Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,207
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 578
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #61
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 02:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 03:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Another issue with name and likeness is that the name and likeness is probably worthless without the university stage. Additionally, name and likeness revenue for the efforts of the entire team will accrue to just a few members. The QB--a running back--perhaps a receiver or linebacker. I doubt the name and likeness money for a offensive lineman is significant. Id prefer for the "name and likeness" revenue to be pooled and distributed to the players equally. The star QB aint crap if the OL fails to block.

That's like saying that Tim Cook isn't worth anything without the efforts of everyone at Apple, therefore all of his salary, bonuses, and stock must be divided equally among every Apple employee and, for that matter, all of Apple's revenue must be pooled and distributed to the employees equally. Karl Marx would have loved that argument.

Didnt realize Apple was an amateur hobby workshop. Amateur athletics isnt supposed to work like the pro's. Thats kinda the point. Id like to figure out a way for the players to get the equivalent of a nice college part time job so they at least have some decent pocket change to go out on a date or something with. You can play around with the arrangements. Maybe the player shooting the commercial gets 20% of the money to himself and the rest goes into a fund for the team, conference, or NCAA (however the leagues decide to do it). The point is to keep it generally amateur and to allow these outside payments to reflect the team nature of the game.

Bottom line---I dont like the idea at all. It essentially just makes it legal to do EXACTLY what SMU got the death penalty for. Thats how far away from the where we started this rule would take us. If your going to do this--just pay the payers. At least then the schools and conferences can have moderating influence. Whats being proposed is the Wild West.

What's being proposed is capitalism.

Also, as currently proposed, the only "penalty" for clinging to NCAA-style shamateurism is losing tax-exempt status. Any school that wants to give up tax-exempt status for its athletic department can make that choice.

And I love capitalism. Its the best economic system in the world. However, what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that I'd prefer college athletics to stay as close to amateurism as possible? Its a simple concept that has worked for the entire history of college football. Its the reason college sports is popular and minor-league pro sports are not. If the players want to be paid--there are new pro football leagues (as in professional leagues driven entirely by the pursuit of profit) that are sprouting up that will be happy to pay them if they are good enough. Nobody is forcing the players to play college football. The players can play college ball, or not play college ball--or play pro ball. That said---Im not unsympathetic to the plight of college football and basketball players. Its a time consuming endeavor and the rules make it difficult or impossible to have a part time job. They should not be any more cash poor than the typical college student who can at least earn some spending money at a part time job. I dont have the answers--I just was suggesting one possible solution that would help preserve the current character of the game.

You want college football to be what you called an amateur hobby. OK, so instead of the two-tier system proposed by the congressman (one tax-exempt, the other not), make it three:

1) Tax-exempt, Olympic model -- college athletes can collect endorsement money just like Olympic athletes.

2) Tax-exempt, "amateur hobby" model -- in order to qualify for this model in which you're allowed to prohibit athlete compensation while keeping tax exempt status, you have to be running a truly non-revenue athletic program. For every sport at the school, no tickets are sold, can't give tickets in exchange for donations, can't get any money for media rights, only permitted "sponsorships" are for free equipment, no cash from shoe/apparel/equipment companies, no taking money from Nike or adidas to pay the coaches, etc., etc. Has to be as amateur as an adult slowpitch softball league or YMCA basketball league.

3) Model that is not tax-exempt -- Current NCAA regime. Keep paying your head coaches $4 million a year (more, if you're in the SEC) and collecting millions in ticket sales and media rights while the athletes have to grab a little extra food from the cafeteria at dinner in order to have anything for a snack after hours. Only difference is that your university has to pay taxes on all athletic revenue, and the fat cat donors can't take a deduction for the money they donated to pay your wealthy coaches.
03-15-2019 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,349
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1281
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #62
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 03:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 02:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That's like saying that Tim Cook isn't worth anything without the efforts of everyone at Apple, therefore all of his salary, bonuses, and stock must be divided equally among every Apple employee and, for that matter, all of Apple's revenue must be pooled and distributed to the employees equally. Karl Marx would have loved that argument.

Didnt realize Apple was an amateur hobby workshop. Amateur athletics isnt supposed to work like the pro's. Thats kinda the point. Id like to figure out a way for the players to get the equivalent of a nice college part time job so they at least have some decent pocket change to go out on a date or something with. You can play around with the arrangements. Maybe the player shooting the commercial gets 20% of the money to himself and the rest goes into a fund for the team, conference, or NCAA (however the leagues decide to do it). The point is to keep it generally amateur and to allow these outside payments to reflect the team nature of the game.

Bottom line---I dont like the idea at all. It essentially just makes it legal to do EXACTLY what SMU got the death penalty for. Thats how far away from the where we started this rule would take us. If your going to do this--just pay the payers. At least then the schools and conferences can have moderating influence. Whats being proposed is the Wild West.

What's being proposed is capitalism.

Also, as currently proposed, the only "penalty" for clinging to NCAA-style shamateurism is losing tax-exempt status. Any school that wants to give up tax-exempt status for its athletic department can make that choice.

And I love capitalism. Its the best economic system in the world. However, what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that I'd prefer college athletics to stay as close to amateurism as possible? Its a simple concept that has worked for the entire history of college football. Its the reason college sports is popular and minor-league pro sports are not. If the players want to be paid--there are new pro football leagues (as in professional leagues driven entirely by the pursuit of profit) that are sprouting up that will be happy to pay them if they are good enough. Nobody is forcing the players to play college football. The players can play college ball, or not play college ball--or play pro ball. That said---Im not unsympathetic to the plight of college football and basketball players. Its a time consuming endeavor and the rules make it difficult or impossible to have a part time job. They should not be any more cash poor than the typical college student who can at least earn some spending money at a part time job. I dont have the answers--I just was suggesting one possible solution that would help preserve the current character of the game.

You want college football to be what you called an amateur hobby. OK, so instead of the two-tier system proposed by the congressman (one tax-exempt, the other not), make it three:

1) Tax-exempt, Olympic model -- college athletes can collect endorsement money just like Olympic athletes.

2) Tax-exempt, "amateur hobby" model -- in order to qualify for this model in which you're allowed to prohibit athlete compensation while keeping tax exempt status, you have to be running a truly non-revenue athletic program. For every sport at the school, no tickets are sold, can't give tickets in exchange for donations, can't get any money for media rights, only permitted "sponsorships" are for free equipment, no cash from shoe/apparel/equipment companies, no taking money from Nike or adidas to pay the coaches, etc., etc. Has to be as amateur as an adult slowpitch softball league or YMCA basketball league.

3) Model that is not tax-exempt -- Current NCAA regime. Keep paying your head coaches $4 million a year (more, if you're in the SEC) and collecting millions in ticket sales and media rights while the athletes have to grab a little extra food from the cafeteria at dinner in order to have anything for a snack after hours. Only difference is that your university has to pay taxes on all athletic revenue, and the fat cat donors can't take a deduction for the money they donated to pay your wealthy coaches.

Ive always wondered why a tax exemption is even an issue. These are mostly public nonprofit universities. They lose money on sports and are required by government to offer opportunities under Title 9 that are guaranteed money losers (hardly a capitalistic philosophy). Of the handful of schools that do make money--most either use the "profit" to improve school facilities or dump the money back into the academic side of the school.

If you watch the judges decisions---while they all tend to believe that the NCAA was engaged in activities that would violate anti-trust laws---they seem to be trying to preserve the general character of the current scholarship model. Thats why Im suggesting something that allows the players to receive compensation that is similar to the typical student on campus and generally similar with his team mates. I'd be fine with I think with sharing it--say on a team basis. That would still allow boosters to provide enough "image and likeness" income for the players that potential recruits might choose say Bama over Virginia becasue the "team image payment" is higher at Bama. Maybe payments over a certain amount are capped and go into an NCAA fund that is shared among all teams so the gap doesnt get to big and all players at least have some sort of income.

I dont really have plan--I just kinda have a general idea of what I want it to accomplish. I want to get the players a reasonable spending money income without having the sport descend into straight up Wild West pay for play free agency, 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2019 04:11 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-15-2019 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,207
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 578
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #63
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Ive always wondered why a tax exemption is even an issue.

Nonprofit status is a big issue for donors because fat cats want to take a deduction for the money they donate to cover things like a coach's salary or the buyout for getting rid of a failed coach.

As for the athletic departments themselves -- The fact that they use football revenue to cover the expenses of the swimming or tennis teams doesn't mean they would get to pay no taxes if they were no longer tax exempt. As we all know from our own personal tax returns, even if you spend all the money you earn, you still have to pay taxes on the money you earn.
03-15-2019 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,349
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1281
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #64
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 04:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Ive always wondered why a tax exemption is even an issue.

Nonprofit status is a big issue for donors because fat cats want to take a deduction for the money they donate to cover things like a coach's salary or the buyout for getting rid of a failed coach.

As for the athletic departments themselves -- The fact that they use football revenue to cover the expenses of the swimming or tennis teams doesn't mean they would get to pay no taxes if they were no longer tax exempt. As we all know from our own personal tax returns, even if you spend all the money you earn, you still have to pay taxes on the money you earn.

You dont pay taxes if you lose money. You pay no tax on revenue (you do pay state sales tax--but that has nothing to do with Fed taxes). You only pay taxes on bottom line profits. My point in bringing up the money losing sports required by title 9 is that college athletics isnt really capitalism. Frst off---most of these are quasi-government entities that are not designed to earn a profit. Secondly, a capitalist government in doesnt require private industry to run business's that everyone knows there is insufficient demand to make it profitable. You only see that kind of requirement in utility monopolies that are government regulated. College athletics occupies a weird place in the world that is neither fish nor fowl. College sports is a very unique model---mainly becasue its simply an adjunct to an institution of higher learning and was never intended to be a primary university function. Universities make a hell of a lot more off their patents and research than they do off college sports---so I dont see any reason why sports of all things would be a reason to remove their tax exempt non-profit status.

I may be wrong---but I dont think any schools or conferences want this bill to pass---despite the fact it doesnt directly cost them a dime.
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2019 07:43 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-15-2019 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Mister Consistency Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 12
I Root For: ETSU
Location:
Post: #65
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And I love capitalism. Its the best economic system in the world. However, what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that I'd prefer college athletics to stay as close to amateurism as possible?

Because enforced amateurism is inherently and aggressively anti-capitalist.

You are actively supporting preventing these athletes from maximizing the proceeds of their athletic prowess when there is clearly a market for their names and likenesses. Remember, EA didn't drop the NCAA Football games because they didn't want to pay for the rights after O'Bannon - the NCAA refused to let them do it.

This bill is the way for the NCAA to create a fairer system for the athletes without having to directly compensate them with additional cash out of the budget. Naturally there would need to be some regulation of that market; for example, maybe athletes who take endorsements before they enroll are still ineligible, and schools act as intermediaries to negotiate deals and take a 5% cut. Maybe they employ agents instead. Maybe they bake it into their licensing deals with IMG/Learfield/whoever and that company is the intermediary. Maybe they cap it at a certain dollar amount and pool the excess in an escrow to be distributed among the entire team or all athletes in the department. Maybe they don't get involved in it at all. It could take any number of forms, and the details only matter if the legislation passes, but it's clear that more and more people are taking issue with the way the NCAA operates, and the time where the schools are the only ones feeding at the sports marketing trough is likely coming to an end soon.
03-15-2019 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,349
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1281
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #66
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 08:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And I love capitalism. Its the best economic system in the world. However, what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that I'd prefer college athletics to stay as close to amateurism as possible?

Because enforced amateurism is inherently and aggressively anti-capitalist.

You are actively supporting preventing these athletes from maximizing the proceeds of their athletic prowess when there is clearly a market for their names and likenesses. Remember, EA didn't drop the NCAA Football games because they didn't want to pay for the rights after O'Bannon - the NCAA refused to let them do it.

This bill is the way for the NCAA to create a fairer system for the athletes without having to directly compensate them with additional cash out of the budget. Naturally there would need to be some regulation of that market; for example, maybe athletes who take endorsements before they enroll are still ineligible, and schools act as intermediaries to negotiate deals and take a 5% cut. Maybe they employ agents instead. Maybe they bake it into their licensing deals with IMG/Learfield/whoever and that company is the intermediary. Maybe they cap it at a certain dollar amount and pool the excess in an escrow to be distributed among the entire team or all athletes in the department. Maybe they don't get involved in it at all. It could take any number of forms, and the details only matter if the legislation passes, but it's clear that more and more people are taking issue with the way the NCAA operates, and the time where the schools are the only ones feeding at the sports marketing trough is likely coming to an end soon.

Again---its a public supported institution---not a business. Just for grins---where else in capitalism is there a "Title 9" for business's where a company is forced to engage in a business both the government and the operator knows will be a money loser? College athletics simply isnt capitalism. Its like applying criminal assault laws to a football game. Like I said---college football lives in this in between world where it doesnt fit neatly into the normal business model.

That said---Im all for the student athletes getting some way to generate spending money so they aren't the poorest kids on campus. Ive made a couple of suggestions that would moderate the effects of the bill so it wouldnt be a Wild West type free agent pay for play with the boosters running the asylum. Hey--Ive admitted I dont have all the answers on this one---but I know what this bill will result in---and it will destroy the game as much or more than straight up pay for play (at least under pay for play the schools still have SOME control over the influence of money).
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2019 10:17 AM by Attackcoog.)
03-15-2019 08:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,207
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 578
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #67
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 08:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 08:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And I love capitalism. Its the best economic system in the world. However, what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that I'd prefer college athletics to stay as close to amateurism as possible?

Because enforced amateurism is inherently and aggressively anti-capitalist.

You are actively supporting preventing these athletes from maximizing the proceeds of their athletic prowess when there is clearly a market for their names and likenesses. Remember, EA didn't drop the NCAA Football games because they didn't want to pay for the rights after O'Bannon - the NCAA refused to let them do it.

This bill is the way for the NCAA to create a fairer system for the athletes without having to directly compensate them with additional cash out of the budget. Naturally there would need to be some regulation of that market; for example, maybe athletes who take endorsements before they enroll are still ineligible, and schools act as intermediaries to negotiate deals and take a 5% cut. Maybe they employ agents instead. Maybe they bake it into their licensing deals with IMG/Learfield/whoever and that company is the intermediary. Maybe they cap it at a certain dollar amount and pool the excess in an escrow to be distributed among the entire team or all athletes in the department. Maybe they don't get involved in it at all. It could take any number of forms, and the details only matter if the legislation passes, but it's clear that more and more people are taking issue with the way the NCAA operates, and the time where the schools are the only ones feeding at the sports marketing trough is likely coming to an end soon.

Again---its a public supported institution---not a business. Where else in capitalism is there a "Ttile 9" for business's where a company is forced to engage in a business both the government and the operator knows will be a money loser? College athletics isnt capitalism.

You just conceded, above, that letting athletes get endorsement money won't cost any school a dime.

That means that the expense of Title IX is no excuse for preventing athletes from getting endorsement money.

(P.S. -- Nearly all men's sports lose just as much money as any women's sport, and schools keep sponsoring those men's sports even though they generate no revenue. In fact, each D-I school is required by the NCAA to sponsor a minimum number of those no-revenue men's varsity sports, though "for some reason" fans on message boards don't complain about that and only complain about paying for women's sports.)
03-15-2019 08:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,349
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1281
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #68
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 08:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 08:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 08:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And I love capitalism. Its the best economic system in the world. However, what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that I'd prefer college athletics to stay as close to amateurism as possible?

Because enforced amateurism is inherently and aggressively anti-capitalist.

You are actively supporting preventing these athletes from maximizing the proceeds of their athletic prowess when there is clearly a market for their names and likenesses. Remember, EA didn't drop the NCAA Football games because they didn't want to pay for the rights after O'Bannon - the NCAA refused to let them do it.

This bill is the way for the NCAA to create a fairer system for the athletes without having to directly compensate them with additional cash out of the budget. Naturally there would need to be some regulation of that market; for example, maybe athletes who take endorsements before they enroll are still ineligible, and schools act as intermediaries to negotiate deals and take a 5% cut. Maybe they employ agents instead. Maybe they bake it into their licensing deals with IMG/Learfield/whoever and that company is the intermediary. Maybe they cap it at a certain dollar amount and pool the excess in an escrow to be distributed among the entire team or all athletes in the department. Maybe they don't get involved in it at all. It could take any number of forms, and the details only matter if the legislation passes, but it's clear that more and more people are taking issue with the way the NCAA operates, and the time where the schools are the only ones feeding at the sports marketing trough is likely coming to an end soon.

Again---its a public supported institution---not a business. Where else in capitalism is there a "Ttile 9" for business's where a company is forced to engage in a business both the government and the operator knows will be a money loser? College athletics isnt capitalism.

You just conceded, above, that letting athletes get endorsement money won't cost any school a dime.

That means that the expense of Title IX is no excuse for preventing athletes from getting endorsement money.

(P.S. -- Nearly all men's sports lose just as much money as any women's sport, and schools keep sponsoring those men's sports even though they generate no revenue. In fact, each D-I school is required by the NCAA to sponsor a minimum number of those no-revenue men's varsity sports, though "for some reason" fans on message boards don't complain about that and only complain about paying for women's sports.)

I didnt said it did. I said it indicates that college football is not treated as a typical capitalist endeavor by the government--because it isnt.

Basically, it simply comes down to I prefer that it stay largely amateur based on the current scholarship model. If the bill passes---its effects on the game will be much much larger than Alston. I dont think thats going to be a good thing....but everyone has a viewpoint.
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2019 09:12 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-15-2019 08:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,768
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 163
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #69
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-11-2019 05:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Frankly, it's more than a little absurd that players don't have ownership over their likeness.

If it literally takes an act of Congress for the NCAA to do something reasonable then so be it.
I agree on this one. Let them make money on apparel, signatures, etc. They will have to pay taxes of course on their profits.
03-15-2019 11:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,631
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 166
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #70
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
I say no on paying them. These big schools are taken tax payers money and dump it into programs including Title 9. The public schools are not a business including their sports. None of these players deserve nothing. I would come up with a bill that recognize athletes as non-employees who are compensated with scholarships to attend for an education. The tax payers are given them the right to attend to get an education, not to play a sport. Education comes 1st for these athletes, not to attend these colleges just to be lazy. If they want to get to play in the pros? They need to work harder because they usually suck trying out for a team. Another part of the Bill I would put in would be any athletes who are accused of a crime would lose their scholarships and booted from campus. No tax payers should give said players a free education like Winston.
03-16-2019 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,361
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 949
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #71
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 04:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Ive always wondered why a tax exemption is even an issue.

Nonprofit status is a big issue for donors because fat cats want to take a deduction for the money they donate to cover things like a coach's salary or the buyout for getting rid of a failed coach.

As for the athletic departments themselves -- The fact that they use football revenue to cover the expenses of the swimming or tennis teams doesn't mean they would get to pay no taxes if they were no longer tax exempt. As we all know from our own personal tax returns, even if you spend all the money you earn, you still have to pay taxes on the money you earn.

It would all be considered one activity unless there was legislation forcing them to separate it. The only ones who would pay taxes would be the half dozen who use athletics to give money back to academics. Such a tax would reduce money going to academics.
03-16-2019 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,361
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 949
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #72
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 08:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And I love capitalism. Its the best economic system in the world. However, what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that I'd prefer college athletics to stay as close to amateurism as possible?

Because enforced amateurism is inherently and aggressively anti-capitalist.

You are actively supporting preventing these athletes from maximizing the proceeds of their athletic prowess when there is clearly a market for their names and likenesses. Remember, EA didn't drop the NCAA Football games because they didn't want to pay for the rights after O'Bannon - the NCAA refused to let them do it.

This bill is the way for the NCAA to create a fairer system for the athletes without having to directly compensate them with additional cash out of the budget. Naturally there would need to be some regulation of that market; for example, maybe athletes who take endorsements before they enroll are still ineligible, and schools act as intermediaries to negotiate deals and take a 5% cut. Maybe they employ agents instead. Maybe they bake it into their licensing deals with IMG/Learfield/whoever and that company is the intermediary. Maybe they cap it at a certain dollar amount and pool the excess in an escrow to be distributed among the entire team or all athletes in the department. Maybe they don't get involved in it at all. It could take any number of forms, and the details only matter if the legislation passes, but it's clear that more and more people are taking issue with the way the NCAA operates, and the time where the schools are the only ones feeding at the sports marketing trough is likely coming to an end soon.

Aye, there's the rub. Figuring out how to do it without abuse is the problem.
Now if you give up amateurism in total, its not an issue, but if you want to keep that, its just a huge loophole that's hard to close.
03-16-2019 08:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,361
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 949
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #73
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 08:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 08:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 08:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And I love capitalism. Its the best economic system in the world. However, what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that I'd prefer college athletics to stay as close to amateurism as possible?

Because enforced amateurism is inherently and aggressively anti-capitalist.

You are actively supporting preventing these athletes from maximizing the proceeds of their athletic prowess when there is clearly a market for their names and likenesses. Remember, EA didn't drop the NCAA Football games because they didn't want to pay for the rights after O'Bannon - the NCAA refused to let them do it.

This bill is the way for the NCAA to create a fairer system for the athletes without having to directly compensate them with additional cash out of the budget. Naturally there would need to be some regulation of that market; for example, maybe athletes who take endorsements before they enroll are still ineligible, and schools act as intermediaries to negotiate deals and take a 5% cut. Maybe they employ agents instead. Maybe they bake it into their licensing deals with IMG/Learfield/whoever and that company is the intermediary. Maybe they cap it at a certain dollar amount and pool the excess in an escrow to be distributed among the entire team or all athletes in the department. Maybe they don't get involved in it at all. It could take any number of forms, and the details only matter if the legislation passes, but it's clear that more and more people are taking issue with the way the NCAA operates, and the time where the schools are the only ones feeding at the sports marketing trough is likely coming to an end soon.

Again---its a public supported institution---not a business. Where else in capitalism is there a "Ttile 9" for business's where a company is forced to engage in a business both the government and the operator knows will be a money loser? College athletics isnt capitalism.

You just conceded, above, that letting athletes get endorsement money won't cost any school a dime.

That means that the expense of Title IX is no excuse for preventing athletes from getting endorsement money.

(P.S. -- Nearly all men's sports lose just as much money as any women's sport, and schools keep sponsoring those men's sports even though they generate no revenue. In fact, each D-I school is required by the NCAA to sponsor a minimum number of those no-revenue men's varsity sports, though "for some reason" fans on message boards don't complain about that and only complain about paying for women's sports.)

The complaint is about women's sports nobody plays. Like the ones used in the admissions scandal-sports like crew. You get men's sports like wrestling and baseball get cut for crew and beach volleyball to comply with Title IX. People really don't complain about women's basketball, volleyball, track and soccer.
03-16-2019 08:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 28
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #74
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name & image
NCAA working group to examine name, image and likeness

Quote:The NCAA president and Board of Governors appointed a working group to examine issues highlighted in recently proposed federal and state legislation related to student-athlete name, image and likeness.

The NCAA Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group will be made up of member representatives from all three NCAA divisions.

“This group will bring together diverse opinions from the membership — from presidents and commissioners to student-athletes — that will examine the NCAA’s position on name, image and likeness benefits and potentially propose rule modifications tethered to education,” said Val Ackerman, commissioner of the Big East and working group co-chair. “We believe the time is right for these discussions and look forward to a thorough assessment of the many complexities involved in this area.”

I don't know what "tethered to education" means, but I don't like the sound of it. And I hope this isn't part of some compromise to suppress these bills. California's SB206 is up for possible promotion to the Senate floor on Thursday.
05-14-2019 03:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 28
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #75
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name & image
Also, the Tennessee Senate adopted this resolution a couple of weeks ago. (NOTE: the word "instructed" in the penultimate clause was changed to "encouraged.")

Would be awesome if UT's president showed up to the SEC spring meetings later this month carrying that in his hand. 04-jawdrop
05-14-2019 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
oliveandblue Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,301
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 159
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #76
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(05-14-2019 04:12 PM)chester Wrote:  Also, the Tennessee Senate adopted this resolution a couple of weeks ago. (NOTE: the word "instructed" in the penultimate clause was changed to "encouraged.")

Would be awesome if UT's president showed up to the SEC spring meetings later this month carrying that in his hand. 04-jawdrop

So Vandy wouldn't be allowed to pay athletes but UT could. Hmm...
05-14-2019 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 28
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #77
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name & image
(05-14-2019 07:47 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(05-14-2019 04:12 PM)chester Wrote:  Also, the Tennessee Senate adopted this resolution a couple of weeks ago. (NOTE: the word "instructed" in the penultimate clause was changed to "encouraged.")

Would be awesome if UT's president showed up to the SEC spring meetings later this month carrying that in his hand. 04-jawdrop

So Vandy wouldn't be allowed to pay athletes but UT could. Hmm...

Nah, they want NCAA conferences to repeal those rules and they want Tennessee's public universities to help make that happen. All valuable NCAA athletes could benefit from that, including Vandy's.

Quote:Be it resolved...that Tennessee's public universities, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (Southeastern Conference); the University of Memphis (American Athletic Conference); Middle Tennessee State University (Conference-USA); the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and East Tennessee State University (Southern Conference); and Austin Peay State University, Tennessee State University, Tennessee Technological University, and the University of Tennessee at Martin (Ohio Valley Conference), are encouraged to work with their respective athletic conferences in opposition to the NCAA's prohibition on the compensation of student athletes in proportion to the revenues they generate and other intrinsic value such athletes add to their universities and endorse the repeal of all related NCAA rules and policies.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2019 08:19 PM by chester.)
05-14-2019 08:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 22,778
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 2161
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #78
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(03-15-2019 08:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again---its a public supported institution---not a business.

Then why does every athletic department, including Houston's, have someone directing business operations?
05-15-2019 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 8,875
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 600
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #79
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(05-15-2019 10:34 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 08:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again---its a public supported institution---not a business.

Then why does every athletic department, including Houston's, have someone directing business operations?

By that rational all nonprofits and government agencies are considered businesses. Anybody that sets a budget and pays bills and complies with local, state and federal laws is now a "business"
05-15-2019 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 22,778
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 2161
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #80
RE: New bill in congress would allow NCAA athletes to make $ from their name and image
(05-15-2019 11:01 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(05-15-2019 10:34 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-15-2019 08:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again---its a public supported institution---not a business.

Then why does every athletic department, including Houston's, have someone directing business operations?

By that rational all nonprofits and government agencies are considered businesses. Anybody that sets a budget and pays bills and complies with local, state and federal laws is now a "business"

I'm cool with that. Start taxing them, including churches and the government.

Far too often there are state and federal facilities in local county or municipalities that pull tax funded resources yet pay no taxes to support those resources, putting the burden solely on the taxpayers of said county or municipality. They should pay their fair share.
05-15-2019 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.