87 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

I think anything officially coming from the NCAA would have to have some sort of Title 9 considerations.  I don't know if Title 9 insists on equal shares of everything or if it can be adjusted for relative revenues.

 

Things that are earned outside of the NCAA or school - such as the example of an autograph signing at a local car dealership - I would think would not have to be equally offered to everyone.  That's an individual thing from an outside entity.

 

That said, I've got no idea exactly how Title 9 works, so entirely possible there are major complications which would make this exceedingly difficult.

[DJ MC]

I don't know if Title IX applies to THIS law, because it is based on the athlete themselves earning on their likeness. I mean, if a school is selling jerseys that feature the name/number of a star quarterback or point guard, they should be the ones getting that money (or at least a major share of it), not the men's wrestling or women's field hockey teams. 

[The Epic]

Man, if you think it's crazy now, wait until college becomes free.

[The Epic]

BTW I'm thankful that nobody's come in here with the "the players do get paid! IT'S CALLED A SCHOLARSHIP!" defense. Kudos.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I don't know if Title IX applies to THIS law, because it is based on the athlete themselves earning on their likeness. I mean, if a school is selling jerseys that feature the name/number of a star quarterback or point guard, they should be the ones getting that money (or at least a major share of it), not the men's wrestling or women's field hockey teams. 

 

Exactly...and if the captain of the women's volleyball team happens to be popular enough that people want to buy up her jersey and pay to get her autograph on it, nothing should stand in her way of earning proceeds from that any more than the starting QB on the football team.

[You Play to Win the Game]

"We must embrace change".

Breaking news, more later.

[You Play to Win the Game]

https://www.espn.com...profit-likeness

"The NCAA's top decision-makers voted unanimously Tuesday to allow college athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."

[Chris B]

Right move. 

[Mackus]

A victory for American values, IMO.  Long overdue.  

 

Very curious to see how much they embrace this new model.  If it's just a symbolic concession and the rules they decide on are going to make it nearly impossible for players to earn money while remaining eligible, that'll be disappointing.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Each conf to have their new rules around this in place by 1/2021.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Good, it's a start.

[The Epic]

Capitalism WOW! 

 

Good for them!

[BSLSteveBirrer]

The devil will be in the details. Clearly a step in the right direction but I have strong fears that this will really widen the chasm between the P5s and G5s.  How are they going to put any kind of reasonable monetary restrictions in place? Or will it be open market?

[DJ MC]

The devil will be in the details. Clearly a step in the right direction but I have strong fears that this will really widen the chasm between the P5s and G5s.  How are they going to put any kind of reasonable monetary restrictions in place? Or will it be open market?

 

Should they have monetary restrictions on the endorsement money a player for the Yankees can make versus a player on the Brewers?

 

Or another way, do they have monetary restrictions on the endorsement money an Olympic athlete can make versus a non-Olympic athlete?

[Mike in STL]

The devil will be in the details. Clearly a step in the right direction but I have strong fears that this will really widen the chasm between the P5s and G5s. How are they going to put any kind of reasonable monetary restrictions in place? Or will it be open market?

I’m not sure it will. The good players go to the good schools, the rest get the pick of the 4 and 3 stars. Like it is now. It may even close the gap in the sense that a QB backing up at Clemson but is good enough to start anywhere else, could transfer to Boise so he can sell his jerseys and be the star and make money because no one wants Clemsons backup QB Jersey.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I’m not sure it will. The good players go to the good schools, the rest get the pick of the 4 and 3 stars. Like it is now. It may even close the gap in the sense that a QB backing up at Clemson but is good enough to start anywhere else, could transfer to Boise so he can sell his jerseys and be the star and make money because no one wants Clemsons backup QB Jersey.

That's a really good point.

 

it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, that's for sure. 

 

But either way, big step in the right direction - but I give the NCAA no credit for simply acknowledging that this is something they can't stop. Should've happened a long time ago. 

[The Epic]

https://sports.yahoo...-143850090.html

 

>_>

[BSLMikeLowe]

https://sports.yahoo...-143850090.html

 

>_>

 

Asinine, and unsurprising considering the source, but probably won't have much consequence. As the article points out:

 

A school like Georgia or Georgia Tech exercising its right to take a cut of endorsement money will immediately prove to be a disadvantage in recruiting.

[You Play to Win the Game]

That photo op doesn't exactly make UGA popular to recruits, I'd think.

[Mike in STL]

Asinine, and unsurprising considering the source, but probably won't have much consequence. As the article points out:

I’d be worried that this sets a precedent that when they ask the federal government to make this federal law, since they drag their feet, they will just cut and paste this law and call it federal.