Derrick Henry...New Car.....Bama shenanigans?

[WooPigSooie]

I wonder if the car is actually in his name and not mom or dad's. Some of Arkansas' running backs in the past have had parents who mysteriously got real nice rides all the sudden when their sons were doing good.

Here's the right way to make this work .. and if you're in a state like Arkansas where EVERYONE is a Hog fan, the big money around the program and even shut down local news investigations.

Darren's whole family was broke as a joke and his mom suddenly came up with a Cadillac Escalade

Arkansas' McFadden expects to play in Cotton Bowl despite SUV report - College Football - ESPN

 

[LouderVol]

LSU_SIU

What does 'fair market value' mean. The schools are making a fixed amount of money from the TV deals. The school makes the same amount of money off of the TV deal if has the Heisman winner vs when it doesn't. If market value applied to college athletics the colleges or conferences would be getting paid more or less each year. This doesn't happen they (the conference and channel) sign long term deals based on predictions of how the teams will be doing down the road. In five years how much value will Johnny Manziel be bringing to A&M, maybe some but not as much as he was when he was playing, but the factor of whether or not Manziel is playing 5 years down the road or even the next year is not a part of the deal. The school makes no less or more money if Johnny rides the bench or plays his ass off. The schools/conferences are marketing the school or conference and their performances to TV power brokers. How would 'fair market value' even be set? TDs, wins, tackles? Is a college DB worth the same as an NFL DB? Is it based on stars out of high school? Does it change year to year? game to game? Ultimately to the school (and the dollar figures) it doesn't matter how well 'player A' does. it matters how the team does. If the team wins the individual wins, if the team loses the individual loses. Yet the school and conference and then by way of fees the NCAA get the same amount of money. There have been several articles about players owning their number and when a school sells a jersey with that number they should be paid. Johnny Manziel was the largest grossing player for TAMU, the school made a whooping $21,000 off of #2 jerseys. How is it even determined which #2 the fan bought the jersey for. Have there been other #2s will there be more, yes. so why does Johnny deserve all of it. Unless they are selling Johnny "football' items where is the harm to Johnny? Who was Johnny before he put on the TAMU uniform? Nobody knew him, he would have been nobody without collegiate football as it is, his signature would have been worth nothing. Yet when he put on that uniform and started being amazing and winning games he became important as part of the team. Teams win games, Johnny wouldn't look so good if his linemen are holding every play and get called for it, Johnny wouldn't look good if his WRs dropped every pass he threw or werent down field blocking for him. He looked good because of the team, and yes he made the team better but that fact doesn't help the school make 'so much money its a crime'.

 

[LouderVol]

The school is what adds value to jersey. I don't any people walking around with Johnny Manziel on their backs. I do see a lot of #2s walking around. How many TAMU fans would buy #2s if it wasn't for Manziel playing at TAMU? As a fan of TN I am not buying #2 TAMU jerseys. It is only when the student is part of your team that it even matters to you how good he is or what number he wears. That is what seperates college from NFL, I am not cheering for a player here, I am cheering for the University. I honestly don't care what our players do once they leave the university. Does being a fan of Tom Brady make me a Michigan fan? no, does Peyton being a Bronco make me a de-facto Bronco fan nope. The arguement being made is applying the transitive property in correctly. The vast majority of College Football fans are fans of a SCHOOL not a player. Never have I heard a TN fan say "Yeah I cheered for TN when Peyton was there, but since he left I don't cheer for TN anymore". its the opposite Peyton is loved by TN fans because he played at TN.

In college the school gives the player value to the fans.
In the NFL the player gives value to the team for the fans.

 

[LouderVol]

As far as how the NCAA operates being different and unique compared to the nation is laughable. I have explained how professional organizations operate similarly. The professional organization sets bi-laws and can punish members independently of the law. The organizations can also set values of worth, and most of the time it is the organization which sets 'market value'. Fair market value is also largely determined by the end user. in the case of college athletics that is us the viewer. We seem to be okay with the system, how do i know this, more and more people are watching collegiate sports, and the companies charge more because we will pay more. so even though you say, and the players in these cases say, they are being taken advantage of we as a society are ok with it because we still buy into it, still go to the games, watch the games, buy memorabilia, go onto websites and blog and post about it. Here in America it is tyranny by the masses. if 50% + 1 say yes, it doesn't matter what the 50% -1 think. If the current system of collegiate athletics is wrong and we the people felt so strongly that it was wrong we would stop voting for it (paying for it) yet we haven't, or at least 50% + 1 of the customers would stop buying it. As I pointed out it is a growing industry so people can't be that upset by it. And the players themselves, they are stilling fighting for the right to play college sports. If it was wrong and they felt they would be taken advantage of we would see the number of high schoolers going out for college level sports would drop. We aren't seeing that. There is no perfect system, even the players start getting paid tomorrow what would that fix? seriously what would it fix? Just because they are getting a 'fair market' check that makes it ok? What if they got everything they want, what would it fix? nothing. The schools are still going to go on as they were, they just might drop tennis & soccer. Mens and womens so its not discrimination. These football and basketball players are saying they are more important than the peers in other sports. How are they saying that, they are saying that by saying they should be getting paid which will lead to schools dropping other sports, which would likely lead to many of those other kids not getting a chance at an education. We can 'make it better' for a few by making it worse for everybody else.

Two last points the NCAA has been straight up with the possibilities for these kids (see the NCAA comercials where they talk about there are over 100,000 student athletes and most of them will be going pro in something other than sports, and several others), and when you say collude you make it sound like the kid is getting shafted by the system. He is still getting a effing sweat deal out of it, that I would have loved to have gotten.

What if the schools decided the fair market value of these 'athletes' was nothing? And just independently dropped scholarships, or conference wide did this. The school determined they could make do with walk ons. Whats to stop them from doing that. These players have no idea where this will lead and are jumping head first without looking/seeing beyond the surface. Or what if the schools said alright I will pay you $5,000 dollars a year and you aren't on scholarship because clearly these students, I mean athletes, don't care about the scholarships. And then the athletes have to pay to be part of the school and therefore have the right to be part of the team. This is why I can't see how players are athletes, because if you remove the scholarship the players would be PAYING to be part of the school. I certainly don't pay my firm for the right to work there.

I don't have a problem with the arguments that are being made because if you look at them independently they are largely correct. However if you look at the logic behind it all it is flawed so bad its laughable. What happens if the players win and the NCAA is shut down because of bankruptcy paying them all the money they owe. What do the players get then??????? What do the future players get then?

 

[LSU-SIU]

LSU_SIU

What does 'fair market value' mean.

Not sure why this is relevant.

Not sure why your comments in general are relevant to the present lawsuits and the future ones coming down the pipe. To be honest, I quit reading as about 99% of it is not relevant that I could see, but like I said I stopped reading.

Two last points the NCAA has been straight up with the possibilities for these kids (see the NCAA comercials where they talk about there are over 100,000 student athletes and most of them will be going pro in something other than sports, and several others), and when you say collude you make it sound like the kid is getting shafted by the system. He is still getting a effing sweat deal out of it, that I would have loved to have gotten.

Might good for some players, might be bad for some players... what is known is collusion is good for the people running the show.

He is still getting a effing sweat deal out of it, that I would have loved to have gotten.

Not up to me or you or any other third party to determine just compensation and collude with others to stop competition, this is cover under various racketeering, blacklisting, and anti-trust laws at the federal and state level. This is how the mob works. lol:

Try this on the coaches or the staff or say the Presidents of the schools and see what happens.... immediate temporary injunction and eventually permanent injunction.

All of this is quite simple actually. Eventually what seems complex will become clear in time.

 

[VolSteve]

As far as how the NCAA operates being different and unique compared to the nation is laughable. I have explained how professional organizations operate similarly. The professional organization sets bi-laws and can punish members independently of the law. The organizations can also set values of worth, and most of the time it is the organization which sets 'market value'. Fair market value is also largely determined by the end user. in the case of college athletics that is us the viewer. We seem to be okay with the system, how do i know this, more and more people are watching collegiate sports, and the companies charge more because we will pay more. so even though you say, and the players in these cases say, they are being taken advantage of we as a society are ok with it because we still buy into it, still go to the games, watch the games, buy memorabilia, go onto websites and blog and post about it. Here in America it is tyranny by the masses. if 50% + 1 say yes, it doesn't matter what the 50% -1 think. If the current system of collegiate athletics is wrong and we the people felt so strongly that it was wrong we would stop voting for it (paying for it) yet we haven't, or at least 50% + 1 of the customers would stop buying it. As I pointed out it is a growing industry so people can't be that upset by it. And the players themselves, they are stilling fighting for the right to play college sports. If it was wrong and they felt they would be taken advantage of we would see the number of high schoolers going out for college level sports would drop. We aren't seeing that. There is no perfect system, even the players start getting paid tomorrow what would that fix? seriously what would it fix? Just because they are getting a 'fair market' check that makes it ok? What if they got everything they want, what would it fix? nothing. The schools are still going to go on as they were, they just might drop tennis & soccer. Mens and womens so its not discrimination. These football and basketball players are saying they are more important than the peers in other sports. How are they saying that, they are saying that by saying they should be getting paid which will lead to schools dropping other sports, which would likely lead to many of those other kids not getting a chance at an education. We can 'make it better' for a few by making it worse for everybody else.

Two last points the NCAA has been straight up with the possibilities for these kids (see the NCAA comercials where they talk about there are over 100,000 student athletes and most of them will be going pro in something other than sports, and several others), and when you say collude you make it sound like the kid is getting shafted by the system. He is still getting a effing sweat deal out of it, that I would have loved to have gotten.

What if the schools decided the fair market value of these 'athletes' was nothing? And just independently dropped scholarships, or conference wide did this. The school determined they could make do with walk ons. Whats to stop them from doing that. These players have no idea where this will lead and are jumping head first without looking/seeing beyond the surface. Or what if the schools said alright I will pay you $5,000 dollars a year and you aren't on scholarship because clearly these students, I mean athletes, don't care about the scholarships. And then the athletes have to pay to be part of the school and therefore have the right to be part of the team. This is why I can't see how players are athletes, because if you remove the scholarship the players would be PAYING to be part of the school. I certainly don't pay my firm for the right to work there.

I don't have a problem with the arguments that are being made because if you look at them independently they are largely correct. However if you look at the logic behind it all it is flawed so bad its laughable. What happens if the players win and the NCAA is shut down because of bankruptcy paying them all the money they owe. What do the players get then??????? What do the future players get then?

This!!!

 

[bamawriter]

Didn't read past "the schools make a flat amount from TV". That is 100% false.

The schools negotiate for broadcast rights every X number of years. It's no different than someone agreeing to a multi-year contract with an employer. Players don't get to negotiate.

And now that conferences own their own networks, the more ad time sold and subscribers signed up, the more the schools make year-over-year.

If that is your understanding of the market, the rest of your post was likely flawed.

 

[vol66]

What if the schools decided the fair market value of these 'athletes' was nothing?

That's really the issue, that is exactly why they are in court. They put an artificial cap in place. They all got together many moons ago and said above the scholarship, the players get nothing. They cloaked it in the word Amateurism.

The NCAA makes the argument that the players NLI has no worth. Of course that's hard to swallow for a couple of reasons. Why do the players have to sign a release of their rights (in perpetuity) if they are worthless? What exactly was EA sports (for instance) willing to pay for?

The NCAA lawyers made the argument that broadcasters weren't paying for anything other than "stadium access". No, I'm not kidding.

EA Sports flat out said that if the licensing could be worked out they would get back in to those games...in other words the players NLI has worth, which everyone with a brain understands and the NCAA did too according to internal NCAA documents read at the trial.

Delany didn't help their case at all today, in fact, I bet every D1 basketball coach in the country wished he'd kept his mouth shut.

 

[LouderVol]

Not sure why this is relevant.

Not sure why your comments in general are relevant to the present lawsuits and the future ones coming down the pipe. To be honest, I quit reading as about 99% of it is not relevant that I could see, but like I said I stopped reading.



Might good for some players, might be bad for some players... what is known is collusion is good for the people running the show.



Not up to me or you or any other third party to determine just compensation and collude with others to stop competition, this is cover under various racketeering, blacklisting, and anti-trust laws at the federal and state level. This is how the mob works. lol:

Try this on the coaches or the staff or say the Presidents of the schools and see what happens.... immediate temporary injunction and eventually permanent injunction.

All of this is quite simple actually. Eventually what seems complex will become clear in time.

The point about the coaches not getting paid and setting the fair market value for players are similar points. The market has set a price on what these coaches make, (a lot of money because they are a commodity we want) in the same system that is willing to pay the coaches isn't willing to pay the players (how do i know this because this is what has existed, and we as a society are buying more and more into it) Again go back and think this out, the arguments are correct but the logic isn't. You are saying the schools/conferences/NCAA has no right to determine the worth of compensation given to the players. Yet the students themselves have every right to demand their own worth, right, you are giving them the right to write their own checks irregardless of what the system can maintain. (the players have no idea what they are worth and are going to demand too much, which will flow for a while until the system begins to collapse under the demand of higher and higher wages)

give me dollar figures here that would work in the current system, you can't because there are none, most ADs are running in the red, yet you want to pay players beyond the scholarship-where is this money coming from? It will be taken from the football player's peers but it is ok because the schools are (not-see my statement about where ADs operate budget wise) making money off of the football players

 

[LouderVol]

Didn't read past "the schools make a flat amount from TV". That is 100% false.

The schools negotiate for broadcast rights every X number of years. It's no different than someone agreeing to a multi-year contract with an employer. Players don't get to negotiate.

And now that conferences own their own networks, the more ad time sold and subscribers signed up, the more the schools make year-over-year.

If that is your understanding of the market, the rest of your post was likely flawed.

This is exactly what I was saying. The conferences actually (no school except Texas, Notre Dame and a few others) runs the TV deals. see the SEC to ESPN partnership and the other CONFERENCES to other individual networks.

There is a reason I believe the students shouldn't be involved, and again i said this in my earlier post. THEY WONT BE AROUND THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE CONTRACT, so you are not ok with the conferences setting up the TV deals for the schools and players, when all of this falls through, instead you are willing to let 18-22 year olds decide what is right for themselves, and who is to say that after that first group of students leave the next group thinks they deserve a pay raise, well they are stuck with what the students before left them. But thats ok because other students are making the mistakes and 'colluding' on their value. I apparently have to keep saying this because no one hears it, the arguments being brought forward against the NCAA are good but the logic behind it is lacking (this will lead to so many other problems that the NCAA and maybe by extension the current collegiate model will crash and burn, leaving the players at the time and in the future with NOTHING)

socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people's money.

 

[bamawriter]

This is exactly what I was saying. The conferences actually (no school except Texas, Notre Dame and a few others) runs the TV deals. see the SEC to ESPN partnership and the other CONFERENCES to other individual networks.

There is a reason I believe the students shouldn't be involved, and again i said this in my earlier post. THEY WONT BE AROUND THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE CONTRACT, so you are not ok with the conferences setting up the TV deals for the schools and players, when all of this falls through, instead you are willing to let 18-22 year olds decide what is right for themselves, and who is to say that after that first group of students leave the next group thinks they deserve a pay raise, well they are stuck with what the students before left them. But thats ok because other students are making the mistakes and 'colluding' on their value. I apparently have to keep saying this because no one hears it, the arguments being brought forward against the NCAA are good but the logic behind it is lacking (this will lead to so many other problems that the NCAA and maybe by extension the current collegiate model will crash and burn, leaving the players at the time and in the future with NOTHING)

socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people's money.

You are actually espousing socialist views: everyone should get paid the same, and those providing the labor don't get to negotiate for their wages.

Your argument about the TV money is so insanely wrong that it's bordering on parody. The conference schools CHOOSE to negotiate as a unit because it gives them greater bargaining power. Each and every school could negotiate their own media rights should they choose to do so. The players are not given that right.

Further, the fact that the players won't be in school for the life of the contract is beyond irrelevant. No one is making the schools agree to multi-year contracts. They have all the power to go year-to-year should they so choose. Further, the average NFL player only play 3 seasons, yet the NFL's TV contracts are for 10 years or more. But the players still get a cut of the revenues.

You are supporting the ultimate wealth transfer system, yet you are so blind that you accuse those of us supporting players making money off their efforts of being "socialists". It would be funny if wasn't so painfully backward.

 

[LouderVol]

That's really the issue, that is exactly why they are in court. They put an artificial cap in place. They all got together many moons ago and said above the scholarship, the players get nothing. They cloaked it in the word Amateurism.

The NCAA makes the argument that the players NLI has no worth. Of course that's hard to swallow for a couple of reasons. Why do the players have to sign a release of their rights (in perpetuity) if they are worthless? What exactly was EA sports (for instance) willing to pay for?

The NCAA lawyers made the argument that broadcasters weren't paying for anything other than "stadium access". No, I'm not kidding.

EA Sports flat out said that if the licensing could be worked out they would get back in to those games...in other words the players NLI has worth, which everyone with a brain understands and the NCAA did too according to internal NCAA documents read at the trial.

Delany didn't help their case at all today, in fact, I bet every D1 basketball coach in the country wished he'd kept his mouth shut.

beyond the scholarship, so after we ignore tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship, ignoring any medical help they receive, tutors etc etc, yes they are getting nothing. It just like if we ignored my pay check at work I could be considered a slave to my firm, because after we ignore what they are paying me, they aren't paying me.

Part of what EA sports is/was paying for was the right to use the universities and conferences logos. which I didn't hear about to many (being sarcastic here I didn't here of any) of the players saying, no I don't want to be in the video game. In fact the only two EA NCAA footballs i played if you wanted real player info you (the owner of the game) had to go and pay and download the real player stats and names and likenesses. and a lot of times those were mods random people with too much time on their hands had made.

I did read about the stadium access thing and it is laughable that this whole thing has gotten this far.

and I am by far no master but a lot of the times when people sign stuff to go on TV it is to cover the broadcasters rear because once they put it out there, there is no telling what would/could happen to their likeness. I hear all the time those statements "any commentary is not the expressed view of (insert network name here) and are only recording of individuals blah blah blah" so there is something right there that I would want a signature clearing the network of potential issues. Is that all its for, nope but don't act like it doesn't happen elsewhere.

wow a company that wants to make money, gasp what has America come to? -blue font-

I wear **** all the time that has a logo visible to the public on it, I am willing to bet you do to, do those companies owe us money for advertising? I might look damn good in some fruit of the loom and get somebody to buy some of their own. the students are wearing the university/conference/NCAA logos, and that right there is the only reason we care, because of whose logo they wear.

 

[LouderVol]

You are actually espousing socialist views: everyone should get paid the same, and those providing the labor don't get to negotiate for their wages.

Your argument about the TV money is so insanely wrong that it's bordering on parody. The conference schools CHOOSE to negotiate as a unit because it gives them greater bargaining power. Each and every school could negotiate their own media rights should they choose to do so. The players are not given that right.

Further, the fact that the players won't be in school for the life of the contract is beyond irrelevant. No one is making the schools agree to multi-year contracts. They have all the power to go year-to-year should they so choose. Further, the average NFL player only play 3 seasons, yet the NFL's TV contracts are for 10 years or more. But the players still get a cut of the revenues.

You are supporting the ultimate wealth transfer system, yet you are so blind that you accuse those of us supporting players making money off their efforts of being "socialists". It would be funny if wasn't so painfully backward.

so because I don't support everyone getting paid equally I am a socialist.....

yes I am saying everybody (the players) should get paid the same, a 'car', now it is up to the school to determine what car. the student is fully aware of what car they are getting by going to any school they choose, or they could opt out and go to school and pay there way and not get the 'car'. I wish people had told me my little nissan was worth the same as a lambo, I need to leave now to go make a sale..... oh wait my nissan isn't worth a lambo. not all 'cars' are the same yet they are still 'cars' thats all any pay is. I work in architecture, that means i get paid in a used nissan and a crappy apartment. A car and a place of residence. An engineer on the other hand is getting paid enough to drive a land rover and own a beachfront house. A car and a place of residence. just because they are labeled the same in a general sense does not mean they are worth the same, so therefore everyone is not getting paid the same. and the 'car' they are getting also has the inherent value of possibility of getting them a job later on depending on what they do with said 'car' which would mean the 'car' could have a lot more value if the player used it correctly.

and i was referring to the end result of these court cases as the socialist part, taking away from others to give to someone else- really that could be any economy. The end result of other sports losing scholarships to pay for the football player $500,000 to ride the bench for five years.

the players are getting 'paid', just what they are being paid in isn't green, fit in their wallets and great for doing lines of cocaine. Seriously give them a check worth the exact amount of their scholarship and everything else they get and see what the players do with it. I doubt a lot of them would use it to pay for school, books, tutoring etc etc. THE ARGUMENTS ARE FINE THE LOGIC IS NOT. IF WHAT EVERYBODY HERE IS WANTING HAPPENS BAD STUFF WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THIS OUTCOME. THESE PLAYERS RIGHT NOW WOULD GET THEIRS, BUT THEY ARE SCREWING EVERYBODY ELSE DOWN THE ROAD. BUT NO GIVE THEM THE MONEY I NEED ANOTHER REALITY TV SHOW TO WATCH THESE GUYS BLOW THEIR MONEY AWAY.

even if these guys make it to the NFL, there is no guarantee they will have enough money to live off of once they leave, because of what they do with it. What was it 30% of NFL players end up broke. Should we give them more money too? People just have to learn to be smart with what they have and use it to better themselves, America 101 right there.

The players just aren't respecting what they are given. Ask Von Pearson what he thinks of the 'nothing' UT is giving him. SMH. (if you don't know Pearson was looking to spend his last $42 on the best pair of cleats he could buy when he left JUCO to come to UT.) I bet he is loving the NCAA right now, he respects (I am assuming right here a bit) what he is getting and sees the value in it. he has his mind on the future not the right now. dont stand there and act like the players aren't getting anything. they are getting more than I got, and i was on scholarship, hmmm they got more than me sounds more like capitalism than socialism to me.

IF the schools and by climbing the food change the NCAA was stating that the schools could only house and feed the players that played for them I would have a problem. But they are getting more than the bare minimum.

 

[bamawriter]

So I suppose you think there should never be legal proceedings to litigate employment or intellectual property? After all, that's taking from one to give to another. Nevermind that in this case, one is taking not only the labors and intellectual property of the other, but prohibiting the other from benefiting from his own labors and property.

You sound like the ultimate free market advocate. No, wait. You sound like someone championing legalized theft.

 

[vol66]

beyond the scholarship, so after we ignore tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship, ignoring any medical help they receive, tutors etc etc, yes they are getting nothing. It just like if we ignored my pay check at work I could be considered a slave to my firm, because after we ignore what they are paying me, they aren't paying me.

Part of what EA sports is/was paying for was the right to use the universities and conferences logos. which I didn't hear about to many (being sarcastic here I didn't here of any) of the players saying, no I don't want to be in the video game. In fact the only two EA NCAA footballs i played if you wanted real player info you (the owner of the game) had to go and pay and download the real player stats and names and likenesses. and a lot of times those were mods random people with too much time on their hands had made.

I did read about the stadium access thing and it is laughable that this whole thing has gotten this far.

and I am by far no master but a lot of the times when people sign stuff to go on TV it is to cover the broadcasters rear because once they put it out there, there is no telling what would/could happen to their likeness. I hear all the time those statements "any commentary is not the expressed view of (insert network name here) and are only recording of individuals blah blah blah" so there is something right there that I would want a signature clearing the network of potential issues. Is that all its for, nope but don't act like it doesn't happen elsewhere.

wow a company that wants to make money, gasp what has America come to? -blue font-

I wear **** all the time that has a logo visible to the public on it, I am willing to bet you do to, do those companies owe us money for advertising? I might look damn good in some fruit of the loom and get somebody to buy some of their own. the students are wearing the university/conference/NCAA logos, and that right there is the only reason we care, because of whose logo they wear.

I didn't say "ignore tens of thousands..." Just about every single person involved is saying the current "scholarships" being offered are not enough. That's where the new catch phrase "cost of attendance" comes into play, even Emmert is in favor of THAT, as well as most of the big Conference commissioners.

It is not mandatory for all schools to take care of the numerous medical procedures that go on. Some do, some don't and to varying degrees. It's not an issue in this particular trial, but it was in the Unionization case.

To use your "pay check" / job analogy...you signed a contract thinking it was good for four years, come to find out they can get rid of you after one, for just about any reason...you think you've got health care coverage, only it's not enough or the premiums are too high...don't forget, you can put cream cheese on your bagel and call it a snack...or can you?

As for EA, of course they want the conference logos, they want everything including the names likeness and images of the main participants...IT MAKES THE GAME MORE REALISTIC...EA said so, under oath. You didn't hear the players say anything about it because they weren't asked. When Bill Russell (maybe not him but someone like him) signed over his likeness do you think he would/could have imagined he'd pop up in a video game decades after his career was over? More so, do you think it would have been polite of the NCAA to at least ask former players if they could license their likenesses? The NCAA didn't think they had to because in their mind, THEY OWNED these NILs FOREVER. THEN they have the gonads to try to say they aren't worth anything...Which is it?

Frankly, I don't know which was more arrogant, actually doing it or thinking that they'd get away with it.

As for your statement on television, it really boils down to sports programming. Doug Flutie signed away his rights to any monies that he might have made on the replays of his famous game. Some think that's not a big deal I guess. That's just one angle of what's at stake here.

I didn't bring up anything about Adidas/Nike but I'll say this...Emmert and others from the NCAA use the line about protecting the players from exploitation or some thing like that...They are walking billboards for the shoe companies, bowls, conferences, schools, etc...The schools and conferences are having the players act as endorsers...they must wear the logos, but the coaches and schools get the money. My kid couldn't tell you what Butch Jones or I wear, but he knows AJ Johnson is wearing an Adidas jersey...he's 6...

 

[VolSteve]

This is exactly what I was saying. The conferences actually (no school except Texas, Notre Dame and a few others) runs the TV deals. see the SEC to ESPN partnership and the other CONFERENCES to other individual networks.

There is a reason I believe the students shouldn't be involved, and again i said this in my earlier post. THEY WONT BE AROUND THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE CONTRACT, so you are not ok with the conferences setting up the TV deals for the schools and players, when all of this falls through, instead you are willing to let 18-22 year olds decide what is right for themselves, and who is to say that after that first group of students leave the next group thinks they deserve a pay raise, well they are stuck with what the students before left them. But thats ok because other students are making the mistakes and 'colluding' on their value. I apparently have to keep saying this because no one hears it, the arguments being brought forward against the NCAA are good but the logic behind it is lacking (this will lead to so many other problems that the NCAA and maybe by extension the current collegiate model will crash and burn, leaving the players at the time and in the future with NOTHING)

socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people's money.

:good!::rock::thumbsup::salute:

You sir get it!

 

[UT_Dutchman]

This is exactly what I was saying. The conferences actually (no school except Texas, Notre Dame and a few others) runs the TV deals. see the SEC to ESPN partnership and the other CONFERENCES to other individual networks.

There is a reason I believe the students shouldn't be involved, and again i said this in my earlier post. THEY WONT BE AROUND THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE CONTRACT, so you are not ok with the conferences setting up the TV deals for the schools and players, when all of this falls through, instead you are willing to let 18-22 year olds decide what is right for themselves, and who is to say that after that first group of students leave the next group thinks they deserve a pay raise, well they are stuck with what the students before left them. But thats ok because other students are making the mistakes and 'colluding' on their value. I apparently have to keep saying this because no one hears it, the arguments being brought forward against the NCAA are good but the logic behind it is lacking (this will lead to so many other problems that the NCAA and maybe by extension the current collegiate model will crash and burn, leaving the players at the time and in the future with NOTHING)

socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people's money.

Sorry didn't read anything but the last statement. It is completely wrong socialism is never good. It may sound like a fair way to spread the wealth. I that society there is still an elite class, all it does is completely eliminate the middle class.

 

[UT_Dutchman]

You are actually espousing socialist views: everyone should get paid the same, and those providing the labor don't get to negotiate for their wages.

Your argument about the TV money is so insanely wrong that it's bordering on parody. The conference schools CHOOSE to negotiate as a unit because it gives them greater bargaining power. Each and every school could negotiate their own media rights should they choose to do so. The players are not given that right.

Further, the fact that the players won't be in school for the life of the contract is beyond irrelevant. No one is making the schools agree to multi-year contracts. They have all the power to go year-to-year should they so choose. Further, the average NFL player only play 3 seasons, yet the NFL's TV contracts are for 10 years or more. But the players still get a cut of the revenues.

You are supporting the ultimate wealth transfer system, yet you are so blind that you accuse those of us supporting players making money off their efforts of being "socialists". It would be funny if wasn't so painfully backward.

I am almost positive you are wrong about each institution being able to negotiate their complete seasonal tv package on their own. To be a member of the SEC you have agreed that the rights to produce, market, and telecast games are controlled by the conference.

 

[bamawriter]

I am almost positive you are wrong about each institution being able to negotiate their complete seasonal tv package on their own. To be a member of the SEC you have agreed that the rights to produce, market, and telecast games are controlled by the conference.

Because the schools CHOOSE to allow the conference to negotiate those rights. There is no mandate that they do so. The schools choose to give their media rights to the SEC, but being in the SEC is by no means required. If Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, or whoever wanted to leave the conference in the next couple of years in order to sell their own media rights, they could do so. The SEC doesn't even have any exit fees.

Until this year, the schools all maintained their own third tier media rights, which included the one football game per year that each school broadcast on PPV. The schools have chosen to forego maintaining those rights in order to form the SEC Network. Again, a choice the schools made, but were not required to do.

Please stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.

 

[UT_Dutchman]

Because the schools CHOOSE to allow the conference to negotiate those rights. There is no mandate that they do so. The schools choose to give their media rights to the SEC, but being in the SEC is by no means required. If Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, or whoever wanted to leave the conference in the next couple of years in order to sell their own media rights, they could do so. The SEC doesn't even have any exit fees.

Until this year, the schools all maintained their own third tier media rights, which included the one football game per year that each school broadcast on PPV. The schools have chosen to forego maintaining those rights in order to form the SEC Network. Again, a choice the schools made, but were not required to do.

Please stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.

I can see you have a problem understanding phrases and words. That's why I said I was almost positive, that means not 100% sure. So please try to comprehend this I understand you feel you have a superiority complex, but I promise you it's all in your mind.

 

[bamawriter]

I can see you have a problem understanding phrases and words. That's why I said I was almost positive, that means not 100% sure. So please try to comprehend this I understand you feel you have a superiority complex, but I promise you it's all in your mind.

My apologies. I mistook your statement as agreeing with Louder, who has been making the same inaccurate argument, but with much more confidence.

I apologize for my tone.

 

[UT_Dutchman]

My apologies. I mistook your statement as agreeing with Louder, who has been making the same inaccurate argument, but with much more confidence.

I apologize for my tone.

It's not a problem, as I said I wasn't sure exactly how the structure of those contracts were set up. It would just seem to be in the SEC's best interest to control it like I thought they did. However it works out we are still the best setup conference.

 

[bamacheats]

Thread Cliff's notes: Bama cheats

 

[LSU-SIU]

The point about the coaches not getting paid and setting the fair market value for players are similar points. The market has set a price on what these coaches make, (a lot of money because they are a commodity we want) in the same system that is willing to pay the coaches isn't willing to pay the players (how do i know this because this is what has existed, and we as a society are buying more and more into it)

Exactly you are admitting to the racket and the corruption, the "system", the schools have colluded to setup a "system" where by they players can't get their value. Install the same "system" on the coaches, staff, school personnel other than the players and you would get an immediate temporary injunction followed by a permanent one.

The mob has a "system" to, so?

I do not think every school needs to pay their players, some might will have to be in the future as their players will be classified as "employees", but that has to do with federal and state labor laws.

Again go back and think this out, the arguments are correct but the logic isn't. You are saying the schools/conferences/NCAA has no right to determine the worth of compensation given to the players.

No. The NCAA has said they are being "compensated", which would then make them "employees" or "contractors".

The NCAA has no business being in the discussion of "compensation", they shouldn't even be in the process. The mere fact that the NCAA is involved in the setting of "compensation" goes to the heart of the corruption.

Of course, the school can decide (if at all, within the limits of existing state and federal law) what they are going to pay the players, but, if they are classified as "employees" they must conform to federal and state labor laws.

Under no circumstance should the schools be interfering with a players right to earn money from a third party. Of course, I see nothing wrong with very basic conduct standards.

Yet the students themselves have every right to demand their own worth, right, you are giving them the right to write their own checks irregardless of what the system can maintain. (the players have no idea what they are worth and are going to demand too much, which will flow for a while until the system begins to collapse under the demand of higher and higher wages) give me dollar figures here that would work in the current system, you can't because there are none, most ADs are running in the red, yet you want to pay players beyond the scholarship-where is this money coming from?

I fail to see the point of this, immaterial.

It will be taken from the football player's peers but it is ok because the schools are (not-see my statement about where ADs operate budget wise) making money off of the football players

Not material, I don't even know what you are trying to say.

The big problem is the schools with the use of their association (NCAA) have setup a "system" to collude to stop the free flow of employment, money, and association, which we normally call "corruption". The NCAA has admitted to most of what I have said... they just don't call it corruption.

The mob has a "system", but that "system", is illegal, immoral and unethical as well. The NCAA's defense, is not that they are wrong, but that nobody is going to stop them. I am hoping State prosecutors start going after the schools and the NCAA, apparently they are not going to learn their lesson until someone goes to jail.

Whether or not the present business model would be a money maker going forward is really immaterial, businesses go out of business all the time.... just because a business might got bankrupt does not give them free reign to setup a illegal, immoral, and unethical mob type system. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[VolSteve]

Thread Cliff's notes: Bama cheats and according to bamawriter and LSU-SIU it should be legal to cheat and anyone opposed to boosters buying cars for recruits and giving them cash is just stupid.

Fixed your post