Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 101

Thread: NCAA & Monetizing a Name/Image/Likeness

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    6,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagfan24 View Post
    Some meandering thoughts:

    1) Something has to change. The status quo isn't working, and the fact that a fix to the system is complicated isn't a good reason to keep things the way they are now.
    Please expl;ain to me why "status quo": is not working.......while some are cheating doesnt mean the other 93% that are abiding by rules should be considered not working

    2) There is currently almost no parity in college sports. Yes, paying players for their likeness creates a new problem, but it's hard to imagine college football and basketball being any more top-heavy than they are now.

    We can agree to disagree on this statement.....there is a ton of parity in the vast majority of college sports.......now you want to isolate football I might agree but the rest of the college sports I think there is great parity and opportunity for success

    3) This issue is incredibly complex, to the point that it's almost mind boggling. You have, in no particular order, the following conflicts: public vs private schools. tuition "value" versus actual costs. college rules vs pro league rules (i.e. the age at which a player can realistically turn pro). revenue vs non revenue producing programs. men's vs women's sports. d1 vs d2/d3. celebrity players vs anonymous players.


    4) There is a huge lack of incentive for the people at the NCAA level to change anything. So while I don't agree that politicians at the state level are in an ideal position to exert influence or opinion, the reality is that those making money now are also probably the ones who ideally would possess the knowledge and power to make changes....and why would they?

    5) Shoe companies, with the transformation of the AAU circuit into EYBL programs, already have an outside influence on high school and college sports. That genie can't be put back in the bottle.
    I disagree that this issue cannot be changed......question is is their the will to change

    6) There is an important role that poverty and privilege play in all of this. I'm not going to open up a Crosby (RIP) style discussion about this, but it's also hard for many to understand the viewpoint of some college athletes who grow up in poor socioeconomic conditions when talking about the relative value of money.

    and I see there is very little discussion as it pertains to tax payers who fund and support these universities through mandated taking of my hard earned money......why should my tax dollars go to support adults who can now make money while leveraging and using my tax paying dollars as a farce to attend "college".....move that money to those who want to go to college for the direct purpose of an education.........and while we are at it I would love for a mandate that college athletics must be fully funded on its own without taking any tax dollars toward operational expenses (solely use tax dollars for tuition and books like any other component of higher education does)

    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoopaholic View Post
    and I see there is very little discussion as it pertains to tax payers who fund and support these universities through mandated taking of my hard earned money......why should my tax dollars go to support adults who can now make money while leveraging and using my tax paying dollars as a farce to attend "college".....move that money to those who want to go to college for the direct purpose of an education.........and while we are at it I would love for a mandate that college athletics must be fully funded on its own without taking any tax dollars toward operational expenses (solely use tax dollars for tuition and books like any other component of higher education does)

    Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

    Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    Basketball is very different from football in a logistics and material support viewpoint, which is what is required to produce a top program. Fielding a top-10 football team requires dozens of players, special teams, more niche trainers, and a far larger staff and budget than it takes to run a top-10 basketball team or program. It's why you'd never see a national championship level football team from an equivalent of Gonzaga, Butler, Wichita State, etc.

    I'm not sure if that difference makes things *easier* or *harder* for rich schools buy their way into a final 4 at a school with $$$ that could effectively pay top players for their marketing name and image.

    I actually think it's at least plausible that paying players for a year or two in college would make it more likely for less established programs to land a very elite recruiting class and make a final 4. You'd just need enough money from a rich benefactor to buy the services of a few elite freshman for 6 months. Some non-powerhouse basketball school like Yale or Boston College or Stanford could easily round up a few billionaire alumni and make that happen in Basketball, but the logistical/institutional/$$$ challenge in football would be far greater.
    I don't disagree on Football... that isn't going to change. It is already a worthless effort for 99% of the teams in college football to try. It is already skewed to a handful of teams and this will not change the dynamic. Basketball-wise... if there aren't real constraints on how this is implemented... it will destroy the sport IMHO. All you need look at is UCLA in the 70s. They basically had a booster paying their players. They won every year. This is a step back in that direction... just making it above the board and legitimized.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Hill
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
    Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

    Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?
    "Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school."

    I fixed that sentence for you, College is a business.

    The new law in CA is just a turf war between two mafia families.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    14,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
    Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

    Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?
    That should definitely be taken in to consideration. It is taken into consideration for academic scholarships, music scholarships, etc. It should be taken into account for athletic as well. That way teams can focus scholarship money on those players that don't have the ability to make money off their likeness.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    6,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
    Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

    Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?
    No what I am saying is my tax dollars are for the betterment of students for educational purposes not for semipro minor league development.we as tax payers are told the billions of tax dollars for college is to enrich and educate the future and athletics and other extra curricular activities are an extension of that educational value not as a semipro league

    Once we start allowing payment to students tax paying dollars are now being used to subsidize a minor league program where some can now be paid. From my view shouldn’t have it both ways. If you want to earn money pay your way don’t use tax payer dollars and get paid
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    754

    Default

    We can debate all we want and implicate higher principals like tax dollars, pure amateurism, etc. but the ship has sailed. The kids are going to get paid. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that the legislature overwhelming passed, the NCAA will challenge and look like idiots and lose or they will comply. Capitalism and the mighty power of the Golden State will undeniably be victorious.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    We can debate all we want and implicate higher principals like tax dollars, pure amateurism, etc. but the ship has sailed. The kids are going to get paid. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that the legislature overwhelming passed, the NCAA will challenge and look like idiots and lose or they will comply. Capitalism and the mighty power of the Golden State will undeniably be victorious.
    Not just the Golden State. Both Florida and Colorado law makers have already proposed similar legislation. I imagine in 5-7 years every state in the country will have similar laws because it makes the politicians look good like they are fighting for the "little guy"

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    6,912

    Default

    The shoe companies are already paying enormous sums to get these kids to endorse their products. They’re just paying the universities directly. The schools don’t want to jeopardize that relationship.

    If State U. signs a massive $100 million deal with Adidas, you can bet that Adidas wants to see all State U. basketball players wearing Adidas shoes on game day. They will provide free uniforms to the women’s soccer team, but the real marketing value is in the football and men’s basketball players. If the team’s best player then signs with Nike, will Adidas want to continue funding that school’s athletic department?

    If Adidas can sign Zion Williamson right out of high school, will Duke’s next shoe contract suddenly drop in value?
    “There is no premium content on the GUBoards. We get what we pay for.”
    Pope John XXIII in his remarks to the College of Cardinals
    -12-21-2012
    -

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoopaholic View Post
    No what I am saying is my tax dollars are for the betterment of students for educational purposes not for semipro minor league development.we as tax payers are told the billions of tax dollars for college is to enrich and educate the future and athletics and other extra curricular activities are an extension of that educational value not as a semipro league

    Once we start allowing payment to students tax paying dollars are now being used to subsidize a minor league program where some can now be paid. From my view shouldn’t have it both ways. If you want to earn money pay your way don’t use tax payer dollars and get paid
    It's not taxpayer money paying these kids. It's their own labour paying themselves. They are the ones already generating revenue above and beyond their scholarship value. (granted players alone aren't the reason NCAA makes money but they are a key component)

    Furthermore, this has literally nothing to do with taxpayer dollars. This is giving them the ability to make money off their own likeness. (eg. people buying their jerseys, autographs, getting revenue from name in a video game, perhaps commercials etc.) This has nothing to do with taxpayer money being siphoned to athletes.

    That said, I'm not in favour of it letting it affect the current situation where the two revenue sports largely subsidize the non-revenue sports. Those kids in niche sports deserve the same opportunity to get scholarships too. It helps for Olympic training and it helps develop a large contigent of disciplined, educated young people coming out of North America. I know it would be considered a 'socialist concept' (a dirty word it seems these days in America lol) but I still think its imperative that the revenue sports continue to subsidize non-revenue scholarships.

    After that, let the kids get paid.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richland, Washington
    Posts
    6,462

    Default

    Title 9 is based upon the denial of federal funding as a consequence of non compliance. Since it's inception in 1972, Federal compensation has been dwarfed relative to private sponsorship of athletic programs, television contracts for sporting venues, as well as overall expense to the general student body in the form of student loans. Title 9 was a ruling that was dictated on the basis of fairness and equality. It can be argued that the bigger money making athletic programs could probably afford to be non compliant with title 9. It would not surprise me, for example, for the SEC to eventually become non compliant as they focus more on athletic revenue and paying student athletes would be the catalyst for it to happen.

    So I'm just wondering. Is there a spirit of fairness where all student athletes will have an equal opportunity to be compensated for their likeness? It certainly won't happen if only one state makes it law. Will male athletes be compensated much more than female athletes? (Which files in the face of the intent of title 9). Has there been fairness with respect to the wide disparity of wealth distribution amongst educational institutions within the NCAA? Can that be argued as discriminatory in the spirit of title 9? Is there currently a case of "haves" and have nots", both within a student athlete perspective as well as an institutional perspective, even when considering if these athletes and institutions were exclusively within the bounds of NCAA compliance? Will paying student athletes exasperate that?

    College athletics are trapped in the Twilight Zone. We don't know if student athletes are professional or amateur. We don't know the boundary between financial discrimination or not. Institutions are much less motivated by federal funding, hence removing the big stick that used to force them to abide by the same set of rules. Individual states are creating different sets of rules than the NCAA.

    College athletics are undergoing a major evolution purely based upon money, and amateurism, as we once knew it, was the first casualty. The NCAA should basically give up on amateurism as an enforceable concept. This, of course, brings up the matter of tax exemption as well as anti trust.
    Last edited by MickMick; 10-11-2019 at 09:11 PM.
    I miss Mike Hart

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Logistics aside, Few didn’t help his case (or image) by using inflammatory language, such as “disgusting” and “stay in his lane”, then invoking a trumpist hot-button issue like immigration into the discussion. And how is addressing perceived exploitation, in any environment, not a legitimate role for government?

    I do appreciate Few as a coach; although, one could argue he’s been a little too conservative at times, but it almost appears that he’s succumbing to the edgy, confrontational political atmosphere of the times. And while I’m pretty much a nobody on this board, I’ll weigh in anyway...I don’t particularly appreciate that he articulated his position in the manner he chose.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    At least he doesn't sound as out of touch as Izzo on the subject. He should have just punted on the subject.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasZag View Post
    And how is addressing perceived exploitation, in any environment, not a legitimate role for government?
    1. Because government at its various levels is at least (theoretically) constrained by the powers delegated to it. (though in this case I think the CA gov was acting within its purview)

    2. Because every topic that some segment of society perceives as exploitation is not, in fact, exploitation or immoral and even if it is exploitation it might not, in fact, be remediated by a government program without unintended negative consequences greater than the original harm.

    See: war on drugs, war on prostitution, ban the box efforts, etc.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgadfly View Post
    Shouldn't adults be able to make as much money off their talent as they can?
    I'm curious if the folks posing this (in my mind misguided) hypothetical even understand that there's a salary cap for teams and individuals in the NBA right now. Without it, the top players would make more than they do, and the biggest market teams would spend more (on salaries) than they do.

    Many (most?) professional sports leagues have these arrangement. These leagues have decided that their product (including players) in the long run are helped by having more competitive balance among teams and markets which includes self-limiting the ability of adult players (and sometimes head coaches) to make as much money as they otherwise could, should these pay ceilings not exist.

    If you're troubled by the current NCAA situation explicitly for the reason that you feel these players aren't capturing the full value of their labor in the term of a league paycheck, then its logically inconsistent to not be troubled by the same dynamic which holds back the pay of Lebron and KD.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    6,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OntZags View Post
    It's not taxpayer money paying these kids. It's their own labour paying themselves. They are the ones already generating revenue above and beyond their scholarship value. (granted players alone aren't the reason NCAA makes money but they are a key component)

    Furthermore, this has literally nothing to do with taxpayer dollars. This is giving them the ability to make money off their own likeness. (eg. people buying their jerseys, autographs, getting revenue from name in a video game, perhaps commercials etc.) This has nothing to do with taxpayer money being siphoned to athletes.

    That said, I'm not in favour of it letting it affect the current situation where the two revenue sports largely subsidize the non-revenue sports. Those kids in niche sports deserve the same opportunity to get scholarships too. It helps for Olympic training and it helps develop a large contigent of disciplined, educated young people coming out of North America. I know it would be considered a 'socialist concept' (a dirty word it seems these days in America lol) but I still think its imperative that the revenue sports continue to subsidize non-revenue scholarships.

    After that, let the kids get paid.
    It is taxpayers dollars paying for their tuition books food housing tutors fitness coaches arenas etc
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post

    2. Because every topic that some segment of society perceives as exploitation is not, in fact, exploitation or immoral and even if it is exploitation it might not, in fact, be remediated by a government program without unintended negative consequences greater than the original harm.


    See: war on drugs, war on prostitution, ban the box efforts, etc.
    So who decides what constitutes exploitation, those being exploited, or those doing the exploiting? Perceptions do create a sense of reality, whether everyone can agree, or not. This issue has been burning for a long time, so to argue that athletes should not perceive that they are being exploited on some level, relative to this issue, is a bit off the mark, isn’t it? Just asking.

    And I’m not so sure that the motives for either the war on drugs or prostitution were about protecting those who are exploited by those ‘industries’ as much as they were (and still are, in my opinion) motivated by some innate need by certain groups to define and enforce morality on those issues. Unfortunately, since the beginning of recorded history, humans have looked to catch a buzz and get laid, so good luck with either of those efforts.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasZag View Post
    So who decides what constitutes exploitation, those being exploited, or those doing the exploiting?

    Mutually voluntary transparent agreements between consenting adults do not constitute exploitation, at least to the extent that the government should step in and tell these adults that their contracts are illegal.

    It's a form of arrogant paternalism to look at the choices of thousands of student athletes who freely put tremendous personal effort into earning an NCAA D1 sports scholarship, and tell them they are actually suckers merely being exploited.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Ultimately they will need to amend the definition of amateurism in college sports. The easiest way to handle this, would to be to set a maximum amount an athlete can make in endorsements (however they choose to do it). If they exceed this amount, then they have decided that the endorsement money is more important than their eligibility. The question then becomes, what is reasonable for this amount. One thing that I do have issue with, is that amount of "profit" the NCAA itself makes. Since they are a non profit, why not require a percentage of the revenues they make be distributed to schools and/or athletes equitably?

    Let's say, just as an hypothetical, the NCAA pays every scholarship student-athlete $12k per year (regardless of sport/star status), allows them to make up to $50k in a year on endorsement/likeness, and maybe caps it at $100k in total over a college career. The schools aren't on the hook for any more costs, it keeps the field somewhat fair (cheaters of course will exist) and still defines a direct definition of what retains "amateur" eligibility.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Vulture View Post
    Ultimately they will need to amend the definition of amateurism in college sports. The easiest way to handle this, would to be to set a maximum amount an athlete can make in endorsements (however they choose to do it). If they exceed this amount, then they have decided that the endorsement money is more important than their eligibility. The question then becomes, what is reasonable for this amount. One thing that I do have issue with, is that amount of "profit" the NCAA itself makes. Since they are a non profit, why not require a percentage of the revenues they make be distributed to schools and/or athletes equitably?

    Let's say, just as an hypothetical, the NCAA pays every scholarship student-athlete $12k per year (regardless of sport/star status), allows them to make up to $50k in a year on endorsement/likeness, and maybe caps it at $100k in total over a college career. The schools aren't on the hook for any more costs, it keeps the field somewhat fair (cheaters of course will exist) and still defines a direct definition of what retains "amateur" eligibility.
    I know you're just thowing out a hypothetical number, but it is crazy to think that 12k/per year/per athlete would be $5.5 billion per year

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    754

    Default

    The major concern should be colleges recruiting athletes based on endorsement promises. Set a committee, develop some rules, and allow the NCAA investigators to do their job. Enforce severe penalties. There will still be gray areas and offenders, but if the NCAA makes a big bust in the first two years or so and absolutely crushes a school like Kansas or Arizona and sets them back a decade other schools will get the hint.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagfan24 View Post
    I know you're just thowing out a hypothetical number, but it is crazy to think that 12k/per year/per athlete would be $5.5 billion per year
    Building on this thought, the ncaa only makes about 1 billion a year and 960 million already goes back to the schools and conferences of all 3 divisions and over 1000 schools, with about 40 million left for operating costs. I think people often are confusing how much the ncaa makes and what individual schools make. The university of Texas athletics makes over 200 million a year and will have a surplus way more than the entire ncaa by itself. The ncaa is just an organization intended to maintain fairness and organize the sports. If you're thinking kids need to be paid look at individual schools profits as where that money should come from, not the ncaa.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    cave-in-rock,il
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Let me get this right, you say the ncaa is about maintaining fairness ? Tell BYU and Pacific this after letting north Carolina slide on the biggest academic scandal in the history of college sports. The post above must have came from Emmert himself. Oh and how about letting duke investigate whether Williamson got paid or not, by themselves. If this would have been Portland State, or Morgan State investigate themselves ?

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edgewood, WA
    Posts
    1,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    I'm curious if the folks posing this (in my mind misguided) hypothetical even understand that there's a salary cap for teams and individuals in the NBA right now. Without it, the top players would make more than they do, and the biggest market teams would spend more (on salaries) than they do.

    Many (most?) professional sports leagues have these arrangement. These leagues have decided that their product (including players) in the long run are helped by having more competitive balance among teams and markets which includes self-limiting the ability of adult players (and sometimes head coaches) to make as much money as they otherwise could, should these pay ceilings not exist.

    If you're troubled by the current NCAA situation explicitly for the reason that you feel these players aren't capturing the full value of their labor in the term of a league paycheck, then its logically inconsistent to not be troubled by the same dynamic which holds back the pay of Lebron and KD.
    I don’t think you have any clue about what you are talking about. You do know that professional leagues collectively bargain and college players don’t get paid, right?

    There was a time in the world where countries were deciding what system to use to determine the value of labor. Some countries chose communism and socialism, others chose unfettered capitalism. The USA opted to allow collective bargaining in order to balance the private property interests with the rights of labor (speech and assembly mostly). By our very definition of the value of labor, professionals get paid their value. College labor (see NW football team) is deprived access to the same system we use for most all other labor pools.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edgewood, WA
    Posts
    1,451

    Default

    Please. Now We are doing them a favor by depriving them of the rights of every others labor pool in America by a system propped up by state actors and institutions. That’s rich.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •