I heard a kid paid $150K to play D3 basketball. No word from Adidas.
Good opening salvo in this topic. Welcome to the board. :)
Imagine when this hits D-1 Football.
I hope they dig past the shoe companies involvement with the universities and into the sorted quagmire that is the shoe company interactions with the AAU coaches/programs. I think that is where there is more actual harm to the student athletes.
The kids and their families that took money from shoe companies on behalf of schools did so with their eyes open. I do not feel sorry for them.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 28, 2017, 12:17:08 AM
Imagine when this hits D-1 Football.
You may have read this from me elsewhere, but I don't see this being a football problem. The cleats just aren't that big a deal. Look at Beckham's deal in the off season. $25m over 5 years... that's chump change compared to basketball deals. Because you can't see the cleats as well, there are so many players on the field (and teams), and other factors... I just don't think the shoe companies gain anything like they do in basketball in the sport of football.
Funny . . . football! Bend it like d-mac.
Not a joke - was referencing Odell: https://www.sbnation.com/2017/5/23/15682882/odell-beckham-jr-signs-nike-adidas-cleats
Quote from: Mr. Mo on September 28, 2017, 03:45:00 PM
I hope they dig past the shoe companies involvement with the universities and into the sorted quagmire that is the shoe company interactions with the AAU coaches/programs. I think that is where there is more actual harm to the student athletes.
The kids and their families that took money from shoe companies on behalf of schools did so with their eyes open. I do not feel sorry for them.
Here we are a year later. The NCAA has abdicated its authority to the FBI. Any thoughts on whether real change is on the horizon?
Considering there are some things already in the pipeline including adding five non-NCAA individuals to the overall ruling body of the NCAA ... yes.
The FBI has a far better ability to investigate this than the NCAA does. I don't see an issue having the FBI handle this. It is bigger than the NCAA.
Thanks d-mac. What do you think about the use of the Cam Newton defense by the players involved? Will the ones who played at NCAA institutions be able to hide behind the fact that payments were directed to their parent/guardian?
Quote from: Mr. Mo on October 30, 2018, 04:37:15 PM
Thanks d-mac. What do you think about the use of the Cam Newton defense by the players involved? Will the ones who played at NCAA institutions be able to hide behind the fact that payments were directed to their parent/guardian?
I'll be honest ... since it doesn't really concern DIII, I haven't given it much thought. I've been more focused on how the changes could affect DIII (i.e. could a DIII-tied individual be one [or two] of those five selected to the Board of Governors to allow DIII to keep a strong seat at the table as it where).
I personally am frustrated and angry that D1 programs and entities like Adidas, Nike, etc. continue to find ways not to cut corners, but just blow through rules and regulations with no cares about being caught. While Pitino didn't like being fired... I understood the decision. More heads should roll. I wish the "death penalty" that was used against SMU football was used more often these days to send a message ... but I'm also not holding my breathe.
That said, the rules need to be looked at as well. I do realize that Power 5 schools and conferences are making money on the backs of SAs. I also know that Power 5 SAs get a lot more additional perks than DIII student-athletes, so I am torn on what the solution(s) should and can be.
NCAA members, especially at D1, also need to move faster on these issues and better educate people that "Indy" isn't making these decisions ... the schools and conferences are.
I've always thought the best solution for the NCAA is to let players accept endorsement money. If Nike and Adidas can pay the kids directly, you're not going to have these issues. Yeah, it takes a little bit of the amateurism out of the sport, but the ship has pretty much sailed on that long ago.
If people want to see real student athletes, well, there's always D3hoops!
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 30, 2018, 08:40:32 PM
I've always thought the best solution for the NCAA is to let players accept endorsement money. If Nike and Adidas can pay the kids directly, you're not going to have these issues. Yeah, it takes a little bit of the amateurism out of the sport, but the ship has pretty much sailed on that long ago.
If people want to see real student athletes, well, there's always D3hoops!
What percentage of D1 basketball players do you think would actually get endorsement contracts from shoe and apparel companies?
Quote from: y_jack_lok on October 30, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 30, 2018, 08:40:32 PM
I've always thought the best solution for the NCAA is to let players accept endorsement money. If Nike and Adidas can pay the kids directly, you're not going to have these issues. Yeah, it takes a little bit of the amateurism out of the sport, but the ship has pretty much sailed on that long ago.
If people want to see real student athletes, well, there's always D3hoops!
What percentage of D1 basketball players do you think would actually get endorsement contracts from shoe and apparel companies?
About the same number that currently get paid by those companies to go to school. I think it would also help, for example, football players or, heck, swimmers, who get a job signing autographs at the local car dealership (or pool). There's big money in a few guys, but there's typical college student money in it for a lot of others, too.
I think the biggest advantage is just not worrying about it. Yeah, so maybe some booster pays a guy for a no-show job because he's a good athlete. Are we worried about richer schools getting unfair advantages? As if that isn't already how it works, even within the rules.
Te one concern I would have is they are taken advantage of by those in the middle. Auto dealership wants them to sign autographs. Pays them $20 a signature, but charges $100 a signature to the people coming in (probably without the student-athlete realizing it). Now the auto dealership is the one making a huge amount of money off the student-athlete.
I get the endorsements and advertising (sponsorship) argument... I just think it could prove to be a very slippery slope. Also, the recruiting would no longer be what school the student thinks is best ... but where the company wants them to go. If they like School A, but the company has not connections or advertising (uniforms) deal at that place, then they can't go to School A, but rather School B. Now it isn't school v school ... it's company club team v company club team. That's a massive problem waiting to happen.