re: Why not cap the amount an athlete can receive for their "likeness"

quote:

---

If their names aren’t on the jersey then why do they deserve the money from it?

---

Then why does LSU have the numbers 1, 5(on clearance),9, 15 up for sale on website with no name on back? Sure seems random that they’d have the number for our all SEC level corner and WR, our former all American RB, current quarterback and also was on sale last year for Delpit and our potential future starting quarterback.

quote:

---

I didn't say it was.

---

His point is that your post was meaningless. Or, more precisely, it makes the opposite point you are trying to make.

What your post shows is that the current market value of players is actually what it is now. If it was more...and players were more valuable, someone somewhere would obviously be monetizing that.

Obviously, that hasn't happened.

quote:

---

numbers 1, 5(on clearance),9, 15 up for sale on website with no name on back? Sure seems random that they’d have the number for our all SEC level corner and WR, our former all American RB, current quarterback and also was on sale last year for Delpit and our potential future starting quarterback.

---

those exact same numbers have been available for more years than any of the people you mentioned have been at LSU.

hell, #1 has been available every year for at least a decade he’ll maybe longer.
#15 has been available since pretty much right after the title game in ‘07.
#5 is one that’s been around since at least Skyler Green.

etc.
etc.
etc.


the reason they don’t put names on back?
because next year somebody else is wearing that number. and people will still buy that jersey. meaning you don’t even have to replace your stock from the previous year.

there are no-name #3 Jersey’s available on campus at gift shops on game days the last few years.
is that for JaCoby Stevens? Tyrion Davis-Price? Beckham Jr? Kevin Faulk? Chad Jones?

what about no-name #7?
Peterson? Honey Badger? Fournette? Bert Jones?
hell i bought one in ‘07 because that’s the # that was available that year. Not because of Ali Highsmith.

What if the NCAA prohibited players from entering into contracts until after they had joined a new school. On top of that they can make it that there is no more transferring until you finish out four years at that school, then you can become a grad transfer. Also, capping wages isn't exactly communist considering it is a business capping their own employees wages

If what CA proposes moves forward nationally, we will see major consequences for college athletics. If they are not careful, they will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Just look at Major League Baseball. Major market teams have much larger budgets. This will happen in college athletics. The teams in major markets will have more to offer their athletes, smaller markets, not so much. This will concentrate the elite talent to even fewer schools. It’s just economics.

Next, transfers will increase greatly and even star players will transfer if the money is right.

Next, in professional sports, the vast majority of the players make most of their money from their team. In the scenario pitched by CA, where will the loyalty of the player be most likely to land? The agent and businesses will garner that as they are the money pipeline. Obviously this won’t happen with most players, but it will happen.

I’m for getting players a piece of the pie. But, the idea pitched by CA is a recipe to kill college athletics as we know it.

quote:

---

How long before there is a lawsuit because females “aren’t getting” the same opportunities as male student athletes?

---

Who would they sue? It wouldn’t be the University because LSU would not be the ones setting the price. LSU would not even be involved. It would be a matter of whoever they could find on their own who is willing to give them money. It would be up to the ad companies to prove that female college athletes aren’t worth the same as male ones. Not our problem.

The TEAM concept will be affected if there are no limits.
A RB making LOTS of $ will eventually be let down by his OL unless they feel part of it ... human nature.


Perhaps in later legislation when it pertains to money given rather than image, the contribution should be limited to the highest level that the poorest school in Div I can afford. Thus the RICH WILL NOT GET RICHER.

quote:

---

The schools should be restricted from having any involvement. It should be strictly between the players and whoever they can find who is willing to pay them.

This should be more fair for all the schools.

---

quote:

---

tigertex1992

---

I respect your opinion and there are more issues associated with players receiving compensation and once the purse strings are opened then college athletics will change forever.

Opening avenues for alumni to channel money to athletes through endorsements will enable the schools that have the most money and endowments to separate themselves from the field.

Let's take Texas A&M which openly has declared they will spend any or as much as they can to compete for a national championship. They offer 1 million dollars a year to the top 35 ranked players in the recruiting rankings getting 25 of their offers. The Aggies sign 25 5 star players certainly setting themselves up for future championships.

Understand the offer comes from alumni in the form of endorsements and nothing passes through the school.

Compensation to college athletes will only separate the haves from the have not's

We all know the amount of money college athletics is bringing in is insane also the athletes are getting none or very little of this and seems unfair as they are doing all the work.

Amateur athletics and compensation do not mix

If they dont cap it, it will ruin college sports. College will become as shitty as the nba in time.

quote:

---

Because there isn't an alternative in their field

---

Point worth exploring... why isn’t there an alternative?