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

[Kel Varnsen]

For a guy who bitches and moans about the NCAA making "billions" off student-athletes, Jay makes more per year off speaking engagements and calling games than 99+% of NCAA employees and athletic department employees.

Hell of a grift he's got going. Impressive, really.

[wsushox1]

I found this list interesting:[/LIST]I emphasized the one that makes me wonder. How exactly can this work?

Yea, I suppose that's my initial thoughts. One, I'm shocked they even tried addressing this. Two, there's really nothing there that allows individual athletes to profit off their NIL - it looks as if the Universities could sign contracts on behalf of specific team sports and then everyone on the team gets the same payout?

Not sure it really addresses the NIL that California has proposed.

[wsushox1]

For a guy who bitches and moans about the NCAA making "billions" off student-athletes, Jay makes more per year off speaking engagements and calling games than 99+% of NCAA employees and athletic department employees.

Hell of a grift he's got going. Impressive, really.

It does come across a little tone deaf. Though we are in the age of the grifter...

[Kung Wu]

Maybe its the language that indemnifies them from condoning entity A from paying athlete A for attending X school, or for winning a specific game or scoring x points. After all, they are just earning money for who they are. Not where they go to school or gaining from their status as a student athlete.

(wink wink, nod nod)

Right, could be. Forget the fact that the reason their name and face are interesting is ... because they are excellent athletes.

[wsushockerdude]

For the average age, demographic, and voting history I tend to associate with regular posters on SN (50+, white, Republican), I'm not surprised by the results. However, I'm bolstered by the fact that soon, these players will be compensated fairly.

That's the word, really. Fairly. Sure, a college education (however "valuable") is certainly a nice incentive. But then again, anyone can go get that education. What everyone can't get is a starting spot on a Division 1 team. Those that can are truly special. Fred VanVleet was not fairly compensated because he DESERVED more than a college education that myself, or anyone else, can purchase. His stat lines generated money for the program, simple as that. His name, image, and likeness are STILL used today to promote what Wichita State can do for a young man who is interested in our program (go check out any recruit who has received an offer in the past two years; they've mentioned him). A $40K "education" is not enough when compared to the millions that he brought in via branding, merchandise, national exposure, goodwill, etc.

If you disagree, go ahead and ask him. Go tell him that, sorry, your family doesn't DESERVE to get to the Final 4. They can make their way on their own dime, and we've already paid you what you "deserve". That should be enough, right?

[Dan]

"Make clear the distinction between collegiate and professional opportunities"

I wonder how this will be interpreted. What they have done is open up a whole slew of lawsuit opportunities for future collegiate athletes. Are their earning rights being infringed upon?

[Aargh]

So what would prevent Adidas from offering some HS Sr $100,000 for use of his likeness if he is at a school they specify?

[Kel Varnsen]

For the average age, demographic, and voting history I tend to associate with regular posters on SN (50+, white, Republican), I'm not surprised by the results. However, I'm bolstered by the fact that soon, these players will be compensated fairly.

That's the word, really. Fairly. Sure, a college education (however "valuable") is certainly a nice incentive. But then again, anyone can go get that education. What everyone can't get is a starting spot on a Division 1 team. Those that can are truly special. Fred VanVleet was not fairly compensated because he DESERVED more than a college education that myself, or anyone else, can purchase. His stat lines generated money for the program, simple as that. His name, image, and likeness are STILL used today to promote what Wichita State can do for a young man who is interested in our program (go check out any recruit who has received an offer in the past two years; they've mentioned him). A $40K "education" is not enough when compared to the millions that he brought in via branding, merchandise, national exposure, goodwill, etc.

If you disagree, go ahead and ask him. Go tell him that, sorry, your family doesn't DESERVE to get to the Final 4. They can make their way on their own dime, and we've already paid you what you "deserve". That should be enough, right?

The NCAA has made modifications that allow for the bolded section to happen. Don't confuse family travel now permitted by the NCAA with other benefits.

"If you disagree, go ahead and ask him." Sorry, but asking someone if they "deserve" money should not be a barometer for setting wide-ranging policies. I can ask the fry cook at McDonald's if he deserves as much as the CEO, and if he says yes, we should adjust that compensation accordingly too, correct?

"Anyone can go get that education." Yes, but his is paid for. Completely.

What you (and many others) fail to realize is that there is not only value in student-athletes to universities, there is also an enormous value the universities provide to student-athletes. Would Fred have received world-class instruction, meals, access to facilities, training table, tutoring, transportation to games on a private jet, and national exposure with an opportunity to build his "brand" the way he did had it not been for Wichita State? Probably not. Those benefits, in addition to his scholarship, are worth much more than $40k/year.

The other thing that no one will address is how this will affect other sports, when the money that was previously flowing into the athletic department as a whole now gets funneled to CFB/MBB players. Will that discrepancy force colleges to cancel non-revenue sports?

[ShockTalk]

For the average age, demographic, and voting history I tend to associate with regular posters on SN (50+, white, Republican), I'm not surprised by the results. However, I'm bolstered by the fact that soon, these players will be compensated fairly.

That's the word, really. Fairly. Sure, a college education (however "valuable") is certainly a nice incentive. But then again, anyone can go get that education. What everyone can't get is a starting spot on a Division 1 team. Those that can are truly special. Fred VanVleet was not fairly compensated because he DESERVED more than a college education that myself, or anyone else, can purchase. His stat lines generated money for the program, simple as that. His name, image, and likeness are STILL used today to promote what Wichita State can do for a young man who is interested in our program (go check out any recruit who has received an offer in the past two years; they've mentioned him). A $40K "education" is not enough when compared to the millions that he brought in via branding, merchandise, national exposure, goodwill, etc.

If you disagree, go ahead and ask him. Go tell him that, sorry, your family doesn't DESERVE to get to the Final 4. They can make their way on their own dime, and we've already paid you what you "deserve". That should be enough, right?

Fairly? Perhaps we should look at the schools that actually make money on their athletic programs, count their numbers, and then compared that number to the total number of schools. Of course, those who can afford it, no problem. Seems fair.

Or....fairly? Why don't top athletes just go pro some where. I mean, no one is forcing them to go to college. Or are they "using" colleges to help their own cause plus get a free education?

And you're probably right about Fred. I mean, surely he could have gotten where he's at today all by himself, right?

All just for discussion.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

The other thing that no one will address is how this will affect other sports, when the money that was previously flowing into the athletic department as a whole now gets funneled to CFB/MBB players. Will that discrepancy force colleges to cancel non-revenue sports?

How does any of this change the money flowing into Wichita State baseball ?

[wsushockerdude]

The NCAA has made modifications that allow for the bolded section to happen. Don't confuse family travel now permitted by the NCAA with other benefits.

"If you disagree, go ahead and ask him." Sorry, but asking someone if they "deserve" money should not be a barometer for setting wide-ranging policies. I can ask the fry cook at McDonald's if he deserves as much as the CEO, and if he says yes, we should adjust that compensation accordingly too, correct?

"Anyone can go get that education." Yes, but his is paid for. Completely.

What you (and many others) fail to realize is that there is not only value in student-athletes to universities, there is also an enormous value the universities provide to student-athletes. Would Fred have received world-class instruction, meals, access to facilities, training table, tutoring, transportation to games on a private jet, and national exposure with an opportunity to build his "brand" the way he did had it not been for Wichita State? Probably not. Those benefits, in addition to his scholarship, are worth much more than $40k/year.

The other thing that no one will address is how this will affect other sports, when the money that was previously flowing into the athletic department as a whole now gets funneled to CFB/MBB players. Will that discrepancy force colleges to cancel non-revenue sports?

There's the rub. Yes, of course he would have. By another university. Several. The fact that he is UNIQUELY TALENTED is what makes him qualified to make unique compensation. So don't waste your time asking a fry cook if he can play at a collegiate level, just ask him to refill your drink.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Fairly? Perhaps we should look at the schools that actually make money on their athletic programs, count their numbers, and then compared that number to the total number of schools. Of course, those who can afford it, no problem. Seems fair.

Or....fairly? Why don't top athletes just go pro some where. I mean, no one is forcing them to go to college. Or are they "using" colleges to help their own cause plus get a free education?

What does the athletic revenue of Wichita State have to do with Dexter Dennis being paid by Carlos O'Kelly to do a TV commercial?

Society makes fun of these kids for not being able to do literally anything but you want them to just pack up and move somewhere? i understand the argument - and you're not wrong. I just think its weird is all.

[Dan]

there are 100's of 1000's of kids in high school sports right now busting their ass for a chance to get a free education. Scholarships are worth a lo or kids would not be trying to get them. Some kids think they need more than this because they become famous in college. This is a big can of worms, that's all I gotta say.

[Kel Varnsen]

There's the rub. Yes, of course he would have. By another university. Several. The fact that he is UNIQUELY TALENTED is what makes him qualified to make unique compensation. So don't waste your time asking a fry cook if he can play at a collegiate level, just ask him to refill your drink.

Uniquely talented players now have the opportunity to make six figures out of high school and join the G League. Why don't they do that and go play in Des Moines and Austin instead of opting to play college basketball? Heck, some of them are already doing that.

[abdullah_sharif]

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