Should semipro/college players be paid, or allowed to sell their stuff? (NIL and Revenue Sharing)

[Gatorubet]

Why couldn't you just allow athletes to take endorsement deals so long as they're not explicitly representing the university? That honestly seems like it'd clear a lot of this up.

Why would they be famous and marketable - at least enough to warrant an actual endorsement deal - absent participation in college athletics?

 

[Steve19]

Well, I got my first email back from Dr. Tom Osborne. Here's the email conversation (ignore the sappy stuff):



And the response:



I redacted his phone numbers.

Thanks for sharing that.

Just for the sake of accuracy. The official name is "The Ohio State University". That's why we refer to it that way, not out of some sense of arrogance.

The other universities you mention do not include "The" as a capitalized word in their names.

 

[Systems_id]

Why would they be famous and marketable - at least enough to warrant an actual endorsement deal - absent participation in college athletics?

Right but isn't the main argument against paying players or letting them sell property is that "it gives an unfair competitive advantage" to the big schools? Fine, let them make money off of their names instead. Now of course they would be famous precisely because they went to a big school but I don't see how that changes anything to be honest. Players ALREADY go to big schools to be famous and marketable.

 

[Gatorubet]

Right but isn't the main argument against paying players or letting them sell property is that "it gives an unfair competitive advantage" to the big schools? Fine, let them make money off of their names instead. Now of course they would be famous precisely because they went to a big school but I don't see how that changes anything to be honest. Players ALREADY go to big schools to be famous and marketable.

Because then they would be professional athletes. Because then boosters would arrange fake marketing deals for their stars under the guise of authentic marketing deals. Billy Bob's Bait Shop would hire every single Auburn player to lucrative tv deals and have the entire team do commercials.

 

[Systems_id]

Because then they would be professional athletes. Because then boosters would arrange fake marketing deals for their stars under the guise of authentic marketing deals. Billy Bob's Bait Shop would hire every single Auburn player to lucrative tv deals and have the entire team do commercials.

Again, what's the problem in this?

I guess my main point of contention is the "unfair competitive advantage" angle. Why is paying a player to come to say Alabama over Marshall unfair yet it's ok for Alabama to pimp their state of the art facilities, television exposure; areas in which a small school like Marshall has absolutely no chance in competing. Is that not an "unfair competitive advantage?" The gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" is already so monstrously large that paying players wouldn't stack the deck in the big boys' favor more so then it already is. Paying Cam Newton $180,000 doesn't change the fact that someone like UTEP had no shot in hell of landing him in the first place.

 

[zincfinger]

Paying Cam Newton $180,000 doesn't change the fact that someone like UTEP had no shot in hell of landing him in the first place.

Unless UTEP is the one offering $180K. Sure, Alabama would have more cash overall to throw at players, but it's not inconceivable that a UTEP (or an SMU) could get get a few big boosters together and buy some higher powered teams than they currently recruit.

In any event, keeping a level playing field isn't necessarily the primary reason for wanting to avoid paying players. I personally have little interest in seeing a level playing field (i.e. seeing most or all schools have a similar chance of landing highly sought after recruits), but I dislike the idea of seeing college football players being paid substantial salaries, or raking in substantial endorsement money.

The reason is that I think the amateur nature of the game is essential to what makes it unique; what makes it worth watching. I like watching college students from Ohio State beat college students from Michigan in football. I'm not nearly as interested in seeing a bunch of guys that OSU hired beat a bunch of guys that UM hired. If I want to watch professional football, I'll watch the NFL. It seems to me a lot less interesting to watch a far less talented semi-pro league, even if one of the teams in that league happens to be wearing uniforms that looks like Ohio State uniforms.

And you could certainly make the argument that it's a semi-pro league already, what with scholarships, and modest stipends, and so forth. That's true, and I'm not sure where the dividing line is where it would become so professional that it would lose its essential amateur character. But if there were college football players openly making more money than a lot of heads of household make, that would go a long way in that direction, for me.

 

[jwinslow]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfiaVM0ap8"]YouTube - ‪"STUDENT ATHLETES" | South Park Season 15 Episode 5 | College Crack Baby Athletic Association‬‏[/ame]

 

[Gatorubet]

THE CURIOUS INDEX, 5/26/2011

by Spencer Hall on May 26, 2011 10:05 AM EDT
WHY SIRRAH, HOW DO YOU AVOID PAYING YOUR SLAVES?

We don't have an official statement from the Big Ten or any other conference in response to this, but we do have the Big Ten's response, as always. (

from EDSBS

 

[sharkonwheels]

Broward County. Gonna have to ask Shark or some other Cane.



Indeed you should wonder....you're not in the AAU now and can't attend the meetings. :p

That was down in Key West, and yeah it made the news, and it was just..just..

Well, let's just say "Facepalm-from-hell" kinda' funny.

I was waiting for a "DOH!"

 

[alexhortdog95]

YouTube - ‪"STUDENT ATHLETES" | South Park Season 15 Episode 5 | College Crack Baby Athletic Association‬‏

OH...MY....GAWD....

So dead on.

 

[Muck]

So dead on.

Unless Osborne ran a very different ship than I think he did I'm wondering why you believe that to be even remotely 'on'.

 

[Jake]

I didn't scan the entire thread so maybe this was mentioned, but has the "pay the players" camp considered that you wouldn't be able to just do it for football players, or even just male athletes? Title IX would get challenged very quickly and you'd be expected to pay all athletes, above beyond the compensation they receive now.

Most programs are not Ohio State football. This discussion isn't even remotely an option in most places, which is another reason why I find it bordering on laughable. The money our football program makes is the exception, not the rule. Paying college athletes is not a realistic option. Even if it were, how long would it take until (insert amount here) wasn't "enough" and we end up with the same problems we have now?

Players, boosters and coaches are going to have to follow the rules or suffer the consequences. We didn't follow the rules, and now we're going to suffer the consequences.

 

[Moose]

I think they should hold them(Gold Pants, etc.) Till Graduation. Putting a Coaches job at risk over unnecessary,"want" item(s) is just insane!!

 

[TooTall]

I think they should hold them(Gold Pants, etc.) Till Graduation. Putting a Coaches job at risk over unnecessary,"want" item(s) is just insane!!

+1.

Oh, and fuck tattoos.

 

[jwinslow]

Most programs are not Ohio State football. This discussion isn't even remotely an option in most places, which is another reason why I find it bordering on laughable. The money our football program makes is the exception, not the rule. Paying college athletes is not a realistic option. Even if it were, how long would it take until (insert amount here) wasn't "enough" and we end up with the same problems we have now?

Which is why I fall firmly into separate camps in a question about 'should' and 'could'.

Schools can't afford it, athletics would be ruined/destroyed, booster violations would go through the roof. They should be but can't be paid.