https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27210000/ncaa-start-paying-athletes-208m-settlement
I'm clearly in the minority. If a "student athlete" wants to make money off their name/likeness, they should play professional sports immediately out of high school.
The point of playing NCAA athletics is to obtain a degree & prepare yourself for the next level (if you're talented enough to make a living as a professional). With a free degree, food plan, workout facilities/trainers, upscale housing, academic advisers and a "rock-star lifestyle", it's hard to argue that our basketball players aren't getting reimbursed for their time in Tucson. Hell, my financial adviser said that it will likely cost me $400K/child to attend college when they graduate high school in 12-14 years.
If the players want to make money immediately...drop out of college & become a pro. If you want a degree (and the ability to have a real job), enjoy your time on campus because somebody is "holding your hand" throughout the process. It's a hell of a lot easier to coast through school when you have resources to help you with homework on a daily basis...
The O'Bannon argument is BS. Look at the books; almost every athletic department is in the red (or at a break-even). The universities don't have the ability to pay athletes...and I'm glad that they don't because most small sports (gymnastics, tennis, track, volleyball, etc) would be cut if we gave preferential treatment to football/basketball (and possibly baseball/softball). I love the fact that my daughter may have the opportunity to get a free education because she excels at soccer.
Don't take away the opportunity for the majority of student-athletes because some greedy future NBA lottery pick can't wait 1-2 years to make money. Follow RJ Hampton, Brandon Jennings & Terry Armstrong's lead. Play overseas, make money immediately, skip the college experience and do us all a huge favor.
It is a totally crap set of rules they ha e either way. A player can make millions on a baseball co tract, then co.e back to play football, but can no longer make money? I think It was Greg Anthony from Unlv that had his own shirt company. Not sport related. The NCAA made him sell it or not play. Why? The NCAA was making money using player names with EA Sports and the players can do nothing? I just don't like the double standards and unfair judge.ents handed out by the NCAA as well as some crap rules they have.
Lololol I could not disagree with you more. At no point in the last 50 years has college football or basketball been "clean". Not once. Not ever. So basically we can either get rid of college athletics or we allow the players to earn money in the free market at whatever age they are able to command compensation.
Any argument to the contrary is just a gee golly, head-buried in the sand, out of touch opinion not based in reality.
You will never get rid of money in college sports and it is foolish to pretend it is possible.
Quote from: PBCatfan on July 18, 2019, 07:56:37 AM
Lololol I could not disagree with you more. At no point in the last 50 years has college football or basketball been "clean". Not once. Not ever. So basically we can either get rid of college athletics or we allow the players to earn money in the free market at whatever age they are able to command compensation.
Any argument to the contrary is just a gee golly, head-buried in the sand, out of touch opinion not based in reality.
You will never get rid of money in college sports and it is foolish to pretend it is possible.
You are not disagreeing with me!
In the EA Sports scheme they merely needed to compensate the players for using their names. The rules are screwed up. That is just what it is. The NCAA is responsible for this mess and they hand out punishments based on their own benefit not equally to all schools. The NCAA is at the heart of corruption in college sports. Why is it Anthony had to lose his business?
The NCAA should be an oversite organization, but instead it is a greedy group of extortionists taking advantage of students. They should be force to non-profit status and to divide all income amou g the institutions/athletes they proclaim they are protecting.
Yup. The "return after baseball" rule is a horrible contradiction to the NCAA's standards. I agree that players should be able to run successful entrepreneurial businesses that are not related to college athletics.
PBC is absolutely right that the system has been broken for decades. After football is investigated by the FBI (or whatever ridiculous group decides to take on the project), I assume that "some" of the side-money will disappear. It's still crooked, and likely will be for a while.
Yep LG and KC. It really is as simple as this: College Fball and Bball are a billon dollar industry. Alabama and Clemson have 100's of millions on the line. The notion that adult men, ambitious, competitive MEN would allow the whims of a 16 or 17 year old teenager to determine and dictate THEIR success is just foolish. Nick Saban, Rick Pitino, Sean Miller, Coach K, Roy Williams, Bill Self, Dabo Swinney, Lane Kiffin, or literally any other head coach at the elite level. A ton of mid majors were involved in this last bs FBI investigation. Tiny schools who just happened to snag a player who developed into a stud and they wanted to keep him. They have families, legacies, expectations.
This is big business and should be thought of that way. It has NEVER been left up to just which school these kids actually like or what classes they want to take. It never has and it never will.
It is that simple. I don't understand what the opposing argument could be so if anyone has a solid one please share, I am genuinely interested.
The NFL's rule is that they think their sport is unsafe for kids to play prior to age 21. If a kid wants to get an education prior to that age, go play NCAA football & follow the rules of your school's "enforcer".
If you want to go into the workforce, play in the CFL or go get a real job (while training) until you're eligible for the league.
This is a professional league issue...not a collegiate issue. The simple fact is that college athletes can play in NCAA affiliated programs if they want to get an education while under NCAA rules. If not, they can make the decision to do something else with their lives. Nobody is forcing them to go to college.
College football is a big business for a handful of schools. Even Arizona was not profitable on the following list: https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
Texas had the highest revenue, but they only profited approximately $7MM. Of their 682 student athletes, would you really want to give $10,264/kid, or would you only give preferential treatment to the "money sports"?
There are too many questions and issues involved that would keep collegiate athletics lopsided if personal money became involved. It's a greedy argument for families of athletes that can't make their own choices in life.
I think we got our wires crossed here KC. NOBODY is advocating for the schools to pay the players. You just allow the players to earn money in the free market. They are very different things but allowing the free market to take care of it makes your point about an individual program's revenue and profitability totally irrelevant.
Quote from: PBCatfan on July 18, 2019, 12:56:37 PM
I think we got our wires crossed here KC. NOBODY is advocating for the schools to pay the players. You just allow the players to earn money in the free market. They are very different things but allowing the free market to take care of it makes your point about an individual program's revenue and profitability totally irrelevant.
Yes, Like when Greg Anthony owned his own shirt business prior to ever going to college and they made him get rid of it? Stupid!
Totally agree. Sorry, it's such a loaded question because there are so many different ways for "amateurs" to make money.
The Anthony thing was ridiculous & I don't get how you push kids away from pursuing their own businesses, while attempting to educate them as business-people. So silly.
Quote from: Little George on July 18, 2019, 01:07:53 PM
Quote from: PBCatfan on July 18, 2019, 12:56:37 PM
I think we got our wires crossed here KC. NOBODY is advocating for the schools to pay the players. You just allow the players to earn money in the free market. They are very different things but allowing the free market to take care of it makes your point about an individual program's revenue and profitability totally irrelevant.
Yes, Like when Greg Anthony owned his own shirt business prior to ever going to college and they made him get rid of it? Stupid!
Yep there are a bunch of examples. Rawle Alkins and Savage Life comes to mind
Quote from: KansasCityCats on July 18, 2019, 01:15:40 PM
Totally agree. Sorry, it's such a loaded question because there are so many different ways for "amateurs" to make money.
The Anthony thing was ridiculous & I don't get how you push kids away from pursuing their own businesses, while attempting to educate them as business-people. So silly.
Boom, exactly. It is mind boggling and obviously wrong.
Quote from: KansasCityCats on July 18, 2019, 09:12:44 AM
Yup. The "return after baseball" rule is a horrible contradiction to the NCAA's standards. I agree that players should be able to run successful entrepreneurial businesses that are not related to college athletics.
PBC is absolutely right that the system has been broken for decades. After football is investigated by the FBI (or whatever ridiculous group decides to take on the project), I assume that "some" of the side-money will disappear. It's still crooked, and likely will be for a while.
I would love to see that players can make money in non athletics related fields.
If I were a college athlete I'd set up a used car business and sell rusty pintos to Nike execs for 90,000.
"Hey, I bought it for my daughter's boyfriend. It's a legitimate purchase"
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27735933/california-defies-ncaa-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-law-fair-pay-play-act
That's great for olympic athletes that want to get endorsements while obtaining a degree that will help them later in life.
For the basketball players that are greedy & don't want to go pro immediately out of high school, this will cause a ton of confusion.
I'm sure Wazzu could afford to give millions of dollars to Klay Thompson for his likeness. Oh wait...the below article states that Washington State hasn't been profitable in years...and their debt will continue to rise (especially if this law passes on a national platform).
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jun/07/shawn-vestal-wsus-growing-athletics-debt-will-top-/
This is spectacular news for Texas, Florida, Ohio State, USC, etc. The football programs can continue to recruit high-level athletes that will make money without getting paid under the table by donors. In the meantime, nobody will attend mid-major schools (or football programs like Arizona, whose biggest sponsorships will be Jim Click).
I'll enjoy watching the fight between the NCAA and the State of California!
No, but stopping them from making money is wrong. Guys can play Pro Baseball and then retain their eligibility, why can't they do other things with their name?
I don't believe this is about paying players but allowing them to earn money while in school on scholarship. Other students on scholarships are not prevented from pursuing money making ideas. To prevent an athlete from doing the same is wrong and part of why the NCAA is so out of step with the world. The NCAA wants to continue to hang their hat on they get a free education. Quite frankly a great deal of these athlete's, especially the better ones, are in college because that is what they have to do to get to the Pros. In basketball this would all basically go away if the NBA players association would agree with the Owners and do away with the one and done rule. Then the top players would skip the scam of going to a school for one year with no intention of getting a degree and go play either in some sort of development leaque or in the NBA. You are already seeing more players skipping the hassle and the rules of going to college which is fine. I would welcome the end of one and done. After all you are only probably talking about a handful of players each year that would be good enough to go straight to the NBA. Football is a completely different story but have never been sure why the baseball model would not work for other sports. The NCAA wants to maintain absolute control and benefit from the huge dollars that are made on the backs of these very young athletes. It is not fair and I think the passing of the California law will only beget many more states to jump on the bandwagon and probably force the NCAA to change dramically or go out of business. And it is a very big business.
Starting with the 2022 NBA Draft, the OND rule will be non-existent. Adam Silver finally caved in.
Generally, I hate the NCAA's decision-making. In this situation, I think players should go pro early if they want to make significant money for their name & likeness. If they want a free degree, job hookups, tutoring, books, food, clothing/gear, housing and "spending money", they can become a student athlete. Pretty simple decision.
I hear ya KC I just don't see why it matters if a kid has a Youtube channel or wants to create a brand and get shirts made or star in a car dealership's shitty local tv commercial... why is that a big deal? Other than for the schools and NCAA due to the whole non -profit status and not having to treat kids as employees?
If a shoe company can make money on a college kid wearing their shoes on instagram posts, who does it hurt? If a women's softball player is super hot a la Jennie Finch and can make money doing the same things... who cares? Let her. Let them. Any college kid should be allowed to make as much money as they can as long as it doesn't come DIRECTLY from the school.
I just think it's too hard to regulate if certain athletes can accept certain money, but others can accept cash to attend a school. Too many loopholes opens the floodgates for everybody.
The issue is that basketball programs are rarely profitable...and softball programs are never profitable. Overall, the athletic departments are near a "break even", which would kill them (and likely force small sports to be cut) if schools were forced to share revenues with the most popular athletes.
If an athlete thinks that THEY are the reason a school is profiting...they should immediately go pro & not use the school as their platform for attention. Jennie Finch made a career for herself because she had the U of A. She is smart/beautiful enough that she would have been successful on her own, but she waited until graduating...then used her likeness to further her career.
If she can do it, then high-end basketball players with agents in their ears can figure out how to wait 3-4 years before collecting their millions of dollars.
Consider this.
What is a walk on player allowed?
Why is that player not allowed to make money from his work outside of sports? That limitation is on scholarship athletes, so why?
A kid like Tate is worth far more than the cost of his scholarship. Ayton is the same. So by taking the scholarship they are handicapped?
Just thinking that the cost would be cut a lot if athletes had options to earn either by their names or by their efforts. Hell, the NCAA was making millions from the names of the athletes.
Paying college athletes has been building up over the years it's bound to happen sooner or later. Allowing athletes to earn endorsements on the side is a lot better than allowing boosters to pay them under the table which is already a problem. It's not like all athletes will earn tons of money from local car and business commercials when their status or names could be used to boost small businesses. Many people don't understand that this allows college players to essentially trademark their own names, it's not paying all players, just those who have the status to gain a profit from in advertising etc.
My only qualm with it is that it should be implemented uniformly throughout the nation. Whichever states that choose to incorporate it, the best prospects will flock to. Be sure that many states will pass it by 2023.
Quote from: CatinBama on October 02, 2019, 06:23:41 PM
Paying college athletes has been building up over the years it's bound to happen sooner or later. Allowing athletes to earn endorsements on the side is a lot better than allowing boosters to pay them under the table which is already a problem. It's not like all athletes will earn tons of money from local car and business commercials when their status or names could be used to boost small businesses. Many people don't understand that this allows college players to essentially trademark their own names, it's not paying all players, just those who have the status to gain a profit from in advertising etc.
My only qualm with it is that it should be implemented uniformly throughout the nation. Whichever states that choose to incorporate it, the best prospects will flock to. Be sure that many states will pass it by 2023.
**Meant better than allowing boosters to pay them directly or under the table