The NCAA will allow athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness

[4skers89]

17 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

My prediction is that this is less of a big deal than people make it. Some kids will make some money with merchandise or being in cheesy local commercials. It'll be a piece of recruiting, but it won't drastically change it. I don't think it will drastically shift the sport and if it does it'll likely be in favor of Nebraska and other big money schools.

We can look at what SMU players were getting payed to figure out where this could end up.  It was fairly well known that a recruiting bid for Marcus Dupree's commitment was $100K if I remember correctly.  I don't recall what Cam Newton was rumored to cost.  Whether true or not, the rumored amounts were plausible.  Everyone knows this will create inequalities between schools but nobody knows to what degree.  If your prediction is true and only small money will be paid out to some players then why venture down that road?  Is it worth risking a drastic shift in CFB (in case predictions are wrong) to correct a perceived injustice to only a small number of players?  

[Swiv3D]

44 minutes ago, 4skers89 said:

We can look at what SMU players were getting payed to figure out where this could end up.  It was fairly well known that a recruiting bid for Marcus Dupree's commitment was $100K if I remember correctly.  I don't recall what Cam Newton was rumored to cost.  Whether true or not, the rumored amounts were plausible.  Everyone knows this will create inequalities between schools but nobody knows to what degree.  If your prediction is true and only small money will be paid out to some players then why venture down that road?  Is it worth risking a drastic shift in CFB (in case predictions are wrong) to correct a perceived injustice to only a small number of players?  

Think cam was 200k, maybe 250k

[WyoHusker56]

2 hours ago, 4skers89 said:

We can look at what SMU players were getting payed to figure out where this could end up.  It was fairly well known that a recruiting bid for Marcus Dupree's commitment was $100K if I remember correctly.  I don't recall what Cam Newton was rumored to cost.  Whether true or not, the rumored amounts were plausible.  Everyone knows this will create inequalities between schools but nobody knows to what degree.  If your prediction is true and only small money will be paid out to some players then why venture down that road?  Is it worth risking a drastic shift in CFB (in case predictions are wrong) to correct a perceived injustice to only a small number of players?  

 

Oh, I could absolutely be wrong and it could turn into a big money deal like you're talking about. However, I think of it sort of like a black market. When you aren't supposed to pay kids you get $100k commitments, but when it's all out in the open and legit things regulate different. I also think the NCAA keeps a really tight limit on this and doesn't allow it to go beyond "You can appear in a commercial and earn up to $1,000 or autographs are worth $10, etc.) I may be off, but that's just what I think. 

[Minnesota_husker]

13 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Since they're paid employees now, is the free education taken away?

Professors are paid and they get free education if they want it, so no, i assume not. 

[Nebfanatic]

13 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Since they're paid employees now, is the free education taken away?

You have a gross misunderstanding of what is being discussed. They will not be payed employees and I absolutely hate when people continually frame it this way because that is not what this is doing.

[BigRedBuster]

Heard an interesting conversation on this on the radio this morning.  They were talking about how this could affect lesser watched sports.  The commentator said that it could allow say a tennis player to give tennis lessons to kids and get paid.  This currently is against the rules.  

 

Stuff like that should be allowed and it's stupid that it's not.

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Heard an interesting conversation on this on the radio this morning.  They were talking about how this could affect lesser watched sports.  The commentator said that it could allow say a tennis player to give tennis lessons to kids and get paid.  This currently is against the rules.  

 

Stuff like that should be allowed and it's stupid that it's not.

Bingo. I saw a video of a gymnast talking about how her routine went viral on the internet but she wasn't able to monetize it even though other people were taking video of her  routine and pasting it up on youtube recieving ad revenue for each click. Doesn't make sense someone else can make money off her routine but she can't

[Huckleberry Muhammad]

9 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

You have a gross misunderstanding of what is being discussed. They will not be payed employees and I absolutely hate when people continually frame it this way because that is not what this is doing.

 

"...that is not what this is doing."

 

Not yet. 

[Nebfanatic]

Just now, Huckleberry Muhammad said:

 

"...that is not what this is doing."

 

Not yet. 

Wah wah wah. 'It could lead to paying players' well eating burgers can lead to cancer. This isn't what this is about at all and until it is I don't want to hear it. Its entirely unamerican these players aren't allowed to go make money for themselves.

[Igetbored216]

Bring BACK EA NCAA Football! 

[Micheal]

I am thinking this will be a sloooooooooow process. I also expect the NCAA to put a cap on player pay/benefits/endorsements. Which then will see under the table stuff continuing. 

 

Also bring back NCAA Football! 

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

You have a gross misunderstanding of what is being discussed. They will not be payed employees and I absolutely hate when people continually frame it this way because that is not what this is doing.

 

Your sarcasm meter is broken...It was tongue-in-cheek, smart guy.... I've made it pretty clear on this board multiple times that I'm pro capitalism, so obviously I'm on board with them being able to make money off their own likeness

[WyoHusker56]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Heard an interesting conversation on this on the radio this morning.  They were talking about how this could affect lesser watched sports.  The commentator said that it could allow say a tennis player to give tennis lessons to kids and get paid.  This currently is against the rules.  

 

Stuff like that should be allowed and it's stupid that it's not.

 

This is where I think most of this will go. Remember the kicker who was making trick kicks a few years back and had a huge following? He had to choose between his scholarship and making money on the videos, that's dumb. Kids can't teach lessons for money or get a few bucks for being in a commercial that's all just dumb. Could it lead to huge endorsements for football players that are popular, maybe, but that's years away and I bet the NCAA controls it tightly.

[Nebfanatic]

4 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

It was tongue-in-cheek, smart guy.... I've made it pretty clear on this board multiple times that I'm pro capitalism, so obviously I'm on board with them being able to make money off their own likeness

Figured it might be but there are plenty who non ironically believe what you posted to be true.

[Dbqgolfer]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Heard an interesting conversation on this on the radio this morning.  They were talking about how this could affect lesser watched sports.  The commentator said that it could allow say a tennis player to give tennis lessons to kids and get paid.  This currently is against the rules.  

 

Stuff like that should be allowed and it's stupid that it's not.

I just hope that these kids realize that just because the NCAA allows it, doesn't mean it won't affect their amateur status.  In  golf that is a big thing if the student athlete wants to compete in amateur tournaments, which most do.