#Not NCAA property

[TankedCat]

A student on a music scholarship is allowed to play weekend gigs, sell their music, post videos on youtube, etc. Why are you against this?

that's something they could have done outside of college as well. They aren't leveraging the college to gain that income.

take away the uniform and college name , how is the college athlete going to play weekend basketball for money, what value is a youtube video of them playing street ball?

 

[TigerMoving]

Sounds like some of you all hate free markets and capitalism. Buncha socialists

 

[TankedCat]

Sounds like some of you all hate free markets and capitalism. Buncha socialists

the common mantra here is they are free to test the market outside of college athletics to determine their worth.

In doing so, many of them will come to realize the value of a college scholarship

A free market also involves supply and demand. There will always be more supply than demand in college athletics.

 

[TigerMoving]

the common mantra here is they are free to test the market outside of college athletics to determine their worth.

In doing so, many of them will come to realize the value of a college scholarship

A free market also involved supply and demand. There will always be more supply than demand in college athletics.

Or they could just play college sports, get a scholarship, AND earn endorsements and sponsorships based on their marketing value.

 

[JwUKFan11]

I don’t think getting a degree should cost more, but I think you are underestimating the value of a degree. In my opinion, a degree is much more than a piece of paper. Having a degree on a resume opens up many potential employment options with higher pay that wouldn’t otherwise be available.

Yeah I know I have one. But getting the 4 year degree isn’t worth the time or money it takes. It’s not like the degree itself actually prepares you for 99% of the jobs you will be able to get with it. You may have some vague knowledge of terms used in the field but nowhere near what 4 or more years of education should actually prepare you for.

 

[Bobio]

that's something they could have done outside of college as well. They aren't leveraging the college to gain that income.

take away the uniform and college name , how is the college athlete going to play weekend basketball for money, what value is a youtube video of them playing street ball?

I think you're missing my point, why is it ok for a student on a music scholarship to make money based on his/her talent (brand) and a student on a basketball scholarship isn't? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about paying the player (that was a canard by some posters that had an agenda).

 

[TankedCat]

I think you're missing my point, why is ok for a student on a music scholarship allowed to make money based on his/her talent (brand) and a student on a basketball scholarship isn't? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about paying the player (that was a canard by some posters that had an agenda).

because their earning potential (brand) wasn't enhanced by the college and the resources the college provides in return for a scholarship.

yes, you could argue they are a better musician for going to the school, but that doesn't directly translate to them being able to land a gig at a coffee shop. You don't go downtown for a concert to see Lucy, a junior at Texas A&M. You go to see Lucy who just released a new album of original songs.

for example, Vince Gill was a music major at Belmont in Nashville, but Belmont didn't provide a platform for Vince to play at the Opry. He earned that based on his skill alone.

 

[TigerMoving]

because their earning potential (brand) wasn't enhanced by the college and the resources the college provides in return for a scholarship.

yes, you could argue they are a better musician for going to the school, but that doesn't directly translate to them being able to land a gig at a coffee shop. You don't go downtown for a concert to see Lucy, a junior at Texas A&M. You go to see Lucy who just released a new album of original songs.

for example, Vince Gill was a music major at Belmont in Nashville, but Belmont didn't provide a platform for Vince to play at the Opry. He earned that based on his skill alone.

So you think all music schools are the same? I dont know jack about music but I know that cant be true. Basketball players earn money and jobs based on skill also.

 

[TankedCat]

So you think all music schools are the same? I dont know jack about music but I know that cant be true. Basketball players earn money and jobs based on skill also.

yes, we call that professional basketball

 

[Bobio]

because their earning potential (brand) wasn't enhanced by the college and the resources the college provides in return for a scholarship.

yes, you could argue they are a better musician for going to the school, but that doesn't directly translate to them being able to land a gig at a coffee shop. You don't go downtown for a concert to see Lucy, a junior at Texas A&M. You go to see Lucy who just released a new album of original songs.

for example, Vince Gill was a music major at Belmont in Nashville, but Belmont didn't provide a platform for Vince to play at the Opry. He earned that based on his skill alone.

I don't agree with that, the students "talent", whether it be music or sport was obviously good enough to garner them a scholarship in the first place. We're not talking about weekend karaoke warriors or YMCA hoopers, we're talking about students on full scholarships in their respective "fields". You're literally saying that a student on a music scholarship should be allowed to make as much money based on their talent as they can, yet a student on a basketball scholarship shouldn't. I fundamentally disagree with this.

 

[TankedCat]

I don't agree with that, the students "talent", whether it be music or sport was obviously good enough to garner them a scholarship in the first place. We're not talking about weekend karaoke warriors or YMCA hoopers, we're talking about students on full scholarships in their respective "fields". You're literally saying that a student on a music scholarship should be allowed to make as much money based on their talent as they can, yet a student on a basketball scholarship shouldn't. I fundamentally disagree with this.

the major difference is the music scholarship student isn't making money based on them leveraging their music scholarship.

again, take away the uniform and college name, how much money will an athlete make?

take away the music scholarship, how much money will the musician make?

 

[TigerMoving]

yes, we call that professional basketball

So please explain why the top students at the top music schools can make side money but basketball players cant

 

[TankedCat]

I just did


twice

 

[Bobio]

the major difference is the music scholarship student isn't making money based on them leveraging their music scholarship.

again, take away the uniform and college name, how much money will an athlete make?

take away the music scholarship, how much money will the musician make?

But you can't; their talent got them the uniform and college name in the first place. We're talking about people that are elite in their respective "fields". You're literally saying that a student on a music scholly should be allowed to make as much money based on their talent as they can, but a student on a basketball scholly shouldn't. I fundamentally disagree with this.

 

[Blueaz]

Or they could just play college sports, get a scholarship, AND earn endorsements and sponsorships based on their marketing value.

this is ok...but not pay for play...IMO

 

[TigerMoving]

I just did


twice

So you're saying that a musician attending Julliard has the same market value as a musician at UK....and that being at Julliard adds zero value to the musician's career potential?

 

[TankedCat]

yes I am literally saying this.

and you are right, you cannot take away their uniform and the college name, which is why they shouldn't be paid above and beyond what the college offers them. Their earning potential is greatly reduced without the college providing the platform for them to excel, yet they demand additional revenues tied to the college name.

 

[TankedCat]

So you're saying that a musician attending Julliard has the same market value as a musician at UK....and that being at Julliard adds zero value to the musician's career potential?

we aren't talking potential. We're talking about an existing musician going downtown and landing some gig and making money at it.

When is the last time you saw a concert and made your decision on which school the musician went to?

I have a feeling they aren't selling too many Julliard music jerseys.

 

[Bobio]

yes I am literally saying this.

and you are right, you cannot take away their uniform and the college name, which is why they shouldn't be paid above and beyond what the college offers them. Their earning potential is greatly reduced without the college providing the platform for them to excel, yet they demand additional revenues tied to the college name.

Their talent is what compelled the university to offer them a full scholarship in the first place. That's essentially contracts 101, 2 parties mutually agreeing to something based on mutual benefit. But the music scholarship student is allowed to make money based on his/her talent and the basketball scholarship student isn't. You're ok with this. I am not.

 

[TigerMoving]

yes I am literally saying this.

and you are right, you cannot take away their uniform and the college name, which is why they shouldn't be paid above and beyond what the college offers them. Their earning potential is greatly reduced without the college providing the platform for them to excel, yet they demand additional revenues tied to the college name.

That is just naive, attending the best schools for every major/activity/sport will enhance your market value in that field.

You think Cade Cunningham is piggy-backing off of Ok State's incredible "brand enhancement?" Or is Cade actually enhancing Ok State's brand?

 

[Bobio]

we aren't talking potential. We're talking about an existing musician going downtown and landing some gig and making money at it.

When is the last time you saw a concert and made your decision on which school the musician went to?

I have a feeling they aren't selling too many Julliard music jerseys.

Lemme ask you a question; do you believe that colleges and universities are offering basketball and football schollies based on benevolence and altruism?

 

[TigerMoving]

we aren't talking potential. We're talking about an existing musician going downtown and landing some gig and making money at it.

When is the last time you saw a concert and made your decision on which school the musician went to?

I have a feeling they aren't selling too many Julliard music jerseys.

I dont go to concerts but I bet their are some music freaks in NY or Boston or wherever who love seeing the up and coming Julliard stars

 

[TankedCat]

Their talent is what compelled the university to offer them a full scholarship in the first place. That's essentially contracts 101, 2 parties mutually agreeing to something based on mutual benefit. But the music scholarship student is allowed to make money based on his/her talent and the basketball scholarship student isn't. You're ok with this. I am not.

the last time I will say it

whether anyone agrees or not

the college athlete isn't getting paid for his name alone, he is getting paid for being at school X, playing on the school X team and wearing the school X uniform.

Jersey sales, autograph sessions, etc are all built from the association with the school

The college musician has no outlet to leverage this, and if there were thousands of instances where it was happening , you can bet it would be regulated in some degree.

Where we make our mistake, is not letting a player major in college sports. We expect an athlete to go to school to be something other than an athlete, while we allow a musician to go to school to be a musician.

That would be the only change I would support unless there was a profit sharing plan were all athletes benefitted by getting the same share.

 

[nickhorvathsuxazz]

I think they should as well, but I don't see any way to keep it under control. It won't start with college, it will start with AAU, you'll have kids being recruited that have already made $50K, $100K off their likeness and they'll demand the college they go to put together a compensation package that will beat the G-League, then they'll start comparing what other players made - I'm ranked higher than player X was last year and he made $275K at Georgetown, how much will I make going to your school.

sounds like a nightmare to me.

and that doesn't even touch on schools laundering money thru fake revenue schemes to pay the players, disgruntled teammates who perform better than the "star" player getting paid while they live on ramen and a host of other toxic issues I am not thinking of now.

players should be able to make money, but the auditing, compliance and equity associated with it would be a giant burden to the schools, the NCAA and ultimately I believe it would hurt college athletics. Add to it that college programs would also have to develop and pay for a marketing program that creates revenue streams for players. Not only will you have a $8m a year coach, you'll have a $6m a year player marketing director. The reason he is paid so well is because the players are no longer coming to the program because of the coach, they are coming because the marketing will get them well into 6 figures revenue.

Hell just look at what the OAD focus has done to Kentucky. Wins? yes. Fan Excitement about the program, not so much. Now we're going to invite them to be income focused and demand to be compensated more than the professors who teach them?

Ugh

Every word of this post is spot on. Keep amateur sports, as much as possible, amateur. If you wanna get paid, go pro. I'm sure those 2nd tier guys will appreciate the opportunity of being rewarded with that scholarship.

 

[podgejeff_]

Allow that and there will only be a few dozen schools that matter anymore.

So like it is now then?

 

[Bobio]

the last time I will say it

whether anyone agrees or not

the college athlete isn't getting paid for his name alone, he is getting paid for being at school X, playing on the school X team and wearing the school X uniform.

Jersey sales, autograph sessions, etc are all built from the association with the school

The college musician has not outlet to leverage this, and if there were thousands of instances where it was happening , you can bet it would be regulated in some degree.

And the school felt that the student basketball player added so much value to the team/school that they offered said student a full scholarship. The school, and by default, the NCAA, will make hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars off of said student, because, again, student was talented enough to garner a full schollie, but you don't want said student to be able to sell autographs, or do a car dealership commercial, etc. You're ok with the school making money of the students name, image and likeness, but you're not ok with the student making money off of his or her own name, image and likeness. There's no consistency in your position.

 

[TigerMoving]

Im sure Cade thanks God every night that the incredible Oklahoma St Univ allows him to wear their legendary jersey and attend 9 hours of brilliant communication classes. Without them he would have been screwed.

 

[TankedCat]

Lemme ask you a question; do you believe that colleges and universities are offering basketball and football schollies based on benevolence and altruism?

irrelevant

but yes, it started out that way. They felt that sports added to the overall college experience and back in the day never envisioned a situation where college sports would become a billion dollar revenue stream.

its the same reason they offer academic, diversity, cultural, performing arts, etc scholarships. They want a broad experience for all their students while they are on campus.

 

[TankedCat]

Im sure Cade thanks God every night that the incredible Oklahoma St Univ allows him to wear their legendary jersey and attend 9 hours of brilliant communication classes. Without them he would have been screwed.

What would Cade being doing right now if her weren't at Oklahoma St.?

 

[nickhorvathsuxazz]

I would try to consider ways to make it win/win for the athlete at the school, as well as being equitable for all parties.

I would look at something like this

Have the team earn money - all likeness, everything from the star player to bake sale money from the walk on - all the money goes into an earned revenue pool, to be paid equally to players in December of their Senior year. Each year the money is totaled for all players and each player is told their "earnings" for that year. So they have a running total at all times.

the walk on gets paid the same amount as the star player. If the player leaves due to transfer or goes pro before then they forfeit the pooled money.

Now we're asking a player how committed they are to the program and the overall college experience. Players would really have to be certain they are pro material or unhappy before they leave and walk away from potentially 250/300K bundle of money waiting on them. No college would be allowed to distribute funds to players under any other circumstances.

College is a team sport, players should benefit from the team, not being an individual.

I have suggested something similar, except on a yearly basis rather than 4. I'll have to mull it over a bit, but I believe I like the 4 yr. idea better...

 

[Catfanlou_rivals54997]

If Emmertt and the schools really believed their rationale in refusing to allow the players to benefit from amateur sports neither would the grownups Ike Emmert and the coaches making millions .
It would b similar to little league where it’s all mostly volunteer with no huge salaries . Basically, they’re protecting their ridiculously high salaries .

 

[Kats23]

You can’t pay players from a college standpoint. They receive scholarships plus not to mention the inequality that would happen at schools. EKU vs a UK. How do you deviate out the money to make it work and still be profitable What sports do you stop at? Really only football and men’s basketball is a revenue generated. Golf, gymnastics, woman’s sports all work as hard and make as many sacrifices as a football player.

However, you want to fall into the free market capital for these players. Allow them to make money off their name. Allow them to sign agents if the agent feels like taking a risk. It’s not the player’s fault they are more marketable than another. But it shouldn’t be the college obligation to determine that or front the money for that

 

[TigerMoving]

What would Cade being doing right now if her weren't at Oklahoma St.?

Playing at any other school in America, overseas or G-league. Literally anywhere he wanted except the NBA.

 

[MasonCoBlue]

Maybe not the popular opinion, but student athletes still need to have a life. I'm all for them getting their degree paid for. But unlike the regular student whose degree is paid for by mom and pops, maybe they work....not sure, but many do. Our athletes should get a stipend payment from the schools for a "get by" allowance. They can't really work a second job around classes. Their job is basketball. I'm for a low "X" amount to get by. Maybe 1K per month? Just my 2 cents.

 

[TankedCat]

And the school felt that the student basketball player added so much value to the team/school that they offered said student a full scholarship. The school, and by default, the NCAA, will make hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars off of said student, because, again, student was talented enough to garner a full schollie, but you don't want said student to be able to sell autographs, or do a car dealership commercial, etc. You're ok with the school making money of the students name, image and likeness, but you're not ok with the student making money off of his or her own name, image and likeness. There's no consistency in your position.

I never said I was OK with the school making money on the image and likeness of students. You're making assumptions. Matter of fact, I am completely against the school profiting from the likeness of players. Its exploitation.

That said, talking about inconsistency, lets say that college athletics didn't make money - not a single dime

it doesn't change the parameters of your argument. I assume you would still want to argue that college athletes should be able to profit from their likeness and so forth

so whatever the colleges make is irrelevant - it has no bearing on your argument. What you're arguing for is students to make money in addition to whatever the colleges profit from, not get a piece of the cut from their profits.

 

[Bobio]

irrelevant

but yes, it started out that way. They felt that sports added to the overall college experience and back in the day never envisioned a situation where college sports would become a billion dollar revenue stream.

its the same reason they offer academic, diversity, cultural, performing arts, etc scholarships. They want a broad experience for all their students while they are on campus.

It absolutely is not, it just doesn't fit your narrative. A school gives out a basketball scholarship because they believe that the student basketball player can add value to the team, via wins, notoriety and of course money. I'm fine with that, and you appear to be too. I'm also fine with the student basketball player being allowed to make money based on the talent that landed him the scholarship in the first place. You don't appear to agree with this. There's no consistency in your position.

 

[TankedCat]

Playing at any other school in America, overseas or G-league. Literally anywhere he wanted except the NBA.

bingo, his only option wasn't Oklahoma St.

If Cade is mad about his revenue earning at the moment, I'm sure there is a mirror close by where he can find someone to blame.

 

[Bobio]

You can’t pay players from a college standpoint. They receive scholarships plus not to mention the inequality that would happen at schools. EKU vs a UK. How do you deviate out the money to make it work and still be profitable What sports do you stop at? Really only football and men’s basketball is a revenue generated. Golf, gymnastics, woman’s sports all work as hard and make as many sacrifices as a football player.

However, you want to fall into the free market capital for these players. Allow them to make money off their name. Allow them to sign agents if the agent feels like taking a risk. It’s not the player’s fault they are more marketable than another. But it shouldn’t be the college obligation to determine that or front the money for that

I don't think that was ever proposed, it was brought up as a rouse by a few posters that had an agenda. This is simply about a student being allowed to make money off of his her talent, whether that talent be shooting a basketball or doing crazy riffs on a bass guitar.

 

[TigerMoving]

bingo, his only option wasn't Oklahoma St.

If Cade is mad about his revenue earning at the moment, I'm sure there is a mirror close by where he can find someone to blame.

Cade isnt mad. The point is that Cade adds more value to Ok St than Ok St adds to Cade. They were lucky to get him, not the other way around.

 

[Bobio]

bingo, his only option wasn't Oklahoma St.

If Cade is mad about his revenue earning at the moment, I'm sure there is a mirror close by where he can find someone to blame.

Every single school in American would have taken CC in a heartbeat, agreed? Now, tell us why? And give specifics, dig deeper. Thanks