Started By
Message

After Jim Delany's silly 'slippery slope' remark, here are 9 potential effects of 'pay-for

Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:37 am
Posted by Old
Metairie
Member since Dec 2016
2843 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:37 am
LINK


Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany spent part of Wednesday morning railing against California Senate Bill 206, which will make it illegal for the NCAA to punish college athletes who profit off their name, image and likeness.

Jim Delany holding a sign: Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany speaks to media members during the Big Ten Football Media Days event on July 18, 2019 at the Hilton Chicago in Chicago, IL. (Getty)
© Provided by Oath Inc. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany speaks to media members during the Big Ten Football Media Days event on July 18, 2019 at the Hilton Chicago in Chicago, IL. (Getty)

Such a law, which was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday, pains the sensibilities of college administrators such as Delany, who view all money coming into college athletics as something he, and people like him, should control.

“I think the law of unintended consequences and the law of slippery slope apply here,” said Delany.

Extend Pets
Extend Joint Care For Dogs
SEE MORE
Ad by EXTEND PETS

He’s right that no one is certain how all of this might turn out, although slippery slope is an interesting phrase. Probably everything looks like a slippery slope when you’re standing on a house of cards built out of $100 bills. Delany, after all, recently had a bonus clause in his contract kick in that should exceed $20 million, which comes on top of his multimillion-dollar base salary.

If you are looking for a slippery slope it came whenever so-called amateur sports became such a big, unapologetic business that a guy like Jim Delany could reap $20 million bonuses. That was the real point of no return. That’s when SB 206, in some form, became reality.

College athletics is flat-footed and in a panic right now because guys such as Delany — not to mention fellow multi-millionaires Mark Emmert from the NCAA or Bob Bowlsby from the Big 12 or Larry Scott from the Pac-12 — did nothing to prevent, let alone plan for, this day.

As the drum beat for NIL rights has grown through the years via federal trials, public opinion and slow-moving legislatures, college sports’ leadership mostly just regurgitated whiny statements, obstruct progress and lawyer up. Well, that and negotiate new bonus deals for themselves (of course).

As the current gold rush of revenue has flooded into college athletics, they could have made moves toward the middle here. Better compensation for athletes. A limited NIL package. Some kind of revenue sharing. More scholarships for non-revenue sports.

Instead, they did almost nothing. They even had to get dragged, kicking and screaming, just to dole out a few hundred bucks in cost-of-living stipends. It wasn’t until 2015 that they’d even allowed that … and it came with similar predictions of doom.

So Delany et al failed miserably running the business they were paid handsomely to run, leaving Gavin Newsom, LeBron James and a lot of politicians to upend everything. What comes next is anyone’s guess, yet after two days of talking to administrators, coaches, agents and former players, here are a few perhaps unexpected possibilities.

Not all of them are bad. Many in college sports are optimistic that things will actually be better. Even coaches in Delany’s own league roll their eyes at his comments. A slippery slope … or progress?

1. Athletic departments are going to have to be organized (if it’s legal)
It makes sense to try to run this. Line up top boosters for endorsement and sponsorship opportunities to be handed down to the players. Scholarships could even come with guarantees of money for the players and add consistency to the recruiting process.

One athletic director noted that his school would need to set something up for non-glamour-position football players — “Everyone will want to sponsor the quarterback, but you need someone to block.”

Even mid-major basketball coaches figure that a decent recruit will be worth a $5,000-$10,000 promise. Since there is no business that would want to pay that much for an otherwise anonymous player, the school will have to facilitate by pooling money.

The rub? Title IX. Can a school round up boosters and businesses if 95-plus percent of the money goes to male athletes? No one is sure.

2. Certain mid-majors can benefit
The most valuable thing on the recruiting trail has been conference affiliation. Top players tend to sign with teams in the top leagues. Now? Perhaps not.

Are you better off being the starting quarterback at Boise State, where by definition you become the biggest star in a metro area that is approaching 1 million (let alone the entire state) or just another guy battling for a job at USC (where, in Los Angeles, no one will know your name). How about Oregon State?

In the past, USC won all those recruiting battles. Even Oregon State won most of them. Now? Places such as Boise State, or even lower-level programs in major conferences such as Iowa State or Indiana or Wake Forest are not broke. Maybe they can’t win every bidding war against the Clemsons and Alabamas, but they might be able to win more now than in the past.

“I think a school such as Boise can do really well,” one athletic director said. “When everyone was offering the same package -- a scholarship, room and board — then conference membership mattered. Now that they can, at times, offer more money, playing in the Mountain West rather than the Pac-12, it matters a lot less.”

3. Does Alabama really have all the money?
It has a lot. And no other professional teams in the state to divert attention. Ditto for Clemson and a lot of others. But these are still schools in small towns in comparatively poor Southern states. If the system shifts, making pure money matter more than things like stadium size and tradition, then what stops schools in wealthier areas such as the Northeast, Chicago or the Bay Area from making significant gains?

4. Here come the basketball schools
Some athletic programs are so big and have so many fans that they won’t lack for money to spread around. Ohio State. Texas. Michigan. Florida.

For a lot of others though, a priority is going to be paid to football, not basketball or other sports. For a school that cares mostly, or exclusively, about basketball, especially in a major city with lots of businesses and corporations, this could be a boon.

Villanova (and Philadelphia) has money. Georgetown (and Washington D.C.) has money. Memphis, for example, is going to spend top dollar on hoops, while local SEC rivals (Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas and Tennessee) will be focused on football.

Gonzaga, Wichita State and others will continue to be all basketball and offer mid-sized communities where the point guard can be the biggest star in the region. That can suddenly matter a lot more than what league someone is playing in.

Posted by SeeeeK
some where
Member since Sep 2012
28061 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 7:49 am to
quote:

Extend Pets
Extend Joint Care For Dogs
SEE MORE Ad by EXTEND PETS


What the frick kind of Meeting was the B1G having?
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
84868 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:04 am to
quote:

3. Does Alabama really have all the money?
It has a lot. And no other professional teams in the state to divert attention. Ditto for Clemson and a lot of others. But these are still schools in small towns in comparatively poor Southern states. If the system shifts, making pure money matter more than things like stadium size and tradition, then what stops schools in wealthier areas such as the Northeast, Chicago or the Bay Area from making significant gains?


This is the big concern
Posted by I Bleed Garnet
Cullman, AL
Member since Jul 2011
54846 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:06 am to
quote:

then what stops schools in wealthier areas such as the Northeast, Chicago or the Bay Area from making significant gains?

I just don’t think they have established brands
I’ve used this a bunch but let’s use NYC.
Rutgers is the closest FBS school to the city
They have literally no fans here

I would say schools like Bama, ND, Michigan etc would just use these cities to have marketing campaigns
Posted by saintsfan22
baton rouge
Member since May 2006
71636 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:09 am to
quote:

then what stops schools in wealthier areas such as the Northeast, Chicago or the Bay Area from making significant gains?

The same thing that stops them from spending money on it now.
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
84868 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:11 am to
Maybe, but to people in those places it’s possible the alums would get more involved in paying players if its legal vs under the table.
Posted by greenwave
Member since Oct 2011
3878 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:17 am to
quote:

3. Does Alabama really have all the money?


Posted by brmark70816
Atlanta, GA
Member since Feb 2011
9788 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:22 am to
I'm getting so tired about hearing all of these "what ifs". NFL should just drop the age limit and let all of these guys that want money go there. Wouldn't hurt college football any and these guys will get what they want. Win/win..
Posted by Adam Banks
District 5
Member since Sep 2009
31897 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:25 am to
quote:

The rub? Title IX. Can a school round up boosters and businesses if 95-plus percent of the money goes to male athletes? No one is sure



I was assured by our pay to play experts on this very board that this was not an issue.


Also it’s 99.9% of the money.
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 8:28 am
Posted by SeeeeK
some where
Member since Sep 2012
28061 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:26 am to
NFL wants these kids ready, not raw, and they have to pay 2 years of salary for them to be ready. That's what the NCAA is for.

NFL and NBA want the Milk for free, they never intend on paying for the cow, just sucking off the titties and getting that sweet nectar for free.
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
56529 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 8:35 am to
quote:

The same thing that stops them from spending money on it now.



What stops them now is a real committment to the sport. That's the great thing about college football. It takes years to put a program on the map. And success breeds success. You have to hire the right people, build a fanbase, build credibility, and actually win consistently. That helps recruiting which helps the program, etc.

THAT'S WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT COLLEGE FOOTBALL. I don't want winning and losing to be purely about who pays players more.

And, I think there is an equally big issue. This "getting paid for your likeness" is a loophole to allow buying players. I think that's pretty clear. But, because it's not directly tied to signing a player, there is NOTHING to stop a player from deciding he needs to be paid for his likeness in the middle of a season...or in between years. And, the barriers to that will be gone. Now, it will be within the rules for an Alabama car dealership to offer 200k to a LSU All-American...and "maybe" they will also transfer.

It will absolutely encourage free agency. If you think recruiting freshman is important, think about the opportunity to recruit proven superstar sophmores now. A transfer and another endorsement deal and the kid has doubled his money. Why wouldn't players do this? Why wouldn't boosters do this?

These are just a couple of unintended consequences that materially change the game of college football...and truly could destroy it.
Posted by jlovel7
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2014
21319 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 9:09 am to
quote:

I'm getting so tired about hearing all of these "what ifs". NFL should just drop the age limit and let all of these guys that want money go there. Wouldn't hurt college football any and these guys will get what they want. Win/win..


Unfortunately unless we have a baseball like rule where you can either go pro or sit for 3 years we would probably have a one and done system in College football even though 9/10 it would turn out poorly for the athlete. Football is the big one where they just aren't ready at 18. Maybe 1 kid every 5-10 years is touted as ready and they're usually not. It's pretty bad now with kids leaving their junior year who aren't good enough, having the age limit dropped would just make that worse. So there's negatives to both sides it seems, especially when you consider a kid could frick up his potential earnings for life if he jumps 2-3 years too early compared to just 1-2 like it is now.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98855 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 9:43 am to
Yu know those NCAA commercials that talk about the 90%+ of college athletes that will never go pro?

Those kids are going to suffer because of this bullshite.
Posted by Bham Bammer
Member since Nov 2014
14483 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 9:54 am to
It's only an issue if the school tries to organize the opportunities.
Posted by uway
Member since Sep 2004
33109 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 10:05 am to
It’s all bullshite. I don’t want any of them to be paid anything, and I do think this will ruin college football in particular.

That said, I guess some of them are being paid under the table now anyway.
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84896 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 10:11 am to
quote:

The same thing that stops them from spending money on it now.


Yep. This idea that new money is going to flow into CFB is largely overblown.
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84896 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 10:13 am to
quote:

know those NCAA commercials that talk about the 90%+ of college athletes that will never go pro?

Those kids are going to suffer because of this bullshite.



, give me an example of how they'll be negatively impacted.
Posted by Rep520
Member since Mar 2018
10418 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 10:17 am to
quote:

Yu know those NCAA commercials that talk about the 90%+ of college athletes that will never go pro?

Those kids are going to suffer because of this bull shite.


Not if the solution is to drop a prohibition on athletes earning money from their likeness.

That doesn't change any aspect of how schools offer scholarships to nonrevenue athletes. That's the reason it doesn't implicate Title IX. The school's underlying scholarship system stays the same.
Posted by Tiger Prawn
Member since Dec 2016
21907 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 11:23 am to
They won't as long as the schools aren't the ones doling out the money. But if it gets to a point where schools are paying the players directly, then a lot of schools would be eliminating non-revenue sports programs.
Posted by EvrybodysAllAmerican
Member since Apr 2013
11164 posts
Posted on 10/3/19 at 11:57 am to
You people are overthinking this to try to rationalize paying college players.

It’s.not. Sustainable. And will ruin college sports.

If there’s no limit, it upsets the competitive balance. Are we going to blatantly let some teams/(boosters) buy championships? Because that’s exactly what will happen. Oregon players all get Nike shoe deals for life? So to keep things balanced, What next? A salary cap? Luxury taxes? Then do we have to go to a draft? If this is supposed to be capitalism and you’re limiting it, it will never be enough.

Put this effort into a minor league football / basketball league and everyone can choose their own path. Just like baseball. If the college experience and exposure is so worthless, let them find another path without ruining college sports.
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 12:08 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram