Wichita St players in a commercial. I guess if no favors are exchanged it's NCAA approved.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-col...07292.html

(04-27-2016 08:17 AM)squeak Wrote:  Wichita St players in a commercial. I guess if no favors are exchanged it's NCAA approved.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-col...07292.html

They are no longer actually eligible for NCAA basketball, so it doesn't matter about NCAA rules about favors.

Can current players do this without penalty? Without favors of course.

(04-27-2016 09:01 AM)squeak Wrote:  Can current players do this without penalty? Without favors of course.

From the NCAA website:

Can a college-bound student-athlete be paid for appearing in a commercial or receiving an endorsement?

College-bound and current student-athletes who want to compete at Division I and II schools need to preserve their eligibility by meeting NCAA amateurism requirements. If a college-bound student-athlete is paid for appearing in a commercial or receives an endorsement before he or she is accepted at an NCAA member school, his or her eligibility could be affected.

If the college-bound student-athlete was chosen for the commercial or other event for reasons other than athletic ability, he or she may be compensated. If the college-bound student-athlete was chosen to participate because of his or her athletic ability, he or she may not be paid. However, the prospective student-athlete may receive expenses related to the commercial event such as meals or lodging.

Which means, I suppose, student athletes can accept food and lodging expenses for, say, a 2-week commercial shoot in Hawaii.

Sign me up!

So if they're taking a drama/acting class they can be classified as an actor, thus compensated for those skills?

(04-27-2016 03:47 PM)Flippmb Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 09:01 AM)squeak Wrote:  Can current players do this without penalty? Without favors of course.

From the NCAA website:

Can a college-bound student-athlete be paid for appearing in a commercial or receiving an endorsement?

College-bound and current student-athletes who want to compete at Division I and II schools need to preserve their eligibility by meeting NCAA amateurism requirements. If a college-bound student-athlete is paid for appearing in a commercial or receives an endorsement before he or she is accepted at an NCAA member school, his or her eligibility could be affected.

If the college-bound student-athlete was chosen for the commercial or other event for reasons other than athletic ability, he or she may be compensated. If the college-bound student-athlete was chosen to participate because of his or her athletic ability, he or she may not be paid. However, the prospective student-athlete may receive expenses related to the commercial event such as meals or lodging.

Which means, I suppose, student athletes can accept food and lodging expenses for, say, a 2-week commercial shoot in Hawaii.

How dare an athlete make money off their athletic ability! Wonder why no rule like this exists for coaches involved in "amateur" athletics

Because unless you are a division 1 coach, you make garbage. It is a NECESSITY for Division 3 coaches to work camps, be involved in club teams, etc in order to supplement their income. Most Division 3 head coaches (with the exception of men's basketball and football), make between 20 and 35,000 a year if they are full time. Part Time Head Coaches make between 8-14,000.

(05-02-2016 11:15 AM)Running_Fool15 Wrote:  Because unless you are a division 1 coach, you make garbage. It is a NECESSITY for Division 3 coaches to work camps, be involved in club teams, etc in order to supplement their income. Most Division 3 head coaches (with the exception of men's basketball and football), make between 20 and 35,000 a year if they are full time. Part Time Head Coaches make between 8-14,000.

You missed the point entirely and are looking at things purely from the coaches perspective. Regardless of level of competition, neither coach nor player should be limited from earnings. If Phil Bachman Toyota decides they want to pay and feature players from King or ETSU in their ads those players should have the same access to their monetized value as their coaches do.

You're ignoring the larger issue of player rights. I wasn't suggesting the coaches should not be allowed to be paid for appearances. The point is the hypocrisy of allowing coaches and administrators to earn whatever they can while limiting the athlete's ability to do the same.

(05-03-2016 11:24 AM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:15 AM)Running_Fool15 Wrote:  Because unless you are a division 1 coach, you make garbage. It is a NECESSITY for Division 3 coaches to work camps, be involved in club teams, etc in order to supplement their income. Most Division 3 head coaches (with the exception of men's basketball and football), make between 20 and 35,000 a year if they are full time. Part Time Head Coaches make between 8-14,000.

You missed the point entirely and are looking at things purely from the coaches perspective. Regardless of level of competition, neither coach nor player should be limited from earnings. If Phil Bachman Toyota decides they want to pay and feature players from King or ETSU in their ads those players should have the same access to their monetized value as their coaches do.

You're ignoring the larger issue of player rights. I wasn't suggesting the coaches should not be allowed to be paid for appearances. The point is the hypocrisy of allowing coaches and administrators to earn whatever they can while limiting the athlete's ability to do the same.

While I generally appreciate this opinion, that players should receive better compensation, this thought as presented here also ignores the notion of amateurism protected by the NCAA. The possibility of commercial contracts, etc., really challenges the school's autonomy in serving an education without paying athletes for the simple fact of competing. Student athletes should be compensated, but I would argue for a semi-pro league to clean up the mess that one-and-done major athletics has created. Whatever you think of athletics, it is a mockery of higher education to subjugate education to profession. If students receive compensation related to athletic ability, then they should also pay back in to the sholarship they've enjoyed, especially the one and dones.

(05-03-2016 11:54 AM)shampoo Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 11:24 AM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:15 AM)Running_Fool15 Wrote:  Because unless you are a division 1 coach, you make garbage. It is a NECESSITY for Division 3 coaches to work camps, be involved in club teams, etc in order to supplement their income. Most Division 3 head coaches (with the exception of men's basketball and football), make between 20 and 35,000 a year if they are full time. Part Time Head Coaches make between 8-14,000.

You missed the point entirely and are looking at things purely from the coaches perspective. Regardless of level of competition, neither coach nor player should be limited from earnings. If Phil Bachman Toyota decides they want to pay and feature players from King or ETSU in their ads those players should have the same access to their monetized value as their coaches do.

You're ignoring the larger issue of player rights. I wasn't suggesting the coaches should not be allowed to be paid for appearances. The point is the hypocrisy of allowing coaches and administrators to earn whatever they can while limiting the athlete's ability to do the same.

While I generally appreciate this opinion, that players should receive better compensation, this thought as presented here also ignores the notion of amateurism protected by the NCAA. The possibility of commercial contracts, etc., really challenges the school's autonomy in serving an education without paying athletes for the simple fact of competing. Student athletes should be compensated, but I would argue for a semi-pro league to clean up the mess that one-and-done major athletics has created. Whatever you think of athletics, it is a mockery of higher education to subjugate education to profession. If students receive compensation related to athletic ability, then they should also pay back in to the sholarship they've enjoyed, especially the one and dones.

That is because I consider the notion of "amateurism" when it comes to collegiate sport to be a farce. Even the Olympics has dropped the silly notion of amateurism from its lexicon. College sports has already crossed over, there's no going back. As it stands, the notion of amateurism or the "student athlete" exists solely to allow the NCAA to refuse rights to the student athlete. After all, the term "student athlete" was first coined to aid the NCAA in it's fight to deny workers compensation to injured players back in the 1930s.

The one and done phenomenon was the direct result of the NBA's age limit ban, which was pushed for by the NCAA who was happy at the idea of getting the top basketball talents to go to the college game as opposed to the NBA out of high school. I personally think players should be able to join the NBA at any age, including out of high school, which would cut down on the number of one and done players.

(05-03-2016 03:47 PM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 11:54 AM)shampoo Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 11:24 AM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:15 AM)Running_Fool15 Wrote:  Because unless you are a division 1 coach, you make garbage. It is a NECESSITY for Division 3 coaches to work camps, be involved in club teams, etc in order to supplement their income. Most Division 3 head coaches (with the exception of men's basketball and football), make between 20 and 35,000 a year if they are full time. Part Time Head Coaches make between 8-14,000.

You missed the point entirely and are looking at things purely from the coaches perspective. Regardless of level of competition, neither coach nor player should be limited from earnings. If Phil Bachman Toyota decides they want to pay and feature players from King or ETSU in their ads those players should have the same access to their monetized value as their coaches do.

You're ignoring the larger issue of player rights. I wasn't suggesting the coaches should not be allowed to be paid for appearances. The point is the hypocrisy of allowing coaches and administrators to earn whatever they can while limiting the athlete's ability to do the same.

While I generally appreciate this opinion, that players should receive better compensation, this thought as presented here also ignores the notion of amateurism protected by the NCAA. The possibility of commercial contracts, etc., really challenges the school's autonomy in serving an education without paying athletes for the simple fact of competing. Student athletes should be compensated, but I would argue for a semi-pro league to clean up the mess that one-and-done major athletics has created. Whatever you think of athletics, it is a mockery of higher education to subjugate education to profession. If students receive compensation related to athletic ability, then they should also pay back in to the sholarship they've enjoyed, especially the one and dones.

That is because I consider the notion of "amateurism" when it comes to collegiate sport to be a farce. Even the Olympics has dropped the silly notion of amateurism from its lexicon. College sports has already crossed over, there's no going back. As it stands, the notion of amateurism or the "student athlete" exists solely to allow the NCAA to refuse rights to the student athlete. After all, the term "student athlete" was first coined to aid the NCAA in it's fight to deny workers compensation to injured players back in the 1930s.

The one and done phenomenon was the direct result of the NBA's age limit ban, which was pushed for by the NCAA who was happy at the idea of getting the top basketball talents to go to the college game as opposed to the NBA out of high school. I personally think players should be able to join the NBA at any age, including out of high school, which would cut down on the number of one and done players.

Now that you've expounded your position, I would largely agree. Nonetheless, the ideal is true to the game, whereas love of money is not love of the game. And while I envy the natural talent and admire the hard work that many ahletes put into their game, our culture already overstates the commercial value of sports. So, no, I'm not REALLY that concerned that a few exceptional athletes must wait an extra year or two to get the big payday. However, where there would otherwise exist a professional and paying demand, the NCAA certainly middlemans the one-and-dones and pro teams. The NCAA has got to be the worst "agent" you could get stuck with....More importantly, I feel schools should offer pay for athletes that truly need it, and they should do it through flexible working scholarship supplements (and I don't want to hear about how a college ahlete getting a full ride already has so many time commitments....I worked 3 jobs at one time while finishing my undergraduate degree, and I promise no one was tutoring or forcing me to get the grade; I should just let alone the academic work that goes astray for many athletes, too many generalities already mentioned casually). Money in college athletics is exorbitantly out of control, sharing the pie just spreads the mess. I definitely agree that age limits should be dropped. Any adult, 18 years and up, should go straight to the big league if the talent is there.

This is a classic example of trying to find injustice where there is none. The current system benefits the athletes, fans, school, students and community. Just because there are a handful of schools out there whose men's bball and football teams generate lots of cash (no other sports even at those big schools come close to paying for themselves) doesn't mean the system needs to be flipped on its head. That money that those few schools generate goes directly back into either non-revenue sports, facilities or academics that benefit the athletes. The media tries to get people to believe there are some rich fat cats profiting directly off these athletes when in reality the money that gets generated is used to fund state of the art weight rooms, player lounges with video games, smoothie bars, private athlete dining halls, etc. The life of a college athlete at a power 5 school is exponentially times better than say the average minor league baseball player.

As long as we have this tax payer, student funded, non-revenue sport subsidized system of college athletics then I don't see ever being able to justify paying the athletes. If an athlete wanted to get paid with endorsements for their likeness I would say fine but no scholarship; hand them a bill at the end of the semester for room and board. They would quickly find that they have a good thing going.

I'm all for lowering the age limit in pro leagues as well by the way.

(05-03-2016 08:24 PM)brock20 Wrote:  This is a classic example of trying to find injustice where there is none. The current system benefits the athletes, fans, school, students and community. Just because there are a handful of schools out there whose men's bball and football teams generate lots of cash (no other sports even at those big schools come close to paying for themselves) doesn't mean the system needs to be flipped on its head. That money that those few schools generate goes directly back into either non-revenue sports, facilities or academics that benefit the athletes. The media tries to get people to believe there are some rich fat cats profiting directly off these athletes when in reality the money that gets generated is used to fund state of the art weight rooms, player lounges with video games, smoothie bars, private athlete dining halls, etc. The life of a college athlete at a power 5 school is exponentially times better than say the average minor league baseball player.

As long as we have this tax payer, student funded, non-revenue sport subsidized system of college athletics then I don't see ever being able to justify paying the athletes. If an athlete wanted to get paid with endorsements for their likeness I would say fine but no scholarship; hand them a bill at the end of the semester for room and board. They would quickly find that they have a good thing going.

I'm all for lowering the age limit in pro leagues as well by the way.

That's just not true, the vast majority of collegiate revenue goes to the salary and benefits of athletic department employees. Athletic departments I might add they have exploded in size at the same or higher rate than revenues. Upgrades to facilities have exploded as well, which benefits the school as much or more than the actual athlete since the primary function of said facility upgrades is recruiting. Players are going to get biggest, faster, and stronger whether they workout in a $50,000 weight room or a $2 million dollar facility. Don't kid yourself, the $2 million dollar facility exists to attract more/better players to the program which keeps the winning and money train rolling.

What no one has stopped to ask is whether football and/or basketball SHOULD be subsidizing the other sports on campus. In the years before TV revenue changed the financial landscape of college sports, Olympic sports weren't funded on the backs of football and basketball players. Once the powers at be realized that TV networks would pay large sums of money to televise games, and that fans would spend hundreds if not thousands on tickets and merchandise, amateurism left college sports.

I'd be fine with removing scholarships from the equation in the case of pay for play, but the revenue stream needs to come from more than likeness endorsements. If the players who are actually responsible for the money that generated were paid even a fraction of their contribution from TV, ticket, and merchandising sales, they wouldn't need a scholarship and would have plenty of money left over.

Even little ol ETSU isn't immune. We just fired a basketball coached who scheduled "money games" that lined his pockets whether the team won or lost.

(05-04-2016 08:08 AM)BucNut22 Wrote:  That's just not true, the vast majority of collegiate revenue goes to the salary and benefits of athletic department employees. Athletic departments I might add they have exploded in size at the same or higher rate than revenues. Upgrades to facilities have exploded as well, which benefits the school as much or more than the actual athlete since the primary function of said facility upgrades is recruiting. Players are going to get biggest, faster, and stronger whether they workout in a $50,000 weight room or a $2 million dollar facility. Don't kid yourself, the $2 million dollar facility exists to attract more/better players to the program which keeps the winning and money train rolling.

What no one has stopped to ask is whether football and/or basketball SHOULD be subsidizing the other sports on campus. In the years before TV revenue changed the financial landscape of college sports, Olympic sports weren't funded on the backs of football and basketball players. Once the powers at be realized that TV networks would pay large sums of money to televise games, and that fans would spend hundreds if not thousands on tickets and merchandise, amateurism left college sports.

I'd be fine with removing scholarships from the equation in the case of pay for play, but the revenue stream needs to come from more than likeness endorsements. If the players who are actually responsible for the money that generated were paid even a fraction of their contribution from TV, ticket, and merchandising sales, they wouldn't need a scholarship and would have plenty of money left over.

So instead of having state of the art facilities, dorms, cafeterias, etc. that benefits the whole athletic program let's start paying a defensive back at a power 5 school 40k a year (that is probably a generous amount). That is probably less than the boosters are already giving their family under the table.

The amount of money an athlete generates for a school has been exaggerated in the media. The only athlete I can think of that had a significant, direct impact on the bottom line for a school was Manziel.

I can tell your information is straight from the social justice media who want some cause to get their name attached to. If a player wants to get paid go play Canadian football, play in the d-league, play bball overseas. If you want to burn the whole system down just so a very small subset of athletes can paid by the university instead of by bagmen go for it. This whole "starving athlete" narrative is so ridiculous. These guys are treated like kings of campus even at a school like ETSU.

They are already starting to pay athletes Cost of attendance above what they are already getting for their scholarship. Tennessee was able to offer $5,666 now.
That was the largest in the NCAA when it first started, not sure if it still is.

You are aware that stipend ended in ''666''...... Coincidence?

(05-04-2016 09:11 AM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  They are already starting to pay athletes Cost of attendance above what they are already getting for their scholarship. Tennessee was able to offer $5,666 now.
That was the largest in the NCAA when it first started, not sure if it still is.

Right. Anything beyond that, make them work like normal students that have to. Normal students don't benefit from the marketing exposure their athletic program & the NCAA offers, so again, I'm not largely concerned by a few student athletes missing out on commercial moneys. As soon as we start allowing athletes to be paid for commercials & video games, it will only accelerate the financial culture that power programs have ostracized smaller conferences out of. "Come to Florida! Our football stars make 20% more on average from endorsements than Tennessee football stars."

(05-04-2016 11:44 AM)shampoo Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 09:11 AM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  They are already starting to pay athletes Cost of attendance above what they are already getting for their scholarship. Tennessee was able to offer $5,666 now.
That was the largest in the NCAA when it first started, not sure if it still is.

Right. Anything beyond that, make them work like normal students that have to. Normal students don't benefit from the marketing exposure their athletic program & the NCAA offers, so again, I'm not largely concerned by a few student athletes missing out on commercial moneys. As soon as we start allowing athletes to be paid for commercials & video games, it will only accelerate the financial culture that power programs have ostracized smaller conferences out of. "Come to Florida! Our football stars make 20% more on average from endorsements than Tennessee football stars."

It's funny which students you have an issue paying and which you do not. Normal college students all over American get paid a stipend in ADDITION to their school supported scholarship. Every graduate and teaching assistant walking around colleges is paid a stipend in addition to a scholarship and no one bats an eye. Normal students, with the exception of maybe a research assistant, aren't responsible for generating a dime for the college or university. Normal students don't have limits on how much or where they can work. Normal students aren't required to NOT use their abilities to generate income.

(05-04-2016 08:48 AM)brock20 Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 08:08 AM)BucNut22 Wrote:  That's just not true, the vast majority of collegiate revenue goes to the salary and benefits of athletic department employees. Athletic departments I might add they have exploded in size at the same or higher rate than revenues. Upgrades to facilities have exploded as well, which benefits the school as much or more than the actual athlete since the primary function of said facility upgrades is recruiting. Players are going to get biggest, faster, and stronger whether they workout in a $50,000 weight room or a $2 million dollar facility. Don't kid yourself, the $2 million dollar facility exists to attract more/better players to the program which keeps the winning and money train rolling.

What no one has stopped to ask is whether football and/or basketball SHOULD be subsidizing the other sports on campus. In the years before TV revenue changed the financial landscape of college sports, Olympic sports weren't funded on the backs of football and basketball players. Once the powers at be realized that TV networks would pay large sums of money to televise games, and that fans would spend hundreds if not thousands on tickets and merchandise, amateurism left college sports.

I'd be fine with removing scholarships from the equation in the case of pay for play, but the revenue stream needs to come from more than likeness endorsements. If the players who are actually responsible for the money that generated were paid even a fraction of their contribution from TV, ticket, and merchandising sales, they wouldn't need a scholarship and would have plenty of money left over.

So instead of having state of the art facilities, dorms, cafeterias, etc. that benefits the whole athletic program let's start paying a defensive back at a power 5 school 40k a year (that is probably a generous amount). That is probably less than the boosters are already giving their family under the table.

The amount of money an athlete generates for a school has been exaggerated in the media. The only athlete I can think of that had a significant, direct impact on the bottom line for a school was Manziel.

I can tell your information is straight from the social justice media who want some cause to get their name attached to. If a player wants to get paid go play Canadian football, play in the d-league, play bball overseas. If you want to burn the whole system down just so a very small subset of athletes can paid by the university instead of by bagmen go for it. This whole "starving athlete" narrative is so ridiculous. These guys are treated like kings of campus even at a school like ETSU.

$40,000 is beyond a generous amount for what an athlete could reasonably expect to receive. Even $40k pales in comparison to the actual monetary worth of D1 football and basketball players. We're talking about a billion dollar, tax exempt business enterprise.

The amount of money an athlete generates has NOT been exaggerated in the least. College athletes have COLLECTIVE value, whether Johnny Manziel has more value on his own than than the 2nd string punter doesn't change the fact that the 2nd string punter has collective value as a part of the Texas A&M's football team. A football team whose games are televised, ticketed, and merchandised at great cost.

What entity, outside of the players themselves, do you hold to be more responsible for the generation of said revenue?

It isn't about charity, or moral crusading for the poor athlete. This is America, in America you get properly paid for services rendered. In America you get compensated for the use of your name and likeness. In America, your earning power is not limited, it is protected by anti-trust laws. Capitalism is great everywhere except within college athletics, how poetic.