Why won't the status quo cut it? It's not like it hasn't worked for the past 150 years.....
I feel like this is more of a "fix it" in case it breaks at some point in the future approach -- which California is famous for....
Fair Pay to Play Act Signed into Law in CA
- Thread starter B1GTide
- Start date
I feel like this is more of a "fix it" in case it breaks at some point in the future approach -- which California is famous for....
Because people are unhappy with it and are forcing change? Status quo isn't happening folks
I'm sorry if you think its only California that is unhappy with it. It's not.
I've not been directly addressing the issue of compensation for the players' image or likeness.
I would not be opposed to athletes getting nothing for incidental use of their likeness. Businesses do it in that they have employment agreements stipulating that anything you produce belongs to the company even though it is your own idea. You use their facilities, learn from their employees, etc. IMO, it is the same with players. Compensation would open up an incredible can of worms that can be avoided by taking this approach.
I think part of the problem with this specific issue is that at the moment it is a representation for all that is wrong, and yes I do agree that there are things wrong with the current model, with high profile college sports (i.e., fb and men's bb). So, if you want to pass on this issue you will be portrayed as being fully satisfied with the status quo. That's not true.
IMO, players should get a very useful stipend, which I was very much for years before it came to pass. I don't know if the current levels are enough but IMO, a "useful stipend" is enough. Likely, there are not many players who would make much off of their likeness, so sometimes you have to sacrifice for the good of all. But IMO, it is unbecoming for the universities to make money from their image. Current students do work for their professor receiving little or no money or recognition. Medical students intern for years (a few whimper a bit about being free labor, though no "free med student" movements afoot that I'm aware of).
Unfortunately, it's unlikely that college football is going to be spared some kind of change related to this specific issue. So, though in general I'm a "lightly regulated free market" guy, I would be for a more socialistic remedy with pools and caps and such. College sports is very socialistic in many, not all, respects: Scholarship limits, regulatory rule, conference redistribution of wealth, limits on TV appearances, player weekly time limits, etc. So, such an approach would not be incompatible with it's existing structure.
IMO, a labor agreement with the players would be madness.
If recruiting is as corrupt as many say or intimate, it needs to be cleaned up. It can be done if a serious investigative arm was formed.
Coaches salaries which is a sticking point for many are embarrassing but I have no idea if that needs to be changed or if so, how.
From the article currently on ESPN, one of the major objectives is to keep the "bad guys" or "those who do not have the athletes best interest in mind" out of the equation. The only way I see to realistically do that is not have the money the athlete earns easily available. The problem in that would be you'd have to restrict the availability of the money to the athlete.
Just knee jerk thoughts:
Have trusts setup for the athletes. The athlete must deposit the income into the trust and have withdrawal limitations on the trust. The athlete is able to earn interest on the monies over the time he plays college football. When they leave college football they are able to fully withdraw the money, interest included.
I don't think many would be opposed to that, its just you cant keep pretending that the current NCAA isn't exploiting players and making huge profits.
To me if you’re going to give them money then you can’t treat them like a 13-year-old and give them an allowance. They are either adults or they’re not. To give them money And then treat them like they’re not mature enough to handle it is insulting. I’m sure they would take it if that’s the only offer.
I can make $5 million endorsing a product but can’t spend any of it until I quit or fulfill my obligation.
Frustrating topic.
That is something that can be argued either way. It depends on what "you" think the definition of "fair" is in this particular situation. I've always thought people who work for a power company that climbs power poles, deals with crazy levels of electricity; The guys who roll out during storms to restore your power when a transformer goes out are severely under paid for what they do and the risk they put themselves in. So I guess it's all in how you frame the argument.
But in trying to move the discussion past whether we agree if there is unfairness or not. I believe if we want to keep this as "clean" as we can. There must be tight restrictions on the availability of the money to the player as long as they are enrolled at said university.
Don't those people have one of the largest/most effective unions in the country and are actually paid and treated quite well? I may be off here but I feel like I've read about that in the past.
I don't think it has to be an all or nothing situation like that. To be honest, the more I think about it the more it could be framed as a "self funded stipend" that withdrawals cannot exceed "X" amount per month/year. Whatever monies the school would have otherwise paid the athletes in school funded stipend money. Can be redistributed and added to the stipends given to players (non elite players) by the school. So the elite player who is exercising his right to earn money and put the money into a trust, no longer gets a stipend from the school.
Last edited:
I think if the NCAA went more in that direction then they would have far less problems. But acting the Hog is probably the one thing they should've avoided.
If the NCAA want's to stay a part of the conversation and the revenue stream that is college football. Someone in the office needs to get into a "deal making" mindset.
Again, "paid well", "treated well", "fair" etc are all subjective and relative.
Of course, I guess I meant relative to similar jobs or whatever. It was more of a random comment.
Messing with electricity is some kind of dangerous. One "misstep" and you only exist in people's memory and your wife is cashing the life insurance check. I want no part of it.
Last edited:
Money and greed have already ruined MLB, and beginning to ruin the NFL. Looks like college sports will be next.
When money becomes a part of most anything, it ultimately messes it up. Especially things that are intended to be fun.Money and greed have already ruined MLB, and beginning to ruin the NFL. Looks like college sports will be next.
Latest threads
-
Game Thread: Morning & Afternoon Kickoffs (9/20/25 11a-5p CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 412
-
-
Longtime University of Alabama Football Referee Still Helping the Tide Roll at Age 97- Started by jthomas666
- Replies: 1
-
TideFans.shop - Get your Gear HERE!
Alabama Crimson Tide Car Door Light
Get this and many more items at our TideFans.shop!
Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.