Husker Football in a World Of Paying Athletes

[Nebfanatic]

11 hours ago, PasstheDamnBallGuy said:

 

Like really how are you gonna try to say you own someone's name and they can't make money off of it. That is really the least they can allow. 

This. I don't care if you as a fan want college football to stay the same. These kids have a right to their own name and likeness. If this were any other industry people would be up in arms. Let them sign autographs for a little money.

[zeWilbur]

13 hours ago, PasstheDamnBallGuy said:

 

Yes im sorry I was a little heated so I def was more condescending than needed. The NCAA is unbelievably corrupt and greedy, and hide behind the guise of "integrity".  That doesn't mean people supporting not paying players are though. 

 

The way I see it benefits are not the same as a wage. I would absolutely not allow my boss to replace the majority of my wage with benefits.  How about schools just get exposure instead of money from networks. If someone wants to use integrity as an argument then that's fine.  Broadcast the games for free with just enough ads to cover the cost of production. There is tons of money getting into this and its directed where to go for a very specific reason. Like really how are you gonna try to say you own someone's name and they can't make money off of it. That is really the least they can allow. 

No worries. I know some of these are hot button issues and message boards are great for venting sometimes. The funny thing is that I generally agree with you. There is too much money involved and it isn't going anywhere.

 

I just disagree with implementing a third party solution as way to make things equitable. If the argument is that the schools are making too much money then third party money will never solve that 'problem'. As long as even one player gets nothing extra people will cry foul. That is why I think it has to be solved at the school or conference level, at least.

 

The other issue is the general likeness rights. People have rights to their likeness. However, every job I have ever had has required signing away at least my intellectual property and likeness rights in some capacity while I worked there. All occurred voluntarily as a condition of the job. I don't see this as any different. And If your boss decided that your wage would be largely replaced with benefits you would likely find another job. Others might not. This is entirely voluntary. Even offering athletic scholarships is something NU does voluntarily.

 

I have been thinking about potential unintended consequences. Even if we assume no ill will or bagman related shenanigans:

Let's say you are a stud high school athlete. Your senior year get a multi-year deal with Nike (because top 50-100 athletes will ALL have Nike/Adidas type deals) and everyone is thrilled. You get your money and Nike gets you as their billboard. Now you start looking at colleges. You can't go to an Adidas school because it would violate your contract and you are happy with your Nike contract. So you go to a Nike school. Fast forward a bit, your contract is still valid but the school switches to Adidas. You could transfer and sit out a year but that would make you less valuable for your next shoe deal.

 

Can you sue the school to keep them from changing affiliations? Technically yes, because you have a financial standing.

 

Can this be taken one step further and be used as to hold up conference realignment and tv deals because your lawyer thinks it could make you less valuable?  Absolutely.

 

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, zeWilbur said:

No worries. I know some of these are hot button issues and message boards are great for venting sometimes. The funny thing is that I generally agree with you. There is too much money involved and it isn't going anywhere.

 

I just disagree with implementing a third party solution as way to make things equitable. If the argument is that the schools are making too much money then third party money will never solve that 'problem'. As long as even one player gets nothing extra people will cry foul. That is why I think it has to be solved at the school or conference level, at least.

 

The other issue is the general likeness rights. People have rights to their likeness. However, every job I have ever had has required signing away at least my intellectual property and likeness rights in some capacity while I worked there. All occurred voluntarily as a condition of the job. I don't see this as any different. And If your boss decided that your wage would be largely replaced with benefits you would likely find another job. Others might not. This is entirely voluntary. Even offering athletic scholarships is something NU does voluntarily.

 

I have been thinking about potential unintended consequences. Even if we assume no ill will or bagman related shenanigans:

Let's say you are a stud high school athlete. Your senior year get a multi-year deal with Nike (because top 50-100 athletes will ALL have Nike/Adidas type deals) and everyone is thrilled. You get your money and Nike gets you as their billboard. Now you start looking at colleges. You can't go to an Adidas school because it would violate your contract and you are happy with your Nike contract. So you go to a Nike school. Fast forward a bit, your contract is still valid but the school switches to Adidas. You could transfer and sit out a year but that would make you less valuable for your next shoe deal.

 

Can you sue the school to keep them from changing affiliations? Technically yes, because you have a financial standing.

 

Can this be taken one step further and be used as to hold up conference realignment and tv deals because your lawyer thinks it could make you less valuable?  Absolutely.

 

Now this is a well thought out response in opposition to the bill. Great points here.

[PasstheDamnBallGuy]

35 minutes ago, zeWilbur said:

No worries. I know some of these are hot button issues and message boards are great for venting sometimes. The funny thing is that I generally agree with you. There is too much money involved and it isn't going anywhere.

 

I just disagree with implementing a third party solution as way to make things equitable. If the argument is that the schools are making too much money then third party money will never solve that 'problem'. As long as even one player gets nothing extra people will cry foul. That is why I think it has to be solved at the school or conference level, at least.

 

The other issue is the general likeness rights. People have rights to their likeness. However, every job I have ever had has required signing away at least my intellectual property and likeness rights in some capacity while I worked there. All occurred voluntarily as a condition of the job. I don't see this as any different. And If your boss decided that your wage would be largely replaced with benefits you would likely find another job. Others might not. This is entirely voluntary. Even offering athletic scholarships is something NU does voluntarily.

 

I have been thinking about potential unintended consequences. Even if we assume no ill will or bagman related shenanigans:

Let's say you are a stud high school athlete. Your senior year get a multi-year deal with Nike (because top 50-100 athletes will ALL have Nike/Adidas type deals) and everyone is thrilled. You get your money and Nike gets you as their billboard. Now you start looking at colleges. You can't go to an Adidas school because it would violate your contract and you are happy with your Nike contract. So you go to a Nike school. Fast forward a bit, your contract is still valid but the school switches to Adidas. You could transfer and sit out a year but that would make you less valuable for your next shoe deal.

 

Can you sue the school to keep them from changing affiliations? Technically yes, because you have a financial standing.

 

Can this be taken one step further and be used as to hold up conference realignment and tv deals because your lawyer thinks it could make you less valuable?  Absolutely.

 

 

I can see how those would be issues, but every major sport manages them somehow.  NFL jerseys are all NIKE as far as I know but players still manage deals with other companies.  Same with NBA. Same thing with likenesses. Those players are allowed free reign of their own likeness despite the company standing to gain by having exclusive rights on it. I do agree though it will probably provide incentive for players to go to schools where their brand is, but i dont think this is much different than other incentives to go to any school. Like a school can spend 150mil to build a facility to attract players but someone else giving them money is not fair. 

 

Another point to add on top of this is that bagmen are already there. So the NCAA can decide with impunity who they decide is in violation of rules since most major universities are breaking these rules in some fashion. The universities generally get off pretty light from the NCAA but they will torpedo players if they have lunch with someone they are not allowed to. 

[Roundball Shaman]

Some more recent headlines:

 

“New York senator proposes bill to pay college athletes...
Bill Would Allow College Student-Athletes in Florida To Cash In...
University of Texas Takes the Lead in How To Pay College Athletes...
Nevada may consider letting college athletes get paid...
Colorado lawmakers promise 2020 bill to let college athletes make money”

 

So, the genie is out of the bottle. NCAA won’t stand up to changing state and federal laws sure to come about this issue. Paid (legally) college athletes is going to be the rule and the sports world will have to adapt. This is free-enterprise and personal autonomy taking down a fixed system skewed to favor everyone but the athletes. Also, with wide-spread legal sports gambling in more places, the football field won’t be the only thing soaked in green.

 

Cue Chuck Brown and the Soul Searchers...

“Got to get, got to get, got, got to get money
Got to get, got to get, got, got to get money
I'm gonna lay it right on the line
A dollar bill is a friend of mine
We need money! (We need money!)
Talkin' about money, y'all! (Talkin' about money 

[ActualCornHusker]

4 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

This. I don't care if you as a fan want college football to stay the same. These kids have a right to their own name and likeness. If this were any other industry people would be up in arms. Let them sign autographs for a little money.

 

That sounds great, but we all know that it won't be "a little money" for the top tier athletes. Not that I'm decidedly opposed to that, but I think it's important when we're talking about this whole thing that we're intellectually honest and present the facts rather than downplay them.

 

A total free-for-all would not simply shift the landscape of college football - it would set an atomic bomb to collegiate athletics as we know it.

[Nebfanatic]

15 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

That sounds great, but we all know that it won't be "a little money" for the top tier athletes. Not that I'm decidedly opposed to that, but I think it's important when we're talking about this whole thing that we're intellectually honest and present the facts rather than downplay them.

 

A total free-for-all would not simply shift the landscape of college football - it would set an atomic bomb to collegiate athletics as we know it.

I don't know how it should work and I agree it shouldn't be a free for all but I do think a change should be made. Probably would have been easier to do a decade or 2 ago. 

[Caven]

5 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

This. I don't care if you as a fan want college football to stay the same. These kids have a right to their own name and likeness. If this were any other industry people would be up in arms. Let them sign autographs for a little money.

 

Hey - if you come here, Bob is willing to pay you $100,000 for your autograph.  Oh, Bama has a booster willing to pay $200,000 for your autograph?  Let me go find some more boosters that want autographs then.  Don't commit to anything yet!

 

That will end well...

[Nebfanatic]

6 minutes ago, Caven said:

 

Hey - if you come here, Bob is willing to pay you $100,000 for your autograph.  Oh, Bama has a booster willing to pay $200,000 for your autograph?  Let me go find some more boosters that want autographs then.  Don't commit to anything yet!

 

That will end well...

How long will that last really when you pay a recruit 200,000 then he transfers, doesn't pan out, ect? My guess is boosters have shorter arms for their deep pockets than you might think.

[ActualCornHusker]

4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

How long will that last really when you pay a recruit 200,000 then he transfers, doesn't pan out, ect? My guess is boosters have shorter arms for their deep pockets than you might think.

 

It only cost Auburn $180K for a National Championship. 

 

Even worse than recruiting HS athletes would be the potential for schools recruiting players from other schools. 

 ex. -> 2 or 3 star player goes to FAU, becomes a phenomenal player. Bama gets a couple donors to offer said player a bundle of cash to transfer.

 

If you don't think that would happen, think again.

[4skers89]

1 hour ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

That sounds great, but we all know that it won't be "a little money" for the top tier athletes. Not that I'm decidedly opposed to that, but I think it's important when we're talking about this whole thing that we're intellectually honest and present the facts rather than downplay them.

 

A total free-for-all would not simply shift the landscape of college football - it would set an atomic bomb to collegiate athletics as we know it.

Wow, it's like you live in the real world and not some fantasy world where one can change the rules and believe everything will work out.  Atomic bomb is accurate.  Boosters will either pay for play or watch their college be left behind.  It does make life easier for ADs.  Instead of soliciting funds from boosters for facility upgrades and whatnot the boosters can just buy their favorite players.  The B1G really needs to get rid of the guaranteed 4 yr scholarship.  It's not fair to be saddled with a player for that long that isn't performing up to their pay.  The 4 yr deal is an antiquated notion that doesn't fit with the new college model.

[Jeremy]

1 hour ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

It only cost Auburn $180K for a National Championship. 

 

Even worse than recruiting HS athletes would be the potential for schools recruiting players from other schools. 

 ex. -> 2 or 3 star player goes to FAU, becomes a phenomenal player. Bama gets a couple donors to offer said player a bundle of cash to transfer.

 

If you don't think that would happen, think again.

I could be wrong, but I believe we rank pretty well when it comes to deep pockets and the football program. So we have that going for us. Which is nice.

[MyBloodIsRed16]

Parents are still gonna be a problem.  Believe it or not some kids actually like playing football without being paid.  Sleazy parents are still gonna try to take advantage of their kids talent without caring how it affects their kid.  It will get ugly...er

[zeWilbur]

17 hours ago, PasstheDamnBallGuy said:

 

The NCAA is unbelievably corrupt and greedy, and hide behind the guise of "integrity".  

Every major sports manages by having a single centralized power and players with collective bargaining. To accomplish that you would need every P5 and G5 school to give up whatever their specific benefits are so the NCAA can redistribute it in a 'fair' manner a la NFL, MLB, NHL. It would very likely take care of your concerns. However, you already feel that the NCAA is "unbelievably corrupt and greedy". I am not disagreeing at all. So the answer is giving them more power?

[FumbleRooski]

On 10/1/2019 at 6:53 PM, Red Five said:

 

How dare socialist CA lawmakers pass a bill that is the very definition of capitalism.

You part of the clowns or joker squad?