NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable

[itsbigmike]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

I don't think that players should be paid directly by the universities or the NCAA. They are valuable, no doubt. But the NCAA also provides the stage and exposure for these guys to show their stuff and potentially go pro. Who is Johnny Football without Texas A&M? It's a mutually beneficial relationship. That in addition to an education, provided the athlete actually wants one. I think that's more than fair. Especially when you consider the fact that about 1% actually go on to play professionally. Plus you have Title 9 and all that red tape. And the fact that the vast majority of the schools aren't exactly printng money like a Texas or Ohio State. Where the NCAA errs, in my opinion, is how they try to cap the players's earning potential otherwise. And how they try to be greedy with everything. Let the free market speak and don't take their eligibility for utilizing it. The NCAA does. And I think that's a fair trade off for proving the platform and education. Everything over that though should be on the players. If the starting QB for Ohio State can make a few thousand signing autographs, let him. The NCAA and schools can sign an agreement with EA sports and be paid. Let the players unionize and have the money that they could make go into an account and evenly distribute it to the players part of said union. There's enough money to go around. The NCAA could monitor the whole thing. I actually think that this would led to fewer violations and under the table shenanigans as the players would be making a little something themselves.

And what is Texas A&M without Johnny Manziel? The third-best team in the state of Texas? I would say that the Aggies benefitted more from Manziel's skills and publicity more than he benefitted from Texas A&M. He WAS that program. A better example would be Alabama where they just continue to roll along, regardless of the players.

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by itsbigmike

And what is Texas A&M without Johnny Manziel? The third-best team in the state of Texas? I would say that the Aggies benefitted more from Manziel's skills and publicity more than he benefitted from Texas A&M. He WAS that program. A better example would be Alabama where they just continue to roll along, regardless of the players.

I said that it is mutually beneficial arrangement. And I just threw Johnny out there. Alabama is a good example, though. Without the NCAA and the schools, where else can the best football players in the country go if they don't want to agree to the NCAA's conditions? They have to wait 3 years before they can go pro. We all know the tragic tale of Maurice Clarette. My thing is that I think the NCAA, as shady as it is, is operating fairly in what they are doing with the TV contracts, jerseys and bowls. It just gets sketchy for me when they just try to hog every penny while the players are there. Let those kids make a few dollars while they can. Let them unionize and sell their likeness. Let them sign some autographs or shoot a commercial. Only the very best stand to make any real money and those guys are likely gonna be pros one day. 99% are not going to make millions as pros.

[BizDevConglomerate]

This is so stupid, sane with THE SHOW THREAD. What are they doing to appease the consumer? Only in America can a corporation dictate to the people who pays then what they will and won't do. No matter how much American consumers demand from it's corporations, they are told what is final. We are too weak a people in terms of resisting the ISM, in this case consumerism. On not her countries these people would either make what we want or go belly up from complete lack of sales and profit.

How can the NCAA continue to use the lame excuse that students education is equivalent to what they make off the kids. TV revenue wouldn't happen without the athletes. They should get a cut.take TV contacts away, and only calculate sales from print advertising, and is day ok that's equipment, but TV money is in the billions. An education isn't work billions. With a side dish of a few things l thousand dollars in stipends. They should be making salaries. And the entire ncaa should have revenue sharing like the MLB.

Then we the people cam justify the ncaa making billions, because everyone benefits. But that sounds too much like socialism. Lol smh. The whole system is backwards.

[BizDevConglomerate]

I freaky can't believe people disagree with these kids being paid. Lol I'd that's the case, why are teams in red states even viable? You think because most of their players like those states and those people? Please, there is no nick saban without the players, no bear Bryant no chip kelly. The coaches souks be the first to demand the players get paid. There will always be an athlete, buy the school itself is either relevant or not with their recruits. Look at Duke bball the year, not a great recruiting class and they look mediocre. Look at the same school last year, yout think coach k is that good? Or jahlil okafer and cast?

#paythekids

[theoneandbigboi]

Feel better lol

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by BizDevConglomerate

I freaky can't believe people disagree with these kids being paid. Lol I'd that's the case, why are teams in red states even viable? You think because most of their players like those states and those people? Please, there is no nick saban without the players, no bear Bryant no chip kelly. The coaches souks be the first to demand the players get paid. There will always be an athlete, buy the school itself is either relevant or not with their recruits. Look at Duke bball the year, not a great recruiting class and they look mediocre. Look at the same school last year, yout think coach k is that good? Or jahlil okafer and cast? #paythekids

I understand the argument for paying players. The NCAA, schools and conferences are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars. There's enough to go around. I just feel differently about the schools or conferences themselves paying players a salary. How do you even figure that number? Maybe they should just follow the Olympic model. That way the players good enough can get paid. It is still college. These schools have liabilities outside of just sports. And the vast majority don't make a profit off of sports. Players like Okafor are very valuable, and they (usually) capitalize on it eventually. But Duke is a brand itself. That brand has been built over 30 years. There's a reason the top players go to certain schools.

[Caventer]

Go ahead, pay them.... Good luck to the kids that are just ok athletes. Good luck to the small schools. Good luck to the less than marginal performers in the big leagues who are living off of the big schools. A small few could make a little bit of money based on their worth that might be able to be calculated by their third year.... But again, take away any education scholarship money because that is indeed an extra benefit. There will be less football teams and more of a NFL development team..... Then comes free agency..... On and on....

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[IlluminatusUIUC]

No school should ever be paying a player directly. Period. But it is ridiculous to prevent them from earning money on the side. If some goofball booster wants to put cash in Reggie Bush's pocket to come play for USC, let him. They are both consenting adults.

And don't play the "parity" card, after the National Championship trophy spends it's 7th year of the last 10 sitting in the same conference's trophy case.