#notncaaproperty

[ROCuse]

There's plenty of kids that already have huge followings and opportunities to make money of their social media platforms before ever even thinking of college so the, "they wouldn't have any name, likeness, etc. to begin with." Doesnt apply to all.

Is this really true? Are there really high school football and basketball players out there right now that have huge opportunities to make money on social media? It feels like their following is mostly friends and fans of the teams that are recruiting them.

 

[miamicuse]

But why is there a limit of 10k on the tennis player. If they are in college and compete in enough tournaments they should get to make as much as they want. Are there restrictions on a musician as to how much they can make a year?

I don't know why. The 10k is above actual cost. If it costs a tennis player 100k to play in the French Open, travelling, private coaches, training personnel, rehab, medical, a private chef and a masseuse it's ok to be paid 110K because the rest is cost. The college or NCAA will not fund any of it.

If a music student gets a music scholarship, then goes to perform at a club at night to get paid, or to perform in a orchestra at Carnegie Hall and gets paid, there is no issue.

Of course the two scenerios above involve having the students doing something totally outside of the school, they are on their own.

In the NCAA situation, they are playing on behalf of the school, wearing a school uniform, they got exposure to national TV because the NCAA facilitated it and funded all that.

Should the students who participated in the games be compensated for their participation? That's one question.

Should the students be able to go off campus, wearing school jerseys, at a car dealership to sign autographs and be paid? That's a different question.

Should the students be able to go off campus, participate in something like TBT and collect price money, not wearing school uniform, nothing to do with the school, but play basketball for money? That's yet another question.

Can an NCAA basketball player do a startup venture in selling home baked cookies or make music videos on YouTube and collect ad revenue as long as it doesn't promote the school or his team? He/She can today.

 

[Cusesky8214]

As a mid 50's something, I'm not and I've never been on any social media platform. Therefore, admittedly, I'm rather ignorant on that front. I do appreciate that you are though and that you follow it as intently as you do...I find myself liking many of your posts.

There's always exceptions or outliers. You list two to support your argument, however, that's a far cry from "plenty of kids." I'm not convinced that that is indeed the case relative to this compartmentalized discussion regarding D1 hoopsters, etc., especially those prior to ever landing foot on campus.

There are other examples out there for sure but like I said it doesn't apply to everyone.

Cade Cunningham IG 206k
OSU MBB IG 41.5k

Jalen Suggs IG 299k
Zags MBB IG 78.2k

Chet Holmgren IG 231k
Mikey Williams 2.9 MILLION
Dior Johnson 559k

Zion Williamson/Lamelo Ball had so many before ever giving college ball a thought.

Again, these are just examples and obviously these are very popular kids but there's others that still have a nice following from their name/likeness and should be able to profit off it. Social media is a very powerful tool for these kids and there's ton of opportunities out there for them but their hands are tied because of college athletics. Its kinda crazy...

 

[NKR1978]

These are college kids, Its hard for them to grasp the free market concept. If I'm Kadary and my teammate is getting a lot more money for commercials than I am, I'm going to be bothered by it.

That sounds like a problem for the coach who is paid millions of dollars a year to solve. But I'm pretty sure Trevor Cooney in 2013 knew he wasn't MCW. Most people are self-aware.

 

[imdevo]

I don’t know of schools that include medical bills as part of their tuition. SU certainly doesn’t and the school my daughter attended doesn’t either. It’s a separate line item for health insurance. Some do let you waive that cost with proof of your own insurance. But not all do that. And certainly not for 2 years after leaving.

Yes, schools do sell game worn jerseys, but that’s not the free stuff they get that people are talking about.

Agreed. I was just countering the argument that "free clothes" is such a good benefit.

Schools still make money off of those "free clothes to student athletes". It's insane how much they exploit every angle possible and the $ only goes to a 'few'.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

True.

The other justification that is often used is all this pay for play affects only a very small percentage of athletes. The Carmelo Anthonys and the Donovan McNabbs will make some bucks the other players and most of the other sports are perfectly happy where they are with the current model.

The beauty of NLI is that it doesn't require any change to the current model.

 

[elimunelson]

That’s not my assumption at all. The same non-athlete students I mentioned may be getting scholarships, work study, etc. That still doesn’t preclude them for generating revenue on their own.

Look, I love college sports. It’s awesome. But it also makes no sense whatsoever. That American universities became the defacto minor leagues of football and basketball is something not replicated anywhere else in the world. That these sports generate billions of dollars in revenue can’t be explained logically as a necessary part of the educational mission of a university.

We’re entering a three week period where hundreds of millions of dollars in profit is going to be generated. If someone thinks that a player getting a non-guaranteed scholarship and meal money is adequate compensation that’s fine. Many argue that. Personally I think preventing Buddy from making a few bucks by getting a share of #35 jersey sales is un-American, but your mileage may vary.

I agree with that. I'm just saying full scholarship athletes are essentially getting a 6 figure gig per year if you factor in the nuts and bolts of the full scholarship, the per diems, the stipend, the clothing allowance, the free kimmel card they had (i used to be very jealous of this).

Of course it's peanuts to the money the schools are bringing in but the money the schools are bringing in are underwriting those sports we don't watch as well as paying to maintain a degree of sucess in these sports (these coaching staffs are compensated at obscene levels).

I'm not against the money just saying it won't be some great solution when it's finally instituted and will create other issues

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

What they should be boycotting is title IX having to pay for all the female athletes to attend their university, be coached by high paid professionals, and compete in sports noone really watches for free.

THat is where the money they 'earn' actually goes. Athletic departments don't turn a profit even if basketball and football programs do.

Good luck championing any cause that goes against modern political correctness agendas though.

The alternate model would have come about by now if there wasn't a PC road block. Kids would be staying 4 years because a player like Tyus Battle with no shot at an NBA career despite being a top college player would make $500,000 as a senior and take a 90+ percent paycut upon graduation. You'd have players faking injuries to get 5th and 6th years of eligibility to not lose the high paying basketball job they got as teenagers. All Americans will end up at places like St Bonaventure because Kentucky and Syracuse players don't dare leave until their 4-5 years are up unless they get a lottery promise from an NBA team.

Revenue sports are their own thing. Pay the student employees most schools have other jobs for students not just sports its like working in the bookstore just pays more to play basketball than run a register. EVERYTHING else is club. The starting center gets the 800k/year that was budgeted for Field Hockey.

 

[SUFan44]

Add all of that up and then compare it to the revenue being generated by these athletes. You think the school or the NCAA is losing money here? They are literally printing $ and your argument is because they pay:

- Tuition bills (Schools DESIGN programs so high level athletes can pass and still be eligible - you think they give a crap about their education? lol)
- Free clothes (Pretty sure most schools sell used jerseys for quite a bit of $ after it has been used by certain players)
- Medical bills (rest of student population's tuition covers this expense)
- "Markets you for your next job" - 3.8% for football. 1.2% for basketball. And that doesn't mean they'll have a lengthy and healthy career. NCAA execs though, raking in all the cash from TV contracts, advertisements, sponsorships, events...etc. etc.

If someone is going to make money off of you, you need to be compensated properly. They are not.

Add up all of those costs and tell me if a women's tennis or men's soccer player on a full ride is winning or losing in this trade off.

 

[Cusesky8214]

 

[TheCusian]

I agree with that. I'm just saying full scholarship athletes are essentially getting a 6 figure gig per year if you factor in the nuts and bolts of the full scholarship, the per diems, the stipend, the clothing allowance, the free kimmel card they had (i used to be very jealous of this).

Of course it's peanuts to the money the schools are bringing in but the money the schools are bringing in are underwriting those sports we don't watch as well as paying to maintain a degree of sucess in these sports (these coaching staffs are compensated at obscene levels).

I'm not against the money just saying it won't be some great solution when it's finally instituted and will create other issues

This is the problem - the gap between how much a school earns vs the value of those things is growing year over year

The other issue is that when this system was devised - the internet was so far off, everything was regional or more newspaper/national magazine based. Things have changed a lot and fame is not as far away for the D1 athlete

 

[FloridaFan]

What they should be boycotting is title IX having to pay for all the female athletes to attend their university, be coached by high paid professionals, and compete in sports noone really watches for free.

THat is where the money they 'earn' actually goes. Athletic departments don't turn a profit even if basketball and football programs do.

Good luck championing any cause that goes against modern political correctness agendas though.

The alternate model would have come about by now if there wasn't a PC road block. Kids would be staying 4 years because a player like Tyus Battle with no shot at an NBA career despite being a top college player would make $500,000 as a senior and take a 90+ percent paycut upon graduation. You'd have players faking injuries to get 5th and 6th years of eligibility to not lose the high paying basketball job they got as teenagers. All Americans will end up at places like St Bonaventure because Kentucky and Syracuse players don't dare leave until their 4-5 years are up unless they get a lottery promise from an NBA team.

Revenue sports are their own thing. Pay the student employees most schools have other jobs for students not just sports its like working in the bookstore just pays more to play basketball than run a register. EVERYTHING else is club. The starting center gets the 800k/year that was budgeted for Field Hockey.

One of the worst posts I’ve read on this board

 

[imdevo]

Add up all of those costs and tell me if a women's tennis or men's soccer player on a full ride is winning or losing in this trade off.

If an athlete is bringing revenue then they should get paid.

Simple as that.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

He's right.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

One of the worst posts I’ve read on this board

Great counter argument.

Football and Men’s basketball subsidize the non revenue sports. It isn’t like all this money is kept under the AD’s bed. On top of that if you start paying salaries to the players you need to do so for every player in every sport. Where is that money coming from?

The restrictions players have from profiting is BS. Those need to be lifted. But paying players isn’t happening as long as football and basketball fall under Title IX. If you want these kids to be employees and not students, no issue. As long as they are students though it can’t happen.

 

[FloridaFan]

Great counter argument.

Football and Men’s basketball subsidize the non revenue sports. It isn’t like all this money is kept under the AD’s bed. On top of that if you start paying salaries to the players you need to do so for every player in every sport. Where is that money coming from?

The restrictions players have from profiting is BS. Those need to be lifted. But paying players isn’t happening as long as football and basketball fall under Title IX. If you want these kids to be employees and not students, no issue. As long as they are students though it can’t happen.

These kids wanted to be able to make money of their names. They don’t want 500k salaries from the school. You guys keep making it like that in your vendetta against Title IX. If some booster wants to pay them 500k for a photograph after he gets there let him who cares. They want the ability to profit off their name, their image and their likeness. Like any other famous student can do

 

[Cusesky8214]

Dinosaurs...that should be the name of this thread. The extinction of dinosaurs.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Dinosaurs...that should be the name of this thread. The extinction of dinosaurs.

I used to post images like this when people would say that Twitter had no place in recruiting.

 

[two3zone]

If they want to get paid, they're going to get taxed on everything - strength & conditioning, meals, gear, food, access to facilities, access to private coaching, all of that is not free and not cheap.

These kids have no idea how good they have it. Yes, they should be able to profit on their name, image and likeness. And yes, that's a long time coming.

But the compensation they have been provided - free education, housing, top-end food, weight room access, medical bills for surgeries, athletic training, free gear, on top of marketing their name/brand on national television numerous times. Those things add up to a lot of

This is the reason labor unions were started in pro sports, the amount of money Syracuse and a lot of schools generates is so large compared to what go towards the athletes. You talk about tax, how much is SU paying in tax? How much money do the citizens of the city bring to the university and they don’t pay a cent in tax and the city is in shambles. Garbage

 

[HRE Otto IV]

These kids wanted to be able to make money of their names. They don’t want 500k salaries from the school. You guys keep making it like that in your vendetta against Title IX. If some booster wants to pay them 500k for a photograph after he gets there let him who cares. They want the ability to profit off their name, their image and their likeness. Like any other famous student can do

I am fine with that. But do you really think they will be satisfied with that alone when they see these TV contracts?

I think they should be able to make $ outside the system. But very few kids will make significant money. So eventuthey will want to be paid within the system.

There are two separate issues here. The first impacts maybe 10% of student athletes and should be fixed. The second is the schools making money off of the kids. That gap still exists after allowing kids to profit outside the system. Then what?

The players want a piece of the TV pie and that can only happen if they are paid within the system.

BTW some professional teams as part of their contract require players to hand over image rights so they cannot make money outside their salary. It is part of their contract as an NCAA players is part of their contract. I think the players should fight this but in they end they aren’t owned but relinquishing these rights by accepting the scholarship. Change should happen but don’t act like they didn’t make that choice.

 

[Scooch]

All of your examples are flawed. The reason is that when the kids plays in armory square he isnt also promoting SU. Simply put the school in the case of an athlete has as much if not more to do with the athletes likeness becoming marketable than not. If said athlete didnt have the platform provided them by the school and the exposure and everything else that comes with it their marketable value would be nothing. Lets say that Kadary was killing it on a pick up court back home. Would somebody be willing to pay him for his likeness? A musician or any individual who can be paid to do what they do on their own without a plateform is obviously entitled to be paid for it. My point is without the school, the ncaa, the exposure the athletes wouldnt have a marketable advertising value. Sure they might get hired by a summer camp to teach basketball but they would not be paid to endorse a product and i doubt anyone would buy a t shirt with their picture on it. Last point. The athlete has options. They can play in the G league or they can pursue another profession.

Counterpoint: so what?

I mean, what harm is there to SU if Kadary makes a few bucks selling promotional tweets or getting a tiny cut of jersey sales? Is the athletic department going to be bankrupted because a local car dealer wants to out Buddy in an ad?

 

[AlaskaSU]

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

You heard it here first. The tourny is a billion dollar jackpot and the actors are organizing. Top teams have one and dones with nothing to lose. 18 yr old college students are not known for rationality.

 

[Cusesky8214]

 

[djcon57]

Counterpoint: so what?

I mean, what harm is there to SU if Kadary makes a few bucks selling promotional tweets or getting a tiny cut of jersey sales? Is the athletic department going to be bankrupted because a local car dealer wants to out Buddy in an ad?

they will say “It’s not fair because Scrooge McDuck could pay some guy 2 million dollars to go to colgate”...and reasonable people will shrug

 

[Scooch]

What they should be boycotting is title IX having to pay for all the female athletes to attend their university, be coached by high paid professionals, and compete in sports noone really watches for free.

THat is where the money they 'earn' actually goes. Athletic departments don't turn a profit even if basketball and football programs do.

Good luck championing any cause that goes against modern political correctness agendas though.

The alternate model would have come about by now if there wasn't a PC road block. Kids would be staying 4 years because a player like Tyus Battle with no shot at an NBA career despite being a top college player would make $500,000 as a senior and take a 90+ percent paycut upon graduation. You'd have players faking injuries to get 5th and 6th years of eligibility to not lose the high paying basketball job they got as teenagers. All Americans will end up at places like St Bonaventure because Kentucky and Syracuse players don't dare leave until their 4-5 years are up unless they get a lottery promise from an NBA team.

Revenue sports are their own thing. Pay the student employees most schools have other jobs for students not just sports its like working in the bookstore just pays more to play basketball than run a register. EVERYTHING else is club. The starting center gets the 800k/year that was budgeted for Field Hockey.

My goodness, what an atrocious take.

In fairness, I stopped reading after the first paragraph, so maybe it got marginally less abysmal after that.