NCAA

[bandrus1 413]

will now allow athletes to be compensated for their likeness 

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

I thought it would take them a little longer.  Wow, that was fast.

[RLLD 3,455]

Really?  Link?

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Really?  Link?

https://apnews.com/325f23d5acc649b48c047b75a79e0e0c?utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter

[Djgb13 2,338]

Glad they finally get that. Endorsements I think are BS. But their likeness is a totally different thing 

[TBayXXXVII 2,115]

Can someone dumb down Title IX for me.  I thought I remember back in a day there being an issue with the availability of things for women needing to be equal to men.  Not sure on that one though.  Would this new law/rule be subject to that?  In the #MeToo age where we like to pretend there is a gender wage gap, would the paucity of money being available to women affect the men?

My thinking is that there'll be about 100 guys who may be able to make a few bucks... but no women.  Because there will no money available to women, would guys still be able to collect?

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Can someone dumb down Title IX for me.  I thought I remember back in a day there being an issue with the availability of things for women needing to be equal to men.  Not sure on that one though.  Would this new law/rule be subject to that?  In the #MeToo age where we like to pretend there is a gender wage gap, would the paucity of money being available to women affect the men?

My thinking is that there'll be about 100 guys who may be able to make a few bucks... but no women.  Because there will no money available to women, would guys still be able to collect?

I'm not sure how this would affect that at all.  I believe this is just so athletes can make money of of their likeness, shouldn't have much to do with what sex they are.

[TBayXXXVII 2,115]

35 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not sure how this would affect that at all.  I believe this is just so athletes can make money of of their likeness, shouldn't have much to do with what sex they are.

Ok, good enough.  I wasn't sure.

 

Something tells me that the NCAA isn't just letting this go as is.  There's going to be some give back... I don't trust them.  I have a feeling scholarship money is going to be affected.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Ok, good enough.  I wasn't sure.

There is still a lot of details we have yet to see.  Who knows how this will all turn out.  I hope the NCAA football game comes back though.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Long overdue.  Any red blooded American should be compensated for their name or "likeness".  Cover of a Wheaties box.....in a EA Sports video game.....etc.   

I think the NCAA made the perfect decision here.  With that said I do not agree with schools actually outright paying players.  That makes the athlete no longer that but an employee and with that comes in all sorts of issues.  Title IX, taxing of scholarships, a whole Pandora's Box of issues.

This decision is correct but I hope they don't take it further........

[Djgb13 2,338]

Saw where they are already looking tax athletes scholarships since they are going to be making money off their likeness 

[KSB2424 3,083]

42 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

Saw where they are already looking tax athletes scholarships since they are going to be making money off their likeness 

It was one senator (Richard Burr) and it was an asinine proposition.   Of course you tax any income an athlete makes from their likeness, just like any one else's income they earn is taxed.  However to insinuate their scholarship should be taxed is outright stupid.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

1 hour ago, KSB2424 said:

It was one senator (Richard Burr) and it was an asinine proposition.   Of course you tax any income an athlete makes from their likeness, just like any one else's income they earn is taxed.  However to insinuate their scholarship should be taxed is outright stupid.

I saw that moron’s tweet and he’s getting blasted for it. I’m not sure he’s thought it all the way through. 

[Djgb13 2,338]

9 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

It was one senator (Richard Burr) and it was an asinine proposition.   Of course you tax any income an athlete makes from their likeness, just like any one else's income they earn is taxed.  However to insinuate their scholarship should be taxed is outright stupid.

Yep. Wasn’t even an hour after they allowed athletes to make money off their likeness before they started trying to find more ways to tax them. Fockin idiots 

[fandandy 3,311]

Hopefully, now we will get NCAA video games.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

23 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

Yep. Wasn’t even  CB an hour after they allowed athletes to make money off their likeness before they started trying to find more ways to tax them. Fockin idiots 

Looks bad to try and tax the wealthy less and college kids more. 

[Alias Detective 1,179]

Somehow, every student athlete but the white man will be disenfranchised.  Book it.

[Djgb13 2,338]

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Looks bad to try and tax the wealthy less and college kids more. 

What happens to the students who have a scholarship and work a regular job? Their scholarships get taxed too? It’s completely retarded 

[bostonlager 2,463]

So under these new rules you could have a situation where Jim Harbaugh shows up in a recruit's living room and says he has a car dealership in Ann Arbor willing to pay him $100,000 each season he plays football for the Wolverines if he makes appearances at said dealership. The next week Nick Saban shows up and tells the recruit that he has a car dealership in Tuscaloosa willing to pay hiim $150,000 each season he plays football for the Tide. 

Yeah, this is going to go smooth as fock. 

[bandrus1 413]

I'll be curious to what happens if adidas endorsement goes to a kid at a Nike school

[Alias Detective 1,179]

3 minutes ago, bostonlager said:

So under these new rules you could have a situation where Jim Harbaugh shows up in a recruit's living room and says he has a car dealership in Ann Arbor willing to pay him $100,000 each season he plays football for the Wolverines if he makes appearances at said dealership. The next week Nick Saban shows up and tells the recruit that he has a car dealership in Tuscaloosa willing to pay hiim $150,000 each season he plays football for the Tide. 

Yeah, this is going to go smooth as fock. 

Apparently this is what’s happening now.  I’m not sure I believe it, but then again.....

[Djgb13 2,338]

1 minute ago, Alias Detective said:

Apparently this is what’s happening now.  I’m not sure I believe it, but then again.....

No it’s happening now. I’ve seen guys from my high school go to college (these guys families are broke as sh1t) but the guy is driving around in a six figure Benz. No way he could afford that. 

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

1 hour ago, Djgb13 said:

What happens to the students who have a scholarship and work a regular job? Their scholarships get taxed too? It’s completely retarded 

Exactly.  It makes no sense and Burr is a moron for suggesting it.  I don't think he's going to have much support on this one.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

1 hour ago, bostonlager said:

So under these new rules you could have a situation where Jim Harbaugh shows up in a recruit's living room and says he has a car dealership in Ann Arbor willing to pay him $100,000 each season he plays football for the Wolverines if he makes appearances at said dealership. The next week Nick Saban shows up and tells the recruit that he has a car dealership in Tuscaloosa willing to pay hiim $150,000 each season he plays football for the Tide. 

Yeah, this is going to go smooth as fock. 

There's all kinds of crap like that happening behind the scenes already.  There are going to be more details about what can and can't be done though.  Right now it sounds like this is just about protecting the likeness and name of an athlete and not about letting them get endorsements.

[bostonlager 2,463]

23 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

There's all kinds of crap like that happening behind the scenes already.  There are going to be more details about what can and can't be done though.  Right now it sounds like this is just about protecting the likeness and name of an athlete and not about letting them get endorsements.

I am aware that it is already going on, but if you give the okay for it to happen out in the open it is going to further separate the haves from the have nots in college football and basketball. The hawkeyes will go from winning a B1G title once every 20 years to never winning one again because they cannot outspend the Ohio States and Michingans of the world. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

3 minutes ago, bostonlager said:

I am aware that it is already going on, but if you give the okay for it to happen out in the open it is going to further separate the haves from the have nots in college football and basketball. The hawkeyes will go from winning a B1G title once every 20 years to never winning one again because they cannot outspend the Ohio States and Michingans of the world. 

Then there are markets.  Kids playing for UCLA and USC are going to make far more than some kid in Columbus. 

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

1 minute ago, bostonlager said:

I am aware that it is already going on, but if you give the okay for it to happen out in the open it is going to further separate the haves from the have nots in college football and basketball. The hawkeyes will go from winning a B1G title once every 20 years to never winning one again because they cannot outspend the Ohio States and Michingans of the world. 

How would that change what the landscape of college football is already?  Iowa is already at that disadvantage now.  I see it as a chance for the smaller schools to finally offer something to athletes that they were not able to before.  I don't see the larger schools changing all that much.  They are still limited to how many kids they can offer to.

[TBayXXXVII 2,115]

25 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Exactly.  It makes no sense and Burr is a moron for suggesting it.  I don't think he's going to have much support on this one.

I can see a difference.  I don't know what he said as I don't go on twitter, but I can start to see the reason for it.  The difference is "why the scholarship" and the purpose.  Meaning, students are given scholarships for one reason or another, but they're there to get an education.  That's the "purpose" of the scholarship.  You're their to learn life skills and get a job in the real world... over 99% of all athletes never make money in athletics, so the purpose of getting a scholarship is to work and make money.  If a student is making money because from a non-academic avenue, because of the school's activities, then that's not the same thing.  The kids got the scholarship to play a sport, right?  Right.  Well, that scholarship, in most cases (i.e. public schools), is government money.  The scholarship is given to the athlete so that in lieu of what he's good at (sports), he'll get a free education.  That means, any money they make from non-educational purposes should be looked into.  It may not be the best, but it is something to look into as the student is there to get an education and he's getting free government money for that education.  Taxing that income is reasonable.

Now, it's my opinion that anyone who takes such money should no longer be eligible for a scholarship, as they're now technically no longer "an amateur", because they are getting paid for their services.  That, I think is a better idea than taxing them, but it's only on the face of it.  Telling kids that if you take the money from private outlets disqualifies you from getting government money looks better than, we're going to tax you... but it really is the same thing.

[bostonlager 2,463]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

How would that change what the landscape of college football is already?  Iowa is already at that disadvantage now.  I see it as a chance for the smaller schools to finally offer something to athletes that they were not able to before.  I don't see the larger schools changing all that much.  They are still limited to how many kids they can offer to.

Who has boosters giving more money to the football program, Iowa or Ohio State?

As things sit right now those boosters cannot contact the head coach and say they are willing to give next years 5 star recruit $100,000 to use his likeness at his car dealership. Under these new rules a gazillionaire booster that owns multiple business can go directly to the head coach and say I will give X amount of dollars to this athlete to come play football for us and all I'm going to do is stick a picture of his face on the front door of my business. Programs like Iowa and Purdue aren't going to make up any ground on Ohio State and Michigan. They are going to lose ground because the big guys in addition to have better programs, traditions,  and facilities, they now have cold cash they can hand out. 

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I can see a difference.  I don't know what he said as I don't go on twitter, but I can start to see the reason for it.  The difference is "why the scholarship" and the purpose.  Meaning, students are given scholarships for one reason or another, but they're there to get an education.  That's the "purpose" of the scholarship.  You're their to learn life skills and get a job in the real world... over 99% of all athletes never make money in athletics, so the purpose of getting a scholarship is to work and make money.  If a student is making money because from a non-academic avenue, because of the school's activities, then that's not the same thing.  The kids got the scholarship to play a sport, right?  Right.  Well, that scholarship, in most cases (i.e. public schools), is government money.  The scholarship is given to the athlete so that in lieu of what he's good at (sports), he'll get a free education.  That means, any money they make from non-educational purposes should be looked into.  It may not be the best, but it is something to look into as the student is there to get an education and he's getting free government money for that education.  Taxing that income is reasonable.

Now, it's my opinion that anyone who takes such money should no longer be eligible for a scholarship, as they're now technically no longer "an amateur", because they are getting paid for their services.  That, I think is a better idea than taxing them, but it's only on the face of it.  Telling kids that if you take the money from private outlets disqualifies you from getting government money looks better than, we're going to tax you... but it really is the same thing.

I get why some share your opinion but I feel it's incorrect.  If athletes get paid for their likeness they are not being paid by the school and they are not an employee of that school.  To me it's no different than any other student that has a job or is finding a way to make money outside of school.

Scholarships are there for colleges to get kids to come to their school.  Scholarships not only benefit the student but it also benefits the college.  Colleges are competing against each other to get the top students in the world, whether they be athletes or not.  Let's not pretend that the students are the only ones benefiting here.

If you start taxing the scholarships of athletes I think you'd have to tax all scholarships to all students.  Once you do that you are basically admitting that you are paying those students like employees to be at your school and therefore you should treat them like employees.  You should be offering them insurance and workers comp if they get injured while performing/working for you.  Are they prepared for all of that, because that's what the argument will turn into.

[bostonlager 2,463]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I get why some share your opinion but I feel it's incorrect.  If athletes get paid for their likeness they are not being paid by the school and they are not an employee of that school.  To me it's no different than any other student that has a job or is finding a way to make money outside of school.

Scholarships are there for colleges to get kids to come to their school.  Scholarships not only benefit the student but it also benefits the college.  Colleges are competing against each other to get the top students in the world, whether they be athletes or not.  Let's not pretend that the students are the only ones benefiting here.

If you start taxing the scholarships of athletes I think you'd have to tax all scholarships to all students.  Once you do that you are basically admitting that you are paying those students like employees to be at your school and therefore you should treat them like employees.  You should be offering them insurance and workers comp if they get injured while performing/working for you.  Are they prepared for all of that, because that's what the argument will turn into.

The school may not be paying them directly, but nothing is going to stop Jim Harbaugh from hosting a dinner for all the big time boosters and giving a speech letting them all know that the Wolverine football team is going to need some deep pockets in order to be a championship contender. The boosters then let him know how much they are willing to pay and Harbaugh takes that info into the living room of every recruit he visits. If you are naive enough to think that isn't going to happen on a large scale then maybe you would be interested in buying some ocean front property I have for sale smack dab in the middle of Iowa. 

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

9 minutes ago, bostonlager said:

Who has boosters giving more money to the football program, Iowa or Ohio State?

As things sit right now those boosters cannot contact the head coach and say they are willing to give next years 5 star recruit $100,000 to use his likeness at his car dealership. Under these new rules a gazillionaire booster that owns multiple business can go directly to the head coach and say I will give X amount of dollars to this athlete to come play football for us and all I'm going to do is stick a picture of his face on the front door of my business. Programs like Iowa and Purdue aren't going to make up any ground on Ohio State and Michigan. They are going to lose ground because the big guys in addition to have better programs, traditions,  and facilities, they now have cold cash they can hand out. 

How is that different than what's going on now other than it being against the rules?  OSU is already doing it and once it is allowed it starts to even the playing field a little bit for the smaller schools.  A school like OSU may have more wealthy alumni but that doesn't mean the smaller schools don't have some.  Being a wealthy alumni has nothing to do with what college you went to.  Someone that graduated from Liberty could be a billionaire and want to help turn his old college football team into a power house.  Every B1G college has a lot of wealthy alumni and so do all the other major conferences.

This is all speculation by us any way.  I have no idea what will actually happen.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

1 minute ago, bostonlager said:

The school may not be paying them directly, but nothing is going to stop Jim Harbaugh from hosting a dinner for all the big time boosters and giving a speech letting them all know that the Wolverine football team is going to need some deep pockets in order to be a championship contender. The boosters then let him know how much they are willing to pay and Harbaugh takes that info into the living room of every recruit he visits. If you are naive enough to think that isn't going to happen on a large scale then maybe you would be interested in buying some ocean front property I have for sale smack dab in the middle of Iowa. 

I'm not naive at all because I've already said I know it's already happening.  We all know this is already happening behind the scenes.

PS: I'd rather have waterfront property on a lake in the woods.  Thanks for the offer though.

[bostonlager 2,463]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How is that different than what's going on now other than it being against the rules?  OSU is already doing it and once it is allowed it starts to even the playing field a little bit for the smaller schools.  A school like OSU may have more wealthy alumni but that doesn't mean the smaller schools don't have some.  Being a wealthy alumni has nothing to do with what college you went to.  Someone that graduated from Liberty could be a billionaire and want to help turn his old college football team into a power house.  Every B1G college has a lot of wealthy alumni and so do all the other major conferences.

This is all speculation by us any way.  I have no idea what will actually happen.

I agree with the bolded. 

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not naive at all because I've already said I know it's already happening.  We all know this is already happening behind the scenes.

It is happening on a much smaller scale with the risk of getting caught and having sanctions being brought upon the program. If you give all schools the okay to do it, then the rich are only going to get richer. 

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

Just now, bostonlager said:

I agree with the bolded. 

It is happening on a much smaller scale with the risk of getting caught and having sanctions being brought upon the program. If you give all schools the okay to do it, then the rich are only going to get richer. 

You are acting as if the smaller schools do not have any wealthy alumni though.  You act as if there are not smaller schools in more attractive locations than Columbus, OH.  This could give some other schools more opportunities.  It could also hurt some schools.  

I admit to not knowing what will actually happen, can you?

[bostonlager 2,463]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You are acting as if the smaller schools do not have any wealthy alumni though.  You act as if there are not smaller schools in more attractive locations than Columbus, OH.  This could give some other schools more opportunities.  It could also hurt some schools.  

I admit to not knowing what will actually happen, can you?

I am using Ohio State as an example. In reality they are part of a handful of schools that will separate themselves from the rest of the pack. I know what is going to happen. I pointed it out above. 

 

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

Just now, bostonlager said:

I am using Ohio State as an example. In reality they are part of a handful of schools that will separate themselves from the rest of the pack. I know what is going to happen. I pointed it out above. 

 

You are speculating what will happen, just as I am.  You may be right, who knows?

[Cruzer 1,992]

13 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

Long overdue.  Any red blooded American should be compensated for their name or "likeness".  Cover of a Wheaties box.....in a EA Sports video game.....etc.   

I think the NCAA made the perfect decision here.  With that said I do not agree with schools actually outright paying players.  That makes the athlete no longer that but an employee and with that comes in all sorts of issues.  Title IX, taxing of scholarships, a whole Pandora's Box of issues.

This decision is correct but I hope they don't take it further........

This has been the obvious solution for a while now. I'm dumbfounded as to why it took so long to make it happen.

[bostonlager 2,463]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You are speculating what will happen, just as I am.  You may be right, who knows?

Lets say here in a couple of years we have a high school QB that is entertaining who he wants to play for in college. We will call this QB Ronnie Manziel. Ronnie even has a flashy nickname - Ronnie Football. Ronnie has plans of selling his own Ronnie Football T-shirts at $25 each because the new rules states he can do that. Do you know what is going to ensure Ronnie sells the maximum number of his signature t-shirts? The answer is prime time television games. So my question to you is, who plays for nationally televised prime time football games, Ohio State or Iowa?

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

1 minute ago, bostonlager said:

Lets say here in a couple of years we have a high school QB that is entertaining who he wants to play for in college. We will call this QB Ronnie Manziel. Ronnie even has a flashy nickname - Ronnie Football. Ronnie has plans of selling his own Ronnie Football T-shirts at $25 each because the new rules states he can do that. Do you know what is going to ensure Ronnie sells the maximum number of his signature t-shirts? The answer is prime time television games. So my question to you is, who plays for nationally televised prime time football games, Ohio State or Iowa?

Right at this moment it's Ohio State.  What would make Ronnie choose Iowa over Ohio State right now if he knew he's never be able to sell those shirts during college?  Most likely, not a damn thing would have changed because Ohio State is still the higher profile college and sets him up for a better chance to make money off his name after he moves on from college.