Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:57 am
People that are panicking about this need to take a step back. Let's look at the facts:
1. Universities will not be paying players
2. "6 figure" endorsement deal from private corporations in a college town will be limited to the top 10-20 players in the country, which already go to the same 5 schools every year
3. This will allow ANY student athlete to profit off of what they do in college. For instance, an all-conference volleyball player could be paid to be an assistant coach at Laramie High School. A gym rat soccer player could be a personal trainer. An athlete with strong religious beliefs could be a pastor at a local church. All of this could be done while promoting the player by name while touting their athletic accomplishments. Right now that can't happen. This benefits ALL athletes.
4. COLLEGE VIDEO GAMES ARE A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY AGAIN!!! My guess is that there will be an "FBS Players Association" of some kind that will evenly distribute profits earned from NCAA football games to every single player included in the game, with a bonus for whomever is on the cover.
Exactly. Plus, businesses are generally risk averse. 6 figures to a 18 year old, no matter how talented, is a risk. It won't change a ton as far as football/baasketball recruiting, difference will be it's over the table now
But that is a business model based on profitability (which all successful businesses have). These 'endorsement deals' will have little to do with marketing and a lot to do with rich donors funneling players into their given program with the luxury of writing the money off as a business expense.
EXAMPLE A: T. Boone Pickens' heirs likely have interests in various LLCs that are oil and gas royalty generating LLCs. Meaning that these businesses don't have much for business expenses but rather they simply get a percentage of production from any new oil and gas well (or existing well) based on the LLC's interest in the oil and gas lease typically in the form of an 'overriding royalty interest.' The only real expenses of said business is the employee that collects the checks and makes sure the payment is accurate based on state production records. Said heirs might love OU football. So what do they do...enter into a 'endorsement deal' with 20 really good players and pay each $50,000 per year on behalf of the LLC. Hell and then to make it look really legit, put up a billboard with some of the player's faces and include the name of the LLC. That money is then likely all deductible as a business expense for a business that doesn't need marketing (i.e. all it does is generate royalties and has very little decision making ability).
My example is merely one example of unlimited possibilities.
But this could be a very big boon to agents and tax attorneys. These tax attorneys now get to be creative in creating business structures to capitalize on the money being funneled to players...all while avoiding Uncle Sam. The agents...well, they will get their cut for lining up these players with all these 'endorsement' deals...meaning these 'agents' that will direct recruits to certain programs.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:57 am
People that are panicking about this need to take a step back. Let's look at the facts:
1. Universities will not be paying players
2. "6 figure" endorsement deal from private corporations in a college town will be limited to the top 10-20 players in the country, which already go to the same 5 schools every year
3. This will allow ANY student athlete to profit off of what they do in college. For instance, an all-conference volleyball player could be paid to be an assistant coach at Laramie High School. A gym rat soccer player could be a personal trainer. An athlete with strong religious beliefs could be a pastor at a local church. All of this could be done while promoting the player by name while touting their athletic accomplishments. Right now that can't happen. This benefits ALL athletes.
4. COLLEGE VIDEO GAMES ARE A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY AGAIN!!! My guess is that there will be an "FBS Players Association" of some kind that will evenly distribute profits earned from NCAA football games to every single player included in the game, with a bonus for whomever is on the cover.
Exactly. Plus, businesses are generally risk averse. 6 figures to a 18 year old, no matter how talented, is a risk. It won't change a ton as far as football/baasketball recruiting, difference will be it's over the table now
But that is a business model based on profitability (which all successful businesses have). These 'endorsement deals' will have little to do with marketing and a lot to do with rich donors funneling players into their given program with the luxury of writing the money off as a business expense.
EXAMPLE A: T. Boone Pickens' heirs likely have interests in various LLCs that are oil and gas royalty generating LLCs. Meaning that these businesses don't have much for business expenses but rather they simply get a percentage of production from any new oil and gas well (or existing well) based on the LLC's interest in the oil and gas lease typically in the form of an 'overriding royalty interest.' The only real expenses of said business is the employee that collects the checks and makes sure the payment is accurate based on state production records. Said heirs might love OU football. So what do they do...enter into a 'endorsement deal' with 20 really good players and pay each $50,000 per year on behalf of the LLC. Hell and then to make it look really legit, put up a billboard with some of the player's faces and include the name of the LLC. That money is then likely all deductible as a business expense for a business that doesn't need marketing (i.e. all it does is generate royalties and has very little decision making ability).
My example is merely one example of unlimited possibilities.
The only difference in that and in what's been happening for years is they don't have to hide it. And that still doesn't change that spending a million on 18 year olds is a lot of risk on unproven talent. Especially now that transfers are becoming more and more common and there's no guarantee your $50,000 investment (or however much) will stay there.
For those saying no big deal:
"If you don't do it in certain sports, you're putting a fork in yourself. You have no chance of winning a recruiting battle if someone else is offering full cost of attendance" --Tom Burman
That's for a measly $3200/year.
Now imagine suds to recruit: 90% of our football team finds endorsements with local businesses and averages $15k/athlete/year or whatever.
I worry that we won't have the businesses in the town or state to keep up.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:28 pm
For those saying no big deal:
"If you don't do it in certain sports, you're putting a fork in yourself. You have no chance of winning a recruiting battle if someone else is offering full cost of attendance" --Tom Burman
That's for a measly $3200/year.
Now imagine suds to recruit: 90% of our football team finds endorsements with local businesses and averages $15k/athlete/year or whatever.
I worry that we won't have the businesses in the town or state to keep up.
I just can't see a business wanting to pay some random O lineman or CB to do endorsements, even if they are a starter and are all conference. I would think that there would be like 2-3 players on each team that would even hope to be endorsable. The only ones on UW's team that I think are endorsable are Logan Wlson, Sean Chambers and maybe Valladay. I'm talking legitimate endorsements, advertising.
Or it'll be like Oredigger says and rich boosters will find a way to game the system. But won't this be like what is already happening, only 'legal'? The more I think about it, it doesn't seem like much will change.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:57 am
People that are panicking about this need to take a step back. Let's look at the facts:
1. Universities will not be paying players
2. "6 figure" endorsement deal from private corporations in a college town will be limited to the top 10-20 players in the country, which already go to the same 5 schools every year
3. This will allow ANY student athlete to profit off of what they do in college. For instance, an all-conference volleyball player could be paid to be an assistant coach at Laramie High School. A gym rat soccer player could be a personal trainer. An athlete with strong religious beliefs could be a pastor at a local church. All of this could be done while promoting the player by name while touting their athletic accomplishments. Right now that can't happen. This benefits ALL athletes.
4. COLLEGE VIDEO GAMES ARE A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY AGAIN!!! My guess is that there will be an "FBS Players Association" of some kind that will evenly distribute profits earned from NCAA football games to every single player included in the game, with a bonus for whomever is on the cover.
Exactly. Plus, businesses are generally risk averse. 6 figures to a 18 year old, no matter how talented, is a risk. It won't change a ton as far as football/baasketball recruiting, difference will be it's over the table now
But that is a business model based on profitability (which all successful businesses have). These 'endorsement deals' will have little to do with marketing and a lot to do with rich donors funneling players into their given program with the luxury of writing the money off as a business expense.
EXAMPLE A: T. Boone Pickens' heirs likely have interests in various LLCs that are oil and gas royalty generating LLCs. Meaning that these businesses don't have much for business expenses but rather they simply get a percentage of production from any new oil and gas well (or existing well) based on the LLC's interest in the oil and gas lease typically in the form of an 'overriding royalty interest.' The only real expenses of said business is the employee that collects the checks and makes sure the payment is accurate based on state production records. Said heirs might love OU football. So what do they do...enter into a 'endorsement deal' with 20 really good players and pay each $50,000 per year on behalf of the LLC. Hell and then to make it look really legit, put up a billboard with some of the player's faces and include the name of the LLC. That money is then likely all deductible as a business expense for a business that doesn't need marketing (i.e. all it does is generate royalties and has very little decision making ability).
My example is merely one example of unlimited possibilities.
The only difference in that and in what's been happening for years is they don't have to hide it. And that still doesn't change that spending a million on 18 year olds is a lot of risk on unproven talent. Especially now that transfers are becoming more and more common and there's no guarantee your $50,000 investment (or however much) will stay there.
Despite your skepticism most VERY wealthy donors play by the rules and don’t funnel money to players. I know because I work with a lot of these folks in my industry on a daily basis. Wealth beyond belief. Give these people the go ahead and give them an option to deduct all those funneled funds as business expenses, they will be flooding their business and tax lawyer’s office to have them draft up the paperwork. I just hope Wyoming’s donors will say no to this arms race and continue to direct funds directly to the University and athletics department.
And it’s pretty simple, come on the deal could be something like $25,000 per year for a yearly renewable endorsement deal. Thus if the player leaves the endorsement goes away. And these endorsement deals will be drafted by very intelligent persons and will probably include all kinds of clauses and performance bonus incentives and the like. Rush for 1000 yards - you get a $10,000 bonus. Win the heisman - you get a $500,000 bonus. Beat Michigan - you get a $5,000 bonus. Etc...
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:28 pm
For those saying no big deal:
"If you don't do it in certain sports, you're putting a fork in yourself. You have no chance of winning a recruiting battle if someone else is offering full cost of attendance" --Tom Burman
That's for a measly $3200/year.
Now imagine suds to recruit: 90% of our football team finds endorsements with local businesses and averages $15k/athlete/year or whatever.
I worry that we won't have the businesses in the town or state to keep up.
I just can't see a business wanting to pay some random O lineman or CB to do endorsements, even if they are a starter and are all conference. I would think that there would be like 2-3 players on each team that would even hope to be endorsable. The only ones on UW's team that I think are endorsable are Logan Wlson, Sean Chambers and maybe Valladay. I'm talking legitimate endorsements, advertising.
Or it'll be like Oredigger says and rich boosters will find a way to game the system. But won't this be like what is already happening, only 'legal'? The more I think about it, it doesn't seem like much will change.
I hope you are right, but I just fear booster clubs will organize and try to exploit this. If Burman is right and $3k can influence recruiting, then an organized group could easily funnel more than that to a football team. Endoresmenst would just be the excuse. We don't have the donor base others do and rely on state money.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
307bball wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:44 am
Still a lot left to come out about how this will actually work. In general I'm suspicious of any large changes in how college football is stuctured. When has any big change been good for Wyoming?...or schools like Wyoming?
Agree 100% with this. It's very unclear what this change means or if it is even really a change at all, but you can bet that whatever comes will benefit the big guys at the expense of the little.
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:00 am
I'm worried this will put us at an even greater disadvantage. Big money deals with major corporations will grab headlines but endorsements at the local level will be a big deal, too. We just don't have the businesses or industry like suds, unlv, or even boise and csu. Recruiting pitch: x% of our players are able to find endorsement deals vs y% at WYO.
Honestly, I wish political leaders would force the professional development league instead of forcing colleges to adhere to a business structure that resembles a professional development league. I get it from the athlete perspective and mostly support their position. However, maybe big time professional or semi-pro leagues don't belong in universities.
Absolutely correct. Take a school like Oklahoma. About 10 years ago, their freshman qb was ruled ineligible for taking about 20k for working at a car dealership where no one ever saw him. Now, he can do appearances at that dealership. He will get royalties for his jersey sale. He will do commercials for local businesses. Those who think this doesn't add up to much: consider that guys like T. Boone Pickens gave Oklahoma state 140 million for a new stadium. There are lots of rich boosters out there who will pay lots of money to bring in prize recruits. I can see boosters buying up jerseys to boost an athlete's royalties. There will be more cheating now than ever before.
Players will not get royalties for their jersey sales. That is not in the purview of these rule changes.
This is a fascinating discussion....A couple thoughts:
Let's assume that "x" represents the amount of money that changes hands due to big time college athletics. Included in "x" is aaaaall the money...shady and otherwise. The portion of "x" that UW, and the MWC in general, has influence over is pretty small right? If that is the case then what exactly has changed? It's not like this new rule will cause "x" to increase dramatically. Won't some of the money that used to go directly to programs just be carved away from booster clubs and donations to athletic departments just get re-directed directly to players in this new world? Wyoming and Wyoming-like programs are at a market disadvantage now ... will that be affected in the negative?
*edit* I do understand that these questions are most likely un-answerable at this point.
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:00 am
I'm worried this will put us at an even greater disadvantage. Big money deals with major corporations will grab headlines but endorsements at the local level will be a big deal, too. We just don't have the businesses or industry like suds, unlv, or even boise and csu. Recruiting pitch: x% of our players are able to find endorsement deals vs y% at WYO.
Honestly, I wish political leaders would force the professional development league instead of forcing colleges to adhere to a business structure that resembles a professional development league. I get it from the athlete perspective and mostly support their position. However, maybe big time professional or semi-pro leagues don't belong in universities.
Absolutely correct. Take a school like Oklahoma. About 10 years ago, their freshman qb was ruled ineligible for taking about 20k for working at a car dealership where no one ever saw him. Now, he can do appearances at that dealership. He will get royalties for his jersey sale. He will do commercials for local businesses. Those who think this doesn't add up to much: consider that guys like T. Boone Pickens gave Oklahoma state 140 million for a new stadium. There are lots of rich boosters out there who will pay lots of money to bring in prize recruits. I can see boosters buying up jerseys to boost an athlete's royalties. There will be more cheating now than ever before.
Players will not get royalties for their jersey sales. That is not in the purview of these rule changes.
I don't believe that a player could sell an official Wyoming jersey for multiple reasons without agreement from additional parties: (1) the jersey is an agreement between Wyoming and Adidas; (2) Adidas will have the intellectual property rights to the jersey design; and (3) Wyoming will have the intellectual property rights to the Steamboat logo. That said, if a player can profit off their likeness, then the player (or a separate company with player agreement) could theoretically create a generic brown jersey with their name on the back and sell it.
307bball wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:19 am
This is a fascinating discussion....A couple thoughts:
Let's assume that "x" represents the amount of money that changes hands due to big time college athletics. Included in "x" is aaaaall the money...shady and otherwise. The portion of "x" that UW, and the MWC in general, has influence over is pretty small right? If that is the case then what exactly has changed? It's not like this new rule will cause "x" to increase dramatically. Won't some of the money that used to go directly to programs just be carved away from booster clubs and donations to athletic departments just get re-directed directly to players in this new world? Wyoming and Wyoming-like programs are at a market disadvantage now ... will that be affected in the negative?
*edit* I do understand that these questions are most likely un-answerable at this point.
I personally think that it will create a larger gap. That 3 or 4 star player that wasn't good enough to go to Alabama and get a scholarship may now qualify for an endorsement deal to play at Alabama as a walk-on. Basically rendering the scholarship limit relatively useless.
307bball wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:19 am
This is a fascinating discussion....A couple thoughts:
Let's assume that "x" represents the amount of money that changes hands due to big time college athletics. Included in "x" is aaaaall the money...shady and otherwise. The portion of "x" that UW, and the MWC in general, has influence over is pretty small right? If that is the case then what exactly has changed? It's not like this new rule will cause "x" to increase dramatically. Won't some of the money that used to go directly to programs just be carved away from booster clubs and donations to athletic departments just get re-directed directly to players in this new world? Wyoming and Wyoming-like programs are at a market disadvantage now ... will that be affected in the negative?
*edit* I do understand that these questions are most likely un-answerable at this point.
I personally think that it will create a larger gap. That 3 or 4 star player that wasn't good enough to go to Alabama and get a scholarship may now qualify for an endorsement deal to play at Alabama as a walk-on. Basically rendering the scholarship limit relatively useless.
hmm interesting...a throwback to the good old days of stockpiling players.
I wonder how this will play out even within in our own conference.
Example what if csu looks at our top 5 recruits and a couple big csu boosters offer our top 5 recruits to jump ship for $50k endorsement deals each for using their picture on billboards on I 25. Or maybe instead of our recruits our top 5 players are enticed to enter the transfer portal at end of year for same endorsement deal to come play for csu instead.
How does wyo end up responding to this, or prevent it, or even keep up in an escalating bidding war by boosters?
I don't think the school or team can do anything to prevent it especially with the transfer portal ease. It would be only if rich boosters of wyo decided to counter offer, or if the kids are truly committed to the school and not swayed by the money.
I could see Nebraska trying to do this to us regularly
307bball wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:19 am
This is a fascinating discussion....A couple thoughts:
Let's assume that "x" represents the amount of money that changes hands due to big time college athletics. Included in "x" is aaaaall the money...shady and otherwise. The portion of "x" that UW, and the MWC in general, has influence over is pretty small right? If that is the case then what exactly has changed? It's not like this new rule will cause "x" to increase dramatically. Won't some of the money that used to go directly to programs just be carved away from booster clubs and donations to athletic departments just get re-directed directly to players in this new world? Wyoming and Wyoming-like programs are at a market disadvantage now ... will that be affected in the negative?
*edit* I do understand that these questions are most likely un-answerable at this point.
I personally think that it will create a larger gap. That 3 or 4 star player that wasn't good enough to go to Alabama and get a scholarship may now qualify for an endorsement deal to play at Alabama as a walk-on. Basically rendering the scholarship limit relatively useless.
I saw an interesting idea as a potential way to combat this. Limit teams to a specific number of players that are all scholarship. So if you say the scholarship limit (as it is now) is 85, then you can't have more than 85 players on your roster. They don't have to all be scholarship if you don't want, but this way you'd avoid anyone getting "extra scholarships" through endorsement monies.
85 was just the number I used as that is the current limit, you could make it 90, 100, etc.
307bball wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:19 am
This is a fascinating discussion....A couple thoughts:
Let's assume that "x" represents the amount of money that changes hands due to big time college athletics. Included in "x" is aaaaall the money...shady and otherwise. The portion of "x" that UW, and the MWC in general, has influence over is pretty small right? If that is the case then what exactly has changed? It's not like this new rule will cause "x" to increase dramatically. Won't some of the money that used to go directly to programs just be carved away from booster clubs and donations to athletic departments just get re-directed directly to players in this new world? Wyoming and Wyoming-like programs are at a market disadvantage now ... will that be affected in the negative?
*edit* I do understand that these questions are most likely un-answerable at this point.
I personally think that it will create a larger gap. That 3 or 4 star player that wasn't good enough to go to Alabama and get a scholarship may now qualify for an endorsement deal to play at Alabama as a walk-on. Basically rendering the scholarship limit relatively useless.
I saw an interesting idea as a potential way to combat this. Limit teams to a specific number of players that are all scholarship. So if you say the scholarship limit (as it is now) is 85, then you can't have more than 85 players on your roster. They don't have to all be scholarship if you don't want, but this way you'd avoid anyone getting "extra scholarships" through endorsement monies.
85 was just the number I used as that is the current limit, you could make it 90, 100, etc.
That's an interesting potentially helpful idea. The problem I would have is it would discourage the overlooked player that wants to come prove themselves by walking on. Wyoming has a very big walk-on program comparatively.
Keep in mind, Marcus Epps was a walk-on! Bohl has done wonders with the walk-on program by opening it up and it has resulted in many players proving themselves and earning scholarships.
I'm not sure that there is any great solution and this will be a lot of trial and error by the NCAA in my opinion.
Man, I so don't know how to feel about all this. Is it hypocritical to not want this for Football, but think it's great for some other sports? Missy Franklin was obviously incredible at what she did while in college, but she couldn't take the big sponsorships or anything because of the NCAA. The rules made her miss her entire window of opportunity for making money off of her talents. She could've made millions off of her fame and prowess, yet now after her retirement, she's probably making less money than I do (and no, I'm not complaining about my salary at all - but I'm not exceptional in my field). Seems somewhat unfair...
And yet... this does more or less doom Wyoming football's chances of ever competing with the big guys... but maybe that wouldn't have happened anyway. Or maybe, just maybe, we can actually get one or two 4 star guys here, because there's only so much marketing opportunity at any given location? Maybe I'm wrong about all this.
How much is an athletes name, likeness, etc, going to be worth?
Josh Allen almost didn't get recruited to college football. By the end of it, he could have made millions.
NCAA is keeping close ties on this. I don't think your going to see any booster able to buy players without a significant change to the recruiting rules. What I do think you'll see is any player that starts getting some attention might be able to make a few bucks from a sponsor.
There are 5,000 student athletes in the MWC. There are more 450,000 student athletes in 24 sports in the USA. I don't see this being a big game changer outside of the athlete being able to make a few extra bucks.
WyoBrandX wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:59 pm
I think the real question will come down to:
How much is an athletes name, likeness, etc, going to be worth?
Josh Allen almost didn't get recruited to college football. By the end of it, he could have made millions.
NCAA is keeping close ties on this. I don't think your going to see any booster able to buy players without a significant change to the recruiting rules. What I do think you'll see is any player that starts getting some attention might be able to make a few bucks from a sponsor.
There are 5,000 student athletes in the MWC. There are more 450,000 student athletes in 24 sports in the USA. I don't see this being a big game changer outside of the athlete being able to make a few extra bucks.
I hope you’re right and this is mostly just about being able to make a little money, but I see a huge gray area that will be exploited. Here’s a job you don’t need to show up for and you receive a check.
