justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 1, 2019 12:28:42 GMT -5
So California seems like they might do it www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/california-s-college-sports-pay-law-could-change-ncaa-we-n1060591Someone if FL has filed a bill for it www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/bill-would-allow-college-student-athletes-in-florida-to-cash-in/ar-AAI7jwO (though good luck to him since the idiot gov is the likes that is trying to use FL money to pay for trump's defense he *almost* got people on his side) So what are your thoughts on it? Mine are that anything sold with their name, photo, or number (while they're playing for the school at least) should result in some money coming into the player's pocket. If the player wants to go all Tim Tebow and select for it to stay with the school, have at it, but they school shouldn't be profiting off someone's name and face. I'm more on the fence about other things - schools rely on some endorsements on all their sports. ie their football team is the reason Nike signed the school but they're women's soccer team also benefits from that too (I think, if I'm wrong and they don't help out the less popular sports by giving them free/discounted equipment then fuck em). Though I also agree with the point that the NFL basically uses the NCAA as a free (to them) minor league. They also have the most restrictive draft requirements (3 years removed from hs) that pretty much necessitate 3 years of playing for free in college. Hockey and MLB have none and NBA had 1 for a block of time but is returning to 0 due to all the guys doing 1 and done college careers. I think a lot of this wouldn't be a problem if the NCAA and schools opened up their eyes years ago. The kids from privileged backgrounds were always fine, but those from economically challenged backgrounds suffer and have suffered through their NCAA years. Between games, practices, and required studying they don't have options to earn money any different way (that the NCAA doesn't shut down).
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,355
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2019 12:31:23 GMT -5
I think so. A certain percentage would be appropriate. The NCAA is making billions of dollars off the players.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,433
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 1, 2019 13:07:18 GMT -5
... The kids from privileged backgrounds were always fine, but those from economically challenged backgrounds suffer and have suffered through their NCAA years. Between games, practices, and required studying they don't have options to earn money any different way (that the NCAA doesn't shut down). Could being an athlete for the school be a "work study job"?
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Oct 1, 2019 13:32:36 GMT -5
There's a lot of NCAA athletes who will never go pro or make money playing the sport after college but they're making their schools a lot of money. Schools that have had no problem making money off student athletes while raising tuition at a ridiculous rate over the last ~10 years. Schools that spend ridiculous amounts of money in some cases on athletic fields, sports complexes and so on. I realize the athletes on scholarship are getting an education assuming they don't go pro before or lose their scholarship but I don't think it's right that some of these individuals can't even afford gas money or a bus pass while schools make big money.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 1, 2019 13:47:33 GMT -5
... The kids from privileged backgrounds were always fine, but those from economically challenged backgrounds suffer and have suffered through their NCAA years. Between games, practices, and required studying they don't have options to earn money any different way (that the NCAA doesn't shut down). Could being an athlete for the school be a "work study job"? That's definitely one way they could have approached it years ago to solve this issue. I'm guessing a stumbling block is (at least at my school) most were on an hourly wage. I would think the required time at $8/hr would be a lot and probably one reason why they balked. I looked at the board of the NCAA and almost all of them are presidents of the schools - while there may be some exceptions I'm guessing that the vast majority of them have no idea of what it's like to be a student athlete. They just care about getting their school more money.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Oct 1, 2019 14:38:53 GMT -5
I think there is a lot more to this question than is being considered.
The advocates of giving student athletes a cut of sports revenue point out that students with other skills, such as actors or musicians, are allowed to earn income from their skills while a student. What they don’t consider, and what isn’t comparable, is what universities pay to generate sports income. The cost to build special purpose performance venues called football stadiums, basketball arenas, or hockey arenas, and multi-million dollar coaches. (Who ever heard of a million dollar band director?) Then how about the scholarships? Or athlete specific services, such as athletic trainers, separate living facilities, special university provided meal programs, tutors, etc.
I suspect that if you approach a college sport as if it were a business, and captured all of the costs associated with operating a sports program, college sports aren’t the gigantic money machine that some think they are.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2019 15:18:57 GMT -5
I think there is a lot more to this question than is being considered. The advocates of giving student athletes a cut of sports revenue point out that students with other skills, such as actors or musicians, are allowed to earn income from their skills while a student. What they don’t consider, and what isn’t comparable, is what universities pay to generate sports income. The cost to build special purpose performance venues called football stadiums, basketball arenas, or hockey arenas, and multi-million dollar coaches. (Who ever heard of a million dollar band director?) Then how about the scholarships? Or athlete specific services, such as athletic trainers, separate living facilities, special university provided meal programs, tutors, etc. I suspect that if you approach a college sport as if it were a business, and captured all of the costs associated with operating a sports program, college sports aren’t the gigantic money machine that some think they are.Part of the issue is that 1 college sport is a gigantic money making machine (in the biggest conferences). The rest of them, as a whole, are a huge resource drain and cost more money than they make. That's part of what makes earning money off your likeness more reasonable than splitting revenue in some way. If I am in demand, and I can make money endorsing things, then I make money. A revenue split is nearly impossible to figure out (revenue is one thing, but big money comes in via donations as well). It makes a lot more sense to let popular athletes benefit since they're driving the money. What we're talking about, for the VAST majority here, is "should NCAA football and basketball players get a cut of the money?". And in some cases, we're not even talking about a "cut"...we're talking about opening up a NEW revenue stream that allows them to get money. Joe Smith, star quarterback at a top 5 program, can't go out and endorse anything today. If he can go out and endorse Pepsi tomorrow...that's not a "cut" of the money...that's money that doesn't flow to the University today...it's just a new stream of revenue. I think it makes a ton more sense to talk about making money off the likeness than something like their number. I mean think of the mad scramble for #1 at a university football team...the generic jerseys are typically not player-related...they're just popular numbers on the team jersey. The positive side of the NCAA splitting "revenue" in some way, is that you can still retain some semblance of a "level playing field" in terms of money. Once you start paying for likeness, you're looking at boosters agreeing to pay HUGE sums of money for "likeness" to recruits who come to your school (I think that piece, the all out "we'll pay you this to come here" still needs some working out...I don't think the NCAA is ever going to go for a system that doesn't account for that).
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,355
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2019 15:27:11 GMT -5
I think there is a lot more to this question than is being considered. The advocates of giving student athletes a cut of sports revenue point out that students with other skills, such as actors or musicians, are allowed to earn income from their skills while a student. What they don’t consider, and what isn’t comparable, is what universities pay to generate sports income. The cost to build special purpose performance venues called football stadiums, basketball arenas, or hockey arenas, and multi-million dollar coaches. (Who ever heard of a million dollar band director?) Then how about the scholarships? Or athlete specific services, such as athletic trainers, separate living facilities, special university provided meal programs, tutors, etc. I suspect that if you approach a college sport as if it were a business, and captured all of the costs associated with operating a sports program, college sports aren’t the gigantic money machine that some think they are. Let the alumni and other interested parties pay the majority of the cost for the football stadiums, basketball arenas, and hockey arenas. And do they really need to hold thousands upon thousands of people in the stadium and arena stands? The largest college football stadium is the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It officially hold 107,000 fans. Give the players a small cut of the ticket booth receipts.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2019 15:32:25 GMT -5
I think there is a lot more to this question than is being considered. The advocates of giving student athletes a cut of sports revenue point out that students with other skills, such as actors or musicians, are allowed to earn income from their skills while a student. What they don’t consider, and what isn’t comparable, is what universities pay to generate sports income. The cost to build special purpose performance venues called football stadiums, basketball arenas, or hockey arenas, and multi-million dollar coaches. (Who ever heard of a million dollar band director?) Then how about the scholarships? Or athlete specific services, such as athletic trainers, separate living facilities, special university provided meal programs, tutors, etc. I suspect that if you approach a college sport as if it were a business, and captured all of the costs associated with operating a sports program, college sports aren’t the gigantic money machine that some think they are. Let the alumni and other interested parties pay the majority of the cost for the football stadiums, basketball arenas, and hockey arenas. And do they really need to hold thousands upon thousands of people in the stadium and arena stands? The largest college football stadium is the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It officially hold 107,000 fans. Give the players a small cut of the ticket booth receipts. That works fine for basketball and football (and either directly or indirectly, is already happening). What do you do when nobody cares enough to fund baseball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, swimming, etc? Do you just cut every program except football and men's basketball at 95% of schools? I don't think ticket booth receipts are the issue...that's not where the money is. They money is in TV deals...and WOULD be in individuals selling their image for endorsements (though only for a small %).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2019 15:36:39 GMT -5
At some point, someone (the NCAA, or whoever) is going to have to decide between "it's a free market, make all the money you want" and "we need to limit schools just buying players for the highest price". The solution depends largely upon where on that spectrum the NCAA or governing body land.
The upside of "make money off your likeness" is that it doesn't really eat into current NCAA revenue, the downside is that it's more likely to lead to individual "buying" of players.
Personally, I think it's fine to just go free market and let colleges and others pay anything they want to land folks. But I don't think the NCAA is really on that page.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 1, 2019 15:41:01 GMT -5
I think there is a lot more to this question than is being considered. The advocates of giving student athletes a cut of sports revenue point out that students with other skills, such as actors or musicians, are allowed to earn income from their skills while a student. What they don’t consider, and what isn’t comparable, is what universities pay to generate sports income. The cost to build special purpose performance venues called football stadiums, basketball arenas, or hockey arenas, and multi-million dollar coaches. (Who ever heard of a million dollar band director?) Then how about the scholarships? Or athlete specific services, such as athletic trainers, separate living facilities, special university provided meal programs, tutors, etc. I suspect that if you approach a college sport as if it were a business, and captured all of the costs associated with operating a sports program, college sports aren’t the gigantic money machine that some think they are. Let the alumni and other interested parties pay the majority of the cost for the football stadiums, basketball arenas, and hockey arenas. And do they really need to hold thousands upon thousands of people in the stadium and arena stands? The largest college football stadium is the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It officially hold 107,000 fans. Give the players a small cut of the ticket booth receipts. As far as I know, they money for those things come outside of the tuition revenue stream for universities. Our stadium has naming rights to pay for it, they're in the midst of fundraising a cushy new student athlete venue because it has to 100% be funded by private funds. I'm not sure how the basketball arena works as it also is a regular arena that has concerts and comediens etc coming through and their employees aren't university employees even though it's on university property.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 1, 2019 15:47:51 GMT -5
I think there is a lot more to this question than is being considered. The advocates of giving student athletes a cut of sports revenue point out that students with other skills, such as actors or musicians, are allowed to earn income from their skills while a student. What they don’t consider, and what isn’t comparable, is what universities pay to generate sports income. The cost to build special purpose performance venues called football stadiums, basketball arenas, or hockey arenas, and multi-million dollar coaches. (Who ever heard of a million dollar band director?) Then how about the scholarships? Or athlete specific services, such as athletic trainers, separate living facilities, special university provided meal programs, tutors, etc. I suspect that if you approach a college sport as if it were a business, and captured all of the costs associated with operating a sports program, college sports aren’t the gigantic money machine that some think they are.Part of the issue is that 1 college sport is a gigantic money making machine (in the biggest conferences). The rest of them, as a whole, are a huge resource drain and cost more money than they make. That's part of what makes earning money off your likeness more reasonable than splitting revenue in some way. If I am in demand, and I can make money endorsing things, then I make money. A revenue split is nearly impossible to figure out (revenue is one thing, but big money comes in via donations as well). It makes a lot more sense to let popular athletes benefit since they're driving the money. What we're talking about, for the VAST majority here, is "should NCAA football and basketball players get a cut of the money?". And in some cases, we're not even talking about a "cut"...we're talking about opening up a NEW revenue stream that allows them to get money. Joe Smith, star quarterback at a top 5 program, can't go out and endorse anything today. If he can go out and endorse Pepsi tomorrow...that's not a "cut" of the money...that's money that doesn't flow to the University today...it's just a new stream of revenue. I think it makes a ton more sense to talk about making money off the likeness than something like their number. I mean think of the mad scramble for #1 at a university football team...the generic jerseys are typically not player-related...they're just popular numbers on the team jersey. The positive side of the NCAA splitting "revenue" in some way, is that you can still retain some semblance of a "level playing field" in terms of money. Once you start paying for likeness, you're looking at boosters agreeing to pay HUGE sums of money for "likeness" to recruits who come to your school (I think that piece, the all out "we'll pay you this to come here" still needs some working out...I don't think the NCAA is ever going to go for a system that doesn't account for that). I'll admit I don't really follow college ball enough (specifically I have some issues with NCAA football, but that's another thread beyond this point) so I have no idea if numbers are that associated with players or not. I was mostly going of Tebow spouting off (definitely paraphrasing here) that his college jersey was the number one selling college jersey of all time and you don't see him complaining about never seeing a penny from all those sales *sticks silver spoon back up his ass*. I assumed it wasn't necessarily just a jersey with his name on it (as I know some colleges don't put names on the jerseys), but maybe it was? Like I know for UCF Milton wasn't the first one to don the #10 jersey, but without a doubt if they've been selling any #10 jerseys in the last few years it was because of him -- even if his name wasn't on it. Hmm...though I just googled and it looks like numbers are sometimes used for an offense guy and a defense guy. Told you I didn't really follow football.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,355
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2019 15:57:31 GMT -5
Let the alumni and other interested parties pay the majority of the cost for the football stadiums, basketball arenas, and hockey arenas. And do they really need to hold thousands upon thousands of people in the stadium and arena stands? The largest college football stadium is the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It officially hold 107,000 fans. Give the players a small cut of the ticket booth receipts. That works fine for basketball and football (and either directly or indirectly, is already happening). What do you do when nobody cares enough to fund baseball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, swimming, etc? Do you just cut every program except football and men's basketball at 95% of schools? I don't think ticket booth receipts are the issue...that's not where the money is. They money is in TV deals...and WOULD be in individuals selling their image for endorsements (though only for a small %). The cost for baseball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, swimming facilities are small compared to the cost of building and maintaining football stadiums and basketball arenas. Revenue from football and basketball games can and should be spread around.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2019 15:58:11 GMT -5
Sometimes jerseys mean a specific person. But there are a whole SLEW of jerseys out there (mine included) that are basically the team you like, and the number "1" on them. And in general, quarterback numbers are super popular (so it's likely that whoever the starting quarterback is slated to be, tons of jerseys of that number will be manufactured).
The same number being used is really specific to college football, because rosters can exceed 100 people.
The reason I'm not such a fan of the jersey sales thing is that it isn't really a likeness thing. As an example...if I was a starting quarterback last year as a Junior, and I'm slated to be a Senior this year...a HUGE number of jerseys being sold will be my number. If I get hurt, or lose my job, to someone with a different number...that player might be SUPER popular, in demand, etc...but if he takes over week 3, there isn't enough time in the year to get new jerseys made, stocked, and sold. That player doesn't make anything, even though he's super marketable.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2019 16:01:22 GMT -5
That works fine for basketball and football (and either directly or indirectly, is already happening). What do you do when nobody cares enough to fund baseball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, swimming, etc? Do you just cut every program except football and men's basketball at 95% of schools? I don't think ticket booth receipts are the issue...that's not where the money is. They money is in TV deals...and WOULD be in individuals selling their image for endorsements (though only for a small %). The cost for baseball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, swimming facilities are small compared to the cost of building and maintaining football stadiums and basketball arenas. Revenue from football and basketball games can and should be spread around. So popular sports should let other people fund their infrastructure, and unpopular sports should be funded by the other programs? That's what happens now. That's why I thought you were suggesting that each sport would get their infrastructure from their alumni/boosters (and then asking what would happen to the unpopular ones who don't have that level of booster). If you're just suggesting it happen for the big sports, that's pretty much what happens today...so I'm not seeing the proposal.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 1, 2019 16:03:04 GMT -5
Sometimes jerseys mean a specific person. But there are a whole SLEW of jerseys out there (mine included) that are basically the team you like, and the number "1" on them. And in general, quarterback numbers are super popular (so it's likely that whoever the starting quarterback is slated to be, tons of jerseys of that number will be manufactured). The same number being used is really specific to college football, because rosters can exceed 100 people. The reason I'm not such a fan of the jersey sales thing is that it isn't really a likeness thing. As an example...if I was a starting quarterback last year as a Junior, and I'm slated to be a Senior this year...a HUGE number of jerseys being sold will be my number. If I get hurt, or lose my job, to someone with a different number...that player might be SUPER popular, in demand, etc...but if he takes over week 3, there isn't enough time in the year to get new jerseys made, stocked, and sold. That player doesn't make anything, even though he's super marketable. True. I can see that being a line to draw - it'd be a pain having to separate out what money goes where. Though then the school shouldn't be selling a jersey with any last name on it (if they do). So any posters sold of the players in their jerseys would fall under likeness?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2019 16:06:44 GMT -5
Sometimes jerseys mean a specific person. But there are a whole SLEW of jerseys out there (mine included) that are basically the team you like, and the number "1" on them. And in general, quarterback numbers are super popular (so it's likely that whoever the starting quarterback is slated to be, tons of jerseys of that number will be manufactured). The same number being used is really specific to college football, because rosters can exceed 100 people. The reason I'm not such a fan of the jersey sales thing is that it isn't really a likeness thing. As an example...if I was a starting quarterback last year as a Junior, and I'm slated to be a Senior this year...a HUGE number of jerseys being sold will be my number. If I get hurt, or lose my job, to someone with a different number...that player might be SUPER popular, in demand, etc...but if he takes over week 3, there isn't enough time in the year to get new jerseys made, stocked, and sold. That player doesn't make anything, even though he's super marketable. True. I can see that being a line to draw - it'd be a pain having to separate out what money goes where. Though then the school shouldn't be selling a jersey with any last name on it (if they do). So any posters sold of the players in their jerseys would fall under likeness? I believe there's a rule that they can't sell college jerseys with names of players on the back of them. A lot of schools aren't even selling varying numbers anymore (to avoid any accusation that they are selling a specific player's jersey), so they just say "from now on, we're selling #1, #15, #80, & #99" for example. I would presume that posters of a player would fall under "likeness" yes.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 1, 2019 16:11:16 GMT -5
True. I can see that being a line to draw - it'd be a pain having to separate out what money goes where. Though then the school shouldn't be selling a jersey with any last name on it (if they do). So any posters sold of the players in their jerseys would fall under likeness? I believe there's a rule that they can't sell college jerseys with names of players on the back of them. A lot of schools aren't even selling varying numbers anymore (to avoid any accusation that they are selling a specific player's jersey), so they just say "from now on, we're selling #1, #15, #80, & #99" for example. I would presume that posters of a player would fall under "likeness" yes. Ah. Ok. Wonder if that was before or after Tebow. lol
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2019 16:12:32 GMT -5
I believe there's a rule that they can't sell college jerseys with names of players on the back of them. A lot of schools aren't even selling varying numbers anymore (to avoid any accusation that they are selling a specific player's jersey), so they just say "from now on, we're selling #1, #15, #80, & #99" for example. I would presume that posters of a player would fall under "likeness" yes. Ah. Ok. Wonder if that was before or after Tebow. lol Probably after, it's been moving that way in the recent past.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,355
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2019 16:16:55 GMT -5
The cost for baseball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, swimming facilities are small compared to the cost of building and maintaining football stadiums and basketball arenas. Revenue from football and basketball games can and should be spread around. So popular sports should let other people fund their infrastructure, and unpopular sports should be funded by the other programs? That's what happens now. That's why I thought you were suggesting that each sport would get their infrastructure from their alumni/boosters (and then asking what would happen to the unpopular ones who don't have that level of booster). If you're just suggesting it happen for the big sports, that's pretty much what happens today...so I'm not seeing the proposal. I'm sure it's a mix of revenue from football/basketball and alumni support. The 'unpopular' sports are still played in the colleges and universities so they cannot be that unpopular. But those 'unpopular' sports don't need stadiums and arenas which hold 50,000-100,000 people.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2019 16:19:46 GMT -5
So popular sports should let other people fund their infrastructure, and unpopular sports should be funded by the other programs? That's what happens now. That's why I thought you were suggesting that each sport would get their infrastructure from their alumni/boosters (and then asking what would happen to the unpopular ones who don't have that level of booster). If you're just suggesting it happen for the big sports, that's pretty much what happens today...so I'm not seeing the proposal. I'm sure it's a mix of revenue from football/basketball and alumni support. The 'unpopular' sports are still played in the colleges and universities so they cannot be that unpopular. But those 'unpopular' sports don't need stadiums and arenas which hold 50,000-100,000 people. The unpopular sports are played because they are part of a university's identity (or because in many cases they need an equal number of male/female athletes)...they contribute to collegiate life but don't necessarily generate interest or popularity from wealthy boosters willing to donate money for infrastructure.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 20, 2024 6:50:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2019 16:31:33 GMT -5
I just want NCAA football to come back to video game consoles, we have been without one since 2014 due to the likeness and payment issues.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,660
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
Member is Online
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Oct 2, 2019 6:49:52 GMT -5
I think it would be a plus if they just got an education in case they don't make it to the pro sports
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 2, 2019 7:59:58 GMT -5
I think it would be a plus if they just got an education in case they don't make it to the pro sports
Yes, but honestly, the people we're talking about here are likely the ones who WILL make it to pro sports. There isn't a ton of endorsement money sitting around for people who aren't good enough to make it to the pros. There just isn't a lot of talk about "hey let's figure out a way to get a rugby player some additional money while he's in college". It's a lot more like "Hey, this athlete who would probably go straight to the pros if he weren't prevented from doing so is generating a ton of money for the program, they should get some of that money while we practically force them to work for an NCAA institution". There probably just isn't a lot of money out there for someone who isn't a football, basketball, or volleyball player while they're in college (aside from those who are in the Olympics every 4 years).
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Oct 2, 2019 8:41:45 GMT -5
I would have been happy if the college had just paid for my competition suit and the deck coat.
As a competitive swimmer I was provided with half of the cost of the competition suit and a few swim caps. That's it.
But I do think the NCAA does need to lighten up on the money making restrictions on athletes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 20, 2024 6:50:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 8:47:05 GMT -5
The NCAA moves incredibly slow on any changes so it will probably take actions like California is taking to move them any faster, they just 5 years ago started allowing D1 schools to provide unlimited meals and snacks to their athletes, it is all kinds of messed up to think that schools couldn't do this previously, athletes require a whole lot more than your average person's 3 meals a day. www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/15/5618236/new-ncaa-rules-meals-snacks-SNACKSI am all for college players being able to profit off of their image and to be able to sign endorsement deals.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 2, 2019 9:22:13 GMT -5
The NCAA moves incredibly slow on any changes so it will probably take actions like California is taking to move them any faster, they just 5 years ago started allowing D1 schools to provide unlimited meals and snacks to their athletes, it is all kinds of messed up to think that schools couldn't do this previously, athletes require a whole lot more than your average person's 3 meals a day. www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/15/5618236/new-ncaa-rules-meals-snacks-SNACKSI am all for college players being able to profit off of their image and to be able to sign endorsement deals. Of course they're slow to move - I bet every damn one of them on the board was never a college athlete. Current president definitely wasn't. I randomly googled a few more on the board and they weren't either. NCAA has always been about what's best (ie most money producing) for the schools. I'm sure they're all afraid of this taking money out of their pockets somehow, who the hell cares if the kids are starving.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 2, 2019 9:57:32 GMT -5
The NCAA moves incredibly slow on any changes so it will probably take actions like California is taking to move them any faster, they just 5 years ago started allowing D1 schools to provide unlimited meals and snacks to their athletes, it is all kinds of messed up to think that schools couldn't do this previously, athletes require a whole lot more than your average person's 3 meals a day. www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/15/5618236/new-ncaa-rules-meals-snacks-SNACKSI am all for college players being able to profit off of their image and to be able to sign endorsement deals. Of course they're slow to move - I bet every damn one of them on the board was never a college athlete. Current president definitely wasn't. I randomly googled a few more on the board and they weren't either. NCAA has always been about what's best (ie most money producing) for the schools. I'm sure they're all afraid of this taking money out of their pockets somehow, who the hell cares if the kids are starving. A lot of this "oh they're so poor" is overblown though. They get free room, free food, free medical attention, and any decently large school also gives them a stipend (and the ones who are going to make money off endorsements are already at schools where they get tons of free clothing). Their basic needs are getting met if they aren't blowing their money and resources on other things. I do think they should be able to make money off their likeness, but the whole "we're starving, we can't afford gas, etc" is absolutely overblown. Nobody who would be making endorsement money is going hungry unless it's through their own decisions.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,372
|
Post by thyme4change on Oct 2, 2019 10:25:08 GMT -5
As much as I hate the NCAA's rules and exploitation of athletes, if schools have to share the profits of the big sports, that money will come from elsewhere. More tuition increases? More student loan debt spread over an entire generation. All because we love a guy who is good with balls.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 2, 2019 10:25:20 GMT -5
Of course they're slow to move - I bet every damn one of them on the board was never a college athlete. Current president definitely wasn't. I randomly googled a few more on the board and they weren't either. NCAA has always been about what's best (ie most money producing) for the schools. I'm sure they're all afraid of this taking money out of their pockets somehow, who the hell cares if the kids are starving. A lot of this "oh they're so poor" is overblown though. They get free room, free food, free medical attention, and any decently large school also gives them a stipend (and the ones who are going to make money off endorsements are already at schools where they get tons of free clothing). Their basic needs are getting met if they aren't blowing their money and resources on other things. I do think they should be able to make money off their likeness, but the whole "we're starving, we can't afford gas, etc" is absolutely overblown. Nobody who would be making endorsement money is going hungry unless it's through their own decisions. Ok, starving is obviously hyperbole especially since they changed the rules in 2014 to allow for unlimited meals. But even that's only unlimited meals at the school cafeteria which isn't always open (and the athletes need to eat a lot). Before then it was 3 meals, and I'm pretty sure 3 meals would be hard to do with athletes that probably need twice the calories of a normal college student. For medical care - that seems to vary by school. Yes insurance is required by NCAA but it's not required to be paid for by the schools and it's not required to pay for everything. So depending upon the school the student could be on the hook - and there's articles where you can google that are about students who were injured in the game and had to pay thousands. And the coverage ceases once you're off scholarship and no longer a student. As for the stipend - when I google it says that they're less than $5000 for the year and it only started in 2016. If there's limitations where the student can't get a job over the summer that's only about $400 a month IF they get the max amount. If you exclude the few summer months it's somewhere in the $500 range. While it's not bad I know my car insurance was around $200 a month when I was in college. Phone was another $50 or more if they're not on a family plan. Gas is probably at least $50. So that's less than $200 a month to cover any food outside of the cafeteria, anything the scholarship doesn't cover (like laundry and toiletries), and entertainment. And that's at the max level. An article I found listed a Big 12 school that only gave $3600 - so car insurance, gas, and phone would take up most of that. Now, does a stipend need to cover all that if you're from a family that can cover that if your tuition is paid for? Of course not. And I'm betting a lot of the athletes from the less popular sports come from better of families (lets face it, poor high schools likely don't have a golf club given the cost of a set of clubs). But I could definitely see the athletes that don't come from middle class families having a much rougher time at it through college.
|
|