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

[Kel Varnsen]

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.

Now this I could get behind. When Chase Koch shells out $2.5 million/year for the #1 recruiting class every single season, we won't be complaining.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

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.

No landmine - And yes very different cultures. Without going into different areas and different discussions Ill leave it that :)

[Shockm]

Who knows Marshall's exact thoughts on this subject. It is what it is, and he may as well move with it. He may feel that it really doesn't matter what he thinks because this is the new Normal. Be positive and move forward.

Personally, I think it will affect football more than basketball because of the number of players affected. Offensive lineman won't get very much if any money. It may also possibly affect minor sports more in the future.

[WstateU]

Now this I could get behind. When Chase Koch shells out $2.5 million/year for the #1 recruiting class every single season, we won't be complaining.

I was thinking the same thing... we can play this game. I had a KU fan bring this up to me yesterday... he thought WSU would be in good shape with Chuck and Chase living nearby.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

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.

Is Loyola going to have a recruiting advantage over Wichita State because Loyola is in a large market? Extreme example.

It's quite possible the rule change will ultimately end up having the biggest impact on schools in medium-sized markets without many competing professional or major college sports teams, with rabid fanbases, and in major conferences. So yes, us. And others like Kentucky, Memphis, Duke, Butler, etc. Schools with fickle fanbases in major markets, where college plays second fiddle to professional sports, like UCLA, Villanova, Georgetown, Miami, etc., might see a much less positive effect.

[Topshock]

Now this I could get behind. When Chase Koch shells out $2.5 million/year for the #1 recruiting class every single season, we won't be complaining.

If this is the type of thing that will be allowed then WSU should have advantages that many schools don't have. If fact almost every school in the AAC will, with them being located in large metropolitan areas with lots of advertising options.

[MadDog]

No matter how this plays out, I think you can count on one thing... the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

[Kung Wu]

50% of California's tax revenue comes from the top 1% of earners (approx. 150,000 people). California sure likes highly compensated celebrities, that's for sure. It's clear, based on the new law, that California doesn't give a rats ass about an equal competitive playing field among the nation's schools, and has a perverse incentive to generate higher income tax payers in it's own state.

Should a state government be meddling in the rules that make amateur competition fair across the country?

[pie n eye]

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.

Whether or not I agree with you I’ll just note that they haven’t made a college football or basketball game in many years.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

50% of California's tax revenue comes from the top 1% of earners (approx. 150,000 people). California sure likes highly compensated celebrities, that's for sure. It's clear, based on the new law, that California doesn't give a rats ass about an equal competitive playing field among the nation's schools, and has a perverse incentive to generate higher income tax payers in it's own state.

Should a state government be meddling in the rules that make amateur competition fair across the country?

I truly believe you are smarter and better than this. No matter what your posting history proves.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Whether or not I agree with you I’ll just note that they haven’t made a college football or basketball game in many years.

And do you know why?

[pie n eye]

And do you know why?

Ed O’Bannon IIRC. TLDC to internet if that’s correct or not.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Ed O’Bannon IIRC. TLDC to internet if that’s correct or not.

You're right. Gaming companies made huge amounts of money on games for the NCAA. Players saw nothing.
There are other circumstances as well. Terrelle Pryor got in trouble for selling his own memorabilia.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

50% of California's tax revenue comes from the top 1% of earners (approx. 150,000 people). California sure likes highly compensated celebrities, that's for sure.

It's almost like you're saying this is somehow bad. That folks who make a bajillion dollars shouldn't be the ones who pay the most tax. That somehow the 1%ers do not consume the most resources per capita with their giant houses and eighteen cars and gobs of disposable income that they spend frivolously on stupid crap, and therefore shouldn't pay a larger share than a single mom working two jobs and just barely scraping by.

Almost.

[pie n eye]

You're right. Gaming companies made huge amounts of money on games for the NCAA. Players saw nothing.
There are other circumstances as well. Terrelle Pryor got in trouble for selling his own memorabilia.

And I totally agree that in both of those cases the players should get a cut and or not get in trouble in the case of Pryor.