Null



Sign in to follow this  
TigerHorn

Idea of paying players

Recommended Posts

@oldaufeller all those numbers are fine and I'm glad you mapped them out. But this is about letting the kids capitalize on their likeness which has zero to do with AU's budget towards athletes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




12 minutes ago, Tiger said:

@oldaufeller all those numbers are fine and I'm glad you mapped them out. But this is about letting the kids capitalize on their likeness which has zero to do with AU's budget towards athletes.

Good - allow them to capitalize on their likeness.  Is it unregulated or regulated? If regulated, then what are the caps? Also, as a point of reference, I own the work (or my my company owns the work) of the engineers and staff I pay.  That work is made within the context of my company and not available for sale by them outside my company.  If their 'likeness' is something I am buying (think models and entertainers) then they could not sell it outside my company (think contract.) Actors and musicians cannot sell their music or likeness outside the confines of their contact.  Their contract holders sell that for the compensation the entertainers receive.  A likeness, as you refer, is considered tangible intellectual property and it's brand, in the context of AU athletics, has been considerably built by Auburn investing in you (yes, you're in a stadium we built, with coaches (whatever you may think of them) we pay, in media material and presentations we produce, viewed by tickets we sold in venues we organized ....) 

So how do you propose to let them monetize their likeness?  Genuine question.

Edited by oldaufeller
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

This is the answer to the "but they get scholarships" argument, IMO.

How much money did bama make off of Tyrone Prothro? How much did Tyrone Prothro benefit from playing football for bama? He ended up a bank teller for Christ's sake. 

I thought he was coaching receivers at Jasper High School.

Lol I know a guy who's first gig out of Auburn was a bank teller. He pulls about 400k a year now before bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

This is the answer to the "but they get scholarships" argument, IMO.

How much money did bama make off of Tyrone Prothro? How much did Tyrone Prothro benefit from playing football for bama? He ended up a bank teller for Christ's sake. 

Hey McLoofus, as a side point, in my research in looking up numbers I saw bama's athletic program is upside down to the tune of a quarter billion dollars.  I have railed before at the clown show called bama finance, but this was a little tidbit I  didn't expect to stumble across, since their program is so "profitable."  seems they've built up some hefty debt they are working their way out of. 

Edited by oldaufeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, oldaufeller said:

Hey McLoofus, as a side point, in my research in looking up numbers I saw bama's athletic program is upside down to the tune of a quarter billion dollars.  I have railed before at the clown show called bama finance, but this was a little tidbit I  didn't expect to stumble across, since their program is so "profitable."  seems they've built up some hefty debt they are working their way out of. 

Heck, while they have been in the black the last 4 years the two before that AU was in the red. Even posting a record year the profit decreased. Auburn made 7.8 million and let's member over half of that excess came from student fee's.

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/sports/college/auburn/2019/02/05/auburn-university-athletic-department-record-revenue-decrease-profit-2017-18-ncaa-finances-report/2777036002/

I think here is what will happen if they go to paying players. Well first Auburn isn't keeping up with the Texas, Texas aTm's, etc's of the world. But besides that, you will have a real athletics vs academics battle in regards to tuition hikes and impacts on enrollment. Then universities will do what Electronic Arts did... no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

I thought he was coaching receivers at Jasper High School.

Lol I know a guy who's first gig out of Auburn was a bank teller. He pulls about 400k a year now before bonus.

Cool. Position coach in high school seems totally in line with what he could've pocketed signing autographs and doing paid appearances and such *before* ending his career before getting to the NFL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I'm a proponent of letting players make their own money. I'm not as invested in making schools/NCAA pay them. As far as what annoys me from the fan response is just this general idea that they get enough already and that nothing should change. Some of y'all have done a lot more homework than I have and aren't completely shut down on it. My respect and my apologies if I had you pegged wrong.

Edited by McLoofus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Cool. Position coach in high school seems totally in line with what he could've pocketed signing autographs and doing paid appearances and such *before* ending his career before getting to the NFL. 

He got it better than one of my friends that broke her leg at SMU putting on the line for the university. Nobody cares about her though.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

For the record, I'm a proponent of letting players make their own money. I'm not as invested in making schools/NCAA pay them. As far as what annoys me from the fan response is just this general idea that they get enough already and that nothing should change. Some of y'all have done a lot more homework than I have and aren't completely shut down on it. My respect and my apologies if I had you pegged wrong.

Im channeling it all into ATT now.... lol I think they are about to cut me off from watching the game period.

I am more open to outside of the universities, but if they start touching tuition I'm a huge no. I don't think tuition should be used to pay for athletics and I also believe that students shouldn't have to pay for tickets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

Im channeling it all into ATT now.... lol I think they are about to cut me off from watching the game period.

I am more open to outside of the universities, but if they start touching tuition I'm a huge no. I don't think tuition should be used to pay for athletics and I also believe that students shouldn't have to pay for tickets.

On that we more or less agree and I would have "liked" this post if I wasn't out of reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

He got it better than one of my friends that broke her leg at SMU putting on the line for the university. Nobody cares about her though.

I'm genuinely sorry for your friend and I would be equally in support of her earning money on her own as a student athlete.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tiger said:

@oldaufeller all those numbers are fine and I'm glad you mapped them out. But this is about letting the kids capitalize on their likeness which has zero to do with AU's budget towards athletes.

Don't do it bro.....trust me. I haven't lied to you yet

Edited by cole256
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll jump in here with my opinion.  I am strongly opposed to paying athletes.  In fact, my strong desire is to reduce the amount of money in college athletics.  I want these kids to be students first, then athletes.

A standard view of mine is ... the future college athlete is aware of the rules before they sign their scholarship ... if they do not like those rules, then they are welcome to not play sports and pay their own way to college.

i was offered a college football scholly at a well regarded non-auburn academic school.  I chose to work/pay my way through auburn.

the cost of a college education is waaaaaaaay more than it needs to be.  It is a culture of everything needing to be more better more better more better ... an athlete should be thankful for that scholly.  The cost of auburn for an average student not on scholly is obscene.  It is beyond what a kid can work and make on a year to year basis.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both my sons got fully scholly's w/ stipend for their PhD's.  Both scholarships have employment exclusivity clauses.  Plainly put - you will lose your scholarship and stipend immediately if you take income from any other source.  To think because you're an athlete you're being singled out for unfair treatment is not strictly true (not allowing you to have other income) in the sense of the "whole story" and how others are treated with their scholarships.  To be fair, I have never heard of exclusivity clauses in undergraduate scholarships but my exposure is limited.    Exclusivity clauses are pretty common elsewhere; I even use them with some of my critical engineers.  

McLoofus - even though we may not agree I do understand your frustration and the "unfairness" of it all.  Life is unfair at times.  I think it is noble and honorable to fight for the benefit of others. You get a +1 from me.  I discovered a long time ago you can start a business being nice and kind, but to keep one going sometimes you have to make decisions that are tough - which, to put it another way - can seem or actually be unfair.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, oldaufeller said:

Both my sons got fully scholly's w/ stipend for their PhD's.  Both scholarships have employment exclusivity clauses.  Plainly put - you will lose your scholarship and stipend immediately if you take income from any other source.  To think because you're an athlete you're being singled out for unfair treatment is not strictly true (not allowing you to have other income) in the sense of the "whole story" and how others are treated with their scholarships.  To be fair, I have never heard of exclusivity clauses in undergraduate scholarships but my exposure is limited.    Exclusivity clauses are pretty common elsewhere; I even use them with some of my critical engineers.  

McLoofus - even though we may not agree I do understand your frustration and the "unfairness" of it all.  Life is unfair at times.  I think it is noble and honorable to fight for the benefit of others. You get a +1 from me.  I discovered a long time ago you can start a business being nice and kind, but to keep one going sometimes you have to make decisions that are tough - which, to put it another way - can seem or actually be unfair.  

Thanks for the kind words and be assured the respect is mutual. I crassly referred to a crowd earlier to which you don't belong. 

Question about your sons (um, great job, Dad!): do their universities profit off of their name and likeness? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Thanks for the kind words and be assured the respect is mutual. I crassly referred to a crowd earlier to which you don't belong. 

Question about your sons (um, great job, Dad!): do their universities profit off of their name and likeness? 

Part 1: Credit mom (truth)

Part 2: Excellent, excellent question.

First some background.  The older one specializes in the mitigation and treatment of victims and perpetrators of child and adolescent violence.  [As a side note, if there is a time to pick someone to champion the cause and ways to stop violence among kids - he's your guy.  So much so he got his doctorate to fight for this cause.]  He published six times during his postgraduate years, a fairly remarkable feat.  As primary author/researcher, he found a correlation between the treatment methods used for PTSD and victims of sexual abuse ages eight to twelve.  This opened the door for cross research and materials from PTSD to be applied to that age group.  His core research thesis, he tracked 8,000+ students from grades eight, tenth and twelfth in Los Angeles, Houston and Birmingham measuring exposure to violence in homes, communities, and schools, access to weapons, and a number of other axis and was able to statistically (scientifically) predict the likelihood that youth would show up at high school with a gun.  A very challenging problem. 

So the the answer to your question:  "do their universities profit off of their name and likeness?" Sort of.  As I mentioned before, his scholarship contract specifically stated he could not have earned income from another source.  His contract also included a stipend he used for discretionary (think living) expenses.  This language was in all the research scholarship offers we reviewed for both my sons.  It was clearly stated any inventions, patents, discoveries, etc. achieved by the student during the course of term of their studies are assigned to the university.  This is very common. I even use that language for some of my engineers.  It is considered the "work for hire" principle, where the entity paying for the research or discovery owns the research or discovery. If you accept payment/compensation from an outside source then they may also have claim to intellectual property that you paid for or vice versa.  It can become a huge legal mess and no one wants that. 

Now, specifically about using his name for gain. As his reputation grew, opportunity for research grants and funding were created by his reputation. In short, his name was used to help secure funding.  So in the purest sense of the question yes, but not in the way I think you meant your question to be asked.  

It is much easier to attach this logic to the younger son, as he is working on his doctorate in bio-chemical engineering at a prestigious research university (he did his undergrad in chemical engineering at Auburn.)  For engineers intellectual property is a far clearer idea.  If he was to work for a bio-genesis company and well as the university, clear claims could be made by both over the same domain subject material.  

Trying to apply these ideas to athletics is a very long stretch, to put it mildly.  And although suited for the job, I could see where Auburn would not want a defensive tackle moonlighting at a bar as a bouncer.  There are too many things that could happen that have really bad downside.  There is also the equity question. As Auburn has 578 NCAA qualified players in 22 sports, who among them have that much marketability?  I would be seriously impressed if even sports minded posters could rattle off all 22 sports, much less name players in each.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, oldaufeller said:

There is also the equity question. As Auburn has 578 NCAA qualified players in 22 sports, who among them have that much marketability?  I would be seriously impressed if even sports minded posters could rattle off all 22 sports, much less name players in each.  

Alas, life is indeed unfair.

If a student athlete is not marketable for his or her athletic prowess or potential alone, then they might be marketable for other reasons. Or they might not. But I've yet to find a compelling argument against allowing them to find out for themselves. 

Now, if certain pursuits jeopardize their gifts for which they received the scholarships, or are not in keeping with University/team standards, then there is certainly a conversation to be had. But that seems like a more valid conversation, to me, than not having a conversation at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, oldaufeller said:

Does help when you win national championships... 

Auburn University bass fishing team reels in a national championship

https://ocm.auburn.edu/newsroom/news_articles/2019/09/051429-bass-fishing-national-championship.php

 

If I am not mistaken Auburn has produced the only back to back B.A.S.S champ........was unable to pull up article so apologies in advance if mentioned in article.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 5:46 PM, oldaufeller said:

Good - allow them to capitalize on their likeness.  Is it unregulated or regulated? If regulated, then what are the caps? Also, as a point of reference, I own the work (or my my company owns the work) of the engineers and staff I pay.  That work is made within the context of my company and not available for sale by them outside my company.  If their 'likeness' is something I am buying (think models and entertainers) then they could not sell it outside my company (think contract.) Actors and musicians cannot sell their music or likeness outside the confines of their contact.  Their contract holders sell that for the compensation the entertainers receive.  A likeness, as you refer, is considered tangible intellectual property and it's brand, in the context of AU athletics, has been considerably built by Auburn investing in you (yes, you're in a stadium we built, with coaches (whatever you may think of them) we pay, in media material and presentations we produce, viewed by tickets we sold in venues we organized ....) 

So how do you propose to let them monetize their likeness?  Genuine question.

First off, thanks for the mature tone of this disagreement..

As I see it when Cam was at AU, he should've been able to be in an Under Armour commercial without wearing any Auburn gear and been payed for it. He is a person and should be allowed to make money off of his own face is how I see it. Or Tebow should have when he was at Florida. If he wanted to appear in a Duracell commercial wearing an energizer bunny costume he should've been able to. I don't think the schools should have any say in what a corporation is willing to negotiate with a player. Did Shaq have to give a cut of his advertising revenue to the Magic or Lakers? I think this should be the same way. These are people not pieces of property that schools hold the rights to in my view. 

As far as caps, I don't think it should be capped. This is America after all. If Gatorade wanted to pay Zion Williamson $5M to appear in a commercial, why is it anyone else's business? Why are we worried about 1) what Nike is willing to pay or 2) how much Zion can make off his own face? It's his face.

AU invests in these players because they know it's in their best interest to do so. If Nike wants to put Derrick Brown in an ad that's good for AU IMO and AU should be all for it. AU's investment from the AD is not being affected, it could be argued that it would help AU get a better ROI with the national pub.

I'm just in favor of being able to earn checks from advertising, video games, a cut of jersey sales and things like that. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tiger said:

First off, thanks for the mature tone of this disagreement..

As I see it when Cam was at AU, he should've been able to be in an Under Armour commercial without wearing any Auburn gear and been payed for it. He is a person and should be allowed to make money off of his own face is how I see it. Or Tebow should have when he was at Florida. If he wanted to appear in a Duracell commercial wearing an energizer bunny costume he should've been able to. I don't think the schools should have any say in what a corporation is willing to negotiate with a player. Did Shaq have to give a cut of his advertising revenue to the Magic or Lakers? I think this should be the same way. These are people not pieces of property that schools hold the rights to in my view. 

As far as caps, I don't think it should be capped. This is America after all. If Gatorade wanted to pay Zion Williamson $5M to appear in a commercial, why is it anyone else's business? Why are we worried about 1) what Nike is willing to pay or 2) how much Zion can make off his own face? It's his face.

AU invests in these players because they know it's in their best interest to do so. If Nike wants to put Derrick Brown in an ad that's good for AU IMO and AU should be all for it. AU's investment from the AD is not being affected, it could be argued that it would help AU get a better ROI with the national pub.

I'm just in favor of being able to earn checks from advertising, video games, a cut of jersey sales and things like that. 

Surely an idea worth considering.  This context could work as fame precedes the money.  On the other hand, say Nike (specifically Phil Knight) who is far more active in the University of Oregon's internal affairs than he should be, commits to an add campaign paying 1 million annually to "promote the next level defensive tackle."  The conditions are 1) no reference to the school can be made in the ad and 2) Nike can pick who they want.  So if Bryan Bresee, who is currently committed to Clemson suddenly switches to Oregon and just happens to be selected for the "that guy" is there any suspicion there? A smoking gun perhaps?  Pick up a copy of The University of Nike by Joshua Hunt.  Find the book or read a review if you think Nike is above such immoral gerrymandering.  

Edited by oldaufeller
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this