Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by TSchekler, May 15, 2019.
Started a thread in the games section related to the NCAA football videogame series but I'll happily discuss NCAA FB videogames. EA Sports pulled out of that game series AFTER the conferences, schools, and NCAA decided not to grant the licenses. I still think it was a stupid move at the time since the NCAA FB game engine was rock solid at that time and an unlicensed NCAA FB game would have done real well.
Can of worms, Pandora’s box, use whatever metaphor you like. Thing is, we have been inching closer to this point for at least 20 years. Needs to be explored, but oh, man could this be a huge problem if not handled properly.
At least we have the fine individuals of the NCAA running the show. I'm sure they will handle it with great fairness, transparency and absolutely no back door pressure from any of the "haves" to overlook the "have nots"
Should happen but somehow the NCAA will screw it up and find a way to make more money out of the deal.
So, if you think there is graft, corruption and little parity now, start paying players. And also see how many opportunities for scholarships disappear when programs begin dropping football and other sports. And, of course, they will have to pay a women’s lacrosse player or men’s golfer the same salary as the football players.
Now all that said, the payments would have to come from the NCAA and not the schools. Because if schools have to pay, well, a ton of schools won’t be able to.
I actually think the payments should come from the conferences, not the schools.
That would kill the lesser conferences. I think. What about the FCS conferences? And what about DII and DIII conferences? DII offers some full and many partial scholarships. DIII doesn’t offer scholarships. But would players in these divisions expect to get paid equally with their big brothers?
Just saw in the BBall forum that they are looking at allowing players to benefit from marketing their likeness. Even worse.
I think you set a compensation level for all P5 conferences, then a different one for G5. After that, I don’t see a reason to pay players who aren’t good enough to get on a team in one of those conferences. If they blossom in college, they can get paid by the NFL.
This is about paying players for their likeness/image, not wages for participation. I don’t think there’s any reason (at this point) to assume equal pay would be mandated across non-revenue sports or lower divisions where likeness and image are less valuable. All divisions are represented on the committee.
While I don’t expect the NCAA to handle anything perfectly, this IS already a huge problem. I don’t think we should fault them for exploring solutions.
I don’t fault them one bit for exploring solutions. Let’s just say I don’t have much confidence in their ability to find one.
Thank you. This isn’t about paying every athlete a wage for representing their school. It’s about allowing players to get compensated for their own image, branding and likeness. Brett Tonz isn’t getting equal compensation as Tua
They can explore it. But the NCAA has not demonstrated the ability to police its schools. This proposed legislation would open the door for major corruption and would be a boon for the elite schools. You don’t think, say, a wealthy ‘bama booster wouldn’t figure a way to pass money to Bubba by buying Bubba’s tee shirts? “Hey Bubba! Come to ‘bama and I’ll guarantee you that you will sell a **** load of tee shirts!” It would be akin to money laundering.
What do you think stops any of this from going on currently?
Well, first, is that okay? And second, multiply the corruption 10 fold.
And even if everything is above board, where is a high profile recruit, or even an average one, going to go? To a school like ‘braska that has 80,000 fans at the spring game or CU?
The elite recruit is going to sell a **** load of shirts wherever he goes. Why shouldn’t (s)he have access to a portion of those profits?
I’m honesty not too concerned about someone in Alabama buying a storage unit full of t-shirts. Major corruption already exists and the elite schools already benefit from it. I’m glad they’re trying to fix it.
I also don’t see any reason to assume It’s going to make corruption worse by finally attempting to police it. Just my opinion - but if I’m an athlete that is profiting off my likeness, the incentive decreases to put my eligibility at risk by taking money under the table.
There’s a long way to go until we get to a solution, but it’s pretty clear something needs to be done.
Insert “a college education is worth a ton of money” argument. Not only do they not pay tuition, they get a stipend for room and board and they get a college education which is worth a ton. And a big number of these kids would never qualify to get in many of these schools.
Insert you can’t spend tuition argument.
There’s a market related to intercollegiate athletics. The players just don’t happen to be participants in that market.
Insert “an elite recruit/athlete is worth a ton of money” argument. There’s no reason to assume likeness compensation would be equal across non-revenue athletes/sports/divisions. An education is worth a ton, but so are a lot of these kids.
Well, I suppose I am a capitalist after all. And the system is definitely socialist as it currently is. So what the hell? Let ‘em get paid.
Now you lost me. I guess I should read up on what’s being proposed. I thought this was players getting compensation for things like video games, merchandise etc. Why would any one player make more than another? That would be a sticky situation. I could see it more as, “here’s a contract, you get X amount of compensation for giving us the rights to your likeness etc.”
But I could also be totally misunderstanding this so who knows.
Just grow some balls and crack down on the programs that are cheating. If thats CU, so be it. Change the rules so someone like Bloom doesn't get screwed (I think the rules have already been been changed).
It’s about time. There is so much corruption in college football and basketball it can only help to bring the payments to the surface instead of where they reside now.
Why should an institution and governing body make millions and billions off the talent and work of 18-23 year old kids, while they only get a free education and a small living stipend? Why is that acceptable?
It’d be like your employer, who I assume makes millions every year off (partly) your work, only paying for your health, vision, dental insurance and providing just enough of a stipend for you to pay your mortgage/rent. Maybe they provide you and you only with 3 meals a day at the office. What if you were the best in the country at your job, but you still couldn’t profit off your talent and skill set? Would that be acceptable?
To be clear, i do see this as the final death knell for US amateur sports at the college level.
Video games?!?!?! I realize there's a lot of video game players on AB and in society at large, but impact on that market seems trivial point in light of the fundamental changes to the game itself being discussed.
Agree, this avoids title ix problems.
Well, the players wouldn’t have the notoriety they have if the NCAA were not marketing their product. So the players definitely benefit from the huge TV contracts, marketing, etc that the NCAA pays for.
I see it as more of a licensing/royalty situation for the elite athletes and maybe a flat fixed fee for the average joe's in the money sports.
If you want Tua on the NCAA FB cover and his name and likeness in the game, EA Sports is going to have to pay a lot more to him than to the long snapper. Rightfully so as he is the one that is marketable.
There will be some tough questions: like would an entire NCAA team of players be able to leverage their collective likenesses to get a better price? Would schools lose some of the sponsorship money as those advertisers shift funds to direct player licensing? Would schools (who own the uniform, logos, etc) be able to co-op with players on licensing/advertisement revenue? Would schools, conferences, or the NCAA be allowed to regulate how the image gets used? For example, could CU stop Steven Montez from licensing his image to a liquor store, a CBD shop, etc?
If Rick George pulls this off successfully in the near future, does CU lose him to the Pac-12 Commissioner job when Larry Scott's contract expires?
Separate names with a comma.