You know I look at college football. A program like Texas A&M who hasn't accomplished anything in years. However, they still can put 90,000 people in seats. 30,000 of those people probably buy overpriced food and beer. Many seats sell for hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Games are on national television and local radio. The team/school sells merchandise. Local businesses donate and advertise as the team brings them business.

Then I look at the NFL. The largest NFL stadiums are only about 82k. The majority seats around 69k at capacity. NFL games are arguably less available than college games done on Saturday. And merchandise/food sales are comparable to college.

Difference?

Tua right now is worth....a scholarships to by college standards, a very affordable school. In a few weeks he is worth Millions of dollars a year.

Why?

Schools and head coaches are getting rich while these kids get nothing but a scholarships. And before anyone says "they get an education" so does everyone else...but thosands-millions of get loans, grants, and scholarships. And can still work if they want to. They can sell their likeliness. People can give them money.

So why is this double standard for athletes so supported? The schools profit of them and keep the profit.

They use most of the money for Title 9 and men’s Olympic sports.

The scholarships are worth 6 figures and even more if they bother to go to class and apply themselves.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Jjoey52 with the truth-bomb! Nice work.

Also, note carefully the word “we” in the title of the thread. If “we” = Texas A&M, then yeah there is probably a way to make it work. If you’re talking about UL-Monroe.... different story. And schools like mine (Marshall) are somewhere in between, but a lot closer (financially) to ULM than to aTm.

(09-28-2019 12:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You know I look at college football. A program like Texas A&M who hasn't accomplished anything in years. However, they still can put 90,000 people in seats. 30,000 of those people probably buy overpriced food and beer. Many seats sell for hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Games are on national television and local radio. The team/school sells merchandise. Local businesses donate and advertise as the team brings them business.

Then I look at the NFL. The largest NFL stadiums are only about 82k. The majority seats around 69k at capacity. NFL games are arguably less available than college games done on Saturday. And merchandise/food sales are comparable to college.

Difference?

Tua right now is worth....a scholarships to by college standards, a very affordable school. In a few weeks he is worth Millions of dollars a year.

Why?

Schools and head coaches are getting rich while these kids get nothing but a scholarships. And before anyone says "they get an education" so does everyone else...but thosands-millions of get loans, grants, and scholarships. And can still work if they want to. They can sell their likeliness. People can give them money.

So why is this double standard for athletes so supported? The schools profit of them and keep the profit.

Honestly—while I prefer the current amateur model—I’m not completely opposed to the players getting compensated. However—my preference is that is done in a way that pays all players equally (sort of like EA Games settlement). The schools could largely support the cost by selling the annual video game rights. You can run it through the NCAA and the schools could make up any shortfalls via their annual NCAA dues—thus allowing individual schools to avoid the employer/employee relationship. That keeps the payment equal, keeps control of paying the players in the hands of the sport (not the boosters), and largely prevents massive disruptions in the system (including unintended consequences).

(09-28-2019 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 12:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You know I look at college football. A program like Texas A&M who hasn't accomplished anything in years. However, they still can put 90,000 people in seats. 30,000 of those people probably buy overpriced food and beer. Many seats sell for hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Games are on national television and local radio. The team/school sells merchandise. Local businesses donate and advertise as the team brings them business.

Then I look at the NFL. The largest NFL stadiums are only about 82k. The majority seats around 69k at capacity. NFL games are arguably less available than college games done on Saturday. And merchandise/food sales are comparable to college.

Difference?

Tua right now is worth....a scholarships to by college standards, a very affordable school. In a few weeks he is worth Millions of dollars a year.

Why?

Schools and head coaches are getting rich while these kids get nothing but a scholarships. And before anyone says "they get an education" so does everyone else...but thosands-millions of get loans, grants, and scholarships. And can still work if they want to. They can sell their likeliness. People can give them money.

So why is this double standard for athletes so supported? The schools profit of them and keep the profit.

Honestly—while I prefer the current amateur model—I’m not completely opposed to the players getting compensated. However—my preference is that is done in a way that pays all players equally (sort of like EA Games settlement). The schools could largely support the cost by selling the annual video game rights. You can run it through the NCAA and the schools could make up any shortfalls via their annual NCAA dues—thus allowing individual schools to avoid the employer/employee relationship. That keeps the payment equal, keeps control of paying the players in the hands of the sport (not the boosters), and largely prevents massive disruptions in the system (including unintended consequences).

This would be a slippery slope. If P5 players get paid for play and have control their names and likeness for football and basketball? You would start a landslide were sports like golf and women's volleyball that do not make money, those players will start to scream and holler that they want to get pay to. Then it would trickle down to G5, to FCS, to D2, D3 and NAIA. Then high school star students will start hollering that they want to get paid to play as well. Whatever happened to play for the love of sports? Today's players are nothing but spoil brats. You have to earn your scholarships, not have them and money handed to you when you may never make it in the pros.

(09-28-2019 12:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You know I look at college football. A program like Texas A&M who hasn't accomplished anything in years. However, they still can put 90,000 people in seats. 30,000 of those people probably buy overpriced food and beer. Many seats sell for hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Games are on national television and local radio. The team/school sells merchandise. Local businesses donate and advertise as the team brings them business.

Then I look at the NFL. The largest NFL stadiums are only about 82k. The majority seats around 69k at capacity. NFL games are arguably less available than college games done on Saturday. And merchandise/food sales are comparable to college.

Difference?

Tua right now is worth....a scholarships to by college standards, a very affordable school. In a few weeks he is worth Millions of dollars a year.

Why?

Schools and head coaches are getting rich while these kids get nothing but a scholarships. And before anyone says "they get an education" so does everyone else...but thosands-millions of get loans, grants, and scholarships. And can still work if they want to. They can sell their likeliness. People can give them money.

So why is this double standard for athletes so supported? The schools profit of them and keep the profit.

There are perhaps 20-30 schools that could afford it.

(09-28-2019 02:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 12:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You know I look at college football. A program like Texas A&M who hasn't accomplished anything in years. However, they still can put 90,000 people in seats. 30,000 of those people probably buy overpriced food and beer. Many seats sell for hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Games are on national television and local radio. The team/school sells merchandise. Local businesses donate and advertise as the team brings them business.

Then I look at the NFL. The largest NFL stadiums are only about 82k. The majority seats around 69k at capacity. NFL games are arguably less available than college games done on Saturday. And merchandise/food sales are comparable to college.

Difference?

Tua right now is worth....a scholarships to by college standards, a very affordable school. In a few weeks he is worth Millions of dollars a year.

Why?

Schools and head coaches are getting rich while these kids get nothing but a scholarships. And before anyone says "they get an education" so does everyone else...but thosands-millions of get loans, grants, and scholarships. And can still work if they want to. They can sell their likeliness. People can give them money.

So why is this double standard for athletes so supported? The schools profit of them and keep the profit.

Honestly—while I prefer the current amateur model—I’m not completely opposed to the players getting compensated. However—my preference is that is done in a way that pays all players equally (sort of like EA Games settlement). The schools could largely support the cost by selling the annual video game rights. You can run it through the NCAA and the schools could make up any shortfalls via their annual NCAA dues—thus allowing individual schools to avoid the employer/employee relationship. That keeps the payment equal, keeps control of paying the players in the hands of the sport (not the boosters), and largely prevents massive disruptions in the system (including unintended consequences).

This would be a slippery slope. If P5 players get paid for play and have control their names and likeness for football and basketball? You would start a landslide were sports like golf and women's volleyball that do not make money, those players will start to scream and holler that they want to get pay to. Then it would trickle down to G5, to FCS, to D2, D3 and NAIA. Then high school star students will start hollering that they want to get paid to play as well. Whatever happened to play for the love of sports? Today's players are nothing but spoil brats. You have to earn your scholarships, not have them and money handed to you when you may never make it in the pros.

Communist!

It’s fine for schools and coaches to make millions. The kids should be happy with their education, right? Good ole Nicky Saban and Jim Harbaugh are worth millions, but the kids shouldn’t get any crumbs (cash) of the pie!

Fact is few football programs make money. UTEP and the rest of the Texas G5 schools probably don’t make as much money as Texas or A&M. Just a guess. Don’t even talk about the lower levels or High schoolers. Their schools don’t make millions and millions from the networks. Or from the gate, Donations, merchandise, etc.

To be the Devil's Advocate for the status quo, the national NFL TV rights and sponsorships distribution covers their NFL Salary Cap and basically most other FT employees before selling a d@mn ticket.

A look at the Packers financials, the only public NFL franchise, helps you look at how much national revenue is distributed BEFORE the local stuff comes in.

To me, this is one of those issues that exposes the naked hypocrisy of G5 fans. Because the same G5 fans who never tire of railing about how the P5 "cartel" holds them down support the NCAA cartel that holds player incomes down, because they fear that if players can be paid, their dream of reaching parity with the established power schools that can afford to pay more will be pushed further out of reach.

It's pretty shameless, IMO.

I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

If you get into the schools themselves paying players, you run into Title IX issues, and it can be interpreted that your female athletes would have to receive the same pay as your male athletes. So, instead of paying your 100 or so football players, you're having to pay all say 700 athletes on your campus despite the fact that only 2 sports generate the majority of your revenue.

(09-28-2019 04:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

Except that "market value" will translate to which schools have the biggest budgets and boosters. There would be 6-8 football programs that would pull away and grab the lions share of top recruits. Who's going to buy #76 nose tackle Chad Butowski jerseys, or pay for his autograph? Boosters. Alabama et al would game the system to make sure everyone on the roster got paid for their "likenesses".

Hoops much the same but a slightly larger number of schools would also exploit. The whole thing would turn into such an obvious farce; it's hard to make an argument with a straight face that this wouldn't happen.

(09-28-2019 06:05 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 04:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

Except that "market value" will translate to which schools have the biggest budgets and boosters. There would be 6-8 football programs that would pull away and grab the lions share of top recruits. Who's going to buy #76 nose tackle Chad Butowski jerseys, or pay for his autograph? Boosters. Alabama et al would game the system to make sure everyone on the roster got paid for their "likenesses".

Hoops much the same but a slightly larger number of schools would also exploit. The whole thing would turn into such an obvious farce; it's hard to make an argument with a straight face that this wouldn't happen.

Um that's already happening.

(09-28-2019 06:05 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 04:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

Except that "market value" will translate to which schools have the biggest budgets and boosters. There would be 6-8 football programs that would pull away and grab the lions share of top recruits. Who's going to buy #76 nose tackle Chad Butowski jerseys, or pay for his autograph? Boosters. Alabama et al would game the system to make sure everyone on the roster got paid for their "likenesses".

Hoops much the same but a slightly larger number of schools would also exploit. The whole thing would turn into such an obvious farce; it's hard to make an argument with a straight face that this wouldn't happen.

The schools with the biggest budgets will still get the better players NLI money or not.

Look at basketball...link

Even if UCLA pays and states like North Carolina and Kentucky do not, guys will still attend Kentucky (and women UConn), because of the program, its budget, and their success in getting people to the professional level. Even if California was the only state with such a NLI option, San Jose State, UC Irvine, and Cal State Northridge are not going to get a recruit over Kentucky, Duke or even because they'd travel better, eat better. live better, and have better tutors at UK or Duke. UCLA and USC fight tooth and nail to stay relevant for top players now. NLI won't really help much.

(09-28-2019 04:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

If you get into the schools themselves paying players, you run into Title IX issues, and it can be interpreted that your female athletes would have to receive the same pay as your male athletes. So, instead of paying your 100 or so football players, you're having to pay all say 700 athletes on your campus despite the fact that only 2 sports generate the majority of your revenue.

Yeah, I'd be fine with athletes making money off their likeness but I am against paying them. If you're going to pay them it loses any illusion of being student athletes.

(09-28-2019 04:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

If you get into the schools themselves paying players, you run into Title IX issues, and it can be interpreted that your female athletes would have to receive the same pay as your male athletes. So, instead of paying your 100 or so football players, you're having to pay all say 700 athletes on your campus despite the fact that only 2 sports generate the majority of your revenue.

Its pretty tough to justify selling posters of players or similar things and not giving them any of it as was done before the EA case. The difficulty is that Joe Doe car dealer and booster is the one paying them. They'll be promised this stuff in recruiting so it just makes it easier to do the shady stuff (assuming we're just talking about likenesses and not getting into the school actually paying them cash).

(09-28-2019 02:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 12:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You know I look at college football. A program like Texas A&M who hasn't accomplished anything in years. However, they still can put 90,000 people in seats. 30,000 of those people probably buy overpriced food and beer. Many seats sell for hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Games are on national television and local radio. The team/school sells merchandise. Local businesses donate and advertise as the team brings them business.

Then I look at the NFL. The largest NFL stadiums are only about 82k. The majority seats around 69k at capacity. NFL games are arguably less available than college games done on Saturday. And merchandise/food sales are comparable to college.

Difference?

Tua right now is worth....a scholarships to by college standards, a very affordable school. In a few weeks he is worth Millions of dollars a year.

Why?

Schools and head coaches are getting rich while these kids get nothing but a scholarships. And before anyone says "they get an education" so does everyone else...but thosands-millions of get loans, grants, and scholarships. And can still work if they want to. They can sell their likeliness. People can give them money.

So why is this double standard for athletes so supported? The schools profit of them and keep the profit.

Honestly—while I prefer the current amateur model—I’m not completely opposed to the players getting compensated. However—my preference is that is done in a way that pays all players equally (sort of like EA Games settlement). The schools could largely support the cost by selling the annual video game rights. You can run it through the NCAA and the schools could make up any shortfalls via their annual NCAA dues—thus allowing individual schools to avoid the employer/employee relationship. That keeps the payment equal, keeps control of paying the players in the hands of the sport (not the boosters), and largely prevents massive disruptions in the system (including unintended consequences).

This would be a slippery slope. If P5 players get paid for play and have control their names and likeness for football and basketball? You would start a landslide were sports like golf and women's volleyball that do not make money, those players will start to scream and holler that they want to get pay to. Then it would trickle down to G5, to FCS, to D2, D3 and NAIA. Then high school star students will start hollering that they want to get paid to play as well. Whatever happened to play for the love of sports? Today's players are nothing but spoil brats. You have to earn your scholarships, not have them and money handed to you when you may never make it in the pros.

You do understand that had this law been in effect when Tiger Woods was at Stanford, Titleist would have paid him millions a year? Might have stayed all 4 years. Golfers will do fine. As will all Olympic athletes that are worthy. Phelps would have competed for Michigan. Ledecky wouldn't have quit at Stanford.

Nothing better than college fan wanting ro restrict the American rights of college athletes in order to believe their team has a chance or out of jealousy.

The guy that built the NCAA, Walter Byers, called his amateur system, "a modern day plantation". All you need to know.

(09-28-2019 06:05 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 04:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

Except that "market value" will translate to which schools have the biggest budgets and boosters. There would be 6-8 football programs that would pull away and grab the lions share of top recruits. Who's going to buy #76 nose tackle Chad Butowski jerseys, or pay for his autograph? Boosters. Alabama et al would game the system to make sure everyone on the roster got paid for their "likenesses".

Hoops much the same but a slightly larger number of schools would also exploit. The whole thing would turn into such an obvious farce; it's hard to make an argument with a straight face that this wouldn't happen.

Huh? There's only ever a handful of teams that have any realistic hope of competing for "national championships" in revenue sports, if that's what you're concerned about.

What are those teams? For the most part, they are those have the most money and that spend the most on facilities (to wow impressionable recruits) and on top recruiters and coaches.

Anyway, what does it matter if a majority of the best athletes are concentrated at a handful of schools? Sounds like the status quo to me...

Setting aside direct monetary compensation, I get the sense that some naysayers haven't actually stopped and questioned the appropriateness of requiring that people give up their right to make money off of their own NILs. Y'all know some of these young athletes are dirt poor, right? ...And coming from poor families that maybe could use some assistance? Some have infant children to look after and to plan for.

IMO, as a society, the question should not be "How do we prevent people from making money in ways that do no harm to you are me," but rather "How do we enable the same?"

Believe it or not, allowing college athletes to capitalize their own identities would do no harm to you or me and it would not significantly decrease the championship prospects of any particular program, not that that should matter.

Requiring that athletes make NO money while everyone else involved in the NCAA collects it -- some rolling in it, making love in it, and burning it to light their stogies -- all under the false notion that there's parity today when there isn't and that it would be OK to financially suppress people even if there was parity, well, that just stinks to high heaven.

(09-28-2019 07:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 04:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

If you get into the schools themselves paying players, you run into Title IX issues, and it can be interpreted that your female athletes would have to receive the same pay as your male athletes. So, instead of paying your 100 or so football players, you're having to pay all say 700 athletes on your campus despite the fact that only 2 sports generate the majority of your revenue.

Its pretty tough to justify selling posters of players or similar things and not giving them any of it as was done before the EA case. The difficulty is that Joe Doe car dealer and booster is the one paying them. They'll be promised this stuff in recruiting so it just makes it easier to do the shady stuff (assuming we're just talking about likenesses and not getting into the school actually paying them cash).

There are reasons why the NCAA put these rules in because look at the California's law? It would open up a can of worms with Aunt Becky on steroids getting star players who may not be able to get into a USC, UCLA and all that. These boosters could pay somebody money to take an SAT exam for that player to get in. We know that boosters who could sell merchandise with a kid's name on it. Reggie Bush and USC got busted, so did SMU and also at Ohio State. It is these boosters who might be behind these bills to get back at the NCAA. They have the money, but they are the ones corrupting college sports.

New model pay revenue making athletes money.
Most football players will make money.
Golf almost every women's program players pay for their scholarship.
Pretty unfair for a school to cover all the cost of a track athlete or most baseball players.
A few hockey programs even less baseball the rest they can pay to attend school.
All the fans at the cross country meet can start paying for the coaching and travel cost.

(09-28-2019 04:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

If you get into the schools themselves paying players, you run into Title IX issues, and it can be interpreted that your female athletes would have to receive the same pay as your male athletes. So, instead of paying your 100 or so football players, you're having to pay all say 700 athletes on your campus despite the fact that only 2 sports generate the majority of your revenue.

I agree that having the schools involved directly pay would be a problem, because that would raise Title IX issues.

However, what could make it sticky is if the schools were involved in arranging for donors to pay for likenesses and the like, because a court would likely interpret that as the school being involved in the payment process, thus triggering Title IX.

Schools will have to be totally uninvolved, they will have to let donors and businesses decide on their own who to sponsor, and that is likely to be very difficult. It could also be very divisive, e.g., if star receiver X sees that the star QB is getting more local sponsorship deals, then he probably enters the Transfer Portal pronto .... Also, guys are likely to get deals even if they aren't good. E.g., the QB might not be nearly as good as the star WR, but the QB is white and looks like Brad Pitt, and so is in high demand around town.

There definitely could be racial divisions, because at most big powers, the rich alumni and fans are overwhelmingly white even though the players are mostly black, which could mean lesser skilled white players getting more deals than the better black players, leading to resentments.

I could just see an Athletic Director, seeing divisions on the football team because some guys are getting deals and others aren't, getting on the phone with the owner of the local chevy dealership, a rich alumnus, "hey, I need you to give player X some kind of deal, he doesn't have one and he's chafing about it, it's hurting the locker room and he's threatening to leave and we really need him for the games against Texas and Notre Dame", etc.

... then the NCAA finds out about the call (violation of the NCAA rules which now mirror the California rule), and the women's basketball coach asks out loud why calls aren't being made for the girls (Title IX).