the changes could be so simple
by jt (2019-01-09 12:32:34)

In reply to: Is this the time where the NFL rule gets challenged?  posted by El Kabong


1) allow players to profit off of image/likeness.

2) Mimic the college baseball option where kids can declare for the draft after their senior year but once they step foot on campus they're committing to 3 years at the school.


One issue that I see
by bmoreirish  (2019-01-09 13:13:48)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

In baseball those high school kids go to the minors. The NFL has no such option at present.

Football players also have a shorter playing window than baseball players, so it is more imperative that they start earning as soon as they can.

I think yours is a good idea that does have a model, but I think having a professional developmental league would be necessary. Kids would then be able to decide whether they wanted to start earning right away, or take a shot at a bigger paycheck with stardom in college football.


Ed McCaffrey is trying to change that
by Mossman  (2019-01-09 16:12:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

with his new league


we'll see if Ed puts his money where his mouth is
by jt  (2019-01-09 16:31:35)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

his youngest fits the bill of the kids that would play in that league.


I've always viewed college football as the minors. *
by EricCartman  (2019-01-09 13:20:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


most people do *
by jt  (2019-01-09 13:40:02)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I'll take Jay Bilas's view on NCAA hoops.
by 84david  (2019-01-09 15:30:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

CFB is a major sport. The attendance, viewership and TV deals for major college football equal and in some cases exceed those of the other pro sports leagues (esp MLB and NHL).

Playing in a football minor league would relegate players to podunk towns, 5,000 fans in attendance, and zero TV exposure. It would definitely be a downgrade.


Completely agree. *
by KeoughCharles05  (2019-01-09 13:12:19)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


How do you do number 1 in a way that limits abuse?
by manofdillon  (2019-01-09 12:55:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

What's to stop the bag men in today's game from partnering with a local auto dealership, and offering Bama's top recruits $1 million to put their face on a billboard advertising a local car dealership? Things like giving players a cut of sales of jerseys with their name/number on them seem easier to police. But unless I'm missing something obvious, this feels like a huge loophole that the allows the "haves" in the college football world to further separate themselves from the have nots to the detriment of the competitive balance in the sport.

And I should note I have no principled objection to preventing players from profiting off their image/likeness to the extent they're receiving FMV for legitimate purposes. I just worry about how that could possibly be enforced.


Set a "market rate" for the type of advertising *
by El Kabong  (2019-01-09 14:29:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


does the NCAA set a market rate for advertising during
by jt  (2019-01-09 15:12:06)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

their championship games?


what I'm basically getting at, El K
by jt  (2019-01-09 15:58:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

is that the NCAA is really bad at enforcing rules and if you give them more enforcement they're only going to fuck it up worse.

Let the market dictate.


what's to stop a "bag man" from giving you 1 million to put
by jt  (2019-01-09 13:00:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

your face on a billboard?

If someone was willing to pay you a million for such a task, should someone step in and stop them? I mean, how is it fair that you get a million but everyone else doesn't?

Non wise-ass answer to your question: the fact that everyone can profit off of their image and likeness will mean that the vast majority won't. There is going to be a limited supply of resources available and the sheer number of players eligible for it will limit on it's own.


Because in the real world, there's typically a tie
by manofdillon  (2019-01-09 14:13:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

between what someone is willing to pay to use someone's image and likeness and the value that the use of the image and likeness provides. E.g. I'll pay celebrity X $Y to endorse my product because I think it will generate as much or more revenue through increased sales. That's fundamentally different than paying a college player $1 M to put his face on a billboard that perhaps might drive $100k in additional car sales. That's not a bona fide payment for the use of the player's image and likeness, it's a bribe to get him to come to the school papered over as an image and likeness payment.

I recognize that a small number of players would garner such payments, but if a handful of schools have boosters willing to play that game, those schools would disproportionately and unfairly benefit from such a system.


how is that "fundamentally different?"
by jt  (2019-01-09 15:11:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

sounds exactly the same to me.

Having a top 5 star recruit endorse that business might lead to more attention on the business which would lead to more consumers.

If you happen to think that there are bag men floating all about the deep dark south ready to drop a million dollars on every 5 star recruit, than I guess you and I just disagree.

The market will take care of itself.


I don't know how else to spell it out.
by manofdillon  (2019-01-09 18:11:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

In a normal business transaction for someone's likeness and image, the amount they are paid is rationally related to the value that the person using their likeness and image expects to get from its use. I.e., they're paid what their image and likeness is worth. When Nike pays Tiger, they're not paying him for anything other than the benefit they expect their association with him to bring Nike.

In a college athletics situation, without enforcement mechanisms, one can imagine an image and likeness payment being used to hid bribery. I don't think anyone thinks a booster should be able to pay a guy $1M to go to their school (I'm using big round numbers for simplicity, no I don't think there are tons of guys out there willing to pay high school kids $1M).

But one could easily imagine someone making a payment to a kid for the use of their image and likeness that is far greater than what the use of their image and likeness is actually worth to essentially cover up a bribe. You say "having a top 5 star recruit endorse that business might lead to more attention on the business which would lead to more consumers." Absolutely, and the payment to the 5 star recruit should be rationally related to expected increase in business. If you expect his endorsement to get you $100k more business, pay him $100k, not $1M. But if he gets paid $1M for an anticipated $100k bump in business, we're not really talking about paying him for his image and likeness.

I just don't see how you can say "let kids get paid for their image and likeness and we don't need any rules, the market will sort it out," unless you're just fine accepting that there will be some non-zero number of instances in which bag men and boosters are paying kids "for the use of their imagine and likeness" not for bona fide business purposes (i.e. the value they expect to get from the kid's endorsement), but to bribe the kid to go to their school.


yeah, basically you want to control what someone can earn
by jt  (2019-01-09 22:03:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

in order to maintain your idea of "fairness." I would imagine that you would feel differently if it were someone willing to pay you for your image and likeness.

Why should I care what your employer pays you? Should I start to discuss how unfair it is that you make more than someone else? Is your employer bribing you to stay with him/her/it? I suppose if what you provide is extremely valuable and a rare skill set, perhaps that is the case.

Why should you care what someone is willing to pay someone for their image and likeness? Who cares if it is a million dollars? Do you think that there is just an unlimited amount of money that would tip the scales? Don't you think that someone would have to be very talented in order to justify that kind of investment? Who are you to dictate how much someone else can make off of their talent?

You basically just want to control what money other people can make.


I want to say you can't bribe kids to come to your school
by manofdillon  (2019-01-10 10:17:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If we're opening up college football to a world where alumni and boosters can just flat out pay top recruits in order to get them to come to their school, we should just blow the whole thing up. So yeah, in that regard, I do want to limit what college athletes can get paid. Do you disagree?

I'd be fine with some sort of increased stipend system. I'm fine with bona fide image and likeness payments (e.g. some sort of organized licensing model like the professional players associations have). I'm fine with letting top recruits who want to get paid go straight to the NFL (I like the baseball model better than the basketball model).

But you've utterly failed to respond to my example where something couched as an "image and likeness" payment clearly is not, because the amount of the payment far exceeds the economic benefit that one could reasonable expect to obtain through the use of the image and likeness. That's like me hiring a company owned by a local politician to do some work on my house and paying them 10x what the work is worth, not because I want my house fixed really well, but because I want the politician to do me a favor. We could just say "hey free market, he's willing to pay it, that must be what it's worth." But no rational person would look at it that way. We know the payment is for something other than fixing the house. A payment to an athlete for the use of their image and likeness in an amount that far exceeds the potential benefit from the use of the image and likeness isn't a payment for the image and likeness, it's clearly a payment for something else.


I don't know how else to explain this to you
by jt  (2019-01-10 10:31:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

if someone is willing to pay a kid a million dollars for his autograph, then who the hell are you to tell him he can't get that money? Do we do the same thing for child actors? Child music prodigies? Child math geniuses? What makes athletes so unique that we have to monitor their income?

Are you willing to have your own compensation held to the light in such a way? I think your employer is paying you more than market rate and you should be paid less. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Let me help you out here--by giving everyone the right to profit off of their image and likeness, only a select few actually will, because the demand for everyone will be minimal. By giving a stipend to everyone (as you foolishly suggest) you would actually spend a lot more and still have the same corruption problems that now exist.

We don't have child millionaire actors walking around all over the place for a reason, in other words. You have to have unique skill and talent to be able to demand that kind of pay at any age.

The answer is less bureaucracy manofdillon, not more.


Comparing sports to acting or music seems flawed.
by smithwick  (2019-01-10 12:06:26)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Do Taylor Swift and Katy Perry have their free market value subject to a salary cap due to competiveness reasons? I don’t disagree with all of your points but let’s recognize that sports is its own animal without comparison to other industries.


maybe we shouldn't have a salary cap
by jt  (2019-01-10 12:29:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

"for competitiveness reasons."

Who does that salary cap protect? Certainly not the fans; ticket prices have been going up for years.

I bet you movie studios sure wish they had salary caps in place for actors. Would you argue that there isn't the same amount of competition in show business as in professional sports?

There's a reason the MLBPA has never agreed to a cap, and there's a reason why they never should have changed from having an attorney leading their union to having a former player lead their union.


It was bs that Samardzjia got paid so much by the Cubs
by irishrock  (2019-01-09 13:11:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

While still playing football. Just think how that made his teammates fell that they didn’t have the type of money he did during the ‘06 season


I doubt it because they didn't play two sports like he did
by btd  (2019-01-09 20:30:18)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If he got some exception to be a pro in baseball that they couldn't also get, then they would have been upset. Him being pro in a different sport than them has no logical reason to upset them. It wasn't that he was still playing baseball at ND and being paid for baseball.