Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Ward, post: 1754445, member: 1958"]
Number 5 to me is a GREAT point. Figuring out a a few options to compensate the players is probably a pretty simple thing for most labor economists if they decided to put any effort into it. Like I mentioned in a previous post, my guess is most of them are affiliated with a university and they most likely don't really welcome those types of research publications.

I know we won't agree on point 6 and I respect your opinion on that. That's what discussion in these threads is for. What would be really interesting is what would happen once you saw Nike, UA, Adidas get involved in a system like that? They could pretty much decide who they wanted to be elite and who they didn't want to "back".

Big time football programs are crazy about what they do to get recruits now, and that's just with "underground fundraising". They bid ~$300k for players to sign on NSD, pay $5-10k to have a kid visit their school, pay kids ~$10k to NOT visit a school, make 6 figure donations to a recruits family church, it's nuts. And that doesn't even take a bucket out of the ocean in terms of being able to upgrade facilities as they please. So I guess I just think when you start telling them they don't even have to hide it or show discretion when recruiting donors to pitch in it would snowball pretty quickly.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?