(09-18-2019 02:26 PM)Claw Wrote:  Hmmm...

How does Title IX play into this?

It is one of the key things that keep it from happening the way many think it will.

Universities already pay athletes. There is a stipend of something like $3k annually paid at Memphis. Along with dorm, food, healthcare, books, tuition - not to mention personal PR and marketing. It's not a bad gig by itself.

Some think this will open the floodgates of tv revenue to athletes. Universities simply can't afford that, when you factor in Title IX and all sports.

What this could do is allow athletes to capitalize on their image and likeness. They could get shoe deals, sell jerseys, etc. It's the Olympic model.

(09-18-2019 04:14 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 02:26 PM)Claw Wrote:  Hmmm...

How does Title IX play into this?

It is one of the key things that keep it from happening the way many think it will.

Universities already pay athletes. There is a stipend of something like $3k annually paid at Memphis. Along with dorm, food, healthcare, books, tuition - not to mention personal PR and marketing. It's not a bad gig by itself.

Some think this will open the floodgates of tv revenue to athletes. Universities simply can't afford that, when you factor in Title IX and all sports.

What this could do is allow athletes to capitalize on their image and likeness. They could get shoe deals, sell jerseys, etc. It's the Olympic model.

You left out video games. There is a huge amount of money there.

The players would be nothing without the schools and their free marketing basically. There is a reason the 3yr rule exists for the NFL. Politicians clearly have never heard of cause and effect because they are constantly trying to fix the effects without addressing the cause. The only thing keeping these players from making money is the NFL and their rules. Lets see those blue chip freshman try to get their fair market value in the NFL. If you want to be a professional then lets see how long you last in the actual paid professional organization for your sport. A dose of reality would be swift.

No reason to force an amateur organization to change itself when you can't cut it in the actual money league. In a perfect world athletes that aren't good enough for the NFL would use the college as launching pad rather than a career.

(09-18-2019 12:29 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  With California & now New York both on the verge of passing new legislation allowing colleges to pay athletes, if the NCAA doesn’t change, and they currently say they won’t, more states will be following suit. When this happens, schools from these states will have to form a new association and new leagues.

I know all of this may seem unlikely, but I’d hedge my bets on this happening. Hopefully Tennessee will jump on board. I’m against paying students, but I’m also for being smart and changing to stay alive. If The state of Tennessee and The UofM act accordingly, they could find themselves on the right side of history. It’s time for the UofM to align itself with the upcoming changes.

What did this achieve? It is not illegal for a college athletes in any state to be paid, it is just a violation of NCAA rules.

This is not like legalizing pot where their local and state officials will stop arresting people...

(09-18-2019 04:11 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Cali schools make more money from their TV deals than the NCAA championships. I bet the NCAA changes.

How much money is USC going to get with a conference of USC, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, San Jose State, Fresno State, SDSU and a bunch of FBS schools for their non conference schedule? They will be barred from playing any NCAA institution...

The California bill is basically like the Olympic model. It’s the legal use of their name, image and likeness for commercial free-market purposes. A college player will be allowed to get paid for endorsements, payment for signing autographs and get paid for having his name on the potential return of NCAA football video game and schools jerseys.

It’s not directly tied to the athletes being paid by the universities for play on the field. So not every student athlete for example will be paid for an endorsement of an energy drink by a business, local or nationally. Maybe it’s a star QB or a group of men’s BB players doing a tv spot. It’s open men and women but I doubt you’ll get a lot of businesses clamoring for ads featuring women’s basketball players outside of UConn and a few others. What I think the NCAA will do is open up to it but put cap limit on hiow much $$$ to an individual for a specific endorsement or use of his image to make it seem fair across the board but the genie will be out of the bag though

no one should be able to profit off your image without you being compensated. That compensation should be agreed upon before the event. Common sense, but we are talking about the NCAA.

So, if I understand this correctly, a college athlete could market their own person and sell to the highest bidder. Since only about 2% of college athletes ever get to the pros then only maybe 2% would have any marketability while in college. The remaining 98% that participate would logically get nothing other than what they are currently receiving.

All the concern seems to be about Universities taking advantage of athletes. Seems to me that the 98% that don't make pro sports and do graduate benefit greatly from getting to go to college. Also, probably 90% of those that do finally make it to the pros benefit greatly from playing college sports as it develops their skills and, I believe, undoubtedly makes them better players. A player like Anthony Miller would probably fall by the wayside and never be the great player in the NFL and the great success he is today. There are probably 20 plus players or more drafted every year into the NFL that were not offered D1 scholarships.

Take away the colleges and the pros would have to set up a farm system to develop the athletes they see having potential coming out of high school into major league players, such as MLB does now. If we go to this model, fewer players will be developed into pros and college sports will become non-existent or just about as relevant as high school sports. There does not appear to be much of a feeding frenzy on ESPN or Fox Sports, etc. for high school football because no one watches it.

Appears to me that once again government feels compelled to protect the less than 2% while they do irreputable damage to the other 98%.

This will eventually happen and will destroy college athletics

(09-18-2019 12:59 PM)southpaw1 Wrote:  Instead of paying the athletes they should give them full scholarships so they can get a great free education.

Well, now don't go getting all pie-in-the-sky on us.

The original question, what does the UofM do to prepare itself for inclusion in a new association? This will no doubt create division amongst the P5. The new association gives the conferences a chance to correct mistakes like Mississippi State and Vanderbilt being born into wealth in the 90’s and on.

At what point do the athletic departments of universities lose their nonprofit status?

Keep money out of amateur sports! This is a bad legislation passed by CA and NY. You pay one amateur, means ALL amateurs will want to be paid. Or, you will have a lot more injuries. And, there is no more "fun" in sports, which is the original intention of sports, fun and learning to cooperate and act like a team. Money is now the driving force in playing at all.

Now, the parents who want their kids paid, will make their kids play so hard, it becomes a burden and not fun. And, a lot of kids will get hurt over exerting themselves.

(09-18-2019 06:36 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  The original question, what does the UofM do to prepare itself for inclusion in a new association? This will no doubt create division amongst the P5. The new association gives the conferences a chance to correct mistakes like Mississippi State and Vanderbilt being born into wealth in the 90’s and on.

But what does this change? When was it illegal for a player to profit off his image and likeness? This does not change that any player who takes money for the above will be ineligible to participate in NCAA.

(09-18-2019 05:42 PM)Old Tiger Wrote:  So, if I understand this correctly, a college athlete could market their own person and sell to the highest bidder. Since only about 2% of college athletes ever get to the pros then only maybe 2% would have any marketability while in college. The remaining 98% that participate would logically get nothing other than what they are currently receiving.

All the concern seems to be about Universities taking advantage of athletes. Seems to me that the 98% that don't make pro sports and do graduate benefit greatly from getting to go to college. Also, probably 90% of those that do finally make it to the pros benefit greatly from playing college sports as it develops their skills and, I believe, undoubtedly makes them better players. A player like Anthony Miller would probably fall by the wayside and never be the great player in the NFL and the great success he is today. There are probably 20 plus players or more drafted every year into the NFL that were not offered D1 scholarships.

Take away the colleges and the pros would have to set up a farm system to develop the athletes they see having potential coming out of high school into major league players, such as MLB does now. If we go to this model, fewer players will be developed into pros and college sports will become non-existent or just about as relevant as high school sports. There does not appear to be much of a feeding frenzy on ESPN or Fox Sports, etc. for high school football because no one watches it.

Appears to me that once again government feels compelled to protect the less than 2% while they do irreputable damage to the other 98%.

That’s not really true. Lots of college kids would be featured on local commercials and what not that will never play in the NBA or NFL. Alo and Tyler Harris are unlikely to be NBA players but are local celebrities of sort. They could land some local work. Same with someone like Brady White on the football team.

(09-18-2019 06:43 PM)micman Wrote:  At what point do the athletic departments of universities lose their nonprofit status?

Why would they?

(09-18-2019 07:10 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 06:43 PM)micman Wrote:  At what point do the athletic departments of universities lose their nonprofit status?

Why would they?

It would probably happen when you start to show that every school makes money, not just a few of them. It's easy to prove Texas, A&M, Baylor, and TCU make money. It becomes more difficult to prove Houston, Rice, SMU, UNT, Texas State, and UTEP do, And it becomes impossible to prove that FCS and Division II and III schools do - they are a part of the NCAA, too.

So, as a whole, they aren't in danger of losing their nonprofit status for a while.

(09-18-2019 06:36 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  The original question, what does the UofM do to prepare itself for inclusion in a new association? This will no doubt create division amongst the P5. The new association gives the conferences a chance to correct mistakes like Mississippi State and Vanderbilt being born into wealth in the 90’s and on.

Nothing. Seriously - nothing.

This isn't going to create an ounce of division between the schools because they don't want it and they will only change because the legal framework under which we all live is forcing them to. About the only thing a AAC team, any of us, can do is go along with the changes and try to use it to our advantage; i.e. evolve.

And frankly, in some ways it will create less division because it's one less thing they have to monitor amongst themselves - if the kid has an agent, that's his business. If the kid can get an endorsement deal from Nike, well, they can't stop him and will find ways to help him. It's one less thing to bicker about and one more thing to compete above the table with.

Kids could get paid for being on video game rosters or perhaps even fantasy football rosters.

(09-18-2019 07:30 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:10 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 06:43 PM)micman Wrote:  At what point do the athletic departments of universities lose their nonprofit status?

Why would they?

It would probably happen when you start to show that every school makes money, not just a few of them. It's easy to prove Texas, A&M, Baylor, and TCU make money. It becomes more difficult to prove Houston, Rice, SMU, UNT, Texas State, and UTEP do, And it becomes impossible to prove that FCS and Division II and III schools do - they are a part of the NCAA, too.

So, as a whole, they aren't in danger of losing their nonprofit status for a while.

Nonprofit status does not mean that the Organization literally makes no profit. There is nothing wrong with an NPO making making a profit annually. That is what I am driving at. I do not see why they would be at risk for losing their NPO status?