MUScoop

 Brett McMurphy @Brett_McMurphy

NCAA Board of Governors voted unanimously to permit students participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image & likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model


(Sorry, didn't want to bury this significant news in a related thread that's gone far off topic)

And now from the NCAA website. Funny how quickly they folded on this one.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-governors-starts-process-enhance-name-image-and-likeness-opportunities


Board of Governors starts process to enhance name, image and likeness opportunities
Each NCAA division directed to immediately consider modernization of bylaws and policies
October 29, 2019 1:08pm

In the Association's continuing efforts to support college athletes, the NCAA's top governing board voted unanimously to permit students participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.

The Board of Governors' action directs each of the NCAA's three divisions to immediately consider updates to relevant bylaws and policies for the 21st century, said Michael V. Drake, chair of the board and president of The Ohio State University.

"We must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes," Drake said. "Additional flexibility in this area can and must continue to support college sports as a part of higher education. This modernization for the future is a natural extension of the numerous steps NCAA members have taken in recent years to improve support for student-athletes, including full cost of attendance and guaranteed scholarships."

Specifically, the board said modernization should occur within the following principles and guidelines: 

    Assure student-athletes are treated similarly to non-athlete students unless a compelling reason exists to differentiate.
    Maintain the priorities of education and the collegiate experience to provide opportunities for student-athlete success.
    Ensure rules are transparent, focused and enforceable and facilitate fair and balanced competition.
    Make clear the distinction between collegiate and professional opportunities.
    Make clear that compensation for athletics performance or participation is impermissible.
    Reaffirm that student-athletes are students first and not employees of the university.
    Enhance principles of diversity, inclusion and gender equity.
    Protect the recruiting environment and prohibit inducements to select, remain at, or transfer to a specific institution.

The board's action was based on comprehensive recommendations from the NCAA Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group, which includes presidents, commissioners, athletics directors, administrators and student-athletes. The group gathered input over the past several months from numerous stakeholders, including current and former student-athletes, coaches, presidents, faculty and commissioners across all three divisions. The board also directed continued and productive engagement with legislators.

The working group will continue to gather feedback through April on how best to respond to the state and federal legislative environment and to refine its recommendations on the principles and regulatory framework. The board asked each division to create any new rules beginning immediately, but no later than January 2021.

"As a national governing body, the NCAA is uniquely positioned to modify its rules to ensure fairness and a level playing field for student-athletes," NCAA President Mark Emmert said. "The board's action today creates a path to enhance opportunities for student-athletes while ensuring they compete against students and not professionals."

Quote from: Pakuni on October 29, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
And now from the NCAA website. Funny how quickly they folded on this one.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-governors-starts-process-enhance-name-image-and-likeness-opportunities


Board of Governors starts process to enhance name, image and likeness opportunities
Each NCAA division directed to immediately consider modernization of bylaws and policies
October 29, 2019 1:08pm

In the Association's continuing efforts to support college athletes, the NCAA's top governing board voted unanimously to permit students participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.

The Board of Governors' action directs each of the NCAA's three divisions to immediately consider updates to relevant bylaws and policies for the 21st century, said Michael V. Drake, chair of the board and president of The Ohio State University.

"We must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes," Drake said. "Additional flexibility in this area can and must continue to support college sports as a part of higher education. This modernization for the future is a natural extension of the numerous steps NCAA members have taken in recent years to improve support for student-athletes, including full cost of attendance and guaranteed scholarships."

Specifically, the board said modernization should occur within the following principles and guidelines: 

    Assure student-athletes are treated similarly to non-athlete students unless a compelling reason exists to differentiate.
    Maintain the priorities of education and the collegiate experience to provide opportunities for student-athlete success.
    Ensure rules are transparent, focused and enforceable and facilitate fair and balanced competition.
    Make clear the distinction between collegiate and professional opportunities.
    Make clear that compensation for athletics performance or participation is impermissible.
    Reaffirm that student-athletes are students first and not employees of the university.
    Enhance principles of diversity, inclusion and gender equity.
    Protect the recruiting environment and prohibit inducements to select, remain at, or transfer to a specific institution.

The board's action was based on comprehensive recommendations from the NCAA Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group, which includes presidents, commissioners, athletics directors, administrators and student-athletes. The group gathered input over the past several months from numerous stakeholders, including current and former student-athletes, coaches, presidents, faculty and commissioners across all three divisions. The board also directed continued and productive engagement with legislators.

The working group will continue to gather feedback through April on how best to respond to the state and federal legislative environment and to refine its recommendations on the principles and regulatory framework. The board asked each division to create any new rules beginning immediately, but no later than January 2021.

"As a national governing body, the NCAA is uniquely positioned to modify its rules to ensure fairness and a level playing field for student-athletes," NCAA President Mark Emmert said. "The board's action today creates a path to enhance opportunities for student-athletes while ensuring they compete against students and not professionals."

wHaT aBoUt THe lAwSuITs

Those "principles and guidelines" are going to be used to negate quite a bit of NIL.  "Treated similarly to non-athlete students?"  Cmon...

Good for them. Hope they find a way to cap it and prevent sponsorships that get into legal issues between a schools equipment sponsor and a players personal deal

The only thing I want to know is...

Will we see NCAA Football and (much more importantly) NCAA Basketball 2K back for gaming consoles?

Quote from: Galway Eagle on October 29, 2019, 01:06:52 PM
Good for them. Hope they find a way to cap it and prevent sponsorships that get into legal issues between a schools equipment sponsor and a players personal deal

the money is in the apparel companies. Therefore, the NCAA will try to keep all of that

Quote from: GarciasWorld on October 29, 2019, 01:09:56 PM
The only thing I want to know is...

Will we see NCAA Football and (much more importantly) NCAA Basketball 2K back for gaming consoles?

This and this.  I want my favorite games back, please.

The last college hoops and football games they made were fantastic. Come back

Can we get a re-do on RJ Davis?

What if Hendrick Automotive doesn't want to put him in TV ads but Bergstrom will? 

Still have 2k8 basketball for my 360.  Unfortunately not compatible with the xbox 1.  Hope i dont need to worry about that.

This is gonna hurt smaller schools. As time goes by, we will have to somehow convince a guy like Dawson Garcia that MU fans will buy as many Garcia t-shirts as IU fans would. Given the size of their fanbase, that might be a tall order.

Y'all gonna stock up on MU players' shirts to show we can compete with the schools with the huge fanbases?

Quote from: GooooMarquette on October 29, 2019, 01:32:34 PM
This is gonna hurt smaller schools. As time goes by, we will have to somehow convince a guy like Dawson Garcia that MU fans will buy as many Garcia t-shirts as IU fans would. Given the size of their fanbase, that might be a tall order.

Y'all gonna stock up on MU players' shirts to show we can compete with the schools with the huge fanbases?

yikes. Yeah hell at some point maybe the schools just pay them somthing or players get a take of attendance revenue idk

Marquette is a smaller school?

Quote from: GooooMarquette on October 29, 2019, 01:32:34 PM
This is gonna hurt smaller schools. As time goes by, we will have to somehow convince a guy like Dawson Garcia that MU fans will buy as many Garcia t-shirts as IU fans would. Given the size of their fanbase, that might be a tall order.

Y'all gonna stock up on MU players' shirts to show we can compete with the schools with the huge fanbases?

Why am I going to buy a Garcia tee when Gruber gives me one for free?

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/18/dabo-says-he-may-quit-college-football-if-players-get-paid/

Well Dabo?

Long long long way to go, lots of unintended consequences to tighten up and avoid happening. 

Quote from: GarciasWorld on October 29, 2019, 01:09:56 PM
The only thing I want to know is...

Will we see NCAA Football and (much more importantly) NCAA Basketball 2K back for gaming consoles?

And here where you're going to have issues. The maker of the game is going to have to compensate every single one of those athletes in the game. Will they be willing to do that?? That would seriously hinder there profit margin.

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 02:14:20 PM
And here where you're going to have issues. The maker of the game is going to have to compensate every single one of those athletes in the game. Will they be willing to do that?? That would seriously hinder there profit margin.

It hasn't stopped them in the pros so yes yes they will.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on October 29, 2019, 01:32:34 PM
This is gonna hurt smaller schools. As time goes by, we will have to somehow convince a guy like Dawson Garcia that MU fans will buy as many Garcia t-shirts as IU fans would. Given the size of their fanbase, that might be a tall order.

Y'all gonna stock up on MU players' shirts to show we can compete with the schools with the huge fanbases?

I don't see this happening.  My guess is that any benefit from NIL must be completely separate from their participation in athletics, and under no circumstances are schools allowed to license their trademarks for NIL. 

So if Markus wants to be a spokesman for Ernie von Schledorn and hawk some used cars, great.  But "Marquette," "Golden Eagles," "NCAA," "Big East," etc. can't be anywhere near that advertising.

It also means that any businesses paying an athlete for NIL cannot be owned/managed by a booster, under I'm sure what will be a soon-to-be-expanded definition of "booster."

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 29, 2019, 01:38:07 PM
Marquette is a smaller school?

Yes. All private catholic schools are smaller schools compared to state schools.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-biggest-colleges-in-the-united-states

Quote from: LoudMouth on October 29, 2019, 02:24:52 PM
Yes. All private catholic schools are smaller schools compared to state schools.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-biggest-colleges-in-the-united-states

It's not the size of the alumni base, but how it is used.

Quote from: LoudMouth on October 29, 2019, 02:24:52 PM
Yes. All private catholic schools are smaller schools compared to state schools.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-biggest-colleges-in-the-united-states

SJU and Depaul are directional state school sized

Quote from: Galway Eagle on October 29, 2019, 02:16:12 PM
It hasn't stopped them in the pros so yes yes they will.

NCAA DI: 350 schools x avg. roster 14 = 4,900

NBA: 30 teams x roster max. 15 = 450

Quote from: Galway Eagle on October 29, 2019, 02:28:49 PM
SJU and Depaul are directional state school sized

Which I doubt helps us in the battle to show recruits that they will get paid more NIL at Marquette...maybe DePaul & SJU will stop sucking as much though

College basketball games please.

Wonder if the spirit shop will start selling jerseys with players names on them as well.

Quote from: Benny B on October 29, 2019, 02:31:02 PM

NCAA DI: 350 schools x avg. roster 14 = 4,900

NBA: 30 teams x roster max. 15 = 450

Agreed. they'd need to pay next to nothing given the NCAA overall revenue from BBall compared to the NBA's. Likely a handful of one and dined will be given a big check, a couple guys who were big that year like Howard Powell and Winston this year would be given some good money and most the rest a small check or percent of penny of sales.

Quote from: Benny B on October 29, 2019, 02:31:02 PM

NCAA DI: 350 schools x avg. roster 14 = 4,900

NBA: 30 teams x roster max. 15 = 450

Exactly this...and that's only for basketball. Think about the roster sizes in football and having to compensate every one of them.

Quote from: LoudMouth on October 29, 2019, 02:31:54 PM
Which I doubt helps us in the battle to show recruits that they will get paid more NIL at Marquette...maybe DePaul & SJU will stop sucking as much though

I think you might see some Milwaukee area businesses willing to fork over money toward the players to appeal to the large MU contingent. Compare that to the used car lot and mom and pop dinners in Lawrence. It'll be interesting to see if market size beyond people affiliated with the school makes a difference

Quote from: Galway Eagle on October 29, 2019, 02:39:09 PM
Agreed. they'd need to pay next to nothing given the NCAA overall revenue from BBall compared to the NBA's. Likely a handful of one and dined will be given a big check, a couple guys who were big that year like Howard Powell and Winston this year would be given some good money and most the rest a small check or percent of penny of sales.

And what if that isn't good enough for them?? What if they want more?? leave them off the game?? Then how realistic is it?? And football...they have what?? 90 player rosters in college??

Quote from: Galway Eagle on October 29, 2019, 02:16:12 PM
It hasn't stopped them in the pros so yes yes they will.

They deal with the players association.  It is a simple process.  No need to do a deal with each player, just one entity.

Of course those guys can be greedy bastards at times for things like photo usage, but that's another discussion.   :)

I don't think every NBA and NFL player is getting paid a check from EA.  Also, even if you do have to pay the walk on long snapper at Rutgers a penny a year for their NIL, the opportunity to have the draft class you just played a season with in NCAA Football 2020 be available for your Madden 2021 franchise's NFL Draft will make for a huge opportunity for EA.

I'll be looking into investing in EA shortly.

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 02:14:20 PM
And here where you're going to have issues. The maker of the game is going to have to compensate every single one of those athletes in the game. Will they be willing to do that?? That would seriously hinder there profit margin.

It's easy in the pros, we do it all the time. A similar situation will need to be setup for the college players, essentially a players association.  To keep the greedy mitts off of it and avoid unionizing the student athletes, I'm guessing the NCAA will want to take on this role.

Quote from: Benny B on October 29, 2019, 02:24:26 PM
I don't see this happening.  My guess is that any benefit from NIL must be completely separate from their participation in athletics, and under no circumstances are schools allowed to license their trademarks for NIL. 

So if Markus wants to be a spokesman for Ernie von Schledorn and hawk some used cars, great.  But "Marquette," "Golden Eagles," "NCAA," "Big East," etc. can't be anywhere near that advertising.

It also means that any businesses paying an athlete for NIL cannot be owned/managed by a booster, under I'm sure what will be a soon-to-be-expanded definition of "booster."

If Val Ackerman and others trying to preserve the college model can do this...great.  She is trying.

If it goes how Rico and Sultan and MU82 want it to go, then absolutely smaller schools are fucked.

Surprised by how fast they folded.


Glad to see that 2k and ncaa football will hopefully be back.

Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on October 29, 2019, 02:32:05 PM
College basketball games please.

Wonder if the spirit shop will start selling jerseys with players names on them as well.

No.

The whole point of NIL is to lift a restriction on student-athletes that doesn't exist on all other students, full stop. 

What a lot of people don't get is that the schools won't - and can't - have any involvement with NIL, because it will raise issues of inequity (See: Title IX).  In other words, if a student-athlete wishes to pursue NIL benefit independently, they must do so on their own accord and without aid or assistance from the school.


In short, THE NCAA VIDEO GAMES AREN'T COMING BACK. 

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 02:14:20 PM
And here where you're going to have issues. The maker of the game is going to have to compensate every single one of those athletes in the game. Will they be willing to do that?? That would seriously hinder there profit margin.

They already do it in all the other games?

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 02:43:05 PM
And what if that isn't good enough for them?? What if they want more?? leave them off the game?? Then how realistic is it?? And football...they have what?? 90 player rosters in college??

You can track usage on these programs and then say "nobody gives a damn is you're there or not. So we'll just pay the school and make an AI generated player so you can either take it or leave it"

Bottom line is these games are primarily gonna be used for a handful of teams and primarily for those that get drafted or make the FF not for the Gramblings of the world and thankfully there's business analysts who track all that data for when people get greedy.

Quote from: GarciasWorld on October 29, 2019, 02:44:15 PM
I don't think every NBA and NFL player is getting paid a check from EA. 

They are indirectly. The players' likenesses are licensed through their unions.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on October 29, 2019, 02:39:09 PM
Agreed. they'd need to pay next to nothing given the NCAA overall revenue from BBall compared to the NBA's. Likely a handful of one and dined will be given a big check, a couple guys who were big that year like Howard Powell and Winston this year would be given some good money and most the rest a small check or percent of penny of sales.

That's not going to happen unless they direct-license from the individual player.  And if they do, they won't be able to use the school's names, mascots, NCAA trademarks, etc.

Are you going to buy "University Basketball Tournament 2K20" featuring the top 100 players from this year and 4,800 generically-named walk-ons playing for such institutions as Wisconsin State University, Upper Peninsula A&M, South Central Bayou State University, and DePaul College?

Quote from: Galway Eagle on October 29, 2019, 02:41:45 PM
I think you might see some Milwaukee area businesses willing to fork over money toward the players to appeal to the large MU contingent. Compare that to the used car lot and mom and pop dinners in Lawrence. It'll be interesting to see if market size beyond people affiliated with the school makes a difference

There are more UW alums in Milwaukee than MU has in the entire state of Wisconsin.  Small schools don't fair well in this unless Ackerman and committee can protect those entities.

Quote from: #UnleashCain on October 29, 2019, 02:49:37 PM
Surprised by how fast they folded.


Glad to see that 2k and ncaa football will hopefully be back.

It's not a matter of folding, it's a matter of trying to control the outcome before the Rico's and Walkers of the world destroy it completely.

Quote from: Pakuni on October 29, 2019, 02:55:11 PM
They are indirectly. The players' likenesses are licensed through their unions.

Correct, which is why I hope the NCAA takes on this role so there is no unionization.

Good first step. Way to go, Cali, for getting the ball rolling on this, as well as the dozens of other states that are planning similar.

I am interested to see where this all goes, how a plan is implemented, etc. Everybody's still throwing warmup pitches at this point -- it's not even the first inning.

I don't know how it will end, and neither does anybody else here. The one thing I would bet on is that it will not "ruin" college sports, just as Title IX and so many other groundbreaking changes did not. Life is all about change.

Dabo? Just another effen hypocrite using athletes to rake in bazillions for himself.

You'd think business would be looking pay bager plays way more often than MU guys. Just way more fans and recognition

Quote from: Benny B on October 29, 2019, 02:56:35 PM
That's not going to happen unless they direct-license from the individual player.  And if they do, they won't be able to use the school's names, mascots, NCAA trademarks, etc.

Are you going to buy "University Basketball Tournament 2K20" featuring the top 100 players from this year and 4,800 generically-named walk-ons playing for such institutions as Wisconsin State University, Upper Peninsula A&M, South Central Bayou State University, and DePaul College?

I don't play video games so I probably wouldn't buy it either way

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 02:59:01 PM
It's not a matter of folding, it's a matter of trying to control the outcome before the Rico's and Walkers of the world destroy it completely.

Nah they folded because a bit of legislation did what the ncaa should have done years and years ago.

Before you go off on how this will ruin the ncaa tangent that I already know is coming... Just take a breath, relax, and know that without a doubt college basketball will live on and everyone will be just fine. Times are changing old man, change with it.

In related news, Barry Alvarez came out with a statement today that Wisconsin will not be playing against any teams involved in the NCAA. That includes the annual red/white scrimmages.

Quote from: ZaLiN on October 29, 2019, 02:02:09 PM
https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/18/dabo-says-he-may-quit-college-football-if-players-get-paid/

Well Dabo?

Dabo could give each of his 85 scholarship players $100,000 a year and still be making around a million a year.

How's it hypocritical for Dabo? Unless he took payments when he was at Bama then he utilized the experience and connections offered by playing major college sports to land a degree and job then advance in said career. That's not hypocritical at all.

Quote from: brewcity77 on October 29, 2019, 03:12:46 PM
In related news, Barry Alvarez came out with a statement today that Wisconsin will not be playing against any teams involved in the NCAA. That includes the annual red/white scrimmages.

Golden statement.

4 or 5 years to judge.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 02:59:01 PM
It's not a matter of folding, it's a matter of trying to control the outcome before the Rico's and Walkers of the world destroy it completely.

Lol

Quote from: Galway Eagle on October 29, 2019, 03:20:10 PM
How's it hypocritical for Dabo? Unless he took payments when he was at Bama then he utilized the experience and connections offered by playing major college sports to land a degree and job then advance in said career. That's not hypocritical at all.

He doesn't want college sports to be the "same" as pro sports. But he has been making NFL money on the backs of his "student/athletes" for years.

He wants access to infinite millions for his personal bank account. He does not think his players should have access to anything above a scholarship -- even though scholarship non-athletes at Clemson have that access.

I happen to think that's hypocritical. It's OK if you don't.

Important: I don't begrudge Dabo his millions. As you said, he earned them. The nit I'm picking is that he wants to deny the athletes (who made it possible for him to be rich) the right to market their own likenesses.

Fortunately for the athletes, he will have no say in it, and it's gonna happen.

Let him leave. There's always another coach in the wings.

Quote from: MU82 on October 29, 2019, 03:01:13 PM


I am interested to see where this all goes, how a plan is implemented, etc. Everybody's still throwing warmup pitches at this point -- it's not even the first inning.

I don't know how it will end, and neither does anybody else here. The one thing I would bet on is that it will not "ruin" college sports, just as Title IX and so many other groundbreaking changes did not. Life is all about change.

Agreed. I feel its going to come down to whether or not the NCAA is willing to give up a large enough piece of the pie. If not state and/or federal legislation will mandate it. What the heck is the "college model" anyway?

Quote from: lawdog77 on October 29, 2019, 03:47:55 PM
Agreed. I feel its going to come down to whether or not the NCAA is willing to give up a large enough piece of the pie. If not state and/or federal legislation will mandate it. What the heck is the "college model" anyway?

The college model is a phrase coined to soothe the soul of old, White people

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 29, 2019, 03:52:00 PM
The college model is a phrase coined to soothe the soul of old, White people

See: chicos

It's all stupid and will be interesting to see what "the rules" will be

I do pray, though, for NCAA FB & 2K college hoops returning.

Quote from: #UnleashCain on October 29, 2019, 03:53:52 PM
See: chicos

They can't say "Olympic Model" anymore, so this is the the new phrase to use

You can already feel the "slimey" people licking their chops over this one...Example: Kentucky BB player is said to be a one and done, widely known. End of the season and declaration date comes...and shockingly, he doesn't declare. people are stunned. Find out a few weeks later it's announced he signed a NIL deal with Bob car dealership for 100K. Couldn't be simply because Bob, who happens to be a HUGE UK fan, did that just to get said player to stay at UK one more year, right?? SLIMEY. The NCAA would certainly think that was the case.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 29, 2019, 04:02:09 PM
They can't say "Olympic Model" anymore, so this is the the new phrase to use

What are they supposed to call it? Calling it the collegiate model is fine if anything for the sake of brevity.

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 04:18:54 PM
You can already feel the "slimey" people licking their chops over this one...Example: Kentucky BB player is said to be a one and done, widely known. End of the season and declaration date comes...and shockingly, he doesn't declare. people are stunned. Find out a few weeks later it's announced he signed a NIL deal with Bob car dealership for 100K. Couldn't be simply because Bob, who happens to be a HUGE UK fan, did that just to get said player to stay at UK one more year, right?? SLIMEY. The NCAA would certainly think that was the case.

If he's one and done good then why stay for 100k? Head to nba for millions in year 1

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 04:18:54 PM
You can already feel the "slimey" people licking their chops over this one...Example: Kentucky BB player is said to be a one and done, widely known. End of the season and declaration date comes...and shockingly, he doesn't declare. people are stunned. Find out a few weeks later it's announced he signed a NIL deal with Bob car dealership for 100K. Couldn't be simply because Bob, who happens to be a HUGE UK fan, did that just to get said player to stay at UK one more year, right?? SLIMEY. The NCAA would certainly think that was the case.

I have zero problems with that scenario.

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 04:18:54 PM
You can already feel the "slimey" people licking their chops over this one...Example: Kentucky BB player is said to be a one and done, widely known. End of the season and declaration date comes...and shockingly, he doesn't declare. people are stunned. Find out a few weeks later it's announced he signed a NIL deal with Bob car dealership for 100K. Couldn't be simply because Bob, who happens to be a HUGE UK fan, did that just to get said player to stay at UK one more year, right?? SLIMEY. The NCAA would certainly think that was the case.

You really believe kids are going to pass on NBA money and prolong the time to their second contract (when the real money arrives) to do a $100K deal with a Kentucky car dealership?

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on October 29, 2019, 04:19:22 PM
What are they supposed to call it? Calling it the collegiate model is fine if anything for the sake of brevity.

For sure, it's a simple phrase.  Easier to remember that's the model name used by people who want to deny student athletes the ability to earn off their likeness

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 29, 2019, 04:24:39 PM
For sure, it's a simple phrase.  Easier to remember that's the model name used by OLD WHITE people who want to deny student athletes the ability to earn off their likeness

You forgot about their age and race this time.

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 04:18:54 PM
You can already feel the "slimey" people licking their chops over this one...Example: Kentucky BB player is said to be a one and done, widely known. End of the season and declaration date comes...and shockingly, he doesn't declare. people are stunned. Find out a few weeks later it's announced he signed a NIL deal with Bob car dealership for 100K. Couldn't be simply because Bob, who happens to be a HUGE UK fan, did that just to get said player to stay at UK one more year, right?? SLIMEY. The NCAA would certainly think that was the case.

Again, I would be surprised if the NCAA doesn't just ban student-athletes from taking NIL money from boosters but also expands the definition of "booster."

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on October 29, 2019, 04:21:27 PM
I have zero problems with that scenario.

Of course you don't...but this is one example where tons of schools with vast resources will have advantages over other schools with this stuff.

Quote from: Benny B on October 29, 2019, 04:27:58 PM
Again, I would be surprised if the NCAA doesn't just ban student-athletes from taking NIL money from boosters but also expands the definition of "booster."

That would backfire IMO. Boosters would stop donating to the University to get off the booster list. They'd be smarter to just embrace the fact that the players have value to these wealthy super fans.

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 04:31:52 PM
Of course you don't...but this is one example where tons of schools with vast resources will have advantages over other schools with this stuff.

So exactly what it's like now? The horror.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on October 29, 2019, 04:26:23 PM
You forgot about their age and race this time.

Fair

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 29, 2019, 01:38:07 PM
Marquette is a smaller school?

Is that news to you? Nearly every flagship state university has a larger fanbase (including all the K-Mart fans of state schools), and lots of other high majors do as well. At the very least, MU has a substantially shorter list of alums than nearly EVERY P5 football school.

If we have to fight those schools for recruits based on t-shirt sales, we're gonna lose.

Outstanding Senator Burr! Guess not everyone in government is for it!

Richard Burr
@SenatorBurr
If college athletes are going to make money off their likenesses while in school, their scholarships should be treated like income. I'll be introducing legislation that subjects scholarships given to athletes who choose to "cash in" to income taxes.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on October 29, 2019, 04:33:03 PM
That would backfire IMO. Boosters would stop donating to the University to get off the booster list. They'd be smarter to just embrace the fact that the players have value to these wealthy super fans.

Go look up the current definition of "booster" and then come back and tell us what's wrong with your argument.

Quote from: Benny B on October 29, 2019, 04:50:50 PM
Go look up the current definition of "booster" and then come back and tell us what's wrong with your argument.

How about you just tell us to inform the entire thread.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on October 29, 2019, 04:51:45 PM
How about you just tell us to inform the entire thread.

I guess some men don't want to learn to fish...

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Booster%20Guidelines%20with%20definitions.pdf

QuoteOnce a person, agency, business or other organization identified as a "representative of athletics interests," that person/entity retains that identity for life.

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 04:50:11 PM
Outstanding Senator Burr! Guess not everyone in government is for it!

Richard Burr
@SenatorBurr
If college athletes are going to make money off their likenesses while in school, their scholarships should be treated like income. I'll be introducing legislation that subjects scholarships given to athletes who choose to "cash in" to income taxes.

That's a great free market republican.  Very interesting

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 04:18:54 PM
You can already feel the "slimey" people licking their chops over this one...Example: Kentucky BB player is said to be a one and done, widely known. End of the season and declaration date comes...and shockingly, he doesn't declare. people are stunned. Find out a few weeks later it's announced he signed a NIL deal with Bob car dealership for 100K. Couldn't be simply because Bob, who happens to be a HUGE UK fan, did that just to get said player to stay at UK one more year, right?? SLIMEY. The NCAA would certainly think that was the case.

the ncaa press release specifically addresses this, no incentives to entice a kid to stay.at a school, or.entice to transfer.

Quote from: MU82 on October 29, 2019, 03:01:13 PM
Good first step. Way to go, Cali, for getting the ball rolling on this, as well as the dozens of other states that are planning similar.

I am interested to see where this all goes, how a plan is implemented, etc. Everybody's still throwing warmup pitches at this point -- it's not even the first inning.

I don't know how it will end, and neither does anybody else here. The one thing I would bet on is that it will not "ruin" college sports, just as Title IX and so many other groundbreaking changes did not. Life is all about change.

Dabo? Just another effen hypocrite using athletes to rake in bazillions for himself.

Uh yeah, Dabo didn't help any of those kids make bazillions for themselves.....

Quote from: #UnleashCain on October 29, 2019, 03:03:10 PM
Nah they folded because a bit of legislation did what the ncaa should have done years and years ago.

Before you go off on how this will ruin the ncaa tangent that I already know is coming... Just take a breath, relax, and know that without a doubt college basketball will live on and everyone will be just fine. Times are changing old man, change with it.

I'm not going on any tangent, the proof will be in the details.  The NCAA will remain, who the winners and losers are is the important part.  How they set this up is critical.  There is a major concern for smaller schools, that has already been brought up by those in the industry...not just me.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 29, 2019, 03:41:19 PM
Lol

You want complete payment and treating them like employees and pros....that will ruin college sports entirely.  Laugh all you wish.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 29, 2019, 03:52:00 PM
The college model is a phrase coined to soothe the soul of old, White people

Racist ^^^^

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 05:44:21 PM
Racist ^^^^

Lol

Quote from: lawdog77 on October 29, 2019, 03:47:55 PM
Agreed. I feel its going to come down to whether or not the NCAA is willing to give up a large enough piece of the pie. If not state and/or federal legislation will mandate it. What the heck is the "college model" anyway?

Really?  You do have a MU education and so do others here.  Try to take one minute to think about it, including the vast vast vast vast majority of student athletes that do not play in revenue sports.  That will start you on your answer.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 29, 2019, 05:10:31 PM
That's a great free market republican.  Very interesting

It's more like treating them like everyone else...remember, your argument only a few days ago.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 05:40:35 PM
Uh yeah, Dabo didn't help any of those kids make bazillions for themselves.....

Deshaun Watson, DeAndre Hopkins and Grady Jarrett wouldn't be playing in the Arena League had they gone to a school other than Clemson.
These guys did more for Dabo's earnings than he did for theirs.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 05:47:52 PM
It's more like treating them like everyone else...remember, your argument only a few days ago.

That's not what Burr is suggesting. He's proposing taxing only the scholarships of athletes who profit off their likeness.
That's not treating them like everyone else, and could run afoul the Equal Protection Clause.

Quote from: Pakuni on October 29, 2019, 05:49:28 PM
Deshaun Watson, DeAndre Hopkins and Grady Jarrett wouldn't be playing in the Arena League had they gone to a school other than Clemson.
These guys did more for Dabo's earnings than he did for theirs.

LOL.  I can give you tons of 4 star and 5 star cannot miss players that...wait for it...missed and flopped.

If the coach and program didn't matter, why bother paying coaches much at all?  Why do players gravitate to certain programs?  Because they develop players and put them in the pros.  It isn't a one way street as you imply.

Quote from: Pakuni on October 29, 2019, 05:50:56 PM
That's not what Burr is suggesting. He's proposing taxing only the scholarships of athletes who profit off their likeness.
That's not treating them like everyone else, and could run afoul the Equal Protection Clause.

You want to be treated like an employee as so many of you desire and insist is and should be the case, then time to pay the piper and have that value taxed.  Problem is so many here want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 04:50:11 PM
Outstanding Senator Burr! Guess not everyone in government is for it!

Richard Burr
@SenatorBurr
If college athletes are going to make money off their likenesses while in school, their scholarships should be treated like income. I'll be introducing legislation that subjects scholarships given to athletes who choose to "cash in" to income taxes.

LOL talk about a reaction that stupid

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 05:45:44 PM
Really?  You do have a MU education and so do others here.  Try to take one minute to think about it, including the vast vast vast vast majority of student athletes that do not play in revenue sports.  That will start you on your answer.

I couldn't care less about the men's and women's lacrosse teams, tennis teams etc. If the basketball team makes the money, they should keep it. Same goes for football. If a school cannot afford the other sports, relegate them to club sports, or find the nmoney elsewhere.

Quote from: Benny B on October 29, 2019, 04:56:28 PM
I guess some men don't want to learn to fish...

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Booster%20Guidelines%20with%20definitions.pdf

Ah well I guess that eliminates any current fans that have donated. Could still impact fans considering donating for the first time. The NCAA is already overburdened trying to enforce their current regulations.  I don't foresee a new batch of regulations solving the core issue, which is fans wanting to pay players to play for their team. So much easier to embrace it and just let them get paid by whoever wants to pay them for whatever reason.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 06:00:06 PM
LOL.  I can give you tons of 4 star and 5 star cannot miss players that...wait for it...missed and flopped.

If the coach and program didn't matter, why bother paying coaches much at all?  Why do players gravitate to certain programs?  Because they develop players and put them in the pros.  It isn't a one way street as you imply.

Please just explain why coaches should be paid millions and players nothing.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 06:01:50 PM
You want to be treated like an employee as so many of you desire and insist is and should be the case, then time to pay the piper and have that value taxed.  Problem is so many here want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Yep and I think the universities should be treated as employers as well. They should be the ones paying players since they get the most value out of them. They should have to compete against the other universities for players without limits on what the players can earn.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 06:00:06 PM
LOL.  I can give you tons of 4 star and 5 star cannot miss players that...wait for it...missed and flopped.

If the coach and program didn't matter, why bother paying coaches much at all?  Why do players gravitate to certain programs?  Because they develop players and put them in the pros.  It isn't a one way street as you imply.

None of this supports your contention that Dabo earned players bazillions of dollars.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 06:01:50 PM
Problem is so many here want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Self Awareness Level = Zero

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on October 29, 2019, 06:06:41 PM
Yep and I think the universities should be treated as employers as well. They should be the ones paying players since they get the most value out of them. They should have to compete against the other universities for players without limits on what the players can earn.

So as employees(the student athletes), the employer(the University), can fire them too, right?? That's part of an employee-employer relationship. The first time that happened, all of you would be crying about how unfair that is to the athlete, etc etc etc

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 06:17:01 PM
So as employees(the student athletes), the employer(the University), can fire them too, right?? That's part of an employee-employer relationship. The first time that happened, all of you would be crying about how unfair that is to the athlete, etc etc etc

I'm guessing there would be a contract like in every pro sport, and no I would not be crying. Just like I didn't cry when Marquette players in the past were processed. They'd be paid to perform and if they don't perform they gots to go.

Quote from: #UnleashCain on October 29, 2019, 06:03:31 PM
Please just explain why coaches should be paid millions and players nothing.

Because student athletes are receiving tremendous value in other ways....a college degree worth $2M over its lifetime, training, etc, etc.  Should regular students be paid since teachers are?

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 06:52:35 PM
Because student athletes are receiving tremendous value in other ways....a college degree worth $2M over its lifetime, training, etc, etc.  Should regular students be paid since teachers are?

Regular students do not provide revenue for the school. Your comparison is idiotic

Quote from: Pakuni on October 29, 2019, 06:12:11 PM
Self Awareness Level = Zero

So true.

Quote from: lawdog77 on October 29, 2019, 06:02:30 PM
I couldn't care less about the men's and women's lacrosse teams, tennis teams etc. If the basketball team makes the money, they should keep it. Same goes for football. If a school cannot afford the other sports, relegate them to club sports, or find the nmoney elsewhere.

Hooray! A fellow capitalist salutes you.

Quote from: lawdog77 on October 29, 2019, 06:02:30 PM
I couldn't care less about the men's and women's lacrosse teams, tennis teams etc. If the basketball team makes the money, they should keep it. Same goes for football. If a school cannot afford the other sports, relegate them to club sports, or find the nmoney elsewhere.

LOL.  Well good luck with Title IX and staying in Division 1 then where a minimum of 14 sports must be fielded.

In terms of what the college model is....simple.

You come to our school in an athletic grant in aid to play for us.

In exchange, we will give you tuition, room and board, tutoring, travel, clothing, etc.


That's the college model.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 09:07:55 PM
LOL.  Well good luck with Title IX and staying in Division 1 then where a minimum of 14 sports must be fielded.

In terms of what the college model is....simple.

You come to our school in an athletic grant in aid to play for us.

In exchange, we will give you tuition, room and board, tutoring, travel, clothing, etc.


That's the college model.

According to Mark Emmert, athletic spending represents a very small proportion of total institutional spending: approximately 3.8 percent.-Pay the players and Pony up some more if you want to stay D-1.  See:http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-president%E2%80%99s-testimony-value-college-model

Quote from: MU82 on October 29, 2019, 03:45:28 PM
He doesn't want college sports to be the "same" as pro sports. But he has been making NFL money on the backs of his "student/athletes" for years.

He wants access to infinite millions for his personal bank account. He does not think his players should have access to anything above a scholarship -- even though scholarship non-athletes at Clemson have that access.

I happen to think that's hypocritical. It's OK if you don't.

Important: I don't begrudge Dabo his millions. As you said, he earned them. The nit I'm picking is that he wants to deny the athletes (who made it possible for him to be rich) the right to market their own likenesses.

Fortunately for the athletes, he will have no say in it, and it's gonna happen.

Let him leave. There's always another coach in the wings.

I don't think your use of hypocritical fits though unless he also was paid as a player.

Quote from: muguru on October 29, 2019, 04:18:54 PM
You can already feel the "slimey" people licking their chops over this one...Example: Kentucky BB player is said to be a one and done, widely known. End of the season and declaration date comes...and shockingly, he doesn't declare. people are stunned. Find out a few weeks later it's announced he signed a NIL deal with Bob car dealership for 100K. Couldn't be simply because Bob, who happens to be a HUGE UK fan, did that just to get said player to stay at UK one more year, right?? SLIMEY. The NCAA would certainly think that was the case.

You can already feel the "Chicken Little" people -- COLLEGE SPORTS WILL BE DOOMED! DOOMED, I SAY!! -- offering ridiculous hypothetical situations over this one.

people aren't stunned.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on October 29, 2019, 06:02:41 PM
Ah well I guess that eliminates any current fans that have donated. Could still impact fans considering donating for the first time. The NCAA is already overburdened trying to enforce their current regulations.  I don't foresee a new batch of regulations solving the core issue, which is fans wanting to pay players to play for their team. So much easier to embrace it and just let them get paid by whoever wants to pay them for whatever reason.

smh

NIL or not, being a fan who donates for the first time makes you a booster, and being a fan who wants to pay a student-athlete for whatever reason is a recruiting violation.

NIL is completely separate from the schools and athletic participation... not sure why this is so difficult to understand. 

Quote from: Pakuni on October 29, 2019, 06:12:11 PM
Self Awareness Level = Zero

Right back at you

Quote from: Pakuni on October 29, 2019, 06:08:56 PM
None of this supports your contention that Dabo earned players bazillions of dollars.

Maybe I'll just rely on the NFL player personnel, the draft experts, the players themselves that say he and the staff were a big reason why.  Not the only reason, but as I said originally...he HELPED THEM MAKE IT.  Somehow that was controversial to you, no kidding.

Quote from: #UnleashCain on October 29, 2019, 07:01:36 PM
Regular students do not provide revenue for the school. Your comparison is idiotic

Neither do most student athletes.

Quote from: lawdog77 on October 29, 2019, 09:21:58 PM
According to Mark Emmert, athletic spending represents a very small proportion of total institutional spending: approximately 3.8 percent.-Pay the players and Pony up some more if you want to stay D-1.  See:http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-president%E2%80%99s-testimony-value-college-model

That number is incorrect. The number varies from 5-11% with major athletic programs tilting closer to the 11% mark.

Quote from: lawdog77 on October 29, 2019, 09:21:58 PM
According to Mark Emmert, athletic spending represents a very small proportion of total institutional spending: approximately 3.8 percent.-Pay the players and Pony up some more if you want to stay D-1.  See:http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-president%E2%80%99s-testimony-value-college-model

That is correct, because colleges aren't mean to be on this great earth simply to push athletic endeavors...they are here to educate kids, do research, etc.

You are also correct, you start requiring schools to pay, schools will drop sports because many cannot afford to have them...something I have said often here.

Glad you and I agree with the outcome.  Now, here's the dirty little secret after working many years in athletic departmentS, including 5+ at MU, and having sponsored them the last 20....schools like MU don't have a lot of money for athletics.  Decent amount, spend more than most, but the budgets aren't endless.  You are a poster child argued for the haves and the have nots, the rich getting richer and will ultimately destroy college athletics if you had it your way.

The schools aren't going to step up like you would like....not a school like MU and many others.  If that is what you want, then keep on preaching.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 10:18:37 PM
That is correct, because colleges aren't mean to be on this great earth simply to push athletic endeavors...they are here to educate kids, do research, etc.

You are also correct, you start requiring schools to pay, schools will drop sports because many cannot afford to have them...something I have said often here.

Glad you and I agree with the outcome.  Now, here's the dirty little secret after working many years in athletic departmentS, including 5+ at MU, and having sponsored them the last 20....schools like MU don't have a lot of money for athletics.  Decent amount, spend more than most, but the budgets aren't endless.  You are a poster child argued for the haves and the have nots, the rich getting richer and will ultimately destroy college athletics if you had it your way.

The schools aren't going to step up like you would like....not a school like MU and many others.  If that is what you want, then keep on preaching.

Time will tell. The world will move on. Relax.

Quote from: 79Warrior on October 29, 2019, 10:44:25 PM
Time will tell. The world will move on. Relax.

Super chill.  Relaxed.  Yes, the world will move on in a less enjoyable way, with less opportunities for many young men and women...that's a shame. 

Quote from: ZaLiN on October 29, 2019, 02:02:09 PM
https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/18/dabo-says-he-may-quit-college-football-if-players-get-paid/

Well Dabo?

His payments to recruits will be much less important now that players can make money at most most schools.

Might be a little tougher to win championships with a level playing field.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 29, 2019, 10:48:09 PM
Super chill.  Relaxed.  Yes, the world will move on in a less enjoyable way, with less opportunities for many young men and women...that's a shame.

So say you. Who knows. I am not a sky is falling person. Time will tell. You are hardly an authority on this issue.

Quote from: #UnleashCain on October 29, 2019, 02:49:37 PM
Surprised by how fast they folded.

It only "feels" fast because it comes close on the heels of the California law.  But this started when they let Arike Ogunbowale be on Dancing with the Stars.  Once they allowed that, I thought it was pretty clear that this was coming.

Wojo supports, says it was 25 years too late (meaning for him).

Quote from: 79Warrior on October 30, 2019, 12:01:57 AM
So say you. Who knows. I am not a sky is falling person. Time will tell. You are hardly an authority on this issue.

You are right, time will tell...it will take a number of years for it to unfold, how the market is formed, who becomes the go to "investors", what do sponsors do as their contracts unwind (we are already thinking about this now on the news), etc.   I speak to people that are authorities in this space routinely. 

I am most hopeful the NCAA comes up with strong guardrails...it is what the schools want and many of us participating in this space as ncaa sponsors....I realize this will make other people's heads explode as they want full Armageddon.

I was speaking to well respected person in this space yesterday about the timing and she had a very interesting response.  In her opinion the NCAA did not dare move to do this earlier and waited for the lawmakers to insert themselves because if they had acted earlier lawmakers and others would push for more more more anyway.  In other words, if the NCAA had decided to do NIL 4 years ago, the push now would be an incremental ask for another mile when the NCAA gave up an inch.  Now the NCAA can shape how this goes, and doesn't need to let people that really know nothing about college sports or what is at stake for non revenue sports really screw it up.  Take it for what it is worth, but I found her comments quite interesting.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 30, 2019, 08:00:29 AM
Wojo supports, says it was 25 years too late (meaning for him).

Now that the NCAA has made their initial vote known, most coaches in America have no choice but to say how much they support it even if 48 hours earlier they didn't.  Purely a recruiting position now.  Note I said most

Quote from: Cheeks on October 30, 2019, 08:48:22 AM
Now that the NCAA has made their initial vote known, most coaches in America have no choice but to say how much they support it even if 48 hours earlier they didn't.  Purely a recruiting position now.  Note I said most

And you know this how?

Quote from: Cheeks on October 30, 2019, 08:45:05 AM
You are right, time will tell...it will take a number of years for it to unfold, how the market is formed, who becomes the go to "investors", what do sponsors do as their contracts unwind (we are already thinking about this now on the news), etc.

I am most hopeful the NCAA comes up with strong guardrails...it is what the schools want and many of us participating in this space as ncaa sponsors....I realize this will make other people's heads explode as they want full Armageddon.

I was speaking to well respected person in this space yesterday about the timing and she had a very interesting response.  In her opinion the NCAA did not dare move to do this earlier and waited for the lawmakers to insert themselves because if they had acted earlier lawmakers and others would push for more more more anyway.  In other words, if the NCAA had decided to do NIL 4 years ago, the push now would be an incremental ask for another mile when the NCAA gave up an inch.  Now the NCAA can shape how this goes, and doesn't need to let people that really know nothing about college sports or what is at stake for non revenue sports really screw it up.  Take it for what it is worth, but I found her comments quite interesting.

How gracious of them to give up an inch. I still feel it is going to come down to the apparel companies. If the athletes cannot do separate licencsing agreements with Nike, etc., lawsuits will follow. The schools will just get richer (names on jerseys in the bookstore/arena, NIKE commercials etc.) There is plenty of money to go around. Heck, just cut the coaches salaries in half, and give that money to the players.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 30, 2019, 08:48:22 AM
Now that the NCAA has made their initial vote known, most coaches in America have no choice but to say how much they support it even if 48 hours earlier they didn't.  Purely a recruiting position now.  Note I said most

If this is true, wouldn't it also be true that before the NCAA made their initial vote known, most coaches in America had no choice but to say how much they were against it even if the actually weren't? Not saying that they are or aren't for it. But if you argue that the coaches have to follow the NCAA's lead then I think that would always be true.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 30, 2019, 08:50:40 AM
And you know this how?

The advisement of one of the largest sports media agencies in the USA and their COO telling me exactly that yesterday...they would be fools to not say it for pure recruiting advantages alone.  The same reason why other states suddenly submitted copy cat bills because they were worried their state would be at a recruiting disadvantage.  It is easy for the coaches to do and keep their distance from the athletic dept stance, which will be to work within the college model. 

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 30, 2019, 09:04:41 AM
If this is true, wouldn't it also be true that before the NCAA made their initial vote known, most coaches in America had no choice but to say how much they were against it even if the actually weren't? Not saying that they are or aren't for it. But if you argue that the coaches have to follow the NCAA's lead then I think that would always be true.

Absolutely not...why would this be the case?  The coaches care ultimately about wins and losses and getting players.  Many coaches could give two rips about their AD or what is best for women's soccer, volleyball, etc....they are more singularly focused.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 30, 2019, 09:18:21 AM
The advisement of one of the largest sports media agencies in the USA and their COO telling me exactly that yesterday...they would be fools to not say it for pure recruiting advantages alone.  The same reason why other states suddenly submitted copy cat bills because they were worried their state would be at a recruiting disadvantage.  It is easy for the coaches to do and keep their distance from the athletic dept stance, which will be to work within the college model.

I highly doubt other states submitted bills due to a recruiting disadvantage. My opinion they submitted bills because 1. a majority of their constituency thinks its the right thing, and  to a lesser extent 2. tax dollars that can be created

Quote from: lawdog77 on October 30, 2019, 09:21:38 AM
I highly doubt other states submitted bills due to a recruiting disadvantage. My opinion they submitted bills because 1. a majority of their constituency thinks its the right thing, and  to a lesser extent 2. tax dollars that can be created

It was literally one of the reasons given by lawmakers in Florida, Illinois, etc...they didn't want to put their schools at a disadvantage.  I am absolutely in agreement that revenue is a key to it and a major reason.

https://www.dailyherald.com/sports/20191028/pritzker-backs-bill-allowing-college-athletes-to-collect-endorsement-deals


Add Georgia as well

"Georgia state Rep. Billy Mitchell, who is sponsoring the Georgia measure, worries that moves in California and Florida would put Georgia schools at a disadvantage in recruiting athletes."

Quote from: Cheeks on October 30, 2019, 09:18:21 AM
The advisement of one of the largest sports media agencies in the USA and their COO telling me exactly that yesterday...they would be fools to not say it for pure recruiting advantages alone.  The same reason why other states suddenly submitted copy cat bills because they were worried their state would be at a recruiting disadvantage.  It is easy for the coaches to do and keep their distance from the athletic dept stance, which will be to work within the college model.

So no coaches just vested people who want to keep costs down. Thanks.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 30, 2019, 09:42:01 AM
So no coaches just vested people who want to keep costs down. Thanks.

Sigh.  Uhm, schools aren't paying NIL...remember?   

Quote from: Cheeks on October 30, 2019, 09:51:17 AM
Sigh.  Uhm, schools aren't paying NIL...remember?

Quote from: Cheeks on October 30, 2019, 08:48:22 AM
Now that the NCAA has made their initial vote known, most coaches in America have no choice but to say how much they support it even if 48 hours earlier they didn't.  Purely a recruiting position now.  Note I said most

Sigh. You make this statement about coaches and then quote agents and sports executives as the source. And then sigh when I play your source back to you.

Your goal post shifting makes you a great Bears placekicking fit. Applications are open.

Marquette making it clear where they stand:

https://twitter.com/muwiresports/status/1189612728639524864?s=21

Doing the math...25 years too late...Wojo wishes it had been there in 1994. Hmm...who was a freshman at Duke in 1994, Coach? 😆

Quote from: brewcity77 on October 30, 2019, 02:46:00 PM
Marquette making it clear where they stand:

https://twitter.com/muwiresports/status/1189612728639524864?s=21

Doing the math...25 years too late...Wojo wishes it had been there in 1994. Hmm...who was a freshman at Duke in 1994, Coach? 😆

Not afraid, hey?

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on October 30, 2019, 11:39:22 AM
Sigh. You make this statement about coaches and then quote agents and sports executives as the source. And then sigh when I play your source back to you.

Your goal post shifting makes you a great Bears placekicking fit. Applications are open.

I did not quote agents...I said agency.  Sigh

The firm I was talking about are experts in the sports media and sports business space.  I think you may wish to reread what I said.

Quote from: brewcity77 on October 30, 2019, 02:46:00 PM
Marquette making it clear where they stand:

https://twitter.com/muwiresports/status/1189612728639524864?s=21

Doing the math...25 years too late...Wojo wishes it had been there in 1994. Hmm...who was a freshman at Duke in 1994, Coach? 😆

Letter to Coach Wojo: Markus is getting more endorsement money than the rest of us combined. How the hell do you expect us to make any cash when Markus is hogging the ball and getting on Sportscenter every night. I think the rest of us will just play keep away when Markus is on the court.

Good Luck Coach

Quote from: Cheeks on October 30, 2019, 03:38:52 PM
I did not quote agents...I said agency.  Sigh

The firm I was talking about are experts in the sports media and sports business space.  I think you may wish to reread what I said.

My insurance agent works for an insurance agency.  In no way is a sports agency a coach, which you quoted in your attribution.

Maybe you should stop making stuff up.

Guys, this is a very interesting subject. This thread could get long over the next year as things develop. I think the fine print shows that the NCAA is trying to control things rather than open them up. Time will tell - which is why this could become lengthy.

In the meantime, pLease don't let the same old troll completely sidetrack it.

who the troll though

Just saw an interesting interview of Jay Bilas, a strong proponent of college athletes' rights. He thinks this "move" by the NCAA is a delay tactic, and thinks they eventually will come out with an extremely weak plan, filled with restrictions, that will do little to satisfy those who want legitimate change.

"What they really said is, 'We're gonna allow WiFi, but only in Amish areas.'"

Great line.

Quote from: MU82 on October 30, 2019, 04:34:09 PM
Just saw an interesting interview of Jay Bilas, a strong proponent of college athletes' rights. He thinks this "move" by the NCAA is a delay tactic, and thinks they eventually will come out with an extremely weak plan, filled with restrictions, that will do little to satisfy those who want legitimate change.

"What they really said is, 'We're gonna allow WiFi, but only in Amish areas.'"

Great line.

Yeah the problem with NIL is that it doesn't address the athlete's real value which is to the program they play for. If NIL was unrestricted then it could be a workable solution to that issue, but if they're going to prohibit people giving them money to come play for their favorite team, then we're still stuck with that problem and have a whole new set of regulations for the NCAA to enforce.

Quote from: Jockey on October 30, 2019, 04:04:23 PM
Guys, this is a very interesting subject. This thread could get long over the next year as things develop.

Or, and hear me out here, this could be the first of 13 similar threads, each created in succession after the previous one is closed.

Quote from: brewcity77 on October 30, 2019, 06:10:06 PM
Or, and hear me out here, this could be the first of 13 similar threads, each created in succession after the previous one is closed.

Indeed, the Jayce Johnson injury thread has turned into an NIL thread already. As you say, plenty more to come over the next several years.

Quote from: MU82 on October 30, 2019, 06:56:18 PM
Indeed, the Jayce Johnson injury thread has turned into an NIL thread already.

Guilty (of contributing to that, though not starting it). In my defense, I didn't realize what thread I was in. I couldn't figure out why my post seemed to have disappeared from this thread.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on October 30, 2019, 06:59:07 PM
Guilty (of contributing to that, though not starting it). In my defense, I didn't realize what thread I was in. I couldn't figure out why my post seemed to have disappeared from this thread.

Understood. Sometimes Scoop is like the Twilight Zone.

Quote from: Cheeks on October 30, 2019, 08:48:22 AM
Now that the NCAA has made their initial vote known, most coaches in America have no choice but to say how much they support it even if 48 hours earlier they didn't.  Purely a recruiting position now.  Note I said most

So those coaches who support it are either stupid or phonies. Really? Which are you calling ours?

Seth Greenberg
@SethOnHoops
The @NCAA
generates money but  how many business models run 90 championships but only 5 generate revenue. A real business would probably shut down properties that continually lose large sums of money year after year.

Quote from: muguru on October 31, 2019, 05:11:20 PM
Seth Greenberg
@SethOnHoops
The @NCAA
generates money but  how many business models run 90 championships but only 5 generate revenue. A real business would probably shut down properties that continually lose large sums of money year after year.

5? Football and B-ball. I can see the Frozen four generating money but hockey overall no. What's the 5th?

Quote from: Galway Eagle on October 31, 2019, 05:20:00 PM
5? Football and B-ball. I can see the Frozen four generating money but hockey overall no. What's the 5th?

CWS and Volleyball is my guess.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on October 31, 2019, 07:51:07 PM
CWS and Volleyball is my guess.

Yeah I could see the CWS generating something I guess. Can't imagine volleyball. But I'm too removed to know

The Big Ten Conference released a statement Thursday morning in reaction to recent NCAA information regarding compensation of student athletes and likeness policy. The NCAA revealed Tuesday a vote to permit athletes from profiting upon their likeness.

The Big Ten, as it transitions out of Jim Delany's long-standing tenure as commissioner, issued a statement.

"The Big Ten Conference recognizes the NCAA Board of Governors and the NCAA Federal and State Legislative Working Group for their hard work in developing recommendations to the NCAA membership for consideration in developing new rules relating to opportunities for students who participate in intercollegiate athletics to benefit from their name, image and likeness in a manner that is consistent with the collegiate model and legal precedent.

The Big Ten Conference and its member institutions will review and discuss these recommendations over the next several months as we work together to determine what new rules should be proposed for approval. We believe that education is the foundation of the collegiate model, that it is our first priority and that it must continue to be so if the model is to be sustainable on our campuses. We believe that our students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are students, not employees. We also believe that our students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are not professional athletes, that they are not paid to play their sports and that any payment for name, image or likeness cannot be used as a substitute for compensation related to athletic performance or participation. We also believe that whatever rules are adopted in this area, in order to allow for a national system of recruiting, competition and fair play, must apply nationally. Our collegiate model cannot be sustained if the rules are applied on a state-by-state basis.

The Big Ten Conference thanks Michael Drake, President of The Ohio State University and chair of the NCAA Board of Governors, and Gene Smith, Director of Athletics at The Ohio State University and co-chair of the Working Group, for their leadership on this issue and looks forward to working with others to create a national framework that is consistent with the principles unanimously approved by the NCAA Board of Governors."

Quote from: muguru on October 31, 2019, 08:05:50 PM
The Big Ten Conference released a statement Thursday morning in reaction to recent NCAA information regarding compensation of student athletes and likeness policy. The NCAA revealed Tuesday a vote to permit athletes from profiting upon their likeness.

The Big Ten, as it transitions out of Jim Delany's long-standing tenure as commissioner, issued a statement.

"The Big Ten Conference recognizes the NCAA Board of Governors and the NCAA Federal and State Legislative Working Group for their hard work in developing recommendations to the NCAA membership for consideration in developing new rules relating to opportunities for students who participate in intercollegiate athletics to benefit from their name, image and likeness in a manner that is consistent with the collegiate model and legal precedent.

The Big Ten Conference and its member institutions will review and discuss these recommendations over the next several months as we work together to determine what new rules should be proposed for approval. We believe that education is the foundation of the collegiate model, that it is our first priority and that it must continue to be so if the model is to be sustainable on our campuses. We believe that our students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are students, not employees. We also believe that our students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are not professional athletes, that they are not paid to play their sports and that any payment for name, image or likeness cannot be used as a substitute for compensation related to athletic performance or participation. We also believe that whatever rules are adopted in this area, in order to allow for a national system of recruiting, competition and fair play, must apply nationally. Our collegiate model cannot be sustained if the rules are applied on a state-by-state basis.

The Big Ten Conference thanks Michael Drake, President of The Ohio State University and chair of the NCAA Board of Governors, and Gene Smith, Director of Athletics at The Ohio State University and co-chair of the Working Group, for their leadership on this issue and looks forward to working with others to create a national framework that is consistent with the principles unanimously approved by the NCAA Board of Governors."

I really thought the Big 14 would adopt the Ivy League model like Diamond Jim Delany suggested a few years back

Quote from: muguru on October 31, 2019, 08:05:50 PM
The Big Ten Conference released a statement Thursday morning in reaction to recent NCAA information regarding compensation of student athletes and likeness policy. The NCAA revealed Tuesday a vote to permit athletes from profiting upon their likeness.

The Big Ten, as it transitions out of Jim Delany's long-standing tenure as commissioner, issued a statement.

"The Big Ten Conference recognizes the NCAA Board of Governors and the NCAA Federal and State Legislative Working Group for their hard work in developing recommendations to the NCAA membership for consideration in developing new rules relating to opportunities for students who participate in intercollegiate athletics to benefit from their name, image and likeness in a manner that is consistent with the collegiate model and legal precedent.

The Big Ten Conference and its member institutions will review and discuss these recommendations over the next several months as we work together to determine what new rules should be proposed for approval. We believe that education is the foundation of the collegiate model, that it is our first priority and that it must continue to be so if the model is to be sustainable on our campuses. We believe that our students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are students, not employees. We also believe that our students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are not professional athletes, that they are not paid to play their sports and that any payment for name, image or likeness cannot be used as a substitute for compensation related to athletic performance or participation. We also believe that whatever rules are adopted in this area, in order to allow for a national system of recruiting, competition and fair play, must apply nationally. Our collegiate model cannot be sustained if the rules are applied on a state-by-state basis.

The Big Ten Conference thanks Michael Drake, President of The Ohio State University and chair of the NCAA Board of Governors, and Gene Smith, Director of Athletics at The Ohio State University and co-chair of the Working Group, for their leadership on this issue and looks forward to working with others to create a national framework that is consistent with the principles unanimously approved by the NCAA Board of Governors."

Mmm hmm.

Thanks for the platitudes, B14.

See you in 2-3 years, when athletes are profiting from their likenesses and not being ruled ineligible for doing so, just as all students are allowed to do.

Quote from: muguru on October 31, 2019, 05:11:20 PM
Seth Greenberg
@SethOnHoops
The @NCAA
generates money but  how many business models run 90 championships but only 5 generate revenue. A real business would probably shut down properties that continually lose large sums of money year after year.

These are Schools - not businesses. A real business has employees. Football/basketball teams have students.

Quote from: Jockey on October 31, 2019, 10:06:20 PM

These are Schools - not businesses. A real business has employees. Football/basketball teams have students.

Really? Because they sure as crap are run as a business.

Quote from: Jockey on October 31, 2019, 10:06:20 PM

These are Schools - not businesses. A real business has employees. Football/basketball teams have students.

Hahaha. I wish this not a business wouldn't make me pay real money to attend games.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on November 01, 2019, 06:54:50 AM
Hahaha. I wish this not a business wouldn't make me pay real money to attend games.

Do you have to pay money to attend the MU theatre performances MU choir performance, etc?  Yup, you do.  My high school daughter's volleyball games... $10 a pop. 

Quote from: Cheeks on November 01, 2019, 08:15:46 AM
Do you have to pay money to attend the MU theatre performances MU choir performance, etc?  Yup, you do.

Thanks for comparing athletics to theater. It's a logical comparison to make, one I and others have been making for some time here.

Can scholarship theater majors at MU and other universities profit from their own likenesses while remaining eligible to be in theater productions? Yup, they can.

Are walk-on players subject to the some rules as scholarship player? Can they make money off their likeness, name or images?

Quote from: MU82 on October 30, 2019, 04:34:09 PM
.... Jay Bilas, a strong proponent of college athletes' rights.

What does that even mean?  A "strong proponent of college athletes' rights"...  are these human rights, civil rights, constitutional rights, workers rights, animal rights, three rights make a left,

Granted wrong thread, but I don't get guys' like Bilas' argument and/or connotation that there's some sort of fundamental, epidemic societal wrong being committed here, one that can only be solved by treating student-athletes in the same manner as their professional peers, no less.

(Especially given that the professionals aren't even peers at all... that would be like saying you and Warren Buffett both research and invest so therefore you're peers.)

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on November 01, 2019, 06:54:50 AM
Hahaha. I wish this not a business wouldn't make me pay real money to attend games.

Your statement has nothing to do with private businesses paying players.

Quote from: Jockey on November 01, 2019, 10:50:47 AM
Your statement has nothing to do with private businesses paying players.

Athletic departments do have employees. Coaches, for example. Everyone in the athletic department is an employee of the university except the athletes because of the clever "student athlete" designation. Everything about the athletic department is run like a business, which is why your post made me laugh.

Quote from: Benny B on November 01, 2019, 10:12:15 AM
What does that even mean?  A "strong proponent of college athletes' rights"...  are these human rights, civil rights, constitutional rights, workers rights, animal rights, three rights make a left,

OK, if it bothers you, I hereby rescind that qualifier. See how easy it is to affect change, Benny?

He is a leading television analyst who has been a college basketball player, an assistant coach and a lawyer. His word is not proof of anything, just as any other "expert's" word is not proof, but I do usually listen when he says something.

I happen to believe he has the best interest of college athletes in mind on this issue (and many others). You are free to disagree.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on November 01, 2019, 11:00:40 AM
Athletic departments do have employees. Coaches, for example. Everyone in the athletic department is an employee of the university except the athletes because of the clever "student athlete" designation. Everything about the athletic department is run like a business, which is why your post made me laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XEq6XYtMVU

I'm kind of surprised the P5 conferences didn't push this years ago.  Maybe they wanted to leave good enough alone.  But I have to think this will be a boon for the larger state schools with big donors.  At least the donors for schools like KY can simply over pay through their companies for NIL instead of dropping off money bags.

I can't wait to see the lame local commercials using college players NIL.  :P

Can shoe companies pay directly now?  Sorry if this has been addressed, I admit to not reading all pages of this thread.

Quote from: MU82 on November 01, 2019, 11:21:46 AM
OK, if it bothers you, I hereby rescind that qualifier. See how easy it is to affect change, Benny?

He is a leading television analyst who has been a college basketball player, an assistant coach and a lawyer. His word is not proof of anything, just as any other "expert's" word is not proof, but I do usually listen when he says something.

I happen to believe he has the best interest of college athletes in mind on this issue (and many others). You are free to disagree.

It wasn't directed at you, because clearly you see the point I'm trying to make (or point out).  But you do also see how Bilas is - whether he's right or wrong - politicizing* the matter, n'est-ce pas?

*Not in the sense of making it a liberal vs. conservative issue, but in the sense that he is taking an extreme, polarizing and binary position.


The argument that Bilas is making is, at its very core, an us-against-them zero-sum game.  In other words, the student-athletes - namely the men's basketball and football players - will only "win" by taking their fair-share from the pockets of NCAA and/or its institutions.   Unfortunately, the Bilas Perspective has two fatal flaws: a) it's not a zero-sum game, and b) there is no contemplation of unintended consequences.

Bilas is playing third-grade chess... he's not thinking several moves ahead, he's looking at the board strictly in its current state and making a move.  In his view, giving the players X% of revenue would be fair, irrespective of the possibility that X% is what is needed to keep the Olympic sports viable, X% will reduce scholarships, X% will cause programs to retreat from D-I, etc.

|Bilas| = |Dabo|   In other words, taking either at face value is tantamount to admitting you want a fight, not a solution.

Quote from: Benny B on November 01, 2019, 11:54:09 AM
It wasn't directed at you, because clearly you see the point I'm trying to make (or point out).  But you do also see how Bilas is - whether he's right or wrong - politicizing* the matter, n'est-ce pas?

*Not in the sense of making it a liberal vs. conservative issue, but in the sense that he is taking an extreme, polarizing and binary position.


The argument that Bilas is making is, at its very core, an us-against-them zero-sum game.  In other words, the student-athletes - namely the men's basketball and football players - will only "win" by taking their fair-share from the pockets of NCAA and/or its institutions.   Unfortunately, the Bilas Perspective has two fatal flaws: a) it's not a zero-sum game, and b) there is no contemplation of unintended consequences.

Bilas is playing third-grade chess... he's not thinking several moves ahead, he's looking at the board strictly in its current state and making a move.  In his view, giving the players X% of revenue would be fair, irrespective of the possibility that X% is what is needed to keep the Olympic sports viable, X% will reduce scholarships, X% will cause programs to retreat from D-I, etc.

|Bilas| = |Dabo|   In other words, taking either at face value is tantamount to admitting you want a fight, not a solution.

I appreciate this take, Benny, even though I disagree with some of it.

Dabo wants the status quo, which has worked to make him sensationally rich and famous.

Bilas also has done well with the status quo, yet he nonetheless wants a change so that athletes can share in the profits off of their likenesses for which they currently get $0.00.

I fully admit there will be consequences, unintended or otherwise. I like to think Bilas realizes that as well. Major change almost always produces consequences. Decades ago, many university presidents, athletic directors and coaches were whining about what Title IX would do to their precious football and basketball programs.

As I'm pretty sure is the case with you and every other Scooper, I do not have "the solution." We have neither the data nor the expertise. I will be interested to see what comes of all of this.

I do not want a fight. I simply am happy that college athletes finally will get to benefit off of their own likenesses. Years from now, I believe this will be looked back at as one of those issues in which people say, "Were folks really getting worked up over that?"

Quote from: MU82 on November 01, 2019, 01:02:57 PM
I appreciate this take, Benny, even though I disagree with some of it.

Dabo wants the status quo, which has worked to make him sensationally rich and famous.

Bilas also has done well with the status quo, yet he nonetheless wants a change so that athletes can share in the profits off of their likenesses for which they currently get $0.00.

I fully admit there will be consequences, unintended or otherwise. I like to think Bilas realizes that as well. Major change almost always produces consequences. Decades ago, many university presidents, athletic directors and coaches were whining about what Title IX would do to their precious football and basketball programs.

As I'm pretty sure is the case with you and every other Scooper, I do not have "the solution." We have neither the data nor the expertise. I will be interested to see what comes of all of this.

I do not want a fight. I simply am happy that college athletes finally will get to benefit off of their own likenesses. Years from now, I believe this will be looked back at as one of those issues in which people say, "Were folks really getting worked up over that?"

Well put.

That being said, while I believe we're in conceptual agreement that student-athletes should be able to benefit from their NIL, I believe your advocacy to allow student-athletes to "share in the profits off of their likeness" is horribly misguided... because schools don't profit from NIL of their student-athletes... they profit from the student-athletes' performance.  So in fact, your advocacy for a share of profits IS the status quo, because there are no profits to share. 

Consider the following:

1) Nike pays LeBron for (and profits from selling) his NIL; they don't pay for LJ to perform.  Certainly, LJ's performance can affect on how much Nike is willing to pay for his NIL in the next endorsement deal, but once the current endorsement deal is signed, LeBron collects a check whether he wins an MVP or he ends up riding the bench in the D-League.

2) The Lakers - on the other hand - pays LJ for (and profits from selling) both his performance and his NIL.  The former obviously because if LeBron carries the team to the playoffs, the Lakers have more games and tickets to sell, and the latter because the Lakers slap his name on thousands of replica jerseys and trinkets they sell.

Surprisingly, many casual fans are surprised to learn that you can't buy a Marquette jersey with HOWARD on the back... you can buy one that says "0" but no names.  In fact, you can't buy anything that has a student-athlete's name, image or likeness on it anymore.  Further, schools don't "profit" simply by having an athlete on the court.  MU had the distinction of the highest ratings in the first round of the NCAA last year... is that because people wanted to see Markus' and Ja's pretty faces, or did they want to see the #5 and #7 scorers in the NCAA go head-to-head?  In other words, college fans aren't paying for NIL, they're paying to watch a basketball game.

------

I get that it is very hard for people to understand that when they buy a ticket to an NCAA basketball or football game, they are not paying for the NIL of the student-athletes.  Case in point: in 2006-2007, OSU's per game average attendance was #6  amongst all D-I programs (moreover, was an increase of 13% from the previous year) despite that being Greg Oden's only year in a Buckeye uniform... and that guy had a face that made astronauts nauseous.

Also, let's keep in mind that the lion's share of D-I schools' basketball revenue is generated from two sources: ticket sales and NCAA tourney shares.  Sure, there are TV contracts, but again 1) what is it that the cable subscribers are tuning into see... student-athletes' faces or the game and 2) I'm shooting from the hip here, but there are perhaps 250 D-I schools that have no TV contract at all (or a contract that doesn't move the needle).

Without a doubt, the value of a person's NIL is undeniably connected to that person's performance, such that without the performance, NIL is worthless.  So let's ask the $Million question:  In a parallel universe without the NBA, without the Lakers, without the popularity of professional basketball in the US... how much is LeBron's NIL worth?

------

tl;dr......  MU (and other schools) don't profit from NIL; the schools profit by selling tickets and earning NCAA tourney shares.

Quote from: Benny B on November 01, 2019, 04:15:46 PM
Well put.

That being said, while I believe we're in conceptual agreement that student-athletes should be able to benefit from their NIL, I believe your advocacy to allow student-athletes to "share in the profits off of their likeness" is horribly misguided... because schools don't profit from NIL of their student-athletes... they profit from the student-athletes' performance.  So in fact, your advocacy for a share of profits IS the status quo, because there are no profits to share. 

Consider the following:

1) Nike pays LeBron for (and profits from selling) his NIL; they don't pay for LJ to perform.  Certainly, LJ's performance can affect on how much Nike is willing to pay for his NIL in the next endorsement deal, but once the current endorsement deal is signed, LeBron collects a check whether he wins an MVP or he ends up riding the bench in the D-League.

2) The Lakers - on the other hand - pays LJ for (and profits from selling) both his performance and his NIL.  The former obviously because if LeBron carries the team to the playoffs, the Lakers have more games and tickets to sell, and the latter because the Lakers slap his name on thousands of replica jerseys and trinkets they sell.

Surprisingly, many casual fans are surprised to learn that you can't buy a Marquette jersey with HOWARD on the back... you can buy one that says "0" but no names.  In fact, you can't buy anything that has a student-athlete's name, image or likeness on it anymore.  Further, schools don't "profit" simply by having an athlete on the court.  MU had the distinction of the highest ratings in the first round of the NCAA last year... is that because people wanted to see Markus' and Ja's pretty faces, or did they want to see the #5 and #7 scorers in the NCAA go head-to-head?  In other words, college fans aren't paying for NIL, they're paying to watch a basketball game.

------

I get that it is very hard for people to understand that when they buy a ticket to an NCAA basketball or football game, they are not paying for the NIL of the student-athletes.  Case in point: in 2006-2007, OSU's per game average attendance was #6  amongst all D-I programs (moreover, was an increase of 13% from the previous year) despite that being Greg Oden's only year in a Buckeye uniform... and that guy had a face that made astronauts nauseous.

Also, let's keep in mind that the lion's share of D-I schools' basketball revenue is generated from two sources: ticket sales and NCAA tourney shares.  Sure, there are TV contracts, but again 1) what is it that the cable subscribers are tuning into see... student-athletes' faces or the game and 2) I'm shooting from the hip here, but there are perhaps 250 D-I schools that have no TV contract at all (or a contract that doesn't move the needle).

Without a doubt, the value of a person's NIL is undeniably connected to that person's performance, such that without the performance, NIL is worthless.  So let's ask the $Million question:  In a parallel universe without the NBA, without the Lakers, without the popularity of professional basketball in the US... how much is LeBron's NIL worth?

------

tl;dr......  MU (and other schools) don't profit from NIL; the schools profit by selling tickets and earning NCAA tourney shares.

I agree with a lot of this which is why I don't think the NIL solves any of the issues if it can't be used as a workaround payment method for bringing talented players to a school. There is significant value for winning in men's basketball and football. This makes good players valuable as they are large compenent into what makes a winning team. The player's ability to capitalize on this value should be during their recruitment when all the programs are trying to get them into the fold to help them win more. Those programs should have to compete with each other for players without restictions on how much the players can be compensated.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on November 01, 2019, 04:33:49 PM
I agree with a lot of this which is why I don't think the NIL solves any of the issues if it can't be used as a workaround payment method for bringing talented players to a school. There is significant value for winning in men's basketball and football. This makes good players valuable as they are large compenent into what makes a winning team. The player's ability to capitalize on this value should be during their recruitment when all the programs are trying to get them into the fold to help them win more. Those programs should have to compete with each other for players without restictions on how much the players can be compensated.

So what happens when the player fails to perform to expectations?  Does he have to pay the school back for the cost of his scholarship?  Or does the university eat the cost (read: reallocate the loss somewhere else) and move on?

Quote from: Benny B on November 01, 2019, 04:52:36 PM
So what happens when the player fails to perform to expectations?  Does he have to pay the school back for the cost of his scholarship?  Or does the university eat the cost (read: reallocate the loss somewhere else) and move on?

Are you talking about now or in my hypothetical scenario? In my scenario you can think of the player's compensation terms like coaches are currently compensated. If a player turns out to be a bust, they'd be fired and whatever the agreed upon terms of the employment contract would dictate what happens.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on November 01, 2019, 04:33:49 PM
I agree with a lot of this which is why I don't think the NIL solves any of the issues if it can't be used as a workaround payment method for bringing talented players to a school. There is significant value for winning in men's basketball and football. This makes good players valuable as they are large compenent into what makes a winning team. The player's ability to capitalize on this value should be during their recruitment when all the programs are trying to get them into the fold to help them win more. Those programs should have to compete with each other for players without restictions on how much the players can be compensated.

....and how is this good for MU?

Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 01, 2019, 05:56:49 PM
....and how is this good for MU?

I never said that it was. I could argue that college football makes far more money than basketball and if those programs had to compete financially for football players it would drive up their costs so much that they might not be able to afford to compete with a basketball only school for basketball players.

I agree a little with both Tebow , as well as Bilas. Players should get paid by the school (add a 0 to the end of stipend money),  and that it looks like a stall tactic by the NCAA. Let the players get a % of jerseys, etc with their name on it, let them monetize youtube (let Marcus creating a channel on how to shoot). Any other NIL needs to be ran through an NCAA clearinghouse.

Quote from: Benny B on November 01, 2019, 04:15:46 PM
Well put.

That being said, while I believe we're in conceptual agreement that student-athletes should be able to benefit from their NIL, I believe your advocacy to allow student-athletes to "share in the profits off of their likeness" is horribly misguided... because schools don't profit from NIL of their student-athletes... they profit from the student-athletes' performance.  So in fact, your advocacy for a share of profits IS the status quo, because there are no profits to share. 

Consider the following:

1) Nike pays LeBron for (and profits from selling) his NIL; they don't pay for LJ to perform.  Certainly, LJ's performance can affect on how much Nike is willing to pay for his NIL in the next endorsement deal, but once the current endorsement deal is signed, LeBron collects a check whether he wins an MVP or he ends up riding the bench in the D-League.

2) The Lakers - on the other hand - pays LJ for (and profits from selling) both his performance and his NIL.  The former obviously because if LeBron carries the team to the playoffs, the Lakers have more games and tickets to sell, and the latter because the Lakers slap his name on thousands of replica jerseys and trinkets they sell.

Surprisingly, many casual fans are surprised to learn that you can't buy a Marquette jersey with HOWARD on the back... you can buy one that says "0" but no names.  In fact, you can't buy anything that has a student-athlete's name, image or likeness on it anymore.  Further, schools don't "profit" simply by having an athlete on the court.  MU had the distinction of the highest ratings in the first round of the NCAA last year... is that because people wanted to see Markus' and Ja's pretty faces, or did they want to see the #5 and #7 scorers in the NCAA go head-to-head?  In other words, college fans aren't paying for NIL, they're paying to watch a basketball game.

------

I get that it is very hard for people to understand that when they buy a ticket to an NCAA basketball or football game, they are not paying for the NIL of the student-athletes.  Case in point: in 2006-2007, OSU's per game average attendance was #6  amongst all D-I programs (moreover, was an increase of 13% from the previous year) despite that being Greg Oden's only year in a Buckeye uniform... and that guy had a face that made astronauts nauseous.

Also, let's keep in mind that the lion's share of D-I schools' basketball revenue is generated from two sources: ticket sales and NCAA tourney shares.  Sure, there are TV contracts, but again 1) what is it that the cable subscribers are tuning into see... student-athletes' faces or the game and 2) I'm shooting from the hip here, but there are perhaps 250 D-I schools that have no TV contract at all (or a contract that doesn't move the needle).

Without a doubt, the value of a person's NIL is undeniably connected to that person's performance, such that without the performance, NIL is worthless.  So let's ask the $Million question:  In a parallel universe without the NBA, without the Lakers, without the popularity of professional basketball in the US... how much is LeBron's NIL worth?

------

tl;dr......  MU (and other schools) don't profit from NIL; the schools profit by selling tickets and earning NCAA tourney shares.

Thank you for correcting the semantics of what I was trying to state. You make a lot of good points here.

It's going to be an interesting situation to watch, that's for sure, but I am not the least bit concerned that whatever comes out of this is going to "destroy" college basketball and football - as the most chickeny of the Chicken Littles have claimed.