- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Florida Rep Proposes bill to pay college athletes
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:14 pm to TchPowDog
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:14 pm to TchPowDog
quote:
To a lot of these kids, their sport is all they know and all they're good at. College is a necessary step to get to the next level. Not to mention, a TON of money is being made directly off these kids' performance.
No one is forcing you to work, yet you still get paid to work.
You know what college is SUPPOSED to be about? Getting an education so that you LEARN to be good at something else. How many of these kids go on to play at the next level? What will they do if they don't apply themselves to learn something else? And how do they afford college in the first place? They afford it based on the revenue the school makes off of athletics. That's the way this all works.
No one is forcing anyone to work, you say? I suppose that is true in the most technical sense. But how does the economy function if people aren't working? How do you live if you don't work to make money?
You see, people pay for entertainment. We know that. But people don't NEED entertainment. Athletes don't provide a service to the country. Workers provide essential services. What they do is far more important than what athletes do. But we don't have a free agent market dictating our salary. No one adds up the losses that would be felt if the entire service industry went on strike. No one views the average worker as a revenue generator, and yet, the world cannot function without them.
If you get hurt doing the one thing you're good at, I'm sorry for you. Most people work very hard to be good at enough things that, short of being paralyzed, they can always find work somewhere.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 1:17 pm
2
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:21 pm to Metaloctopus
Living in South Florida I would say some of these high schools are already paying 
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:34 pm to ELchapoLSU
Why not just put a cap on the amount that a player can get for there likeness? Make sure the playing field remains level?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:39 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
Life isn't always fair
This is beyond a lame excuse.
These athletes are at the heart of a multi-billion dollar industry and they can't even make $1 off their jersey sales.
I think you're confused on what the bill actually says. The bill says college athletes cannot be forbidden the opportunity to make money off their own likeness.
That doesn't mean college athletes will have salaries. It means college athletes can get endorsements, advertise themselves, etc.
quote:
If athletes are paid, then negotiations start, and it becomes like a professional league where players are trying to leverage the market.
This is not what the bill is proposing.
quote:
Soldiers go across the world to get shot at so that people can have the freedom to complain about their lives, and they don't make jack diddly squat
They DO get paid, it isn't near enough, but they do get paid. They also get a lot of insurance and tuition benefits.
I think you have some reading to do.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:43 pm to ELchapoLSU
I hope they have enough to pay the females an equivalent wage. Otherwise pay to play is a moot point. Title 9 says hello.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:48 pm to OchoDedos
quote:
hope they have enough to pay the females an equivalent wage. Otherwise pay to play is a moot point. Title 9 says hello
Who is paying a wage?
Title 9 has zero to do with this.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:51 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
You know what college is SUPPOSED to be about? Getting an education so that you LEARN to be good at something else. How many of these kids go on to play at the next level? What will they do if they don't apply themselves to learn something else? And how do they afford college in the first place? They afford it based on the revenue the school makes off of athletics. That's the way this all works.
No one is forcing anyone to work, you say? I suppose that is true in the most technical sense. But how does the economy function if people aren't working? How do you live if you don't work to make money?
You see, people pay for entertainment. We know that. But people don't NEED entertainment. Athletes don't provide a service to the country. Workers provide essential services. What they do is far more important than what athletes do. But we don't have a free agent market dictating our salary. No one adds up the losses that would be felt if the entire service industry went on strike. No one views the average worker as a revenue generator, and yet, the world cannot function without them.
If you get hurt doing the one thing you're good at, I'm sorry for you. Most people work very hard to be good at enough things that, short of being paralyzed, they can always find work somewhere.
Again, you're going down a rabbit hole of ignorance.
Read the bill. It's not promoting "paying of players". I would be against players having salaries. But that's not what the bill is about.
Do you think Leonard Fournette, in his time at LSU, should be able to sell his autographed jersey? If he wanted to do that, don't you think he should have that right?
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:58 pm to CalRipkenJr
quote:
EXACTLY, it's akin to the marijuana laws in Colorado and select other states...it's legal just not allowed within certain organizations (NFL, NCAA, most jobs)
Well the states have made it “legal”, but the Federal government has not. So there’s that too. How about the Feds just sit back and wait until every state has made it legal and they then come lay the hammer down on all of them?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:20 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
Just like I said yesterday in the California "bill" thread, this is essentially trying to pass a bill for a law that ALREADY exists. It is not illegal to pay college athletes. It is against NCAA rules.
I dont understand why people do not understand this
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:01 pm to TchPowDog
"Make money off their own likeness"....so, Saban owns several Mercedes dealerships in Ala. How much will he pay 10 5 star recruits to do commercials for his dealership? Say Smart at UGA owns a Honda dealership...what does he counter offer those same 10 5 star recruits? Factor in all the oil rich Aggies in Texas, is there a limit on how much Jimbo's boosters will offer? This is far from simple, it is opening a Black Hole to the unknown. Do you think the Jimmy Sexton's of the world will just sit back and let all that potential commission money go away?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:04 pm to D500MAG
quote:
setting athletes aside, how many other college students are forced to give up their NIL rights?
College players aren't forced to do it either. They choose to to take advantage of the platform the NCAA and the university gives them. If they could market themselves without those things they would but they can't so they don't.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:10 pm to TchPowDog
quote:
This is beyond a lame excuse.
Again, not an excuse, it's reality.
quote:
These athletes are at the heart of a multi-billion dollar industry and they can't even make $1 off their jersey sales.
I think you're confused on what the bill actually says. The bill says college athletes cannot be forbidden the opportunity to make money off their own likeness.
Once again, that money goes toward their scholarships and all of the fancy equipment and facilities that they love so much, they wanted to commit to that school. If you just pay each player based off of his jersey sales, then the Title IV people will come, screaming "inequality", and jealousy starts sprouting from bench players whose jerseys aren't selling.
You see, I'm not arguing that it isn't fair that a player not be allowd to benefit from his or her likeness. My exact words were that it is "impractical". It's not fair, but it's the way it is, for all of the reasons I've outlined.
quote:
They DO get paid, it isn't near enough, but they do get paid. They also get a lot of insurance and tuition benefits.
I think you have some reading to do.
Do you know what the expression I used means? It means "not enough to speak about". Actually you can google it, and you'll find a definition that says "a small worthless amount". I know full well they get paid. It's just next to nothing, and not nearly fair considering that they are putting their LIVES ON THE LINE. And they do NOT get "a lot" of insurance benefits. They do get free tuition. So do people with athletic scholarships, who are NOT putting their lives on the line. But insurance? Our veterans have been left out in the cold for decades.
I think it is you who has some reading to do.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:15 pm to TchPowDog
quote:
Again, you're going down a rabbit hole of ignorance.
Read the bill. It's not promoting "paying of players". I would be against players having salaries. But that's not what the bill is about.
Do you think Leonard Fournette, in his time at LSU, should be able to sell his autographed jersey? If he wanted to do that, don't you think he should have that right?
Once again, you fail to address the crux of my points, instead choosing to pinpoint a small portion of it.
You are arguing semantics. It IS paying players. I just addressed that point in my above comment, that I'm not saying it's fair that a player not be able to benefit from his jersey sales, or whatever else. I'm saying it isn't feasible. Read my above comment as to why. I'm not going to repeat the whole point.
Keep in mind that these athletes aren't paying a dime on the production of their jerseys. They aren't running a business. The university is marketing THEM. Big schools attract attention for athletes. They sell on reputation. So while you can argue that the university profits from the athletes, it goes both ways. If it were not for things like Title IV, which I mentioned above, this wouldn't be such a can of worms. If you have a problem, you should direct it at those people.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:37 pm to TchPowDog
Then the school should benefit from the profit also. I see players names taken off the jerseys in the future.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:40 pm to jimbeam
quote:
Death of amateur athletics
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:42 pm to ELchapoLSU
My main question is how many of these people that spend the billions of dollars.made by college football, spend it to see Leonard Fournette or Tua or any one player?
Would the large majority still cheer for and spend money to support their favorite university without the "star" "slaves" of college football?
The answer is a resounding yes, the players aren't what makes college football profitable, it the tradition, pageantry, inherited fandom passed down from generations.
Take the names off the jerseys, put dark visors over the faces and remove the media availability and the sport is still one of the highest earning in the land.
Would the large majority still cheer for and spend money to support their favorite university without the "star" "slaves" of college football?
The answer is a resounding yes, the players aren't what makes college football profitable, it the tradition, pageantry, inherited fandom passed down from generations.
Take the names off the jerseys, put dark visors over the faces and remove the media availability and the sport is still one of the highest earning in the land.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:47 pm to cgoat3
quote:
If the superstar football player is making ten times what the beach volleyballer player is making off her image, well that is just not fair
Why is this unfair? All the NIL stuff really says is an athlete can make any money that the market allows them to. If no one wants to pay softball players to be on their ads then so be it.
It actually makes the NCAA’s job easier because they dint have to try to police this shite.
On top of that, there might be an initial surge of 5 stars getting big bucks before ever playing a down but soon the “investors” will see that a lot of these guys won’t play right away and some will be complete busts. After a few years, the deals will only be offered to proven commodities.
For example, Marcel Brooks was a 5 star guy. In year 1 of this stuff Business A might give Brooks $100k to be in their ads. But they’d feel that they wasted their money at this point cuz no one outside of die hard fans even knows Brooks exists. In the future, this business will probably save their money for a guy with actual name recognition, not just potential.
I don’t think the Nike issue is huge because I feel like if Nike bought all the 5 stars for Oregon then other schools would end their Nike affiliations and Nike would end up losing money. They aren’t gonna ruin their relationships with other schools because if fandom.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:48 pm to TigerDat
quote:
Would the large majority still cheer for and spend money to support their favorite university without the "star" "slaves" of college football?
Look at basketball before Will Wade brought in star players.
People most certainly will not spend money on a team that isn’t good.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:54 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
Look at basketball before Will Wade brought in star players.
People most certainly will not spend money on a team that isn’t good.
Not as much but still spend copious amounts. Even at the end of Les Miles career here there was endless bitching but the football tickets still sold out, and tv rating still stayed high.
Football and basketball are 2 totally diff animals
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:55 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
If you just pay each player based off of his jersey sales,
This is where you are wrong. The school itself will not pay the players anything. It’ll be businesses and individuals outside of the school that will pay the players for the use of their likeness and image.
Page 3 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News