Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="BlazeOrange, post: 1751758, member: 683"] This would be true for a while, maybe a long while at some schools. It solves the problem that the people who are most responsible for generating massive revenues for their schools are not receiving proportional compensation by creating a new revenue stream. The schools income is not significantly affected at first (I may be wrong , but assume that media revenue and mandatory donations to secure tickets dwarfs voluntary donations - at least outside of facility construction efforts which might rely on naming rights-level donors). However, all this money is floating around because lots of people are interested in seeing top level competitions involving either or both of this age group and/or schools they are somehow associated with. Connecting players with boosters/endorsers will definitely result in concentrations of [U][B]higher-rated [/B][/U]players at certain schools that have fans offering to pay more. If it results in a small group of ultra elite teams, there is potential that overall interest will wane if school-first fans find their alma mater on the outside. Meaning less viewers and butts in seats, which leads to lower direct revenue and media contracts for the universities and subsequently reduced endorsement opportunities for the players. Recruits don't always pan out though. So, unless transfer rules are liberalized, there will be star players at non-factory schools who may benefit from national corporate endorsements (smart companies will also take care of their teammates to ensure ROI). Will this be enough to counter booster endorsements and maintain a broad level of competition? Who knows. I think my point got away from me as I typed, but I do think I'm starting to lean toward the deregulate and lets see what happens side. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?