OT would NCAA allowing players to profit not help us?
by a vote of 39-0 California's state Senate unanimously passed a bill to allow college athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to sign or veto the bill.
This could just be the start if they do it the NCAA will have to react or adapt.
So lets say hypothetically they give up and allow it? Wouldn't that help us compete with the SEC bagmen? Michigan is a global brand with 110k stadium that could generate more income for any 5 stars than any amount that a bagman could pay. Autographs and deals for Michigan players would be higher than almost any other school. Wouldn't that make the Michigan's of the world in the driver's seat of recruiting in the next generation if it goes that way?
September 11th, 2019 at 10:24 PM ^
Imagine the return of NCAA Football with players likeness used so it's accurate and has roster updates like Madden does.
September 12th, 2019 at 10:14 AM ^
.....say no more
September 11th, 2019 at 10:26 PM ^
Of course it would help us. We're one of the wealthiest schools with an AD that brings in more money than they can possibly spend every year.
It's the smaller and less popular schools that would be fucked. MSU would go from being little brother to redheaded stepchild.
September 11th, 2019 at 10:33 PM ^
MSU would start charging people who come forward with heinous crimes to fund their program, then would issue littering tickets to those who are accused of such crimes.
September 11th, 2019 at 10:51 PM ^
The PAC12 and B1G stand to benefit the most from this rule change given how wealthy individual schools are relative to other conferences.
Actually now that I think about it... the ACC would benefit a bit too. B12 and SEC on the other hand would take a major hit.
Go5 schools would probably be shut out even more than they are.
Counterpoint: It evens the playing field between the P5 and Go5 b/c now everyone can pay, thus going to a smaller school still gets you paid with less exposure.
September 11th, 2019 at 11:13 PM ^
The schools still wouldn't be paying the players. Harvard has more money than anyone. I don't think it will much matter.
Who it would help and hurt would be greatly affected by how it's implemented. That's still to be determined, but it's easy to guess traditional powers, schools with large alumni bases and those with large local fan bases would come out well. It could come down to what a handful of very wealthy boosters do. How much money would T Boone Pickens have spent if it meant get his school #1 ranked recruiting classes? Or it might come down to Nike, UA and Adidas steering players for their own purposes.
September 12th, 2019 at 5:43 AM ^
T Boone Pickens could have done that now, the same way the other SEC teams do it. Ole Miss did it under Hugh Freeze.
September 12th, 2019 at 7:54 AM ^
Of course Pickens had the money to do it. That didn't mean he was willing to cheat. Things change when it's within the rules.
And that's not how Ole Miss and other schools do it, having one mega donor financing under the table payments. They use boosters willing to stay under the radar, working somewhat independently. If one gets exposed it doesn't bring the whole operation down. The school can easily disavow them. Sort of like terror cells.
Pickens gave a billion dollars to Ok St. An army of car dealers in the SEC can't match that.
September 12th, 2019 at 2:57 PM ^
T. Boone Pickens was a corporate raider. You think a corporate raider cares about cheating at football?
September 13th, 2019 at 4:30 PM ^
He cared about a lot about getting caught at it.
Schools have had to disassociate themselves from boosters caught paying players. That would have been a big deal for Pickens and huge for OK St.
It's easy to cheat using an army of car dealers, tough with billionaire donors. The roles are reversed when it's within the rules.
September 12th, 2019 at 8:52 AM ^
Wouldn't this just open the door for recruits to sell their likeness to the highest bidder as a way to determine which school they choose to play for?
For example: Stephen Ross outbids all other suitors for the rights to a certain 5 star recruits likeness with the understanding that he play for Michigan?
September 12th, 2019 at 5:47 PM ^
You say it as if this is a bad thing.
September 11th, 2019 at 11:34 PM ^
It's all about fanbases. Wealthy, numerous fanbases equal job and endorsement opportunities for players, which is what this winds up being all about.
So, if there are some silicon valley millionaires that like Stanford football, they can turn the school into a power by offering every academically qualifying kid endorsement money and internships or other lucrative options at major tech firms.
We might not think much of the fanbases of Bama and Auburn, but there are a lot of fans who are loose with money, so businesses in Alabama will go gung-ho to sign up players for endorsements; expect them to be just fine.
As you said, the Big 12 might have some issues. Lower-profile Texas schools may lose more players to better opportunities elsewhere, as the college endorsement and "job" opportunities are overshadowed by the Longhorns.
September 11th, 2019 at 11:03 PM ^
Ummm - Have you followed the Nassar "situation" over the past two years?
Think we are past past Little Brother and Red Headed Stepchild. Perhaps Damien might describe them best...
September 12th, 2019 at 8:37 AM ^
Not if they let players be paid to sign their mugshots! $$$
September 11th, 2019 at 10:37 PM ^
Well, the real reason to do it is because it's the right thing to do and they deserve the piece of the pie when head coaches, ADs, and commissioners are all making 7 or 8 figures a year, not because it might benefit us.
But to answer your question, yes. It would benefit us a lot.
September 12th, 2019 at 8:02 AM ^
The student athletes already get a very nice piece of the pie - much more than the general student body gets.
I understand the rationale of allowing payments to players (nominally under the guise of image/likeness use, but we know where this will go) to level the playing field against schools that don't exactly adhere to the current rules. However, thus narrative of the underappreciated revenue sport student athletes is rather bogus.
September 12th, 2019 at 9:34 AM ^
The rationale of allowing payments to players is so much more than image/likeness use. The reason there is a conversation about paying the players is that their labor (unlike the general student body's) generates immense wealth for the universities and takes a lifelong physical toll on the players' bodies. The "piece of the pie" they get right now does not come anywhere near sufficient compensation for that.
September 12th, 2019 at 9:58 AM ^
Ahh yes, room and board that amounts to $100k-200k. That compared to the $20M Jim Delaney collected or $7M Harbaugh collects even though it's the players out on that field generating the money."Very nice piece of the pie" indeed.
September 12th, 2019 at 2:08 PM ^
Well if we take $150K x 85 scholarship players for football, that equals 12.75 MIL so that's about right for the workers. This is capitalism, and it works pretty well. This is not professional sport.
And, of course, football has to pay for all of the other sports. This also works pretty well and it provides a great benefit to those who get to participate in those other sports.
If they do let them profit on their likeness and the rules are not very strict and limits are not set, this will change college football dramatically. I mean, how corrupt would it get? It's hard to fully imagine.
I could support it with strict rules and limits that are enforced.
September 12th, 2019 at 2:25 PM ^
What is your argument for 12.75 MIL being "right" for the workers? That 12.75 MIL is a large amount of money? Being "right" or fair is about percentages not totals. Most major professional sports leagues pay about 50% of revenues to their players. For a school like U of M that means more like 90 MIL, not 12.75.
September 13th, 2019 at 1:33 PM ^
Assuming your numbers are correct.....
Why are you comparing college sports to major pro sports? C'mon.
Only about 2% of college players make it to the NFL, the other 98% need that degree to have a better chance to be successful in life. So I think that is worth quite a bit. They are certainly earning it. I know football takes up a ton of their time.
Anyway, I said I could support something like profiting from name and likeness etc if there were strict rules and limits.
September 12th, 2019 at 12:55 PM ^
1. The "general student body" play no role in generating the revenue in question and therefore should not be used for comparison purposes.
2. The debate is about what is FAIR compensation for a revenue sport athlete. You may be 100% correct that revenue sport athletes receive "a very nice piece of the pie" and are in fact appreciated, but neither of those terms necessarily equate to being FAIR.
September 12th, 2019 at 4:03 PM ^
Without the general student body you would have no school. I’d say students provide quite a bit of revenue to the schools as it is.
September 12th, 2019 at 8:20 PM ^
When I was a student what was my likeness worth (or yours)?
No one argues that all NFL players should be compensated the same, yet think all CFB players deserve the same no matter their talent and renown.
Would anyone say that Devin Bush's likeness and renown was the same as Noah Furbush? D. Rob and Woodson sold a lot of jerseys, seems fair they should see a share of what they made so popular.
M's games, being so widely televised, would benefit greatly. Coaches being able to tell recruits about how they're on TV every week to millions of people and the amount of apparel M sells might get us a few more 5* every year.
September 11th, 2019 at 10:45 PM ^
I don’t know. The Michigan money cannon has always been a real force for good. I’m not sure I want it repurposed to throw money at someone for making a game winning shot.
September 11th, 2019 at 10:48 PM ^
Yet we spend millions on the coaches who train that guy to hit the game winning shot...
September 11th, 2019 at 10:53 PM ^
Separate issue. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
September 11th, 2019 at 11:54 PM ^
Money cannon is athletics - not the school. The athletic program is profitable all on its own.
And if you imagine for a second that the school's not going to make MORE money getting their cut selling block M gear with the kid's names on them, you're fooling yourself. They made a mint off gear with the number of certain players, they'll make even more with a #2 that actually says Woodson on the back.
September 12th, 2019 at 8:31 AM ^
and none of it is taxable.
If we're going to talk about players being compensated, then we need to seriously look at the tax status of these institutions.
It's estimated that the O$U football team alone is a Billion dollar franchise. The athletic department pays zero in taxes.
The cheaters of college athletics can basically get away (as long as it's not illegal) with any sort of cheating by NCAA standards because of a lack of subpoena power. If you get treasury involved, who does in fact have subpoena power, I would imagine these institutions would fall into line.
September 12th, 2019 at 9:40 AM ^
If money is changing hands, isn't the door already open for Treasury to go after tax evasion?
#caponed
September 12th, 2019 at 10:52 AM ^
or at the very least a governing body with subpoena power can examine it. No more promotions like Pete Carroll bailing on USC when the heat was getting turned up.
September 12th, 2019 at 6:02 AM ^
From a 10,000 ft view, I don't see how it's a separate issue. The only thing separate is that one is paid and one is not right now. They are both effectively employees of the athletic department
September 12th, 2019 at 9:34 AM ^
How is it a separate issue? That is the response of someone who knows they don't have a point to stand on.
September 12th, 2019 at 11:48 AM ^
It may be for some people, not for me.
For 95 percent of NCAA athletes the current system is a great deal. I don’t agree with throwing out that entire model because 5 percent of participants are undervalued. Even if they were getting paid those that could play professionally will always be undervalued in the NCAA.
September 12th, 2019 at 12:09 AM ^
I see where you are coming from. I am an alum first and foremost, and the academic mission of the institution far outweighs the athletic apparatus of the school. I dig UM sports, but I love my degrees infinitely more. I know it already happens - and have personally been involved between the trade offs in financial gifts to the school vs. the AD - but I’d hate to imagine a future where that trade off becomes more industrialized than it already is today. To a certain extent, it feels like that box is already open...I’d just hate to think of the research and scholarship opportunities lost because a family / corporation donated to “John Doe’s Football Marketing Campaign” instead of the university’s general fund.
September 12th, 2019 at 9:07 AM ^
Just curious........how would you feel if there was a group of outspoken people saying you shouldn't get paid for your moneymaking, marketable skill?
Point is if someone wants to give someone else money for a provided service than both parties should be able to do so. Kind of sad that anyone would ever want to put a stop to this. This was America last time I looked
September 12th, 2019 at 11:41 AM ^
You are starting with the notion that they are not being compensated. They are. There is also nothing stopping someone (like the XFL) from starting a league that pays players starting at 18.
and save the “kind of sad..” nonsense. You can disagree without being disagreeable.
September 11th, 2019 at 10:45 PM ^
It all depends on if there will be a cap on what they’re allowed to pay or if it’s a free for all.
September 11th, 2019 at 10:48 PM ^
Yes, it would help us.
Yes, we should be supportive of this.
Yes, college athletes deserve to be paid.
September 11th, 2019 at 10:49 PM ^
It probably won't help us as much as people think. A lot of the bagman schools have bagman in part because they have lots of fans with disposable cash willing to spend it. So that won't change.
But it WILL help bring stuff above the table, and level the playing field at least somewhat.
I suspect that the reason universities are dragging their feet here (the big money athletic ones, anyway) is that some money that is currently spent on things like seat donations and luxury suites will go to player endorsements instead. Which is fine with me. But I suspect there's still plenty of coin to go around.
So, it works like this: That Dodge dealership whose cars keep showing up in pictures with Alabama players will continue to have cars driven by Bama players. But now there will be pictures of Tua and Najee on billboards advertising the dealership. And up here Donovan Peoples-Jones will put on a Mel Farr superstar cape and endorse a dealership in return for a car lease or some cash as well.
The downside here is that the shoe companies will become major drivers of recruiting, and we may find that the wild west marketplace that results is distasteful, with recruiters openly visiting large businesses touting "employment" opportunities that we find outrageous.
But the things I list in the previous paragraph basically happen anyway now. So I think it's an improvement. And, better, certain athletes like young Olympic stars can now earn their value and still go to college if they want, which is a big win.
September 11th, 2019 at 11:00 PM ^
Are paid endorsements the same thing as profiting from your image and likeness? I suppose I should read the bill. My assumption is that this would allow players to profit from jersey sales and video games. They don’t “work” directly for the video game companies, thereby preserving the charade of amateurism.
This definitely tilts the playing field for the strong programs and possibly leads to a split between the P5 and G5 teams. I guess the body bag games could continue, but it becomes an even larger sham.
September 11th, 2019 at 11:20 PM ^
That's exactly what paid endorsements are. It will increase the gulf between the haves and the have nots, which is why some people suggest that it's the smaller schools holding things up, and why there have been idle fan suggestions of the P5 schools breaking away. And there might be some truth to the small school resistance, but I suspect a lot of the big names like things the way they are as well, for reasons I've already stated.
The difference is that Michigan and Ohio State can handle the new environment just fine, while Central and Western will be left even more in the dust.
Then again, it might also allow a small-ish school that has one really big-spending fan or monopolizes a smaller-but-not-that-small market to compete with lower P5 schools that don't move the needle in their areas. Boise State is actually a good example of this--they're a big deal in their area in a way that a school like Cincinnati (which is overshadowed by both Ohio State and the pro teams in its city) is not. So we could see some strange new powers emerge.
September 12th, 2019 at 1:02 AM ^
I think that’s a natural argument, but in reality how often is a recruit choosing between Michigan and Central or a Western? 4 and 5 star athletes will still continue to go to top P5 schools.
September 12th, 2019 at 7:59 AM ^
Most of them will continue to go to powerhouse schools, but it will certainly thin the quality of their rosters.
This reform would basically strengthen the phenomenon of top players going to lesser schools for more playing time.
A certain number of 4/5 star recruits will opt for the more “sure thing” money grab.
Rather than risk toiling in obscurity as the 3rd stringer for Alabama, a kid might opt to be the superstar at Iowa or Wisconsin. He wouldn’t get a national brand contract, but he’d be more likely to earn $100K per year being the face of a few local enterprises.
I could also see this creating more incentives for kids currently on rosters to work harder. A kid can work his way up the depth chart even if not given a NIL deal during his recruitment. Alternatively, a blue chipper could lose endorsement deals he had previously landed.
September 12th, 2019 at 9:13 AM ^
This exactly. I'd argue it would level things off more as right now it's pretty uneven. Put me 5 years into the future and I can guess half the top 20 cause how uneven things are these days
September 11th, 2019 at 10:58 PM ^
I get the thinking that players generate millions of dollars for schools and merchandise companies and should see some part of that. But I really worry about what will become of the sport if it turns into a free-for-all.
If I were a 5-star recruit who legally could profit from his image, here's what I'd do: I'd buy bulk white t-shirts at $1.50 each. I'd put my name on the back of all of them, and on the front I'd write names like "Texas" and "Michigan" and "Alabama". And I'd sell them on Etsy for $1000 each. Strongly suggest that whichever design sold the most would be the school I'd go to.
Is that what we want college football to become? Or is that a strawman argument? People are just so passionate about college football, it's hard to imagine there aren't a lot of people with a lot of money who would use it to game the system it were transparently legal.
September 11th, 2019 at 11:04 PM ^
For this to work, they need to set up a clearinghouse for officially licensed stuff and distribute the revenues uniformly across all eligible players and programs. Otherwise, it’s the Wild West and chaos reigns.
Consider the NFL model where Jerry Jones wanted to keep all the money from Cowboys apparel sales and the other owners said hell no. At some point, the good of the whole is more important than the success of an individual school.
September 12th, 2019 at 8:25 AM ^
To mitigate the “Wild West” vibe and to keep smaller/poorer schools viable, I could see a series of a few pools sharing earned resources based on a formula.
Something like X% goes to the NCAA general athletes fund for everybody including non revenue sports, Y% goes to the NCAA sport specific fund that goes to all athletes in that division of that sport (FBS, FCS, DII), and then Z% goes to the individual athlete.
It’d provide a modest income for a much broader base of athletes so the lineman at random FBS school gets an extra $25K per year even if he doesn’t personally get a NIL deal.
Of course, the power struggle would then be all about who gets to determine the formula (NCAA, the conferences, etc), and what the formula would actually be, but that’s already done with TV contracts, etc.
There will also still be cheaters in the system who skim $ from the formulas to steer more towards the individual athletes and/or exploit loopholes like in kind donations harder to distribute in a formula. However, since it’s more obvious the players are getting paid legitimately, I wonder if the IRS would be more inclined to investigate high profile tax evasion/under reporting of income.
September 11th, 2019 at 11:27 PM ^
That's an interesting idea. Would probably be totally legal. I honestly don't mind it that much, even.
It's already kind of an under-the-table free-for-all, if various reports and rumors and articles are to be believed.