New NCAA rules on players profiting off likeness

[Dwight89]

It’s looking like starting in 2021 CFB players can profit off their likeness. What are everyone’s thoughts on how this will impact Utah recruiting in the future?

 

For me, i think it will create an even larger “the rich get richer” scenario than what already exists. Teams with larger fan bases in bigger markets will have access to more businesses willing to hire players or sponsor them or whatever. 

 

Basically, what was already an incredibly difficult task for schools like Utah will be made even more difficult, in my view. I just don’t see how this benefits a small market school like Utah at all. Maybe someone can change my mind?

[GameForAnyFuss]

Amazing how quickly the NCAA can come up with something like this as soon as the NBA comes up with a legit alternative to college basketball…

[Dwight89]

I kinda think it had more to do with California’s new law putting the NCAA in quite the bind. 

[Tony (admin)]

I think it might help a few of the smaller local players, and players that won’t get drafted. Might also cause trouble with boneheads who don’t know how to manage their money as well as introduce corruption. 

[UteThunder]

This is the beginning of the end for college athletics as we know them. 

Up until now, schools like Utah, TCU, Boise State, UCF, etc. have been able to build programs that can compete with the big boys; and in the case of Utah & TCU, become one of the big boys.

But, if players can profit from their likeness, that’s all over. The winners here will be the schools with boosters willing to fork over millions to college kids so that their team can win more games. Some might say that is no different than how things work right now, but I believe the amount of outright paying players that goes on is pretty minimal. With this type of rule in place, it will be difficult for a school like Utah to compete. Especially where we’re in a conference with USC, UCLA, & Oregon.

Sadly, I think BYU will come out a winner in this. They have some pretty wealthy alumni who are all too willing to throw money at players.

[Dwight89]

Unfortunately, I think you’re more right than wrong.

[Tony (admin)]

It sure as hell isn’t going to make college athletics better. 

[Utah]

So boosters haven’t already been forking out millions to programs and players? 

[UteThunder]

Millions to programs? Yes.

Millions to PLAYERS? No.

I think every program has SOME players getting the OCCASIONAL hundred dollar handshake. In programs like Alabama, boosters have been doing way more than that, paying the top 3 to 5 kids thousands of dollars under the table, and in very rare cases upwards of $100,000. When it becomes legal for boosters to pay kids, we’re going to see programs like Alabama have every single starter being paid tens of thousands of dollars for their likeness and most second stringers getting several thousands of dollars.

Programs that don’t have boosters willing to pay up are going to have a hard time signing enough talent and depth to compete with the programs that do.

[tarheelio]

I am an alumnus of 2 schools that are very different players in the sports world, Utah and Carolina. I think this helps Carolina and hurts Utah. Playing for Carolina guarantees you some extra hype, more social media followers, and an environment where there are more businesses that can pay for endorsements. Playing for Utah gets you less hype than UCLA or Arizona, and thus kids will value UCLA and Arizona over Utah more than they already do.

[Central Coast Ute]

It’s funny because coached like Nick Saban and Dabo Swinney, big school coaches don’t agree with your assessment. Now business that don’t participate in paying athletes under the table can legally sponsor a kid. So Alabama, Clemson, LSU, USC and Oregon won’t be the only schools able to pay kids to play for them anymore.

[tarheelio]

But they will still have more money to pay players. The gap between Utah and USC just got bigger. Utah does not have the economic strength of Los Angeles. This may help Utah compete against the likes of Nebraska. Nebraska has a much better football pedigree, but who are the businesses that can pay players? It is best for programs that are already big in football and hoops that are also located within strong economies. Think, Texas, USC, UCLA, UNC, Georgia. I see it boosting UW because of the Seattle economy. 

[BulgieUte]

Initially the big schools are going to have a boom in talent. This will lead to a less competitive environment and damage the product. When the product is diminished advertisers will be paying less and boosters will find themselves subsidizing the programs more than ever. At this point only the programs with the most built in advantages and boosters with the deepest pockets will remain competetive. So while the top 6 or 7 programs maintain their advantage the question becomes at what point will the disadvantage teams form a seperate more competitive and enjoyable division?

I don’t have a problem if the top teams want to split off and form a semi pro club league, that’s their business. I just hope Utah doesn’t try to be part of it because I don’t believe they could win in that environment.

I think the ideal situation would be revenue sharing. If a player sale’s his likeness he gets a percentage and the rest is divided appropriately among all players and schools. Teams like Utah could remain competitive in that system and players could get fair compensation. 

[Author]

Posts