Name, Image, Likeness

I don't have a problem with students making money on their name and image. That being said I think it creates a problem when you have a choice between going to history class and signing autographs at the mall for a payday. Now you have outside people offering you money to come play football or whatever sport at their school. Would you go to Ole Miss or Stanford to play sports? How about if Ole Miss boosters offered you $50k for a commercial appearance? What happens when Mr. Booster stops paying you to be in his commercials, can you transfer?

I've always thought that schools were offering the free education and that was the tradeoff. Whether you agree that tradeoff is fair or not is a different discussion, but the alternative is not to go to college. I hear kids from Duke BB and Michigan football complaining about not being paid and I always thought - dropout, train daily and work part time but none of them will do that because these colleges provide the biggest platform in the world to get more recognition and drive their value up. They know that, but "evil NCAA" gets sympathy. I don't like the NCAA as much as the next guy, but I don't think there is anything wrong with their model. I remember a certain Michigan DB complaining he was starving and eating Ramen. I don't know how that's possible when the scholarship covers room, board, and meal plan. When you choose to live off campus, you get a stipend check, that money doesn't have to go towards food. 

Anyway I like what the G league is doing. Signing the top HS players to $500k contracts. Don't like the tyrannical NCAA? Here's some money, come join the G League. Truth of the matter is there will always be something to complain about. When this passes and the NCAA starts regulating the ways these kids can make money then the conversation turns towards the NCAA keeping money out of these kids' pockets. I would say keep it the way it is, but then I'll be told by somebody going to college, getting health insurance, eating, and being sheltered for literally no cost that they're being oppressed. Nobody ever wins. 

I’m somewhat torn here. On one hand I don’t really care. Players have been paid for years. I’m honestly surprised there has never been a major IRS investigation into it. I do hate the blatant commercialization of it. I do think it will open a can of worms that will create more problems. 

The starving athlete line is BS IMO. Should others be profiting off them, no. But they are definitely getting much more than your typical college kid paying their own way. 

I love it. They'll have "guardrails" for the Joe Booster problem. Some will cheat, some of those will get caught... same as today.
Watching the college player highlights during the NFL draft got me angry. The talent and hard work that went into those kids becoming elite football players. Coaches and schools making millions and those players waiting 3 years for the opportunity to get paid (praying every night that they don't get injured.)
I don't see many college baseball players benefiting very much from the change. Maybe at the schools where 10,000+ show up for games. Maybe free gear to show off on IG?

So long as Dabo Swinney and Nick Saban can make $9,000,000 per year in what are essentially government jobs, the athletes who labor to make them look good should be allowed to do the same. 

I think very few college players will be  able to make significant money and even fewer of them will be baseball players.

I remember many years ago, seeing Khalil Green, probably one of the best college baseball players in NCAA history to be featured in various equipment, apparel magazines while in college. 

I think that probably is the way it's going to go, you use a likeness of me to advertise,  on a game video, etc. it will cost you. It's a fair ruling, and most likely have rules that apply to the student athlete.

I have no problem with this, but it will probably apply more to those who play football, men's  and women's basketball.

JMO

@MTH posted:

So long as Dabo Swinney and Nick Saban can make $9,000,000 per year in what are essentially government jobs, the athletes who labor to make them look good should be allowed to do the same. 

They should be compensated for their name on the back of a licensed NCAA Jersey as well!

@TPM posted:

They should be compensated for their name on the back of a licensed NCAA Jersey as well!

Not sure how it works after they graduate, but you can’t buy a “licensed” jersey with an active player’s name on them. Only the number. Wonder if that will change going forward

I had originally thought that this would mainly impact well-known football and basketball players.  However, I do wonder how it will play into partial-scholarship sports like baseball.  I doubt whether anyone in my town would be swayed by a college baseball player advertising a local business or service; however, if a coach can say, I can only give you 25%, but you'll also get paid to endorse Booster Car Dealer, that could introduce all sorts of new elements to recruiting.  Is that likely, do people think?

That’s exactly how it will work. Instead of shady booster giving a sack of cash they will just sponsor their biz. Wonder how long it takes the coaches/boosters to set up a bunch of bogus corps to pay more players

I do think the sacks of cash to a recruit to visit a school will continue. 

I know that my opinion is against the grain here on this one.  But I enjoy the amatuer/school spirit aspect of college sports and would like to see it maintained as much as possible.  I am aware that there is plenty of current rule-skirting, but the new guidelines will just make that worse.

I also don't like the idea of further separation between the P5's and the rest of college sports.  I think one of the most special aspects of college sports is the potential for Small School U to upset Big State U.  IMO, this is a case of "be careful what you wish for".

As far as the analogy of coaches getting paid a lot and players are the ones making them money, you could say the same about professors and students.  The premise of college is that you pay to put yourself in a much better position to eventually excel in a chosen profession - that it pays off in the long term.  These players are still students and this is still a college setting.  Many of the players are working toward an opportunity to play professionally...  same as other students working toward a professional career in their major and interns working for free or close to it for the valuable work experience that puts them a step closer to a paid profession.  

This debate used to be a bit thorny.  As related to the debates lingering on in other threads, it actually feels a bit refreshing.

I am old enough to remember when the Olympics were amateur only (except the Soviets and Eastern Bloc).  I miss those days, but, sadly, that ship has sailed.  I prefer to watch college sports, especially baseball, over the pros.  But, frankly I don't look at college sports as amateur in anything other than name only.  Big money has taken over, at least at the P5 schools.  Head coaches, and assistants in some sports, are paid exorbitant salaries.  Players are recruited with multi-million dollars facilities, "Come Here IF You Want to be a Pro" sales pitches, and pictures of all of the bling (shoes, clothing, gear) they will get at Big State U.   Seasons get longer and longer because that means more money.  Remember when college football teams only played 10 games?  Expanding schedules is not about education, or players, or the good of "the game."  It's about the money.   

It would all be a little easier to stomach if most of the kids were really getting an education.  There are exceptions, but the vast majority of schools have at least one, sometimes several, Jock Majors.  Players are often steered towards these majors, the main purpose of which is to keep them eligible.  In terms of future employability/earnings capacity, they're not worth much.  And, they're not meant to be.  Again, it ain't about education.  

Frankly, I don't see these changes having much impact on college baseball.  But, if kids in other sports can benefit from them, more power to em. 

<Rambling, Soapbox Mode Off. >     

I have mixed feelings but I am leaning towards keeping it the same, even though NCAA has a stranglehold on college sports.  I personally can relate to the "what ifs" scenario if son was paid for his image/likeness/name through college.  He was used extensively for advertising, billboards, radio/tv/internet, fundraisers/charity events, etc.  Even with all this I have no problem with him not being compensated.  He got out of college a great education, work experience playing baseball, maturity, experience handling pressure, the media/press, etc.  He had a blast in college, had to toe the line and live by the stringent rules.  I agree with the above, watching amateur college sports is way different than the pros.

I agree @MTH. I enjoy HS sports as much as I do college or pro now. Don't get me wrong, I still love sitting in Fenway on a July afternoon, but I love watching a rivalry HS game whether it is football, hoops, or baseball.

@cabbagedad posted:

As far as the analogy of coaches getting paid a lot and players are the ones making them money, you could say the same about professors and students. 

I agree with most of what you said, and if you can show me a state university professor who is earning $9 million, I'll agree with all of it.  A far as I know, no-one pays money to watch a professor teach students chemistry.

The point of sports at college was originally supposed to be to allow students to participate in athletics.  As was pointed out on another thread, now it is about building the college's brand through sponsoring fun entertainment linked to the school.  Classes are not usually considered "fun entertainment".

Now, if athletes were allowed to major in their sports, the way musicians can, then I would agree.