OT - Supreme Court sides 9-0 against NCAA

**Ortizer** · 06-25-2021, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

Im with you bc. They are getting great value for their services. Also i dont think they are responsible fir their likeness selling as a lot of people on here do. Most is for the school, the brand. So while a devonte smith performance may garner some support to buy a jersey, the university of Alabama is a much bigger driving force.

Penn State would be sitting pretty on this given they don't print names on the jersey

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**Ortizer** · 06-25-2021, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

We working stiffs make more money for our companies than our salaries... it's called profit.
Otherwise, the institution would not exist the same way it does OR perhaps not at all... Bc

Universities are generally non-profit. ;)

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**Ortizer** · 06-25-2021, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

No, and currently athletics subsidize academics. Pay the players and those roles immediately flip and it becomes quite hard to suggest THAT is a good thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Generally the popular sports support other less popular sports. Generally speaking the only profitable ncaa sports are football and sometimes basketball. However, in order to be div 1, a university has to have a minimum number of d1 programs and the corresponding top of the line facilities that go with. That's what the popular programs pay for.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**BcRaven** · 06-25-2021, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

BC trust me I understand about how important profits are to any business as a free market advocate. I am also not saying that colleges should be forced to pay players... just that it should not be illegal to pay them either. This is something that the market should decide IMO.

Originally Posted by Ortizer

If they're paying for their own education they should get paid to play the game. Being able to do endorsements or anything else off the field is separate.

You both make good points.

It just strikes me as wrong to pay student athletes. However, (a) why not just run it as a minor league and not pretend it's about education, (b) I do think it's wrong not to allow outside supporters to "gift" them. After all, the college/university shouldn't be hypocritical that they can't take "gifts" then use those players to generate revenue.

I do believe it's headed in the direction of paying student-athletes as the majority seems to feel is the right thing to do. I've been in the minority before (LOL), but it's still good to hear both sides of an issue. Cheers, gentlemen... Bc

**Ortizer** · 06-26-2021, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

You both make good points.

It just strikes me as wrong to pay student athletes. However, (a) why not just run it as a minor league and not pretend it's about education, (b) I do think it's wrong not to allow outside supporters to "gift" them. After all, the college/university shouldn't be hypocritical that they can't take "gifts" then use those players to generate revenue.

I do believe it's headed in the direction of paying student-athletes as the majority seems to feel is the right thing to do. I've been in the minority before (LOL), but it's still good to hear both sides of an issue. Cheers, gentlemen... Bc

Honestly, the idea of paying them does seem a little weird. Preventing them from having any income and unlimited free use of their likeness is more what seems off.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**BcRaven** · 06-26-2021, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

Honestly, the idea of paying them does seem a little weird. Preventing them from having any income and unlimited free use of their likeness is more what seems off.

I've thought about that, but someone wrote in this thread (paraphrasing) that it's the college ('Bama, Fla, Ohio State, USC, ND, Michigan, etc.) logo that sells, and the player's image wouldn't be worth much (if anything) without that on the Tee too. It is kind of a partnership. Hmm... Bc

**moose10101** · 06-26-2021, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

I've thought about that, but someone wrote in this thread (paraphrasing) that it's the college ('Bama, Fla, Ohio State, USC, ND, Michigan, etc.) logo that sells, and the player's image wouldn't be worth much (if anything) without that on the Tee too. It is kind of a partnership. Hmm... Bc

I don't think anyone is arguing that it's the player alone that sells, or that the players should get all of it. If the players don't matter, then the schools need to only sell generic jerseys, etc., and the video game companies need to go back to using generic images. Players should get a %, and they should make the decision on how their name/image is used.

**moose10101** · 06-28-2021, 05:32 PM

NCAA sees handwriting on the wall and caves, will allow athletes to profit on name, image, & likeness:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...athletes-paid/

**AQKingRaven** · 06-28-2021, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

(a) why not just run it as a minor league and not pretend it's about education Bc

I wonder how that conversation would go in an NFL boardroom. Part of me thinks they would fight to keep the status quo as they dont have to pay for any of it. There are no legal hangups or anything. The NFL doesnt lose a wink of sleep over their minor league and its excellent from a football point of view.

On the other hand

If they just invested in and created the farm league themselves they would have a few things going. They could have alot of the games in the NFL off season and rake massive dollars plus protecting their market from a second pro league. There is a reason they keep popping up and getting investment, the demand is there. I mean the sports media alone must shrink by like 40% in the NFL offseason.

**Ravenswintitle** · 07-01-2021, 09:00 AM

It starts today - July 1st. Players can start to gain from podcasts, autographs, merchandise, social media, private lessons.....

there will be agents

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeber...-consequences/

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 07-01-2021, 12:17 PM

Looks like things are already in motion.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...new-nil-rules/

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 07-01-2021, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

Honestly, the idea of paying them does seem a little weird. Preventing them from having any income and unlimited free use of their likeness is more what seems off.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Bc seems to be stuck on an opinion of the college or NCAA directly paying players. That's not what this is all about and not what this ruling means.

There was a kicker at Central Florida, Donald De La Haye, who had a youtube channel that had enough subs to make some money and the NCAA told him he'd have to give that channel up in order to remain eligible. What sense does that make? Let the kids make money of their NIL...if there's a market for autographs, they should be able to make money off of it, if their jersey numbers are being sold, give them a small percentage.