Swine Fusion mentions in another post that there is a Congressman from NC...............

…who is threatening to seek a law that would allow NCAA athletes to be paid for “work” they do outside the school. He is saying that it is modeled on the way Olympic Athletes are paid now by sponsors while still competing as “amateurs.”

The theory is that we have a “black market” paying plan already in place and this would get it out in the open, eliminating the sharks & middle men who exploit it. So, now every college athlete can be assured of lots of easy chores for lots of cash from local companies if they sign with Whoever University? If they are going to let athletes be paid, why not let them only be paid BY the university using the media revenue that the NCAA manages? I guess the “letting them get whatever the market will bear” eliminates the Title Nine issue. If the girls can’t get a sponsor to pay them for easy work, how can they blame the school?!?!

I just wonder if this is better and how it will work?

It gets it out into the open and cuts out the sharks like Christian Dawkins (the one on the line with Will Wade). That’s the good part. There can absolutely be bad parts. Will Bama funnel money to five-stars through businesses (any more than they already do)? What about the infamous bottomless ATM cards at Auburn?

My view on that is that this levels the playing field between the ones who already cheat and the ones who don’t. It won’t matter any more that Mike Anderson doesn’t play the Christian Dawkins game. It won’t matter if Auburn funnels casino money to athletes (we have some casinos that sponsor UA athletics too).

My favorite is Cam Newton’s Dad had a Church AND a moving business. The Church suddenly got lots more cash donations in the collection plate and his moving company got lots more customers, mostly from Alabama companies with Auburn graduate owners. Who needs unlimited ATM cards or Casinos with athlete-only slot machines with high and frequent payouts? Having your own Church is the ultimate money laundering vehicle. When Cam left Florida and got re-recruited old Dad publicly stated they were not going to settle for “chump change this time” and he meant it! That $200,000 cash payment was just the tip of a very big iceberg. Why should they want to get paid “out in the open?” Then, they have to pay taxes on it!

My favorite is Cam Newton’s Dad had a Church AND a moving business. The Church suddenly got lots more cash donations in the collection plate and his moving company got lots more customers, mostly from Alabama companies with Auburn graduate owners. Who needs unlimited ATM cards or Casinos with athlete-only slot machines with high and frequent payouts? Having your own Church is the ultimate money laundering vehicle. When Cam left Florida and got re-recruited old Dad publicly stated they were not going to settle for “chump change this time” and he meant it! That $200,000 cash payment was just the tip of a very big iceberg. Why should they want to get paid “out in the open?” Then, they have to pay taxes on it!

[/quote]

Let’s be fair here, the young Cam didn’t have a clue that Auburn bought daddy off like a government official in a South American murder trial… at least that’s what a fair minded NCAA determined just before our game to insure Auburn had a direct path to the NC.

Didn’t I see something in there that said the proposed outside money earned would go into a Trust for the player? It would then be turned over to him after he graduates, goes pro, or, I guess, just quits school.

The congressman, who has talked to the NCAA about changing their rules so he doesn’t have to introduce this bill, said he wouldn’t object if the NCAA decides to require that the income go into a trust, or put some other kind of limits on it. But that limit couldn’t be zero.

This is all a bit laughable. This doesn’t eliminate the Dawkins type at all. It just adds another revenue source that is legit. There will always be someone who tries to add to something to help themselves to a deal later. I don’t really see that changing.

I do see the thing that the schools are worried about. They do not want money being diverted from themselves to the athlete. The school would lose revenue. Seriously, the business that is now buying advertising to the school only has X amount of budget available. He’s going to take money out of that pool going to the school to put up signage in the stadium or banners on the website, instead just give it to the athlete who can push their product on TV or on billboards on the highway. That’s clearly what scares the schools.

I get it, the athlete might deserve it. But what I see is that the athletes will need agents. They’ll need a manager to sell them to the businesses. There will be some slick agents and managers still involved with buying and selling flesh.

Whether it’s this bill, or the ruling that came down last week in the grant-in-aid case (or both), things are gonna change in a big way in college athletics, particularly at the Power 5 level. Not a question of if, it’s how much and when. I do not envy any AD trying to navigate this situation, although it appears that in the grant-in-aid case the conferences may set guidelines for their member schools. There’s too much money flying around and 99.9% of it is flying past the athletes.

I don’t disagree that funds will be reallocated from coaches and huge staffs and stadium expansions to the athletes. That’s part of the new landscape that the ADs have to figure out.

Just one example. When I worked for SIO, it was the SID and one assistant, a secretary, three students, and a women’s SID who did everything himself (the students in the men’s office helped him out when we could). That’s it. And there were more men’s sports then than now. JFB was notorious for squeezing nickels until they bled, but still. Now there’s Kevin Trainor, nine associate communications directors, and no telling how many interns, plus the broadcast services staff (UA radio network then was out of Little Rock).