Crowder & Hayward to HOF

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Patently untrue.  Aside from massive schedule disruption, it would also take away opportunities for thousands of student athletes as well.

???  They have scholarship athletics at other levels.

[Cheeks]

1. Politics
2. Bad analogy. It would be more like insisting that McDonald's subsidize Hardee's.

Not a bad analogy, a perfect analogy.  Corporations have personhood legal status.  Sure, your analogy works, too, but so does mine.  We have subsidization going on all the time, I guess it all depends when it is ok and just and when it isn’t.

Apparently when it is to support mostly  minorities and women to get a degree through athletics, that subsidization isn’t fair. 

[source?]

"The athletes get compensated enough" isn't a good argument for the likeness conversation. So because something is good enough, that doesn't mean we should try to make it better?

I think 99% of D1 student athletes are fairly to over compensated for the work they do. I also think they should be allowed to profit off their likeness. How much the athletes are compensated is irrelevant to whether or not a player should be allowed to profit of his/her likeness.

In my opinion (there are going to be a lot of "I think" statements in this post) the vast majority of an athlete's value comes from their association with the university. As an example, let's say Markus Howard could sell his likeness to local businesses while playing for Marquette. I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility to think that he could make in the realm of $50-75,000 per year. I think if you put him on the Wisconsin Herd that number drops to $0. So, you are talking, in the G League, a salary of $35,000 with $0 in likeness value, $0 in future connections with alumni value, worse facilities, pay your own  rent and food costs, etc. At Marquette you have top notch facilities, great connections, no expenses, and with FCOA a little spending money. Yes, you are missing out on those endorsement $s, but you would not be able to get those without your association with the school. If that's the case, then I have a little trouble rationalizing that an athlete is entitled to those dollars.

A player like Zion, on the other hand, has more value. If he played in the G League for a year he could probably still have signed a huge shoe deal and received the nominal salary for a year while he waited to join the NBA. Why did he play college ball? Because the exposure and experience are worth more than the additional year of shoe deal money plus $35,000. If it weren't, Zion would have gone the G League route. With that in mind, you knowingly signed up and gave away the right to your likeness for that year. I don't think you are entitled to that money under those circumstances.

As I stated initially, this is my opinion. It is no more valid than anyone else's and I am sure there are holes in my logic that can be pointed out. I don't doubt someone will point them out and thank you in advance for broadening my knowledge on the subject.

[lawdog77]

Although I think players should.get.paid, I am not sold on the likeness angle. What if a wealthy Kentucky business man told.Markus, transfer here and 8 will get you TV ads for 500K.  I can see that happen8ng.quite a bit

[jesmu84]

Again you are lumping all college basketball together.  What happens at the top 50 programs doesn’t mean the same is happening for the other 300, let alone D2 or D3.

Most coaches are not paid millions of dollars.

Most schools are not in an arms race.

The high tv rights paid are for some conferences and many do not even have a tv deal at all.

We keep trying to find a solution to a “problem” that not only doesn’t exist, but where it is perceived to exist only happens to a small number.  Broad brush strokes trying to assess the small sliver that are also going to do just fine when they get out.

You want to make a virtuous argument, your likeness can be marketed if you get a 3.0GPA and got to class.

Wait.

Are you open to this idea?

[Cheeks]

???  They have scholarship athletics at other levels.

D2 has scholarships, if that is what you mean....just not as many.  D3 has none. 

So less opportunities as I stated, in some cases dramatically less.

Let’s use basketball as an example.  There are 13 men’s and 15 women’s per school at D1.  In D2, that number is reduced to 10 and 10, plus they can be divided so the per student athlete award is dilutive.  In other sports like track, the reduction is even greater.  Many lost opportunities for young women and men

On the scheduling side, if you lopped off the bottom 33% you would have quite a scheduling problem purely from a mathematical perspective.

[Shooter McGavin]

What money would stop going to schools and start going to the players if the players were allowed to profit off their likeness? Honest question, I've never heard this argument before.

The money from local businesses like Cyganiak planning is an example that I believe someone brought up on this thread.  The possibility exists that they and others could decide that paying a player would be better for their business than donating to the blue and gold fund.  If this happened with multiple sponsors of the program and the athletic department as a whole, it would adversely affect not only non-revenue athletes but may adversely affect other players on the men’s basketball team.