The NCAA and Players Profiting from Their Likeness Thread

[ramssuperbowl99]

39 minutes ago, Danger said:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27743871/ohio-state-ad-gene-smith-fair-pay-play-act

#O$U

(yes I'm salty so don't @me ohio state fans)

"How will we make sure this is fair", whines geriatric AD who paid his coach $8 billion a year and turns a blind eye when one of his subordinates was habitually kicking the **** out of his wife. "What happens when a bad actor gets involved and gives kids something that they wouldn't get elsewhere", laments the guy in the city with the friendliest tattoo shop on earth. 

[MWil23]

If it makes you feel any better, we OSU fans have despised Gene Smith for quite some time now. He's awful.

[Breesus mode]

4 hours ago, MWil23 said:

If it makes you feel any better, we OSU fans have despised Gene Smith for quite some time now. He's awful.

Anybody that follows college football should despise him. He’s terrible

[ramssuperbowl99]

https://sports.theonion.com/new-ncaa-rule-forces-athletes-to-remove-all-facial-feat-1838739640

Quote

At press time, Collins noted that to prevent any future monetization of their position, all student athletes would be euthanized upon graduating or leaving their school.

 

[buno67]

enough states just need to pass the same law. Force the NCAA to change their ways.

[mse326]

6 minutes ago, buno67 said:

enough states just need to pass the same law. Force the NCAA to change their ways.

It doesn't even really need to be enough, just the right ones. Granted that could be seen as enough. CA was a BIG one to have. I'd say Texas, Florida and North Carolina are probably the next three most important

[buno67]

Just now, mse326 said:

It doesn't even really need to be enough, just the right ones. Granted that could be seen as enough. CA was a BIG one to have. I'd say Texas, Florida and North Carolina are probably the next three most important

I would say Texas, Alabama, and Ohio

NCAA doesnt want to lose out on the Longhorns, Tide, or Buckeyes.

[mse326]

17 minutes ago, buno67 said:

I would say Texas, Alabama, and Ohio

NCAA doesnt want to lose out on the Longhorns, Tide, or Buckeyes.

I thought about both Alabama and Ohio and and that is reasonable. But I think we have to consider effects beyond football at least with Basketball. That is also a money sport for schools and actually is THE money sport for the NCAA. Football revenues go elsewhere (team and the runners of the bowl games). March Madness is where the NCAA itself makes it's money and losing Duke and UNC not to mention NC State could be crippling.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/031516/how-much-does-ncaa-make-march-madness.asp

North Carolina is the basketball hot bead and I think Florida represents the biggest combination of Football-Basketball in the country (and to whatever extent they care about the non revenue sports I think CA and FL are the top two in that regard). That is why I chose those two to go with Texas.

[Down to Earth]

No doubt the universities will get their cut out of this as well. In fact, if should end up being a good revenue source for the school I think.

[buno67]

49 minutes ago, Down to Earth said:

No doubt the universities will get their cut out of this as well. In fact, if should end up being a good revenue source for the school I think.

how does it create a revenue source for them? Schools will lose revenue on jersey sales and what not because a portion should start going to the player, right?

[mse326]

11 minutes ago, buno67 said:

how does it create a revenue source for them? Schools will lose revenue on jersey sales and what not because a portion should start going to the player, right?

In theory saying the players must be allowed to get paid doesn't men that the university as part of their offer can't include that they get a cut of that. And that wouldn't be completely unfair as the university's cache and name will be part of why many players are in demand anyway.

[Down to Earth]

17 hours ago, buno67 said:

how does it create a revenue source for them? Schools will lose revenue on jersey sales and what not because a portion should start going to the player, right?

I'm basing it off the assumption that schools will still own copyright for the use of logos,etc. Same how you see some ads that feature pro players whether current or retired in the colors associated with the team they may have played for, but none of the team logos cause they do not have permission from the league or team to use it. So if a company wants to use an athlete they can pay a smaller price to have the athlete only, with really just name recognition or it can have the athlete and the logo of the school they are with to make the visual connection as well, so the use of school logo brings in revenue in this situation.

Not sure if I explained that the way I think it can play out or not. I may be off base with it.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Down to Earth

[buno67]

 

 

 

 

2

2 hours ago, Down to Earth said:

I'm basing it off the assumption that schools will still own copyright for the use of logos,etc. Same how you see some ads that feature pro players whether current or retired in the colors associated with the team they may have played for, but none of the team logos cause they do not have permission from the league or team to use it. So if a company wants to use an athlete they can pay a smaller price to have the athlete only, with really just name recognition or it can have the athlete and the logo of the school they are with to make the visual connection as well, so the use of school logo brings in revenue in this situation.

Not sure if I explained that the way I think it can play out or not. I may be off base with it.

I think they could still get away with out using any school logos. If they are that big of a player, the player who can truly capitalize off of their likeness. There name alone. Also would it be illegal to say Justin Fields, Ohio State QB, Quarterback skills camp? If the player signed with the team, cant he name drop them?

I would assume those players would try and make their own logos, so they can sell more merch. 

I understand where you are coming from. I think schools will lose out on money with this stuff now IMO. Especially if players can get % of jersey sales.

I just want to see NCAA football come back. Every college player gets a little bit of money so their likeness can be used and the cover athlete gets more money.

[buno67]

20 hours ago, mse326 said:

In theory saying the players must be allowed to get paid doesn't men that the university as part of their offer can't include that they get a cut of that. And that wouldn't be completely unfair as the university's cache and name will be part of why many players are in demand anyway.

I  wonder how jersey sales will play a part of it. Thats how I see the schools losing money

[naptownskinsfan]

16 hours ago, Down to Earth said:

I'm basing it off the assumption that schools will still own copyright for the use of logos,etc. Same how you see some ads that feature pro players whether current or retired in the colors associated with the team they may have played for, but none of the team logos cause they do not have permission from the league or team to use it. So if a company wants to use an athlete they can pay a smaller price to have the athlete only, with really just name recognition or it can have the athlete and the logo of the school they are with to make the visual connection as well, so the use of school logo brings in revenue in this situation.

Not sure if I explained that the way I think it can play out or not. I may be off base with it.

I get what you are saying- it's the same way Panini/Donruss prints baseball cards.  They can use the player and their likeness, but can not use the team names or logos like Topps can.