Marshall: Paying players

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

26 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

 .  I got my Master's from AU on a full scholarship.  AU also paid me a stipend to teach classes as a GTA.  I wrote papers that were accepted into international academic conventions.  But there was nothing precluding me from working an outside job.  In fact, I was recruited and encouraged by our faculty to be a paid tutor in the athletic department a few nights each week.

I have no problem with this at all.  It is a school of higher learning.  Exceptional students should not have to pay for school.   I am assuming your schollies were academic based and not need based. 

 

I don't know the rules at all,  but it seems to me academic conventions and being paid by the school are not really the same as using the schools platform to make personal money.  "in the athletic department"  doesn't sound like an OUTSIDE  job.  I think the athletes are allowed to work for the university also,  but not sure.

 

You were being paid to help other students which in turn helps the school.    You are being paid to write papers that are a platform FOR the university to show off it's education system..  You must be really good at what you do.    A well written and accepted  paper highlights Auburn's great education system.   You don't need to be a student to write academic papers that are accepted.  (tho the education helps).    It seems to my layman mind you are allowed to write ACADEMIC  papers for a school of higher learning  that, by association,  helps  market the education  of said school.     If you really blew your papers and wrote something totally disgusting and  immoral,  no one would ever know but you and the review comity.   When Joe Athlete does something remotely negative,     hell,  even just perceived as negative, the whole internet blows up,  and the school deals with the repercussions.     Cam Newton's father may or may not have done something wrong,  but Auburn caught a lot of flack because Cam was at Auburn when the news /rumors started.  Auburn  had absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

[cole256 17,084]

It's just pitiful IMO that people are ok with literally EVERYBODY making money off the backs of the kids, and then in the same breath not only don't think the kid deserve any of the money but are offended at the thought of the kid getting any money....

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, cole256 said:

It's just pitiful IMO that people are ok with literally EVERYBODY making money off the backs of the kids, and then in the same breath not only don't think the kid deserve any of the money but are offended at the thought of the kid getting any money....

"Family"

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

13 minutes ago, oldaufeller said:

The information TigerHorn is referring came from me.  And it is not false.  It is explicitly stated in some scholarships where conflict of interest is a concern.  I happen to have two of those scholarships with each of my children.  That clause is very common in research scholarships where physical or intellectual product is produced.  The scholarship and any associated stipend is considered compensation in the context of "work for hire."  The inherent problem is you working for someone outside the university who may pay you and lay claim for your work under the same intellectual property and work for hire laws that the university has claimed.  Obviously you had a scholarship that did not put at risk university rights, therefore you did not have this clause.  All PhD clauses with stipends that I have seen have it.  My older son had to get a waiver to from the university to be paid $100 for each of two text books he was asked to review for a publisher.  It was very clearly stated that if he accepted payment for any work performed outside of his scholarship that his scholarship would be revoked and he would be at risk for being sued for damages and loss to the university.  The clause was so important that both sons had to initial the section and sign a contract.  Consider it the equivalent of a non-compete clause that is very common. As a genuine question, did your scholarship contract require you to notify the department of your outside job?  

So that's a very different circumstance than his statement, which was much broader in scope.  Intellectual property is protected and should be, which makes sense.  But in the context of an athletic discussion, there's no intellectual property to be protected if we're talking about profiting from an individual's own likeness.  Now, the scholarship agreement may give rights to the university to use your likeness, and that's fine, but they shouldn't own all rights to your likeness.

As for my scholarship, no, I didn't have to notify my department.  They actually encouraged us to work outside jobs.

[oldaufeller 367]

4 minutes ago, cole256 said:

It's just pitiful IMO that people are ok with literally EVERYBODY making money off the backs of the kids, and then in the same breath not only don't think the kid deserve any of the money but are offended at the thought of the kid getting any money....

I get it - I am of the crowd that thinks $234,000 in compensation including a cash stipend is my thought of "thought of the kid getting any money."  Is the scholarship compensation package inadequate to purchase the likeness and name rights of the athlete?  How much more is required?  If typical management contracts are in place, Garth Brooks and Tom Cruise cannot go out and profit directly off their name and likeness.  They sold it to their management companies for the compensation they receive.  Same thing with movies - the studios own the rights to the name and likeness of the actors used for the scope of the movie.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

I have no problem with this at all.  It is a school of higher learning.  Exceptional students should not have to pay for school.   I am assuming your schollies were academic based and not need based. 

 

I don't know the rules at all,  but it seems to me academic conventions and being paid by the school are not really the same as using the schools platform to make personal money.  "in the athletic department"  doesn't sound like an OUTSIDE  job.  I think the athletes are allowed to work for the university also,  but not sure.

 

You were being paid to help other students which in turn helps the school.    You are being paid to write papers that are a platform FOR the university to show off it's education system..  You must be really good at what you do.    A well written and accepted  paper highlights Auburn's great education system.   You don't need to be a student to write academic papers that are accepted.  (tho the education helps).    It seems to my layman mind you are allowed to write ACADEMIC  papers for a school of higher learning  that, by association,  helps  market the education  of said school.     If you really blew your papers and wrote something totally disgusting and  immoral,  no one would ever know but you and the review comity.   When Joe Athlete does something remotely negative,     hell,  even just perceived as negative, the whole internet blows up,  and the school deals with the repercussions.     Cam Newton's father may or may not have done something wrong,  but Auburn caught a lot of flack because Cam was at Auburn when the news /rumors started.  Auburn  had absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

In the context of who I worked for, yes, this was considered an "outside" job.  Money did not come from the department that I was on scholarship for, so it's a different beast.  Things at the university work in big silos.  That job actually had a lot of potential conflicts of interest because there were athletes in some of the classes that I taught.  Had to very careful about who I tutored.  

But that doesn't stop my point that says other people who were also on scholarship like me still had other outside jobs.  Bartending, waiting tables, etc.  Nothing stopped them from working.

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

1 minute ago, cole256 said:

It's just pitiful IMO that people are ok with literally EVERYBODY making money off the backs of the kids, and then in the same breath not only don't think the kid deserve any of the money but are offended at the thought of the kid getting any money....

I personally am not offended by athletes getting any money.    I am offended that EVERYBODY is making money while the scholar is going into heavy debt for learning at schools of higher education. Tuition and fees keep going up.    Often because of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on athletic dorms, buildings, study halls, cafeterias,  TUTORS.    Student debt is getting to crisis level in the country.  Until everyone gets free education   the $230,000 + for a full ride should be enough.  Every penny the working student makes goes toward tuition, costs and fees. 

 

Ten  years ago or so,  Arkansas had a bunch of football players working at a tractor store or something making $25 per hour ish doing nothing. 

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

11 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So that's a very different circumstance than his statement, which was much broader in scope.  Intellectual property is protected and should be, which makes sense.  But in the context of an athletic discussion, there's no intellectual property to be protected if we're talking about profiting from an individual's own likeness.  Now, the scholarship agreement may give rights to the university to use your likeness, and that's fine, but they shouldn't own all rights to your likeness.

 

How valuable are these athlete's likeness without a university.   

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, oldaufeller said:

I get it - I am of the crowd that thinks $234,000 in compensation including a cash stipend is my thought of "thought of the kid getting any money."  Is the scholarship compensation package inadequate to purchase the likeness and name rights of the athlete?  How much more is required?  If typical management contracts are in place, Garth Brooks and Tom Cruise cannot go out and profit directly off their name and likeness.  They sold it to their management companies for the compensation they receive.  Same thing with movies - the studios own the rights to the name and likeness of the actors used for the scope of the movie.  

Here's my thought.  Is a $234k scholarship worth the inherit risk involved with playing football?  Brain injuries, spinal issues, and potential death are real threats.  Just last year, a kid at Maryland died during off-season practice.  Remember Chuckie Mullins at Ole Miss?  The game left him as a quadriplegic and he died just a few years later.  Zac Etheridge in 2009 got extremely lucky.  I watched him lay virtually motionless on the JHS turf for over 15 minutes and am amazed that he was able to play again.

The risks involved, especially as athletes get bigger, stronger, and faster, are far more than any other on campus.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

How valuable are these athlete's likeness without a university.   

How valuable is a college football team without players?

[oldaufeller 367]

I'm trying to breakdown the "Everybody getting money"

For the student 

• Besides tuition, books, tutors, room and board - other benefits include:
• Health Insurance / Auburn provides a supplemental policy to augment your primary insurance (approx 12k / year, lower for age, higher for risk - we handle deductible and co pay  
• Stipend 5586 (Applies to football only)
• We have on staff doctor, training facilities, meal plans for athletes 
• We pay for catastrophic injury that occurs in an event (200K+ for gym knees, an acl with rehab 35-50K, etc...)
• travel expenses, uniforms and other equipment, etc. 
• Getting/Taking Money

At Auburn who is not athlete:

• Coaches: Bazillions (market value)
• Auburn Students: 9.6 Million went back to the general budget, works out to about 355 dollars per student in offset costs
• Recruiting: $2.2 million
• Team travel: $5.7 million
• Sports equipment: $5.4 million
• Game expenses: $3 million
• Fundraising, marketing promotion: $4.3 million
• Spirit groups: $509,826
• Facilities debt service: $12.9 million
• Direct overhead and administrative expenses: $13.3 million
• Medical, insurance: $980,666
• Membership, dues: $189,617
• Student-athlete meals: $1.5 million
• Other operating expenses: $9.5 million
• Bowl expenses: $2.3 million

Broadcast networks (CBS, ESPN) 

• All the fine folks over there from announcers to ground crew to office staff, logistics, etc.
• NCAA last year in retained earnings got wealthy at the tuned to 83 dollars and a few cents per athlete.

I am absolutely certain in this entire chain I have missed or skipped people or entire groups "getting money" off the athletes back.  I am also pretty sure, looking at the chain, 230K in compensation puts you in the upper tier of this bunch.  Opinions?  NCAA athletics is business these fine folks are on the payroll to make it function.

[oldaufeller 367]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Here's my thought.  Is a $234k scholarship worth the inherit risk involved with playing football?  Brain injuries, spinal issues, and potential death are real threats.  Just last year, a kid at Maryland died during off-season practice.  Remember Chuckie Mullins at Ole Miss?  The game left him as a quadriplegic and he died just a few years later.  Zac Etheridge in 2009 got extremely lucky.  I watched him lay virtually motionless on the JHS turf for over 15 minutes and am amazed that he was able to play again.

The risks involved, especially as athletes get bigger, stronger, and faster, are far more than any other on campus.

Finally a thought with some justification.  + one cookie for Brad.  An argument can be made for risk and future medical compensation.  Perhaps offer insurance for loss of ability like the pros.  This though falls into the "benefit" category not the sales of likeness and name.  Good argument. 

Everyone - Got to step away - dang job - y'all don't hurt anybody while I'm out. Don't anybody get offended if I don't reply - feel free to call me abusive names. Brad appreciate the level tone of your ideas.

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

    How valuable is a college football team without players?

 

Why wouldn't there be players?  there are now. there are plenty of players that would give their eye teeth to get a full ride scholarship to play football and nothing else.    

[AU64 10,122]

13 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

How valuable is a college football team without players?

How valuable is a 17 year old football player?   until he signs with some big name school with fanatical alums who will dole out the bucks to see their teams win.?  

Same kid signs with Kennesaw State...(or transfers from Auburn to some FCS school) and his " market value" is about zero.   The schools are the entities that make players marketable and valuable....not the other way around IMO.   

And nobody seems to want to make the case for the entire 100 man roster of a football team to be paid.     Three or four players at a  dozen or so schools have the potential to make money from generous alums....but what about the other players and other schools?  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

19 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

 

Why wouldn't there be players?  there are now. there are plenty of players that would give their eye teeth to get a full ride scholarship to play football and nothing else.    

Then let them play for AU or anyone else.  But when the quality of the product goes down, are you still going to be willing to pay top dollar to watch it at JHS?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, AU64 said:

How valuable is a 17 year old football player?   until he signs with some big name school with fanatical alums who will dole out the bucks to see their teams win.?  

Same kid signs with Kennesaw State...(or transfers from Auburn to some FCS school) and his " market value" is about zero.   The schools are the entities that make players marketable and valuable....not the other way around IMO.   

And nobody seems to want to make the case for the entire 100 man roster of a football team to be paid.     Three or four players at a  dozen or so schools have the potential to make money from generous alums....but what about the other players and other schools?  

Well I've never made the case that any of them should be paid by the school.  My case is allowing a player to make money in spare time via their likeness.  Whether that's signing autographs, promoting stuff on Instagram, etc, it's all fine and dandy to me.  The market will decide who gets money and how much.  That's called capitalism.  Sorry, but sometimes one person is more valuable than another because their skill/marketability demands it as being so.

And it would seem to me that the 17 year old player is more valuable than you are giving credit for.  The schools offer the platform, but it's the player's talent they need.  Again, like I posted before, there are a ton of kids who will play for just a scholly and be perfectly happy.  But are you, the consumer, going to pay $100+ to watch a sub par product?  Or would you rather see the best of the best?  There's a reason games at FBS schools cost more to attend than your local Division II school.  People want and are willing to pay for the to right to watch the best product.

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

12 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Then let them play for AU or anyone else.  But when the quality of the product goes down, are you still going to be willing to pay top dollar to watch it at JHS?

Goes down? I don't  see how keeping the rules as they are will make quality go down.

 

 and why wouldn't there be players?

[TigerHorn 1,353]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well that's just false.  I speak from experience here.  I got my Master's from AU on a full scholarship.  AU also paid me a stipend to teach classes as a GTA.  I wrote papers that were accepted into international academic conventions.  But there was nothing precluding me from working an outside job.  In fact, I was recruited and encouraged by our faculty to be a paid tutor in the athletic department a few nights each week.  Others in my class who were also on full ride tended bar or waited tables.  Wasn't uncommon in the least to have an outside gig.

Two MS degrees from U of Texas here. First one COMPLETELY precluded any outside work. I was a RA for that one. GTAs can probably get away with a bit more, frankly, less is expected of you too. I produced patentable work, and it all belonged to UT. Second MS was out of my own pocket, as was my AU undergrad. Even in those, if you read the fine print, if you produce any IP, the U owns it. Images are IP just the same way that patentable ideas are. Perhaps even more so because copyrights don't expire, unlike patents. 

It's fine if HS kids want to be capitalists. They can do that all they want to outside a university system that someone else pays for. All it will take is one arrogant college athlete flaunting their $, and angry parents will sue the university over funding from their tuition $ going to support said athlete's capitalistic ways in any way, shape, form or fashion. After all, "social" justice says we all get a piece. 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

21 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

Goes down? I don't  see how keeping the rules as they are will make quality go down.

 

 and why wouldn't there be players?

So imagine this.  The best players decide they want to be allowed to be paid in some form.  NCAA says no.  NFL or someone else creates a legit minor league and the best players choose to go there.  Inherently the quality of the college game would go down.

So the question becomes: are you still going to be willing to pay top dollar to see lesser talent play at AU?

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

How valuable are these athlete's likeness without a university.   

How valuable is a football program without players?

There's only one component that is critical to any of this. Sports will happen with or without colleges involved. Colleges will not have sports without athletes. 

[cole256 17,084]

1 hour ago, oldaufeller said:

I get it - I am of the crowd that thinks $234,000 in compensation including a cash stipend is my thought of "thought of the kid getting any money."  Is the scholarship compensation package inadequate to purchase the likeness and name rights of the athlete?  How much more is required?  If typical management contracts are in place, Garth Brooks and Tom Cruise cannot go out and profit directly off their name and likeness.  They sold it to their management companies for the compensation they receive.  Same thing with movies - the studios own the rights to the name and likeness of the actors used for the scope of the movie.  

So how about you also pay everybody else with stipends and free clssses.....I'm well aware that many of the high ups have that option as well as their families.....it's the perfect set up you're "giving" this 234,000 dollars that you don't really give.....you never had to shell out any money you just allowed them to enter a classroom.....yeah instead of the faculty member that gets paid 250,000 a year to make guys sign dumb contracts pay them in classes and be sure to mention they get a meal plan....I'm sure that position will be highly sought after

 

We made 250,000,000 you get free classes how much more is needed??  Great question. Be happy with what you got right

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, TigerHorn said:

Two MS degrees from U of Texas here. First one COMPLETELY precluded any outside work. I was a RA for that one. GTAs can probably get away with a bit more, frankly, less is expected of you too. I produced patentable work, and it all belonged to UT. Second MS was out of my own pocket, as was my AU undergrad. Even in those, if you read the fine print, if you produce any IP, the U owns it. Images are IP just the same way that patentable ideas are. Perhaps even more so because copyrights don't expire, unlike patents. 

It's fine if HS kids want to be capitalists. They can do that all they want to outside a university system that someone else pays for. All it will take is one arrogant college athlete flaunting their $, and angry parents will sue the university over funding from their tuition $ going to support said athlete's capitalistic ways in any way, shape, form or fashion. After all, "social" justice says we all get a piece. 
 

Now you're just voicing irrelevant political opinions. Poor form. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, TigerHorn said:

Two MS degrees from U of Texas here. First one COMPLETELY precluded any outside work. I was a RA for that one. GTAs can probably get away with a bit more, frankly, less is expected of you too. I produced patentable work, and it all belonged to UT. Second MS was out of my own pocket, as was my AU undergrad. Even in those, if you read the fine print, if you produce any IP, the U owns it. Images are IP just the same way that patentable ideas are. Perhaps even more so because copyrights don't expire, unlike patents. 

It's fine if HS kids want to be capitalists. They can do that all they want to outside a university system that someone else pays for. All it will take is one arrogant college athlete flaunting their $, and angry parents will sue the university over funding from their tuition $ going to support said athlete's capitalistic ways in any way, shape, form or fashion. After all, "social" justice says we all get a piece. 

 

So what IP is the university producing on the player's likeness that needs to be protected?  You're comparing apples and oranges here.  No one is arguing that the player go out and do autograph signings in his jersey or something that the school owns.  But the school does not own everything about the player, including that player's name, face, signature, etc.

[cole256 17,084]

1 hour ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

How valuable are these athlete's likeness without a university.   

The top guys? Very

[McLoofus 35,182]

Mark Richt sang happy birthday to a recruit over the phone. Nick Saban and Gus Malzahn had a dance contest with each other at a recruit's grandfather's birthday party. 

These coaches- millionaires and adults with decades of high level professional success- line up to literally beg these kids to come to their schools. 

Y'all think the players are getting the better end of this deal? Give me a freaking break.