(06-26-2014 12:05 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 11:53 AM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:53 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:40 AM)Maize Wrote:  This...and like I said before how can the NCAA Make Literally Billions off EA Sports NCAA Football and Basketball using the players images and they keep all the profit and put restrictions on College Athletes on making their own revenue that they don't require with other students...

?
They only made relatively minor amounts on that software. They quit doing it. And they settled that lawsuit recently. Think the figure was $20 million.

Well according to this Forbes article EA Sports made $1.3 Billion just off NCAA Football just off sales in the United States...now they did this in concert with the NCAA & really the only reason why they "settled" and got off pretty light was because they got sued...also, EA wants to pay the players for the likeness but the NCAA is currently saying NO!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogergroves/...-the-ncaa/

The applicable amount in question would be how much the NCAA made.

I would think it is very safe to say it was just off U.S. Sales off the Football version it was 9 Figures...point is no real dispute they made huge $$$ off this game using the Athletes Likeness without their permission....

Well the NCAA paid $20 million. Point is they settled and they aren't doing this particular thing anymore.

Players likeness (if you are paying true value and not some sham deal to funnel money to players) is nickles and dimes in the grand scheme.

I tune in regularly to game where I have no frickin clue what the name of any of the players is (ok I watch a lot of college football).

I don't tune in to see Joe Smith vs. Willie Jones, I tune in because I think Fresno State vs. Utah State might be more entertaining than USC vs. Washington State.

When it comes to salary, if schools go crazy and raid the school revenue for high salaries, nope won't watch.

But if they pay a salary that reflects reasonable market value, I don't care nearly as much because most players aren't worth more than a full ride and honestly a lot on full ride aren't worth a full ride. There just won't be much money there because schools simply aren't going to vastly reallocate their spending for most players. Ole Miss will value keeping Hugh Freeze more highly than signing the best player coming out of Mississippi and they aren't going to be able to afford that kid without raiding either Freeze's salary or pouring over more money from the school coffers.

What will be hilarious will be the kid who goes on Twitter to brag he just signed a four-year $50,000 deal with Bama then realizes he has to pay his school out of that and then as a junior declares for the NFL draft and gets a nasty letter from the UA counsel informing him his contract requires him to play for Bama as a senior.

CBS Sports summed it up in this article today on the coming train many on here isn't going to like...this was 30 years in the making:

NCAA Supreme Court ruling felt at O'Bannon trial 30 years later

OAKLAND, Calif. -- Inside a small courtroom in Oakland over the past three weeks, amateurism in college sports has been on trial.

Lawyers representing college football and men's basketball players paint a picture of the NCAA as a cartel that should share its television revenue. NCAA lawyers discuss the benefits associated with playing college sports and the damage that would come from letting athletes be paid.

More than anyone else, the late Supreme Court Justice Byron “Whizzer” White saw this day coming. White essentially predicted so much of this -- the commercialization, the defections for TV cash, the NCAA's struggles to protect amateurism -- when he wrote the dissenting opinion in the landmark NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents case that ended the NCAA's monopoly over college football TV contracts.

“By mitigating what appears to be a clear failure of the free market to serve the ends and goals of higher education,” White wrote in 1984, “the NCAA ensures the continued availability of a unique and valuable product, the very existence of which might well be threatened by unbridled competition in the economic sphere.”

Friday marks the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, which can be directly traced to college football's TV explosion

More from the article:

Today, some conference TV deals bring in billions of dollars. The new College Football Playoff is worth about $470 million annually. College sports is so flush with TV money that Conference USA -- which doesn't exactly scream viewer interest for its football teams -- receives $84 million from Fox and CBS.

Coats said it was only a matter of time before the players sought a slice of the TV pie.

“They're saying, ‘Look, we're generating this money either by our play or the fact you take my image and sell it, and it's not fair,'” Coats said. “Set aside some money for them until they graduate. I don't see why the NCAA and the schools get all of that money, I really don't. They should share in it.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ears-later

I guess I'm in the minority. I truly don't care how much any school or athlete makes because I like watching sports and not ledgers.

(06-26-2014 08:28 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  Similarly I was an avid pro baseball fan. When the player strike happened in 1994, I almost overnight stopped watching pro baseball. Guys making millions complaining about more money just pissed me off. Don't watch it no more, don't miss it. The same with the NFL strikes in 1982 and 1987. I catch a game every now or then, but my interest dwindled to nothing.

I bet you have no problems watching TV/movies with actors making millions, written by writers who have gone on strike in the past or listening to music made by millionaires.

Its not that I'm against watching millionaires play sports, I'm against amateur players getting paid while the other students at the same school are going into deep debt while having to pay their fellow students salaries. I'm also against the million+ coaches contracts at public universities too. If I was a lawmaker, I'd make a law that no public employee could make more than 20 times minimum wage or something like that.

I don't care if they are paid or not. However, if the result of paying players were to change the current D1 FBS group then I would not watch whatever group my team would not be apart of.

(06-26-2014 12:07 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 10:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You asked.......

Yes I did. I still find it an interesting dichotomy though.

I see value in preserving the amateurism model and being a fan of the school, not just the sport team. Perhaps in my naivety, I'm easily fooled by the kabuki. I just don't see my fandom surviving the dropping of that last veil.

Well, I'm a really interesting guy. :)

(06-26-2014 02:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Players likeness (if you are paying true value and not some sham deal to funnel money to players) is nickles and dimes in the grand scheme.

I tune in regularly to game where I have no frickin clue what the name of any of the players is (ok I watch a lot of college football).

I don't tune in to see Joe Smith vs. Willie Jones, I tune in because I think Fresno State vs. Utah State might be more entertaining than USC vs. Washington State.

When it comes to salary, if schools go crazy and raid the school revenue for high salaries, nope won't watch.

But if they pay a salary that reflects reasonable market value, I don't care nearly as much because most players aren't worth more than a full ride and honestly a lot on full ride aren't worth a full ride. There just won't be much money there because schools simply aren't going to vastly reallocate their spending for most players. Ole Miss will value keeping Hugh Freeze more highly than signing the best player coming out of Mississippi and they aren't going to be able to afford that kid without raiding either Freeze's salary or pouring over more money from the school coffers.

What will be hilarious will be the kid who goes on Twitter to brag he just signed a four-year $50,000 deal with Bama then realizes he has to pay his school out of that and then as a junior declares for the NFL draft and gets a nasty letter from the UA counsel informing him his contract requires him to play for Bama as a senior.

Steve Patterson, UT AD says its really all about the agents, not the players (and agrees with your point in bold):
http://bleacherreport.com/tb/ddmYG?utm_s...e-football

(06-26-2014 05:05 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 08:28 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  Similarly I was an avid pro baseball fan. When the player strike happened in 1994, I almost overnight stopped watching pro baseball. Guys making millions complaining about more money just pissed me off. Don't watch it no more, don't miss it. The same with the NFL strikes in 1982 and 1987. I catch a game every now or then, but my interest dwindled to nothing.

I bet you have no problems watching TV/movies with actors making millions, written by writers who have gone on strike in the past or listening to music made by millionaires.

Its not that I'm against watching millionaires play sports, I'm against amateur players getting paid while the other students at the same school are going into deep debt while having to pay their fellow students salaries. I'm also against the million+ coaches contracts at public universities too. If I was a lawmaker, I'd make a law that no public employee could make more than 20 times minimum wage or something like that.

While there are some who believe Congress is indifferent, Senator John McCain (from a state with two major P5's and no G5) in a speech today talked about the importance of amateurism and was critical of how much colleges spend on coaches. Of course his comment that if owned the Redskins he'd change the name got most of the press.

(06-26-2014 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 02:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Players likeness (if you are paying true value and not some sham deal to funnel money to players) is nickles and dimes in the grand scheme.

I tune in regularly to game where I have no frickin clue what the name of any of the players is (ok I watch a lot of college football).

I don't tune in to see Joe Smith vs. Willie Jones, I tune in because I think Fresno State vs. Utah State might be more entertaining than USC vs. Washington State.

When it comes to salary, if schools go crazy and raid the school revenue for high salaries, nope won't watch.

But if they pay a salary that reflects reasonable market value, I don't care nearly as much because most players aren't worth more than a full ride and honestly a lot on full ride aren't worth a full ride. There just won't be much money there because schools simply aren't going to vastly reallocate their spending for most players. Ole Miss will value keeping Hugh Freeze more highly than signing the best player coming out of Mississippi and they aren't going to be able to afford that kid without raiding either Freeze's salary or pouring over more money from the school coffers.

What will be hilarious will be the kid who goes on Twitter to brag he just signed a four-year $50,000 deal with Bama then realizes he has to pay his school out of that and then as a junior declares for the NFL draft and gets a nasty letter from the UA counsel informing him his contract requires him to play for Bama as a senior.

Steve Patterson, UT AD says its really all about the agents, not the players (and agrees with your point in bold):
http://bleacherreport.com/tb/ddmYG?utm_s...e-football

Since I moved my site to Scout and have to care about recruiting (or more accurately the recruiting stories my recruiting writer turns out) it has become abundantly clear to me that quality agents could be a very good thing. I'm sick of hearing again and again about a kid transferring or considering transferring to a "name" school where he is assured of fewer minutes on the court or fewer snaps per game because some idiot family member believes that the kid's hopes for a pro career are better if he is a role player at a name school instead of a starter playing most of the game.

I've seen the mess created when a kid has family telling him to not commit to an AState or USM because there's still a chance that Ole Miss, Arkansas or Alabama will offer and then ends up either having to settle for less than a full-ride at a lower level because AState and USM got tired of waiting. I've also enjoyed the situation when a kid had an SMU or even a Texas Tech type offer who was holding out for UT or TAMU who suddenly pops up available after signing day when we have a slot left because we are their last chance at FBS.

I've seen a kid convinced to walk-on at an SEC school for essentially no other reason than his AAU coach wants to tout how many kids he's "placed" in the SEC to help his own recruiting and that kid never travels with the squad and eventually falls out of basketball and college when he could have played Sun Belt or Southland basketball and maybe been a starter in a year or two.

I know of a kid who was asked what it would take to sign him and his uncle who was on the visit shot a cash dollar figure. The coach laughed and said "My assistants don't make that much". He took a couple other official visits and strangely got no takers. He finally became an invited walk-on at a lower rung SEC school and a year later was playing NAIA ball.

These kids have people swarming around them that don't know their anus from a hole in the ground, some competent advice would be a good thing.