be, but for others it will be about other goals, as some will pursue coaching, some business, and some professional lives. The educational aspect will matter for all of those. Having some money will matter to all. In professional sports it is all about the money and everyone there is there for the same reason. So we will have a distinction, it's just that it won't be amateurism.

That's one mighty big gorilla.