Jump to content


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


Recommended Posts


20 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

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.

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

 

Let the players be paid and let the market decide.  Eliminate scholarships and just let the players play football for a few years until they go pro.  Non-productive players can be cut just like the NFL can cut players.  It's free and fair for all.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

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.

 

3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

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

 

Chicken and egg somewhat here also.  Martinez brings value to that shirt, but the University of Nebraska also brings value because of its rabid fanbase.  If college football doesn't exist, than that jersey doesn't exist either.  So, this comes back to my original point and is full tuition, a stipend, 3 to 6 years of meals and housing, and many other perks not offered other students enough compensation?  My view is that it is enough and that the current system does work.

 

 I wanted to come back to the often used argument that people are making millions, so the student athlete should have to opportunity to benefit on top of what they are already getting compensated.  The only people making millions at Nebraska are Scott Frost, Fred Hoiberg, and Bill Moos (and severance to Eichorst, Riley, and last year to Pelini).  The July 1, 2018 Nebraska athletic department fiscal year budget (revenue includes licensing agreements that would encompass the sale of that AM jersey) had a surplus of $6.6 million.  $5.4 million went to the UNL administration for academics (supporting non-athlete students),  $800,000 to start new athletic programs (more student athletes benefiting), and $400,000 added to the AD dept. rainy day fund.  So, besides what some may consider too expensive coaching/AD salaries, there is not a lot of money being bandied about that isn't directly going to support the athletic programs, the student-athletes themselves, and other UNL students.

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
50 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.

 

This is a ridiculous point to try to make. Sure we all realize these things happen but they aren't supposed to be happening and they aren't within the current rules. And the issue we're talking about allowing would become legal within the rules. Money is already at the root of the lack of parity. Does anyone think more money flowing to athletes will improve the situation?

 

At least I'll know who all to blame when the college game is finally ruined for good. Look, as a matter of principle I'm not opposed to allowing players to make money off of their own likeness or efforts. But the reality is that it will create vastly more disparity between the haves and have nots which will alter the game I love (maybe not some of you). Yes, it's purely selfish but I don't want another professional sports league. There are many reasons I love college ball and they happen to be the other side of the coin of why I can only mildly tolerate the NFL or NBA. Recruiting would be drastically altered.  I don't think anyone wants college sports to devolve to consisting of only about half of current P5 programs and everyone else basically becoming a juco program or dropping sports all together. That is where things will end up if we allow the almighty dollar more influence in determining the makeup of teams.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Again, there is a lot of selfishness involved in this topic. People don’t want college football to change so they try to convince themselves that things are fair the way they are.

 

I agree that it isn't fair but so what, what is truly fair in this world? When a college education goes for about $50k per year, I happen to think that's fair enough. And nobody has a gun to their head. If a player doesn't like the deal they can freely choose to not participate in college sports. How is that choice unfair?

Link to comment

13 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I agree that it isn't fair but so what, what is truly fair in this world? When a college education goes for about $50k per year, I happen to think that's fair enough. And nobody has a gun to their head. If a player doesn't like the deal they can freely choose to not participate in college sports. How is that choice unfair?

 

 

I don’t like the latter argument. It’s not really a choice if you try to empathize. These players found something they are really good at, and in order to get paid well to do that, they essentially have 1 thing they can do (except in rare circumstances), which is to join an NCAA team so they can end up in the NFL.

 

With almost every single other career in the U.S., there are multiple paths for individuals to take to get to where they want to end up. Your option is telling them to give up on their careers instead of trying to improve things where they are, because that’s their only way of continuing to play football. For most other careers people can just switch to a different organization and have about an equal shot of their career goals. That isn’t the case with football.

 

There’s a question of whether the players are getting screwed over or if it’s unfair, and if it is unfair there’s the question of whether it should be fixed. If they’re being treated unfairly the answer is to fix it, not tell them to stop playing football.

Link to comment

Well, I think it can be argued that the current system is entrenched in a century of tradition rather than entrenched in a system that is free and fair.  On second thought, I think the California legislature is right to blow up the system.  Talented kids should be compensated for their true value.  A 5-star QB recruit will sign for big money.  At the other end of the spectrum, kids that were getting an annual $50K may, instead, end up with much less compensation.  Money that was previously spent on non-revenue sport scholarships will go to the most sought after football/basketball players and non-revenue athletes will have to pay for their own college education.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, K9Buck said:

Well, I think it can be argued that the current system is entrenched in a century of tradition rather than entrenched in a system that is free and fair.  On second though, I think the California legislature is right to blow up the system.  Talented kids should be compensated for their true value.  A 5-star QB recruit will sign for big money.  At the other end of the spectrum, kids that were getting an annual $50K may, instead, end up with much less compensation.  Money that was previously spent on non-revenue sport scholarships will go to the most sought after football/basketball players and non-revenue athletes will have to pay for their own college education.  

 

 

 

Is that what the legislation would do? Because I thought this was about players being able to sell their likeness. I find it unlikely that schools and their boosters would give up the other sports due to this. Nor do I think schools would stop giving 85 scholarships.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t like the latter argument. It’s not really a choice if you try to empathize. These players found something they are really good at, and in order to get paid well to do that, they essentially have 1 thing they can do (except in rare circumstances), which is to join an NCAA team so they can end up in the NFL.

 

With almost every single other career in the U.S., there are multiple paths for individuals to take to get to where they want to end up. Your option is telling them to give up instead of trying to improve things where they are because that’s their only way of continuing to play football. Everyone else could just switch to a different organization and have about an equal shot of their career goals. That isn’t the case with football.

 

There’s a question of whether the players are getting screwed over or if it’s unfair, and if it is unfair there’s the question of whether it should be fixed. If they’re being treated unfairly the answer is to fix it, not tell them to stop playing football.

 

Yeah, let's change the rules for 100s of thousands of student athletes each year to fit the agendas of the 1,696 athletes that make NFL rosters every year, which probably only works out to about 520 athletes a year since the average NFL career spans 3.3 years.

 

I don't think they are being treated unfairly.  Why do you?

 

 

Link to comment

My opinion: athletes should be paid. My opinion on how this should happen: the NCAA made $1.1 billion last year. With this amount of funding, it allows them to subsidize a monthly stipend for every scholarship Division 1 athlete, across every sport. These funds are distributed equally to every school and the school distributes the funds to every scholarship athlete on campus, from football to volleyball, baseball to track and everything inbetween. This helps prevent schools from setting their own levels of funding for athletes (i.e. Alabama paying their football players more than Auburn, or Nebraska paying their volleyball players more than Penn St). Then, schools set aside an equal portion of the money brought in by merchandise sales and pay this out to players on the basis of graduation; if you transfer, leave school, or go pro, you forfeit this money. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

9 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

Is that what the legislation would do? Because I thought this was about players being able to sell their likeness. I find it unlikely that schools and their boosters would give up the other sports due to this. Nor do I think schools would stop giving 85 scholarships.

 

Like I said in my OP, I'm not Nostradamus so I can't tell you what's going to happen.  But once players start getting paid, I think we can anticipate the tradition of play-for-scholarship to end and play-for-pay to begin.  It's certainly possible that one outcome would be that non-revenue athletes will no longer be able to leech off of revenue-producing players to pay their scholarship.  I presume the California legislature doesn't intend for such an outcome, but economics would seem to force such an eventuality.  Of course, they may want to enact more legislation in order to manage who gets what.  Pretty soon, California will be running the NCAA.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

My opinion: athletes should be paid. My opinion on how this should happen: the NCAA made $1.1 billion last year. With this amount of funding, it allows them to subsidize a monthly stipend for every scholarship Division 1 athlete, across every sport. These funds are distributed equally to every school and the school distributes the funds to every scholarship athlete on campus, from football to volleyball, baseball to track and everything inbetween. This helps prevent schools from setting their own levels of funding for athletes (i.e. Alabama paying their football players more than Auburn, or Nebraska paying their volleyball players more than Penn St). Then, schools set aside an equal portion of the money brought in by merchandise sales and pay this out to players on the basis of graduation; if you transfer, leave school, or go pro, you forfeit this money. 

I like this.

 

Edit: all of this money surrounding athletics goes somewhere, and while the student athletes get great benefits from the university, ultimately they are getting a disproportionate piece of the pie given their contribution in this equation.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Head Coach Scott Frost said:

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.

Couldn't the recruits simply take the money and still go wherever they wanted?

 

10 hours ago, K9Buck said:

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

First, the government is involved in every transaction between people because that's what society actually wants. Why do you think contracts and agreements have any recourse to be enforced? It'd be anarchy if the government didn't set the laws and rules by which people could transact. Second, it's contradictory for you to want the NCAA to intervene in private transactions and not the government. Plus the NCAA is run by universities, many of which are government institutions.

 

Quote

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?    

Most universities are not private companies - that's a very big difference. And no one is saying that Twitter and Facebook are exempt from laws about paying their employees, which is what the NCAA is doing.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

My opinion: athletes should be paid. My opinion on how this should happen: the NCAA made $1.1 billion last year. With this amount of funding, it allows them to subsidize a monthly stipend for every scholarship Division 1 athlete, across every sport. These funds are distributed equally to every school and the school distributes the funds to every scholarship athlete on campus, from football to volleyball, baseball to track and everything inbetween. This helps prevent schools from setting their own levels of funding for athletes (i.e. Alabama paying their football players more than Auburn, or Nebraska paying their volleyball players more than Penn St). Then, schools set aside an equal portion of the money brought in by merchandise sales and pay this out to players on the basis of graduation; if you transfer, leave school, or go pro, you forfeit this money. 

 

So they should receive a stipend in addition to whatever boosters want to pay them, correct?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

 Second, it's contradictory for you to want the NCAA to intervene in private transactions and not the government.

 

The NCAA is a governing body in which membership is VOLUNTARY.  Additionally, the NCAA is beholden to the universities, who pay their salaries and expenses.  The NCAA is a PRIVATE entity wherein the government of California is not.  

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...