NYS Bill Proposed to share 15% with athletes and get paid for likenesses

[quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

That's just the thing...if it becomes a free for all with who is the highest bidder, then the Big East is toast. You will see only F-5 schools (make by far the most money) for basketball when it matters. That will lead to a defacto separation and maybe even an actual one where they have their own rules and their own tournaments in football and basketball. It would basically be another division.

I know many will say, "but isn't it already the highest bidder system now anyway?"...yes and no. Yes these kids are being paid if they're blue chip kids but it's under the rug still...at least there's an ounce of nervousness that they may be caught by the FBI now. Maybe UNC and LSU can get away with it right now, but Wake Forest/Pitt/Georgia Tech/Vanderbilt/Purdue/etc. can't. If the highest bidder system is legal, now Wake Forest and others similar are able to outbid anyone in the Big East simply because they bring in more revenue from sports. Right now we can still offer that it's a better fit to play at a Big East school vs. Vanderbilt for basketball to recruits. But what happens if Nova's maximum offer is $100k and Vandy offers $300k just because they have a much bigger pool to draw from? It would be ridiculous.
 
[quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

Good points, but why does that need to be fixed? The goal as I understand it isn't to create competitive balance. Its to find a way to fairly compensate athletes.

Big programs with deep pockets already have many unfair advantages...better facilities, higher profile/paid coaches, more donors with deeper pockets to help with travel expenses for staff, etc..., etc...
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=358181][quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

That's just the thing...if it becomes a free for all with who is the highest bidder, then the Big East is toast. You will see only F-5 schools (make by far the most money) for basketball when it matters. That will lead to a defacto separation and maybe even an actual one where they have their own rules and their own tournaments in football and basketball. It would basically be another division.

I know many will say, "but isn't it already the highest bidder system now anyway?"...yes and no. Yes these kids are being paid if they're blue chip kids but it's under the rug still...at least there's an ounce of nervousness that they may be caught by the FBI now. Maybe UNC and LSU can get away with it right now, but Wake Forest/Pitt/Georgia Tech/Vanderbilt/Purdue/etc. can't. If the highest bidder system is legal, now Wake Forest and others similar are able to outbid anyone in the Big East simply because they bring in more revenue from sports. Right now we can still offer that it's a better fit to play at a Big East school vs. Vanderbilt for basketball to recruits. But what happens if Nova's maximum offer is $100k and Vandy offers $300k just because they have a much bigger pool to draw from? It would be ridiculous.[/quote]

Maybe. But that separation already exists, especially in football and basketball. Go look at the last 20 teams to win a national title. Same 12 schools from the same power conferences in each sport Same guys with all the dark money from boosters and sneaker companies. How about putting all of that stuff on the table so everyone knows what's going on?

Besides, my suggestion wasn't "open bidding". Even if it was, you could always cap the payouts to a given athlete if you have to level the playing field.

Play out my scenario a bit. You aren't guaranteeing college basketball players a specific salary. You are giving them a capped % of the profits their sport generates and sharing some of that profit with the other athletes in the school that don't generate profit but do represent the school.

Also, you can always limit what is in the equation to determine a program's profitability. For example, sneaker money could be capped to ensure it doesn't have a disproportionate impact on the calculation. Donor contributions can be completely eliminated from the calculation.
 
[quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

If you start paying players legally, no matter the process, it will make the abuse that goes on now look like stealing tips from a car wash.
 
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Here's your theory in real $$. Granted, the data is a few years old, but it should still get the point across.

[URL]https://www.cbssports.com/coll...-reports-over-174-million-in-revenue-in-2017/[/URL]

In 2017, Alabama athletics had $174.3M in revenue, with a overall profit of $15.6M. Their football department had
had $108.2M in revenue and a profit of $45.9M.

If you take your 5% proposal, that would leave $2.295M to be split among athlete, with half going to football players and the other half going to all other athletes. There are 85 scholarship football players and 555 other athletes at the school. Each football player would get $13,500.00/year, and every other athlete would get $2,067.57/year from football profits alone. The earnings by each football player would be .03% of the profits, and every other athlete would earn .005% of the team's profits.

Something is better than nothing, but it seems like people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
[quote="Logen" post=358202][quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

If you start paying players legally, no matter the process, it will make the abuse that goes on now look like stealing tips from a car wash.[/quote]

Put it all above board.
Then 5 year "death penalty" for any program that cheats.
 
[quote="Eric Williamson" post=358206]

Something is better than nothing, but it seems like people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.[/quote]

But that's the point, right? Now athletes can't even get a part time job, so "something" quite literally is better than nothing.

The object here, unless I'm missing something, is to create a system where athletes share in the profits they generate and at the same time clean up the dirty money in NCAA recruiting. Not addressing the issue isn't an option. All the NCAA schools need to work out a system that is sustainable for the long term. Status quo will eventually lead to the dissolution of the NCAA as players and states win legal battle after legal battle.

That the NCAA is going to pay players is inevitable. How much they are going to pay out is what's being fought over.

My plan would be to work out a system that directly rewards athletes in sports that bring positive cash flow to a school and indirectly rewards the other scholarship athletes at a school.
The formula of that rev share is negotiable, but should have hard and firm rules including all revenue streams for a school (TV, Tickets, Merch, Donations, Sneaker money, etc...) and limits on amounts players receive.

Then have strict/harsh and uniformly enforced penalties for cheating.
 
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=358209][quote="Eric Williamson" post=358206]

Something is better than nothing, but it seems like people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.[/quote]

But that's the point, right? Now athletes can't even get a part time job, so "something" quite literally is better than nothing.

The object here, unless I'm missing something, is to create a system where athletes share in the profits they generate and at the same time clean up the dirty money in NCAA recruiting. Not addressing the issue isn't an option. All the NCAA schools need to work out a system that is sustainable for the long term. Status quo will eventually lead to the dissolution of the NCAA as players and states win legal battle after legal battle.

That the NCAA is going to pay players is inevitable. How much they are going to pay out is what's being fought over.

My plan would be to work out a system that directly rewards athletes in sports that bring positive cash flow to a school and indirectly rewards the other scholarship athletes at a school.
The formula of that rev share is negotiable, but should have hard and firm rules including all revenue streams for a school (TV, Tickets, Merch, Donations, Sneaker money, etc...) and limits on amounts players receive.

Then have strict/harsh and uniformly enforced penalties for cheating.[/quote]

So how are schools who make no net profits like SJU going to compete with any of these big schools for recruits? We won’t be in the conversation... Use SJU in these number games and how do WE work in? UConn was losing 40 mil per year in football. How are they gonna attract recruits and pay everybody, including a football team. Just b-ball dollars?
 
Last edited:
[quote="MCNPA" post=358210][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358209][quote="Eric Williamson" post=358206]

Something is better than nothing, but it seems like people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.[/quote]

But that's the point, right? Now athletes can't even get a part time job, so "something" quite literally is better than nothing.

The object here, unless I'm missing something, is to create a system where athletes share in the profits they generate and at the same time clean up the dirty money in NCAA recruiting. Not addressing the issue isn't an option. All the NCAA schools need to work out a system that is sustainable for the long term. Status quo will eventually lead to the dissolution of the NCAA as players and states win legal battle after legal battle.

That the NCAA is going to pay players is inevitable. How much they are going to pay out is what's being fought over.

My plan would be to work out a system that directly rewards athletes in sports that bring positive cash flow to a school and indirectly rewards the other scholarship athletes at a school.
The formula of that rev share is negotiable, but should have hard and firm rules including all revenue streams for a school (TV, Tickets, Merch, Donations, Sneaker money, etc...) and limits on amounts players receive.

Then have strict/harsh and uniformly enforced penalties for cheating.[/quote]

So how are schools who make no net profits like SJU going to compete with any of these big schools for recruits? We won’t be in the conversation... Use SJU in these number games and how do WE work in? UConn was losing 40 mil per year in football. How are they gonna attract recruits and pay everybody, including a football team. Just b-ball dollars?[/quote]

St Johns makes no money on men's basketball? That's news to me but even if that is the case, your still giving out the value of a scholarship, just like today.

Maybe its me, but the argument that 'its going to keep us from getting players we aren't getting a sniff from under the current set up' isn't one that changes my opinion.

Current BE TV contract generates about $5m in revenue per program each year. That number goes up when the deal is reworked with the addition of Uncon. I find it hard to believe that our program doesn't make money.

Lets assume for a minute that the $5m is profit.

5% of that is only $250k. Half of that goes to the 13 scholarship players on the team. That's basically the same 10 per player that Alabama would be paying its football players under the scenario another poster went through before.

That's just one scenario for St Johns. Each school will be different. If you want to level the playing field a little, you can cap the amount paid out to an individual player at 10k a year or 15k or whatever.

If you are worried about losing a player to Duke because they can pay him 15k a year and we can only pay him 10k then I think you are missing the boat. Right now they are paying him 10 times that and we can't come close to competing with that economic model.

I'm still not seeing how a system like this wouldn't be a huge improvement for everyone except the programs feasting off the shit show that is the NCAA today.
 
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=358214][quote="MCNPA" post=358210][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358209][quote="Eric Williamson" post=358206]

Something is better than nothing, but it seems like people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.[/quote]

But that's the point, right? Now athletes can't even get a part time job, so "something" quite literally is better than nothing.

The object here, unless I'm missing something, is to create a system where athletes share in the profits they generate and at the same time clean up the dirty money in NCAA recruiting. Not addressing the issue isn't an option. All the NCAA schools need to work out a system that is sustainable for the long term. Status quo will eventually lead to the dissolution of the NCAA as players and states win legal battle after legal battle.

That the NCAA is going to pay players is inevitable. How much they are going to pay out is what's being fought over.

My plan would be to work out a system that directly rewards athletes in sports that bring positive cash flow to a school and indirectly rewards the other scholarship athletes at a school.
The formula of that rev share is negotiable, but should have hard and firm rules including all revenue streams for a school (TV, Tickets, Merch, Donations, Sneaker money, etc...) and limits on amounts players receive.

Then have strict/harsh and uniformly enforced penalties for cheating.[/quote]

So how are schools who make no net profits like SJU going to compete with any of these big schools for recruits? We won’t be in the conversation... Use SJU in these number games and how do WE work in? UConn was losing 40 mil per year in football. How are they gonna attract recruits and pay everybody, including a football team. Just b-ball dollars?[/quote]

St Johns makes no money on men's basketball? That's news to me but even if that is the case, your still giving out the value of a scholarship, just like today.

Maybe its me, but the argument that 'its going to keep us from getting players we aren't getting a sniff from under the current set up' isn't one that changes my opinion.

Current BE TV contract generates about $5m in revenue per program each year. That number goes up when the deal is reworked with the addition of Uncon. I find it hard to believe that our program doesn't make money.

Lets assume for a minute that the $5m is profit.

5% of that is only $250k. Half of that goes to the 13 scholarship players on the team. That's basically the same 10 per player that Alabama would be paying its football players under the scenario another poster went through before.

That's just one scenario for St Johns. Each school will be different. If you want to level the playing field a little, you can cap the amount paid out to an individual player at 10k a year or 15k or whatever.

If you are worried about losing a player to Duke because they can pay him 15k a year and we can only pay him 10k then I think you are missing the boat. Right now they are paying him 10 times that and we can't come close to competing with that economic model.

I'm still not seeing how a system like this wouldn't be a huge improvement for everyone except the programs feasting off the shit show that is the NCAA today.[/quote]

If it’s capped I get it. But the money that people are talking about I don’t believe is something like 15k per year. That’s why a stipend like 15k per year for these athletes across the board is a better idea. It may not make everybody happy but it’s something and without making everything more of a cesspool than it already is.
 
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=358208][quote="Logen" post=358202][quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

If you start paying players legally, no matter the process, it will make the abuse that goes on now look like stealing tips from a car wash.[/quote]

Put it all above board.
Then 5 year "death penalty" for any program that cheats.[/quote]

The great author Cormac McCarthy said “it takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can’t be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.”
There are enough laws, rules, regulations, and they don’t stop or prevent very much. Or as one wise man asked - “Why do you think people will obey the 17,000 laws on the books when they can’t follow 10 commandments written on a tablet?”
Offered with sincere apologies to any non-Christians or atheists who might read this.
 
[quote="Logen" post=358221][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358208][quote="Logen" post=358202][quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

If you start paying players legally, no matter the process, it will make the abuse that goes on now look like stealing tips from a car wash.[/quote]

Put it all above board.
Then 5 year "death penalty" for any program that cheats.[/quote]

The great author Cormac McCarthy said “it takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can’t be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.”
There are enough laws, rules, regulations, and they don’t stop or prevent very much. Or as one wise man asked - “Why do you think people will obey the 17,000 laws on the books when they can’t follow 10 commandments written on a tablet?”
Offered with sincere apologies to any non-Christians or atheists who might read this.[/quote]

I’m an for lack of energy to expand, an atheist I can’t see how a reference to the Ten Commandments would offend atheists although I suppose some are militant anti-religion. Will not hijack the thread as that’s another topic.
 
Last edited:
[quote="MCNPA" post=358222][quote="Logen" post=358221][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358208][quote="Logen" post=358202][quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

If you start paying players legally, no matter the process, it will make the abuse that goes on now look like stealing tips from a car wash.[/quote]

Put it all above board.
Then 5 year "death penalty" for any program that cheats.[/quote]

The great author Cormac McCarthy said “it takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can’t be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.”
There are enough laws, rules, regulations, and they don’t stop or prevent very much. Or as one wise man asked - “Why do you think people will obey the 17,000 laws on the books when they can’t follow 10 commandments written on a tablet?”
Offered with sincere apologies to any non-Christians or atheists who might read this.[/quote]

I’m an for lack of energy to expand, an atheist I can’t see how a reference to the Ten Commandments would offend atheists although I suppose some are militant anti-religion. Will not hijack the thread as that’s another topic.[/quote]

Sorry, I was trying to kid with the last comment. Second time in a week or two I fell flat on my face while attempting to joke. I guess I should just stick to being an a$$hole.
 
[quote="Logen" post=358223][quote="MCNPA" post=358222][quote="Logen" post=358221][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358208][quote="Logen" post=358202][quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

If you start paying players legally, no matter the process, it will make the abuse that goes on now look like stealing tips from a car wash.[/quote]

Put it all above board.
Then 5 year "death penalty" for any program that cheats.[/quote]

The great author Cormac McCarthy said “it takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can’t be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.”
There are enough laws, rules, regulations, and they don’t stop or prevent very much. Or as one wise man asked - “Why do you think people will obey the 17,000 laws on the books when they can’t follow 10 commandments written on a tablet?”
Offered with sincere apologies to any non-Christians or atheists who might read this.[/quote]

I’m an for lack of energy to expand, an atheist I can’t see how a reference to the Ten Commandments would offend atheists although I suppose some are militant anti-religion. Will not hijack the thread as that’s another topic.[/quote]

Sorry, I was trying to kid with the last comment. Second time in a week or two I fell flat on my face while attempting to joke. I guess I should just stick to being an a$$hole.[/quote]

I thought you were sticking to being an a$$hole and just apologizing for it ahead of time...;-)
 
[quote="MCNPA" post=358224][quote="Logen" post=358223][quote="MCNPA" post=358222][quote="Logen" post=358221][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358208][quote="Logen" post=358202][quote="MCNPA" post=358173][quote="SJUFAN2" post=358165]Is there any reason the NCAA can't approve a system that allows schools to share profits with the athletes in sports that generate profits?

Title IX shouldn't be an issue if the same rule applies to men's and women's athletics, right?

How about something like this:

- If the sport generates a profit for the school, then 5% of the profits are set aside for athletes.
- Half of those profits get split up evenly among the scholarship players on the team generating the profits.
- The other half is allocated to a pool for scholarship athletes on sports that lose money or break even.
- All additional revenue from advertising (use of likenesses, autographs, etc) for all athletes goes into a 3rd pool to be evenly distributed among all scholarship athletes.

Is there any reason they couldn't do something like this?[/quote]

Kids will still favor more profitable schools which will cement inequality in competition though. UK’s 5% is gonna be a lot more than Seton Hall’s 5%. Schools will just be pitching how much more they will make at their school vs everybody else. How do you fix that?

The solution must be found where every school is on an even playing field with regards to any type of compensation system. It can’t favor huge state schools with unlimited dollars and massive profits over others.[/quote]

If you start paying players legally, no matter the process, it will make the abuse that goes on now look like stealing tips from a car wash.[/quote]

Put it all above board.
Then 5 year "death penalty" for any program that cheats.[/quote]

The great author Cormac McCarthy said “it takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can’t be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.”
There are enough laws, rules, regulations, and they don’t stop or prevent very much. Or as one wise man asked - “Why do you think people will obey the 17,000 laws on the books when they can’t follow 10 commandments written on a tablet?”
Offered with sincere apologies to any non-Christians or atheists who might read this.[/quote]

I’m an for lack of energy to expand, an atheist I can’t see how a reference to the Ten Commandments would offend atheists although I suppose some are militant anti-religion. Will not hijack the thread as that’s another topic.[/quote]

Sorry, I was trying to kid with the last comment. Second time in a week or two I fell flat on my face while attempting to joke. I guess I should just stick to being an a$$hole.[/quote]

I thought you were sticking to being an a$$hole and just apologizing for it ahead of time...;-)[/quote]

Touche
 
[quote="Steve Knortz" post=359072]https://nypost.com/2019/09/30/california-defies-ncaa-with-law-allowing-college-athletes-to-make-money/

Seems like a huge recruiting advantage for California schools. The Big 10 will force action by the NCAA.[/quote]

The way I view this is basically no different than the advantage of a school bribing players. This is not good for any school (but may be good for the student athlete).
 
[quote="Steve Knortz" post=359072]https://nypost.com/2019/09/30/california-defies-ncaa-with-law-allowing-college-athletes-to-make-money/

Seems like a huge recruiting advantage for California schools. The Big 10 will force action by the NCAA.[/quote]

This will get very interesting, and I think it will get worse before it ever gets better.

I have no problem if a player wants to make money off of their image/likeness, endorsements, etc.

But what will happen if an individual's interests conflict with those of their university's? Say Duke athletics are under contract with Nike. However, Under Armour offers Zion way more money and he signs a shoe contract with them. Will Nike be allowed to require all of Duke's athletes to wear their products?
 
It's looking more and more like eventually this will be the new normal with all states allowing players to get endorsement deals and use their likenesses for money. The alternative would be giving other schools massive recruiting advantages willingly which will not happen. Pop culture also seems clearly in favor of allowing this. This begs the question...having a very wealthy alum like Repole, do you think he throws some serious cash for endorsement deals with Vitamin Water/Body Armour attempting to get big time recruits? I know during the coaching search he was very angry with the administration. We will need him more than ever if this becomes the new norm. If I were Repole, I'd be getting kids to sign deals with those companies and also rent billboard space in Times Square. If he's willing to invest significant amounts of money to land top recruits consistently, it could revive the program. Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top