|
Post by hchoops on Sept 12, 2019 15:18:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Sept 12, 2019 20:05:22 GMT -5
Not sure how it would work and impact recruiting and the game
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Sept 18, 2019 12:25:37 GMT -5
NY proposing their own bill in the state senate out of Brooklyn. I don't think these guys understand how much (or little) most programs make in real dollars for revenue. Particularly in NY. I'm looking at the NY amendment that proposes 15% of the total AD's revenue gets shared among all of the school's athletes.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Sept 18, 2019 12:45:05 GMT -5
In 2017, HC had $3,220,000 in athletic revenue--mostly I assume from football and men's basketball with some from women's basketball and men's ice hockey and a smidgen from all of the rest of the sports. If we took 15% of that, we have $483,000. There are perhaps 750 athletes at HC so that would divide out to $644 per athlete.
I think that college athletes should be paid if the college sells their likenesses (broadly defined) for video games or apparel licensed to outside companies. Beyond that, it is hard to believe that most college athletes are due anything more than the value of their scholarship.
These are well-intentioned ideas which could backfire and actually reduce the opportunity to participate and earn athletic scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Sept 23, 2019 11:20:50 GMT -5
Another nugget for thought: if student-athletes begin getting paid, they could essentially be categorized as employees. Employees are subject to performance reviews, could be fired for non-performance, etc. Is that a can of worms that anyone really wants to open?
I think there's something to be said for college athletes having the opportunity to monetize their likenesses, but I have no idea what an efficient model would look like - nobody does at this point. It seems that some state legislatures don't have enough on their plate at the moment, and since this is one of the topics du jour, politicians are jumping on board in the interest of self-promotion and aggrandizing. Wading into these waters without a fundamental understanding of how the college sports model operates could do a lot more harm than good in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Sept 23, 2019 12:37:31 GMT -5
Allowing players to monetize their likenesses will lead to boosters entering the program with promises of endorsement deals in order to land prize recruits. “Johnny, we’d sure like to see you here at state university. I own six local car dealerships and can offer you $25,000 per year to act as our spokesman. Of course you’ll have to drive one of our cars. Do you like Lincoln Navigators?”
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Sept 23, 2019 16:32:28 GMT -5
I'll take honest corruption done openly over the hidden kind, any time. It worked in Proviodense for years...but there is always a bill to pay at some point.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Sept 24, 2019 8:11:01 GMT -5
Allowing players to monetize their likenesses will lead to boosters entering the program with promises of endorsement deals in order to land prize recruits. “Johnny, we’d sure like to see you here at state university. I own six local car dealerships and can offer you $25,000 per year to act as our spokesman. Of course you’ll have to drive one of our cars. Do you like Lincoln Navigators?” I don't disagree, but the NCAA is already on its heels following the O'Bannon case and the cost-of-attendance fiasco. They'll be more progressive on this topic. They don't have a choice.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 1, 2019 11:49:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 1, 2019 13:58:40 GMT -5
Baloney. He just wants everyone to know that he's a jock, not just a policy wonk.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Oct 1, 2019 14:35:59 GMT -5
Are the highly paid school presidents and coaches going to take less money to provide funds tp pay their cash cows? No way. Since there may very well be less money for the NCAA organization are the highly paid NCAA execs going to take less money in an attempt provide a model of integrity ?Nope. Are the millionaire announcers and corporate networks ever going to take less money? Uh,uh. Yet, they all feast and earn big time dough from the labor of these young athletes. And, I know stories of kids who were manipulated at some big -time programs so as to not attend classes. but to attend practice (unofficial, of course) They were told that they were there to play a sport. Period. If you ask this observer and no-one ever will, I think that they are all a bunch of stinkin' hypocrites. Let the kids profit from the fruits of their labor. LoveHC But where would it end? There are some big-time HS football programs in Texas that surely pull in big time dough....should those players be paid? College education, free food, free housing, etc is a pretty sweet package. If it's not enough for an athlete that athlete should turn pro. Period. The NCAA is a giant corporation. I'm going to guess (blindly I might add) that there executives earn on par with other corporations of a similar size. The NCAA has rules...if you don't like them there are other options.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 1, 2019 15:03:28 GMT -5
This whole thing seems kind of muddy to me. Unless you're calling this some sort of monopoly, every school is a member of the NCAA - a democratic organization that makes its own rules for members. A school doesn't have to be a member, although in today's environment, you're foolish not to.
In Rhode Island, among a growing number of other states, sports gambling is legal. The NCAA by choice holds itself to a higher standard and says athletes can't bet on sports. Does the Indiana based NCAA have to allow sports betting because one state says it's legal? What if a state legalizes steroids - does the NCAA have to allow that too? Massachusetts says it's legal to smoke pot, My company says I can't smoke pot. I can smoke if I want to, I just need to find another job. The state can;'t go after my company because they won't let me do something that is legal. I'm still free to do it - they're not withholding a right from me.
I don't see how a state can penalize an independent organization for holding its members to a higher standard than the law permits. If UCLA wants to legally pay their athletes, fine. But if the NCAA turns around and says no paid athlete is competing in a Bowl or NCAA tournament, that's fine too
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Oct 2, 2019 21:41:05 GMT -5
I read "The Last Amateurs" during high school. Great book -- consider me on the NAD end of the spectrum where I'm more into FCS / mid-major level college sports than watching the P5. If I want to watch sports at the highest level, I'll watch the pros.
Consider me someone who watches college sports because of the product that it represents (or pretends to be). Maybe I watch a little bit of USC in the Rose Bowl. But I won't be watching paid minor league football players at USC take on paid minor league football players at UC Berkeley or San Diego State.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Oct 6, 2019 14:54:10 GMT -5
Just a few thoughts on this...
Some athletes are already being paid. Some get to graduate from college with a $250,000 (or more) education tax free and with zero debt. That's a pretty good deal. Others graduate with partial debt, less than many other students. The vast majority graduate with tremendous memories and experiences and an affinity for their institution that will last a lifetime.
I'm also not naive. There are certain restrictions on athletes that maybe should be reviewed. There probably is a way that you can allow an athlete to monetize their name, image and likeness, but can you do it without some unsavory characters getting involved? That's the key to all of this.
I think those who are predicting doom and gloom and the end of the collegiate model with some adjustments to NIL are being over the top dramatic. I also think the NCAA has a major PR problem, and the leadership is doubling down on white-knuckling the steering wheel and hoping that a legal challenge will stem the tide. That might afford it a delay but it seems that some kind of adjustment to the NIL policy is inevitable. What it looks like, though, is anybody's guess. But the NCAA would be smart to do what it can to get ahead of it, to claim a seat at the table and be a proactive actor in the discussion instead of sticking fingers in its ears and blowing raspberries, which it's done all too frequently.
|
|