California to pass bill called "fair pay to play act"...to compensate players

[Cheeks]

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.

[Cheeks]

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

[Dr. Blackheart]

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?

[Cheeks]

#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?

[Pakuni]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[Cheeks]

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.

[Uncle Rico]

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

[mu03eng]

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?

[Pakuni]

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

[Cheeks]

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

[Cheeks]

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.

[Cheeks]

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.

[Uncle Rico]

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

[Cheeks]

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.

[79Warrior]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The dichotomy between how chicos handles the allegations against Buzz' players and how handles allegations against anyone else is fascinating

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The dichotomy between how chicos handles the allegations against Buzz' players and how handles allegations against anyone else is fascinating

Must. Not. Comment...

[Room510]

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. 

[Cheeks]

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.

[Cheeks]

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.

[Uncle Rico]

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%.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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?