Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-29-2019, 02:59 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
It means not just saying “no” which is what they’ve been doing for decades.
Yes, I was just returning to the board to declare my previous post complete NCAA (and AP, too, kinda) bullshit. The assholes running big time college sports haven't done a concrete thing to advance player rights. They've essentially issued a statement that "times are changing as long as nothing substantive actually does."
  #102  
Old 10-29-2019, 03:27 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
You're too late, folks; they're not gonna let you control how this works.
Assuming "you" is the NCAA, er, yes, they will let you have at least some control. For example, I don't see any licensing agreement where the person "paying for the license" gets any sort of benefit from the school as a result will be allowed - otherwise, it smacks of the school paying the player, possibly with money laundering thrown in. Also, I doubt the schools will be allowed to pay the athletes for their rights.

I almost added, "What stops a school from requiring that all licensing income must be turned over to the school as a condition of playing?", but I answered my own question: two things that I can think of - either (a) another team will mention, "We won't do this to you!" in its recruiting, or (b) all of the schools have this policy, in which case, it's a collusion lawsuit waiting to happen.

There's one thing I haven't seen mentioned very much. Most of the talk about this involves "third party licensing" (usually in terms of the fine line between that and boosters paying the athletes directly), but will the athletes be allowed to "license themselves"? For example, can somebody set up a table at a show somewhere and sell his own autograph?
  #103  
Old 10-29-2019, 03:40 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,717
My position is that a "full scholarship" should be in place until the recipient completes his or her education. In other words, even when the individual's collegiate eligibility is exhausted, that person should be allowed a complete free ride until graduation as long as that person is taking 12 or more credits per semester and maintaining a "C" average. This will immensely help the many college athletes who are not good enough to continue as pros and will have to establish careers and earn money in other professions.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #104  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:07 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,313
So the newest part of the NCAA's strategy is to take this out of the hands of the states: NCAA: ‘Highly probable’ Congress passes athlete comp rules.
Quote:
NCAA President Mark Emmert said Wednesday it is “highly probable” federal legislation will be passed that sets national guidelines for how college athletes can be compensated for the use of their names, images and likenesses.

Emmert, who spoke a forum sponsored by the Sports Business Journal, said he is spending most of his time trying to figure out how the NCAA and its hundreds of member schools will allow college athletes to get that kind of compensation under the auspices of amateur athletics.

He said he is also spending a lot of time in Washington, meeting with lawmakers, often with university presidents and other representatives from individual schools.
So they are sticking with their business model: engaging in state-sponsored restraint of trade and monopolistic practices and now attempting to solidify that hold by getting the federal government to declare college sports as something special and deserving of it's status as a cartel which cannot be regulated by anyone but the federal government.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 12-11-2019 at 01:09 PM.
  #105  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:43 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
So they are sticking with their business model: engaging in state-sponsored restraint of trade and monopolistic practices and now attempting to solidify that hold by getting the federal government to declare college sports as something special and deserving of it's status as a cartel which cannot be regulated by anyone but the federal government.
As opposed to what - letting the schools pay their athletes (read: their football and men's basketball players) whatever they want? What's next - getting rid of any requirement that the athletes even have to attend the school (which, some people believe, already exists for all intents and purposes for one-and-dones once their fall semester ends)?

I think what Emmert is hoping for is a single set of rules, as opposed to 51 of them which would probably just end up with the best players going to the state with the least restrictive rules, the way corporations flock to Delaware. Would it be that much of a problem if everybody used, say, California's laws?
  #106  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:20 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,313
As opposed to not engaging in state-sponsored restraint of trade and monopolistic practices AND not further attempting to solidify their position legally and culturally as "approved" exploiters of youth.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 12-11-2019 at 07:21 PM.
  #107  
Old 04-23-2020, 06:30 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,313
NCAA moves toward allowing athletes to be paid sponsors
Quote:
The NCAA is moving closer to allowing Division I athletes to earn money from endorsements and sponsorship deals they can strike on their own as early as next year.

Recommended rule changes that would clear the way for athletes to earn money from their names, images and likeness are being reviewed by college sports administrators this week before being sent to the NCAA Board of Governors, which meets Monday and Tuesday.

If adopted, the rules would allow athletes to make sponsorship and endorsement deals with all kinds of companies and third parties, from car dealerships to concert promoters to pizza shops, according to a person who has reviewed the recommendations. The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Thursday because the details were still being discussed and debated.
Quote:
No school-branded apparel or material could be used by athletes in their personal endorsement deals, according to the recommendations reviewed by the person who spoke to the AP. Athletes would be required to disclose financial terms of contracts to their athletic departments, along with their relationships with any individuals involved.

Athletes would be allowed to enter into agreements with individuals deemed to be school boosters, the person said.

The NCAA would create a mechanism to evaluate potential deals for fair market value and spot possible corruption. An athlete could compromise their eligibility for failing to disclose details of a financial agreement or relationship, the person said.

The recommendations also call for allowing athletes to sign autographs for money, sell their memorabilia, and be paid for personal appearances and working as an instructor in their sport.
The part I bolded seems to be problem, IMO. It's kind of saying "we have to approve your deal" and IMO that's not gonna fly: the athletes should not be the NCAA's wage slaves.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 04-23-2020 at 06:34 PM.
  #108  
Old 04-23-2020, 09:04 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
NCAA moves toward allowing athletes to be paid sponsors

The part I bolded seems to be problem, IMO. It's kind of saying "we have to approve your deal" and IMO that's not gonna fly: the athletes should not be the NCAA's wage slaves.
The NCAA has every right to make sure that a "sponsorship deal" isn't some collusion between the sponsor and the school. Anything that smacks of the school paying any of its athletes, especially if it is laundered through a sponsor, should be punished.
  #109  
Old 04-24-2020, 01:20 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,313
What does that have to do with “fair market value”?

I mean why quote me if you’re not actually going to reply to the point that I raised?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 04-24-2020 at 01:22 AM.
  #110  
Old 04-24-2020, 10:24 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,165
It took until 1992 for the Olympics to allow pros. Before that they had pros in some sports like track, they just pretended they were amateurs. For Tennis I think it was in the mid 60s when they allowed pros in the major tourneys such as US Open, Wimbledon, etc.
  #111  
Old 04-24-2020, 06:47 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,246
The NCAA trying to police fair market values is nonsensical. Let the schools and the boosters compensate them any way and amount they want. Paying people what they're worth is the kind of thing that will Make America Great Again.
  #112  
Old 04-24-2020, 06:55 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,313
That's what I mean: it's just another way for the NCAA to try and control the players. Besides, the players can decide for themselves what their market value is for any particular endorsement. Maybe they want $1,000,000 from McDonald's but will do a charity thing for free; that's their right IMO.
  #113  
Old 04-24-2020, 08:03 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
That's what I mean: it's just another way for the NCAA to try and control the players. Besides, the players can decide for themselves what their market value is for any particular endorsement. Maybe they want $1,000,000 from McDonald's but will do a charity thing for free; that's their right IMO.
From McDonald's is one thing. From a McDonald's franchise owner that "just happens" to get a luxury box in the stadium for free from the athletic department is another. That's why the NCAA needs to provide at least a slight amount of oversight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
The NCAA trying to police fair market values is nonsensical. Let the schools and the boosters compensate them any way and amount they want. Paying people what they're worth is the kind of thing that will Make America Great Again.
And the school paying the female people the same as the male people if the school receives any federal aid is what Title IX is all about. Expect every women's basketball player at a school to head to the nearest court of law if any male player gets paid so much as penny one from the school, or even by somebody who receives a benefit from the school. That's why there has to be a completely clean break between the schools and the money.

IMO, what there really needs to be is a completely clean break between the big money football and men's basketball teams and the schools - except that the teams can license the school's colors/logos/nicknames, and rent the campus stadiums/areans for their home games. This has the added advantage of getting rid of academic ineligibility.
  #114  
Old 04-24-2020, 08:08 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
From McDonald's is one thing. From a McDonald's franchise owner that "just happens" to get a luxury box in the stadium for free from the athletic department is another. That's why the NCAA needs to provide at least a slight amount of oversight.
I don't see any compelling argument here, but if I take it you're invoking Title IX somehow (as you did following this in your post), well, that has nothing to do with the NCAA and is a violation of federal law, so it would be the feds' business. No reason for the NCAA to have any involvement whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
And the school paying the female people the same as the male people if the school receives any federal aid is what Title IX is all about. Expect every women's basketball player at a school to head to the nearest court of law if any male player gets paid so much as penny one from the school, or even by somebody who receives a benefit from the school. That's why there has to be a completely clean break between the schools and the money.
Again: this has nothing to do with fair market value, which is what I am talking about.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 04-24-2020 at 08:09 PM.
  #115  
Old 04-24-2020, 08:27 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I don't see any compelling argument here, but if I take it you're invoking Title IX somehow (as you did following this in your post), well, that has nothing to do with the NCAA and is a violation of federal law, so it would be the feds' business. No reason for the NCAA to have any involvement whatsoever.
That part had nothing to do with Title IX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Again: this has nothing to do with fair market value, which is what I am talking about.
Define "fair market value." It is not "whatever the sponsor is willing to pay in exchange for a benefit of some sort from the school." However, without NCAA oversight, that is exactly what it becomes. "I paid her what I thought her name was worth! Is it my fault that the school 'just happened to' give me volleyball season tickets on the center line?"
  #116  
Old 04-24-2020, 08:34 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
That part had nothing to do with Title IX.
Then I find it a less-than-compelling argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Define "fair market value." It is not "whatever the sponsor is willing to pay in exchange for a benefit of some sort from the school." However, without NCAA oversight, that is exactly what it becomes. "I paid her what I thought her name was worth! Is it my fault that the school 'just happened to' give me volleyball season tickets on the center line?"
"Fair market value" for the athlete is "whatever I agree to take in compensation from anyone who wants to offer me something in exchange for me endorsing their goods/services/etc."

That's it. That's the only thing that matters as far as fair market value is concerned, just as with any other athlete or celebrity or actor, etc. And the NCAA has no business "overseeing" that: it's the business of the athlete and whoever is paying them.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 04-24-2020 at 08:36 PM.
  #117  
Old 04-25-2020, 01:56 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
"Fair market value" for the athlete is "whatever I agree to take in compensation from anyone who wants to offer me something in exchange for me endorsing their goods/services/etc."
"Whatever I agree to take in compensation from anyone who wants to offer me something in exchange for me endorsing their goods/services/etc." paid for out of their own pocket? I agree - and I think the NCAA does as well.

"Whatever I agree to take in compensation from anyone who wants to offer me something in exchange for me endorsing their goods/services/etc. with any sort of assistance or benefit from the school" is not - this is inflated value - and that is what the NCAA wants to oversee. At least, it better be - you're right in that the NCAA shouldn't be allowed to set a cap on this sort of thing.
  #118  
Old 04-25-2020, 04:05 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,246
If the schools agree among themselves that they want strict limits on direct compensation, that's one thing. They do not have the right to regulate commercial relationships between their athletes and third parties.
  #119  
Old 04-29-2020, 09:49 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,313
NCAA board supports name, image and likeness compensation
Quote:
The NCAA announced Wednesday that its Board of Governors supports permitting athletes the ability to cash in on their names, images and likenesses as never before and without involvement from the association, schools or conferences.

Ohio State President and board chairman Michael Drake called it an “unprecedented” move by the NCAA.

The next step is for membership to draft legislation by Oct. 30. Plenty of details still need to be worked out, including how to ensure that these sponsorship deals aren’t being used as improper inducements to recruits. A formal vote will be taken by schools at the next convention in January and new rules will go into effect no later than the 2021-22 academic year.

“NCAA membership schools have embraced very real change,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday.
Are they?
Quote:
The nation’s largest governing body for college sports said it will still seek a federal law to keep individual states from passing their owns laws on compensation for college athletes.
Here's the press release from the NCAA.
Quote:
While student-athletes would be permitted to identify themselves by sport and school, the use of conference and school logos, trademarks or other involvement would not be allowed. The board emphasized that at no point should a university or college pay student-athletes for name, image and likeness activities.
Quote:
The board is requiring guardrails around any future name, image and likeness activities. These would include no name, image and likeness activities that would be considered pay for play; no school or conference involvement; no use of name, image and likeness for recruiting by schools or boosters; and the regulation of agents and advisors.
The way I read that last bit, a school could not say to a recruit "come play at Hypothetical University like Fictional Player did". Am I wrong?

Oh, and there's still this pesky bit of controlling behavior:
Quote:
Smith said there will be “guardrails” in place to ensure athletes are being compensated at an appropriate rate for their services and there will be consequences for athletes who do not meet disclosure requirements.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 04-29-2020 at 09:50 AM.
  #120  
Old 04-29-2020, 10:38 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Oh, and there's still this pesky bit of controlling behavior:
I didn't see this in the NCAA press release. The only "guardrails" I see are:
  • No name, image and likeness activities that would be considered pay for play;
  • No school or conference involvement;
  • No use of name, image and likeness for recruiting by schools or boosters;
  • Regulation of agents and advisors.
Noticeably missing: any mention of the NCAA setting limits on how much someone can make.

You do bring up a good point; if the athlete owns their name rights, can the school use it in recruiting? I seriously doubt the NCAA would ever allow an athlete to get away with, "If you want to mention my name in recruiting, you have to pay for the rights - say, $100,000/season?"
For that matter, if a school shows a photo of an athlete in uniform in a game on its website, or in recruiting brochures, is that illegal use of the athlete's image (the rules would require that there be no identification of the athlete's school in any use of his name/image/likeness)?
  #121  
Old 04-29-2020, 12:15 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,246
The schools are trying to keep a regulatory finger in the pie, which will be a considerable waste of resources. The schools have no right to a regulatory finger.
  #122  
Old 04-29-2020, 08:12 PM
Zakalwe's Avatar
Zakalwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 5,061
Well, I get it and it's fair(er) to the athletes, but it will most likely destroy FSU men's athletics at the top tier unless we get the next Nike or Under Armor guy as an alum.Due to the Taggert debacle, our AD and Booster Org are, for all practical purposes, broke. We MIGHT be able to hang on to the basketball program, but I doubt it unless the Boosters all shift away from football to support the smaller program.

UF will rule NCAA athletics in Florida at pretty much all levels for the foreseeable future. The alum base is larger and wealthier than any other school in the state.

I imagine this will happen in many states. The older, more established school (usually land grant) will take over and the rest of the schools will move to 2nd tier and fight for the scraps.

Or I'm completely wrong and life will go on as normal. Frankly, the stratification was happening anyway, this will just speed it along and reduce the number of teams that will be in the top tier.
  #123  
Old 04-30-2020, 01:26 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,246
I saw an informal study earlier today that looked at the top 300 recruits for the last five years. Of those 1500 high school studs, 56 went to non P5 schools. I don't know how much more unbalanced things can get. Ten schools have accounted for the 24 playoff spots since the CFP began.

Somehow, despite tiny revenue streams, hundreds of schools happily field football programs.
  #124  
Old 04-30-2020, 02:54 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakalwe View Post
Well, I get it and it's fair(er) to the athletes, but it will most likely destroy FSU men's athletics at the top tier unless we get the next Nike or Under Armor guy as an alum.Due to the Taggert debacle, our AD and Booster Org are, for all practical purposes, broke. We MIGHT be able to hang on to the basketball program, but I doubt it unless the Boosters all shift away from football to support the smaller program.

UF will rule NCAA athletics in Florida at pretty much all levels for the foreseeable future. The alum base is larger and wealthier than any other school in the state.

I imagine this will happen in many states. The older, more established school (usually land grant) will take over and the rest of the schools will move to 2nd tier and fight for the scraps.

Or I'm completely wrong and life will go on as normal. Frankly, the stratification was happening anyway, this will just speed it along and reduce the number of teams that will be in the top tier.
While I’m as upset over the Taggert debacle as any alum, I don’t think it’s quite the death nail for FSU football. They’re still an ACC school with a national alumni base and a very deep talent pool in Florida to draw on. Even a slight turn around in fortune will get them off the ACC network and back on to ESPN. And the ACC definitely helps for basketball recruiting as well.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #125  
Old 04-30-2020, 10:25 PM
Zakalwe's Avatar
Zakalwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 5,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
While I’m as upset over the Taggert debacle as any alum, I don’t think it’s quite the death nail for FSU football. They’re still an ACC school with a national alumni base and a very deep talent pool in Florida to draw on. Even a slight turn around in fortune will get them off the ACC network and back on to ESPN. And the ACC definitely helps for basketball recruiting as well.
The ACC pays WAAAY less than the SEC and we're surrounded by SEC schools all after that same talent pool. And we're not off the ACC Network for most games because that's the deal we signed up for. The bigger issue is that once athletes can get compensated, we won't have the sponsor deals to offer that UF, UA, Auburn, and UGA will. Our deep national alumni base is decent for tv ratings, but nobody in Chicago or LA is going to get an FSU player to be the face of their auto dealership or restaurant. And outside of the immediate Tallahassee area, Florida gets really blue and orange, really fast. We have pockets here and there, but the bulk of the established money folks are UF alums.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017