Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Unfortunately for us, this new NCAA stance on kids making
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 19
| visibility 1

Unfortunately for us, this new NCAA stance on kids making


May 28, 2020, 5:45 PM

money off social media endorsements, tweets, etc, will force Dabo to abandon our voluntary social media ban during the season. If not, it would put our kids at a huge monetary disadvantage. I don't think he would let that happen.

As another poaster said, this is going to be a huge advantage to the Texas schools (all that oil money), and the schools with huge individual donors (Oregon, Maryland, etc). Lube up your pistols boys, 'cause the Wild Wild West days of recruiting are coming back, and, as Doc Holliday said, "This time it's legal."

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Unfortunately for us, this new NCAA stance on kids making


May 28, 2020, 6:54 PM

The NCAA can do one of two things:

(1) Stay the old course and lose in legislatures, courts and maybe even Congress. The end result is CFB will end up being pillaged by the NFL as college b-ball is by the NBA. At worst, unelected and unaccountable judges/justices could impose solutions that completely nuke college athletics as we know them.

(2) Try something different.

It's obvious (2) is the only choice. Dangerous (possibly fatal) uncharted waters are a better option than knowingly going over Niagara Falls.

We live in a capitalistic country. Denying revenue generating athletes the right to generate income ain't gonna fly any more.

Please get over it. This is the year 2020, not 1960.

If it ends up schools in big cities, in big states or with big donors come out ahead, so be it. Realignment probably happens with a vengeance and we'll see what the new world order looks like.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Unfortunately for us, this new NCAA stance on kids making


May 28, 2020, 8:28 PM

It’s interesting to me that people are always on here saying the SEC schools and some of the others are buying recruits whenever we miss out on one. So what exactly is changing then if so many people already think players are being bought in the first place?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There is a simple step the NCAA could take.


May 29, 2020, 12:05 AM [ in reply to Re: Unfortunately for us, this new NCAA stance on kids making ]

I've been proposing it for over 30 years.

Tie a scholarship directly to a degree.

John Doe signs a LOI. He counts against your total for either 6 years or until he graduates, whichever comes first.

Let coaches decide whether or not they want to recruit a kid who has no interest in college except as a quick side trip to the NBA or NFL.

The kids most likely to abuse the NIL rules are the kids who will not graduate.

Let Calipari and Coach K and Jimbo and Kirby and all those guys recruit kids who will nver graduate and see what kind of team they can field in three or 4 years.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: There is a simple step the NCAA could take.


May 29, 2020, 12:39 AM

Interesting notion but there is a nil chance the major conferences would agree to this if the NCAA proposed the idea.

It's good to think outside the box but then realism rears its ugly head. Remember, the Power 5 conferences (and the courts) are the real powers behind college athletics.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Just another example


May 28, 2020, 7:00 PM

...of “the man” looking for every way to hold “Lil ole Clemson” down.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Unfortunately for us, this new NCAA stance on kids making


May 28, 2020, 9:08 PM

Texas has Entitlement Disease, they’ll continue to be nobodies until they fix that and that is hard to fix.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I really really HATE this entire idea.


May 28, 2020, 9:09 PM

If a player is good enough to warrant the money, it will be there waiting for him at the proper time.

If they’re not good enough to get drafted, they probably aren’t going to make much money from this scheme anyway.

This is going to create more problems than it solves.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I really really HATE this entire idea.


May 28, 2020, 10:52 PM

It's the end of CFB as we know it, or have known it, i.e.: we "old school [people]". Soon it will also include the 4-5 star high school recruits... because, why not? It's what got them there in the first place. Soon they'll be letting CFB players go pro after one year, or maybe straight out of HS. And so much for "parity" in college sports.

Go Dabo, and Go Tigers!!!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I really really HATE this entire idea.


May 29, 2020, 12:33 AM [ in reply to I really really HATE this entire idea. ]

Proper time? Really?

There are two completely different issues here:

1. A player's revenue generating ability in college.

2. A player's NFL future.

Some guys that excel in college don't have much NFL potential. Their peak earnings time is while at school. Is it right to deny them this opportunity?

Regardless of what actions the NCAA takes, CFB is going to change as we know it. The status quo cannot stand.

The NCAA can either try to influence the outcome or they can let courts and legislatures take complete control.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Which Clemson player without NFL potential would have


May 29, 2020, 9:57 AM

made any significant money from this scheme?

Not many ... if any.

Maybe a Ben Boulware makes a few thousand bucks because of his image in college.

Is that worth creating a seismic shift in the entire structure?

Maybe you think so. I absolutely do not. If you want to get paid early, don’t sign up for college ball.

I really, really hate this whole idea.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yep.***


May 29, 2020, 12:05 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

When reading the article, I felt the same way at first...


May 29, 2020, 6:44 AM

But then I got to the last paragraph which described an alternative that satisfies both parties, Dabo and the player.

In the early proposals of the NCAA plan, agents for specific services like social-media deals could be hired, which could possibly post items on social media for athletes in this situation.

https://www.tigernet.com/update/Analyst-projects-social-media-earnings-with-new-rule-for-Clemson-QB-35612


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Sorry about the multiple links in my post...


May 29, 2020, 6:45 AM

Guess I'm still a newb at this.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The bigger public state schools like many in the B1G


May 29, 2020, 10:12 AM

that have exponentially more alumni than others will also be at a significant advantage. Unless there is some mechanism in place of equal distribution then the days of a level playing field are over.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


One day, we will look back and conclude that this


May 29, 2020, 10:36 AM

is when college football jumped the shark.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Proverbs 16:18


Worse than that, Judge. I think they humped the shark


May 29, 2020, 11:53 AM

nekked, just like Coach McElwain's dopelganger.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


what could happen


May 29, 2020, 12:38 PM

a PR company (owned by boosters) could sign every player to use his likeness on ads, then have companies/boosters use those likenesses. Guarantee every player $10k/mo, would only cost for football just over 10mil/yr which is no big deal for boosters to come up with. Car dealers, shoe manuf, oil companies, etc etc.

Thus a kid signing would be guaranteed a nice income thru college. Stars might be in position to make more.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: what could happen


May 29, 2020, 1:01 PM

This has been speculated about already. The real question is how it would be prohibited.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There wouldn't be a way to prohibit it, which is exactly why


May 29, 2020, 2:23 PM [ in reply to what could happen ]

a school like Clemson with a relatively small fanbase will be at a huge disadvantage on the recruiting trail. If ONE Bill Gates type booster wanted to, he could outmoney everybody else, and essentially buy a championship for his school of choice. At least, that would work with players whose primary motivation is money. Which is a pretty good percentage, given the number of college stars who come out early for the NFL Draft.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Replies: 19
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic