Jump to content

Interesting angle: cali to pay college players

markstanco

By markstanco
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Yes, he is, if you understand his poorly made point. I get that Rovell is a real hobbyhorse to some people for typical 2019 America reasons, so keep fucking that chicken if you want to.

Well, yeah, you're putting up such an incredibly substantive and clear defense of him.  Congrats.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alien Octopus

Alien Octopus 628

Posted
Posted

I say pay them as much as you want, so as long as the event is neutral to your school budget. Any money paid out should be no more than the money generated. No more bonds, or finance or nada. That should include everything from Admin to Tweet art. Salary Cap. Violations should be met by relegation to lower Division for five years, and or taxation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
utee94

utee94 16065

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Machinator said:

 

A lot of states will begin moving this way.  Many of them won't need to because the pressure is already on.

 

But man I'm tired of stupid misleading headlines that "lawmakers are proposing to pay college athletes" which is something entirely different than allowing them to profit from endorsements using their own likeness.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMFP

JMFP 1126

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

I say pay them as much as you want, so as long as the event is neutral to your school budget. Any money paid out should be no more than the money generated. No more bonds, or finance or nada. That should include everything from Admin to Tweet art. Salary Cap. Violations should be met by relegation to lower Division for five years, and or taxation.

Yeah I don't think this is about schools paying athletes. It's more about athletes being able to earn money for themselves by doing advertisements and stuff. At least that's what I get from it...

 

So Adidas and Nike would be able to pay recruits to go to their schools like they do in basketball but out in the open...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRSchenker

HRSchenker 2331

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JMFP said:

Yeah I don't think this is about schools paying athletes. It's more about athletes being able to earn money for themselves by doing advertisements and stuff. At least that's what I get from it...

 

So Adidas and Nike would be able to pay recruits to go to their schools like they do in basketball but out in the open...

I think a lot of people are missing this point. It's not about the schools paying the players but boosters and sponsors paying them to come to their school. UT doesn't need to pay anyone a dime. I think this is more reasonable than the universities giving players a salary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, utee94 said:

But man I'm tired of stupid misleading headlines that "lawmakers are proposing to pay college athletes" which is something entirely different than allowing them to profit from endorsements using their own likeness.  

No one would be dumb enough to make that mistake would they?  I mean, all you have to do is read the first paragraph in any of these articles and you'll realize that's not what's being proposed.

2 hours ago, Alien Octopus said:

I say pay them as much as you want, so as long as the event is neutral to your school budget. Any money paid out should be no more than the money generated. No more bonds, or finance or nada. That should include everything from Admin to Tweet art. Salary Cap. Violations should be met by relegation to lower Division for five years, and or taxation.

Whoops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 202

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

No one would be dumb enough to make that mistake would they?  I mean, all you have to do is read the first paragraph in any of these articles and you'll realize that's not what's being proposed.

Whoops.

 

3 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

I think a lot of people are missing this point. It's not about the schools paying the players but boosters and sponsors paying them to come to their school. UT doesn't need to pay anyone a dime. I think this is more reasonable than the universities giving players a salary.

 

How does removing one degree of separation between booster and athlete make a difference?  From a "pay to play" standpoint concerning competition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

 

 

How does removing one degree of separation between booster and athlete make a difference?  From a "pay to play" standpoint concerning competition?

It doesn't cost the universities a dime?  Have you not read all of the articles bleating about how much money college athletic departments lose and how expensive tuition is?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRSchenker

HRSchenker 2331

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

 

 

How does removing one degree of separation between booster and athlete make a difference?  From a "pay to play" standpoint concerning competition?

You don't recognize the difference between a university paying a student a salary to play sports vs a company paying a student to wear their gear, promote their brand, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ousux

ousux 5635

Posted
Posted
Possibly no use of School Logo, name or image and it’s kosher?

I would assume this would be SOP nationwide 

Hmm, interesting...how many of us here would know college football stars if they were out of uniform and couldnt even tell us which school they play for on tv or print ads? I'm guessing only a small handful of the most recognizable players, and for the general non football watching (or worse, NFL only) public...zero.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 202

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

You don't recognize the difference between a university paying a student a salary to play sports vs a company paying a student to wear their gear, promote their brand, etc?

Of course there are differences.  But they don't have much to do with competitive advantage.  If you'll concede the car dealerships in Waco cannot match the ones in Austin paying an athlete for 'his image' then what is college football going to do?  Cap the amount that can be spent?  Draft the high school talent??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, ousux said:

Hmm, interesting...how many of us here would know college football stars if they were out of uniform and couldnt even tell us which school they play for on tv or print ads? I'm guessing only a small handful of the most recognizable players, and for the general non football watching (or worse, NFL only) public...zero.

 

If it's not a big deal, why is the NCAA fighting it so hard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted

Does anyone really think this will change much? Other than players getting more money? (Which is a good thing)

The schools that have the most money will still be able to have the better teams because of better facilities, fringe benefits, and now likeness payments. The schools that pay under the table will still pay under the table. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Istian

Istian 241

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Everyone is focused on deals and commercials with local businesses. How bout just the ability to have a youtube page or a podcast where you don't have to worry about affecting your eligibility if you make 2 bucks off of it.  

This - someone else above brought up the example of the kicker that had to quit to continue his YouTube channel. It's ridiculous to even think that the NCAA could tell someone who's independently successful from something like a YouTube channel can't profit from that while playing football for a university. Your association with a school like Alabama or Texas MIGHT gain you more views, but if you're not using the school's or the NCAA's logos, etc why can't you continue to profit from it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, JBJ said:

Not many would legitimately earn deals.  But tons would get paid upon signing with the college they were directed to.

Who here is going to be our national arbiter of what is "legitimate?"  You?

Do all these no-talent kids like Lori Laughlin's daughter who receive $40K for each Instagram post qualify as "legitimate?"

Edited by Beau Vine
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyDoughnut

MonkeyDoughnut 10761

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't know how anyone can be against this.  What's more American than allowing someone to capitalize on their abilities?  The universities and TV networks are getting rich off these guys, why shouldn't the player be able to capture some of that value for themselves?  

Because for most of them the value is with the university and not the player. It's only after the player joins the university that they then have value.  I assume this will also lead to allowing high school kids the same ability to sign deals with Nike, UA etc.  While I might see there right to do all this you can't think this is good for college football. I think that is why most are against it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Because for most of them the value is with the university and not the player. It's only after the player joins the university that they then have value. 

Can't you say the exact same thing about the coaches?  I just saw Nick Saban doing a Geico commercial.  Did he get that gig because he's a failed NFL coach?

 

Hell, their fucking Strength Coach is in a commercial: 

 

Edited by Beau Vine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoyalBevo21

RoyalBevo21 912

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Can't you say the exact same thing about the coaches?  I just saw Nick Saban doing a Geico commercial.  Did he get that gig because he's a failed NFL coach?

 

Hell, their fucking Strength Coach is in a commercial: 

 

Why do folks always resort to this argument? A coach is an employee of the university. You're essentially comparing a student vs. Professor. Their association with the university is in no way the same agreement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

Why do folks always resort to this argument? A coach is an employee of the university. You're essentially comparing a student vs. Professor. Their association with the university is in no way the same agreement. 

That makes it even more ridiculous.  Schools should have more control over their employees if they're doing outside work.  I have to fill out a form every semester if I receive outside compensation.  If I generate income based on my job, I have to share that money with the university.  Yet you think the NCAA should have oversight over a student earning outside income?  What other types of students are prohibited from outside earnings other than athletes?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
aggie08

aggie08 21732

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Except that whole "reap their profits upon graduation" is some stupid shit.

No shit.  Who exactly would we be entrusting to hold onto this pool of money and dole out 100% of it, with interest, upon graduation, draft, career ending injury, dropping out, scholarship getting pulled, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

No shit.  Who exactly would we be entrusting to hold onto this pool of money and dole out 100% of it, with interest, upon graduation, draft, career ending injury, dropping out, scholarship getting pulled, etc?

We can create thousands more Assistant AD positions to handle this, all funded by a percentage of these "profits!'  Hire me, Mark Emmert!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 34404

Posted
Posted
On 9/14/2019 at 5:33 PM, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Because for most of them the value is with the university and not the player. It's only after the player joins the university that they then have value.  I assume this will also lead to allowing high school kids the same ability to sign deals with Nike, UA etc.  While I might see there right to do all this you can't think this is good for college football. I think that is why most are against it.

This is a really terrible argument. How much value do you think Aaron Rodgers's likeness would have if the NFL didn't exist?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyDoughnut

MonkeyDoughnut 10761

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is a really terrible argument. How much value do you think Aaron Rodgers's likeness would have if the NFL didn't exist?

Confused, so you're agreeing that his value is tied to the league he plays in? And in fact his value being near zero without the league would indicate the league is most his value? No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 34404

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Confused, so you're agreeing that his value is tied to the league he plays in? And in fact his value being near zero without the league would indicate the league is most his value? No?

So you believe that Aaron Rodgers should not be allowed to profit from his likeness because his value is not entirely self-generated? Should he have to cut a percentage of his commercial appearance earnings to the Green Bay Packers and the NFL?

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Confused, so you're agreeing that his value is tied to the league he plays in? And in fact his value being near zero without the league would indicate the league is most his value? No?

Furthermore, his likeness would be worth zero if Joseph Nicéphore Niépce hadn't invented the camera, Philo Taylor Farnsworth hadn't invented television, and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet.  

 

This is fun because you can do this for literally every person with an income, even you and me.  We're all worthless without the help of someone else.  

Elvis Presley would never have had any value if someone hadn't invented the guitar, Ben Franklin hadn't discovered electricity, and Marconi hadn't created the radio.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyDoughnut

MonkeyDoughnut 10761

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So you believe that Aaron Rodgers should not be allowed to profit from his likeness because his value is not entirely self-generated? Should he have to cut a percentage of his commercial appearance earnings to the Green Bay Packers and the NFL?

Depends what his employee contract says. I know myself, I'm restricted from certain activities my company has deemed a problem even though they would benefit me personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyDoughnut

MonkeyDoughnut 10761

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Furthermore, his likeness would be worth zero if Joseph Nicéphore Niépce hadn't invented the camera, Philo Taylor Farnsworth hadn't invented television, and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet.  

 

This is fun because you can do this for literally every person with an income, even you and me.  We're all worthless without the help of someone else.  

Elvis Presley would never have had any value if someone hadn't invented the guitar, Ben Franklin hadn't discovered electricity, and Marconi hadn't created the radio.

 

Supposing it was legal to get paid for likeness, what's the starting value for the QB at University of Texas vs QB of Alcorn State? Namely in the year 2030.  That's the baseline of what the University adds. Pay that back and I'm fine with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55816

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Supposing it was legal to get paid for likeness, what's the starting value for the QB at University of Texas vs QB of Alcorn State? Namely in the year 2030.  That's the baseline of what the University adds. Pay that back and I'm fine with it.

So you also think Nick Saban should pay back much of his endorsement income to Bama, seeing as how Alcorn State's coach has never appeared in a Geico commercial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyDoughnut

MonkeyDoughnut 10761

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

So you also think Nick Saban should pay back much of his endorsement income to Bama, seeing as how Alcorn State's coach has never appeared in a Geico commercial?

No since Saban added it in his contract that he retains rights to his own likeness and can benefit from them as long as it doesn't interfere with University deals.

But honestly for a coach, who has added more value in his situation? Saban's added value to Bama or Bama's added value to Saban? I think Saban has provided more value in this situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yuk

Yuk 1612

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

No since Saban added it in his contract that he retains rights to his own likeness and can benefit from them as long as it doesn't interfere with University deals.

But honestly for a coach, who has added more value in his situation? Saban's added value to Bama or Bama's added value to Saban? I think Saban has provided more value in this situation.

 

Who has added more value to Texas football, the players or University of Texas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21732

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Yuk said:

Who has added more value to Texas football, the players or University of Texas?

Isn't it kind of a chicken and the egg thing? Obviously, Texas football has some positive value regardless of who is out there.  But their brand and value as a true blue blood program has been built on the backs of decades of top talent and a subsequent history of winning.  If Texas had Baylor's football history--or if UT went through a decade of 3 wins or less seasons, struggling to get 2* recruits--that value would be considerably diminished, even with 'TEXAS' across the chest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...