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

[K9Buck]

In any event, I suspect that the court system will ultimately be the deciding arbiter in all of this.  

[Moiraine]

27 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

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?

 

 

 

 

You’re off the point here. I was explaining why telling them to not play football isn’t a good answer. Trying to improve the organization they’re in is a better option. This applies to all of the student athletes, not just the ones that might become professional athletes. If they’re being treated unfairly they should try to fix it instead of quitting.

 

I didn’t say they were being treated unfairly. I’m just pointing out that people’s opinions are affected by the fact they are selfish in wanting  the sport stay the same. Deciding whether it’s fair or not should happen outside of that.

[Hans Gruber]

1 hour ago, Danimal said:

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

1: You're first sentence is correct.

 

2: It's been that way for decades.

 

3: It isn't any different than what's going on now.

 

4: It would only be a circus if you think college athletics already are a circus.

[yort2000]

4 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. 

 

Doesn't this already happen with the NCAA?  My understanding is that the NCAA generates most of their revenue from the NCAA basketball tournament and that about $220 million goes to Division I athletic departments for sports scholarships, $160 million goes to Division I basketball conferences and independents based on their basketball performance over a certain period of time (again getting into Division I AD budgets), $100 million goes directly to teams in the tournament to cover their expenses to participate in the tournament, $380 million to other funds, education programs, grants, and Division II/III allocations, and $130 million used to cover the NCAA's general and administrative and other association expenses. 

 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, K9Buck said:

 

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.  

Why is it ok for a private entity to interfere in private transactions but not the government? Additionally, why is government institutions (like public universities) setting up a private entity in order to regulate private transactions somehow better than the government doing it directly?

 

I get that you're trying to draw a distinction between public and private laws and regulations, but to me it's just poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe.

[Hans Gruber]

3 hours 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.

This is why they'll just allow players to make money off their likeness. Then the NCAA and schools don't have to pay them. It would be local business owners and the like.

 

I agree that it's a much more complicated issue if it's the NCAA or school that is paying athletes because of Title 9. This way allows both the schools and the NCAA to side step that issue. 

3 hours ago, Waldo said:

 

 

[Danimal]

3 minutes ago, Hans Gruber said:

1: You're first sentence is correct.

 

2: It's been that way for decades.

 

3: It isn't any different than what's going on now.

 

4: It would only be a circus if you think college athletics already are a circus.

 

Yes some players obviously already get bought, but this would escalate things greatly 

[yort2000]

17 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

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.

 

Most of this money already goes back to the universities and benefits the student athletes.

[Cdog923]

17 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

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

 

At what point in my scenario are boosters paying players? 

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

Most of this money already goes back to the universities and benefits the student athletes.

 

 

Does it?

[K9Buck]

1 minute ago, Cdog923 said:

 

At what point in my scenario are boosters paying players? 

 

The topic is players being legally able to be paid for their likeness and where NCAA athletics goes from there.  Your scenario seems to ignore this point.

[K9Buck]

8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Why is it ok for a private entity to interfere in private transactions but not the government? Additionally, why is government institutions (like public universities) setting up a private entity in order to regulate private transactions somehow better than the government doing it directly?

 

I get that you're trying to draw a distinction between public and private laws and regulations, but to me it's just poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe.

 

Membership to the NCAA is voluntary just like membership here in this forum is voluntary.  Should the state of California take this over too?

[yort2000]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Does it?

 

Yes.  $130 million is used for NCAA expenses and the rest is distributed to universities through one program or another.

 

 

[WyoHusker56]

4 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

Membership to the NCAA is voluntary just like membership here in this forum is voluntary.  Should the state of California take this over too?

Knowing California I wouldn't be surprised if they tried haha 

[Cdog923]

9 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

The topic is players being legally able to be paid for their likeness and where NCAA athletics goes from there.  Your scenario seems to ignore this point.

 

The topic has evolved over three pages, and I have expounded on the topic.