Well that was a waste

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I agree schools benefit from brand awareness resulting from sports teams. I'm sure they take it into account when making decisions related to sports.

I'm not sure there has been any studies related to the effectiveness of this 'investment ' but if so I'd be interested to see it. My personal belief is the the 1,000+ schools involved in collegiate sports would get a better return on their money from other avenues to brand awareness. But, I feel that there has been a tremendous link between sports and education from grade school through college for a long time and the students and schools get many benefits from the relationship beyond money or self promotion.

It is possible I am too old fashion and naive and that from the Fontbonne University women's tennis team to the Alabama football team this is all a big marketing ploy.
(if so, these student athletes truly are employees)

Division 3 schools do this all the time.  At many schools athletics is basically an admissions excercise.  You start a sports program that brings in 20 students, those 20 students pay on average of $30,000, and you have just earned $600,000 you likely wouldn't have otherwise earned.  You offset that with a $10,000 coaching stipend, $5,000 for an assistant and $4,000 for equipment and travel and you have just put $580,000 toward your bottom line.

The ability to continue to play a sport that you have enjoyed throughout high school oftentimes makes the difference between attending one school (D3) and another where those opportunities may not be available (D1)

[WhiteTrash]

Division 3 schools do this all the time.  At many schools athletics is basically an admissions excercise.  You start a sports program that brings in 20 students, those 20 students pay on average of $30,000, and you have just earned $600,000 you likely wouldn't have otherwise earned.  You offset that with a $10,000 coaching stipend, $5,000 for an assistant and $4,000 for equipment and travel and you have just put $580,000 toward your bottom line.

I was not aware of this practice.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I was not aware of this practice.

Ripon College has something like 750 students, 40% of which are student athletes.  Over half of their men are student athletes. 

[🏀]

Ripon College has something like 750 students, 40% of which are student athletes.  Over half of their men are student athletes. 

Wasn't this the model that put St. Joe's Indiana under?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Wasn't this the model that put St. Joe's Indiana under?

The difference is that Ripon is D3 while St. Joseph was D2, so they had scholarship expenses.  The thing that may doom Ripon is their debt-load.  So in that way they are similar to St. Joe.

[MU82]

Division 3 schools do this all the time.  At many schools athletics is basically an admissions excercise.  You start a sports program that brings in 20 students, those 20 students pay on average of $30,000, and you have just earned $600,000 you likely wouldn't have otherwise earned.  You offset that with a $10,000 coaching stipend, $5,000 for an assistant and $4,000 for equipment and travel and you have just put $580,000 toward your bottom line.

The ability to continue to play a sport that you have enjoyed throughout high school oftentimes makes the difference between attending one school (D3) and another where those opportunities may not be available (D1)

My daughter wanted to keep playing basketball. She seriously looked at 5 schools, and 2 offered her the opportunity. She picked one of them, Lawrence. I think it's safe to say that she would have gone elsewhere if not for that opportunity. They absolutely made money because of just what you say.

[Cheeks]

Remember those couple of days when chicos wasn't pumping out 50 posts a day?  Good times.

I don’t now

[Cheeks]

Moving goalposts again. You said nothing about "in uniform" in your post.

Yes I did, go back to the discussion last week.  And the entire reason for that is the same reason that the NCAA says athletes can profit on their likeness, just not as an athlete likeness.  In other words, not wearing the uniform or representing what they do for that scholarship....for the same reason cops, firemen, etc, etc cannot either without permission.  That was the comparison, and it was appropriate.  Rules exist for you, they exist for cops, and yes they exist for student athletes, too.

[Cheeks]

And they'll go blind on paperwork and/or broke in legal fees fighting this state by state. There will be compromise, the NCAA has to or it will die. That's the funny thing about all the folks talking about the NIL profit concept like it'll be the death of the NCAA.....if they don't do it the NCAA will die. Fair or unfair, society is moving in a direction in which it does not tolerate the inequality of earning potential. The NCAA is artificially limiting the earning potential of it's student athletes and with politicians looking for easy wins bringing the NCAA to heal is an easy win to get.

So those resistant to change, that's fine but if you get your way it will actually be what kills college athletes not those of us who are advocating deliberate and reasonable reforms.

1) you still going with the nonsense that SA’s cannot monetize on YouTube or are you backing off that one?
2) for the reasons stated, even if this comes to pass you cannot have one law in Illinois, one in California, a different one in Florida, etc.  For that reason alone they will go to the courts.  More importantly, they have to decide and defend their rights as an org.  Today it is likeness rights, what if the pretty boys here in California decide you must pay a salary, or whatever.  That’s why the slippery slope,argument is made, and why litigation will happen.  They have no choice.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Out of respect for the recruiting thread, I'm responding to the quote below here:

Where did I say parity exists today?  I did not.  The problem is that this will further separate the rich from the poor.  The middle class schools will pay the price the most.

The rich (Duke/UK) already feature 5 stars and high 4 stars at every spot in their rotations. They can't get any richer. I could see an argument being made that this could help level the playing field against the blue bloods.

I could see this further separating the high majors from the apathetic mid majors. The mid majors committed to athletic success will be fine in my opinion. And if that does happen, I don't see that as a bad thing. 95% of mid/low majors have been irrelevant for decades and yet they still keep their sports in D1 year after year. Them continuing to be irrelevant is not a change, it's maintaining the status quo.

This is of course is also assuming that the NCAA can't come up with a proper way to regulate this. Personally, I think if the NCAA can keep boosters from offering 6 figure internships to athletes now, they should be able to find a system that regulates the likeness conversation. As a big supporter of the NCAA, I'm sure you agree.

[brewcity77]

Yes I did, go back to the discussion last week.

Now we're supposed to search your old posts to save you from goalpost shifting when you don't know what you're talking about?

[mu03eng]

1) you still going with the nonsense that SA’s cannot monetize on YouTube or are you backing off that one?
2) for the reasons stated, even if this comes to pass you cannot have one law in Illinois, one in California, a different one in Florida, etc.  For that reason alone they will go to the courts.  More importantly, they have to decide and defend their rights as an org.  Today it is likeness rights, what if the pretty boys here in California decide you must pay a salary, or whatever.  That’s why the slippery slope,argument is made, and why litigation will happen.  They have no choice.

1) I stand by my claim, the effort involved in trying to monetize without leveraging the player's sports background AND the cost in they don't thread that needle works as effectively as a ban. MUs athletic department does not allow non-university YT channels for its student athletes for that very reason.
2) I agree for the NCAA to function it can't be subject to different laws, but it also can't win every court case, some state is going to create a constitutional law and that is going to force the NCAA to comply or die. NCAA would be much smarter to reform on it's own but it's just not smart enough.

[Pakuni]

1) I stand by my claim, the effort involved in trying to monetize without leveraging the player's sports background AND the cost in they don't thread that needle works as effectively as a ban. MUs athletic department does not allow non-university YT channels for its student athletes for that very reason.

Right.
The NCAA is saying, "You can monetize your account, just don't include the slightest reference to the thing that gives your account value."

[jesmu84]

Yes I did, go back to the discussion last week.  And the entire reason for that is the same reason that the NCAA says athletes can profit on their likeness, just not as an athlete likeness.  In other words, not wearing the uniform or representing what they do for that scholarship....for the same reason cops, firemen, etc, etc cannot either without permission.  That was the comparison, and it was appropriate.  Rules exist for you, they exist for cops, and yes they exist for student athletes, too.

I'm not understanding what this means.

Are you stating potowatomi can pay Markus Howard to be a spokesperson as long as he isn't wearing his uniform and the ad doesn't mention his connection to Marquette?

[Uncle Rico]

I'm not understanding what this means.

Are you stating potowatomi can pay Markus Howard to be a spokesperson as long as he isn't wearing his uniform and the ad doesn't mention his connection to Marquette?

No, they can’t.  YouTube subscription channels are okay for any college student.  Athletes simply can’t promote their channel while acknowledging their athletic affiliation with a school.

It’s a neat way for the NCAA to make sure the student athlete doesn’t make money for his or her talent

[Cheeks]

I'm not understanding what this means.

Are you stating potowatomi can pay Markus Howard to be a spokesperson as long as he isn't wearing his uniform and the ad doesn't mention his connection to Marquette?

The ncaa allows kids to monetize today on YouTube with advertisements, but the player cannot be doing it as a student athlete entity.  There are restrictions to it.  If Markus Howard wants to build models, paint, crochet, etc and have ads (how YouTube monetization works) it could be approved, as long as Markus is doing that without the tie-ins of his role as a student athlete.

Fireman Andy can monetize in the same way....he sure as hell cannot wear his badge, MFD patch / uniform and do the same without permission.  That was my point, there are rules today for non student athletes...adults...from city, county, state, other orgs.  Just as there are rules the ncaa has on this, but it  false to suggest a student athlete cannot monetize on YouTube.  They can, if they adhere to the rules.

[Cheeks]

Now we're supposed to search your old posts to save you from goalpost shifting when you don't know what you're talking about?

I never shifted the goalpost, that’s entirely the point.

[Cheeks]

Right.
The NCAA is saying, "You can monetize your account, just don't include the slightest reference to the thing that gives your account value."

The same way the fire dept gives a person a platform, or the police dept, etc.  Yes, the platform MU CREATED provides value.  Should MU get a cut, then?  Should Markus have to pay MU, the conference, the tv networks, MJS, and all the other trappings that built up his platform?  I think you are finally starting to get it. The platform existed long before any of these guys were a glint in anyone’s eye. 

[jesmu84]

The ncaa allows kids to monetize today on YouTube with advertisements, but the player cannot be doing it as a student athlete entity.  There are restrictions to it.  If Markus Howard wants to build models, paint, crochet, etc and have ads (how YouTube monetization works) it could be approved, as long as Markus is doing that without the tie-ins of his role as a student athlete.

Fireman Andy can monetize in the same way....he sure as hell cannot wear his badge, MFD patch / uniform and do the same without permission.  That was my point, there are rules today for non student athletes...adults...from city, county, state, other orgs.  Just as there are rules the ncaa has on this, but it  false to suggest a student athlete cannot monetize on YouTube.  They can, if they adhere to the rules.

Gotcha.

But can't fireman Andy monetize his fireman likeness? Just not his Milwaukee fireman likeness?

The parallel being Markus monetize his basketball player likeness, just not his Marquette basketball player likeness.

[Cheeks]

No, they can’t.  YouTube subscription channels are okay for any college student.  Athletes simply can’t promote their channel while acknowledging their athletic affiliation with a school.

It’s a neat way for the NCAA to make sure the student athlete doesn’t make money for his or her talent

Just as fireman Andy cannot associate his affiliation with the city or county without permission from the proper people / org when an endorsement or commercial value benefit is in play.  Funny how that works.    Rules exist all over society.  When I do a deal with Mahomes, he cannot represent himself in uniform or playing for the Chiefs in a way that brings endorsement value (non editorial) without the Chiefs permission.  Based on how you keep talking, you had no idea that was the case.

[brewcity77]

Gotcha.

But can't fireman Andy monetize his fireman likeness? Just not his Milwaukee fireman likeness?

The parallel being Markus monetize his basketball player likeness, just not his Marquette basketball player likeness.

Yes.

[Cheeks]

Gotcha.

But can't fireman Andy monetize his fireman likeness? Just not his Milwaukee fireman likeness?

The parallel being Markus monetize his basketball player likeness, just not his Marquette basketball player likeness.

Yes, as long as fireman Andy doesn’t represent an implied endorsement or some type of linkage of value because of his occupation...unless granted permission to do so. Same for Markus. 

[jesmu84]

Yes, as long as fireman Andy doesn’t represent an implied endorsement or some type of linkage of value because of his occupation...unless granted permission to do so. Same for Markus.

Yea... I don't think they're the same.

Andy can make money on him being a fireman. He cannot make money on being a Milwaukee fireman. Profession/expertise vs employment

Markus cannot make money on being a basketball player. And certainly can't make money on being a Marquette basketball player.

[Pakuni]

Yes, as long as fireman Andy doesn’t represent an implied endorsement or some type of linkage of value because of his occupation...unless granted permission to do so. Same for Markus.

Fireman Andy is a paid employee. Markus Howard is not, as you often like to say.
Or do you make that distinction only when you think it serves your argument?

[Uncle Rico]

Firearm Andy is a paid employee. Markus Howard is not, as you often like to say.
Or do you make that distinction only when you think it serves your argument?

A smart young man might start a YouTube channel before going to college that has nothing to do with sports but promote the hell out of it.  Bet the highly sought after would get a lot of subscribers