Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 102

Thread: NCAA & Monetizing a Name/Image/Likeness

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edgewood, WA
    Posts
    1,473

    Default

    And since I was one of those athletes, I can be proud of my scholarship and recognize that the system is rigged in favor of the schools.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgadfly View Post
    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.
    Which countries chose unfettered capitalism? What years did they have it?

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    Which countries chose unfettered capitalism? What years did they have it?
    It seems that we are trying it here, as we speak. It isn't working well at all.

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...SrltDRtCmsG_FI

    This is also what will happen if there are no strict rules in place about the athletes getting paid. The wealthy donors of some schools will just buy championships, just like they used to do.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    spokane
    Posts
    480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    It seems that we are trying it here, as we speak. It isn't working well at all.

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...SrltDRtCmsG_FI
    +1000000

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    Which countries chose unfettered capitalism? What years did they have it?
    I'm not much of a historian, but I would say capitalism was its most unfettered in its early days when it emerged in Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries. Socialism was not a concept during those times so it wasn't like countries had a choice at the start. Socialism was developed as a theoretical model in the 19th century and was fully realized in the 20th century as a total rejection of unfettered capitalism. Meanwhile, labor unions and the welfare state came about as a way to account for the shortcomings of unfettered capitalism while avoiding an outright revolution. And I agree with willandi that in the present day, capitalists are pushing back against those fetters and it doesn't seem to be about anything but greed.

    Coming back to the thread ... despite being nonprofit organizations, the NCAA and the top tier of its member institutions are generating a boatload of revenue from basketball and football. Individuals are personally profiting amid this nonprofit model. Yes, most of the revenue surplus is invested back into the institutions and their non-revenue athletic programs and that's a good thing. That's what should happen so the system isn't totally broken. But there's no question some people are living in the 1% as a result of their positioning in the college athletics world.

    That's why it's not hard to see why exceptional athletes in the revenue sports perceive themselves as the underdog. Without these exceptional players there would be no one living large. Mark Emmert's 2.9 million dollar salary goes bye-bye without the NCAA Tournament television contract. Mark Few's $1.7 million salary goes bye bye without the $12 million his program generates annually.

    None of that revenue is generated without the players.

    Yes, there is a nonzero value in what the college athletes receive, but the fact is ... Mark Few and most college coaches think there should be a way for the players to get paid somehow and they think the NCAA can sort it out. I agree with them.

    I disagree with Few about Newsom being the bad guy here. The state legislation may not be advancing the best or most complete solution, but it is acting on behalf of the players' interests by advancing the plot.
    Agent provocateur

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    sierra foothills
    Posts
    13,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    Few made comments about the governor but then agreed athletes should be paid based on likeness. His point was that the CA Legislature should let the NCAA and people in the industry regulate themselves. Typically a fine argument that I agree with. But the NCAA has that opportunity via the CA Legislation because it doesn't apply for a few years. They have time to set parameters and rules. The CA law is the catalyst for that. Without the new CA law and it's effective date this issue would be slow rolled and dragged out well beyond the effective date, maintaining the status quo longer than reasonable.
    Agree with this.

    Great thread with well articulated perspectives. to me the effect would be to empower the biggest to be even bigger, a negative. So if you don't want to attend college with the scholly perks, then don't.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    sierra foothills
    Posts
    13,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasZag View Post
    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.
    And agree with this too

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bballbeachbum View Post
    to me the effect would be to empower the biggest to be even bigger, a negative. So if you don't want to attend college with the scholly perks, then don't.
    I agree with the sentiment, but I honestly don't know if the issue of what is fair to players should be based on whether it maintains a level playing field. For one, I just don't think that's the case at all now. In addition, it maintains the idea that the obligation of the NCAA is to us (fielding a great product, which parity provides) rather than to the student-athletes. Just my thought.

    Maybe it's fresh off a week applying for two grants at work, but I was thinking more about whether a grant-type system might be an optimal solution. The NCAA could make a variety of large and small grants, with different criterion based on outstanding performance, unique contributions, etc. available to players. The grants, like research grants, would require meeting certain parameters. In part this is how colleges & universities deal with the fact that their institutions/resources play a role in building the infrastructure around talented professors who also deserve credit and merit for their research accomplishments. I ultimately think that if any fairness is to be maintained the funds need to originate in a central place outside of each athletic department, and this might be one method. Not well thought out...just an idea of framing a potential solution.

    Agree that this has been a good thread, mostly full of reasonable opinions with little ad hominem attacks. The truth is that I think Gonzaga has always been proactive about looking at the future and trying to positions itself in a good place regardless of how the tides might change. I think the Zags will be fine no matter the outcome of this process.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    7,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonuvazag View Post
    I'm not much of a historian, but I would say capitalism was its most unfettered in its early days when it emerged in Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries. Socialism was not a concept during those times so it wasn't like countries had a choice at the start. Socialism was developed as a theoretical model in the 19th century and was fully realized in the 20th century as a total rejection of unfettered capitalism. Meanwhile, labor unions and the welfare state came about as a way to account for the shortcomings of unfettered capitalism while avoiding an outright revolution. And I agree with willandi that in the present day, capitalists are pushing back against those fetters and it doesn't seem to be about anything but greed.

    Coming back to the thread ... despite being nonprofit organizations, the NCAA and the top tier of its member institutions are generating a boatload of revenue from basketball and football. Individuals are personally profiting amid this nonprofit model. Yes, most of the revenue surplus is invested back into the institutions and their non-revenue athletic programs and that's a good thing. That's what should happen so the system isn't totally broken. But there's no question some people are living in the 1% as a result of their positioning in the college athletics world.

    That's why it's not hard to see why exceptional athletes in the revenue sports perceive themselves as the underdog. Without these exceptional players there would be no one living large. Mark Emmert's 2.9 million dollar salary goes bye-bye without the NCAA Tournament television contract. Mark Few's $1.7 million salary goes bye bye without the $12 million his program generates annually.

    None of that revenue is generated without the players.

    Yes, there is a nonzero value in what the college athletes receive, but the fact is ... Mark Few and most college coaches think there should be a way for the players to get paid somehow and they think the NCAA can sort it out. I agree with them.

    I disagree with Few about Newsom being the bad guy here. The state legislation may not be advancing the best or most complete solution, but it is acting on behalf of the players' interests by advancing the plot.
    None of the money is generated without the colleges. And the players come and go and the money fans etc continue to show up. I do not think one and fines drive college fanatics
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,761

    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
    Like I said, just throwing and idea out there. Regardless, the main thing I was saying is that they need to redefine amateurism and setting limits could be how they do that.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Vulture View Post
    Like I said, just throwing and idea out there. Regardless, the main thing I was saying is that they need to redefine amateurism and setting limits could be how they do that.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Haven't they done that redefining?

    Room, board, tuition, books and a stipend to provide you with a showcase AND a fall back for the end of a presumed pro career. Somewhere close to the 100K figure for a year at Gonzaga?

    Much better, and easier plus fairer to just ban the selling of jerseys with name and the use of a SA likeness while they are in school.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    18,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    Few made comments about the governor but then agreed athletes should be paid based on likeness. His point was that the CA Legislature should let the NCAA and people in the industry regulate themselves. Typically a fine argument that I agree with. But the NCAA has that opportunity via the CA Legislation because it doesn't apply for a few years. They have time to set parameters and rules. The CA law is the catalyst for that. Without the new CA law and it's effective date this issue would be slow rolled and dragged out well beyond the effective date, maintaining the status quo longer than reasonable.
    Yeah.

    California isn't exactly spending a ton of effort or thrift in this, they were chosen to lead the way by lobbyists attempting to get the NCAA's attention, bc it would be like waiting for Godot without some states entering in, and "the" state that can force the NCAA to develop uniform standards would be California, maybe Florida. I suspect if the NCAA gets going on it Cal will void the law out or amend it to conform.

    I am totally on board with paying for likeness. I just really worry how it will be policed. How will they determine if the car dealership really did pay the kid $10K for a bunch of signed shirts, or whether it was just a 10k handshake?

    And Few did a good interview, except when he got out of his lane a bit. When your main point is "don't tell us how to do our job," it's not a good look to do it telling the guy how to do his job.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
    Mark Twain.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DixieZag View Post
    Yeah.

    California isn't exactly spending a ton of effort or thrift in this, they were chosen to lead the way by lobbyists attempting to get the NCAA's attention, bc it would be like waiting for Godot without some states entering in, and "the" state that can force the NCAA to develop uniform standards would be California, maybe Florida. I suspect if the NCAA gets going on it Cal will void the law out or amend it to conform.

    I am totally on board with paying for likeness. I just really worry how it will be policed. How will they determine if the car dealership really did pay the kid $10K for a bunch of signed shirts, or whether it was just a 10k handshake?

    And Few did a good interview, except when he got out of his lane a bit. When your main point is "don't tell us how to do our job," it's not a good look to do it telling the guy how to do his job.
    Use the likeness of recent grads and pay them. Don't allow undergrads likeness' to be used.

    BOOM...problem solved.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    18,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    Use the likeness of recent grads and pay them. Don't allow undergrads likeness' to be used.

    BOOM...problem solved.
    Except that doesn't solve the problem they are trying to address. The D1 athlete is the only one on campus that can't take an off-campus job, and is limited to his on campus stipend. It is to address the money made off those whose "likeness" (Rui, as Few noted) is used.

    Anyway, Few did a nice job, as usual, just oversold a bit on part of it. I like his position.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
    Mark Twain.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DixieZag View Post
    Except that doesn't solve the problem they are trying to address. The D1 athlete is the only one on campus that can't take an off-campus job, and is limited to his on campus stipend. It is to address the money made off those whose "likeness" (Rui, as Few noted) is used.

    Anyway, Few did a nice job, as usual, just oversold a bit on part of it. I like his position.
    As I said...don't allow the use of a current athlete.

    No other students on campus gets a stipend. (to the best of my knowledge)
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,293

    Default

    I would like to applaud all participants in this thread for staying civil. This is an obviously controversial issue that cuts across several hot button topics. I have been ready to lock this thread at the drop of a hat, but all posters here have stated their opinions and arguments fairly and have refrained from ostracizing other opinions.

    Thanks all!
    '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

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoopaholic View Post
    None of the money is generated without the colleges.
    No question. I never argued that Mark Few and Mark Emmert don't deserve what they're paid. The college football and basketball aparatus is a money-generating machine and the athletes benefit from it. As of now, the top prospects in those sports don't have a better domestic alternative, unlike baseball and soccer which have minor leagues and academies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoopaholic View Post
    And the players come and go and the money fans etc continue to show up.
    I'm not as confident as you are that the money/fans are a constant. In any case, this is quite dissmissive of how essential the athletes are to the popularity of the sports. 90% of the discussion on GU Boards, for example, is about specific athletes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoopaholic View Post
    I do not think one and fines drive college fanatics
    I agree that the sure-fire pro prospects are not the sum total of college athletics, but television promotionals do highlight the pro prospects whenever possible. Tune in to watch Zion. Tune in to watch Tua. Sports journalism features pro prospects when it can. You have to know that advertisers would love to sponsor these athletes while in college if they could. For this reason, I'm confident a substantial amount of revenue is generated due to the promotion of star power.
    Agent provocateur

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    18,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    As I said...don't allow the use of a current athlete.

    No other students on campus gets a stipend. (to the best of my knowledge)
    If Google went over to the computer engineering department at Stanford and took 6 upperclassmen and said: "We will pay you $100K to work at our campus half-time while in school …" the computer engineer would be allowed to do it … provided he wasn't also a defensive end.

    Athletes - as far as I know - are the only ones literally not allowed to hold jobs at all, while remaining eligible. When you pair that with the shoe company money, it does seem to be exploitive.

    Hoop and others, do note that no one is saying that the NCAA and schools who set up the whole thing suddenly cannot make money off it, the idea is only to provide some empowerment over the ones playing the game.

    Very complex problem. Lots of potential to mess things up with good intentions.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
    Mark Twain.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DixieZag View Post
    If Google went over to the computer engineering department at Stanford and took 6 upperclassmen and said: "We will pay you $100K to work at our campus half-time while in school …" the computer engineer would be allowed to do it … provided he wasn't also a defensive end.

    Athletes - as far as I know - are the only ones literally not allowed to hold jobs at all, while remaining eligible. When you pair that with the shoe company money, it does seem to be exploitive.

    Hoop and others, do note that no one is saying that the NCAA and schools who set up the whole thing suddenly cannot make money off it, the idea is only to provide some empowerment over the ones playing the game.

    Very complex problem. Lots of potential to mess things up with good intentions.
    The computer engineer would also provide a tangible, and useful, product.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    7,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DixieZag View Post
    If Google went over to the computer engineering department at Stanford and took 6 upperclassmen and said: "We will pay you $100K to work at our campus half-time while in school …" the computer engineer would be allowed to do it … provided he wasn't also a defensive end.

    Athletes - as far as I know - are the only ones literally not allowed to hold jobs at all, while remaining eligible. When you pair that with the shoe company money, it does seem to be exploitive.

    Hoop and others, do note that no one is saying that the NCAA and schools who set up the whole thing suddenly cannot make money off it, the idea is only to provide some empowerment over the ones playing the game.

    Very complex problem. Lots of potential to mess things up with good intentions.
    Athletes can have jobs that’s a myth and the vast majority of college athletes do work
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,452

    Default

    the players get a great education with travel opportunities plus exposure on the national scene plus our student athletes get a nice monthly stipend...

    what beyond that do you want?......a player that is so great they think they don't need the coaching, and the training to be big stars don't have to be forced to accept the education/travel/exposure/and stipend, poor things......they can go professional someplace.....

    we know the value of attending a good bb program like Gonzaga........its quid pro quo...we give you this, you play for us....

    the university benefits, the student athlete benefits......the players are NOT being taken advantage of....





    but, question is, do people want professional players? That is where this will lead. we're not going to like it. W e're not going to like it when player A comes here for a year or two then decides to go to Oregon where they're promised to make a hundred thousand more because Gonzaga made them "famous"...

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    832

    Default

    If local car dealer calls in the summer and offers student athlete $10K for a commercial, thats what more people want and what the law requires. The potential issue is boosters and other people artificially inflating endorsements to solicit recruits. That's a serious concern. The NCAA will need to address that and enforce any rules they end up making. I realize it's a lot for people to fathom where these athletes already get so much and it seems greedy to want more or require more but guys there's so much money out there, the school profits handsomely from top recruits, it's really strange to have a rule that prevents them from earning money on their own, separate from the school, based on their reputation and skill, based on an outdated definition of amateurism.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sylean View Post
    the players get a great education with travel opportunities plus exposure on the national scene plus our student athletes get a nice monthly stipend...

    what beyond that do you want?......a player that is so great they think they don't need the coaching, and the training to be big stars don't have to be forced to accept the education/travel/exposure/and stipend, poor things......they can go professional someplace.....

    we know the value of attending a good bb program like Gonzaga........its quid pro quo...we give you this, you play for us....

    the university benefits, the student athlete benefits......the players are NOT being taken advantage of....





    but, question is, do people want professional players? That is where this will lead. we're not going to like it. W e're not going to like it when player A comes here for a year or two then decides to go to Oregon where they're promised to make a hundred thousand more because Gonzaga made them "famous"...
    I totally agree. Just some think they are owed more.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Napa, CA
    Posts
    4,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    If local car dealer calls in the summer and offers student athlete $10K for a commercial, thats what more people want and what the law requires. The potential issue is boosters and other people artificially inflating endorsements to solicit recruits. That's a serious concern. The NCAA will need to address that and enforce any rules they end up making. I realize it's a lot for people to fathom where these athletes already get so much and it seems greedy to want more or require more but guys there's so much money out there, the school profits handsomely from top recruits, it's really strange to have a rule that prevents them from earning money on their own, separate from the school, based on their reputation and skill, based on an outdated definition of amateurism.
    You've precisely identified both the desire and the challenge.
    I will thank God for the day and the moment I have. - Jimmy V

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sylean View Post
    the players get a great education with travel opportunities plus exposure on the national scene plus our student athletes get a nice monthly stipend...

    what beyond that do you want?......a player that is so great they think they don't need the coaching, and the training to be big stars don't have to be forced to accept the education/travel/exposure/and stipend, poor things......they can go professional someplace.....

    we know the value of attending a good bb program like Gonzaga........its quid pro quo...we give you this, you play for us....

    the university benefits, the student athlete benefits......the players are NOT being taken advantage of....





    but, question is, do people want professional players? That is where this will lead. we're not going to like it. W e're not going to like it when player A comes here for a year or two then decides to go to Oregon where they're promised to make a hundred thousand more because Gonzaga made them "famous"...
    The school isn’t required to give them a scholarship, either. It is entirely plausible and feasible that a school could give a player a ‘walk on’ position on the team, allow the player’s outside earnings to cover his tuition, and give the scholarship to another student who doesn’t have the earning power of a star athlete. This would actually allow scholarship money to target kids who actually need it. Win-win.
    '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

Posting Permissions

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