NCAA threatens to boot the whole state of California if bill becomes law

[Ozcuse]

This will end up having to do with likeness value for those few athletes, but I can guarantee that beyond the top 5-stars, that the likenesses of many, many more players will be bought to gain their commitment, with zero interest in any type of marketing investment.

The winners and losers of the recruiting race will be those with the largest money cannons. It’ll only be surprising as the combination of high-value brands and alumni/boosters that are willing to open their checkbooks.

Well right now we lose out on recruits because we don’t have the biggest water slide or a barbershop and spa in the players lounge. If we are going to lose players I’d rather they get paid directly than building ridiculous palaces for athletes.

 

[SU2NASA]

I don't care about our alumni or what happens to Syracuse when it comes to this.

Not even a little bit.

If a kid can profit from his name and likeness, something I consider a universal right to identity in today's world, and it comes at the expense of Syracuse sports, SO BE IT.

That's the moral trade to make.

That’s the right mindset that you need to have if you’re in favor of going down this path.

 

[SU2NASA]

The same ruin the game arguments were made with free agency.

I never said it will ruin the game. You can’t deny that it will change the game... drastically.

No matter what, college football under this paradigm will look unrecognizable from what you know it as now. The game will only be ruined if you don’t like that look.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That’s the right mindset that you need to have if you’re in favor of going down this path.

I really think the importance of protecting the right to one's identity in a digital world is sneaking up on people.

Like, I think this is something that needs to be constitutionally recognized and have UN resolutions and stuff.

So much of life happens online now. It's unprecedented in the world's history for a person to have a borderless identity not bound by physical time and place. Having a physical body and being alive has to take some kind of legal precedent when it comes to establishment of a digital identity.

Not be a futurist or alarmist, but the world's starting to get very weird, very quickly, and digital identity is at the heart of it. I do not believe that many people or governments are prepared for the consequences.

 

[Crusty]

I never said it will ruin the game. You can’t deny that it will change the game... drastically.

No matter what, college football under this paradigm will look unrecognizable from what you know it as now. The game will only be ruined if you don’t like that look.

Didn't say you did but others have. As long as scholarship numbers are limited it is hard to imagine the rich getting richer. We are already seeing big change with the transfer portal and new redshirt rules. As a matter of fact with payments coming out of the shadows one can argue that will be positive for the schools that play by the rules.

 

[SU2NASA]

I really think the importance of protecting the right to one's identity in a digital world is sneaking up on people.

Like, I think this is something that needs to be constitutionally recognized and have UN resolutions and stuff.

So much of life happens online now. It's unprecedented in the world's history for a person to have a borderless identity not bound by physical time and place. Having a physical body and being alive has to take some kind of legal precedent when it comes to establishment of a digital identity.

Not be a futurist or alarmist, but the world's starting to get very weird, very quickly, and digital identity is at the heart of it. I do not believe that many people or governments are prepared for the consequences.

The thing is, I’m actually supportive of players being compensated for the use of their likeness. I’m just not sure that many people have an idea of exactly how drastic of a change this will be.

For the top few percent of players, the checks will get bigger and be above board, but it’s going to be for the rest of the team that is going to drive this.

Need help in your secondary for next year? Buy the rights to the likeness for some good defensive backs. I know Michigan fans would love to buy some OL and DL help (and a QB that can hold onto the ball).

As a Syracuse alum, I don’t think we have the monetary resources in our brand, AD revenue, alumni wealth, and boosters to compete in the same league as those top 20-30 schools.

As a Michigan alum, I know we have the biggest money cannon in collegiate athletics.

 

[SU2NASA]

Didn't say you did but others have. As long as scholarship numbers are limited it is hard to imagine the rich getting richer. We are already seeing big change with the transfer portal and new redshirt rules. As a matter of fact with payments coming out of the shadows one can argue that will be positive for the schools that play by the rules.

The bagmen are delivering to a very small number of the top recruits. Where those recruits end up won’t change. It’s the role players that will be bought in this paradigm - buying their likeness will just be the avenue to acquire their commitment.

And the transfer portal and 4-game redshirt rule are only going to make it worse. Imagine a world where an Alabama booster shows up on our campus and offers Cisco $5 million for his likeness, to transfer. You better hope that SU, or someone that roots for SU, has the cash.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Players are already getting paid 6 and 7 figures at some schools. People just choose not to believe it. I’d rather it be legal for everyone and everyone play by the same rules.

 

[Crusty]

The bagmen are delivering to a very small number of the top recruits. Where those recruits end up won’t change. It’s the role players that will be bought in this paradigm - buying their likeness will just be the avenue to acquire their commitment.

And the transfer portal and 4-game redshirt rule are only going to make it worse. Imagine a world where an Alabama booster shows up on our campus and offers Cisco $5 million for his likeness, to transfer. You better hope that SU, or someone that roots for SU, has the cash.

You just touched the out of bounds line with that one. Ridiculous example.

You must think there is more money in Alabama than California.

 

[reedny]

I don’t disagree with the premise of players being able to be compensated for their likeness, but be careful what you wish for. Billionaires spend their money on all sorts of hobbies that they don’t see as stupid - and obviously Ross, Pickens, and others have cut checks in the hundreds of millions to athletic departments already - and it’s not because they primarily want to see more academic success, or a national champion field hockey team.

I guarantee you, it will become a financial arms race, and our alumni better get a ton wealthier if we want to be competitive.

Agree. While I have many problems with the way the NCAA does business, especially the lucre siphoned off by big money pseudo- schools, turning college sports into free agency for a relatively small number of athletes with "market value" would destroy amateur athletics. It would eviscerate the system for a few, at the expense of the vast majority of student-athletes who play for an education and the love of the sport. It's the main reason fans (like me) enjoy (legitimate) college rivalries . . . precisely because the players are students. The exceptional ones use college to showcase their talents and get media exposure - so even for them it's not the one-way street that people are making it out to be - even without considering the value of a college education.

The most frequently-cited claims I've heard in support of college free-agency are: 1) schools should share the revenue they "make" off athletes (without any calculation of the education they're receiving); and 2) kids are already cheating anyway.

These are bogus arguments. First of all, most of the "value" is in the team - the name of the college and the fans and alums who follow it - not any one athlete outside of a few Zions every year. Second, Universities are NFP. They exist to educate our youth. They don't "make" money, at least in the sense of a for profit corporation, as proceeds from the revenue sports support title IX and (in SU's case) general educational programs. There's no PROFIT - by definition - since all the money is reinvested. Yes, coaches make money - and they're professionals, not students. So enough with the 'employee' nonsense - that has been tossed (or ignored) by every court that has considered it.

As to cheating, sure, there's cheating. So STOP IT, don't make it worse by inviting even MORE money into the system. Paying for "images" is a euphemism for buying recruits. Instead, states should be strengthening their AAU/agency rules (NY has pretty good ones). And the NCAA should start clamping down on the dirty high-profile programs (we all know who they are) that are acting like semi-professional franchises. This has gone on too long.

So my .02 is - clean up the NCAA and the dirty programs. Set and enforce higher accreditation standards so courses offered to student athletes are legitimate. AND clean out the wheelhouse and start punishing schools that keep athletes eligible with free A's regardless of whether gen-ed students are also advantaged.

 

[Crusty]

The thing is, I’m actually supportive of players being compensated for the use of their likeness. I’m just not sure that many people have an idea of exactly how drastic of a change this will be.

For the top few percent of players, the checks will get bigger and be above board, but it’s going to be for the rest of the team that is going to drive this.

Need help in your secondary for next year? Buy the rights to the likeness for some good defensive backs. I know Michigan fans would love to buy some OL and DL help (and a QB that can hold onto the ball).

As a Syracuse alum, I don’t think we have the monetary resources in our brand, AD revenue, alumni wealth, and boosters to compete in the same league as those top 20-30 schools.

As a Michigan alum, I know we have the biggest money cannon in collegiate athletics.

And they can't beat OSU and many others so that should tell you something. Michigan didn't get much for their money.

 

[Hoo's That]

You just touched the out of bounds line with that one. Ridiculous example.

You must think there is more money in Alabama than California.

There's more money interested in college football in Alabama than there is in California. Silicon Valley gazillionaires who went to Stanford are not as willing to put money into Stanford's football team as some car dealer in Dothan, Alabama, is to put into Bama's or Auburn's.

 

[SU2NASA]

You just touched the out of bounds line with that one. Ridiculous example.

You must think there is more money in Alabama than California.

When it comes to financing a top-flight college football team? um...

College Football’s Most Valuable Teams: Reigning Champion Clemson Tigers Claw Into Top 25

Clemson’s on-field dominance has been paying off—the No. 1 team in the country now generates nearly $80 million per year in revenue, ranking the Tigers among the sport’s most valuable teams for the first time.

www.google.com

 

[SU2NASA]

And they can't beat OSU and many others so that should tell you something. Michigan didn't get much for their money.

Why are you talking about current results when the entire conversation is about future impacts?

Michigan’s under-the-table bagmen are obviously not doing their job. Once this goes above board, game on.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

There's more money interested in college football in Alabama than there is in California. Silicon Valley gazillionaires who went to Stanford are not as willing to put money into Stanford's football team as some car dealer in Dothan, Alabama, is to put into Bama's or Auburn's.

Prolly cuz they're smarter.

 

[Crusty]

Agree. While I have many problems with the way the NCAA does business, especially the lucre siphoned off by big money pseudo- schools, turning college sports into free agency for a relatively small number of athletes with "market value" would destroy amateur athletics. It would eviscerate the system for a few, at the expense of the vast majority of student-athletes who play for an education and the love of the sport. It's the main reason fans (like me) enjoy (legitimate) college rivalries . . . precisely because the players are students. The exceptional ones use their schools to showcase their talents and get media exposure - so even for them it's not the one-way street that people are making it out to be - even without considering the value of a college education.

The most frequently-cited claims I've heard in support of college free-agency are: 1) schools should share the revenue they "make" off athletes (without any calculation of the education they're receiving); and 2) kids are already cheating anyway.

These are bogus arguments. First of all, most of the "value" is in the team - the name of the college and the fans and alums who follow it - not any one athlete outside of a few Zions every year. Second, Universities are NFP. They exist to educate our youth. They don't "make" money, at least in the sense of a for profit corporation, as proceeds from the revenue sports support title IX and (in SU's case) general educational programs. There's no PROFIT - by definition - since all the money is reinvested. Yes, coaches make money - and they're professionals, not students. So enough with the 'employee' nonsense - that has been tossed (or ignored) by every court that has considered it.

As to cheating, sure, there's cheating. So STOP IT. Instead of states trying to turn amateurs into pros, they should be strengthening the AAU/agency rules (NY has pretty good ones). And start clamping down on the dirty high-profile programs (we all know who they are) that are acting like semi-professional franchises.

So my .02 is - clean up the NCAA and the dirty programs. Set and enforce higher accreditation standards so courses offered to student athletes are legitimate. AND expand the wheelhouse and start punishing schools that offer athletes free A's regardless of whether gen-ed students benefit.

Schools don't act like non profits. Faculty and admin have a profit incentive The more the schools make, the higher the salaries.
Schools build up huge be endorsements they never spend - should be taxed.
There is too much candy on the table to be able to police bad actors so forget that.

The scholarships argument makes no sense when it comes to personal likenesses etc. The scholarships are for playing football not for surrendering their identities.

 

[SU2NASA]

The potential biggest winner in the financial arms race if players’ likenesses can be bought...

Liberty University

 

[Crusty]

There's more money interested in college football in Alabama than there is in California. Silicon Valley gazillionaires who went to Stanford are not as willing to put money into Stanford's football team as some car dealer in Dothan, Alabama, is to put into Bama's or Auburn's.

USC has just as many car dealers and they have far more money than any you can find in Alabama.

 

[Crusty]

Well, fasten your seatbelt cause California won't rescind the law.

 

[Cusefan0307]

People aren’t thinking right about this. Kids will be endorsed for businesses and businesses in certain schools markets. If schools have little fans, there will be less endorsing...

 

[reedny]

Schools don't act like non profits. Faculty and admin have a profit incentive The more the schools make, the higher the salaries.
Schools build up huge be endorsements they never spend - should be taxed.
There is too much candy on the table to be able to police bad actors so forget that.

The scholarships argument makes no sense when it comes to personal likenesses etc. The scholarships are for playing football not for surrendering their identities.

Don't agree. Tell me what an 18 year-old athlete's likeness is worth if he (or she) is separate from a college team? Other than a few LaBrons or Zions, the answer is probably zero. The value is in the team - an amateur athletic team not a semi-pro team. You don't destroy a system that benefits 600,000 student athletes every year because you want Zion to get paid while he's in college. Paying a few exceptional pro prospects like him just rewards cheating and offers boosters a way to expand the 'lottery' atmosphere present at a few pseudo-schools. Better to clean up the system than make it dirtier.

 

[SU2NASA]

People aren’t thinking right about this. Kids will be endorsed for businesses and businesses in certain schools markets. If schools have little fans, there will be less endorsing...

You really don’t think that boosters won’t pay to acquire a players image rights with no intention for marketing?

This is going to open the flood gates to any and everyone getting bought. The bags are going to select high-rated recruits these days. Imagine a world in which if you’re Kevin Plank and you know Maryland needs OL help next year, that you go out and buy the image rights to a new offensive line.

The top recruits will still be going to the same places (and maybe a random college or so that has a large net-worth benefactor, like T. Boone Pickens was for Ok State, or maybe Paul Allen for Washington State) - but now it will be everyone else that will be up for grabs.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Don't agree. Tell me what an 18 year-old athlete's likeness is worth if he (or she) is separate from a college team? Other than a few LaBrons or Zions, the answer is probably zero. The value is in the team - an amateur athletic team not a semi-pro team. You don't destroy a system that benefits 600,000 student athletes every year because you want Zion to get paid while he's in college. Paying a few exceptional pro prospects like him just rewards cheating and offers boosters a way to expand the 'lottery' atmosphere present at a few pseudo-schools. Better to clean up the system than make it dirtier.

Sure, Zion would make bank (spoiler alert, he did under the current system) but you better believe this expands the possibilities for less likely athletes.

You don't think moms would take their daughters to go meet a popular female athlete of note at a local business? That female athlete would be able to benefit financially in a way that brings the hammer now.

That's a good thing.

 

[Crusty]

Don't agree. Tell me what an 18 year-old athlete's likeness is worth if he (or she) is separate from a college team? Other than a few LaBrons or Zions, the answer is probably zero. The value is in the team - an amateur athletic team not a semi-pro team. You don't destroy a system that benefits 600,000 student athletes every year because you want Zion to get paid while he's in college. Paying a few exceptional pro prospects like him just rewards cheating and offers boosters a way to expand the 'lottery' atmosphere present at a few pseudo-schools. Better to clean up the system than make it dirtier.

They have been unable to clean up anything. Not going to happen so what you are asking for is not realistic.

Athletes likeliness are very valuable for themselves. Players value is determined by their play not the team they play for. Russell Wilson is a prime be example.

Change is coming whether anyone likes it or not.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You really don’t think that boosters won’t pay to acquire a players image rights with no intention for marketing?

This is going to open the flood gates to any and everyone getting bought. The bags are going to select high-rated recruits these days. Imagine a world in which if you’re Kevin Plank and you know Maryland needs OL help next year, that you go out and buy the image rights to a new offensive line.

The top recruits will still be going to the same places (and maybe a random college or so that has a large net-worth benefactor, like T. Boone Pickens was for Ok State, or maybe Paul Allen for Washington State) - but now it will be everyone else that will be up for grabs.

Getting paid by someone to not use your likeness > not getting paid for someone using your likeness

Everybody getting bags > a select few getting bags