Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This will hasten the split between p5 and g5We are now in the final era of Marshall sports. Same can be said for all but about 45 football programs and maybe 100 or so basketball programs.
The resources to pay the players, and anybody who buys the idea that it is just selling their likeness is crazy, are just not here.
Now the issue in the past has been “boosters”. Fat old men who want to measure their life’s value in the results of a ball game. Who slip cash to players. Yes, that can still go on. Some booster can pay well above actual market value for a player to endorse his company.
But the bigger issue is actual above board endorsements. Say UK. Johnny Fivestar endorses Coca-Cola, or Toyota, or Kroger or Wildcat Den or whoever UK’s big sponsors are. A legit value for value transaction, because UK basketball is a good advertising buy for many companies. Same with Duke or UNC or Kansas or any of the leading suspects. Same, only more so in football.
We have? What? Chris Miller is going to slip a kid $50 to say you should buy a Kia?
The question we, and a lot of other programs should ask is “do we want to continue to have sports programs”? And if yes, we need to look at what division that would be in.
Get a Title IX lawyer and a bucket of popcorn!
Personally I think it is early to pull the plug on sports. I mean I am convinced the top players will benefit from this some. However, I can't imagine every player on every school getting a pile of cash. If anything it might cause some issues at the schools that benefit from such arrangements. A car dealership in Columbus might pay Justin Fields some cash for a promo spot but I just don't see the back up left guard making extra cash. Am I missing something ?
We are now in the final era of Marshall sports. Same can be said for all but about 45 football programs and maybe 100 or so basketball programs.
The resources to pay the players, and anybody who buys the idea that it is just selling their likeness is crazy, are just not here.
Now the issue in the past has been “boosters”. Fat old men who want to measure their life’s value in the results of a ball game. Who slip cash to players. Yes, that can still go on. Some booster can pay well above actual market value for a player to endorse his company.
But the bigger issue is actual above board endorsements. Say UK. Johnny Fivestar endorses Coca-Cola, or Toyota, or Kroger or Wildcat Den or whoever UK’s big sponsors are. A legit value for value transaction, because UK basketball is a good advertising buy for many companies. Same with Duke or UNC or Kansas or any of the leading suspects. Same, only more so in football.
We have? What? Chris Miller is going to slip a kid $50 to say you should buy a Kia?
The question we, and a lot of other programs should ask is “do we want to continue to have sports programs”? And if yes, we need to look at what division that would be in.
Suppose that last year ESPN wants to promote an upcoming Duke game. They would need to sign a deal with Zion if they wanted to use his image to hype ratings.
We are now in the final era of Marshall sports. Same can be said for all but about 45 football programs and maybe 100 or so basketball programs.
The resources to pay the players, and anybody who buys the idea that it is just selling their likeness is crazy, are just not here.
Now the issue in the past has been “boosters”. Fat old men who want to measure their life’s value in the results of a ball game. Who slip cash to players. Yes, that can still go on. Some booster can pay well above actual market value for a player to endorse his company.
But the bigger issue is actual above board endorsements. Say UK. Johnny Fivestar endorses Coca-Cola, or Toyota, or Kroger or Wildcat Den or whoever UK’s big sponsors are. A legit value for value transaction, because UK basketball is a good advertising buy for many companies. Same with Duke or UNC or Kansas or any of the leading suspects. Same, only more so in football.
We have? What? Chris Miller is going to slip a kid $50 to say you should buy a Kia?
The question we, and a lot of other programs should ask is “do we want to continue to have sports programs”? And if yes, we need to look at what division that would be in.
Yeah, that's a big issue. Let's say Dutch Miller pays IMG a bunch of money to be "the official car dealer of Marshall Athletics" and then Knox gets offered two grand to do commercials for Glockner. I can't see Marshall letting him wear his jersey or mention the school in the ad.
Here's another question, who's going to be handling these contract negotiations for the players? Who's going to,be making sure they aren't violating other NCAA rules with their deals? It will be great when somebody like Fields ends up in a lawsuit with Ohio State over trademark infringement. Can the university get a cut for letting him wear the jersey? Who's going to advise these guys on taxes?
It will be interesting to watch, that's for sure.
Is this ruling from the NCAA a direct result of the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit?
Am I missing something ?
It doesn't say, "male sports only."
Marshall will be fine. Sane fans already know Marshall is not in the same pond as the Big Fish. We'll continue on. I've been telling you all for years the top 30 or so programs will break off. And we will be fine without them. We will go on playing Horseshit State and Multi-directional Florida.
It hurts a school like wvu far more than Marshall.
It doesn't say, "male sports only."
The biggest issue: ain't nobody ever gonna donate to a general scholarship fund ever again.
But the point is, nobody cares about the second division of anything. How many students at WV State, or Concord, or Glenville give a flying f—k about the mighty Yellow Jackets or whatever? The answer is close to zero. How many people in the local gentry care? Zero.
If MU wants to spend tax and tuition money to play Div II sports, we might even get 50 or even 75 people to attend. Rah rah rah.
Title IX states:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
No one goes to women's basketball games, and no one ever has. Yet every school that has inter-collegiate sports has a women's basketball team because of Title IX. The courts rejected the argument that the men's sports earned the money that paid for themselves to exist, because this isn't a free-market system, its a collaboration between hundreds and hundreds of mostly public universities, funded with taxpayer dollars.
So if the Title IX lawyers can effectively argue that the male athletes are only getting these sponsorships because of the profile given to them by their association with public universities' male sports programs...chaos y'all.
Except plenty of female sports do have high profile athletes and those who have tremendous value.
Except plenty of female sports do have high profile athletes and those who have tremendous value.
Not a sport? but the left-hand turn circuit is? #3 Drunk hillbilly's just liked looking at her tits.#4 and #6 compete in gymnastics, AKA judged ballet, which is not a sport
It’s nota sport it’s an athletic competition. When someone else determines the winner on subjective means it’s not a sport, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t require skill Or athleticismNot a sport? but the left-hand turn circuit is? #3 Drunk hillbilly's just liked looking at her tits.
#3 is a side show act who never won a race, known for playing a men’s sport (no arguments about whether NASCAR is a sport, I don’t care) than actually being good at it. #8 is more known for being knock out beautiful, than actually being good at tennis. #5 is retired from her real sport and is now an actor in a fake sport. #4 and #6 compete in gymnastics, AKA judged ballet, which is not a sport. I never heard of 9 or 10.
The fact that half the list of top female athletes are known for things other than being good at an actual sport says a lot.
But at the end of the day, doesn’t matter. Some far left judge will force us to figure out how to get the girls the same money, even though nobody really even goes to their games.
It’s nota sport it’s an athletic competition. When someone else determines the winner on subjective means it’s not a sport, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t require skill Or athleticism