#notncaaproperty

[elimunelson]

Oh, okay, Athletes shouldn't be allowed to profit off of their likeness because it would hurt people's feelings.

All of those people you mentioned ARE allowed to profit off of their NLI. If they are jealous that some athletes will be able to make some money off of theirs then maybe they should find a way to be marketable enough for someone to pay them.

Weak argument especially when the support staff, mascot, managers, and athletic administration wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the athletes. Please tell me what the fundamental changes will be, too. I would like to know what I'm missing.

And miss me with the "I'm not old enough to understand the depth of the situation" bs. Old people love to bring that one out when they don't have a real argument against someone younger than them.

I didn't say they can't or shouldn't. I am just suggesting you are defending a group of people who will see a massive influx of money and will be taxed accordingly. Don't be surprised at the unintended consequences of such.

we've become such a money first society that the idea that this will be a seamless transition is crazy to me.

I am older and I like how college sports were in the past. This won't make things better for the viewers or the normal students at the colleges. This will help a very small subset of athletes who are already going to be entering professional athletics.

Just my two cents. Again, it's my issue with society more than anything.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

How does "profit from likeness" work? Would there be a cap? OSU boosters just paid $10MM to tell Archie Miller to got kick rocks. What if one of those boosters wants to pay players $100k for an autograph session?

Then that student-athlete makes $100k for the autograph session.

 

[UpstateSM]

The biggest issue is that recruiting will become the wild west with schools/boosters promising big bucks for their likeness if they come to their school. Not sure how that can be regulated.

At least that money will now be "clean" instead of under the table like it is now. Its already the wild west.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

THIS.

Agree with you bro. Some people have NO idea what it takes to be a student athlete. The amount of hours and travel/miles you have to put in to try to scrap to get a scholly is INSANE. But now "free meals" should make up for it? Ridiculous.

Pay the people that bring you the $. As simple as that.

So... I so want to be careful here.

I'm all for name and likeness. I also like the ideas zoo put forward about royalties for things that associate the player with the school.

I don't think colleges and universities should directly pay players. I believe that would destroy American higher education.

 

[Alsacs]

How does "profit from likeness" work? Would there be a cap? OSU boosters just paid $10MM to tell Archie Miller to got kick rocks. What if one of those boosters wants to pay players $100k for an autograph session?

Good for the kids then.
If a rich idiot wants to pay the kids.
Good for the kids.

The school is making money off them.

 

[realorange]

The NCAA will change to allow players to profit from their endeavors but at some point the players will want a percentage of the revenue and there will be a boycott of March Madness. If athletes are paid at what point are they no longer amateurs? Future P5 college basketall will be far different than the current structure.

I don't think there would be a day when they boycotted March Madness. That would be the day they lost their BB scholarships.

 

[sutomcat]

How does "profit from likeness" work? Would there be a cap? OSU boosters just paid $10MM to tell Archie Miller to got kick rocks. What if one of those boosters wants to pay players $100k for an autograph session?

I think this is a big part of the problem. In a perfect world, the NCAA would take the lead here and set standard guidelines to manage this difficult issue.

Instead, they have ignored the problem. It looks like they are hoping it will just go away.

Meanwhile, states are enacting laws allowing this. Each state is doing so independently, and there is little hope for consistency.

I know some have broached the idea of taking the name and likenessL money earned by an athlete and putting it in a trust fund that cannot be accessed until the athlete is done with college athletics.

That might be a good starting point for legislation. That should make it less attractive for boosters to try and buy championship teams.

Maybe there could be exceptions made for athletes in financial hardship. If an athlete has a family and needs to help support them, or a dire financial emergency, money from the trust could be made available while the athlete was still playing college ball.

I would think the vast majority of athletes in revenue producing sports should have enough money (as Bees has pointed out above) for their typical day to day college expenses. Asking them to wait to access the money until they have finished playing seems a reasonable compromise to avoid abuses but still give the athletes the money they deserve for use of name and likeness.

 

[UpstateSM]

So... I so want to be careful here.

I'm all for name and likeness. I also like the ideas zoo put forward about royalties for things that associate the player with the school.

I don't think colleges and universities should directly pay players. I believe that would destroy American higher education.

Yupp. I am all for anything having to do with NIL. It won't change the landscape of college sports or higher education. People are overblowing that like they do every other change in the status quo.

Having the NCAA or schools directly pay players is another story. But college sports as we know it will die before that happens.

 

[imdevo]

So... I so want to be careful here.

I'm all for name and likeness. I also like the ideas zoo put forward about royalties for things that associate the player with the school.

I don't think colleges and universities should directly pay players. I believe that would destroy American higher education.

Agree with you here. Royalties is where it's at for the players.

And btw...colleges and universities with the deepest pockets are already directly paying players now. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

[Alsacs]

I don't think there would be a day when they boycotted March Madness. That would be the day they lost their BB scholarships.

The reason why the NFL always destroys the NFLPA in negotiations is because the current players can’t ever strike because their careers are short. It’s hard to give up your career so the future has it better.

Missouri football a few years ago wanted their president fired.
They threatened to boycott a game at Arrowhead stadium that was really big bucks for the school. The Missouri board of trustees removed the school president right then and there and gave in to the players.

If these athletes use their leverage they can get change. Don’t think a boycott of March Madenss can’t happen.
It’s worth billions for the NCAA and the schools.

I wouldn’t blame them if they did. They should get more.

 

[Arangeman]

Baker from Rutgers kinda set it off but seems like quite a few of these kids in the bubble are starting to join in and send a message.

I would like to see Geo Baker make $ off his name and likeness

 

[imdevo]

I didn't say they can't or shouldn't. I am just suggesting you are defending a group of people who will see a massive influx of money and will be taxed accordingly. Don't be surprised at the unintended consequences of such.

we've become such a money first society that the idea that this will be a seamless transition is crazy to me.

I am older and I like how college sports were in the past. This won't make things better for the viewers or the normal students at the colleges. This will help a very small subset of athletes who are already going to be entering professional athletics.

Just my two cents. Again, it's my issue with society more than anything.

We've become a money first society? Lol. Come on man. We've ALWAYS been money first society.

If a school is producing revenue (and the older guys controlling everything are getting a nice cut) then some of it NEEDS to go to the folks actually bringing in the revenue. These athletes need a cut of the pie. Plain and simple.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think this is a big part of the problem. In a perfect world, the NCAA would take the lead here and set standard guidelines to manage this difficult issue.

Instead, they have ignored the problem. It looks like they are hoping it will just go away.

Meanwhile, states are enacting laws allowing this. Each state is doing so independently, and there is little hope for consistency.

I know some have broached the idea of taking the name and likenessL money earned by an athlete and putting it in a trust fund that cannot be accessed until the athlete is done with college athletics.

That might be a good starting point for legislation. That should make it less attractive for boosters to try and buy championship teams.

Maybe there could be exceptions made for athletes in financial hardship. If an athlete has a family and needs to help support them, or a dire financial emergency, money from the trust could be made available while the athlete was still playing college ball.

I would think the vast majority of athletes in revenue producing sports should have enough money (as Bees has pointed out above) for their typical day to day college expenses. Asking them to wait to access the money until they have finished playing seems a reasonable compromise to avoid abuses but still give the athletes the money they deserve for use of name and likeness.

The only thing is, is there any other situation where money is put into a trust like that when a legal adult provides some kind of good or service (use of NIL is absolutely a good or service)?

I agree that the NCAA punted on this when they should have lead out on it, but the idea of a trust makes zero sense to me. Far overcomplicates the issue, is highly paternalistic, and I don't believe in any way that it would achieve the outcome you describe - making it less attractive for boosters to buy championship teams.

 

[UpstateSM]

I think this is a big part of the problem. In a perfect world, the NCAA would take the lead here and set standard guidelines to manage this difficult issue.

Instead, they have ignored the problem. It looks like they are hoping it will just go away.

Meanwhile, states are enacting laws allowing this. Each state is doing so independently, and there is little hope for consistency.

I know some have broached the idea of taking the name and likenessL money earned by an athlete and putting it in a trust fund that cannot be accessed until the athlete is done with college athletics.

That might be a good starting point for legislation. That should make it less attractive for boosters to try and buy championship teams.

Maybe there could be exceptions made for athletes in financial hardship. If an athlete has a family and needs to help support them, or a dire financial emergency, money from the trust could be made available while the athlete was still playing college ball.

I would think the vast majority of athletes in revenue producing sports should have enough money (as Bees has pointed out above) for their typical day to day college expenses. Asking them to wait to access the money until they have finished playing seems a reasonable compromise to avoid abuses but still give the athletes the money they deserve for use of name and likeness.

The plan is good in theory but if boosters want to try to buy championship teams they're going to do so regardless of what the rules say.

And if the NCAA can't even get ruling on transfer waivers right I don't think I would be comfortable with them making decisions on waivers for kids to see money they deserve then and there. Some kids need the money and they all deserve the money while they're in school, not when they're done with college athletics.

I really don't think letting kids profit immediately off of their NLI is going to change college sports much and if you listen to people who have been deep on the subject for years they feel the same way.

 

[Alsacs]

The top players in football and basketball should get bags of money.

Football and basketball at schools fund a lot of jobs and bring students into schools.

I am not saying to pay them a lot but they deserve more.

I believe the top teams drop bags. Kentucky and Duke basketball, Alabama and Ohio State football.

 

[UpstateSM]

The top players in football and basketball should get bags of money.

Football and basketball at schools fund a lot of jobs and bring students into schools.

I am not saying to pay them a lot but they deserve more.

I believe the top teams drop bags. Kentucky and Duke basketball, Alabama and Ohio State football.

Forget the top teams I've heard stories about mid-majors with losing records dropping bags from people I find credible. The amount of money that goes through college sports that we don't see is unreal.

NIL is a way for that money to be given to a player within the rules. If a booster wants to pay Bama's running back $100k he can do so through a sponsored tweet or a commercial instead of a bag of cash. Or he can still break the rules and give the kid the bag. Doesn't matter to me, both will happen.

 

[Orangezoo]

The top players in football and basketball should get bags of money.

Football and basketball at schools fund a lot of jobs and bring students into schools.

I am not saying to pay them a lot but they deserve more.

I believe the top teams drop bags. Kentucky and Duke basketball, Alabama and Ohio State football.

To manage this from a compliance standpoint would be a nightmare which is why royalty agreements with school /NCAA should be the only direct university linked income allowed for student athletes. If Boosters help connect athletes to opportunities to make money independently they will be doing so in an open market vs using the school. There will be inequities but there are today already. Also Boosters are endless banks. When you open things up the market will set a salary cap of sorts.

The other option is to set amateurism income limits. Over a certain amount of revenue and you lose your amateur status for instance. Purely spitballing here..

 

[Alsacs]

Forget the top teams I've heard stories about mid-majors with losing records dropping bags from people I find credible. The amount of money that goes through college sports that we don't see is unreal.

NIL is a way for that money to be given to a player within the rules. If a booster wants to pay Bama's running back $100k he can do so through a sponsored tweet or a commercial instead of a bag of cash. Or he can still break the rules and give the kid the bag. Doesn't matter to me, both will happen.

People are overestimating how much cash these athletes would get as well.

It would be the top players getting the big bucks.

Billy Fucclio might throw a couple hundred dollars for the top SU athletes to sign autographs and do a commercial.

Reggie Bush type of stars would get national TV contracts.

That Heisman house would become the all-American house and that year’s top players would be in the commericals.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Schools just can't pay the "top" players only.

You have to pay all 13 basketball players equally.

You have to pay all 15 women's basketball players equally.

Pay all 85 football players equally.

Pay all the soccer players and volleyball players and lacrosse players and rowers equally.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Schools just can't pay the "top" players only.

You have to pay all 13 basketball players equally.

You have to pay all 15 women's basketball players equally.

Pay all 85 football players equally.

Pay all the soccer players and volleyball players and lacrosse players and rowers equally.

Yup, this is why schools should not pay players.

That's why not preventing benefit from NIL is appropriate.

I've been saying this for a while now. I'm encouraged that it seems the tide is starting to turn on it.

 

[Alsacs]

To manage this from a compliance standpoint would be a nightmare which is why royalty agreements with school /NCAA should be the only direct university linked income allowed for student athletes. If Boosters help connect athletes to opportunities to make money independently they will be doing so in an open market vs using the school. There will be inequities but there are today already. Also Boosters are endless banks. When you open things up the market will set a salary cap of sorts.

The other option is to set amateurism income limits. Over a certain amount of revenue and you lose your amateur status for instance. Purely spitballing here..

How much money do you think boosters would spend each year?

I don’t think it would be that much.
Think millions of dollars.
They are willing to spend but they want results.

When they start using a lot of money and not getting the results they will cut back. Most Rich people are smart for a reason.

I think the athletes have a short window of on campus let them make whatever they can. If the schools aren’t paying them the NCAA shouldn’t care.

The NCAA system needs to be blown up. It’s an outdated model.

Corporate sponsorships, apparel contracts, TV deals in the billions isn’t amateur athletes.

 

[UpstateSM]

Schools just can't pay the "top" players only.

You have to pay all 13 basketball players equally.

You have to pay all 15 women's basketball players equally.

Pay all 85 football players equally.

Pay all the soccer players and volleyball players and lacrosse players and rowers equally.

Exactly. This is why NIL is the only real answer. Schools paying players directly opens up a big ole can of worms.

Especially Title IX

 

[Alsacs]

Schools just can't pay the "top" players only.

You have to pay all 13 basketball players equally.

You have to pay all 15 women's basketball players equally.

Pay all 85 football players equally.

Pay all the soccer players and volleyball players and lacrosse players and rowers equally.

If they make them employees they can.

With the money brought in by football and basketball the players are de facto employed. They don’t get much free time during the season.

 

[Orangezoo]

How much money do you think boosters would spend each year?

I don’t think it would be that much.
Think millions of dollars.
They are willing to spend but they want results.

When they start using a lot of money and not getting the results they will cut back. Most Rich people are smart for a reason.

I think the athletes have a short window of on campus let them make whatever they can. If the schools aren’t paying them the NCAA shouldn’t care.

The NCAA system needs to be blown up. It’s an outdated model.

Corporate sponsorships, apparel contracts, TV deals in the billions isn’t amateur athletes.

If you don't put at least some guardrails (and I don't disagree that the money is overstated) into athlete compensation then :

I think either you create a true semi pro/baseball style system to allow the top 5-600 athletes who want to ensure they are paid do so and then leave the rest to amateurism if you are going all out. You will find that outside the top 100 maybe 150 that it's not worth it for the kids.

The other option is to open the barn door and let things play out. It will probably be a more enhanced reduction of true parity but it would keep college sports alive at least for hoops and football in some form.

 

[Arangeman]

People are overestimating how much cash these athletes would get as well.

It would be the top players getting the big bucks.

Billy Fucclio might throw a couple hundred dollars for the top SU athletes to sign autographs and do a commercial.

Reggie Bush type of stars would get national TV contracts.

That Heisman house would become the all-American house and that year’s top players would be in the commericals.

I think you are underestimating how much cash they would get.

You wouldn’t even be on campus yet and your “endorsements” would be lined up. Kids will go where the biggest base endorsement contracts are and grow their brand from there. As a recruit I’d want a school that offered high amount of guaranteed sponsor money and the infrastructure/connections in place to build my brand.