MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: muguru on September 10, 2019, 04:13:58 PM
-
To take effect in 2023...The ensuing lawsuits should be a treat to watch. Mid major college basketball teams all over the country should be rejoicing, this just freed up a bunch of spots in the NCAA tournament, because the NCAA WILL make the California schools ineligible
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/california-bill-nearing-passage-could-be-domino-that-brings-down-ncaas-amateurism-philosophy/
-
To take effect in 2023...The ensuing lawsuits should be a treat to watch. Mid major college basketball teams all over the country should be rejoicing, this just freed up a bunch of spots in the NCAA tournament, because the NCAA WILL make the California schools ineligible
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/california-bill-nearing-passage-could-be-domino-that-brings-down-ncaas-amateurism-philosophy/
The NCAA will lose and it is glorious
-
The NCAA won't make 6.8% of their schools ineligible and doesn't have the authority to supersede state law. Likeness rights will be universal by 2023.
-
The NCAA won't make 6.8% of their schools ineligible and doesn't have the authority to supersede state law. Likeness rights will be universal by 2023.
6.8%? That's nuts had no idea.
Is this going to be available for every division? I mean a football player at Whitewater could probably make a good few bucks at a local car dealership.
-
Yeah the day the NCAA decides to make all California schools ineligible is the day the NCAA signs its death warrant.
-
Great for a few kids and great for the P5 schools. Need to have some limits here and those would not square with such a law? A real turning point for college BB and FB......
-
6.8%? That's nuts had no idea.
Is this going to be available for every division? I mean a football player at Whitewater could probably make a good few bucks at a local car dealership.
Absolutely. I recommend reading the article for when the doomsday crowd appears and says there will be no benefit to anyone outside the major sports
-
Great for a few kids and great for the P5 schools. Need to have some limits here and those would not square with such a law? A real turning point for college BB and FB......
Unsure if it's just BB and FB. A hockey player at UND could make a decent bit of money. When Axel Sjoiderberg(?) was at MU for soccer I'm sure he'd have earned more than someone like Jamail Jones did.
-
The NCAA won't make 6.8% of their schools ineligible and doesn't have the authority to supersede state law. Likeness rights will be universal by 2023.
The NCAA has rules..Yes, laws supersede rules, but the bottom line is, there is NO law saying you HAVE to be able to play in the postseason if you pass this bill..if you're a member of the NCAA, which all schools are at the d1 level, then you have to follow their rules. It's really that simple. They can't prevent California(or any state) that wants to pass a law like this, but as long as they stay a member of the NCAA they CAN make them ineligible. the only way they couldn't, is if the schools made their own league and broke away from the NCAA.
In a letter to the chairs of two State Assembly committees last week, NCAA President Mark Emmert implied that if the bill becomes law as it is written, California schools could face the prospect of being prohibited from participating in NCAA championships. That includes 23 NCAA Division I schools, four of which are in the Pac-12 Conference.
-
The NCAA has rules..Yes, laws supersede rules, but the bottom line is, there is NO law saying you HAVE to be able to play in the postseason if you pass this bill..if you're a member of the NCAA, which all schools are at the d1 level, then you have to follow their rules. It's really that simple. They can't prevent California(or any state) that wants to pass a law like this, but as long as they stay a member of the NCAA they CAN make them ineligible. the only way they couldn't, is if the schools made their own league and broke away from the NCAA.
In a letter to the chairs of two State Assembly committees last week, NCAA President Mark Emmert implied that if the bill becomes law as it is written, California schools could face the prospect of being prohibited from participating in NCAA championships. That includes 23 NCAA Division I schools, four of which are in the Pac-12 Conference.
Oh, no! The NCAA!
-
Unsure if it's just BB and FB. A hockey player at UND could make a decent bit of money. When Axel Sjoiderberg(?) was at MU for soccer I'm sure he'd have earned more than someone like Jamail Jones did.
It might help a few kids in minor sports that are really big in certain areas. But probably no where near the extent that BB and FB would be impacted.
-
Oh, no! The NCAA!
Mock them all you want, but I'm just presenting the facts...the California schools CAN be deemed ineligible by the NCAA, for the post season by them passing this bill. They don't like it, form their own league. Problem solved, right??
-
Mock them all you want, but I'm just presenting the facts...the California schools CAN be deemed ineligible by the NCAA, for the post season by them passing this bill. They don't like it, form their own league. Problem solved, right??
California will not be the last state to pass a law similar to this. There is a groundswell or support that crosses all political lines.
I’m all for the end of the NCAA, so if this leads to that, hallelujah
-
California will not be the last state to pass a law similar to this. There is a groundswell or support that crosses all political lines.
I’m all for the end of the NCAA, so if this leads to that, hallelujah
Say goodbye to the greatest sporting event on the planet then too, the NCAA tournament...at least as we know it.
-
Mock them all you want, but I'm just presenting the facts...the California schools CAN be deemed ineligible by the NCAA, for the post season by them passing this bill. They don't like it, form their own league. Problem solved, right??
They can, but they won't. The ncaa will threaten, but in the end they aren't going to.
-
Say goodbye to the greatest sporting event on the planet then too, the NCAA tournament...at least as we know it.
Yup, things will change. Heck, I’m old enough to remember when Marquette turned down the NCAA Tournament to play in the NIT.
College football has managed to thrive in its post-season without the help of the NCAA
-
Yup, things will change. Heck, I’m old enough to remember when Marquette turned down the NCAA Tournament to play in the NIT.
College football has managed to thrive in its post-season without the help of the NCAA
Well, how do you perceive this change. Positive or negative for non-P5 schools (i.e., most P5 schools are state schools with large alumini bases that contain many alums with access to substantial $$$$).
-
Say goodbye to the greatest sporting event on the planet then too, the NCAA tournament...at least as we know it.
This is like when the Olympics went pro. It was a realization of what already is happening. The Olympics got bigger.
As the FBI case has revealed, which is by far more damaging, is that there are big bucks in play here above and below the table. Lawmakers see the hypocrisy when the NCAA tries to hide or white wash it it all. They also see new revenue streams.
-
Well, how do you perceive this change. Positive or negative for non-P5 schools (i.e., most P5 schools are state schools with large alumini bases that contain many alums with access to substantial $$$$).
All the same advantages P5 public schools have now will remain. That won’t change.
Marquette and other Big East schools are largely located in urban settings and their athletes will have access to more local business opportunities. Markus Howard, hell, Sam Hauser would have had ample opportunities to earn on their likeness.
If Marquette or other non-football schools haven’t studied the likelihood of this happening, shame on them.
-
All the same advantages P5 public schools have now will remain. That won’t change.
Marquette and other Big East schools are largely located in urban settings and their athletes will have access to more local business opportunities. Markus Howard, hell, Sam Hauser would have had ample opportunities to earn on their likeness.
If Marquette or other non-football schools haven’t studied the likelihood of this happening, shame on them.
Im sure they have. But, what would you suggest they do without affecting the B&GF and minor sports?
-
Im sure they have. But, what would you suggest they do without affecting the B&GF and minor sports?
Players, male or female, at any level can be compensated for their likeness. None of this comes from the University. If there is someone willing to pay for your autograph or endorsement, it’s free game for all levels.
And it’s not just that. Athletes at all levels can’t earn on things as simple as a YouTube channel because it’s considered an impermissible benefit. Matt Norlander lays it out in the linked article.
-
All the same advantages P5 public schools have now will remain. That won’t change.
Marquette and other Big East schools are largely located in urban settings and their athletes will have access to more local business opportunities. Markus Howard, hell, Sam Hauser would have had ample opportunities to earn on their likeness.
If Marquette or other non-football schools haven’t studied the likelihood of this happening, shame on them.
This is the first domino to fall toward the end of the amateur big time college sports. Sad day if it holds up, but no use crying over spilled milk.
Due to IRS rules, I guaranty within 10 years we will be rooting for the USbank Golden Eagles of Marquette versus the Menards Badgers of Wisconsin. Not one student will be on either team.
This will be a god send to the schools of 50%+ of Div I football programs. They will be able to shed the money pits that are the majority of DI football.
-
This is the first domino to fall toward the end of the amateur big time college sports. Sad day if it holds up, but no use crying over spilled milk.
Due to IRS rules, I guaranty within 10 years we will be rooting for the USbank Golden Eagles of Marquette versus the Menards Badgers of Wisconsin. Not one student will be on either team.
This will be a god send to the schools of 50%+ of Div I football programs. They will be able to shed the money pits that are the majority of DI football.
Why is amateurism important to anyone? If amateurism is so important, eliminate sports scholarships and follow the Ivy League model.
Amateurism benefits everyone but the amateur
-
Why would the end to make-believe amateurism be "sad"?
-
The NCAA has rules..Yes, laws supersede rules, but the bottom line is, there is NO law saying you HAVE to be able to play in the postseason if you pass this bill..if you're a member of the NCAA, which all schools are at the d1 level, then you have to follow their rules. It's really that simple. They can't prevent California(or any state) that wants to pass a law like this, but as long as they stay a member of the NCAA they CAN make them ineligible. the only way they couldn't, is if the schools made their own league and broke away from the NCAA.
In a letter to the chairs of two State Assembly committees last week, NCAA President Mark Emmert implied that if the bill becomes law as it is written, California schools could face the prospect of being prohibited from participating in NCAA championships. That includes 23 NCAA Division I schools, four of which are in the Pac-12 Conference.
The NCAA would get destroyed in court if they tried this. Destroyed.
-
Why is amateurism important to anyone? If amateurism is so important, eliminate sports scholarships and follow the Ivy League model.
Amateurism benefits everyone but the amateur
Speaking for myself, I guess I enjoy cheering for my school's team and the antiquated notion that the players are my fellow alums.
I accept that this is changing and is possibly for the best, but that doesn't mean there are not some losses for college sports and the fans.
Amateurism will survive at the DII and DIII levels, and I think that is good for everyone.
-
Speaking for myself, I guess I enjoy cheering for my school's team and the antiquated notion that the players are my fellow alums.
I accept that this is changing and is possibly for the best, but that doesn't mean there are not some losses for college sports and the fans.
Amateurism will survive at the DII and DIII levels, and I think that is good for everyone.
Would they still not be alums if they got paid and played at Marquette?
-
One of the biggest appeals to me for college sports(hoops in general) is the fact they DON'T get paid, and they play for school pride. Not sure why so many are giddy about the idea of college athletes getting paid anyway. Is there not enough greed in America now, the way it is?? Look, I'm not a huge fan of the NCAA and the way the major schools get let off the hook with so much stuff the way it is, but to me, this will just tip the scales even more in their favor. Schools like Marquette will get left behind, and I don't like that one damn bit.
I mean, what's going to happen with this...your star PG tells you he has to leave practice a bit early because he has to do a "spot" for the local car dealership?? They are going to put the $$ they can make over the love and pride they are supposed to have for their school, and it's just going to become ugly in my opinion.
As has been said many times, they get free room and board and a free scholarship...other students don't get that. It's similar to "benefits" we get from our employers.
-
One of the biggest appeals to me for college sports(hoops in general) is the fact they DON'T get paid, and they play for school pride. Not sure why so many are giddy about the idea of college athletes getting paid anyway. Is there not enough greed in America now, the way it is?? Look, I'm not a huge fan of the NCAA and the way the major schools get let off the hook with so much stuff the way it is, but to me, this will just tip the scales even more in their favor. Schools like Marquette will get left behind, and I don't like that one damn bit.
I mean, what's going to happen with this...your star PG tells you he has to leave practice a bit early because he has to to a "spot" for the local car dealership?? They are going to put the $$ they can make over the love and pride they are supposed to have for their school, and it's just going to become ugly in my opinion.
For loving something so much, you sure do a lot of complaining
-
For loving something so much, you sure do a lot of complaining
Whatever...if this is the way it's going to be, then let's make it just like pro sports with a salary cap, free agency, trades, etc. is that what you'd like to see in COLLEGE sports??
-
The NCAA would get destroyed in court if they tried this. Destroyed.
Meaning if the California schools sued the NCAA?
How do the courts view members of a voluntary institution suing that institution for enforcing the rules that all the other members agree to?
Are the California schools prohibited by law from leaving the NCAA?
What's to stop Texas from passing a law that college football is played in the spring? Will the NCAA get destroyed on that also?
I am asking seriously. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
-
Meaning if the California schools sued the NCAA?
How do the courts view members of a voluntary institution suing that institution for enforcing the rules that all the other members agree to?
Are the California schools prohibited by law from leaving the NCAA?
What's to stop Texas from passing a law that college football is played in the spring? Will the NCAA get destroyed on that also?
I am asking seriously. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
It’s actually laid out in the article. Norlander lays it out.
-
Whatever...if this is the way it's going to be, then let's make it just like pro sports with a salary cap, free agency, trades, etc. is that what you'd like to see in COLLEGE sports??
No, I’d like to see athletes be compensated for their likeness
-
No, I’d like to see athletes be compensated for their likeness
Why?? what difference does it make to you?? How are you affected in any way, shape or form by it one way or another?? Now I will agree with you, at the very least they should be able to get jobs in the off season and that shouldn't be a problem.
-
Would they still not be alums if they got paid and played at Marquette?
I don't think you'd get that pass the IRS. If you can pay player and generate revenues as a non-for-profit organization then every franchise in pro sports will be a non-for-profit tomorrow.
I can't imagine any school giving up their non-for-profit status just for sports.
Like it or not, DI BB and FB are going pro. They can't get "partially pregnant" on this.
-
I mean this is absolutely no surprise at all that a state like California and one particular political party is leading the charge on this. Nor is it surprising that other west coast states, Washington and Colorado may follow suit next.
-
Why?? what difference does it make to you?? How are you affected in any way, shape or form by it one way or another?? Now I will agree with you, at the very least they should be able to get jobs in the off season and that shouldn't be a problem.
Because they’ve earned it. How does the sham of amateurism affect you? Just because you like it this way, kids shouldn’t be able to earn money? Cool
-
Why?? what difference does it make to you?? How are you affected in any way, shape or form by it one way or another?? Now I will agree with you, at the very least they should be able to get jobs in the off season and that shouldn't be a problem.
For me, it's a matter of simple fairness. Why is it OK for Nick Saban to sell his likeness to Aflac and Coach K to Chevy, but Tua and Zion are prohibited from doing the same? Why can Clemson profit off Trevor Lawrence jerseys, but Trevor Lawrence cannot?
What difference does it make to you? How are you affected in any way, shape or form?
-
I mean this is absolutely no surprise at all that a state like California and one particular political party is leading the charge on this. Nor is it surprising that other west coast states, Washington and Colorado may follow suit next.
It passed with no dissent from the “other” party. If you read the article, a North Carolina legislator with a “R” next to his name is proposing something similar.
-
California will not be the last state to pass a law similar to this. There is a groundswell or support that crosses all political lines.
I’m all for the end of the NCAA, so if this leads to that, hallelujah
Groundswell? The most recent poll was 2019 by Seton Hall University that showed 49% support. Different definition of groundswell, apparently.
Big East conference....does not support because of “unintended consequences” which you can bet your arse is going to lead to more cheating then ever.
-
It’s actually laid out in the article. Norlander lays it out.
Actually, none of my questions were answered in the op-ed piece. Not your fault, you didn't write it.
I'm still curious to get my questions answered.
(Funny how the author states as fact the the schools will not benefit from the players being paid. Instant credibility red flag. I'd love to find anyone that believes that)
-
Groundswell? The most recent poll was 2019 by Seton Hall University that showed 49% support. Different definition of groundswell, apparently.
Big East conference....does not support because of “unintended consequences” which you can bet your arse is going to lead to more cheating then ever.
Well, golly, thank goodness the NCAA is around to stop the cheating
-
Well, golly, thank goodness the NCAA is around to stop the cheating
Good thing doctors are around to stop cancer. Good thing the SEC is around to stop financial malfeasance. Good thing police are sound to stop crimes. Etc etc. Wait, you mean they aren’t 100% effective, well then they should all be disbanded.
-
For me, it's a matter of simple fairness. Why is it OK for Nick Saban to sell his likeness to Aflac and Coach K to Chevy, but Tua and Zion are prohibited from doing the same? Why can Clemson profit off Trevor Lawrence jerseys, but Trevor Lawrence cannot?
What difference does it make to you? How are you affected in any way, shape or form?
Really? Why not take that to all its logical conclusions of things some people can do and others have to wait. Why is it fair that a 36 year old can run for POTUS but a 34 year old cannot? Why is it fair that a 65 year old pilot has to retire from flying and not a 64 year old? Why is it fair that Nick Saban can be fired from his job, but the History dept prof with tenure cannot?
Etc etc etc
-
Good thing doctors are around to stop cancer. Good thing the SEC is around to stop financial malfeasance. Good thing police are sound to stop crimes. Etc etc. Wait, you mean they aren’t 100% effective, well then they should all be disbanded.
All entities vastly superior at doing things than the NCAA
-
Too lazy to read the article. What happens if California passes a law that PEDs are legal? Can they be taken and still play in the NCAA.
-
Too lazy to read the article. What happens if California passes a law that PEDs are legal? Can they be taken and still play in the NCAA.
The law simply states college athletes can earn off their likeness. Similar laws are being proposed in Washington, Colorado and North Carolina. The NCAA can fight those laws in court and would lose.
There is no mention of a hypothetical like that. This particular matter falls in a different legal category than what you are hypothesizing
-
For me, it's a matter of simple fairness. Why is it OK for Nick Saban to sell his likeness to Aflac and Coach K to Chevy, but Tua and Zion are prohibited from doing the same? Why can Clemson profit off Trevor Lawrence jerseys, but Trevor Lawrence cannot?
What difference does it make to you? How are you affected in any way, shape or form?
Of course it is...it typifies the world we live in now, where everyone wants everything to be fair...Is it fair that some people in this world are billionaires and others aren't?? Should we just make everyone a billionaire because it's "the fair thing to do"?? This is the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality that permeates society now days. It's sickening to me. Life isn't fair, weren't we told this growing up?? But of course now days, if it's not fair people just sue to try to make it fair. What a world.
-
Of course it is...it typifies the world we live in now, where everyone wants everything to be fair...Is it fair that some people in this world are billionaires and others aren't?? Should we just make everyone a billionaire because it's "the fair thing to do"?? This is the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality that permeates society now days. It's sickening to me. Life isn't fair, weren't we told this growing up?? But of course now days, if it's not fair people just sue to try to make it fair. What a world.
What does any of that have to do with student athletes being able to earn off their likeness?
-
What does any of that have to do with student athletes being able to earn off their likeness?
If student athletes want to get paid, then I agree that they should be allowed to get jobs during their off season and that shouldn't be a problem.
Look, I'm not a big fan of the NCAA either, but this WILL hurt Marquette greatly, and benefit the schools like Duke, North Carolina etc, who are already on top of the food chain. Pakuni said he just wants things to be "fair". Okay so...they do this and the QB is going to make thousand upon thousands of dollars on his likeness, but the 3rd string offensive tackle??Who's going to want to "promote" him and give him earning opportunities as well?? How is that fair??
-
If student athletes want to get paid, then I agree that they should be allowed to get jobs during their off season and that shouldn't be a problem.
Look, I'm not a big fan of the NCAA either, but this WILL hurt Marquette greatly, and benefit the schools like Duke, North Carolina etc, who are already on top of the food chain. Pakuni said he just wants things to be "fair". Okay so...they do this and the QB is going to make thousand upon thousands of dollars on his likeness, but the 3rd string offensive tackle??Who's going to want to "promote" him and give him earning opportunities as well?? How is that fair??
The market decides fair compensation. What Pakuni is implying is, if the star athlete at Alabama is as valuable as the head coach, he should be compensated in the same manner.
UNC and Duke already have a huge advantage over Marquette. Marquette will have to continue to work hard to attract top athletes, regardless of them getting compensated for their likeness.
-
The law simply states college athletes can earn off their likeness. Similar laws are being proposed in Washington, Colorado and North Carolina. The NCAA can fight those laws in court and would lose.
The NCAA does not have to fight the laws in court. It will simply enforce the rules the member institutions have. I don't see how the NCAA has standing to sue the states.
Pot is legal in many states but athletes choose to follow league rules and not use it. As far as I know, the NBA has not challenged Colorado in court.
Will a school or student sue the NCAA? Possibly or probably. Will they win? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
-
Of course it is...it typifies the world we live in now, where everyone wants everything to be fair..
I mean, isn't that an admirable goal?
-
Why is amateurism important to anyone? If amateurism is so important, eliminate sports scholarships and follow the Ivy League model.
Amateurism benefits everyone but the amateur
Because they attend school, and it isn’t a job. I can get on a pro player and boo because that is his job, not a college player that is taking classes, doing stuff other students do. The entire dynamic changes, and I hope the courts won’t allow the changes.
-
Really? Why not take that to all its logical conclusions of things some people can do and others have to wait. Why is it fair that a 36 year old can run for POTUS but a 34 year old cannot? Why is it fair that a 65 year old pilot has to retire from flying and not a 64 year old? Why is it fair that Nick Saban can be fired from his job, but the History dept prof with tenure cannot?
The first is a Constitutional issue.
The second is an international treaty of which the US agrees to abide by
The third is an employment contract.
Of course none of these are similar to what we are talking about. But hey, it's fall! So it's strawman season!!
-
Really? Why not take that to all its logical conclusions of things some people can do and others have to wait. Why is it fair that a 36 year old can run for POTUS but a 34 year old cannot? Why is it fair that a 65 year old pilot has to retire from flying and not a 64 year old? Why is it fair that Nick Saban can be fired from his job, but the History dept prof with tenure cannot?
Etc etc etc
Rewriting the Constitution is the logical conclusion of allowing Trevor Lawrence to get paid for his autograph? Allowing the next Zion Williamson to appear in a Nike ad is the same as permitting senior citizens to fly commercial passenger aircraft?
Can't argue with that logic.
Oh, and history professors can be fired. And when they do, they don't often leave with multimillion dollar parting gifts, unlike many head college football coaches.
-
Really? Why not take that to all its logical conclusions of things some people can do and others have to wait. Why is it fair that a 36 year old can run for POTUS but a 34 year old cannot? Why is it fair that a 65 year old pilot has to retire from flying and not a 64 year old? Why is it fair that Nick Saban can be fired from his job, but the History dept prof with tenure cannot?
Etc etc etc
Thank goodness someone pointed out the ridiculousness of this argument. Wow. This isn’t your best work, by far, and the bar is not really that high.
-
The most significant underlying issue is the same one that brought us the "crazy" and "stupid" NCAA rules decades ago; overzealous boosters. The NCAA rulebook and thus its public image would look significantly different today if not for the likes of SEC and Big XII football fans.
In a vacuum, paying players for their images or allowing them to have jobs is very fair and just. But, alas, the world is not a vacuum. The mission of the NCAA is NOT to 'use players' to make millions, it's to keep the playing field level. But, reading the NCAA rules without historical context would lead anyone to believe it's a wacked out organization with unethical motives.
The media loves to rip the NCAA for how Zion was treated but does anyone doubt that a 4th string LSU linebacker or the 13th man on UNC's basketball team will have a six figure endorsement deal when this all comes to pass?
Are they worth it? Yes, because the free market works. But the value is not based upon performance but the booster's desire to get the best players or to keep other schools for getting them. Pro sports figured this out years ago and thus all leagues have salary caps to promote a level playing field.
-
One of the biggest appeals to me for college sports(hoops in general) is the fact they DON'T get paid, and they play for school pride. Not sure why so many are giddy about the idea of college athletes getting paid anyway. Is there not enough greed in America now, the way it is?? Look, I'm not a huge fan of the NCAA and the way the major schools get let off the hook with so much stuff the way it is, but to me, this will just tip the scales even more in their favor. Schools like Marquette will get left behind, and I don't like that one damn bit.
I mean, what's going to happen with this...your star PG tells you he has to leave practice a bit early because he has to do a "spot" for the local car dealership?? They are going to put the $$ they can make over the love and pride they are supposed to have for their school, and it's just going to become ugly in my opinion.
As has been said many times, they get free room and board and a free scholarship...other students don't get that. It's similar to "benefits" we get from our employers.
Why would athletes play with any less pride?
Does the student who gets a paid internship have less loyalty to their school too?
-
The most significant underlying issue is the same one that brought us the "crazy" and "stupid" NCAA rules decades ago; overzealous boosters. The NCAA rulebook and thus its public image would look significantly different today if not for the likes of SEC and Big XII football fans.
In a vacuum, paying players for their images or allowing them to have jobs is very fair and just. But, alas, the world is not a vacuum. The mission of the NCAA is NOT to 'use players' to make millions, it's to keep the playing field level. But, reading the NCAA rules without historical context would lead anyone to believe it's a wacked out organization with unethical motives.
The media loves to rip the NCAA for how Zion was treated but does anyone doubt that a 4th string LSU linebacker or the 13th man on UNC's basketball team will have a six figure endorsement deal when this all comes to pass?
Are they worth it? Yes, because the free market works. But the value is not based upon performance but the booster's desire to get the best players or to keep other schools for getting them. Pro sports figured this out years ago and thus all leagues have salary caps to promote a level playing field.
If the NCAA's job is to keep the playing field level, it is doing an awful job at it.
-
If student athletes want to get paid, then I agree that they should be allowed to get jobs during their off season and that shouldn't be a problem.
Look, I'm not a big fan of the NCAA either, but this WILL hurt Marquette greatly, and benefit the schools like Duke, North Carolina etc, who are already on top of the food chain. Pakuni said he just wants things to be "fair". Okay so...they do this and the QB is going to make thousand upon thousands of dollars on his likeness, but the 3rd string offensive tackle??Who's going to want to "promote" him and give him earning opportunities as well?? How is that fair??
No they shouldn't.
Some big time booster could guarantee a recruit a cushy, high paying "internship" in the off season.
No jobs for athletes should be allowed. Can't guarantee there won't be shady things going on.
-
As for "end of the NCAA tournament as we know it"..
I believe I heard over and over from the powers that be that college football would be ruined if the BCS was eliminated and a playoff instituted. Of course, once those powers figured out how to do a playoff and keep their hands in the cookie jar, it was all good.
-
No they shouldn't.
Some big time booster could guarantee a recruit a cushy, high paying "internship" in the off season.
No jobs for athletes should be allowed. Can't guarantee there won't be shady things going on.
Then paying them for their "likeness" shouldn't be allowed either. You have any idea how much shady stuff would be going on there?? Tons.
-
Then paying them for their "likeness" shouldn't be allowed either. You have any idea how much shady stuff would be going on there?? Tons.
So you agree they shouldn't be allowed to have jobs? Good
-
Then paying them for their "likeness" shouldn't be allowed either. You have any idea how much shady stuff would be going on there?? Tons.
Shady stuff like what? Shoe companies bribing recruits to go to the school of their liking? The horror!!
-
If the NCAA's job is to keep the playing field level, it is doing an awful job at it.
I think in an honest moment even the NCAA administration would agree with you.
I think the NCAA's mission, at the DI level, has become impossible. I don't think they are idiots or corrupt or racists or whatever the media wants to label them; I think they have been asked to do the impossible.
In order for the top college players to get what is "fair", the system must go professional and formally split from the universities. This will satisfy LeBron, California lawmakers, the IRS and remove Title IX from the equation.
Buggy whip makers and DI athletics had their day but time and progress moves on.
-
Meaning if the California schools sued the NCAA?
How do the courts view members of a voluntary institution suing that institution for enforcing the rules that all the other members agree to?
Because NCAA rules do not supercede laws and the schools did nothing to change their eligibility status. The NCAA would be trying to enforce illegal laws or force their member institutions to break the law to remain members. They wouldn't stand a chance.
One of the biggest appeals to me for college sports(hoops in general) is the fact they DON'T get paid, and they play for school pride.
Maybe it's just me, but I see a ton of irony in someone to whom my alma mater's mission is meaningless and the education and ethics part have no significance caring about this. I can't take this seriously from you. It's totally insincere.
Groundswell? The most recent poll was 2019 by Seton Hall University that showed 49% support. Different definition of groundswell, apparently.
Isn't the most recent poll both houses of the California legislature passing this unanimously?
-
Pot is legal in many states but athletes choose to follow league rules and not use it.
Teal?
-
No they shouldn't.
Some big time booster could guarantee a recruit a cushy, high paying "internship" in the off season.
No jobs for athletes should be allowed. Can't guarantee there won't be shady things going on.
Well, somehow NCAA sports manage to survive even though athletes can have jobs.
-
Shady stuff like what? Shoe companies bribing recruits to go to the school of their liking? The horror!!
It's not a horror and I don't know if anyone labeled it as such.
Driving 5 mph over the speed limit is not a horror either but it is against the law.
If you don't like getting a ticket for speeding don't drive.
If Kansas doesn't like the rules against paying players then it can withdraw from the NCAA.
-
Because NCAA rules do not supercede laws and the schools did nothing to change their eligibility status. The NCAA would be trying to enforce illegal laws or force their member institutions to break the law to remain members. They wouldn't stand a chance.
Thanks for the feedback. I follow your logic but I don't see how the NCAA is forcing them to do anything. Membership in the NCAA is completely voluntary. The NCAA can't force any school in any state to do anything.
Any help to point out my gap(s) in logic is most welcome. I find the topic interesting.
-
Teal?
;D So true. Well played sir.
-
It's not a horror and I don't know if anyone labeled it as such.
Driving 5 mph over the speed limit is not a horror either but it is against the law.
If you don't like getting a ticket for speeding don't drive.
If Kansas doesn't like the rules against paying players then it can withdraw from the NCAA.
And likewise, if the California schools wanna choose to pay their players, that's their prerogative, but then they can't complain about the NCAA wanting to enforce their rules(the one's all the member institutions agreed to abide by when they became members), and telling them they are ineligible for the NCAA's if they choose to pay their players. Seems reasonable to me..take your pick, pay your players(knowing when you agreed to be an NCAA member school that this could disqualify you from postseason play), or don't pay your players and still be eligible for postseason play. The other option is to withdraw from the NCAA and to form your own league with the 21 member institutions in California and set up whatever rules you want, have at it. I mean if they HATE the NCAA so much, and told them "not to threaten them", then why not just withdraw?? Why would it bother you if they tell you you're ineligible for postseason play if you don't really want to be a member anyway.
-
Because NCAA rules do not supercede laws and the schools did nothing to change their eligibility status. The NCAA would be trying to enforce illegal laws or force their member institutions to break the law to remain members. They wouldn't stand a chance.
Maybe it's just me, but I see a ton of irony in someone to whom my alma mater's mission is meaningless and the education and ethics part have no significance caring about this. I can't take this seriously from you. It's totally insincere.
Isn't the most recent poll both houses of the California legislature passing this unanimously?
Maybe it's just me, but I see a crap ton of irony in someone who attended said school, is seemingly a proud alum and supports the mission, & ethics of his alma mater and education he received, be 100% supportive of something that goes completely against the mission and ethics of his alma mater. Now THAT'S irony.
-
Maybe it's just me, but I see a crap ton of irony in someone who attended said school, is seemingly a proud alum and supports the mission, & ethics of his alma mater and education he received, be 100% supportive of something that goes completely against the mission and ethics of his alma mater. Now THAT'S irony.
When I was in school, I could work. I could earn money off my likeness. You are clueless. Nothing about this goes against the mission or ethics of Marquette.
-
When I was in school, I could work. I could earn money off my likeness. You are clueless. Nothing about this goes against the mission or ethics of Marquette.
I would guess you made nothing off your likeness. Working hard has nothing to do with your likeness. Keep working on that likeness. w ;)
-
I would guess you made nothing off your likeness. Working hard has nothing to do with your likeness. Keep working on that likeness. w ;)
I was generous and let people take my picture for free. But I did work and make money while in college and no one revoked any of my scholarship or grant money because of it.
-
Maybe it's just me, but I see a crap ton of irony in someone who attended said school, is seemingly a proud alum and supports the mission, & ethics of his alma mater and education he received, be 100% supportive of something that goes completely against the mission and ethics of his alma mater. Now THAT'S irony.
His alma mater profits off players' likenesses.
-
His alma mater profits off players' likenesses.
His alma mater gives full ride scholarships and other benefits to students because they can play basketball really well.
Face it, at its most basic level, this is a wierd system. Maybe because of that, it can not survive. I don't see how it can.
-
The first is a Constitutional issue.
The second is an international treaty of which the US agrees to abide by
The third is an employment contract.
Of course none of these are similar to what we are talking about. But hey, it's fall! So it's strawman season!!
You are missing the point....there are guidelines, rules, laws, customs, etc, that dictate all kinds of things that are different. Michael Jordan could take 4 steps and not travel, Tom Glavine could throw a pitch 4 inches off home plate and get a strike, a 15 year old cannot drive alone, A woman can go into a guy’s locker room to cover sports, a guy cannot go into a woman’s locker room....but we’re all equal....the laws and rules are all equal....keep repeating that.
-
No they shouldn't.
Some big time booster could guarantee a recruit a cushy, high paying "internship" in the off season.
No jobs for athletes should be allowed. Can't guarantee there won't be shady things going on.
No they can’t. It has to be proven to be market rate driven to avoid that. In the old days schools would pay some athlete $25 an hour to water a garden...the NCAA passed legislation to try and stop that. Sure, some abuses could happen, but much harder now with those types of attempts.
-
If the NCAA's job is to keep the playing field level, it is doing an awful job at it.
They actually do a much better job then people are giving credit for. Most student athletes are in compliance, but when they miss...that makes headlines. 100’s of thousands of student athletes without incident....no one says good job NCAA.
-
All entities vastly superior at doing things than the NCAA
All entities with many more resources, but the point was made. You don’t throw the towel in because some get away with cheating. The same reason the doctor doesn’t, the police, etc.
-
I mean, isn't that an admirable goal?
Isn’t it an admirable goal to follow the ncaa rules?
-
When I was in school, I could work. I could earn money off my likeness. You are clueless. Nothing about this goes against the mission or ethics of Marquette.
Student athletes can work, stop saying they cannot. Lots of things student athletes got to do that you didn’t....was that fair to the others? Was that ethical?
-
They actually do a much better job then people are giving credit for. Most student athletes are in compliance, but when they miss...that makes headlines. 100’s of all thousands of student athletes without incident....no one says good job NCAA.
Great point. Most fans and the media believe the NCAA only governs D1 football and basketball. Those two sports are a small percentage of the what they oversee.
The next time someone criticizes the NCAA for Zion not making money they should make 100 comments on D2 swimming, D3 golf, etc. to give proper balance for the NCAAs responsibilities.
-
In only 4 pages (so far), this thread must be approaching the Scoop record for strawman arguments, hair-on-fire college-sports-will-be-doomed predictions, and ridiculous slippery-slope analogies.
As a bonus, we have ultra-capitalists, who love ripping on all things they deem "socialist," decrying any attempt to let hard-working Americans profit from their own likenesses.
Fun stuff!
-
I just poked into the thread to see the mess from the exploding heads.
-
His alma mater profits off players' likenesses.
Most alma maters do not profit off it
-
I was generous and let people take my picture for free. But I did work and make money while in college and no one revoked any of my scholarship or grant money because of it.
I worked throughout college and I did have my picture taken in a work group once but did not get paid for it. Little did I know, though I guess it was not my likeness they were after. :)
-
I just poked into the thread to see the mess from the exploding heads.
#brainmattersmattas
-
Why not use the word image rather than the clumsy likeness....... :o
-
Why not use the word image rather than the clumsy likeness....... :o
Sorry ... we're all still debating "privilege." No time to consider other word usage options.
-
Why not use the word image rather than the clumsy likeness....... :o
Mentioned on another site, but because this started over likenesses in a video game. Image is a limited term that doesn't capture what the debate is about. And I'm not sure how "likeness" is clumsy.
-
Maybe it's just me, but I see a crap ton of irony in someone who attended said school, is seemingly a proud alum and supports the mission, & ethics of his alma mater and education he received, be 100% supportive of something that goes completely against the mission and ethics of his alma mater. Now THAT'S irony.
This may top your argument about women. That's saying something about how wrong you are here.
-
As a bonus, we have ultra-capitalists, who love ripping on all things they deem "socialist," decrying any attempt to let hard-working Americans profit from their own likenesses.
Fun stuff!
When we talked about this last year I made this point. It's fun to see that conservatives and socialists are actually reversed in their arguments when it comes to college athletes.
-
When we talked about this last year I made this point. It's fun to see that conservatives and socialists are actually reversed in their arguments when it comes to college athletes.
Within the political spectrum that matters, state legislators, it has been quite bipartisan. Siding with an inept organization like the NCAA doesn’t win a lot of votes. I will be curious to see how this evolves as more states propose this. The NCAA will certainly step up lobbying efforts and lean on member schools to fight any legislation resembling the California bill but I’ll be surprised if there is a lot of political will to stand with universities and the NCAA on this matter. We can look at Wisconsin who has seen funding fights in the last decade. Wisconsin is flush with TV cash from the Big Ten. Good luck garnering sympathy from our current state legislators
-
Maybe if you want to be paid in fairness like Sagan, they should get a degree and go into coaching.....become a non-student....graduate.
-
What a can of worms opened up.
Sounds like college sports are transitioning to minor league pro teams.
-
I just poked into the thread to see the mess from the exploding heads.
I made the same mistake.
-
I worked throughout college and I did have my picture taken in a work group once but did not get paid for it. Little did I know, though I guess it was not my likeness they were after. :)
My likeness, and image, was used for around 10-years in advertisements, commercials (local and national), without any compensation, or approval.
They could do it, because all students agree for their likeness to be used when they enrolled and accepted any source of financial aid. A law like this will now say, that for a completely random reason (sports), some students will/can get compensated, and others will not.
-
NCAA calls law unconstitutional. Let’s see if they grow a pair and fight this or cave.
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-calls-california-college-athlete-bill-unconstitutional-says-it-would-create-recruiting-advantage-150711618.html
-
NCAA calls law unconstitutional. Let’s see if they grow a pair and fight this or cave.
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-calls-california-college-athlete-bill-unconstitutional-says-it-would-create-recruiting-advantage-150711618.html
Yes, let’s take this court. I’m all for a rout of the NCAA
-
The very first sentence of the NCAA's statement is a blatant lie.
I'm curious to hear their constitutional argument.
-
The very first sentence of the NCAA's statement is a blatant lie.
I'm curious to hear their constitutional argument.
Me too, I'm pretty sure that song got cut from Hamilton.
-
Isn’t it an admirable goal to follow the ncaa rules?
Not if the rules are unjust.
-
Maybe it's just me, but I see a crap ton of irony in someone who attended said school, is seemingly a proud alum and supports the mission, & ethics of his alma mater and education he received, be 100% supportive of something that goes completely against the mission and ethics of his alma mater. Now THAT'S irony.
Uh. How does this go against the mission and ethics of Marquette?
-
Uh. How does this go against the mission and ethics of Marquette?
It doesn't, but I do believe someone who neither attended Marquette nor cares about the mission and ethics of the University trying to lecture those that did would qualify as irony.
-
It doesn't, but I do believe someone who neither attended Marquette nor cares about the mission and ethics of the University trying to lecture those that did would qualify as irony.
And I find it ironic that someone is trying to say I don't care about the mission or ethics of the University just because I didn't attend said university. Where did I EVER specifically state I don't care about the missions or ethics??
Why don't you ask Broeker or any other of the higher ups, how they would feel about this, if it became universal?? I'm pretty sure I know what they would say. So I think it's ironic that someone that attended said university would NOT fall in line with the same values and beliefs with this that the people that run the University would. Talk about hypocrisy.
-
And I find it ironic that someone is trying to say I don't care about the mission or ethics of the University just because I didn't attend said university. Where did I EVER specifically state I don't care about the missions or ethics??
Why don't you ask Broeker or any other of the higher ups, how they would feel about this, if it became universal?? I'm pretty sure I know what they would say. So I think it's ironic that someone that attended said university would NOT fall in line with the same values and beliefs with this that the people that run the University would. Talk about hypocrisy.
Lol. Broeker’s opinion on the matter has nothing to do with the “values” of the University. It has to do with echoing the NCAA’s party line.
Not to mention keeping the lion’s share of the revenue directed toward athletics.
-
My likeness, and image, was used for around 10-years in advertisements, commercials (local and national), without any compensation, or approval.
They could do it, because all students agree for their likeness to be used when they enrolled and accepted any source of financial aid. A law like this will now say, that for a completely random reason (sports), some students will/can get compensated, and others will not.
You're the photoshopped black guy from UW-Madison?!?!?!?
-
When we talked about this last year I made this point. It's fun to see that conservatives and socialists are actually reversed in their arguments when it comes to college athletes.
Within the political spectrum that matters, state legislators, it has been quite bipartisan. Siding with an inept organization like the NCAA doesn’t win a lot of votes.
Exactly.
It's not mostly "socialists" who believe athletes own their own likenesses and should be able to profit from them.
But it does seem to be mostly "capitalists" who want to prevent hard-working Americans from doing so.
As for the "constitutionality" of it all, based on discussions of this that I have heard from lawyers, it sounds like the NCAA is -- as usual -- full of excrement.
-
If California law supercedes anything NCAA can do, are you saying the NCAA cannot do marijuana testing of California student athletes because it is legal here?
-
And I find it ironic that someone is trying to say I don't care about the mission or ethics of the University just because I didn't attend said university. Where did I EVER specifically state I don't care about the missions or ethics??
Why don't you ask Broeker or any other of the higher ups, how they would feel about this, if it became universal?? I'm pretty sure I know what they would say. So I think it's ironic that someone that attended said university would NOT fall in line with the same values and beliefs with this that the people that run the University would. Talk about hypocrisy.
You've made it abundantly clear what you care about. Not a whole lot of cura personalis mentions in your posting history.
To me, the guys on the team have to ask themselves, what's more important...winning or "me"?? IF it's winning(which it should be), then they should welcome any talent that will make them a better team...ESPECIALLY after losing two players as talented as Sam and Joey were.
Nope...all I care about is that they win
All i care about is seeing MU win. That's it, that's the most important thing to me when attending a game.
Here's the ONLY thing that mattered to me from the Buzz era...he won games, and lots of them. Had the program on the cusp of elite. Then Larry Williams happened, and Father Pilarsz happened, and that was the end of Buzz. It has always amazed me that so many hold grudges against Coaches for leaving, and after they are gone, seemingly the only thing that matters is how "slimy" the Coach may or may not have been. he NEVER EVER EVER cheated, and he won. Yet, this is a demonstration of what society has become. No one looks back and cares about what they should..how many games were won(and done within NCAA rules), they only care about the off the court stuff. Winning is what should and will always matter(as long as it's done within the rules of the NCAA).
And from all the way back to yesterday...
I, for one, don't much care about NMD, all I care about is them winning the game. Period.
Oh wait...there were two mentions of Cura Personalis in your history. Both were quoting other posters. Here's what you had to say when you quoted me using the phrase:
Okay first of all, I am not an alum, I am a season ticket holder for 14 years and donate to the B & G fund. So from that perspective, to be quite honest, I don't care what kind of students they are, what kind of image they might have, or how the university might look. I get where alums might, but me personally, having no ties to MU other than the BB program, I care about 1 thing...winning basketball games, period. Now of course I don't want them to do it by breaking NCAA rules, but if they bring in kids that might have a bit of questionable character..as long as they are helping win games, it really makes no difference to me. None.
So yeah...there might be some confusion as to why anyone would give a good god damn when your hypocritical ass tries to talk about the mission or ethics of Marquette University.
-
Yay....destruction ahead....opportunities for many student athletes go away as programs cut....progress. Presenting multiple sides below, but I think this is ultimately going to make the rich richer and abuse through the roof. From today's various article highlights
NCAA: Schools Will Be Unable To Compete Under California NIL Bill
September 11, 2019
A provision was added to the bill to prevent athletes from signing deals that conflict with school contracts
The NCAA responded to a bill passed by the California State Assembly allowing college athletes to more easily make money off their own name, image and likeness by sending a letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom that "says if the bill becomes law, it 'would result in (schools) being unable to compete in NCAA competitions' and would be 'unconstitutional,'" according to Bumbaca & Berkowitz of USA TODAY. Reference to the bill's legality "signals the NCAA's potential willingness to sue California under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that only Congress has the power to regulate commerce among states." The letter is "signed by every member" of the NCAA BOG (USA TODAY, 9/11). The NCAA BOG in the six-paragraph letter to Newsom said that the bill "would give California schools an unfair recruiting advantage." As a result, the NCAA "would declare those schools ineligible for its events." The NCAA said that the legislation would "impact more than 24,000 college athletes in the nation's most populous state" (AP, 9/11).
WHAT WE KNOW: In DC, Hobson & Strauss note the bill "essentially would create an Olympic-style income model" in the state, as schools "would not be forced to share the revenue they generate from sports but must permit athletes to cash in on their name or status, if they can," according to Hobson & Strauss of the WASHINGTON POST. There are "some limits on potential athlete income." Last week, a provision was "added to the legislation to prevent athletes from signing deals that would conflict with a school contract." For example, an athlete at a Nike-sponsored school "couldn't sign an endorsement deal with Adidas." In a letter to lawmakers, a Cal official "raised concerns that the bill would sap sponsorship money that currently goes to universities, leading to budget cuts and the potential elimination of sports that don't generate the millions in revenue seen by football, men's basketball and, to a lesser extent, baseball and women's basketball." Meanwhile, there are "reasons to be pessimistic this bill will be implemented" in '23 as written. A clause "allows the bill to be amended if the NCAA changes its policies." An NCAA committee -- created this year after this bill was proposed -- is "examining the organization's rules regarding name, image and likeness income." However, the bill's passage on Monday "represents a new challenge, and continued pressure, on college sports' economic structure" (WASHINGTON POST, 9/11).
GET YOUR POPCORN READY: In Philadelphia, David Murphy writes the "potential consequences of such a move include nothing less than the complete destruction of the student-athlete model that the NCAA has used as its foundation for the last 60+ years while riding the dual waves of population and technological explosion into its present status as a billion dollar industry." A world like the one California envisions "cannot coexist with the world like the one in which the NCAA currently operates" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 9/11). ESPN's Dan Murphy said the NCAA for the last several months "has been fighting" the bill because they "see it as an existential threat to their amateurism model." ESPN's Jay Bilas said the NCAA wants the status quo to remain "so that they have control of all of the money and they have control over the players." Bilas: "This is really about power and control as much as it is about money" ("OTL," ESPN, 9/11). CBSSPORTS.com's Matt Norlander wrote with "decades worth of anti-trust legal precedent potentially standing in the NCAA's way, we could have a fascinating standoff, one that should no longer be of much debate yet remains ongoing because of the NCAA's glacial pace to change" (CBSSPORTS.com, 9/10). USA TODAY's Dan Wolken writes amateurism has been "forced to evolve on the margins, but it's by and large still here in a form that allows college athletic programs to restrict the earnings of their laborers." Until the courts "deliver a real blow to that model, the California legislature seems at this point to be making a statement more than making actual laws." Unless the NCAA "acquiesces to California or unveils dramatic rule changes that would take the name, image and likeness issue off the table, it seems likely the NCAA would take its case into the court system" (USA TODAY, 9/11).
ONUS ON NCAA: In San Antonio, Mike Finger writes if the NCAA "doesn't make changes, other states are going to follow, and it might happen at the federal level, too." The NCAA "already has a committee working on a report studying the issue of name, image and likeness." A recommendation is "expected as soon as next month." That committee will "recommend the NCAA loosen restrictions on athletes' ability to capitalize on their own names, images and likenesses, which is only fair, because art students and engineering majors are free to do the same thing." The NCAA will "keep some limits in place, because the people in charge cannot resist perpetuating the illusion of control, but little by little, over time those limits will erode as well" (SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS, 9/11).
-
If California law supercedes anything NCAA can do, are you saying the NCAA cannot do marijuana testing of California student athletes because it is legal here?
California law allows drug testing of college athletes.
See Hill v NCAA.
-
Does the law prevent a bidding war for the top recruits. The schools with the wealthiest alumni will get all the top recruits for endorsing their business, but only if they play at that alums school.
-
Does the law prevent a bidding war for the top recruits. The schools with the wealthiest alumni will get all the top recruits for endorsing their business, but only if they play at that alums school.
Hope so for the kids that are worth it
-
Hope so for the kids that are worth it
You can kiss MU basketball goodbye then.
-
Does the law prevent a bidding war for the top recruits. The schools with the wealthiest alumni will get all the top recruits for endorsing their business, but only if they play at that alums school.
All the schools withe the most money will get the best recruits. Which is how it already is. We can't let this happen or the small schools won't be able to compete. Next thing you know all the big money schools will have the best facilities and coaches. We can't pay the players. No way Jose.
-
You can kiss MU basketball goodbye then.
Yep.
Osa to Texas. Davis to UNC. Garcia to I4. Burnett probably Oregon, maybe Mich. And you can absolutely forget about competing with a BB for anyone.
-
You can kiss MU basketball goodbye then.
Pony up
-
Yes, let’s take this court. I’m all for a rout of the NCAA
It doesn't look like this is the slam dunk you think/hope it is. It appears that the other member institutions of the NCAA have some smart legal minds working on this.
I don't know how this will play out but I wouldn't bet against the legal team institutions like Harvard, Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc. can muster.
-
What about the issue of discrimination in regards to eligibility, e.g. previous enrollment in college. If they allow one to market their likeness, it is a job.
The eligibility rules would discriminate against many populations on the basis of age/experience that have no bearing on the ability to perform as a basketball player, thereby excluding them from a lucrative position/career.
Previously they could claim this was related to protection of student/athletes, but with this change. It is not a student/athlete issue, it is a job/athlete issue.
What these new laws will highlight, is that the value of these players, has nothing to do with them, it is solely based on their association with a specific institution of higher learning. You will have players making significant sums of money (paid for by boosters) while in college, and then be essentially unemployable in the same exact field the day after their eligibility expires, proving the value is in the name of the institution on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back.
-
It doesn't look like this is the slam dunk you think/hope it is. It appears that the other member institutions of the NCAA have some smart legal minds working on this.
I don't know how this will play out but I wouldn't bet against the legal team institutions like Harvard, Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc. can muster.
Speaking of those names. If this goes nationwide, expect the Harvard's, Duke's, Vanderbilt's etc., that have deep deep alumni pockets to potentially become major players in big time sports.
Harvard wouldn't have to worry about scholarship issues, if they have donors willing to pay athletes $500k a year to don the Crimson, and be a token spokesman for a randomly created llc.
-
The California law gives the NCAA all the more reason to enact a policy that would allow players to profit off their likenesses while addressing legitimate concerns, such as bidding wars for players' services.
Instead - as is their wont - they'll fight for phony amateurism and sign their eventual death warrant.
All because they hate the notion of players getting a piece of their billion dollar pie.
-
It doesn't look like this is the slam dunk you think/hope it is. It appears that the other member institutions of the NCAA have some smart legal minds working on this.
I don't know how this will play out but I wouldn't bet against the legal team institutions like Harvard, Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc. can muster.
Of course, they do. The last thing they want is the labor to be paid.
-
All the schools withe the most money will get the best recruits. Which is how it already is.
Exactly. 'Nova has more money than any other school and the best facilities in the NCAA, hence 2 of the last four championships. The money Nova throws at basketball dwarfs Kentucky.
-
Speaking of those names. If this goes nationwide, expect the Harvard's, Duke's, Vanderbilt's etc., that have deep deep alumni pockets to potentially become major players in big time sports.
Harvard wouldn't have to worry about scholarship issues, if they have donors willing to pay athletes $500k a year to don the Crimson, and be a token spokesman for a randomly created llc.
It would be crazy to imagine schools like Duke and Notre Dame using their wealth and deep deep alumni pockets to become major players in big-time sports.
-
All the schools withe the most money will get the best recruits. Which is how it already is. We can't let this happen or the small schools won't be able to compete. Next thing you know all the big money schools will have the best facilities and coaches. We can't pay the players. No way Jose.
Thanks, Barro. You made the point better than I could (and with much less snarky-ness :).
-
You can kiss MU basketball goodbye then.
There are many naive people here that think it won’t happen, or want it to happen, depending on the person. This is all about scale. It will take time, won’t happen overnight, but it will happen. Once the genie is out of the bottle it isn’t going back in. Yay. Progress.
The people cheering this on don’t give two shats about the kids losing their programs. We have a thread here about one of the women’s b-ball players needing a kidney transplant that has like 10 to 15 responses. We have a 7 page thread only 24 hours old on the travesty of when National Marquette Day will be held. So as those sports and opportunities go away, these same folks pining for the 1% to get their piece, they won’t even notice the carnage of the others impacted long term. Progress baby. Progress.
-
Exactly. 'Nova has more money than any other school and the best facilities in the NCAA, hence 2 of the last four championships. The money Nova throws at basketball dwarfs Kentucky.
It's almost like there's more to being competitive than throwing money around, and these fatalistic NCAA fellaters aren't making very good arguments.
-
All the schools withe the most money will get the best recruits. Which is how it already is. We can't let this happen or the small schools won't be able to compete. Next thing you know all the big money schools will have the best facilities and coaches. We can't pay the players. No way Jose.
It gets even worse, that’s the problem. There are haves and have nots. It will become even more extreme, and scale starts to matter more than ever. Small school, not many alumni or those controlling purse strings = disadvantaged.
-
It would be crazy to imagine schools like Duke and Notre Dame using their wealth and deep deep alumni pockets to become major players in big-time sports.
I fully recognize they already try to do that. But it is different when the money flows directly into the pockets of the athlete. Yes, facilities are great. But now boosters would be able to pay them directly. So schools like:
Harvard (over $3 T in high-net worth alumni)
Stanford (~$2.8 T)
Michigan (~$700 B)
Texas (~$500 B)
USC (~$500 B)
Cal (~$500 B)
Northwestern (~$400 B)
Miami ($300 B)
Notre Dame (~$250 B)
Can essentially buy any team they want.
Those numbers absolutely dwarf those of schools like Nova, MU, even the UW's and UNC's of the world.
-
There are many naive people here that think it won’t happen, or want it to happen, depending on the person. This is all about scale. It will take time, won’t happen overnight, but it will happen. Once the genie is out of the bottle it isn’t going back in. Yay. Progress.
The people cheering this on don’t give two shats about the kids losing their programs. We have a thread here about one of the women’s b-ball players needing a kidney transplant that has like 10 to 15 responses. We have a 7 page thread only 24 hours old on the travesty of when National Marquette Day will be held. So as those sports and opportunities go away, these same folks pining for the 1% to get their piece, they won’t even notice the carnage of the others impacted long term. Progress baby. Progress.
Why would non-revenue sports go away when players getting likeness compensation wouldn’t come from the university?
-
Speaking of those names. If this goes nationwide, expect the Harvard's, Duke's, Vanderbilt's etc., that have deep deep alumni pockets to potentially become major players in big time sports.
Harvard wouldn't have to worry about scholarship issues, if they have donors willing to pay athletes $500k a year to don the Crimson, and be a token spokesman for a randomly created llc.
I see no reason why the NCAA couldn't police the legitimacy of endorsement deals like they presently police the legitimacy of jobs/internships. Look, like a lot of other people, I don't necessarily have the greatest respect for how the NCAA enforces its rules. But right now, student athletes can have jobs but have to be paid essentially market rate. Does that get abused? I have no doubt that it does. But if some deep-pocket alum gives a football player a six figure job, the NCAA can and will address it. Even if NCAA eventually allows endorsements (and I personally think they should), there's no reason to think that it would allow a donor to just pay an athlete $500k to be a spokesperson for some randomly created llc.
-
Why would non-revenue sports go away when players getting likeness compensation wouldn’t come from the university?
They wouldn't.
-
I see no reason why the NCAA couldn't police the legitimacy of endorsement deals like they presently police the legitimacy of jobs/internships. Look, like a lot of other people, I don't necessarily have the greatest respect for how the NCAA enforces its rules. But right now, student athletes can have jobs but have to be paid essentially market rate. Does that get abused? I have no doubt that it does. But if some deep-pocket alum gives a football player a six figure job, the NCAA can and will address it. Even if NCAA eventually allows endorsements (and I personally think they should), there's no reason to think that it would allow a donor to just pay an athlete $500k to be a spokesperson for some randomly created llc.
I understand that, but it would be different than a "job market", which has outside comparable rates of compensation. The only "job market" here, would be other NCAA athletes in that specific sport. Whatever these people were willing to pay is the market, and it would be an arms race.
Legally speaking, saying a newly formed LLC can't try to recruit a local spokesman to help launch their company, because they are "new," would not hold up in any court. Policing it from a legally valid method would be nearly impossible.
Heck, a consortium of alumni could simply create a new sports marketing firm, where they buy the likeness of a prospective athlete for the duration of their eligibility, and have sole rights towards profits from their likeness. They can then pay them a salary as compensation. It really doesn't matter if the firm loses money constantly...that is right to have a crappy company. The NCAA can't enforce anything against such a firm, especially since they allowed Universities to do the equivalent with compensation=scholarship, for its entire existence.
-
Why would non-revenue sports go away when players getting likeness compensation wouldn’t come from the university?
The money has to come from somewhere. A business can advertise with a school or with an athlete. Unless business are willing and able to increase the amount they spend, money for individual athletes will reduce money paid the schools.
There is no doubt revenues to schools will be impacted and budget cuts will be made. Maybe men's basketball flies commercial airlines or the coaches salaries gut cut or women's diving is eliminated.
Regardless of anyone's position on this issue, the California bill does not increase the amount of money sponsors have to spend on college athletics.
-
The money has to come from somewhere. A business can advertise with a school or with an athlete. Unless business are willing and able to increase the amount they spend, money for individual athletes will reduce money paid the schools.
A correlation with that you anyone would be unable to prove.
-
They wouldn't.
Please explain how there will magically be more money for college sports if the California bill passes? Where does the money to pay individual athletes come from?
-
I fully recognize they already try to do that. But it is different when the money flows directly into the pockets of the athlete. Yes, facilities are great. But now boosters would be able to pay them directly. So schools like:
Harvard (over $3 T in high-net worth alumni)
Stanford (~$2.8 T)
Michigan (~$700 B)
Texas (~$500 B)
USC (~$500 B)
Cal (~$500 B)
Northwestern (~$400 B)
Miami ($300 B)
Notre Dame (~$250 B)
Can essentially buy any team they want.
Those numbers absolutely dwarf those of schools like Nova, MU, even the UW's and UNC's of the world.
Are Harvard alumni suddenly going to decide that what the school really needs is a football powerhouse and toss millions of dollars into buying 5-star players (the vast majority of whom wouldn't meet academic standards for admission)?
Would the university go along with that? Would they build a multimillion dollar stadium in Boston to house such a program? Abandon the Ivy League and become a Division I independent?
Does any of this sound remotely likely to you?
And if you really and truly fear this, and aren't playing the chicken little game like some others, shouldn't you want the NCAA to create some kind of policy that will allow players reasonable compensation from their likeness while also addressing these fears? Maybe a financial cap on endorsements? An openness to revenue sharing with athletes? Outlaw endorsement deals that are contingent on enrollment to specific schools (and yes, people will try to cheat this, but as Cheeks says, that's no reason not to have the rule and try to enforce it).
There are many ways for the NCAA to get out in front of this and prevent the catastrophe some of you insist is coming. The fact they're choosing not to should be far more concerning to you than whether or not Harvard and Vandy are going to field the best team money can buy.
-
Please explain how there will magically be more money for college sports if the California bill passes? Where does the money to pay individual athletes come from?
Well, as far as I'm reading here, it will come from wealthy alumni trying to field the best teams money can buy.
Where do you think it'll come from?
-
I see no reason why the NCAA couldn't police the legitimacy of endorsement deals like they presently police the legitimacy of jobs/internships.
This sort of policing is what California lawmakers, the media, Lebron and many on this board are upset about. To be sure, nobody, especially the NCAA, is capable of determining what someone's compensation should be.
The outrage and claims of student athletes being slave labor and other nonsense would go up 100X under your proposition.
-
The very first sentence of the NCAA's statement is a blatant lie.
I'm curious to hear their constitutional argument.
Uhm, this sentence?
"The NCAA Board of Governors sent a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, making clear its belief that this bill would wipe out the distinction between college and professional athletics and eliminate the element of fairness that supports all of college sports."
I'm old enough to remember when lawyers would say one thing and other lawyers would say the exact opposite and both claim truth. I'm old enough to even remember 5-4 decisions by the highest court in the land where one side of lawyers is absolutely certain their side is right and within the law, and the other side says the same thing. So, counselor, what is a "BLATANT LIE" in this opening statement. Or is it a different first sentence that you are referencing?
-
It would be crazy to imagine schools like Duke and Notre Dame using their wealth and deep deep alumni pockets to become major players in big-time sports.
They will continue to do so, and other schools that are trying to be there will be left in the dust as more power is consolidated further. Progress. Progress.
-
Uhm, this sentence?
"The NCAA Board of Governors sent a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, making clear its belief that this bill would wipe out the distinction between college and professional athletics and eliminate the element of fairness that supports all of college sports."
I'm old enough to remember when lawyers would say one thing and other lawyers would say the exact opposite and both claim truth. I'm old enough to even remember 5-4 decisions by the highest court in the land where one side of lawyers is absolutely certain their side is right and within the law, and the other side says the same thing. So, counselor, what is a "BLATANT LIE" in this opening statement. Or is it a different first sentence that you are referencing?
That doesn't sound like the first sentence of the NCAA's statement. That sounds like the first sentence of an article.
-
Well, as far as I'm reading here, it will come from wealthy alumni trying to field the best teams money can buy.
Where do you think it'll come from?
Fair enough, but I believe wealthy alumni are already spending money to fund their schools. I believe they will carve out money that was going to the school and pay the players directly. Assuming that happens, all schools will have to cut spending. Maybe a little or maybe a lot, but cuts will be made.
-
Why would non-revenue sports go away when players getting likeness compensation wouldn’t come from the university?
Because as usual, you guys don't think things all the way through. You think a quick fix has no downhill repercussions and money fixes all. Unintended consequences which should be very bright to your side making this argument, but apparently it isn't.
I'll give you a few hints....how does an athletic department generate revenue....what are the primary sources? TV. Sponsorships. Attendance. The first one is locked in, though the number of times you stay on TV is a subject of your performance to a degree. Sponsorships and Attendance are often tied to success. Now, think for a bit if student athletes a school used to get now flock to bigger programs, bigger pockets, more alumni, more business "endorsement" opportunities.....i.e....SCALE....what that does for your program's performance on the field or court?
Stay with me.....now your flagship program(s) start to suffer, how do you think the non-revenue sports even exist without the flagship sports paying the bills?
As I said, this will not be overnight, it will take time, but as the bigger and powerful get even bigger, scale takes over. You will have some big schools today that don't do squat in athletics that suddenly will be able to because the funding to get student athletes will be channeled by rich alums with business expenditures. Oh progress, this is going to be great. It is why Val Ackerman, the BOG of the NCAA, and so many others are so against it.....because you guys wearing your robin hood tights never think through the full consequences.
That's why.
-
I understand that, but it would be different than a "job market", which has outside comparable rates of compensation. The only "job market" here, would be other NCAA athletes in that specific sport. Whatever these people were willing to pay is the market, and it would be an arms race.
Legally speaking, saying a newly formed LLC can't try to recruit a local spokesman to help launch their company, because they are "new," would not hold up in any court. Policing it from a legally valid method would be nearly impossible.
Heck, a consortium of alumni could simply create a new sports marketing firm, where they buy the likeness of a prospective athlete for the duration of their eligibility, and have sole rights towards profits from their likeness. They can then pay them a salary as compensation. It really doesn't matter if the firm loses money constantly...that is right to have a crappy company. The NCAA can't enforce anything against such a firm, especially since they allowed Universities to do the equivalent with compensation=scholarship, for its entire existence.
No, the NCAA cannot enforce anything against such a firm, but they can -- if they choose to -- set up regulations among their member institutions that an athlete receiving money from such a firm is not eligible to participate in NCAA sports. Again, I'm not trying to support the NCAA here, but I honestly don't think it would be that difficult to set up some regulations to require that endorsements be within a certain "commercially viable" range. In such a situation, a company like Nike could pay millions of dollars expecting a return on their marketing investment. A random shell llc could not.
-
Because as usual, you guys don't think things all the way through. You think a quick fix has no downhill repercussions and money fixes all. Unintended consequences which should be very bright to your side making this argument, but apparently it isn't.
I'll give you a few hints....how does an athletic department generate revenue....what are the primary sources? TV. Sponsorships. Attendance. The first one is locked in, though the number of times you stay on TV is a subject of your performance to a degree. Sponsorships and Attendance are often tied to success. Now, think for a bit if student athletes a school used to get now flock to bigger programs, bigger pockets, more alumni, more business "endorsement" opportunities.....i.e....SCALE....what that does for your program's performance on the field or court?
Stay with me.....now your flagship program(s) start to suffer, how do you think the non-revenue sports even exist without the flagship sports paying the bills?
As I said, this will not be overnight, it will take time, but as the bigger and powerful get even bigger, scale takes over. You will have some big schools today that don't do squat in athletics that suddenly will be able to because the funding to get student athletes will be channeled by rich alums with business expenditures. Oh progress, this is going to be great. It is why Val Ackerman, the BOG of the NCAA, and so many others are so against it.....because you guys wearing your robin hood tights never think through the full consequences.
That's why.
So, nothing is going to change on how an athletic department is run. Thanks
-
Uhm, this sentence?
"The NCAA Board of Governors sent a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, making clear its belief that this bill would wipe out the distinction between college and professional athletics and eliminate the element of fairness that supports all of college sports."
This is the first sentence of the NCAA's statement:
The 1,100 schools that make up the NCAA have always, in everything we do, supported a level playing field for all student-athletes.
This obviously is not true. The NCAA allows a very unlevel playing field in all its sports.
Some programs to have better practice facilities than others. Better modes of travel. Better coaching. Better academic assistance. Better training staffs. Better medical staffs. Better weight rooms. Better student/athlete housing.
I'd venture to guess that the kids playing hoops at Prairie View A&M and Chicago State don't feel they're on a level playing field with the kids over at Duke and Kentucky. And I'm not aware of anything the NCAA is doing to level that playing field.
-
That doesn't sound like the first sentence of the NCAA's statement. That sounds like the first sentence of an article.
It is directly from the NCAA. But that is why I am asking for which sentence he is referencing.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-responds-california-senate-bill-206
It doesn't change the premise that counselor Pakuni can make once claim, counselors at NCAA another and they can fight back and forth what level playing field means, what rules are, etc, etc.....especially within the jurisdiction of what the NCAA actually controls.
-
Assuming that happens, all schools will have to cut spending. Maybe a little or maybe a lot, but cuts will be made.
If bloated athletic departments need to trim back a little so that the kids that provide the labor that funds them can earn a little money, I can live with that.
-
Are Harvard alumni suddenly going to decide that what the school really needs is a football powerhouse and toss millions of dollars into buying 5-star players (the vast majority of whom wouldn't meet academic standards for admission)?
Would the university go along with that? Would they build a multimillion dollar stadium in Boston to house such a program? Abandon the Ivy League and become a Division I independent?
Does any of this sound remotely likely to you?
And if you really and truly fear this, and aren't playing the chicken little game like some others, shouldn't you want the NCAA to create some kind of policy that will allow players reasonable compensation from their likeness while also addressing these fears? Maybe a financial cap on endorsements? An openness to revenue sharing with athletes? Outlaw endorsement deals that are contingent on enrollment to specific schools (and yes, people will try to cheat this, but as Cheeks says, that's no reason not to have the rule and try to enforce it).
There are many ways for the NCAA to get out in front of this and prevent the catastrophe some of you insist is coming. The fact they're choosing not to should be far more concerning to you than whether or not Harvard and Vandy are going to field the best team money can buy.
1. I didn't insist anything. I highlighted potential issues.
2. Harvard doesn't have to impact football. What about basketball? All they need is one deep pocket alumni that cares and they can field any team imaginable. Players would care more about money than the best of facilities. Right now they are forbidden from impacting that directly, so they do not, these law changes would lift those rules.
3. Who is going to define "reasonable compensation" for their likeness. Your suggestion that it is so easy to manage is a bit laughable. Outlawing specific school deals for endorsement is a non-starter. Nike isn't going to endorse a player at a Adidas school. A Milwaukee car wash isn't going to sign a kid going to Miami. Any rule that would exist to block school specific deals would be absurdly easy to circumvent. See the marketing agency idea above. Once created, schools would recruit saying they will sign them.
4. As I mentioned above, this is likely to prove the market value of an athlete is associated with the school, not the athlete.
-
Outlawing specific school deals for endorsement is a non-starter. Nike isn't going to endorse a player at a Adidas school.
I can't help but think that if athletes are allowed to get endorsement deals, the whole idea of an "Adidas school" or a "Nike school" may go away. That money will start going into the kids' pockets and they'll get to wear what they want where ever they play. If a guy like Zion was getting paid by Nike -- to just pull a random hypothetical out of the air -- schools would still want him.
-
I see no reason why the NCAA couldn't police the legitimacy of endorsement deals like they presently police the legitimacy of jobs/internships. Look, like a lot of other people, I don't necessarily have the greatest respect for how the NCAA enforces its rules. But right now, student athletes can have jobs but have to be paid essentially market rate. Does that get abused? I have no doubt that it does. But if some deep-pocket alum gives a football player a six figure job, the NCAA can and will address it. Even if NCAA eventually allows endorsements (and I personally think they should), there's no reason to think that it would allow a donor to just pay an athlete $500k to be a spokesperson for some randomly created llc.
I don't see how that could hold up legally in court. It would essentially bar certain entities from participating in a market on an arbitrary rule of "perceived benefit".
-
I can't help but think that if athletes are allowed to get endorsement deals, the whole idea of an "Adidas school" or a "Nike school" may go away. That money will start going into the kids' pockets and they'll get to wear what they want where ever they play. If a guy like Zion was getting paid by Nike -- to just pull a random hypothetical out of the air -- schools would still want him.
So you will have teams wearing up to 13 different jerseys, depending on who the athletes endorser is? The Nike School/Adidas School will remain because of jersey/apparel sponsorship.
Nike isn't going to be happy if kids on one of their teams are wearing Adidas shoes.
-
I don't see how that could hold up legally in court. It would essentially bar certain entities from participating in a market on an arbitrary rule of "perceived benefit".
It's quite possible that I'm missing something, but on what grounds would it be challenged? Are you thinking antitrust? If the NCAA can prohibit an athlete from accepting employment at an above-market rate, why couldn't the NCAA prohibit an athlete from accepting endorsement money at an above-market rate?
-
I think people are overestimating how much money will be spent. Maybe football is worse, but I don’t think people are going to be lining up to pay the Juan Andersons or Jamail Jones of the world 100s of thousands of dollars. There will be a “bidding war” for the top talent (like there already is).
Looking at pictures of these new state of the art locker rooms and dorms, I feel like there’s enough money to go around and not negatively impact the athletic departments. They could probably reel back some of the coaches salaries too.
Would the small schools be that much worse off? Instead of losing the arms race of facilities and TV deals, that money just gets diverted to players. I don’t see the landscape changing too much.
-
1. I didn't insist anything. I highlighted potential issues.
2. Harvard doesn't have to impact football. What about basketball? All they need is one deep pocket alumni that cares and they can field any team imaginable. Players would care more about money than the best of facilities. Right now they are forbidden from impacting that directly, so they do not, these law changes would lift those rules.
3. Who is going to define "reasonable compensation" for their likeness. Your suggestion that it is so easy to manage is a bit laughable. Outlawing specific school deals for endorsement is a non-starter. Nike isn't going to endorse a player at a Adidas school. A Milwaukee car wash isn't going to sign a kid going to Miami. Any rule that would exist to block school specific deals would be absurdly easy to circumvent. See the marketing agency idea above. Once created, schools would recruit saying they will sign them.
4. As I mentioned above, this is likely to prove the market value of an athlete is associated with the school, not the athlete.
Respectfully, you're putting words in my mouth.
I never wrote that you insisted anything, nor did I suggest that any of this is easy to manage
That said ...
- if Harvard alum aren't dumping millions into their hoops program now, why would that change?
- you're misunderstanding what I wrote about outlawing deals that are contingent on attendance at a specific school. I'm suggesting that Player A can't sign a deal with Endorser B that requires Player A to attend a specific school. As in, Dewey, Screwem and Howe law firm will give 5-star recruit John Doe a $1 million endorsement deal contingent upon him attending Harvard. You're right, of course, that Nike isn't going to sign kids that don't go to Nike schools. But so what? Nike, adidas and others already buy players for their schools. What does this change, except who gets the money?
- a Milwaukee car wash isn't going to sign a kid going to Miami? OK. Why would a Milwaukee car wash sign any high school kid to an endorsement deal?
-
Trying to think of a solution that is "fair" to the players yet doesn't spell doom for MU basketball...
1. Players may be compensated (or allowed to sell their likeness) by athletic departments not supported by taxpayers.
2. Players at universities in states that allow first cousins to marry cannot be compensated.
3. Female athletes must be compensated 2:1 to their male counterparts.
Essentially, if this becomes an arms race across the NCAA, there's no way that MU is going to be able to compete with the resources of the land grants and the blue bloods - not to mention, any university south of the Mason-Dixon within 10 miles of the ocean - when it comes to recruiting 4*'s and 5*'s. The only person who could sustain competitive team in that setting is Bazz, and yet, he was the first one to jump that ship.
-
So you will have teams wearing up to 13 different jerseys, depending on who the athletes endorser is? The Nike School/Adidas School will remain because of jersey/apparel sponsorship.
Nike isn't going to be happy if kids on one of their teams are wearing Adidas shoes.
The California law includes a provision that students can't do endorsement deals that conflict with school sponsorships, i.e. a kid at a Nike school can't strike a deal that requires him to wear adidas shoes in games.
-
So you will have teams wearing up to 13 different jerseys, depending on who the athletes endorser is? The Nike School/Adidas School will remain because of jersey/apparel sponsorship.
Nike isn't going to be happy if kids on one of their teams are wearing Adidas shoes.
I think that this would eventually morph into what we already see in the NBA.
-
If bloated athletic departments need to trim back a little so that the kids that provide the labor that funds them can earn a little money, I can live with that.
Well thank you for an honest answer. While your position may not be politically correct, you recognize the financial implications of this law. Some on this board seem to believe the money for athletes will appear out of thin air.
I think non-revenue producing sports are the very definition of the "bloat" you speak of. Absolutely nothing but a drain on a university.
-
At least half the posts here belong in the Daily Dose of Doom thread in the Superbar.
We haven't heard such ominous predictions since free agency was going to kill baseball.
That was only 44 years ago.
Actually, a better analogy probably was the prediction of the South's demise if slavery were abolished.
-
It's quite possible that I'm missing something, but on what grounds would it be challenged? Are you thinking antitrust? If the NCAA can prohibit an athlete from accepting employment at an above-market rate, why couldn't the NCAA prohibit an athlete from accepting endorsement money at an above-market rate?
What you're proposing is a salary cap. It works in pro sports and would do so here since DI BB and FB are going pro.
-
What you're proposing is a salary cap. It works in pro sports and would do so here since DI BB and FB are going pro.
Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.
-
If and when this thing goes to court, to me it's an easy win for the NCAA. I'm not familiar with ANY court that can tell an organization what rules they can or can not have. Especially when the members of that organization all agree with them to become part of the organization. You pay your players?? Fine, but they are ineligible. You knew that was our rule when you joined our organization. Seems pretty easy and straightforward to me.
-
At least half the posts here belong in the Daily Dose of Doom thread in the Superbar.
We haven't heard such ominous predictions since free agency was going to kill baseball.
That was only 44 years ago.
Actually, a better analogy probably was the prediction of the South's demise if slavery were abolished.
Free agency was never going to kill baseball. But it was correctly predicted to significantly change the sport. FA was followed up with a salary cap to preserve the competitive balance. The very same changes came to every other pro sport.
Regardless of your position on the possible changes coming from California, you must realize there will be a significant impact on college sports just as there was to baseball.
College basketball and football are not going away, but they will operate differently, for better or worse.
-
Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.
College athletes have tried to unionize in the past. Maybe they'll eventually be successful.
Don't need a salary cap, though. This is 'Merica! We're all about "what the market will bear"!!
-
Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.
Well it may not be long before college athletes unionize anyway. I mentioned this before, but if this is the route they want to go down, then let's treat it like the NBA, NFL etc...have free agency, trades, hold outs, etc. I mean why not at this point??
-
Pony up
That’s great in theory but it will not happen to the degree it will at state universities. I’m assuming we are all on scoop because we love Marquette basketball. To have recruiting in the hands of boosters rather than employees of the schools we care about absolutely destroys a level playing field (and much more than it is now, you are kidding yourself if you don’t believe this). You may be rooting for the downfall of MU basketball and not even know it.
There needs to be rules in place for this to work and that would only create red tape to replace the red tape the NCAA is already dealing with.
-
Well thank you for an honest answer. While your position may not be politically correct, you recognize the financial implications of this law. Some on this board seem to believe the money for athletes will appear out of thin air.
I think non-revenue producing sports are the very definition of the "bloat" you speak of. Absolutely nothing but a drain on a university.
As cheebs says, I think some are vastly overestimating the amount of money being talked about here. Cyganiak Planning isn't going to shift all the sponsorship money it gives Marquette to pay Dexter Akanno and Theo John to appear in a radio spot. They likely get more bang for their buck by sponsoring the program as a whole.
And the bloat I speak of is more like the administrative excess within athletic departments, huge increases in salaries (AD salaries up almost 32 percent over five years, according to one survey I found), excessive spending on facilities (does Alabama really need a $9 million weight room?), etc.
-
Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.
And you don't think that is coming? I certainly do.
A salary cap is much more equitable than the NCAA arbitrarily caping individual's income.
-
Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.
As the courts have ruled that NCAA athletes are not employees, would labor laws such as this be enforceable?
-
(does Alabama really need a $9 million weight room?)
I suppose it's a sign of the times that my immediate reaction to that was, "only $9 million?" I'd have thought that Alabama's weight room cost 2-3 times that.
Edited to add: That explains it (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1516854-alabamas-new-multi-million-dollar-weight-room-is-a-fantastic-recruiting-draw). Those are 2012 dollars. I'd imagine that they'd spend at least $20 million today. Hell, they've probably already had renovations of more than $9 million.
-
If and when this thing goes to court, to me it's an easy win for the NCAA. I'm not familiar with ANY court that can tell an organization what rules they can or can not have. Especially when the members of that organization all agree with them to become part of the organization. You pay your players?? Fine, but they are ineligible. You knew that was our rule when you joined our organization. Seems pretty easy and straightforward to me.
Of course a court can tell an organization what rules they cannot have if said rules violate the law. This rule doesn't seemingly violate the law, which is why it is more a PR issue than a legal one IMO.
-
Free agency was never going to kill baseball. But it was correctly predicted to significantly change the sport. FA was followed up with a salary cap to preserve the competitive balance. The very same changes came to every other pro sport.
Regardless of your position on the possible changes coming from California, you must realize there will be a significant impact on college sports just as there was to baseball.
College basketball and football are not going away, but they will operate differently, for better or worse.
Many DID predict that free agency would kill baseball -- or at least damage it to the point where it would be doomed. Otherwise, though, I do agree with your post.
And I am OK with what happens re your last paragraph, just as I've been OK with what has happened in pro sports since free agency.
College sports evolve. About a half-century ago, some universities still weren't letting black athletes compete. Freshmen used to be ineligible. Football programs were allowed an almost unlimited number of recruits. Football and basketball players couldn't go pro until they graduated. Etc, etc, etc.
I mean, it wasn't really all that long ago that there were no women's programs. And there were plenty of doomsdayers who were saying that women being allowed to compete -- and, especially, women getting athletic scholarships -- would be the ruination of college sports.
So yes, there surely will be some changes if this law gets passed and withstands court challenges, but we'll all still have uniforms to root for.
-
As cheebs says, I think some are vastly overestimating the amount of money being talked about here. Cyganiak Planning isn't going to shift all the sponsorship money it gives Marquette to pay Dexter Akanno and Theo John to appear in a radio spot. They likely get more bang for their buck by sponsoring the program as a whole.
And the bloat I speak of is more like the administrative excess within athletic departments, huge increases in salaries (AD salaries up almost 32 percent over five years, according to one survey I found), excessive spending on facilities (does Alabama really need a $9 million weight room?), etc.
What you and many others are directly missing though, is on the surface this is "getting compensated" for a players likeness. However, what this WILL lead to 100% guaranteed, is paying players. You can say they are now, and sure maybe indirectly, but this will guarantee they are getting paid by the school(under the table), boosters, and whoever else. You think it's bad now, just wait..players will be picking their schools by how much someone is offering them, and we aren't talking just the top players here either.
Players already have an opportunity to get paid anyway...they can go to the G league or overseas and skip college. No one is Making them go to college.
-
That’s great in theory but it will not happen to the degree it will at state universities. I’m assuming we are all on scoop because we love Marquette basketball. To have recruiting in the hands of boosters rather than employees of the schools we care about absolutely destroys a level playing field (and much more than it is now, you are kidding yourself if you don’t believe this). You may be rooting for the downfall of MU basketball and not even know it.
There needs to be rules in place for this to work and that would only create red tape to replace the red tape the NCAA is already dealing with.
I can just see it now; "I'll donate this money, but only if it's used specifically to recruit Jeenathon or anyone with a Greek sounding last name. Unless it's thrown into what I'm assuming is the communal "get Zaire" pot which is okay to."
-
It would be crazy to imagine schools like Duke and Notre Dame using their wealth and deep deep alumni pockets to become major players in big-time sports.
Right now they are using the money for better facilities and training for these players. They are also getting them better exposure than other schools. They are not, however, paying them more than their assistant coaches and professors.
Many schools that already have advantages do so due to long term success on the court that it justifies it. Making this advantage exponentially larger by uncontrollable boosters paying for players does not seem the correct move for the success of college athletics.
-
What you and many others are directly missing though, is on the surface this is "getting compensated" for a players likeness. However, what this WILL lead to 100% guaranteed, is paying players. You can say they are now, and sure maybe indirectly, but this will guarantee they are getting paid by the school(under the table), boosters, and whoever else.
Nobody is missing this. We just don’t believe your chicken little predictions.
-
I'm not familiar with ANY court that can tell an organization what rules they can or can not have. Especially when the members of that organization all agree with them to become part of the organization. You pay your players?? Fine, but they are ineligible. You knew that was our rule when you joined our organization. Seems pretty easy and straightforward to me.
Are you familiar with organizations that are allowed to make arbitrary rules to supersede state law? Because that's even less familiar.
-
Making this advantage exponentially larger by uncontrollable boosters paying for players does not seem the correct move for the success of college athletics.
Why is this the only alternative?
-
As cheebs says, I think some are vastly overestimating the amount of money being talked about here. Cyganiak Planning isn't going to shift all the sponsorship money it gives Marquette to pay Dexter Akanno and Theo John to appear in a radio spot. They likely get more bang for their buck by sponsoring the program as a whole.
And the bloat I speak of is more like the administrative excess within athletic departments, huge increases in salaries (AD salaries up almost 32 percent over five years, according to one survey I found), excessive spending on facilities (does Alabama really need a $9 million weight room?), etc.
You just named two project players and you are right. But if you want a top 50 recruit you will have to pay good money for it and that likely relegates MU permanently to a lower tier than they are competing at now.
-
Why is this the only alternative?
What is the other alternative if this law is passed?
-
You just named two project players and you are right. But if you want a top 50 recruit you will have to pay good money for it and that likely relegates MU permanently to a lower tier than they are competing at now.
Define "good money."
-
What is the other alternative of this law is passed?
I've suggested several in this thread.
-
What is the other alternative of this law is passed?
What defines success? Since 2000, how many first time winners have there been of basketball or football championships?
-
Doomed! We're doomed!
-
Define "good money."
That’s the problem, you can’t. Because there would be no regulations regarding amounts that could be paid in the free market pro style system you are advocating.
-
I've suggested several in this thread.
Sorry, I’ll have to go back and read your posts again.
I see three alternatives.
1) status quo
2) free market
3) free market with a cap on payments for likeness
If you have already expounded on number three then I apologize again for not seeing it.
-
Top 25 recruit Brian Bowen cost 100K on the black market. How much (if at all) would that increase if it was a "legal" auction?
-
Top 25 recruit Brian Bowen cost 100K on the black market. How much (if at all) would that increase if it was a "legal" auction?
Things are usually more expensive black market
-
Speaking of billionaire boosters who'd buy players, T. Boone Pickens has died.
Bad news for Okie State.
-
Speaking of billionaire boosters who'd buy players, T. Boone Pickens has died.
Bad news for Okie State.
Probably provided for them in his estate. ;)
-
I'm late to the party on this but I have a couple of thoughts.
1) Nobody is saying an athlete can't use his likeness to endorse products or make money. They just can't play college sports if they do. What I have trouble with is the State of California regulating college athletics. It's not their job. I'll concede that the NCAA is a monopoly, but it is a legal monopoly. Just like major league baseball. Do we want the State of California regulating the strike zones?
2) That said, player compensation would be the death knell for Marquette Athletics as we know them. I see no way Marquette could compete in a free market for a five-star college basketball player against major public universities and P5 conferences. Same for Vanderbilt, Stanford, and even Villanova, Georgetown, St. john's and Depaul (not that they get any anyway). Just not going to happen.
3) As much as big-time college athletics has changed in the last decade or so, it's nothing compared to what's coming. The P5 football conferences have such an incredible money machine that I just don't see them as part of the same association as SEMO, Southern Illinois, Western Kentucky, Coastal Carolina, Cal-Santa Barbara etc. While it is nice to have an occasional UMBC knocking off Virginia, that's so rare an occurrence that it's a moot point. Ditto for a Loyola or Wichita State making the Final Four (where they get blown to kingdom come). Besides, what would you rather watch, Coastal Carolina playing Duke or Michigan playing North Carolina?
-
Are you familiar with organizations that are allowed to make arbitrary rules to supersede state law? Because that's even less familiar.
Their rules were in place well before this bill was even a dream. All the schools in California and everywhere else knew that. I'm having a hard time understanding what you aren't getting here. No one, not even the NCAA is telling California, that college athletes can't make $$ off their likenesses. They are entitled to do that if they so choose. However, what the NCAA is SAYING is if they choose to do that, they aren't eligible to play college athletics and/or participate in post season play. It's two separate issues really. One is state law, one is a rule the organization has that you belong to. The bill they are passing says absolutely NOTHING about that they MUST be allowed to remain eligible to play in college or participate in postseason.
By enforcing their own rule(that again, all the members agreed to as a condition of membership), they aren't telling them they can't pay their players. Heck, they aren't even telling them they can't break away from the NCAA and form their own California league if they so choose, and they certainly aren't making this enforceable only to the state of California. It would apply to any state that passes such a law.
I mean, there's a state law in Wisconsin that you can't drink until you're 21..But if when your daughter turns say 17, and you decide it's okay for her to have a drink or two at home when you or your wife are there with her, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Our employers have to pay us for doing work for them, that's not only a State law, but a federal law..however, HOW our employer chooses to pay us(weekly, bi-weekly etc) is strictly up to them.
-
This is the first sentence of the NCAA's statement:
The 1,100 schools that make up the NCAA have always, in everything we do, supported a level playing field for all student-athletes.
This obviously is not true. The NCAA allows a very unlevel playing field in all its sports.
Some programs to have better practice facilities than others. Better modes of travel. Better coaching. Better academic assistance. Better training staffs. Better medical staffs. Better weight rooms. Better student/athlete housing.
I'd venture to guess that the kids playing hoops at Prairie View A&M and Chicago State don't feel they're on a level playing field with the kids over at Duke and Kentucky. And I'm not aware of anything the NCAA is doing to level that playing field.
This is total crap which is why it wasn’t a lie let alone blatant, but I am glad you spelled it out.
Alabama is under the same rules as UCLA and Texas and Marquette. Those are the rules they are talking of. The NCAA has no jurisdiction, which is what I stated, to control the better weather at UCLA vs Minnesota. Nor do they have the right to say the building you use for basketball must be built to the same spec as every other building across the nation. I hope to God you are not thinking that is possible or even makes common sense. Yes, there will always be schools with more money, better buildings, prettier girls, more handsome guys, better weather. That’s not what the NCAA can or should level.
You know as well as anyone what they are talking about. The thick rule book applies to all of the schools, not just some of them.
Their statement was not false, or a lie.
-
Their rules were in place well before this bill was even a dream. All the schools in California and everywhere else knew that. I'm having a hard time understanding what you aren't getting here. No one, not even the NCAA is telling California, that college athletes can't make $$ off their likenesses. They are entitled to do that if they so choose. However, what the NCAA is SAYING is if they choose to do that, they aren't eligible to play college athletics and/or participate in post season play. It's two separate issues really. One is state law, one is a rule the organization has that you belong to. The bill they are passing says absolutely NOTHING about that they MUST be allowed to remain eligible to play in college or participate in postseason.
By enforcing their own rule(that again, all the members agreed to as a condition of membership), they aren't telling them they can't pay their players. Heck, they aren't even telling them they can't break away from the NCAA and form their own California league if they so choose, and they certainly aren't making this enforceable only to the state of California. It would apply to any state that passes such a law.
I mean, there's a state law in Wisconsin that you can't drink until you're 21..But if when your daughter turns say 17, and you decide it's okay for her to have a drink or two at home when you or your wife are there with her, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Our employers have to pay us for doing work for them, that's not only a State law, but a federal law..however, HOW our employer chooses to pay us(weekly, bi-weekly etc) is strictly up to them.
Exactly. You want to go make money off YouTube, go do it.....like any other student does....their own platform, not using athletics as the platform. You just don’t get to play anymore...that is a choice. We all have choices.
When are Brew, Pakuni, Rico and others going to demand that every student gets free tutors, free air travel to locations around the country, free clothing, equipment, etc.
-
Exactly. You want to go make money off YouTube, go do it.....like any other student does....their own platform, not using athletics as the platform. You just don’t get to play anymore...that is a choice. We all have choices.
When are Brew, Pakuni, Rico and others going to demand that every student gets free tutors, free air travel to locations around the country, free clothing, equipment, etc.
When they start generating revenue commiserate with what major college athletics do
-
When are Brew, Pakuni, Rico and others going to demand that every student gets free tutors, free air travel to locations around the country, free clothing, equipment, etc.
None of these things are free. They cost money. And that money is generated via the labor of the players.
-
None of these things are free. They cost money. And that money is generated via the labor of the players.
So does tuition, the best housing on campus, access to things normal students don't have etc. Those are all GIVEN to the athletes, free of charge. Regular students don't get those things.
Does everyone realize that if this comes to pass, these athletes will have to pay taxes on any income they make?? So what happens if some of the top athletes like a star QB makes 50k or so a year off his likeness. You think he'll be able to afford to pay the taxes on that?? Most likely a booster or someone will offer to take care of that for him. Totally illegal. But that is what this is going to open the door for.
-
So does tuition, the best housing on campus, access to things normal students don't have etc. Those are all GIVEN to the athletes, free of charge. Regular students don't get those things.
Does everyone realize that if this comes to pass, these athletes will have to pay taxes on any income they make?? So what happens if some of the top athletes like a star QB makes 50k or so a year off his likeness. You think he'll be able to afford to pay the taxes on that?? Most likely a booster or someone will offer to take care of that for him. Totally illegal. But that is what this is going to open the door for.
Yes, that’s an excellent point. That doesn’t happen at all, boosters paying kids or their families or handlers.
Some athletes also have great access to fellow students doing their classwork for them as well.
Athletes also have access to a lot of places fellow students don’t have access to. It’s a horrific world out there
-
Yes, that’s an excellent point. That doesn’t happen at all, boosters paying kids or their families or handlers.
Some athletes also have great access to fellow students doing their classwork for them as well.
Athletes also have access to a lot of places fellow students don’t have access to. It’s a horrific world out there
I guess I'm curious as to why you are rooting for the demise of Marquette basketball?? Because this is EXACTLY what will happen if this becomes a universal thing.
-
So does tuition, the best housing on campus, access to things normal students don't have etc. Those are all GIVEN to the athletes, free of charge. Regular students don't get those things.
And the total value of all this remains well below the amount of revenue the players generate for the university.
Does everyone realize that if this comes to pass, these athletes will have to pay taxes on any income they make?? So what happens if some of the top athletes like a star QB makes 50k or so a year off his likeness. You think he'll be able to afford to pay the taxes on that??
Why wouldn't a player be able to afford the taxes?
-
Things are usually more expensive black market
Can't that traditionally be linked to basic supply and demand. Lower supply causes the demand to increase. The supply of top tier basketball prospects is set to be consistent. The demand could increase due to the knowledge that history/tradition/facilities/location/weather don't matter because it's just a straight auction. I can only speculate, but I would say that whatever got funneled to Zion's family/handler is pennies compared to what could have happened if UCLA, Arizona, Texas, and Duke had just had a straight up bidding war.
-
I guess I'm curious as to why you are rooting for the demise of Marquette basketball?? Because this is EXACTLY what will happen if this becomes a universal thing.
The demise of Marquette basketball was widely predicted as they remained an independent. They joined a league. Their demise was predicted when they were in a mid-major league. So on and so forth. The Big East was doomed with no football. I guess I have more faith in Marquette than you
-
Our employers have to pay us for doing work for them, that's not only a State law, but a federal law..however, HOW our employer chooses to pay us(weekly, bi-weekly etc) is strictly up to them.
No, it's not. They are subject to overtime laws. They are subject to federal or local minimum wages. They are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. They are subject to numerous laws that dictate how they must act. And like the California law, these didn't always exist, but companies had to obey those new laws once they took effect. Just like the NCAA will have to do with the California law.
There are some controls employers have, but those controls must still fall within the federal and local laws. Rules don't trump laws.
-
The very first sentence of the NCAA's statement is a blatant lie.
I'm curious to hear their constitutional argument.
I would think the argument would be that college basketball is interstate commerce and States do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce.
-
No, it's not. They are subject to overtime laws. They are subject to federal or local minimum wages. They are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. They are subject to numerous laws that dictate how they must act. And like the California law, these didn't always exist, but companies had to obey those new laws once they took effect. Just like the NCAA will have to do with the California law.
There are some controls employers have, but those controls must still fall within the federal and local laws. Rules don't trump laws.
Why is it such a hard concept to understand for you Brew?? You seem to be an intelligent guy...whether California pays it's players or not, is 100% their prerogative, but it's completely separate from the NCAA then saying, okay you now are not allowed to compete in the postseason because you are violating OUR rules. They have every right to do that and every right to enforce it.
If you violate a work rule, even though you weren't breaking a law, you could be fired. That's their right, and we know the rules when we accept a job with them.
Kids are dismissed from programs for MANY reasons that don't involve breaking a law. Their rules, they can enforce them as they see fit.
I guess I want you to explain to me how if California passes this law that players can make money off their likenesses, that it then FORCES the NCAA to allow them to play in postseason and NOT make them ineligible. It can't.
-
Why is it such a hard concept to understand for you Brew?? You seem to be an intelligent guy...whether California pays it's players or not, is 100% their prerogative, but it's completely separate from the NCAA then saying, okay you now are not allowed to compete in the postseason because you are violating OUR rules. They have every right to do that and every right to enforce it.
If you violate a work rule, even though you weren't breaking a law, you could be fired. That's their right, and we know the rules when we accept a job with them.
Kids are dismissed from programs for MANY reasons that don't involve breaking a law. Their rules, they can enforce them as they see fit.
I guess I want you to explain to me how if California passes this law that players can make money off their likenesses, that it then FORCES the NCAA to allow them to play in postseason and NOT make them ineligible. It can't.
Because the NCAA will be taken to court over it and other states will pass similar legislation in the meantime. As wild as it sounds, the NCAA could come up with a compromise position but then they’d lose money and control and that’s all they care about
-
The demise of Marquette basketball was widely predicted as they remained an independent. They joined a league. Their demise was predicted when they were in a mid-major league. So on and so forth. The Big East was doomed with no football. I guess I have more faith in Marquette than you
You're talking about completely different things...switching conferences etc, is TOTALLY different then a world where players are getting paid. I mean, not saying it would happen, but what if Marquette, or any other University just says, if this is the way it's going to be, we just will drop our basketball program?? They would have every right to do so.
-
Because the NCAA will be taken to court over it and other states will pass similar legislation in the meantime. As wild as it sounds, the NCAA could come up with a compromise position but then they’d lose money and control and that’s all they care about
And what would the argument be from states that the NCAA MUST allow them to pay their players AND still be eligible for postseason play??
How did it go when college players tried to unionize?? They were shot down. they couldn't FORCE the NCAA to let them be a union. Think the NCAA does have some power, huh??
-
You're talking about completely different things...switching conferences etc, is TOTALLY different then a world where players are getting paid. I mean, not saying it would happen, but what if Marquette, or any other University just says, if this is the way it's going to be, we just will drop our basketball program?? They would have every right to do so.
The university isn’t paying the players
-
The universities aren't paying the players, and it would be a discrimination lawsuit based on the zip code. But that's most likely beside the point because the NCAA will undoubtedly cave long before it gets that far.
-
The university isn’t paying the players
As of now no, but this will eventually lead to that.
-
People opposing this, it's about time to accept this is coming. This passed unanimously in California. It will pass in other states and it will do so with broad bipartisan support because there's no defense against it. And if the NCAA pulls off an interstate commerce defense, which seems flimsy at best, it will pass through the federal government. It's already been discussed as a primary topic for 2020.
In the Parrish/Norlander poll on CBS Sports, 77% of coaches support this. The people who are the public face of this sport know what's right and know what direction this is going.
Likeness earning for student athletes is coming. It's not a question of if, it's when. This is just the next obvious step in a process that started with O'Bannon and will, unquestionably, end with players being able to earn money from their likeness. Better to start accepting that obvious reality now.
-
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/california-college-athletes-endorsements-bill
The Pac-12 Conference referred to its previous statement on the bill that asked the Legislature to delay taking action until an NCAA working group finished studying the issue this fall.
During a committee hearing earlier this year, Long Beach State athletic director Andy Fee warned of “many potential and unintended consequences” if the bill becomes law.
“I fear the distinct possibility of a scenario where California schools could be expelled for willful breaking of NCAA rules,” Fee said. “Should California schools be expelled, the very student-athletes the bill is intended to assist would be adversely affected.”
-
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/california-college-athletes-endorsements-bill
The Pac-12 Conference referred to its previous statement on the bill that asked the Legislature to delay taking action until an NCAA working group finished studying the issue this fall.
During a committee hearing earlier this year, Long Beach State athletic director Andy Fee warned of “many potential and unintended consequences” if the bill becomes law.
“I fear the distinct possibility of a scenario where California schools could be expelled for willful breaking of NCAA rules,” Fee said. “Should California schools be expelled, the very student-athletes the bill is intended to assist would be adversely affected.”
Bwahahahahahahahahaha *catches breath* bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha /farts three times
-
Bwahahahahahahahahaha *catches breath* bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha /farts three times
Again, you are being a COMPLETE tool about this..Totally. I guess you want college athletics to become pro sports. Bring on free agency, and trades, and hold outs etc! Sounds great!
-
Bwahahahahahahahahaha *catches breath* bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha /farts three times
+1
This is going to lead to the end of collegiate sports the same way free agency destroyed baseball, as hilltopper noted. I miss baseball, even though it ended a couple years before I was born. Too bad Cubs fans never got to see their team win a World Series.
-
Again, you are being a COMPLETE tool about this..Totally. I guess you want college athletics to become pro sports. Bring on free agency, and trades, and hold outs etc! Sounds great!
I think it’s closer to professional sports than most people want to admit. This pure idea of a bunch of our fellow students playing for the love of their school went away awhile ago. It’s a business now.
-
The trouble with this law as I see it is that it will promote more inequality. Only the very top players will be making money on this. The average player might get some money here or there, but it is not going to benefit them very much. Even in pro sports the dollars mostly go to players who do not need it. How, many Packers besides Rogers do you see in commercials?
-
+1
This is going to lead to the end of collegiate sports the same way free agency destroyed baseball, as hilltopper noted. I miss baseball, even though it ended a couple years before I was born. Too bad Cubs fans never got to see their team win a World Series.
And guess what Free agency did?? It gave the bigger dollar teams a distinct advantage, didn't it?? Small markets can't compete for free agents with teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs etc. Ironically, the Cubs are a LARGE market team, Boston won it last year=Large market team...no salary cap. Not a level playing field. Just as this won't be if this bill goes universal. What players other than bottom level players will want to go to a Marquette in Milwaukee(with limited marketing opportunities) as opposed to go and playing at a college in New York, or California??
Everyone thinks there's a lot of transfers now?? Just wait until this goes universal, kids are going to be transferring even more than they are now.."Coach, i just don't have the marketing ability here that I could in a bigger city". And what about the anomosity this may cause amongst teammates when the star QB is making 100k of his likeness, and the back up Right tackle is making $50??
-
Again, you are being a COMPLETE tool about this..Totally. I guess you want college athletics to become pro sports. Bring on free agency, and trades, and hold outs etc! Sounds great!
Yes, all those things are certain to happen. Transfers? Early entries? Coaches leaving contracts early and taking whole recruiting classes with them? The sport certainly doesn’t have any roster uncertainty now.
If I had to guess, you’d probably eliminate all that, too
-
The trouble with this law as I see it is that it will promote more inequality. Only the very top players will be making money on this. The average player might get some money here or there, but it is not going to benefit them very much. Even in pro sports the dollars mostly go to players who do not need it. How, many Packers besides Rogers do you see in commercials?
Too many, if we’re being honest ;)
-
+1
This is going to lead to the end of collegiate sports the same way free agency destroyed baseball, as hilltopper noted. I miss baseball, even though it ended a couple years before I was born. Too bad Cubs fans never got to see their team win a World Series.
Ask Duane Wilson what he thinks of this law.
-
And guess what Free agency did?? It gave the bigger dollar teams a distinct advantage, didn't it?? Small markets can't compete for free agents with teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs etc. Ironically, the Cubs are a LARGE market team, Boston won it last year=Large market team...no salary cap. Not a level playing field. Just as this won't be if this bill goes universal. What players other than bottom level players will want to go to a Marquette in Milwaukee(with limited marketing opportunities) as opposed to go and playing at a college in New York, or California??
Everyone thinks there's a lot of transfers now?? Just wait until this goes universal, kids are going to be transferring even more than they are now.."Coach, i just don't have the marketing ability here that I could in a bigger city". And what about the anomosity this may cause amongst teammates when the star QB is making 100k of his likeness, and the back up Right tackle is making $50??
Heaven forbid a world where a select group of schools holds a near-unbreakable recruiting advantage!!! What will we do?!?
And to the second paragraph...so?
-
Yes, all those things are certain to happen. Transfers? Early entries? Coaches leaving contracts early and taking whole recruiting classes with them? The sport certainly doesn’t have any roster uncertainty now.
If I had to guess, you’d probably eliminate all that, too
Can't players opt to not go to college and go play in the G league or overseas out of high school if they so choose?? They have opportunities to make money. No one is making them go to college are they??
-
Heaven forbid a world where a select group of schools holds a near-unbreakable recruiting advantage!!! What will we do?!?
And to the second paragraph...so?
So?? Let me ask you this, what do you think this will do to Marquette's basketball program?? You are one of the most vocal about his desire to see a national Championship(and I 100% applaud that), this law will pretty much make sure that NEVER happens, unless they do it by pure luck. You applauding this law, is also applauding the down turn of MU basketball. You sure you want that??
-
Can't players opt to not go to college and go play in the G league or overseas out of high school if they so choose?? They have opportunities to make money. No one is making them go to college are they??
They can’t in football because the NFL knows college is their feeder league. You’re focusing solely on basketball.
The NBA and shoe companies should be paying kids as soon as middle school and starting their own academies. Kids that aren’t good enough can use that money to go to college later. They’ll get far better training and coaching than they do in high school
-
Respectfully, you're putting words in my mouth.
I never wrote that you insisted anything, nor did I suggest that any of this is easy to manage
My apologies. I read your "as some of you insist" as applying to me.
I'm not insisting anything. Nor am I claiming this is the end of the world. I simply think many of you are greatly oversimplifying the potential outcomes of this.
No matter what, this will cause change. I think change will be for the worse in terms of NCAA basketball. Very simple reason why.
If we could guarantee landing RJ Davis by coming up with an endorsement deal, which was perfectly legal, how many of you/us would contribute to a fund to have him be the official spokesperson of Rocket's dental practice. I know I would kick in a chunk of money, and most fans that have disposable income would too.
Right now we aren't using that money towards MU athletics, but would if it was above board and could recruit a start athlete. That is going to be universal. And some schools have alumni with far far far more disposable income than any scooper.
-
My apologies. I read your "as some of you insist" as applying to me.
I'm not insisting anything. Nor am I claiming this is the end of the world. I simply think many of you are greatly oversimplifying the potential outcomes of this.
No matter what, this will cause change. I think change will be for the worse in terms of NCAA basketball. Very simple reason why.
If we could guarantee landing RJ Davis by coming up with an endorsement deal, which was perfectly legal, how many of you/us would contribute to a fund to have him be the official spokesperson of Rocket's dental practice. I know I would kick in a chunk of money, and most fans that have disposable income would too.
Right now we aren't using that money towards MU athletics, but would if it was above board and could recruit a start athlete. That is going to be universal. And some schools have alumni with far far far more disposable income than any scooper.
That hints at a far greater problem, anyway. If you have that kind of disposable income and you’re trying to buy your alma mater a championship, I’d question your life priorities but that’s a different discussion
-
When they start generating revenue commiserate with what major college athletics do
The G-league has far more talented players than the NCAA. Why doesn't the G-league generate more revenue?
Would the NCAA generate more revenue, if the more talented G-league players played in the NCAA?
-
The G-league has far more talented players than the NCAA. Why doesn't the G-league generate more revenue?
Would the NCAA generate more revenue, if the more talented G-league players played in the NCAA?
Fair question to ask that I’m not sure I can answer.
-
So?? Let me ask you this, what do you think this will do to Marquette's basketball program?? You are one of the most vocal about his desire to see a national Championship(and I 100% applaud that), this law will pretty much make sure that NEVER happens, unless they do it by pure luck. You applauding this law, is also applauding the down turn of MU basketball. You sure you want that??
I think your Chicken Littling is nothing more than that. Marquette still has benefactors that would keep them where they at. The league won't fall off the earth. Milwaukee will still be a top-35 market. Players will still come here, play here, and donors will help that.
-
The G-league has far more talented players than the NCAA. Why doesn't the G-league generate more revenue?
Would the NCAA generate more revenue, if the more talented G-league players played in the NCAA?
I think more of the talented G League players would stay in school longer if they could profit from their likeness.
-
I think more of the talented G League players would stay in school longer if they could profit from their likeness.
One of my concerns with the "likeness" issue is graduates claiming unfair treatment by arbitrarily excluding them from a market (NCAA) that generates more lucrative contracts.
The NCAA can no longer claim "student athlete," when the athletes are generating personal revenue from their participation. It becomes a job, where segments of the population are discriminated against, in part on the basis of age. Could be a valid antitrust issue, especially with no collective bargaining agreement.
-
In case anyone was wondering, here is the NCAA board of Governors, who all signed the letter...I bolded two, one of which should be of interest to everyone that posts here. The 2nd is from Ohio State University, the3rd largest public University in the US with DEEP pockets, and lo and behold, they signed the letter. The ONLY people that seemingly want this, are the players.
Stevie Baker-Watson, DePauw University
M. Grace Calhoun, University of Pennsylvania
Ken Chenault, General Catalyst
Mary Sue Coleman, Association of American Universities
John DeGioia, Georgetown University
Michael Drake, The Ohio State University
Philip DiStefano, University of Colorado, Boulder
Mark Emmert, NCAA
Sue Henderson, New Jersey City University
Grant Hill, CBS/Warner and The Atlanta Hawks
Sandra Jordan, University of South Carolina Aiken
Renu Khator, University of Houston
Laura Liesman, Georgian Court University
Ronald Machtley, Bryant University
The Rev. James Maher, Niagara University
Denis McDonough, Former White House Chief of Staff
Tori Murden McClure, Spalding University
Gary Olson, Daemen College
Denise Trauth, Texas State University
Satish Tripathi, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York
David Wilson, Morgan State University
Randy Woodson, North Carolina State University
-
And the total value of all this remains well below the amount of revenue the players generate for the university.
Yes, individually. Collectively, the entire team makes millions of dollars.
Businesses (even not for profit businesses) need to make profits to reinvest into their business. The idea that these athletes who have invested thousands of dollars to further their careers by the time they get to college should get as much as the universities get after investing hundreds of millions makes no sense. I think people are underestimating the platform that has been given to these players to showcase themselves. The hundreds of thousands of dollars in total compensation individual players already get is enormous when multiplied by all D1 college players. Yet people are describing this as unfair.
-
In case anyone was wondering, here is the NCAA board of Governors, who all signed the letter...I bolded two, one of which should be of interest to everyone that posts here. The 2nd is from Ohio State University, the3rd largest public University in the US with DEEP pockets, and lo and behold, they signed the letter. The ONLY people that seemingly want this, are the players.
Stevie Baker-Watson, DePauw University
M. Grace Calhoun, University of Pennsylvania
Ken Chenault, General Catalyst
Mary Sue Coleman, Association of American Universities
John DeGioia, Georgetown University
Michael Drake, The Ohio State University
Philip DiStefano, University of Colorado, Boulder
Mark Emmert, NCAA
Sue Henderson, New Jersey City University
Grant Hill, CBS/Warner and The Atlanta Hawks
Sandra Jordan, University of South Carolina Aiken
Renu Khator, University of Houston
Laura Liesman, Georgian Court University
Ronald Machtley, Bryant University
The Rev. James Maher, Niagara University
Denis McDonough, Former White House Chief of Staff
Tori Murden McClure, Spalding University
Gary Olson, Daemen College
Denise Trauth, Texas State University
Satish Tripathi, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York
David Wilson, Morgan State University
Randy Woodson, North Carolina State University
That’s because they want to control the money and players. Grant Hill and Randy Woodson signing that is some mighty hypocrisy.
-
One of my concerns with the "likeness" issue is graduates claiming unfair treatment by arbitrarily excluding them from a market (NCAA) that generates more lucrative contracts.
The NCAA can no longer claim "student athlete," when the athletes are generating personal revenue from their participation. It becomes a job, where segments of the population are discriminated against, in part on the basis of age. Could be a valid antitrust issue, especially with no collective bargaining agreement.
Nah, if that were the case 25-year-old gymnasts would have made the case, or retired athletes from other professional sports that never made the money players make today.
You make what you can in the window you have. It's like that in every other profession, no reason for this one to be different.
-
Nah, if that were the case 25-year-old gymnasts would have made the case, or retired athletes from other professional sports that never made the money players make today.
You make what you can in the window you have. It's like that in every other profession, no reason for this one to be different.
Previously there was no value/income that could be had by making that case. Now you could be talking 100's of thousands of dollars lost per year, simply because you went to school for 4 year.
Regarding the "window"? How many other professions exclude you from the profession when you become more skilled and better at your job? This one is different in its very nature when compared to any other profession.
-
+1
This is going to lead to the end of collegiate sports the same way free agency destroyed baseball, as hilltopper noted. I miss baseball, even though it ended a couple years before I was born. Too bad Cubs fans never got to see their team win a World Series.
Agreed, but it won’t exist in the current iteration. Too many teams. Fortunately in baseball there are only 30 teams. Easier to find enough players throughout the world to fill only 30 rosters. MU basketball I fear may go down to D2 or be associated with the D1 have nots because they will be one of the 225 teams who cannot pay. Meanwhile the schools with enormous fan bases who can by their team like professional baseball teams will thrive. This will include P5 teams with zero basketball tradition just because of the shear alumni numbers. Suddenly they will jump MU in prestige and there is nothing we can do about it.
Too say this crusade won’t have deleterious effects is burying your head in the sand.
I am a big professional sports fan so I will be fine either way but MU b-ball is a passion of mine that won’t survive relegation. It will become MU rugby to me. I think many of you would feel the same way.
I really hope you guys are right though and every school adapts to the new reality well because I feel this is going to happen no matter how the collective universities feel.
-
Previously there was no value/income that could be had by making that case. Now you could be talking 100's of thousands of dollars lost per year, simply because you went to school for 4 year.
Regarding the "window"? How many other professions exclude you from the profession when you become more skilled and better at your job? This one is different in its very nature when compared to any other profession.
Perhaps, but if you’re a washout at the next level, why would anyone pay money for you to use as an endorsement to play at Marquette?
-
When they start generating revenue commiserate with what major college athletics do
LOL. Who is generating the revenue? Without the players, there are no games. Guess what, without the scholarships, the facilities, etc, provided by the schools...there are no games either. Want to make revenue, go pro. Want to earn a college degree for free, play college. Very simple.
-
None of these things are free. They cost money. And that money is generated via the labor of the players.
It's funny how some of you think the entire ball of wax is "generated" by the labor of players. Interesting. Completely false, but interesting.
-
LOL. Who is generating the revenue? Without the players, there are no games. Guess what, without the scholarships, the facilities, etc, provided by the schools...there are no games either. Want to make revenue, go pro. Want to earn a college degree for free, play college. Very simple.
Without the players, there are no games. Fox Sports isn’t giving the Big East millions to the WIAC. Very simple
-
The demise of Marquette basketball was widely predicted as they remained an independent. They joined a league. Their demise was predicted when they were in a mid-major league. So on and so forth. The Big East was doomed with no football. I guess I have more faith in Marquette than you
Nice hyperbole and this was discussed at length a few weeks ago and knocked out of the park for you. Your argument has also changed since then, because your original premise was flawed.
-
It's funny how some of you think the entire ball of wax is "generated" by the labor of players. Interesting. Completely false, but interesting.
1. Nobody here said this. Literally not one person.
2. Everyone else involved with the business of college sports gets paid for their work.
-
Nice hyperbole and this was discussed at length a few weeks ago and knocked out of the park for you. Your argument has also changed since then, because your original premise was flawed.
I did hit a home run, thank you.
-
People opposing this, it's about time to accept this is coming. This passed unanimously in California. It will pass in other states and it will do so with broad bipartisan support because there's no defense against it. And if the NCAA pulls off an interstate commerce defense, which seems flimsy at best, it will pass through the federal government. It's already been discussed as a primary topic for 2020.
In the Parrish/Norlander poll on CBS Sports, 77% of coaches support this. The people who are the public face of this sport know what's right and know what direction this is going.
Likeness earning for student athletes is coming. It's not a question of if, it's when. This is just the next obvious step in a process that started with O'Bannon and will, unquestionably, end with players being able to earn money from their likeness. Better to start accepting that obvious reality now.
77% of which coaches....revenue coaches? LOL. You also failed to mention the details of that poll which were discussed here last week. The general public, as of earlier this year was still in the minority as posted yesterday. Regardless, if policy was driven by polls there would be a lot of things going on that don't go on right now, at some point adults have to take charge.
Drip drip drip. I agree, it's the next step and that will lead to the next one and the next one. PROGRESS baby. Enjoy college sports the next few years if this becomes the new deal, I'm just curious who you all are going to cheer for when this sets in because as the next step and next step and next steps happen, that will ultimately lead to full payment (that's your end goal) which will destroy college athletics fully, including opportunities for so many men and women not playing revenue sports. But hey, who cares. Awesome. Take care of those 1%ers
-
77% of which coaches....revenue coaches? LOL. You also failed to mention the details of that poll which were discussed here last week. The general public, as of earlier this year was still in the minority as posted yesterday. Regardless, if policy was driven by polls there would be a lot of things going on that don't go on right now, at some point adults have to take charge.
Drip drip drip. I agree, it's the next step and that will lead to the next one and the next one. PROGRESS baby. Enjoy college sports the next few years if this becomes the new deal, I'm just curious who you all are going to cheer for when this sets in because as the next step and next step and next steps happen, that will ultimately lead to full payment (that's your end goal) which will destroy college athletics fully, including opportunities for so many men and women not playing revenue sports. But hey, who cares. Awesome. Take care of those 1%ers
Lol
-
In case anyone was wondering, here is the NCAA board of Governors, who all signed the letter...I bolded two, one of which should be of interest to everyone that posts here. The 2nd is from Ohio State University, the3rd largest public University in the US with DEEP pockets, and lo and behold, they signed the letter. The ONLY people that seemingly want this, are the players.
Stevie Baker-Watson, DePauw University
M. Grace Calhoun, University of Pennsylvania
Ken Chenault, General Catalyst
Mary Sue Coleman, Association of American Universities
John DeGioia, Georgetown University
Michael Drake, The Ohio State University
Philip DiStefano, University of Colorado, Boulder
Mark Emmert, NCAA
Sue Henderson, New Jersey City University
Grant Hill, CBS/Warner and The Atlanta Hawks
Sandra Jordan, University of South Carolina Aiken
Renu Khator, University of Houston
Laura Liesman, Georgian Court University
Ronald Machtley, Bryant University
The Rev. James Maher, Niagara University
Denis McDonough, Former White House Chief of Staff
Tori Murden McClure, Spalding University
Gary Olson, Daemen College
Denise Trauth, Texas State University
Satish Tripathi, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York
David Wilson, Morgan State University
Randy Woodson, North Carolina State University
I can't believe the Hausers got all of these people to sign the letter.
-
I think it’s closer to professional sports than most people want to admit. This pure idea of a bunch of our fellow students playing for the love of their school went away awhile ago. It’s a business now.
So our men's tennis team....that's a business even though they charge $0 for admission and are 100% a cost center? Our women's track team...same scenario, etc. Just want to make sure I have it fully understandable. Yes, there is money being made, yes it is big money in totality, but not at the per school level. Yes, many benefit from it, including non-revenue sports.
-
The trouble with this law as I see it is that it will promote more inequality. Only the very top players will be making money on this. The average player might get some money here or there, but it is not going to benefit them very much. Even in pro sports the dollars mostly go to players who do not need it. How, many Packers besides Rogers do you see in commercials?
I view it differently. As someone who for a living pays professional athletes to be in commercials among other things, there is a limit on who can afford the price tag and have the marketing budget to pay for these things.
Instead, I see scenarios where boosters and their companies pay for athletes to show up at events (time away from school) and they get paid a "fee". Who is setting that fee? Or they will put them in their print or digital ads (who is setting the talent fees for this)? The amount of massive abuse that is going to go on is going to be great. Will the NCAA or the colleges be required to turn in all receipts / invoices on this? Tax documents? Will these businesses be paying above the table, below the table? It's one thing to have a rich booster pay money to someone, now we're saying it goes on the books of a company....maybe.
Just wait until the current starting guard has a deal, but Johnny Mafia's car dealership give 5X that amount to a recruit coming to the same school....ah the team comraderie that will generate....going to be awesome.
So well thought out....amazingly well thought out. ::)
-
Previously there was no value/income that could be had by making that case. Now you could be talking 100's of thousands of dollars lost per year, simply because you went to school for 4 year.
Regarding the "window"? How many other professions exclude you from the profession when you become more skilled and better at your job? This one is different in its very nature when compared to any other profession.
They won't be university employees. If they are more skilled and better, they can go earn money professionally. And if they want to continue earning money off their likenesses, no one will prevent them from doing that.
-
Student athletes can work, stop saying they cannot. Lots of things student athletes got to do that you didn’t....was that fair to the others? Was that ethical?
I didn't realize this! I always thought they couldn't have any job.
Here's a fun list of other ways they can earn money:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/10-ways-college-athletes-can-get-paid-and-remain-eligible-for-their-sport/
-
So our men's tennis team....that's a business even though they charge $0 for admission and are 100% a cost center? Our women's track team...same scenario, etc. Just want to make sure I have it fully understandable. Yes, there is money being made, yes it is big money in totality, but not at the per school level. Yes, many benefit from it, including non-revenue sports.
I was mostly talking about basketball and football.
However, I’d say the others do. I mean tennis has 5/11 men’s players from outside the US and the women have 7/8. The below article seems businesslike to me. It’s not as lucrative as basketball or football, but I don’t view it as the pure as snow amateurism to give the kids an opportunity to play for their school that people want to think.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12561534
-
+1
This is going to lead to the end of collegiate sports the same way free agency destroyed baseball, as hilltopper noted. I miss baseball, even though it ended a couple years before I was born. Too bad Cubs fans never got to see their team win a World Series.
It was a horrible analogy when Mu82 brought it up a few months ago and it remains so now. Pro sports has limited destinations....it also has a salary cap or luxury tax that restrains free agency to a large degree. Free agency also is tied to contracts.
That is not the case in college sports. No contracts, players leave at most every 4 years, sometimes sooner. Many more teams. No salary cap, no restraint like pro sports has.
Terrible analogy
-
The point is Chicken Little reactions like yours rarely proceed a falling sky. It didn't end the Olympics either.
And if there are ramifications that make it more difficult to compete than the already uneven playing field that exists, or non-revenue sports aren't as well funded, that doesn't change that this is obviously, blatantly the right thing to do and the unanimous votes of the California legislature reinforce that.
Didn't you say something about the adults having a say? Well, they did. This is happening. Deal with it.
-
California schools will be in illegible. The state is beyond democratic liberal.
-
California schools will be in illegible. The state is beyond democratic liberal.
A quick Google shows at least 15 Republicans voted for this and zero voted against it. This issue is beyond bipartisan.
-
California schools will be in illegible. The state is beyond democratic liberal.
Interesting that freeing someone from regulations and allowing them to test the marketplace is being cast as a “liberal” issue.
-
California schools will be in illegible. The state is beyond democratic liberal.
The sponsor of the federal version of this law is a GOP congressman from North Carolina.
-
Perhaps, but if you’re a washout at the next level, why would anyone pay money for you to use as an endorsement to play at Marquette?
Because they are still better than the players in the NCAA, and you want your team to win, so you pay them to play and win.
They won't be university employees. If they are more skilled and better, they can go earn money professionally. And if they want to continue earning money off their likenesses, no one will prevent them from doing that.
It doesn't matter if they were University employees, that is immaterial. What is material is that their income potential is tied to being an NCAA basketball player.
Upon graduating, many of the stars are dominant, but not good enough to play in the NBA. If they could make more income off NCAA related endorsements, why should they be excluded from this market because of age/experience?
Right now, no one is preventing college players from playing professionally and profiting off their likeness. Yet people still say the NCAA needs to pay them. It seems people like to apply an argument differently depending on if it supports their case or not.
-
Interesting that freeing someone from regulations and allowing them to test the marketplace is being cast as a “liberal” issue.
And I wouldn't call Gavin Newsom a far left progressive. He is family friends with the Getty's.
The NCAA is a monopoly in the purest sense of the word. There is a grey undermarket with the media and apparel companies who only want to sustain the status quo. The fact is, with the history in other instances, the NCAA would be far better off by opening up to the free markets (MLB, Olympics, all pro sports, etc.). But no, resist is their stand pat answer (sound familiar Catholic Church?).
If the NCAA really wanted to change, they would have accepted the Rice commission recommendations, hired a full staff of investigators so that a few don't profit under the table, don't form cartels by conference where ESPN controls costs while providing a few profits.
What was the cost of adding investigators versus paying student athletes? So, the result, legislatures are acting while the NCAA is resisting. A true monopolistic response.
-
California schools will be in illegible. The state is beyond democratic liberal.
Depends. Will their school names be handwritten or typed?
-
The sponsor of the federal version of this law is a GOP congressman from North Carolina.
The sponsor of the first voter ID laws were African American Democrats.....not sure what your point is....and let me see, could a few schools in North Carolina take massive advantage of this joke of a scheme? Yup. The rich will get richer.
-
The sponsor of the first voter ID laws were African American Democrats.....not sure what your point is....and let me see, could a few schools in North Carolina take massive advantage of this joke of a scheme? Yup. The rich will get richer.
Those "few" schools already do, and they are already very plantation wealthy skating through faux investigation after faux investigation. Change is coming!
-
And I wouldn't call Gavin Newsom a far left progressive. He is family friends with the Getty's.
Uhm.....ok. When even the Washington Post, Politico, Huff Po call him a far left liberal I don’t know how you can claim otherwise.
-
Those "few" schools already do, and they are already very plantation wealthy skating through faux investigation after faux investigation. Change is coming!
So the reward for them is to allow them to do it even more and penalize the schools that are playing by the rules.
Outstanding logic.
-
Uhm.....ok. When even the Washington Post, Politico, Huff Po call him a far left liberal I don’t know how you can claim otherwise.
Source?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article201651204.html
-
So the reward for them is to allow them to do it even more and penalize the schools that are playing by the rules.
Outstanding logic.
Spoken like a true monopolist.
That rat has already left the ship. The NCAA had their chance to reform but they enabled, rather than killed the vermin.
Character matters!
-
Upon graduating, many of the stars are dominant, but not good enough to play in the NBA. If they could make more income off NCAA related endorsements, why should they be excluded from this market because of age/experience?
Right now, no one is preventing college players from playing professionally and profiting off their likeness. Yet people still say the NCAA needs to pay them. It seems people like to apply an argument differently depending on if it supports their case or not.
This is all incorrect. The NCAA won't be paying them. The endorsements won't be NCAA related. If David Gruber pays Markus Howard $100,000 to do an endorsement, he can. And if Markus wants to continue that work after he matriculates, he is free to. But no entity will be forcing Gruber to pay Howard after he leaves Marquette. That would be like Gruber paying me to endorse him. He can do so if he chooses.
They won't be excluded because of age or experience. They won't be excluded at all. The companies that once paid them may choose to not continue those payments, just like shoe companies often don't pay athletes years after their retirements, but none of it will be mandated by the NCAA or governments.
-
Spoken like a true monopolist.
That rat has already left the ship. The NCAA had their chance to reform but they enabled, rather than killed the vermin.
Character matters!
Pro govt’ folks like you, the ultimate monopolists. LOL. Their way or the highway.
Your Buzz fairy tale was totally dismissed by the way....I knew it would and thankfully someone in the dept with absolute knowledge confirmed for me....we would have accepted the NIT bid...we didn’t get one nor did we tell the NIT we didn’t want it.
-
I didn't realize this! I always thought they couldn't have any job.
Here's a fun list of other ways they can earn money:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/10-ways-college-athletes-can-get-paid-and-remain-eligible-for-their-sport/
Yup, and this falsehood is continually perpetuated here constantly....for years.....here and many other places. Repeat the lie often enough and it becomes real. Student athletes have been able to work for a long time, including examples of our own at Marquette.
-
I was mostly talking about basketball and football.
However, I’d say the others do. I mean tennis has 5/11 men’s players from outside the US and the women have 7/8. The below article seems businesslike to me. It’s not as lucrative as basketball or football, but I don’t view it as the pure as snow amateurism to give the kids an opportunity to play for their school that people want to think.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12561534
Let me repeat, the men’s tennis team drives zero revenue. Zero. Same for track. How is that a business?
-
Pro govt’ folks like you, the ultimate monopolists. LOL. Their way or the highway.
Your Buzz fairy tale was totally dismissed by the way....I knew it would and thankfully someone in the dept with absolute knowledge confirmed for me....we would have accepted the NIT bid...we didn’t get one nor did we tell the NIT we didn’t want it.
Where do you get I am pro government? I am a free market man. Big governments like the NCAA restrict freedom of markets. I am surprised, frankly, as I am more aligned with you politically in actuality. Open'em up! Cartels never are efficient.
As to the "post season" (not NIT) claim, I stand by Bill Cords' letter.
-
This is all incorrect. The NCAA won't be paying them. The endorsements won't be NCAA related. If David Gruber pays Markus Howard $100,000 to do an endorsement, he can. And if Markus wants to continue that work after he matriculates, he is free to. But no entity will be forcing Gruber to pay Howard after he leaves Marquette. That would be like Gruber paying me to endorse him. He can do so if he chooses.
They won't be excluded because of age or experience. They won't be excluded at all. The companies that once paid them may choose to not continue those payments, just like shoe companies often don't pay athletes years after their retirements, but none of it will be mandated by the NCAA or governments.
I don't think you understand. The endorsement with Gruber, would be because he is in the NCAA and playing for Marquette. When he graduates, he will be better than almost any NCAA player, but if he doesn't make the NBA, he would be making peanuts compared to his Gruber endorsements (Gruber won't pay him anymore, because the payment was solely due to his affiliation with MU).
He would be more skilled, and qualified, to continue playing for MU in the NCAA, but would be barred from that professional activity, because of an arbitrary, age/experience related rule. So because of said rule, he would be financially harmed.
No other industry has a rule that when you become too good at your job, you have to leave.
-
As to the "post season" (not NIT) claim, I stand by Bill Cords' letter.
That’s what makes it all the funnier
-
What should surprise no one about this is the most far left off the rails state in the country was the first to pass this...color me shocked...not!
-
That’s what makes it all the funnier
Did he produce his letter between casts?
-
I don't think you understand. The endorsement with Gruber, would be because he is in the NCAA and playing for Marquette. When he graduates, he will be better than almost any NCAA player, but if he doesn't make the NBA, he would be making peanuts compared to his Gruber endorsements (Gruber won't pay him anymore, because the payment was solely due to his affiliation with MU).
He would be more skilled, and qualified, to continue playing for MU in the NCAA, but would be barred from that professional activity, because of an arbitrary, age/experience related rule. So because of said rule, he would be financially harmed.
No other industry has a rule that when you become too good at your job, you have to leave.
Because it isn’t a job. You are playing while a student. When you are no longer a student, you don’t get to play for the school.
-
Did he produce his letter between casts?
As I said last week, I didn’t meet with Bill.
-
+1
This is going to lead to the end of collegiate sports the same way free agency destroyed baseball, as hilltopper noted. I miss baseball, even though it ended a couple years before I was born. Too bad Cubs fans never got to see their team win a World Series.
I agree with all you (and a couple others) have said Brew. I see this as a win / win.
For the players? Premier college athletes will be able to earn money from their skills - free market and all. This could even keep some of them in college an extras year or two. Many players love the college experience, but go pro because the money is to tempting. If they are able to earn a decent amount of cash, maybe that will be the incentive to stay.
For the colleges? Very simple. Exposure and advertising. There is little advertising of the basketball program now. If players can sell their likeness, it is not only the product that they are advertising that gets seen. It is MU basketball that gets exposure.
-
As I said last week, I didn’t meet with Bill.
So, you don't have a copy of the donor letter he sent either?
-
I don't think you understand. The endorsement with Gruber, would be because he is in the NCAA and playing for Marquette. When he graduates, he will be better than almost any NCAA player, but if he doesn't make the NBA, he would be making peanuts compared to his Gruber endorsements (Gruber won't pay him anymore, because the payment was solely due to his affiliation with MU).
He would be more skilled, and qualified, to continue playing for MU in the NCAA, but would be barred from that professional activity, because of an arbitrary, age/experience related rule. So because of said rule, he would be financially harmed.
No other industry has a rule that when you become too good at your job, you have to leave.
The endorsement with Gruber would be for whatever reason Gruber chose. Maybe it's his affiliation to Marquette. Maybe it's his affable personality. Maybe he was in an accident and made one call, that's all. The players would be able to earn money from their likeness. There would be no mandate or prerequisite that they do so or to companies like Gruber that they be paid.
You're digging a rabbit hole to China and expecting people to follow. This is where NCAA rules would come in. 5 years to complete 4 seasons of eligibility. Because it's not a job, the labor regulations you are trying to apply here wouldn't be applicable.
Once school is over, they can still sell their likeness, still do endorsements, whatever. If people don't want to pay at the same rate they did while they were attending school, that's up to the free market to decide.
-
The trouble with this law as I see it is that it will promote more inequality. Only the very top players will be making money on this. The average player might get some money here or there, but it is not going to benefit them very much. Even in pro sports the dollars mostly go to players who do not need it. How, many Packers besides Rogers do you see in commercials?
Isn't that the point of a free market?
Should crappy bands get attention for their music? Or do the best bands - whether artistically or relevancy - get the money?
-
So, you don't have a copy of the donor letter he sent either?
You don’t have it, what I have is the absolute certainty they went down the path to secure facilities for a NIT bid to host when available....something you don’t do if you have already said you aren’t taking a bid. And more....
-
Isn't that the point of a free market?
Should crappy bands get attention for their music? Or do the best bands - whether artistically or relevancy - get the money?
Since when is college a free market Jockey? Based on this lunacy I should be able to go to Harvard if I have the money, just pay for it. That’s the free market.....when does that start? It doesn’t exist, yet you want it to for college sports? Amazing
Crappy bands that look good to teenage girls got a ton of money.
-
I don't think you understand. The endorsement with Gruber, would be because he is in the NCAA and playing for Marquette. When he graduates, he will be better than almost any NCAA player, but if he doesn't make the NBA, he would be making peanuts compared to his Gruber endorsements (Gruber won't pay him anymore, because the payment was solely due to his affiliation with MU).
He would be more skilled, and qualified, to continue playing for MU in the NCAA, but would be barred from that professional activity, because of an arbitrary, age/experience related rule. So because of said rule, he would be financially harmed.
No other industry has a rule that when you become too good at your job, you have to leave.
You have made some good points, Forgetful - even though we aren't in agreement here.
Sadly, they have mostly gotten lost in the carpet bombing of this thread from chico and Guru.
-
Voter ID laws, Harvard admissions and boy bands.
Yup..We've reached the Cheeks Unhinged portion of the program. Sooner or later it's bound to happen in every thread.
-
You don’t have it, what I have is the absolute certainty they went down the path to secure facilities for a NIT bid to host when available....something you don’t do if you have already said you aren’t taking a bid. And more....
But...but...but...you have said in the past that Buzz tanked the season early on and even "embezzled" from Marquette. And you also know Marquette AD plans early on around January/February for post-season facilities/contingencies. That's when I get my ticket forms.
So, what story is it? Buzz tanked early and embezzled? Or, Buzz competed and MUAD was prepping for an NIT bid as a contingency? I am confused.
I go by my Cords story...it was clear both MU and Buzz were moving quickly on at season's end.
-
Because it isn’t a job. You are playing while a student. When you are no longer a student, you don’t get to play for the school.
Brother Cheeks, I disagree.
College Athletics is a job. The student-athlete signs a contract. The student-athlete shows up for work. The student-athlete trains in the off-season. The student-athlete performs when an entity (a university) demands.
The student-athlete is compensated with a college education. If the student-athlete ceases playing basketball, except under certain hardship or medical circumstances, the compensation ends.
In my world (MBA-land), that's called a barter transaction. You call in a valuation specialist to determine the fair market value under the Internal Revenue Code. The student athlete is then taxed by the State of Wisconsin and the United States Government for the fair market value of the reimbursement. Just for good measure, make 'em pay Social Security and Medicare on the scholarship-compensation as well.
Look, I know the NCAA, with its infinite lobbying ability, has convinced the U.S. Congress and State Legislatures to not treat this as compensation. But from an economic standpoint, there's no way this is not an employer/employee relationship. If the California legislature really wanted to do something for student athletes, forget this nickel and dime fair pay act. Start taxing athletic scholarships and ban the NCAA from monopolistic practices in the State of California. Hell, they tax everything else out there.
-
Isn't that the point of a free market?
Should crappy bands get attention for their music? Or do the best bands - whether artistically or relevancy - get the money?
That is the point of free markets but college and pro sports are not free market enterprises within the leagues.
The NBA, NFL, NCAA, etc. operate in a free market for entertainment dollars against the music, movie, theater, etc. industries.
Within sports leagues restriction on pay and sharing of revenue is a legal way to promote the quality of the product and the success of sports against other entertainment competitors.
True free markets do not work for pro sports and will never work for the NCAA.
-
Wow.
The misinformation, political harangues, lies, and hair-on-fire chicken-littlism from those desperate to preserve the status quo has really been something to see. I especially love all the cries of "liberals are doing this," when it has been bipartisan with strong conservative support. And why wouldn't it? What is more of a conservative ideal than free markets, capitalism, and hard-working Americans getting compensated fairly?
I agree with brewski -- a handful of Scoopers can cry and whine and rail and pout and threaten and warn, but the end of faux amateurism in college sports is coming. (And it won't mean an end of Marquette basketball any more than the current rich-keep-getting-richer system has meant an end to Marquette basketball.)
As an aside, that was a really interesting list of ways athletes can make money and retain their eligibility.
If I play Sport A and make $5 million doing it, I can still claim I'm an amateur while playing Sport B. I can have jobs but I can't use my association with NCAA-sponsored athletics in any way ... unless the NCAA grants me a waiver. So much faux amateurism, so many loopholes.
No. 1 on the list is something called "Cost of attendance." As the article explained:
The NCAA and universities spin this as additional scholarship money, not a payment stipend. And while semantically that's true, just a decade ago, the NCAA argued in court that cost-of-attendance stipends were a form of "pay for play" and a threat to amateurism. Cost of attendance is the estimated extra money of the price to attend a particular college, as determined by financial aid offices. By 2015, many schools were providing all or some of their athletes with a couple extra thousand dollars a year through cost of attendance. Some coaches publicly worried that other schools' cost of attendance numbers were inflated for competitive reasons and the money would impact recruiting. One year into cost of attendance, there are virtually no stories about players choosing schools due to the extra stipend.
So this was one of the first "this will start the slippery slope to the end of college sports as we know it" issues. The NCAA fought it, just as it is fighting the right of athletes to profit from their own likeness. But the NCAA caved (as it surely will do with this issue), and it's been a big ho-hum so far.
This "cost of attendance" compensation automatically makes athletes not amateurs, but the NCAA uses semantics to pretend otherwise. The NCAA does a lot of pretending, including that it actually cares about academics. Given the chance just recently to adopt a Rice Commission recommendation to take oversight of academic-fraud cases such as the one at UNC, the NCAA passed. They don't want oversight; that would be too messy.
Faux amateurism. It's on its way out. Deal with it.
-
Voter ID laws, Harvard admissions and boy bands.
Yup..We've reached the Cheeks Unhinged portion of the program. Sooner or later it's bound to happen in every thread.
When you have nothing else, attack the person.
You suggested it was a GOP lawmaker in North Carolina that wants to federalize this. Why did party matter? I responded in kind with the same approach.
Jockey talks about the need for a free market working in college sports. I ask if that is the case why do we even have admissions criteria? The free market answer would be I can choose any damn school I want and pay for it.
Jockey said bands that make money are the best bands....that is also wrong.
Please tell me where any of those statements are unhinged.
-
But...but...but...you have said in the past that Buzz tanked the season early on and even "embezzled" from Marquette. And you also know Marquette AD plans early on around January/February for post-season facilities/contingencies. That's when I get my ticket forms.
So, what story is it? Buzz tanked early and embezzled? Or, Buzz competed and MUAD was prepping for an NIT bid as a contingency? I am confused.
I go by my Cords story...it was clear both MU and Buzz were moving quickly on at season's end.
I never said embezzled, don’t put that in quotes...you used that term and then said get a lawyer. Your word, not mine. Show me where I ever said embezzled. What I did say is he mailed it in, didn’t coach very well, etc...but he certainly blew the whistle, showed up for games and practices, did his media interviews, said aw shucks and character counts in large amounts.....and that he wanted a NIT bid, and that he was upset we didn’t get one. Are you denying he said that in interviews?
-
Brother Cheeks, I disagree.
College Athletics is a job. The student-athlete signs a contract. The student-athlete shows up for work. The student-athlete trains in the off-season. The student-athlete performs when an entity (a university) demands.
The student-athlete is compensated with a college education. If the student-athlete ceases playing basketball, except under certain hardship or medical circumstances, the compensation ends.
In my world (MBA-land), that's called a barter transaction. You call in a valuation specialist to determine the fair market value under the Internal Revenue Code. The student athlete is then taxed by the State of Wisconsin and the United States Government for the fair market value of the reimbursement. Just for good measure, make 'em pay Social Security and Medicare on the scholarship-compensation as well.
Look, I know the NCAA, with its infinite lobbying ability, has convinced the U.S. Congress and State Legislatures to not treat this as compensation. But from an economic standpoint, there's no way this is not an employer/employee relationship. If the California legislature really wanted to do something for student athletes, forget this nickel and dime fair pay act. Start taxing athletic scholarships and ban the NCAA from monopolistic practices in the State of California. Hell, they tax everything else out there.
Courts have already ruled, not employees. Forget lawmakers, the courts have said so.
-
MU82, honestly there has been an equal amount of misinformation, glossing over facts and outright lies by folks on both sides of the argument.
The schools in the NCAA have wanted to have their cake and eat it too for a long time. The athletes want the exposure, top level coaching and free education the NCAA provides but they also want to get paid. Both side are trying to work a system that is not designed to deliver what they seek
NCAA schools can not be involved in big time sports because they aspire to be amateur endeavors and these sports generate too much money and greed from the schools, coaches and players.
There are good, well reasoned points being made by people on both sides of the argument because they are arguing two different systems (pro and amateur) that cannot be mixed successfully. Never have been and never will.
-
MU82, honestly there has been an equal amount of misinformation, glossing over facts and outright lies by folks on both sides of the argument.
The schools in the NCAA have wanted to have their cake and eat it too for a long time. The athletes want the exposure, top level coaching and free education the NCAA provides but they also want to get paid. Both side are trying to work a system that is not designed to deliver what they seek
NCAA schools can not be involved in big time sports because they aspire to be amateur endeavors and these sports generate too much money and greed from the schools, coaches and players.
There are good, well reasoned points being made by people on both sides of the argument because they are arguing two different systems (pro and amateur) that cannot be mixed successfully. Never have been and never will.
There’s the rub, there is nothing amateur about the NCAA. Cheebs posted a link about college tennis, a total non-revenue sport. Read that article. Even tennis is “recruiting” hired guns. Golf does this, too. They recruit those kids to win, not graduate and educate them. The only time anyone cares about graduation rates is when their “team” sucks and they need something to brag about
-
MU82, honestly there has been an equal amount of misinformation, glossing over facts and outright lies by folks on both sides of the argument.
The schools in the NCAA have wanted to have their cake and eat it too for a long time. The athletes want the exposure, top level coaching and free education the NCAA provides but they also want to get paid. Both side are trying to work a system that is not designed to deliver what they seek
NCAA schools can not be involved in big time sports because they aspire to be amateur endeavors and these sports generate too much money and greed from the schools, coaches and players.
There are good, well reasoned points being made by people on both sides of the argument because they are arguing two different systems (pro and amateur) that cannot be mixed successfully. Never have been and never will.
You are a good man trying to be very diplomatic, WT. A bit of false equivalency going on, but I appreciate your tone.
I still have not heard a single acceptable reason why a hard-working American should be denied the right to profit from his or her own likeness.
-
To all those who think the CA law is a good idea please explain to me how this is good for MU basketball?
-
To all those who think the CA law is a good idea please explain to me how this is good for MU basketball?
We would be able to pay players too, rather than just the teams that do it illegally.
-
would a company like Nike, be able to sign an individual for an exclusive licensing deal? That would keep the current model somewhat intact.
-
Here's where I stand (as if anyone really cares): 1) I think that athletes should be permitted to market their likeness and earn some money; 2) I don't necessarily think that will lead to outright payment of athletes by universities (which I don't support); 3) I think the NCAA can and should have some rules relating to what would be allowed under the new rule (and I realize that this could be viewed in conflict with the California law); 4) I think that it's a relatively small number of athletes who will earn very much money if this is allowed; and 5) I have no doubt that this will quite possibly have significant impact on college sports as we currently know it -- but I honestly don't know what that impact will be...maybe great, maybe terrible. I honestly don't know. Anything like this is bound to have unintended consequences, and this almost certainly will. I just don't know what they will be and I'm not going to pretend that I do. And I also won't argue against this due to that uncertainty because, frankly, I don't think it's right to forbid these athletes to market themselves.
As a parent of a non-revenue athlete, I do have some concerns that this could eventually hurt non-rev sports. I can see a scenario where that could happen. I can also see scenarios where it would not happen. But that still doesn't change my feeling that athletes should be able to do this.
-
Courts have already ruled, not employees. Forget lawmakers, the courts have said so.
OK, I'll concede they may not be employees. Though I do find it interesting that their "employer" is providing compensation and health care
If college athletes are not employees, then they are independent contractors. The income still should be taxable.
I find it interesting, Brother Cheeks, that you support a legislative role for the court system! ;D
-
It is a great irony that the only part of our society more messed up than the NCAA - the government of the People's Republic of California - has messed up the NCAA.
-
What should surprise no one about this is the most far left off the rails state in the country was the first to pass this...color me shocked...not!
As I said earlier...
Interesting that freeing someone from regulations and allowing them to test the marketplace is being cast as a “liberal” issue.
-
To all those who think the CA law is a good idea please explain to me how this is good for MU basketball?
I'm not sure whether it's good, bad or indifferent for MU basketball.
Should our opinion on the matter be informed solely by its impact on one particular basketball program?
-
What should surprise no one about this is the most far left off the rails state in the country was the first to pass this...color me shocked...not!
Did you miss the part where Republicans are unanimously voting for this too? Or are you too wound up in your George-Soros-controls-everything fantasies to notice?
-
You suggested it was a GOP lawmaker in North Carolina that wants to federalize this. Why did party matter? I responded in kind with the same approach.
The post to which I responded claimed that this was all the result of some liberal Democratic scheme out of California. The reality is that people of all political persuasions - and people who are totally apolitical - support the notion that college athletes out to be able to earn compensation off the use of their image and likeness.
And none of it has anything to do with boy bands or voter ID laws.
-
Should our opinion on the matter be informed solely by its impact on one particular basketball program?
The answer you're looking for here is "Yes"
I'm a stakeholder in Marquette. The University, the basketball program, the alumni association, the students, the student-athletes, all of it.
Unfortunately, we now live in a world where education is beginning to grow and consolidate power - just like big corporations have been doing for the last several decades - and like the corporations did, it won't be long before big education starts to stifle competition and push out the little guy. Hell, it's already started.
Marquette is not a research institution, it doesn't hold a goldmine of patents, there are no labs or incubators, innovation and technology isn't its wheelhouse. There is only one thing Marquette has that keeps its brand relevant, and as much as some hate to admit it, it is the Men's Basketball program
In a world where everyone is becoming more focused on their selfies being in focus, the only way cura personalis remains viable is for the basketball program to remain relevant. I don't care if players at UNC, Duke, UW-Madison or Bethune-Cookman should be compensated more than they are now, I am concerned for the viability of my private, mid-sized, urban, Catholic alma mater in a future where nobody cares about cura personalis until they've experienced it.
-
We would be able to pay players too, rather than just the teams that do it illegally.
Who is the we? And "we" would be able to pay players just as much as Kentucky, UNC, Indiana? "We" would be able to out bid UW for top Wisconsin kids? This is no longer college basketball if we are just going to have a minor league pro team.
-
Who is the we? And "we" would be able to pay players just as much as Kentucky, UNC, Indiana? "We" would be able to out bid UW for top Wisconsin kids? This is no longer college basketball if we are just going to have a minor league pro team.
I think our school would present better opportunities than UW for basketball players to earn off their likeness. UW's market would be saturated from football players in a smaller media market.
-
I think our school would present better opportunities than UW for basketball players to earn off their likeness. UW's market would be saturated from football players in a smaller media market.
This is a good point. With a few exceptions, the majority of the football schools have alumni that care more about football and will want to invest more in football than basketball. That won't be the case in the Big East.
-
Who is the we? And "we" would be able to pay players just as much as Kentucky, UNC, Indiana? "We" would be able to out bid UW for top Wisconsin kids? This is no longer college basketball if we are just going to have a minor league pro team.
Marquette’s players are presumably not getting paid. With this new rule, Marquette’s players could get paid for their own likeness.
Other college players are getting paid under the table. If MU players are now able to be paid, we may be able to compete more for those players. Granted, it would open up for more competition as more schools like MU are also able to have players who are paid.
Will our recruiting go up, down, or stay the same? I have no idea. I just don’t believe this is the death blow you and some others are thinking it is.
-
To me this isn't really about doing ads and putting their name to product (those are proving to be waste of money anyways) it's about letting someone like Cain have a YouTube channel of himself dunking and monetize it, which in my opinion he should be able to do.
Same with video game likenesses, same with jerseys that have their name on them.
-
To me this isn't really about doing ads and putting their name to product (those are proving to be waste of money anyways) it's about letting someone like Cain have a YouTube channel of himself dunking and monetize it, which in my opinion he should be able to do.
Same with video game likenesses, same with jerseys that have their name on them.
I think it should be that as well along with ads/appearance/whatever at a commensurate market rate. The problem is those big boosters with businesses that can do $$$ that are ridiculously out of synch with such a commensurate market rate under the guise of being “fair market value”.
-
Did you miss the part where Republicans are unanimously voting for this too? Or are you too wound up in your George-Soros-controls-everything fantasies to notice?
These people crack me up, TS34. No doubt the same folks who call every lifelong conservative Republican who doesn't like President Bone Spur "liberal," too.
The post to which I responded claimed that this was all the result of some liberal Democratic scheme out of California. The reality is that people of all political persuasions - and people who are totally apolitical - support the notion that college athletes out to be able to earn compensation off the use of their image and likeness.
This. It's been real interesting watching so many trying to paint this as a "liberal" thing. It is almost a classic conservative argument: Let Americans earn money; let them -- not some bureaucracy -- control their own selves. I am an Independent, and actually think it is a perfectly moderate issue. But it came from California, and therefore it MUST be commie. Hilarious. Hypocritical.
Here's where I stand (as if anyone really cares): 1) I think that athletes should be permitted to market their likeness and earn some money; 2) I don't necessarily think that will lead to outright payment of athletes by universities (which I don't support); 3) I think the NCAA can and should have some rules relating to what would be allowed under the new rule (and I realize that this could be viewed in conflict with the California law); 4) I think that it's a relatively small number of athletes who will earn very much money if this is allowed; and 5) I have no doubt that this will quite possibly have significant impact on college sports as we currently know it -- but I honestly don't know what that impact will be...maybe great, maybe terrible. I honestly don't know. Anything like this is bound to have unintended consequences, and this almost certainly will. I just don't know what they will be and I'm not going to pretend that I do. And I also won't argue against this due to that uncertainty because, frankly, I don't think it's right to forbid these athletes to market themselves.
As a parent of a non-revenue athlete, I do have some concerns that this could eventually hurt non-rev sports. I can see a scenario where that could happen. I can also see scenarios where it would not happen. But that still doesn't change my feeling that athletes should be able to do this.
SAW ...
Not that you were asking for validation from me or anybody else, but this is a very logical, objective, mature way to look at this issue.
Those claiming that they know exactly what this will do to college sports or Marquette basketball or anything else ... how could they? How could any of us?
Well done.
-
I see no reason why the NCAA couldn't police the legitimacy of endorsement deals like they presently police the legitimacy of jobs/internships. Look, like a lot of other people, I don't necessarily have the greatest respect for how the NCAA enforces its rules. But right now, student athletes can have jobs but have to be paid essentially market rate. Does that get abused? I have no doubt that it does. But if some deep-pocket alum gives a football player a six figure job, the NCAA can and will address it. Even if NCAA eventually allows endorsements (and I personally think they should), there's no reason to think that it would allow a donor to just pay an athlete $500k to be a spokesperson for some randomly created llc.
Still reading through the rest of this mess but this is exactly how I feel.
-
Still reading through the rest of this mess but this is exactly how I feel.
Agree as well. The state of Washington has a similar likeness bill in progress but has a proviso that compensation should be commensurate with the services provided. I think that is a fair compromise for all. Letting a booster’s business pay Johnny Doe $50,000 or whatever for an innocuous ad is ridiculous.
-
Imma gonna leave this here, because if you think about it, it's exactly where it belongs.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/us/tennesse-bullied-boy-scholarship-trnd/index.html
University has already sold 50,000 t-shirts based on the kid's original design. Kid gets nothing except a scholarship; although the profits are going to a charitable organization.
Serious Question: Would anyone feel any differently about this if, in lieu of compensating the student-athletes, universities instead donated whatever they would be compensating - be that a fixed amount per player, a sliding scale based on performance, or a percentage of overall program profits - to a charitable organization?
-
I'm not sure how many more times I can say this in the same way but they are OPTING IN. They VOLUNTARILY choose to sign on the dotted line and agree to these terms. What is being promoted is forcing an individual organization to change its rules, which most libertarian-types would be very against. So, whether you agree with it or not, you'd have to be deliberately obtuse to not understand this...that athletes already have the ability to sell their likeness in the free market and why some are saying this change is more of a liberal thing than a conservative one since it's going after the rules & regulations of one organization. All they have to do is not voluntarily sign up to play college basketball.
-
I'm not sure how many more times I can say this in the same way but they are OPTING IN. They VOLUNTARILY choose to sign on the dotted line and agree to these terms. What is being promoted is forcing an individual organization to change its rules, which most libertarian-types would be very against. So, whether you agree with it or not, you'd have to be deliberately obtuse to not understand this...that athletes already have the ability to sell their likeness in the free market and why some are saying this change is more of a liberal thing than a conservative one since it's going after the rules & regulations of one organization. All they have to do is not voluntarily sign up to play college basketball.
Yup. There are alternatives. These guys keep saying free market and market place decide....then let that happen. Let another avenue open up more of those opportunities. Of course those advocating for this really don’t want free market or that would be first on their list of options.
-
Agree with Benny’s post completely and I admit how selfish this sounds. Would hate to see the MU basketball go the way of the MU football program.
-
I'm not sure how many more times I can say this in the same way but they are OPTING IN. They VOLUNTARILY choose to sign on the dotted line and agree to these terms. What is being promoted is forcing an individual organization to change its rules, which most libertarian-types would be very against. So, whether you agree with it or not, you'd have to be deliberately obtuse to not understand this...that athletes already have the ability to sell their likeness in the free market and why some are saying this change is more of a liberal thing than a conservative one since it's going after the rules & regulations of one organization. All they have to do is not voluntarily sign up to play college basketball.
This same argument has been used to support indentured servitude, predatory lending practices, and other systems that take advantage of individuals despite operating within legal systems. Just because a system exists and just because people opted into that system does not make it a good or just system.
A libertarian, by definition, is someone who believes in the doctrine of free will. This system restricts the free will of the individuals involved and the free will of the organizations that would be willing to pay them. I don't believe anyone with a conservative bone in their body would be against the advancement of individual freedoms to protect a national conglomeration of primarily government run organizations.
-
By that rationale, my company infringes on my free will to not show up on time, not smoke weed, make sexist remarks, also forces me to earn a specific wage, caps my 401k contributions, only offers me a few benefits packages to choose from, and oh yeah, anything I create while employed becomes the intellectual property of the company. I can't believe why they would do this to me!
-
I think we all know who is on what side at this point. I get what the other side is saying. I respect it. I understand it. I am fine if people want to push for change. By all means go for it! I disagree with it. So be it. I think college basketball, as is, is a pretty darn special thing, which is why the Zions of the world decide to still play it against the other options.
-
By that rationale, my company infringes on my free will to not show up on time, not smoke weed, make sexist remarks, also forces me to earn a specific wage, caps my 401k contributions, only offers me a few benefits packages to choose from, and oh yeah, anything I create while employed becomes the intellectual property of the company. I can't believe why they would do this to me!
Oh and how could I forget? They also restrict those other pesky companies that want to pay me too for related work from engaging with me while I'm employed by them. Jerks!
-
I think our school would present better opportunities than UW for basketball players to earn off their likeness. UW's market would be saturated from football players in a smaller media market.
Has anyone donated that much for football to UW?
https://uwbadgers.com/sports/2015/08/21/GEN_2014010135.aspx
Largest private sports donation to date.
Has the late senator ever donated that much to MU for an on campus facility?
I believe there was a 6M donation towards renovating the football stadium.
I think there is plenty of money to support UW athletics, there is 30 million right there and that is more than 20 years ago. Has anyone donated that much for MU athletics?
There is no way MU can compete. Hell, the administration even wouldn't take a 2m donation to change the name back to Warriors.
-
Has anyone donated that much for football to UW?
https://uwbadgers.com/sports/2015/08/21/GEN_2014010135.aspx
Largest private sports donation to date.
Has the late senator ever donated that much to MU for an on campus facility?
I believe there was a 6M donation towards renovating the football stadium.
I think there is plenty of money to support UW athletics, there is 30 million right there and that is more than 20 years ago. Has anyone donated that much for MU athletics?
There is no way MU can compete. Hell, the administration even wouldn't take a 2m donation to change the name back to Warriors.
Wouldn’t turning down a $2M donation show we aren’t hurting for money that badly?
-
On this topic, I also think it is worth noting that it's quite possible that many enthusiastic boosters would be less than enthusiastic about having their support be out in the open...even if it was not a rule violation. Slipping a kid a few grand in an envelope (or just the proverbial $100 handshake) is quite different than publicly tying your reputation (or your company's reputation) to an 18 year old kid. Obviously, the truly elite kids will be get theirs. This is just another reason I think that the sweet, sweet endorsement cash might not be quite as prevalent as some others seem to think. Also, another reason the under-the-table cash might continue uninterrupted.
-
Has anyone donated that much for football to UW?
https://uwbadgers.com/sports/2015/08/21/GEN_2014010135.aspx
Largest private sports donation to date.
Has the late senator ever donated that much to MU for an on campus facility?
I believe there was a 6M donation towards renovating the football stadium.
I think there is plenty of money to support UW athletics, there is 30 million right there and that is more than 20 years ago. Has anyone donated that much for MU athletics?
There is no way MU can compete. Hell, the administration even wouldn't take a 2m donation to change the name back to Warriors.
I'd imagine donors view giving large amounts to have their name on a building for the next several decades quite a bit differently than for a basketball player who will be around for a year or two.
-
I'd imagine donors view giving large amounts to have their name on a building for the next several decades quite a bit differently than for a basketball player who will be around for a year or two.
You think rationally. You do not think like boosters from the ACC,SEC and Big XII. For example: UNC started a $1/2 BILLION fund raising campaign last year for sports.
-
South Carolina now has similar proposed legislation:
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article235015452.html?
As for some Scoopers' "being a college athlete is a choice" argument, it's specious.
If they want to continue their athletic endeavors, the vast majority of outstanding high school athletes do not have a choice to immediately turn pro overseas or in some North American pro league. The NCAA is a monopoly.
What "choice" did any current Marquette Warrior really have? Not a single one of them, not even Markus, could have been a pro basketball player in Europe or anywhere else coming out of high school. Was their choice, then, to play basketball or not play basketball? That's a ridiculous choice, and I'm quite sure all Scoopers are smart enough to know it. It's like saying nurses could have chosen not to be nurses, so hospitals need not give them a safe working environment.
At many (perhaps most) major universities, there are theater majors, music majors, journalism majors and plenty of others who receive full-ride scholarships for being good at what they do. As I have mentioned before, each editor of the various Marquette student media get them. Every single one of those students own his or her "likeness" and can profit off of it if he or she has the opportunity. I wonder why people argue that athletes shouldn't have the same freedom.
Anyhoo, we have a lot of fun debating this stuff here, but it's gonna happen whether some Scoopers -- and the NCAA -- like it or not.
-
Today's Eye on College Basketball podcast addresses this well. A few things they touch on:
- The California law has language built in to anticipate legal challenges from the NCAA.
- While the player value does derive from going to the university, the value is still there. For contrast, yes, Lebron is worth more because of the NBA, but that doesn't change that he has that value. Just like winning a gold medal or starring in a Academy Award winning movie would increase one's value despite doing it for a country or film company.
- This won't just be the Zions of the world. Yes, they'll get the biggest money, but this will trickle down the roster thanks to local business. They didn't mention video games, but they should have.
- In every way except player compensation, the NCAA is trying to run professional sports programs. They chase TV contracts like professional sports. They pay coaches like professional sports. The facilities, the arenas, the branding is all done how professional sports does it. The ONLY time they cry amateurism is when it comes to player compensation.
- The 2023 date is built in to give the NCAA time but also to force their hand. The NCAA told California they were working on it and to give them time. California answered that the NCAA has had enough time, you're on our timetable now.
- This passed both houses unanimously with Republican and Democratic support. This is not a partisan issue.
- The idea the NCAA seeks a level playing field for all is laughable.
It's a good listen.
-
South Carolina now has similar proposed legislation:
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article235015452.html?
As for some Scoopers' "being a college athlete is a choice" argument, it's specious.
If they want to continue their athletic endeavors, the vast majority of outstanding high school athletes do not have a choice to immediately turn pro overseas or in some North American pro league. The NCAA is a monopoly.
What "choice" did any current Marquette Warrior really have? Not a single one of them, not even Markus, could have been a pro basketball player in Europe or anywhere else coming out of high school. Was their choice, then, to play basketball or not play basketball? That's a ridiculous choice, and I'm quite sure all Scoopers are smart enough to know it. It's like saying nurses could have chosen not to be nurses, so hospitals need not give them a safe working environment.
At many (perhaps most) major universities, there are theater majors, music majors, journalism majors and plenty of others who receive full-ride scholarships for being good at what they do. As I have mentioned before, each editor of the various Marquette student media get them. Every single one of those students own his or her "likeness" and can profit off of it if he or she has the opportunity. I wonder why people argue that athletes shouldn't have the same freedom.
Anyhoo, we have a lot of fun debating this stuff here, but it's gonna happen whether some Scoopers -- and the NCAA -- like it or not.
You make some excellent points but don't torpedo your own credibility by equating endorsement payments to students, that already enjoy significant financial and other benefits compared to other students, with people's personal safety in the workplace.
Also, I think it if a cornerstone of the argument for these payments is that DI basketball and football is comparable to college music and theater programs, then never will the two sides agree.
I agree with you that change is coming. I think players will get (more) money. I also think this will have to precipitate additional changes "whether some Scoopers like it or not".
-
My dad debated this topic with me yesterday and his take is it will ruin team chemistry. His example was about when John Elway came into the league he threw a pass low to a receiver and in the huddle he gave out to the receiver not diving for the ball. The receivers response was "you're the one making all the money, hit me in the numbers"
While this might work as an incentive to stay at a program, grow your brand and work harder to become a star in basketball. It could actually effect team chemistry in football as no defensive lineman is going to get paid jack. Yeah a kicker could monetize a YouTube channel, a QB and RB will have local endorsements but his theory is it'll create locker room problems with the imbalance.
-
My dad debated this topic with me yesterday and his take is it will ruin team chemistry. His example was about when John Elway came into the league he threw a pass low to a receiver and in the huddle he gave out to the receiver not diving for the ball. The receivers response was "you're the one making all the money, hit me in the numbers"
While this might work as an incentive to stay at a program, grow your brand and work harder to become a star in basketball. It could actually effect team chemistry in football as no defensive lineman is going to get paid jack. Yeah a kicker could monetize a YouTube channel, a QB and RB will have local endorsements but his theory is it'll create locker room problems with the imbalance.
Locker room problems never happen without money? There’s a lot of egos involved in all levels of sports.
-
Today's Eye on College Basketball podcast addresses this well. A few things they touch on:
- The California law has language built in to anticipate legal challenges from the NCAA.
- While the player value does derive from going to the university, the value is still there. For contrast, yes, Lebron is worth more because of the NBA, but that doesn't change that he has that value. Just like winning a gold medal or starring in a Academy Award winning movie would increase one's value despite doing it for a country or film company.
- This won't just be the Zions of the world. Yes, they'll get the biggest money, but this will trickle down the roster thanks to local business. They didn't mention video games, but they should have.
- In every way except player compensation, the NCAA is trying to run professional sports programs. They chase TV contracts like professional sports. They pay coaches like professional sports. The facilities, the arenas, the branding is all done how professional sports does it. The ONLY time they cry amateurism is when it comes to player compensation.
- The 2023 date is built in to give the NCAA time but also to force their hand. The NCAA told California they were working on it and to give them time. California answered that the NCAA has had enough time, you're on our timetable now.
- This passed both houses unanimously with Republican and Democratic support. This is not a partisan issue.
- The idea the NCAA seeks a level playing field for all is laughable.
It's a good listen.
The Hausers were bitching because Howard was hogging the ball. Can you imagine the letter Wojo would have gotten if Howard was making 10 times the endorsements than they were.
-
The Hausers were bitching because Howard was hogging the ball. Can you imagine the letter Wojo would have gotten if Howard was making 10 times the endorsements than they were.
That’s why so many Packers hate Aaron Rodgers. The contract AND endorsements
-
That’s why so many Packers hate Aaron Rodgers. The contract AND endorsements
There are more than you think that do not like him, but for other reasons. Nevertheless, those are pro athletes, not 17-22 year olds that lack the maturity. Those others are also on a contract, etc, etc.
Rico, do you acknowledge any flaws that could come up, or is it 100% rainbows and unicorns with zero fallout?
-
Rico,
The schtick is getting old. Try some reason and facts rather than snide remarks to support your side of the argument. There are lots of good arguments to be made for paying players.
What is your background? I'm fascinated to know why you hate the NCAA. I assume you played major college sports and were 'screwed' by the NCAA at some point? Your personal story would go much further to illustrate why the NCAA should be disbanded as opposed to the snarky quips.
-
Rico,
The schtick is getting old. Try some reason and facts rather than snide remarks to support your side of the argument. There are lots of good arguments to be made for paying players.
What is your background? I'm fascinated to know why you hate the NCAA. I assume you played major college sports and were 'screwed' by the NCAA at some point? Your personal story would go much further to illustrate why the NCAA should be disbanded as opposed to the snarky quips.
My background is irrelevant. It’s simple. Athletes and all college students should be able to profit off their likeness. This isn’t about Marquette cutting a check to one player.
The NCAA has perpetuated the myth of amateurism to control and profit off the players. Major college athletics wouldn’t be here without the athletes and in turn, the money pouring into college athletics from television and apparel contracts wouldn’t be there to support the non-revenue sports.
If the goal is to retain amateurism, it’s simple. Eliminate athletic scholarships and big money. That isn’t happening. There will always be haves and have-nots in all levels of sports. The playing field is NOT level in any sense. Will schools get left behind? That’s up to them.
We can also get into the academic portion of this as well. Nobody cares about these kids getting educated. They care about them winning. Wojo isn’t keeping his job if he graduates 100% of his kids with medical degrees. He keeps his job if he wins, period.
If we take off the false veneer of amateurism, we see what we already know, college athletics are a big business built on winning, at all levels
-
My background is irrelevant. It’s simple. Athletes and all college students should be able to profit off their likeness. This isn’t about Marquette cutting a check to one player.
The NCAA has perpetuated the myth of amateurism to control and profit off the players. Major college athletics wouldn’t be here without the athletes and in turn, the money pouring into college athletics from television and apparel contracts wouldn’t be there to support the non-revenue sports.
If the goal is to retain amateurism, it’s simple. Eliminate athletic scholarships and big money. That isn’t happening. There will always be haves and have-nots in all levels of sports. The playing field is NOT level in any sense. Will schools get left behind? That’s up to them.
We can also get into the academic portion of this as well. Nobody cares about these kids getting educated. They care about them winning. Wojo isn’t keeping his job if he graduates 100% of his kids with medical degrees. He keeps his job if he wins, period.
If we take off the false veneer of amateurism, we see what we already know, college athletics are a big business built on winning, at all levels
Lot's of good stuff here. Significantly more persuasive than your previous posts that seemed to be angry rants and dismissive of any fallout from the changes coming.
If and when the changes come that you make a compelling argument should, there will be additional "shoes to drop". Agreed? I think that is what is most interesting.
Although it has been touched upon lightly in the past; it appears to me that the IRS will be playing a huge role in how all of this plays out.
If this plays out to a logical conclusion of players receiving compensation for the revenues they generate, they receive endorsement money and the colleges continue to 'profit' from these two sports, can anyone explain to me how this differs in any meaningful way from pro sports? The IRS (and state revenue departments) will have no choice but to treat these colleges like the Milwaukee Bucks or Yankees or Phoenix University.
That result will be devastating to the educational mission of those colleges & universities.
Just my opinion but I think we'll see the "Badger Football Team" presented by the University of Wisconsin sooner than later. And to your point, the charade of education will be eliminated because few if any will be students of the schools.
-
Lot's of good stuff here. Significantly more persuasive than your previous posts that seemed to be angry rants and dismissive of any fallout from the changes coming.
If and when the changes come that you make a compelling argument should, there will be additional "shoes to drop". Agreed? I think that is what is most interesting.
Although it has been touched upon lightly in the past; it appears to me that the IRS will be playing a huge role in how all of this plays out.
If this plays out to a logical conclusion of players receiving compensation for the revenues they generate, they receive endorsement money and the colleges continue to 'profit' from these two sports, can anyone explain to me how this differs in any meaningful way from pro sports? The IRS (and state revenue departments) will have no choice but to treat these colleges like the Milwaukee Bucks or Yankees or Phoenix University.
That result will be devastating to the educational mission of those colleges & universities.
Just my opinion but I think we'll see the "Badger Football Team" presented by the University of Wisconsin sooner than later. And to your point, the charade of education will be eliminated because few if any will be students of the schools.
I’m not naive enough to think there won’t be any other changes, large or small. The rise of college athletics have been built on the back of the athletes. I haven’t advocated the school paying players. It’s about players earning because of their talents.
As far as the IRS, yes, they’ll get their share. They always do and I believe they should. But it’ll be from those earning a check.
Universities have options. If their main concern is their educational mission, I’ve never understood how that matches with what college sports have become. And that’s at all levels. We can spend days finding malfeasance from all levels
-
You make some excellent points but don't torpedo your own credibility by equating endorsement payments to students, that already enjoy significant financial and other benefits compared to other students, with people's personal safety in the workplace.
Also, I think it if a cornerstone of the argument for these payments is that DI basketball and football is comparable to college music and theater programs, then never will the two sides agree.
I agree with you that change is coming. I think players will get (more) money. I also think this will have to precipitate additional changes "whether some Scoopers like it or not".
Thanks for the response, WT.
Yes, I probably stretched it some with my analogies, but my point remains solid (actually irrefutable IMHO):
The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of high school athletes do not have a "choice" if they want to keep playing. The NCAA is a monopoly. It is the only realistic choice to all but a fraction of 1% of HS athletes. To say athletes simply should "choose" something else -- and if they don't, they should just shut up and play -- is absurd. (Not saying you said this, but others have.)
And the NCAA hiding behind sham amateurism gets tiresome.
I already have fully acknowledged that when this does come to pass -- and it will -- it will lead to changes within the structure of college sports. The changes might be huge, and that's OK.
Changes were huge when the powers that be decided that women deserved the right to participate and to get athletic scholarships. The changes were huge when knuckle-dragging schools finally started letting blacks participate. The changes were huge when the NCAA bent the knee to worship TV money. College sports survived all of those huge changes and many others. It surely will survive this, and probably even thrive.
And sorry for calling you Shirley.
-
My background is irrelevant. It’s simple. Athletes and all college students should be able to profit off their likeness. This isn’t about Marquette cutting a check to one player.
The NCAA has perpetuated the myth of amateurism to control and profit off the players. Major college athletics wouldn’t be here without the athletes and in turn, the money pouring into college athletics from television and apparel contracts wouldn’t be there to support the non-revenue sports.
If the goal is to retain amateurism, it’s simple. Eliminate athletic scholarships and big money. That isn’t happening. There will always be haves and have-nots in all levels of sports. The playing field is NOT level in any sense. Will schools get left behind? That’s up to them.
We can also get into the academic portion of this as well. Nobody cares about these kids getting educated. They care about them winning. Wojo isn’t keeping his job if he graduates 100% of his kids with medical degrees. He keeps his job if he wins, period.
If we take off the false veneer of amateurism, we see what we already know, college athletics are a big business built on winning, at all levels
Nobody cares?
Good Lord. Do you even know your own history of Marquette athletics? Do you know how many men and women have gone through this institution as student athletes with likely never even thinking about a degree, but got one because people cared and pushed them. Talk to Bo Ellis. Talk to Jim Chones...I’ll send you his cell and you can text him. Talk to Ric Cobb or George Thompson. Talk to William Gates.
Stop with the absolutes. Plenty of people care that they graduate. Yes, there are some kids that don’t care and some schools that don’t care....why do you and others here expand that to all? Look at our own damn history!!!!!
-
Nobody cares?
Good Lord. Do you even know your own history of Marquette athletics? Do you know how many men and women have gone through this institution as student athletes with likely never even thinking about a degree, but got one because people cared and pushed them. Talk to Bo Ellis. Talk to Jim Chones...I’ll send you his cell and you can text him. Talk to Ric Cobb or George Thompson. Talk to William Gates.
Stop with the absolutes. Plenty of people care that they graduate. Yes, there are some kids that don’t care and some schools that don’t care....why do you and others here expand that to all? Look at our own damn history!!!!!
If Wojo graduates 100% of his students and misses the tourney every year, he will be fired
-
Today's Eye on College Basketball podcast addresses this well. A few things they touch on:
- The California law has language built in to anticipate legal challenges from the NCAA.
- While the player value does derive from going to the university, the value is still there. For contrast, yes, Lebron is worth more because of the NBA, but that doesn't change that he has that value. Just like winning a gold medal or starring in a Academy Award winning movie would increase one's value despite doing it for a country or film company.
- This won't just be the Zions of the world. Yes, they'll get the biggest money, but this will trickle down the roster thanks to local business. They didn't mention video games, but they should have.
- In every way except player compensation, the NCAA is trying to run professional sports programs. They chase TV contracts like professional sports. They pay coaches like professional sports. The facilities, the arenas, the branding is all done how professional sports does it. The ONLY time they cry amateurism is when it comes to player compensation.
- The 2023 date is built in to give the NCAA time but also to force their hand. The NCAA told California they were working on it and to give them time. California answered that the NCAA has had enough time, you're on our timetable now.
- This passed both houses unanimously with Republican and Democratic support. This is not a partisan issue.
- The idea the NCAA seeks a level playing field for all is laughable.
It's a good listen.
The NCAA doesn’t pay coaching salaries.
The NCAA rule book is the same for all schools per division, and does seek a level playing field. The ncaa cannot dictate a coach’s salary or what purpose a building will be on campus. The rules of how you. Can recruit, what you can do, etc, are the same for all.
The value is driven by the school platforms they give. The student athletes should compensate the schools if they are getting paid. A hair stylist has to rent a space to cut hair....the salon gives them a platform. The athlete isn’t paying for the coaching, the gear, the tutors, the setup at the facilities, the maintenance at the facilities, the cleaning services, etc. Nothing.
-
I’m not naive enough to think there won’t be any other changes, large or small. The rise of college athletics have been built on the back of the athletes. I haven’t advocated the school paying players. It’s about players earning because of their talents.
As far as the IRS, yes, they’ll get their share. They always do and I believe they should. But it’ll be from those earning a check.
Universities have options. If their main concern is their educational mission, I’ve never understood how that matches with what college sports have become. And that’s at all levels. We can spend days finding malfeasance from all levels
The rise came from television and content. The NCAA tournament money is happening regardless of who the players are for the same reason people watch the Little League World Series, darts, truck pulls, etc. Sure, audience sizes change, but let’s not pretend all of this was built on the backs of players. That is 100% bullcrap.
-
My background is irrelevant. It’s simple. Athletes and all college students should be able to profit off their likeness. This isn’t about Marquette cutting a check to one player.
The NCAA has perpetuated the myth of amateurism to control and profit off the players. Major college athletics wouldn’t be here without the athletes and in turn, the money pouring into college athletics from television and apparel contracts wouldn’t be there to support the non-revenue sports.
If the goal is to retain amateurism, it’s simple. Eliminate athletic scholarships and big money. That isn’t happening. There will always be haves and have-nots in all levels of sports. The playing field is NOT level in any sense. Will schools get left behind? That’s up to them.
We can also get into the academic portion of this as well. Nobody cares about these kids getting educated. They care about them winning. Wojo isn’t keeping his job if he graduates 100% of his kids with medical degrees. He keeps his job if he wins, period.
If we take off the false veneer of amateurism, we see what we already know, college athletics are a big business built on winning, at all levels
Brother Rico:
You could not be more right. College sports is a business. The only other business I can think of that has the same tax status as college athletics is the credit union business.
Period.
The only way I know to change this is the Internal Revenue Code. You operate within the law but, as I said twice previously, you recognize a barter transaction for what it is. You tax it.
Ask a group of college athletes to pay taxes on the in-state or out-of-state tuition for the University of Michigan and I promise you, things will change. So fast heads will spin.
If you do this, you'll have to get the band members too. And anyone else whose scholarship depends on providing a service to the university. Probably RAs, who would be taxed on free housing and any tuition discounts.
For those of you who have cars as part of your job, how is paying taxes on the portion of the car used for personal matters any different than taxing college scholarships for athletes? I'm all ears on this one!
-
What would Tim Tebow say? I’m guessing Tebow wasn’t paid based on his comments...but I thought all the stars were paid?
https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/13/tim-tebow-fair-pay-play-act-playing-college-players-video
-
If Wojo graduates 100% of his students and misses the tourney every year, he will be fired
You said nobody cares and you could not be more wrong. Absolutely ignoring or own program history along with many other programs.
Guess what, if Wojo makes the tournament every year and no one graduates or we fall below the APR mark which prevents us from going to the tournament, he is also getting fired.
Stop with the BS that nobody cares. I used to work with those fine people that busted their arses to make sure those kids also busted theirs...went to class, did their assignments, studies, etc.
A lot of people care...a LOT....including players, their parents, etc
-
Either way on this I wish LeBron would STFU about supporting it. He's shouldn't have anything to do with influencing college sports
-
Either way on this I wish LeBron would STFU about supporting it. He's shouldn't have anything to do with influencing college sports
??? Why?
-
??? Why?
Because he didn't play. He was getting paid huge money in high school and chose to go pro, nothing wrong with that, but then he has no understanding of the trade of a degree, meal plan, platform to market your skills, weight training etc. for basketball services.
Doesn't deserve to have a voice in this conversation
-
LOL, but we can discuss it on a message board? He can't discuss a law under consideration in his own state of residence?
Silly.
-
LOL, but we can discuss it on a message board? He can't discuss a law under consideration in his own state of residence?
Silly.
We all went to college (I think?) and therefore understand at least half of the trade off happening. Someone who didn't has no idea.
I didn't say anything about his residence, he's publicly supporting it, huge difference between saying at your BBQ "yeah I like that plan" vs putting it out there through your PR team
-
We all went to college (I think?) and therefore understand at least half of the trade off happening. Someone who didn't has no idea.
I didn't say anything about his residence, he's publicly supporting it, huge difference between saying at your BBQ "yeah I like that plan" vs putting it out there through your PR team
He also has a son who has received high-major offers to play basketball and will almost certainly be on scholarship somewhere around the time this rule is going into effect. I get that Lebron himself wasn't in the process, but he does have family that will be immediately impacted by it.
-
He also has a son who has received high-major offers to play basketball and will almost certainly be on scholarship somewhere around the time this rule is going into effect. I get that Lebron himself wasn't in the process, but he does have family that will be immediately impacted by it.
My understanding was that by the time he is going to college the NBA will have revoked the one and done rule?
-
??? Why?
I prefer athletes stick to politics.
-
My understanding was that by the time he is going to college the NBA will have revoked the one and done rule?
It's possible, but I'm not convinced he's that level of talent. None of the reputable sources have a 2023 list yet, and while he's being indicated as a potential 5-star prospect, his jump to the NBA would be a long way off. Further, I think he's going to be evaluated more positively because he's James' son and because everyone has their eyes on him.
-
It's possible, but I'm not convinced he's that level of talent. None of the reputable sources have a 2023 list yet, and while he's being indicated as a potential 5-star prospect, his jump to the NBA would be a long way off. Further, I think he's going to be evaluated more positively because he's James' son and because everyone has their eyes on him.
Gotcha. Well then maybe by the time this rule comes to fruition I'll have changed my mind but till then I stand firm.
-
Who cares how good his son is. He has every right to make comments because...well...it's a democracy.
Still very silly.
-
What would Tim Tebow day? I’m guessing Tebow wasn’t paid based on his comments...but I thought all the stars were paid?
https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/13/tim-tebow-fair-pay-play-act-playing-college-players-video
The good news is that future Tim Tebows who believe it outrageous to profit off their own likeness could simply choose not to.
Problem solved.
-
Who cares how good his son is. He has every right to make comments because...well...it's a democracy.
Still very silly.
Yes I'm sure you've said that whenever idiotic celebrities say things you disagree with that are much political in nature. I'm sure you've never said this person shouldn't be saying something to influence opinions on their platform when they don't grasp the issue at hand.
-
Yes I'm sure you've said that whenever idiotic celebrities say things you disagree with that are much political in nature. I'm sure you've never said this person shouldn't be saying something to influence opinions on their platform when they don't grasp the issue at hand.
Why do you believe LeBron doesn't grasp the issue at hand?
-
Why do you believe LeBron doesn't grasp the issue at hand?
I already stated above. I don't think he understands value of college, nor the full extent of athletic scholarship perks that the athletes get. I'm not saying I'm against this bill just that I'm against a celebrity, who is not a college stakeholder, using their platform to influence the outcome and public opinion.
-
Yes I'm sure you've said that whenever idiotic celebrities say things you disagree with that are much political in nature. I'm sure you've never said this person shouldn't be saying something to influence opinions on their platform when they don't grasp the issue at hand.
I really don't pay attention to what any celebrity says about anything substantive. But I would never say something as silly as they don't "deserve to have a voice in this conversation." Of course they do.
-
I already stated above. I don't think he understands value of college, nor the full extent of athletic scholarship perks that the athletes get. I'm not saying I'm against this bill just that I'm against a celebrity, who is not a college stakeholder, using their platform to influence the outcome and public opinion.
I know right? God forbid that a citizen state an opinion on a civic issue.
-
I know right? God forbid that a citizen state an opinion on a civic issue.
Not everyone deserves an opinion on every issue. They can have them, I have opinions on plenty of things that don't effect me. But I don't deserve to as I'm not a stakeholder in the issue so I don't go out and campaign for or against those issues.
That being said respond away, I'm done arguing this before it becomes too political.
-
We all went to college (I think?) and therefore understand at least half of the trade off happening. Someone who didn't has no idea.
And he played basketball at an elite level and opted to play professionally rather than attend college. I think that qualifies him to voice an opinion on the matter at least as much as all of us are qualified by virtue of having attended college.
-
Not everyone deserves an opinion on every issue. They can have them, I have opinions on plenty of things that don't effect me. But I don't deserve to as I'm not a stakeholder in the issue so I don't go out and campaign for or against those issues.
But you can. It's your right to do so. That's the point.
-
It's possible, but I'm not convinced he's that level of talent. None of the reputable sources have a 2023 list yet, and while he's being indicated as a potential 5-star prospect, his jump to the NBA would be a long way off. Further, I think he's going to be evaluated more positively because he's James' son and because everyone has their eyes on him.
I do recall there being some buzz around Jordan's kids...until there wasn't.
-
I already stated above. I don't think he understands value of college, nor the full extent of athletic scholarship perks that the athletes get. I'm not saying I'm against this bill just that I'm against a celebrity, who is not a college stakeholder, using their platform to influence the outcome and public opinion.
Imagine if we applied this standard to every issue.
-
I do recall there being some buzz around Jordan's kids...until there wasn't.
Yup. By all reports, Bronny thus far is probably the best of the "basketball star kids" generation that includes some top-100s or fringe players, but as we've seen in the past, genetics alone does not a successful pro career make.
-
Yup. By all reports, Bronny thus far is probably the best of the "basketball star kids" generation that includes some top-100s or fringe players, but as we've seen in the past, genetics alone does not a successful pro career make.
I don't know...that Curry kid has done alright for himself. ;)
-
I don't know...that Curry kid has done alright for himself. ;)
Was Dell really a star, though? I see where you're coming from, but I don't think he was in the same stratosphere as Jordan, Wade, O'Neal, or Lebron.
-
The good news is that future Tim Tebows who believe it outrageous to profit off their own likeness could simply choose not to.
Problem solved.
Tebow -- another hypocrite heard from.
I'm guessing the average "salary" received by Tebow's teammates during his time at Florida was roughly $50,000 per man, and I'm also guessing he knew about most if not all of it but said nothing about the rampant cheating there.
Of course, that didn't "change what's special about college football" in Tebow's eyes because it was -- and is -- typical of college sham-amateur football.
-
Was Dell really a star, though?
Of course not. It was a joke.
-
Of course not. It was a joke.
Clearly the genes passing from son to father doesn't work any better than father to son ;)
-
LOL, but we can discuss it on a message board? He can't discuss a law under consideration in his own state of residence?
Silly.
lol.....about as silly as when women say males cannot pass laws that.....
Oh nevermind
-
The good news is that future Tim Tebows who believe it outrageous to profit off their own likeness could simply choose not to.
Problem solved.
But as he points out, it ruins what it is all about. No longer playing for school. Changing we to me. Glad he spoke out, cuz you know a bunch of anonymous basketball coaches in a poll said otherwise.
More importantly, another great player that wasn’t paid despite the nonsense in public “they all get paid, they are all cheating”
-
Tebow -- another hypocrite heard from.
I'm guessing the average "salary" received by Tebow's teammates during his time at Florida was roughly $50,000 per man, and I'm also guessing he knew about most if not all of it but said nothing about the rampant cheating there.
Of course, that didn't "change what's special about college football" in Tebow's eyes because it was -- and is -- typical of college sham-amateur football.
So the best player in college football was not paid and the others were....do you have some proof to back this up?
-
So the best player in college football was not paid and the others were....do you have some proof to back this up?
Do you have any proof one way or the other? Of course not, no one does.
-
But as he points out, it ruins what it is all about. No longer playing for school. Changing we to me.
Put away your cape Captain Hyperbole.
Anyway this pretty much mirrors what I think about Tebow’s comments.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/09/13/tim-tebows-argument-against-paying-college-athletes-laughable/2314957001/
-
Who cares how good his son is. He has every right to make comments because...well...it's a democracy.
Still very silly.
Democracy and free speech don't have any direct correlation, but we get your point.
-
lol.....about as silly as when women say males cannot pass laws that.....
Oh nevermind
So you agree with people who say that?
-
Put away your cape Captain Hyperbole.
Anyway this pretty much mirrors what I think about Tebow’s comments.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/09/13/tim-tebows-argument-against-paying-college-athletes-laughable/2314957001/
I'm not a fan of Tebow. He was and is still given a bigger platform than he deserves.
That said, that op-ed was pretty shabby and full of hyperbole itself.
"College athletics has already been corrupted by money and greed on every level"......Can that author please give examples of this at the DII and DIII levels? How about non-revenue producing DI sports?
"Tebow — sees college football as a citadel of chastity in a materialistic world."... Again I'm no Tebow fan but I can't put those words in his mouth. Until he says something like that, the author is taking way too much artistic license.
-
I'm not a fan of Tebow. He was and is still given a bigger platform than he deserves.
That said, that op-ed was pretty shabby and full of hyperbole itself.
"College athletics has already been corrupted by money and greed on every level"......Can that author please give examples of this at the DII and DIII levels? How about non-revenue producing DI sports?
"Tebow — sees college football as a citadel of chastity in a materialistic world."... Again I'm no Tebow fan but I can't put those words in his mouth. Until he says something like that, the author is taking way too much artistic license.
I don’t see Tebow saying that either. “Materialistic” has way too many syllables.
Lame humor aside, I think by “all levels” he means coaches, ADs, etc.
-
I don’t see Tebow saying that either. “Materialistic” has way too many syllables.
Lame humor aside, I think by “all levels” he means coaches, ADs, etc.
LOL. Agreed about Tebow. Funny stuff.
As for the "all levels" assertion, I hope you are right otherwise this guy is the king of the hyperbole captains. I suppose I shouldn't set the bar too high when reading a USA Today op-ed.
-
So the best player in college football was not paid and the others were....do you have some proof to back this up?
First of all, I made it clear I was speculating.
Second, I think you're right: Tebow was getting paid, too. Thanks for helping me realize it.
-
Do you have any proof one way or the other? Of course not, no one does.
I’m not the one saying Tebow is a hypocrite and leveling the charge. As a former journalist I would expect MU82 to have some evidence before making such a claim.
-
First of all, I made it clear I was speculating.
Second, I think you're right: Tebow was getting paid, too. Thanks for helping me realize it.
You called him a hypocrite, you weren’t speculating at all.
-
Put away your cape Captain Hyperbole.
Anyway this pretty much mirrors what I think about Tebow’s comments.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/09/13/tim-tebows-argument-against-paying-college-athletes-laughable/2314957001/
Tebow played college athletics at the highest levels.
Dan Wolken....writer and epic joke. That very article...says greed has taken over at every level of college sports. Yup, that college field hockey is just swimming in greed...same with bowling....soccer....D2...D3. Of covering Memphis as he did probably biased him to no end.
-
Gary Parish's poll of "100" coaches regarding paying players. Reveals a lot about Mr. Parrish...no wonder certain people here gravitate to him. More importantly, read some of his words and the naive, childish conclusions he comes up with.
The takeaway
I was pleasantly surprised to see the coaches vote so overwhelmingly, and enthusiastically, in favor of college athletics adopting an Olympic-style model because, if you read or listen to me at all, you know I've been banging the drum on this issue for years. Still, I didn't expect more than three-fourths of coaches polled to agree with me. I would've predicted something closer to a 50-50 split.
So this is progress, I think. (AH YES, PROGRESS....let's not one time in the article account for what these guys do get, but "progress")
As I've explained many times -- including in this column from February 2018 -- the most sensible approach to making college athletics more fair for student-athletes, and to eliminating recruiting scandals from college sports, is for the NCAA to adopt an Olympic-style model that allows student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. And I don't mean just football and basketball players. I mean, all student-athletes -- yes, the football and basketball players, but also the volleyball players, soccer players, golfers and anybody else. If an internationally known shoe company, some local car dealership, or anything in between, believes your endorsement is worth something, you should be allowed to accept whatever it is they're offering.
"But where does it stop?" asked one coach who voted "no" because of the advantages it would create for the biggest schools with the biggest boosters and corporate backing. "How much is FedEx paying James Wiseman for a billboard then? How much is a car dealership in Auburn paying Danjel Purifoy then? I think kids deserve it. But there needs to be a cap to keep the playing field somewhat even."
Among the "no" responses, this was a common theme. Coaches believe incorporating an Olympic-style model would "legalize cheating" and create advantages for certain schools. And, long as we're being honest, I can admit they're 100 percent correct. BECAUSE THEY ARE100% CORRECT It definitely would. Nike would offer endorsement deals in exchange for elite prospects enrolling, or staying, at Kentucky or Duke, Adidas would offer endorsement deals in exchange for elite prospects enrolling, or staying, at Kansas. And, yes, FedEx would put James Wiseman on a billboard quicker than FedEx can deliver a package from Memphis to Melbourne. So Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Memphis and schools like them would absolutely have incredible recruiting advantages over schools unlike them.
But guess what? They already do! NO, they actually do not. Tim Tebow example one of many. What Parrish is saying is today there are schools that do, indeed, cheat. But they risk being caught and punished if they do. In his Utopian silly world, that goes away. Now, it absolutely consolidates power into only a few schools. His Memphis example is perfect. Let Memphis do this above board, massive power consolidation. Does Parrish want only 10 to 15 schools to run it all? Sure seems like it.
So if your argument against an Olympic-style model is that the schools that care the most about a certain sport, and commit the most resources to a certain sport, would bring in the best prospects annually, my question is this: Have you seen the recruiting rankings lately?
That's already how most, if not all, college sports work. What the hell is he talking about. He clearly isn't doing his job, or doesn't understand what he is saying.
And it's why I've long believed the NCAA adopting an Olympic-style model wouldn't change the order of things much at all. He is flat out wrong. The same schools that get the best recruits now would likely get the best recruits then. It opens up a lot of schools that don't do well but now will. Think Wisconsin who sucked balls in everything but hockey for decades, and suddenly became a power. There are many schools like this...big schools, lots of alumni, where now the power shift will go. The same schools that win the championships now would likely win the championships then. And, in the process, every student-athlete in every sport would get whatever it is somebody thinks they're worth -- whether it's a lot, a little or nothing more than what they already get. And the best part is that it would also effectively eliminate cheating from recruiting because, follow me here, if it's legal for student-athletes to accept whatever somebody deems they're worth, there is no table for which deals to be done under. THIS IS THE BEST ONE HERE. This guy actually believes it will effectively eliminate cheating in recruiting. HOLY crap. If this is a classic naive progressive comment I don't know what is. Everything could happen above board and in the light. Sure, everything would be above board and in the light...good one Gary. So we'd never again have to wonder why a prospect signed with School A instead of School B; we'd know exactly why because it would be documented. Oh sure, Gary, I'll bet everything will be on the up and up and well documented. My God. And it should be noted that an Olympic-style model might actually give smaller schools a better chance than they currently have at enrolling elite student-athletes because, with an Olympic-style model, if a smaller school had a booster willing to throw real money around, the deal a borderline top-100 prospect could get from that school might be better than the deal the borderline top-100 prospect could get from a traditional power. So, perhaps, he or she might just accept the best deal available regardless or tradition or league affiliation. He brings up smaller school, and those are the schools that will be destroyed in all of this. The big schools, big alumni will dominate....but he throws a bone there to a small school because he knows deep down the small schools are toast.
Bottom line, this needs to happen. Why? To satisfy the "progress" you desire above? Never once does he mention the massive benefits kids already get.
The biggest thing working against it is that the money companies and boosters are now donating to universities would, in some cases, instead go directly to student-athletes -- which means universities would lose control of some revenue, and God knows they hate the idea of that. But the NCAA adopting an Olympic-style model is undeniably popular with most fans Oh really? Latest polls show less than 50% support it and has been for years. Really Gary, show the polls that for YEARS this has been supported by fans....you cannot. And the results of this poll suggest college basketball coaches are, on the whole, in favor of it too. So now it's just a matter of convincing the power-brokers to also get on board. It won't be easy, obviously. But, hopefully, it's not impossible.
-
Gary Parish's poll of "100" coaches regarding paying players. Reveals a lot about Mr. Parrish...no wonder certain people here gravitate to him. More importantly, read some of his words and the naive, childish conclusions he comes up with.
The takeaway
I was pleasantly surprised to see the coaches vote so overwhelmingly, and enthusiastically, in favor of college athletics adopting an Olympic-style model because, if you read or listen to me at all, you know I've been banging the drum on this issue for years. Still, I didn't expect more than three-fourths of coaches polled to agree with me. I would've predicted something closer to a 50-50 split.
So this is progress, I think. (AH YES, PROGRESS....let's not one time in the article account for what these guys do get, but "progress")
As I've explained many times -- including in this column from February 2018 -- the most sensible approach to making college athletics more fair for student-athletes, and to eliminating recruiting scandals from college sports, is for the NCAA to adopt an Olympic-style model that allows student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. And I don't mean just football and basketball players. I mean, all student-athletes -- yes, the football and basketball players, but also the volleyball players, soccer players, golfers and anybody else. If an internationally known shoe company, some local car dealership, or anything in between, believes your endorsement is worth something, you should be allowed to accept whatever it is they're offering.
"But where does it stop?" asked one coach who voted "no" because of the advantages it would create for the biggest schools with the biggest boosters and corporate backing. "How much is FedEx paying James Wiseman for a billboard then? How much is a car dealership in Auburn paying Danjel Purifoy then? I think kids deserve it. But there needs to be a cap to keep the playing field somewhat even."
Among the "no" responses, this was a common theme. Coaches believe incorporating an Olympic-style model would "legalize cheating" and create advantages for certain schools. And, long as we're being honest, I can admit they're 100 percent correct. BECAUSE THEY ARE100% CORRECT It definitely would. Nike would offer endorsement deals in exchange for elite prospects enrolling, or staying, at Kentucky or Duke, Adidas would offer endorsement deals in exchange for elite prospects enrolling, or staying, at Kansas. And, yes, FedEx would put James Wiseman on a billboard quicker than FedEx can deliver a package from Memphis to Melbourne. So Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Memphis and schools like them would absolutely have incredible recruiting advantages over schools unlike them.
But guess what? They already do! NO, they actually do not. Tim Tebow example one of many. What Parrish is saying is today there are schools that do, indeed, cheat. But they risk being caught and punished if they do. In his Utopian silly world, that goes away. Now, it absolutely consolidates power into only a few schools. His Memphis example is perfect. Let Memphis do this above board, massive power consolidation. Does Parrish want only 10 to 15 schools to run it all? Sure seems like it.
So if your argument against an Olympic-style model is that the schools that care the most about a certain sport, and commit the most resources to a certain sport, would bring in the best prospects annually, my question is this: Have you seen the recruiting rankings lately?
That's already how most, if not all, college sports work. What the hell is he talking about. He clearly isn't doing his job, or doesn't understand what he is saying.
And it's why I've long believed the NCAA adopting an Olympic-style model wouldn't change the order of things much at all. He is flat out wrong. The same schools that get the best recruits now would likely get the best recruits then. It opens up a lot of schools that don't do well but now will. Think Wisconsin who sucked balls in everything but hockey for decades, and suddenly became a power. There are many schools like this...big schools, lots of alumni, where now the power shift will go. The same schools that win the championships now would likely win the championships then. And, in the process, every student-athlete in every sport would get whatever it is somebody thinks they're worth -- whether it's a lot, a little or nothing more than what they already get. And the best part is that it would also effectively eliminate cheating from recruiting because, follow me here, if it's legal for student-athletes to accept whatever somebody deems they're worth, there is no table for which deals to be done under. THIS IS THE BEST ONE HERE. This guy actually believes it will effectively eliminate cheating in recruiting. HOLY crap. If this is a classic naive progressive comment I don't know what is. Everything could happen above board and in the light. Sure, everything would be above board and in the light...good one Gary. So we'd never again have to wonder why a prospect signed with School A instead of School B; we'd know exactly why because it would be documented. Oh sure, Gary, I'll bet everything will be on the up and up and well documented. My God. And it should be noted that an Olympic-style model might actually give smaller schools a better chance than they currently have at enrolling elite student-athletes because, with an Olympic-style model, if a smaller school had a booster willing to throw real money around, the deal a borderline top-100 prospect could get from that school might be better than the deal the borderline top-100 prospect could get from a traditional power. So, perhaps, he or she might just accept the best deal available regardless or tradition or league affiliation. He brings up smaller school, and those are the schools that will be destroyed in all of this. The big schools, big alumni will dominate....but he throws a bone there to a small school because he knows deep down the small schools are toast.
Bottom line, this needs to happen. Why? To satisfy the "progress" you desire above? Never once does he mention the massive benefits kids already get.
The biggest thing working against it is that the money companies and boosters are now donating to universities would, in some cases, instead go directly to student-athletes -- which means universities would lose control of some revenue, and God knows they hate the idea of that. But the NCAA adopting an Olympic-style model is undeniably popular with most fans Oh really? Latest polls show less than 50% support it and has been for years. Really Gary, show the polls that for YEARS this has been supported by fans....you cannot. And the results of this poll suggest college basketball coaches are, on the whole, in favor of it too. So now it's just a matter of convincing the power-brokers to also get on board. It won't be easy, obviously. But, hopefully, it's not impossible.
Reveals a lot about Cheeks...no wonder certain people here gravitate to him. More importantly, read some of his words and the naive, childish conclusions he comes up with.
-
Parish is the very definition of 'Drive By Media'. He spent Zero time actually researching and understanding the facts of the issue at hand. He is and always will be intellectually lazy.
-
In a 2017 poll by the Washington Post and UMass Lowell, while 52% of those polled preferred scholarships over "additional compensation" for college ahletes, 66% of Americans said college athletes SHOULD BE COMPENSATED WHEN THEIR NAMES AND IMAGES ARE USED TO GENERATE PROFIT.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/20704329/blacks-whites-split-topic-compensation-college-players
In other words, while a slight majority back in 2017 seemed to be against paying athletes (which is what was meant by "additional compensation"), a SIGNIFICANT majority believed that athletes should be able to profit off their likenesses -- which is what most of us here who have taken the athletes' side are arguing for.
The numbers were even higher among black Americans polled -- 89%.
That was the most recent "legitimate" poll I could find. I'd certainly like to see something more recent, as I believe sentiment favoring athletes has only increased in the last two years.
More recently -- just in the last month -- a survey of college students showed that 53% either favored or strongly favored paying their peers who are athletes.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/student-athletes-should-get-paid-college-students-say.html
And when asked whether athletes should be allowed to profit off their likenesses, 77% of all students said they favor or strongly favor that policy. An overwhelming 80% of all students agreed that college athletes should be paid if their image is used for purposes such as selling merchandise.
So, anyway one slices it, a significant majority of Americans believe that athletes own their likenesses and should be allowed to profit off them, and students feel the same about their sports-playing peers.
-
Good find MU82.
-
As Tony Bennett Gets Good PR, What Do His Players Get?
https://deadspin.com/as-tony-bennett-gets-good-pr-what-do-his-players-get-1838195591/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
As Tony Bennett Gets Good PR, What Do His Players Get?
https://deadspin.com/as-tony-bennett-gets-good-pr-what-do-his-players-get-1838195591/amp?__twitter_impression=true
ESPN tagging Tony Bennett’s corporate sponsor is a bit on the nose of NCAA hypocrisy, but I digress
-
Well, in Bennett's defense, he can't give his players anything.
I thought it was a pretty cool move by him. Sure, it's PR, but that doesn't mean it wasn't generous of him.
-
I thought posting 5 responses in a row a day later was peak Chicos, but I can admit when I'm wrong. Posting an unrequested article from someone who would never deign to respond to him, then debating in bold red font, that's peak Chicos. That's hilarious.
-
I thought posting 5 responses in a row a day later was peak Chicos, but I can admit when I'm wrong. Posting an unrequested article from someone who would never deign to respond to him, then debating in bold red font, that's peak Chicos. That's hilarious.
It was ridiculous
-
I thought posting 5 responses in a row a day later was peak Chicos, but I can admit when I'm wrong. Posting an unrequested article from someone who would never deign to respond to him, then debating in bold red font, that's peak Chicos. That's hilarious.
Interestingly, the one post hoopaloop hasn't responded to was the one from yesterday morning showing that the vast majority of Americans believe college athlete-students should be able to profit off their own likenesses.
He loves to cite polls, claiming they "prove" one of his points. He's a big fan of majority rule ... unless, of course, it crushes one of his pet beliefs. Then ... crickets.
-
In a 2017 poll by the Washington Post and UMass Lowell, while 52% of those polled preferred scholarships over "additional compensation" for college ahletes, 66% of Americans said college athletes SHOULD BE COMPENSATED WHEN THEIR NAMES AND IMAGES ARE USED TO GENERATE PROFIT.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/20704329/blacks-whites-split-topic-compensation-college-players
In other words, while a slight majority back in 2017 seemed to be against paying athletes (which is what was meant by "additional compensation"), a SIGNIFICANT majority believed that athletes should be able to profit off their likenesses -- which is what most of us here who have taken the athletes' side are arguing for.
The numbers were even higher among black Americans polled -- 89%.
That was the most recent "legitimate" poll I could find. I'd certainly like to see something more recent, as I believe sentiment favoring athletes has only increased in the last two years.
More recently -- just in the last month -- a survey of college students showed that 53% either favored or strongly favored paying their peers who are athletes.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/student-athletes-should-get-paid-college-students-say.html
And when asked whether athletes should be allowed to profit off their likenesses, 77% of all students said they favor or strongly favor that policy. An overwhelming 80% of all students agreed that college athletes should be paid if their image is used for purposes such as selling merchandise.
So, anyway one slices it, a significant majority of Americans believe that athletes own their likenesses and should be allowed to profit off them, and students feel the same about their sports-playing peers.
.
2019 poll, only 49% supported it per Hartford Courant. A majority, 50%+1 do not. But I am glad college students say college athletes should get paid....there is nothing more mind empowering and solid in thought than an 18-22 year old’s view point on the issues of life. What was the Winston Churchill quote again......
-
Well, in Bennett's defense, he can't give his players anything.
I thought it was a pretty cool move by him. Sure, it's PR, but that doesn't mean it wasn't generous of him.
He gives his players world class instruction, provided a scholarship at a top school that over the course of the kid’s life is worth $2 million in earnings power, gave them untold memories including NCAA and other competition, free clothes, roof over their head, travel, food.....yup, he gave them nothing.
Good one. LOL
-
I thought posting 5 responses in a row a day later was peak Chicos, but I can admit when I'm wrong. Posting an unrequested article from someone who would never deign to respond to him, then debating in bold red font, that's peak Chicos. That's hilarious.
And you loved it enough to comment as did others. No wonder you find Gary Parrish so great. LOL. The guy is an absolute joke, and please stop distorting your 100 D1 coaches poll....they are not 100 head coaches.
-
Interestingly, the one post hoopaloop hasn't responded to was the one from yesterday morning showing that the vast majority of Americans believe college athlete-students should be able to profit off their own likenesses.
He loves to cite polls, claiming they "prove" one of his points. He's a big fan of majority rule ... unless, of course, it crushes one of his pet beliefs. Then ... crickets.
I responded, your 2017 poll said one thing, the 2019 poll said something different.
Glad polls rule the day....right, Mike? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
-
Honest question.
The only logical reason I've heard against players being allowed to profit off their likeness is the fear that it will allow big money donors to give money to players to go their alma maters in exchange for bogus endorsement deals, further disrupting the already broken competitive balance. Which makes sense if its not properly regulated.
My question is, if this is going to happen with players being allowed to profit off their likeness, why isn't already happening with players being allowed to have jobs? Couldn't a big money donor promise a recruit a cushy internship where they make six figures for sitting by the pool all day? That would actually seem easier to pull off because I feel like hiring an intern is a lot less exposure than putting a player's face on your brand.
This isn't mean to be a "gotcha" post or anything. I honestly want to know why some are confident that the NCAA can regulate athletes getting jobs but aren't confident they could do the same with likenesses.
-
Honest question.
The only logical reason I've heard against players being allowed to profit off their likeness is the fear that it will allow big money donors to give money to players to go their alma maters in exchange for bogus endorsement deals, further disrupting the already broken competitive balance. Which makes sense if its not properly regulated.
My question is, if this is going to happen with players being allowed to profit off their likeness, why isn't already happening with players being allowed to have jobs? Couldn't a big money donor promise a recruit a cushy internship where they make six figures for sitting by the pool all day? That would actually seem easier to pull off because I feel like hiring an intern is a lot less exposure than putting a player's face on your brand.
This isn't mean to be a "gotcha" post or anything. I honestly want to know why some are confident that the NCAA can regulate athletes getting jobs but aren't confident they could do the same with likenesses.
Several reasons. For the jobs thing to work to pull off a scam you need a lot of people in on it. You hire the USC football player to do nothing much and get paid, the UCLA alum in the office is saying WTF. Lots of whistleblowers potentially around. The NCAA has to regulate it, but not as difficult. Pay stubs, market rates, etc.
Advertising on one’s likeness, is open ended without a limit. That internship a kid does has guardrails of what the market will bear, but endorsements is a whole new ballgame. I can decide to pay 5 star recruit whatever the hell I want....or in a big city with 1000’s of opportunities, I get 50 alum businesses to do it. Scale. Scale. Scale. In my line of work I have paid super star athletes as little as $300K to do an endorsement and others millions of dollars for the same service. There is no set limit. The possibility for abuse in this area is mind boggling how easy and counterproductive to the mission of college athletics.
I disagree with your comment there is only one logical argument...there are many and have been articulated here. Even in the “100” poll of “coaches” that has been brought up here, Title IX is brought up by some as a landline, as it should be. Tebow’s argument I find compelling as well as others. And just wait until you get into disharmony, holdouts, and other wonderful pleasantries this is going to cause. No longer are these kids representing the university, they are representing Bob’s Toyota and Chick Fil A first.
-
.
2019 poll, only 49% supported it per Hartford Courant. A majority, 50%+1 do not. But I am glad college students say college athletes should get paid....there is nothing more mind empowering and solid in thought than an 18-22 year old’s view point on the issues of life. What was the Winston Churchill quote again......
If it exists, please provide a link for the 2019 Courant poll. I couldn't find it. The only article I could find using a google search that included the words Hartford Courant poll college athletes referred back to the Post poll for which I provided a link.
https://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-sp-chris-murphy-college-athletes-paid-zion-williamson-20190328-20190328-eqa6o5eaa5g5bnkpf33qy43mse-story.html
A 2017 Washington Post poll found that only 38 percent of American believe players should be paid based on the revenue they generate but that 66 percent say they should earn money for the use of their names and likenesses.
So I'm definitely interested in seeing this Courant poll of yours.
Also FYI, the Post poll found that 89% of African-Americans are in favor of college athletes being allowed to profit off their likenesses. Then again, you probably believe that there is nothing more mind empowering and solid in thought than a black person's view point on the issues of life.
-
If it exists, please provide a link for the 2019 Courant poll. I couldn't find it. The only article I could find using a google search that included the words Hartford Courant poll college athletes referred back to the Post poll for which I provided a link.
https://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-sp-chris-murphy-college-athletes-paid-zion-williamson-20190328-20190328-eqa6o5eaa5g5bnkpf33qy43mse-story.html
A 2017 Washington Post poll found that only 38 percent of American believe players should be paid based on the revenue they generate but that 66 percent say they should earn money for the use of their names and likenesses.
So I'm definitely interested in seeing this Courant poll of yours.
Also FYI, the Post poll found that 89% of African-Americans are in favor of college athletes being allowed to profit off their likenesses. Then again, you probably believe that there is nothing more mind empowering and solid in thought than a black person's view point on the issues of life.
If it exists? Are you suggesting something here Mike? A little surprised the journalist only presented one side and didn’t find another poll.....well you are out of practice I guess.
https://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-sp-should-college-athletes-be-paid-20190523-20190523-bwh4dnktdne5hnbfvx4p5zj3cy-story.html
Ahh, playing the race card again....what Mike always comes back to.
More importantly those polls are push polls. What is not presented is the consequences if the action is taken. If the poll question was, should college athletes get paid, but if they are it will lead to more cheating, a consolidation of top players at big schools only, a reduction in non revenue sports.....what do you think happens?
It’s like asking people if they think it is a good idea to build a choo choo train if it costs x dollars, but when the x becomes 5x, the results change.
-
Cheeks you failed to read the article you linked again. What you are claiming the poll said, is not actually what the poll said.
It was not specific on the issue of paid for likeness, and in fact mentions the same WSJ poll that MU82 mentions in the very next sentence.
-
Cheeks you failed to read the article you linked again. What you are claiming the poll said, is not actually what the poll said.
It was not specific on the issue of paid for likeness, and in fact mentions the same WSJ poll that MU82 mentions in the very next sentence.
Yes, it does mention the 2017 poll....it also says support is not universal and mentions the Seton Hall poll.
In your world maybe receiving cash because you play a sport for a university is not getting paid, in mine it is. Whether paid for likeness or games, the student athlete is being financially compensated because they are an athlete. Because of who they are and the platform for which they represent. That’s why the Courant included both.
-
If it exists? Are you suggesting something here Mike? A little surprised the journalist only presented one side and didn’t find another poll.....well you are out of practice I guess.
https://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-sp-should-college-athletes-be-paid-20190523-20190523-bwh4dnktdne5hnbfvx4p5zj3cy-story.html
Ahh, playing the race card again....what Mike always comes back to.
Well, you're wrong again: That linked article merely refers back to the WaPo poll.
I have not been talking about athletes getting paid, as the Seton Hall poll does. I - and numerous other Scoopers - have been talking about athletes being allowed to profit off their likenesses.
So ... again ... 66 percent of Americans say college athletes should be allowed to earn money for the use of their names and likenesses.
I specifically mentioned that - bolded it and blued it - and yet you squirmily tried to pull a fast one by referring back to a subject we weren't even discussing. That's Hoopaloopin' 101 right there.
As it turns out, not only didn't your link refute what I said, your link confirmed it ... so thanks!
Finally, I'm not sure why a fact is "playing the race card." The vast majority of college football and basketball players are black, and 89% of black respondents to that WaPo poll believe college athletes should be able to profit off their likenesses. It was data in the poll, and it was mentioned in the accompanying article. I happen to think it's relevant; you're allowed to disagree, but that doesn't stop it from being a fact.
"Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is." -- Winston Churchill.
-
Well, you're wrong again: That linked article merely refers back to the WaPo poll.
I have not been talking about athletes getting paid, as the Seton Hall poll does. I - and numerous other Scoopers - have been talking about athletes being allowed to profit off their likenesses.
So ... again ... 66 percent of Americans say college athletes should be allowed to earn money for the use of their names and likenesses.
I specifically mentioned that - bolded it and blued it - and yet you squirmily tried to pull a fast one by referring back to a subject we weren't even discussing. That's Hoopaloopin' 101 right there.
As it turns out, not only didn't your link refute what I said, your link confirmed it ... so thanks!
Finally, I'm not sure why a fact is "playing the race card." The vast majority of college football and basketball players are black, and 89% of black respondents to that WaPo poll believe college athletes should be able to profit off their likenesses. It was data in the poll, and it was mentioned in the accompanying article. I happen to think it's relevant; you're allowed to disagree, but that doesn't stop it from being a fact.
"Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is." -- Winston Churchill.
Classic
You want student athletes COMPENSATED for their likeness and at the same time try, with a straight face, to say you aren’t talking about them getting paid.
Holy unnatural carnal knowledge
The amount of crazy with some here is hitting a new level. They would be getting paid because they are athletes....are you really suggesting this isn’t compensation? Do you think the federal gov’t will tax it as income? Lol. Of course they will, because it is. Play your game with someone else....this is compensation plain and simple.
“Christmas is a season not only of rejoicing but of reflection.” Winston Churchill
“If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack.” Winston Churchill
-
Classic
You want student athletes COMPENSATED for their likeness and at the same time try, with a straight face, to say you aren’t talking about them getting paid.
Holy unnatural carnal knowledge
The amount of crazy with some here is hitting a new level. They would be getting paid because they are athletes....are you really suggesting this isn’t compensation? Do you think the federal gov’t will tax it as income? Lol. Of course they will, because it is. Play your game with someone else....this is compensation plain and simple.
Bravo, hoopy! Great deflection! Great lies! Great hoopaloopin'!
Even though you knew EXACTLY what several Scoopers were talking about -- in this particular case, even though I highlighted it, bold-faced it and put it in blue -- you now are trying to claim we were talking about something different.
You were wrong, you tried to get away with lying, and you were caught. And now you are too hoopaloopy to admit to it. Attaboy.
-
Several reasons. For the jobs thing to work to pull off a scam you need a lot of people in on it. You hire the USC football player to do nothing much and get paid, the UCLA alum in the office is saying WTF. Lots of whistleblowers potentially around. The NCAA has to regulate it, but not as difficult. Pay stubs, market rates, etc.
Advertising on one’s likeness, is open ended without a limit. That internship a kid does has guardrails of what the market will bear, but endorsements is a whole new ballgame. I can decide to pay 5 star recruit whatever the hell I want....or in a big city with 1000’s of opportunities, I get 50 alum businesses to do it. Scale. Scale. Scale. In my line of work I have paid super star athletes as little as $300K to do an endorsement and others millions of dollars for the same service. There is no set limit. The possibility for abuse in this area is mind boggling how easy and counterproductive to the mission of college athletics.
So if the NCAA found a successful way to regulate it, this particular point wouldn't be an issue for you? Again, not trying to play the "gotcha" game, trying to understand.
I disagree with your comment there is only one logical argument...there are many and have been articulated here. Even in the “100” poll of “coaches” that has been brought up here, Title IX is brought up by some as a landline, as it should be. Tebow’s argument I find compelling as well as others. And just wait until you get into disharmony, holdouts, and other wonderful pleasantries this is going to cause. No longer are these kids representing the university, they are representing Bob’s Toyota and Chick Fil A first.
Anyone making a Title IX argument on this has literally no idea what they are talking about.
I can't say I know what Tebow's argument is.
I don't buy the argument that players won't represent the university. I happen to agree with you that most of the value from a player's likeness comes from their affiliation with the university. If a player no longer represents the university, he no longer has most of his value and his endorsement goes away with it.
-
The subject is “fair PAY to play act”. Pay. Compensation. And we really have people here now saying they aren’t advocating the student athletes get paid....and moments later supporting this bill and saying they should be able to monetize their likeness.
You cannot make this crap up. It’s compensation, anyway you cut it.
-
The subject is “fair PAY to play act”. Pay. Compensation. And we really have people here now saying they aren’t advocating the student athletes get paid....and moments later supporting this bill and saying they should be able to monetize their likeness.
You cannot make this crap up. It’s compensation, anyway you cut it.
There is a big difference between getting a check from a university for the time spent playing a sport on behalf of the university, and getting a check from Nike/Adidas/UA for the use of their likeness.
-
The subject is “fair PAY to play act”. Pay. Compensation. And we really have people here now saying they aren’t advocating the student athletes get paid....and moments later supporting this bill and saying they should be able to monetize their likeness.
Some people don't want students to receive more than the value of their cost-of-attendance scholarship directly from their educational institution. There are a lot of reasons why that would be problematic. However many of these same people are fine with them being compensated by outside entities.
So when "a Seton Hall poll earlier this year found that 49% of Americans felt that college athletes in revenue-producing sports should be financially compensated, compared with 46% who were opposed to compensation," my guess is that a lot of people are answering it one way due to their feelings in the former sentence. That is why the results in the WSJ poll are different because it was specifically about value for their likeness.
Of course this is simply a guess as to why the two polls are seemingly inconsistent.
-
There is a big difference between getting a check from a university for the time spent playing a sport on behalf of the university, and getting a check from Nike/Adidas/UA for the use of their likeness.
This.
-
There is a big difference between getting a check from a university for the time spent playing a sport on behalf of the university, and getting a check from Nike/Adidas/UA for the use of their likeness.
Especially since these “image” payments are already occurring in the grey market under the table. Legitimatize it. Clean up the sport. Balance the playing field. Make sure these payments go to the kids and not their handlers.
If the NCAA doesn’t have the resources or will (and if they truly had the will, they’d staff their investigations as it’s much cheaper than the pay for play path) to police it, legitimize it as not doing so is do much worse damage to the credibility of the sport as we have seen. Right now, the NCAA is known as the sport of cheaters. And the ones getting cheated are the student athletes and fans.
-
There is a big difference between getting a check from a university for the time spent playing a sport on behalf of the university, and getting a check from Nike/Adidas/UA for the use of their likeness.
He knows, but the argument that this will be the ruination of college sports doesn't work as well without either conflating the two or creating a slippery slope by which allowing one will naturally lead to the other.
-
Okay...NOW it would appear there's a path to paying athletes from the schools themselves:
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27644345/ny-senator-proposes-bill-pay-college-athletes
-
Okay...NOW it would appear there's a path to paying athletes from the schools themselves:
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27644345/ny-senator-proposes-bill-pay-college-athletes
Absolutely not. What are they trying to outdo each other?! This is idiotic
-
Absolutely not. What are they trying to outdo each other?! This is idiotic
This is not going to end well.
The student-athlete system wasn't broken before... I'll concede there were more than a few hairline fractures here and there, but it was at least still in one piece.
I don't see how any of this is going to heal the system; in fact, all of this legislation seems much closer to taking a sledgehammer to Christian Yelich's knee with the idea being that it might take longer to heal, but it will come out even stronger in the end. Not sure how Hippocrates would feel about that one.
Honestly... I'm very concerned for MU. Wojo best better win a Natty this year; otherwise, not only does the window of opportunity close, the land grants are going to drywall over every other window.
-
Absolutely not. What are they trying to outdo each other?! This is idiotic
They are, and that's the point. This is why the NCAA needs to immediately come up with a policy that allows for players to make money off their likenesses. Otherwise you will have 20 different states passing 20 different types of legislation. This is the same reason the California law won't go into effect until 2023. It gives the NCAA time to create a nationwide model so if they truly believe in a fair and equitable system, they will put something in place that will allow for what the general goal of the laws these states are creating without having different rules across the country.
The NCAA asked California for more time because they were working on it and California's response was essentially "you had time, now you are on our timetable". They could try to fight all these, lose across the country and have a complete disparate clusterf**k, or just accept that this is coming and create a model where it will be one rule for everyone. The states are going to play off each other to force the NCAA's hand, and it's absolutely the right thing to do because this is long overdue.
-
The subject is “fair PAY to play act”. Pay. Compensation. And we really have people here now saying they aren’t advocating the student athletes get paid....and moments later supporting this bill and saying they should be able to monetize their likeness.
You cannot make this crap up. It’s compensation, anyway you cut it.
Hoopaloopin' 101: Lie, deflect, shift goalposts, lie some more.
I had comments on 11 of the 18 pages of this thread -- literally dozens of comments. In only one comment (on page 12) did I even use the word "compensation," and that was to mock alleged capitalists who think it's wrong for athletes to be able to profit off their likenesses. On page 16, I used the word "salary" while mocking you for your worship of hypocrite/NFL failure/baseball bust Tim Tebow.
Otherwise, all of my comments either specifically mentioned athletes being allowed to profit from their likenesses or referred to previous comments on that subject. I never once talked about schools or the NCAA paying college athletes.
Within page 17, I had 6 comments, all of them about letting college athletes profit from their likenesses. Three of them cited data from a 2017 WaPo poll, and I used blue, bold-faced print to quote the data showing that 66% of Americans said college athletes SHOULD BE COMPENSATED WHEN THEIR NAMES AND IMAGES ARE USED TO GENERATE PROFIT.
Now, you LOVE polls. You think they provide "proof" of stuff. So you responded by lying about a Hartford Courant poll that showed otherwise -- there was no Courant poll, you tried to substitute different data in a desperate attempt to not go down in flames, and the link you provided actually confirmed what I said by citing the WaPo poll you tried but failed to discredit.
My favorite part was our exchange after your anti-Parrish diatribe. I talked specifically about athletes profiting from their likenesses and highlighted results of the WaPo poll showing support from 66% of Americans ... You responded: "2019 poll, only 49% supported it per Hartford Courant." You provided no link but you did throw in a wise-arse line about Churchill's quotes regarding the truth. Which was beautifully ironic because the truth was that there was no 2019 Courant poll ... I responded by asking for a link "if it exists" ... You responded: "If it exists? Are you suggesting something here Mike? A little surprised the journalist only presented one side and didn’t find another poll.....well you are out of practice I guess."
Well yes, I was suggesting something -- and for good reason. The journalist in me, despite being out of practice, smelled a liar, and my big nose was right. Not that it was a stretch to assume you were lying. It's what you do, and it's why just about nobody missed you (OK -- Boo Boo missed you) when you were permanently banned.
So, in addition to all of your other lies in this thread, your continued claim that I was "advocating the student athletes get paid....and moments later supporting this bill and saying they should be able to monetize their likeness" was just another whopper of a hoopaloop lie.
I decided to go through my posts in this thread because I thought, "You know, maybe this one time hoopy isn't lying; maybe he's right and I did start by talking about paying college athletes before switching to talking about profiting off their likenesses."
But no, you were wrong about that. Wrong about the Courant having a poll. Wrong about the data regarding athletes profiting off their likenesses.
And then, applying your Hoopaloopin' 101 lessons, you wrapped up all those wrongs by lying about it all.
You were right about one thing, though: You can't make this crap up.
-
Over the last year it seems five or six members here have mentioned their children are (or were) scholarship athletes. We got into that group.
Our own personal experience was positive with the school and N.C.A.A. There can be moments that are uneasy when one understands your child isn’t the star as they were in high school. They sit on the bench and pushed to their limits emotionally and physically, but it was not abusive.
The other parents with children that are in college athletics are the experiences positive, negative?
-
A thorough, complete, and accurate beat down of Chico's usual lies by and 82 and...bye bye Chicos, Hello WarriorDad. Weird.
-
Coincidence.
-
Must be. Again.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=59024.msg1153809#msg1153809
-
There is a big difference between getting a check from a university for the time spent playing a sport on behalf of the university, and getting a check from Nike/Adidas/UA for the use of their likeness.
Yes, or no....you are getting PAID to play. Furthermore, one is getting paid BECAUSE of his/her association as a member of a team. The players wouldn't be paid if not for being on the team. The player will be taxed on that income. Let's cut to the chase, people here arguing they don't think they should get paid, yet arguing they should get paid. And just wait until a few years from now when it isn't enough, pay them more and more and more and more.
At that point, it becomes a job. And at that point, the value of the scholarship, and everything else should be taxed as well. Furthermore, if it is only THEIR likeness, then the player should not appear in uniform or any association with the team at all for any number of obvious reasons.
When I do a deal with Dal, Mahomes, Lebron, etc...I cannot feature them in uniform unless I do a separate deal with the club and THEN also get approval from the league.
-
A thorough, complete, and accurate beat down of Chico's usual lies by and 82 and...bye bye Chicos, Hello WarriorDad. Weird.
Pony up the cash, I'll prove you wrong. Money goes to charity. The offer still stands little fella.
-
Yes, or no....you are getting PAID to play. Furthermore, one is getting paid BECAUSE of his/her association as a member of a team. The players wouldn't be paid if not for being on the team. The player will be taxed on that income. Let's cut to the chase, people here arguing they don't think they should get paid, yet arguing they should get paid. And just wait until a few years from now when it isn't enough, pay them more and more and more and more.
At that point, it becomes a job. And at that point, the value of the scholarship, and everything else should be taxed as well. Furthermore, if it is only THEIR likeness, then the player should not appear in uniform or any association with the team at all for any number of obvious reasons.
When I do a deal with Dal, Mahomes, Lebron, etc...I cannot feature them in uniform unless I do a separate deal with the club and THEN also get approval from the league.
Let’s play “Is this a Chico’s Post?”
First paragraph: slippery slope nonsense.
Second: opinion not based in fact.
Third: irrelevant to the discussion
Yep! A Chico’s post!!
-
Hoopaloopin' 101: Lie, deflect, shift goalposts, lie some more.
I had comments on 11 of the 18 pages of this thread -- literally dozens of comments. In only one comment (on page 12) did I even use the word "compensation," and that was to mock alleged capitalists who think it's wrong for athletes to be able to profit off their likenesses. On page 16, I used the word "salary" while mocking you for your worship of hypocrite/NFL failure/baseball bust Tim Tebow.
Otherwise, all of my comments either specifically mentioned athletes being allowed to profit from their likenesses or referred to previous comments on that subject. I never once talked about schools or the NCAA paying college athletes.
Lots of whining. PROFIT from their likeness.....getting paid. When Dak Prescott receives payment from the Cowboys or from a sponsor, he is getting paid for one reason...because he is the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys. Two different entities paying him, for the same reason. Just like a player in college would be paid for the same reason...because they play. PAY TO PLAY. You can whine all day and night, tell us how you coach girls basketball, I don't care....cut to the chase....it is PAY TO PLAY....it's in the damn legislation's title.
What you are advocating is money laundering essentially, so you can hide behind some keyboard to suggest the schools aren't paying them directly. HA! These guys wouldn't get paid at all if not for playing, who does the paying still achieves the same goal you want...to pay them. So who is the team you will be cheering for in the future?
-
Lots of whining. PROFIT from their likeness.....getting paid. When Dak Prescott receives payment from the Cowboys or from a sponsor, he is getting paid for one reason...because he is the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys. Two different entities paying him, for the same reason. Just like a player in college would be paid for the same reason...because they play. PAY TO PLAY. You can whine all day and night, tell us how you coach girls basketball, I don't care....cut to the chase....it is PAY TO PLAY....it's in the damn legislation's title.
What you are advocating is money laundering essentially, so you can hide behind some keyboard to suggest the schools aren't paying them directly. HA! These guys wouldn't get paid at all if not for playing, who does the paying still achieves the same goal you want...to pay them. So who is the team you will be cheering for in the future?
Marquette
-
Let’s play “Is this a Chico’s Post?”
First paragraph: slippery slope nonsense.
Second: opinion not based in fact.
Third: irrelevant to the discussion
Yep! A Chico’s post!!
How was it irrelevant to the post? It's how endorsements work to protect entities from implied endorsements and potential lawsuits. The same reason why Brewcity can't get paid to do a commercial wearing his Milwaukee Fire Dept gear. NO different. That's not an opinion, either.
Slippery slope....sure the last sentence of that first paragraph....weird you ignored the other parts of it that are dead nails right...not surprising you don't want to deal with those.
-
Lots of whining. PROFIT from their likeness.....getting paid. When Dak Prescott receives payment from the Cowboys or from a sponsor, he is getting paid for one reason...because he is the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys. Two different entities paying him, for the same reason. Just like a player in college would be paid for the same reason...because they play. PAY TO PLAY. You can whine all day and night, tell us how you coach girls basketball, I don't care....cut to the chase....it is PAY TO PLAY....it's in the damn legislation's title.
What you are advocating is money laundering essentially, so you can hide behind some keyboard to suggest the schools aren't paying them directly. HA! These guys wouldn't get paid at all if not for playing, who does the paying still achieves the same goal you want...to pay them. So who is the team you will be cheering for in the future?
So if I walked out there with my current skill set and played QB for the Cowboys, I’d make the same in endorsements as Dak?
-
Let’s play “Is this a Chico’s Post?”
First paragraph: slippery slope nonsense.
Second: opinion not based in fact.
Third: irrelevant to the discussion
Yep! A Chico’s post!!
You forgot the inane name dropping.
-
How was it irrelevant to the post? It's how endorsements work to protect entities from implied endorsements and potential lawsuits. The same reason why Brewcity can't get paid to do a commercial wearing his Milwaukee Fire Dept gear. NO different. That's not an opinion, either.
Slippery slope....sure the last sentence of that first paragraph....weird you ignored the other parts of it that are dead nails right...not surprising you don't want to deal with those.
I’ve dealt with every argument you have made. Beaten you like a rented mule.
Now I’m just largely ignoring you and making fun of your ridiculousness. It’s kind of a game for me right now.
-
Marquette
Division II? Or a new division for schools like FBS vs FCS that won't be participating in this out of choice or eventually cannot compete 10 to 15 years down the line as the shift to larger schools dominates. But hey, progress.
-
Division II? Or a new division for schools like FBS vs FCS that won't be participating in this out of choice or eventually cannot compete 10 to 15 years down the line as the shift to larger schools dominates. But hey, progress.
Old man yells at cloud
-
So if I walked out there with my current skill set and played QB for the Cowboys, I’d make the same in endorsements as Dak?
You wouldn't be the QB for the Cowboys with your current skill set. False equivalency. The same reason Dak wouldn't get these endorsements if he wasn't the QB of the Cowboys. Put Dak on the Bengals, he's not getting these endorsements. As someone who signed him, I can guarantee you of that.
-
I’ve dealt with every argument you have made. Beaten you like a rented mule.
Now I’m just largely ignoring you and making fun of your ridiculousness. It’s kind of a game for me right now.
OK Sultan...whatever you say. Weird that so many others are making the same argument. Most importantly, the NCAA. Now, knowing them they will cave and having been around this for a long time, there will be plenty of clean ups with this nonsense as it has a lot of unintended consequences....which is almost always the case.
You guys should rally hard behind Memphis....their cheating was always under the radar and when they got caught, they were punished. Now they can pay players without issue, no punishment....they will benefit greatly. Louisville....huge. Some big land grand schools that dabble being good...tremendous potential moving forward. Lots of alums, lots of $$$.
-
OK Sultan...whatever you say. Weird that so many others are making the same argument. Most importantly, the NCAA. Now, knowing them they will cave and having been around this for a long time, there will be plenty of clean ups when this nonsense has a lot of unintended consequences....which is almost always the case.
What changes in college athletics and unintended consequences has the NCAA had to clean up recently?
-
OK Sultan...whatever you say. Weird that so many others are making the same argument. Most importantly, the NCAA. Now, knowing them they will cave and having been around this for a long time, there will be plenty of clean ups when this nonsense has a lot of unintended consequences....which is almost always the case.
Yes. You, the NCAA and Tim Tebow.
There’s a brain trust right there.
-
Yes. You, the NCAA and Tim Tebow.
There’s a brain trust right there.
I think you missed a few dozen experts, but that's ok.....the rented mule stick must be in the closet.
-
You wouldn't be the QB for the Cowboys with your current skill set. False equivalency. The same reason Dak wouldn't get these endorsements if he wasn't the QB of the Cowboys. Put Dak on the Bengals, he's not getting these endorsements. As someone who signed him, I can guarantee you of that.
So Rodgers retires tomorrow and Kizer is the new State Farm spokesperson? Sure, the team provides value, but the player’s own ability and marketability plays a role in them getting these endorsements.
Pakuni, you got your name drop.
-
So Rodgers retires tomorrow and Kizer is the new State Farm spokesperson? Sure, the team provides value, but the player’s own ability and marketability plays a role in them getting these endorsements.
Pakuni, you got your name drop.
No, because Kizer isn't as good a QB. Let's put it another way, Rodgers goes to the Tampa Bay Bucs....his endorsements are going to drop. Who you play for, where you play, what you play....matters. At least in the NFL. In the NBA, it's a little different, but even then...an OKC, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Orlando player is not going to get the same endorsements as someone from a major urban area. I'm sorry, they just aren't. For the same reason a 2000 square foot house in LA is a lot differently priced identical house when it is in Oklahoma City.
Name drop or not, it's factually true and I stated it as someone with an expertise in the area. If Pakuni wants to talk the law, as an esquire he should. If MU82 wants to talk as a girls basketball assistant coach, he should as an expert in that area. If 4ever or Rocket want to discuss dentristy, or Keefe as a pilot....yes, it carries more weight to be frank.
-
Lots of whining. PROFIT from their likeness.....getting paid. When Dak Prescott receives payment from the Cowboys or from a sponsor, he is getting paid for one reason...because he is the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys. Two different entities paying him, for the same reason. Just like a player in college would be paid for the same reason...because they play. PAY TO PLAY. You can whine all day and night, tell us how you coach girls basketball, I don't care....cut to the chase....it is PAY TO PLAY....it's in the damn legislation's title.
What you are advocating is money laundering essentially, so you can hide behind some keyboard to suggest the schools aren't paying them directly. HA! These guys wouldn't get paid at all if not for playing, who does the paying still achieves the same goal you want...to pay them. So who is the team you will be cheering for in the future?
You were wrong. You lied over and over again. And you are among the SIGNIFICANT minority of Americans who believe college athletes shouldn't be allowed to profit off their own likenesses. Period. Go whine on Dodds' site, hoopy.
-
You were wrong. You lied over and over again. And you are among the SIGNIFICANT minority of Americans who believe college athletes shouldn't be allowed to profit off their own likenesses. Period. Go whine on Dodds' site, hoopy.
49% think college athletes should be paid. 2019 poll. College athletes getting paid because they are college athletes. Paid is paid. Sorry, no lie...not even close.
I wonder if they did a poll of college students what they would think? Should ice cream be free? Should car insurance be free? Should college be free? Should they get $500K as starting salary? Should college athletes get paid to play? Ahh, that's where we should go for the source of wisdom.
-
Given a lot of thought and here's where I'm at.
If a computer science major on a full ride can monetize a youtube channel based on tutoring then an athlete should be able to based on their skill as well. There are people who do so based on sexuality (cheerleaders), people who do so with music, and less athletic talent than the actual top athletes.
If said athlete wants a check from the university already housing, feeding, teaching, giving them expensive clothing etc then they are out of their mind.
If a student is Simmons, Williamson, Wiggans, Parker, Okafor level where they get no real value from the marketing platform or then they shouldn't be in college in the first place and that's the NBA's issue to resolve.
-
Given a lot of thought and here's where I'm at.
If a computer science major on a full ride can monetize a youtube channel based on tutoring then an athlete should be able to based on their skill as well. There are people who do so based on sexuality (cheerleaders), people who do so with music, and less athletic talent than the actual top athletes.
If said athlete wants a check from the university already housing, feeding, teaching, giving them expensive clothing etc then they are out of their mind.
If a student is Simmons, Williamson, Wiggans, Parker, Okafor level where they get no real value from the marketing platform or then they shouldn't be in college in the first place and that's the NBA's issue to resolve.
I don't think anyone is against them being allowed to have their own youtube channel.
-
I don't think anyone is against them being allowed to have their own youtube channel.
Then again ...
https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/07/31/ucf-kicker-donald-de-la-haye-ineligible-ncaa-youtube-videos
Also ....
https://www.si.com/more-sports/2017/09/21/texas-am-runner-ryan-trahan-ineligible-ncaa-ruled-ineligbile-youtube-page
-
Then again ...
https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/07/31/ucf-kicker-donald-de-la-haye-ineligible-ncaa-youtube-videos
Also ....
https://www.si.com/more-sports/2017/09/21/texas-am-runner-ryan-trahan-ineligible-ncaa-ruled-ineligbile-youtube-page
I know it's a violation. I just don't think any people actually care if they have youtube channels.
Now other marketing "likeness" and being paid is a different story. Many legitimate issues that would/could arise there.
-
49% think college athletes should be paid. 2019 poll. College athletes getting paid because they are college athletes. Paid is paid. Sorry, no lie...not even close.
I wonder if they did a poll of college students what they would think? Should ice cream be free? Should car insurance be free? Should college be free? Should they get $500K as starting salary? Should college athletes get paid to play? Ahh, that's where we should go for the source of wisdom.
There you go again. Deflecting and shifting goalposts to cover up your incompetence and lies. You are shameless, I'll give you credit for that. You certainly aren't fooling anybody. I mean, even Boo Boo knows not to try to defend the indefensible here.
66% of Americans said college athletes SHOULD BE COMPENSATED WHEN THEIR NAMES AND IMAGES ARE USED TO GENERATE PROFIT.
You're so desperate to somehow not be wrong. What next? A Sharpie to help "prove" your point?
-
Given a lot of thought and here's where I'm at.
If a computer science major on a full ride can monetize a youtube channel based on tutoring then an athlete should be able to based on their skill as well. There are people who do so based on sexuality (cheerleaders), people who do so with music, and less athletic talent than the actual top athletes.
If said athlete wants a check from the university already housing, feeding, teaching, giving them expensive clothing etc then they are out of their mind.
If a student is Simmons, Williamson, Wiggans, Parker, Okafor level where they get no real value from the marketing platform or then they shouldn't be in college in the first place and that's the NBA's issue to resolve.
Student athletes can have YouTube channels. Just like they can have jobs. What they cannot do is use their position as a student athlete to monetize that YouTube channel. Yup, there are rules around it....if they don’t like....become the computer science major and quit the team...they can have exactly what they have. Cheerleaders get kicked off teams if they do anything sexual nature .... there is a whole list of rules that they have to abide by while representing the school. Just as frats, etc, can get in trouble. Rules exist.
-
There you go again. Deflecting and shifting goalposts to cover up your incompetence and lies. You are shameless, I'll give you credit for that. You certainly aren't fooling anybody. I mean, even Boo Boo knows not to try to defend the indefensible here.
66% of Americans said college athletes SHOULD BE COMPENSATED WHEN THEIR NAMES AND IMAGES ARE USED TO GENERATE PROFIT.
You're so desperate to somehow not be wrong. What next? A Sharpie to help "prove" your point?
49% of Americans said college athletes should be compensated because they play college athletics. 2019 poll
-
A thorough, complete, and accurate beat down of Chico's usual lies by and 82 and...bye bye Chicos, Hello WarriorDad. Weird.
Can you explain this? There are other examples I found, including posts from him and I less than 2 seconds apart.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57157.msg1063473#msg1063473
-
Can you explain this? There are other examples I found, including posts from him and I less than 2 seconds apart.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57157.msg1063473#msg1063473
Um....have two browsers open and login into one account on one and another account on the other and click post at the same time?
Also, I don't if it's somewhere else in the thread you linked, but the posts your link took me to are over a minute apart. Plenty of time for a quick man with considerable scooping experience!
-
https://scottrasmussen.com/52-believe-big-time-college-athletes-should-be-paid/
-
So Rodgers retires tomorrow and Kizer is the new State Farm spokesperson? Sure, the team provides value, but the player’s own ability and marketability plays a role in them getting these endorsements.
Pakuni, you got your name drop.
Far better example...and a name that gets dropped fairly regularly around here...Peyton Manning.
Colts, Broncos, retirement.
Peyton cashes lots of checks (sung to the tune of the Nationwide jingle)
-
No, because Kizer isn't as good a QB. Let's put it another way, Rodgers goes to the Tampa Bay Bucs....his endorsements are going to drop. Who you play for, where you play, what you play....matters. At least in the NFL. In the NBA, it's a little different, but even then...an OKC, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Orlando player is not going to get the same endorsements as someone from a major urban area. I'm sorry, they just aren't. For the same reason a 2000 square foot house in LA is a lot differently priced identical house when it is in Oklahoma City.
It's doesn't matter. Student athletes should have the ability to monetize on their likeness regardless of how they got famous. This is just another strawman you've slapped together.
-
Student athletes can have YouTube channels. Just like they can have jobs. What they cannot do is use their position as a student athlete to monetize that YouTube channel. Yup, there are rules around it....if they don’t like....become the computer science major and quit the team...they can have exactly what they have. Cheerleaders get kicked off teams if they do anything sexual nature .... there is a whole list of rules that they have to abide by while representing the school. Just as frats, etc, can get in trouble. Rules exist.
Rules exist though if a rule has no real logic behind it in this day and age then it's up to governing bodies to change said rule. Markus Howard has thousands of followers by nature of him being an All American, if he wants to monetize his YouTube channel about god is he using his station as an athlete to get followers? The rules are outdated for the current world, and should be changed.
-
Rules exist though if a rule has no real logic behind it in this day and age then it's up to governing bodies to change said rule. Markus Howard has thousands of followers by nature of him being an All American, if he wants to monetize his YouTube channel about god is he using his station as an athlete to get followers? The rules are outdated for the current world, and should be changed.
On this point, I'm still amazed that the NCAA allowed Arike Ogunbowale (ND Basketball player) to compete on Dancing with the Stars and keep the money she earned. Without question, she was selected for that show based upon her fame as an NCAA athlete (following two final four buzzer beaters). Hell, the season she was on was specifically focused on sports and only included athletes. The NCAA concluded that any money that she won was based upon her "dancing achievements" and not her "basketball abilities." This completely ignores the fact that it was only her basketball fame that got her on the show. By this logic, any money that Markus Howard earns on a monetized YouTube channel would be based upon his YouTube achievements, and not his basketball skills.
Given the NCAA's long-standing position, the decision to allow Ogunbowale to keep the money she earned on Dancing with the Stars was utterly indefensible. And then to restrict her from being involved in advertising for the show -- but still compete on the show itself -- was just nonsensical.
-
Can you explain this? There are other examples I found, including posts from him and I less than 2 seconds apart.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57157.msg1063473#msg1063473
Hoopaloopin'.
-
Far better example...and a name that gets dropped fairly regularly around here...Peyton Manning.
Colts, Broncos, retirement.
Peyton cashes lots of checks (sung to the tune of the Nationwide jingle)
I've known him for more than 15 years. Just shot a commercial with him last month in Denver. He as a Q score that is one of the highest of all time, and recently voted most likeable professional athlete. He's a rare exception, helped greatly by his greatness on the national stage (Super Bowl wins and appearances). He is a national brand.
If Peyton played for the Giants, Cowboys or a few other teams, his endorsements would have been even larger. There is no question about it. Drew Brees is one of the better examples...him playing in New Orleans has hurt his endorsement potential. The Saints aren't considered a national team with national draw, even though Brees is highly regarded both on and off the field. These are just the economic realities of endorsements and pitchmen.
-
Um....have two browsers open and login into one account on one and another account on the other and click post at the same time?
Also, I don't if it's somewhere else in the thread you linked, but the posts your link took me to are over a minute apart. Plenty of time for a quick man with considerable scooping experience!
Against my better judgment, I spent some time this morning searching his posts. These stuck out. To answer your questions....
I would think if you have two browsers open, they would come from the same source....yes?
Please explain how I would have this as a California resident...an email to an Illinois resident regarding funds for Illinois residents?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58901.msg1144803#msg1144803
He takes a dig at me for my crapshoot comments.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58462.msg1114019#msg1114019
As for the posting times, here is one that appears seconds apart. I'm sure I can find others, but didn't have the time
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57647.msg1082961#msg1082961
Parking at All State Arena, a place I have never been to in my life let alone would know a parking alert was in place. Are parking alerts for Chicago sent here to So. Cal?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57859.msg1090863#msg1090863
-
I've known him for more than 15 years. Just shot a commercial with him last month in Denver. He as a Q score that is one of the highest of all time, and recently voted most likeable professional athlete. He's a rare exception, helped greatly by his greatness on the national stage (Super Bowl wins and appearances). He is a national brand.
#metoo. Did you cut him loose too?
-
#metoo. Did you cut him loose too?
Appears to me that he has been signed by many companies and continues to do so. I wonder if all those Fortune 100 companies did their due diligence and found nothing alarming. That would be my educated guess....your thoughts?
-
Appears to me that he has been signed by many companies and continues to do so. I wonder if all those Fortune 100 companies did their due diligence and found nothing alarming. That would be my educated guess....your thoughts?
The Manning family did a stellar job of burying Peyton's past transgressions (and his accuser) and he's built enough good will in the 3+ decades since that people are willing to turn a blind eye to that and other unsavory behavior.
-
49% of Americans said college athletes should be compensated because they play college athletics. 2019 poll
All right, hoopaloop ... yes, "only" 49% are in favor. But fewer than that - 46% - oppose. Which goes against the desperate, goalpost-shifting, incompetent argument you seem to be trying to make that the majority of Americans are opposed to it.
Here is the poll you somehow think helps your cause:
https://www.shu.edu/sports-poll/upload/Did-Sneaker-Explosion-Hurt-Nike-Brand.pdf
Meanwhile, a majority of Americans believe that student athletes should be compensated by sneaker companies for the use of their brands in collegiate athletics, and that students in revenue producing sports - like football and basketball - should receive compensation on top of scholarships and cost of attendance stipends.
On the question of financial compensation from sneaker companies - like Nike and Adidas - the public says “yes” by a margin of 57-36%. On the question of compensation for participation in revenue generating sports, the margin was closer, with 49% saying “yes” and 46% saying “no.” And while White respondents are in favor of “sneaker compensation” by a 54-41% margin, African-Americans are in favor by 3-1.
While the public is pretty evenly split on student/athlete compensation, 49-46%, Whites are more negative at 40-54%, while African-Americans are strongly in favor by a margin of 5-to-1.
The 49% is a significant jump from the 36% a “yes - compensate!” result in a November 2015 Seton Hall Sports Poll, which found 57% opposing the idea, compared to this week’s 46%.
And, of course, I haven't even been talking about the above issue. I (and several other Scoopers) have been talking ONLY about control of athlete likenesses. And, again, no matter how many times you try to change the subject, your viewpoint on that subject is in the distinct minority.
You can't "win" that one, so you go to shameless Hoopaloopin' 101. But you're wrong there, too!
Oh, and then there's this post by Rico:
https://scottrasmussen.com/52-believe-big-time-college-athletes-should-be-paid/
Not only does that poll present almost the exact same favorability numbers regarding use of athlete likenesses as the 2017 WaPo poll - the one you keep trying (and failing) to discredit - but it shows that a majority (52%) actually favor paying players.
That is up considerably in the two years since the WaPo poll. That's the trend.
So you're wrong. Again. But you're too much of a liar to admit it.
-
Appears to me that he has been signed by many companies and continues to do so. I wonder if all those Fortune 100 companies did their due diligence and found nothing alarming. That would be my educated guess....your thoughts?
I do not support him or what he is pedaling. I would be embarrassed to be associated with him. His assault news was also on the front page of the Chicago Tribune.
His current product is about safety. Every time it airs, I am reminded how unsafe it would be to have my daughter in a room with him. Would you continue to buy Jello Pops if Bill Cosby was still the spokesperson or rent from Hertz if OJ was running through airports? Charlie, Antonio, Peyton? No thank yous to their endorsers. Thank yous, though, when they are cut loose.
-
The Manning family did a stellar job of burying Peyton's past transgressions (and his accuser) and he's built enough good will in the 3+ decades since that people are willing to turn a blind eye to that and other unsavory behavior.
Didn’t realize you were there to witness what happened. Her story changed multiple times, of course you don’t mention that. She also went out of her way to verbally attack his mother. Greg Johnson, now a law enforcement officer, was there and said her story was not true.
So we can play these games, I get your natural instincts are to almost always side with one side....but those of us that have to make decisions on spokesmen do our best to vet with multiple sources, the league, legal, etc. His situation has been vetted by about every major news org out there for multiple years. You are inclined to believe what you wish, just as others are.
-
The Manning family did a stellar job of burying Peyton's past transgressions (and his accuser) and he's built enough good will in the 3+ decades since that people are willing to turn a blind eye to that and other unsavory behavior.
The victims are the ones that end up on trial and the celebrity almost always wins. We can look 90 minutes West to see how you make the accusers the criminal
-
Missed a lot of the thread, probably a good thing, but seeing the polling as being trotted out as a reason not to do it......just because a "majority" of the public is against something doesn't mean that the thing can't/shouldn't be done. The public is not directly impacted in anyway by athletes profiting off of their likeness....why should the public weigh in on whether that is good policy or not?
-
Didn’t realize you were there to witness what happened. Her story changed multiple times, of course you don’t mention that. She also went out of her way to verbally attack his mother. Greg Johnson, now a law enforcement officer, was there and said her story was not true.
If her story was untrue, why did Peytion issue a public apology for his behavior?
Why did the athlete Manning claim he was "mooning" say that was a lie and Manning was targeting the trainer?
Why did the judge who heard the defamation case against him say he was lying and there were "obvious reasons to doubt the veracity" of his story?
I don't get your weird need to defend the guy from his bad behavior.
Did you also vet his use of HGH? Oh, wait, that was his wife. Very credible. The fact his wife decided to start using HGH as Peyton, in his late 30s, was making miraculous recovery from a possible career-ending injury was mere coincidence.
Speaking of coincidences ... weird that close friend Greg Johnson emerged some 20 years after the fact to claim he saw the whole incident ... which other people who were present say is not true
-
All right, hoopaloop ... yes, "only" 49% are in favor. But fewer than that - 46% - oppose. Which goes against the desperate, goalpost-shifting, incompetent argument you seem to be trying to make that the majority of Americans are opposed to it.
Here is the poll you somehow think helps your cause:
https://www.shu.edu/sports-poll/upload/Did-Sneaker-Explosion-Hurt-Nike-Brand.pdf
Meanwhile, a majority of Americans believe that student athletes should be compensated by sneaker companies for the use of their brands in collegiate athletics, and that students in revenue producing sports - like football and basketball - should receive compensation on top of scholarships and cost of attendance stipends.
On the question of financial compensation from sneaker companies - like Nike and Adidas - the public says “yes” by a margin of 57-36%. On the question of compensation for participation in revenue generating sports, the margin was closer, with 49% saying “yes” and 46% saying “no.” And while White respondents are in favor of “sneaker compensation” by a 54-41% margin, African-Americans are in favor by 3-1.
While the public is pretty evenly split on student/athlete compensation, 49-46%, Whites are more negative at 40-54%, while African-Americans are strongly in favor by a margin of 5-to-1.
The 49% is a significant jump from the 36% a “yes - compensate!” result in a November 2015 Seton Hall Sports Poll, which found 57% opposing the idea, compared to this week’s 46%.
And, of course, I haven't even been talking about the above issue. I (and several other Scoopers) have been talking ONLY about control of athlete likenesses. And, again, no matter how many times you try to change the subject, your viewpoint on that subject is in the distinct minority.
You can't "win" that one, so you go to shameless Hoopaloopin' 101. But you're wrong there, too!
Oh, and then there's this post by Rico:
Not only does that poll present almost the exact same favorability numbers regarding use of athlete likenesses as the 2017 WaPo poll - the one you keep trying (and failing) to discredit - but it shows that a majority (52%) actually favor paying players.
That is up considerably in the two years since the WaPo poll. That's the trend.
So you're wrong. Again. But you're too much of a liar to admit it.
49% support it. 51% did not choose to offer support for it.
Thank you
-
I do not support him or what he is pedaling. I would be embarrassed to be associated with him. His assault news was also on the front page of the Chicago Tribune.
His current product is about safety. Every time it airs, I am reminded how unsafe it would be to have my daughter in a room with him. Would you continue to buy Jello Pops if Bill Cosby was still the spokesperson or rent from Hertz if OJ was running through airports? Charlie, Antonio, Peyton? No thank yous to their endorsers. Thank yous, though, when they are cut loose.
Uhm, ok. Well that is your right. I heard Chris Farley’s estate was also included, too, in some endorsements with their approval. Along with some other Marquette connections...but to each their own.
-
Missed a lot of the thread, probably a good thing, but seeing the polling as being trotted out as a reason not to do it......just because a "majority" of the public is against something doesn't mean that the thing can't/shouldn't be done. The public is not directly impacted in anyway by athletes profiting off of their likeness....why should the public weigh in on whether that is good policy or not?
But don’t you understand the game? By throwing a poll up here (or anywhere) that supports one’s position it apparently equals some kind of moral authority and the backing of the people, regardless of how the question was asked, who is responding to the question, etc. Which is why the other side is also equally willing to throw up a poll showing the opposite...Tit for tat. 500 economists says this, 500 different economists say that. 5 SC judges say this, 4 SC judges say that. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
I agree with you, having the general public who knows Jack squat about this topic shouldn’t matter. Of course when the schools, the NCAA have an opinion on it that these folks don’t like, they don’t count either so they run to polls by people that don’t know, don’t understand to validate their belief system.
-
But don’t you understand the game? By throwing a poll up here (or anywhere) that supports one’s position it apparently equals some kind of moral authority and the backing of the people, regardless of how the question was asked, who is responding to the question, etc. Which is why the other side is also equally willing to throw up a poll showing the opposite...Tit for tat. 500 economists says this, 500 different economists say that. 5 SC judges say this, 4 SC judges say that. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
I agree with you, having the general public who knows Jack squat about this topic shouldn’t matter. Of course when the schools, the NCAA have an opinion on it that these folks don’t like, they don’t count either so they run to polls by people that don’t know, don’t understand to validate their belief system.
Yes, I find it hard to take the NCAA and member institutions opinions on players earning off their likeness serious.
Given how the ncaa handles its business and how many member schools partake in some form of corruptible behavior, pardon me for not taking them serious
-
If her story was untrue, why did Peytion issue a public apology for his behavior?
Why did the athlete Manning claim he was "mooning" say that was a lie and Manning was targeting the trainer?
Why did the judge who heard the defamation case against him say he was lying and there were "obvious reasons to doubt the veracity" of his story?
I don't get your weird need to defend the guy from his bad behavior.
Did you also vet his use of HGH? Oh, wait, that was his wife. Very credible. The fact his wife decided to start using HGH as Peyton, in his late 30s, was making miraculous recovery from a possible career-ending injury was mere coincidence.
Speaking of coincidences ... weird that close friend Greg Johnson emerged some 20 years after the fact to claim he saw the whole incident ... which other people who were present say is not true
Why did she change her story? Why did she verbally attack his mother leaving threatening voicemails for her?
He said she said. As has been stated, we will never know.
It’s interesting how someone coming forward to defend 20 years later is out of bounds for you, but someone coming forward to level a charge in a highly politicized confirmation is A OK. Interesting. Weird. Hmmm.
-
Yes, I find it hard to take the NCAA and member institutions opinions on players earning off their likeness serious.
Given how the ncaa handles its business and how many member schools partake in some form of corruptible behavior, pardon me for not taking them serious
Exactly.
-
Uhm, ok. Well that is your right. I heard Chris Farley’s estate was also included, too, in some endorsements with their approval. Along with some other Marquette connections...but to each their own.
What are you talking about? Is Chris Farley references appearing in Peyton ads?
I don't buy Peyton endorsed products like yours, his insurance or his sandwiches.
If your random reference to Chris Farley is about a Marquette endorsement? In fact, there are long periods of time when I withheld my donations to Marquette. One was when the Jesuits insisted on investing in an apartheid South Africa and they were actively involved in "social justice" death regimes in South America. Another when the Pilarz regime was in place. They atoned.
You are a moralist. The world is not always yes or no in reality, I get that. Peyton is a very clear case for me. Is he helping DirectTv's business?
-
The dichotomy between how chicos handles the allegations against Buzz' players and how handles allegations against anyone else is fascinating
-
The dichotomy between how chicos handles the allegations against Buzz' players and how handles allegations against anyone else is fascinating
Must. Not. Comment...
-
I'm all for the players receiving compensation in addition to their scholarships. But the economics of sports leagues also demand that there be some form of salary cap in order to maintain competitive balance. Otherwise we'll be left with a couple dozen big and wealthy schools dominating the sport while the rest are relegated to second and third class status. MU and most of the Big East schools would become small market teams in this sort of uncapped world and their programs would be greatly diminished.
-
Yes, I find it hard to take the NCAA and member institutions opinions on players earning off their likeness serious.
Given how the ncaa handles its business and how many member schools partake in some form of corruptible behavior, pardon me for not taking them serious
But relying on people that have literally zero expertise for the present situation or the unintended consequences that could arise is a better approach?
Outstanding.
Please list how many of the member schools participate in corruptible behavior....would love to know what you think this number is.
-
The dichotomy between how chicos handles the allegations against Buzz' players and how handles allegations against anyone else is fascinating
Nope. Some allegations are just that, unproven allegations. Other allegations come with a lot more. As a Title IX investigator you should know this. Not all cases are equal...right? Some have a lot of evidence, some have none.
-
But relying on people that have literally zero expertise for the present situation or the unintended consequences that could arise is a better approach?
Outstanding.
Please list how many of the member schools participate in corruptible behavior....would love to know what you think this number is.
I’d say, at a minimum, 50% of membership breaks some form of NCAA rules. I’d guess closer to 90%.
-
So here is a question for the board: Who gets paid for a college jersey sales on a number a player made famous? A Wade-Nike deal it is more straight-forward as they have a deal in place. I have a George Thompson jersey in my closet that I am sure he didn’t get any royalties from.
And what happens when, let’s say, MU sells a Nike #0. Does Marquette own the number, and would Markus own the one with his name on the back? And for how long after he leaves?
-
So here is a question for the board: Who gets paid for a college jersey sales on a number a player made famous? A Wade-Nike deal it is more straight-forward as they have a deal in place. I have a George Thompson jersey in my closet that I am sure he didn’t get any royalties from.
And what happens when, let’s say, MU sells a Nike #0. Does Marquette own the number, and would Markus own the one with his name on the back? And for how long after he leaves?
In my opinion it's only his if his name is on the back. Also not to nitpick but the brand is Jordan not Nike.
-
In my opinion it's only his if his name is on the back. Also not to nitpick but the brand is Jordan not Nike.
Jay Bilas did a search on the NCAA store once of the blank jerseys by putting in the players name. It came back with the jersey. I believe the NCAA took that down quickly after.
-
Nope. Some allegations are just that, unproven allegations. Other allegations come with a lot more. As a Title IX investigator you should know this. Not all cases are equal...right? Some have a lot of evidence, some have none.
I do know that. Im just curious because there's a lot more public evidence against manning than there is against the mu players. I happen to think that both allegations are credible, I'm just curious why the Buzz allegations are the only ones you seem to find credible
-
The dichotomy between how chicos handles the allegations against Buzz' players and how handles allegations against anyone else is fascinating
Yes, if hypocritical liars who reject facts are "fascinating."
-
So here is a question for the board: Who gets paid for a college jersey sales on a number a player made famous? A Wade-Nike deal it is more straight-forward as they have a deal in place. I have a George Thompson jersey in my closet that I am sure he didn’t get any royalties from.
And what happens when, let’s say, MU sells a Nike #0. Does Marquette own the number, and would Markus own the one with his name on the back? And for how long after he leaves?
The amount of money made on jersey sales is really small. This was reported with Johnny Manziel sales of his number.
I’m not aware of schools even putting names on the back of merchandise anymore. It may be happening, but thought they were steering clear of it.
A&M revenue only $59k for Manziel jerseys.
http://espn.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/80530/manziel-jerseys-hardly-making-am-rich
-
I’d say, at a minimum, 50% of membership breaks some form of NCAA rules. I’d guess closer to 90%.
Given the nebulous nature of NCAA rules and compliance it's actually 100% if the NCAA wanted to "prosecute" every violation but because the NCAA is a creation of the universities themselves the NCAA is underfunded for true compliance so all universities "cheat".
If we're talking about violations that would create public visibility if reported by media, I think 90% is about right. However a lot of it is action at a distance like using booster/donors/AAU/camps as the mechanism where it is much less provable.
Bottom line, the universities are leveraging the bejesus out of the student athletes that (IMO) far outstrips the value they get back as a student athlete....why shouldn't we let capitalism prevail and let those who can earn a wage on their likeness do so?
-
Yes, if hypocritical liars who reject facts are "fascinating."
What happened to your last signature....speaking of hypocritical liars.
-
Yes, if hypocritical liars who reject facts are "fascinating."
(http://=http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/oowwtl.gif]http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/oowwtl.gif)
-
I’d say, at a minimum, 50% of membership breaks some form of NCAA rules. I’d guess closer to 90%.
That’s far different than corruptible intent.
The rule book is big, we were required as employees to understand the rules that pertained to our area. Compliance had to know the entire thing. Some rules are broken because folks didn’t know it was a rule. Just as laws are broken every day in this country in the same manner.
Now let’s go back to what you said...corruptible. Purposely violating the rules, knowing what the rules were and doing it anyway. That’s a far different number than you portray based on my experience actually living, breathing, working in several athletic programs. Maybe you worked in an athletic program....but based on on your responses you most certainly didn’t and you continue to extrapolate to the utmost extremes to paint most or all depts the same way. Doesn’t make it so.
-
That’s far different than corruptible intent.
The rule book is big, we were required as employees to understand the rules that pertained to our area. Compliance had to know the entire thing. Some rules are broken because folks didn’t know it was a rule. Just as laws are broken every day in this country in the same manner.
Now let’s go back to what you said...corruptible. Purposely violating the rules, knowing what the rules were and doing it anyway. That’s a far different number than you portray based on my experience actually living, breathing, working in several athletic programs. Maybe you worked in an athletic program....but based on on your responses you most certainly didn’t and you continue to extrapolate to the utmost extremes to paint most or all depts the same way. Doesn’t make it so.
Ignorance isn’t an excuse.
I know a certain saintly coach in local circles who wasn’t afraid to stretch the expense account to the benefit of his players
-
Given the nebulous nature of NCAA rules and compliance it's actually 100% if the NCAA wanted to "prosecute" every violation but because the NCAA is a creation of the universities themselves the NCAA is underfunded for true compliance so all universities "cheat".
If we're talking about violations that would create public visibility if reported by media, I think 90% is about right. However a lot of it is action at a distance like using booster/donors/AAU/camps as the mechanism where it is much less provable.
Bottom line, the universities are leveraging the bejesus out of the student athletes that (IMO) far outstrips the value they get back as a student athlete....why shouldn't we let capitalism prevail and let those who can earn a wage on their likeness do so?
Far outweighs the value they receive? This is a grossly absurd statement.
Shelter
Food
Scholarship worth $200k today’s dollars and $2M lifetime earnings
Clothing
Instruction by world class instructors
Tutoring
Travel
Auditions to employers for rev sports
Now do the same thing for non revenue....please, the value they receive far outweighs what they provide. Are you telling me the men’s soccer players are bringing in massive revenue and publicity for MU? Come on.
-
Ignorance isn’t an excuse.
I know a certain saintly coach in local circles who wasn’t afraid to stretch the expense account to the benefit of his players
Corruptible has a meaning to it....you went there. Now back it up.
Your second charge, that is corruptible and has nothing to do with ignorance.
What you are doing is leveling charges against the women and men in college athletic departments that bust their arse on small salaries to make sure these student athletes stay the course academically, athletically, etc. They are bound to do things ethically. I am not naive to think there are not bad apples, they exist in all walks of life. But when you say corruptible, that means intent and knowingly acting a certain way. I hate to break it to you, but most depts and most employees in those depts do not act in that fashion.
-
The amount of money made on jersey sales is really small. This was reported with Johnny Manziel sales of his number.
I’m not aware of schools even putting names on the back of merchandise anymore. It may be happening, but thought they were steering clear of it.
A&M revenue only $59k for Manziel jerseys.
http://espn.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/80530/manziel-jerseys-hardly-making-am-rich
Actually, according to the article, that was just $59k for all jersey sales across all sports in that year...not Manziel.
-
Actually, according to the article, that was just $59k for all jersey sales across all sports in that year...not Manziel.
Yes, thank you. $59k includes Manziel and every other jersey sale for the dept. I’ve read some articles where the authors make outlandish claims of millions are made by schools selling merchandise....just not true.
-
Yes, thank you. $59k includes Manziel and every other jersey sale for the dept. I’ve read some articles where the authors make outlandish claims of millions are made by schools selling merchandise....just not true.
Then it shouldn’t be an issue for players to earn off their name on merchandise. Sounds like small potatoes
-
The amount of money made on jersey sales is really small. This was reported with Johnny Manziel sales of his number.
I’m not aware of schools even putting names on the back of merchandise anymore. It may be happening, but thought they were steering clear of it.
A&M revenue only $59k for Manziel jerseys.
http://espn.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/80530/manziel-jerseys-hardly-making-am-rich
Interesting...considering he was the star player, one has to deduce his jersey would be the top seller. All this makes one wonder why a school even bothers to sell jerseys for that little scratch?
-
Yes, thank you. $59k includes Manziel and every other jersey sale for the dept. I’ve read some articles where the authors make outlandish claims of millions are made by schools selling merchandise....just not true.
UW-Madison made $4.4 million a couple years ago. Source? UW-Madison
https://news.wisc.edu/athletics-financial-aid-reap-rewards-from-record-uw-merchandise-sales/
Outlandish and just not true huh?
-
Interesting...considering he was the star player, one has to deduce his jersey would be the top seller. All this makes one wonder why a school even bothers to sell jerseys for that little scratch?
The schools don't really "bother." They just cash the licensing checks. No bother at all.
-
Then it shouldn’t be an issue for players to earn off their name on merchandise. Sounds like small potatoes
But but but they are driving millions of dollars in value.
What % do they get? Is it a % off the revenues or off the margin? I assume the latter. And then how does it work, is the book store forced to sell a jersey of every single possible combination so we aren’t suppressing the value of the 3rd string punter or the 2nd string libero on the women’s team? Ah yes, those pesky unintended consequence questions no one wants to answer or be bothered with.
-
UW-Madison made $4.4 million a couple years ago. Source? UW-Madison
https://news.wisc.edu/athletics-financial-aid-reap-rewards-from-record-uw-merchandise-sales/
Outlandish and just not true huh?
Merchandise =/= jerseys. According to the initial linked article, A&M jersey sales (all sports) accounted for about 1.5% of merchandise sales. It also mentions that the number was 1.23% for Wisconsin.
-
But but but they are driving millions of dollars in value.
What % do they get? Is it a % off the revenues or off the margin? I assume the latter. And then how does it work, is the book store forced to sell a jersey of every single possible combination so we aren’t suppressing the value of the 3rd string punter or the 2nd string libero on the women’s team? Ah yes, those pesky unintended consequence questions no one wants to answer or be bothered with.
They do drive millions into athletic departments via tv deals, etc, you’d have to be obtuse or dishonest to think otherwise.
What % is a good question. After players start earning on their likeness, happening whether you like or not, the NCAA will probably wish they had come up with a plan to answer that.
-
UW-Madison made $4.4 million a couple years ago. Source? UW-Madison
https://news.wisc.edu/athletics-financial-aid-reap-rewards-from-record-uw-merchandise-sales/
Outlandish and just not true huh?
Sigh
Uhm, they are including all merchandise with the school logo. Lots of people buy Wisconsin sweatshirts, doesn’t mean they are tied to the football team or athletics...let alone a jersey tied to a specific player.
Athletes get credit for someone who hates the athletic department, but loves the school and wants to buy a Wisconsin sweatshirt with the school logo on it? UW-Madison extension has set it up that is where the proceeds go. Each school does it differently and is usually handled by the staff that does the licensing for the school, but you are lumping in all sales of all merch and implying it is derived value because of athletics. That is grossly overstated.
Incidentally, at MU the athletic dept did not benefit from sales in the bookstore and that was not unusual among other schools. That may have changed since, but when someone is buying a MU shot glass or a Grandma Loves MU t-Shirt it doesn’t mean they are a huge MU track and field fan.
-
Sigh
Uhm, they are including all merchandise with the school logo. Lots of people buy Wisconsin sweatshirts, doesn’t mean they are tied to the football team or athletics...let alone a jersey tied to a specific player.
Athletes get credit for someone who hates the athletic department, but loves the school and wants to buy a Wisconsin sweatshirt with the school logo on it? UW-Madison extension has set it up that is where the proceeds go. Each school does it differently and is usually handled by the staff that does the licensing for the school, but you are lumping in all sales of all merch and implying it is derived value because of athletics. That is grossly overstated.
You said “merchandise.” They are intentionally not selling jerseys to prevent controversy anyway. Very simple reason.
-
They do drive millions into athletic departments via tv deals, etc, you’d have to be obtuse or dishonest to think otherwise.
What % is a good question. After players start earning on their likeness, happening whether you like or not, the NCAA will probably wish they had come up with a plan to answer that.
And those millions go back for scholarships, improvements to facilities to help those players, etc, etc.
I’m just sad what this is going to do to college athletics, in particular small schools and many young men and women who will now be left on the sideline....but you don’t seem to care.
-
Why did she change her story? Why did she verbally attack his mother leaving threatening voicemails for her?
He said she said. As has been stated, we will never know.
It’s interesting how someone coming forward to defend 20 years later is out of bounds for you, but someone coming forward to level a charge in a highly politicized confirmation is A OK. Interesting. Weird. Hmmm.
I don't know that she changed her story.
Maybe because his family has done their best to drag her through the mud for 20 years?
No, it's not he said, she said. There are other eyewitnesses who support her account.
I've never written anything here about a highly politicized confirmation, so I'm at loss to understand what you're talking about or what it has to do with Peyton Manning.
-
49% support it. 51% did not choose to offer support for it.
Thank you
Yep, more Americans are for it than against it.
Apology not accepted.
What happened to your last signature....speaking of hypocritical liars.
That's not a nice thing to call 'topper. He politely asked me to change it because he thought it was too political, and he offered me Arby's as a reward, so I of course complied.
As you know, it wasn't really political. It was just a line from the Chappelle concert on Netflix that you enjoyed so much.
BTW, I've stopped ignoring you. Your lies are so easy to expose -- I mean, there was no Hartford Courant poll, and you are still misrepresenting what was in the Seton Hall poll, and you lied about what I had said all thread, etc etc etc -- that it's a breeze to dominate you in debates. No wonder why Lenny enjoys it so much.
The rest of us simply use "facts" and "truth," and you're doomed.
We're the Al McGuires, and you're the Little Sisters of the Poor.
-
I’m just sad what this is going to do to college athletics, in particular small schools and many young men and women who will now be left on the sideline....but you don’t seem to care.
"Life isn't fair." - Cheeks, many times
"You can't always get what you want." - Cheeks, many times*
* Also, Mick Jagger
-
Yep, more Americans are for it than against it.
Apology not accepted.
That's not a nice thing to call 'topper. He politely asked me to change it because he thought it was too political, and he offered me Arby's as a reward, so I of course complied.
As you know, it wasn't really political. It was just a line from the Chappelle concert on Netflix that you enjoyed so much.
BTW, I've stopped ignoring you. Your lies are so easy to expose -- I mean, there was no Hartford Courant poll, and you are still misrepresenting what was in the Seton Hall poll, and you lied about what I had said all thread, etc etc etc -- that it's a breeze to dominate you in debates. No wonder why Lenny enjoys it so much.
The rest of us simply use "facts" and "truth," and you're doomed.
We're the Al McGuires, and you're the Little Sisters of the Poor.
It was political, that's why it was removed. He agreed that it was...would you like his response? How can that topic not be political.....and you throw around lying hypocrite charges and come up with that line that it wasn't hypocritical. Awesome. Laughable. Par for the course.
51% chose the option of not supporting it. Thank you. Facts. Apology accepted. #learnhowtoreadpolls
You never started ignoring me...lying again.
I knew Al McGuire, I worked with him for two years.....MU82, you're no Al McGuire.
-
Far outweighs the value they receive? This is a grossly absurd statement.
Shelter
Food
Scholarship worth $200k today’s dollars and $2M lifetime earnings
Clothing
Instruction by world class instructors
Tutoring
Travel
Auditions to employers for rev sports
Now do the same thing for non revenue....please, the value they receive far outweighs what they provide. Are you telling me the men’s soccer players are bringing in massive revenue and publicity for MU? Come on.
For the players that would be able to profit off their likeness, yes they are underpaid. No a mens soccer player is not out earning their "pay" from the university but I assure you someone like Markus Howard is.
-
It was political, that's why it was removed. He agreed that it was...would you like his response? How can that topic not be political.....and you throw around lying hypocrite charges and come up with that line that it wasn't hypocritical. Awesome. Laughable. Par for the course.
51% chose the option of not supporting it. Thank you. Facts. Apology accepted. #learnhowtoreadpolls
You never started ignoring me...lying again.
I knew Al McGuire, I worked with him for two years.....MU82, you're no Al McGuire.
I knew Al also. Worked some CBB with him. So what. I have worked with many in the business. I do not need to name them because who cares.
-
It was political, that's why it was removed. He agreed that it was...would you like his response? How can that topic not be political.....and you throw around lying hypocrite charges and come up with that line that it wasn't hypocritical. Awesome. Laughable. Par for the course.
51% chose the option of not supporting it. Thank you. Facts. Apology accepted. #learnhowtoreadpolls
You never started ignoring me...lying again.
I knew Al McGuire, I worked with him for two years.....MU82, you're no Al McGuire.
You are a liar and so easy to punk.
Even in the poll you "like," more Americans are in favor of college athletes receiving salaries than are opposed to it. That's a fact. And so is this one that you keep ignoring:
66% of Americans said college athletes SHOULD BE COMPENSATED WHEN THEIR NAMES AND IMAGES ARE USED TO GENERATE PROFIT.
Oh, and you just made political posts in the iPhone11 and NFL threads. Eventually, those -- and all the other political posts, and all the lies, and all the arguing for the sake of arguing even when you know you're wrong, and all your co-opting of every thread because you are an expert on everything -- will help lead to you getting banned for life. Again. You won't be missed.
-
For the players that would be able to profit off their likeness, yes they are underpaid. No a mens soccer player is not out earning their "pay" from the university but I assure you someone like Markus Howard is.
Why do you assure me? Markus will make a basketball living after MU in large part because of MU. The platform for him to earn was provided by MU. He’s getting a great deal now and will continue to reap rewards after. MU fan base was buying tickets whether Markus was on the team or not.
Even if you are right, it again points to the tiny sliver who are somehow “underpaid”....I disagree strongly that they are, but the deal these kids get is hugely beneficial.
-
You are a liar and so easy to punk.
Even in the poll you "like," more Americans are in favor of college athletes receiving salaries than are opposed to it. That's a fact. And so is this one that you keep ignoring:
66% of Americans said college athletes SHOULD BE COMPENSATED WHEN THEIR NAMES AND IMAGES ARE USED TO GENERATE PROFIT.
Oh, and you just made political posts in the iPhone11 and NFL threads. Eventually, those -- and all the other political posts, and all the lies, and all the arguing for the sake of arguing even when you know you're wrong, and all your co-opting of every thread because you are an expert on everything -- will help lead to you getting banned for life. Again. You won't be missed.
What political post in the iPhone thread? That it might be unethical to upgrade a phone because of pollution effects? How is that political? I know you are bummed for being called out today for your signature post and then lying it wasn’t political all why claiming others were liars...so with that egg on your face I can understand the backlash you have internally.
51% did not offer support for payment of players....a majority in the poll did not choose to support paying. FACT. Do you understand the difference between a plurality and a majority?
-
What political post in the iPhone thread? That it might be unethical to upgrade a phone because of pollution effects? How is that political? I know you are bummed for being called out today for your signature post and then lying it wasn’t political all why claiming others were liars...so with that egg on your face I can understand the backlash you have internally.
51% did not offer support for payment of players....a majority in the poll did not choose to support paying. FACT. Do you understand the difference between a plurality and a majority?
Who said anything about majority or plurality? I said that the poll you keep citing as some kind of proof of something shows that "more Americans are in favor of college athletes receiving salaries than are opposed to it."
That is a fact. That's how you read a poll. Ask one of your buddies, Peyton or Timmy. They'll help you.
The other 2019 poll, as posted by Uncle Rico and that you conveniently ignore, shows a majority of Americans favor it. Which is also a fact.
And every poll shows that the vast majority of Americans say college athletes SHOULD BE COMPENSATED WHEN THEIR NAMES AND IMAGES ARE USED TO GENERATE PROFIT. Which is definitely a fact, one you only respond to with lies and deflections because the truth is not hoopaloop's friend.
But yeah ... you don't argue just to argue. Liar. All you had to do was say, "I guess I was wrong about support for the likeness thing, and I guess I thought I saw another poll from the Hartford Courant but didn't. My bad." But instead, you just can't.
Oh, but at least you're not trying to claim your post about the Kennedys in the NFL thread wasn't political. That's a good first step.
I'm looking forward to your next banning. Then, I'm looking forward to the next big comeback!
"Oh boo hoo ... I know I was a jerk but blah-blah-blah happened in my life ... boo hoo ... and if Scoop will just take me back ... boo hoo ... you all will see that I'm a changed man ... boo hoo."
Wow, of all your millions of Scooptastic lies, that was the biggest. Unless by changed, you meant even worse.
-
Even in the poll you "like,"
You are the ball, Erin Andrews is the kid.... Sweet contact...eh
https://www.youtube.com/v/BbySDhG8KE0
-
For the players that would be able to profit off their likeness, yes they are underpaid. No a mens soccer player is not out earning their "pay" from the university but I assure you someone like Markus Howard is.
He's going on his 4th year. If he's so underpaid why doesn't he just go pro already and start cashing those fat checks? There is literally nothing stopping him. Oh yeah, probably because he wouldn't get drafted as of today, and no one is going to be buying Howard g-league or Italy jerseys. It's not like his skill level this season would be any different no matter if he plays g-league, overseas, or in college. He's the same person with the same ability. But somehow, he only has value while in college.
Alas, people really only care about him because he plays for a top college basketball school. So maybe that school name and college basketball platform is really carrying the most value by far? Otherwise, go ahead Markus. Go pro right now and get paid!
** I feel bad using a guy I like a lot as an example. I hope he lights it up this year. But the point remains. **
-
You are the ball
I accept your unconditional surrender.
-
Why do you assure me? Markus will make a basketball living after MU in large part because of MU. The platform for him to earn was provided by MU. He’s getting a great deal now and will continue to reap rewards after. MU fan base was buying tickets whether Markus was on the team or not.
Even if you are right, it again points to the tiny sliver who are somehow “underpaid”....I disagree strongly that they are, but the deal these kids get is hugely beneficial.
Ah so MU fans will buy tickets regardless of the talent level or performance....totally makes sense.
Markus is doing far more for the university than just playing basketball. He is an ambassador, as are all student athletes, having to show up at various dog and pony shows, etc. Yes MU provides a platform for Markus and others to audition for the NBA and other leagues but that's because that really the only game in town. If there were other options perhaps they would persue them.
And it's not like the university gets anything taken away from it because Markus gets to endorse a local car dealership or something.
-
He's going on his 4th year. If he's so underpaid why doesn't he just go pro already and start cashing those fat checks? There is literally nothing stopping him. Oh yeah, probably because he wouldn't get drafted as of today, and no one is going to be buying Howard g-league or Italy jerseys. It's not like his skill level this season would be any different no matter if he plays g-league, overseas, or in college. He's the same person with the same ability. But somehow, he only has value while in college.
Alas, people really only care about him because he plays for a top college basketball school. So maybe that school name and college basketball platform is really carrying the most value by far? Otherwise, go ahead Markus. Go pro right now and get paid!
** I feel bad using a guy I like a lot as an example. I hope he lights it up this year. But the point remains. **
Even if what you say is all correct, what does it matter in the question of whether a player can profit off their likeness? How does any of that get impacted by players getting some cash from EA sports so their name and avatar can end up in NCAA Football 2021?
-
I accept your unconditional surrender.
Still not ignoring me, never did...just more lies. Erin really hit you hard...solid contact....love the bat flip.
-
Ah so MU fans will buy tickets regardless of the talent level or performance....totally makes sense.
Markus is doing far more for the university than just playing basketball. He is an ambassador, as are all student athletes, having to show up at various dog and pony shows, etc. Yes MU provides a platform for Markus and others to audition for the NBA and other leagues but that's because that really the only game in town. If there were other options perhaps they would persue them.
And it's not like the university gets anything taken away from it because Markus gets to endorse a local car dealership or something.
There are other options.
And yes, many people buy tickets because of the name on the front of the jersey not the back.
-
Even if what you say is all correct, what does it matter in the question of whether a player can profit off their likeness? How does any of that get impacted by players getting some cash from EA sports so their name and avatar can end up in NCAA Football 2021?
The pie of money is finite...that’s one reason. And you know this extends beyond video games but actual direct sponsors that support programs and universities. I’m far less concerned about video game money then direct bidding wars by Dickens Cider and Bob’s Toyota.
-
The pie of money is finite...that’s one reason. And you know this extends beyond video games but actual direct sponsors that support programs and universities. I’m far less concerned about video game money then direct bidding wars by Dickens Cider and Bob’s Toyota.
So you think that all endorsement money moves from the university to the players? A) I dont think that's true B) doesn't that prove that the "star" players are undervalued in the current system?
-
There are other options.
Basketball maybe. Football definitely not. Further in football the number of playable years a player has is pretty limited and they are spending them in college at a less efficient wage. Take Saquon Barkley, even at his rookie wage rate he lost several million dollars in earnings by playing 3 years at Penn State. If he could have come out as a freshman he would have made millions more than he did.
-
So you think that all endorsement money moves from the university to the players? A) I dont think that's true B) doesn't that prove that the "star" players are undervalued in the current system?
Nope and didn’t say that. Not all money...but you have to understand the money that comes in is to benefit the entire dept. Let’s use academic counseling as an example....they are there for all student athletes, not just one sport. You start to take dollars away from those departments it hurts all student athletes. One less staff member here, one less there. Some D1 athletic depts only have a handful of those people to begin with, because a crap ton of depts are not profitable.
B) all it takes is one person, one company to decide someone or something has value. My house could be on the market for $1M, but if some idiot wants to give me $2M, well that’s the market...no different than a GM taking Mitch Trubisky way too high and overvaluing him to the nth degree. That happens.
MH has value, no one I can see is disputing that. Where we disagree is he is getting great value right now, not only today but for the future which seems to be ignored entirely or heavily discounted. Most of his “brand” is being developed in large part because of his platform, and that brand value will pay dividends long term whether in salary, connections, business opportunities. I’m thrilled for him that he is doing that and MU has given him that platform.
-
Basketball maybe. Football definitely not. Further in football the number of playable years a player has is pretty limited and they are spending them in college at a less efficient wage. Take Saquon Barkley, even at his rookie wage rate he lost several million dollars in earnings by playing 3 years at Penn State. If he could have come out as a freshman he would have made millions more than he did.
Then let the market place create a minor league system. Why does the NCAA have to change to appease and change for what the market lacks? That isn’t the ncaa’s problem, that is the NFL’s. The NFL sets the age requirement, not the NCAA. Stop making the NCAA the bad guy for a NFL issue.
Baseball, hockey also have options. Soccer, too.
-
Then let the market place create a minor league system. Why does the NCAA have to change to appease and change for what the market lacks? That isn’t the ncaa’s problem, that is the NFL’s. The NFL sets the age requirement, not the NCAA. Stop making the NCAA the bad guy for a NFL issue.
Baseball, hockey also have options. Soccer, too.
If the NCAA is content with college basketball becoming something akin to college baseball, soccer and hockey, then by all means they shouldn't change a thing.
But we both know that's about the last thing the NCAA wants. And for a guy who claims he's just sticking up for the other NCAA athletes, it should be the last thing you want, too. Because if more and more top kids choose to skip college, fewer and fewer people will watch the games. You think losing a little sponsorship revenue will be ruinous? Just wait and see how much less networks want to pay for glorified Division II hoops.
-
Nope and didn’t say that. Not all money...but you have to understand the money that comes in is to benefit the entire dept. Let’s use academic counseling as an example....they are there for all student athletes, not just one sport. You start to take dollars away from those departments it hurts all student athletes. One less staff member here, one less there. Some D1 athletic depts only have a handful of those people to begin with, because a crap ton of depts are not profitable.
B) all it takes is one person, one company to decide someone or something has value. My house could be on the market for $1M, but if some idiot wants to give me $2M, well that’s the market...no different than a GM taking Mitch Trubisky way too high and overvaluing him to the nth degree. That happens.
MH has value, no one I can see is disputing that. Where we disagree is he is getting great value right now, not only today but for the future which seems to be ignored entirely or heavily discounted. Most of his “brand” is being developed in large part because of his platform, and that brand value will pay dividends long term whether in salary, connections, business opportunities. I’m thrilled for him that he is doing that and MU has given him that platform.
So let me see if I understand this....you are in favor of the higher(potential) earners sacrificing some of that earning power for the good of the less fortunate players that can't generate nearly as much revenue....do I have that right?
-
If the NCAA is content with college basketball becoming something akin to college baseball, soccer and hockey, then by all means they shouldn't change a thing.
But we both know that's about the last thing the NCAA wants. And for a guy who claims he's just sticking up for the other NCAA athletes, it should be the last thing you want, too. Because if more and more top kids choose to skip college, fewer and fewer people will watch the games. You think losing a little sponsorship revenue will be ruinous? Just wait and see how much less networks want to pay for glorified Division II hoops.
Myth
Did people suddenly stop watching because Butler made a great run or Loyola of Chicago? No. Live sports is what drives the rights fees. ACC network just launched. Big 12 will be next.
And considering what I am involved with on the sports side for television rights, that is just another myth on your part. First of all, the NCAA tournament money is locked into the 2030’s with the contract. Most of the major conference network deals are mid 2020’s. Long time out. As the baseball model has shown, plenty of great talented kids choose the college route rather than the minor leagues. Many will do that in college basketball, too. Sure, some will go directly to a pay for play....fine...do it. Please. Do. It. Stop making the ncaa the cure for poison the Pro leagues are influencing. Let the top high school kids go to the nba. Please. Do. It. Let GM’s draft all that “can’t miss” high school talent....please. Do. It. The people still will watch college basketball and as many of the can’t miss guys flop badly in the NBA, the GM’s will slowly put value on taking seasoned college kids as well. Please. Do. It.
-
So let me see if I understand this....you are in favor of the higher(potential) earners sacrificing some of that earning power for the good of the less fortunate players that can't generate nearly as much revenue....do I have that right?
I am in favor of the college model, which is a socialist model, where many student athletes benefit despite no one going to their games or caring how they do, because others care about football or basketball. That is 100% correct. After years of working with those kids, you damn well better believe it. If the revenue sports kid thinks he is getting jilted, go pro.
This is the reality in many businesses. I work in a revenue generating dept, but thousands of people do not...should those people be put to pasture because they are in support roles or do not directly drive revenue? I don’t think so.
-
I am in favor of the college model, which is a socialist model, where many student athletes benefit despite no one going to their games or caring how they do, because others care about football or basketball. That is 100% correct. After years of working with those kids, you damn well better believe it. If the revenue sports kid thinks he is getting jilted, go pro.
This is the reality in many businesses. I work in a revenue generating dept, but thousands of people do not...should those people be put to pasture because they are in support roles or do not directly drive revenue? I don’t think so.
Jesus, that’s amazing
-
Jesus, that’s amazing
Yes, and has worked for many years educating and providing opportunities for hundreds of thousands of kids every year....kids you don’t give a damn about.
-
Yes, and has worked for many years educating and providing opportunities for hundreds of thousands of kids every year....kids you don’t give a damn about.
I do care about those kids. They can all earn off their likeness. It’s a great opportunity for them to earn off their skills, an opportunity many won’t have beyond college
-
Still not ignoring me
"Oh boo hoo ... please take me back, Scoop ... I promise that I've changed ... boo hoo."
-
I do care about those kids. They can all earn off their likeness. It’s a great opportunity for them to earn off their skills, an opportunity many won’t have beyond college
The non revenue kids for which you don’t give a damn and they will lose their opportunities eventually as athletic departments will have to make cuts.
-
"Oh boo hoo ... please take me back, Scoop ... I promise that I've changed ... boo hoo."
I haven’t done anything political here in weeks. I get decide what is and isn’t political.
- Mike MU82
-
The non revenue kids for which you don’t give a damn and they will lose their opportunities eventually as athletic departments will have to make cuts.
They won’t have to make cuts.
-
The non revenue kids for which you don’t give a damn and they will lose their opportunities eventually as athletic departments will have to make cuts.
1. This remains nothing more than speculation on your part, no matter how many times you repeat it.
2. There are lots of places for athletic departments to make cuts that don't effect scholarship money. How about we start with administrators' and coaches' salaries? Is there some logical reason that coaching salaries in nonrevenue sports went up 43 percent between 2013 and 2018? If it's really about the kids and their precious opportunities, as you like to say, there's no way schools will cut their scholarships instead of cutting other costs, right?
3. Not getting a portion of your college education paid for because you're good at water polo or cross country is not a tragedy. As you like to point out, these kids are a net loss the for university anyhow and need to be propped up by their more successful peers. For the kids who truly need the aid and are worthy of admission, the money will be there in other forms.
4. Life's not fair, or so someone likes to say.
-
I do know that. Im just curious because there's a lot more public evidence against manning than there is against the mu players. I happen to think that both allegations are credible, I'm just curious why the Buzz allegations are the only ones you seem to find credible
Do you think it might be because Peyton Manning is a national figure and that is quite different for the MU situation? I sure do. I just find it interesting that someone can come out of the woodwork decades later and make a claim against someone....people literally RUSH to believe them. Someone comes out to claim it didn't happen, and of course that person should not be believed....truly amazing.
-
I don't know that she changed her story.
Maybe because his family has done their best to drag her through the mud for 20 years?
No, it's not he said, she said. There are other eyewitnesses who support her account.
I've never written anything here about a highly politicized confirmation, so I'm at loss to understand what you're talking about or what it has to do with Peyton Manning.
She did change it and admitted she changed it.
-
You said “merchandise.” They are intentionally not selling jerseys to prevent controversy anyway. Very simple reason.
Point is, jerseys sold with numbers.....very small number. UW-madison extension total sales of merchandise is tied to everything that says Wisconsin, has Becky on it, has a W on it....whether it is athletics related or not.
-
Against my better judgment, I spent some time this morning searching his posts. These stuck out. To answer your questions....
I would think if you have two browsers open, they would come from the same source....yes?
Please explain how I would have this as a California resident...an email to an Illinois resident regarding funds for Illinois residents?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58901.msg1144803#msg1144803
He takes a dig at me for my crapshoot comments.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58462.msg1114019#msg1114019
As for the posting times, here is one that appears seconds apart. I'm sure I can find others, but didn't have the time
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57647.msg1082961#msg1082961
Parking at All State Arena, a place I have never been to in my life let alone would know a parking alert was in place. Are parking alerts for Chicago sent here to So. Cal?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57859.msg1090863#msg1090863
Kind of figured there would be no response to this.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/11R5KYi6ZdP8Z2/giphy.gif)
-
Do you think it might be because Peyton Manning is a national figure and that is quite different for the MU situation? I sure do. I just find it interesting that someone can come out of the woodwork decades later and make a claim against someone....people literally RUSH to believe them. Someone comes out to claim it didn't happen, and of course that person should not be believed....truly amazing.
Let’s cut to the chase. Everyone knows the reason you give Peyton the benefit of the doubt is because he is white. The reason you don’t the MU players is because they aren’t.
-
Do you think it might be because Peyton Manning is a national figure and that is quite different for the MU situation? I sure do. I just find it interesting that someone can come out of the woodwork decades later and make a claim against someone....people literally RUSH to believe them. Someone comes out to claim it didn't happen, and of course that person should not be believed....truly amazing.
.....my point is that you literally RUSH to believe the survivor in the MU case and literally RUSH to defend every other accused rapist. I just find the dichotomy interesting.
Also, do you reread old pages of threads to make sure that you didn't miss anything that you could argue with? Between the post you quoted here and your response you posted 24 times on other points before circling back to this one.
-
You said “merchandise.” They are intentionally not selling jerseys to prevent controversy anyway. Very simple reason.
The "merchandise" includes all university related items, shirts, shorts, backpacks, pens, pencils, erasers. Universities assign that revenue to sports as a way to cook the books to make it appear as if the athletic department isn't losing as much money as they are.
Most of that gear has nothing to do with athletics at all.
They are not selling jerseys, because they won't sell. Kids don't want to buy football jerseys for college kids that will be gone in 4 years or less. It has nothing to do with "controversy".
-
Kind of figured there would be no response to this.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/11R5KYi6ZdP8Z2/giphy.gif)
Probably because you dropped a whole page worth of posts by yourself since then so it got buried and everyone missed it. But since you asked.
Against my better judgment, I spent some time this morning searching his posts. These stuck out. To answer your questions....
I would think if you have two browsers open, they would come from the same source....yes?
Please explain how I would have this as a California resident...an email to an Illinois resident regarding funds for Illinois residents?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58901.msg1144803#msg1144803
1. I don't know your life. For all I know you have property there.
2. I did a quick google search and it's posted several places online.
He takes a dig at me for my crapshoot comments.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58462.msg1114019#msg1114019
You wouldn't be the first poster to have a conversation with himself on Scoop. In fact, if I understand the Hoopaloop scandal correctly (before my time) it wouldn't be the first time you have had a conversation with yourself on Scoop.
As for the posting times, here is one that appears seconds apart. I'm sure I can find others, but didn't have the time
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57647.msg1082961#msg1082961
Two browsers logged into different accounts
Parking at All State Arena, a place I have never been to in my life let alone would know a parking alert was in place. Are parking alerts for Chicago sent here to So. Cal?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57859.msg1090863#msg1090863
Information available online
Now, normally I would say, you're right, it would be crazy to think someone would be this committed to selling a lie about having a second account on college basketball forum. But then again you just took time out of your day to do a deep dive on someone else's post history to either debunk or protect that same lie, so for you it may be plausible!
-
Now, normally I would say, you're right, it would be crazy to think someone would be this committed to selling a lie about having a second account on college basketball forum. But then again you just took time out of your day to do a deep dive on someone else's post history to either debunk or protect that same lie, so for you it may be plausible!
Which I could have done many times earlier, but never did because it wasn’t worth it. But one gets tired of the accusations.
First it was Billy Hoyle, and finally the numb nuts here finally started to back off that one. It was time for this one to back off, too.
No, I don’t own property in Illinois. We do in Wisconsin, however, and Pennsylvania...now you know more about my life.
If two browsers were open up, they would still have same source, correct? Well, since I know I was in California and i’m 100.00% sure he wasn’t in my house with me, one would think two different sources...but whatever.
He appears to have a daughter in school...I have a daughter in high school, not college. Two weeks ago he posted when when I was in a clean, lock down environment we call it....no mobile phones or laptops allowed...high security. I could go on. I’ve offered a charity solution, no one ever wants to do it.
Hope the baby shower went well last week per your post. Peace
-
I’ve offered a charity solution, no one ever wants to do it.
There's a reason for that, I'll see if you can figure it out. ;)
-
Let’s cut to the chase. Everyone knows the reason you give Peyton the benefit of the doubt is because he is white. The reason you don’t the MU players is because they aren’t.
Duh! All white people hate black people.
-
.Also, do you reread old pages of threads to make sure that you didn't miss anything that you could argue with? Between the post you quoted here and your response you posted 24 times on other points before circling back to this one.
More than 50 posts in one day. It's like he is, I dunno, mentally unbalanced.
-
The "merchandise" includes all university related items, shirts, shorts, backpacks, pens, pencils, erasers. Universities assign that revenue to sports as a way to cook the books to make it appear as if the athletic department isn't losing as much money as they are.
Most of that gear has nothing to do with athletics at all.
They are not selling jerseys, because they won't sell. Kids don't want to buy football jerseys for college kids that will be gone in 4 years or less. It has nothing to do with "controversy".
Yes it does. I can guaranty you that D1 schools have shied away from selling jerseys due to avoiding the "profiting off others' likeness" controversy. You don't even see "classic" jersies like you do in the NFL for that reason.
From a few years ago that backs up this up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/sports/ncaafootball/days-of-selling-popular-college-players-jerseys-seem-numbered.html
"Last year, any Ohio State fan could buy an officially licensed Buckeyes football jersey bearing No. 97. Though N.C.A.A. rules prohibit colleges from selling jerseys with players’ names on them, Ohio State fans understood what a scarlet jersey with a white 97 meant: a tribute to the star defensive end Joey Bosa, who wears the number when the Buckeyes play.
But as a federal court deliberates on whether it is fair for universities to make money off the commercial use of athletes’ names, images and likenesses, a growing number of colleges have quietly decided to stop selling team jerseys with popular players’ numbers."
...
“It’s philosophical — where we should be,” Ohio State Athletic Director Gene Smith said of his department’s decision to limit the jerseys it sells. He cited the O’Bannon case and “other issues,” adding, “We felt it was the right time.”
-
Duh! All white people hate black people.
I don't think Chicos is racist. Chicos is a guy who clearly believes powerful people and organizations versus those who aren't.
-
.....my point is that you literally RUSH to believe the survivor in the MU case and literally RUSH to defend every other accused rapist. I just find the dichotomy interesting.
Could it possibly be because I and others had a bit more info than the avg bear on this one, and the actions taken by certain people.
I also find it interesting that you guys RUSH to believe the victim when it involves certain people or ideologies.
As Dave Chappelle so humorously stated.... justice for juicy
-
Could it possibly be because I and others had a bit more info than the avg bear on this one, and the actions taken by certain people.
I also find it interesting that you guys RUSH to believe the victim when it involves certain people or ideologies.
As Dave Chappelle so humorously stated.... justice for juicy
Who are you guys?
-
Who are you guys?
And who/what are certain people and ideologies?
-
Who are you guys?
LOL.
-
.....my point is that you literally RUSH to believe the survivor in the MU case and literally RUSH to defend every other accused rapist. I just find the dichotomy interesting.
Some folks believe that if it takes years for a report to be made, it's probably not because the vicitm was traumatized, or afraid of a powerful person who took advantage, or suffering from a form of PTSD. It is more likely that the accuser is lying - especially if those defending the alleged offender "like" that person or have some other agenda.
Ipso fatso, none of us should have believed the thousands of victims of abuse by priests. Nor the victims of Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Michael Jackson and Roger Ailes. Nor the many, many other instances that most of us never hear about because they don't involve major institutions like the Catholic Church or famous people like Peyton Manning.
I mean, how can anybody believe all those lying little boys claiming they were groped by Father Touchadicky? It took them 25 years to say something, so they probably were lying.
-
Some folks believe that if it takes years for a report to be made, it's probably not because the vicitm was traumatized, or afraid of a powerful person who took advantage, or suffering from a form of PTSD. It is more likely that the accuser is lying - especially if those defending the alleged offender "like" that person or have some other agenda.
Ipso fatso, none of us should have believed the thousands of victims of abuse by priests. Nor the victims of Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Michael Jackson and Roger Ailes. Nor the many, many other instances that most of us never hear about because they don't involve major institutions like the Catholic Church or famous people like Peyton Manning.
I mean, how can anybody believe all those lying little boys claiming they were groped by Father Touchadicky? It took them 25 years to say something, so they probably were lying.
RIP Michael Fife.....wrongfully accused of sexual assault (video proved his innocence) but he was beaten to death by her family before the video evidence could exonerate him.
Van Perry and Greg Counts, falsely accused and served 26 years in prison until 2018.
Etc etc.
#himtoo
-
.....my point is that you literally RUSH to believe the survivor in the MU case and literally RUSH to defend every other accused rapist. I just find the dichotomy interesting.
1. Hates Buzz Williams. Embraces (and often makes up) things to discredit him.
2. Loves Peyton Manning.
The dichotomy is anything but interesting. It's obvious.
-
RIP Michael Fife.....wrongfully accused of sexual assault (video proved his innocence) but he was beaten to death by her family before the video evidence could exonerate him.
Van Perry and Greg Counts, falsely accused and served 26 years in prison until 2018.
Etc etc.
#himtoo
The Central Park 5 ... whom your hero wanted put to death.
We can play this game all day about people who were wrongly charged and imprisoned ... and I'm guessing that the aggrieved white male won't "win."
No system of justice is perfect.
Thank goodness, somebody finally started listening to all of those victims of priest rape.
-
Time to lock this thread. Getting weird.
-
Time to lock this thread. Getting weird.
You mean you don't see the obvious connection between compensation for college athletes, wrongful convictions and pedophile priests?
-
The Central Park 5 ... whom your hero wanted put to death.
We can play this game all day about people who were wrongly charged and imprisoned ... and I'm guessing that the aggrieved white male won't "win."
No system of justice is perfect.
Thank goodness, somebody finally started listening to all of those victims of priest rape.
Who is my hero? Politics again. Moderators, how is this not political by MU82.....again? For the umpteenth time by him? Good Lord.
-
More than 50 posts in one day. It's like he is, I dunno, mentally unbalanced.
Can you imagine how much more "revenue" his "Dept" would produce if he didn't spend half his life posting and reviewing posts on MU Scoop? He is koo koo for Cocoa Puffs.