NCAA Amatuerism - Likenesss

[Hankp22]

This took another step today:

1. With this being private endorsement deals, that seems like it will be a work around to the Title9 angle?
2. It will obviously benefit large market football teams.
3. That said, it sounds like an avenue for us to really get aggressive on the baseball side of things.

Those were my way too early quick thoughts anyway.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-votes-allow-athletes-profit-likeness

 

[BlueRidgeMtns]

bring back NCAA Football and I'll be happy.

 

[Hankp22]

bring back NCAA Football and I'll be happy.

I still play NCAA 14 ps3 from time to time. Also bring back College Hoops 2k....which was my favorite sport series from that era.

 

[Go Budaw]

This took another step today:

1. With this being private endorsement deals, that seems like it will be a work around to the Title9 angle?
2. It will obviously benefit large market football teams.
3. That said, it sounds like an avenue for us to really get aggressive on the baseball side of things.

Those were my way too early quick thoughts anyway.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-votes-allow-athletes-profit-likeness

It’s pretty much an unmitigated disaster for the big money sports at MSU. And it doesn’t allow us to “get aggressive” in baseball any more than anyone else. There’s not a whole lot of profit to be had off likenesses in the world of college baseball anyway. Nobody is getting into Cam Newton type bidding wars for a centerfielder from Jackson Prep.

 

[CagerMania]

Can’t a booster just pay $50,000 for an autograph rather than handing a bag with $50k in it to a recruit now? I just don’t understand how this is anything but making paying for recruits completely legal (except the irs will now get a cut).

 

[maroonmania]

This took another step today:

1. With this being private endorsement deals, that seems like it will be a work around to the Title9 angle?
2. It will obviously benefit large market football teams.
3. That said, it sounds like an avenue for us to really get aggressive on the baseball side of things.

Those were my way too early quick thoughts anyway.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-votes-allow-athletes-profit-likeness

Teams with rabid fanbases and lots of rich boosters will just recruit that much better because there will be a legal way to get money to the players within the program and recruits will know it. But from a big picture perspective, I guess what I don't understand is why are states passing these bills allowing players to profit off of their likeness? Why is it necessary? Its legal to do that today in all 50 states as far as I know. The problem is doing that and maintaining amateur status with the NCAA which state law has nothing to do with. Is it just to have something irrelevant in writing to put pressure on the NCAA?

 

[thatsbaseball]

Yep..

 

[Nunya.sixpack]

hey 2020 recruit, you know your likeness will be worth 1.8 times more if you sign with Alabama instead of ______.

just seems like there's no way to have oversight on this at all....as if they give a rats *** if recruits are getting cash from a children's hospital or a church.

 

[Seinfeld]

Yep, without a clearly defined set of rules and more importantly, a hard cap on what one school’s athletes can receive, this is just another case of the rich getting richer. Even with a cap, there are going to be plenty of schools without the financial means to support this

Some of the local Memphis radio guys keep saying “don’t talk to me about unlevel playing fields because the playing field isn’t level today”, and I don’t argue that point. However, that’s a weak mindset, and there’s no reason to make an unfair situation worse. If we all thought that way, we may as well just not have laws because someone out there is going to occasionally break them

 

[thatsbaseball]

This thing is going to have so many unforeseen ramifications it will just have to take a life of it's own. My first thought is that this ain't going to be good for anyone in the end.

 

[Go Budaw]

Teams with rabid fanbases and lots of rich boosters will just recruit that much better because there will be a legal way to get money to the players within the program and recruits will know it. But from a big picture perspective, I guess what I don't understand is why are states passing these bills allowing players to profit off of their likeness? Why is it necessary? Its legal to do that today in all 50 states as far as I know. The problem is doing that and maintaining amateur status with the NCAA which state law has nothing to do with. Is it just to have something irrelevant in writing to put pressure on the NCAA?

The NCAA did this for the same reason they’ve done everything questionable over the past 5 years...because they feel their grip slipping away and they don’t want to lose their massive cut of the revenue pie. They know that the Power 5 can all get together whenever the 17 they want and completely disband from the NCAA and form their own governing body. And that would be the 100% end of the NCAA. So they have been passing all this legislation that favors the big market schools that is being pushed by those schools. The new transfer rules and this new policy for profiting off likeness are chief amongst them. They are also bowing at the knees of the big schools even in the punitive phase for blatant violations, which is why you see massive scandals like what happened at UNC and Ole Miss just resulting in wrist slaps or less. The NCAA now has no relevance whatsoever or any need to exist, but they still like that money. So you just have the tail wagging the dog at this point.

 

[johnson86-1]

Teams with rabid fanbases and lots of rich boosters will just recruit that much better because there will be a legal way to get money to the players within the program and recruits will know it. But from a big picture perspective, I guess what I don't understand is why are states passing these bills allowing players to profit off of their likeness? Why is it necessary? Its legal to do that today in all 50 states as far as I know. The problem is doing that and maintaining amateur status with the NCAA which state law has nothing to do with. Is it just to have something irrelevant in writing to put pressure on the NCAA?

The NCAA has to follow the law of states that have jurisdiction over them, which is every US state. There is nothing that puts the amateurism rules of the NCAA beyond the reach of state statute other than common sense, which is non-binding and consistently ignored in the legislatures of all U.S. states as well as the US Congress and Senate.

 

[AlCoDog]

They can pay their tuition and college expenses out of that money then. Also, not sure why the NCAA is even needed at this point. Not that they were before.

 

[Seinfeld]

Which is the precise reason the NCAA has been dragging its feet on the matter. Not because they’re lazy or wanting to hoard money from the poor, little college athlete that can’t afford ramen noodles(give me a break)

It’s because this is a Pandora’s box that will not be able to be controlled once it’s open, and it will just drive the wedge infinitely farther between the haves and the have nots. There’s a distinct reason that coaches like Coach K and other blue bloods have voiced their unwavering support of this ruling

 

[BlueRidgeMtns]

SPS will need to send around an offering plate before signing day each year.**

 

[thatsbaseball]

Wonder how this going to work out in the locker room when the "pretty boy" QB is getting rich while the "big uglies" OL are just getting bruised and bloodied ?

 

[WilCoDawg]

Will this not possibly reduce money going to athletic depts if boosters are paying the students instead of the schools themselves?
I just have to figure out how much to pay Shrader to promote my pig farm now.

 

[maroonmania]

As far as I know only the NCAA can grant or take away amateur status for an athlete to play in an NCAA sanctioned sports event. I've never heard of a state legislature having any jurisdiction in that area no matter what laws they pass. I mean the NCAA has to govern the whole thing, you can't have somebody in one state do something and be eligible but someone in a different state do the exact same thing and be ineligible.

 

[johnson86-1]

As far as I know only the NCAA can grant or take away amateur status for an athlete to play in an NCAA sanctioned sports event. I've never heard of a state legislature having any jurisdiction in that area no matter what laws they pass. I mean the NCAA has to govern the whole thing, you can't have somebody in one state do something and be eligible but someone in a different state do the exact same thing and be ineligible.

Only an employer can set the pay of their employees, but they still have to follow state law and they can't legally pay somebody $1 an hour if the state says they have to pay them a minimum of $10 an hour.

And an employer may have to pay $10 in one state they operate in but only $7.25 in another state they operate in.

It's more challenging for the NCAA because differing state laws makes it impossible for them to even pretend they are maintaining a level playing field, but short of getting a federal law passed preempting the issue, the NCAA is going to have to figure it out.

 

[Hankp22]

Fair

It’s pretty much an unmitigated disaster for the big money sports at MSU. And it doesn’t allow us to “get aggressive” in baseball any more than anyone else. There’s not a whole lot of profit to be had off likenesses in the world of college baseball anyway. Nobody is getting into Cam Newton type bidding wars for a centerfielder from Jackson Prep.

1. I agree with you on the MAJOR sports like football and basketball. It will change competitive balance in favor of large market teams.

2. On the baseball front, we are a big fish in a small pond. The market doesn't really exist elsewhere aside from the SEC and a few spot teams. I am well aware there wont be Cam Newton style bidding wars for baseball players. But I think promotional opporutnities could potentially exist for Mississippi State baseball players in our regional market. The major markets obviously don't care about college baseball.

 

[Dawgzilla]

As far as I know only the NCAA can grant or take away amateur status for an athlete to play in an NCAA sanctioned sports event. I've never heard of a state legislature having any jurisdiction in that area no matter what laws they pass. I mean the NCAA has to govern the whole thing, you can't have somebody in one state do something and be eligible but someone in a different state do the exact same thing and be ineligible.

The California law is directed toward the California schools, and will make it illegal for schools in the state to prohibit student-athletes from making money from endorsements and the like. So, the schools would not be able to prohibit that activity, and that meant the NCAA had to either allow the activity or expel the California schools from the NCAA, or at least ban them all from postseason play. (I suppose they could try to convince all of the California student-athletes to just refrain from taking advantage of the opportunity, but that doesn't seem too likely). Since other states were starting to pass similar legislation, this was going to put extreme pressure on the NCAA to come up with a solution.

 

[patdog]

Probably about like it works in the NFL today.

 

[thatsbaseball]

There's a difference in getting paid less and getting paid nothing

 

[Dawgzilla]

This is where I think the sport will be hurt the most. During recruiting, the Starting RB from Alabama can tell the top RB recruit just how much money he made from autographs, jersey sales, local car commercials, etc., and that number will be much higher than what anyone from Mississippi State made. And that's just the legit money...in addition there will be plenty of people overpaying for endorsements and autographs just so they can funnel money to the players.

Its not as if Alabama needed another advantage, but their fans are freaking crazy. They could sell a set of baseball cards with every football player's picture included, and fans would pay 100s or 1000s of dollars for a complete set. Multiple sets. Every year. And every player would get a cut of that. Calendars, jerseys, autographed photos.....I'll bet every local commercial in Tuscaloosa and B'ham will have an Alabama player somewhere in the background getting overpaid to "endorse" whatever is being sold.

 

[TaleofTwoDogs]

Only an employer can set the pay of their employees, but they still have to follow state law and they can't legally pay somebody $1 an hour if the state says they have to pay them a minimum of $10 an hour.

And an employer may have to pay $10 in one state they operate in but only $7.25 in another state they operate in.

It's more challenging for the NCAA because differing state laws makes it impossible for them to even pretend they are maintaining a level playing field, but short of getting a federal law passed preempting the issue, the NCAA is going to have to figure it out.

Employees?? What employees are you referring too?

 

[Willow Grove Dawg]

no moor big screens for dawgstudent

 

[ronpolk]

I have not read the article yet but I will say I am a fan of this. The NCAA had revenue over $1 billion in 2017 by doing nothing but profiting off of student athletes. If a player can earn an endorsement, then he should be able to earn that money.

I just don’t see this doing anything to help or hurt the big boys. Bama, Clemson and others are still going to virtually sign whoever they want.

 

[coach66]

Yep, this has so much opportunity for gaming whatever system they put in place

it's not going to end well. I agree with those that are saying the wealthy fanbase teams are going to have a huge advantage, here comes Vandy.

 

[Maroonthirteen]

Memphis radio is for this rule because every basketball recruit will be offered a FedEx commercial now.

 

[Go Budaw]

The California law is directed toward the California schools, and will make it illegal for schools in the state to prohibit student-athletes from making money from endorsements and the like. So, the schools would not be able to prohibit that activity, and that meant the NCAA had to either allow the activity or expel the California schools from the NCAA, or at least ban them all from postseason play. (I suppose they could try to convince all of the California student-athletes to just refrain from taking advantage of the opportunity, but that doesn't seem too likely). Since other states were starting to pass similar legislation, this was going to put extreme pressure on the NCAA to come up with a solution.

Those aren’t the only options. The NCAA could have simply maintained the current status quo. Rule any players receiving those benefits ineligible for some period. Rule wins in any games played by such players as being vacated or forfeited, and therefore not counting towards bowl eligibility, NCAA tournament selection, etc. The schools can then do what they want. Abide by the rules of the organization of which they are VOLUNTARILY a member, and sit those players who are known to be in violation of the the rules, or play them anyway and force the issue. In neither case are they actually prohibiting the player from taking the benefit, they are just not choosing to use those players in competition in a worst case. Therefore they are still in adherence to the state law as well as NCAA bylaws, so long as they don’t do anything like pulling the player’s scholarship or suspend the player.

Also, kicking the schools out of the NCAA would never happen. The issue would resolve itself one way or another from the NCAA following its normal bylaws. Either the schools would play ball, or there would likely be some court challenge in which case the court system would settle it. And also, the schools always have the option to just leave the NCAA on their own in order to adhere to state law. But (surprise!) the NCAA didn’t want USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Fresno State, SDSU, et al to leave their organization. I wonder why? This was nothing more than a game of chicken in which the NCAA never even got in the car and started the ignition, because they knew it wasn’t in their own financial self-interest, even if they prevailed. Point blank.

 

[johnson86-1]

Employees?? What employees are you referring too?

Employees of employers. Maroonmania doesn't understand how a state can pass laws that would impact the relationship between the NCAA, its member institutions within that state, and the student athletes at those institutions.

I was just pointing out that it's not really any different than how the state passes laws impacting relationship between employers and employees. But if it gets your panties in a wad to have an analogy that involves student athletes and employees, it works just as well to point out laws that make it illegal to pay somebody for sex or illegal drugs or lwas that make it illegal for home owner associations to enact covenants restricting the sale of property to protected classes of persons.

 

[Dawgzilla]

Oh this absolutely should have been done years ago.....and it will absolutely destroy college football and basketball.

I am perhaps being too pessimistic, but I think there will be a couple dozen schools -- maybe more in basketball -- who will literally be able to sign anyone they want. I know it seems like a few schools do that now, but I'm talking an absolute change in how recruiting works . Come here, get paid now.

The only good thing I see is that 30 or 40 years from now we can claim this rule is what caused our demise in the 2020s, and not some bad coaching hire.

 

[BlueRidgeMtns]

I can see it now... articles showing average revenue by position for each conference. Schools touting how much their players made vs players at other schools. Boosters showing up to "meet the team" days and paying boatloads for autographs. Donations being collected at tailgating spots.

It's going to be wild.

 

[The Situation]

You guys wayyyy overestimate the market. It will affect basketball more than anything. Not many football recruits are THAT well known in high school. I would imagine they'll nullify this rule while prospects are being recruited.

But yes, as far as us and baseball, that is a place where we can use our rabid fanbase to further help recruit. While there isn't a national market (at all) for any college baseball player, there will be among our own fanbase.

 

[Dawgzilla]

The choices may not have been binary, but there was no way the status quo would have worked in compliance with the law.

First, the players have to disclose their contracts to the school, so the school cannot just turn a blind a eye to it. Second, the schools cannot declare the players ineligible, as that would be considered enforcing a rule that prevents the students from earning money off endorsements. If the school just benched the offending players, then they would get sued under the statute and have to explain why they benched multiple starters for an entire season, or whatever.

So the players were going to play, and get paid. The schools could not take any steps to prevent that. That would have put the ball in the NCAA's court, and as I said they would have to ban all -- or at least most -- of the California schools from postseason play if not expel them altogether. And then there were other states to deal with.

That would then result in antitrust lawsuits, which the NCAA would lose. The NCAA has already lost two antitrust suits in California. The NCAA knew this was a fight it could not win.

 

[johnson86-1]

Those aren’t the only options. The NCAA could have simply maintained the current status quo. Rule any players receiving those benefits ineligible for some period. Rule wins in any games played by such players as being vacated or forfeited, and therefore not counting towards bowl eligibility, NCAA tournament selection, etc. The schools can then do what they want. Abide by the rules of the organization of which they are VOLUNTARILY a member, and sit those players who are known to be in violation of the the rules, or play them anyway and force the issue. In neither case are they actually prohibiting the player from taking the benefit, they are just not choosing to use those players in competition in a worst case. Therefore they are still in adherence to the state law as well as NCAA bylaws, so long as they don’t do anything like pulling the player’s scholarship or suspend the player.

Those are the only options. The law doesn't justu apply to the schools within the state. It applies to the NCAA also, as long as it is subject to California jurisdiction, which it will be as long as it has members in California and takes actions involving those members. If the NCAA tried to penalize a school for its student athletes being paid for their name or likeness, the NCAA would be guilty of unfair or deceptive trade practices and unfair competition under California law. There is no option for them to just decline to be subject to California law absent them removing themselves from the state's jurisdiction. I don't think a membership organization like the NCAA can claim they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state where some of their members reside and where they have NCAA sanctioned events.

Also, kicking the schools out of the NCAA would never happen. The issue would resolve itself one way or another from the NCAA following its normal bylaws. Either the schools would play ball, or there would likely be some court challenge in which case the court system would settle it. This was nothing more than a game of chicken in which the NCAA never even got in the car and started the ignition, because they knew it wasn’t in their own financial self-interest. Point blank.

 

[ronpolk]

Those aren’t the only options. The NCAA could have simply maintained the current status quo. Rule any players receiving those benefits ineligible for some period. Rule wins in any games played by such players as being vacated or forfeited, and therefore not counting towards bowl eligibility, NCAA tournament selection, etc. The schools can then do what they want. Abide by the rules of the organization of which they are VOLUNTARILY a member, and sit those players who are known to be in violation of the the rules, or play them anyway and force the issue. In neither case are they actually prohibiting the player from taking the benefit, they are just not choosing to use those players in competition in a worst case. Therefore they are still in adherence to the state law as well as NCAA bylaws, so long as they don’t do anything like pulling the player’s scholarship or suspend the player.

Also, kicking the schools out of the NCAA would never happen. The issue would resolve itself one way or another from the NCAA following its normal bylaws. Either the schools would play ball, or there would likely be some court challenge in which case the court system would settle it. And also, the schools always have the option to just leave the NCAA on their own in order to adhere to state law. But (surprise!) the NCAA didn’t want USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Fresno State, SDSU, et al to leave their organization. I wonder why? This was nothing more than a game of chicken in which the NCAA never even got in the car and started the ignition, because they knew it wasn’t in their own financial self-interest, even if they prevailed. Point blank.

Why are you so against college athletes being paid money? Would you be against an engineering student on scholarship getting a paid internship? How is it really any different? You’re automatically going to a worst case scenario. Based on what I’m seeing on Twitter, there will be regulations around this. It’s not going to be a free for all.

As for leaving things the same, that is not really an option. The student athletes are not getting a fair shake in the current arrangement. The athletes are the catalyst for a billion dollar industry that they don’t get to share profit in. That model was not sustainable and the ncaa knows this. The NCAA would have never agreed to this if they thought the status quo could be maintained.

 

[Seinfeld]

I think you’re referring to the legitimate endorsement market which is not what most people are worried about.

People are worried about the ways that it can and will be exploited in order for certain schools to land even more blue chip recruits. If the rule is indeed nullified during the recruiting process, then they’ll just verbally agree to a payment plan that starts after a kid enrolls.

 

[thatsbaseball]

You are totally missing the point on football. I doesn't matter how famous they are in high school, what matters is their value to a college program. And as far as "nullifying the rule while the prospect is being recruited " Bwahahahahah

 

[johnson86-1]

Will this not possibly reduce money going to athletic depts if boosters are paying the students instead of the schools themselves?
I just have to figure out how much to pay Shrader to promote my pig farm now.

It's going to be a problem big a lot of programs (maybe even some relatively big money programs), as many of them have a lot of debt to service associated with facilities. All the sudden those facilities won't mean much, if at all, compared to just paying the athletes directly through endorsements and autograph/picture sales, so the schools that can't just redirect something like TV money to debt service are going to have problems. Going to be interesting to see how schools handle that tradeoff. And this will likely be the highwater mark for coaches compensation. Having 30 analysts on staff won't be nearly as important as just buying the players to begin with, so you will see some of those positions eliminated. Probalby won't have 6 people on the strength and conditioning staff anymore either, or at least not at current salaries.