This has the potential to significantly shift the balance of power when it comes to recruiting even if adopted nationally.  Schools in large media markets will be able to pitch an income opportunity to prospective athletes that top schools in small markets can not match.  Highschool players will essentially become free agents open to accepting an offer from the school who is in the best positioned to get them paid endorsements.

It won't go anywhere IMO. It doesn't work, it changes the balance of power, it will destroy the NCAA (that may not be bad thing). They, all the remaining schools, will vote to toss the entire State of California out of the NCAA and then they are dead. 

Just more nonsense from the left-coast. A pipedream if you will. 

Carry on folks nothing see here. 

The problem is the NCAA has said that anyone or school that allows this will be removed from the NCAA and not be allowed to participate in NCAA sanctioned events.  So here we go.  No player or school is going to do it or accept it if they are not allowed to be a part of the NCAA.

Paying college athletes is an insane thought. I don't care how much money they make for the school, the money making athletes are going to college for free. Many are getting around 200-250k worth in tuition. Then let's tack on books, apparel, housing, transportation, food, etc. All for free. The only thing the majority of these kids have to pay for is their Chipotle lunch on sunday when they get bored of the dining hall, which they can afford because literally every other thing mentioned is free. The starving football player argument is inaccurate, meals are provided, it's a choice not to eat at that point.

It is one thing to do all that, which I have no problem with, I actually encourage. In college athletes becoming free agents, schools would literally be paying kids to go to college. That is an insane thought. The showcase platform to the pros is already provided, now they would be getting paid to showcase their talents and a degree. What happens when star RB stops going to class, how does that effect his signing bonus? Or when the 7'0 center can't pass intro to english composition? What happens when the junior QB gets drafted and is out of the league in a year. Can he go back to school? Does he get his paycheck? Does the QB get as much as the kicker? What happens when a paid player becomes a non starter, gets injured, quits?

As far as this goes, they'll be booted out of the NCAA. No school with the money to give players will opt out of the NCAA knowing they get the fat march madness and CFB money. This is a classic case of feelings getting involved in a logical argument. "Pay athletes" , "No, they already get XYZ", "But they deserve it!". As good as some athletes are they need the NCAA more than the NCAA needs them. People don't realize that. Duke didn't need Zion, but Zion could've went to Australia and played pro. He would've been popular, but not shoe deal popular. He would be in no immediate position for endorsements, etc. What he needed was airtime and constant top notch competition which he got. These guys can go elsewhere, but they don't want to because they know that with the platform the NCAA gives them they will be in a much better position afterwards.

I have no issue with players making money off their own name or school. If Baker Mayfield wants to sell his jersey he should be able to purchase it off the school for $200 or whatever they go for and sell it for however much he wants. Zion should be able to sign autographs on weekends. Kyler Murray should be able to accept a hamburger from a fan who sees him at McDonalds. Players should be able to make money off youtube, instagram, etc. But it gets tricky when star player is supposed to be in history class but is really at the mall doing a signing. That is where the change needs to lie, not in making 17 year olds millionaires. The NCAA has it's problems and I will stand in the crowd and chant all day, but "signing bonuses" are not one of them. 

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

NewUmpire posted:

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

Well you can't pay them and give them scholarships. The scholarship is the compensation for the money they bring into the school so I wonder how many guys would be willing to take the money as opposed to the free education after all. If they were to be compensated they would have to pay tuition like every other student. How many California guys are going to head to Ohio State knowing they're in for 55k a year? These schools also have massive apparel contracts with Nike, Under Armor, etc. I'm not so sure they're willing to throw those away. 

PABaseball posted:
NewUmpire posted:

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

Well you can't pay them and give them scholarships. The scholarship is the compensation for the money they bring into the school so I wonder how many guys would be willing to take the money as opposed to the free education after all. If they were to be compensated they would have to pay tuition like every other student. How many California guys are going to head to Ohio State knowing they're in for 55k a year? These schools also have massive apparel contracts with Nike, Under Armor, etc. I'm not so sure they're willing to throw those away. 

If I understand NewUmpire correctly. It would not be the school paying, but an outside source. So the school could still give a scholarship. 

As all things that change, the schools will figure it out and find a way to get an advantage. 

So here's a thought — don't pay the kids for their likeness, but also don't allow others to profit off of it. Right now people who make video games, jerseys, etc., get to make money by using the likeness of top players. The kid gets nothing out of that. At the least, a player should own the right to how his image is used — not the NCAA, not his college, and not Nintendo.

I think this is an interesting conversation to be having. I think the state legislator is right, the NCAA has had an opportunity to do something with this and has done nothing. Maybe having a three year deadline will light a fire.

 

It will never happen because there is no way USC, UCLA, Cal Poly or any other school that is worth a flip will pull out of the NCAA and go independent and not be allowed to be a part of the NCAA tournaments or play NCAA teams.  The schools have nothing to gain so why would they accept it.  The schools will make players sign a contract that says even though the state of California allows it, you cannot accept money and play on our team.  The NCAA has already addressed this when it was presented by saying they will ban all schools in California from NCAA participation if it is passed and put into effect. 

NCAA responds.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/res...rnia-senate-bill-206

"NCAA member schools already are working on changing rules for all student-athletes to appropriately use their name, image and likeness in accordance with our values — but not pay them to play. The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university."

Appears NCAA not against the idea of changing the rules. But probably wants to get the "boss's cut."

 

At the bottom it says they belief this is unconstitutional. Who's constitution? I'm legitimately curious about this, particularly since it was sort of throw in at the end.

I also am curious about how they plan to change that. I admit I don't follow the NCAA that closely, but I hadn't heard anything. As I said earlier, maybe California's actions will light a fire under the NCAA to actually move on something.

Iowamom23 posted:

So here's a thought — don't pay the kids for their likeness, but also don't allow others to profit off of it. Right now people who make video games, jerseys, etc., get to make money by using the likeness of top players. The kid gets nothing out of that. At the least, a player should own the right to how his image is used — not the NCAA, not his college, and not Nintendo.

I think this is an interesting conversation to be having. I think the state legislator is right, the NCAA has had an opportunity to do something with this and has done nothing. Maybe having a three year deadline will light a fire.

 

They're getting a 200k + education, healthcare, meals, housing, etc, and the biggest showcase platform in the world to display their abilities so they can land sponsorships once they turn pro. They are definitely getting something out of it. That is the trade off. You can have all that but you can't sign autographs. College sports are optional, kids agree to those terms because they are better than playing pro ball abroad. 

I see kids from Michigan, Duke, and UCLA complaining. How many of those kids would have been accepted to these schools if they did not play a sport? That alone is enough to offset the complaints. 

FWIW the NCAA video game series was discontinued over 5 years ago. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×