(03-22-2021 06:57 AM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 10:33 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 10:06 AM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 09:07 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:14 AM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  Not hard to imagine a scenario where a P5 recruiting pitch includes something like this:

"Sign with us, we have contracts in place with other 50 businesses to supply players for marketing and advertising events. We can guarantee you an extra 10,000 year as a roster member, $50,000 year as a starter, and $100,000 year as a returning all conference player"

Once you say the players can profit from their fame, what's to keep the schools from serving as the go between or at least steering the players to the "right places". What's too keep a booster that owns a business from simply paying players to appear in worthless or over-priced advertisements as a way to lure blue chip recruits. Is the NCAA going to regulate intent and fair market value and what's compensation versus a "signing bonus"?

Are schools in small media markets being placed at a disadvantage? Are kids going to pick schools based on their in-house media relations department and ability to funnel gigs to players?

Yes to all of this, but the problem is mostly that the NCAA spent all their time trying to keep the money they make away from the students and schools instead of getting out in front of this 15-20 years ago. Good solutions take time, and instead of figuring them out the NCAA kept their fingers in their ears anytime someone brought it up. The biggest difference is that the students might benefit at the expense of schools this time.

Harmful side effects of the pay for play movement detailed by one former student athlete...

https://theundefeated.com/features/colle...s-to-play/

It's a strawman article, assuming that paying the athletes is unlimited and would result in arms races like the boosters of yore. That's not the case that's being made by the proponents of paying the athletes. I don't know how an article like that gets published, unless it's a favor to the NCAA.

Am unsympathetic to Mr. Emmert at $2.7M/yr and the other nine NCAA execs making more than $500K/yr. Do not, however, think the articles on the other side of this topic reflect the NCAA calling in favors.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/...-the-glass

A very unpersuasive article. To no one's surprise, the NCAA formed a "working group" to study paying athletes. The resulting report will cost millions and accomplish nothing, just as planned.

(03-22-2021 04:17 PM)TribeFan1983 Wrote:  

(03-22-2021 06:57 AM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 10:33 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 10:06 AM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 09:07 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  Yes to all of this, but the problem is mostly that the NCAA spent all their time trying to keep the money they make away from the students and schools instead of getting out in front of this 15-20 years ago. Good solutions take time, and instead of figuring them out the NCAA kept their fingers in their ears anytime someone brought it up. The biggest difference is that the students might benefit at the expense of schools this time.

Harmful side effects of the pay for play movement detailed by one former student athlete...

https://theundefeated.com/features/colle...s-to-play/

It's a strawman article, assuming that paying the athletes is unlimited and would result in arms races like the boosters of yore. That's not the case that's being made by the proponents of paying the athletes. I don't know how an article like that gets published, unless it's a favor to the NCAA.

Am unsympathetic to Mr. Emmert at $2.7M/yr and the other nine NCAA execs making more than $500K/yr. Do not, however, think the articles on the other side of this topic reflect the NCAA calling in favors.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/...-the-glass

A very unpersuasive article. To no one's surprise, the NCAA formed a "working group" to study paying athletes. The resulting report will cost millions and accomplish nothing, just as planned.

This could be interesting...from Chancellor at Vanderbilt 2008 - 2019

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/202...iversities

"The spotlight will then shine on universities, which will have to do something they’ve never had or wanted to do: open up their books and give a truthful accounting of their athletics financials. It won’t be a pretty sight. Even in the best of times, most institutions run substantial deficits. More troubling, institutional leadership -- presidents, chancellors and trustees -- won’t be able to hide the questionable financial accounting practices that some now employ."

Another blow to NCAA

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...mpensation

One step closer to a P-5 breakaway / semi-pro collegiate model while the rest of us return back to the relative sanity & normalcy of traditional college sports.

(06-21-2021 05:45 PM)WMSportsBlog Wrote:  One step closer to a P-5 breakaway / semi-pro collegiate model while the rest of us return back to the relative sanity & normalcy of traditional college sports.

No doubt, best for everyone involved.

FWIW, those in favor of having a large number of sports, while underfunding football and basketball should be rooting for this to happen. While I'm a strong proponent of WM basketball and turning it into a strong program under the current structure (and think that can pay big dividends for the school as a whole), that would no longer serve the school if dropping down to a lower subdivision. At that point, a D3 model would make the most sense.

True yearly Free Agency

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ple-times/

Per the Inquirer, a female field hockey player in the Philly area recently became the first high school athlete to sign a NIL contract, with STX.