VandyPhile wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:16 pm
So, how do you stop the boosters from Football Factory U. (FFU) from offering every signee to “market” them for big bucks? You might never see the field, but here’s your check.
Haha, that's an excellent question that I'm glad you asked. And here is your answer. You DON'T. If a booster owns a car dealership and he wants to sign every player to a deal to be in his commercials then let him. I need someone to explain to me why this shouldn't be done (other than, it won't be fair to my favorite team's recruiting and competitiveness).
I would also offer that any smart business person wants a return on their investment. If a coach asks a bunch of boosters to load kids up with deals so they'll sign with the school, then those kids better perform or that coach is toast. That is an overly simplistic way to look at it, but that is my general point.
Again, I need a compelling reason that the market for this should be restricted. I just don't see who is harmed if the market is not restricted.
So, you’re ok if, say, the owner of the Cleveland Browns wants to also fund a semi-pro team to play in Neyland stadium? Because he can afford it with zero business return. It would be a lot cheaper than the Browns and much closer to home.
And, I’m sure Bama / Auburn/ Georgia has the boosters to (perhaps cumulatively) do the same.
Why should I be against it? What is the compelling reason for amateurism in college sports? The idea is a relic whose usefulness has long ago passed.
We can talk about hypotheticals that have historically been made into a boogeyman that keep us in the status quo, but I have yet to be convinced in any compelling way that there is a harmed party if college athletes were able to profit off of their name, image and/or likeness. And in my opinion, the default is that they should be able to do so.
Just to clarify, a question for those who think the licensing of the logo of a particular university is the end all be all of NIL marketing, let’s say in 2019 Joe Burrow of LSU fame, MEETING the standards of my original post, decides to endorse a business in Baton Rouge La. without any LSU logos but the tag line “This is quarterback Joe Burrow and I always get my car washed at superxyz I think you should too,” Do you not think that would increase sales dramatically?
vandy05 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:20 pm
What is the compelling reason for amateurism in college sports? The idea is a relic whose usefulness has long ago passed.
It is obviously not amateur, it's a huge mega-$ business enterprise.
"Amateurism" is a faux-righteous cloak for a whole host of self-serving rules that enhance the power of the universities, the conferences, and the NCAA over the players.
The cloak has worn so thin that you can see right through it... but a surprising number of people still cling to these delusions as if they're sacred principles of altruism.
I am constantly bemused to witness self-professed free market adherents overcome with the vapours when players behave as if they are providing something of economic value in a free market.
vandy05 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:20 pm
What is the compelling reason for amateurism in college sports? The idea is a relic whose usefulness has long ago passed.
It is obviously not amateur, it's a huge mega-$ business enterprise.
"Amateurism" is a faux-righteous cloak for a whole host of self-serving rules that enhance the power of the universities, the conferences, and the NCAA over the players.
The cloak has worn so thin that you can see right through it... but a surprising number of people still cling to these delusions as if they're sacred principles of altruism.
I am constantly bemused to witness self-professed free market adherents overcome with the vapours when players behave as if they are providing something of economic value in a free market.
Well one of the arguments, which I suppose I dont care for, is that you hurt all the other programs that don't make money. The money football players earn is being allocated to more virtuous uses for the better social good. Take that away and goodbye soccer, volleyball, etc... and even basketball and baseball in some cases.
I'd take it one step farther than either of you and ask the question, why are many of these kids in school in the first place? Why do we need a system where they have to go to class? So they can get a bogus degree they didnt earn and barely learned anything? Sure some kids may want to earn a degree while there. But I'd argue they can do that on their own time with the money they are making as a post-high school, pre-professional athlete. A lot of these kids are taking the spot of someone more deserving who may actually try to better their life.
MikenNashville wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:06 pm
Just to clarify, a question for those who think the licensing of the logo of a particular university is the end all be all of NIL marketing, let’s say in 2019 Joe Burrow of LSU fame, MEETING the standards of my original post, decides to endorse a business in Baton Rouge La. without any LSU logos but the tag line “This is quarterback Joe Burrow and I always get my car washed at superxyz I think you should too,” Do you not think that would increase sales dramatically?
Exactly. There are legitimately players who could market their NIL without the university logos. Or donig it in easily identifiable groups.
vandy05 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:20 pm
What is the compelling reason for amateurism in college sports? The idea is a relic whose usefulness has long ago passed.
It is obviously not amateur, it's a huge mega-$ business enterprise.
"Amateurism" is a faux-righteous cloak for a whole host of self-serving rules that enhance the power of the universities, the conferences, and the NCAA over the players.
The cloak has worn so thin that you can see right through it... but a surprising number of people still cling to these delusions as if they're sacred principles of altruism.
I am constantly bemused to witness self-professed free market adherents overcome with the vapours when players behave as if they are providing something of economic value in a free market.
Well one of the arguments, which I suppose I dont care for, is that you hurt all the other programs that don't make money. The money football players earn is being allocated to more virtuous uses for the better social good. Take that away and goodbye soccer, volleyball, etc... and even basketball and baseball in some cases.
I'd take it one step farther than either of you and ask the question, why are many of these kids in school in the first place? Why do we need a system where they have to go to class? So they can get a bogus degree they didnt earn and barely learned anything? Sure some kids may want to earn a degree while there. But I'd argue they can do that on their own time with the money they are making as a post-high school, pre-professional athlete. A lot of these kids are taking the spot of someone more deserving who may actually try to better their life.
That is certainly one argument that some make. Like you, I don't care for it. I don't know why a player getting their piece of the pie harms the university's ability to sell billboard space to the local car dealership in the stadium concourse. Or maybe it does and then the university has to get a little more creative.
I think a lot of football players are in school to try and get to the NFL, the profession they would love to be in. Very similar to the kid in Featheringill who really hopes to land a great job at Apple. One just requires a degree and the other doesn't. But in some places (see Tesla) a degree isn't required.
But I will posit that 80% of football players graduate. That is the data. That's pretty darn good. I wouldn't want to get into whether or not they learned anything as that is hard to know. But we do know that a lot of players do actually graduate.
