Yet more NCAA hypocrisy

#52
#52
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...

You don't even seem to know the rules regarding NCAA athletics and the ways in which athletes can work and make money (#9 and #10 would be pertinent here).

The kid is not making money off of his ad sharing agreement with Google based off of his status as an NCAA athlete,and he's not being paid by Google or anyone for his likeness or it's use thereof as an NCAA athlete.

I'll stop calling you out on your ignorance of YouTube ad revenue generation and the NCAA policies on student athletes, if you'll stop spouting nonsense, deal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#53
#53
BeardedVol said:
You don't even seem to know the rules regarding NCAA athletics and the ways in which athletes can work and make money (#9 and #10 would be pertinent here).

The kid is not making money off of his ad sharing agreement with Google based off of his status as an NCAA athlete,and he's not being paid by Google or anyone for his likeness or it's use thereof as an NCAA athlete.

I'll stop calling you out on your ignorance of YouTube ad revenue generation and the NCAA policies on student athletes, if you'll stop spouting nonsense, deal?
Click to expand...

I've barely posted anything about how YouTube AD revenue is generated... you're on some kind of campaign about how it is calculated and THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. I've pointed out that fans could generate a lot of traffic on content put out by players. The more clicks/views/impressions/activity with the advertisers/subscribers or anything else that measures content related activity translates to more dollars for the content owners.

My point has been that if players receive any payments for creating content that can be monetized, then the NCAA is going want to shut it down.

As far as the NCAA, I've stated that they prohibit players from making money on their likeness. Being on video creates a likeness.
 
#55
#55
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I've barely posted anything about how YouTube AD revenue is generated... you're on some kind of campaign about how it is calculated and THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. I've pointed out that fans could generate a lot of traffic on content put out by players. The more clicks/views/impressions/activity with the advertisers/subscribers or anything else that measures content related activity translates to more dollars for the content owners.

My point has been that if players receive any payments for creating content that can be monetized, then the NCAA is going want to shut it down.

As far as the NCAA, I've stated that they prohibit players from making money on their likeness. Being on video creates a likeness.
Click to expand...

So your first argument was that the system can could be abused by someone wanting to funnel him money; that fell through and you continued to post nonsense concerning how ad revenue is generated from a point of veritable ignorance of the system.

You moved on to trying to argue that the player is generating income using his likeness as a UCF athlete, and you are still 100% incorrect. When this goes before the NCAA, they are going to back down. Google, not De La Haye, directly profits from ad revenue placed on his channel, but that revenue is not generated from the content itself that he appears in, just the advertisements that run on his channel. That is not even in the same country as they NCAA rules on "profiting on one's likeness", and it's exactly why they pushed for UCF's compliance department to intimidate him into taking down his channel instead of coming after him themselves.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts at play here. That's not an insult, it's an observable fact based off the content of your posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#56
#56
BeardedVol said:
So your first argument was that the system can could be abused by someone wanting to funnel him money; that fell through and you continued to post nonsense concerning how ad revenue is generated from a point of veritable ignorance of the system.

You moved on to trying to argue that the player is generating income using his likeness as a UCF athlete, and you are still 100% incorrect. When this goes before the NCAA, they are going to back down. Google, not De La Haye, directly profits from ad revenue placed on his channel, but that revenue is not generated from the content itself that he appears in, just the advertisements that run on his channel. That is not even in the same country as they NCAA rules on "profiting on one's likeness", and it's exactly why they pushed for UCF's compliance department to intimidate him into taking down his channel instead of coming after him themselves.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts at play here. That's not an insult, it's an observable fact based off the content of your posts.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:

Go for it, Frances.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
De La Haye’s videos contained content of him displaying his day-to-day life as a UCF athlete.

De La Haye’s channel has published 41 videos over the past year, piling up 54,000 subscribers and two million views in that time. His videos are nearly all related to his athletic career.

As De La Haye stated in his latest video, because he was profiting from ads placed on his videos and channel homepage, the NCAA determined that he was profiting off his own likeness.

“I’m literally filming stuff and developing my own brand."

De La Haye intimated that he had been using some of the money made from his channel to help his family at home.

:crazy:
 
Last edited:
#58
#58
Thunder Good-Oil said:
De La Haye’s videos contained content of him displaying his day-to-day life as a UCF athlete.

De La Haye’s channel has published 41 videos over the past year, piling up 54,000 subscribers and two million views in that time. His videos are nearly all related to his athletic career.

As De La Haye stated in his latest video, because he was profiting from ads placed on his videos and channel homepage, the NCAA determined that he was profiting off his own likeness.

“I’m literally filming stuff and developing my own brand."

De La Haye intimated that he had been using some of the money made from his channel to help his family at home.

:crazy:
Click to expand...

Is La Haye being paid to produce content for his channel? No.

Is La Haye negotiating with advertisers to place ads on his YouTube channel? No.

Is La Haye using his status as a UCF athlete to endorse products advertised on his YouTube Channel? No.

Google reached out to La Haye and asked if they could run advertisements on his channel. There's no guarantee of income, there's no surety that he will be paid a certain amount of money per view, and he is not an employee of Google or any of its subsidiaries. It's a revenue-sharing agreement where Google, makes advertising revenue based off of combined ad impressions, and agrees to share a portion of that revenue with the content creator. He is compensated at the same rate as any other YouTube content creator, regardless of his status as a UCF athlete.

In the end La Haye, is doing nothing, except uploading videos of himself to YouTube, and Google is running advertisements in those videos, and reaping advertisement revenue based off of total ad impressions, and click-through purchases, not because the kid plays ball for UCF.

Merely making profit is not actually against NCAA bylaws.

Bolding words is fun.:good!:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#59
#59
BeardedVol said:
Is La Haye being paid to produce content for his channel? No.

Is La Haye negotiating with advertisers to place ads on his YouTube channel? No.

Is La Haye using his status as a UCF athlete to endorse products advertised on his YouTube Channel? No.

Google reached out to La Haye and asked if they could run advertisements on his channel. There's no guarantee of income, there's no surety that he will be paid a certain amount of money per view, and he is not en employee of Google or any of its subsidiaries. It's a revenue-sharing agreement where Google, makes advertising revenue based off of combined ad impressions, and agrees to share a portion of that revenue with the content creator. He is compensated at the same rate as any other YouTube content creator, regardless of his status as a UCF athlete.

In the end La Haye, is doing nothing, except uploading videos of himself to YouTube, and Google is running advertisements in those videos, and reaping advertisement revenue based off of total ad impressions, and click-through purchases, not because the kid plays ball for UCF.

Merely making profit is not actually against NCAA bylaws.

Bolding words is fun.:good!:
Click to expand...

So do me a solid, Brother. Go outside and stand in some grass. Look up. Look down. Did you see blue and then green?
 
#61
#61
I'm glad they found each other. :) It's like two walls throwing one tennis ball.

tumblr_nubbhqC9yT1rpco88o2_r1_500.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#62
#62
n_huffhines said:
Thunder vs the world
Click to expand...

Be sure to take note that I haven't said that the NCAA is right or wrong in their position with this Florida kicker YouTube kid. However, I'm definitely not in the pay the players camp. I'm all for the fake student athletes going straight to the NFL and NBA or their developmental leagues or the overseas leagues.
 
Last edited:
#63
#63
We should compensate the coaches the same the players are compensated. With free education. They can just use the free education themselves and then give the rest away to family and friends. I mean the atheletes are getting such a great and fair deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#64
#64
volfanhill said:
We should compensate the coaches the same the players are compensated. With free education. They can just use the free education themselves and then give the rest away to family and friends. I mean the atheletes are getting such a great and fair deal.
Click to expand...

If any player gets compensation, then Title IX probably requires that all other athletes receive the same compensation. The captain of the rowing team gets the same as a Heisman Trophy winning running back and the first picks by the NBA and NFL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
Thunder Good-Oil said:
If any player gets compensation, then Title IX probably requires that all other athletes receive the same compensation. The captain of the rowing team gets the same as a Heisman Trophy winning running back and the first picks by the NBA and NFL.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Title IX does not require the same amount of dollars to be spent on men's and women's programs. Only that the same amount of scholarship money is awarded.



http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions#dollars

You could offset your pay for revenue generating sports, if that was classified as a scholarship which it might, by adding more female athletic scholarships. Would this mean the end of the vast majority of male athletics outside of football and basketball? Yes it would.

Oh and I jut like the idea of Roy Williams being paid his national championship bonus of $1 million dollars in scholarship form.
 
Last edited:
#66
#66
Thunder Good-Oil said:
If any player gets compensation, then Title IX probably requires that all other athletes receive the same compensation. The captain of the rowing team gets the same as a Heisman Trophy winning running back and the first picks by the NBA and NFL.
Click to expand...

Title IX only applies to amateur athletics. If they become paid employees, then they can discriminate in pay. The president of the university makes more than the janitor.
 
#67
#67
n_huffhines said:
Title IX only applies to amateur athletics. If they become paid employees, then they can discriminate in pay. The president of the university makes more than the janitor.
Click to expand...

If the players became professionals then the athletic department or football/basketball programs might be in danger of losing the tax exempt status. Then a lot of the "donations" might not be tax deductible.

The most ridiculous aspect is the multi-million dollar coaches' salaries and especially the $20,000,000 or whatever bonus that the Big Ten commissioner took.

I really don't want to see college athletes paid salaries. Then the sports just become minor leagues of the NFL and NBA. I don't care much at all about minor league sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
If players were employees, there's likely going to be fallout from anti-big government advocates about having the need for those public employees. At least with the coaches as public employees they're working with students. Those affected college sports probably will have to be set up as separate, for-profit entities at each school. Then there will be issues to deal with such as pensions, unemployment compensation, health insurance/COBRA, overtime, exempt or non-exempt status, and the biggie would be not being able to run off players after playing for 4 years. There would be players in their 30s and 40s playing with teenagers. Employees can't be discriminated against based on age. Then the players that are cut by the NFL would apply for the jobs. A lot of the guys straight out of high school wouldn't get the jobs because the washed up NFL players get them.
 
#69
#69
Thunder Good-Oil said:
If the players became professionals then the athletic department or football/basketball programs might be in danger of losing the tax exempt status. Then a lot of the "donations" might not be tax deductible.
Click to expand...

Non-profits have employees. Clearly, the coaches are paid. Why would the AD lose its non-profit status?
 
#70
#70
Thunder Good-Oil said:
If players were employees, there's likely going to be fallout from anti-big government advocates about having the need for those public employees. At least with the coaches as public employees they're working with students. Those affected college sports probably will have to be set up as separate, for-profit entities at each school. Then there will be issues to deal with such as pensions, unemployment compensation, health insurance/COBRA, overtime, exempt or non-exempt status, and the biggie would be not being able to run off players after playing for 4 years. There would be players in their 30s and 40s playing with teenagers. Employees can't be discriminated against based on age. Then the players that are cut by the NFL would apply for the jobs. A lot of the guys straight out of high school wouldn't get the jobs because the washed up NFL players get them.
Click to expand...

The NBA discriminates against 18 YO's. The NFL discriminates against 18-20 YO's. Employees can't be discriminated based on sex and yet we have the WNBA and NBA.

Your concerns are stupid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#71
#71
n_huffhines said:
Non-profits have employees. Clearly, the coaches are paid. Why would the AD lose its non-profit status?
Click to expand...

I didn't say non-profits (actually not-for-profit is a more accurate term).

There wouldn't be much left without the student-athletes to keep the sports program under the schools' umbrellas. Then what is the mission which needs to be clearly declared in order to maintain a status that allows tax deductible gifts? Take the students out of the equation and how does it qualify as an educational or research institution? The issue would pretty much be related to the eligibility to receive tax deductible gifts as I have no doubt that they'd be able to keep their expenses at the same level as the revenue and therefore they'd be able to avoid paying income taxes.
 
#72
#72
n_huffhines said:
The NBA discriminates against 18 YO's. The NFL discriminates against 18-20 YO's. Employees can't be discriminated based on sex and yet we have the WNBA and NBA.

Your concerns are stupid.
Click to expand...

If the 35-40 year old players are better than the 18 year old players and age is the reason that the jobs are given to the younger players, then there will be lawsuits.

Women aren't excluded from the NBA because of their sex. They're excluded because of their talent. However, I wonder how the WNBA is able to discriminate against men? Maybe the laws are written such that men cannot be the protected class.

Those aren't really "my concerns". More like issues that I'd expect would need to be resolved if players were to be paid.

Why do you throw in the douchey comment with your last sentence?
 
Last edited:
#73
#73
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I didn't say non-profits (actually not-for-profit is a more accurate term).

There wouldn't be much left without the student-athletes to keep the sports program under the schools' umbrellas. Then what is the mission which needs to be clearly declared in order to maintain a status that allows tax deductible gifts? Take the students out of the equation and how does it qualify as an educational or research institution? The issue would pretty much be related to the eligibility to receive tax deductible gifts as I have no doubt that they'd be able to keep their expenses at the same level as the revenue and therefore they'd be able to avoid paying income taxes.
Click to expand...

You can still require them to be students, tho.
 
#75
#75
n_huffhines said:
You can sue anybody for anything at any time. I promise you they will not win.
Click to expand...

If there are 40 year olds that aren't hired and if they are better than the 18 year old employees then they will win. It would violate a Federal law.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top