Do you support allowing college athletes to be paid for ''their likeness''?

Discussion in 'GarryP's Trojan Huddle' started by K9Buck, Jul 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM.

  1. Do you support allowing college athletes to be paid for ''their likeness''?
    K9Buck

    K9Buck New Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    4
    Jul 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM
    #1
    I understand that the state of California may pass a law that would require the NCAA to permit athletes to be compensated for ''their likeness''. Do you support this potential new law?

    I'm not Nostradamus so I won't make any predictions on how it would affect NCAA athletics, but I'll take a guess that such a law would be detrimental. After all, what isn't detrimentally affected once the government decides to step in and take over?
     
       
  2. DaFireMedic

    DaFireMedic Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,864
    Likes Received:
    3,068
    Jul 14, 2019 at 9:02 AM
    #3
    I think such a rule change needs to be nationwide if it’s going to be implemented. One state implementing such a law when the NCAA is not bound by it opens up a can of worms for California schools and college football in general.
     
  3. K9Buck

    K9Buck New Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    4
    Jul 14, 2019 at 9:10 AM
    #4
    I agree. Of course, if revenue-producing players are being paid, it seems possible that there might not be enough money to provide scholarships for non-revenue-producing players. But that's probably fair because, after all, why should non-revenue-producing athletes be the beneficiary of revenue-producing athletes? Of course, I doubt that it is the intention of the California legislature to eliminate scholarships for non-revenue-producing players, so they may want to introduce additional legislation that mandates who schools can spend their own money. Perhaps soon, the NCAA will be defunct and the state of California will be running collegiate sports.
     
  4. TrojanInSF

    TrojanInSF Points Member


    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    560
    Jul 14, 2019 at 9:11 AM
    #5
    1000% in support of it.
     
  5. TrojanInSF

    TrojanInSF Points Member


    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    560
    Jul 14, 2019 at 9:12 AM
    #6
    Agreed. Though, selfishly, I would love if it were just CA.

    If kids could come to CA and get paid for their likeness here but not in other states, we would kill it in recruiting!
     
  6. Jay4usc

    Jay4usc Points Member


    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    823
    Jul 14, 2019 at 9:35 AM
    #7
    If it has their name and their face on it, YES pay them.
     
  7. DaFireMedic

    DaFireMedic Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,864
    Likes Received:
    3,068
    Jul 14, 2019 at 9:38 AM
    #8
    I don’t think this would be an issue, as the proposed legislation would not allow for players to be paid by the universities. They would only be able to receive compensation for the use of their names/images.

    One of the few entities less ethical and less qualified than the NCAA to run collegiate athletics would be the state of California.
     
    901 Club likes this.
  8. K9Buck

    K9Buck New Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    4
    Jul 14, 2019 at 10:00 AM
    #9
    Boosters would be legally able to pay players and college sports would change drastically, not that I'm opposed to it. Besides, why should the fruit of a football player's labor be directed to pay for a swimmer's scholarship?
     
  9. DaFireMedic

    DaFireMedic Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,864
    Likes Received:
    3,068
    Jul 14, 2019 at 10:12 AM
    #10
    Yes, but the universities can’t pay a player directly with their money, so no scholarship funds would be used, therefore it shouldn’t affect the number of scholarships for non-revenue sports. Unless I’m misreading what you are saying, which is entirely possible.
     
  10. DaFireMedic

    DaFireMedic Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,864
    Likes Received:
    3,068
    Jul 14, 2019 at 10:42 AM
    #11
    Personally, I love college football and I don’t care to watch the NFL anymore. College football produces a better product and I don’t want to see it changed drastically, although some change is inevitable. But I see potentially serious problems from such legislation if passed as its currently written.

    I’m trying to see anything positive to it with regards to the future of college football or USC football, and I’m just not seeing much, if anything there. The one potential positive is that some players would be able to receive compensation for the use of their names/images, of which some of the top
    players can take advantage of. But this also opens the door for “under the table” bidding wars, etc. for top recruits. Most recruits will never receive any pay.

    California schools would not have a recruiting advantage, as that would be immediately countered by disciplinary action from the NCAA. California schools will not be breaking off to start their own league as has been suggested, and would more likely shut down their football programs. If passed in its current form, I believe this law would be bad for the fans, the schools, and even the players that it purports to be helping.

    I support players being compensated for the use of their names/images, but I do not support the current legislation. They can come up with a way to allow the players to be compensated for the use of their names/images that benefits the players and allows college football to continue in California.
     
    TrojanFireHorse12 and K9Buck like this.
  11. K9Buck

    K9Buck New Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    4
    Jul 14, 2019 at 10:45 AM
    #12
    Like I said, I'm not Nostradamus, but if boosters can start paying players, I believe schools paying them will occur soon thereafter. I too may be wrong. Who knows?
     
  12. TrojanFireHorse12

    TrojanFireHorse12 Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    821
    Jul 14, 2019 at 10:47 AM
    #13
    Yes, others make billions off these kids and they get nothing in return, once they fail to make it to the league for a crap ton of reasons and or injuries. An sometimes come out of football and their body just breaks down or is in a state that a 50 year old would be at in their twenties.

    But figuring out how, who and in what method they should be paid is gonna be tricky. Especially when you factor in ego, more potential money leeching and jealously.
     
    Troy70 and DaFireMedic like this.
  13. DaFireMedic

    DaFireMedic Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,864
    Likes Received:
    3,068
    Jul 14, 2019 at 12:57 PM
    #14
    I was reading just now that when the legislation passes, it won’t kick in till 2023, which at least gives a few years for the NCAA to react and get something in place nationally.

    The concern I have though is what affect the law will have in efforts to deal with the shadier aspects of what the business will become. For instance, what if Phil Knight were to set up an autograph session for one (or several) of the Oregon players, charge $1000 per autograph, and bring in 100 wealthy friends to buy autographs, with each athlete then taking home $100k for the afternoon. Not necessarily a problem so far.

    But what if they then use as a lure for HS recruits, getting word out to them that Knight and company are ready to set up similar sessions for them if they were to come to play at Oregon? That would be very difficult for a HS recruit to turn down. It seems that those schools with the most zealous boosters would have an enormous advantage in recruiting.

    Do all schools have boosters willing to do such things to further recruiting? USC certainly has wealthy boosters, but are any that zealous about football that they would be willing to do that? Are they willing regularly engage in bidding wars for top recruits with the Phil Knights and T. Boone Pickens of the college football world? I’m not so sure.

    Then there’s the transfer portal. Are star players around the country going to be targeted by boosters and lured into the transfer portal?

    There are all kinds of issues that will likely will raise their heads in the near future. Unless something is done to control it, recruiting will become a bidding war, and college football as a whole will become free agency, with no team being safe from having top players poached by wealthy boosters from another school.

    College football could very well replace the NFL as the “No Fun League”.
     
  14. 559er

    559er Junior Member

    WeAreSc Member
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Jul 14, 2019 at 3:47 PM
    #15
    Universities should not be paying athletes, but if a private citizen wants to pay a kid $1000 a week to wash cars or even more to advertise shoes then no problem.
     
    TrojanFireHorse12 likes this.
  15. SoCalN8tiv

    SoCalN8tiv Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    9,478
    Likes Received:
    7,879
    Jul 14, 2019 at 10:07 PM
    #16
    Not really, because beautiful and sexy always gets the inside track to big money. No offense to those with ravaged faces, but butt ugly is not very marketable. You are right about the ego, leeching and jealousy part though. All of that is just another normal day for the beautiful people - it comes with the territory. The market will sort it out ; )
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019 at 8:22 AM
    TrojanFireHorse12 and redeye like this.
  16. DaFireMedic

    DaFireMedic Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,864
    Likes Received:
    3,068
    Jul 14, 2019 at 10:45 PM
    #17
    As far as legitimate endorsements, yes.

    But as far as recruiting goes, certain boosters will be paying the big bucks to lure talent to their schools, and it won’t matter much what they look like. They may throw the player’s name on an ad for a used car dealership or a bowling alley (with no picture) because they couldn’t care less about an actual endorsement or marketing. It’s just a way to launder the money that they pay the recruit to choose their school.
     
    TrojanFireHorse12 likes this.
  17. PacTrojan

    PacTrojan Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    455
    Jul 15, 2019 at 4:22 AM
    #18
    Only a small fraction of players would see a dime from legitimate compensate for use of their likeness or name (eg. autograph). Remember that schools are not going to let them use team logos and names. And legitimate compensation would be substantially less than the worth of their scholarship or what the schools generate.

    Also the NCAA will have to have rules and compliance oversight on this process. I expect it to be a mess.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019 at 2:49 PM
  18. 901 Club

    901 Club Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    9,950
    Jul 15, 2019 at 5:12 AM
    #19
    How much would a lineman not named Yary or Munoz make?

    And how about second team players? Who would pay them at all?

    Can o’ worms, it would seem.
     
  19. xuscx

    xuscx Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    618
    Jul 15, 2019 at 7:39 AM
    #20
    a good idea would be for athletes be allowed to accept endorsements in increasing amounts based on the education completed. Pretty big difference from a first semester freshman to a graduate student
     
    TrojanFireHorse12 likes this.

Share This Page