- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BREAKING: The NCAA will allow athletes to be compensated for their names, images and liken
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:02 pm to slackster
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:02 pm to slackster
quote:
What you are going to see is the next Joe Burrow throwing a football to Morris Bart, in a tv commercial.
This is just how I imagine it.
quote:
Is he an LSU booster already? If so, his donations will go down proportionally to what he pays Burrow (I'd imagine). If not, why would he care all of a sudden?
Being a booster doesn't drum up your business, it's a charitable donation. Paying Burrow to drive a Robinson Bros. Raptor around town and appear in a few commercials just might increase sales a bit. One's a personal tax deduction, the other is a business write-off, and they don't really compete.
0
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:22 pm to Samso
Heard on Mark Packer’s show that some politician has a bill ready to go that would make the value of the scholarship of an athlete who takes the money become taxable income. Sounds fair to me.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:31 pm to double d
After reading through this thread and the one on the SECr I’ll say that the sweeping assumptions being made are strange.
Why is everyone assuming it’s going to be a free for all? There will regulations put in place that strive for parity. Will the schools with the most money at their disposal prevail? Of course. But that’s already how it is right now. So why the hysteria?
Also, if the student-athletes are the ones that can now benefit off their likeness then it puts them (monetarily speaking) in a position of power, and the university stands to benefit; not the other way around. What I mean by that is, you could have some superstar (let’s say Eli Manning for instance) who has an affinity for a school (Ole Miss) and no matter what is going to go there. All of the endorsement deals are going to follow the superstar athletes regardless of where they go. If a kid is a stud and it’s clear he’s a future NFL star, where he attends is a moot point. Again, why the hysteria?
Paying players is a good thing and the people freaking out are overreacting.
Why is everyone assuming it’s going to be a free for all? There will regulations put in place that strive for parity. Will the schools with the most money at their disposal prevail? Of course. But that’s already how it is right now. So why the hysteria?
Also, if the student-athletes are the ones that can now benefit off their likeness then it puts them (monetarily speaking) in a position of power, and the university stands to benefit; not the other way around. What I mean by that is, you could have some superstar (let’s say Eli Manning for instance) who has an affinity for a school (Ole Miss) and no matter what is going to go there. All of the endorsement deals are going to follow the superstar athletes regardless of where they go. If a kid is a stud and it’s clear he’s a future NFL star, where he attends is a moot point. Again, why the hysteria?
Paying players is a good thing and the people freaking out are overreacting.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:32 pm to Grateful Reb
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:34 pm to WildManGoose
quote:
Chicago
Yea but the issue here is
Are those cities even college football cities to begin with?
Besides you can argue that Notre Dame has more of a pull in Chicago than Northwestern does
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:37 pm to The Boat
quote:
I can't wait until the next Ole Miss star gets JoJo to tell em about it
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:38 pm to I Bleed Garnet
I have cell service but not WiFi. Well not today at least.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:41 pm to Grateful Reb
I went over this in detail about the only way it could possibly work. It will take at least 3-4 years for this to be outlined properly and to get the framework in place and even then the first couple of years will be the Wild West.
Unless you are a freshman, this really won’t benefit any current NCAA athlete.
Unless you are a freshman, this really won’t benefit any current NCAA athlete.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:44 pm to double d
quote:
Heard on Mark Packer’s show that some politician has a bill ready to go that would make the value of the scholarship of an athlete who takes the money become taxable income. Sounds fair to me.
How, on earth, does it sound good or fair to you?
Do you realize an NCAA football player is ineligible if he works a football camp and is paid to do so under the current rules? In order for him to get paid, you want to make his scholarship taxable? It's simply un-American.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:47 pm to TheeRealCarolina
quote:
I have cell service but not WiFi. Well not today at least.
So why not use your cell service to read this?
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:49 pm to TheeRealCarolina
You’re going to see some interesting dynamics in what people donate and to where. Ticket prices will be interesting as well.
Why would I want to pay a high PSL and ticket price to help build another updated locker room when I know billionaire alums/supporters can hire 5 stars to $100k internships?
You’re going to see a split in the middle class joe alums who want to see their game day experience improve with their contributions, while the high dollar donors would rather outright pay certain recruits rather than add another wing to an athletic support building or refurbish the weight room.
That’s another side of this no one is talking about. Their is a cap on the amount of money each alumni base is willing to put into their schools’ athletics. Fans want wins and a great gameday experiences. Athletes want pay and amenities. Only so many dollars to go around to fund all of that.
Why would I want to pay a high PSL and ticket price to help build another updated locker room when I know billionaire alums/supporters can hire 5 stars to $100k internships?
You’re going to see a split in the middle class joe alums who want to see their game day experience improve with their contributions, while the high dollar donors would rather outright pay certain recruits rather than add another wing to an athletic support building or refurbish the weight room.
That’s another side of this no one is talking about. Their is a cap on the amount of money each alumni base is willing to put into their schools’ athletics. Fans want wins and a great gameday experiences. Athletes want pay and amenities. Only so many dollars to go around to fund all of that.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:53 pm to TheeRealCarolina
Hopefully the mcnairs sell the Texans and throw tons of cash at SC
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:54 pm to TheeRealCarolina
quote:
You’re going to see a split in the middle class joe alums who want to see their game day experience improve with their contributions, while the high dollar donors would rather outright pay certain recruits rather than add another wing to an athletic support building or refurbish the weight room.
Fan-run PACs are the future
a bunch of baws get together and pool money GoFundMe style to chip in for a 4* TE. Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:57 pm to TheeRealCarolina
quote:
Only so many dollars to go around to fund all of that.
That's been my take from the get go. This doesn't bring new money to the table. It simply shifts who receives it.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 7:55 pm to I Bleed Garnet
quote:I think it's more about economic ability than simply interest in collegiate athletics. There's going to be some draw in a large city. Think of the difference in sheer density of commerce between the Chicago area and Columbia, SC. I'm talking specifically local money. How many Bentley dealerships or Waldorf-Astorias are in Columbia?
Are those cities even college football cities
That's not to say the clientele or mgmt of those places give two shits about college football, but the potential is infinitely higher for promising, big time prospects. Not to mention the implications for transfers and luring established players away from programs.
And you could sub ND for Northwestern. The idea is the same. Anyway, this is worst case in my mind. We'll see as it develops. I'm sure there will be caps and restrictions.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 8:01 pm to slackster
quote:You aren’t thinking logically at all
I'm trying to view this logically.
If I care enough about LSU to pay a player to go there, I'm already donating to TAF, no?
Am I going to keep my donations up while adding a player to my payroll? I tend to think they'll be reduced dollar for dollar. If I'm donating $1000/yr, I'm not going to add another $500/yr for a player, I'm just going to reduce my donations accordingly.
If you give a player money now under the table, you get no benefit as the bolster besides getting him to your school
If you pay a player to do advertisements for you, you now get him to come to your school AND you have him advertising for your company, therefore bringing in business
The payments become much larger because of this, and the sphere of influence of paying players increases
You can’t honestly at least admit that will absolutely happen
Posted on 10/29/19 at 8:03 pm to slackster
quote:
This doesn't bring new money to the table.
The boosters now also get to bring in money off the athletes. Those dollars are brand new
Posted on 10/29/19 at 8:12 pm to Samso
USC and UCLA could be dominate.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 8:13 pm to Samso
Top 4 by this years accomplishments:
1 LSU
2 OSU
3/4 Clemson/Alabama
But there is always a carry-over, and rightfully so, to an extent, last years teams factored in:
1 Clemson
2 Alabama
3 LSU
4 OSU
But at this point, and the next week the top 4 simply do Not matter.
Whoever wins, wins, but at the same time LSU has the highest chance of getting in the playoffs if they lose. If Alabama or Clemson lose they are are the out looking in.
1 LSU
2 OSU
3/4 Clemson/Alabama
But there is always a carry-over, and rightfully so, to an extent, last years teams factored in:
1 Clemson
2 Alabama
3 LSU
4 OSU
But at this point, and the next week the top 4 simply do Not matter.
Whoever wins, wins, but at the same time LSU has the highest chance of getting in the playoffs if they lose. If Alabama or Clemson lose they are are the out looking in.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 5:02 am to slackster
quote:
That's been my take from the get go. This doesn't bring new money to the table. It simply shifts who receives it.
It could do both. There will be less money on facilities and coaches salaries, which both have been absurdly high the past 20 years.
In a way I am happy that the players will finally benefit, but sad to see the likely end of the Clemson program as we know it. We will still be one of the best in the ACC, but will lose a lot of players to the Big 10/SEC.
I don’t know that college football will be worth following for myself and many others.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News