The board said directed the three separate divisions of college sports to immediately begin figuring out how to update their rules in a way that maintains a distinction between college and professional sports. The board members said in a release Tuesday that all changes should make sure student-athletes have the same opportunities to make money as all other students, maintain a priority of the education and the collegiate experience and ensure that rules are "transparent, focused and enforceable" and do not create a competitive imbalance. The board wants each of its division to implement new rules by January 2021.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
And, as usual, the NCAA folds like a cheap suit. Though they probably didn't really have much of a choice.
Signing with an NCAA athletic team suddenly gets a LOT more immediately lucrative.
Somewhere Jeremy Bloom is crying and wishing that he were 15 years younger.
Just enough time for EA Sports to get NCAA Football '21 ready!
Can't wait to unlock my favorite teams through lootboxes.
I hate loot boxes. They're utter bullshit
I'd pay for a 50 dollar loot box if it unlocked the Enter Sandman entrance
This is exactly what EA is banking on (literally!). I'd be happy if people would only take the step of not preordering so that the studio has a greater incentive to make a game that's ready at the ship date.
DO NOT PREORDER! EVER!
I don't know what this means
Ever play Super Mario Bros? Imagine if you had to pay Nintendo real money to unlock the fireball flower.
You had to purchase Mario at launch for the new Mario Kart mobile game... Even Nintendo is getting in on the fun!
And they say Coach Fuente doesnt show emotion:
Steven Godfrey has already taken to twitter to voice his concerns about how the NCAA is probably trying to get ahead of it to maintain favorable control over the situation. I am cautiously optimistic at the moment, but it seems like this could be a situation where the NCAA finds a way to make it messy and to primarily their benefit, not the athletes.
Like the primary driver in California was the benefit of the student athletes.
I'm afraid there are a lot of interested parties here, and their own interests are the primary driver.
I NEED NCAA FOOTBALL
Give me a new NCAA Football video game immediately. Inject it right into my veins
...student-athletes have the same opportunities to make money as all other students...
long past due...they are either students, or they aren't...NCAA can't have it both ways
Hope everyone in the Bad Place has a nice jacket.
So when the schools with the biggest budgets put in 7 figure marketing campaigns and lock up even more of the best talent than now, it's all still good, right?
I don't have a huge opinion on the merits of the whole thing... I just can see a lot of ways it gets abused.
I mean would you prefer a wildly uneven landscape where the worst that happens to a staff member is a show cause, but a player can lose all their eligibility.
Or one where everyone still does a lot of the same stuff but we acknowledge that at this point if nobody wants to change it, might as well formalize it.
They could put a cap on the marketing budgets.
I would think that fantastic players would more than likely get the majority of the money though.
Thats a lot of my thoughts.
In the end whatever form this takes, even if it makes recruiting more difficult for some, this represents a huge opportunity to spread the love from boosters to the actual talent on the field.
Doubly so for schools that have boosters with more money than sense(looking at you everyone in Texas) and really want to blow all their budgets on trying to buy their way to a title from no foundation.
Depends on the program, the "flashy" players may not. A school like Wisconsin may give all of the beer and cheese in the state to their offensive line.
Where in the article does it mentions marketing budgets? I was assuming that this meant if an outside source offered to use a kids likeness and the kid wanted to do it, they can. I didn't read any of this as the school paying anyone.
There are still only so many scholarships to go around. The competitive balance is already completely jacked up. The same 5-6 teams are in the playoff discussion every year as it is, college football is becoming more boring because of it (seriously, how many 'great' games have their been this season between P5 teams?), and thats not going to change one way or the other based on players being able to market themselves.
'.....and for the top recruits, the scholarship means less. Tuition could become "chump change" on the financial scale.
The only difference between where it has been and where it is going is that there won't be the need to hide payments going forward.
I expect the payments to get bigger. A LOT bigger.
I can't see how this can work. Wouldn't the teams that already sell the most jerseys by default recruit the best players? Or the teams that have the biggest markets? USC and Notre Dame come to mind...
I would rather we revert to something like D3, where there aren't even scholarships, than have some sort of semi-pro league.
But I was told that there was no way the NCAA could let the local used car lot give a few bucks for the QB to hang out on a Sunday, or the Defensive Line to make some money by appearing together in a furniture store ad or it would destroy college sports?
Weird.
Does this mean local car dealers don't have to fudge the numbers on lease terms for players anymore?
yes, and that the school and NCAA get a cut, and the player will get a 1099.
Some female athletes are going to benefit from this significantly as well.
There's about to be even more leggings, bikinis, and protein powder "influencers"
I'm looking forward to the NCAA athletes selling essential oils, lotions, and kitchen ware. I'll buy them all, with the right face selling.
So women's volleyball might do OK under the new model?
This made me laugh because Maurice DeShazo totally worked at Shelor back in the day. I remember him helping my dad out and when he went to get the keys for a test drive I looked at dad and said, "Do you know who that is?"
Makes me nervous as to how this will impact VT. Seems like the rich get richer type situation.
I think beyond just existing wealth its a big question of how organized, committed, and resilient a booster org is. Presuming of course the rules are written to allow for anyone who is by definition a booster of a school to be paying for a players NIL. Which is a whole other can of worms but lets assume that to be ok.
And the good news is the quality, and level of engagement of the booster base is totally something a school controls and can work to change.
The rich get richer no matter what. At least this is a chance for the players to as well.
The competitive balance in college football is nonexistent at this point as it is. Is it really going to change that much because Bama or Clemson get a couple more 5 stars?
I like that players will be able to profit off their name that is the right thing to do. I think it worries me where more schools in bigger markets that aren't traditional football powers (maybe like UNC, or even NC St) will be able to benefit more compared to VT in a small market. Not only that schools like UNC can leverage their national brand more.
In a larger market, more schools...maybe? UNC, Duke, Wake....all share the same market. VT athletes would have to compete with Radford or Roanoke College players for local player image profits. In this case I think we do OK.
National market may have greater impact - who can garner more attention on a national stage.... like you said - but can UNC leverage their national brand more? Wins and losses take a greater significance.
The Genie is out of the bottle. There's a free market out there kids. Buckle up. But fear not, it's not the end of college sports.
I don't think it matters so much the schools your competing with rather than the market size available to you. The market for UNC, Duke, NC St is much larger ($$$) than Roanoke area. Sponsorship and endorsements would be a lot more lucrative in Charlotte and Raleigh compared to Roanoke.
And yes I also think schools like UNC and Duke will be able to leverage their national brand more.
Both are bad for VT.
I think he is referring to how stacked UNC has been with some of the greatest athletes of all time playing there.
You have Michael Jordan, Lawrence Taylor, and Mia Hamm just to name a few.
Add on that Michael Jordan has his own line of athletic apparel through Nike that runs right through everything at UNC.
I see your Charlotte and Raleigh...
... and raise you Richmond, Hampton Roads, and Northern Virginia.
You can't generalize about college football based on a 5-10 year time period. The "competitive balance" seemed nonexistent in the mid-1990s when Nebraska was dominating. Or in the 1980s with Miami. The 70s with Oklahoma. The 40s with Army. And so on, you get the point.
As long as the playing field remains even, the situation can change.
I agree. So for Basketball are we about to see a Oregon Dynasty? Sign with Oregon and get an automatic shoe deal with Nike!! UMD with UnderArmour ads featuring Maryland athletes?
This is not good for VT in terms of competition IMHO. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the athletes that have long been screwed by the system but the implications here for recruiting are huge. Why go to VT has a 3 star when you can only get $1000 for the local car dealership commercial when you could get $10,000 in Columbus to sponsor a tattoo parlor?
Pretty sure OSU will have plenty of 5 and 4 stars to pay before they even talk to the three stars.
You can make the same argument for 4 stars. I was just making a point about earning opportunity for certain schools versus VT. It will be a lot harder for us to land those guys when they could potentially make multiples more in cash on their likeness by committing somewhere else.
Yes, but we are already losing out on those guys as it is.
I also think, like the transfer portal, there will be a mad dash and lots of money changing hands, but after a couple years these businesses won't see much help in their bottom line and then it will calm down.
The best players will always do well, but I doubt businesses will really care to pay a freshman, who may not be in the two deep for at least two years.
This.
Everyone assumes that businesses will just throw money around at every recruit. But private businesses also have to...ya know...make money. I think the first few years will be exactly as you said, a rush to offer money and play in the new sandbox, if you will.
You will always have your mega rich boosters at some schools that don't care to throw around money, but eventually most people will realize its not good business to throw a ton of money at a 17 year old that may or may not pan out.
You can guarantee that in Tuscaloosa, Al. - where public school teachers make 30K a year and have to but their own pencils, a local car dealer will offer 6 figure spokesperson packages to Alabama athletes. Same with the booming metropolis of State College PA, and Clemson, SC.
...and the parents of 15 year old children will be hiring agents. Oh boy....
It will be like the NFL. Each player will have their own shoe deal. The pros do this shit all the time.
It will be interesting to see how this effects TEAM contracts. Like VT as an athletic department has a Nike only contract, does that now change?
So my guess is that the schools will still make the athlete adhere to their shoe/apparel contracts as part of their scholarship agreement.
I am thinking that the NCAA will do their best to limit this whole thing. Probably will be just for the guys like that dude that had a youtube channel with a ton of followers (for something non-football I think) that he had to shut down because he was profiting off his likeness.
Now that I think about it the whole instagram influencer bullshit could be a major area for abuse.
Right- could Quincy Patterson sign with Under Armour at a "nike" school? Why not?
I'm guessing they will be able to pick their shoes for their shoe deal, but still have to wear all the same uniforms visors etc.
If its anything like how the Olympic Team USA stuff shakes out there will basically be a window where they need to be using the Team sponsored gear.
So Hooker can be rocking UA stuff in all the adds he wants in the summer. But from the start of training camp until the end of the bowl game he would need to be in the team Nike gear.
As an example, and a balance that is pretty widely accepted in a similar situation.
VT was already fucked.
Seriously, did you not see how far we've been falling behind? Our spending is dwarfed by our peers, and a lot of it was hidden with behind the scenes payments to secure talent. Now? Well at least those payments will be disclosed so that we know exactly how far we have to go.
This isn't going to impact us in a bad way any more than continuing the status quo would have. Schools like Duke, UNC, UVa, etc in basketball and Clemson, Alabama, FSU, Penn St, etc in football were always going to spend to win, and we weren't. We have been falling further behind every year, and we refused to accept it.
So at this point, its either shit or get off the pot. Either we want to play ball, and pay to win, or close it up and be thankful we had our 15 minutes in the late 90s.
Yep. And if we can't get to 1000 TKP club members because the price is too high, then there is no way we are going to get to the level we would need to be compete with the "big dogs"
Typical NCAA.
The ruling says this: "voted unanimously to permit students participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."
How much would you bet that "consistent with the collegiate model" means nothing will change.
Also "Benefit" is not "Profit".
How much would you bet that "consistent with the collegiate model" means nothing will change.
quite a bit
Especially because the COLLEGIATE model literally means that they werent paying players.
I think it will be interesting how this evolves. I think by saying things like "same opportunities to make money as non-athletes" could be a limiting because we aren't talking necessarily about endorsement deals, gifts, or the like. They may be able to get paid for working, or doing other things that regular students can, but not over and above that. If student gets paid 15 bucks an hour at a part time job, so can student athlete, but student athlete shouldn't get 20 or 25 bucks an hour for the same part time job.
I though athletes could already work part time jobs? I agree on the pay difference though. I bet that is something that is already being abused.
what's preventing a non-athlete from "endorsement deals, gifts, or the like?" I don't think there is any University or entity restricting non-athletes in that regard.
I predict that this will cause some donors to re-think donating to professional football players. I honestly think that will be a side effect of this.
I would really have a low opinion of anyone who decided to stop because some of it might end up in the pocket of players and they only want the young men of the field compensated at a level that is acceptable to their butts in the stands.
Though if they are giving to the Hokie Club then their money wouldnt be used for NIL endorsements as that is outside money.
For some it will be a matter of principle- as always with donations. At VT, since it is tied to seat and parking quality, people will have to make a decision.
It is totally a matter of principle, and everyone has a right to withhold a donation for any reason at any time.
I just dont hold a high opinion of the principle in question being that more of it might just be given to the players.
People that donate now don't do it to penalize the players/keep them down/are pissed they get scholarships from the donations. In fact, they do just the opposite- so I'm not seeing your point.
Im saying if you were previously donating to the scholarship fund, and then stopped when some of that might also be just given in cash, then were you really that interested in supporting the players who were committing insane amounts of time and risking life and limb for our entertainment.
If the line between giving and not giving is that you can stand to see a check made to the VT Bursar but not a player, then how is that not just performative giving in the name of player support in order to build up those donor points.
Its ok to have a hill to die on, I just dont think amateurism in college sports is the one to do it.
I don't donate to the Redskins or Ravens. I'll have to consider donating to VT's professional football team now- just saying it's something to think about.
Exactly. I used to have Redskins season tickets, but I've never donated to them other than overpaying when I'm buying tickets or clothing.
Yes it is, that is undeniable. My point remains I know what I would think of people who made it their reason not to.
what is your opinions of the thousands of alumni that don't donate now? and is a huge issue for VT? Are those people OK in your book?
If they dont want us to compete to win the ACC in as many sports and years as we can or realistically think about bigger then they are.
If they do, and they have the means(we all have our own realities in the end, nobody should donate to a sports program if money is tight!!!!), then cash is the one thing that helps solve almost every problem facing VT athletics.
So no problem really, so long as they are honest about not being all in to the best of their ability. Even a token amount is still a contribution.
I see it a little differently.
I don't donate funds to professional teams, but I do donate to the college sports of my alma mater, though I live so far away that I don't really benefit from tickets or anything like that.
If it starts to look too much like professional sports, I could see it being less of a charitable donation, and more transactional, where I would only donate if I wanted tickets or some benefit.
At the moment, taxpayers are paying a LOT for infrastructure, and college sports get tax advantages. As college sports edge towards professionalism, I'd expect those perks to get phased out and relate directly to the perceived benefit to the community.
Oh it totally is transactional now, we just like to pretend its not. And if nothing else its transactional in that we give them money to not be a dumpster fire of a program so we can have a better time watching and talk shit to other fans.
Based on what? The severe limitation on municipal/state benefits that professional sports enjoy now?
No, it's not transactional right now, unless you're paying to get into some tier to get tickets or some other kind of benefit.
College donations (other than those tied to benefits) are mostly for the good feeling that you're supporting a cause.
And yes, that will diminish somewhat as college sports look more and more like professional sports.
Transactional is paying $25 for a VT hat. Non-transactional is making a Hokie Club donation in addition to that $25, because you want that team to do well, and you feel as if that's going to make a difference to the overall reputation of that program.
If you start thinking your donations pale in comparison to the value of corporate donations, the value proposition changes significantly.
That feeling of helping IS the transaction, and ultimately a better team and program is what you are buying.
Dress it up how you like, just nothing we like to think about happens without cash.
If the feeling of helping is the transaction, then certainly you understand that someone might feel that the value proposition has changed if sports go to more of a professional model than an amateur one.
And with the arms race such as it is, you aren't necessarily buying a better team. You are more just keeping up with the Jones's.
I agree that cash is necessary. Interestingly enough, though, we're supporting a team that has always done more with less.
I'm always happy to encourage VT alumni to donate to VT sports. But as the value proposition changes, I think anyone making donations has the right to re-assess it.
If college sports start looking more like professional teams than amateur ones, I'd rather corporate sponsors pick up the tab, and people can put their charitable contributions into other worthwhile pursuits. Like maybe donating to the university directly, and educating students. Which was, I thought, the original point.
Makes it easier for the Bagmen. Hey hotshot recruit, if you come here, you will get a endorsement deal for XYZ Company and get $3,000 per month. And we can get more company deals too.
BINGO.
Our only shot is to get Hardees to sponsor all our players and pay them with unlimited Hardees coupons. Boom, National Championship!!!
It would have to be done completely outside the realm of the University, but yea that seems plausible. It's hard to contract for the benefit of an unaffiliated party, but there would be work-arounds and such. For instance, a Bagman could openly hire a student or parent to some job title, and with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge, keep the student or parent employed as long as the student is on the football team of that University.
I can honestly see a texas Billionaire saying to all the UT players, "come wash my cars once a week and each one of you gets a $1,000 a week."
Isn't that what is happening now?
Yes, but now it is legal for both parties.
I think it was legal all along, no? It was just an NCAA violation up until now-ish (or whenever the rules are updated). The only thing illegal might have been if the player hadn't reported the income, no? Or am I not understanding the point?
I'm just happy for the players. All the other stuff about marketing budgets or good teams getting better or worse can fall as it may.
This is the stuff that gets me riled up
I'm not worried about the rich getting richer so much because there was already a big hill to climb for teams like VT; I am, however, worried about big money schools swooping in at the last minute and simply out bidding VT for the high 3 stars and 4 stars that are needed to stay relevant. I hope there is some kind of way to keep a cap on this.
"hey kid, we don't have a scholarship to give you, but come here as a walk-on and we can make sure you get enough endorsement deals to cover tuition and then some."
Money for nothing and the chicks for free
The tax implications of all of this will be fun. If players get paid, the government will call scholarships taxable income.
To be fair, I don't think this will happen, but this is the first comment I've seen about tax implications so I wanted to chime in.
Once players are legally allowed to use their name and likeness to profit, suddenly a lot of what is being done under the table will now be above board. This means that the student athlete must understand the tax implications of anything they accept in compensation.
Now I'm no accountant, but I think this is a step in the right direction in the sense that there will be visibility about what is going on.
On one hand, the students that were getting things under the table now have a much bigger problem than the NCAA - they will have to deal with the IRS.
I do think that this means that colleges will have to provide education about taxes - what they are and how to do them correctly - so that the athletes know how to keep themselves out of trouble with the law.
This is a good step! But there will be a lot to sort out to make it work well for all involved.
Hate to burst your bubble but it's already happening. A US Senator has said he will introduce legislation to tax scholarships.
I don't want this to be seen as getting political, but I did want to provide the information.
Nah I don't think this is political so I think you're safe - at least as far as I'm concerned, this is necessary info.
However, I think this senator is way out of bounds here. Image and likeness is one thing, pay for play is another. Can you link me to a primary source? I'm curious as to where this is coming from.
I may be getting political when I say that this senator sucks balls, even prior to knowing who they are and where they come from.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/richard-burr-proposes-taxing-scholarship...
You would be correct.
And - trying to keep this apolitical myself - Twitter has already raised the question of whether Burr is really trying to give dispreferential (new word) treatment to athletic scholarships. It seems like he is, but I won't speculate here on his reasons...
I get being taxed on the income you make from you likeness, but not for the scholarship. Kids with academic scholarships that work jobs to make additional income don't get taxed on their academic scholarship?
Scholarships can't be taxed under current law. So they will have to do the modern American thing and call scholarships something else and call taxes something else- make up terms.
I don't think anything like that will pass.
They will, of course, be able to tax the outside income
On the other hand, the parents will likely lose these athletes as a tax deduction.
Don't be so sure. This passed through the House in 2017 for graduate student scholarships as a part of the TCJA. It was a scary time for students in academia. Had it also passed in the Senate, I would have been taxed on ~240% of the income shown on my W2 and faced with the decision of taking out a loan to pay taxes or dropping out of school. As a grad student I was barely making it as it was, let alone having to pay tax on income I did not make.
While I'm not in favor of taxing scholarships, I think it's worthy of public debate. You did get something of value, and it's worth discussing whether it should be taxed. Again, I agree that it shouldn't as a matter of public policy, and it would affect how many people could go to grad school.
The Federal government distorts the heck out of tuition by guaranteeing student loans. And some politicians are debating making all college free. College tuitions have gone up BECAUSE of the government guarantees, not in spite of them.
All I'm saying is that we need to be very careful about how the government "helps" with education. Sometimes these policies serve to distort the market, making it more expensive, and shift the costs to someone who doesn't get the benefit.
Nothing is free. If a public college is free bill passes as law, your taxes will go up in a massive way to pay for it. so the bottom line will be the higher earners will pay more for someone else's worthless arts degree than others will. And that paradigm sucks. Nothing is free.
True.
"universal" means someone is paying for it, and likely everyone.
Everyone doesn't pay... that's the rub... but a topic for another day.
I, for one, am happy to have a bit of my cash to state universities.
But I also donate to the college of engineering because I want to decide where my bigger money goes.
I also, rarely, donate to athletic program scholarship funds when we discontinue a series against [mid major from one state southward].
I support college athletics, but will be less inclined to donate if it starts to feel more like a branch of a shoe company than an association of student athletes.
They inch closer to that every year.
When you win back to back titles on NCAA 2020/21
I live in Orlando and on the radio today they brought up an interesting, and I think for VT a scary, point. They said that teams in cities such as UCF and USF will have an advantage over smaller "market" schools. They mentioned schools in Oxford and Starkville, MS and although I disagree, also Auburn and Tuscaloosa, AL. My fear is that it is already hard enough to get some kids to want to come to Blacksburg. If "What sponsors can I get?" will now factor into the decision, what options does VT have, Volvo? Shelor Motor Mile? Carilion? The ACC has a number of national brands. Clemson, FSU and Miami in football and Duke and UNC in b-ball. We could fall far behind very quickly, but I'm hoping that this is will only affect a very small number of players but it could be a large concern to VT Athletics.
Kroger, Yokohama, and GE in Roanoke. I think outside of that you still have Nike, Under Armor, and other clothing/shoe companies who would endorse perceived great athletes just like Duke and UNC in basketball. Chapel Hill and Durham aren't huge markets like Tampa and Miami
Yokohama should surely sponsor our running backs. Because they got the wheels.
Heyoooo!
A smart player would get deals in NOVA, Richmond and the 757. Places with thousands of alumni to market to.
Didn't they/aren't they closing up shop on that GE plant?
Already a done deal. Mostly shutdown staff there now for a very short period of time.
Good thing VT is going to have a partnership with Amazon.
Corporate sponsorship is going to be important in the brave new world.
So after living in Boston for a little while, I don't think that plays as much as you think. In cities with > 1 major sports, the college teams take a backseat to the pro sports in the area (even with a storied program like UMiami).
I'll put it this way, if Matt Ryan was trying to get endorsement deals while he was at BC, I don't think his marketability would be that much better if he was in a small college town.
bigger share of a smaller pie vs smaller share of a bigger pie
Either way, it's roughly the same amount of pie.
which we all know is better than cake anyhow
Law of unintended consequences.
80% of NFLers are bankrupt within 2 years of leaving the league. Guarantee this is going to put a lot of college athletes in horrible situations financially. Imagine a kid not understanding tax policy and going out and spending all his money on a ferrari or buying his mom a house and then ending up declaring bankruptcy before the end of the year. If financial literacy was a huge problem for kids going pro, just imagine how bad it is for kids going to college.
I also wonder what happens after the kid's freshman year. If they get a huge sponsorship to come play somewhere and they get injured or dont get enough playing time and that sponsorship gets pulled, imagine the horrible situation that kid will be in.
Also, if Adrian Peterson can get fleeced for 100 mil over his career, I can only imagine how many of these kids are going to suffer through the exact same thing. They'll be surrounded by leeches from the jump. They'll (or the school) will have to hire PR people, financial managers, agents, etc and that'll end up leaving the kids with little to nothing at the end of the day.
I hope the NCAA, forces any money earned to go into a trust (Allen Iverson/Reebok model) or something so at least the kid and their family are protected. I think that could be the happy middle for me. Kid still gets to make money, kid goes to college like anybody else, kid graduates with a good financial cushion. I still wish all this extra money was used to guarantee scholarships and add 2 years of full-time educational credits after eligibility instead but if the money route is the way we're going then the trust is the way I hope it goes.
Tax is going to be a big issue for players.
NCAA forcing money into trusts will not be possible. They may indeed try to do that but once pandora's box opens there is no way NCAA will be able to keep players from the money they earn. That's an lawsuit players will win quickly.
Taxes are going to be an issue, yes. This is why I think universities are going to have to provide a class for personal money management to all student athletes, with priority scheduling given to those athletes who either 1) are already or 2) might soon find themselves in a position to have to handle endorsement money.
The NCAA will not be able to put their hands on any of this money or they will be infringing on the name/image/likeness rights.
But I absolutely expect that some school will start drawing up obscure fine print in their scholarship offers indicating that the university gets a cut. If this happens, it'll be a PR shitshow for... UAB? SMU? USF? Someone.
Universities should provide classes on personal money management to everyone, athletes, students, professors, board members. I keep hearing people complain about a raise because it pushes them into a higher tax bracket and they will now have less money. Queue the that's not how any of this works gifs.
That should be done in High School before senior year....
My father taught me to handle money when I got my first job in Junior High. Don't most parents teach their kids how to save, invest, etc?
Many parents don't really have a terrific grasp of personal finance.
In Virginia high schools , all students earning a Standard or Advanced Studies Diploma must take one standard unit of credit in Economics and Personal Finance to graduate starting the class of 2015.
I see people say this all the time, but I'm almost certain high schoolers (perticularly the ones who most need it) won't take a class like that seriously.
If you come play at my favorite school for 4 years, I'll pay you $30,000 for an autographed picture.
To prove it, here's $10,000 now.
How many players per year are going to get this deal? How much money is a rich guy willing to spend on a freshmen to commit that doesn't end up being good and he just wasted 10k. 10, 20, 30? Rich people are rich because they make smart business decisions.
Will some can't miss 5 star recruits get the bagged dropped yes, will it be an absolute free for all eh I'm not sold.
Sometimes people are rich because they were in the right place at the right time, and their idea caught a vacuum in the marketplace or got lucky with marketing.
For example: Kevin Plank, who dumps a ton of money into the Maryland program.
Turns out stamping UA on shirts could make you a competitor to the folks stamping a swoosh on fabrics if you had the right timing and a catchy slogan.
You can bet he likes this decision. He practically owns a university now due to cheap, overseas labor and the public's addiction to college sports.
Plank basically invented the compression breathable shirt material before Nike did, so you are off base there. UA was the first to have the tight fitting style performance shirts worn under other gear. Not Nike. Nike got into it to compete with UA- just like UA is trying to do now with shoes.
Plank was a marketing major, not an inventor.
Compression clothing/moisture wicking existed long before Kevin Plank. Have you ever watched bicycle racing?
Plank did apply it to football undergarments, and marketed the crap out of it with a clever UA symbol. Remember "You must protect this house"? His genius was in naming it Underarmour, and marketing it as a difference-maker to football programs.
Sure it was in cycling and the US military had it a while before that too. But mainstream sports- guys were wearing UA under shoulder pads long before Nike.
Creating a fad app and selling it for an obscene amount of money before it tanks is luck. Creating UA is most certainly not.
Sometimes it just pays to be "Charlie Hustle". Believe in something and work tirelessly.
Interestingly enough, Kevin Plank is resigning in January, and it was disclosed today that they're under a probe regarding their accounting practices by the SEC, which they didn't mention last week when they reported earnings.
I don't know, check with Miami.
Agreed.
People are getting bent out of shape on both sides of this but in reality this is going to have an effect on maybe 20 players across all sports a year, and 99.9% of them are going to be male football/basketball players...
Thats not a knock on other sports, or womens collegiate sports
But...Virginia Tech's 3rd baseman will gain more value from his scholarship than any compensation he might gain from this passing
This is all fine and good for the players but all this will do is widen the gap between your Alabama's and Clemson's from middle of the road programs. "The SEC- it just pays more."
This is gonna be a shit show. Its already started.
I get the "We ought to pay these poor kids" argument.
But I do think it's short-sighted, and can easily spin out of control. Which won't be good for college sports or the kids.
What's next, sponsoring in high school? After all, you want that valuable relationship if you're a talent scout.
This will be good for the athletes, and probably prevent some of them from going broke at the next level. They will get a better understanding of how to manage contracts and money, so if they make it to the next level they probably won't go broke. A fantastic learning experience for them.
Educating them in finances might help, but giving teenagers money for their likeness has not generally had the effect of making them intelligent in financial matters.
So, as I'm reading this right, players could sell autographs for money because that falls under "profiting off your likeness," but schools themselves can't put players on the payroll. I see comments here and elsewhere conflating the two.
There's gonna have to be a lot of regulation to keep this on the up-and-up. Especially in the recruiting phase, IMO.
I think the NCAA will run/filter all of the contacts/contracts through the schools, who are already providing tax related docs to the players. It is almost impossible to separate the value of the athlete from their affiliation with the school and the sport they play, neither of which the player has rights to...the mirror image of the EA sports litigation if you will. They may very well come up with a standard distribution of a particular contract...X% to the athlete, Y% to the school, Z% to the NCAA. They may also come up with standardized market values for certain types of endorsements.
I think it's going to be complicated at first but I don't think it's going to be a wild west scenario of endorsement deals and payoffs. And Title IX could force them to pool a portion if not all the income for some type of across the board distribution.
couple issues here. Not to say the NCAA won't try to regulate the income somehow because they are the NCAA afterall, but it won't stick.
1) The schools, not the NCAA, would need to sign contracts with the players to receive income from the players likeness deals, which I have always maintained they should do. The NCAA however would not be due any of that, unless the school themselves pays them a cut of their returns.
2) Creating a regulated market for standardized payments won't stick. Market economy and all.
3) No way NCAA can force players to give portion to Title IX or a pool. The school may do that with income they receive but players won't.
Again not saying the NCAA might try to create a regulated market, just saying that pandora's box is now open. There is no way the will keep players from their money. Any regulation will immediately go to court and the players will win.
Could me more of a "you have to register your contracts" kind of thing.
Just to prevent it becoming the wild wild west.
I expect this to be a "what is permitted" rather than "what is not permitted" policy with the NCAA. By listing available sources of income from NIL, it closes more of the loopholes than naming what is not permitted- though no matter what, schools/boosters/players will find loopholes.
Also the release slipped in a little bullet about trying to say payment in relation with athletic performance is somehow still a no go. So Hendon Hooker college student is cool to monetize his Youtube, but Hooker the QB can fuck off.
Yep ok thats totally the point NCAA.
They also mention that they want to do it in accordance with the Collegiate model, which of course is already predicated on everyone but the players able to actually be paid.
This was a major PR win for the NCAA and move to try to control the process which had rapidly been slipping away. All while committing astonishingly little.
I guess we won't really know until they come up with some actual rules.
They also very much explicitly point to the possibility of each division having very different rules as the main board basically just told each division to come up with drafts. Which isnt necessarily a bad thing.
Though it does then raise the question of how that plays with the semi autonomy of the P5 currently within D1.
Interesting questions raised at the end of this SI article.
https://www.si.com/college/2019/10/30/ncaa-name-image-likeness-announcement-takeaways-questions
On a separate note, thanks, Joe, for making the links open in new windows instead of in the same window!
This one in particular will be the big one to answer. Like said in the article I wonder if the work around is going to be money to go to a school dining bill or things that can only be spent at schools since they are adamant that this doesnt become a semi pro situation.
Had a random thought.
What if VT could buy 1 or 2 highly rated VA kids per year that formally we're going to blue bloods. Example KJ Henry. The Clemson bucket is empty because they have to pay Lawrence etc etc. the only offer he has is 5k extra per year to sell donuts at the local donut shop. Our biggest booster offers 50k to sell cars at the dealership.
We continue to develop like we always should be but can inject 1 or 2 stud recruits a year because we Put all of our eggs in one basket.
EDIT: KJ is bad example because he isn't a VA kid but I think people can get the drift.
The schools aren't paying.
Correct that literally has nothing to do with what I'm saying. There is a finite amount that any school will have. It isn't going to be registered but it isn't like just because they are Clemson they have an infinite amount of booster money.
If booster B wants recruit A then he will spend his money there not for recruit C who may be a solid solid recruit and would have gone to Clemson originally but because our booster can pay more
He chooses the good guys
Everything you have typed is pure conjecture. Who knows that boosters are going to pay for players? Obviously they do now under the table but, no where in this article does it mention that. It is possible yes, but this literally is going to allow for players to be compensated for the usage of their likeness. It isn't allowing players to take a payment to come play for a certain school. "What if VT could buy 1 or 2 highly rated VA kids per year" The schools are not paying! Boosters aren't writing checks to recruit kids! (legally). This ruling literally allows kids to get a piece of sales from the schools, games, tv, etc using their name to make money. The NCAA has twisted amateurism to the point that TV, announcers, websites, coaches, assistants, and more can have professional careers making a ton of money off of the players backs. The actual players deserve to, at the very least, get a small percentage of money made off of their likeness.
I'm not sure how many different ways I can say I know the school isn't paying.
If you can't see the angle I am presenting then I'm not sure what to tell you. Thanks for the replies!
I don't know much about Liberty University, but I've heard their non-profit status generates a tremendous amount of capital, and they have been ramping up their football program simply as a place to re-inject this cash into the system.
Do we have a religious version of Under Armour in our backyard?
What you just described sounds a lot like "Ozark" to me....
Except with church money, not drug money.
I think a lot of people here are missing the point on these endorsement dollars.
Booster X in charge of Company Y isn't hoping giving money to recruit/player Z is going to help his bottom line.
That's never been the calculus in boosters illegally passing money so far.
The money they are throwing around is almost exclusively for their favorite team to get the best players. They expect a loss against the bottom line. The trade-off is bragging rights.
BINGO
This all going to change now though. Only a select few were willing to illegally pay athletes.
The landscape will be nothing like it is today.
But what if they are using your likeness to sell WEED??!!
Think of the children!
Dabo should be finding a new job anytime now. He did say he stop coaching once players were paid! Our ascent back to the top starts now!