Advertising patches on jerseys

[ADOKmt]

[nutman]

Do you mean 2 advertising patches? Cause we already have one.

Kidding, I am with you. I don’t like the full sell out mode we are seeing in college football for a society that increasingly thinks money is everything.

[RICO CAT]

What about practice jerseys like the NFL does, only getting exposure during media encounters.

[RockyBearCat]

It is coming. As a huge Cubs fan, I hated seeing ads taking over Wrigley Field, but if that money helps sign/keep players, I am all for it. Sticking our head in the sand and saying we don't want this money is giving everyone else an advantage.

[wbtfg]

Who owns the jersey advertising rights and where would the ad money go?

[ADOKmt]

Who owns the jersey advertising rights and where would the ad money go?

Wistrcill hinted at the conference trying to negotiate a deal together last month. I would think Montana and Montana State would have A LOT to say about that if they are trying to split the revenue equally among all schools in the conference.

[MSU01]

It is coming. As a huge Cubs fan, I hated seeing ads taking over Wrigley Field, but if that money helps sign/keep players, I am all for it. Sticking our head in the sand and saying we don't want this money is giving everyone else an advantage.

Amen. If the money goes to the schools so they can use it for revenue sharing payments to players then I'm all for it. Of course, as an MSU fan I'd rather they be able to negotiate their own sponsorship deal instead of being stuck with whatever the Big Sky gets in a deal dragged down by schools like Portland State and Utah Tech that don't have nearly the same level of visibility that MSU does.

[catzz]

It is coming. As a huge Cubs fan, I hated seeing ads taking over Wrigley Field, but if that money helps sign/keep players, I am all for it. Sticking our head in the sand and saying we don't want this money is giving everyone else an advantage.

Amen. If the money goes to the schools so they can use it for revenue sharing payments to players then I'm all for it. Of course, as an MSU fan I'd rather they be able to negotiate their own sponsorship deal instead of being stuck with whatever the Big Sky gets in a deal dragged down by schools like Portland State and Utah Tech that don't have nearly the same level of visibility that MSU does.

This! If MSU has all say and receives the revenue, I’m all for it.
Can’t imagine being against it for the sake of a Town Pump logo.

[HelenaCat95]

Maybe MSU could purchase a "MSU 4 time National Champs" patch for the gris uniforms.

[MSU Doc]

Maybe MSU could purchase a "MSU 4 time National Champs" patch for the gris uniforms.

Why stop at the jersey?

[HelenaCat95]

That's hilarious!!!!

[CatBlitz]

I understand it from a money perspective but I'm out on this. 0/10. Full stop.

Ad patches SUCK on uniforms

[TheJoeGoldstone]

I agree. Are they playing for the school or the advertiser. A good example is the WNBA uniforms, alas.

[AFCAT]

I guess this was the logical expansion of advertising at college games. You can't look around the stadium without seeing ads of some sort. I have two vintage Bobcat programs dating back to 1929 and they both have ads on them. With everything costing more now, NIL taking hold, and ads everywhere, consumerism was bound to find its way onto the front of football jerseys. Gotta find a way to pay for all this stuff. I guess that's the American way.

[4KornerKat]

But then does this money go to the student athlete, or to the conferences, or to the universities? If the advertiser isn't paying the student athlete, but then features a photo with the patch, does the student athlete then get to sue them for using their name, image, or likeness? Seems like this is opening up the NCAA and universities to even more lawsuits.

[AFCAT]

But then does this money go to the student athlete, or to the conferences, or to the universities? If the advertiser isn't paying the student athlete, but then features a photo with the patch, does the student athlete then get to sue them for using their name, image, or likeness? Seems like this is opening up the NCAA and universities to even more lawsuits.

That's the big question. My only real issue with this is I hope the money goes to the individual schools and not divided up between conference members like other money is. I wouldn't like it if ad revenue on MSU jerseys would partially go to UNC or Portland State. Schools that don't invest in their programs much now.

Contracts could be signed stipulating the use of players wearing advertising, if they aren't already. Games are broadcast on TV and there is ad revenue from those games. Heck, a school could put a high light out on social media sponsored by a company, if they wanted to. I get what you are writing though. Does a player get a benefit or money from the ads directly and if a player doesn't like that advertised product or company and refuses to wear the ad on their uniform, do they get a say? My guess is they wouldn't, if they agreed to play for MSU in the first place and signed a contract. They could be paid NIL money from the school though.

[4KornerKat]

That's the big question. My only real issue with this is I hope the money goes to the individual schools and not divided up between conference members like other money is. I wouldn't like it if ad revenue on MSU jerseys would partially go to UNC or Portland State. Schools that don't invest in their programs much now.

Contracts could be signed stipulating the use of players wearing advertising, if they aren't already. Games are broadcast on TV and there is ad revenue from those games. Heck, a school could put a high light out on social media sponsored by a company, if they wanted to. I get what you are writing though. Does a player get a benefit or money from the ads directly and if a player doesn't like that advertised product or company and refuses to wear the ad on their uniform, do they get a say? My guess is they wouldn't, if they agreed to play for MSU in the first place and signed a contract. They could be paid NIL money from the school though.

This is what Wistrcll is pushing. A single sponsor for the whole conference. I think it's a smart move for the conference, as several schools might struggle to sell these, but I also think it's a bad deal for MSU/UM for the same reason. We already have to have it written into the TV deal that ESPN will broadcast a game that doesn't include MSU/UM, at some point we will need to determine if we are elevating the Big Sky, or if it's dragging us down.

[allcat]

It is coming. As a huge Cubs fan, I hated seeing ads taking over Wrigley Field, but if that money helps sign/keep players, I am all for it. Sticking our head in the sand and saying we don't want this money is giving everyone else an advantage.

Amen. If the money goes to the schools so they can use it for revenue sharing payments to players then I'm all for it. Of course, as an MSU fan I'd rather they be able to negotiate their own sponsorship deal instead of being stuck with whatever the Big Sky gets in a deal dragged down by schools like Portland State and Utah Tech that don't have nearly the same level of visibility that MSU does.

Utah tech is probably in better shape than Southern Utah, Eastern Washington, Northern Arizona or Northern Colorado.

[wapiti]

It is coming. As a huge Cubs fan, I hated seeing ads taking over Wrigley Field, but if that money helps sign/keep players, I am all for it. Sticking our head in the sand and saying we don't want this money is giving everyone else an advantage.

Amen. If the money goes to the schools so they can use it for revenue sharing payments to players then I'm all for it. Of course, as an MSU fan I'd rather they be able to negotiate their own sponsorship deal instead of being stuck with whatever the Big Sky gets in a deal dragged down by schools like Portland State and Utah Tech that don't have nearly the same level of visibility that MSU does.

Utah tech is probably in better shape than Southern Utah, Eastern Washington, Northern Arizona or Northern Colorado.

Does each school have a apparel\show sponsor?
So maybe a Nike swoosh or Adidas 3 stripes, or or the UA for Universal Athletic?

Could Taco could have a Taco Bell logo on his uniform?

[AFCAT]

That's the big question. My only real issue with this is I hope the money goes to the individual schools and not divided up between conference members like other money is. I wouldn't like it if ad revenue on MSU jerseys would partially go to UNC or Portland State. Schools that don't invest in their programs much now.

Contracts could be signed stipulating the use of players wearing advertising, if they aren't already. Games are broadcast on TV and there is ad revenue from those games. Heck, a school could put a high light out on social media sponsored by a company, if they wanted to. I get what you are writing though. Does a player get a benefit or money from the ads directly and if a player doesn't like that advertised product or company and refuses to wear the ad on their uniform, do they get a say? My guess is they wouldn't, if they agreed to play for MSU in the first place and signed a contract. They could be paid NIL money from the school though.

This is what Wistrcll is pushing. A single sponsor for the whole conference. I think it's a smart move for the conference, as several schools might struggle to sell these, but I also think it's a bad deal for MSU/UM for the same reason. We already have to have it written into the TV deal that ESPN will broadcast a game that doesn't include MSU/UM, at some point we will need to determine if we are elevating the Big Sky, or if it's dragging us down.

Yeah, then if it's divided up 13 or 14 ways (I'm guessing the headquarters gets their cut) then I'm a big no. I get helping rise up the poorer schools, but some of their misfortune is self inflicted. You never know, maybe a UNC or PSU (in a bigger city) could make a better deal for themselves too. I'm afraid any ad money on uniforms would amount to peanuts after dividing it all up.