California proposing athletes get paid for likeness

[BigRedPimp]

No surprise, but NCAA objecting and mentioned all Cali schools could become ineligible for post season play. If Cali passes do all other states follow suit? If other states don’t follow suit does that become a competitive advantage for Cali schools? Pitch would be “Come to XYZ Univ” and get paid for your likeness unlike at DONU.

Discuss

 

[Top_Gun_]

see this thread if you'd like the discussion &/or to add your thoughts:

https://nebraska.forums.rivals.com/threads/nebraska-can-turn-heads.240756/

 

[BigRedPimp]

see this thread if you'd like the discussion &/or to add your thoughts:

https://nebraska.forums.rivals.com/threads/nebraska-can-turn-heads.240756/

Aren’t you the fun one at parties…

 

[Top_Gun_]

Aren’t you the fun one at parties…

definitely an interesting topic

 

[Top_Gun_]

Sure they do, there are semi pro football leagues all over the country. It’s not my problem that these kids don’t come from backgrounds that allow them to workout or whatever. If a kid from the same background is a academic scholar, he goes to school under the same agreement he can leave whenever he wants, he just doesn’t get the perks of living in the dorms and going to school for free. He doesn’t get the opportunity to get published with the assistance of the school, or participate in studies that will assist him in his future. Someone is paying for his education, they set the ground rules, you either play by them or go do something else.

No offense to Adrian Martinez or Maurice Washington or anyone else, but people were selling out Memorial Stadium in 1963, they didn’t make the sport popular. If every top 100 football player went on to some minor league, college football would still be popular. When top high school players went directly to the NBA, college basketball was still popular. The players rotate out, only the name stays the same. That is why I call BS on the paying of players. If they pay the players of today, then they need to pay all of the players or their descendants the same amount. As I said, the players of today didn’t make the sport popular why should they reap the rewards. The schools that continued to fund programs that didn’t make a dime or made very little should get the benefit. Now if the schools all get together and decide to pay the players, then that is fine. Until then you can either play by the rules or don’t play.

Yea, again, what's in bold there is the definition of indentured servitude. Let's be honest: there is no alternative with current semi-pro leagues. It's why we're seeing more and more of the best players in the country sit out portions of their final seasons to avoid injury & prepare for the draft.

It's not your problem where they come from just like it's not your money they'd be paid with. This is neither here nor there.

As for popularity, I totally agree. College football is great and will always be popular. Paying players won't change that one bit. The big difference today versus in 1963 is those players weren't playing for billion dollar corporations which televise their likeness and sell their work for ten figures. College football then is closer to high school football today than D1, especially P5.

These schools aren't set up to profit hundreds of millions tax-free on sports and also take public money to fund those programs you're referring to. They should not be reaping these rewards so inequitably as they are now (~99%), in my opinion.

Recently, Florida State designated their athletic department as a private corporation, which is super interesting and closer to the truth as to how things are operating (Link). College football is a gigantic business.

Also, the NCAA has already settled a lawsuit agreeing to pay former players $208M for having their likenesses used without proper payment, so they've essentially admitted wrongdoing in the case of taking advantage of former players. (Link)

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Yea, again, what's in bold there is the definition of indentured servitude. Let's be honest: there is no alternative with current semi-pro leagues. It's why we're seeing more and more of the best players in the country sit out portions of their final seasons to avoid injury & prepare for the draft.

It's not your problem where they come from just like it's not your money they'd be paid with. This is neither here nor there.

As for popularity, I totally agree. College football is great and will always be popular. Paying players won't change that one bit. The big difference today versus in 1963 is those players weren't playing for billion dollar corporations which televise their likeness and sell their work for ten figures. College football then is closer to high school football today than D1, especially P5.

These schools aren't set up to profit hundreds of millions tax-free on sports and also take public money to fund those programs you're referring to. They should not be reaping these rewards so inequitably as they are now (~99%), in my opinion.

Recently, Florida State designated their athletic department as a private corporation, which is super interesting and closer to the truth as to how things are operating (Link). College football is a gigantic business.

Also, the NCAA has already settled a lawsuit agreeing to pay former players $208M for having their likenesses used without proper payment, so they've essentially admitted wrongdoing in the case of taking advantage of former players. (Link)

Basketball players are going to developmental leagues or overseas. There was no alternative until someone did it first.

Again, players are now paid a stipend, no longer unpaid. That is a key component to indentured servitude.

Agree with Florida St stuff butthat isn’t about paying players.

The lawsuit was because of things like jersey sales and video games. If they approve that a player could get paid for their likeness, that money would come from the apparel companies and the video game companies, not from the schools or the NCAA. That is more free market than wealth distribution. If a local company want to pay Arian Martinez to endorse their crap, I don’t have a problem with that. That isn’t paying everyone just because.

My point is that college sports aren’t making the money now unless schools bit the bullet and lost money for years. College sports are a business. I agree and the universities and the networks came up with a way to make money on televising the games. Just like every other business in America. If you want to tax them, fine. Would that change your opinion? Should we stop internships as well? Does the first intern Google or Amazon every had get to receive a portion of the business’ profits for the year that they are an intern because those companies are making money on the indentured servitude of that intern? Just because something becomes profitable you believe everyone deserves a share of the profit. I don’t think that is the way to go.

 

[Top_Gun_]

Basketball players are going to developmental leagues or overseas. There was no alternative until someone did it first.

Again, players are now paid a stipend, no longer unpaid. That is a key component to indentured servitude.

Agree with Florida St stuff butthat isn’t about paying players.

The lawsuit was because of things like jersey sales and video games. If they approve that a player could get paid for their likeness, that money would come from the apparel companies and the video game companies, not from the schools or the NCAA. That is more free market than wealth distribution. If a local company want to pay Arian Martinez to endorse their crap, I don’t have a problem with that. That isn’t paying everyone just because.

My point is that college sports aren’t making the money now unless schools bit the bullet and lost money for years. College sports are a business. I agree and the universities and the networks came up with a way to make money on televising the games. Just like every other business in America. If you want to tax them, fine. Would that change your opinion? Should we stop internships as well? Does the first intern Google or Amazon every had get to receive a portion of the business’ profits for the year that they are an intern because those companies are making money on the indentured servitude of that intern? Just because something becomes profitable you believe everyone deserves a share of the profit. I don’t think that is the way to go.

Taxing would be a big change, definitely. And I'm not in favor of baseless profit-sharing, only the ability to organize & negotiate fair terms based on today's reality. Just like the other billion dollar sports leagues.

It would be VERY interesting if the XFL were able to pay kids out of high school, but I don't think that's going to happen.

I know you're using it as an example, but Google's first ever intern did receive shares in exchange for her work, is still there and a multi-millionaire to boot (Link). That's a 'Where are they now' story on the first interns at Google, Uber, Facebook & others. They're all millionaires, some billionaires. There's always a give and take when exchanging services, especially when there are options & competition. Those got lucky, no doubt.

The difference between normal interns and college football players is interns, by and large, aren't in the 95th percentile of performance at their job. They have no clue what they're doing & exchange their work for education, which has a long tail in terms of future earnings. College football players are mostly at the height of their ability, and therefore earning potential, in that specific endeavor.

As for who pays the players, the University's name may be on the check, but that cost would be passed along in other contracts/partnerships, as well as to the conference. It wouldn't come from endowments. Adidas, Nike, ABC, etc., aren't paying any less to benefit from college football year over year, and this change would only stand to benefit them more, in my opinion.

We see eye to eye on the endorsements, too. I think that's coming very soon across the country.

I really don't think these changes would affect our enjoyment of college football in the least. In fact, I think it'd give us even more to talk about with recruiting, developing, etc. Plus, how badass would it be to go out and buy an Adrian Martinez officially licensed Nebraska jersey?!

 

[bomber89]

honest question. Isn't this just a fancy way to admit the player will play for the school that has a company pay the most for their services?

So if a 5 star qb is choosing between (hypothetical) USC, Florida, Texas, and Nebraska. Wouldn't a company that is a big donor just go to that player and say become our spokesman and we will pay you XX amount and the highest bidder gets the player? Its basicly paying players but the money isnt coming from the school.

I can see so many issues with this and it would be the death to Nebraska and 90% of the small market schools. Yes we have big money boosters but most of them would not pay for players to come to UNL as its not a tax deductible gift and I think most are opposed to the idea.

Is my hypothetical correct or not?

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

honest question. Isn't this just a fancy way to admit the player will play for the school that has a company pay the most for their services?

So if a 5 star qb is choosing between (hypothetical) USC, Florida, Texas, and Nebraska. Wouldn't a company that is a big donor just go to that player and say become our spokesman and we will pay you XX amount and the highest bidder gets the player? Its basicly paying players but the money isnt coming from the school.

I can see so many issues with this and it would be the death to Nebraska and 90% of the small market schools. Yes we have big money boosters but most of them would not pay for players to come to UNL as its not a tax deductible gift and I think most are opposed to the idea.

Is my hypothetical correct or not?

Yes it’s correct. It’s one of those laws of unintended consequence.

 

[Top_Gun_]

honest question. Isn't this just a fancy way to admit the player will play for the school that has a company pay the most for their services?

So if a 5 star qb is choosing between (hypothetical) USC, Florida, Texas, and Nebraska. Wouldn't a company that is a big donor just go to that player and say become our spokesman and we will pay you XX amount and the highest bidder gets the player? Its basicly paying players but the money isnt coming from the school.

I can see so many issues with this and it would be the death to Nebraska and 90% of the small market schools. Yes we have big money boosters but most of them would not pay for players to come to UNL as its not a tax deductible gift and I think most are opposed to the idea.

Is my hypothetical correct or not?

Good question, and I have to think there'd be considerable regulation put in place to avoid this scenario.

However, this is what many believe is happening today with the best recruits, just under the table. And if donating a new weight room is tax deductible, I don't see why donating to a player fund would be any different.

I don't think NU would suffer too badly. Memorial Stadium is shrouded in ads for local companies, and there's tons of money in the program. Plus, we have one of the biggest and most rabid fan bases in the country. I think NU would be attractive to most, especially when Lebron & others fly in for the Berkshire shareholder's meeting once/year.

But, to answer your question, this is where @husker2612's salary cap (a good idea) would come in to play along with appropriate regulation to ensure fair's fair.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Taxing would be a big change, definitely. And I'm not in favor of baseless profit-sharing, only the ability to organize & negotiate fair terms based on today's reality. Just like the other billion dollar sports leagues.

It would be VERY interesting if the XFL were able to pay kids out of high school, but I don't think that's going to happen.

I know you're using it as an example, but Google's first ever intern did receive shares in exchange for her work, is still there and a multi-millionaire to boot (Link). That's a 'Where are they now' story on the first interns at Google, Uber, Facebook & others. They're all millionaires, some billionaires. There's always a give and take when exchanging services, especially when there are options & competition. Those got lucky, no doubt.

The difference between normal interns and college football players is interns, by and large, aren't in the 95th percentile of performance at their job. They have no clue what they're doing & exchange their work for education, which has a long tail in terms of future earnings. College football players are mostly at the height of their ability, and therefore earning potential, in that specific endeavor.

As for who pays the players, the University's name may be on the check, but that cost would be passed along in other contracts/partnerships, as well as to the conference. It wouldn't come from endowments. Adidas, Nike, ABC, etc., aren't paying any less to benefit from college football year over year, and this change would only stand to benefit them more, in my opinion.

We see eye to eye on the endorsements, too. I think that's coming very soon across the country.

I really don't think these changes would affect our enjoyment of college football in the least. In fact, I think it'd give us even more to talk about with recruiting, developing, etc. Plus, how badass would it be to go out and buy an Adrian Martinez officially licensed Nebraska jersey?!

I’m a grown ass man. I stopped wearing jerseys 30 years ago

As far as wealth distribution, if the fourth string OT who happens to be on scholarship is getting paid the same as the starting quarterback it is nothing more than wealth distribution.

Secondly, if I bought a number seven Nebraska jersey who gets the money? Scott Frost? Eric Crouch? Mohamed Barry? Do they split it evenly between all the players that have ever worn number seven at Nebraska?

Is every unpaid intern at Google, Facebook etc. still getting stock options? Lastly your comment about these players being the top 95% of what they do, Some yes, all no. No different then the interns at Google etc. some are, some are not.

 

[RedCap]

No surprise, but NCAA objecting and mentioned all Cali schools could become ineligible for post season play. If Cali passes do all other states follow suit? If other states don’t follow suit does that become a competitive advantage for Cali schools? Pitch would be “Come to XYZ Univ” and get paid for your likeness unlike at DONU.

Discuss

Whichever way you go, all of the schools that compete together IMO need to follow the same practice. You can't have some allowing their athletes to get paid and others not allowing their athletes to get paid - they need to have the same rules if they want to compete together. Otherwise they need to have separate leagues and NOT meet in competition or play for the same championship. JMO.

And, yes I know, different conferences do have some different variations in certain rules but compensation is just too big and important of an area to be allowed to be legally different.

 

[Top_Gun_]

I’m a grown ass man. I stopped wearing jerseys 30 years ago

As far as wealth distribution, if the fourth string OT who happens to be on scholarship is getting paid the same as the starting quarterback it is nothing more than wealth distribution.

Secondly, if I bought a number seven Nebraska jersey who gets the money? Scott Frost? Eric Crouch? Mohamed Barry? Do they split it evenly between all the players that have ever worn number seven at Nebraska?

Is every unpaid intern at Google, Facebook etc. still getting stock options? Lastly your comment about these players being the top 95% of what they do, Some yes, all no. No different then the interns at Google etc. some are, some are not.

yeaa, I don't think everyone would agree star players aren't receiving more benefits than the 4th string OT today. I'm not sure where you got this? Of course they wouldn't be paid the same. They shouldn't. I guess their stipends are the same today, though?

Organizing & negotiating would lead to individual contracts via a Player's Association, just like the other leagues.

The jersey would have their name on it, so whichever #7 you chose would be paid.

And, no, of course not. You said their first, so I told you. Today that labor isn't worth anything near what it was when nobody heard of google because they employ thousands, people are lining up for those jobs and the stock is insanely valuable.

But, again, those interns also aren't on tv every Saturday. They're working on stuff that doesn't matter at all to the overall profitability of the company to learn/get their feet wet. Not at all similar to big time college football players whose literal performance is the product.

 

[Top_Gun_]

Whichever way you go, all of the schools that compete together IMO need to follow the same practice. You can't have some allowing their athletes to get paid and others not allowing their athletes to get paid - they need to have the same rules if they want to compete together. Otherwise they need to have separate leagues and NOT meet in competition or play for the same championship. JMO.

And, yes I know, different conferences do have some different variations in certain rules but compensation is just too big and important of an area to be allowed to be legally different.

Absolutely. Arizona's president has already come out and said he'd be open to the conversation.

 

[SkerinDallas]

Likeness? What does that mean exactly? The primary industry that likeness was a thing was video games, and there hasn't been an NCAA football game since 2014. So, what would these football players be selling their likeness for? Figurines? Art graphics?

 

[burkek]

ahh ... the beginning of the end of what was once the panacea of sport ... college athletics and while you are at it, throw on transgender participation.

Follow California in any regards and fall into hell

 

[Top_Gun_]

Likeness? What does that mean exactly? The primary industry that likeness was a thing was video games, and there hasn't been an NCAA football game since 2014. So, what would these football players be selling their likeness for? Figurines? Art graphics?

Do you think Tua would be on a Nike commercial if he could? Or be on local ads for a car dealership in Tuscaloosa? Or would sell some jerseys?

Examples of likeness

 

[Nebraska Fan]

yeaa, I don't think everyone would agree star players aren't receiving more benefits than the 4th string OT today. I'm not sure where you got this? Of course they wouldn't be paid the same. They shouldn't. I guess their stipends are the same today, though?

Organizing & negotiating would lead to individual contracts via a Player's Association, just like the other leagues.

The jersey would have their name on it, so whichever #7 you chose would be paid.

And, no, of course not. You said their first, so I told you. Today that labor isn't worth anything near what it was when nobody heard of google because they employ thousands, people are lining up for those jobs and the stock is insanely valuable.

But, again, those interns also aren't on tv every Saturday. They're working on stuff that doesn't matter at all to the overall profitability of the company to learn/get their feet wet. Not at all similar to big time college football players whose literal performance is the product.

If players have the right to negotiate deals then so to the members of the team have the right to collectively bargain for whatever they deem their share of those dollars.

 

[PvilleHuskerTim]

I’m a grown ass man. I stopped wearing jerseys 30 years ago

As far as wealth distribution, if the fourth string OT who happens to be on scholarship is getting paid the same as the starting quarterback it is nothing more than wealth distribution.

Secondly, if I bought a number seven Nebraska jersey who gets the money? Scott Frost? Eric Crouch? Mohamed Barry? Do they split it evenly between all the players that have ever worn number seven at Nebraska?

Is every unpaid intern at Google, Facebook etc. still getting stock options? Lastly your comment about these players being the top 95% of what they do, Some yes, all no. No different then the interns at Google etc. some are, some are not.

FYI only: Not sure that Google, FB, Microsoft, etc. have unpaid interns anymore. Google pays a very good wage for the summer, along with a housing stipend. No stock options. But, they get full use of amenities while on the Google campus.

It is extremely competitive at tech places like these companies - similar to P5 conference college football. These interns are closer to the top 99% of their field.

 

[Top_Gun_]

Report by ESPN yesterday: ~19% of college coaches played players who were ruled "medically out of participation" last year, putting athletes at "major risk"

coaches, who are paid millions & can earn however much they want however they'd like to, also influence treatment & medical decisions of their players.

2 Oregon players are suing the school after being hospitalized during workouts, we all know about the 13 Iowa kids who successfully sued for the same thing.

here's the story: https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/27048906/survey-ncaa-coaches-clout-concerns-trainers

not super surprising but gross nonetheless. even more so when people like Dabo Swinney sign monster contracts then talk about the immorality of paying his PED-infused roster.

 

[Top_Gun_]

honest question. Isn't this just a fancy way to admit the player will play for the school that has a company pay the most for their services?

So if a 5 star qb is choosing between (hypothetical) USC, Florida, Texas, and Nebraska. Wouldn't a company that is a big donor just go to that player and say become our spokesman and we will pay you XX amount and the highest bidder gets the player? Its basicly paying players but the money isnt coming from the school.

I can see so many issues with this and it would be the death to Nebraska and 90% of the small market schools. Yes we have big money boosters but most of them would not pay for players to come to UNL as its not a tax deductible gift and I think most are opposed to the idea.

Is my hypothetical correct or not?

LSU booster caught sending at least $180k in stolen cash (from a charitable foundation, no less!) to football players in 2018. (Link)

Your hypothetical is as correct today as it would be in a world where payments are above board. If anything, publicizing earnings and clearing the way for legal benefits could very well cut down on some of this under the table stuff.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

You could not possibly put enough regulations in place and police it well enough to stop what bomber said would happen, from happening. The rich would get richer, and we'd probably go by the wayside forever.

 

[Top_Gun_]

You could not possibly put enough regulations in place and police it well enough to stop what bomber said would happen, from happening. The rich would get richer, and we'd probably go by the wayside forever.

I mean, the regulations are supposedly already there to make sure the payment is zero. not sure that would really change all that much?

 

[Nebraska Fan]

I mean, the regulations are supposedly already there to make sure the payment is zero. not sure that would really change all that much?

cheating is "the sport" and the venue just changes.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

yeaa, I don't think everyone would agree star players aren't receiving more benefits than the 4th string OT today. I'm not sure where you got this? Of course they wouldn't be paid the same. They shouldn't. I guess their stipends are the same today, though?

Organizing & negotiating would lead to individual contracts via a Player's Association, just like the other leagues.

The jersey would have their name on it, so whichever #7 you chose would be paid.

And, no, of course not. You said their first, so I told you. Today that labor isn't worth anything near what it was when nobody heard of google because they employ thousands, people are lining up for those jobs and the stock is insanely valuable.

But, again, those interns also aren't on tv every Saturday. They're working on stuff that doesn't matter at all to the overall profitability of the company to learn/get their feet wet. Not at all similar to big time college football players whose literal performance is the product.

So I am confused. Only the star players are responsible for the $billions being made? When do you determine each individual players worth? When they sign or is it based on a Rivals rating? Is it after year one, when they rush 20 times for 100 yards in a season? What if they redshirt? After each year? Are you going to reduce their pay? Does Jalen Hurts take a huge pay cut his junior year after starting his freshman and sophomore years? Does he have to renegotiate his deal when he transferred to OU. Does OU base his pay on his Jr year stats and pay him zero since he was a backup that rarely played?

You seem to want to make NCAA football some sort of minor leagues but fail to take into account that 98% of these players will not play a down of football after they leave school. NCAA football isn't a minor league, it is just an amateur sport that makes a boat load of money for the schools. The players of today have the exact same influence on the popularity of the game as the players from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. But because the times have changed and the universities are making money, for whatever reason, you thing the players of 2010s should get to make money?


I would be in agreement that if you want to pay the college players, that you pay them a salary that is taxed, that you then charge them for the tuition to attend the school, you charge them a flat fee for the training table. that the players are responsible to pay the strength and conditioning coaches for their time, the nutritionist for their time. I wonder if the S&C coach is going to be on board, considering that 95% of the players he trains wouldn't be able to afford to pay him, since the star QB would be making all the money, so they would just work out on their own.

Again the law of unintended consequence is an ugly thing.

 

[Nebraska Fan]

So I am confused. Only the star players are responsible for the $billions being made? When do you determine each individual players worth? When they sign or is it based on a Rivals rating? Is it after year one, when they rush 20 times for 100 yards in a season? What if they redshirt? After each year? Are you going to reduce their pay? Does Jalen Hurts take a huge pay cut his junior year after starting his freshman and sophomore years? Does he have to renegotiate his deal when he transferred to OU. Does OU base his pay on his Jr year stats and pay him zero since he was a backup that rarely played?

You seem to want to make NCAA football some sort of minor leagues but fail to take into account that 98% of these players will not play a down of football after they leave school. NCAA football isn't a minor league, it is just an amateur sport that makes a boat load of money for the schools. The players of today have the exact same influence on the popularity of the game as the players from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. But because the times have changed and the universities are making money, for whatever reason, you thing the players of 2010s should get to make money?


I would be in agreement that if you want to pay the college play.ers, that you pay them a salary that is taxed, that you then charge them for the tuition to attend the school, you charge them a flat fee for the training table. that the players are responsible to pay the strength and conditioning coaches for their time, the nutritionist for their time. I wonder if the S&C coach is going to be on board, considering that 95% of the players he trains wouldn't be able to afford to pay him, since the star QB would be making all the money, so they would just work out on their own.

Again the law of unintended consequence is an ugly thing.

Star players beware I ain't blocking if you're not paying and I don't do practice dummy for free.

 

[Top_Gun_]

So I am confused. Only the star players are responsible for the $billions being made? When do you determine each individual players worth? When they sign or is it based on a Rivals rating? Is it after year one, when they rush 20 times for 100 yards in a season? What if they redshirt? After each year? Are you going to reduce their pay? Does Jalen Hurts take a huge pay cut his junior year after starting his freshman and sophomore years? Does he have to renegotiate his deal when he transferred to OU. Does OU base his pay on his Jr year stats and pay him zero since he was a backup that rarely played?

You seem to want to make NCAA football some sort of minor leagues but fail to take into account that 98% of these players will not play a down of football after they leave school. NCAA football isn't a minor league, it is just an amateur sport that makes a boat load of money for the schools. The players of today have the exact same influence on the popularity of the game as the players from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. But because the times have changed and the universities are making money, for whatever reason, you thing the players of 2010s should get to make money?


I would be in agreement that if you want to pay the college players, that you pay them a salary that is taxed, that you then charge them for the tuition to attend the school, you charge them a flat fee for the training table. that the players are responsible to pay the strength and conditioning coaches for their time, the nutritionist for their time. I wonder if the S&C coach is going to be on board, considering that 95% of the players he trains wouldn't be able to afford to pay him, since the star QB would be making all the money, so they would just work out on their own.

Again the law of unintended consequence is an ugly thing.

You're acting like the model for this doesn't exist?

Does the MLB pay players from the 60s who made $30k/year more now that Bryce Harper makes $400M? Does a 3rd string tackle make as much as Cam Newton? Do any of these members of billion dollar leagues pay their team trainer?

Like, what are you talking about? I'm not reinventing the wheel here, bud.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

You're acting like the model for this doesn't exist?

Does the MLB pay players from the 60s who made $30k/year more now that Bryce Harper makes $400M? Does a 3rd string tackle make as much as Cam Newton? Do any of these members of billion dollar leagues pay their team trainer?

Like, what are you talking about? I'm not reinventing the wheel here, bud.

but you are reinventing the wheel. NCAA football is an amateur sport that you want to be some sort of minor leagues.

Cam Newton does pay for his own trainer, he rarely uses the team trainer.

bud

 

[Top_Gun_]

but you are reinventing the wheel. NCAA football is an amateur sport that you want to be some sort of minor leagues.

Cam Newton does pay for his own trainer, he rarely uses the team trainer.

bud

He doesn't pay for the team trainer like you're suggesting.

I'm merely stating that it's a different world with the money that's being made, and those responsible should get more, and perhaps the NCAA stop hiding behind the ridiculous amateur moniker while the best players already get paid.

 

[jeans15]

He doesn't pay for the team trainer like you're suggesting.

I'm merely stating that it's a different world with the money that's being made, and those responsible should get more, and perhaps the NCAA stop hiding behind the ridiculous amateur moniker while the best players already get paid.

The money is flowing to all schools providing opportunity to more schools and more athletes opportunity for a higher education for FREE.


Paying players will shrink that. Because you habe to pay al athletes

The school is what makes the money. Not the players.

If that's the case market your name on your own and skip college. Your likeness is so great surely you can get some endorsements while you pay for your own trainer, gear, food, medical bills, marketing team, housing, travel expenses, lawyer, agents to negotiate your 3 hours a week in TV to perform your talent for millions to see.

 

[Top_Gun_]

The money is flowing to all schools providing opportunity to more schools and more athletes opportunity for a higher education for FREE.


Paying players will shrink that. Because you habe to pay al athletes

The school is what makes the money. Not the players.

If that's the case market your name on your own and skip college. Your likeness is so great surely you can get some endorsements while you pay for your own trainer, gear, food, medical bills, marketing team, housing, travel expenses, lawyer, agents to negotiate your 3 hours a week in TV to perform your talent for millions to see.

yep, school is FREE. there's nothing being exchanged, no hours of work required in return, no risk of injury both short-term and long. just FREE.

it's not and/or. the schools would obviously still make hundreds of millions. college football (& athletics in general) will continue drive higher revenues while scholarship numbers stay the same. equitable stakes would only stand to improve the actual on-field product.

the rush to protect and support the school's tax-free profits, which don't trickle down to fans at all & fatten the wallets of bureaucrats who have nothing to do with the school being there in the first place really is something.

keep getting upset about paying $35 for a head coach's autograph. keep being shepherded into a stadium in dire need of upgrading while ticket prices rise. keep paying more for B1G network while they threaten to black out their customers if they don't get more money. keep coming on here and acting like a * rating isn't a form of commoditization. bleat bleat little sheep. the status quo loves you.

 

[HuskerDocCO]

didn’t need to read further after seeing “california “ buncha tards