NCAA Votes To Allow College Athletes To Profit From Name, Image And Likeness

[dfwabel]

26 minutes ago, chcarlson23 said:

What will this do for all of the D-2, and 3 schools? I mean I understand that people do deserve money that they work for a bring in, but as a broke college student, it honestly makes a lotta sense to just leave it how it is. You play for like a max of 4-5 years, and move on. If you’re really trying to go pro, you have that to look forward too, otherwise, use the degree that you get and jump into the real world like everyone else. 

 

Honestly the NCAA should fix its focus on helping student athletes graduate, instead of get paid...

The California bill which is the main topic of the thread will DO NOTHING for the lower divisions.

Why you ask?

 

The California's Fair Play to Pay Act as written, says it (bolded by me):

Quote

 

Existing law, known as the Student Athlete Bill of Rights, requires intercollegiate athletic programs at 4-year private universities or campuses of the University of California or the California State University that receive, as an average, $10,000,000 or more in annual revenue derived from media rights for intercollegiate athletics to comply with prescribed requirements relating to student athlete rights.

This bill, the Fair Pay to Play Act, would prohibit every California postsecondary educational institution, athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from providing a prospective intercollegiate student athlete with compensation in relation to the athlete’s name, image, or likeness, or preventing a student participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness or obtaining professional representation relating to the student’s participation in intercollegiate athletics. The bill also would prohibit an athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. The bill would require professional representation obtained by student athletes to be from persons licensed by the state. The bill would specify that athlete agents shall comply with federal law in their relationships with student athletes. The bill would prohibit the revocation of a student’s scholarship as a result of earning compensation or obtaining legal representation as authorized under these provisions.

These provisions would become operative on January 1, 2023.

 

How many D-2 or D-3 schools have annual media rights revenue over $10M, G?  I posted the bill before, you may wanna read things.

 

Also, Washington also has HB1084 in their pipeline ready to discuss this session too.  So those asking about what's next...Washington is already prepared to begin the second state to start the avalanche. The Washington bill has no media revenue minimum. 

 

Quote

The legislature finds that every student enrolled at an institution of higher education in this state should have an equal right: To earn compensation for services provided; to be paid for the use of his or her name, image, and likeness; and to hire agents to represent the student's interests. The legislature further finds that students should not be compelled to choose between forfeiting these rights and participating in intercollegiate athletic competitions.

 

 

[Brian in Boston]

1 hour ago, dfwabel said:

While college/universities are in the sports business, they are in other industries too which are ancillary.  Should the also not be in those too?

Examples:  Real Estate via hotels on campus?  Parking/Garage construction? Supermarket business?

Everything commercial?

 

Intercollegiate Athletics can basically be seen as advertising/marketing as opposed to the others. 

The devil is in the details.

For instance, Cal State University Northridge's proposed hotel project comes with a $60 million construction price tag. A market analysis for the hotel projects a 70% occupancy rate for the facility in the first year, growing to as much as a 78% occupancy rate within the next decade. Said projections would translate into net operating income of between $2.1 million and $3.45 million per year.  CSUN will be partnering with a developer on construction of the franchise, and is also hoping to partner with a nationally known hotel brand on the project.

So, how much of the $60 million construction price tag is CSUN shouldering? Is the developer picking up part of the construction cost in exchange for a cut of the profit? In exchange for a management fee, will the hotel brand be responsible for the day-to-day operating expenses of the facility, including staffing costs? Mention is made of the fact that students in CSUN's master's degree program in tourism, hospitality and recreation will "benefit from having a hotel on campus". In what way? Through hands-on experience as part of a job-placement program?

As one can see, this could be a vastly different situation than the operation of a college football program where the university is already on the hook for construction and/or upkeep of a stadium, practice facilities, and training facilities; the salaries of a coaching staff (you can bet that a hotel general manager isn't pulling down anything close to a college football coach's salary); as well as - depending upon division - anywhere from 36 to 85 scholarships (how many student-employees at the hotel will be on scholarship).

As for the Publix grocery store on the campus of the University of South Florida, it sounds as though it is - at the very least - operated by Publix, with the company responsible for all hiring and compensation of staff, including the 50 USF students who are employees. Does Publix also own the facility, or are they leasing the space from USF? Did USF pay for construction of the store on its own, or partner with a developer on the costs?

As for intercollegiate athletics being seen as advertising and marketing for the academic institutions supporting the teams, how much "bang for the buck" are the schools getting in return for their investments?   

[Brian in Boston]

On 6/28/2019 at 9:22 PM, chcarlson23 said:

Honestly the NCAA should fix its focus on helping student athletes graduate

Hear, hear!

[dfwabel]

9 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

The devil is in the details.

For instance, Cal State University Northridge's proposed hotel project comes with a $60 million construction price tag. A market analysis for the hotel projects a 70% occupancy rate for the facility in the first year, growing to as much as a 78% occupancy rate within the next decade. Said projections would translate into net operating income of between $2.1 million and $3.45 million per year.  CSUN will be partnering with a developer on construction of the franchise, and is also hoping to partner with a nationally known hotel brand on the project.

So, how much of the $60 million construction price tag is CSUN shouldering? Is the developer picking up part of the construction cost in exchange for a cut of the profit? In exchange for a management fee, will the hotel brand be responsible for the day-to-day operating expenses of the facility, including staffing costs? Mention is made of the fact that students in CSUN's master's degree program in tourism, hospitality and recreation will "benefit from having a hotel on campus". In what way? Through hands-on experience as part of a job-placement program?

As one can see, this could be a vastly different situation than the operation of a college football program where the university is already on the hook for construction and/or upkeep of a stadium, practice facilities, and training facilities; the salaries of a coaching staff (you can bet that a hotel general manager isn't pulling down anything close to a college football coach's salary); as well as - depending upon division - anywhere from 36 to 85 scholarships (how many student-employees at the hotel will be on scholarship).

As for the Publix grocery store on the campus of the University of South Florida, it sounds as though it is - at the very least - operated by Publix, with the company responsible for all hiring and compensation of staff, including the 50 USF students who are employees. Does Publix also own the facility, or are they leasing the space from USF? Did USF pay for construction of the store on its own, or partner with a developer on the costs?

As for intercollegiate athletics being seen as advertising and marketing for the academic institutions supporting the teams, how much "bang for the buck" are the schools getting in return for their investments?   

If one gets full cash paying Chinese students, that's a fantastic bang for the buck, but that may take this thread in to a place which would be against protocol. Tulsa makes big money off China.

Purdue,Illinois, Penn State, UCLA and USC also play that game.  UCLA has a store in Beijing.

 

There is no profit in purity, Brian. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

3 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

Here, here!

 

I am very much enjoying reading your fundamentally correct argument that athletics at a university must always be subordinate to the institution's educational mission.. But I must point out that the idiom is "hear, hear!"

 

Anyway, keep on making those good points!

[IceCap]

4 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

Why are we counting on the NCAA to solve the problems plaguing intercollegiate sports? 

I don't think anyone is counting on the NCAA to do the right thing here. What people are counting on- myself included- is that this gambit by California pays off and we see a domino effect that forces the NCAA to either reform or die.

[Brian in Boston]

4 hours ago, dfwabel said:

There is no profit in purity, Brian. 

Traditionally, most colleges and universities in the United States are nonprofit entities. That is, the money they charge students for tuition is spent on educating said students via paying the salaries of educators, conducting research, maintaining facilities, and financing co-curricular activities that complement academic instruction.

[Brian in Boston]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

I don't think anyone is counting on the NCAA to do the right thing here. What people are counting on- myself included- is that this gambit by California pays off and we see a domino effect that forces the NCAA to either reform or die.

Which will still leave the leadership at the nation's colleges and universities having to find the intestinal fortitude necessary to put extracurricular athletic competition in its proper place within the framework of an academic institution's core responsibility/objective to educate its students.    

[The_Admiral]

Yes, but even that's still a little lofty for today: less "educate its students," more "serve its customers." If the market wants big-time sports, they have to deliver big-time sports, just as how if University of X drops millions on a brand-new rock-climbing center, X State University has to build a rock-climbing center too. The customer is always right, right?

[BBTV]

11 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

When people are arguing that collegiate student-athletes should have the "student" portion of the descriptive dropped and instead be paid as "athlete"-employees who are on campus solely to provide entertainment to actual students and alumni... well, we've completely lost the plot, folks.

You know what would be a better solution? The sports apparel and equipment manufacturers, automobile manufacturers, restaurant chains, and other consumer brands that spend so much of the money in advertising and sponsorship revenue that has heretofore been splashed on the broadcast partners of big time collegiate sports and the universities... those companies should pool their resources and launch their own branded sports competitions to replace the morally-compromised cesspool that so-called "Big Time" college athletics has become. Pay the athletes... provide those who are interested with training in fields of study that are crucial to your individual industries... pledge employment after their playing days are over to those who show the most aptitude for careers in your industries.

As for the colleges and universities? They can go back to serving those students who are attending said institutions with the goal, first and foremost, of receiving an education. Any athletic competition that takes place at colleges and universities can take its rightful place as a secondary, extracurricular pursuit... the way it was intended.         

 

I, and many other rationally-thinking-sane people have long advocated for a pro league (not necessarily a "NFL minor league") for 18-22 or something like that.  I'd love it if the XFL lured top NCAA prospects away from their commitments and let them play for money right out of HS and then go to NFL if good enough.  They'd basically be gambling that they can make more doing this than they would with a college degree (that they probably wouldn't attain anyway.)

 

The problem is, one is an ideal solution, while one is pragmatic.  The hicks that burn down trees and kidnap dogs and whatever else simply aren't going to stand for the schools they support (whether or not they actually went to them... which baffles me) presenting "small time" intramural football.

 

Ironically, the racial dynamics could change a great deal... and the fans in those SEC (and others... not just picking on SEC) that may have strong personal feelings on race probably wouldn't to support squads comprised of mostly middle-class white kids, as the current stars are likely more often african american kids from lower income communities who might be more likely to jump to a pro league.  Those same white supporters would seem to have the most to say about black kids being paid to run with a football.  The "I have to pay for my books, so they're getting enough already" argument seems to also come from white kids.  If I'm misreading the situation, please correct me.

[Brian in Boston]

2 hours ago, the admiral said:

Yes, but even that's still a little lofty for today: less "educate its students," more "serve its customers." If the market wants big-time sports, they have to deliver big-time sports, just as how if University of X drops millions on a brand-new rock-climbing center, X State University has to build a rock-climbing center too. The customer is always right, right?

"Educate its students" isn't a lofty goal for America's colleges and universities. Rather, it is their purpose. I daresay that it is contained within the charters under which they were founded and continue to be governed. Said institutions have no such responsibility to "deliver big-time sports". Frankly, that's the purview of the likes of Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, etc.

As for the customer always being right... if said customers believe that it is the responsibility of America's colleges and universities to deliver big-time sports, then they are dead wrong.

[Olmec]

Can we please just get rid of college sports altogether? Minor leagues can fill the gap. 

[Brian in Boston]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The hicks that burn down trees and kidnap dogs and whatever else simply aren't going to stand for the schools they support (whether or not they actually went to them... which baffles me) presenting "small time" intramural football.

What are these "hicks" going to do if America's colleges and universities refuse to supply them with "big time" college athletics, as opposed to "small time" completion? Force the schools to close? How will they do that? By cutting off funding to said academic institutions? Studies have shown that the monies that are pumped into "big time" college athletic programs do not, in fact, subsidize academic programs.

In fact, while the money flowing into "big time" college sports has increased via skyrocketing TV rights deals, endorsement and licensing fees, and the largesse of major donors, that money is spoken for. Athletic departments are quickly spending the increased amounts of money they bring in as part of the effort to stay relevant in an escalating college sports arms race. The NCAA itself has reported that athletic departments that make more than they spend are still a minority.

Again, the top priority - indeed, responsibility - of America's colleges and universities is to provide students with an education. Providing interscholastic athletic competition - either for students to participate in, or spectators to watch - is a potential, extracurricular activity. It is not - despite what the "hicks", boosters, advertisers, and executives at broadcasting outlets and major professional sports leagues might think and/or desire - a requirement, or a priority.        

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Except you're looking at the world the way you want it to be instead of the way it is. (I'm sorry, I mean, instead of the way it is.)

 

I don't disagree with you that our higher educational priorities are out of whack, but that horse is out of the barn. Isn't sharing the revenue generated by football more equitably a better approach than shaking your first and hoping to revert to 90 years ago?

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, Brian in Boston said:

"Educate its students" isn't a lofty goal for America's colleges and universities. Rather, it is their purpose. I daresay that it is contained within the charters under which they were founded and continue to be governed. Said institutions have no such responsibility to "deliver big-time sports". Frankly, that's the purview of the likes of Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, etc.

As for the customer always being right... if said customers believe that it is the responsibility of America's colleges and universities to deliver big-time sports, then they are dead wrong.

 

Hey, wasn't my idea

[GDAWG]

38 minutes ago, Olmec said:

Can we please just get rid of college sports altogether? Minor leagues can fill the gap. 

 

That would be a bad idea for football.  The NFL sees the NCAA as a free developmental league for them.  Getting rid of college sports altogether would have a significant impact on the NFL.  This would not affect the NBA, NHL and MLB at all if the NCAA went away but it would for the NFL.

[Olmec]

1 minute ago, GDAWG said:

 

That would be a bad idea for football.  The NFL sees the NCAA as a free developmental league for them.  Getting rid of college sports altogether would have a significant impact on the NFL.  This would not affect the NBA, NHL and MLB at all if the NCAA went away but it would for the NFL.

NFL has plenty of money to start a developmental league. Besides the NFL has bigger problems considering parents aren't as keen on letting their kids get concussions these days. 

[GDAWG]

2 minutes ago, Olmec said:

NFL has plenty of money to start a developmental league. Besides the NFL has bigger problems considering parents aren't as keen on letting their kids get concussions these days. 

 

the thing is that the NFL doesn't want to spend money on a developmental league and would rather someone else pay for it.  NFL Europe was hemorrhaging money so they got rid of it.  One of the most watched events of the NFL Offseason is the NFL Draft.  The NCAA goes away, it dramatically affects that. 

[Olmec]

2 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

the thing is that the NFL doesn't want to spend money on a developmental league and would rather someone else pay for it.  NFL Europe was hemorrhaging money so they got rid of it.  One of the most watched events of the NFL Offseason is the NFL Draft.  The NCAA goes away, it dramatically affects that. 

 

If it dies, it dies

[GDAWG]

The NBA, NHL and MLB would be fine without the NCAA, but the NFL would have to undergo some dramatic changes if the NCAA dies.