(10-04-2019 10:32 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:16 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 09:30 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  i know this is an unpopular opinion but I m going to share it anyway. The kids that will really benefit from this arrangement are already getting FREE room, board and education. How much does it cost to go to a school like Stanford or as an out of state student to Cal? A better law IMO would be to prevent schools and others from using images of the athletes for profit.
does anyone really believe that a star FB or BB recruit is going to get a job at the local grocery store making $5 an hour?

Exactly. The kids ARE receiving significant compensation. Tuition and living expenses at a state school runs around 20-30K a year---more at many private schools. Many students are graduating with over $100K in student debt. So, lets not pretend the scholarship is worthless. That said, I do believe they should be some sort of stipend or revenue sharing that gives them a little spending money/earnings over and above the scholarship. As Ive said before, I think it should be a group NCAA players revenue pool for each sport that is divided evenly among all the players of that sport. If the sport makes little revenue--there wont be much money in that sports NCAA shared players pool. If the sport generates significant revenue--there will be a nice little stream of monthly checks for those players. Basically, such a system gives the players a share of the revenue with altering the current competitive balance or general character of the college game.

As for name and likeness---I would like to see the current NCAA rules stay in place with the following exception---

1) Olympic athletes who also play college sports are exempt from the current name and likeness rule.

Show me the rule that says people who are going to college on academic scholarships are not allowed to make money.

The way I understand it, they can work--but only within certain very strict limits. In fact, its such a compliance headache for the schools that many schools simply forbid their athletes from working. Additionally, with the year round demands of many sports these days---it would be almost impossible for the athletes to find the time or, for that matter, a workplace willing to be flexible enough to deal with the outside demands of the athletes school/athletic schedule.

Does anything prevent someone who is on an academic scholarship from being in a commercial? From having their picture used in an advertisement and getting reimbursed for it?

If it's within strict limits for the amount of time they can spend doing it, then let them do commercials, pose for pictures, etc. within those time limits. This isn't "the athlete has a full time job" - it's "the athlete spent an hour shooting a commercial and gets compensated every time the commercial airs" (which is fairly standard for actors and spokespeople).

Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They dont want boosters paying players 10K a month to turn the sprinklers on an off. They arent trying to screw over players--they are trying to maintain a competitive balance in the league where everyone is on a relatively similar footing. That said--Im very open to options that share some revenue with players without upsetting the current competitive balance and character of college sports. Unfortunately, this "olympic model" concept being batted about does not do that.