around4ever 4,139 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 IMO, this would only make the rich richer. Smaller schools may not be able to pay the same as the top D1 schools without taking money from other areas or raising tuition, donations, ticket prices, etc. The stipends would not be universal. Star football players with a valuable "likeness" would get more than the women golfers. Which, to me, makes this a Title IX issue. The cost of living where a school is located would dictate how much a player would get. Who will put a limit ($10K for example) on the stipend. What if UT said the cost of living in Austin is high so we need to give them an extra $5K. UAT could pay more (in addition to what the REC already pays) just by the income their athletic department makes. I see this being a total disaster and the downfall of college athletics as we know them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,648 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Quote: " Star football players with a valuable "likeness" would get more than the women golfers." That's not how I read it. I think every scholarship athlete at the school will get $5,000 for use of their name and image. Heisman contender or third-string volleyball player, you still get $5,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eibua12 81 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 So does this allow a star player to copyright or trademark their likeness and forbid the university from using it, especially if they decline the $5,000? I mean come on a star and make way more than $5,000 a year especially if receiving cut of jersey revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CadillacCone 0 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 These athletes will blow the money on drugs, jewelry, etc. This is ridiculous. College athletics will go to crap if this happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keesler 5,926 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 IMO, this would only make the rich richer. Smaller schools may not be able to pay the same as the top D1 schools without taking money from other areas or raising tuition, donations, ticket prices, etc. The stipends would not be universal. Star football players with a valuable "likeness" would get more than the women golfers. Which, to me, makes this a Title IX issue. The cost of living where a school is located would dictate how much a player would get. Who will put a limit ($10K for example) on the stipend. What if UT said the cost of living in Austin is high so we need to give them an extra $5K. UAT could pay more (in addition to what the REC already pays) just by the income their athletic department makes. I see this being a total disaster and the downfall of college athletics as we know them. The way I read it, every student-athlete gets the same $$. So, Kenny Hill gets the same as the bench warmer on the softball team.Honestly, I don't really care who can afford it and who can't as long as the AU administration makes the necessary provisions to pay out equal $$ to stay competitive with programs like Texass. IMO, this could become a huge recruiting tool for the big time/wealthy programs. I mean, if Texass plans to pay their athletes $10,000/yr in addition to scholly $$ young athletes in all sports will see that as a bonus when comparing it to other programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 How long before other schools jump on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keesler 5,926 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 How long before other schools jump on? Once talk of these possible payouts hit the recruiting trail, I think most of the top programs will offer competitive "incentives" to the high schoo athletes and more importantly to their parents and "legal guardians." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 How long before other schools jump on? Once talk of these possible payouts hit the recruiting trail, I think most of the top programs will offer competitive "incentives" to the high schoo athletes and more importantly to their parents and "legal guardians." Once again, how long? I would expect to see some quick action by other schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravad 77 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 The way I read it, every student-athlete gets the same $$. So, Kenny Hill gets the same as the bench warmer on the softball team. At bama the "bench warmer on the softball team" might bring in more publicity than say J. Coker. LOL!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keesler 5,926 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 How long before other schools jump on? Once talk of these possible payouts hit the recruiting trail, I think most of the top programs will offer competitive "incentives" to the high schoo athletes and more importantly to their parents and "legal guardians." Once again, how long? I would expect to see some quick action by other schools. Texass is testing the waters, I promise you aTm will follow rapidly. Lord knows both of those schools have the bags of $$ to throw around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Sorry.....IMHO......This begins the DEATH of College Football as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Sorry.....IMHO......This begins the DEATH of College Football as we know it. agree....and much sooner than I expected. Sounds like a few rich schools looking for a way to get ahead of their opponents...half the big 12 will not be able to follow suit IMO. If this starts say...next year....I expect we will see a National Collegiate Football Conference within a few years consisting of about 18-20 teams nationwide playing each other like the NFL with all games within the "conference". and the rest of the schools creating their own structure not too different from what we have now....except Texas, Bama, Ohio State, maybe AU and who knows the rest of them. But, there will be some pretty good teams in the non NCFC to keep the game affordable and interesting. JMO but if AU were to get into an NCFC I guess the school could kiss me good by.....would just as soon follow the Carolina Panthers since they are closer and at least the NLF makes no pretense about being an amateur sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
around4ever 4,139 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Quote: " Star football players with a valuable "likeness" would get more than the women golfers." That's not how I read it. I think every scholarship athlete at the school will get $5,000 for use of their name and image. Heisman contender or third-string volleyball player, you still get $5,000. OK. I read over it quickly. I took it as the schools could market certain athletes and pay them but I guess it means that each school has the right to market athletes. If a school decides not to market any athletes, it is exempt from the payment. From the article linked - "So every school will be up for this, though schools that don't market a players likeness won't be required to compensate their players." What are the Income Tax implications from this payment? Scholarships are basically tax free as long as the athlete has a declared major and appears to be trying to get a degree. Will this payment be treated the same or will it be considered income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I think the trending in the courts will lead to some form of pay-for-play at the college level, like it or not. I just hope the courts and the NCAA (or whatever governing organization might replace the NCAA if it falls apart) can allow/provide for two things: 1. All players in all sports at a school receive the same amount, rather than having individual players negotiate for higher "salaries" based on their marketability/talents/negotiation skills as in the NFL/NBA/MLB. 2. All schools pay the same amount (with some adjustments based on cost of living in that region/state/city.), to avoid schools getting into bidding wars for recruits. In other words: Parity for all schools in an NCAA divisional class, and parity for all athletes in all sports and schools. I don't want college sports becoming a dog-eat-dog system of bidding wars, the rich getting richer, and the poor losing out merely because of the checkbook. Even the NFL installed salary caps on teams to try to maintain some sense of parity. But I don't know if the courts would permit such restrictions, or would rule instead that each player is entitled to negotiate individually what his/her individual abilities and image are worth. (Can you image a situation where a school might actually NOT get behind a player's Heisman run because they can't afford to raise the salary of a player who wants to re-negotiate his value after winning the Heisman? Unlikely, but within the realm of possibility if college football turned into a free-for-all of individual contract negotiations.) Personally, I'd prefer a system that paid athletes the same hourly wage that work-study students make for their time on the practice field, i.e., treat it as a work-study job. I do realize that the time they have to dedicate to their sport makes it harder for athletes to get part-time jobs, as other students might, for a little pocket money beyond the essentials covered by scholarships. I don't know if that pittance would satisfy the courts or the athletes, however. Another option might be to allow the pro leagues to sign and start paying athletes while still playing in college. Players could finish out their eligibility at the college ranks while drawing salary advances from the pros. It wouldn't cost the schools anything, would preserve parity among the schools, and let the star athletes receive money for their image from their future pro teams. Legally I also wonder if schools paying players for their image might open the door to college athletes negotiating private contracts for product endorsement or for marketing their autograph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jojo1515 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Quiet fan...some good points...however the NFL teams giving college players money would then mean the draft would disappear as teams had already paid the players to be their employees ahead of time. Not only would that ruin college football, but the NFL would be destroyed by uneven distribution of players from college. A lot more at stake there than just some college players making some extra money (not to mention the possibility of career ending injury before ever even practicing for said team) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgr4lfe 220 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Sorry.....IMHO......This begins the DEATH of College Football as we know it. More so the death of non revenue generating sports, I.e. Golf, tennis, etc. Big time football will thrive and take money as they generate MOST of it at most D1 schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,648 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Right now, this proposal is a violation of NCAA rules. It's a benefit to scholarship athletes that's not available to all students. That rule could change, of course, but right now Texas can't do it and nobody else can either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.