Pay for Play? Would Big Ten "De-Emphasis Instead?

Donate To GopherHole
I stand corrected on college baseball.

Thank you for explaining what the suit is about, Lakeville Goldy.
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
Why would the NFL get involved? They already don't draft kids until after their true Junior years That's only one or two years of "competition", and you're assuming the pay would be similar, which would never happen.

Also, the suit is specific to getting compensated for their likeness being used for promotion. If the NCAA used me in a commercial I'd get paid, but if they use an athlete, the athlete does not. If O'Bannon and company win, someone may have to pay out for past instances. But going forward I would imagine the networks would have to cover any promotional fees for players they use to promote games. Like if ESPN would say "see Heisman Trophy candidate Phil Nelson take on the hated Badgers Saturday night in prime time for the national game of the week", ESPN might have to pay Phil Nelson, but no other player on the team would be paid. Or if they had Nelson in a standalone ad where he promoted the Gophers in the Rose Bowl. (A guy can dream, right???)

I don't honestly see this affecting Title 9, either. The same thing would hold. If the ad specifically used Rachel Banham (sp?) she'd get paid but no one else would.

.
Click to expand...

Let's not kid ourselves: this may be about using a player to plug an espn game today: However, once the "pay the individual" player for anything is ok, it won't be long and it will be pay each player who is shown in any game on tv during the course of the game. Will that be every player who sees a minute of playing time? Will it be every student manager who is shown bringing water out on the field? How about the Marching Band Members who are shown during the half-time show.

This is too slippery a slope for college football to succumb to. Virtually all games are televised now. But, even the ones that aren't are witnessed by ticket buyers and the schools get revenue from them.

WHY do you think JD is making the kind of statements he is making? WHY had he previously introduced this train of thought way back in the mid 1990's? This is a BIG stinking deal and if this initial suit is lost....it won't be long and college revenue sports will probably need to shut down.

A scholarship...an education...the challenge...the competition...the tradition of college football is ENOUGH pay for play.

And, don't kid yourself. The B1G is very hopeful that Title IX sports can at some point in time earn enough to at LEAST pay their own way.

IF you don't think that espn and fox sports and nbc and abc and cbs and all the other networks who televise football games and basketball games don't use footage of games to advertise the product that their games equate to you need to let your imagination go. After the "obannon" win certainly the "smith...jones...tom...dick and harry suits demanding compensation for EVERYBODY who appears on the camera on a playing field or court NEEDS to be compensated at the rate of 50% of the profits.

Why would the nfl object: The next time they negotiate with the player's union...the players will be demanding 55%...65%... 75% of the profits in compensation.

These court cases mean WAR...they mean LIFE & DEATH to the future of professional AND college sports.

Now that I think of it: pretty soon the Minnesota State High School League will have problems with demands for pay for play for televising the State Football Championship...hoops championships...hockey championships.

Am I exaggerating my point? Perhaps. However, once the "pay for play" concept gains a victory...it is only a matter of time until the law suits will run rampant...

; 0 )
 

All that would probably happen is that networks would simply have to change how they advertised and promoted college sports. Images of players flying down the court or zipping across the ice, or smashing into each other on the field or making a great catch, but portrayed in a way that you can't tell who the individual players are. Solves the problem right there.

Am I going to quit watching the Gophers because they don't focus on any one particular individual?! NO, in fact I think that's a great idea.


In fact, the more I think about this, the better I like it. Take the focus off of the individual and put it back on the teams. Or put all the focus on the coaches, because they sign legal contracts and schools can treat them differently.

Maybe former athletes can "donate" the use of their images to their alma maters?!

But honestly, I don't know, its probably a lot of to do about not much of anything when it really comes down to it.

Then iamthewalrus gets his post in while I was writing mine, and I didn't change nothing, but he makes some good points. Lots to think about.
 


#1nHkyCfbBsbDncSolarDebat said:
iamthewalrus --

And then we'll need MORE and MORE and MORE lawyers. And don't we already have enough damn lawyers?!
Click to expand...

I'm not smart enough to know if we have enough lawyers or if we need more lawyers. The only thing I am concerned about is maintaining college football the way it has worked. Things always change. However, I truly do believe that "pay for play in college sports would be the end of college sports. It would be time to take EVERYTHING DIII where no scholarships would be offered and the players would play the sport for the purest of all reasons: the love of the game...the wish to compete...the desire to represent the school and just plain for the honor and the fun of being a team member.

I guess that the older I get the MORE I truly do admire the DIII model of college sports. Student/athletes...pure...plain and simple. DI football and hoops has lost too much of that element. Perhaps major conference football has NEVER been at the pure level of DIII. I will guarantee you that a win for "pay for play" will NOT help DI football...and I fear will hasten the END of DI college football and hoops.

There are too many law suits...class action suits, etc. in the country for my tastes. However, I am NOT so steeped in political dogma and code word to think that the possibility of a law suit is not necessary. The law is an honest and honorable profession, in my opinion. To an extent, it keeps everyone more honest and gives all individuals access to representation. I'm not going to get into that though. I am only worried about what "pay for play" might do to my beloved Big Ten Football."

I hope the Commissioner FIGHTS with all the power, authority and resources he has to DEFEAT this "pay for play" mentality in college football generally and BIG TEN FOOTBALL specifically.

Give 'em hell JD! Because IF "pay for play" wins and follows it's logical course of least resistance, I will be closing out my life going to MIAC games on Game Day Saturday rather than to witness the demise of my Golden Gopher Big Ten Football due to the "professionalism aspect of players who are paid to play vs. those who play for the love of the sport...the love of the school...the love of the team and WANT to graduate with a degree that will help them to be productive citizens of this state...country...world!

; 0 )
 


No one is stopping you from watching D-III sports. Plenty of schools to pick from.
 


imthewalrus said:
I'm not smart enough to know if we have enough lawyers or if we need more lawyers. The only thing I am concerned about is maintaining college football the way it has worked. Things always change. However, I truly do believe that "pay for play in college sports would be the end of college sports. It would be time to take EVERYTHING DIII where no scholarships would be offered and the players would play the sport for the purest of all reasons: the love of the game...the wish to compete...the desire to represent the school and just plain for the honor and the fun of being a team member.
Click to expand...

But here's the rub - what does going D3 solve? If games are still televised and if someone is still making money off those television rights, nothing will change. It would just mean that players are getting paid but not getting a scholarship. The only way going D3 solves anything is if games are no longer televised, promoted, whatever.
 

Based upon JD's position paper from the mid 1990's I would have to assume that in principle he and the president's of the Big Ten at that time would have been in favor of shutting down the big-time sports. That would mean NO athletic scholarships. Is it a big bluff? Maybe in 2013 with all of the "arms-race" aspects that the ESPN money and BIG DANCE money has brought to colleges. Of course, all of the tv money has pretty much gone to pay for the Title IX mandates, the facility building bubbles, the OUTRAGEOUS escalation of coaching salaries for head coaches...coordinators...assistant coaches. All the money paid to the athletic director...the ad's assistants.

The "trickle-down" theory has also been at work in the NCAA. Division I revenues from tv, etc that are retained by the NCAA help fund the D-I, DII and D-III NCAA activities and governing boards.

The very concept of "pay for play" threatened the NCAA (an organization founded by the college presidents.) back in the mid 1990's and it is even more threatening in this day and age.

Of course it would have to be "pay for play" for ALL athletes in ALL sports sponsored by a university or college or Jr. College. How else could it be done. The courts and law suits would be where the action would be.

The money from tv today is SO huge. The sums of money would be in the billions. However, for the college and university that gets their share, coaching costs, facilities costs, travel costs, SCHOLARSHIP costs, numbers of athletes each school supports, tutoring costs, NCAA compliance costs, NCAA administrative costs...you can add many more hidden costs all eat up virtually ALL the tv money the individual D-I schools get.

Don't you ever wonder WHY there is such a push to endow the scholarships for football...hoops...etc when there is ALL that money that pours into the University because of the revenue sharing that is done within the conference?

Going D-III would eliminate the costs of the scholarships, the multi-million salary contracts with Tubby Smith, Pam Borton, Jerry Kill, Don Lucia, their large staffs, the tutors, the entire staff who deal with NCAA compliance.

So, while some groups are targeting the "big tv money" that college sports represent: in reality the people who have really benefited have been the construction industry (stadiums, practice facilities, etc,) the coaching profession (How many D-III coaches sign multi-million dollar contracts, have huge annuity payments each year included as part of their package, get $100,000.00 payments just for qualifying for the NCAA Hoops tourney?)

D-III still has Title IX mandates, but NO scholarship costs, no big coach payments, not as many facilities, etc.

Going D-III would make EVERYTHING more simple. There wouldn't be much of any money for anyone to be collecting...chasing...coveting.

There's the rub...I think...and...there would be very little to NO tv. Pretty much only ticket sales revenue for all of the interested parties to fight over. Urban Meyer would probably have to find a second job to make ends meet...

; 0 )
 



Lakeville Goldy said:
But here's the rub - what does going D3 solve? If games are still televised and if someone is still making money off those television rights, nothing will change. It would just mean that players are getting paid but not getting a scholarship. The only way going D3 solves anything is if games are no longer televised, promoted, whatever.
Click to expand...

The players won't be there anyway. If the Big Ten were to move to D-III, the players would transfer to schools where they could get a scholarship, and recruits who might previously come of the Big Ten would go elsewhere. The television crews would also probably go elsewhere too.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom