NCAA Rules Athletes Allowed to Benefit From Likeness

[MeanGreenTexan]

48 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

...

Also, expect lawsuits claiming Title 9 discrimination as the vast majority of the payments go to male athletes. 

Those lawsuits will fail then, because the SCHOOLS themselves are not going to be paying the players...  It will be private entities, and they have nothing to do with Title IX.

 

 

1 minute ago, TheColonyEagle said:

I hear what you're saying...but I don't think this has anything to do with a school's budget...

This is between an athlete and some outside entity. Hypothetically, Duck Dynasty could pay a 5* athlete lots of money to use his likeness right? And ULaMonroe has one of the lowest budgets in the country.

Absolutely.   I suppose we might see some smiling young men sitting at a Tax office or rubbing aloe vera on themselves... but I'm not entirely sure where else North Texas can cough up the funds to compete.

[UNT Texas Hooligan]

Just now, MeanGreenTexan said:

Those lawsuits will fail then, because the SCHOOLS themselves are not going to be paying the players...  It will be private entities, and they have nothing to do with Title IX.

 

 

Absolutely.   I suppose we might see some smiling young men sitting at a Tax office or rubbing aloe vera on themselves... but I'm not entirely sure where else North Texas can cough up the funds to compete.

7 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

Don't take my word for it...but that's how I understand it. If I'm right....this could be HUGE for a school like SMU.

So my understanding is that we're screwed, basically? We don't have enough of a market or sugar daddies to compete with the big boys?

[TheColonyEagle]

2 minutes ago, UNT Texas Hooligan said:

So my understanding is that we're screwed, basically? We don't have enough of a market or sugar daddies to compete with the big boys?

not necessarily...

 

 

He gave $30 million to the business school this year....

Edited October 29, 2019 by TheColonyEagle

[keith]

Seems like a potential can of worms to me or some predictable outcome based on the law of unintended consequences.  I doubt that the benefit received will be shared equally among all athletes, you know, for fairness.  The skill players will get the deals, while the guys in the trenches opening holes for them or keeping them off their backside will get squat.  I'm sure that won't cause any animosity in the locker room. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by keith
I can't spell

[forevereagle]

The speculation that this will lead for an outside entity always paying a recruit to go to a certain school may not be the way this goes down the majority of the time, especially in football. The rate at which guys don't pan out is high enough that it would be a gamble to pay someone for their likeness based on their HS career. I would expect that this will more than likely benefit guys who have put up numbers more than a freshman. Mason Fine would likely have benefited from this stance as he had national stories and press that could have had him in a branded shirt and plugging whatever product invested in him. The random DB from nowhere, OK that happens to be a 4* recruit is unlikely to get a big bag of cash to go to OU. He may have a naturally higher profile there that could lead him to better endorsement or likeness deals based on his play and rising profile there, but that is basically the same issue that exists now in college sports, so not sure that it will make as big a deal as to bring down college athletics as we know it.

[Arkstfan]

If, and it remains a big "IF", the transactions are arms length, this a big nothing burger. On a typical NBA team there are one or two guys with no shoe deal. Most of the guys don't get a check from shoe companies, they get a voucher for X dollars of merchandise from the corporate catalog. Only a few guys get money from likeness beyond the player card and video game money which is very little.

In the NFL most guys on roster don't get anything other than playing card money and money for the video game.

No reason to think a freshman at Texas is going to get more than a third year NFL player who isn't a Pro-Bowler.

[peanuts104]

1 hour ago, CK4 said:

I need NCAA 21 in my life.  Also its not like money is an issue for any P5 or AAC school anyway since there are lots of high money donors and major city or statewide markets.

 

Onviously theres gonna be a limit on what players can legally bring in.

I can't believe I actually agree with you on something. 

[TheColonyEagle]

1 hour ago, forevereagle said:

 Mason Fine would likely have benefited from this stance as he had national stories and press that could have had him in a branded shirt and plugging whatever product invested in him. 

case in point:

 

[TheColonyEagle]

I'm not ready to say "this is the end of college football"

yes....the big time boosters are going to try and exploit this...however we heard that the cost of living stipend would end it too...and it hasn't.

In all honesty...(and we don't know the particulars yet on it) this could even have an evening out effect in some way....

Big rich boosters of programs that don't have the means of other programs could possibly compete. You could have alumni competing with athletic programs.

Does Oregon State have a billionaire alum? Does....Southern Miss? The TBoones of the world could build buildings at OK State, etc...but it's a whole different story when he can pay an athlete directly for their likeness...Take the athletic programs out of it and put some motivated individual alumni in mix....things could get interesting.

SMU has to be salivating....who was the guy featured in Pony Excess...the alum that started it all....just think if this rule was available then.

Edited October 29, 2019 by TheColonyEagle

[MeanGreenTexan]

1 hour ago, forevereagle said:

The speculation that this will lead for an outside entity always paying a recruit to go to a certain school may not be the way this goes down the majority of the time, especially in football. The rate at which guys don't pan out is high enough that it would be a gamble to pay someone for their likeness based on their HS career. I would expect that this will more than likely benefit guys who have put up numbers more than a freshman. Mason Fine would likely have benefited from this stance as he had national stories and press that could have had him in a branded shirt and plugging whatever product invested in him. The random DB from nowhere, OK that happens to be a 4* recruit is unlikely to get a big bag of cash to go to OU. He may have a naturally higher profile there that could lead him to better endorsement or likeness deals based on his play and rising profile there, but that is basically the same issue that exists now in college sports, so not sure that it will make as big a deal as to bring down college athletics as we know it.

Wasn’t it weird when LaQuon Treadwell & Robert Nkemdieche chose to go to Ole Miss over any other school?  Those same boosters/bagmen will now be free to do this legally, just saying, “<XYZ player>’s autograph is worth $100k to me.”  And without any kind of governance, how could anyone dispute that “value”?

Now imagine the same thing happening, except now, legally, down on the hilltop.

[Cr1028]

4 hours ago, Withers940 said:

Hello NCAA FOOTBALL!!!!

Most exciting part of the whole deal is the potential for this.

[UNTLifer]

17 hours ago, CK4 said:

 any P5 or AAC school

[forevereagle]

14 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Wasn’t it weird when LaQuon Treadwell & Robert Nkemdieche chose to go to Ole Miss over any other school?  Those same boosters/bagmen will now be free to do this legally, just saying, “<XYZ player>’s autograph is worth $100k to me.”  And without any kind of governance, how could anyone dispute that “value”?

Now imagine the same thing happening, except now, legally, down on the hilltop.

Based on what little has been said, I don't know that this is for HS recruits. I think this would be for people already in college and if this happens during the recruiting process, it would be a violation. This doesn't read as a free for all to pay players. This can be governed with reporting of incomes and disclosures from the players. That's the cost of doing business here, ensuring that you are on the level. It would also assist these players in making sure that they are properly reporting on taxes and such to avoid the obvious scandal of tax avoidance that could come from this. I just don't see that this is going to be the end of college sports and will lead to further imbalance than we currently have. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

40 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

Based on what little has been said, I don't know that this is for HS recruits. I think this would be for people already in college and if this happens during the recruiting process, it would be a violation. This doesn't read as a free for all to pay players. This can be governed with reporting of incomes and disclosures from the players. That's the cost of doing business here, ensuring that you are on the level. It would also assist these players in making sure that they are properly reporting on taxes and such to avoid the obvious scandal of tax avoidance that could come from this. I just don't see that this is going to be the end of college sports and will lead to further imbalance than we currently have. 

But that's likely where it will go.   
Not saying the HS recruits will get a check cut to them prior to signing, but based on a previous agreement, Day 1 of Fall camp,  Jimmy 4* signs a replica jersey for a sleazeball booster, and he gets a check right then & there.    Of course, everyone & their dog knows Jimmy 4*'s autograph is not worth $50K, but how can anyone tell the booster it's not?  "He was my favorite high school player ever & I'm so excited to have him on my favorite college team!!!  And I have plenty of money to blow, so I paid him what it was worth to me."  Unless there's some kind of governance on it all, the burden of proof is on the NCAA to disprove that sleazeball booster, and there's no way they could.
Then, that player can start using the rule for what it's intended for and make a little money when he starts producing and there's a real demand for his "likeness".

[Cerebus]

46 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Not saying the HS recruits will get a check cut to them prior to signing, but based on a previous agreement, Day 1 of Fall camp,  Jimmy 4* signs a replica jersey for a sleazeball booster, and he gets a check right then & there.

It seems to be very clear that any likeness/image deal is going to have to go through an NCAA clearinghouse. 

Boosters are already flat out paying people to play at their school.  At every level. 

So I don't see how the proposed changes are going to make that any worse, it won't stop it, but it's already happening and the NCAA doesn't really have any interest in stopping it from happening now. 

[Arkstfan]

1 hour ago, Cerebus said:

It seems to be very clear that any likeness/image deal is going to have to go through an NCAA clearinghouse. 

Boosters are already flat out paying people to play at their school.  At every level. 

So I don't see how the proposed changes are going to make that any worse, it won't stop it, but it's already happening and the NCAA doesn't really have any interest in stopping it from happening now. 

The only way to end the cheating is for the schools to pay whatever they can afford and wish to pay, then there is no point in Booster Bob funneling money to a player directly, he can just hand the money to the school and not face the possibility that some US Attorney indicts him for paying the kid.

 

Even that isn't going to change the balance of power much. The teams that dominate recruiting today, are generally the teams with the greatest access to money.

The G5's will take what they can afford and spend it on a few guys and everyone else will get a full scholarship. So you'll spend it on a QB, a couple OL and couple defensive players and everyone else gets a scholie.

 

I suspect even in P5 not everyone will get anything beyond what a full ride plus stipend that they get now.

 

[Cerebus]

Just now, Arkstfan said:

The only way to end the cheating is for the schools to pay whatever they can afford and wish to pay, then there is no point in Booster Bob funneling money to a player directly, he can just hand the money to the school and not face the possibility that some US Attorney indicts him for paying the kid.

 

Even that isn't going to change the balance of power much. The teams that dominate recruiting today, are generally the teams with the greatest access to money.

The G5's will take what they can afford and spend it on a few guys and everyone else will get a full scholarship. So you'll spend it on a QB, a couple OL and couple defensive players and everyone else gets a scholie.

 

I suspect even in P5 not everyone will get anything beyond what a full ride plus stipend that they get now.

 

I think the main way most players see money on this is coaching and social media.  You know how many moms would love to have their little darling get coached by a real college player?  That applies to all sports, a good volleyball hitter can give those lessons just as well as a good linebacker can.

A lot of people make money off of social media.  A lot of D1 athletes has a ton of followers. 

Of course, the CGB/MBB players will make money off the video game licensing rights. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

1 hour ago, Cerebus said:

I think the main way most players see money on this is coaching and social media.  You know how many moms would love to have their little darling get coached by a real college player?  That applies to all sports, a good volleyball hitter can give those lessons just as well as a good linebacker can.

A lot of people make money off of social media.  A lot of D1 athletes has a ton of followers. 

Of course, the CGB/MBB players will make money off the video game licensing rights. 

Absolutely.   These types of legitimate side opportunities should be rewarded.   The honest ways this new mandate encourages making money are admirable... and it's about time.  
I'm just very cynical about where the rabbit hole goes.

[MrStrange18]

23 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

If, and it remains a big "IF", the transactions are arms length, this a big nothing burger. On a typical NBA team there are one or two guys with no shoe deal. Most of the guys don't get a check from shoe companies, they get a voucher for X dollars of merchandise from the corporate catalog. Only a few guys get money from likeness beyond the player card and video game money which is very little.

In the NFL most guys on roster don't get anything other than playing card money and money for the video game.

No reason to think a freshman at Texas is going to get more than a third year NFL player who isn't a Pro-Bowler.

I think this is spot on...  Face value it looks like we are screwed... however it seems like the NCAA is just letting out a little slack for kids to play with or hang themselves with. They still have control.  They are just giving some perceived control to the players by going this route.