Rotating home dates would be a nightmare logistically. You could end up with a situation where you would go literally a month or two without having games in a certain “home” base. It would be more expensive in the long run because you would need two or three sets of staffing infrastructure instead of just one.

On top of that, I doubt many players would want to do that. Most at least have apartments in their “home” city, even if they don’t live there year round. If you had two or three “home” cities, You’re basically living in hotels through the entire season.

dylans said:

FWIW If the xfl gains traction, they are talking about drafting HS players.

That would be wild.

For what its worth, I don’t think the NFL has any interest in building their own developmental system. They are perfectly fine with the current system.

The NBA… well, that’s different. They are not as content with the current state of affairs. College systems (and the overall schedule) make it too easy to hide flaws that get exposed at the next level, or prevent really amazing players from fully realizing their potential.

dylans said:

Outside of Zion, whom I also wouldn’t have seen much of if not for Duke, I can’t think of a single marketable athlete at the collegiate level when removed from his university and the exposure it creates.

The reason this is true is because that’s the system that we currently operate under. If, for instance, the NBA or NFL were running their own developmental system outside the NCAA (like European soccer clubs do), we would have examples of marketable athletes aside from the NCAA. That day is coming.

Social media allows many of these athletes to begin marketing themselves before they ever step foot onto a college campus.

Jalen Green, a current KU recruiting target for 2020, has over 28,000 followers on Twitter. These guys today can promote their own material before ever setting foot on a college campus. They have access to social media to get their name, their highlights, and their story out there on their own.

Teenage stars in golf and tennis have endorsement deals. The only reason that’s not true for basketball and football stars is because we have put a system in place that prevents them from doing so prior to a certain age. If that system were changed, they would almost certainly profit. It’s not like Nike and Adidas all of a sudden stopped wanting to market their products through athletes.

College fans want to keep the status quo because they enjoy the status quo and it doesn’t make a difference to them personally. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But that doesn’t mean the rules have to stay that way. That doesn’t mean the rules will stay that way. And if the rules do change, the development process will, too.

Ultimately, the money that built the NCAA is going to be what kills the NCAA. When the NCAA wasn’t very profitable, they had gambling scandals. As the NCAA got more popular (and profitable) the money ended up on top of the table instead of underneath, but the people that made the big money off college athletics still weren’t the players, so there was always a possibility of shady dealings.

Now, there’s no way to turn off the flow of money without smothering the golden goose with it. That’s just the reality. All the tournaments in beautiful locations, the games on national TV, etc. All of that is a product of the money. The NCAA tournament used to be held in campus arenas. Only a handful of teams made it (mostly conference champs). It has grown so big, but in reality, the popularity of college sports is maxxed out.

The NCAA can’t really become a global brand. The NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. are all marketing overseas because that’s where the biggest potential for growth is. Other than games on military bases, the NCAA doesn’t have any international interest, so the overall marketability of the NCAA is limited to its popularity here in the U.S. There’s no more money to be made. ShoeCos get more bang for their buck from the pro game, so if the NCAA starts hassling them, they will just move away from colleges rather than deal with the headaches.

The same goes for TV. If there are other events that are more marketable, the TV money isn’t promised forever. There’s nothing that absolutely says the NCAA basketball tournament has to be on TV for a BILLION DOLLARS. The money could very easily dry up. I posted on another thread about how much KU gets from TV, ShoeCos, the conference (bowl payouts) and the NCAA (basketball tournament payouts). It’s about half the athletic budget. If that portion of money were to go away, college sports would change dramatically.

Actually, let me put that another way. If college football or college basketball were to change in any way, the college revenue pie would change dramatically. Right now, the athletic department at most colleges is outside the school itself. It can do that because ShoeCo, TV, and NCAA money makes that possible. Take any of those revenue sources away (or drain them in any substantial way) and athletic departments become insolvent pretty quickly. Are boosters gonna pony up the $50M in lost revenue every year?

The business model is flawed. I like KU basketball, but I have no problem seeing a flawed business model fail. That’s capitalism for you.

@drgnslayr

Here’s the 2018 Report for KU. I think every school has to submit this report.

Highlights include that KU made $20.6M in ticket sales and about $26.2M from contributions (donations). Media rights was worth another $28M+ (Footbal accounts for about three quarters of that total).

KU got $10.8M from Royalties, Licensing, Advertisements and Sponsorships. That’s where the ShoeCo money is. That category is worth about 10% of the total athletic revenue.

Also worth noting that even though the basketball team is top notch and the football team is… not, KU football was worth almost twice what KU basketball was in terms of revenue.

KU can win games because they can run the ball. In the Big 12, they can keep some of the more explosive offenses off the field with their run game, but in order to do that, the threat of a pass has to exist. Because Herbert and Williams are so talented, the passing attack doesn’t need to be great. As @Texas-Hawk-10 said, average is enough.

The defense is a bit more athletic (eye test) than last year. That may not translate to a better product right away, but it will give them a higher ceiling.

The NCAA only has jurisdiction over schools, not the ShoeCos. Every school needs ShoeCo money. If the NCAA comes down hard on one ShoeCo, they will probably get sued unless they come down on all of the ShoeCos. If they crack down on every ShoeCo, the ShoeCos may stop spending money on these college contracts. Those contracts make athletic departments solvent, so that’s a non starter.

The only remaining option is to do nothing.

Carter Stanley is a caretaker. KU still needs an upgrade, but if he can keep teams from completely loading the box to stop the run, this KU team can move the football. QB play just has to keep defenses honest so the backs can do their thing.

dylans said:

Last I checked it wasn’t illegal in any state to sell your image, just against ncaa rules. So what changes with the California ruling? Just more pressure on the ncaa to allow players to make money?

Exactly. This puts pressure on the NCAA’s rules on eligibility. If you are a regular scholarship student, you can profit off your name and likeness in any field. However, if you are a scholarship athlete you cannot.

Chad Thomas, a former player at Miami (now with the Cleveland Browns) was a rapper and music producer in college. He was featured on several major albums, but the NCAA forbid him from promoting or profiting from his music, or they would take away his eligibility (story) That’s pretty pathetic, if you ask me. A kid that majors in biology could certainly profit from research that they did. A kid on a band scholarship could play gigs on the weekends for money.

But if you are an athlete, you cannot do anything to make money, or you risk your eligibility.

The NCAA has the power to suspend the schools in those areas, but California is large enough (with enough schools and population) to break away anyway. The NCAA is staring at a showdown that it may not have the horses to win.