The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed a bill into law which will allow college student-athletes in the state to make money from images, names or likenesses.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/ncaa-paid...a-bill-law

Long time coming.

It was fun competing against the BCS schools while it lasted. We came close to winning a few times, got the win a few times, and went to a BCS Bowl. Oh well, at least now we'll finally get chances to stick it to GVSU.

Without the Universities, these kids' images and names are worth crap. A four year Stanford degree
costs about $200,000 not to mention fb skill training they are getting. Total BS. The NFL needs a farm system to get the Pro's out of the NCAA.

(10-01-2019 07:11 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Without the Universities, these kids' images and names are worth crap. A four year Stanford degree
costs about $200,000 not to mention fb skill training they are getting. Total BS. The NFL needs a farm system to get the Pro's out of the NCAA.

Agree 100%.

As usual our myopic culture, we minimize the value of an education, short term immediate costs, and the long term impact that having an opportunity to get a degree has on their lives.

That, and we act like athletes are victims. They don't have to play sports, nobody is making them, it's all choices.

NFL needs to setup a farm system and this is a non starter.

I'm missing why it should be the NCAA's business what a "student-athlete" does ON THE SIDE with their time to make money. Let's not pretend it isn't already happening under the table.

(10-01-2019 08:55 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I'm missing why it should be the NCAA's business what a "student-athlete" does ON THE SIDE with their time to make money. Let's not pretend it isn't already happening under the table.

I think we're missing the point. They don't want students making money on the side, then they wouldn't need boosters lining their pockets under the table.

It's about control and advantages that having boosters with deep pockets gives these schools.

It's about guys like LeBron(Klutch Sports Group/UTA)
wanting a piece of NCAA money. SB 206 California
was even signed on his HBO Show. How many
FBS schools are in the black?

How many FBS schools make money is not relevant. This won't cost the schools a dime.

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many FBS schools make money is not relevant. This won't cost the schools a dime.

WMU doesn't sell jerseys, t-shirts etc?
Want to be paying for a player's image on a team billboard, ad,etc? Want to have player's image tied to a product that is not good for the University's? This is the opening of Pandora's box. Great for a team when starting might mean an endorsement deal or not. One player that's doing the blocking doesn't have a deal and the skill player does. Will really screw with recruiting and really increase the separation between the have and have not programs.
No good will come of this.

(10-01-2019 10:45 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many FBS schools make money is not relevant. This won't cost the schools a dime.

WMU doesn't sell jerseys, t-shirts etc?
Want to be paying for a player's image on a team billboard, ad,etc? Want to have player's image tied to a product that is not good for the University's? This is the opening of Pandora's box. Great for a team when starting might mean an endorsement deal or not. One player that's doing the blocking doesn't have a deal and the skill player does. Will really screw with recruiting and really increase the separation between the have and have not programs.
No good will come of this.

OK sure, there could be a nominal charge to use a player's likeness on a jersey etc. (maybe? not sure about this if their name isn't on it). That's not the huge deal to the bottom line you're making it seem. In fact, the school could perhaps sell more jerseys if they can stick a star player's name on it instead of the generic #1 jerseys I saw in the bookstore when I went to WMU.

This won't make a lick of difference separating haves and have nots. All the stuff you're referencing re: skill players vs. blockers etc. already happens. For reference: https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/...ll-players

The idea that more players are gonna go P5 because of this is fantasy considering they already get all the players they want anyway.

If anything this could help mid majors steal a few guys from the mid to lower tier P5s, if a guy is a star at a smaller program they could easily have more opportunities for endorsements or car dealership ads vs. being a rotational player at Indiana or Syracuse.

(10-01-2019 10:53 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:45 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many FBS schools make money is not relevant. This won't cost the schools a dime.

WMU doesn't sell jerseys, t-shirts etc?
Want to be paying for a player's image on a team billboard, ad,etc? Want to have player's image tied to a product that is not good for the University's? This is the opening of Pandora's box. Great for a team when starting might mean an endorsement deal or not. One player that's doing the blocking doesn't have a deal and the skill player does. Will really screw with recruiting and really increase the separation between the have and have not programs.
No good will come of this.

OK sure, there could be a nominal charge to use a player's likeness on a jersey etc. (maybe? not sure about this if their name isn't on it). That's not the huge deal to the bottom line you're making it seem. In fact, the school could perhaps sell more jerseys if they can stick a star player's name on it instead of the generic #1 jerseys I saw in the bookstore when I went to WMU.

This won't make a lick of difference separating haves and have nots. All the stuff you're referencing re: skill players vs. blockers etc. already happens. For reference: https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/...ll-players

The idea that more players are gonna go P5 because of this is fantasy considering they already get all the players they want anyway.

If anything this could help mid majors steal a few guys from the mid to lower tier P5s, if a guy is a star at a smaller program they could easily have more opportunities for endorsements or car dealership ads vs. being a rotational player at Indiana or Syracuse.

You're selling endorsements. I'm selling education and college experience. People pushing this have no
regard for the value of education. Somebody that's
looking for a pay check needs to go to work. If you got an endorsement deal, forfeit your schollie pay for your education. The majority of fans are tied to the school not the player.

(10-01-2019 11:15 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:53 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:45 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many FBS schools make money is not relevant. This won't cost the schools a dime.

WMU doesn't sell jerseys, t-shirts etc?
Want to be paying for a player's image on a team billboard, ad,etc? Want to have player's image tied to a product that is not good for the University's? This is the opening of Pandora's box. Great for a team when starting might mean an endorsement deal or not. One player that's doing the blocking doesn't have a deal and the skill player does. Will really screw with recruiting and really increase the separation between the have and have not programs.
No good will come of this.

OK sure, there could be a nominal charge to use a player's likeness on a jersey etc. (maybe? not sure about this if their name isn't on it). That's not the huge deal to the bottom line you're making it seem. In fact, the school could perhaps sell more jerseys if they can stick a star player's name on it instead of the generic #1 jerseys I saw in the bookstore when I went to WMU.

This won't make a lick of difference separating haves and have nots. All the stuff you're referencing re: skill players vs. blockers etc. already happens. For reference: https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/...ll-players

The idea that more players are gonna go P5 because of this is fantasy considering they already get all the players they want anyway.

If anything this could help mid majors steal a few guys from the mid to lower tier P5s, if a guy is a star at a smaller program they could easily have more opportunities for endorsements or car dealership ads vs. being a rotational player at Indiana or Syracuse.

You're selling endorsements. I'm selling education and college experience. People pushing this have no
regard for the value of education. Somebody that's
looking for a pay check needs to go to work. If you got an endorsement deal, forfeit your schollie pay for your education. The majority of fans are tied to the school not the player.

And who are you or the NCAA to tell a student they can't make money on the side? Honestly applying a little logic, your position is ridiculous. A player getting an endorsement deal has nothing to do with him getting scholarship money. They ARE going to work, it's the damn free market, if someone is willing to pay them because they deem it's good for their bottom line (or whatever other reason they choose), that's nobody else's business.

If a star music student becomes famous on American Idol and gets paid should they be forced to give up their scholarship? Because some old dude is bitter about it?

There's no reason to oppose this besides outdated tradition.

(10-01-2019 11:27 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:15 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:53 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:45 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many FBS schools make money is not relevant. This won't cost the schools a dime.

WMU doesn't sell jerseys, t-shirts etc?
Want to be paying for a player's image on a team billboard, ad,etc? Want to have player's image tied to a product that is not good for the University's? This is the opening of Pandora's box. Great for a team when starting might mean an endorsement deal or not. One player that's doing the blocking doesn't have a deal and the skill player does. Will really screw with recruiting and really increase the separation between the have and have not programs.
No good will come of this.

OK sure, there could be a nominal charge to use a player's likeness on a jersey etc. (maybe? not sure about this if their name isn't on it). That's not the huge deal to the bottom line you're making it seem. In fact, the school could perhaps sell more jerseys if they can stick a star player's name on it instead of the generic #1 jerseys I saw in the bookstore when I went to WMU.

This won't make a lick of difference separating haves and have nots. All the stuff you're referencing re: skill players vs. blockers etc. already happens. For reference: https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/...ll-players

The idea that more players are gonna go P5 because of this is fantasy considering they already get all the players they want anyway.

If anything this could help mid majors steal a few guys from the mid to lower tier P5s, if a guy is a star at a smaller program they could easily have more opportunities for endorsements or car dealership ads vs. being a rotational player at Indiana or Syracuse.

You're selling endorsements. I'm selling education and college experience. People pushing this have no
regard for the value of education. Somebody that's
looking for a pay check needs to go to work. If you got an endorsement deal, forfeit your schollie pay for your education. The majority of fans are tied to the school not the player.

And who are you or the NCAA to tell a student they can't make money on the side? Honestly applying a little logic, your position is ridiculous. A player getting an endorsement deal has nothing to do with him getting scholarship money. They ARE going to work, it's the damn free market, if someone is willing to pay them because they deem it's good for their bottom line (or whatever other reason they choose), that's nobody else's business.

If a star music student becomes famous on American Idol and gets paid should they be forced to give up their scholarship? Because some old dude is bitter about it?

There's no reason to oppose this besides outdated tradition.

Does he or doesn't he use the brand the University
has developed to get his endorsement deal?
How many kids out of HS get endorsement deals?
I'm all for being able to go Pro after a year.

(10-01-2019 02:28 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:27 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:15 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:53 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:45 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  WMU doesn't sell jerseys, t-shirts etc?
Want to be paying for a player's image on a team billboard, ad,etc? Want to have player's image tied to a product that is not good for the University's? This is the opening of Pandora's box. Great for a team when starting might mean an endorsement deal or not. One player that's doing the blocking doesn't have a deal and the skill player does. Will really screw with recruiting and really increase the separation between the have and have not programs.
No good will come of this.

OK sure, there could be a nominal charge to use a player's likeness on a jersey etc. (maybe? not sure about this if their name isn't on it). That's not the huge deal to the bottom line you're making it seem. In fact, the school could perhaps sell more jerseys if they can stick a star player's name on it instead of the generic #1 jerseys I saw in the bookstore when I went to WMU.

This won't make a lick of difference separating haves and have nots. All the stuff you're referencing re: skill players vs. blockers etc. already happens. For reference: https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/...ll-players

The idea that more players are gonna go P5 because of this is fantasy considering they already get all the players they want anyway.

If anything this could help mid majors steal a few guys from the mid to lower tier P5s, if a guy is a star at a smaller program they could easily have more opportunities for endorsements or car dealership ads vs. being a rotational player at Indiana or Syracuse.

You're selling endorsements. I'm selling education and college experience. People pushing this have no
regard for the value of education. Somebody that's
looking for a pay check needs to go to work. If you got an endorsement deal, forfeit your schollie pay for your education. The majority of fans are tied to the school not the player.

And who are you or the NCAA to tell a student they can't make money on the side? Honestly applying a little logic, your position is ridiculous. A player getting an endorsement deal has nothing to do with him getting scholarship money. They ARE going to work, it's the damn free market, if someone is willing to pay them because they deem it's good for their bottom line (or whatever other reason they choose), that's nobody else's business.

If a star music student becomes famous on American Idol and gets paid should they be forced to give up their scholarship? Because some old dude is bitter about it?

There's no reason to oppose this besides outdated tradition.

Does he or doesn't he use the brand the University
has developed to get his endorsement deal?

You bring this up as some kind of smoking gun when the reality is it's a minor issue that can be worked out, whether it's case by case or in bylaws. Obviously if players are getting endorsements or appearing in commercials as athletes representing a school, the universities are going to require payment for use of their brand. That already happens with all sorts of apparel deals etc. This really could be a win-win for both sides, although probably less so at the major universities who stand to lose some money off their already insane apparel sales.

This nitpicking of details isn't helpful to the discussion, really.

(10-02-2019 10:37 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 02:28 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:27 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:15 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:53 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  OK sure, there could be a nominal charge to use a player's likeness on a jersey etc. (maybe? not sure about this if their name isn't on it). That's not the huge deal to the bottom line you're making it seem. In fact, the school could perhaps sell more jerseys if they can stick a star player's name on it instead of the generic #1 jerseys I saw in the bookstore when I went to WMU.

This won't make a lick of difference separating haves and have nots. All the stuff you're referencing re: skill players vs. blockers etc. already happens. For reference: https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/...ll-players

The idea that more players are gonna go P5 because of this is fantasy considering they already get all the players they want anyway.

If anything this could help mid majors steal a few guys from the mid to lower tier P5s, if a guy is a star at a smaller program they could easily have more opportunities for endorsements or car dealership ads vs. being a rotational player at Indiana or Syracuse.

You're selling endorsements. I'm selling education and college experience. People pushing this have no
regard for the value of education. Somebody that's
looking for a pay check needs to go to work. If you got an endorsement deal, forfeit your schollie pay for your education. The majority of fans are tied to the school not the player.

And who are you or the NCAA to tell a student they can't make money on the side? Honestly applying a little logic, your position is ridiculous. A player getting an endorsement deal has nothing to do with him getting scholarship money. They ARE going to work, it's the damn free market, if someone is willing to pay them because they deem it's good for their bottom line (or whatever other reason they choose), that's nobody else's business.

If a star music student becomes famous on American Idol and gets paid should they be forced to give up their scholarship? Because some old dude is bitter about it?

There's no reason to oppose this besides outdated tradition.

Does he or doesn't he use the brand the University
has developed to get his endorsement deal?

You bring this up as some kind of smoking gun when the reality is it's a minor issue that can be worked out, whether it's case by case or in bylaws. Obviously if players are getting endorsements or appearing in commercials as athletes representing a school, the universities are going to require payment for use of their brand. That already happens with all sorts of apparel deals etc. This really could be a win-win for both sides, although probably less so at the major universities who stand to lose some money off their already insane apparel sales.

This nitpicking of details isn't helpful to the discussion, really.

"In fact, according to an analysis cited in The Economist, if players were paid in proportion to the amount of revenue they generated for their colleges, “the top 10 percent of football and 16 percent of basketball players would be paid around $400,000 and $250,000 a year respectively.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opini...-paid.html

^

Is that including the education they're getting at future value or present value?

Why not just get rid of the NCAA and college sports?

And model ourselves after much of Europe?

Universities could concentrate on "higher learning"....

These kids will be taken to the cleaners by marketing snakes. Only 1-2 on the roster will even see endorsement offers. So if it was in effect today take Oklahoma football for example. Jalen Hurt could actually make hundreds of thousands peddling auto dealerships, T shirts, name endorsements, etc. What do the other 100 players on the team make? They aren't going to make a fraction and maybe 3-4 of them even get marketing offers. This is going to be a mess. Campuses don't want these snakes roaming the Athlete Dept. Gavin Newsom is a political clown. His interest in college sports isn't for the players. USC and UCLA are in the center of marketing heaven. If you are a star you better enroll there because Cal, Stanford players won't get squat.

(10-02-2019 03:02 PM)ess Wrote:  Why not just get rid of the NCAA and college sports?

And model ourselves after much of Europe?

Universities could concentrate on "higher learning"....

I've never really thought this way until you just said it. It is kind of insane that what started as extracurricular activities for kids at school has become multi-billion dollar business.