The NCAA has announced that athletes can make money off their image. Obviously playing in a big media market could be a bonanza for college athletes. New York City has more potential suitors than State College, Ames, etc.
This obviously is a game changer at least for the future of high profile sports. I also see male athletes being of higher interest than females. Title IX ?
What say you fellow nits?
I question whether you're a fellow Nit.
No, wait. My response is:
TRUST
I question whether you're a fellow Nit.
No, wait. My response is:
TRUST
Warms my heart that you have accepted my mantra.
Title IX does not come into play, because this does not involve the schools in any way. All it does is say each athlete is allowed to go market themselves how they see fit, if you can make money on your image then feel free to do so.
Title IX does not come into play, because this does not involve the schools in any way. All it does is say each athlete is allowed to go market themselves how they see fit, if you can make money on your image then feel free to do so.
Yes roam but the “spirit” of Title IX will loom. Look at USA’s women’s World Cup soccer team. They get paid less than the men’s team because the revenue from the women’s tournament pales in comparison to what the men generate. The “ME TO” crazies are outraged with what they deem discrimination. I disagree with their position but nevertheless the PC crowd is keeping their false narrative alive.
Do you think free market forces will draw top athletes to USC, UCLA, Northwestern, and Rutgers because the potential payback will be higher than universities in less populated areas?
Title IX does not come into play, because this does not involve the schools in any way. All it does is say each athlete is allowed to go market themselves how they see fit, if you can make money on your image then feel free to do so.
Yes roam but the “spirit” of Title IX will loom. Look at USA’s women’s World Cup soccer team. They get paid less than the men’s team because the revenue from the women’s tournament pales in comparison to what the men generate. The “ME TO” crazies are outraged with what they deem discrimination. I disagree with their position but nevertheless the PC crowd is keeping their false narrative alive.
Do you think free market forces will draw top athletes to USC, UCLA, Northwestern, and Rutgers because the potential payback will be higher than universities in less populated areas?
That's not how Title IX works, and your analogy to US Soccer is a bit flawed. US soccer is an organization that pays its players certain amounts, the pay scheme is about how much money they make playing for the team. The men make a certain amount per game, and the women make a certain amount per game. That is "pay for play" in a nutshell.
Each person on the US Soccer team, whether it be a female or male, is allowed to and manages their own marketing deals. The US Women are not fighting for equal individual marketing deals or better solo endorsements, they are fighting for equal compensation from US Soccer. The argument about college players is strictly individual marketing capabilities, not being compensated further by the universities.
The top female athletes on the soccer team make more in endorsements than the bench players of the men's team anyway. Marketability isn't a male/female thing... Look at Danica Patrick, she was an also ran driver that wouldn't have had a chance to make NASCAR as a man because she wasn't good enough. However, NASCAR is about money, and she marketed herself well to her credit.
Lastly, no I do not believe kids will go to Rutgers over Alabama because RU is near NYC. Marketing money in college football won't be about what city you are near, it will be about how many people watch your team's games every Saturday. Whatever schools have the most eyes on them, that will be where the dollars are. Everyone in the nation knows who Tua Tagovailoa is... Who exactly is the Rutgers QB?
Reminds me of the reference in the old Don Maclean song, American Pie....."the day the music died! Somehow I feel this is appropriate with this news 😪
Reminds me of the reference in the old Don Maclean song, American Pie....."the day the music died! Somehow I feel this is appropriate with this news 😪
This is what you get when professional leagues don't allow kids to play, even though they are capable of doing so. If kids were still allowed to go straight into the NBA, this would never had been an issue.
Ironically it was the players association who created the rule not allowing high schoolers to jump.
In the end, I don't think it's a death knell for college athletics. The NCAA can still monitor the schools, and tell them they aren't allowed to pay the players. They need to stay neutral.
If a kid signs a Major League Baseball contract and is still allowed to play college football, allowing them to reps Nike shoes isn't that big a deal.
Title IX does not come into play, because this does not involve the schools in any way. All it does is say each athlete is allowed to go market themselves how they see fit, if you can make money on your image then feel free to do so.
They will not be able to use the school, uniform, etc to market themselves, if so they will need to pay the school from their earnings
roam, you are not an expert on Title IX. I can tell because I was dealing with it professionally back in 1978. Anyway, I was referring to the “Spirit” of the law. The outcry about the women’s WCS team wasn’t about marketing deals. It was about salary. For the record, yes the top women players get better marketing deals than men who sit the bench, especially if they are endorsing female hygiene products. But the top men get better deals than the women da
Yes, Alabama will in the short run be a destination for top kids over Rutgers, but USC, maybe not.
The NCAA capitulating to the pressure for compensating athletes will clearly result in changes that are likely unknown at this time.
Reminds me of the reference in the old Don Maclean song, American Pie....."the day the music died! Somehow I feel this is appropriate with this news 😪
This is what you get when professional leagues don't allow kids to play, even though they are capable of doing so. If kids were still allowed to go straight into the NBA, this would never had been an issue.
Ironically it was the players association who created the rule not allowing high schoolers to jump.
In the end, I don't think it's a death knell for college athletics. The NCAA can still monitor the schools, and tell them they aren't allowed to pay the players. They need to stay neutral.
If a kid signs a Major League Baseball contract and is still allowed to play college football, allowing them to reps Nike shoes isn't that big a deal.
I understand what you're saying Roam, but I just think there are too many unknowns and a big potential for abuse. You're talking recruiting issues, team chemistry problems, increased use of the transfer portal just to name a few. Also, you can bet your rat's behind that there will be agents getting involved. I just see it as a bad, bad move.
Interesting point by nitnation2016 about the school being able to charge the compensated athlete for wearing the school uniform. It may not be likely the school would do that considering the competitiveness in getting those top athletes but COULD it happen. This is totally uncharted territory with so many unknown consequences. Frankly I just hate it.
I think the NCAA will try and come up with rules that would target the school rather than the kid. Much like now, if the NCAA finds out the school or boosters paid an athlete then that's a violation.
The law states the NCAA can't prevent a kid from getting endorsements, it doesn't say anything about letting schools pay them. So they could easily shift the enforcement to the schools. Harder and more complex? Yes. Impossible? No.
I'm a little confused Roam. If it's found (indisputable proof) that a kid accepted money from coaches or boosters, doesn't the kid loose their eligibility? I don't know, that's the only reason I'm asking.
I'm a little confused Roam. If it's found (indisputable proof) that a kid accepted money from coaches or boosters, doesn't the kid loose their eligibility? I don't know, that's the only reason I'm asking.
Currently, yes... but in the new system a school could just have a booster give the kid $250,000 for signing autographs or being the face of his car dealership. Unless the NCAA states that the school, or anyone affiliated with it is not allowed to market their own players.
So then the school would get punished, not the player. Of course indirectly it would affect players, but they of course could use the portal to transfer.
Thanks for the info. As I said, this is going to be one huge nightmare and IMO doesn't bode well for college football.
Reminds me of the reference in the old Don Maclean song, American Pie....."the day the music died! Somehow I feel this is appropriate with this news 😪
This is what you get when professional leagues don't allow kids to play, even though they are capable of doing so. If kids were still allowed to go straight into the NBA, this would never had been an issue.
Ironically it was the players association who created the rule not allowing high schoolers to jump.
In the end, I don't think it's a death knell for college athletics. The NCAA can still monitor the schools, and tell them they aren't allowed to pay the players. They need to stay neutral.
If a kid signs a Major League Baseball contract and is still allowed to play college football, allowing them to reps Nike shoes isn't that big a deal.
This is where I am at with this...
If they think they can make some money using their likeness then they should.
We will see how this works out.
Pay tax.
Pay agent.
Can't use the school to sell yourself.
Reminds me of the reference in the old Don Maclean song, American Pie....."the day the music died! Somehow I feel this is appropriate with this news 😪
This is what you get when professional leagues don't allow kids to play, even though they are capable of doing so. If kids were still allowed to go straight into the NBA, this would never had been an issue.
Ironically it was the players association who created the rule not allowing high schoolers to jump.
In the end, I don't think it's a death knell for college athletics. The NCAA can still monitor the schools, and tell them they aren't allowed to pay the players. They need to stay neutral.
If a kid signs a Major League Baseball contract and is still allowed to play college football, allowing them to reps Nike shoes isn't that big a deal.
This is where I am at with this...
If they think they can make some money using their likeness then they should.
We will see how this works out.
Pay tax.
Pay agent.
Can't use the school to sell yourself.
Seems fair.
@bulldawgs
Bulldawgs, tsuga ain’t posted in a couple of weeks unless I missed it is everything good buddy?
They would need the permission of the University to do that anyway, but I am sure the NCAA could make a rule that forbids Universities giving that permission to players.
Can they make a rule where the kids can’t use the likeness of the university?
Of course they can... And if there is some type of permission the school would need to be paid by player.
I can't see how you allow a kid to market his likeness without the entity giving him $ for his likeness influencing him to go to a certain school? It doesn't even work if they use his likeness and he gets compensated for the same reason.
I'd so much rather they be allowed to go Pro before any season.
I do think it helps 2 types of programs, winning programs and large market programs. Rutgers has to qualify as a $ market. I'd think PSU is both a winning and large market program, defining the PSU Market as the NE (Pittsburgh, Philly, NY, DC...)
In Football how many positions really get the opportunity? QB, RB, LB, TE, sometimes a DB? Basketball maybe 3 per team. Can't hurt our wrestling program 🙂
I can't see how you allow a kid to market his likeness without the entity giving him $ for his likeness influencing him to go to a certain school? It doesn't even work if they use his likeness and he gets compensated for the same reason.
I'd so much rather they be allowed to go Pro before any season.
I do think it helps 2 types of programs, winning programs and large market programs. Rutgers has to qualify as a $ market. I'd think PSU is both a winning and large market program, defining the PSU Market as the NE (Pittsburgh, Philly, NY, DC...)
In Football how many positions really get the opportunity? QB, RB, LB, TE, sometimes a DB? Basketball maybe 3 per team. Can't hurt our wrestling program 🙂
No one cares about Rutgers, why does everyone think RU would all of a sudden be a marketable program? So the are close to NYC... that city could not care less about Rutgers.
