Jump to content

California's 'Fair Pay to Play Act'


tdhoosier

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 454
  • Created
  • Last Reply
29 minutes ago, JugRox said:

This is an idea peddled by Jay Bilas and ESPN to push the idea of paying athletes.

Its an easy answer........how much of the IU fan base would't have supported IU last year without Romeo? Let's say he went to UofL, what portion of the IU fan base would have not supported IU? 25%? 15%? 5%? .....or less that %1?

IU fans didn't suddenly support IU because of Romeo. Same with Duke.....the college brands are worth WAY more than some one and done kid. 

Sure, there might be a slight up tick or down tick....but does that have to do with on court performance or a kid that's on campus for 8 months.

Take Virginia....they won the national title....do you think someone on that team would have been paid more than Zion? How about Butler a few years ago....would anyone on that team be making more than someone from Kansas? How about the Cinderellas that happen in the NCAA tourney? Do you think it will be "fair" if some player from a bigger school gets paid more then the entire team of a smaller  school? Is that "fair".....

 

You have zero product to support without players. Romeo, Zeller, or some random dude named Steve. All players should have the right to make money off of their likeness. This isn’t the university paying them. This is private business paying the athlete for promotional materials, or EA paying to have a college football game with real player likeness, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Well again Zion or Romeo had other choices but they chose to go to college.  Put it this way Zion got so much free advertising in his year at Duke that he would not have gotten if he did not go to college.  if he decided to skip college and just work out for the NBA do you think he would been all over TV that year.  I know it is different but my daughter is on full ride at IU which consist of cost of attendance which at IU is $25,000.  since she does not live in a dorm or take the meal play all of that money that went to those things go directly to her.  Before each semester she gets paid over $11,000.  I am sure that these athletes get enough money to pay for their living expenses and to live off of so they are not destitute.  With all of the other perks that come along to these athletes they get compensated around $50,000 a year.  I don't know about you I don't know many college students making that much going to college.

It’s capitalism. You don’t know many college kids making 50k plus because mainly athletes are the ones who can make more than this. This isn’t the universities paying the students. It’s businesses paying the student athlete. This is like the NCAA telling you and your daughter she can’t have a job while in college.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Feathery said:

You have zero product to support without players. Romeo, Zeller, or some random dude named Steve. All players should have the right to make money off of their likeness. This isn’t the university paying them. This is private business paying the athlete for promotional materials, or EA paying to have a college football game with real player likeness, etc. 

Totally disagree because in college the name on the front of the jersey is what sells.  You don't have 110,00 at an OSU football game for individuals but they are going for OSU.  If the top talents in the country were at the level of UW or Iowa recruits and they went to OSU and they won they would still sell out.  Just look at some of the past final fours and they sell out way before any teams are selected for the tournament.  The year Oregon, Gonzaga and South Carolina all made the final four the venue was still sold out. Why, because fans care about the game and the name on the front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

why because I agree with him.  Just because you don't think that way doesn't mean your thoughts are correct ones and others are not correct.

You better look through my past posts.

Just now, Feathery said:

It’s capitalism. You don’t know many college kids making 50k plus because mainly athletes are the ones who can make more than this. This isn’t the universities paying the students. It’s businesses paying the student athlete. This is like the NCAA telling you and your daughter she can’t have a job while in college.  

And Greg Anthony says hello, IIRC UNLV got in trouble for Greg having some sort of T-shirt business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Totally disagree because in college the name on the front of the jersey is what sells.  You don't have 110,00 at an OSU football game for individuals but they are going for OSU.  If the top talents in the country were at the level of UW or Iowa recruits and they went to OSU and they won they would still sell out.  Just look at some of the past final fours and they sell out way before any teams are selected for the tournament.  The year Oregon, Gonzaga and South Carolina all made the final four the venue was still sold out. Why, because fans care about the game and the name on the front.

Did IU make money off a #0 jersey in the gift shop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Totally disagree because in college the name on the front of the jersey is what sells.  You don't have 110,00 at an OSU football game for individuals but they are going for OSU.  If the top talents in the country were at the level of UW or Iowa recruits and they went to OSU and they won they would still sell out.  Just look at some of the past final fours and they sell out way before any teams are selected for the tournament.  The year Oregon, Gonzaga and South Carolina all made the final four the venue was still sold out. Why, because fans care about the game and the name on the front.

Great, you have a jersey with indiana on it but you need a person to play it. That person should be able to do commercials for Andy Mohr if Andy wants to do that. 

People play the games we enjoy, not institutions. Again, the you would follow no matter what isn’t the ones that would pay the player. It would be businesses paying. So I’m not sure why you are against another human being making more of they have the opportunity? Let the market decide what is fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rico said:

Did IU make money off a #0 jersey in the gift shop?

They made it off it saying Indiana on it because IU fans will by jerseys of IU.  Again no one is making these players play college basketball and if they are unhappy about it then go to the G-League or over seas.  Do you think Zion would get as much pub if he was in the G-league or went over seas than he did being on ESPN and playing for Duke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

They made it off it saying Indiana on it because IU fans will by jerseys of IU.  Again no one is making these players play college basketball and if they are unhappy about it then go to the G-League or over seas.  Do you think Zion would get as much pub if he was in the G-league or went over seas than he did being on ESPN and playing for Duke

Oh, so the #0 isn't Langford...gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Feathery said:

Great, you have a jersey with indiana on it but you need a person to play it. That person should be able to do commercials for Andy Mohr if Andy wants to do that. 

People play the games we enjoy, not institutions. Again, the you would follow no matter what isn’t the ones that would pay the player. It would be businesses paying. So I’m not sure why you are against another human being making more of they have the opportunity? Let the market decide what is fair. 

Because it will lead to more and more creating and allow the likes of Duke and UK to be even more at an advantage.  If I wanted to watch profession players I will watch the NBA or the NFL but I rather watch the college game played by college student athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Feathery said:

You have zero product to support without players. Romeo, Zeller, or some random dude named Steve. All players should have the right to make money off of their likeness. This isn’t the university paying them. This is private business paying the athlete for promotional materials, or EA paying to have a college football game with real player likeness, etc. 

I guarantee you there are thousands of kids in the state of Indiana that would be more than happy to get a full ride and play for Indiana and not make money off their "likeness". They would be more than happy to have "evil" Indiana University give them a free education, play basketball on national TV, and take advantage of them.

Joe, who owns a car dealership and happens to be a booster of local college, pays recruit 50K for their "likeness" but never uses it. Just gives him the cash.

Now, multiply that times the number of boosters and money for a college. 

The top 20 schools with the most money (football money) will basically form their own division and everyone else will be second fiddle. 

This will DESTROY college athletics......and Indiana a long with it. Just so some kid who's going to be on campus for 8 months gets his NBA money early?

And there hasn't been a NCAA college basketball video game in over a decade. 

If this thing passes....I hope all of you that supported it remembers this.... when IU plays in the D2 NCAA tourney on the ocho..... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rico said:

Oh, so the #0 isn't Langford...gotcha.

Well who would be #40 because we have had a few great players wearing that jersey.  Yes I do believe college fans pay for the front and not the back of the jersey.  Players come and go but fans keep coming back every year because it says Indiana on the jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rico said:

Oh, so the #0 isn't Langford...gotcha.

So, you are saying if Langford played for UofL.....no one would buy an IU jersey?

Or would they just pick a different number?

Or maybe it was Curtis Jones reliving some highlights..... lol

Or maybe Max Beilfeldt or Will Sheehey or Kory Barnett or whoever wears it this year....or the next.....or the next.....or the next....or the next.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Because it will lead to more and more creating and allow the likes of Duke and UK to be even more at an advantage.  If I wanted to watch profession players I will watch the NBA or the NFL but I rather watch the college game played by college student athletes.

Actually it will be the exact opposite. Duke, UK, UNC, Bama, Ohio St, Clemson are all cheating already. This would help level the playing field. 

Andy Mohr could pay Landers $200k to be a spokesman for his dealership. Mark Cuban could pay a player for whatever endorsement. 

This will give universities who follow the rules an avenue to compete on level playing field with those that are cheating. Because it will not be cheating anymore. The feds will not care because everything will be above board and taxes can be filed. 

It will still be student athletes because they still have to go to class. Hence they are a student and an athlete. Nowhere in the term student athlete is there the word amateurism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think will hurt the next tier of teams like UVA or Villanova.  The kids who went there who was a 4 star player who could have went to Duke or UK but chose the UVA might think twice if they can get paid.   Will these kids care about playing time or will they go to UK if they can promise them $50,00 more than UVA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Feathery said:

Actually it will be the exact opposite. Duke, UK, UNC, Bama, Ohio St, Clemson are all cheating already. This would help level the playing field. 

Andy Mohr could pay Landers $200k to be a spokesman for his dealership. Mark Cuban could pay a player for whatever endorsement. 

This will give universities who follow the rules an avenue to compete on level playing field with those that are cheating. Because it will. It be cheating anymore. The feds will not care because everything will be above board and taxes can be filed. 

It will still be student athletes because they still have to go to class. Hence they are a student and an athlete. Nowhere in the term student athlete is there the word amateurism. 

But what if UK has more big money donors and can pay Landers $500,000.  When it comes to college sports this is not what I want and if it comes to this I will have to seriously think about not watching it any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Feathery said:

Actually it will be the exact opposite. Duke, UK, UNC, Bama, Ohio St, Clemson are all cheating already. This would help level the playing field. 

Andy Mohr could pay Landers $200k to be a spokesman for his dealership. Mark Cuban could pay a player for whatever endorsement. 

This will give universities who follow the rules an avenue to compete on level playing field with those that are cheating. Because it will. It be cheating anymore. The feds will not care because everything will be above board and taxes can be filed. 

I can see it now.....

Dirty Recruiter: "Hey, we will give you 100k under the table if you come to Duke"

Recruit: "no, i already have too much money. I don't want that extra 100k for going to Duke that's already paying me $200k for endorsements from ESPN"

........ lololololol

Sure....sounds about right......

It will be the schools with the most money. Who is that.....just follow football money.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rico said:

Better be checking some other avenues of entertainment....

Probably will and I would hope the NCAA say if your school allows this then you can't participate in NCAA events.  I would also hope IU would never go for this and stay in the NCAA and let the one and done factories have their own league.  I just find it stupid to change the whole landscape of college athletics for may be 30 kids a year in college basketball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just passionate about college basketball and when I have a strong viewpoint I will not back down from that.  Saying that I know I won't change your mid and you will definitely won't change my mind on this topic so it is silly to go in circles on this topic.  One last ting on apparel sales do you not think IU sold any apparel in Crean's first couple of years when there was not one player on the roster that would garner any sales.  Also if our fans only cared about IU when we had star players then why was AH full for that first year under Crean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, rico said:

Well Scott has a new friend.

I see both sides of this.  It's certainly not a cut & dried issue.  Kids choosing college are obviously getting a free education and a lot of free publicity that they likely would not get in the G-league or even overseas.  If it was just a question of getting paid cash compensation, none of the really elite kids would bother with college.  It's obvious they see value in taking the college route as it exists today.

...and yes, the bigger schools make some money, although how much profit is shown is up for debate.  I've yet to hear a solution that is fair and equitable for all involved parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Probably will and I would hope the NCAA say if your school allows this then you can't participate in NCAA events.  I would also hope IU would never go for this and stay in the NCAA and let the one and done factories have their own league.  I just find it stupid to change the whole landscape of college athletics for may be 30 kids a year in college basketball.

The NCAA is the organization that has let it get to this point.  Sad, but true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...