Originally Posted by bcross
That's still a recruiting violation even with the new rules.
|
And how does the NCAA prove that it is a recruiting violation.
if 1. There is a valid contract.
2. The Player has minimum performance duties.
3. No University official enters into a written or even a verbal agreement with the booster to hire the athlete.
4. The booster can make the argument that the athlete has no value for promotional purposes if he is not playing for the team.
Call it abuse if you wish but I would call it practical application of the new rules.
Whatever the rules are the coach / recruiter will go to the edge of the line and hopefully not step over the line.
Perhaps that means when the coach is recruiting the athlete part of his pitch is:
a. your market value is greater if you play for my school
b. Look at what other players are making who are playing for my school
c. IE Some are making the big buck endorsing XYZ product
The main point is that the contract with the Athlete have some required action on the part of the Athlete but the contract will not be tied to any actual computation of the increase in sales resulting from the endorsement or other activity of the athlete. I would not believe these contracts are commission based. Therefore the return on the contract for the payor could in fact be based on something other than increase in sales.
And therefore my point is that these contracts and what the players are compensated for will for the most part not going to be based on what the athlete brings to the payors bottom line but what he does on the field independent of any promotional value.
Of course there will be some athletes who have a real market value but they will not constitute any but a very small minority of the athletes who are compensated for their supposed promotional value under the new rules.
