Jump to content

California's 'Fair Pay to Play Act'


tdhoosier

Recommended Posts

Wisconsin is not going to turn down a donation and tell that booster to pay a recruit instead. The very reason the NCAA is fighting so hard to preserve its notion of amateurism is because they want to control that money themselves. If the member schools wanted boosters doing this, they would have allowed NIL compensation long ago and there would be no need for California's legislation. Your hypothetical is literally the opposite of the interests at play in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 454
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, JugRox said:

First, if IU has so many big spending boosters, why is IU 10th in contributions?

Wisconsin earns more money from football, but that money doesn’t not all come from boosters - only a small portion of it does. Most of it, as you point out, come from ticket sales, merchandising and tv revenue.

Again, if Wisconsin gives away football tickets, access to the football team, access to the football facilities, etc if football fans pay recruits.......what then?

So when it comes to basketball, IU’s boosters will easily out spend Wisconsin because they have more boosters who care about basketball. Money the university earns from football has nothing to do with it.

There will be NO LINE between sports in regard to boosters. If the AD gives someone free football private box tickets if he pays a recruit.....do you think the booster cares if its basketball or football?

You’re conflating 2 things that aren’t the same and the scenario you painted up is far from reality. For starters, wiscy season tix aren’t nearly that much and if a booster can already spend that much he probably already has a private box. 

Ok...fine. Hey big business in Wisconsin....we will give you free private box tickets for the next 2 seasons if you pay that kid from Indiana.....happy?

All this hinges on your hypothetical scenario which is pure fantasyland. I’ll give you that Wisconsin will have an advantage in football like they always have. But I don’t think this will cross lines into basketball.

to humor you, in your scenario why would UW not want that money to stay in the football program? After all they are competing against Nebraska, Michigan, Penn St, etc. for recruits? But no, let’s make that booster set up an endorsement deal for an Indiana basketball player he doesn’t care about. Haha

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, coachv said:

i think you are missing on these two things:

1. the schools are not the ones who will be paying athletes for their "endorsements" so the amount of money a school has becomes irrelevant

2. all it takes is ONE wealthy donor. mark cuban has already proven he is a big fan of indiana basketball with his 5 million donation to build the whatchamacallit center. do the schools you mention have a multi-billionaire donor alumni?

I don't know about you but I don't want my college sports team winning that way and that is not what college sports is about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

All this hinges on your hypothetical scenario which is pure fantasyland. I’ll give you that Wisconsin will have an advantage in football like they always have. But I don’t think this will cross lines into basketball.

to humor you, in your scenario why would UW not want that money to stay in the football program? After all they are competing against Nebraska, Michigan, Penn St, etc. for recruits? But no, let’s make that booster set up an endorsement deal for an Indiana basketball player he doesn’t care about. Haha

 

https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/college-basketball-attendance-leaders-Syracuse-Orange-Kentucky-Wildcats-North-Carolina-Tar-Heels-134006883/#134006883_1

Wisconsin was 5th in the nation in basketball attendance last season.......better than IU.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2019/03/12/the-most-valuable-college-basketball-teams/#38e534933225

Wisconsin was 10th in the nation in basketball revenue (IU was 3rd)

You want to rethink your question?

Now add OSU, Michigan, and MSU for the same Indiana talent......boy, I sure hope Cuban likes to give money.... lol

And this doesn't even take into account UK, Texas, and the REAL football money.

Just a heads up.....Alabama was 20th in basketball revenue.....I wonder if they would be interested in becoming a basketball power? I wonder if they have some extra football money to buy some Indiana talent.....hmmmmmm......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I don't know about you but I don't want my college sports team winning that way and that is not what college sports is about

Already happening Scott. Were you upset about Cuban's last donation? Were you upset about Vic and Cody's donation for the locker room? Were you upset when Cindy Simon Skjodt donated $40 million dollars for the renovation of Assembly Hall? What about Bill Cook donation for Cook Hall? You still appear to be supporting IU basketball. 

You think this is fair to Butler? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JugRox said:

 

Wisconsin was 10th in the nation in basketball revenue (IU was 3rd)

 

Exactly. What's your point? 

IU has the more valuable basketball program...and that's measuring the three years when they didn't make the tournament. My point is that the more valuable programs are going to be able to find more endorsement opportunities. If you really think we're going to let somebody like Khristian Lander go to Wisconsin because they're going to find more endorsement opportunities for him, then we can agree to disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

Already happening Scott. Were you upset about Cuban's last donation? Were you upset about Vic and Cody's donation for the locker room? Were you upset when Cindy Simon Skjodt donated $40 million dollars for the renovation of Assembly Hall? What about Bill Cook donation for Cook Hall? You still appear to be supporting IU basketball. 

You think this is fair to Butler? 

I am saying I don't want a bidding war for players and nothing is wrong with donating for projects like you mentioned.  No it is not fair to Butler and that is one of the reasons I don't want all of this to take place because it will ruin all of college basketball.  it will just be about the power 5 conference and they will probably try to get rid of the bottom of D1 when it comes to the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JugRox said:

ITS THE SAME DAMN MONEY!!!!!

Ok.....one more time.

The AD in charge of the money coming in from Wisconsin fans, simply gives out the services they are currently paying for (ex: Tickets, merchandise, fly on team private jet, etc) for free in exchange for paying recruits.

If you don't think these schools are not going to find a way to pay recruits using this rule.......you are out of your mind.

They are paying recruits now!!!!

your argument does not hold water no matter how many exclamation marks you use. the schools cannot legally turn over booster money to the athletes. you say the schools are paying the players now. while that may very well be true, it has nothing to do with the changes that will come about if the california legislative proposal becomes adopted coast to coast.

secondly, to address the sheer number of boosters: if a booster wants to donate $5000 he cannot give that directly to an athlete. that will remain an ncaa recruiting violation. nor can the school turn that $5000 over to the player. a booster would have to own a legitimate business so he can "hire" an athlete to "endorse" the product or service.

are there ways around this. sure, but they can't involve the school, nor would there be a need to. a bunch of boosters could buy a start a car dealership and start handing out ferraris to kids who sign with school x. or easier, they could buy a storage facility and give each recruit a million dollars to put his "endorsement" on advertising. schools need not be openly involved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

Exactly. What's your point? 

IU has the more valuable basketball program...and that's measuring the three years when they didn't make the tournament. My point is that the more valuable programs are going to be able to find more endorsement opportunities. If you really think we're going to let somebody like Khristian Lander go to Wisconsin because they're going to find more endorsement opportunities for him, then we can agree to disagree. 

And ya know what the difference is between IU and Wisconsin basketball......about 10 million. You think they could find some football boosters to make that up?  LOL

Wisconsin is just the current example. And honestly, in the new college landscape, they are somewhere in the "average" category. Better than IU....but just barely a "have".

Do I think UK will outbid IU for Lander? Yes

Do I think Michigan will outbid IU for Lander? Yes

Do I think OSU will outbid IU for Lander? Yes

Do I think UofL will outbid IU for Lander? Yes

Do I think MSU will outbid IU for Lander? Yes

Do I think Texas will outbid IU for Lander? Yes (They have their own TV station lol)

Do I think IU could land a player or two here are there.....sure. But IU will definitely be a "have not" and its not even close.
 

The good news is Purdue, Illinois, and some others will be in the same boat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I am selfish when it comes to this topic and I am against a lot of this stuff because I don't want the sport I love to change.  If these changes lead to more disparity from the big schools and the mid majors I am not in favor of it.  If it leads to where all of the tournament consist of power 5 schools and there are no more mid majors who make the tournament special I will be upset.  I truly enjoy watching teams like Davidson and Belmont play and I like those conference tournaments over the power 5 conference tournaments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, coachv said:

your argument does not hold water no matter how many exclamation marks you use. the schools cannot legally turn over booster money to the athletes. you say the schools are paying the players now. while that may very well be true, it has nothing to do with the changes that will come about if the california legislative proposal becomes adopted coast to coast.

secondly, to address the sheer number of boosters: if a booster wants to donate $5000 he cannot give that directly to an athlete. that will remain an ncaa recruiting violation. nor can the school turn that $5000 over to the player. a booster would have to own a legitimate business so he can "hire" an athlete to "endorse" the product or service.

are there ways around this. sure, but they can't involve the school, nor would there be a need to. a bunch of boosters could buy a start a car dealership and start handing out ferraris to kids who sign with school x. or easier, they could buy a storage facility and give each recruit a million dollars to put his "endorsement" on advertising. schools need not be openly involved

secondly, to address the sheer number of boosters: if a booster wants to donate $5000 he cannot give that directly to an athlete. that will remain an ncaa recruiting violation. nor can the school turn that $5000 over to the player. a booster would have to own a legitimate business so he can "hire" an athlete to "endorse" the product or service.

LOL.....you think there wont be boosters funneling money through one business to pay all the recruits? Wake up man.

are there ways around this. sure, but they can't involve the school, nor would there be a need to.

"Can't be involved with the school".....the NCAA cant prove that now with assistant coaches and the FBI.... lol

a bunch of boosters could buy a start a car dealership and start handing out ferraris to kids who sign with school x. or easier, they could buy a storage facility and give each recruit a million dollars to put his "endorsement" on advertising. schools need not be openly involved

And what if the AD told the boosters to do that instead of contributing to the school? That would be 100% legal. Doesn't that sound awesome!!!

And you are still under the assumption the NCAA even exists after this. What happens if the NCAA dissolves? What then? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I admit I am selfish when it comes to this topic and I am against a lot of this stuff because I don't want the sport I love to change.  If these changes lead to more disparity from the big schools and the mid majors I am not in favor of it.  If it leads to where all of the tournament consist of power 5 schools and there are no more mid majors who make the tournament special I will be upset.  I truly enjoy watching teams like Davidson and Belmont play and I like those conference tournaments over the power 5 conference tournaments.

I understand and respect. I'm just saying it's already indirectly a bidding war, but we'll call it a race to arms (facilities). The mid-majors aren't getting these players anyway. I think would stay the same more than they'd be different. I actually really like that it will take away the advantages of other programs who cheat. And I think the players should make money off of their own name because it's freakin' America damnit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Again if these kids get paid then I would not allow them to have scholarships and they have to pay their own way through school.  should not get both it is one or the other

then you would have to revoke the scholarship as the offer would have already been accepted before endorsements were cashed in. in other cases a shoe company might give a can't miss prospect a $10 million contract when he's 16 years old. they may not care if he plays in college vs the nba. in fact, they may prefer he stay in college all 4 years as there is probably more national exposure than the nba. under this proposal, many athletes can make more money staying in school

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JugRox said:

And ya know what the difference is between IU and Wisconsin basketball......about 10 million. You think they could find some football boosters to make that up?  LOL

Wisconsin is just the current example. And honestly, in the new college landscape, they are somewhere in the "average" category. Better than IU....but just barely a "have".

Do I think UK will outbid IU for Lander? Yes

Do I think Michigan will outbid IU for Lander? Yes

Do I think OSU will outbid IU for Lander? Yes

Do I think MSU will outbid IU for Lander? Yes

Do I think Texas will outbid IU for Lander? Yes (They have their own TV station lol)

Do I think IU could land a player or two here are there.....sure. But IU will definitely be a "have not" and its not even close.

it is not the schools who will be doing the bidding, but private enterprise. can the schools secretly ask these entities to hire athletes? sure, but that would still run afoul of ncaa regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I am saying I don't want a bidding war for players and nothing is wrong with donating for projects like you mentioned.  No it is not fair to Butler and that is one of the reasons I don't want all of this to take place because it will ruin all of college basketball.  it will just be about the power 5 conference and they will probably try to get rid of the bottom of D1 when it comes to the tournament.

donating for projects isn't really any different than paying players for their endorsement in order to bring them to a particular school. do you think trent green donated $2million to indiana so football players had a more comfortable place to get dressed? no. he did it in hopes it would translate into more victories. if he can now instead use that $2 mil to pay chase young and that qb from clemson, and their ilk to commit to iu, think he wouldn't? that would translate to more wins, which would put more butts in seats, more revenue for the program. then iu could pay for their own damn locker room. a much better return on investment for mr. greene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, coachv said:

a bunch of boosters could buy a start a car dealership and start handing out ferraris to kids who sign with school x. or easier, they could buy a storage facility and give each recruit a million dollars to put his "endorsement" on advertising. schools need not be openly involved

Appreciate the civil back and forth and I'm no accountant but many of these hypotheticals are not likely to happen. A) If you are given a car, you need to pay tax on it. B) What you propose seems about as legit as Walter White's money laundering car wash. C) I'm not sure you are grasping how much more money it is to lawfully endorse a player vs. your standard booster donation. If a booster can afford to donate $1 million dollars it's not the same as spending $1 million on an endorsement contract.

A $1 million donation and and a $1million dollar endorsement contract are SO far apart in how much they'd actually cost a booster. A $1 million donation is a deduction; it decreases a business's taxable profit. A $1 million dollar endorsement is an expenditure.  I promise you that a local car dealership or storage facility will not be spending $1 million on an endorsement deal for a kid who'll be at IU for 1-2 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tdhoosier said:

Again, the key word is 'donated'. If he sets up an endorsement that will be a marketing expense to be made under a company, which affects the bottom line. There are tax advantages to donating. Endorsing an athlete can not and will not be a 'donation' in the eyes of the law.  You're throwing around the word millions like it means nothing. These guys didn't get rich by frivolously throwing around millions of dollars. 

Another key word is 'already'. Cuban already donated, Nike already donated, FedEx already donated. Money is already flowing into universities from corporations. This money has already created an uneven playing field. This is already happening. I'm not sure the law will add to the money flowing into college athletics - it will redistribute a small percentage of it. 

when you have over $4 billion and growing, you could buy the indiana basketball program just for fun. like buying a yacht 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

I understand and respect. I'm just saying it's already indirectly a bidding war, but we'll call it a race to arms (facilities). The mid-majors aren't getting these players anyway. I think would stay the same more than they'd be different. I actually really like that it will take away the advantages of other programs who cheat. And I think the players should make money off of their own name because it's freakin' America damnit. 

See that is where I don't agree because it won't stop cheating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

Appreciate the civil back and forth and I'm no accountant but many of these hypotheticals are not likely to happen. A) If you are given a car, you need to pay tax on it. B) What you propose seems about as legit as Walter White's money laundering car wash. C) I'm not sure you are grasping how much more money it is to lawfully endorse a player vs. your standard booster donation. If a booster can afford to donate $1 million dollars it's not the same as spending $1 million on an endorsement contract.

A $1 million donation and and a $1million dollar endorsement contract are SO far apart in how much they'd actually cost a booster. A $1 million donation is a deduction; it decreases a business's taxable profit. A $1 million dollar endorsement is an expenditure.  I promise you that a local car dealership or storage facility will not be spending $1 million on an endorsement deal for a kid who'll be at IU for 1-2 years. 

of course i am throwing around hypotheticals to address what can spill out of pandoras box with this proposal. my hypotheticals may not occur but no one can stop them from occurring. also, you are comparing donations with endorsements as if they are similar. they are not. donations will do nothing to specifically target an individual recruit and ensure his commitment. an endorsement deal does precisely that. finally, while i understand a privately held storage facility would lose money on such an endorsement deal, you are missing my point. the storage facility's ability to make solvent business decisions is not the point. the facility was started for the SOLE purpose of funneling money to athletes. making a profit is besides the point.

let's make it simpler. instead of a dealership (although every basketball player will be driving a brand new escalade), or storage facility, let's say big $ starts a website like tdh, which we all love. now big $ can pay any player however much they want to say," i get all my indiana sports news from the daily hoosier!" great. here's your money. see you on the court! jsut a way to legally get the money in the hands of the player.

if you want something that makes more business sense, let's try another scenario. let's say you own the concessions contract at memorial stadium. you could buy the chase youngs and justin fields of the world. more wins sells more tickets which sells more beer and hot dogs. there, a solid business investment. and to make sure everyone wins, the indiana athletic dept. just renewed your concessions contract for another ten years. wink wink grin grin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, coachv said:

when you have over $4 billion and growing, you could buy the indiana basketball program just for fun. like buying a yacht 

If a billionaire with a 'b' wanted to throw all his money at a college basketball program, there's already nothing stopping him. I'm sure there's a dollar amount that would pull Chris Beard out of Texas Tech, or Billy Donovan from the NBA. $40 million to renovate Assembly Hall wouldn't be a bother. Of course, Assembly Hall was already renovated for that amount, under the current rules. Your hypothetical scenario is a change in quantity not quality, and like much of the discussion on here has nothing to do with the actual legislation on hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me if the NCAA ever had a back bone and really tried to stop cheating we wouldn't have all of this crap going on.  I would say if an institution on their first offense got a one year ban from post season action, 2nd offense a 5 years ban and a 3rd you get the death penalty.  if their were consequences for their actions all of these scandals that have been happening might not happened if there were swift consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

Oh I just realized we were making up fantasy rules for the hypothetical conversation we are having and the irs doesn't exist. 

the forum topic is the california fair pay to play act and its ramifications. if you don't enjoy the discussion you certainly are not required to participate or read it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...