- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Some questions for you (the ticket holder) regarding paying players.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:22 pm
Should a player be allowed to utilize the school colors, uniform, branding in conjunction with their "image"?
Schools can just stop using a players direct image and this likely solves that issue for the school, but if a player wants to cash in on their "image", shouldn't it be just their image and not a connection to the school itself.
Will you continue to purchase tickets to support college sports if this advances to paying players for play?
My personal thoughts -
go head and use your likeness and image, but you cannot use that image in conjunction with any imagery associated with the university.
Schools should not use the image of specific players. Stick to your branding minus specific players.
Specific players don't sell additional tickets. Winning TEAMS do, but individual players are not as valuable as they think when it comes to making money for a major program.
I really think if this evolves into paying players on top of the free education, travel, health care, training, education/athletic resources, food, board, status, tv time, etc...I'm done.
I don't care for pro-sports now, so I cant see feeling the same about college athletics once these already compensated athletes receive a monetary reward, as well.
Schools can just stop using a players direct image and this likely solves that issue for the school, but if a player wants to cash in on their "image", shouldn't it be just their image and not a connection to the school itself.
Will you continue to purchase tickets to support college sports if this advances to paying players for play?
My personal thoughts -
go head and use your likeness and image, but you cannot use that image in conjunction with any imagery associated with the university.
Schools should not use the image of specific players. Stick to your branding minus specific players.
Specific players don't sell additional tickets. Winning TEAMS do, but individual players are not as valuable as they think when it comes to making money for a major program.
I really think if this evolves into paying players on top of the free education, travel, health care, training, education/athletic resources, food, board, status, tv time, etc...I'm done.
I don't care for pro-sports now, so I cant see feeling the same about college athletics once these already compensated athletes receive a monetary reward, as well.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 1:23 pm
19
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:24 pm to prplngldtigr
I would think the school would get their cut if it's their licensed and trademarked items that are used.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:29 pm to prplngldtigr
The players now should pay tuition, room and board, faciltites fees, etc.. whatever other costs the school incurs to promote these kids. They want profits? Well welcome to costs as well. They will probably back off. I want to watch amateur athletics. I already have professional leagues.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:29 pm to prplngldtigr
So you think CFB is not de facto a professional undertaking?
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:34 pm to LSUStar
Most college athletes will have ZERO demand for their images and thus will not benefit from this new rule. It might make 1-3 players on each team some money but it is not gonna make the overwhelming majority any money at all.
I wonder how the morale on a team might be affected if one guy is getting $40K a year and the rest are getting nothing.
I wonder how the morale on a team might be affected if one guy is getting $40K a year and the rest are getting nothing.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:36 pm to LSUStar
and these athletes are already compensated without formalizing a pay for play plan.
how does your response answer anything in the original post?
how does your response answer anything in the original post?
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:36 pm to GeorgeWest
agree.
this "image" thing is way way overblown.
this "image" thing is way way overblown.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:45 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:
Most college athletes will have ZERO demand for their images and thus will not benefit from this new rule.
wrong... the difference will be boosters and recruiting... this is what opens the door... you have said car dealer in cahoots with program... car dealer promises recruit X amount of dollars to sign with said school... now you have a bidding war with top high school players around the country... This is not going to end well unless major rules and oversight is involved..
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:49 pm to prplngldtigr
quote:
Specific players don't sell additional tickets.
This isn’t quite accurate.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:53 pm to prplngldtigr
Will the players now have to pay their own tuition and fees?
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:58 pm to prplngldtigr
quote:
Should a player be allowed to utilize the school colors, uniform, branding in conjunction with their "image"?
No...any more so than a professional athlete can use his team's gear when doing promotional stuff.
The only time you see guys wearing actual team colors or uniforms is when that product is in some way ALSO a sponsor of the league.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:06 pm to GeauxTigerTM
Correct and without that unique collegiate identifier, most of the "image/likeness" ownership is meaningless in terms of a dollar amount.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:08 pm to prplngldtigr
It is a legitimate question that you did not answer. What is the provenance of their authority? They make all kinds of money as do the schools on the backs of these so-called student athletes. I think they should have a profit sharing plan for these "student athletes". Why not?
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:12 pm to prplngldtigr
They should get an extension of a couple of years to achieve their diploma with free tuition, room and board etc.. that way they can set themselves up with a potential career in the workforce. If a player graduates in 4 years give them the ability to get a masters degree or law school. Help these kids get incentives take make a better life.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:13 pm to LSUStar
Because I don't buy into the premise that specific players and their images make more money for the schools.
Ticket sales would suggest that - lets use LSU as an example - all the players from the last 20 years are the reason for the profits?
You buy that?
the players change yearly and yet the money keeps coming in regardless.
you don't consider the scholarship and all the corresponding benefits of being a college athlete akin to profit sharing?
They currently don't play for free.
Ticket sales would suggest that - lets use LSU as an example - all the players from the last 20 years are the reason for the profits?
You buy that?
the players change yearly and yet the money keeps coming in regardless.
you don't consider the scholarship and all the corresponding benefits of being a college athlete akin to profit sharing?
They currently don't play for free.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:31 pm to prplngldtigr
quote:
Will you continue to purchase tickets to support college sports if this advances to paying players for play?
It will never come to this at the college level. Any talk of this is just ignorant.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:33 pm to prplngldtigr
quote:
Should a player be allowed to utilize the school colors, uniform, branding in conjunction with their "image"?
LSU doesn’t have a trademark on the colors purple and gold (canary yellow) so the players can still where the if they do a commercial per say. It’s just like Les when he was in Canes commercials. He just wore a purple jacket and white hat but LSU was nowhere on there. The school would get a cut if that happened along with the coach/player.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:40 pm to TigerFan55555
The article on CNBC said that each division will have to se their own rules. They should establish rules that there be no contact or discussions with potential "sponsors" until after the player is already enrolled and on a team, to reduce how much influence potential deals have on recruiting.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:45 pm to prplngldtigr
They should be treated like any other citizens in this nation. That's what I think. I don't know why they've always been held back innthe first place. Makes no sense to me why this took so long honestly. They were treated like they were different just because they were blessed with God given athletic abilities lol, that's fricked up. They deserve to profit off of their likeness like anyone else can.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:47 pm to prplngldtigr
How many games would be played with no players? You cannot be this stupid? Maybe there was a time when college athletics was "amateur" but those days are long gone.
Coaches change, but still get paid even when the are NOT coaching.
Still haven't addressed my questions so I will assume you have no answer.
Coaches change, but still get paid even when the are NOT coaching.
Still haven't addressed my questions so I will assume you have no answer.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News