October 4, 20196 yr I can see a few issues: 1) While college sports already have their fair share of haves and have nots, unless there is some kind of cap on what players at a particular school can earn, I believe the gap is only going to get wider. 2) It is my understanding that most schools use money generated from football and basketball to support the non-revenue sports. If the school is generating less money because some of that is going to the players, how will this affect their ability to support these sports. 3) I'm not sure that this will do anything to eliminate the shady characters from the recruiting environment, in fact I think it could do just the opposite. 4) I would assume in most cases, male athletes will get more money than female athletes. Are their any possible violations of Title IX? 5) We already see athletes sitting out of bowl games in order to protect their future earnings. As players will be getting paid earlier could possibly have multi year endorsement contracts lines up, is there a chance that we could see star athletes sit out after say half a season once they have proven that they can excell at the NCAA level. 5) If college athletes are entitled to make money off of their imagine and likeness, could this also extend to the high school level. I think that would be a mess. Like someone else mentioned all this will do is create enough loopholes so that cash and shady characters can live full time in college athletics.
October 4, 20196 yr I can see a few issues: 1) While college sports already have their fair share of haves and have nots, unless there is some kind of cap on what players at a particular school can earn, I believe the gap is only going to get wider. 2) It is my understanding that most schools use money generated from football and basketball to support the non-revenue sports. If the school is generating less money because some of that is going to the players, how will this affect their ability to support these sports. 3) I'm not sure that this will do anything to eliminate the shady characters from the recruiting environment, in fact I think it could do just the opposite. 4) I would assume in most cases, male athletes will get more money than female athletes. Are their any possible violations of Title IX? 5) We already see athletes sitting out of bowl games in order to protect their future earnings. As players will be getting paid earlier could possibly have multi year endorsement contracts lines up, is there a chance that we could see star athletes sit out after say half a season once they have proven that they can excell at the NCAA level. 5) If college athletes are entitled to make money off of their imagine and likeness, could this also extend to the high school level. I think that would be a mess. I agree, that dog is not going to hunt.
October 5, 20196 yr I can see a few issues: 1) While college sports already have their fair share of haves and have nots, unless there is some kind of cap on what players at a particular school can earn, I believe the gap is only going to get wider. 2) It is my understanding that most schools use money generated from football and basketball to support the non-revenue sports. If the school is generating less money because some of that is going to the players, how will this affect their ability to support these sports. 3) I'm not sure that this will do anything to eliminate the shady characters from the recruiting environment, in fact I think it could do just the opposite. 4) I would assume in most cases, male athletes will get more money than female athletes. Are their any possible violations of Title IX? 5) We already see athletes sitting out of bowl games in order to protect their future earnings. As players will be getting paid earlier could possibly have multi year endorsement contracts lines up, is there a chance that we could see star athletes sit out after say half a season once they have proven that they can excell at the NCAA level. 5) If college athletes are entitled to make money off of their imagine and likeness, could this also extend to the high school level. I think that would be a mess. It is very important to keep in mind (if I understand this correctly) that the schools are NOT paying any money to the players. The players will be allowed to be paid by OTHER entities for their likeness. So regarding #2 above, the schools will not have any less money to support non-revenue sports. Regarding #4 above, it is a free market thing so I don't think Title IX applies. If a UK male basketball player can command $500,000 in likeness related fees and a female basketball player (or male golfer) cannot, that is not the school's issue since the school is not paying it. At least that is how I read this.
October 5, 20196 yr Author It is very important to keep in mind (if I understand this correctly) that the schools are NOT paying any money to the players. The players will be allowed to be paid by OTHER entities for their likeness. So regarding #2 above, the schools will not have any less money to support non-revenue sports. Regarding #4 above, it is a free market thing so I don't think Title IX applies. If a UK male basketball player can command $500,000 in likeness related fees and a female basketball player (or male golfer) cannot, that is not the school's issue since the school is not paying it. At least that is how I read this. You nailed it sir. Sydney McLaughlin would have done pretty well in her own right.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.