Crowder & Hayward to HOF

[Pakuni]

Yep.

And for those who think that all the money will go to the “kids” are fooling themselves.  Much of the money will still go to handlers.  And they will steer the kids to the schools they (the handlers) will make the most money at.  The playing field will be much more uneven for recruiting.

Your solution is theoretically good but will have the same amount or more of the slime it has now.

Posts like this entirely miss the point.
First, it's framing the question around what's best for the schools and the NCAA, which is the problem with college athletics.

Second, very few people see allowing players to profit off their likeness as a cure for all that ails of college athletics. That isn't and never was the point (again, you're viewing this as what's in the best interests of the schools and NCAA). The point is to allow the players whose labors allow the schools to collectively rake in billions of dollars to more equitably benefit from it.

For the "it only helps 1 percent" crowd ... who cares? Then nothing changes for the other 99 percent. And since you all seem to think they have it so great already, that's OK, right?

[Shooter McGavin]

I agree with you.  My view is very much slanted that way.   I admit it.  I don’t want to ruin a good thing and I may be wrong and this Pandora’s box if opened may have very little impact on the status quo.  I also believe the players have a great situation currently and that it is beneficial to them and the university.  I hope that if pay for likeness occurs it works as smoothly as people espouse.

But some of the specific arguments I am rebutting the last couple days, “billion dollar industry”, “money from their likeness will go to the kids not the handlers” are also highly slanted as well.   I agree revenue is in the billion dollar range but expenses take this away.  The US government takes in trillions of dollars in taxes and yet our country is still in debt.  So billions and trillions of dollars sounds good when you are trying to slant an argument until you do the accounting.  Then it doesn’t sound so good.

[Nukem2]

Posts like this entirely miss the point.
First, it's framing the question around what's best for the schools and the NCAA, which is the problem with college athletics.

Second, very few people see allowing players to profit off their likeness as a cure for all that ails of college athletics. That isn't and never was the point (again, you're viewing this as what's in the best interests of the schools and NCAA). The point is to allow the players whose labors allow the schools to collectively rake in billions of dollars to more equitably benefit from it.

For the "it only helps 1 percent" crowd ... who cares? Then nothing changes for the other 99 percent. And since you all seem to think they have it so great already, that's OK, right?

Most of the other 99% are not going to benefit from their likenesses.  Just reality. 

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Posts like this entirely miss the point.
First, it's framing the question around what's best for the schools and the NCAA, which is the problem with college athletics.

Second, very few people see allowing players to profit off their likeness as a cure for all that ails of college athletics. That isn't and never was the point (again, you're viewing this as what's in the best interests of the schools and NCAA). The point is to allow the players whose labors allow the schools to collectively rake in billions of dollars to more equitably benefit from it.

For the "it only helps 1 percent" crowd ... who cares? Then nothing changes for the other 99 percent. And since you all seem to think they have it so great already, that's OK, right?

Personally I look at it through the lens of the college game holistically.  I don’t think it would be a bad thing to give players money.  I do think it would be bad to give it to them in that manner. 

[brewcity77]

Most of the other 99% are not going to benefit from their likenesses.  Just reality.

It's not. This whole thing literally started over video games and the O'Bannon case. And at least 95% of players in NCAA football and basketball would be able to benefit from those games once again existing coupled with their ability to market their likenesses.

The constant insistence of the 1% is obviously, blatantly a lie. Anyone continuing to use it in this discussion is choosing to ignore reality and perpetuate that lie.

[MU82]

Yeah, much better that coaches get all the millions for making their players wear certain shoes.

The person who owns the feet that are in the shoes ... what do they ever do to merit any money?

[Cheeks]

Your position is when life is unfair, tough shyte. Others say, when life is unfair, to the extent you can, fix it.

I would rather have us seek cures/preventions for things like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's - so that we might eliminate those (and other) examples of "unfairness".

I think your "tough shyte, life is unfair" attitude is cruel and stupid.

I would also like cures and to fix things, are you really suggesting I wouldn’t want cures?  Come on dude.  I wouldn’t put the time, money and resources behind those afflicted (my mom, my daughter, etc) with some of these diseases if that weren’t the case.

My view isn’t tough shyte approach, it instead was to illustrate there are different rules for different people all the time.  Someone, somewhere will always complain about something.  There is no perfect system, but there are rules for reasons and yes, if it makes sense, rules can change.  Sometimes those changes make things even worse, sometimes better, but I would hope you understand that your analogy up top isn’t called for and way out of bounds.

[Cheeks]

Yeah, much better that coaches get all the millions for making their players wear certain shoes.

The person who owns the feet that are in the shoes ... what do they ever do to merit any money?

Most coaches don’t get millions, you are again focusing on the extreme minority. What are coaches making from school 200 to 350?  What are women’s basketball coaches making?  Lacrosse coach? Track coach?  Why the only focus on a small sliver?

[Cheeks]

It's not. This whole thing literally started over video games and the O'Bannon case. And at least 95% of players in NCAA football and basketball would be able to benefit from those games once again existing coupled with their ability to market their likenesses.

The constant insistence of the 1% is obviously, blatantly a lie. Anyone continuing to use it in this discussion is choosing to ignore reality and perpetuate that lie.

How is it a blatant lie?  Please describe to us all how it is a blatant lie in details and will be happy to respond politely to you.

[brewcity77]

How is it a blatant lie?  Please describe to us all how it is a blatant lie in details and will be happy to respond politely to you.

95% of men's FBS college football and D1 basketball players would be able to sell likeness rights to EA Sports, Visual Concepts, or any other company making a college sports video game. Not 1%, but virtually everyone involved in the sports. Not just Zion, RJ Barrett, Markus, and other high profile players, pretty much everyone down to Tommy Gardiner would have those opportunities.

[MUDPT]

https://johngasaway.com/2018/10/26/from-the-archives-the-trouble-with-amateurism/

[Pakuni]

Most of the other 99% are not going to benefit from their likenesses.  Just reality.

And that's fine, if true.

[Cheeks]

95% of men's FBS college football and D1 basketball players would be able to sell likeness rights to EA Sports, Visual Concepts, or any other company making a college sports video game. Not 1%, but virtually everyone involved in the sports. Not just Zion, RJ Barrett, Markus, and other high profile players, pretty much everyone down to Tommy Gardiner would have those opportunities.

Ok, but the 1% is based on all student athletes, not just football.  That has been the point, you are tailoring this argument to the 1% of student athletes.  That isn’t a lie.  It might be 100% of football players, but it most certainly isn’t 100% of student athletes.  And then how are you going to handle all the legal and other questions that stem from you only allowing this for one tiny sliver to benefit, while all other student athletes cannot.  Let alone the “chicken little” (strongly disagree with you) other arguments about how boosters will absolutely abuse this.  You can argue about the shoe companies driving players to certain schools, but your answer seems to be just allow even more of the schenanigans.  It’s the Bobby is doing it, I should be able to also defense.

[TheyWereCones]

It's a consensual relationship.  No one is forcing these players to go to college and play basketball in exchange for a free education and other benefits.  They are welcome to choose any other path in life.  They could pay for an education.  They could go to trade school.  They could work at a restaurant.  They could play video games in their parent's basement.  That's the wonderful thing about the USA.  So much freedom to make choices.  If they don't like this compensation for putting a ball in a hoop, terrific...they can do something else.

The argument of, "well the shoe companies are already paying people so we should just make it legal" is horrible.  So let's make heroin legal.  People are already doing it.  How about leaving dogs in hot cars.  People do it.  Let's just make it legal.

If you want something to change, why not focus on the NBA and the one and done rule?  Do away with that.  Let the Zions of the world go straight to profit mode, and leave college basketball alone.  The second you introduce outside pay schemes you introduce a ton of new issues, and you will have even less parity in the sport.  I would rather see change in this world based on creative ideas and not by imposing new rules.  If enough people are mad about the way college basketball operates, why not create a new league to compete with it where everyone gets paid right out of high school?  Oh yeah, because no one would care nearly as much, and alternatives already exist, and no one cares about those either.  This whole argument is silly and would destroy the sport.  Make tougher, actually enforceable penalties, fix the game, and keep it as it is.

[brewcity77]

Ok, but the 1% is based on all student athletes, not just football.  That has been the point, you are tailoring this argument to the 1% of student athletes.  That isn’t a lie.  It might be 100% of football players, but it most certainly isn’t 100% of student athletes.  And then how are you going to handle all the legal and other questions that stem from you only allowing this for one tiny sliver to benefit, while all other student athletes cannot.  Let alone the “chicken little” (strongly disagree with you) other arguments about how boosters will absolutely abuse this.  You can argue about the shoe companies driving players to certain schools, but your answer seems to be just allow even more of the schenanigans.  It’s the Bobby is doing it, I should be able to also defense.

Other student athletes certainly can. If they can market their likeness, they would be free to do so.

The Chicken Little aspect is the paranoia that somehow the college athletics sky would fall. Would boosters take advantage? Sure. So would video game companies, shoe companies, local businesses, plenty would. And that's fine. It won't be the end of the world. The sky won't fall.

The point is there should be no shenanigans. It's not shenanigans when it's legal, and the only reason it isn't "legal" is to take autonomy away from working adults who produce a billion dollar product. Nothing about this is amateur. The hours practiced aren't amateur. The television production isn't amateur. The contracts aren't amateur. The coaching salaries aren't amateur. Amateurism is a sham.

Accepting that simple reality won't be the end of the world, nor will it end college athletics, no matter how much you profess otherwise.

[Lennys Tap]

I would hope you understand that your analogy up top isn’t called for and way out of bounds.

Breaking my pledge to not talk to you only hours after making it and I apologize to the board. Can't let this lie go, though.

Read what you wrote. It is not my analogy, it is your analogy. You were the one who lumped the NCAA, your taxes and your Mother's illness into one big "it's not fair" bag. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Over and out.

[Cheeks]

Breaking my pledge to not talk to you only hours after making it and I apologize to the board. Can't let this lie go, though.

Read what you wrote. It is not my analogy, it is your analogy. You were the one who lumped the NCAA, your taxes and your Mother's illness into one big "it's not fair" bag. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Over and out.

I'm pretty sure based on your continued ill usage you do not understand what a lie is.  I have nothing to be ashamed of myself for, because I know what the intent was and the consistent message.

Now, what I wrote are examples of different rules for different things and plenty of sarcasm....and some (because someone, somewhere always complains about something) will say it is unfair.  I'm sorry you didn't get the connection, but I can see why.   That said, so it is clear, I would hope you would grant a fellow human being the benefit of the doubt that I also want cures, for my daughter, my mom, your family / friends afflicted, etc.  If that wasn't clear, then hopefully it is now. 

[Cheeks]

Other student athletes certainly can. If they can market their likeness, they would be free to do so.

The Chicken Little aspect is the paranoia that somehow the college athletics sky would fall. Would boosters take advantage? Sure. So would video game companies, shoe companies, local businesses, plenty would. And that's fine. It won't be the end of the world. The sky won't fall.

The point is there should be no shenanigans. It's not shenanigans when it's legal, and the only reason it isn't "legal" is to take autonomy away from working adults who produce a billion dollar product. Nothing about this is amateur. The hours practiced aren't amateur. The television production isn't amateur. The contracts aren't amateur. The coaching salaries aren't amateur. Amateurism is a sham.

Accepting that simple reality won't be the end of the world, nor will it end college athletics, no matter how much you profess otherwise.

This is, with all due respect, the same argument of legalizing drugs was.  If you just legalize, it will make it all go away and keep it above board.  In fact, that is not what happened at all.  People being what they are, give an inch and they will take a foot, a yard, a 100 yards, a mile.  It just opens up more avenues. 

And honestly, I don't know how you and others, with all due respect, can make the "billions" claim know it is revenue and not profit, for which there is nearly none, and not acknowledge what the money is being used for that comes in.  I sometimes think that there are people out there that think there are 15 white guys sitting on piles of gold just laughing.  Tremendous opportunities come from the money that many young people benefit from.

[Cheeks]

It's a consensual relationship.  No one is forcing these players to go to college and play basketball in exchange for a free education and other benefits.  They are welcome to choose any other path in life.  They could pay for an education.  They could go to trade school.  They could work at a restaurant.  They could play video games in their parent's basement.  That's the wonderful thing about the USA.  So much freedom to make choices.  If they don't like this compensation for putting a ball in a hoop, terrific...they can do something else.

The argument of, "well the shoe companies are already paying people so we should just make it legal" is horrible.  So let's make heroin legal.  People are already doing it.  How about leaving dogs in hot cars.  People do it.  Let's just make it legal.

If you want something to change, why not focus on the NBA and the one and done rule?  Do away with that.  Let the Zions of the world go straight to profit mode, and leave college basketball alone.  The second you introduce outside pay schemes you introduce a ton of new issues, and you will have even less parity in the sport.  I would rather see change in this world based on creative ideas and not by imposing new rules.  If enough people are mad about the way college basketball operates, why not create a new league to compete with it where everyone gets paid right out of high school?  Oh yeah, because no one would care nearly as much, and alternatives already exist, and no one cares about those either.  This whole argument is silly and would destroy the sport.  Make tougher, actually enforceable penalties, fix the game, and keep it as it is.

More of this.

[rocky_warrior]

Can all the other kids go on foreign trips paid for by the athletic dept? 

Well, in '94 as a band member I got sent to St Pete's Beach for a few days for free, with stipend (all spent on alcohol while I was under age), and still had a paying job on campus!  I suspect you were in a similar situation at one point, no? I mean, not foreign, but got a similar travel benefit as athletes and had a job. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It's a consensual relationship.  No one is forcing these players to go to college and play basketball in exchange for a free education and other benefits.  They are welcome to choose any other path in life.  They could pay for an education.  They could go to trade school.  They could work at a restaurant.  They could play video games in their parent's basement.  That's the wonderful thing about the USA.  So much freedom to make choices.  If they don't like this compensation for putting a ball in a hoop, terrific...they can do something else.

The argument of, "well the shoe companies are already paying people so we should just make it legal" is horrible.  So let's make heroin legal.  People are already doing it.  How about leaving dogs in hot cars.  People do it.  Let's just make it legal.

1. While the relationship is consensual, it is also one that benefits from a set market without great alternatives.  If an organization was mandating the compensation level for a labor market, it would be illegal.  For instance, if the NCAA mandated that no coach could be paid more than $250k a year, they would be rightfully sued.  The exception to this is if labor agrees to such limits within the bounds of a collective bargaining agreement, but of course NCAA athletes aren't unionized because that effort was supressed as well.

2.  Yeah when you have to "YEAH BUT HEROIN," your analogy sucks.  There are significant societal damages with the use of heroin.  There are very little, if any, damages to letting student athletes earn compensation.

[Cheeks]

Well, in '94 as a band member I got sent to St Pete's Beach for a few days for free, with stipend (all spent on alcohol while I was under age), and still had a paying job on campus!  I suspect you were in a similar situation at one point, no? I mean, not foreign, but got a similar travel benefit as athletes and had a job. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

We discussed this earlier, I said all the kids.  You were fortunate to be in a situation to go, but most do not.  There are always going to be groups that don’t get the same treatment or benefits, which is why most students would trade what they get for what the basketball players get in a heartbeat....yet we aren’t clamoring or outraged by the 99% not getting what isn’t coming to them......instead we are outraged for the 1% that aren’t allowed to do something.   

[brewcity77]

This is, with all due respect, the same argument of legalizing drugs was.  If you just legalize, it will make it all go away and keep it above board.  In fact, that is not what happened at all.  People being what they are, give an inch and they will take a foot, a yard, a 100 yards, a mile.  It just opens up more avenues. 

And honestly, I don't know how you and others, with all due respect, can make the "billions" claim know it is revenue and not profit, for which there is nearly none, and not acknowledge what the money is being used for that comes in.  I sometimes think that there are people out there that think there are 15 white guys sitting on piles of gold just laughing.  Tremendous opportunities come from the money that many young people benefit from.

Widespread decriminalization of drugs has not happened, so that's a strawman argument.

And frankly, the latter doesn't have anything to do with the simple reality that universities are able to make money off the likenesses of their athletes while the athletes cannot do the same. There is no logical place for the argument that Markus Howard's face should not belong to him.

[rocky_warrior]

We discussed this earlier, I said all the kids.  You were fortunate to be in a situation to go, but most do not. 

Fortunate? For the opportunity, sure. I had just gotten back to campus after going home for spring break because I didn't have enough money to go anywhere "cool".  The athletes didn't get to take that same spring break off.  Maybe others should try harder, no?

[Pakuni]

Can all the other kids go on foreign trips paid for by the athletic dept? 

Who did the work that generated the revenue to pay for that foreign trip?