Paying College Athletes/Letting Them Get Endorsements

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
38,945
Reaction score
45,508
Points
148
In theory I agree they should be allowed to profit off of their likeness, also in theory you should be able to go to college without huge debt.

The issue becomes competitive balance and that is out the door. We are already losing that, its always the same 4 teams almost in the playoffs, Alabama, Ohio State Clemson and Oklahoma, you can throw in Auburn and a few others make it and OSU and/or OU get thrown out, but really only 6 or 7 teams are every invited to the part.

So sadly, maybe you are right, teams like my beloved Purdue will never, ever have a shot to make the playoffs....kind of sad but maybe I am the one that needs to face reality.

Those aren't the best teams because they pay the most, those are the best teams because of what they invested into their programs and the culture they've built.

Harvard and Yale have bigger endowments, so do a number of other schools. If the amount of money a school has decided how good their program was, the argument could be made that this will lead to MORE competitive balance, not less.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
31,074
Reaction score
42,258
Points
148
Those aren't the best teams because they pay the most, those are the best teams because of what they invested into their programs and the culture they've built.

Harvard and Yale have bigger endowments, so do a number of other schools. If the amount of money a school has decided how good their program was, the argument could be made that this will lead to MORE competitive balance, not less.

I think Nile will now legally pay all the top players a million a year to go to Oregon,

But lets say other states dont come aboard, now that hurts Cali because the NCAA will bar them from playing in bowls, the tourney, ect....
 

Derek

1 by land, 2 by sea, 3 Baerga
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
15,947
Reaction score
24,246
Points
135
So....continue to let the little guys lose?
Yeah?

Even if everyone were clean, and nobody were getting paid, they would still lose out. I would actually argue that allowing endorsements might actually help some smaller schools in the long run.

Who is going to get more endorsements? A decent player at a big school, or a stud in the MAC? I don't know the answer for sure, but it makes things more interesting in my opinion.
 

Lord Mar

Master
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
18,885
Reaction score
12,903
Points
123
Yeah?

Even if everyone were clean, and nobody were getting paid, they would still lose out. I would actually argue that allowing endorsements might actually help some smaller schools in the long run.

Who is going to get more endorsements? A decent player at a big school, or a stud in the MAC? I don't know the answer for sure, but it makes things more interesting in my opinion.

I haven't given it a ton of thought.

But I will say, I'd rather take money AWAY from schools than give money TO students.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
38,945
Reaction score
45,508
Points
148
I think Nile will now legally pay all the top players a million a year to go to Oregon,

But lets say other states dont come aboard, now that hurts Cali because the NCAA will bar them from playing in bowls, the tourney, ect....

Nike's stock is immediately going to tank if they openly spend $85M per year on the 85 scholarship players at Oregon and other universities which they support.

Again, the ramifications of having an open market here, as opposed to under the table dealings is why this won't have nearly the effect you think it will.
 

Derek

1 by land, 2 by sea, 3 Baerga
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
15,947
Reaction score
24,246
Points
135
I haven't given it a ton of thought.

But I will say, I'd rather take money AWAY from schools than give money TO students.
I'm not sure what that means. Could you elaborate?

I am all for collegiate athletes capitalizing on their likeness. I really don't see a downside.
 

Lord Mar

Master
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
18,885
Reaction score
12,903
Points
123
I'm not sure what that means. Could you elaborate?

I am all for collegiate athletes capitalizing on their likeness. I really don't see a downside.

Well.....maybe college STUDENTS shouldn't get paid period. And maybe colleges shouldn't be making so much money to begin with.

Maybe......just a thought.
 

Cavatt

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
24,302
Reaction score
27,957
Points
135
This is the NCAA's fault. They did nothing and held a hard line forever on this, keeping their students in poverty while raking in Billions. They should have had

A medical insurance fund to help student athletes hurt while competing that covered them after they left college
A job placement program to help student athletes that don't go pro
Stipends tied to inflation, and bonuses paid to athletes whose parents are below the poverty line
They needed to honor scholarships in the event of career ending injuries.

They never did anything to protect their students while profiting in a big way.

They are going to have to do something anyway once we get with the program like Europe and offer free college and the scholarship isn't worth anything anymore.
 

Derek

1 by land, 2 by sea, 3 Baerga
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
15,947
Reaction score
24,246
Points
135
Well.....maybe college STUDENTS shouldn't get paid period. And maybe colleges shouldn't be making so much money to begin with.

Maybe......just a thought.

Only athletes are told they can't make money off their likeness or abilities though. It wouldn't be the schools paying these guys.

I understand saying colleges shouldn't bring in as money as they are, but what are you suggesting we do about that? Most of it seems like a political issue, and this is not the place for that.
 

Steve_424

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
9,278
Reaction score
10,474
Points
123
Again...if it was as bad as you say, Pryor and his buddies wouldn't have had to resort to selling memorabilia to make a bit of money. The NCAA prohibition doesn't stop all of it, but it limits it greatly compared to what it would be if there were no restrictions.

I don't think Pryor and the others were hurting for money, I just think they wanted more of it.

This is dangerous and will make the richer programs richer. Paying for endorsements allows almuni the window to legally just pay players. Sure OSU would benefit, but college football will be so unequal I might have to stop watching.

I hate the NCAA, but this is not a solution.

NCAA is already unequal. The gap between P5 and G5 is as big as ever (and that's by design).
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
29,165
Reaction score
48,398
Points
148
You're arguing against yourself. You say this when you're trying to say there's no harm because it's already happening all the time:

1. If kids are already showing up with expensive stuff, which happens all the time, then the entire point of whining about a sponsorship deal is irrelevant.

and

Well of course it is with regards to high-level players at major college programs. We've known about this for decades.

But then:

The only people not earning money is the kids, which is absurd.

They're all making money...except they're not making money.

???

And then in terms of the willingness of alumni to spend, you actually proved my point that alumni don't need hard numbers for ROI:

Access, tickets, parking, luxury boxes, special privileges at events, charitable contributions, access and enrollment for their children. University employees being funneled to buy their product, contracts for employment, etc.

Things like "access and "special privileges at events" are non-economic benefits, and "tickets, parking, luxury boxes" are things they still actually have to pay for. Plus, that stuff and the rest of it is all based on their legal, public contributions to the athletic program. And most of that still isn't a quantifiable ROI.

But more importantly, what we're talking about are the illegal, under the table payments directly to athletes for which alumni receive no credit, and necessarily take pains to conceal. Yet, despite receiving no credit or discernable "return on investment" from those illegal payments, they do them (or have shown a willingness in the past absent NCAA crackdowns) anyway. Why? Simply because they're freakish fans and want the Tide (or whomever) to have the best team possible. So assuming they wouldn't funnel more money to athletes without provable ROI doesn't make sense. They've already shown that they simply want to help the team win and are willing to make illegal payments. How much more fun money will they be willing to spend if it doesn't have to be hidden?

But now they will presumably have to put that down on paper, and be held accountable for the ROI to their stakeholders.

I'm pretty sure most of that money was personal wealth, not embezzlement from a publicly-owned corporation. The only people they would have to explain their payments to are themselves. Either personal wealth, or the car dealerships they own (maybe with other alumni) etc..

Nike and other large, publicly traded corporations won't be fighting to get players to sign with Alabama v. Clemson or OSU. It's individually wealthy alumni who will be doing that.
 
Last edited:

Lord Mar

Master
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
18,885
Reaction score
12,903
Points
123
I don't think Pryor and the others were hurting for money, I just think they wanted more of it.



NCAA is already unequal. The gap between P5 and G5 is as big as ever (and that's by design).

Agreed.....and this will inevitably make that gap even greater. So, student athletes may end up making money......and they will inevitably make their alma maters richer as well.

We see how spoiled/entitled some of the professional players are at the next levels. Can you imagine the potential ramifications this might bring to even younger adults (kids, for all intents and purposes)?

TL; DR - it seems like this is a win for student-athletes but it just makes it more lucrative for the powerhouses.
 

Derek

1 by land, 2 by sea, 3 Baerga
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
15,947
Reaction score
24,246
Points
135
Agreed.....and this will inevitably make that gap even greater. So, student athletes may end up making money......and they will inevitably make their alma maters richer as well.

We see how spoiled/entitled some of the professional players are at the next levels. Can you imagine the potential ramifications this might bring to even younger adults (kids, for all intents and purposes)?

TL; DR - it seems like this is a win for student-athletes but it just makes it more lucrative for the powerhouses.

I just don't understand how this puts more money in the pockets of the universities. Can you explain that to me?
 

Lord Mar

Master
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
18,885
Reaction score
12,903
Points
123
I just don't understand how this puts more money in the pockets of the universities. Can you explain that to me?

Schools with the most money will get the best players. Schools with the best players will make the most money. Kickbacks on a much bigger level. I know we're talking about "endorsements"......but that's sort of a cop-out here.

It's fairly cut and dry to me (e.g. Professional sports).
 
Last edited:

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
29,165
Reaction score
48,398
Points
148
Agreed.....and this will inevitably make that gap even greater. So, student athletes may end up making money......and they will inevitably make their alma maters richer as well.

We see how spoiled/entitled some of the professional players are at the next levels. Can you imagine the potential ramifications this might bring to even younger adults (kids, for all intents and purposes)?

TL; DR - it seems like this is a win for student-athletes but it just makes it more lucrative for the powerhouses.

I think it'd be a win for the current crop of upper tier student athletes who would get the most endorsement money. I'd question what it might mean for college football as a whole after being in effect for a few years.

Schools with the most money will get the best players. Schools with the best players will make the most money. Kickbacks on a much bigger level. I know we're talking about "endorsements"......but that's sort of a cop-out here.

That's ultimately the point. It is impossible to draw a clear, effective legal distinction between what we might normally consider an "endorsement", and money being paid by wealthy local boosters for the rights to the "image" of the athlete for his endorsement. If they're willing to blow their money to get that kid to come to their school even if they don't make it back in revenue (and we know already that they are), then it's a clear end-run.
 
Top