Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Brooky03, post: 1912265"]
I don't understand why the NCAA can't just license the players (have 'em all sign up for it if they want to be included, or opt out) and then divide up the money and give it to them.  Before the O'Bannon lawsuit, EA paid for the NCAA license and this was distributed to teams in a tiered structure.  Why not do the same thing but earmark some of the money for the players?  Hell, I'd be happy with an NCAA game that only includes the teams with truly generic players who can be modified.  That wouldn't violate the decision in the O'Bannon case, as far as I'm aware.

Paying players based on licensing is the most obvious path the NCAA should take.  Have players sign up to be included in NCAA licensing or not (just like pro players associations); then, decide on a portion of sales that should be distributed to players for any licensed merchandise with player likenesses.  Distribute the money evenly to all players.  This is how the player associations in the professional leagues do it.  Why can't the NCAA do it?

A possible argument is that this opens the door to issues of players seeking profit on their likeness outside of licensed merchandised, but why not cross that bridge when you get to it?  Programs will still get proportional cuts for the licensed merchandise, but players get an even distribution across all teams.  It keeps the programs happy, should keep the players happy, and keeps the NCAA in operation with a little bit of the 'Evil Empire' stigma stripped away.  How is this not a win for everybody, including fans/consumers?
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?