Link: Amid New Calls to Pay Athletes, Alabama AD Has a Few Thoughts

Bamabuzzard · May 30, 2019

B1GTide said:
So, should players with wealthy parents not be eligible for scholarships? I really do not understand this line of reasoning.

Apples to oranges comparison. The university didn't have any hand in the wealth of the player's parents. Whereas the university provides the lion's share of resources and provides the platform for the athlete to be in a position to earn the money. This is nothing more than an unofficial revenue sharing /labor agreement battle no different than what we see in professional sports.

For years the universities have "offered" the athlete tuition and opportunity to earn a degree (insert monetary value), room and board (insert monetary value), meal plans that are far superior than the average student (insert monetary value), medical services (insert monetary value), clothing (insert monetary value) and a ton of other campus "perks" that the average student doesn't get. They also offer the opportunity to use the schools "brand"/"name" and national platform (that the athlete otherwise couldn't provide for himself) to advertise themselves (from a business standpoint, this has a monetary value as well). All in exchange to play football and the revenue generated from playing football. That's basically been the unofficial "labor agreement"/"revenue sharing agreement" or whatever you want to call it for years.

Depending on who you hear supporting this on a national stage, they many times refer to how it's done on the "professional level" or use the comparison of an employee/employer situation. Well, all of those comparisons are big boy, real world, adult things called "business". And when you get into that realm, "doing business" is cut throat and shrewd and each party has the responsibility to negotiate completely to their benefit. Let's be honest, all this talk of "paying players" and players contracting themselves or their names/likenesses out to private entities for income, is nothing more than moving college athletics to a business/professional model. Which I'm completely okay with. But are the players and those who are advocating this going to be "okay" with all that comes along with "doing business" in the adult world? My guess is, probably not.

B1GTide · May 30, 2019

Bamabuzzard said:
Apples to oranges comparison. The university didn't have any hand in the wealth of the player's parents. Whereas the university provides the lion's share of resources and provides the platform for the athlete to be in a position to earn the money. This is nothing more than an unofficial revenue sharing /labor agreement battle no different than what we see in professional sports.

For years the universities have "offered" the athlete tuition and opportunity to earn a degree (insert monetary value), room and board (insert monetary value), meal plans that are far superior than the average student (insert monetary value), medical services (insert monetary value), clothing (insert monetary value) and a ton of other campus "perks" that the average student doesn't get. They also offer the opportunity to use the schools "brand"/"name" and national platform (that the athlete otherwise couldn't provide for himself) to advertise themselves (from a business standpoint, this has a monetary value as well). All in exchange to play football and the revenue generated from playing football. That's basically been the unofficial "labor agreement"/"revenue sharing agreement" or whatever you want to call it for years.

Depending on who you hear supporting this on a national stage, they many times refer to how it's done on the "professional level" or use the comparison of an employee/employer situation. Well, all of those comparisons are big boy, real world, adult things called "business". And when you get into that realm, "doing business" is cut throat and shrewd and each party has the responsibility to negotiate completely to their benefit. Let's be honest, all this talk of "paying players" and players contracting themselves or their names/likenesses out to private entities for income, is nothing more than moving college athletics to a business/professional model. Which I'm completely okay with. But are the players and those who are advocating this going to be "okay" with all that comes along with "doing business" in the adult world? My guess is, probably not.

This still doesn't make sense. How would Alabama, for instance, be harmed by a student receiving pay from another company during his scholarship? If a player gets a job at Taco Bell, should he have to reimburse Alabama for a portion of his scholarship?

This is outside income that has nothing to do with Alabama, so why would Alabama care? In the "big boy" world, employees make whatever the market allows. In the NCAA's "crazy" world, that is not happening.

This is a reasonable compromise that might allow college football to hold on to its elite players while still operating under a scholarship model. No "pay for play" from the school. Just allow the kids to make what they can outside of school while a student athlete.

Aside for the parity discussion, why would anyone oppose this?

CajunCrimson · May 30, 2019

So, if Alabama shows a football player wearing a #17 Jersey -- (which is the norm now) -- who gets the money? Kenyan? Waddle? Do we give it to the current #17? Or the previous? Or maybe the all-time greatest #17?

Or if they have a football helmet on, and can't see the face, then no one gets it?
what if it's just the helmet? -- Is that helmet representing #17? Or does it represent the team?

This gets complicated quick when you start talking about paying someone for their likeness.....

Name? Yes --
Likeness? that gets a little dicey....

TideEngineer08 · May 30, 2019

Bamabuzzard said:
It's not "funny" when your the CFO and responsible for the budget, and sitting in plain sight in front of your eyes are real expenditures, tied to real money in a real bank account that the school has to use to pay for students who are now making potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal income from their likeness that school resources were used to generate. No way, as a CFO of an institution of state funds, that you don't seriously consider this.

Nothing is funny when you are the CFO...

B1GTide · May 30, 2019

CajunCrimson said:
So, if Alabama shows a football player wearing a #17 Jersey -- (which is the norm now) -- who gets the money? Kenyan? Waddle? Do we give it to the current #17? Or the previous? Or maybe the all-time greatest #17?

Or if they have a football helmet on, and can't see the face, then no one gets it?
what if it's just the helmet? -- Is that helmet representing #17? Or does it represent the team?

This gets complicated quick when you start talking about paying someone for their likeness.....

Name? Yes --
Likeness? that gets a little dicey....

There is probably established law that would help. As for Alabama getting a cut if the player wore an Alabama uniform in an ad - Alabama probably would not allow the player to wear an Alabama uniform in an ad. Alabama is very protective of its trademarks.

Hoot30 · May 30, 2019

Bamabuzzard said:
Apples to oranges comparison. The university didn't have any hand in the wealth of the player's parents. Whereas the university provides the lion's share of resources and provides the platform for the athlete to be in a position to earn the money. This is nothing more than an unofficial revenue sharing /labor agreement battle no different than what we see in professional sports.

For years the universities have "offered" the athlete tuition and opportunity to earn a degree (insert monetary value), room and board (insert monetary value), meal plans that are far superior than the average student (insert monetary value), medical services (insert monetary value), clothing (insert monetary value) and a ton of other campus "perks" that the average student doesn't get. They also offer the opportunity to use the schools "brand"/"name" and national platform (that the athlete otherwise couldn't provide for himself) to advertise themselves (from a business standpoint, this has a monetary value as well). All in exchange to play football and the revenue generated from playing football. That's basically been the unofficial "labor agreement"/"revenue sharing agreement" or whatever you want to call it for years.

Depending on who you hear supporting this on a national stage, they many times refer to how it's done on the "professional level" or use the comparison of an employee/employer situation. Well, all of those comparisons are big boy, real world, adult things called "business". And when you get into that realm, "doing business" is cut throat and shrewd and each party has the responsibility to negotiate completely to their benefit. Let's be honest, all this talk of "paying players" and players contracting themselves or their names/likenesses out to private entities for income, is nothing more than moving college athletics to a business/professional model. Which I'm completely okay with. But are the players and those who are advocating this going to be "okay" with all that comes along with "doing business" in the adult world? My guess is, probably not.

It may have been discussed elsewhere and I have missed it, but it doesn't seem to me that anyone is talking about the taxes that the athletes will have to pay if it gets to this. It seems to me that those advocating this have left income taxes out of the discussion. I don't think that the IRS will not want to get their piece of the pie. I could imagine another level of NCAA compliance being added to athletic departments on the tracking of income and whether athletes paid their taxes.

AlexanderFan · May 30, 2019

Bamabuzzard said:
If this is where this is headed then the school can easily justify sending any student athlete who is making money from their likeness an "invoice" to offset the financial cost the school takes on for giving the player free access to the college's resources that enable the athlete to do that. I don't think this is a rabbit hole the athletes or anyone else involved, really want to go down.

They do, they just don’t want to go down the branch of the hole you’re talking about. These folks seem to think carrying these guys around and giving them far above what the average student gets in benefits and tutelage to keep them eligible is cheap. I would imagine at schools like Alabama with wild rabid fan bases across all athletic platforms that the school does as much for promoting the player as the player does for promoting the school.

What if the universities created investment portfolios for the athletes to deposit their likeness earnings from outside the NCAA? The university would split half the dividend the fund raised during the athlete’s time at the school, and the player could get money on completion of a degree, or a certain amount of time elapsed from attending the school.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bamabuzzard · May 30, 2019

B1GTide said:
This still doesn't make sense. How would Alabama, for instance, be harmed by a student receiving pay from another company during his scholarship? If a player gets a job at Taco Bell, should he have to reimburse Alabama for a portion of his scholarship?

This is outside income that has nothing to do with Alabama, so why would Alabama care? In the "big boy" world, employees make whatever the market allows. In the NCAA's "crazy" world, that is not happening.

This is a reasonable compromise that might allow college football to hold on to its elite players while still operating under a scholarship model. No "pay for play" from the school. Just allow the kids to make what they can outside of school while a student athlete.

Aside for the parity discussion, why would anyone oppose this?

This topic isn't just about royalties from video game sales. It's about opening a box that once opened brings into play a lot of complex dynamics that could directly impact Alabama. Just off the cuff here's the problems that would, IMO, quickly surface:

-Involvement of personal agents and/or lawyers to ensure the player is getting FMV for his services in the market for "celebrity endorsements". Do I have to even begin to spell out the problems and headaches that would come if/when agents start getting involved?

-Monitoring the validity of endorsements ensuring that it is not a system of deep pocketed boosters laundering big bucks to players under the guise of players doing an endorsement for their local car lot. This could also become a problem in recruiting as well. I could easily see a rogue booster dipping down into the HS ranks and getting a nationally ranked, high profile player to "endorse" his business. (All they have to be is 18 to enter into a legally binding contract, correct?) When really all it is, is an attempt to sway the kid to go to Alabama or whatever institution the person is a fan.

-The concern that a nationally known player (such as Tua) earns so much money in endorsement deals that it becomes less of an incentive to play the length of eligibility he otherwise intended to play. I could easily see (just like we're seeing in bowl games) Tua or a caliber player like Tua earning enough money that he could realistically decide to skip his junior year to concentrate on training and preparing for the draft and the NFL.

-It simply becomes an enormous distraction to the player which directly impacts their preparation and performance on the field and more than likely, in the classroom. Worrying about how many endorsement deals he can get, constantly talking with his agent about the next one the current one etc. We're talking bout 18-22 year old kids here and entertaining the idea of putting them in a position to make a crap load of money and assuming they won't be deterred one bit from their obligation to the football team. I think we're all smarter than that.

B1GTide · May 30, 2019

We can argue all day, so I will simply say that I disagree with the very premise of your argument. The fact is simple - what is happening to players right now should be illegal. It probably will be soon. So college football has to get out in front of that before someone else does and we lose every great college football player to some other option that will allow them to make what they are worth.

NoNC4Tubs · May 30, 2019

DzynKingRTR said:
I think they should be allowed to make money off their name and likeness. What really annoys me is when idiots compare what they are doing now to slavery. Those people need a punch in the face.

Oh, I dreaded this becoming a thread here, but knew it eventually would.

I agree about that "slavery" part! However, this whole issue is going to open a Pandora's Box that can never be closed...

Too many ways to exploit it and basically turn College Athletics into pro sports...!!!

awbern and Pat Dye and salivating over the possibilities...

check that, they already have a system in place that basically does the same thing. Only now it will be by the rules...:cool2:

NoNC4Tubs · May 30, 2019

RTR91 said:
Let me preface this by saying I understand the perceived need by the athletes and am open to having a discussion on how to pay players.

Worked with a mom of a P5 football player. The stuff the players got just from being on the team was ridiculous. Guys could easily wear team-issued apparel everyday and not have an issue. They get other benefits, too. And without going into too much detail, players are getting paid as it is.

Bingo! They are already getting benefits way past the average student anyways...:cool2:

NoNC4Tubs · May 30, 2019

B1GTide said:
This is not about "paying players". This is about allowing players to get paid from outside sources for their likeness and name. It is absolutely absurd that a player cannot charge $10 for an autograph without risking his eligibility. It is even more absurd that a player like Tua cannot sign marketing deals to capitalize on his name. Tua could make $MILLIONS$ right now in marketing deals if he left Alabama and sat out a year until he is eligible for the NFL Draft. Instead he will stay and play and get paid nothing.

That isn't slavery because he has a choice, but it should be illegal.

Ok, you would basically legalizing the $1,000 hand shakes...who would monitor these "autograph" sessions, especially after a game...?

NoNC4Tubs · May 30, 2019

B1GTide said:
That is wrong in every way. Alabama did not make Tua into Tua. God did.

Tua would be just as big a name if he were playing anywhere else. Put him in a minor league for the NFL and he would be rich right now. If the NCAA doesn't figure this out, one of these other football leagues will. Then college football will no longer get the best players - only those not good enough to make it into these leagues.

True! But he didn't become the commodity that he is until...

Not being difficult, but this isn't exactly as clear-cut an issue that present it as. :cool2:

NoNC4Tubs · May 30, 2019

B1GTide said:
So, should players with wealthy parents not be eligible for scholarships? I really do not understand this line of reasoning.

Apples and skateboards...

Really, why should the parents financial status even be a factor?

You are recruiting the kid based on athletic prowess. :cool2:

NoNC4Tubs · May 30, 2019

Bamabuzzard said:
Apples to oranges comparison. The university didn't have any hand in the wealth of the player's parents. Whereas the university provides the lion's share of resources and provides the platform for the athlete to be in a position to earn the money. This is nothing more than an unofficial revenue sharing /labor agreement battle no different than what we see in professional sports.

For years the universities have "offered" the athlete tuition and opportunity to earn a degree (insert monetary value), room and board (insert monetary value), meal plans that are far superior than the average student (insert monetary value), medical services (insert monetary value), clothing (insert monetary value) and a ton of other campus "perks" that the average student doesn't get. They also offer the opportunity to use the schools "brand"/"name" and national platform (that the athlete otherwise couldn't provide for himself) to advertise themselves (from a business standpoint, this has a monetary value as well). All in exchange to play football and the revenue generated from playing football. That's basically been the unofficial "labor agreement"/"revenue sharing agreement" or whatever you want to call it for years.

Depending on who you hear supporting this on a national stage, they many times refer to how it's done on the "professional level" or use the comparison of an employee/employer situation. Well, all of those comparisons are big boy, real world, adult things called "business". And when you get into that realm, "doing business" is cut throat and shrewd and each party has the responsibility to negotiate completely to their benefit. Let's be honest, all this talk of "paying players" and players contracting themselves or their names/likenesses out to private entities for income, is nothing more than moving college athletics to a business/professional model. Which I'm completely okay with. But are the players and those who are advocating this going to be "okay" with all that comes along with "doing business" in the adult world? My guess is, probably not.

Great post! Had not read it before my post above...

NoNC4Tubs · May 30, 2019

CajunCrimson said:
So, if Alabama shows a football player wearing a #17 Jersey -- (which is the norm now) -- who gets the money? Kenyan? Waddle? Do we give it to the current #17? Or the previous? Or maybe the all-time greatest #17?

Or if they have a football helmet on, and can't see the face, then no one gets it?
what if it's just the helmet? -- Is that helmet representing #17? Or does it represent the team?

This gets complicated quick when you start talking about paying someone for their likeness.....

Name? Yes --
Likeness? that gets a little dicey....

It WILL turn into players doing endorsements and such...

NoNC4Tubs · May 30, 2019

Hoot30 said:
It may have been discussed elsewhere and I have missed it, but it doesn't seem to me that anyone is talking about the taxes that the athletes will have to pay if it gets to this. It seems to me that those advocating this have left income taxes out of the discussion. I don't think that the IRS will not want to get their piece of the pie. I could imagine another level of NCAA compliance being added to athletic departments on the tracking of income and whether athletes paid their taxes.

Good point!

Actually, that opens the door for the Feds to monitor the whole issue! :cool2:

NoNC4Tubs · May 30, 2019

RTR91 said:
I'm the same way. Any time I hear an argument for one side, I quickly think of the holes in the argument.

If this is solely about likeness and advertisements, the money wouldn't be from the athletic department's budget. It would come from the advertiser's budget.

Or...somewhere else. Which creates HUGE problems...

B1GTide · May 30, 2019

NoNC4Tubs said:
Apples and skateboards...

Really, why should the parents financial status even be a factor?

You are recruiting the kid based on athletic prowess. :cool2:

Why would the income of the player be a consideration? This was a stupid argument.

B1GTide · May 30, 2019

NoNC4Tubs said:
Ok, you would basically legalizing the $1,000 hand shakes...who would monitor these "autograph" sessions, especially after a game...?

Who cares? You are okay with the status quo because meaningful change that would actually benefit these players would be hard to monitor? The NCAA created this nightmare. Disband them altogether and let the players do whatever they want with their names and likeness.

Link: Amid New Calls to Pay Athletes, Alabama AD Has a Few Thoughts

FB Moderator

TideFans Legend

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

All-SEC

Hall of Fame

FB Moderator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!