menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: How much is Trevor Lawrence worth?
Page: 1 of 3
mail
person
giacomo
4/30/2020 9:27 AM
https://sports.yahoo.com/how-much-would-zion-trevor-lawre...
mail
person
giacomo
5/1/2020 11:13 AM
It's obvious that big stars like Zion and Lawrence will get some coin. I wonder if Swanky's will pony up, or Louie the Bagel man, to support one of our stars with endorsements.
mail
person
Pataskala
5/4/2020 11:29 AM
Gene Smith hinted that O$U might offset some of what athletes earn in endorsement money against their schollies. So, an athlete who has paid endorsements might not get a full free ride from the university. I really don't see that happening unless all the big schools agree (i.e., collude) to have the same policy. Otherwise, schools that offset would be at a recruitment disadvantage vs those that don't.
mail
person
giacomo
5/4/2020 10:52 PM
Interesting. I hadn’t heard that angle. I used to play hoops with Gene when I lived in Ann Arbor after graduation and he worked at Eastern Michigan. Early 80s.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
5/5/2020 1:24 PM
If the endorsement deal goes through, I’m 110% in on taxing the scholarships.
mail
person
cc-cat
5/5/2020 4:00 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
If the endorsement deal goes through, I’m 110% in on taxing the scholarships.
won't happen - you can tax the endorsement money (obviously), but if you tax the scholarship for one, you need to do it for all - including those that get zero endorsement money. And you would end up taxing kids that do not have the means to pay the tax.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
5/5/2020 6:02 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
If the endorsement deal goes through, I’m 110% in on taxing the scholarships.
won't happen - you can tax the endorsement money (obviously), but if you tax the scholarship for one, you need to do it for all - including those that get zero endorsement money. And you would end up taxing kids that do not have the means to pay the tax.
Not necessarily, I just have to change the tax law. Just like they did a few years ago when I started taxing graduate students. Remember this they can change the tax law to basically anything they want. Just like they did with graduate students
Last Edited: 5/5/2020 6:02:52 PM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
giacomo
5/5/2020 6:14 PM
These are the things Walter Byers wanted to avoid when he coined the term "student athlete" in the 50's. Taxes, health insurance, worker's compensation, etc.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/5/2020 6:18 PM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
Gene Smith hinted that O$U might offset some of what athletes earn in endorsement money against their schollies. So, an athlete who has paid endorsements might not get a full free ride from the university. I really don't see that happening unless all the big schools agree (i.e., collude) to have the same policy. Otherwise, schools that offset would be at a recruitment disadvantage vs those that don't.
I wonder how long it's going to take for schools and the NCAA to realize that players with more notoriety could be good for them, too?

I get that it's going to take a long time for the Gene Smith's of the world to get out of the habit of working tooth and nail to keep money away from athletes, but could you imagine Mark Cuban telling Luka Doncic he's going to reduce his salary because Nike is also paying him? Of course not. Because Mark Cuban understands that having Nike's marketing team working for Luka Doncic benefits the Mavs, as well.

Beyond that, I'd love to be in the room when Gene Smith explains to Ryan Day that he's going to make the best recruits pay tuition, because last I checked, Ryan Day's job is to get the best players to come to Ohio State to play football. Why Gene Smith would make that harder for him, all in the name of keeping money out of the hands of somebody who earned it is beyond me.
mail
person
cc-cat
5/5/2020 7:48 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
If the endorsement deal goes through, I’m 110% in on taxing the scholarships.
won't happen - you can tax the endorsement money (obviously), but if you tax the scholarship for one, you need to do it for all - including those that get zero endorsement money. And you would end up taxing kids that do not have the means to pay the tax.
Not necessarily, I just have to change the tax law. Just like they did a few years ago when I started taxing graduate students. Remember this they can change the tax law to basically anything they want. Just like they did with graduate students
agree you can tax them. my point is they all would need to be treated with same tax law. you would need to tax all those that get scholarships. just like you can tax graduate students, but not just those that got an “A” average. need to be treated all the same.
mail
person
rpbobcat
5/6/2020 6:45 AM
There's an article in today's The Record by Jerry Carino of the Asbury Park Press about the NCAA allowing players to be payed for image use,endorsements,etc.

The article won't link.
But if you google his name you can find it.

One of the big concerns with allowing paying athletes for imaging and endorsements is "poaching".

I had talked about this, when the idea of endorsement payments first came up.

Booster "A" says to a player or players I'll give you $$$$$$$$ to make a commercial for my _____ and transfer.

The NCAA is going to have to have stringent rules,strictly enforced.

They also have to keep the 1 year sit out rule,or you're going to have
the wild wild west.
Last Edited: 5/6/2020 6:45:48 AM by rpbobcat
mail
person
BillyTheCat
5/6/2020 8:21 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
There's an article in today's The Record by Jerry Carino of the Asbury Park Press about the NCAA allowing players to be payed for image use,endorsements,etc.

The article won't link.
But if you google his name you can find it.

One of the big concerns with allowing paying athletes for imaging and endorsements is "poaching".

I had talked about this, when the idea of endorsement payments first came up.

Booster "A" says to a player or players I'll give you $$$$$$$$ to make a commercial for my _____ and transfer.

The NCAA is going to have to have stringent rules,strictly enforced.

They also have to keep the 1 year sit out rule,or you're going to have
the wild wild west.
I’ve been with you on this from day 1, some do not understand what’s about to happen. Boosters will be wrapping endorsement deals with scholarships. Enticements, and now you’ll be talking to 14-15 year olds and their parents about how much little Tommy can make. This whole thing may sound good to some, but it’s a bad idea.
mail
OhioCatFan
5/6/2020 10:55 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
There's an article in today's The Record by Jerry Carino of the Asbury Park Press about the NCAA allowing players to be payed for image use,endorsements,etc.

The article won't link.
But if you google his name you can find it.

One of the big concerns with allowing paying athletes for imaging and endorsements is "poaching".

I had talked about this, when the idea of endorsement payments first came up.

Booster "A" says to a player or players I'll give you $$$$$$$$ to make a commercial for my _____ and transfer.

The NCAA is going to have to have stringent rules,strictly enforced.

They also have to keep the 1 year sit out rule,or you're going to have
the wild wild west.
I’ve been with you on this from day 1, some do not understand what’s about to happen. Boosters will be wrapping endorsement deals with scholarships. Enticements, and now you’ll be talking to 14-15 year olds and their parents about how much little Tommy can make. This whole thing may sound good to some, but it’s a bad idea.
+1s to both of you. This thing is not well thought out. We are about to see the rule of unintended consequences play out right before our eyes.
mail
person
cc-cat
5/6/2020 12:35 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
+1s to both of you. This thing is not well thought out. We are about to see the rule of unintended consequences play out right before our eyes.
Tragically on so many fronts today.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/6/2020 12:42 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
There's an article in today's The Record by Jerry Carino of the Asbury Park Press about the NCAA allowing players to be payed for image use,endorsements,etc.

The article won't link.
But if you google his name you can find it.

One of the big concerns with allowing paying athletes for imaging and endorsements is "poaching".

I had talked about this, when the idea of endorsement payments first came up.

Booster "A" says to a player or players I'll give you $$$$$$$$ to make a commercial for my _____ and transfer.

The NCAA is going to have to have stringent rules,strictly enforced.

They also have to keep the 1 year sit out rule,or you're going to have
the wild wild west.
I’ve been with you on this from day 1, some do not understand what’s about to happen. Boosters will be wrapping endorsement deals with scholarships. Enticements, and now you’ll be talking to 14-15 year olds and their parents about how much little Tommy can make. This whole thing may sound good to some, but it’s a bad idea.
+1s to both of you. This thing is not well thought out. We are about to see the rule of unintended consequences play out right before our eyes.
I think it's incorrect to call them "unintended consequences." I don't think anybody who is a proponent of letting athletes earn money from endorsements is arguing there won't be consequences and most of them aren't even arguing tht the consequences won't have an impact on college sports. They're just weighing those consequences against the rights of the athletes involved and making a choice.

By calling them "unintended consequences" I think you're framing the decision incorrectly. I don't think anybody out there is saying that nothing will change if you let athletes earn endorsement money. In fact, I think the change is the entire point.
Last Edited: 5/6/2020 1:06:46 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
smc22
5/6/2020 1:19 PM
endorsement pay should be on top of scholarship IMO

are they going to police endorsements? or will some SEC team booster be able to pay players (with little endorsement value) and put out some football cards to distribute at service stations, restaurants etc.? just a hypothetical example

will the player's endorsement value be independent from the university? i.e. will lawrence be able to use clemson name, colors, uniform?.......... i believe there are old hockey cards where the player's link to his NHL team is pretty minimal
mail
OhioCatFan
5/6/2020 1:35 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
There's an article in today's The Record by Jerry Carino of the Asbury Park Press about the NCAA allowing players to be payed for image use,endorsements,etc.

The article won't link.
But if you google his name you can find it.

One of the big concerns with allowing paying athletes for imaging and endorsements is "poaching".

I had talked about this, when the idea of endorsement payments first came up.

Booster "A" says to a player or players I'll give you $$$$$$$$ to make a commercial for my _____ and transfer.

The NCAA is going to have to have stringent rules,strictly enforced.

They also have to keep the 1 year sit out rule,or you're going to have
the wild wild west.
I’ve been with you on this from day 1, some do not understand what’s about to happen. Boosters will be wrapping endorsement deals with scholarships. Enticements, and now you’ll be talking to 14-15 year olds and their parents about how much little Tommy can make. This whole thing may sound good to some, but it’s a bad idea.
+1s to both of you. This thing is not well thought out. We are about to see the rule of unintended consequences play out right before our eyes.
I think it's incorrect to call them "unintended consequences." I don't think anybody who is a proponent of letting athletes earn money from endorsements is arguing there won't be consequences and most of them aren't even arguing tht the consequences won't have an impact on college sports. They're just weighing those consequences against the rights of the athletes involved and making a choice.

By calling them "unintended consequences" I think you're framing the decision incorrectly. I don't think anybody out there is saying that nothing will change if you let athletes earn endorsement money. In fact, I think the change is the entire point.


I'm talking about the advocates of these policies. They seem oblivious to what they are about to unleash. This will lead to the biggest sports scandals in history, with boosters paying players to move to their schools with the lure of a better endorsement. And, they'll have the cover of the appearance of legality because this will be technically sanctioned by the NCAA. I don't believe those promoting this concept have any idea what it will unleash. If they do know all this then they are more stupid than I thought. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by saying the consequences are unintended.
mail
person
rpbobcat
5/6/2020 1:40 PM
smc22 wrote:expand_more
endorsement pay should be on top of scholarship IMO

are they going to police endorsements? or will some SEC team booster be able to pay players (with little endorsement value) and put out some football cards to distribute at service stations, restaurants etc.? just a hypothetical example
[/QUOTE]This is where the waters get very muddy.

The first thing you'll hear is "who are you to say what the endorsement value of a player(s) is.
This what it is worth to me."

[Quote=smc22]

will the player's endorsement value be independent from the university? i.e. will lawrence be able to use clemson name, colors, uniform?.......... i believe there are old hockey cards where the player's link to his NHL team is pretty minimal
Based on a recent attempt to make/market face masks with college logos,anything
that is even close to copy righted items (logos,conference names,etc.) will need a licensing agreement.
Last Edited: 5/6/2020 1:42:03 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/6/2020 1:55 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I'm talking about the advocates of these policies. They seem oblivious to what they are about to unleash. This will lead to the biggest sports scandals in history, with boosters paying players to move to their schools with the lure of a better endorsement. [/QUOTE]Again, I think you're misunderstanding. I don't think advocates of these policies don't foresee things of that nature, but rather think the entire point is that what you're describing is only a "scandal" under the old model. Under the new model, it's a person participating in the free market.

And, they'll have the cover of the appearance of legality because this will be technically sanctioned by the NCAA.
It won't be the appearance of legality. It'll be legal. With a paper trail, lawyers, agents, taxes and everything.

[QUOTE=OhioCatFan]
I don't believe those promoting this concept have any idea what it will unleash. If they do know all this then they are more stupid than I thought. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by saying the consequences are unintended.
I don't think they're stupid. I just think they care about different things than you do and don't see the consequences you're laying out as inherently bad. I certainly don't see them as inherently bad. If some kid I've never met gets offered a more lucrative endorsement deal if he goes to (or even transfers to) USC than he'd have gotten at Purdue, it's unclear to me why I'm supposed to consider that bad. What's the moral code that insists it is bad based on? Competitive advantage? My own interest in watching college sports? Tradition?
Last Edited: 5/6/2020 2:07:41 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/6/2020 2:00 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
This is where the waters get very muddy.

The first thing you'll hear is "who are you to say what the endorsement value of a player(s) is.
This what it is worth to me."
Are there other industries where you think there should be an oversight committee that works to determine the fair value of endorsements?

I run a company. If I decide to start airing commercials and reach a financial agreement with somebody to appear in those commercials, I certainly don't want to have to run that by some third party to let them decide if I'm paying the right amount.
mail
person
rpbobcat
5/6/2020 2:11 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
This is where the waters get very muddy.

The first thing you'll hear is "who are you to say what the endorsement value of a player(s) is.
This what it is worth to me."
Are there other industries where you think there should be an oversight committee that works to determine the fair value of endorsements?

I run a company. If I decide to start airing commercials and reach a financial agreement with somebody to appear in those commercials, I certainly don't want to have to run that by some third party to let them decide if I'm paying the right amount.
This is exactly what I was saying.

There is no way to say what a person or persons' endorsement value is to someone. If I'm willing to pay them whatever it takes to get them to transfer,that's my business,not anyone else's.

For any old movie buffs,this is how Charlie Kane got his Staff from the Chronicle.He bought them.

That's one of the problems with this proposal.
There is no way to control what big dollar boosters pay to "poach" players.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/6/2020 2:18 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
This is where the waters get very muddy.

The first thing you'll hear is "who are you to say what the endorsement value of a player(s) is.
This what it is worth to me."
Are there other industries where you think there should be an oversight committee that works to determine the fair value of endorsements?

I run a company. If I decide to start airing commercials and reach a financial agreement with somebody to appear in those commercials, I certainly don't want to have to run that by some third party to let them decide if I'm paying the right amount.
This is exactly what I was saying.

There is no way to say what a person or persons' endorsement value is to someone. If I'm willing to pay them whatever it takes to get them to transfer,that's my business,not anyone else's.

For any old movie buffs,this is how Charlie Kane got his Staff from the Chronicle.He bought them.

That's one of the problems with this proposal.
There is no way to control what big dollar boosters pay to "poach" players.
We're saying the same thing, just reaching a different conclusion. I don't think it's a problem when somebody gets paid money for services.
mail
person
rpbobcat
5/6/2020 2:39 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
We're saying the same thing, just reaching a different conclusion. I don't think it's a problem when somebody gets paid money for services.
My issue isn't with someone being paid for their services.

The problem,big schools, with big boosters, will willing to spend,whether
justifiable from a marketing stand point or not,whatever it takes to
get players to transfer to their program.

Basically,college free agency,without any controls.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/6/2020 2:42 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
We're saying the same thing, just reaching a different conclusion. I don't think it's a problem when somebody gets paid money for services.
My issue isn't with someone being paid for their services.

The problem,big schools, with big boosters, will willing to spend,whether
justifiable from a marketing stand point or not,whatever it takes to
get players to transfer to their program.

Basically,college free agency,without any controls.
Yeah, I understand that. I just don't understand why I'm supposed to view player movement as inherently bad. I asked this of OCF above, too: what's the moral code that insists that's a bad thing based on? Competitive advantage? Tradition?
mail
person
rpbobcat
5/6/2020 2:47 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
We're saying the same thing, just reaching a different conclusion. I don't think it's a problem when somebody gets paid money for services.
My issue isn't with someone being paid for their services.

The problem,big schools, with big boosters, will willing to spend,whether
justifiable from a marketing stand point or not,whatever it takes to
get players to transfer to their program.

Basically,college free agency,without any controls.
Yeah, I understand that. I just don't understand why I'm supposed to view player movement as inherently bad. I asked this of OCF above, too: what's the moral code that insists that's a bad thing based on? Competitive advantage? Tradition?
Player movement isn't inherently bad.
Its the reasoning behind it.

In this case,it looks a lot like bribery.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 67
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)