Should Student-Athletes be paid for their name, image & likeness while scholarships?

[WstateU]

you think college basketball was dirty before, just wait..

[SB Shock]

Gregg Marshall is for the players being compensated for their image.

[WstateU]

Gregg Marshall is for the players being compensated for their image.

Cue the shocked monkey gif...

[Kel Varnsen]

Gregg Marshall is for the players being compensated for their image.

Not surprised to hear coaches say this. They know that opposing it will be used against them in recruiting.

Marshall could very well believe this is in private too, so I’m not saying he doesn’t believe it. But no coach worth his salt is going to come out and say that they’re opposed to it.

[TheShocktocles]

I don't think players should be paid for their image. I think the big corporations and game video companies should be able to take a college student athlete' s image and use it without their consent and make money. I am for the corporations continuing to exploit this issue to make as much money as they can. They deserve it without any restrictions.

The student doesn't deserve anything. The student is getting a FREE college education and doesn't have to work for his or her scholarship. If you believe this statement I would like to sell you a bridge so you can cross the flint hills of Kansas. I just want to help you like the corporations that are doing all these things because of the goodness of their hearts.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Not surprised to hear coaches say this. They know that opposing it will be used against them in recruiting.

Marshall could very well believe this is in private too, so I’m not saying he doesn’t believe it. But no coach worth his salt is going to come out and say that they’re opposed to it.

You should really stop assuming stuff about people based on some fairytale you have in your head. You know nothing about Gregg Marshall outside of what he wants you to know. (you,me, us doesnt matter)

Im not sure what your worth of salt scale starts and ends at but Dabo at Clemson has come out against this multiple times.

[Kel Varnsen]

You should really stop assuming stuff about people based on some fairytale you have in your head. You know nothing about Gregg Marshall outside of what he wants you to know. (you,me, us doesnt matter)

Im not sure what your worth of salt scale starts and ends at but Dabo at Clemson has come out against this multiple times.

Sheesh. When did I assume anything about him? I quite literally said he may or may not believe it privately. How is that assuming? In my opinion, there's one logical public position to take here.

I think it's a dumb decision to come out against this in public. Doesn't mean coaches like Dabo can't do it. Maybe at Clemson he's more immune to it than Marshall is.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Sheesh. When did I assume anything about him? I quite literally said he may or may not believe it privately. How is that assuming? In my opinion, there's one logical public position to take here.

I think it's a dumb decision to come out against this in public. Doesn't mean coaches like Dabo can't do it. Maybe at Clemson he's more immune to it than Marshall is.

I see the problem here.

Your whole post is an assumption based on what you believe to be logical. Take two seconds to google the issue and you'll actually know what you're talking about other than assume because holy **** man, what good is the internet if you're not going to use it.

[Kel Varnsen]

Your whole post is an assumption based on what you believe to be logical.

So is every post on this board. Man, you must be the life of the party.

Please tell me, oh Oracle of ShockerNet, what the logical position is here. I came out and said it's favorable for college coaches to come out in favor of this change lest it be used against them in recruiting; tell me why you don't think that's the case. With sources. I mean, holy **** man, what good is the internet if you're not going to use it?

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

So is every post on this board. Man, you must be the life of the party.

Please tell me, oh Oracle of ShockerNet, what the logical position is here. I came out and said it's favorable for college coaches to come out in favor of this change lest it be used against them in recruiting; tell me why you don't think that's the case. With sources. I mean, holy **** man, what good is the internet if you're not going to use it?

No they're not. Stop projecting.

And I think I've made my position very clear on this thread. If a business (say Carlos O'Kelly or The Mens Warehouse) wants to pay any Shocker athlete to either make an appearance to appear in one of their commercials (Which this ruling allows) I am all for it. Im also using those two examples specifically because they relate to Wichita and Wichita State specifically. No need for sources as anyone who watches any programming with Wichita State attached knows our players and coaches make appearances for them.

Also, you said "No coach worth their salt is going to come out against this" You were proved wrong.

[WichitaStateGuy]

Can someone explain how this doesn't hurt small-market colleges? Just on the surface, if I'm a 5* one-and-done caliber player, UCLA has an immediate advantage over Duke and UNC now, let alone Wichita State. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point quite well--allowing players to be paid for their image and likeness benefits schools in larger market areas.

[AndShock]

I am all for Carlos O’Kelly’s paying our players a couple hundred bucks to be in a commercial. Am I for Koch Industries paying our players a couple hundred G’s to be in a commercial? Slippery slope.

[jdshock]

But no coach worth his salt is going to come out and say that they’re opposed to it.

At the risk of stepping on a landmine, I agree with this with a couple of caveats. I think football and basketball coaches are very different. Football and basketball cultures are very different, but also basketball players are always going to be much more "famous" (for lack of a better word). You're one of five guys on the floor, you aren't hidden underneath a helmet and pads, etc. I could see football coaches publicly opposing this rule and it not affecting their recruiting too much. Separately, I imagine there will be good coaches at small schools, markets, etc. that will oppose this rule. I think of schools that want to recruit guys with their eyes on the NBA, very few coaches are going to risk the backlash caused by opposing this rule.

[Dan]

I doubt many people on would be against the players being able to earn $500 or $1000 on a weekend shooting a commercial or signing autographs. If that's all we were talking about, I would say more power to them, they bust their ass, people like them and are willing to pay them for some of their time. The problem is, we all know that's not where it starts and stops. The shoe and apparel companies will be dishing out big bucks to steer kids to play for Duke, Carolina, Kentucky, etc. Shoe deals should be reserved for professionals. There needs to be limits on the earnings, they are "amateurs" afterall.

[WheatShock]

Can someone explain how this doesn't hurt small-market colleges? Just on the surface, if I'm a 5* one-and-done caliber player, UCLA has an immediate advantage over Duke and UNC now, let alone Wichita State. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point quite well--allowing players to be paid for their image and likeness benefits schools in larger market areas.

I don't know. If your 5* chooses UCLA he's in a huge media market but that market also has 8 major pro sports franchises with their own stars plus USC to compete with for endorsement $$$. If he chooses Duke or UK there is less to compete with and its not hard to see him doing better overall.

There are some that believe this will help big fish in small pond schools more than it will hurt.