They did, and most schools have implemented it.Had the NCAA simply allowed scholarship athletes a stipend to cover extra expenses this would be a non-issue. That said, is there anything California can't screw up?
They did, and most schools have implemented it.Had the NCAA simply allowed scholarship athletes a stipend to cover extra expenses this would be a non-issue. That said, is there anything California can't screw up?
This is not connected in any way to the current change being discussed, but who can know what the future holds.So does Jalen Waddle get a cut of all "17" Jerseys that Bama Sells? Or everytime ESPN puts our Helmet on the screen?
I don’t think this is about the schools paying players, it’s about players being able to cash in on their own names.How long until a Title IX lawsuit gets filed for gender descrimination? If you pay the football players, you have to pay all the athletes?
Wow, and since 2015! Guess I haven't been paying attention very well.They did, and most schools have implemented it.
Had the NCAA simply allowed scholarship athletes a stipend to cover extra expenses this would be a non-issue. That said, is there anything California can't screw up?
And let's be honest. It wouldn't have mattered the number they would have put on the stipend. Would it have made any of this current topic go away? When/if this current legislation is passed on a national level and players begin to profit from it. Will that satisfy the beast? Nope. It's like the lyrics in a Kenny Chesney song that perfectly describes human nature:They did, and most schools have implemented it.
"More" will never be enough. LOL! For the record. I'm not saying the current format doesn't need changing. I'm just saying if anyone thinks letting players make money (privately) from their popularity is going to end this topic and everything is going to look the same on the field. They are gravely mistaken.'Cause you and Tequila make me crazy
Run like poison in my blood
One more night could kill me, baby
One is one too many, one more is never enough
That’s not how endorsements workSo does Jalen Waddle get a cut of all "17" Jerseys that Bama Sells? Or everytime ESPN puts our Helmet on the screen?
It won’t end the topic but its a step in the right direction, better to do something than to not do it at all.And let's be honest. It wouldn't have mattered the number they would have put on the stipend. Would it have made any of this current topic go away? When/if this current legislation is passed on a national level and players begin to profit from it. Will that satisfy the beast? Nope. It's like the lyrics in a Kenny Chesney song that perfectly describes human nature:
"More" will never be enough. LOL! For the record. I'm not saying the current format doesn't need changing. I'm just saying if anyone thinks letting players make money (privately) from their popularity is going to end this topic and everything is going to look the same on the field. They are gravely mistaken.
Hardly anyone in this country seems to want to curb the capitalistic enthusiasm of businesses so what gives about wanting to curb similar enthusiasm from labor?And let's be honest. It wouldn't have mattered the number they would have put on the stipend. Would it have made any of this current topic go away? When/if this current legislation is passed on a national level and players begin to profit from it. Will that satisfy the beast? Nope. It's like the lyrics in a Kenny Chesney song that perfectly describes human nature:
"More" will never be enough. LOL! For the record. I'm not saying the current format doesn't need changing. I'm just saying if anyone thinks letting players make money (privately) from their popularity is going to end this topic and everything is going to look the same on the field. They are gravely mistaken.
If we are being honest, the NCAA opened the door for this by exploiting players and making big bucks by getting in bed with EA and ESPN.Hardly anyone in this country seems to want to curb the capitalistic enthusiasm of businesses so what gives about wanting to curb similar enthusiasm from labor?
I am not a lawyer but I think lowend has a point. It will be just a matter of time when a popular women's basketball player, softball player will contest the legality of them not getting paid for any publicity using their names.I don’t think this is about the schools paying players, it’s about players being able to cash in on their own names.
Think if the money Tua could have made through endorsements in the last 2 years.
If Golden Flake wants to pay him, that’s a private business deal between consenting parties and the school and Title IX have nothing to do with it.
At the P5 level, which is why the P5 schools need to break away from the NCAA and form their own league.I think without a true alternative to college football, something has to change to reflect what college football is.... a semi pro league.
Then what is to keep me from suing for some of this money? I mean, why do I need to do anything to earn money for these companies to demand a share?I am not a lawyer but I think lowend has a point. It will be just a matter of time when a popular women's basketball player, softball player will contest the legality of them not getting paid for any publicity using their names.
As I stated in my post. I'm not saying the current format doesn't need to be changed. Just pointing out there will never be a "fix". It will ultimately be just like the constant tug of war between players' unions and the owners we see in professional sports. I just don't know what will change to the college football we're watching on tv today once this takes hold and no one knows what all directions this will take the sport or what "Alabama Football" will look like 10 years from now.Hardly anyone in this country seems to want to curb the capitalistic enthusiasm of businesses so what gives about wanting to curb similar enthusiasm from labor?
All of this is why CA included the agents in the law. Players will need someone with experience to help them protect their interests in this business endeavor.I don't have a problem with this - in the abstract - but I can't imagine this is going work the way anyone intends.
Smart businesses will hedge their bets and avoid endorsements until a player has proved himself. Will there be contracts? They're almost certainly to be framed in a way that it protects the business - and who can blame them? What happens when a guy falls off in performance? Is he going to lose the endorsement?
And how will we distinguish between an endorsement and a wealthy booster simply paying a player?
And this doesn't even tough on the disparity between freshmen/seniors on the one hand, and also between linemen and skill players.
Can someone who understands the business community in the Tuscaloosa-Birmingham corridor explain how this might work in our case? I mean, Nike might do something with Tua or the WR corps - but what's the market value of someone else? Who pays it? Most local businesses would have a limited ROI in letting these guys do ads. The market for paid photos and autographs has to be limited, as well.
See, this actually moved the ball to a completely different arena. Before it was schools vs. players. This allows players to work outside of the school construct. Any issues here would be resolved within that new construct.As I stated in my post. I'm not saying the current format doesn't need to be changed. Just pointing out there will never be a "fix". It will ultimately be just like the constant tug of war between players' unions and the owners we see in professional sports. I just don't know what will change to the college football we're watching on tv today once this takes hold and no one knows what all directions this will take the sport or what "Alabama Football" will look like 10 years from now.
Of all the things that may come out of this. This is probably not going to be one of them. LOL!See, this actually moved the ball to a completely different arena. Before it was schools vs. players. This allows players to work outside of the school construct. Any issues here would be resolved within that new construct.
Sure, the school/player relationship will change, but it is already changing. This can't be blamed for that. The $$$ being made across the country in the sport is the real culprit. When so many people are making money, you can expect the players to want some way of cashing in. This allows them to do that without changing the financial impact on schools which might not be able to afford greater player expenses. This might actually save the sport that we love, for a little while anyway.
And that's fine - but it doesn't answer the question of what happens when high-quality players who not at the level of Tua/Jalen/etc are left in the lurch.All of this is why CA included the agents in the law. Players will need someone with experience to help them protect their interests in this business endeavor.