Well that was a waste

[muguru]

I think ADs, coaches, etc. all (with exceptions on the extremes) deserve the money they make. Most do damn fine work.

I also think athlete should be able to profit off their likeness.

If this passes, I think the ADs, coaches, etc will continue to earn big money while the players also get some more green in their pocket. I think it will ultimately end up being a win win situation all around.

Look, here's my stance on it...States have ZERO business sticking their noses into this. None whatsoever. IF the NCAA chooses at some point to go the direction if NIL, then that's okay..But it should be solely at the NCAA's and the member institutions discretion to do so. State's should have NO say in something like this, particularly California. Who are they to dictate to a private organization what they should or shouldn't do anyway??

If this were solely an NCAA decision to go this direction, I'd be more supportive of it. But when State's start getting involved trying to force their hand..I'm NOT okay with that, at all. No one should be telling the NCAA(or any private business) what they should or shouldn't do.

It's similar to what happened at a former employer of mine...before I worked there there was a group of employees that wanted to Unionize..had even gone so far as to talk to a Union about moving the process forward. Once the owner found out what they were going to do, he told them point blank "if you try to unionize, I will close the doors.. no one is going to tell me how to run MY business". And he meant it, they never unionized.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

States have every right to make a law that impacts the people of their state. And the NCAA has every right to make people ineligible for following that state law.

[mu03eng]

Again, as i said before, a majority of you just don't like the fact that people are making a lot of money, that others don't think they deserve to make. It's jealousy, plain and simple. That's the only reason you all support this...it's basically to "stick it" to those that make millions of dollars that you don't like them making. It's really that simple.

Not one person who's for NIL reform on this thread has advocated that the people who make big money now somehow make less money. All for coaches getting theirs and if the players get the NIL they deserve that will have none or next to no impact on the coaches.

[mu03eng]

Look, here's my stance on it...States have ZERO business sticking their noses into this. None whatsoever. IF the NCAA chooses at some point to go the direction if NIL, then that's okay..But it should be solely at the NCAA's and the member institutions discretion to do so. State's should have NO say in something like this, particularly California. Who are they to dictate to a private organization what they should or shouldn't do anyway??

If this were solely an NCAA decision to go this direction, I'd be more supportive of it. But when State's start getting involved trying to force their hand..I'm NOT okay with that, at all. No one should be telling the NCAA(or any private business) what they should or shouldn't do.

It's similar to what happened at a former employer of mine...before I worked there there was a group of employees that wanted to Unionize..had even gone so far as to talk to a Union about moving the process forward. Once the owner found out what they were going to do, he told them point blank "if you try to unionize, I will close the doors.. no one is going to tell me how to run MY business". And he meant it, they never unionized.

California made a law to govern how its citizens were treated that is literally the core of what a state does. You can argue it's a bad law but they absolutely have the right to make it.....states tell private organizations what to do all the time.

And you know why states are making these laws? Because the NCAA won't reform itself.

The NCAA can absolutely rule players ineligible for participating in the California law(and Florida and South Carolina and New York........) but when the alumni of those schools stop watching those post season games what happens to the ratings and by extension the revenue that gets generated?

[Cheeks]

Not one person who's for NIL reform on this thread has advocated that the people who make big money now somehow make less money. All for coaches getting theirs and if the players get the NIL they deserve that will have none or next to no impact on the coaches.

In this thread, correct....in other threads...absolutely incorrect with examples galore.

[Uncle Rico]

Look, here's my stance on it...States have ZERO business sticking their noses into this. None whatsoever. IF the NCAA chooses at some point to go the direction if NIL, then that's okay..But it should be solely at the NCAA's and the member institutions discretion to do so. State's should have NO say in something like this, particularly California. Who are they to dictate to a private organization what they should or shouldn't do anyway??

If this were solely an NCAA decision to go this direction, I'd be more supportive of it. But when State's start getting involved trying to force their hand..I'm NOT okay with that, at all. No one should be telling the NCAA(or any private business) what they should or shouldn't do.

It's similar to what happened at a former employer of mine...before I worked there there was a group of employees that wanted to Unionize..had even gone so far as to talk to a Union about moving the process forward. Once the owner found out what they were going to do, he told them point blank "if you try to unionize, I will close the doors.. no one is going to tell me how to run MY business". And he meant it, they never unionized.

The not for profit NCAA should shut their doors then

[TSmith34, Inc.]

people...who non nonchalantly support this for no good reason other than "just because it's the right thing to do".

Hilarious

[brewcity77]

4. Scholarships are for 4 years. Only way to transfer is to graduate with eligibility remaining, unless school voluntarily releases player, and that player becomes immediately eligible.

I'm not on board with this, but it reminds me that advertising contracts for NIL could include length and require a member to be connected to a certain school to honor the contract. There's ways for NIL to reduce, not just increase, transfers.

[muguru]

Hilarious

My statement is 100% true, not a single poster here that supports it has laid out a valid reason why this is a good idea, other than some version of "it's the right thing to do" or "the kids deserve it". Or it's because of the rage and jealousy at the supposed money the NCAA makes. For whatever reason that bothers people to no end. Not sure why...who cares?? How does it affect them in any way?? Are the student athletes in some way irreparably harmed by NOT having NIL's?? Nope. So...until I hear a well thought out reason other than a version of "I hate the NCAA, or the kids deserve it", that's all you people have. Lame and weak.

[lawdog77]

I'm not on board with this, but it reminds me that advertising contracts for NIL could include length and require a member to be connected to a certain school to honor the contract. There's ways for NIL to reduce, not just increase, transfers.

The reason why I would propose this, is that I think it would eliminate the transfers up, but transfers down would continue and they could play immediately.

[Uncle Rico]

My statement is 100% true, not a single poster here that supports it has laid out a valid reason why this is a good idea, other than some version of "it's the right thing to do" or "the kids deserve it". Or it's because of the rage and jealousy at the supposed money the NCAA makes. For whatever reason that bothers people to no end. Not sure why...who cares?? How does it affect them in any way?? Are the student athletes in some way irreparably harmed by NOT having NIL's?? Nope. So...until I hear a well thought out reason other than a version of "I hate the NCAA, or the kids deserve it", that's all you people have. Lame and weak.

If it’s about the scholarship, then why do you care about on-court results?  If they succeed in school, that is what college is about. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

However, I think it's probably fair to assume that if the compensation is coming from a "sponsor" or "representative of the institutions interests" IE someone that does advertising with them, that's going to create a problem in regards to 501C. A season ticket holder for example is considered a "booster". So let's say that season ticket holder owns a business and decides he wants "Johnny QB" to do an ad spot for them. Now, not only is that a violation because it's a booster providing a benefit, but it's also probably muddying the watersi n regards to the 501C law.

No.  It absolutely is not.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Wrong. If they involve institutional resources, or are based on/dependent on university resources it still applies.

Right.  Which is easily mitigated as I said below.

You actually highlight the exact legal argument that jeopardizes NCAA institutions. The substantial differences in exposure are leveraged on their ability to cut costs and reinvest profits due to their not-for-profit status. That is the exact reason why such laws exist, it creates an unfair marketplace, that allows a not-for-profit institution to leverage tax exempt status to create "substantial differences".

This doesn't apply if the compensation isn't excessive.  And the NCAA institutions will have a whole bunch of experts indicating why it isn't.  And furthermore, this simply does not apply if paid by a third party.

Fines, and as I said immediate repayment of taxes and interest penalties. It has not been rarely applied. It just hasn't been applied in athletics. Also, it isn't applied more because Universities spend an inordinate amount of effort to determine how many dollars are going to bad-money to ensure they do not exceed legal thresholds. That includes forbidding many lucrative research contracts, because they do not want to jeopardize their status.

Bingo on the highlighted.  But again, none of this applies with outside income. 

A student athlete can go sign autographs at a car dealership, wearing no Marquette gear, and earn $25,000 in the process, and there is ZERO risk to the University's 501(c)(3) status.  None.  You are creating issues where none exist.

[Cheeks]

The not for profit NCAA should shut their doors then

So should every not for profit hospital, charity, etc, etc...right?  Good one

[Pakuni]

My statement is 100% true, not a single poster here that supports it has laid out a valid reason why this is a good idea, other than some version of "it's the right thing to do" or "the kids deserve it". Or it's because of the rage and jealousy at the supposed money the NCAA makes. For whatever reason that bothers people to no end. Not sure why...who cares?? How does it affect them in any way?? Are the student athletes in some way irreparably harmed by NOT having NIL's?? Nope. So...until I hear a well thought out reason other than a version of "I hate the NCAA, or the kids deserve it", that's all you people have. Lame and weak.

We've laid out plenty of valid reasons. You choose to ignore them and instead create a bunch of straw men about how we all hate the NCAA and want coaches to be paid minimum wage.
You can lead a horse to water ...

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

My statement is 100% true, not a single poster here that supports it has laid out a valid reason why this is a good idea, other than some version of "it's the right thing to do" or "the kids deserve it". Or it's because of the rage and jealousy at the supposed money the NCAA makes. For whatever reason that bothers people to no end. Not sure why...who cares?? How does it affect them in any way?? Are the student athletes in some way irreparably harmed by NOT having NIL's?? Nope. So...until I hear a well thought out reason other than a version of "I hate the NCAA, or the kids deserve it", that's all you people have. Lame and weak.

I have answered the question multiple times and you either choose to ignore it or not think my answer is good enough.  Boo hoo.  I will manage to survive.

But I eagerly await more of your interpretations of not-for-profit law.  That should be amusing.

[forgetful]

Right.  Which is easily mitigated as I said below.


This doesn't apply if the compensation isn't excessive.  And the NCAA institutions will have a whole bunch of experts indicating why it isn't.  And furthermore, this simply does not apply if paid by a third party.


Bingo on the highlighted.  But again, none of this applies with outside income. 

A student athlete can go sign autographs at a car dealership, wearing no Marquette gear, and earn $25,000 in the process, and there is ZERO risk to the University's 501(c)(3) status.  None.  You are creating issues where none exist.

You agree in the first response, that it doesn't matter if it is outside income. You claim this is easily mitigated. It is not easily mitigated.

In the rest, you then revert to claiming it doesn't matter if it is outside income. You are wrong on this, and you admitted it in the first response.

In your latter case, that would definitely be a grey area. The courts could decide either way. Signing autographs is clearly dependent on their status as a college athlete, meaning the income is dependent on University resources. I ran it by counsel for two major universities. If the law went forward, and an athlete had such an opportunity, they would advise against it as it may violate 501(c)(3) status. Universities are going to err on the side of caution every time.

The reason they would be in jeopardy. Why aren't they paying G-league stars $25k to sign autographs. Heck, why aren't they paying them $2.5K. Because the NCAA institutions leverage their not-for-profit status to outcompete for-profit entities. Thereby creating an unequal playing field. The athlete is leveraging that not-for-profit status for personal profit. Professors are denied similar opportunities for financial gain, because of the same set of rules.

[mu03eng]

My statement is 100% true, not a single poster here that supports it has laid out a valid reason why this is a good idea, other than some version of "it's the right thing to do" or "the kids deserve it". Or it's because of the rage and jealousy at the supposed money the NCAA makes. For whatever reason that bothers people to no end. Not sure why...who cares?? How does it affect them in any way?? Are the student athletes in some way irreparably harmed by NOT having NIL's?? Nope. So...until I hear a well thought out reason other than a version of "I hate the NCAA, or the kids deserve it", that's all you people have. Lame and weak.

They are harmed because they don't make free market wages and they are harmed because they are denied opportunities other students have access to. And quite frankly no one is going to answer you because you don't want to hear the answer. There have been plenty of well thought out responses to you but you've decided they are invalid so what's really the point of responding to you?

Let's flip the script on you because you or the rest of the anti-NIL crowd have answered this the couple of times I've brought it up......


If the student-athletes are fairly compensated, then opening up NIL revenue to them should have almost a negligible effect so what's the problem in doing it? However, if opening up NIL revenue generates a ton of revenue for student-athletes doesn't that then imply the were unfairly compensated?

[MU82]

My statement is 100% true, not a single poster here that supports it has laid out a valid reason why this is a good idea, other than some version of "it's the right thing to do" or "the kids deserve it". Or it's because of the rage and jealousy at the supposed money the NCAA makes. For whatever reason that bothers people to no end. Not sure why...who cares?? How does it affect them in any way?? Are the student athletes in some way irreparably harmed by NOT having NIL's?? Nope. So...until I hear a well thought out reason other than a version of "I hate the NCAA, or the kids deserve it", that's all you people have. Lame and weak.

Aside from the fact that what you say is untrue, because multiple posters have stated very good reasons why athletes should be able to profit off their likenesses as all other students can,  my questions to you are:

For whatever reason the prospect of this impending change bothers people to no end. Not sure why...who cares?? How does it affect them in any way??

Unless you can prove how this policy would materially harm you, your opposition to it is lame and weak.

[mu03eng]

So should every not for profit hospital, charity, etc, etc...right?  Good one

Actually, yes. Not for profit hospitals are financial disasters and wasteful. Not for profit hospitals(most) generate revenue that far exceeds their costs and they then have to find ways to use that cash so as not to be "profitable". This leads to bloated leadership salaries, constant remodeling, spending excessive facilities and equipment, etc all while controlling the salaries of the individual contributor because it's necessary to show restraint on the OpEx for government oversite and Medicare charge rates.


Seems similar to something, but I just can't place my finger on it........

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Nevermind.  Not going to debate non-profit law here with someone who simply feels they know something because they Googled it.

[Uncle Rico]

So should every not for profit hospital, charity, etc, etc...right?  Good one

Irrelevant to this argument.  When Guru argues his employer threatened to shutdown when his employees talked of unionizing, that’s the point.  And that point is, the NCAA isn’t shutting down

[brewcity77]

My statement is 100% true, not a single poster here that supports it has laid out a valid reason why this is a good idea, other than some version of "it's the right thing to do" or "the kids deserve it".

"It's the right thing to do" is actually the only valid reason you need. Honestly, if you are on the other side of the right thing to do, you're on the wrong side of history.

[Cheeks]

Coach K is for the fair pay bill... feel free to jump in on this one fellas

[mu03eng]

You agree in the first response, that it doesn't matter if it is outside income. You claim this is easily mitigated. It is not easily mitigated.

In the rest, you then revert to claiming it doesn't matter if it is outside income. You are wrong on this, and you admitted it in the first response.

In your latter case, that would definitely be a grey area. The courts could decide either way. Signing autographs is clearly dependent on their status as a college athlete, meaning the income is dependent on University resources. I ran it by counsel for two major universities. If the law went forward, and an athlete had such an opportunity, they would advise against it as it may violate 501(c)(3) status. Universities are going to err on the side of caution every time.

The reason they would be in jeopardy. Why aren't they paying G-league stars $25k to sign autographs. Heck, why aren't they paying them $2.5K. Because the NCAA institutions leverage their not-for-profit status to outcompete for-profit entities. Thereby creating an unequal playing field. The athlete is leveraging that not-for-profit status for personal profit. Professors are denied similar opportunities for financial gain, because of the same set of rules.

Employees, especially executives of not for profits, that aren't universities generate revenue by consulting other non-profits or sitting on executive boards, etc all of which it could be argued is them leveraging their not for profit employer......none of which results in the 501(c)(3) status being in jeopardy.