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

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, yort2000 said:

 

 

LOL. $250.  Keep trying.  You have no argument.

 

 

 

? Ok. They get paid by their school and are allowed to make money outside of that. Are you telling me you don't think schools give full rides for band? Because I'm sure I can find one that does, and I'm am positive that student would not be banned from using their likeness to make money. If we don't want to use band, why don't we just use a regular student who recieves a full scholarship. They are getting 'paid' by the university, but that doesn't ban them from becoming an entrepeneur and using their brand for money.

[K9Buck]

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

You are miscontruing this whole thing. No Trump doesn't get paid by CNN when they use his picture, but Trump has the freedom to sell his photograph for as much as he wants. He is free to slap his name on buildings to make money. Professional athletes might not get paid when their picture is on a news outlet, but they have the freedom to sell images of themselves for fair market value. At this point in time NCAA players are banned from these same freedoms everyone else gets to enjoy and that is what this law is addressing.

 

I was responding to the poster who demonstrated how media outlets profit off of the images of college football players.  The implication was that they should be paid, which opens up a whole new legal avenue of arguments and freedom of the press, etc.

[Red Five]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Why would anyone be against anyone else making money?

 

Exactly.  And who is to tell anyone how to spend their money?

 

If they allowed "likeness" to get paid, would it really change that much?  SEC is still going to get the best players.  The MAC is still going to get the worst players.

 

And I think that people/boosters/companies would learn really fast that its not wise to be paying hot shot freshman QB $25k for appearing at a car dealership after seeing him transfer 1 year later.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, K9Buck said:

 

I was responding to the poster who demonstrated how media outlets profit off of the images of college football players.  The implication was that they should be paid, which opens up a whole new legal avenue of arguments and freedom of the press, etc.

I understand that but your questions misconstrue the issue. Its not a question of do people get paid by outlets for their picture, its a question of does that person have the freedom over their own image or 'likeness' to sell it? Or not sell it for that matter. Trump and pro athletes have that freedom, NCAA athletes do not, and that goes for any sport. 

[teachercd]

Just now, Red Five said:

 

Exactly.  And who is to tell anyone how to spend their money?

 

If they allowed "likeness" to get paid, would it really change that much?  SEC is still going to get the best players.  The MAC is still going to get the worst players.

 

And I think that people/boosters/companies would learn really fast that its not wise to be paying hot shot freshman QB $25k for appearing at a car dealership after seeing him transfer 1 year later.

This is a really good point.  The rich booster for Miami of Ohio is not going to blow major coin to get their QB out to his car dealership because it doesn't accomplish anything.

 

I would guess what is going to get more and more popular is the old "You know...if you stay at good old State U, after you graduate I can promise you there will be a job waiting for you with us here at State U Cars"

[WyoHusker56]

This whole discussion on a Nebraska board is sort of funny. Considering Nebraska is one of the few AD that generates a profit this would likely give Nebraska a recruiting advantage like they used to have with tv appearances. 

[yort2000]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

? Ok. They get paid by their school and are allowed to make money outside of that. Are you telling me you don't think schools give full rides for band? Because I'm sure I can find one that does, and I'm am positive that student would not be banned from using their likeness to make money. If we don't want to use band, why don't we just use a regular student who recieves a full scholarship. They are getting 'paid' by the university, but that doesn't ban them from becoming an entrepeneur and using their brand for money.

 

Nobody is fighting over band members and the $250 at UNO is probably an enticement to get people to join band so that they can actually have one.  Totally different situations.  There are rules for college athletics to keep the playing field as level as possible that don't exist for band or any other extracurricular activity.   Some people don't care about trying to keep as much "fairness" as possible in "amateur" athletics and some people do.    If it continues on this path, it will morph into just another professional sports league and college football will no longer exist as most universities will not be able to pay all the football players and every other college athlete on campus.

[Danimal]

This would basically make it so whatever team's boosters are spending the most would have the best team. It would be a circus. 

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

Nobody is fighting over band members and the $250 at UNO is probably an enticement to get people to join band so that they can actually have one.  Totally different situations.  There are rules for college athletics to keep the playing field as level as possible that don't exist for band or any other extracurricular activity.   Some people don't care about trying to keep as much "fairness" as possible in "amateur" athletics and some people do.    If it continues on this path, it will morph into just another professional sports league and college football will no longer exist as most universities will not be able to pay all the football players and every other college athlete on campus.

Some people care about fairness to the athlete when everyone around them is making millions of dollars off of them and they can't go sign some T shirts for money. On top of that, kids are getting bookoo bucks under the table and they have been for a long, long time. How exactly is it fair to the 3rd stringer on Moorehead State that Alabama pays their best recruit 200k to commit and the 3rd stringer is banned from using their likeness for profit. So if we want to talk about fairness, I think the current system isn't going to hold up too well.

[teachercd]

9 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Some people care about fairness to the athlete when everyone around them is making millions of dollars off of them and they can't go sign some T shirts for money. On top of that, kids are getting bookoo bucks under the table and they have been for a long, long time. How exactly is it fair to the 3rd stringer on Moorehead State that Alabama pays their best recruit 200k to commit and the 3rd stringer is banned from using their likeness for profit. So if we want to talk about fairness, I think the current system isn't going to hold up too well.

 

I don't think it should be about "fair" I think it should be about what that school wants to spend money on. 

 

Bama would probably rather spend cash on a stud QB while MIT would rather spend cash on a stud science student.

[yort2000]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

Some people care about fairness to the athlete when everyone around them is making millions of dollars off of them and they can't go sign some T shirts for money. On top of that, kids are getting bookoo bucks under the table and they have been for a long, long time. How exactly is it fair to the 3rd stringer on Moorehead State that Alabama pays their best recruit 200k to commit and the 3rd stringer is banned from using their likeness for profit. So if we want to talk about fairness, I think the current system isn't going to hold up too well.

 

LOL.  Nobody is going to be paying for the autograph of the 3rd stringer at Morehead State and if he had an opportunity to make money, but it was banned by the NCAA, I'm sure he would just give up football and pursue the money making endeavor because he is FREAKING 3RD STRING AT MOREHEAD STATE.  If your worth the money, it will find you.  And as far as getting paid for your likeness, only a handful of athletes at each school would actually have enough status to make money anyway as a majority of the roster at most schools are just going to be made up of Joe Schmos.   

 

 

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

LOL.  Nobody is going to be paying for the autograph of the 3rd stringer at Morehead State and if he had an opportunity to make money, but it was banned by the NCAA, I'm sure he would just give up football and pursue the money making endeavor because he is FREAKING 3RD STRING AT MOREHEAD STATE.  If your worth the money, it will find you.  And as far as getting paid for your likeness, only a handful of athletes at each school would actually have enough status to make money anyway as a majority of the roster at most schools are just going to be made up of Joe Schmos.   

 

 

You're missing the point. This is about the right to do it not what the 3rd stringer should do. I'm pretty sure someone in Nebraska would pay to have Kade Warner come out to an event. And the fact of the matter is right now some players do get paid. Alot. And its been that way since the 80s and probably before then. So how exactly is it fair to Kade Warner, or any other student athlete that doesn't get paid under the table, that they can't even TRY to use their likeness for compensation. You are making alot of assumptions about what players can do with their likeness even if they aren't a star player. If given the opportunity to use his likeness, the 3rd stringer on Moorehead state may be creative and be able to use it in a way to make some money on the side while continuing his passion of college football. Point is, some players are getting paid big bucks on the low and others are banned from the opportunity to try. 

[K9Buck]

9 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

LOL.  Nobody is going to be paying for the autograph of the 3rd stringer at Morehead State and if he had an opportunity to make money, but it was banned by the NCAA, I'm sure he would just give up football and pursue the money making endeavor because he is FREAKING 3RD STRING AT MOREHEAD STATE.  If your worth the money, it will find you.  And as far as getting paid for your likeness, only a handful of athletes at each school would actually have enough status to make money anyway as a majority of the roster at most schools are just going to be made up of Joe Schmos.   

 

 

 

High school recruits would be signing contracts with boosters to promote their product provided they attend their school.  

[yort2000]

3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

You're missing the point. This is about the right to do it not what the 3rd stringer should do. I'm pretty sure someone in Nebraska would pay to have Kade Warner come out to an event. And the fact of the matter is right now some players do get paid. Alot. And its been that way since the 80s and probably before then. So how exactly is it fair to Kade Warner, or any other student athlete that doesn't get paid under the table, that they can't even TRY to use their likeness for compensation. You are making alot of assumptions about what players can do with their likeness even if they aren't a star player. If given the opportunity to use his likeness, the 3rd stringer on Moorehead state may be creative and be able to use it in a way to make some money on the side while continuing his passion of college football. Point is, some players are getting paid big bucks on the low and others are banned from the opportunity to try. 

 

 

That's all well and good, but what comes out at the other end of that type of system won't be what exists today.  And, in my opinion, it won't be for the better.

 

 

 

[Nebfanatic]

18 minutes ago, teachercd said:

 

I don't think it should be about "fair" I think it should be about what that school wants to spend money on. 

 

Bama would probably rather spend cash on a stud QB while MIT would rather spend cash on a stud science student.

This isn't about schools paying players its about players being able to use thier likeness to command compensation. If someone else can make money selling #2 Husker jerseys with the name Martinez slapped on the back, why can't Adrian Martinez? Currently because of NCAA rules.

1 minute ago, yort2000 said:

 

 

That's all well and good, but what comes out at the other end of that type of system won't be what exists today.  And, in my opinion, it won't be for the better.

 

 

 

So what do you suggest we do? Because the current system doesn't work.