NCAA: Pay-for-Play not coming

[SoonerBounce13]

I think you are missing the point here.

I am arguing that athletes should be able to use their own fame to profit off themselves. Not that Nike or even the school should sign them up to some kind of contract (other than the scholarship) to come play for the school.

In my example: Famous player can do commercials, sign a deal with Nike, charge money for autographs, do events at a local car dealership for money, etc.

In your example: University of Oregon goes out all over the nation and pays high school kids and/or their families in exchange for them agreeing to play for Oregon.

In my example, the players can be entrepreneurs of sorts. In your example, they get their pockets lined to attend a school.

are you really this naïve?

really? You don't see what this will lead to the instant it is implemented?>

 

[snydrosooner]

Sure, they could try that. But companies/rich people typically only invest money in things that give them a return. Rich people are generally rich because they don't just throw million of dollars of away on items which give them no return.

Investing that kind of money in high school kids is risky business. Every year, there are plenty of 5* talents that are total busts. So, where is the return? It's a high risk, relatively low reward situation in that example. There are other things to consider with paying high school players, such as marketability. Most of the time a tiny percent of the population has even heard of this person. Not very smart to invest in someone who is unproven, unknown, etc... When Sam Bradford was in high school, the only people who knew who Sam Bradford was were a very small percentage of Oklahomans and random people who saw him on Rivals. We are talking about 0.00001% of the population. Who would invest in this guy? Nobody would.

Professional athletes and even college athletes are a much lower risk and a much higher return for that kind of thing. They have already proven themselves, they are already famous, well known in the national media, etc.

Johnny Manziel wouldn't have made anything coming out of high school. He only became "famous" after he established himself at A&M. He was a 3* recruit with nothing but A&M and mid-major offers (per rivals).

I don't think this would be an issue, in the way you are describing. The people who would be making money would be people who are already established, famous, college athletes.

A company like Nike would invest alot of money into players in your scenerio because when they have business meetings they can take them to the suite at oregon and watch the top players in college play (which Nike has helped get to Oregon) Also look at how many companies contribute to Thunder Broadcase on TV. Every little thing has a sponser, from casinos to a charity organization. WOuld they not be willing to kick into the OU football to keep it a Jugernaut? Again these can be used for Coorporate recruiting. Companies in towns without pro teams will be willing to pitch in to keep strong programs going.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Sure, they could try that. But companies/rich people typically only invest money in things that give them a return. Rich people are generally rich because they don't just throw million of dollars of away on items which give them no return.

Investing that kind of money in high school kids is risky business. Every year, there are plenty of 5* talents that are total busts. So, where is the return? It's a high risk, relatively low reward situation in that example. There are other things to consider with paying high school players, such as marketability. Most of the time a tiny percent of the population has even heard of this person. Not very smart to invest in someone who is unproven, unknown, etc... When Sam Bradford was in high school, the only people who knew who Sam Bradford was were a very small percentage of Oklahomans and random people who saw him on Rivals. We are talking about 0.00001% of the population. Who would invest in this guy? Nobody would.

Professional athletes and even college athletes are a much lower risk and a much higher return for that kind of thing. They have already proven themselves, they are already famous, well known in the national media, etc.

Johnny Manziel wouldn't have made anything coming out of high school. He only became "famous" after he established himself at A&M. He was a 3* recruit with nothing but A&M and mid-major offers (per rivals).

I don't think this would be an issue, in the way you are describing. The people who would be making money would be people who are already established, famous, college athletes.

even in your scenario, they could give manziel money to stay in school

 

[thebigabd]

Seriously?

Rich boosters give kids money all the time to come to their school. How would this be any different? The "return" is they want to see their school's football team win a bunch of games.

That's the return?

• I pay $10,000.00
• I get $0.00 back
• But OU beats Texas and wins the Big 12 this year

That's it?

 

[KChoops]

That's the return?

• I pay $10,000.00
• I get $0.00 back
• But OU beats Texas and wins the Big 12 this year

That's it?

If you don't think that is enough I'm curious what you thought the boosters have been getting out of illegal paying players for past decades.

 

[DenverSooner]

The sanctioned regulation, licensing and oversight of these professions (which IMO, works out quite poorly), has some justification because of the consequences of employing an incompetent doctor or lawyer. No one is going to die, or end up in prison, because a kid jumped to the league straight out of high school.

What about requirements that you cannot perform certain tasks before reaching a certain age such as bar tending, commercial driving, etc.

 

[thebigabd]

If you don't think that is enough I'm curious what you thought the boosters have been getting out of illegal paying players for past decades.

If I don't think thats enough? Correct, I think a negative 100% return on my money would fit most peoples criteria for not being enough.

 

[KChoops]

If I don't think thats enough? Correct, I think a negative 100% return on my money would fit most peoples criteria for not being enough.

So what financial benefit have the boosters in the past been getting when they paid players?

 

[thebigabd]

So what financial benefit have the boosters in the past been getting when they paid players?

I'd love to find out, because nobody with a brain takes a negative 100% loss on their money voluntarily.

Anyone know a booster?

 

[DenverSooner]

People make donations all the time. Once in a while you will read about a famous person paying for someone. For example, there was a story about the guy from the car movies that just died in a car wreck purchasing an expensive engagement ring for a military guy when he over heard the couple talking about it and saying they couldn't afford it. Nobody even knew he did it until after he was dead.

 

[CoachTalk]

If I can convince someone to buy my photograph, or buy my jersey, or play a video game because I am in it, I should be able to profit from that.

I'm a little late in this but.. If a booster wants to buy this kids autograph for $250,000, all he really did was pay the player to come to OU or bama or whatever. There is NO way to police this.