Do you support allowing college athletes to be paid for ''their likeness''?

[Head Coach Scott Frost]

If they are paid for their likeness they just legalized bagmen

 

A school could just have a donor buy an autograph for 25k and buy the recruits that way.

[Hans Gruber]

56 minutes ago, HuskerInLostWages said:

I hope the players enjoy the removal of their tax exempt status too.  There is no way the IRS is not going to want their fair share.  

Well, would you rather get no tax on no money, or some tax on some money.

 

If I'm a player, I'd rather make 70 percent of X money (where X is greater than zero) than 100 percent of zero. 

[Hans Gruber]

I changed my mind 5-10 years ago on players getting paid. I used to be against it and thought it would mess up amateur sports.

 

Then I changed my mind after realizing that everyone on a college campus is allowed to be paid for anything, except the athletes.

 

If Johnny Trombone can get paid while on a music scholarship to go play his instrument places, why can't Jimmy Football get paid to be in a local restaurant commercial? Jimmy Football probably does more for the university anyways.

 

I think the idea of amateurism had been long gone for 30-40 years, at least in terms of Division I basketball and football. I think it was fair that players weren't paid in the early 80s when the top college football coaches made 200 grand. Now, Chris Ash gets over 2 million a year at Rutgers. If mediocre to bad coaches can get paid so much, I don't have a problem with players profiting off their likeness and being allowed to do commercials.

[4skers89]

5 minutes ago, Head Coach Scott Frost said:

If they are paid for their likeness they just legalized bagmen

Pretty much.  It's easy to see how this will get abused and create an unfair advantage for some schools.  Without bagmen, fan days will become our biggest selling point to recruits once players make $'s from every picture taken.  Also, I don't want our QB's hands cramping up autographing photos because he can make $500/hr in his spare time.

[K9Buck]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

Again, false.

 

You asked for examples of "what isn't detrimentally affected once the government decides to step in and take over." The people who live in cities that were filled with smog 30-40 years ago think the Clean Air Act is great. My mom thinks Medicare is great. Having highways to drive on and a police force and a fire department are all great things. If these things were done for profit there would be a crapton of small towns that didn't have them. People take what they get due to the government for granted.

 

Sometimes policies preventing people from being cheated, hurt, or killed does cost companies some extra money, but that doesn't mean said policies are "delivering less."

 

 

Also, it's really weird to me that you're okay with the NCAA telling players they can't make money off their own likeness but you're mad about the government taking things over.

 

I don't believe that it's necessary for the government to intervene in collegiate sports.  Is there anything that you don't want the government running?  I generally support free-market capitalism.  The view that government must control everything is a philosophy that has been shared throughout history by communists, fascists and socialists alike.  No thanks. 

[Omaha-Husker]

13 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

I don't believe that it's necessary for the government to intervene in collegiate sports.  Is there anything that you don't want the government running?  I generally support free-market capitalism.  The view that government must control everything is a philosophy that has been shared throughout history by communists, fascists and socialists alike.  No thanks. 

 

This is a liberal state providing a very libertarian option for athletes.  Cali is proposing that athletes be able to market their names in the free market to be able to earn whatever sponsors would pay them.  This is an incredibly capitalistic proposal that you should support based on your stated beliefs.

[K9Buck]

1 minute ago, Omaha-Husker said:

 

This is a liberal state providing a very libertarian option for athletes.  Cali is proposing that athletes be able to market their names in the free market to be able to earn whatever sponsors would pay them.  This is an incredibly capitalistic proposal that you should support based on your stated beliefs.

 

I'm ok with paying players.  I generally disagree with government intervening in a private transaction between private people.  

 

Don't liberals tell us all the time that Twitter and Facebook are private companies and can do as they please?  Why can't universities and the NCAA do as they please?    

 

[Hans Gruber]

Just now, K9Buck said:

Why can't universities and the NCAA do as they please?    

 

Well, I suppose they still could. They could just say we'll kick you off the team if you take any money. Although, that probably be detrimental to winning.

[Moiraine]

54 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

I don't believe that it's necessary for the government to intervene in collegiate sports.  Is there anything that you don't want the government running?  I generally support free-market capitalism.  The view that government must control everything is a philosophy that has been shared throughout history by communists, fascists and socialists alike.  No thanks. 

 

 

I never stated I wanted government running everything, nor did I say I want the government to interfere with players getting paid for their likeness. I'm undecided. I just take issue with the veracity of the statements that you made. Disagreeing with your view that the government's involvement in anything ruins it doesn't mean I think the government should be involved with everything.

[yort2000]

11 hours ago, K9Buck said:

 

I'm not aware of anyone getting paid for a player's likeness.  Are you?

 

 

[teachercd]

Why would anyone be against anyone else making money?

[yort2000]

7 hours ago, Hans Gruber said:

I changed my mind 5-10 years ago on players getting paid. I used to be against it and thought it would mess up amateur sports.

 

Then I changed my mind after realizing that everyone on a college campus is allowed to be paid for anything, except the athletes.

 

If Johnny Trombone can get paid while on a music scholarship to go play his instrument places, why can't Jimmy Football get paid to be in a local restaurant commercial? Jimmy Football probably does more for the university anyways.

 

I think the idea of amateurism had been long gone for 30-40 years, at least in terms of Division I basketball and football. I think it was fair that players weren't paid in the early 80s when the top college football coaches made 200 grand. Now, Chris Ash gets over 2 million a year at Rutgers. If mediocre to bad coaches can get paid so much, I don't have a problem with players profiting off their likeness and being allowed to do commercials.

 

In my mind, college athletes are getting paid.  Not only do they get their tuition paid, they now receive a stipend, and they have the opportunity to have all of their meals and housing for the 3 to 6 years that they attend college completely subsidized.  For a lot of schools, that is all they are going to be able to afford based on their budgets, so I consider not allowing any additional type of payments to college athletes as a makeshift salary cap.  Otherwise, the top 25 to 30 revenue schools are going to run away with all the talent and create a bigger disparity between the haves and the havenots. 

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

In my mind, college athletes are getting paid.  Not only do they get their tuition paid, they now receive a stipend, and they have the opportunity to have all of their meals and housing for the 3 to 6 years that they attend college completely subsidized.  For a lot of schools, that is all they are going to be able to afford based on their budgets, so I consider not allowing any additional type of payments to college athletes as a makeshift salary cap.  Otherwise, the top 25 to 30 revenue schools are going to run away with all the talent and create a bigger disparity between the haves and the havenots. 

I totally get what you are saying but my answer to that, and it is harsh, is who cares?

 

I mean...the only reason a person is a fan of Ohio or Bowling Green or USF or Temple...is because the either went there for school or had a family member that played on the team.  We know that every season there are about 30 teams that have a chance to make the playoff (before that it was probably about 20 teams that really had a shot) and that is not going to change if they are paid or not because they are getting paid right now.

 

Shoot back in the 80's The Boz said his part time job was "watching oil derricks go up and down" and that he would either sleep or just not show up and of course still get paid.

 

The top 25 to 30 teams already get all the talent.

[Waldo]

20 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Why would anyone be against anyone else making money?

Because there is no way it works without disrupting all college sports. The minute the NCAA starts paying the men’s basketball team, they will have to pay the men’s bowling team or women’s soccer team, etc. There is just no way it works without blowing all of college sports up. 

I’m in favor of people making their worth eventually though and the NCAA will have to figure it out (maybe the professional sports leagues make their own amateur leagues.)

I just think a free/reduced education is also worth something. 

[teachercd]

8 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Because there is no way it works without disrupting all college sports. The minute the NCAA starts paying the men’s basketball team, they will have to pay the men’s bowling team or women’s soccer team, etc. There is just no way it works without blowing all of college sports up. 

I’m in favor of people making their worth eventually though and the NCAA will have to figure it out (maybe the professional sports leagues make their own amateur leagues.)

I just think a free/reduced education is also worth something. 

College sports is going to get blown up.  It only makes sense (and dollars).