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

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, yort2000 said:

 

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

 

 

You were responding to Nebfanatic talking about the money surrounding athletics. I highlt doubt the majority goes to benefit the student athletes. I imagine the majority goes to the broadcasters. 

[Moiraine]

8 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?

 

 

You keep using that word (“take over”) but I don’t think you know what it means. Preventing unfair business practices is not the same as taking the business over.

[Red Five]

Sure it might be the wild, wild, west for a couple years if they allow kids to make money from their likeness, but it will soon calm down and market efficiencies will take over.

 

People are completely overestimating how much these kids will make by profiting off their likeness, especially for incoming recruits.  Established stars in their Jr and Sr years will be the ones profiting the most, as they will be able to get money from jersey sales, endorsements, and autograph signings.

 

As for incoming freshmen, how much do you think that a booster is going to actually pay a kid?  There will not be very many kids getting enough money to even buy a brand new car.

[yort2000]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You were responding to Nebfanatic talking about the money surrounding athletics. I highlt doubt the majority goes to benefit the student athletes. I imagine the majority goes to the broadcasters. 

 

Broadcasters?  A majority of the NCAA's revenue comes from television and marketing rights for the NCAA baskeball tournament.  Do some research.  In one of my previous posts I detailed where the money goes.  Interestingly enough, the NCAA puts on 90 championships and only 5 make money.  So the NCAA basketball championship is subsidizing 85 other college sports championships also.

 

 

[teachercd]

Now that I think about it...there is something fun and interesting about the paying/payment being "behind the scenes" and then reading about it and hearing about it later.

 

Also, for as much as it must go on it really is amazing how few great stories there are about it...SMU...Miami and that one booster...I bet Netflix ends up with a sweet a$$ documentary on it someday.  

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, yort2000 said:

 

Broadcasters?  A majority of the NCAA's revenue comes from television and marketing rights for the NCAA baskeball tournament.  Do some research.  In one of my previous posts I detailed where the money goes.  Interestingly enough, the NCAA puts on 90 championships and only 5 make money.  So the NCAA basketball championship is subsidizing 85 other college sports championships also.

 

 

That is NCAA revenue. That is only a small piece of the pie when it comes to money around college athletics. How much of the BTN money goes directly towards student athletes? How much money is actually in player likeness currently(jerseys, autographs, ect.)? The thing that gets me with this is other people are allowed to make money using someones likeness, and alot of it, yet those people themselves are banned. That seems wrong to me.

[K9Buck]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You keep using that word (“take over”) but I don’t think you know what it means. Preventing unfair business practices is not the same as taking the business over.

 

You mean like taking over healthcare because the existing, private system is "unfair"?  

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

You mean like taking over healthcare because the existing, private system is "unfair"?  

Lets not get into that here, shall we? We have another place on the board for that sort of conversation.

 

In fact this entire topic isn't really Husker Football and would probably fit best elsewhere, but that is just one mans opinion.

[Moiraine]

9 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

You mean like taking over healthcare because the existing, private system is "unfair"?  

 

 

So to you, allowing student athletes to be compensated for their likeness, basically changing 1 rule in the NCAA, is the equivalent to having government run health care.

 

[Moiraine]

16 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

Broadcasters?  A majority of the NCAA's revenue comes from television and marketing rights for the NCAA baskeball tournament.  Do some research.  In one of my previous posts I detailed where the money goes.  Interestingly enough, the NCAA puts on 90 championships and only 5 make money.  So the NCAA basketball championship is subsidizing 85 other college sports championships also.

 

 

 

 

I have done research.

 

You’re talking about NCAA revenue. You were replying to a post about money in college football. Thus I brought up broadcasters. Do you think broadcasters are breaking even with what they pay the conferences and NCAA?

[funhusker]

11 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

You mean like taking over healthcare because the existing, private system is "unfair"?  

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

 

This bill isn't a "take over" by any means.  It is the government stepping in to do the opposite.  It is mandating "deregulation" and letting the free market decide.  Do I think it is a dangerous game California is playing: yes

 

The state isn't setting salaries are deciding how revenue should be spent.  It is simply saying, these kids have the potential to make money, let's see how they do!  At the same time they are risking violating NCAA rules and leaving their students on the outside looking in.  

[JJ Husker]

1 hour 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 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.

 

I don't agree. Virtually all people have to pay some kind of dues to get where they're going. For a lot of people, football players not excluded, that path goes through college. The only difference is that in the case of football or basketball players their college years generate a bunch of revenue for other entities. I don't think that really changes the fairness of the whole deal. It's only 4 years and their future earning potential is elevated greatly above almost every other person. How is it fair that NFL quarterbacks get paid what they do compared to nurses, plumbers, teachers etc.?

[K9Buck]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

So to you, allowing student athletes to be compensated for their likeness, basically changing 1 rule in the NCAA, is the equivalent to having government run health care.

 

 

You said "preventing unfair business practices" as opposed to illegal or unconstitutional business practices.  In other words, if you think that it's "unfair" that a male soccer player gets paid more than a female soccer player, it's ok for the government to step in, take over and determine what is "fair". Sorry, but I don't ascribe to statist political and economic ideology such as communism, fascism and socialism. 

[yort2000]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I have done research.

 

You’re talking about NCAA revenue. You were replying to a post about money in college football. Thus I brought up broadcasters. Do you think broadcasters are breaking even with what they pay the conferences and NCAA?

 

 

No I was replying to the reply directly quoting the $1.1 billion that the NCAA "made" and how he liked the idea, even though it was a dumb idea because most of the money already goes back to the universities.

 

Broadcasters don't deserve the right to make money to provide the service of letting you watch the game on TV?  They are paying for the right to do so and it is up to them to figure out to make money over their expenses.  That money they pay goes to AD budgets and is used for the benefit of the athletic programs and the student athletes.

 

 

 

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, JJ Husker said:

 

I don't agree. Virtually all people have to pay some kind of dues to get where they're going. For a lot of people, football players not excluded, that path goes through college. The only difference is that in the case of football or basketball players their college years generate a bunch of revenue for other entities. I don't think that really changes the fairness of the whole deal. It's only 4 years and their future earning potential is elevated greatly above almost every other person. How is it fair that NFL quarterbacks get paid what they do compared to nurses, plumbers, teachers etc.?

The market determines this. There is more money to go around to NFL quarterbacks because the product they are a part of produces more money than those other professions. Funny thing, college athletics is the same way.