Will Blazer's Comments Get Any Traction (about Bama football)?

gtowntide said:

If I understand this correctly you're exactly right. He wasn't paying players to come to a certain school, he was paying them so they'd choose him as their agent. The timing of these payments and who the players were would be interesting to know. We all know that our compliance department is all over our kids. I know we all have nightmares about the NCAA looking down that barrel again but I don't see this going anywhere.

Click to expand...

What he got busted for was illegally signing athletes names to his movie line, and the FBI and SEC caught him. It is entirely different than what he exposed the AAU for. He was facing 67 years but basically told them he would expose the AAU. So basically for a year he was undercover for the FBI exposing Nike and Adidas.

I’ll remind you that Alabama is deep in bed with Nike so the fact that Alabama has come up twice in this very case in two different sports isn’t just something to say it’s nothing. Yeah we aren’t going to get hit IN THIS CASE but you can bet rival dirt diggers are going to be watching extra closely in things related to this case in the future.

What the investigators started realizing was that teams like Louisville were funneling money to recruits through adidas to come to Louisville. That was the big one. UNC, Arizona,and Auburn were other big ones doing the same thing but not on the same scale.

Th solution to this is simple: Pay players above board and let them earn money from their name/likeness.

NationalTitles17 said:

Th solution to this is simple: Pay players above board and let them earn money from their name/likeness.

Click to expand...

Another solution: NBA and NFL create a "minor league" that HS players can go straight into, just like baseball. I may be wrong but, you don't hear about this stuff in college baseball. Probably because the top prospects are not forced to go to college if they don't want too, they can jump right into the minors and earn some money (not much, I know but, it's something).

As longs as college football and basketball are a road block to the pros, you are going to have pay for play scandals. There is too much money to be made and these players are too valuable for "amateur" sports.

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1121460822172160002

NationalTitles17 said:

Th solution to this is simple: Pay players above board and let them earn money from their name/likeness.

Click to expand...

That's pandora's box though.

Amateurism will not and can not end entirely. From little kids, to high school, amateur sports have to exist because almost all are not in any way profitable. They can't pay these kids to do something that isn't worth any money, that in fact requires outside money.

Alabama athletics had something like 30 million donated to it for the last year I saw. How much did any professional franchise get donated to it? I'm guessing nothing like that. If you break down the amateur model and then replace it with a professional one, you'll find that the entire enterprise is on shaky footing. It will have less funding (because who after all donates money to professionals), and yet be spending more money. Then you are getting closer to the same semi-pro model that sunk every football league that's tried it since the 60s.

It might make sense by itself, but it's a round hole square peg scenario. Once you get into the details it becomes one big giant mess, and could basically destroy the sport entirely (I know some Big 10 people are on record as saying they'd drop sports before they did this).

I think more should be provided for the athletes, I'm good with that. Stipends and such, in fact the total money spent on them already rivals what semi-pros make. But there's a chemistry at this point that is very delicate.

It also needs to be mentioned that a lot of college programs are losing money as it is...

KrAzY3 said:

That's pandora's box though.

Amateurism will not and can not end entirely. From little kids, to high school, amateur sports have to exist because almost all are not in any way profitable. They can't pay these kids to do something that isn't worth any money, that in fact requires outside money.

Alabama athletics had something like 30 million donated to it for the last year I saw. How much did any professional franchise get donated to it? I'm guessing nothing like that. If you break down the amateur model and then replace it with a professional one, you'll find that the entire enterprise is on shaky footing. It will have less funding (because who after all donates money to professionals), and yet be spending more money. Then you are getting closer to the same semi-pro model that sunk every football league that's tried it since the 60s.

It might make sense by itself, but it's a round hole square peg scenario. Once you get into the details it becomes one big giant mess, and could basically destroy the sport entirely (I know some Big 10 people are on record as saying they'd drop sports before they did this).

I think more should be provided for the athletes, I'm good with that. Stipends and such, in fact the total money spent on them already rivals what semi-pros make. But there's a chemistry at this point that is very delicate.

It also needs to be mentioned that a lot of college programs are losing money as it is...

Click to expand...

At this point I think the only true amateur sport is high school, but even then there are schools that buy players. Major college football is not an amateur sport.

Just let them make money off their own name and likeness. It really is that simple.

81usaf92 said:

At this point I think the only true amateur sport is high school, but even then there are schools that buy players. Major college football is not an amateur sport.

Click to expand...

I know calling it amateur at this point is at best semantics, I mean they're getting stipends even. But, the main thing is if you put any sort of open market, free agency type stuff in the mix, you're introducing a lot more volatility.

I mean we both agree Ole Miss got in trouble not simply because they broke the rules, they got in trouble because they obviously and egregiously broke the rules right? If you take the, let's call it a limiter off, there's really no limit to what we might see, but it would make what Ole Miss did seem trivial.

For instance, does every Oregon football commit get a 1 million dollar Nike deal? Why not? Does Pickens hand out million dollar oil jobs to the families of their commits? This whole structure of support doesn't really lend itself to the open market, it's capable of imploding, or having outright civil war (between the amateur and professional factions) if you really did just uncork the stuff. I'd also add that Alabama doesn't have a Phil Knight or a T. Boone Pickets, so they might be in trouble.

I get it though, these guys are getting paid. For instance if you go to Alabama, you get 90K spent on you via Title IX qualified funding, and then you get what ever else comes your way (which by the way isn't such a bad gig). I'm all for trying to figure out more above board ways to provide as well, like making plans for getting these guys loss of value insurance better and that sort of thing. I just see potentially catastrophic issues if you basically take the Ole Miss plan and put it on steroids, which is what sanctioning that sort of thing would tend to do.

Also, I will reiterate that a lot of college programs, yes even football, are already losing money. So while a lot of us might not mind the number of programs shrinking significantly, there's a reason we're not hearing certain schools pop up in this list, because they're not relevant to this discussion, their programs would die or remain amateur.

RTR91 said:

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1121460822172160002

Click to expand...

will be interesting to see if this has any legs since it would make it seem like the program knows and is either facilitating or covering up the payments.

KrAzY3 said:

I know calling it amateur at this point is at best semantics, I mean they're getting stipends even. But, the main thing is if you put any sort of open market, free agency type stuff in the mix, you're introducing a lot more volatility.

.

Click to expand...

We already have a more or less free agency in college football already. There aren't very strictly enforced rules regarding who can play immediately anymore after transferring after seeing Fields, Martell, and Patterson being declared eligible.

KrAzY3 said:

I mean we both agree Ole Miss got in trouble not simply because they broke the rules, they got in trouble because they obviously and egregiously broke the rules right? If you take the, let's call it a limiter off, there's really no limit to what we might see, but it would make what Ole Miss did seem trivial.

.

Click to expand...

Maybe but it would make it easier to enforce infractions.

KrAzY3 said:

For instance, does every Oregon football commit get a 1 million dollar Nike deal? Why not? Does Pickens hand out million dollar oil jobs to the families of their commits? This whole structure of support doesn't really lend itself to the open market, it's capable of imploding, or having outright civil war (between the amateur and professional factions) if you really did just uncork the stuff. I'd also add that Alabama doesn't have a Phil Knight or a T. Boone Pickets, so they might be in trouble.

.

Click to expand...

Did Louisville have Adolf Dassler or Igor Landau? I think it would surprise you that Nike pays less than most companies for deals, and Oregon doesn't rank in the top 20 in college uniform sports deals. Georgia has a bigger sports deal with Nike than Oregon.

KrAzY3 said:

I get it though, these guys are getting paid. For instance if you go to Alabama, you get 90K spent on you via Title IX qualified funding, and then you get what ever else comes your way (which by the way isn't such a bad gig). I'm all for trying to figure out more above board ways to provide as well, like making plans for getting these guys loss of value insurance better and that sort of thing. I just see potentially catastrophic issues if you basically take the Ole Miss plan and put it on steroids, which is what sanctioning that sort of thing would tend to do.

.

Click to expand...

Putting a cap limit would make it easier to distinguish what is crossing the lines and what is just buying a kid a lunch.

KrAzY3 said:

Also, I will reiterate that a lot of college programs, yes even football, are already losing money. So while a lot of us might not mind the number of programs shrinking significantly, there's a reason we're not hearing certain schools pop up in this list, because they're not relevant to this discussion, their programs would die or remain amateur.

Click to expand...

Personally I think College football should be stricter on who is a major university and who isn't. That would solve a lot of these problems.

gtgilbert said:

will be interesting to see if this has any legs since it would make it seem like the program knows and is either facilitating or covering up the payments.

Click to expand...

Errbody gettin' named

https://twitter.com/abc/status/https://twitter.com/gmraynor/status/1121485516204122112?s=19

https://twitter.com/gmraynor/status/1121485516204122112?s=19

81usaf92 said:

We already have a more or less free agency in college football already. There aren't very strictly enforced rules regarding who can play immediately anymore after transferring after seeing Fields, Martell, and Patterson being declared eligible.

Click to expand...

Part of this is if we see a gradual evolution, or a rapid change. A rule change like allowing endorsements (which would at the same time allow inducements) or just outright allowing players to be paid would send shockwaves through the sport, the magnitude of which we've never seen.

It isn't that I disagree with any of your points or even your position, it's just the domino effects that I think could get out of hand very fast.

For example, even the private universities have to comply with Title IX which states that an equal amount has to be spent on female athletes as is spend on male ones. Even allowing endorsements (inducements) would likely run afoul of that. It would end up before court with one arguing the male players are being paid more via the endorsements. Obviously though the NCAA itself, and the public universities might not go along with this anyway, so even just with the endorsement rule you could end up with bifurcation (as it stands now the SEC doesn't allow active professional baseball players while most conferences do).

So what then? You do get the breakaway from the NCAA that a lot of people want, but you also by necessity end up with a breakaway from the universities as well. You can't become free of Title IX without being free of the university itself. So how does that work? Let's say the University of Alabama signs on with this, what sort of agreement has to be made? They'd have to agree to dissolve their football program, and without breaking any laws figure out how to give access to the stadium to the newly formed professional franchise. Of course some schools could end up on regretting the choice, so in theory you could end up with an amateur and professional Alabama team, and the likelihood is that one or both of those would be a failure.

It's so very complicated because we have a public university with Title IX obligations, and copyrights, and all this sort of thing, and there's also the NCAA and so on. I can't figure out a way to make it work within the current model, so we're left with the breakaway scenario I already mentioned. It's just so messy, and even something seemingly benign like an endorsement deal could be enough to start unraveling things. As long as money changing hands remains hidden, it's not a provable violation of Title IX.

I'm not kidding in that a major change to this situation could require an act of congress.

AUDub said:

Errbody gettin' named

https://twitter.com/abc/status/https://twitter.com/gmraynor/status/1121485516204122112?s=19

https://twitter.com/gmraynor/status/1121485516204122112?s=19

Click to expand...

I don't know, man. Based on the video, you might need to conduct a review of more than just your basketball program.

gtgilbert said:

will be interesting to see if this has any legs since it would make it seem like the program knows and is either facilitating or covering up the payments.

Click to expand...

Former Bama assistant Yasir Rosemond was also on tape today making similar comments. Not great.

RTR91 said:

Former Bama assistant Yasir Rosemond was also on tape today making similar comments. Not great.

Click to expand...

Especially in light of former associate AD Kobie Baker being mention previously in the FBI investigation.

RTR91 said:

Former Bama assistant Yasir Rosemond was also on tape today making similar comments. Not great.

Click to expand...

We all getting ours.

AUDub said:

We all getting ours.

Click to expand...

Bright side, they can't give us all the death penalty.

DzynKingRTR said:

Bright side, they can't give us all the death penalty.

Click to expand...

That would be called creating a new league, heh.

DzynKingRTR said:

Bright side, they can't give us all the death penalty.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that statute of limitations thing may well help out........