Options
The FB and BKB collegiate modern market about to get rocked by the NCAA.
ndleo
Posts: 4,078 ✭✭✭✭✭
The NCAA is going to allow players to earn money from likeness and image marketing. I expect Brian Gray over at Leaf to take full advantage of this and release college player RCs while they are still in school.
Hello 2020 Trevor Lawrence Auto RCs!
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/ncaa-allows-athletes-to-be-compensated-for-names-images.html
Mike
0
Comments
I don't really have an opinion one way or another on this. It is what it is. I just want my college sports. If the kids make a little dough on the side, then hey, go for it.
Not super interested in college cards - but think the players should be able to make money in this way. Good for them getting slightly less exploited than they were before.
Glad to see they are getting paid as well. They should have the option to go pro once they are out of HS just like Baseball and Hockey players do. Of course the NCAA and all the college institutions do not care much about those sports as they are not bringing in billions of dollars.
I particularly find people like Dick Vitale nauseating to say the least. People like this make ridiculous amounts of money off exploiting these college athletes while the athlete makes nothing and then they get on their high horse about how these college students need to stay in school. The only reason they are making all this noise is to protect their own paycheck. If you lose the best talent to the NBA then less people are interested in the college game and then you have less motivation to pay people like Dick Vitale big money to cover the game. He is completely transparent. Notice how he only cares about the players that make him money getting an education. You never hear the guy talking about baseball, hockey, or football players staying in school.
I see players playing 4 games then entering the transfer portal. Players swapping from team to team will be the norm to get the best bang for the buck.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
I think this is a little overblown. Schools will not be paying players. They can make money on jersey sales etc but how many will be making money? Not many. Nike could pay players but why would they want to pay college athletes? They will of course but only a very select few. I guess they could make a little on local advertising but again only a select few. The vast majority will have to settle for a college education which most do want, free food, free medical attention, tattoos, beats headphones etc.
The schools can pay the players indirectly. Nick Saban is already one step ahead. He already has bought into a string of car dealerships then his business can pay players to 'advertise.' Plus everywhere I go in Alabama I see Saban advertising ever type of product from Coca Cola to Insurance. So I'm sure there will be some kind of understanding that in order to business with Alabama that the players have to be compensated.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
They are saying that the average player could bring in 150k. I am assuming this means that Nike will be paying them each incrementally to wear the Nike swoosh on their jerseys, as an example.
The NCCA is kidding themselves if they have until 2023 to implement the rules. Some smart lawyer will challenge the timing and the NCAA will have to fold again to do it next year. I can't believe those clowns at the NCAA think they can control a person's life when they do something OUTSIDE of the program.
As for Saban, I had to laugh when they released highest paid coaches list and had him second to Dabo. Saban may be second in terms of money paid from the school, but he probably makes $10-$15 million annually with all of his investments in Alabama. Doesn't he own the Mercedes dealership in Birmingham?
Most of these players won't have multi-million dollar deals. But what it might open up the floodgates for the average player is even as simple as a local star golfer advertising for the local club. Or the local university basketball team doing local State Farm advertisements, or the local orthopedic hospital advertisements. It might not be LeBron-level stuff, but if some of these guys can make $20k a year doing some of these types of product endorsements or commercials, it will help a lot of the average players in a small but meaningful way. Most of these guys don't come from money. Being able to make even a little bit of money will make their lives easier and more comfortable, which they richly deserve since there are a ton of universities and the NCAA who have been living VERY comfortable lives profiting off of these athletes for decades.
kevin
But not all schools are Nike sponsored. if an athlete wants to sign with Nike then they will have to transfer to a Nike sponsored school. It seems the person/company paying for the endorsement will be the one to pick where the athlete goes to school.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
I assume the uniforms will be chosen by the school and the shoes by the player. So if Nike makes the Jersey the player will still be able to wear Adidas shoes if they have a deal with the player. It will significantly reduce the value shoe companies pay to the schools for their deals.
The $150k for the average player is laughable. Who would pay "average" players that much money? Most teams are already wearing their stuff so why would they pay anyone? Like I said only a very select few will profit from this in a big way. Most schools still require players to go to school(except UNC). Players schedules are already full with school, practice, weights, meetings so when are they going to "work"? The only way I could see this as a big negative if the NCAA lets conferences like the SEC and Big 10 make their on rules.
I agree that the $150K is laughable. Maybe for a select few. I live near Bradley University, and there's no way that the average player on Bradley will get $150K. I can see payment for local commercials, etc... which would be nice.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
I'm really on the fence with this whole issue. At least the part of me that cares about it which isn't a whole lot. Are universities getting rich off some players? Sure they are. But let's not act like these poor kids are just being taken advantage of. They are getting a free education which in some cases can be worth $200k or more. How many average kids off the street who can't dribble a basketball or throw a football would kill for that opportunity? Paying kids in school is sending the wrong impression of what college is all about.
I thought it was crazy as well when CBS News reported it last night. Probably fake news I guess, but they said 150k for an average player on a roster. I guess if a few guys make some ridiculous amount in the 50 million range, it would then jack up the average. lol.
***Although, with some quick math on 150,000 scholarship athletes in NCAA X $150k per player = $22.5 billion. That may be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount pulled in today....not to mention the endorsements to come for the paid-really-well-players to bring up the average.
$150K seems very doable for the top football teams. That only $12.7M a year. Plus ever major school has a billionaire alumni member like T. Boone Pickens or Phil Knight that give $10M a year.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
This is so terrible for all parties involved. Sad to see.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
But the education isn't really free. It's no more free than the salary you get from your job is "free money".
The kids are absolutely being taken advantage of. The fact that there have been rules in place to keep the kids from making money for signing their name, while the NCAA simultaneously sells jerseys with their number on them or (in the past) video games with their likenesses in them, tells you they're being taken advantage of.
Of course the education isn't "free"...that's my entire point. You equate it to being like the salary you get for your job. Ok, I'll bite. Then they are already getting paid by via their free tuition, housing meals, etc so are they really being taken advantage of? I'll stick with basketball here because I think it is probably the biggest source of revenue for all the extra stuff universities make money from such as jerseys, video games, etc. I know college football is huge and with TV rights they make vast amount of money, especially from bowl season. Anyhow, in my opinion, only the top college basketball players will make the majority of this money. As Don pointed out in an earlier comment, a player at a school like Bradley University doesn't have much opportunity to make extra cash. But, assuming they graduate, they are coming out with an expensive degree. I don't know how much it costs to go there, but guessing it is at least $50k a year. That's a pretty good salary for a kid to play a game. That's not to mention that he has set himself up, hopefully, in a decent field where he can earn a good living after his playing day are over. I don't know the percentage of college basketball players that actually go on to have professional careers, here or abroad, but I'm sure it's very small. I did read an article that was shocking to me. In 2018 56 of the 68 NCAA tourney teams graduated at least 60% of their basketball players. My fear is more focus will be put on the money aspect of the game than actually learning something and getting a good education. Truth is, some percentage of these kids wouldn't have the grades/test scores to get into college if they couldn't handle a basketball.
Another point to think about is the large amount of revenue brought in by the athletics at these universities is used to fund scholarships for other kids who may not be able to afford college but also aren't athletes. So does giving this money directly to the players instead of the universities mean that some kid out there isn't going to get to go to college because they can't afford it?
Maybe they money they make should be used to pay back tuition and housing then anything they make above and beyond they keep for themselves I don't know the answer, but I just can't completely buy into these kids are being taken advantage of when they are trading it for a free education that can last them a lifetime.
Focusing on the average misses the point. Sure, guy riding the bench in a B market is probably getting good value for his scholarship.
The thing is there are a large number of star players that are being used to generate billions of dollars in revenue. A lot of these athletes will never play pro sports. This will be their only opportunity to capitalize on their 4 years of fame, before the go on to be regular joe jobs. They are creating significant income for their schools, far more their their scholarship is worth, and they should be sharing in that money. I have no problem with a star athlete getting rich in college, was insane that the school could pimp them out for room, board and liberal arts classes.
Thank you Gavin Newsom.
I see no downside. The stars will still supplement the rest of college athletics but now they can make some $ for their fame not paid by the university.
Everybody is making out in this system but the most talented kids. The NBA and NFL get a free minor league system. The players who won’t go pro get a free education. And the stars are stuck in a system where they are forced to go to college instead of starting their career for a year or two while they risk injury. Baseball and hockey give players a choice - football and basketball do not.
Here’s some downside:
kids play based on how much they’re money they’re earning (already a factor/problem in pros)
kids allegiance - to the people paying me? My team? myself?
Title IX - you paying the girls too? Federal law says you have to have the same compensation for both genders. Good luck with that one.
Here’s the best part - and you’ll know this is you know your history. The first great sports league in America was actually the Ivy League. The reason they’re the best lessening institutions in America is due in no small part to their athletics departments - now almost non existent but at one time the best in the nation. Take that money, improve the campus, the labs, the housing and create a better learning experience and a better school. And eventually, dump the sports.
The simple fact is whether it’s an impressive student (grants/academic awards/attention/breakthroughs) or an impressive athlete, they are both going to have the ability to generate revenue for the school by using the facilities, platforms, teachers/coaches to elevate themselves. These ‘special telents’ are often going to be a product of the ‘grunts’ around them who are probably not compensated despite having more value.
Example : Ron Dayne won a Heisman at Wisconsin despite the fact that he kind of sucked. They had the best Oline in the country and he ran untouched into the secondary 50-60% of the time. He got to the pros and sucked, yet he’d been one of the top paid players. His teammates will be happy or enraged by this?
Again, the idea that a college scholarship - nearly $200-250,000 for four years, in many major universities - has no value is laughable.
In theory, student athletes are students first. So the argument that they should get paid holds no water with me - go to class, get a good degree and a good job (alumni networks help do this everywhere) and enjoy the free four years of housing, food, travel and no responsibility. Paying athletes is overkill...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yes, they are. Their income is artificially limited. They are forced to sit out a year if they wish to change schools. They are not covered in the event of catastrophic injury.
Except it's not a salary. You can't buy a car with that salary. And, again, it's artificially limited. On the open market, Trevor Lawrence would make 8 figures.
And, if that "salary" is so great, why aren't Coach K and Nick Saban being paid that way and not being allowed to do endorsements? Answer: because that notion is RIDICULOUS.
Athletics doesn't fund non-athletic scholarships. Athletic departments are self-contained and keep all of their revenue.
And, again, this rule change doesn't allow universities to pay players. How does Johnny Manziel getting $10k to sign his name keep Texas A&M from offering somebody an academic scholarship? Answer: It doesn't and the two things have nothing to do with each other.
What makes you think Title IX applies in any way? Title IX controls what schools do not what Jimmy Doolittle Used Cars does.
Nobody is saying it has no value. But let's not pretend it's the same thing as cash. You wouldn't work at your job for a scholarship, would you? Or course not.
If my job guaranteed that I would get the best available housing around, elite status in my community, no bills for food or travel and plenty of other fringe benefits (free A’s, groupies, national exposure toward a future career etc)?
I might, rabbit, I might.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Saban and Coach K aren't going to college and getting and education at their respected universities, that's why. Their coaching is their career, like the players should strive for after they get their educations. And as far as athletics keeping all of their own money.... this is from an article that is easy to find.
Misconception #6: The athletic department is the recipient of all licensing revenue
The last set of data that I've found to be misunderstood is licensing revenue. At many universities I polled, the university and athletic department split licensing revenue 50/50. So, even if the sweatshirt sold in the bookstore is specifically branded for the football program, that money is divided between the university and athletics.
Certainly there's nothing wrong with that practice, but this category combined with the gift assessments can add up to quite a bit of revenue that is arguably generated by the athletic department but never actually hits its books (or its NCAA report).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2017/06/12/the-biggest-misconceptions-about-the-finances-of-college-sports/#ba700b2366f8
And yet many graduate students do. . .
Do they do it for life? Are they banned from earning other money? No? Exactly. Not even close to the same thing.
Doesn't change what I said. Athletics doesn't fund non-athletic scholarships. That TV contract doesn't pay for academic scholarships.
And, again, doesn't matter, since this ruling has nothing to do with how schools spend their money.
I'm confused. Nobody plays college football for life. I'm given to understand that football players and graduate students are equally allowed to earn $8 per hour at McDonalds. Is that not true?
Many/most programs prefer students not work a job during the school year. Not a ‘rule’ but for the most part schools prefer athletes limit themselves.
I’ll admit I haven’t studied the way it all works but I have a hard time believing that the school and athletics department don’t share revenues. Logically and fiscally, this makes no sense - many athletic programs get significant funding from the schools to operate - virtually every non BCS school. Yes, money goes to fund the scholarships and cover expenses but Much of the ‘profit’ goes back into the school. Whether it funds academic scholarships directly or not is semantics - the athletics department is ‘freeing up’ money for the school and helping it grow.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
If this happens, Panini will benefit most since they have the college license. Would you rather have airbrushed logos and no names or have full logos and team names? Of course, other companies would benefit too.
The funding is kept so separate that athletic departments literally cut checks/payments to pay for scholarships to the rest of the school.
I would imagine that the NCAA will pass a rule that player names and school logos can't be used at the same time.
They are allowed to work outside of their season but only if both the school and the NCAA approve. And they do not have to approve even legit jobs.
I can’t believe there is an argument against college athletes having the rights to use their own likeness.
The coach can make 8 figures, the school can sell 100k tickets at 50 bucks a pop, but the star quarterback can’t take a free F150 for doing a promo in his spare time? There are people that are really against this? Mind boggling.
Panini won't be the first one to issue cards of active college players. The college license they own is through a university association CLC, basically the racketeers that profit from the current "free" college labor. They won't share the pie until they are forced to.
I predict that Leaf will be the first one to make a deal with the star college players next year and start issuing auto RCs. He already did it with Manziel. The NCAA is trying to say 2023, but there is no way that they will be able to defend the delay in court. Trevor Lawrence will be the key player to get, he could break it all open next year.