NCAA to allow NIL?

[MU82]

The Big Ten Conference released a statement Thursday morning in reaction to recent NCAA information regarding compensation of student athletes and likeness policy. The NCAA revealed Tuesday a vote to permit athletes from profiting upon their likeness.

The Big Ten, as it transitions out of Jim Delany’s long-standing tenure as commissioner, issued a statement.

“The Big Ten Conference recognizes the NCAA Board of Governors and the NCAA Federal and State Legislative Working Group for their hard work in developing recommendations to the NCAA membership for consideration in developing new rules relating to opportunities for students who participate in intercollegiate athletics to benefit from their name, image and likeness in a manner that is consistent with the collegiate model and legal precedent.

The Big Ten Conference and its member institutions will review and discuss these recommendations over the next several months as we work together to determine what new rules should be proposed for approval. We believe that education is the foundation of the collegiate model, that it is our first priority and that it must continue to be so if the model is to be sustainable on our campuses. We believe that our students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are students, not employees. We also believe that our students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are not professional athletes, that they are not paid to play their sports and that any payment for name, image or likeness cannot be used as a substitute for compensation related to athletic performance or participation. We also believe that whatever rules are adopted in this area, in order to allow for a national system of recruiting, competition and fair play, must apply nationally. Our collegiate model cannot be sustained if the rules are applied on a state-by-state basis.

The Big Ten Conference thanks Michael Drake, President of The Ohio State University and chair of the NCAA Board of Governors, and Gene Smith, Director of Athletics at The Ohio State University and co-chair of the Working Group, for their leadership on this issue and looks forward to working with others to create a national framework that is consistent with the principles unanimously approved by the NCAA Board of Governors.”

Mmm hmm.

Thanks for the platitudes, B14.

See you in 2-3 years, when athletes are profiting from their likenesses and not being ruled ineligible for doing so, just as all students are allowed to do.

[Jockey]

Seth Greenberg
@SethOnHoops
The @NCAA
 generates money but  how many business models run 90 championships but only 5 generate revenue. A real business would probably shut down properties that continually lose large sums of money year after year.

These are Schools - not businesses. A real business has employees. Football/basketball teams have students.

[79Warrior]

These are Schools - not businesses. A real business has employees. Football/basketball teams have students.

Really? Because they sure as crap are run as a business.

[Boozemon Barro]

These are Schools - not businesses. A real business has employees. Football/basketball teams have students.

Hahaha. I wish this not a business wouldn't make me pay real money to attend games.

[Cheeks]

Hahaha. I wish this not a business wouldn't make me pay real money to attend games.

Do you have to pay money to attend the MU theatre performances MU choir performance, etc?  Yup, you do.  My high school daughter’s volleyball games... $10 a pop. 

[MU82]

Do you have to pay money to attend the MU theatre performances MU choir performance, etc?  Yup, you do.

Thanks for comparing athletics to theater. It's a logical comparison to make, one I and others have been making for some time here.

Can scholarship theater majors at MU and other universities profit from their own likenesses while remaining eligible to be in theater productions? Yup, they can.

[muwarrior69]

Are walk-on players subject to the some rules as scholarship player? Can they make money off their likeness, name or images?

[Benny B]

.... Jay Bilas, a strong proponent of college athletes' rights.

What does that even mean?  A "strong proponent of college athletes' rights"...  are these human rights, civil rights, constitutional rights, workers rights, animal rights, three rights make a left,

Granted wrong thread, but I don't get guys' like Bilas' argument and/or connotation that there's some sort of fundamental, epidemic societal wrong being committed here, one that can only be solved by treating student-athletes in the same manner as their professional peers, no less.

(Especially given that the professionals aren't even peers at all... that would be like saying you and Warren Buffett both research and invest so therefore you're peers.)

[Jockey]

Hahaha. I wish this not a business wouldn't make me pay real money to attend games.

Your statement has nothing to do with private businesses paying players.

[Boozemon Barro]

Your statement has nothing to do with private businesses paying players.

Athletic departments do have employees. Coaches, for example. Everyone in the athletic department is an employee of the university except the athletes because of the clever "student athlete" designation. Everything about the athletic department is run like a business, which is why your post made me laugh.

[MU82]

What does that even mean?  A "strong proponent of college athletes' rights"...  are these human rights, civil rights, constitutional rights, workers rights, animal rights, three rights make a left,

OK, if it bothers you, I hereby rescind that qualifier. See how easy it is to affect change, Benny?

He is a leading television analyst who has been a college basketball player, an assistant coach and a lawyer. His word is not proof of anything, just as any other "expert's" word is not proof, but I do usually listen when he says something.

I happen to believe he has the best interest of college athletes in mind on this issue (and many others). You are free to disagree.

[#UnleashSean]

Athletic departments do have employees. Coaches, for example. Everyone in the athletic department is an employee of the university except the athletes because of the clever "student athlete" designation. Everything about the athletic department is run like a business, which is why your post made me laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XEq6XYtMVU

[GOO]

I'm kind of surprised the P5 conferences didn't push this years ago.  Maybe they wanted to leave good enough alone.  But I have to think this will be a boon for the larger state schools with big donors.  At least the donors for schools like KY can simply over pay through their companies for NIL instead of dropping off money bags.

I can't wait to see the lame local commercials using college players NIL. 

Can shoe companies pay directly now?  Sorry if this has been addressed, I admit to not reading all pages of this thread.

[Benny B]

OK, if it bothers you, I hereby rescind that qualifier. See how easy it is to affect change, Benny?

He is a leading television analyst who has been a college basketball player, an assistant coach and a lawyer. His word is not proof of anything, just as any other "expert's" word is not proof, but I do usually listen when he says something.

I happen to believe he has the best interest of college athletes in mind on this issue (and many others). You are free to disagree.

It wasn't directed at you, because clearly you see the point I'm trying to make (or point out).  But you do also see how Bilas is - whether he's right or wrong - politicizing* the matter, n'est-ce pas?

*Not in the sense of making it a liberal vs. conservative issue, but in the sense that he is taking an extreme, polarizing and binary position.


The argument that Bilas is making is, at its very core, an us-against-them zero-sum game.  In other words, the student-athletes - namely the men's basketball and football players - will only "win" by taking their fair-share from the pockets of NCAA and/or its institutions.   Unfortunately, the Bilas Perspective has two fatal flaws: a) it's not a zero-sum game, and b) there is no contemplation of unintended consequences.

Bilas is playing third-grade chess... he's not thinking several moves ahead, he's looking at the board strictly in its current state and making a move.  In his view, giving the players X% of revenue would be fair, irrespective of the possibility that X% is what is needed to keep the Olympic sports viable, X% will reduce scholarships, X% will cause programs to retreat from D-I, etc.

|Bilas| = |Dabo|   In other words, taking either at face value is tantamount to admitting you want a fight, not a solution.

[MU82]

It wasn't directed at you, because clearly you see the point I'm trying to make (or point out).  But you do also see how Bilas is - whether he's right or wrong - politicizing* the matter, n'est-ce pas?

*Not in the sense of making it a liberal vs. conservative issue, but in the sense that he is taking an extreme, polarizing and binary position.


The argument that Bilas is making is, at its very core, an us-against-them zero-sum game.  In other words, the student-athletes - namely the men's basketball and football players - will only "win" by taking their fair-share from the pockets of NCAA and/or its institutions.   Unfortunately, the Bilas Perspective has two fatal flaws: a) it's not a zero-sum game, and b) there is no contemplation of unintended consequences.

Bilas is playing third-grade chess... he's not thinking several moves ahead, he's looking at the board strictly in its current state and making a move.  In his view, giving the players X% of revenue would be fair, irrespective of the possibility that X% is what is needed to keep the Olympic sports viable, X% will reduce scholarships, X% will cause programs to retreat from D-I, etc.

|Bilas| = |Dabo|   In other words, taking either at face value is tantamount to admitting you want a fight, not a solution.

I appreciate this take, Benny, even though I disagree with some of it.

Dabo wants the status quo, which has worked to make him sensationally rich and famous.

Bilas also has done well with the status quo, yet he nonetheless wants a change so that athletes can share in the profits off of their likenesses for which they currently get $0.00.

I fully admit there will be consequences, unintended or otherwise. I like to think Bilas realizes that as well. Major change almost always produces consequences. Decades ago, many university presidents, athletic directors and coaches were whining about what Title IX would do to their precious football and basketball programs.

As I'm pretty sure is the case with you and every other Scooper, I do not have "the solution." We have neither the data nor the expertise. I will be interested to see what comes of all of this.

I do not want a fight. I simply am happy that college athletes finally will get to benefit off of their own likenesses. Years from now, I believe this will be looked back at as one of those issues in which people say, "Were folks really getting worked up over that?"

[Benny B]

I appreciate this take, Benny, even though I disagree with some of it.

Dabo wants the status quo, which has worked to make him sensationally rich and famous.

Bilas also has done well with the status quo, yet he nonetheless wants a change so that athletes can share in the profits off of their likenesses for which they currently get $0.00.

I fully admit there will be consequences, unintended or otherwise. I like to think Bilas realizes that as well. Major change almost always produces consequences. Decades ago, many university presidents, athletic directors and coaches were whining about what Title IX would do to their precious football and basketball programs.

As I'm pretty sure is the case with you and every other Scooper, I do not have "the solution." We have neither the data nor the expertise. I will be interested to see what comes of all of this.

I do not want a fight. I simply am happy that college athletes finally will get to benefit off of their own likenesses. Years from now, I believe this will be looked back at as one of those issues in which people say, "Were folks really getting worked up over that?"

Well put.

That being said, while I believe we're in conceptual agreement that student-athletes should be able to benefit from their NIL, I believe your advocacy to allow student-athletes to "share in the profits off of their likeness" is horribly misguided... because schools don't profit from NIL of their student-athletes... they profit from the student-athletes' performance.  So in fact, your advocacy for a share of profits IS the status quo, because there are no profits to share. 

Consider the following:

1) Nike pays LeBron for (and profits from selling) his NIL; they don't pay for LJ to perform.  Certainly, LJ's performance can affect on how much Nike is willing to pay for his NIL in the next endorsement deal, but once the current endorsement deal is signed, LeBron collects a check whether he wins an MVP or he ends up riding the bench in the D-League.

2) The Lakers - on the other hand - pays LJ for (and profits from selling) both his performance and his NIL.  The former obviously because if LeBron carries the team to the playoffs, the Lakers have more games and tickets to sell, and the latter because the Lakers slap his name on thousands of replica jerseys and trinkets they sell.

Surprisingly, many casual fans are surprised to learn that you can't buy a Marquette jersey with HOWARD on the back... you can buy one that says "0" but no names.  In fact, you can't buy anything that has a student-athlete's name, image or likeness on it anymore.  Further, schools don't "profit" simply by having an athlete on the court.  MU had the distinction of the highest ratings in the first round of the NCAA last year... is that because people wanted to see Markus' and Ja's pretty faces, or did they want to see the #5 and #7 scorers in the NCAA go head-to-head?  In other words, college fans aren't paying for NIL, they're paying to watch a basketball game.

------

I get that it is very hard for people to understand that when they buy a ticket to an NCAA basketball or football game, they are not paying for the NIL of the student-athletes.  Case in point: in 2006-2007, OSU's per game average attendance was #6  amongst all D-I programs (moreover, was an increase of 13% from the previous year) despite that being Greg Oden's only year in a Buckeye uniform... and that guy had a face that made astronauts nauseous.

Also, let's keep in mind that the lion's share of D-I schools' basketball revenue is generated from two sources: ticket sales and NCAA tourney shares.  Sure, there are TV contracts, but again 1) what is it that the cable subscribers are tuning into see... student-athletes' faces or the game and 2) I'm shooting from the hip here, but there are perhaps 250 D-I schools that have no TV contract at all (or a contract that doesn't move the needle).

Without a doubt, the value of a person's NIL is undeniably connected to that person's performance, such that without the performance, NIL is worthless.  So let's ask the $Million question:  In a parallel universe without the NBA, without the Lakers, without the popularity of professional basketball in the US... how much is LeBron's NIL worth?

------

tl;dr......  MU (and other schools) don't profit from NIL; the schools profit by selling tickets and earning NCAA tourney shares.

[Boozemon Barro]

Well put.

That being said, while I believe we're in conceptual agreement that student-athletes should be able to benefit from their NIL, I believe your advocacy to allow student-athletes to "share in the profits off of their likeness" is horribly misguided... because schools don't profit from NIL of their student-athletes... they profit from the student-athletes' performance.  So in fact, your advocacy for a share of profits IS the status quo, because there are no profits to share. 

Consider the following:

1) Nike pays LeBron for (and profits from selling) his NIL; they don't pay for LJ to perform.  Certainly, LJ's performance can affect on how much Nike is willing to pay for his NIL in the next endorsement deal, but once the current endorsement deal is signed, LeBron collects a check whether he wins an MVP or he ends up riding the bench in the D-League.

2) The Lakers - on the other hand - pays LJ for (and profits from selling) both his performance and his NIL.  The former obviously because if LeBron carries the team to the playoffs, the Lakers have more games and tickets to sell, and the latter because the Lakers slap his name on thousands of replica jerseys and trinkets they sell.

Surprisingly, many casual fans are surprised to learn that you can't buy a Marquette jersey with HOWARD on the back... you can buy one that says "0" but no names.  In fact, you can't buy anything that has a student-athlete's name, image or likeness on it anymore.  Further, schools don't "profit" simply by having an athlete on the court.  MU had the distinction of the highest ratings in the first round of the NCAA last year... is that because people wanted to see Markus' and Ja's pretty faces, or did they want to see the #5 and #7 scorers in the NCAA go head-to-head?  In other words, college fans aren't paying for NIL, they're paying to watch a basketball game.

------

I get that it is very hard for people to understand that when they buy a ticket to an NCAA basketball or football game, they are not paying for the NIL of the student-athletes.  Case in point: in 2006-2007, OSU's per game average attendance was #6  amongst all D-I programs (moreover, was an increase of 13% from the previous year) despite that being Greg Oden's only year in a Buckeye uniform... and that guy had a face that made astronauts nauseous.

Also, let's keep in mind that the lion's share of D-I schools' basketball revenue is generated from two sources: ticket sales and NCAA tourney shares.  Sure, there are TV contracts, but again 1) what is it that the cable subscribers are tuning into see... student-athletes' faces or the game and 2) I'm shooting from the hip here, but there are perhaps 250 D-I schools that have no TV contract at all (or a contract that doesn't move the needle).

Without a doubt, the value of a person's NIL is undeniably connected to that person's performance, such that without the performance, NIL is worthless.  So let's ask the $Million question:  In a parallel universe without the NBA, without the Lakers, without the popularity of professional basketball in the US... how much is LeBron's NIL worth?

------

tl;dr......  MU (and other schools) don't profit from NIL; the schools profit by selling tickets and earning NCAA tourney shares.

I agree with a lot of this which is why I don't think the NIL solves any of the issues if it can't be used as a workaround payment method for bringing talented players to a school. There is significant value for winning in men's basketball and football. This makes good players valuable as they are large compenent into what makes a winning team. The player's ability to capitalize on this value should be during their recruitment when all the programs are trying to get them into the fold to help them win more. Those programs should have to compete with each other for players without restictions on how much the players can be compensated.

[Benny B]

I agree with a lot of this which is why I don't think the NIL solves any of the issues if it can't be used as a workaround payment method for bringing talented players to a school. There is significant value for winning in men's basketball and football. This makes good players valuable as they are large compenent into what makes a winning team. The player's ability to capitalize on this value should be during their recruitment when all the programs are trying to get them into the fold to help them win more. Those programs should have to compete with each other for players without restictions on how much the players can be compensated.

So what happens when the player fails to perform to expectations?  Does he have to pay the school back for the cost of his scholarship?  Or does the university eat the cost (read: reallocate the loss somewhere else) and move on?

[Boozemon Barro]

So what happens when the player fails to perform to expectations?  Does he have to pay the school back for the cost of his scholarship?  Or does the university eat the cost (read: reallocate the loss somewhere else) and move on?

Are you talking about now or in my hypothetical scenario? In my scenario you can think of the player's compensation terms like coaches are currently compensated. If a player turns out to be a bust, they'd be fired and whatever the agreed upon terms of the employment contract would dictate what happens.

[muwarrior69]

I agree with a lot of this which is why I don't think the NIL solves any of the issues if it can't be used as a workaround payment method for bringing talented players to a school. There is significant value for winning in men's basketball and football. This makes good players valuable as they are large compenent into what makes a winning team. The player's ability to capitalize on this value should be during their recruitment when all the programs are trying to get them into the fold to help them win more. Those programs should have to compete with each other for players without restictions on how much the players can be compensated.

....and how is this good for MU?

[Boozemon Barro]

....and how is this good for MU?

I never said that it was. I could argue that college football makes far more money than basketball and if those programs had to compete financially for football players it would drive up their costs so much that they might not be able to afford to compete with a basketball only school for basketball players.

[lawdog77]

I agree a little with both Tebow , as well as Bilas. Players should get paid by the school (add a 0 to the end of stipend money),  and that it looks like a stall tactic by the NCAA. Let the players get a % of jerseys, etc with their name on it, let them monetize youtube (let Marcus creating a channel on how to shoot). Any other NIL needs to be ran through an NCAA clearinghouse.

[MU82]

Well put.

That being said, while I believe we're in conceptual agreement that student-athletes should be able to benefit from their NIL, I believe your advocacy to allow student-athletes to "share in the profits off of their likeness" is horribly misguided... because schools don't profit from NIL of their student-athletes... they profit from the student-athletes' performance.  So in fact, your advocacy for a share of profits IS the status quo, because there are no profits to share. 

Consider the following:

1) Nike pays LeBron for (and profits from selling) his NIL; they don't pay for LJ to perform.  Certainly, LJ's performance can affect on how much Nike is willing to pay for his NIL in the next endorsement deal, but once the current endorsement deal is signed, LeBron collects a check whether he wins an MVP or he ends up riding the bench in the D-League.

2) The Lakers - on the other hand - pays LJ for (and profits from selling) both his performance and his NIL.  The former obviously because if LeBron carries the team to the playoffs, the Lakers have more games and tickets to sell, and the latter because the Lakers slap his name on thousands of replica jerseys and trinkets they sell.

Surprisingly, many casual fans are surprised to learn that you can't buy a Marquette jersey with HOWARD on the back... you can buy one that says "0" but no names.  In fact, you can't buy anything that has a student-athlete's name, image or likeness on it anymore.  Further, schools don't "profit" simply by having an athlete on the court.  MU had the distinction of the highest ratings in the first round of the NCAA last year... is that because people wanted to see Markus' and Ja's pretty faces, or did they want to see the #5 and #7 scorers in the NCAA go head-to-head?  In other words, college fans aren't paying for NIL, they're paying to watch a basketball game.

------

I get that it is very hard for people to understand that when they buy a ticket to an NCAA basketball or football game, they are not paying for the NIL of the student-athletes.  Case in point: in 2006-2007, OSU's per game average attendance was #6  amongst all D-I programs (moreover, was an increase of 13% from the previous year) despite that being Greg Oden's only year in a Buckeye uniform... and that guy had a face that made astronauts nauseous.

Also, let's keep in mind that the lion's share of D-I schools' basketball revenue is generated from two sources: ticket sales and NCAA tourney shares.  Sure, there are TV contracts, but again 1) what is it that the cable subscribers are tuning into see... student-athletes' faces or the game and 2) I'm shooting from the hip here, but there are perhaps 250 D-I schools that have no TV contract at all (or a contract that doesn't move the needle).

Without a doubt, the value of a person's NIL is undeniably connected to that person's performance, such that without the performance, NIL is worthless.  So let's ask the $Million question:  In a parallel universe without the NBA, without the Lakers, without the popularity of professional basketball in the US... how much is LeBron's NIL worth?

------

tl;dr......  MU (and other schools) don't profit from NIL; the schools profit by selling tickets and earning NCAA tourney shares.

Thank you for correcting the semantics of what I was trying to state. You make a lot of good points here.

It's going to be an interesting situation to watch, that's for sure, but I am not the least bit concerned that whatever comes out of this is going to "destroy" college basketball and football - as the most chickeny of the Chicken Littles have claimed.