NCAA to allow players to profit from likeness
- Thread starter Scroggins2
- Start date
We are now in the final era of Marshall sports. Same can be said for all but about 45 football programs and maybe 100 or so basketball programs.
The resources to pay the players, and anybody who buys the idea that it is just selling their likeness is crazy, are just not here.
Now the issue in the past has been “boosters”. Fat old men who want to measure their life’s value in the results of a ball game. Who slip cash to players. Yes, that can still go on. Some booster can pay well above actual market value for a player to endorse his company.
But the bigger issue is actual above board endorsements. Say UK. Johnny Fivestar endorses Coca-Cola, or Toyota, or Kroger or Wildcat Den or whoever UK’s big sponsors are. A legit value for value transaction, because UK basketball is a good advertising buy for many companies. Same with Duke or UNC or Kansas or any of the leading suspects. Same, only more so in football.
We have? What? Chris Miller is going to slip a kid $50 to say you should buy a Kia?
The question we, and a lot of other programs should ask is “do we want to continue to have sports programs”? And if yes, we need to look at what division that would be in.
The resources to pay the players, and anybody who buys the idea that it is just selling their likeness is crazy, are just not here.
Now the issue in the past has been “boosters”. Fat old men who want to measure their life’s value in the results of a ball game. Who slip cash to players. Yes, that can still go on. Some booster can pay well above actual market value for a player to endorse his company.
But the bigger issue is actual above board endorsements. Say UK. Johnny Fivestar endorses Coca-Cola, or Toyota, or Kroger or Wildcat Den or whoever UK’s big sponsors are. A legit value for value transaction, because UK basketball is a good advertising buy for many companies. Same with Duke or UNC or Kansas or any of the leading suspects. Same, only more so in football.
We have? What? Chris Miller is going to slip a kid $50 to say you should buy a Kia?
The question we, and a lot of other programs should ask is “do we want to continue to have sports programs”? And if yes, we need to look at what division that would be in.
Personally I think it is early to pull the plug on sports. I mean I am convinced the top players will benefit from this some. However, I can't imagine every player on every school getting a pile of cash. If anything it might cause some issues at the schools that benefit from such arrangements. A car dealership in Columbus might pay Justin Fields some cash for a promo spot but I just don't see the back up left guard making extra cash. Am I missing something ?
The NCAA's top decision-makers voted unanimously Tuesday to start the process of modifying its rule to allow college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."
It doesn't say, "male sports only."
Too many unknowns at this point, I heard the fpur major outlines of the proposal and they were essentialpy NCAA rules that already exist but not enforced.
Does anyone really think this is going to change whats already basically been happening?
The best athletes are already going to go to the best schools (osu, Michigan, Bama, Florida, etc) regardless.
UK is Kroger.
UofL? UPS and Ford. Fvcking Ford...they will have star basketball players selling cars on TV.
Marshall will be fine. Sane fans already know Marshall is not in the same pond as the Big Fish. We'll continue on. I've been telling you all for years the top 30 or so programs will break off. And we will be fine without them. We will go on playing Horseshit State and Multi-directional Florida. Yeah, we won a game in the NCAA against Wichita State. And there is some money in Wichita, sure. But they will not be invited to try to "pay" on par with UCLA, a TV market of five million homes.
One question I have is that I would question if players may be able to be pictured in school uniforms, game photos, or identify themselves as a "____ University player" without the schools OK, in order to avoid conflicts with current partnership deals. The real challenge will come when players decide the schools can't use their images to promote ticket sales or networks to push TV viewing. An example from my real-life history. We are getting ready to open Terminator at Universal Studios. We can't use Arnold's image from the movie or even his name, but we can use the cyborg image. Suppose that last year ESPN wants to promote an upcoming Duke game. They would need to sign a deal with Zion if they wanted to use his image to hype ratings. Recall how EA used to have "no-name" players instead of real NFL players? I also see they hope that they can enforce some sort of ban on its effect on recruiting. Not sure how you could do that if the players have all rights to their likeness.
FYI, when I was Herd SID the NCAA banned any "identifiable" players image from ads of sponsors in the game program. So we couldn't use an action shot from a game in any program ads. Not sure when, if or how that ever went away?
FYI, when I was Herd SID the NCAA banned any "identifiable" players image from ads of sponsors in the game program. So we couldn't use an action shot from a game in any program ads. Not sure when, if or how that ever went away?
Haha, I am sure ESPN, aka Disney, will retain the rights to all images from games they broadcast. And that is what they will show.
Kentucky is already getting the top players in basketball. Alabama is already getting the top players in football.
What is going to change? They can still only take some many of them. We are trying to beat Western Ky, Florida International, and UNC Charlotte.
We will still take the players we can get and every now and then find the diamonds in the rough. We will have some local sponsors pay the next Chad Pennington or Rakeem Cato. Jalen Hurts was never coming to Marshall unless he was a late bloomer, under the radar, or had an academic issue.
It hurts a school like wvu far more than Marshall. They already have trouble competing with Texas and Oklahoma now. Good luck competing with the oil money and Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in America full of jobs and tech companies.
We will be fine.
Yeah, that's a big issue. Let's say Dutch Miller pays IMG a bunch of money to be "the official car dealer of Marshall Athletics" and then Knox gets offered two grand to do commercials for Glockner. I can't see Marshall letting him wear his jersey or mention the school in the ad.
Here's another question, who's going to be handling these contract negotiations for the players? Who's going to,be making sure they aren't violating other NCAA rules with their deals? It will be great when somebody like Fields ends up in a lawsuit with Ohio State over trademark infringement. Can the university get a cut for letting him wear the jersey? Who's going to advise these guys on taxes?
It will be interesting to watch, that's for sure.
Here's another question, who's going to be handling these contract negotiations for the players? Who's going to,be making sure they aren't violating other NCAA rules with their deals? It will be great when somebody like Fields ends up in a lawsuit with Ohio State over trademark infringement. Can the university get a cut for letting him wear the jersey? Who's going to advise these guys on taxes?
It will be interesting to watch, that's for sure.
Knox just wears a green jersey with his number on it. Marshall doesn't own the number nor the color green.
Think about Moss, Pennington, or Leftwich when they were here. They can have bankrolled a nice account. They were recognizable just by their face.
Think about this. Think about hot dog man at Stewarts hiring a Herd athlete to endorse his hot dogs. That would be awesome.
Wait until Fan Day a d your son/daughter wants a picture with their favorite Herd player only to be told “great ten dollars please.”
The "rules" aren't even set yet. I wouldn't worry too much about it until it happens. The best part...is we don't pay a dime. We just need sponsors want to use the players. Video Game companies can pay the players too which is good as we get the NCAA football game back. All we will do is compete against similar level teams.
Well, yeah, you are. The best “skill position” (I hate that term) players without good linemen, would not win a game. So Coach gets big boosters to pay them too.
It doesn’t matter what it says. All that matters is what some far-left extremist federal judge says in some future court case. The lesbian left will get their cut.
But the point is, nobody cares about the second division of anything. How many students at WV State, or Concord, or Glenville give a flying f—k about the mighty Yellow Jackets or whatever? The answer is close to zero. How many people in the local gentry care? Zero.
If MU wants to spend tax and tuition money to play Div II sports, we might even get 50 or even 75 people to attend. Rah rah rah.
Now that is true. For the field fillers, they have been told how great they are, in most cases, for decades. For non-alumni fan bases like WVU’s, welcome to Division II, same as Marshall. For that matter, same as Fairmont State. They will have a melt down.
But for the big boys, and especially the head coaches at the major programs, welcome to Hell. Texas wants to play WVU, Alabama wants to play Vanderbilt, Clemson wants to play Duke, Ohio State wants to play Indiana, and so on. They want a box of cupcakes and then settle the matter in two or three big games per year. And, if they lose, they still go to the car quest belk weed eater gator bowl. So they can say “well, yeah, we lost 3 this year, but it sure feels good to hold that redbox Toyota dentyne Citrus bowl trophy. When the top 30 or so break off, it is big boy vs big boy every week. Loser gets fired.
Title IX states:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
No one goes to women's basketball games, and no one ever has. Yet every school that has inter-collegiate sports has a women's basketball team because of Title IX. The courts rejected the argument that the men's sports earned the money that paid for themselves to exist, because this isn't a free-market system, its a collaboration between hundreds and hundreds of mostly public universities, funded with taxpayer dollars.
So if the Title IX lawyers can effectively argue that the male athletes are only getting these sponsorships because of the profile given to them by their association with public universities' male sports programs...chaos y'all.
The biggest issue: ain't nobody ever gonna donate to a general scholarship fund ever again.
This is just dumb. There is already a HUGE gap between the lower end of real Div 1 (G5, and I would throw in some Power conference teams as well) and Div 2, and a whole other division in between I still prefer to call 1-AA. Marshall is already in the de facto second division of real Div 1. The only thing that would change in football is Kool-Aid drinkers will no longer dream Marshall will be in the CFP. The smart fans already knew Doc ain't getting us there anyway. Hell, we might go back to having a playoff system we can actually get into every year....Games will still be fun. We will still go after head cases that run really fast or guys that couldn't pass the SAT with a cheat sheet.
Except plenty of female sports do have high profile athletes and those who have tremendous value.
They just aren't marketed as much, but that doesn't mean they don't exist...and in their world, they are a huge deal.
3 of the top 5 highest paid athletes in the world play soccer.
How many females in the sport of gymnastics could make a living off their image after an international competition?
Some schools could end up competing with outside businesses and companies for an athlete as well...which would make it very interesting.
I'd bet good money a Tennessee women's star player would be more in demand for endorsements in that market than a men's basketball star player.
According to Forbes in 2018 (pay close attention to the name awareness level, and that there are only ten names on this list):
The Most Marketable Female Athletes
Celebrity DBI
#3 is a side show act who never won a race, known for playing a men’s sport (no arguments about whether NASCAR is a sport, I don’t care) than actually being good at it. #8 is more known for being knock out beautiful, than actually being good at tennis. #5 is retired from her real sport and is now an actor in a fake sport. #4 and #6 compete in gymnastics, AKA judged ballet, which is not a sport. I never heard of 9 or 10.
The fact that half the list of top female athletes are known for things other than being good at an actual sport says a lot.
But at the end of the day, doesn’t matter. Some far left judge will force us to figure out how to get the girls the same money, even though nobody really even goes to their games.
The fact that half the list of top female athletes are known for things other than being good at an actual sport says a lot.
But at the end of the day, doesn’t matter. Some far left judge will force us to figure out how to get the girls the same money, even though nobody really even goes to their games.
Not a sport? but the left-hand turn circuit is? #3 Drunk hillbilly's just liked looking at her tits.
Last edited:
It’s nota sport it’s an athletic competition. When someone else determines the winner on subjective means it’s not a sport, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t require skill Or athleticism
Kind of makes you wonder how much Kayla Simmons could have made while here.
Isn't that what college football has basically been doing since it discovered money?
