HoosierDom

Is the conference looking to improve its average SAT scores?

I agree, though, to my mind, Georgia is the bigger power there. I don't actually know their relative sizes, but that's my impression. And I doubt we could steal them.

I have to disagree with a lot of what is being discussed here. - The risk of a B1G implosion is minimal, almost non-existent. Our tv contract is still richer than the SEC's - that may change with their next deal, but we will likely pass them back next time ours gets redone. But, even if we stay behind, we're talking about 10% or so they will beat us by, and we're only talking about tv money which is less than 1/3rd of the total revenue the big schools bring in. UM and OSU are going to risk blowing up a good thing to increase their revenue by 3% (10% of 33%)? Michigan is certainly not. The SEC would destroy their talk of a "Michigan Man", and they know they can't be consistently competitive in the SEC. OSU probably thinks they can hang down there, and maybe they're right, but they have so little to gain and Ohio weather is not going to steal recruits from down south. - Our past expansion was driven by specific goals. When we added Nebraska, I believe we had to get to 12 schools to have a conference championship in football, so that 12th school added a lot of value. Maryland and Rutgers come with the biggest and 6th biggest media markets in the country, so they brought value. How many other schools are going to increase the Big 10 pie by more than the slice they will take? Very few. Notre Dame is the only non-media market school that might. If we don't get them, we have to get a big city. Maybe Boston, but there doesn't seem to be a fit. Maybe Philly, but again, I don't see a fit. We seem locked out of Texas. That leaves LA or San Fran, I would think that could be on the table, but it creates a lot of problems. So, it seems very likely things stay the same. - The only way I could see a major change happening is if the power conferences are going to break from the NCAA and run their own thing, but with the NIL, the impetus to do that is greatly reduced.

Someone convince me that I care what the SEC does. Let's say they succeed in adding Texas, OU, let's throw in FSU and Clemson, so the SEC is just stacked with football powers. Why does that affect me as a Big Ten fan? That conference will win a lot of national championships, but I would think individual Big Ten programs will continue winning at their normal rates. It seems to me that the only reason I would care is if the SEC stops participating in things like the playoffs. But, I'm sure it's still in the SEC's financial interest to have some sort of meaningful competition with other top programs, so I don't see the BIG losing much. Why would their move force the BIG to respond? I don't see it right now.

No way in hell Michigan goes to the SEC. They think they're way too good for that (hopefully, they're right).

It really was awful. I'm sure that it won't happen, but if I were in charge, I would have to think long and hard about suspending him for game 6. There is no more vulnerable player in basketball than a guy going up like that, you can't purposely shove him.

I think you're spot on, but, in keeping with the earlier posts, I would change the bolded to "d-bags want to buy a product endorsed by a d-bag".

My quick google search says that Manning is estimated to make 10 million a year from endorsements. Brady makes 22 million.

Just saw that Mississippi State's qb is charging 10k an hour to hang out with him. I bet he gets some boosters to pay it.

I assume similar things are why the NCAA hasn't been able to come up with any rules: there is no tenable way to prevent that sort of thing. Who is going to do this red flagging you are talking about? The NCAA is not going to have this "company's" business records. The NCAA does not have subpoena power; these won't be publicly traded companies, so their business records will not be disclosed to anyone. There was an ESPN (maybe it was CBS?) article a while back that estimated the average power conference star would be worth something like 150k in endorsements, so I think you're right. But, that is only counting money that comes from people who view their payment to players as legitimate business opportunities where they are making an honest attempt to increase their own profits. The first article I found on the topic said that in 2015 there were 20 schools that raised over $25 million in athletic contributions - that year alone. That's $500 million spread out over those schools. That's not enough to make the going rate for a 5 start player go to 7 figures?

I'm not suggesting actual donations. If I'm a booster that would normally donate a million bucks to the athletic department, that no longer seems like the best way to help my team win. Now, instead of doing that, I create a website for IU fans. I put that million dollars towards paying players so that I can put their pictures on my site, maybe have them come into my chat board once a month and answer some questions. Those things will help build my site. I doubt I will recoup my million, but that was never my goal. I'm not suggesting a not for profit company, I'm suggesting a company that is set us as a regular old for profit enterprise, but that will most likely fail at ever generating a profit. There's not a law against being a bad businessman.

I suspect you're right when you're talking about profit seeking companies - endorsements will spread to the big schools and they will be on roughly equivalent footing with each other, though at enormous advantage over the non-big schools. But, what about non-profit seeking money? I believe Knight has given on the order of a billion dollars of his own money to the school. What's to stop him from funneling that money through some non-Nike entity, say a website for Oregon fans that has no realistic chance of making money, and having it pay every Oregon player a million bucks? I'm assuming that the primary motive for his donation is making Oregon win (and if that statement doesn't apply strictly to Knight, it certainly does to countless other boosters), seems that giving players cash is the efficient way to do that. My guess is that legitimate businesses trying to profit off a relationship with a player will be small potatoes compared to money that is essentially a donation to help a team win.

I absolutely agree with you - from a financial standpoint, there is no viable alternative for a player, even a star, that isn't ready for the NBA. My point is, I don't think that's terribly relevant to a discussion of what a player deserves and/or will end up getting. If schools could bid on players (I doubt we will see that ever happen) IU would probably pay TJD 7 figures. If the free market were allowed to operate, he would get that.

That's in the ballpark of what ESPN said a while back. But, I'm talking about if schools were flat out allowed to bid on players. I doubt we're headed there, but that's the only way to determine what a player is worth. I don't have any guesses as to how many players are in the supply pool, but the demand pool (schools paying illegally) is also limited, so who can say. But, the difference between winning and losing is a lot of money, so I don't see an argument that schools wouldn't pay handsomely. Far more than the G-League (or whatever it's called now).

In this country we determine worth by what the free market is willing to pay. My understanding is that the black-market is already paying 6 figures, do you really doubt that schools won't pay that? Saying that the college name is needed is both true and beside the point: Kentucky makes a lot less money when they lose, so they pay to win. You wouldn't say that a Google programmer is given more credit for driving the money than they deserve, even though it's equally true that the Google name drives their money. The same is true here: if given the chance to bid freely, schools would pay for talent and schools would profit by doing so.

It is if they take a "class".

It seems pretty clear that the supreme court is in favor of players being able to get paid. Kavanaugh's concurrence is wholly unnecessary and very strongly worded, he is clearly signaling future plaintiffs. It's very likely that they will change things soon. But, even without that speculation, the court just allowed schools to "provide their athletes with educational equipment, study abroad programs, internships and even cash rewards". Let's ignore the cash rewards, as I imagine there are restrictions (I haven't looked into it enough to know), but the study abroad programs means that things like trips to Maui and Bahamas are going to be far more common than once every 5 years. I would guess they will become multiple times every summer. Educational equipment will be cell phones, computers, virtual reality gear, and undoubtedly more. The amount of money spent on basketball and football players is going to go way up even if nothing beyond this decision happens. Big schools will be more than happy to pay players to make sure they can get the ones they want.

Certainly Title IX will complicate things, but, assuming it stands in its current form, I can see a world where only basketball, football and the requisite balancing number of women's sports exist. I don't have a problem with that. I have nothing against baseball, swimming or golf, but I don't see why other people should pay for those sports. I (who have been a tax-payer, student and alum) am happy to pay to help some kid get his degree and I'm happy to pay to help the basketball program (because it entertains me), but I don't want to pay for some kid to golf, no matter how good he or she is at it. Some sports, maybe those you mentioned, will likely be able to survive in some paired back form. I'm okay with them having to severely pinch pennies.

I'm not sure why it's worth it now, but I agree, it will become increasingly less so as more and more basketball and football money stays with the people who earn it.

Why does your argument apply to players but not to schools? As the rules stand now, players chose to play. Do you have any doubt that schools and the NCAA will still choose to have basketball teams regardless of what comes of this law? Why not say " if they (schools/NCAA) don't like the conditions they done have to do it"?

Again, you're saying exactly what I said you said. No one claims this is the most pressing issue in the country, but Congress can do multiple things at once. This in no way impacts their ability to address the suffering and need.

"They have bigger fish to fry." Not sure how else to interpret that.

I don't think anyone claims this is the most pressing issue facing the country, but Congress can do more than one thing at a time. They have staffs. And really, this doesn't take all that long.

Seems like these schools are already just professional, minor league teams that just don't pay. So they view a new minor league that does pay as a real threat to their bottom line. Also seems like a hollow move - I don't think lack of exposure is a problem for the kids at any of these schools.

I really don't understand travel leagues. If you live anywhere near Indy, there are going to be hundreds if not thousands of good players within a half hour of your house. Why would you go farther than that to play some other kid? And for that rare kid who really is that good, just play kids a couple years older than you.