- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 6,447
I’m not naive to think the function of this is not pay to play. Unfortunately for these schools and the NCAA, the form and structure of it is correct. I hear what you are saying about Exxon, but there were no issues with Dr Pepper paying Clemson’s QB.I’m not saying they are right, but the counter argument is the same. “Let’s not pretend LifeWallet is not PaytoPlay.” In the end, I could see them going after LifeWallet because they don’t want ExxonMobile paying players. The church ladies with the coin jars? “You just spend what you want on your grandson ma’am.”
The reality is despite the sport’s popularity football players have never been the marketing machine of basketball or even baseball players. And after that Dr Pepper deal, you haven’t seen many another large, multinational companies lining up national marketing deals for largely unproven players. Think about how many preseason Heisman candidates go to ****. It was probably a terrible ROI, especially given his performance.
I think there is a very finite number of companies that will be able to do what LifeWallet is doing. You need the CEO to have sufficient control, that person needs to be passionate about the program, and the company needs to be big enough/donor wealthy enough. Miami really fell *** backwards into the perfect unicorn of a situation.