Gene Smith to Co-Chair Working Group Examining NCAA's Position on Name, Image and Likeness Benefits

Comments Show All Comments

ohiowhitesnake's picture

I believe this is a huge step in the right direction. 

Feed the trolls

HS
Colortv1967's picture

Agreed. But how will value be determined? 

HS
SilverState's picture

NCAA Football 20...It's in the game.

"There's still some green showing before you see the chalk."

HS
stpetebuck's picture

If you’re a collegian star making money you would be likely to play 4 years so as to not jeopardize your income. Plus an endorser would probably insist that you play your bowl games. This will make college  football and especially  basketball better imo. 

HS
BrutusB's picture

If you're a star you're still going to bolt after 3 years.  These types of changes are still going to be nowhere near an NFL paycheck.

But this would still be good for the average Joe CFB player.

HS
stpetebuck's picture

Not always gonna bolt.  We’re talking about profiting from likeness and fame. There are so many examples of tweener athletes who leave early only to find they aren't physically right for success at the next level.  Cardale would never have the fame at the next level. He could’ve been a rich famous kid at osu. 

HS
analyticalguy's picture

For a year he would been. And it would have been nowhere near what he made carrying a clipboard in the NFL. On the other hand, there are guys unlikely to leave early because of their long odds at making an NFL roster who would benefit at lot; the name JT Barrett comes to mind.

HS
Ortonhallalumni's picture

Would give them another incentive to stay in school. If stars are compensated as jerseys are sold..etc...they will get a piece not just the university...seems good to me.

HS
Braxtonkeepsit's picture

Think about all the college guys we cherish that are out  of the league too quickly.  This could be a nice little something for them.  All the guys from 2014 class would play on forever 

HS
Lighteyes's picture

I think it depends on the player. For players who were on the fence one way or another, yes, getting paid some money now is definitely a nice incentive to tip the direction towards staying - a 4th/5th round football player or second round basketballer could improve their draft stock by returning, so why not stick around and get more experience while also getting some money. But for the lock first rounders and true stars (i.e., the same dudes who're probably getting many of the endorsements in the first place), there's no amount of money that'd reasonably be offered that would make them turn down serious NFL/NBA money.

The money from endorsements (while nice) isn't going to remotely match what a first round pick is going to do for you. Denzel Ward sat out the Cotton Bowl and got a $19.7 million signing bonus. There's no way an endorser is giving a cornerback anywhere even close to that level of money. Ditto for the NBA, there's no level of collegiate endorsements that's going to make a Zion or Barrett or DeAndre Ayton pass up a guaranteed contract worth $20 mil or more.

As for endorsers insisting on bowl games, companies don't seem to mind when players sit out Week 17 of the NFL season. Especially for national corporations that would want to keep the player into the NFL/NBA and develop that relationship, they'd probably actually prefer the player leave early and become an even bigger star at the next level. 

HS
stpetebuck's picture

Not talking about 1st rounders like Ward. Talking about Devin Smith guys who kill in college but disappear in the nfl. 

HS
BrutusB's picture

Letting players profit from their own image is a step in the right direction, but as with anything there would be lots of unintended consequences.  I can't imagine too many O-linemen will be happy that the star QB is suddenly making money from jersey sales while they're getting nothing.

HS
SilverState's picture

 I can't imagine too many O-linemen will be happy that the star QB is suddenly making money from jersey sales while they're getting nothing.

They can always switch positions... 

"There's still some green showing before you see the chalk."

HS
ohiowhitesnake's picture

Fair point and I agree, but much like the NFL, good QBs take care of their line. Maybe a weekly trip to lunch could help. It’s not a nice NFL type gift, but I think you know what I mean. 

Feed the trolls

HS
ohiowhitesnake's picture

Also, I don’t see players profiting off jersey sales. In my head, it’s a star player endorsing his favorite spot to eat or making a weekend appearance in the off season. 

Feed the trolls

HS
David3000's picture

"as with anything there would be lots of unintended consequences."

Very true, and reading between the lines of the article it seems like there's enough of a threat from proposed legislative changes that the NCAA is being forced to attempt to head off any laws by making changes to their current rules. I worry about the unintended consequences from any changes - legislative or NCAA. As many of the posts here indicate, there's a lot to be considered and the issue is quite complex.

HS
stpetebuck's picture

O linemen and non-star types still get a free college education. Not shabby. But this could reverse the trend of skill guys not playing bowl games and guys coming out after sophomore year who need one more year.  

HS
0H-10's picture

James Tressel would be a very prudent addition to this working group, as well.

o||||||o

HS
ibuck's picture

James Tressel would be a very prudent addition to this working group, as well.

If he has the time, Tressel might contribute valuable insights, particularly about players selling their own gear for whatever reasons (helping their families or whatever). But Tressel was in their doghouse, and they may not want to let him out just yet. So the NCAA may not want his participation to be public. They would be wise to seek his input privately though.

Our honor defend, so we'll fight to the end !

HS
analyticalguy's picture

They can't pay the players directly without Title IX implications, and that's something the NCAA can't control. This is probably a necessary step. The committee's job will be to figure out how to minimize (because it's impossible to eliminate) booster/businessmen from overpaying the actual value to the business for images/endorsements in order to recruit players to their favorite teams, and possible to balance out the "unfairness" of disparity between, say, linemen and QBs.

HS
MaineStrength's picture

I've never understood how giving money only to profit generating sport athletes would be a violation of Title IX.  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.

Why would an athlete of a sport that doesn't generate a profit be entitled to the same thing as one that generates millions?  Why is paying someone their worth considered discrimination?  I don't see the fundamental logic here.

Strength equipment is expensive & guarantees you nothing. A strong will is free & will give you everything you need.

HS
Braxtonkeepsit's picture

Your logic is sound, but Title IX is corrupt in practice.  

HS
BackInAction's picture

I think there have been several updates to the original Title IX that have stretched and bastardized it original meaning.  For example, from your quote above, there is no mention that you must have equal male/female scholarship athletes.  However,  that is the 'rule' that most of us think of when someone mentions Title IX.

HS
MaineStrength's picture

You could have an equal number of teams, but that doesn't mean they have to pay all the teams just because they pay some.  They just have to have the same opportunity.  So, if they start generating profit they could get paid too.  I don't see anything in the language that would require they all receive equal compensation...only equal opportunity.  From my perspective paying only the profit generating sports doesn't seem to violate Title IX.  

Strength equipment is expensive & guarantees you nothing. A strong will is free & will give you everything you need.

HS
TShell's picture

Oregon will go on a NC run not too long after this gets approved.

HS
Buctor's picture

Sounds like an opportunity for some young'n to start a new business.  You know to be ready when the new rules are announced.  Just a suggestion, but "Bagmen R Us" has a ring to it!

Beat everyone, in every sport, all the time!!!

HS
TPMBuck's picture

They should name Chris Spielman to the group

HS
CowCat's picture

It's a bit of a tricky situation because certain positions gain much more attention than others. For example in 2015 you could expect a lot of #15, #16 and #12 jerseys to be sold, maybe #97 too, but as to the rest of the team, not so much. I'm just pointing out that even at a powerhouse team like OSU "paying for use of personal likeness" would be inequitable. 

I think the NCAA should just place an even tax on all companies profiting from CFB merchandise, then distribute that money evenly to member schools. It would be sad if it just devolves into a popularity contest.

But at the end of the day, just fix all of this sh*t so I can play NCAA 2020.

"We get paid to score touchdowns, not kick field goals"
-- Urban Meyer

HS
MaineStrength's picture

While the formation of this group is an important step to confirming what we believe as an association, the group’s work will not result in paying students as employees.

If this is the case, I'll be curious to see how athletes would be compensated. 

Strength equipment is expensive & guarantees you nothing. A strong will is free & will give you everything you need.

HS
216ToThe614's picture

I have always believed that this was the best solution. I'm not really a supporter of paying players, but they 100% should be able to profit from their own likeness/image/brand. If they want to sign autographs once a week and charge money, great. If they get a sponsor who posts on their social media accounts, awesome. Big time players will earn what they are worth in the social space and it will scale somewhat appropriately on its own. Everyone is happy!

Pick up your feet, turn your corners square! And DRIVE DRIVE DRIVE!!!
WB

HS
stpetebuck's picture

Being in the media biz, I’ve worked with guys like Jack Hannah who can milk a 30 year career out of 15 minutes on  Johnny Carson. Troy Smith, on the other hand was a dazzling college player/Heisman winner who was prohibited from making money while truly famous. He just disappeared in the pro game. The lost potential income for his national tv exposure is in the millions. 

HS
Turfgrad's picture

"Sorry coach, I have to do a commercial spot and I can't make practice this week.  Why don't you use the second team instead.  Got to go, see you next week."  It's coming fans!  

"I think Alabama would beat Ohio State if they played next weekend!" Clay Travis Fox Sports Post Championship Show 1.12.2015.  Needs no explanation.

HS
cricejr's picture

No it isn't. 

I bleed scarlet...literally

HS
45has2's picture

Doing that would hurt their endorsement potential not help it. Getting paid for your likeness or your endorsement is a double edged sword. Not only will they have to live up to team standards the white hot social spotlight will be on them and demand conformance or the money goes away. 

Censores irrumasti.

HS
Trotwoodbuck's picture

While this is a step in the right direction it is unlikely to have any significant effect on players deciding when to enter the draft.  There is more then enough money being paid by agents under the table already, even if fans choose to pretend otherwise, and players still leave early.  The NCAA is likely to be very measured in what it allows, if it makes changes at all.  There are certainly players whose image is more valuable while they are in college, but no one knows that until after the fact and guys that age are more likely to believe they will excel in the NFL than to assume they have hit their ceiling in college.

HS