A Sea Of Red

you're trying to equate your image appearing on a website to an athlete? That is comical.

If the athletes start getting paid will they then not be receiving scholarships? It may seem like a stupid question on the surface but it’s a legitimate one. Athletic Departments have to finance these scholarships (I believe LU just shuffles numbers around). If these athletes are now getting paid they would be considered professional. Why should a professional receive a scholarship? Let them earn academic scholarships or other types but by paying athletes you do away with the need for athletic scholarships for those being paid.

I always assumed the the scholarship would be including in the compensation package.

thepostman wrote:I always assumed the the scholarship would be including in the compensation package.

If that is the case you are admitting that the scholarships they are currently receiving is equal to “getting paid”. I’m not saying you are incorrect. But I’m just trying to frame the argument. Athletes at Division 1 schools are compensated quite well for what they do. Especially ow with the Full Cost of Attendance (or whatever it’s called) money. Add to that the ability to graduate with little to no student debt (think of the money saved on interest payments there) and the case for saying athletes aren’t compensated starts getting shakey

I think these are interesting questions. I do find it interesting that students can be professionals in nearly any other career except sports (if they want to compete at the NCAA level).

Of course that is compensation now and since I already view it as such, it is not a stretch for me to see athletes have the ability to make money off their own likeness while in school

ballcoach15 wrote:My photo and/or likeness has appeared on LU website 2 or 3 times in past 24 months. Does that mean I should get paid ?

If they made money off that photo then yes, you are due compensation in some aspect.

That is why you see people walking around with clipboards and photo releases.

According to ballcoach, he doesn't pay to get into LU athletic events. So it only seems fair that they can freely use his images.

Yacht Rock wrote:I think these are interesting questions. I do find it interesting that students can be professionals in nearly any other career except sports (if they want to compete at the NCAA level).

That goes back to the role of Amateurism way back in the day. Plus, it’s an entirely different animal than anything else on campus. When Natalie Portman went to get her degree I don’t think she was battling people for spots in campus theater productions. (She did it off campus somewhere else.). Granted, she could if she wanted to because as far as I know there is no governing body for university theater departments and she was most likely paying her own way to Harvard
Several professional athletes still take classes to finish their degrees, they just don’t represent the school. But that’s because of, as you stated the NCAA

thepostman wrote:According to ballcoach, he doesn't pay to get into LU athletic events. So it only seems fair that they can freely use his images.

That’s actually a good comparison. Athletes don’t pay anything to play their chosen sport in college so it only seems fair the people who ARE paying for it can freely use that image. (I know the O’Bannon case would disagree with me)

I just want to make sure the record is clear here. I do believe players should have the ability to make money off their likeness just as any other college student could if they find a way to do so.

But just because I think that doesn't mean I think the federal government should get involved. They are already involved in way too much as it is.

I think colleges are providing exactly what they should to athletes. They shouldn’t have to give them any more than what they are.

Players should be able to capitalize on their likeness.

The only unfair thing is that the NCAA restricts what players can profit on off the field.

For those interested in the field of Sport Law.....

https://www.hausfeld.com/case-studies/ncaa?lang_id=1

In all this, what is the definition of likeness ?

BuryYourDuke wrote:I’m honestly fine with players being able to get endorsements and whatnot during the off-season.

Can of worms - BAMA, CLEMSON, TEXAS - to recruit - guaranteed 100k for local tv ad from booster car sales lot ( and on and on and on ).

NCAA football video game ( which original case was about ) - annually entire roster - meaning each player gets x of negotiated contract or percentage of sales AND the college gets x for using their likeness - paid out after leaving or graduation - still don’t like it but could live with it.

ballcoach15 wrote:In all this, what is the definition of likeness ?

They can profit off themselves by being in commercials, doing autograph signings, etc.

If some random, "amateur" student won a prize with a cash value for a project they did, no big deal, perfectly acceptable, doesn't ruin anything.

But if an "amateur" football or basketball player does an ad for a local car dealer it ruins the entirety of college sports? lol

Right - except the Blue Bloods and schools in major markets have extreme advantage of how much they can “project in income” to a player going there. If i were a billionaire i would open a mom and pop t shirt co. At LU and offer $250k per recruit regardless of postition to be in an ad every year - that is the point I am making.

I have never understood why some people think an athlete receiving a free college education should also be paid in $$$$$$$. I saw recently that it will now cost $75,000 a year to attend Duke University. That's $300,000 for 4 years.

ballcoach15 wrote:I have never understood why some people think an athlete receiving a free college education should also be paid in $$$$$$$. I saw recently that it will now cost $75,000 a year to attend Duke University. That's $300,000 for 4 years.

I’m a fan of the Cost Of Attendance stipends. Since athletes can’t have jobs during the season. Or school year. Or in some cases at all due to performance expectations then it’s only fair. There are miscellaneous expenses that go along with life. Filling up your car with gas. Going on a date etc I think that SA’s can get student loans still but th COA is a pretty fair rule

tyndal23 wrote:Right - except the Blue Bloods and schools in major markets have extreme advantage

Welcome to the real world.

Jonathan Carone wrote:

ballcoach15 wrote:In all this, what is the definition of likeness ?

They can profit off themselves by being in commercials, doing autograph signings, etc.

The issue with that is that joe blow, an alumni of timbuktu University who owns a bunch of car dealerships, will virtually buy a recruit for his school by providing an endorsement deal worth way more than market.

Or we can save everyone the hassle and follow the Ivy League model. Now that would be entertaining.

LUDad wrote:

Jonathan Carone wrote:

ballcoach15 wrote:In all this, what is the definition of likeness ?

They can profit off themselves by being in commercials, doing autograph signings, etc.

The issue with that is that joe blow, an alumni of timbuktu University who owns a bunch of car dealerships, will virtually buy a recruit for his school by providing an endorsement deal worth way more than market.

I agree . Even now at some rogue schools, ther are 3rd party rogues involved with recruiting. this has been proven by the FBI in their on going investigation.

I also agree with PH above on Cost of Attendance stipend. The CoA should be the same for every school, so no school gains an advantage in recruiting.