The End of College Football

[knownone]

The more I read about this, the more it seems like they are creating a loophole to pay players under the guise of player entitlement. They are essentially making it easier to pay players under the table within the confines of a legal agreement. So, to piggy back off Dome's initial concern, there is nothing stopping boosters from funding a front company and offering recruits faux marketing deals to get them to join their school. In the age of social media, simply having a player tweet or post a video about some random 'product' could be deemed permissible in the lose terms of profiting off your likeness.

This should be a concern because it's less of a 'only a handful of players will profit situation', and more of a 'you can pay any recruit so long as it's not done with school funds and you follow a specific guideline'. In other words, what was previously done illegally, paying recruits through 3rd parties, is now technically legal so long as it's set up as a marketing (likeness) deal and the player fulfills his marketing obligations. And worse, there is so much grey area that it would be hard to determine what is actually fair compensations for the likeness of a high school student, and what is not.

As someone who works in tracking fraud, this feels like a clever way of structuring a system to facilitate fraud. We'll see how it plays out...

 

[CPHawk]

Either way, players like Billy Joe have gotten money forever. Now it will be ok, and schools wont be held accountable. Oh and its laughable that anyone thinks Nike, a multi billion company, would pay UO athletes more than any other school star athletes.

 

[DomeHawk]

Oh and its laughable that anyone thinks Nike, a multi billion company, would pay UO athletes more than any other school star athletes.

Nominated

LMAO!

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... it-players

 

[CPHawk]

Mark Parker is a PSU grad, not a UO grad. It's just not smart business for his company to pay a UO athlete more money.

 

[DomeHawk]

Mark Parker is a PSU grad, not a UO grad. It's just not smart business for his company to pay a UO athlete more money.

Nike executives have been extensively involved with payments to athletes.

Who are you trying to kid?

https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/art ... 05772.html

 

[CPHawk]

You just made my point. I'm not saying Nike won't pay athletes. I'm saying they won't be giving special treatment to UO.

The companies that will be more involved in paying for talent to go to their school of choice, will be more local type companies. I don't think a world brand would risk losing business, so that the local school can land a 5*. But the local owner of 3 GMC dealerships, will more than happily pay a 5* $200k to play for his favorite team. You and I agree this is, and has always happened. So might as well make it legal. The NCAA already picks and choices who to punish, and who they won't punish. Auburn paid Cam 250k, and nothing. Yet anytime a school out west was implicated in anything, they at the very least hand out probation.

I think you and I have the same view on this. Where we differ is that I think you might as well say F it, and stop pretending it's not already happening. Make it ok, and focus on other issues.

Edit- I do believe Nike, Adidas, UA(if they survive their current issues) will absolutely offer a kid money to go to one of their sponsored schools.

 

[DomeHawk]

You just made my point. I'm not saying Nike won't pay athletes. I'm saying they won't be giving special treatment to UO.

I'm sorry CP, all rivalry aside, this is just a ridiculous statement. Nike has always given UO special treatment and they have ALWAYS gotten away with it.

Phil Knight AKA Nike, built UO the most expensive athlete training center in the country, that is financial advantage. Nike's marketing dept is extensively involved with UO test marketing it's fashions in innumerable football uniform fashions. Until each school that receives Nike's uniforms is given the same resource THAT is a financial advantage. Nike has even placed billboards in NEW YORK CITY promoting UO athletes.

The NCAA does nothing about it even though they are assigned with protecting the schools in the NCAA from unfair financial advantage.

The University of Oregon's football program is corrupt and has sold its soul to Phil Knight and Nike.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

Having grown up in a college town, I think the market could be huge if we're strictly talking football.

Everyone within 20 miles of Stanford, maybe more, knew who McCaffrey was. We all saw his tape on local news. And the default for residents of the Peninsula/South Bay (the space between SF and San Jose) is to like Stanford.

I can think of seven car dealerships in that radius who would have signed local deals or especially those local cable deals where you just get snuck in whenever there was 15 seconds. Big money even locally. Since we're increasingly non local, I agree with you that the pie and fingers in it will hugely expand beyond the average 20-yo's capability of understanding.

I disagree here, and I think this may be why its happening.

I think we will see a small, major market for heisman level talent, and then a significant drop for anyone else. I don't think the marketability will be worth the investment.

Dome's issue with Oregon and Nike is where I see this getting really muddy. Recruits being offered marketing opportunities from major businesses who support the university.

Whether that's the "end" of college sports, who knows. College sports is effectively over, and has been, as an amatuer sports entity for decades now. It's just a matter of whether fans want to continue the exploitation of young athletes for their entertainment while a select few get horribly wealthy from it, or allow those exploited athletes to gain from it.

But as an entity, major college sports is kind of gross. You want it to be healthy and endearing, look at some of the lesser sports. I played D1 soccer and never saw anything like what we read about it. Dated a volleyball player, who was friends with girls from the basketball team, same thing. There just wasn't a commercial interest in our sports, so no (or very minimal, base level recruiting stuff) rule breaking

I agree.

A few years back, we went to see my SO's cousin (on the Ducks) play men's tennis against Stanford. The game was at this posh tennis facility that had just opened. We were the only ones there and there weren't even tickets. Memberships start at $20K there and that money had to come from somewhere. My guess is that it came mostly from football, which supports all sorts of sports that people don't watch unless their families are involved. Which is most sports.

 

[Osprey]

UW has been paying players since the late 40’s, who cares?

FIFY

After denying rumors for decades, in 2004 McElhenny confirmed that he received improper financial benefits from the University of Washington during his time there, which included a $300 monthly check.[2] Per NCAA rules, the most a college can offer an athlete is a summer job and a scholarship covering boarding and tuition.[52] A popular (albeit usually jocular) spin on the rumor was that McElhenny essentially took a pay cut when he left the university to play for the 49ers.[6][53][54] This was not entirely untrue; all payments accounted for, including legitimate ones, McElhenny claimed he and his wife received a combined $10,000 a year while at Washington—with the 49ers, his rookie salary was worth $7,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_McElhenny

For the record...I'm a Husky but don't kid myself that this goes on everywhere and always has. The only difference is how much the boosters will shell out and how big the NCAA blind eye is for the program.

 

[Osprey]

The more I read about this, the more it seems like they are creating a loophole to pay players under the guise of player entitlement. They are essentially making it easier to pay players under the table within the confines of a legal agreement. So, to piggy back off Dome's initial concern, there is nothing stopping boosters from funding a front company and offering recruits faux marketing deals to get them to join their school. In the age of social media, simply having a player tweet or post a video about some random 'product' could be deemed permissible in the lose terms of profiting off your likeness.

This should be a concern because it's less of a 'only a handful of players will profit situation', and more of a 'you can pay any recruit so long as it's not done with school funds and you follow a specific guideline'. In other words, what was previously done illegally, paying recruits through 3rd parties, is now technically legal so long as it's set up as a marketing (likeness) deal and the player fulfills his marketing obligations. And worse, there is so much grey area that it would be hard to determine what is actually fair compensations for the likeness of a high school student, and what is not.

As someone who works in tracking fraud, this feels like a clever way of structuring a system to facilitate fraud. We'll see how it plays out...

Because the compensation is coming from outside businesses, the NCAA will never be able to regulate it effectively. Restraint of trade issues alone will make the lawyers rich now that Pandora's box is open.

 

[ivotuk]

Screw the money. They need to take responsibility for the health of Student Athletes, and not just while they are playing or attending.

Instead, the Student Athlete gets stuck with the bill when they start falling apart at the age of 25 or 30. Professional athletes get a lot of perks when it comes to health. And they can sue. But not college students. They're forced to sign a waiver. And the NCAA grows fat, while telling students that they can't transfer even though coaches can bail for a raise.

The pay? What good is 50k when your medical bills are $300,000+? I, and many others have had to fork out tens of thousands for medical bills. Even so, we haven't been beaten up like many NCAAF players get in their 4 years of being sucked dry by the NCAAF. I can't imagine the agony they go through when they don't have insurance, or can't find a reasonable diagnosis, let alone treatment.

No, students should get health coverage from the NCAA, because the QBs will get all the money, while the Fullback goes broke, crashing in to piles of men in armor.

 

[chris98251]

Screw the money. They need to take responsibility for the health of Student Athletes, and not just while they are playing or attending.

Instead, the Student Athlete gets stuck with the bill when they start falling apart at the age of 25 or 30. Professional athletes get a lot of perks when it comes to health. And they can sue. But not college students. They're forced to sign a waiver. And the NCAA grows fat, while telling students that they can't transfer even though coaches can bail for a raise.

The pay? What good is 50k when your medical bills are $300,000+? I, and many others have had to fork out tens of thousands for medical bills. Even so, we haven't been beaten up like many NCAAF players get in their 4 years of being sucked dry by the NCAAF. I can't imagine the agony they go through when they don't have insurance, or can't find a reasonable diagnosis, let alone treatment.

No, students should get health coverage from the NCAA, because the QBs will get all the money, while the Fullback goes broke, crashing in to piles of men in armor.

If nothing else be covered for years post playing by insurance of some kind that addresses football career injuries as a rider for anything else they may have.

 

[DomeHawk]

UW has been paying players since the late 40’s, who cares?

FIFY

After denying rumors for decades, in 2004 McElhenny confirmed that he received improper financial benefits from the University of Washington during his time there, which included a $300 monthly check.[2] Per NCAA rules, the most a college can offer an athlete is a summer job and a scholarship covering boarding and tuition.[52] A popular (albeit usually jocular) spin on the rumor was that McElhenny essentially took a pay cut when he left the university to play for the 49ers.[6][53][54] This was not entirely untrue; all payments accounted for, including legitimate ones, McElhenny claimed he and his wife received a combined $10,000 a year while at Washington—with the 49ers, his rookie salary was worth $7,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_McElhenny

For the record...I'm a Husky but don't kid myself that this goes on everywhere and always has. The only difference is how much the boosters will shell out and how big the NCAA blind eye is for the program.

You are quoting something that happened 70 years ago, a time when just about ALL major programs did this.

UW has NOT been paying players since the late 40's and anyone who says they are is just a liar. If UW was paying players we would have multiple 5-star players on the roster. To my knowledge we have never had one single 5-star player successfully recruited.

The amount of BS and outright lies on this board has reached an unprecedented level.

 

[CPHawk]

UW has been paying players since the late 40’s, who cares?

FIFY

After denying rumors for decades, in 2004 McElhenny confirmed that he received improper financial benefits from the University of Washington during his time there, which included a $300 monthly check.[2] Per NCAA rules, the most a college can offer an athlete is a summer job and a scholarship covering boarding and tuition.[52] A popular (albeit usually jocular) spin on the rumor was that McElhenny essentially took a pay cut when he left the university to play for the 49ers.[6][53][54] This was not entirely untrue; all payments accounted for, including legitimate ones, McElhenny claimed he and his wife received a combined $10,000 a year while at Washington—with the 49ers, his rookie salary was worth $7,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_McElhenny

For the record...I'm a Husky but don't kid myself that this goes on everywhere and always has. The only difference is how much the boosters will shell out and how big the NCAA blind eye is for the program.

You are quoting something that happened 70 years ago, a time when just about ALL major programs did this.

UW has NOT been paying players since the late 40's and anyone who says they are is just a liar. If UW was paying players we would have multiple 5-star players on the roster. To my knowledge we have never had one single 5-star player successfully recruited.

The amount of BS and outright lies on this board has reached an unprecedented level.

Wow. And this list stops at 01, and doesn't include Eason.

https://247sports.com/college/washingto ... eRecruits/

Basketball for you

https://247sports.com/college/washingto ... eRecruits/

At this point, you would start calling anyone else here a name, and throwing accusations of cheating at them.

 

[Osprey]

UW has been paying players since the late 40’s, who cares?

FIFY

After denying rumors for decades, in 2004 McElhenny confirmed that he received improper financial benefits from the University of Washington during his time there, which included a $300 monthly check.[2] Per NCAA rules, the most a college can offer an athlete is a summer job and a scholarship covering boarding and tuition.[52] A popular (albeit usually jocular) spin on the rumor was that McElhenny essentially took a pay cut when he left the university to play for the 49ers.[6][53][54] This was not entirely untrue; all payments accounted for, including legitimate ones, McElhenny claimed he and his wife received a combined $10,000 a year while at Washington—with the 49ers, his rookie salary was worth $7,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_McElhenny

For the record...I'm a Husky but don't kid myself that this goes on everywhere and always has. The only difference is how much the boosters will shell out and how big the NCAA blind eye is for the program.

You are quoting something that happened 70 years ago, a time when just about ALL major programs did this.

UW has NOT been paying players since the late 40's and anyone who says they are is just a liar. If UW was paying players we would have multiple 5-star players on the roster. To my knowledge we have never had one single 5-star player successfully recruited.

The amount of BS and outright lies on this board has reached an unprecedented level.

Sure, it's not coming directly from the University. Are you really naive enough to think that cash doesn't flow to players in major programs? Wasn't tight with Football players when at UW, but knew several Track folks that always had 'walking around' money magically appear in their pocket. It was a running joke about needing to improve their performance to boost the cash bonus.

 

[HawkGA]

Sure, it's not coming directly from the University. Are you really naive enough to think that cash doesn't flow to players in major programs? Wasn't tight with Football players when at UW, but knew several Track folks that always had 'walking around' money magically appear in their pocket. It was a running joke about needing to improve their performance to boost the cash bonus.

I've never understood the sports other than football and at some schools basketball. Why the heck would you pay a track athlete? Does the university really make any money from track? Do boosters somehow benefit from having a good track program? These are honest questions, I don't know. I wouldn't think they do. I remember hearing a while back that the ONLY profitable sport in college for universities was football. Basketball, at most schools isn't even profitable (again, this may not be true and it was a while ago [decade?] that I heard this). I had a track student when I was in grad school (taught at the local community college and that's where he was a student because he couldn't fit all of his classes into the University schedule and his track schedule) and it very much seemed they were not treated particularly well.

 

[DomeHawk]

UW has been paying players since the late 40’s, who cares?

FIFY

After denying rumors for decades, in 2004 McElhenny confirmed that he received improper financial benefits from the University of Washington during his time there, which included a $300 monthly check.[2] Per NCAA rules, the most a college can offer an athlete is a summer job and a scholarship covering boarding and tuition.[52] A popular (albeit usually jocular) spin on the rumor was that McElhenny essentially took a pay cut when he left the university to play for the 49ers.[6][53][54] This was not entirely untrue; all payments accounted for, including legitimate ones, McElhenny claimed he and his wife received a combined $10,000 a year while at Washington—with the 49ers, his rookie salary was worth $7,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_McElhenny

For the record...I'm a Husky but don't kid myself that this goes on everywhere and always has. The only difference is how much the boosters will shell out and how big the NCAA blind eye is for the program.

You are quoting something that happened 70 years ago, a time when just about ALL major programs did this.

UW has NOT been paying players since the late 40's and anyone who says they are is just a liar. If UW was paying players we would have multiple 5-star players on the roster. To my knowledge we have never had one single 5-star player successfully recruited.

The amount of BS and outright lies on this board has reached an unprecedented level.

Sure, it's not coming directly from the University. Are you really naive enough to think that cash doesn't flow to players in major programs? Wasn't tight with Football players when at UW, but knew several Track folks that always had 'walking around' money magically appear in their pocket. It was a running joke about needing to improve their performance to boost the cash bonus.

I know because I do have ties to the football program. If UW players were collecting cash there would be some evidence of that. After the debacle that nearly ruined the program over fruit baskets the level of awareness, not just by the program itself, but also by the boosters is VERY high.

You call yourself a Husky fan and you engage in conspiracy theories without any semblance of evidence to support it?

I call BS.

 

[DomeHawk]

Sure, it's not coming directly from the University. Are you really naive enough to think that cash doesn't flow to players in major programs? Wasn't tight with Football players when at UW, but knew several Track folks that always had 'walking around' money magically appear in their pocket. It was a running joke about needing to improve their performance to boost the cash bonus.

I've never understood the sports other than football and at some schools basketball. Why the heck would you pay a track athlete? Does the university really make any money from track? Do boosters somehow benefit from having a good track program? These are honest questions, I don't know. I wouldn't think they do. I remember hearing a while back that the ONLY profitable sport in college for universities was football. Basketball, at most schools isn't even profitable (again, this may not be true and it was a while ago [decade?] that I heard this). I had a track student when I was in grad school (taught at the local community college and that's where he was a student because he couldn't fit all of his classes into the University schedule and his track schedule) and it very much seemed they were not treated particularly well.

^^^^Bingo!

UW Husky track athletes getting paid to attend UW of all places? So patently absurd that it shouldn't even deserve consideration.

But I will nominate it for worst post of the year.

 

[Osprey]

:les: Call it what you will, but that was my experience in the late 80s.

 

[chris98251]

Sure, it's not coming directly from the University. Are you really naive enough to think that cash doesn't flow to players in major programs? Wasn't tight with Football players when at UW, but knew several Track folks that always had 'walking around' money magically appear in their pocket. It was a running joke about needing to improve their performance to boost the cash bonus.

I've never understood the sports other than football and at some schools basketball. Why the heck would you pay a track athlete? Does the university really make any money from track? Do boosters somehow benefit from having a good track program? These are honest questions, I don't know. I wouldn't think they do. I remember hearing a while back that the ONLY profitable sport in college for universities was football. Basketball, at most schools isn't even profitable (again, this may not be true and it was a while ago [decade?] that I heard this). I had a track student when I was in grad school (taught at the local community college and that's where he was a student because he couldn't fit all of his classes into the University schedule and his track schedule) and it very much seemed they were not treated particularly well.

^^^^Bingo!

UW Husky track athletes getting paid to attend UW of all places? So patently absurd that it shouldn't even deserve consideration.

But I will nominate it for worst post of the year.

Nah I figure there as of right now pretty close to 1929 others ahead of it.