Does JB actually believe this | Syracusefan.com

Does JB actually believe this

Alsacs

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
63,219
Like
90,068

I mean any player who didn’t like that obviously wouldn’t have a market to get paid.

Craig Forth would be upset if a company wanted to use Carmelo Anthony in a commercial?

Chino Obokoh would be upset that Michael Gbinije would get money for a commercial.

JB’s entitled to his position but the current laws are way to restrictive on the kids that make the game survive.
The game would survive without coaches the players are the game.
 
Nothing wrong with that belief in my opinion

And yes, Craig Forth probably wouldn't be thrilled Melo got paid and he didn't. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't understand it.

My concern is if kids can't hire agents, then negotiating deals is going to be difficult and that's going to be the next big argument.
 

I mean any player who didn’t like that obviously wouldn’t have a market to get paid.

Craig Forth would be upset if a company wanted to use Carmelo Anthony in a commercial?

Chino Obokoh would be upset that Michael Gbinije would get money for a commercial.

JB’s entitled to his position but the current laws are way to restrictive on the kids that make the game survive.
The game would survive without coaches the players are the game.

He further explains his position in the ACCN interview.
 
This is somewhat tangential to the topic, but I like to think of the YouTube example. Under current rules it is practically impossible for a NCAA ‘student-athlete’ to make money from something like a YouTube channel. Even if the channel has nothing to do with sports, the simple knowledge that it’s owned/operated by a college athlete would likely make profiting off of it a serious violation.

Why? How is that fair?

NCAA amateurism rules are so restrictive that ‘student-athletes’ often can’t pursue jobs that regular students can. Nobody has ever been able to convince me that’s an okay thing to do.
 
This is somewhat tangential to the topic, but I like to think of the YouTube example. Under current rules it is practically impossible for a NCAA ‘student-athlete’ to make money from something like a YouTube channel. Even if the channel has nothing to do with sports, the simple knowledge that it’s owned/operated by a college athlete would likely make profiting off of it a serious violation.

Why? How is that fair?

NCAA amateurism rules are so restrictive that ‘student-athletes’ often can’t pursue jobs that regular students can. Nobody has ever been able to convince me that’s an okay thing to do.

the problem, imo, is and has always been is that once you allow for the likeness, you essentially permit nike and all boosters to buy players for schools. Do you think syracuse can pay players the same as kentucky or duke or alabama? What we will see, imo, is the sec and large public schools dominate recruiting. Outside of duke (nike will support) and maybe a few others, private schools wont be able to compete.

i believe in the concept of players benefitting off likeness, i just predict it will have horrible consequences for my team. Id like to hear counter arguments to why that wouldnt be the case.
 

I mean any player who didn’t like that obviously wouldn’t have a market to get paid.

Craig Forth would be upset if a company wanted to use Carmelo Anthony in a commercial?

Chino Obokoh would be upset that Michael Gbinije would get money for a commercial.

JB’s entitled to his position but the current laws are way to restrictive on the kids that make the game survive.
The game would survive without coaches the players are the game.
one Of my concerns is that the haves and have-nots in a locker room could EASILY breed jealously or resentment. We are human after all.
 
one Of my concerns is that the haves and have-nots in a locker room could EASILY breed jealously or resentment. We are human after all.
First every player would get something for a college video game. If they sold their likeness there.
If players are jealous of their teammates making money off their likeness too bad. It’s not a reason to prevent players from being able to.
 
one Of my concerns is that the haves and have-nots in a locker room could EASILY breed jealously or resentment. We are human after all.
Yes. Except in the cases JGeorge stated above (big state schools) where everyone on the team is getting paid. I can even imagine walkons at Duke, Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, etc getting small deals.
I don't think SU will be able to compete in that environment.
 
the problem, imo, is and has always been is that once you allow for the likeness, you essentially permit nike and all boosters to buy players for schools. Do you think syracuse can pay players the same as kentucky or duke or alabama? What we will see, imo, is the sec and large public schools dominate recruiting. Outside of duke (nike will support) and maybe a few others, private schools wont be able to compete.

i believe in the concept of players benefitting off likeness, i just predict it will have horrible consequences for my team. Id like to hear counter arguments to why that wouldnt be the case.
Of course. And not just Nike.
 
First every player would get something for a college video game. If they sold their likeness there.
If players are jealous of their teammates making money off their likeness too bad. It’s not a reason to prevent players from being able to.
I don't disagree with the idea, I just don't think it could be implemented without running into this issue at some level. I'm all for an individuals being able to profit off their likeness/endorsements. I just can't see it working without some more serious thought.
 
First every player would get something for a college video game. If they sold their likeness there.
If players are jealous of their teammates making money off their likeness too bad. It’s not a reason to prevent players from being able to.

this is so ridiculous in so many ways.
What college video game will have anything other than the top tier players in it?
Why would every player get something?
Will college players agree with your “don’t like it to bad” philosophy?

The problem is not players being able to make money off their likeness’, it’s the advantage it will give to big schools and the blue bloods in recruiting (spoiler - SU ain’t one of them).

These laws will affect every college athlete while only benefiting the top 0.5%. And while I agree that people should be paid, I wish that lawmakers would spend the same energy and speed on raising the minimum wage.
 
the problem, imo, is and has always been is that once you allow for the likeness, you essentially permit nike and all boosters to buy players for schools. Do you think syracuse can pay players the same as kentucky or duke or alabama? What we will see, imo, is the sec and large public schools dominate recruiting. Outside of duke (nike will support) and maybe a few others, private schools wont be able to compete.

i believe in the concept of players benefitting off likeness, i just predict it will have horrible consequences for my team. Id like to hear counter arguments to why that wouldnt be the case.



...what exactly do you think is happening now?
 
this is so ridiculous in so many ways.
What college video game will have anything other than the top tier players in it?
Why would every player get something?
Will college players agree with your “don’t like it to bad” philosophy?

The problem is not players being able to make money off their likeness’, it’s the advantage it will give to big schools and the blue bloods in recruiting (spoiler - SU ain’t one of them).

These laws will affect every college athlete while only benefiting the top 0.5%. And while I agree that people should be paid, I wish that lawmakers would spend the same energy and speed on raising the minimum wage.
1570627935400.jpeg


If you didn’t play EA college football then you are the minority.
They would put the players numbers and years in the game.
If they sold their likeness every player would get a small amount of money.
That video game couldn’t continue because of the O’Bannon lawsuit and the players not get compensated for their likeness.
That game was profitable. This new NCAA rule will allow the game to comeback.
 
QB's would make 25K a year.

Big ugly OL's would get nothing.

In the NFL, the QB buys his linemen a nice watch or at least takes them out to dinner.

A college QB who doesn't want to share his windfall with his sled dogs may find himself getting sacked a few more times per game ;)
 
JB can take a walk through Manley and ask some of the coaches who make 10% of what he does how their teams function with some players being compensated with full tuition, room and board, and others being compensated with a pat on the back.
 
I have no doubt it happens now. And that’s with it being illegal. Make this stuff legal and it’s katie bar the door...

So what you're saying is once its legal Duke and Kentucky basketball will get top recruits and SEC Football will too? Crap!
 
What’s so hard to believe? These are kids, non-adults, from a variety of backgrounds. Not everyone’s born humble, and the recruiting process likely breeds a sense of entitlement.
 

I mean any player who didn’t like that obviously wouldn’t have a market to get paid.

Craig Forth would be upset if a company wanted to use Carmelo Anthony in a commercial?

Chino Obokoh would be upset that Michael Gbinije would get money for a commercial.

JB’s entitled to his position but the current laws are way to restrictive on the kids that make the game survive.
The game would survive without coaches the players are the game.
Because for most players it's really not the market, it's the coach directing the boosters about who to pay via their likeness.
 
the problem, imo, is and has always been is that once you allow for the likeness, you essentially permit nike and all boosters to buy players for schools. Do you think syracuse can pay players the same as kentucky or duke or alabama? What we will see, imo, is the sec and large public schools dominate recruiting. Outside of duke (nike will support) and maybe a few others, private schools wont be able to compete.

i believe in the concept of players benefitting off likeness, i just predict it will have horrible consequences for my team. Id like to hear counter arguments to why that wouldnt be the case.
Here are some counter arguments.

Roster limits would still be a factor. Kentucky can't literally get everybody. Part of the calculus a player makes will be weighing opportunity on a roster. Is it better for them to be the 10th man at Duke, or the top guy at Iowa State? That isn't much different from how players have to think of it now. In fact, bring in financials, and we might even see talent smooth out some.

Another factor will be geographic opportunity. It's very possible it becomes very valuable for athletes to dominate the market where their school is located. This likely means some previously overlooked destinations become very hot and desirable.

It's also possible that more money flows in. We have bag men because that's how a "donor" can drive the most direct impact to their program. Legitimate donors have to spend an awful lot of money to provide a ridiculous indirect benefit (locker room bling, for example). More people may step forward if they feel they can 1, directly benefit their favorite team more by coming to an arrangement with a player and oh by the way 2, actually derive some benefit from that relationship by having that player associated with their business.

We might also see some players clean up their act a little. It's one thing if you have the risk of losing a scholarship. It's another altogether if a public mishap during a night out on the town costs you 6 figures in endorsements.

Keep in mind too, most of the conversation so far has been about money going to a player as they choose a school. Let's not overlook though the value a player could realize while developing as an athlete. This is one of the biggest reasons why I think this needs to be done. We love in a world where under the right circumstances anybody can have their 15 minutes of Fame, and our current way of doing things prohibits student-athletes from benefitting from that. Think of the baseball player that makes news in town for throwing a perfect game, or women's softball players that demonstrate exceptional sportsmanship, or for Olympic sport athletes, imagine the benefit that an athlete at the top of their sport at a school could find when the US swim/wrestling/volleyball/gymnastics teams are popular during the Olympics. I think women's soccer players for example could be some of the biggest beneficiaries. One of the most compelling reasons to me to make a change is to benefit those athletes, and you can't predict all of that value or possibility until they're competing at that level.

Lastly, and I know you acknowledge this... big picture, this is a more important issue than how it affects any one University's fans and programs. I believe that rights to name and likeness are a necessity and inherent human rights in today's world.
 
QB's would make 25K a year.

Big ugly OL's would get nothing.

In the NFL, the QB buys his linemen a nice watch or at least takes them out to dinner.

A college QB who doesn't want to share his windfall with his sled dogs may find himself getting sacked a few more times per game ;)
If this goes the way the NFL does, offensive linemen would get paid pretty well.

Running backs would be screwed.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,505
Messages
4,707,275
Members
5,908
Latest member
Cuseman17

Online statistics

Members online
311
Guests online
2,208
Total visitors
2,519


Top Bottom