Good observation re: paying players

[billsin01]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Someone tell me he&#39;d have gotten this deal without an All-America season at Duke. I could use a good laugh. <a href="Sporting News NBA on Twitter">Sporting News NBA on Twitter</a></p>&mdash; Michael DeCourcy (@tsnmike) <a href="">June 14, 2018</a></blockquote>

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



Really salient point, IMO, because we talk a lot about players being able to profit off their name and likeness and their 'fair market value.' I don't think any of those concerns are wrong or unfounded, but I do think those points are often oversimplified. I agree entirely that Bagley signs a massive shoe deal in part b/c he had a phenomenal season at Duke. That's a big part of his market value that wouldn't exist if he's not gaining massive national attention playing at Duke (if he's overseas or G League or whatnot).

This is also part of the reason the Bazely to the G League thing is puzzling to me. He is essentially going into stealth mode for a year -- whatever money he's making up front there is no question he's at least hurting his 'brand' (overused and misused phrase but I'll use it anyway) in the short term.

 

[Bayside44]

Carmelo is the same way.

 

[OrangeDW]

Carmelo is the same way.

No question. Even John Wallace had a shoe his rookie year despite being picked 18. He was one of the more well known players in that draft because of the exposure he got his senior year.

 

[RandygoCuse]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Someone tell me he&#39;d have gotten this deal without an All-America season at Duke. I could use a good laugh. <a href="Sporting News NBA on Twitter">Sporting News NBA on Twitter</a></p>&mdash; Michael DeCourcy (@tsnmike) <a href="">June 14, 2018</a></blockquote>

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Really salient point, IMO, because we talk a lot about players being able to profit off their name and likeness and their 'fair market value.' I don't think any of those concerns are wrong or unfounded, but I do think those points are often oversimplified. I agree entirely that Bagley signs a massive shoe deal in part b/c he had a phenomenal season at Duke. That's a big part of his market value that wouldn't exist if he's not gaining massive national attention playing at Duke (if he's overseas or G League or whatnot).

This is also part of the reason the Bazely to the G League thing is puzzling to me. He is essentially going into stealth mode for a year -- whatever money he's making up front there is no question he's at least hurting his 'brand' (overused and misused phrase but I'll use it anyway) in the short term.

It's a good point. Without a doubt, he gets better exposure at Duke than he would in Europe or the G-Lea
gue. that's part of the reason I think players in college should be able to get endorsment money right away. One of the arguments against it is that athletes have the option to go play in Europe. But as college ball has such a big part of the market, it makes it hard harder to establish a brand (I know, I used the word too) through other entities. The fact that they have such restricted choices shouldn't inhibit their ability to profit from willing companies.

 

[manleyzoo]

I would think his agent has already negotiated him a shoe deal that should he blow up to a high lottery pick will be worth bazillions, figuring the hype that comes with his potential will get him as much or more endorsement money than going to college for a year.

 

[Alsacs]

We aren’t talking about Trae Young.
Marvin Bagley was known in HS and didn’t need Duke to get this contract.
If you said Trae Young I agree but the top of the class kids are known and don’t need college for this stuff.

 

[Newhouser]

so if the one and done rule goes away all direct entries won't get sneaker deals? I doubt it. duke helped for sure but top picks are going to get deals.

 

[Cheriehoop]

so if the one and done rule goes away all direct entries won't get sneaker deals? I doubt it. duke helped for sure but top picks are going to get deals.

Darius Bazley not looking for shoe deal yet

 

[RandygoCuse]

We aren’t talking about Trae Young.
Marvin Bagley was known in HS and didn’t need Duke to get this contract.
If you said Trae Young I agree but the top of the class kids are known and don’t need college for this stuff.

Do you think his deal would have been as big if he was coming off a season in Europe or the G-League instead of Duke?

 

[Alsacs]

Do you think his deal would have been as big if he was coming off a season in Europe or the G-League instead of Duke?

Yes.
The ratings for college basketball aren’t close to college football.
College basketball isn’t close being as popular as football. It’s a one month sport nationally and the rest of the year is for diehards and people who care about their college.

 

[billsin01]

It's a good point. Without a doubt, he gets better exposure at Duke than he would in Europe or the G-Lea
gue. that's part of the reason I think players in college should be able to get endorsment money right away. One of the arguments against it is that athletes have the option to go play in Europe. But as college ball has such a big part of the market, it makes it hard harder to establish a brand (I know, I used the word too) through other entities. The fact that they have such restricted choices shouldn't inhibit their ability to profit from willing companies.

Don't disagree to a large extent but I've yet to see a model that lays out a clear way to determine the value. In other words, CJ Fair clearly has marketing value b/c he's CJ Fair at Syracuse. But Syracuse gives cache to CJ Fair and accounts for a big part of the value he has. The two are almost inextricably intertwined b/c CJ Fair at CW Post is still a great player and a potential pro prospect but he has very little marketability.

I don't know -- tough question. I tend to think coming up with a percentage of marketing dollars generated specifically with that players' likeness and a payout of some sort for promotional materials featuring the player would be a solid compromise. I'm not dying for these kids to be at Bill Rapp selling autographs for $10 a pop every saturday. Not sure that really benefits either party all that much.

 

[billsin01]

Yes.
The ratings for college basketball aren’t close to college football.
College basketball isn’t close being as popular as football. It’s a one month sport nationally and the rest of the year is for diehards and people who care about their college.

I disagree with a lot of this. For one, regardless of ratings, football has about a few dozen recognizable faces and names each season. You could be an absolute stud at guard in football and there's a chance the majority of fans of your team don't even know your name.

Meanwhile -- I agree, college hoops is a one-month sport -- but they go to these huge programs which makes them names and recognizable faces due to the nature of the sport (no helmets, etc). If they then follow it up with a big March run, then there is absolutely no doubt their 'brand' is enhanced dramatically.

At the end of the day, the only kids who don't benefit significantly from the exposure at college are the kids who sort of come out of nowhere and emerge at the next level or the Lebrons of the world who absolutely shouldn't be made to attend college for a year.

At the end of the day, IMO, it's solved by allowing kids to go straight from high school (a bad decision for most) and then actually selling jerseys/apparel with player names and numbers and cutting the player a percentage of the proceeds (which means he gets a cut of what he generates in sales instead of a flat stipend). They should also get compensated for promotional materials they are featured in.

But ultimately -- if you're good enough to skip college, then do it. If not, take advantage of what college has to offer.

 

[Alsacs]

I disagree with a lot of this. For one, regardless of ratings, football has about a few dozen recognizable faces and names each season. You could be an absolute stud at guard in football and there's a chance the majority of fans of your team don't even know your name.

Meanwhile -- I agree, college hoops is a one-month sport -- but they go to these huge programs which makes them names and recognizable faces due to the nature of the sport (no helmets, etc). If they then follow it up with a big March run, then there is absolutely no doubt their 'brand' is enhanced dramatically.

At the end of the day, the only kids who don't benefit significantly from the exposure at college are the kids who sort of come out of nowhere and emerge at the next level or the Lebrons of the world who absolutely shouldn't be made to attend college for a year.

At the end of the day, IMO, it's solved by allowing kids to go straight from high school (a bad decision for most) and then actually selling jerseys/apparel with player names and numbers and cutting the player a percentage of the proceeds (which means he gets a cut of what he generates in sales instead of a flat stipend). They should also get compensated for promotional materials they are featured in.

But ultimately -- if you're good enough to skip college, then do it. If not, take advantage of what college has to offer.

What guard in the NFL has a shoe deal?
That analogy doesn’t work.
The point being alleged is that Bagley playing college basketball got him the exposure to get the shoe deal.
My point is college basketball didn’t get that kid the deal. His brand wasn’t made more profitable by going to college. He was a top 2 recruit. Nowadays those kids are known before college and don’t need the college basketball experience to get endorsements.
Zion Williamson’s announcement was prime time on ESPN on a Saturday night.
He doesn’t need to play next year and he will get a shoe deal for next years draft.
Just like Bagley didn’t make any money because he played college ball.
Kids like Trae Young did make money.

 

[OrangeDW]

What guard in the NFL has a shoe deal?
That analogy doesn’t work.
The point being alleged is that Bagley playing college basketball got him the exposure to get the shoe deal.
My point is college basketball didn’t get that kid the deal. His brand wasn’t made more profitable by going to college. He was a top 2 recruit. Nowadays those kids are known before college and don’t need the college basketball experience to get endorsements.
Zion Williamson’s announcement was prime time on ESPN on a Saturday night.
He doesn’t need to play next year and he will get a shoe deal for next years draft.
Just like Bagley didn’t make any money because he played college ball.
Kids like Trae Young did make money.

The kid had a great year at a very visible program like Duke. Puma is apparantly trying to get back into the b-ball market. This reminds me a bit of when Fila tried getting into the b-ball market in the mid 90’s, and they gave huge deals to Grant Hill, and then Jerry Stackhouse the following year. Two kids with large name value built by starring at very visible college b-ball programs.

Those guys were not the first picks...but they were bigger names and had their own shoes right away as rookies.

 

[billsin01]

What guard in the NFL has a shoe deal?
That analogy doesn’t work.
The point being alleged is that Bagley playing college basketball got him the exposure to get the shoe deal.
My point is college basketball didn’t get that kid the deal. His brand wasn’t made more profitable by going to college. He was a top 2 recruit. Nowadays those kids are known before college and don’t need the college basketball experience to get endorsements.
Zion Williamson’s announcement was prime time on ESPN on a Saturday night.
He doesn’t need to play next year and he will get a shoe deal for next years draft.
Just like Bagley didn’t make any money because he played college ball.
Kids like Trae Young did make money.

That's not the point being alleged -- at least not if you follow DeCourcy and the discussion. It's that the leverage and size of the deal is directly related to a player's position in the collective consciousness of the country. We're not discussing the ability to get endorsements (or even if players should or shouldn't be allowed to pursue them while in college) -- we're discussing the value of those contracts and the market value of the player.

There is no way that going to duke and putting up 21 and 11 for a year in front of packed houses in the best conference in america and being televised every game doesn't improve your marketing value -- you are reaching a much larger audience. That would be like saying his value wouldn't increase if he goes on and wins rookie of the year and makes the all-star team.

So I don't disagree that these kids are known and have value to an extent but there is no doubt the exposure the players get in 9 mos at college add to that value significantly.

 

[Bayside44]

What guard in the NFL has a shoe deal?
That analogy doesn’t work.
The point being alleged is that Bagley playing college basketball got him the exposure to get the shoe deal.
My point is college basketball didn’t get that kid the deal. His brand wasn’t made more profitable by going to college. He was a top 2 recruit. Nowadays those kids are known before college and don’t need the college basketball experience to get endorsements.
Zion Williamson’s announcement was prime time on ESPN on a Saturday night.
He doesn’t need to play next year and he will get a shoe deal for next years draft.
Just like Bagley didn’t make any money because he played college ball.
Kids like Trae Young did make money.

He went to Duke and was on big time TV all the time. OF course that matters to the average sports Joe, not internet nuts like here.

 

[pfister1]

Bagley got the shoe deal not because of any fame he has today, but because Puma is hoping he will become an NBA star and wanted to place a bet on that potential by signing him now before they had to bid against Nike to sign him.

 

[OrangeDW]

Bagley got the shoe deal not because of any fame he has today, but because Puma is hoping he will become an NBA star and wanted to place a bet on that potential by signing him before a bigger name signed him.

Disagree. Puma went for the “surest thing” from an ability and name value standpoint. Just like Fila did back in the day with Hill and Stackhouse. Puma also did it with Vince Carter.

Otherwise, why didn’t they break the bank for a Michael Porter? He’s got high potential. But he’s riskier due to the injuries and not as many people know who he is. But he very well could end up being the better player.

 

[pfister1]

Disagree. Puma went for the “surest thing” from an ability and name value standpoint. Just like Fila did back in the day with Hill and Stackhouse. Puma also did it with Vince Carter.

Otherwise, why didn’t they break the bank for a Michael Porter? He’s got high potential. But he’s riskier due to the injuries and not as many people know who he is. But he very well could end up being the better player.

That was my point. They chose to spend bigger money than is normal on a prospect rather than bid for someone who is a proven star.

It has nothing to do with his fame from Duke. They view him as the best bet to become an NBA star who doesn’t already command star dollars

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Someone tell me he&#39;d have gotten this deal without an All-America season at Duke. I could use a good laugh. <a href="Sporting News NBA on Twitter">Sporting News NBA on Twitter</a></p>&mdash; Michael DeCourcy (@tsnmike) <a href="">June 14, 2018</a></blockquote>

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



Really salient point, IMO, because we talk a lot about players being able to profit off their name and likeness and their 'fair market value.' I don't think any of those concerns are wrong or unfounded, but I do think those points are often oversimplified. I agree entirely that Bagley signs a massive shoe deal in part b/c he had a phenomenal season at Duke. That's a big part of his market value that wouldn't exist if he's not gaining massive national attention playing at Duke (if he's overseas or G League or whatnot).

This is also part of the reason the Bazely to the G League thing is puzzling to me. He is essentially going into stealth mode for a year -- whatever money he's making up front there is no question he's at least hurting his 'brand' (overused and misused phrase but I'll use it anyway) in the short term.

Kobe got a deal as #17 pick.

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

Payers are already paid.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Don't disagree to a large extent but I've yet to see a model that lays out a clear way to determine the value. In other words, CJ Fair clearly has marketing value b/c he's CJ Fair at Syracuse. But Syracuse gives cache to CJ Fair and accounts for a big part of the value he has. The two are almost inextricably intertwined b/c CJ Fair at CW Post is still a great player and a potential pro prospect but he has very little marketability.

I don't know -- tough question. I tend to think coming up with a percentage of marketing dollars generated specifically with that players' likeness and a payout of some sort for promotional materials featuring the player would be a solid compromise. I'm not dying for these kids to be at Bill Rapp selling autographs for $10 a pop every saturday. Not sure that really benefits either party all that much.

I'd let the market decide. Whatever entities are willing to pay, seems the fairest way.

 

[TinyManInside]

Disagree. Puma went for the “surest thing” from an ability and name value standpoint. Just like Fila did back in the day with Hill and Stackhouse. Puma also did it with Vince Carter.

Otherwise, why didn’t they break the bank for a Michael Porter? He’s got high potential. But he’s riskier due to the injuries and not as many people know who he is. But he very well could end up being the better player.

This is a good point on why having name recognition matters. Porter has similar upside, but he was basically out all year, played at a college that doesn't generate big hype, and will be heading into the NBA as a virtual unknown to most NBA fans. Maybe he ends up with a similar deal to Bagley, but I doubt it.

 

[reedny]

I'd let the market decide. Whatever entities are willing to pay, seems the fairest way.

zzz

 

[MikeSU02]

We aren’t talking about Trae Young.
Marvin Bagley was known in HS and didn’t need Duke to get this contract.
If you said Trae Young I agree but the top of the class kids are known and don’t need college for this stuff.

Yeah. Using Bagley as an example here isn't a great one. Bagley would have gotten a shoe deal if he were prep to pro. Bagley's exposure actually may have hurt him a bit (he's a tweener; his defense stinks, etc). Puma had to reach to sign someone. They got Bagley.