Interesting angle: cali to pay college players

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

It’s a customer base (TX) and we already have evidence that there is Little to no value in playing football outside of the NFL. (XFL, Canadian, Euro etc). 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

Does the training and marketing that UT gives the player to have the ability to make it to the NFL with nothing?

How is it different from UT profiting from a medical school that trains doctors?  
 

Sure Doogie Howser COULD have gone straight to work as a doctor, but he had to PAY (or scholarship) to train for the job. 

[Beau Vine 55817]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

Does the training and marketing that UT gives the player to have the ability to make it to the NFL with nothing?

Have you ever had a job where they didn't provide any sort of training for you?  Employers provide training because it benefits them.

[aggie08 21732]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Does the training and marketing that UT gives the player to have the ability to make it to the NFL with nothing?

How is it different from UT profiting from a medical school that trains doctors?  
 

Sure Doogie Howser COULD have gone straight to work as a doctor, but he had to PAY (or scholarship) to train for the job. 

What does this have to do with anything?  If Doogie wanted to make a little money on the side by creating a YouTube channel about his trials and tribulations while at medical school, he certainly could have.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

Agreed. Off tangent as to the value, but I have ZERO issue with them making money off of their likeness. 
 

who gives a shit if the majority of that value is because of the University and not their High School football pedigree. 
 

pay them and tax them. Good life lesson

[Machinator 32102]

 

[Machinator 32102]

 

[Machinator 32102]

 

[Machinator 32102]

 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

On 9/26/2019 at 9:41 PM, Machinator said:

 

The choice of the word "economy" by Mr. Journalist is telling.

[Beau Vine 55817]

On 9/26/2019 at 11:35 AM, Machinator said:

 

Pedophile State scandal

Baylor rape scandal

UNC academic fraud

But, yeah athletes making commercials is doomsday.

What a fucking moron.

[Machinator 32102]

 

[Bigbend1812 13021]

Fabulous.  

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

On 9/28/2019 at 11:03 AM, Beau Vine said:

Pedophile State scandal

Baylor rape scandal

UNC academic fraud

But, yeah athletes making commercials is doomsday.

What a fucking moron.

 

Let's not take what he said so literal. All of those obviously are way worse than kids being paid. 

That said, paying athletes money CHANGES the entire "amateur athlete" definition that has been in place at the NCAA. 

I have no problem with students getting paid but unless there is a blanket policy that covers EVERY athlete it is a massive slippery slope that will tip the scales even more than they already are in the competitive balance especially in Football and basketball. Also will be interesting to see what occurs with non revenue sports and Title IX moving forward. 

Let's face it the NCAA has nowhere near enough oversight or people to make sure schools and athletic departments are doing things the right way, this just turns it up to 11.

Again I am not saying they don't deserve to be paid but it isn't as easy as just cutting a check. 

[Junior Miller 1502]

34 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

This needed to happen. I dont think universities should pay players directly because that just opens up a massive can of worms and leads to things like 17/18 yr old kids being legally responsible for paying federal and state taxes on wages earned in multiple states. Kids aren't prepared for that and the IRS would be in the position of potentially incarcerating and ruining the lives of a lot of young men for not paying taxes over mutiple states when they were 17. 

That said they should definitely be allowed to profit off their likeness/image. 

[fellside 1135]

17 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

I have no problem with students getting paid but unless there is a blanket policy that covers EVERY athlete it is a massive slippery slope that will tip the scales even more than they already are in the competitive balance especially in Football and basketball.

 

I don't understand this.  College sports are already a place where the elite athletes only go to a handful of schools.  If anything, this new system would give other schools a chance to compete, albeit temporarily.

I thought Russilo did a good job on his podcast laying out how schools would probably go nuts for a few years and then realize it's a waste of money with little return on investment.  Especially with the transfer portal.

[Machinator 32102]

 

[PencilPusher 454]

2 hours ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

Let's not take what he said so literal. All of those obviously are way worse than kids being paid. 

That said, paying athletes money CHANGES the entire "amateur athlete" definition that has been in place at the NCAA. 

I have no problem with students getting paid but unless there is a blanket policy that covers EVERY athlete it is a massive slippery slope that will tip the scales even more than they already are in the competitive balance especially in Football and basketball. Also will be interesting to see what occurs with non revenue sports and Title IX moving forward. 

Let's face it the NCAA has nowhere near enough oversight or people to make sure schools and athletic departments are doing things the right way, this just turns it up to 11.

Again I am not saying they don't deserve to be paid but it isn't as easy as just cutting a check. 

This!

However, the seemingly well intentioned governor of CA did open up a Pandora's box of unintentional issues that haven't been explored. Some have been mentioned above.

• Title IX will be a bigger issue than thought because all of the SJW's will be out in force talking about things like gender pay gap, etc. I think we all know the economics arguements, but don't think this won't become an issue. California will be ground zero for this. Do we end up with a system where the athlete has a significant "franchise fee" withheld due to association with a university's brand that than gets "distributed" to other student athletes.
• Taxes - regardless of who pays the $, the IRS and state governments will absolutely come after their share of $, especially since the $ will no longer be shielded by the non profit status of the universities. Almost think this is one of the underlying reasons for CA passing the bill because they see tax revenues that could be generated from this that they aren't getting today. I don't think kids will get thrown in jail per se as was intimated above, but the IRS/states may extract their share of penalties if the laws/rules aren't followed and those could be substantial if the athletes aren't getting the proper advice/representation
• Amateur status - This could also become a bigger deal because at what point do the universities decide that having semi-pro athletics associated with the school is not part of the university mission. Like Greg Fenves has always said, athletics is the front door to the university which is extremely important in terms of alumni engagement and fundraising but if it begins to get too unwieldy to manage, do institutions change their mind. I think that there will be a number of universities that "bow out" of big time college athletics because the juice won't be worth the squeeze (Rice would be a perfect example of a school that may move that direction)

As is typical with government "interventions", we pass the bill and sort out the details later, but it is clear that the full ramifications of this have not been fully considered (hello law of unintended consequences). The NCAA probably has limited recourse on this, but if they wanted to slow the train down, they should immediately announce that if the law goes into effect, that schools from the state of California will be ineligible to complete in any NCAA competition (no March Madness, no road to Omaha, etc.). Football is a slightly different beast since the NCAA doesn't control it per se, but could influence the CFP to not select CA teams and even pull the Rose Bowl from the CFP rotation. By isolating California, the NCAA would then have a decision to make. It could either work to come up with a system that works for all member institutions or dig in its heels and say no way in hell. If the NCAA digs in its heels,  the can would get kicked down the conferences and university regents who would then have to decide what course to take.

Long term, athletes will probably be compensated in some form, but how we get there and what collateral damage occurs along the way is anyone's guess.

 

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

3 hours ago, fellside said:

I don't understand this.  College sports are already a place where the elite athletes only go to a handful of schools.  If anything, this new system would give other schools a chance to compete, albeit temporarily.

 

 

"Hey Johnny if you come to State U we will set you up with a "commercial" at Hairlip Ford for $10K" The mud in recruiting will just become deeper than it already was.

Sure in theory kids choose a school for an education and playing said sport now throw the kid $X in his face money that in many cases will be a significant amount to his family and it gets hairy real quick. 

Oh and Johnny, Mr. 5 Star tears his ACL, or doesn't make the 2 deep? sorry Johnny we don't need you for that commercial anymore. I know your family was counting on that money but tough shit. 

Again I am not saying that they shouldn't be paid but it could become the Wild West pretty damn quick if they aren't careful.  

 

[fellside 1135]

It already is.  This just brings to light what is already happening.  Players are getting paid by boosters. 

[Beau Vine 55817]

4 hours ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

Again I am not saying they don't deserve to be paid but it isn't as easy as just cutting a check. 

Actually, it is -- it's literally easier than cutting a check, because all the NCAA has to do is butt out and let the market take care of things.  

[Beau Vine 55817]

36 minutes ago, PencilPusher said:

However, the seemingly well intentioned governor of CA did open up a Pandora's box of unintentional issues that haven't been explored. Some have been mentioned above.

• Title IX will be a bigger issue than thought because all of the SJW's will be out in force talking about things like gender pay gap, etc. I think we all know the economics arguements, but don't think this won't become an issue.

Jesus Christ, this is not about the schools paying players, so Title IX has absolutely nothing to do with it.   ZERO.  NADA.  ZILCH.  

[Beau Vine 55817]

26 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

Oh and Johnny, Mr. 5 Star tears his ACL, or doesn't make the 2 deep? sorry Johnny we don't need you for that commercial anymore. I know your family was counting on that money but tough shit. 

I know it's a radical concept, but presumably Johnny and the endorsee would have signed a contract specifying the amount and number of payments, and I'm presuming that because that's the way business currently gets done.  

[pops 7120]

Will title IX apply to these endorsement deals?  If football players at USC receive 1M in endorsement deals will x number of women have to receive the same? 

And if the NCAA does play hardball and says ok, fine, no team that has a player with an endorsement deal is eligible for post season play... Then wtf?  Anti-trust? 

And for the record I'm all about players being able to profit on their likeness. I just think this will be used to funnel money legally to recruits. 

Edited September 30, 2019 by pops

[Huckleberry 34404]

36 minutes ago, PencilPusher said:

This!

However, the seemingly well intentioned governor of CA did open up a Pandora's box of unintentional issues that haven't been explored. Some have been mentioned above.

• Title IX will be a bigger issue than thought because all of the SJW's will be out in force talking about things like gender pay gap, etc. I think we all know the economics arguements, but don't think this won't become an issue. California will be ground zero for this. Do we end up with a system where the athlete has a significant "franchise fee" withheld due to association with a university's brand that than gets "distributed" to other student athletes. This is not an issue in any way whatsoever. The market will determine whose likeness is worth what. And your franchise fee is just a continuation of the dumb argument from earlier. Does Aaron Rodgers pay a similar fee to the NFL and the Packers out of his State Farm checks? Of course not.
• Taxes - regardless of who pays the $, the IRS and state governments will absolutely come after their share of $, especially since the $ will no longer be shielded by the non profit status of the universities. Almost think this is one of the underlying reasons for CA passing the bill because they see tax revenues that could be generated from this that they aren't getting today. I don't think kids will get thrown in jail per se as was intimated above, but the IRS/states may extract their share of penalties if the laws/rules aren't followed and those could be substantial if the athletes aren't getting the proper advice/representation No shit. People make money, government expects taxes. Not an issue at all.
• Amateur status - This could also become a bigger deal because at what point do the universities decide that having semi-pro athletics associated with the school is not part of the university mission. Like Greg Fenves has always said, athletics is the front door to the university which is extremely important in terms of alumni engagement and fundraising but if it begins to get too unwieldy to manage, do institutions change their mind. I think that there will be a number of universities that "bow out" of big time college athletics because the juice won't be worth the squeeze (Rice would be a perfect example of a school that may move that direction) Hahahahahahaha. Jesus H. Christ on a cracker. Yes, big universities are going to bow out of billions of dollars and publicity because their QB makes a few thousand bucks on a local car dealership commercial. Hahahahahahaha.

As is typical with government "interventions", we pass the bill and sort out the details later, but it is clear that the full ramifications of this have not been fully considered (hello law of unintended consequences). The NCAA probably has limited recourse on this, but if they wanted to slow the train down, they should immediately announce that if the law goes into effect, that schools from the state of California will be ineligible to complete in any NCAA competition (no March Madness, no road to Omaha, etc.).

HAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that.

Football is a slightly different beast since the NCAA doesn't control it per se, but could influence the CFP to not select CA teams and even pull the Rose Bowl from the CFP rotation. By isolating California, the NCAA would then have a decision to make. It could either work to come up with a system that works for all member institutions or dig in its heels and say no way in hell. If the NCAA digs in its heels,  the can would get kicked down the conferences and university regents who would then have to decide what course to take.

HAHAHAHAHA. You wanna know the fastest way to make sure that all the best players in the country go to California to play? Well, you just nailed it.

Long term, athletes will probably be compensated in some form, but how we get there and what collateral damage occurs along the way is anyone's guess.

 

Addressed your flimsy arguments above.

[pops 7120]

4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Jesus Christ, this is not about the schools paying players, so Title IX has absolutely nothing to do with it.   ZERO.  NADA.  ZILCH.  

I get that it isn't about the school paying the players but they would not be getting paid without going to school. 

[Beau Vine 55817]

1 minute ago, pops said:

Will title IX apply to these endorsement deals?  If football players at USC receive 1M in endorsement deals will x number of women have to receive the same? 

 

Not as long as the endorsements are not arranged by U$C.  

[Huckleberry 34404]

Just now, pops said:

I get that it isn't about the school paying the players but they would not be getting paid without going to school. 

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand for y'all? The school will have nothing to do with the endorsements so Title IX does not apply. What is confusing about that?

[Beau Vine 55817]

43 minutes ago, PencilPusher said:

This!

However, the seemingly well intentioned governor of CA did open up a Pandora's box of unintentional issues that haven't been explored. Some have been mentioned above.

• Taxes - regardless of who pays the $, the IRS and state governments will absolutely come after their share of $, especially since the $ will no longer be shielded by the non profit status of the universities. Almost think this is one of the underlying reasons for CA passing the bill because they see tax revenues that could be generated from this that they aren't getting today. I don't think kids will get thrown in jail per se as was intimated above, but the IRS/states may extract their share of penalties if the laws/rules aren't followed and those could be substantial if the athletes aren't getting the proper advice/representation

Well, fucking A', then we probably ought to have laws preventing any individual under the age of 25 from earning money because they might not be smart enough to pay taxes on it.  If you're not trustworthy enough to rent a car, why should we trust you to pay taxes?

 

 

[Beau Vine 55817]

6 minutes ago, pops said:

And for the record I'm all about players being able to profit on their likeness. I just think this will be used to funnel money legally to recruits. 

And who is hurt by that?

[pops 7120]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand for y'all? The school will have nothing to do with the endorsements so Title IX does not apply. What is confusing about that?

You honestly think the school won't arrange these payments?

Again, I'm all for getting paid for your likeness. But coach is going to go to booster and say we need this kid. We need 10k to get him. Let's have him do a couple commercials for you. 

I think the legit endorsement deals of Nike paying tua will be the exception. Not the norm. 

And I'm not sure that there's really anything wrong with it. I think the NCAA can eat a bag of dicks. I just don't believe this law accomplishes what they hope it will. 

[Huckleberry 34404]

I'm scared. I had a paid internship between my junior and senior years at UT. I got the job because I was a mechanical engineering major at the University of Texas with a good GPA. If I hadn't been attending UT I wouldn't have gotten the job.

Now for the scary part. I never paid UT a franchise fee even though the University's brand was key in my acquisition of that employment. Is UT going to sue me if they find out? Scary times.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Huckleberry

[pops 7120]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

And who is hurt by that?

Every school that isn't in California. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10761]

1 minute ago, pops said:

And I'm not sure that there's really anything wrong with it. I think the NCAA can eat a bag of dicks. I just don't believe this law accomplishes what they hope it will. 

One of the places I disagree.. it does exactly what CA aims to do and that is collect more taxes. NCAA is currently a block to them. This is a look good, feel good path to more tax revenue plain and simple.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10761]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm scared. I had a paid internship between my junior and senior years at UT. I got the job because I was a mechanical engineering major at the University of Texas with a good GPA. If I hadn't been attending UT I wouldn't have gotten the job.

Now for the scary part. I never paid UT a franchise fee even though the University's brand was key in my acquisition of that employment. Is UT going to sue me if they find out? Scary times.

Other people refer to that as tuition... which I find to be a pretty high non-zero fee

[Huckleberry 34404]

15 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Other people refer to that as tuition... which I find to be a pretty high non-zero fee

No they don't. Tell me how many licensing deals walk-on (i.e., non-scholarship) athletes are allowed to sign by the NCAA.

By the way, I received enough scholarship money from the University of Texas to more than cover tuition, fees, and books. Still no franchise fee required for employment.

Keep flailing, dude.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Beau Vine 55817]

20 minutes ago, pops said:

Again, I'm all for getting paid for your likeness. But coach is going to go to booster and say we need this kid. We need 10k to get him. Let's have him do a couple commercials for you.

If this were a Title IX violation, you'd currently see schools getting sued committing recruiting violations for football/basketball, but not for women's soccer.  

[AeroHorn 793]

10 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

One of the places I disagree.. it does exactly what CA aims to do and that is collect more taxes. NCAA is currently a block to them. This is a look good, feel good path to more tax revenue plain and simple.

I don't think that tax revenue would be much. Even if 1000 athletes in the state were paid 100k/year (wildly high number), the state tax of about 7-8% would amount to 7-8 million, which is a pittance. 

I think the bigger issues are the loss of the concept of all players in the team being equal (a few are relatively rich now), transfer portal becoming a year-long player trading place (players looking at what bids are coming in for them to make a jump), big donors of smaller schools essentially treating the school team as their own private team (buying the roster, getting couple of stars for ticket sales), etc.

As is typical with professional sports, a few will make lot of money, and the many will just be shuttling between teams for little payments. The question is whether your second-third stringers who provide needed depth will value the UT/UM/UW degree or do they value 10k/year over 4 years from ATM/MSU/WSU. 

 

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

36 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand for y'all? The school will have nothing to do with the endorsements so Title IX does not apply. What is confusing about that?

[MonkeyDoughnut 10761]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

No they don't. Tell me how many licensing deals walk-on (i.e., non-scholarship) athletes are allowed to sign by the NCAA.

By the way, I received enough scholarship money from the University of Texas to more than cover tuition, fees, and books. Still no franchise fee required for employment.

Keep flailing, dude.

You said the University's brand was key in your employment, was just stating that brand you got was not "free". You may have had the cost covered by scholarships money or others, but it was not "free".   As for the walk-on question its zero. 

ps. I'm FOR players getting paid, I am just in the belief that it will change things and likely not for the better for the sport or college sports in general. I'm ok with that though as the current path is doing that too, this is just a different path.

 

In all likelihood the NCAA will just cave and say agreed, players can be paid but we will switch to the Ivy league system of no athletic scholarships, only need based scholarships.

[Loco 3754]

USC booster to recruit...  "can I get a selfie with you?  I'll pay you $25k, I don't have it on me, but I will on signing day"

 

Also if you thought street agents are bad now...just wait

Edited September 30, 2019 by Loco

[MonkeyDoughnut 10761]

8 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

I don't think that tax revenue would be much. Even if 1000 athletes in the state were paid 100k/year (wildly high number), the state tax of about 7-8% would amount to 7-8 million, which is a pittance. 

I think the bigger issues are the loss of the concept of all players in the team being equal (a few are relatively rich now), transfer portal becoming a year-long player trading place (players looking at what bids are coming in for them to make a jump), big donors of smaller schools essentially treating the school team as their own private team (buying the roster, getting couple of stars for ticket sales), etc.

As is typical with professional sports, a few will make lot of money, and the many will just be shuttling between teams for little payments. The question is whether your second-third stringers who provide needed depth will value the UT/UM/UW degree or do they value 10k/year over 4 years from ATM/MSU/WSU. 

 

The tax target is not these few players, its the NCAA. Using these players to help get to the NCAA and its billions is the end goal (rightfully so)

[utee94 16065]

9 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

You said the University's brand was key in your employment, was just stating that brand you got was not "free". You may have had the cost covered by scholarships money or others, but it was not "free".   As for the walk-on question its zero. 

ps. I'm FOR players getting paid, I am just in the belief that it will change things and likely not for the better for the sport or college sports in general. I'm ok with that though as the current path is doing that too, this is just a different path.

 

In all likelihood the NCAA will just cave and say agreed, players can be paid but we will switch to the Ivy league system of no athletic scholarships, only need based scholarships.

That's not really the NCAA's decision to make and I doubt the member institutions would choose that path.  The NCAA's power is granted solely and entirely by the member institutions, and they can limit it or revoke that power as they see fit, just as they did with television rights and the Oklahoma and Georgia cases against the NCAA in the early 80s.]

 

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

7 minutes ago, Loco said:

USC booster to recruit...  "can I get a selfie with you?  I'll pay you $25k, I don't have it on me, but I will on signing day"

 

Also if you thought street agents are bad now...just wait

They don't need street agents, per the law they're allowed to have professional agents for this. And there's no need for the USC booster to do this winking nonsense, they can just make it known that they offer to to buy non-exclusive image rights from every USC player who makes it on the roster and say have your agent call me when you get to campus. If you become a star, maybe they even exercise those image rights and put you on a billboard or a TV spot, if not you get paid anyway.

Might as well just make it above board. And it doesn't cost the schools or the NCAA anything - all the compensation comes from third parties. The schools get to keep all the money they're making already.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

1 hour ago, PencilPusher said:

This!

However, the seemingly well intentioned governor of CA did open up a Pandora's box of unintentional issues that haven't been explored. Some have been mentioned above.

• Title IX will be a bigger issue than thought because all of the SJW's will be out in force talking about things like gender pay gap, etc. I think we all know the economics arguements, but don't think this won't become an issue. California will be ground zero for this. Do we end up with a system where the athlete has a significant "franchise fee" withheld due to association with a university's brand that than gets "distributed" to other student athletes.
• Taxes - regardless of who pays the $, the IRS and state governments will absolutely come after their share of $, especially since the $ will no longer be shielded by the non profit status of the universities. Almost think this is one of the underlying reasons for CA passing the bill because they see tax revenues that could be generated from this that they aren't getting today. I don't think kids will get thrown in jail per se as was intimated above, but the IRS/states may extract their share of penalties if the laws/rules aren't followed and those could be substantial if the athletes aren't getting the proper advice/representation
• Amateur status - This could also become a bigger deal because at what point do the universities decide that having semi-pro athletics associated with the school is not part of the university mission. Like Greg Fenves has always said, athletics is the front door to the university which is extremely important in terms of alumni engagement and fundraising but if it begins to get too unwieldy to manage, do institutions change their mind. I think that there will be a number of universities that "bow out" of big time college athletics because the juice won't be worth the squeeze (Rice would be a perfect example of a school that may move that direction)

As is typical with government "interventions", we pass the bill and sort out the details later, but it is clear that the full ramifications of this have not been fully considered (hello law of unintended consequences). The NCAA probably has limited recourse on this, but if they wanted to slow the train down, they should immediately announce that if the law goes into effect, that schools from the state of California will be ineligible to complete in any NCAA competition (no March Madness, no road to Omaha, etc.). Football is a slightly different beast since the NCAA doesn't control it per se, but could influence the CFP to not select CA teams and even pull the Rose Bowl from the CFP rotation. By isolating California, the NCAA would then have a decision to make. It could either work to come up with a system that works for all member institutions or dig in its heels and say no way in hell. If the NCAA digs in its heels,  the can would get kicked down the conferences and university regents who would then have to decide what course to take.

Long term, athletes will probably be compensated in some form, but how we get there and what collateral damage occurs along the way is anyone's guess.

 

For Tax purposes, would all of the benefits a scholarship gives the athlete be subject to taxes as well?

Free room, board, tuition, tutoring, health care, travel expenses and clothing etc etc 

Do these now become non-exempt benefits when a player decides to cash in on their likeness?

Will the majority be able to earn more than the benefits they already receive? 

[Huckleberry 34404]

14 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

You said the University's brand was key in your employment, was just stating that brand you got was not "free". You may have had the cost covered by scholarships money or others, but it was not "free".   As for the walk-on question its zero. 

ps. I'm FOR players getting paid, I am just in the belief that it will change things and likely not for the better for the sport or college sports in general. I'm ok with that though as the current path is doing that too, this is just a different path.

 

In all likelihood the NCAA will just cave and say agreed, players can be paid but we will switch to the Ivy league system of no athletic scholarships, only need based scholarships.

So you understand and acknowledge that it's commonplace and perfectly understandable that UT gave me academic scholarships because they believed it raised the profile of the school to have me attend, then I used the UT brand to gain employment not only after school but while still attending school, and the University did not ask me for any silly franchise fee.

But you don't understand or acknowledge that it would make sense for UT to give a player athletic scholarships because they believe it would raise the profile of the school to have them attend, then for the athlete to use the UT brand to gain employment not only after school but while still attending school, and for the University not to ask for a silly franchise fee.

Somehow in the first example you understand that it's not free but that's okay because that cost is covered by scholarships and a franchise fee would be absurd. But in the second example you can't quite grasp that it's not free but that's okay because the cost is covered by scholarships and a franchise fee would be absurd.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

51 minutes ago, pops said:

You honestly think the school won't arrange these payments?

Again, I'm all for getting paid for your likeness. But coach is going to go to booster and say we need this kid. We need 10k to get him. Let's have him do a couple commercials for you. 

I think the legit endorsement deals of Nike paying tua will be the exception. Not the norm. 

And I'm not sure that there's really anything wrong with it. I think the NCAA can eat a bag of dicks. I just don't believe this law accomplishes what they hope it will. 

What is the problem here?  A fool and his money are separated?  
 

if Rich alum want to pay an athlete why does it matter if it is transparent and out in the open?

[pops 7120]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

What is the problem here?  A fool and his money are separated?  
 

if Rich alum want to pay an athlete why does it matter if it is transparent and out in the open?

I like my money dirty and getting exchanged in paper bags at the waffle House. 

[utee94 16065]

The skeezy street agents, "trainers," "7 on 7 coaches," and other superfluous intermediaries are the real victims here.  How will Willie Lyles feed his family???

 

[Brian Fantana 6856]

Amateurism is a bullshit sham and fuck the NCAA. Every amateur athlete in the world except the ones governed by the NC double assholes are allowed to financially benefit from their skillset.