Yet more NCAA hypocrisy

#27
#27
Seems it would be easy to funnel money to an athlete for signing with your program. Maybe it would be hard but still doable.
 
#28
#28
Iam4utalways said:
Seems it would be easy to funnel money to an athlete for signing with your program. Maybe it would be hard but still doable.
Click to expand...

Well that happens all the time anyway. The NCAA, by having the "no jobs" rule, just attempts to make it harder by removing a loophole.

If players can't be paid but there was no rule saying they can't have jobs, then all the top recruits could work at a booster's car dealership 3 hours a week, making $100k and be entirely within the rules.
 
#29
#29
#30
#30
Thunder Good-Oil said:
That's not the same thing. 100,000 fans clicking just once per day each is almost 40 million clicks a year.
Click to expand...

And Google has systems in place that would identify that sort of pattern, not to mention, that mere "clicks" aren't what generate the majority of revenue derived from YoutTube video views.

A concerted effort, even from 100,000 fans, most of which have the technical acumen of a tree when it comes to hiding their online presence, attempting to artificially raise YouTube views would be identified before the end of the 3rd day of it occurring, and any revenue generated withheld.

The amount of effort that a booster would have to go through in order to prop up a scheme like this would be extremely time and effort prohibitive in comparison to any other methods of funneling cash to a recruit/player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
BeardedVol said:
And Google has systems in place that would identify that sort of pattern, not to mention, that mere "clicks" aren't what generate the majority of revenue derived from YoutTube video views.

A concerted effort, even from 100,000 fans, most of which have the technical acumen of a tree when it comes to hiding their online presence, attempting to artificially raise YouTube views would be identified before the end of the 3rd day of it occurring, and any revenue generated withheld.

The amount of effort that a booster would have to go through in order to prop up a scheme like this would be extremely time and effort prohibitive in comparison to any other methods of funneling cash to a recruit/player.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that it has to be a scheme artificially generating clicks. A click (or a view) per day per fan isn't prohibitive and as I've shown can translate into almost 40,000,000 per year.

A concerted effort would be a few hundred or a few thousand fans each "clicking" hundreds of times every day.
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You're assuming that it has to be a scheme artificially generating clicks. A click (or a view) per day per fan isn't prohibitive and as I've shown can translate into almost 40,000,000 per year.

A concerted effort would be a few hundred or a few thousand fans each "clicking" hundreds of times every day.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you have a poor understanding of how YouTube ad revenue is generated, and shared with content creators who choose to monetize their uploaded content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#33
#33
BeardedVol said:
I'm sorry, but you have a poor understanding of how YouTube ad revenue is generated, and shared with content creators who choose to monetize their uploaded content.
Click to expand...

You have a poor understanding if you believe that the number of views and clicks isn't part of the formula.
 
#36
#36
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You have a poor understanding if you believe that the number of views and clicks isn't part of the formula.
Click to expand...

I can tell you with 100% surety that merely clicking on a monetized video generates 0 ad revenue for Google, and none for the content creator.

I can tell you with 100% surety that merely watching a monetized video to completion, only generates a small amount of ad revenue on average for Google unless ads are followed, and purchases are made.

I can tell you with 100% surety because I have access to my company's YouTube analytics page charting 10 years of revenue sharing with several million views and how that revenue sharing breaks down across those views.

I can tell you with 100% surety based off or your statements that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when it comes to how YouTube revenue sharing works with content creators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#39
#39
golfballs said:
I'm not in favor of schools paying players.

This is a YouTube channel..I'm sure whatever he makes from that is meager
Click to expand...

My buddy makes $7k/month on youtube....that was the last time I asked him a year ago, I am guessing it's more now.
 
#44
#44
BeardedVol said:
I can tell you with 100% surety that merely clicking on a monetized video generates 0 ad revenue for Google, and none for the content creator.

I can tell you with 100% surety that merely watching a monetized video to completion, only generates a small amount of ad revenue on average for Google unless ads are followed, and purchases are made.

I can tell you with 100% surety because I have access to my company's YouTube analytics page charting 10 years of revenue sharing with several million views and how that revenue sharing breaks down across those views.

I can tell you with 100% surety based off or your statements that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when it comes to how YouTube revenue sharing works with content creators.
Click to expand...

You're barking up the wrong tree. The issue is not how Google/YouTube distributes royalties or shared revenue. The issue is that the NCAA does not allow players to make money off of their likenesses.

I can tell you with 100% surety that content creators' earnings are directly related to eyeballs/clicks/views/impressions or whatever you want to call the measurement metric. Allowing any of the athletes to profit from a digital presence will result in the schools with the biggest fan bases funneling the most money back to their players and that will turn recruitment into a bidding war.

I gave an example of how 100,000 fans clicking or viewing once per day (which is far from a concerted effort to inflate viewership numbers) generates about 40,000,000 impressions per year. It doesn't matter if it's YouTube or Facebook or plain old websites. The traffic is what creates the value... that is an absolute fact no matter how salty you want to get about it.

At UT there are several major buyers of advertising (Pilot, Dish Network, Check Into Cash) that are also major boosters. The formulas for channeling those dollars to the players isn't the issue. The issue is that it can happen and the bigger, richer fan-bases will be able to generate the most revenue for their player/content providers. That is why the NCAA doesn't want an unknown special teams player from a directional school collecting money through a digital presence no matter if it is coming from Google or Facebook or SESAC or BMI or ASCAP or directly from advertisers buying banner ads on websites.
 
Last edited:
#45
#45
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I gave an example of how 100,000 fans clicking or viewing once per day (which is far from a concerted effort to inflate viewership numbers) generates about 40,000,000 impressions per year. It doesn't matter if it's YouTube or Facebook or plain old websites. The traffic is what creates the value... that is an absolute fact no matter how salty you want to get about it.
Click to expand...

There are 80 players on each team. 100k fans are not clicking on 1 player's youtube everyday, forget about all 80 players.

The only way you get views is to create content that people enjoy watching. Being a football player makes you more well-known, but it's not going to be the reason you make money on youtube.

Now if we're talking about someone making money off football related videos, like a highlight film or practice footage, then yeah. I can understand banning that.
 
#46
#46
n_huffhines said:
There are 80 players on each team. 100k fans are not clicking on 1 player's youtube everyday, forget about all 80 players.

The only way you get views is to create content that people enjoy watching. Being a football player makes you more well-known, but it's not going to be the reason you make money on youtube.

Now if we're talking about someone making money off football related videos, like a highlight film or practice footage, then yeah. I can understand banning that.
Click to expand...

They can't open the door for any form of compensation to players for their likenesses without the flood gates opening up.

In response to your first paragraph... it doesn't have to be the whole roster. It doesn't have to be content that's worth a damn. The fan base can generate traffic and those that have businesses can direct advertising dollars toward certain players with a digital presence. It could be considerable if concentrated on specific players. Some fan bases number in the millions.
 
#47
#47
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You're barking up the wrong tree. The issue is not how Google/YouTube distributes royalties or shared revenue. The issue is that the NCAA does not allow players to make money off of their likenesses.

I can tell you with 100% surety that content creators' earnings are directly related to eyeballs/clicks/views/impressions or whatever you want to call the measurement metric. Allowing any of the athletes to profit from a digital presence will result in the schools with the biggest fan bases funneling the most money back to their players and that will turn recruitment into a bidding war.

I gave an example of how 100,000 fans clicking or viewing once per day (which is far from a concerted effort to inflate viewership numbers) generates about 40,000,000 impressions per year. It doesn't matter if it's YouTube or Facebook or plain old websites. The traffic is what creates the value... that is an absolute fact no matter how salty you want to get about it.

At UT there are several major buyers of advertising (Pilot, Dish Network, Check Into Cash) that are also major boosters. The formulas for channeling those dollars to the players isn't the issue. The issue is that it can happen and the bigger, richer fan-bases will be able to generate the most revenue for their player/content providers. That is why the NCAA doesn't want an unknown special teams player from a directional school collecting money through a digital presence no matter if it is coming from Google or Facebook or SESAC or BMI or ASCAP or directly from advertisers buying banner ads on websites.
Click to expand...

Again, you have a poor understanding of how YouTube ad revenue sharing works. Agreeing to monetize your uploaded content, and share in the revenue that is generated by Google placing advertisements in your uploaded content, is a far cry from a player using his likeness as a CFB athlete to solicit money. The mere act of staring in a YouTube video that is monetized through an ad revenue sharing agreement with google, is not the same at 'profiting from his likeness as an NCAA athelete'.

Like you the NCAA has a poor understanding of how YouTube revenue sharing deals work, and probably haven't even viewed any of his content.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#48
#48
BeardedVol said:
Again, you have a poor understanding of how YouTube ad revenue sharing works. Agreeing to monetize your uploaded content, and share in the revenue that is generated by Google placing advertisements in your uploaded content, is a far cry from a player using his likeness as a CFB athlete to solicit money. The mere act of staring in a YouTube video that is monetized through an ad revenue sharing agreement with google, is not the same at 'profiting from his likeness as an NCAA athelete'.

Like you the NCAA has a poor understanding of how YouTube revenue sharing deals work, and probably haven't even viewed any of his content.
Click to expand...

Just stop with the what I don't know bull****. If the kid in the article gets a single dollar from being on YouTube then he's made money on his likeness. If they allow that then all of the other scenarios can come into play. The NCAA is going with zero tolerance.
 
#50
#50
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Just stop with the what I don't know bull****. If the kid in the article gets a single dollar from being on YouTube then he's made money on his likeness. If they allow that then all of the other scenarios can come into play. The NCAA is going with zero tolerance.
Click to expand...

Of course they are going with zero tolerance. The NCAA absolutely cannot allow a kid to make money that they haven't had a chance to steal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top