Here we go .. as many have argued it wasn’t a matter of if but when
hope the university is ready to “compete”
hope the university is ready to “compete”
NCAA - name, image, likeness - player pay
- Thread starter jlb321_rivals110621
- Start date
I think this helps recruiting for us. We as a fanbase are obsessed! A player choosing between us or TCU for example... They're gonna make more money coming to Nebraska. People will pay for their gear.
Definitely will help us over everyone except Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas A&M. Surprisingly, Alabama doesn't have very many rich boosters, Tennessee may though.
Pandora's box just flung wide open. NCAA gives initial approval but wants someone else to come up with the rules. Wellll, that's a little convenient. They don't want to be the bad guy
The NCAA had no choice. The minute California passed that law, it was over. What were they going to do? Start suspending players and making schools forfeit games? Both the player and school would've sued the NCAA in a California court, and would've won.
This is my issue with the whole process. I've sifted through the pros and cons about the actual principle, but we all knew this was going to be inevitable so the cons against it are out the window now. How in the effing world are they going to legislate this?
The NCAA is a business. At the end of the day the NCAA is still going to do everything the NCAA can to make more money than the players off this. And we all know they will.
The Board of Governors’ action directs each of the NCAA’s three divisions to immediately consider updates to relevant bylaws and policies for the 21st century, said Michael V. Drake, chair of the board and president of The Ohio State University.
This was crafted by Ohio State!
I have a different question about this..
Does a football video game (NFL or college) make the fans that play the game more or less loyal to their existing fan bases?
Let's say average Joe is an okie state fan, but loves to play the new NCAA 2020 game. He especially likes playing some of the hottest players on other teams, and occasionally will play as Georgia, or Alabama, just so he can experience what it's like playing with some of the leagues best players.
In time, does average Joe lose some loyalty to Okie light? stops attending their games, etc, at what point does he go out and buy a Bama hat?
I guess I'm curious at the bigger picture, in what does it take to start losing a fanbase, how does it happen, and what does it look like?
Is it really as easy as exposure to another team, some great players, and knowing that the instant I decide to buy a piece of gear, I can cheer for that team and be a 'winner'?
Does a football video game (NFL or college) make the fans that play the game more or less loyal to their existing fan bases?
Let's say average Joe is an okie state fan, but loves to play the new NCAA 2020 game. He especially likes playing some of the hottest players on other teams, and occasionally will play as Georgia, or Alabama, just so he can experience what it's like playing with some of the leagues best players.
In time, does average Joe lose some loyalty to Okie light? stops attending their games, etc, at what point does he go out and buy a Bama hat?
I guess I'm curious at the bigger picture, in what does it take to start losing a fanbase, how does it happen, and what does it look like?
Is it really as easy as exposure to another team, some great players, and knowing that the instant I decide to buy a piece of gear, I can cheer for that team and be a 'winner'?
What I find comical is Mckewon's last point in his tweet. Action sports brands like Nike and Adidas have been dictating the rules for years. Top players have been making money under the table for years too.
I find this process very similar to the legalization of marijuana. Essentially what this rule does is it makes that money public and taxable now. This is the fixture of the difficulty of legislating.
I wonder how this will affect not just our walk-on program, but all walk-on programs around the country.
Also, are Kansas, Creighton, etc. off the hook now? We're talking all NCAA Athletes now.
I find this process very similar to the legalization of marijuana. Essentially what this rule does is it makes that money public and taxable now. This is the fixture of the difficulty of legislating.
I wonder how this will affect not just our walk-on program, but all walk-on programs around the country.
Also, are Kansas, Creighton, etc. off the hook now? We're talking all NCAA Athletes now.
last point a very good one.. are UNC/KU/Creighton/etc grandfathered in or do those violations go away?
Can you read? The policies are going to be formulated by the three divisions of the NCAA. That is directly from the NCAA Board of Governors, the governing body of the NCAA and the entity that made today's announcement. Two words: reading comprehension.
Heavens to Murgatroyd, this is such a slippery slope!
Why the next thing you know, mediocre coaches who've never won anything will get paid millions of dollars just to go away, right alongside with the ADs who hired them. College football games will last 4 1/2 hours because of the incessant commercial breaks. Conferences will add teams in pursuit of nothing but TV sets, and yet cable rates will soar so high that people cut the cord.
What on Earth will become of the pure amateur athletics we all know and love???
Why the next thing you know, mediocre coaches who've never won anything will get paid millions of dollars just to go away, right alongside with the ADs who hired them. College football games will last 4 1/2 hours because of the incessant commercial breaks. Conferences will add teams in pursuit of nothing but TV sets, and yet cable rates will soar so high that people cut the cord.
What on Earth will become of the pure amateur athletics we all know and love???
If I were a lesser man, I'd be patting myself on the back and saying 'I told you so' after all those posts this off-season yelling from on high that was coming, and fast.
But I'm not a lesser man, so I'm not going to do that.
But I'm not a lesser man, so I'm not going to do that.
Should be good news for places with large passionate fan bases. Hopefully Nebraska takes advantage of this.
**** is gonna be interesting. Was having a conversation at work wondering how the NCAA would stop boosters from more or less directly paying players. eg I want to buy 10k autographs at 500 a pop.
It just brings up a lot of questions that will need answered. (yes I know that my my scenario is not likely).
It just brings up a lot of questions that will need answered. (yes I know that my my scenario is not likely).
Yeah, if I were a player, I'd get a website or GoFundMe site started up and ready to go, selling 5 cent trinkets/autographs/photos for at-will donations. Cut out the need for agents/handlers/attorneys.
I'm not sure anything would need to change and they'd police this the same way as they do now.
collegiate athletes will need to organize a players' association to deal with pooled payments from things like an NCAA football/basketball game, and for individuals, I have to think there will be a requirement of a certified representative to negotiate in line with whatever guidelines the board comes up with.
The rules are going to be key in keeping this beast caged in to an extent. Maybe limiting how much a player can accept? Otherwise high school kids will just go on the auction block to the highest bidder. I think this won't hurt bigger programs like Nebraska. It will pretty well eliminate smaller schools from competing for top tier athletes. Lets say a 5 star player has a choice to stay home with a school like Kansas. Many times that is the only way these type of programs get top athletes. Or they have other offers from schools like FL, LSU, Alabama. Do you think that kid now chooses to stay home when you have teams like Bama waving big bucks at him and his family? Maybe Im wrong, maybe teams like Kansas can dish out big bucks to players as well.
how many college athletes are nationally recognizable enough to throw big money at for ad campaigns, anyway? 5?
I'm not sure this will change things too much, honestly. just a few more dollars in kids' pockets from local ads/appearances with the extreme minority (1-2 per year) being able to actually meaningfully market themselves.
I do think NU stands to benefit if nothing else, however, simply due to lack of local competition.
I'm not sure this will change things too much, honestly. just a few more dollars in kids' pockets from local ads/appearances with the extreme minority (1-2 per year) being able to actually meaningfully market themselves.
I do think NU stands to benefit if nothing else, however, simply due to lack of local competition.
This will destroy college football as we know it... but at least we get EA sports NCAA football back
It isn't just about national ad campaigns though. Don't underestimate the power of social media. If the kicker at UCF can start a Youtube channel and get enough followers to make money off of ads, I would guess that most of the popular Husker players could do the same. Kids love Youtube programs and watch way more of it than TV.
good point, but it's hard to build an audience like that and keep them.
game streaming (fortnite, etc) definitely is an interesting avenue, too, and something they'll have to almost see around a corner to legislate.
This is the fair thing to do. But it will be a death sentence for women's sports and other sports that don't make a profit.
Boosters aren't going to give millions in donations anymore to build facilities and provide resources for the lesser sports. They will spend their money on "endorsements" for major football and basketball recruits.
Boosters aren't going to give millions in donations anymore to build facilities and provide resources for the lesser sports. They will spend their money on "endorsements" for major football and basketball recruits.
a prediction: this will not be a death sentence for any sport, regardless of their bottom line
another prediction: boosters will continue to donate to their schools if for no other reason than the write off
I'm sure there will still be a lot of NCAA rules and regulations. I'm guessing they will make it illegal for boosters to pay them for autographs, or cap them at a certain amount. I believe the California bill says players cannot accept endorsements from any competitors of companies that are already official sponsors of that school. So since we are a Pepsi/Adidas school, our players could not do endorsements for Coke/Nike. And there are still bribery laws that will make it illegal to outright bribe players.
My biggest concern is that apparel companies will now essentially run college football. They already run college basketball to a large extent, with the AAU programs. But now they will now run college football as well. Nike will be able to funnel recruits to Oregon and other major Nike schools. Maryland could become a powerhouse with their connection to Under Armour. This might not be all bad for us, as we are one of the top Adidas schools, and there aren't as many Adidas schools as there are Nike schools.
Outside of maybe Tua or Trevor Lawrence. There aren't any players in college football that will get that kind of attention. Like it's been mentioned above. These kids will make the majority of the money off social media.
The NCAA is a not for profit, not a business. Most of the revenue they take in is redistributed to all of the member schools for paying scholarships and educational programs.