NCAA to Allow Players to be Compensated for their Names, Likenesses, and Images

[DeadArmadillo 907]

Is there a good fucking reason to expect a bunch of state owned entities to be in the entertainment business? At some point, wouldn't it make sense to let schools be schools, and the sports entertainment business be the sports entertainment business. 

Yes. You’re 100% correct and deep down inside, we all know it.

But we also love college football and most of us pay to enjoy it. And the leadership at virtually every school in the country knows what well publicized college sports does for their school, so they’re not going to eliminate them

[DeadArmadillo 907]

Will this mean I can pay the UT volleyball team an appearance fee to come to my pool party?

I’m already looking into hiring the Texas Tech women’s tennis team to come over to my house for some kind of exhibition / tennis clinic. I don’t have any tennis courts, but details and all

[Beau Vine 54,459]

7 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

I’m talking about the majority of schools that can’t afford to pay every player, or that don’t have the fan base to support putting every player’s likeness on a jersey. I could even see Texas losing players because everyone wants Sam‘s jersey, and all most of our players get is $1,500. The latter scenario could be used against Texas in recruiting. Schools could even set up a system where bag men promise to buy every recruit’s jerseys in bulk to assure they get the full $3,000.  Schools will find ways to game this system, and the schools that don’t or that don’t have the big budgets will be at a disadvantage.

There's your problem immediately.  The schools aren't paying any players in this deal.  

[Nivek 16,988]

17 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

So? I'm supposed to be horrified because now they'll be allowed to be paid by two different non-competing entities? Again, a total fucking nightmare.

I mean Aaron Rodgers is paid a lot by the Packers. He shouldn't be allowed to take money from State Farm, right? He's already getting paid.

Try to stay on topic.  Aaron Rogers is no longer within the NCAA and thus he is bound by the rules of the NFL and his contract he entered into.    This quote also has nothing to do with the players being compensated.  The players are already compensated in both direct (stipend) and indirect methods (most everything else).   People on here try to act like the players are out pan-handling and sleeping under I-35.    They do have a value and they are compensated was the point.  The idea that the players are all the value is also not entirely accurate.  The brand affiliation with the University is what makes the player have value.   VY playing for UT-Chattanooga or Stetson University doesn't generate shit.  Even Case McCoy at Texas or USC would have more market value than VY at Stetson, even if they were putting in the same effort and work.   

The positive benefit is likely the reduction in under the table booster influence, however this may be at the expense of other issues.  A company like Nike which is a supporter of Oregon can now feature Oregon players in ads, pay them above their value as a way of enticing recruits.   Gatorade will feature Florida or whomever the leader of Coke is tied too.   Marlboro, the best way to enjoy North Carolina Tar Heels sports.    Group of 5 will suffer unless they get into the action early.  Idaho Vandal's potatoes, 'cause corn makes you fat like Nebraska.  

[aggie08 21,547]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

The brand affiliation with the University is what makes the player have value.   VY playing for UT-Chattanooga or Stetson University doesn't generate shit.  Even Case McCoy at Texas or USC would have more market value than VY at Stetson, even if they were putting in the same effort and work.

This is lazy analysis. The quality of players is what, in no small part, has given a University like Texas its brand recognition in athletics. Decades of exceptional athletes who have carved out a prestigious history of success and substantial financial gains, which, in turn, has attracted other high level recruits.

It's a chicken or the egg thing, but I'd argue that the schools need the talent more than the talent needs the schools: if enough players like VY started going to Stetson, their program value would increase exponentially; conversely, Texas wouldn't be "Texas" if you had been fielding Stetson-level athletes for the past few decades.

Edited October 30, 2019 by aggie08

[MoJames 8,255]

Is Pom Squad an "athletic squad" because I'd love to pay them.

[SquishMitten 10,442]

28 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

This is lazy analysis. The quality of players is what, in no small part, has given a University like Texas its brand recognition in athletics. Decades of exceptional athletes who have carved out a prestigious history of success and substantial financial gains, which, in turn, has attracted other high level recruits.

It's a chicken or the egg thing, but I'd argue that the schools need the talent more than the talent needs the schools: if enough players like VY started going to Stetson, their program value would increase exponentially; conversely, Texas wouldn't be "Texas" if you had been fielding Stetson-level athletes for the past few decades.

Maybe it WAS a chicken and egg thing, but not anymore. Right now, top tier athletes will benefit more at a school like Texas than at Stetson. Kids aren't going to choose less money at Stetson in some noble attempt to pave the way for kids ten years from now. They're gonna get theirs.

[Beau Vine 54,459]

41 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

This is lazy analysis. The quality of players is what, in no small part, has given a University like Texas its brand recognition in athletics. Decades of exceptional athletes who have carved out a prestigious history of success and substantial financial gains, which, in turn, has attracted other high level recruits.

 

No shit, if "brand recognition" was all that was needed to fill DKRTMS and sell millions of dollars of merchandise, then UT could save hundreds of millions of dollars each year by dropping to D3 and playing Mary Hardin Baylor and Southwestern and Texas Lutheran.  

[Onetinsoldier 35]

This is going to be the death of college football (and basketball).  I actually agree it's not right for kids to not be able to profit from their own name and Image. But it's one thing to pay the student athletes a living wage. It's another to make some kids millionaires and have a defacto bidding war for top talent.  It's going to turn it into NFL lite.  On the plus side, Texas will probably wind up on the right side of the chasm that will exist between top tier programs and everyone else.  Sadly, I already feel myself losing interest.

[Fuck Tim Beck 3,834]

4 hours ago, DeadArmadillo said:

 

I’m already looking into hiring the Texas Tech women’s tennis team to come over to my house for some kind of exhibition / tennis clinic. I don’t have any tennis courts, but details and all

 

Something something fuzzy balls 

['stache 21,887]

1 minute ago, Onetinsoldier said:

This is going to be the death of college football (and basketball).  I actually agree it's not right for kids to not be able to profit from their own name and Image. But it's one thing to pay the student athletes a living wage. It's another to make some kids millionaires and have a defacto bidding war for top talent.  It's going to turn it into NFL lite.  On the plus side, Texas will probably wind up on the right side of the chasm that will exist between top tier programs and everyone else.  Sadly, I already feel myself losing interest.

They said that too in the 80's when TV rights were expanded. They said that about pro sports when free agency was allowed. Any time the free market is introduced the chicken littles come out, every time things work out. Yeah things will change, that has happened over and over again. Barry Switzer made $80,000 salary in 1988. The current game isn't what it was 20 or even 10 years ago. Things change because of money. Welcome to capitalism. 

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

19 hours ago, JBJ said:

Let Sam do a Boot City commercial, and I have no problem whatsoever.  I don't care if it nets some players millions and others get shit.  In a perfect world, this is a very good move.

If you don’t think this would create huge problems on a team of immature kids, you are wrong.

[Nivek 16,988]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

No shit, if "brand recognition" was all that was needed to fill DKRTMS and sell millions of dollars of merchandise, then UT could save hundreds of millions of dollars each year by dropping to D3 and playing Mary Hardin Baylor and Southwestern and Texas Lutheran.  

If Brand recognition does not matter so much, then surely Texas is out of the top 10 in revenue because the driver of the revenue, football, has been mired in mediocrity for a decade and some historic lows (Strong).

Edited October 30, 2019 by Nivek

[Beau Vine 54,459]

16 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

If you don’t think this would create huge problems on a team of immature kids, you are wrong.

So you never had friends in college who had more money than you?  Literally every one of my friends in college had more money than I did, and it was actually pretty cool.  

 

[Beau Vine 54,459]

8 minutes ago, Nivek said:

If Brand recognition does not matter so much, then surely Texas is out of the top 10 in revenue because the driver of the revenue, football, has been mired in mediocrity for a decade and some historic lows (Strong).

Dead serious -- then UT should drop to D3.  WE have many posters claiming that they'd like to see "real students" competing and not "quasi-professionals" and that the name on the front of the jersey is what's really important, and this would accomplish that.  

My daughter goes to a D2 school, and I'll admit, it's fun to see a team full of guys majoring in engineering and computer science kicking everyone's asses.

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

20 hours ago, RollLeft said:

And that's fair, if limited to those who "choose" to cash in.  Otherwise don't penalize the majority who don't have the option to cash in.

I read his tweet as only taxing those who choose to monetize their likeness. I think this is not out of line because the scholarship provided them an opportunity for further monetization, and that’s how they chose to use that scholarship. 

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

17 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

So you never had friends in college who had more money than you?  Literally every one of my friends in college had more money than I did, and it was actually pretty cool.  

 

Were you told for most of your life up until you signed an NLI that you had special gifts that exempted you from normal expectations?

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

I wonder, between the transfer portal and the ability to pay athletes for their likeness, if we're going to see serious free agency in the near future-- i. e., a bidding war over a starter who can double his endorsement money by transferring to a higher profile program that needs a starter at his position. 

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

4 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I wonder, between the transfer portal and the ability to pay athletes for their likeness, if we're going to see serious free agency in the near future-- i. e., a bidding war over a starter who can double his endorsement money by transferring to a higher profile program that needs a starter at his position. 

That was what I was suggesting players would do via the portal. If coaches told players that entering the portal meant they are no longer welcome, that could be used against them in recruiting. And lower paid or unpaid - yet valuable- players at higher profile schools might use it to see if lower profile schools would pay them more. I could see QBs transferring even more frequently than they do now. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by ImissWallyPryor

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

2 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

That was what I was suggesting

I never used to be that "I didn't read the thead but" guy

but now I am

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

1 minute ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I never used to be that "I didn't read the thead but" guy

but now I am

I’m probably the worst offender. 

[Nivek 16,988]

41 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Dead serious -- then UT should drop to D3.  WE have many posters claiming that they'd like to see "real students" competing and not "quasi-professionals" and that the name on the front of the jersey is what's really important, and this would accomplish that.  

My daughter goes to a D2 school, and I'll admit, it's fun to see a team full of guys majoring in engineering and computer science kicking everyone's asses.

We have many people who are idiots with all kinds of stupid opinions.  There are plenty of schools where that already happens and you are free to go follow them with Texas' blessing.    

[TriStone 1,724]

22 hours ago, kegman said:

I actually see this making cheating more difficult.  I am guessing that there will be strict rules on the money and it might even have to be approved by NCAA.  It will make the trans am and fed ex obsolete.  A school like Texas should clean up - large fan base and the ability to hire compliance staff. 

Bless your heart.

[aggie08 21,547]

50 minutes ago, Nivek said:

If Brand recognition does not matter so much, then surely Texas is out of the top 10 in revenue because the driver of the revenue, football, has been mired in mediocrity for a decade and some historic lows (Strong).

Texas is still Texas because of how strongly the brand has been established by Colt McCoy, Vince Young, Ricky Williams, Earl Campbell, etc., etc., etc.. Despite the recent "mediocrity" (which still dwarves the wildest dreams of half of D1 programs), there's still hope that each and every year will be the one where Texas reestablishes itself as a blue blood. You have the money to spend on the hot new coach and shiny facilities, which in turn attract the 5 star recruit, which begets more hope and optimism from fans and donors, which leads to more money. And on it goes. Talent, even ultimately underachieving talent, is critical in selling the brand.

[B00M 6,468]

1 hour ago, Onetinsoldier said:

This is going to be the death of college football (and basketball).  I actually agree it's not right for kids to not be able to profit from their own name and Image. But it's one thing to pay the student athletes a living wage. It's another to make some kids millionaires and have a defacto bidding war for top talent.  It's going to turn it into NFL lite.  On the plus side, Texas will probably wind up on the right side of the chasm that will exist between top tier programs and everyone else.  Sadly, I already feel myself losing interest.

There already ARE defacto bidding wars for many of the top players. The bag men are just good at keeping it secret. Did you lose interest when Auburn bought Cam Newton?

[Huckleberry 33,108]

Yeah, Newton's teammates had no idea he got money. GMAFB

There are already players making more than other players. 

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

So the death of college football is going to come from turning it into NFL lite?  The same NFL that is by far the most popular sport in this country?  If amateurism holds some place in your heart, or you hold college sacred as an alumni and still think of the athletes as students first that's fine.  You are free to think your sport was just ruined, but you represent a miniscule percent of the audience.

[Burt Macklin 19,053]

21 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

Guaranteed this will be a shit show and probably signals the end of college football in 10-15 years. A true minor league will probably replace it, but who the fuck is gonna wanna pay for the likeness of some random dude on a minor league team? It will be as popular and as well paid as minor league baseball.

Lulz. Right, I’m sure CFB is coming to an end in the next 10-15 years. There’s way too much money in CFB that couldn’t be attained any other way by either the schools or a minor league football org for that to happen. All the “issues” people are pointing out will be easily overcome.

21 hours ago, RollLeft said:

And that's fair, if limited to those who "choose" to cash in.  Otherwise don't penalize the majority who don't have the option to cash in.

How in the fuck is it “fair” to tax athletes’ scholarships but not other scholarships? Kids on academic scholarships still make money from other sources, yet their scholarships won’t be taxed. 
 

what’s fair is taxing income, athlete or otherwise, not selectively taxing athletes for their scholarships AND their income just because they have a unique talent that allows them to make more money than the average student.

18 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Why? 

Rule: "income for any athlete earned based on their likeness, name, or athletic reputation is limited to $50,000 per year"

Describe a potential Title IX lawsuit that doesn't get thrown out in 5 minutes based on that rule.

That rule’s not an option because it would be illegal under the CA and ILL statutes and Congress is still moving forward with a similar bill. 

18 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Like I said, thrown out immediately. This is a terrible argument. Any unequal funds are not from the educational institutions. Title IX does not apply to any entity or than educational institutions that receive education funding.

This isn’t true, either. Athletes will demand getting jersey sales splits and other licensing money from the school, and it will only take one school to do it and then everyone other school will have to get on board, and the NCAA can’t create a rule against it.

There will be Title 9 lawsuits stemming from this and they won’t get thrown out as easily as you claim. Regardless, it’s not some insurmountable obstacle, and it won’t bankrupt schools like some people on here have tried to complain. It will take one or two major court cases and then a feasible system compliant with Title 9 will get worked out. 

17 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

So all that has to happen for Title IX to have zero relevance is for universities to stay out of the way.  

Theoretically, but i’d be shocked if that happens. Some school like Ole Miss will split jersey sales and other likeness revenue and then every other school will have to hop on board so as to not get left behind.

17 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

 

I think the argument is something like this: the money expended by fans/donors is not limitless. Let’s say the total pool of money is currently maxed out. If those donors instead give that money directly to a player, they will not make the same contribution to the university. As money is reallocated away from universities, those schools won’t be able to support as many non-revenue sports. Similarly, if schools can reduce the number of scholarships given to men (because those players are making good side money), then they aren’t obligated to give as many to women. So there’s a few potential edges to the sword. All speculative

 

You’re failing to factor in all the under the table money directed to recruits and athletes, which is a substantial market already.  There will still be plenty of money for most FBS colleges to continue to give out 85 scholarships. plus, football teams drive donations to the school in general, so just looking at purely athletic revenue numbers doesn’t factor in all the money that athletics generate for universities. For example, Tech’s donations and application numbers sky rocketed after they made the b-ball title game. 
Most Schools won’t decrease their football scholarship numbers even if certain marketable players gave up their scholarship because of other revenue, which is highly unlikely. Few players will be making massive money and even then, why would they give up their scholarships anyways? 

16 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

Guys on ESPNU on XM we’re talking about they wouldn’t receive the money until they leave school?  Yea that’s not happening. NCAA will put some kind of cap on it thought before they iron out the details, it’s not going to be wide open.  

NCAA can’t cap it. The statutes are still in effect and more will still get signed by other states and potentially Congress, regardless of what the NCAA says it will “try” to do in the future.

12 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

I’m talking about the majority of schools that can’t afford to pay every player, or that don’t have the fan base to support putting every player’s likeness on a jersey. I could even see Texas losing players because everyone wants Sam‘s jersey, and all most of our players get is $1,500. The latter scenario could be used against Texas in recruiting. Schools could even set up a system where bag men promise to buy every recruit’s jerseys in bulk to assure they get the full $3,000.  Schools will find ways to game this system, and the schools that don’t or that don’t have the big budgets will be at a disadvantage.

If a player can’t make $1,500 off their likeness at UT, then they can’t make $1,500 off their likeness at any other school, either, so how would that make them transfer? 
You think schools don’t already have bag men that just pay guys directly? All this will do is create a legal, reported market for paying players, instead of the black market that currently exists. Making it above board benefits the players and schools like UT.

11 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

If everyone wants an 11 jersey, how are the bulk of our players going to make $1,500 off their likeness without gaming the system. If we don’t, some players will put their name in the portal to test the market. I hope you’re right, though. 

Who cares if people game the system? If some booster or third party is willing to pay one of our players because they’re good at football, why is that a problem? Why should it be illegal or not allowed?

1 hour ago, Onetinsoldier said:

This is going to be the death of college football (and basketball).  I actually agree it's not right for kids to not be able to profit from their own name and Image. But it's one thing to pay the student athletes a living wage. It's another to make some kids millionaires and have a defacto bidding war for top talent.  It's going to turn it into NFL lite.  On the plus side, Texas will probably wind up on the right side of the chasm that will exist between top tier programs and everyone else.  Sadly, I already feel myself losing interest.

Do you think there isn’t already a bidding war for top talent?
Why does adults getting paid for playing football bother you and make you lose interest? You’re saying you’re only interested if athletes playing a sport that can have lifelong effects on their health have their ability to make money for doing so suppressed from age 18-22. What’s the point of that exactly?

 

[DixonHur 11,393]

Not sure why the idea of paying people based on their value is such a controversial issue.

[Huckleberry 33,108]

8 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

That rule’s not an option because it would be illegal under the CA and ILL statutes and Congress is still moving forward with a similar bill. 

Right, I was just pointing out how easy it is to avoid Title IX on third party payments even if the NCAA made a rule.

9 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

This isn’t true, either. Athletes will demand getting jersey sales splits and other licensing money from the school, and it will only take one school to do it and then everyone other school will have to get on board, and the NCAA can’t create a rule against it.

There will be Title 9 lawsuits stemming from this and they won’t get thrown out as easily as you claim. Regardless, it’s not some insurmountable obstacle, and it won’t bankrupt schools like some people on here have tried to complain. It will take one or two major court cases and then a feasible system compliant with Title 9 will get worked out. 

There's a reason that jerseys sold never have player names on them, just numbers. They aren't being sold based on the player's likeness. If a court rules that the number is too obviously the player's likeness then the schools will change to only sell numbers that are obviously something else (e.g., Texas would only sell 63, 69, 70, 05, and the current year).

And the NCAA can just have a rule that you can't share merchandise sales with players and that merchandise sales must therefore not be based on a player likeness in any way.

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Not sure why the idea of paying people based on their value is such a controversial issue.

Because 99% of the viewing audience would kill to have that kind of talent, and it pisses them off that those who possess that talent don't appreciate it the same way they do.

[HRSchenker 2,274]

22 hours ago, Foosters said:

Dude seems to have his priorities crooked.

 

 

If their scholarships are treated as income then would the "student athlete" have a case claiming that they're employees of the university? That would entitle them to health insurance, paid time off, 401k, etc just as any other UT employee right?

[Beau Vine 54,459]

39 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Some school like Ole Miss will split jersey sales and other likeness revenue and then every other school will have to hop on board so as to not get left behind.

Well if they do that, then it's their problem, because it's stupid and as they say, you can't fix stupid.  

[Nivek 16,988]

21 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Because 99% of the viewing audience would kill to have that kind of talent, and it pisses them off that those who possess that talent don't appreciate it the same way they do.

I can already drop passes, get burned by WR, and wiff on blocks, and muff punts.  My neck works, so I wouldnt qualify as a DB.  

 

[Helobious 9,466]

2 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

Were you told for most of your life up until you signed an NLI that you had special gifts that exempted you from normal expectations?

I’m a millennial, so yes.

[Onetinsoldier 35]

[JBJ 3,666]

46 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Theoretically, but i’d be shocked if that happens. Some school like Ole Miss will split jersey sales and other likeness revenue and then every other school will have to hop on board so as to not get left behind.

I think this is the first thing that gets forbidden by the NCAA.  It creates too many issues.

[Izhmash 563]

7 hours ago, DeadArmadillo said:

 

I’m already looking into hiring the Texas Tech women’s tennis team to come over to my house for some kind of exhibition / tennis clinic. I don’t have any tennis courts, but details and all

 

Exactly.  For their Lickness.

[BrazilHorn 6,634]

Texas POM fixing to get rich. Calendars will be flying off the shelves.

[Jhawk 1,075]

Here is how this is going to end up when you look at the total picture.  Years 1-3 people are going to be throwing cash around.  Especially when it is poorly regulated.  However there is going to be 2-3 prized recruits in football that are going to get paid $100k up front to commit to a school.  Then they won't make the starting lineup and they will enter the transfer portal.  All of the sudden, when the coach/consultant goes to that booster for another guy next season the booster says "coach, I'll pay what it takes to get guys but if you can't keep them then I can't pay."

Then it will change to a contract structure where kids will get $100k over 4 years.  When a kid enters the transfer portal 4 weeks into his freshman year he will have collected $2k for showing up on campus.  The annual dollars that are going to come to these kids are going to be a lot lower than people think.  And when it becomes more regulated and transparent boosters will see the consequences of "My boss didn't give me a Xmas bonus this year but he gave $200k to Alabama athletes." 

The unbridled bidding wars aren't going to happen, at least not among the big donors with businesses.  There is too much to lose.  However a kid signs a bunch of jerseys and takes a bunch of pictures with hillbilly fans for $100 a pop will happen and that is just fine.  The NCAA opening up free agency prior to this rule is going to greatly curtail the effectiveness of paying players.  I've been engaged before and I spent $15k on a ring.  I'm not engaged anymore and guess how excited I am to spend $15k on another ring?  And oh yeah... the most regulation possible will be that universities are going to be audited for benefits they give boosters moving forward.  If Mattress Mack gives $1M to players and $5k to the university then the NCAA will probably smoke UT if they give him box seats for nothing.

In football, this is going to almost be a nonissue.  Basketball will be more complicated because the star players are going to have much more exposure.  That's when you call in Adidas to do your bidding. 😉

[Beau Vine 54,459]

35 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

Texas POM fixing to get rich. Calendars will be flying off the shelves.

Interesting that you say this, because they're not regulated by the NCAA, so they're free to sell calendars already, and use their names to advertise cheer camps in their hometowns, etc.  

Edited October 30, 2019 by Beau Vine

[Huckleberry 33,108]

15 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Here is how this is going to end up when you look at the total picture.  Years 1-3 people are going to be throwing cash around.  Especially when it is poorly regulated.  However there is going to be 2-3 prized recruits in football that are going to get paid $100k up front to commit to a school.  Then they won't make the starting lineup and they will enter the transfer portal.  All of the sudden, when the coach/consultant goes to that booster for another guy next season the booster says "coach, I'll pay what it takes to get guys but if you can't keep them then I can't pay."

Then it will change to a contract structure where kids will get $100k over 4 years.  When a kid enters the transfer portal 4 weeks into his freshman year he will have collected $2k for showing up on campus.  The annual dollars that are going to come to these kids are going to be a lot lower than people think.  And when it becomes more regulated and transparent boosters will see the consequences of "My boss didn't give me a Xmas bonus this year but he gave $200k to Alabama athletes." 

The unbridled bidding wars aren't going to happen, at least not among the big donors with businesses.  There is too much to lose.  However a kid signs a bunch of jerseys and takes a bunch of pictures with hillbilly fans for $100 a pop will happen and that is just fine.  The NCAA opening up free agency prior to this rule is going to greatly curtail the effectiveness of paying players.  I've been engaged before and I spent $15k on a ring.  I'm not engaged anymore and guess how excited I am to spend $15k on another ring?  And oh yeah... the most regulation possible will be that universities are going to be audited for benefits they give boosters moving forward.  If Mattress Mack gives $1M to players and $5k to the university then the NCAA will probably smoke UT if they give him box seats for nothing.

In football, this is going to almost be a nonissue.  Basketball will be more complicated because the star players are going to have much more exposure.  That's when you call in Adidas to do your bidding. 😉

I've read this post at least three times already. I'm a bit confused because it's a Jhawk post that I agree with.

Also, yes, this will be a much bigger deal in basketball.

[Burt Macklin 19,053]

43 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think this is the first thing that gets forbidden by the NCAA.  It creates too many issues.

Maybe but that will create legal challenges of its own. If the NCAA forbids that, are they not still prohibiting college athletes from profiting off their likeness? I haven’t read the CA statute in detail, but it may prohibit such a rule or could easily be amended to prohibit such restriction. Maybe the politicians will agree that’s a sticky issue that should be avoided and allow such a prohibition from the NCAA. We’ll have to see. 

10 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Here is how this is going to end up when you look at the total picture.  Years 1-3 people are going to be throwing cash around.  Especially when it is poorly regulated.  However there is going to be 2-3 prized recruits in football that are going to get paid $100k up front to commit to a school.  Then they won't make the starting lineup and they will enter the transfer portal.  All of the sudden, when the coach/consultant goes to that booster for another guy next season the booster says "coach, I'll pay what it takes to get guys but if you can't keep them then I can't pay."

Then it will change to a contract structure where kids will get $100k over 4 years.  When a kid enters the transfer portal 4 weeks into his freshman year he will have collected $2k for showing up on campus.  The annual dollars that are going to come to these kids are going to be a lot lower than people think.  And when it becomes more regulated and transparent boosters will see the consequences of "My boss didn't give me a Xmas bonus this year but he gave $200k to Alabama athletes." 

The unbridled bidding wars aren't going to happen, at least not among the big donors with businesses.  There is too much to lose.  However a kid signs a bunch of jerseys and takes a bunch of pictures with hillbilly fans for $100 a pop will happen and that is just fine.  The NCAA opening up free agency prior to this rule is going to greatly curtail the effectiveness of paying players.  I've been engaged before and I spent $15k on a ring.  I'm not engaged anymore and guess how excited I am to spend $15k on another ring?  And oh yeah... the most regulation possible will be that universities are going to be audited for benefits they give boosters moving forward.  If Mattress Mack gives $1M to players and $5k to the university then the NCAA will probably smoke UT if they give him box seats for nothing.

In football, this is going to almost be a nonissue.  Basketball will be more complicated because the star players are going to have much more exposure.  That's when you call in Adidas to do your bidding. 😉

Counterpoint: In real life, as opposed to your hypothetical, many 5 stars already get paid six figures to go to a certain school. A good number of them prove to be busts, yet each year 5 stars keep getting paid. 

Guys will continue to get paid either way, but I do agree with you that the number of boosters willing to throw around insane money for recruits is limited and it’s not gonna be floodgate where insane amounts of money get thrown at a bunch of recruits.

 

[Jhawk 1,075]

1 minute ago, Burt Macklin said:

Maybe but that will create legal challenges of its own. If the NCAA forbids that, are they not still prohibiting college athletes from profiting off their likeness? I haven’t read the CA statute in detail, but it may prohibit such a rule or could easily be amended to prohibit such restriction. Maybe the politicians will agree that’s a sticky issue that should be avoided and allow such a prohibition from the NCAA. We’ll have to see. 

Counterpoint: In real life, as opposed to your hypothetical, many 5 stars already get paid six figures to go to a certain school. A good number of them prove to be busts, yet each year 5 stars keep getting paid. 

Guys will continue to get paid either way, but I do agree with you that the number of boosters willing to throw around insane money for recruits is limited and it’s not gonna be floodgate where insane amounts of money get thrown at a bunch of recruits.

 

I think if the NCAA can figure out how to make these contracts with recruits/players public it will drive down the prize money considerably.  Obviously KU football doesn't pay guys so I wouldn't know but I have to assume the people who are actually paying players under the table aren't paying guys directly in most cases.  Maybe just giving a bagman $100k and he is dispersing the funds as needed??  If that is the case then donor guy might be upset that is being asked to give a bunch of money to a 2nd string lineman to promote his Suzuki dealership.  They might just want to give the money to the guy without the job and that is what the NCAA will have to REALLY hammer players/schools on.

Which isn't a bad trade off.  You guys can get paid but if the NCAA finds even the smallest amount of work around (looking at you rhett bomar) then you lose your eligibility for good and the school loses 2x the amount of scholarships as it has players who are getting paid under the table 2 years.  That is how this thing can work and be regulated which is the best for both players and schools.

[Huckleberry 33,108]

19 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Maybe but that will create legal challenges of its own. If the NCAA forbids that, are they not still prohibiting college athletes from profiting off their likeness? I haven’t read the CA statute in detail, but it may prohibit such a rule or could easily be amended to prohibit such restriction. Maybe the politicians will agree that’s a sticky issue that should be avoided and allow such a prohibition from the NCAA. We’ll have to see. 

https://shop.texassports.com/?_s=bm-team_shop&utm_medium=referral&kw--team_shop=

What items are based on a (current) player's likeness? Jerseys are as close as you get and what's on there is not anyone current (unless you think the 1 jersey is for John Burt). You are talking about likeness revenue, but there is no current player likeness revenue.

[JMFP 1,125]

Interesting that you say this, because they're not regulated by the NCAA, so they're free to sell calendars already, and use their names to advertise cheer camps in their hometowns, etc.  

Them are would ducks.

[tx 3 putt 77,494]

Lot of athletes about to be in serious IRS trouble 

[JBJ 3,666]

1 hour ago, Burt Macklin said:

Maybe but that will create legal challenges of its own. If the NCAA forbids that, are they not still prohibiting college athletes from profiting off their likeness? I haven’t read the CA statute in detail, but it may prohibit such a rule or could easily be amended to prohibit such restriction. Maybe the politicians will agree that’s a sticky issue that should be avoided and allow such a prohibition from the NCAA. We’ll have to see. 

It's definitely not illegal to forbid such a policy.  It's not exactly clear if the CA statute prevents such a policy.

The CA law prevents universities from offerimg any compensation to a prospective student-athlete except scholarship and cost of living.  One interpretation could make stipends and meals illegal.  Another could make it anything goes after the student signs, but the value pf such programs would have to be hidden from recruits.

Edited October 30, 2019 by JBJ

[Treefidy 1,469]

6 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

No shit, if "brand recognition" was all that was needed to fill DKRTMS and sell millions of dollars of merchandise, then UT could save hundreds of millions of dollars each year by dropping to D3 and playing Mary Hardin Baylor and Southwestern and Texas Lutheran.  

The lightbulb just went off in aggy head........trophies

[Sgt Hulk 13,842]

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Interesting that you say this, because they're not regulated by the NCAA, so they're free to sell calendars already, and use their names to advertise cheer camps in their hometowns, etc.  

2,1,3,4