Bill being introduced to allow student athletes to profit from their image
Texas QB Sam Elinger posted a series of tweets last night beginning with
Consider a full-time unpaid internship that requires 1-4 years of participation, with a minimum 40-hour work week. This internship generates millions of dollars for your company, and billions of dollars for the broadcasting companies that cover your industry.
— Sam Ehlinger (@sehlinger3) March 7, 2019
He later posted a link to another which described a bill which would "change the definition of a qualified amateur sports organization in the tax code."
Personally I'm fine with this as paying all student athletes due to title xi would be a mess. This allows the individual to market themselves.
I like this. Paying athletes directly would be a mess. I mean Denard was worth infinitely more than Russell Bellomy. Sorting that out would be a mess. This is much cleaner
It is worth going back to watch highlights from that Nebraska game just to remember how jaw-droppingly bad that was. I am not trying to hate on the kid, but I have never quite seen anything as bad in football as when he came into that game. It would actually be kind of funny if it wasn't so brutal.
Can confirm. I was there amongst the Nebraska faithful and they were even puzzled at how bad it was.
Ugh, I was also there. Thank God it was Nebraska and not... pretty much any other Big10 venue. At least their fans were kind in the aftermath.
And the beforemath. Going to Nebraska games as an away fan is kind of a surreal experience. Walking down the streets in away colors, having a home fan lean in, but instead of the usual vitriol and drunken insults you get "Welcome to Nebraska, good luck today!" and a smile. WTF do you do with that?
Thanks again, Al Borges.
I've had the same experience at Iowa and at Minnesota from their fans. Much more friendly than hostile.
This still baffles me to this day. As fans we all assumed if the staff was moving Gardner to WR that Bellomy must have been at least somewhat capable of running the offense in Denard's absence. Don't know if there was a more glaring example of Hoke/Borges' incompetence at the QB position than that. It cost the team the chance at a conference title.
I had to look at the stat line just to remember how bad it was (the fact that they didn't have a Gardner package to replace Bellomy given how dire things were....):
3 of 16, 38 yards, 3 interceptions. 5 carries for 0 yards. Started 0-8 before completing a pass for zero yards. Just a completely clueless staff.
Bellomy was bad - I don't want to poo-poo that. But he wasn't exactly helped by his teammates, either. When DRob went out, the entire team deflated - NOTICEABLY. However ill-prepared Bellomy was, nobody was going to overcome the complete lack of heart the rest of the team showed at that moment - not even Brady. His first several passes (started 0-8, as noted elsewhere in this thread) weren't all bad. He had some decent throws that were on the money - and dropped. I think it was 3 drops, and another couple where the WR didn't even look, or run the route.
So he got off to a TERRIBLE start because his teammates did next to nothing to help him out. That aside, he wasn't ready for Big Ten football, and that falls solely on Borges and Rich Rod. The overarching problem, though, was that lack of heart and preparedness were hallmarks of Rich Rod teams. (And this still seems to be the case...)
Perhaps the reason they were deflated wasn't the loss of Denard, but that they knew just how bad Bellomy was?
It’s not like Bellomy’s Performance was some aberration due to the team being deflated. He went to UTSA and couldn’t start
This is what I've been advocating. The direct payer play would be as practical as a screen door on a submarine. Yes, they *should* get paid, but there are many injustices in life that don't have an obvious solution.
I like the idea of athletes being able to profit from their likeness, but the nature of football does skew who gets paid most to who has the ball most. The best player on that 2011 team was probably David Molk, but nobody is lining up to pay a center to endorse his product. So that's why I think guys should get some cut of the money via payment from their scholarship and also be able to get endorsements/likeness.
I see nothing but trouble from athletes being paid for their likeness. RB makes the money yet is nothing without his OL. Ditto for the QB. World class CB might not be quite as prolific popping wideouts without the DL and LB's who put high levels of pressure on the opposing teams QB.
I have a very uneasy feeling about players being paid and almost feel that it is the beginning of the end of "amateur" sports. Wouldn't playing for Michigan and other large fanbases represent a huge advantage as to what a player's likeness would be worth? Another area of concern.
Yeah. That was my point - it's the same reason why the Heisman is a dumb award. It's not for the best player, just the one who puts up the biggest numbers on a good team.
I don't really worry about the death of "amateur" sports because it's been dead and repackaged for years. CBS is paying the NCAA billions to broadcast March Madness. In virtually every state the highest-paid state employee is the head coach of either a college's basketball or football team. It's not amateur athletics (and maybe it never was - guys always got money one way or another) anymore, and I'm fine with it. It's guys going to school and working to make the school money. They are employees and students, something universities have in droves on the academic side and nobody freaks out.
Also, the idea that only now, in the ability to pay for likenesses, is a team like Michigan or Alabama allowed to exploit it's size and alumni is silly. They've been doing it for decades, with huge facilities, well-connected donors, prominent placement on TV and media, etc. If you're Western Kentucky, you've been getting your ass kicked for decades on that front and this isn't anything new. If anything, it probably helps some smaller schools who can generate significant local interest during recruitment. Maybe it allows, I don't know, Boise to go to a guy who might be the 10th-best player in a Texas class and say "you are going to be just another guy on that roster, while here you'll see immediate playing time AND you can be the face of our program in local advertising", which might be significant financially.
Pair this with restructuring the NCAA so that athletes are adequately represented in the decision making process (via student athlete union or 50/50 representation b/w schools and student athletes on decision making bodies) and we might start to see equitable and safe conditions for student athletes.
So in other words, NCAA student-athletes would now have the same name and image rights as every other person in the U.S.
Sad that it has taken this long but hopefully this now gets fixed...
I'm not against, like, doing endorsements and shit like pro athletes do. If anyone thinks that won't come with its own set of unforeseen consequences they're crazy, but on its face it's not so bad.
I still think the "unpaid internship" thing is bullshit. Name one other internship that trains you for a multi-million dollar job while paying your room and board and leaves you with zero student debt.
"multi-million dollar job"? There are maybe 1-2% of D1 college football players getting multi-million dollar NFL contracts. It does indeed work out great for them - what about the rest of them?
What about the guys that blow their knees out? I don't see any "GoFundMe" programs for them.
Those are probably not the ones earning the schools millions of dollars then. They could be replaced with someone else and people would still watch the games. And they still get four years of free room and board and no student debt, which puts them in the 99th percentile of college students in terms of benefits they receive and most likely means they get more from the school than the school gets from them.
Let competition and free enterprise figure out how much these guys should get - not people like me and you speculating.
That's exactly how it works now. And the result is that the NCAA Div 1 offer is the one that most high school athletes accept.
Wrong!!!! Either you are a moran or you have been in the cave the last 30 years.. Do you not realize how much players are getting from bagmen, agents, "sports marketers" and the like? And no, it is not just internet speculation. The FBI investigation has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.
The black market is currently filling in the gap between scholarship benefits and free market value. Making a rule against someone getting money doesn't mean they have no value. The free market always finds a way to fill in the gaps.
Just make it legal so these kids don't have to go to the black market to get their due. Nothing wrong with people paying these kids money based on their athletic ability.
I disagree that the recruiting black market is just filling in the free market gaps. Those are basically bribes. That's not the free market any more than a manager at a company taking a bribe to do business with a particular supplier.
If anything, the sheer number of players wanting to play football for the compensation they're currently given means that by free-market standards, they're vastly overcompensated. Bribes distort the free market, they don't supplement it.
No, bribes imply an illegal misallocation of funds of a 3rd party's resources (be it taxpayers or company treasury - like in your example).
Bagmen paying players are arms length deals between two people of their own free will. They are trading money for services - free market.
And there are no laws against this - just NCAA eligibility rules. Although the FBI probe has blurred this since the lying and scheming (and lack of tax paying) can create secondary racketeering crimes despite the underlying transaction not being illegal.
Bull fucking shit.
QB: Devin Gardner
RB: Vincent Smith
RB: De'Veon Smith
WR: Jeremy Gallon
WR: Roy Roundtree
...I could go on and on making a fucking all-star team of recent Michigan players who gave 4+ years to Michigan, were highly visible student-athletes, made MILLIONS for Michigan and didn't see a dime from the NFL.
I could also make an all-star team of guys who make millions/billion for their schools or TV networks and don't come close to that level of income once they do reach the pros. Your sterotypical "college guy" - re: Zavier Simpson or even guys like Jay Williams, Greg Oden, or Adam Morrison who were legends at their respective schools, but never panned out at the pro level for whatever reason.
This isn't a "well if those guys who make all the money wait, they'll make it on the back end in the pros" types of thing. Devin Gardner was the face of that Michigan team that year, that ND game, that OSU game (ouch)...he's doing local guest spots right now and never did anything when it came to the NFL.
Even Denard who played in the NFL, he may be the most profitable player in Michigan HISTORY - including Charles Woodson.
Besides, what does it matter what you do as a pro? That's then and this is now.
Put any of those guys on Toledo and see if Toledo makes more money than Michigan does.
Edit: also, it completely matters what you do as a pro - the whole point of college is to increase your earning power in whatever pro career you go into. Most people pay for the privilege, too.
1. Who said Toledo would make more money than Michigan? That has nothing to do with anything.
2A. No, what you do as a pro has no bearing on how much money you've already helped put in the pockets of your institution, bowl exec, TV networks, etc. in the PAST. That makes no sense whatsoever. Zion Williamson has played a total of 0 minutes in the NBA. He's made a lot of people a lot of money. If he plays 0 minutes in the NBA...those people and entities still made that money off of his time at Duke.
2b. There's a reason where every day on ESPN there's a silly debate about whether Zion should risk playing (in college) again. Same with Nick Bosa (who will likely still be a top 3 pick). There's also a reason that the ACC execs were all scrambling 2 weeks ago when it looked like Zion may not play in the ACC Tournament, thus devaluing the tournament and "costing" them a shit ton of money.
3. That is not that point of college for a lot of people. And if 98% of student-athletes aren't going pro...then playing that sport is not increasing their earning power in their career. What an idiotic response. It only increases your earning power if you happen to play professionally in that sport.
I've heard a lot of arguments against allowing student-athletes to earn off of their likeness or receive a piece of the pie...these might be the worst two of the bunch.
QB: Devin Gardner
RB: Vincent Smith
RB: De'Veon Smith
WR: Jeremy Gallon
WR: Roy Roundtree
Other than Gardner, whose jersey was for sale, I don't know that any of them individually made the school money. Were there fans who bought tickets specifically to see Roy Roundtree play receiver, and would not have done so if he weren't on the team? I don't know.
Even in Gardner's case it's hard to know if the people buying his jersey specifically did so because it was his or just because that was the number Adidas sold to the public.
There's no doubt that the program itself is a cash cow, but it's trickier when you break things down to the individual level.
Are you saying that no one would have ever bought a Roundtree jersey or a Deveon Smith autographed baseball cap? I bet they would have. Let the players earn money from their own likeness and you dont have to guess what they are individually worth.
I wouldn't be so sure of that, how many Heisman trophy winners in the last 25 years have gone on to pro success? The trend isn't very good. Not every great college player is great in the pros.
Guys not signing their pro contracts can use their free education to land a good job. Most of these guys can graduate in three years since they attend school in the summer. Spend 5 years at a school and now they have a masters degree at no cost. Should be able to turn that into a decent job. Seems like a pretty good trade off
Gotta love "Kevin 13" telling these athletes what they should and shouldn't make. How would you like someone telling you what you should be happy with?
That would be a great trade off for people with no marketable athletic skills like me and you but it is a shitty trade off for people whose market value is in the tens of thousands (and even hundreds of thousands for some of them).
It will benefit the blue bloods. Kids will go to Alabama/OSU/Mich because they can make t-shirts with their face that gets them paid, and the fans will buy it. We'll all become the bagmen. But this time, it's legal.
It really can't be any more weighted than it is now for the blue bloods. Alabama has put top 100 recruits on grey shirts in recent years while other schools can't get top 500 players.
If money is the driver - it could actually help some of the G5 schools. A low 4 star player would do better financially as the "savior" in a small town MAC school than to be a 5th string reserve at Bama or OSU.
Btw/ I will be first in line to get a Khaleke Hudson shirt!
Disagree with this. Recruits have proven over and over that they believe they'll be "the guy" at the school they choose. They generally don't care about competition or difficulty getting on the field because of a stocked roster. They all think they'll be Tua. They'll see Tua get $100K (or whatever the number is), see the small school's kid get $10K, and they'll go to 'Bama.
And it can always get more skewered towards blue bloods. What about Sparty? Forever and ever a few in-state kids have always chosen Sparty over UM for this reason or that. Now that kid will get paid more at UM, still want to go to MSU because your high school coach is buddies with their LB coach? Nah. Multiply that through similar relationships (Okl, Okl State, etc) throughout the country.
Transfers will play into this as well. As if there wasn't enough of a draw for a 3* kid who does well in a smaller school to transfer to a larger school, this will multiply it.
Outside of the NCAA mandating that Bama gets first pick of all 5 stars, there is nothing that could happen which would further tilt the playing field towards the blue bloods - in particular the schools that are already paying players under the table.
So at worst, allowing name and image rights will keep things the same and schools like Michigan with huge money cannons that try to keep things above the rules will benefit. At best, smaller schools will be able to round up enough local / alumni support to snag some quality players.
As I note above, these are rights held by every resident of the U.S. - even people in jail - so I don't even understand how this is a discussion. But yet here we are...
You keep noting Alabama as if they are the rule rather than the exception. Kids choose smaller schools over large often enough that it's noticeable, and that will be further eroded by this change. Mekhi Becton chose Louisville over Michigan, AJ Dillon chose Boston College, there are others; Thomas Rawls transferred to Central, there are others. In the 2019 247 ratings there are 4* kids going to ASU, MSU, Maryland, Purdue, Virginia, Illinois, NC State, Indiana, Arizona, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Missouri, BYU, Boise State, and more. Yes it's biased toward blue bloods in general, but this change will increase the draw from schools like that to schools like Michigan.
How are Louisville and Boston College "smaller" schools? Less traditional programs than Michigan, sure, but those are both ACC schools (that often show up in the top 25) with plenty of football history and tradition. To my knowledge, the ACC is still P5 and a mega-dollar conference and you had to reach back 3 recruiting cycles to get those terrible examples.
How about the fact that just 5 schools (Bama, Georgia, OSU, Clemson and LSU) have snagged more than 50% of the 5 star recruits, in aggregate, over the last 3 recruiting cycles. Add in another 7 teams (Auburn, USC, Oklahoma, Michigan, PSU, Texas A&M and Texas) and you are now talking 90% of all available 5 stars.
The listing you give are all P5 conference schools (except for Boise State and despite being a perennial top 25ish team - BSU has never cracked the top 49 in recruiting rankings) that got a 4 star or two. How does that constitute any semblance of balance whatsoever?
When was the last time Michigan lost a recruit to a G5 conference school? I don't see how playing time transfers would count. They emphasizes the point that the G5 get the P5 scraps even if those scraps sometimes bloom late.
I said it this would benefit blue bloods.
UL and BC are certainly not blue bloods. I'm not bounding the benefit to 5*, you have done that. My argument is that more of the best players would go to blue bloods. I provided evidence that players Michigan wanted chose blue bloods over Michigan, and that we have had transfers move on to non-blue bloods. I also separately provided evidence that good players - which I defined as 4* players given that's a commonly accepted bar - have chosen non-blue bloods over blue bloods this year. This rule change would push more of all of those players to blue bloods. Transfers "count" because they'd be less likely to transfer because there's $100K waiting for them instead of $10K.
That there is no semblance of balance is so obvious it need not be stated. It will get more so.
I agree, it's likely to lead to "endorsements" as a recruiting incentive.
It's hard to make that argument without making some kind of twisting rationalization of how that's worse than the current state of affairs, though. Or more beneficial to the Alabamas of the world that already cheat like hyenas anyway. Probably the schools that might benefit the most are the ones that play by the rules - now they have a way to offer that money that was previously only for the cheating shitheads.
When you can pay out in the open, then you don't need to give kids scholarships.
When you don't give scholarships - scholarship limits are irrelevant.
You have enough money - you can sign all the top 150 players just to keep them away from other schools - like teams like Michigan and Bama hoarded players prior to scholarship limits.
There's already roster limits in place above the scholarship limits. I don't think there'd be too much hoarding. And eventually that kind of thing sorts itself out anyway, especially as transfer restrictions gradually loosen up.
You're limited to 125 active players.
Fine - then make the limit 85 players plus a practice squad. How is that a difficult problem?
I think the proper comparison for an athletic scholarship is an academic scholarship, not the entire student population. Both are for outstanding achievement and ability the school actively wants on campus. But whereas a football player ends up spending 40+ hours a week on football practice, lifting, film, etc, an academic scholarship kid can go out and work if he wants, or just focus on school. Sure as hell don't have the responsibility the athletes do, just had to keep your grades above a certain level to keep the schollie. And no one was coming to watch me work on my lab reports or thermodynamics homework.
Many universities offer full ride academic scholarships for the best of the best that have proven their ability before college. That is training for a well paying job while getting free room and board and zero student debt. Seems similar to me.
Difference is the University isn't making millions off the kid on academic scholarship.
"I wonder if the players demanding payment realize playing a sport doesn't actually generate any value for society." - The person posting on a college football blog during work on a Friday
You sir, are a narcissistic idiot. You don't decide what generates value for society - consumers via the free market do that.
I am not saying that our society has its priorities in the right place but we clearly give a LOT of value to playing sports. And yes these guys do have value - the rules force them to go the black market to realize that value or to forego it altogether in order to play it straight.
I mean, that's most grad students in research-based fields. Or undergrads on full scholarships. We wouldn't remotely balk at the idea of some incredibly smart individual receiving full room and board, a stipend, and access to, say, a state-of-the-art lab if he/she was doing research into better crop production with a smaller environmental footprint. This is an elite person with a skill that should be nurtured. Well, Maurice Hurst is probably as good at tackling someone while being smashed by 300+ lb people as that person is at research.
As I've always said, why fans give a shit if college kids get extra money is beyond me. It's not "your" money; you are paying the same sticker price to consume the sport as you did before. But instead of it going to Urban Meyer or Jim Delaney, some of it goes to the guys who actually play the games. And yes, there are arguments about it hurting non-revenue sports, smaller colleges, etc. And to those I say that if the only reason we don't pay players is because the accounting it rough, then we've not trying hard enough.
Ehlinger is being foolishly simplistic to draw people to his point of view, and I hope he knows this. 1) he's playing a game he loves, much, much different than most internships, 2) he receives a scholarship and academic support services, 3) he receives training and coaching that helps him prep for a possible very lucrative career as pro, and even failing that it's very valuable life guidance, 4) massive platform of self-promotion, 5) facilities, medical, etc. And the athletes don't generate all the revenue, the school brands in my estimation have something approaching an equal share. Otherwise, and we've heard this a zillion times, the XFL/AAF equivalent would have surfaced years ago to profit as a semi-pro league.
But absolutely support athletes being able to profit off their image. The idea of amateurism is dumb, and the amount of money going to everyone but the players is perverse.