Even Kirk Herbstret mad
Sounds like he is blaming Ol OBannon for the loss of EA NCAA football.
Sounds like he is blaming Ol OBannon for the loss of EA NCAA football.
-
-
Comment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
I think the anger stems from the fact that a full ride scholarship is quite valuable, and O'Bannon and others make a scholarship seem like pocket change. As a current college student from the inner city who is paying for school out of pocket, a full ride scholarship would be like winning the lottery. Literally, a scholarship would save me hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition, room and board, books...etc. For some students who come from poor neighborhoods and bad home situations, a free ride to school is a dream come true. People who do not understand what it is like to be impoverished and financially unstable sometimes come off as greedy or ungrateful (in my eyes) when they make statements that student-athletes are not being compensated for their efforts. I would say that $50,000 a year that is paid in full by the NCAA for student-athletes to get an education and audition for the NFL is more than they would receive anywhere else at that age.
However, O'Bannon's demand for compensation completely ignores the value of a free education and in doing so, he assumes that the monetary value of every collegiate athlete whose likeness is used would be significant. I can assure you that due to the number of players in the NCAA games, each player would only receive a very small portion of the game's profits. In most cases, a free ride scholarship vastly outweighs the income that these athletes would make elsewhere while also paying for their food and education. I'm all for athletes getting what they deserve, but I feel that this should not be in the form of direct income. Rather, the NCAA should give students a stipend to pay for their families to come to their games, cover travel costs, pay for books, supply four meals a day...etc. These athletes are not employees, and if they want to be treated as such, they should have to pay for school on their own which would be a tragedy for those who were truly grateful for the free ride in the first place.
I don't want this to come off as me being bitter towards O'Bannon as I obviously don't know him and what his motives are. However, I feel that, as someone who is paying for school currently, I have a unique appreciation for the value of a scholarship and I think that the importance of a free education has often been understated throughout this litigation process.Cup or Bust (NHL 13)
"What we have accomplished is that we have shown ourselves that we are capable." -Les MilesComment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
These are some very solid points.
1 thing a lot of people seem to be missing about this. Is that it's not just a fight over video game likeness. Or greed about getting a few extra dollars here or there. It's the fact the ncaa is an amatuer sport, but is close to a billion dollar business in net worth. In any other sport which is professional. The athletes in every labor dispute try to fight for as much percentage of profit in revuene sales etc. that they can. In hopes to cash in on as much extra revenue that they as athletes generate. That's the real fight here. It's not a free ride scholarship or a few meals on the table. It's the fact that so many kids year in and year out are used as pawns for these schools to make millions. And the ncaa does everything in their power to keep an amatuer setting to avoid paying back the student athletes. That's the real fight. And as much as people rag on poor old Ed. He found a way to get his foot in the door to fight the issue.
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using TapatalkComment
-
Re: Even Kirk Herbstret mad
I wonder if Golden boy Kirk allowed for the NCAA to use his likeness for free as a commentator? I didn't see that anywhere in the article. Easy to point fingers at someone when you are one of the only guys being paid by the franchise.Comment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
They're getting COA now on top of all the freebies they got education wise, plus the "other stuff."
I think they'll manage ok.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI'm a Vince McMahon Guy!
On, On, On, To Victory!!
Gamertag: stewgilliganComment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
Sounds good.... Compensate them for what they are worth on today's earnings. Most will be lucky to earn 5k a year doing this..... But then you have title 9 so then you have to compensate everyone the same.... So everyone will pocket about $500 a year and have to pay their way through school. Good luck Kids!
Sent from my SM-N910T using TapatalkComment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
Tuition is excessive for college, there is no doubt about that. I know that first hand, as well. However, the fact that they are getting an athletic scholarship doesn't mean that they don't also deserve compensation for people using their likeness in video games. Would it be miniscule? Yeah, probably. However, it's still money that they deserve. Companies simply cannot use you for something like a video game without your consent. I feel the same way when schools sell the starting quarterback's jersey in their book stores, but they don't put a name on it, thus skirting the issue that they're continuing to profit directly on the back of their players without having to pay them for it.
Athletes aren't by definition an employee, but kids on Power 5 teams are very, very valuable to the universities. College football, and to a much lesser extent, college basketball, help pay for the entire athletic budget and then some for schools. Even a school like Western Michigan would not be able to have other sports without their football program bringing in revenue -- even if it's still not enough to cover the athletic budget -- and the players should be compensated for that, too, above and beyond the scholarship to school.
This also says nothing of the fact that many athletes are pushed into easy classes that don't really prepare them for anything after college, should professional sports not work out. We need only look at UNC for that sort of thing, but it goes on at schools both large and small. Or the kids who have injuries that leave them unable to perform on the field, costing them their scholarships. Or the kids that can't eat because the amateur status doesn't allow them to make enough money to pay for meals -- as Kemba Walker described when he was still playing basketball for the University of Connecticut.
Yes, scholarships are fantastic for getting kids out of the inner-city and they're also fantastic for kids whose families could feasibly afford their kid's tuitions. But to just want to stop the compensation there, when these universities are pulling in millions upon millions of dollars -- or in the case of the NCAA, billions -- to me feels short-sighted . Especially when athletic directors are giving themselves raises on top of raises, it feels unfair for the kids that are actually, you know, sacrificing their physical well being in both the immediate and distant future. Whether people want to consider them employees or not, they bring value to their schools beyond their scholarship costs.
And, I admit, figuring out what that value would be on a per-player basis is a nightmare to try to suss out. Obviously some players are worth more than others, some schools worth more than others, and some sports worth more than others. I don't have all the answers on that. Still, I'd rather they try to figure that out, instead of just saying that it's too hard to figure out and then throwing up their hands and asserting that the current system is the most fair. I disagree with that notion.Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
In principle, I agree with this. I think that it's clear and obvious that most student-athletes receive, through scholarships, much less than they are "worth" if their value was monetized. As I said before, I am all for student-athletes getting more benefits, but it's the methodology that O'Bannon proposes which I disagree with.
I do not think that student-athletes should be paid directly for playing collegiate sports. It is not a profession at this level, and the second salary begins to creep its head into college athletics, schools who are not on the same fiscal playing field as the "big boys" will slowly fade into obscurity thereby creating an even greater monopoly among the richest schools. I think that the ramifications of such a monopoly would be terrible for everyone involved as these poorer schools would be forced to drop certain sports thus creating less opportunities for student-athletes to attend school.
However, I do believe that student-athletes should be afforded the right to profit independently off of their own likeness. This seems to be a self-explanatory right that the NCAA has taken away from student-athletes. These students are not employees of the NCAA, therefore, they should be able to earn income any way shape or form that they want to as long is it is within the parameters of the law. All of these NCAA restrictions as to what jobs student-athletes are and are not allowed to hold are absolutely ludicrous. The NCAA does not own these students and they do not employ them. If NCAA athletes in the Olympics can profit off of their likeness, then all student-athletes should be able to do the same. I think that, if this were allowed, then the cries for the NCAA to pay the players would quiet down, and the players would be able to earn some extra money.
If the players want money from the NCAA directly, they should get it in the form of stipends which supplement additional meals, expenses, and maybe the occasional gift. I think it's playing with fire if the NCAA or the schools pay the students directly. I don't think people realize how the landscape of collegiate education as a whole would be changed if student-athletes become employees for the NCAA.
Also, as to the point of injuries derailing scholarships, the NCAA recently established a rule which mandates that all scholarships must be honored despite injury or poor performance. I agree with you on the easy classes however; emphasis on education is a whole different conversation though.Last edited by DucksForever; 01-19-2016, 04:11 PM.Cup or Bust (NHL 13)
"What we have accomplished is that we have shown ourselves that we are capable." -Les MilesComment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
Free market will equal less jobs in this case. Instead of 85 man rosters, you might see 40 man rosters like the NFL. I mean you are literally talking about eliminating 50% of college athletes if they pay only the best.... Because most of them never contribute..... And if I were a school I would certainly just start paying the highest salary I could for only the best players..... Screw the rest.... No more walk ons, no hardships, and maybe no education. Oh and I have to adhere to title 9 so I will make sure the ladies get paid an equal amount which will eliminate even more opportunity for lesser athletes. Paying college athletes and giving them scholarship money are inextricably linked. Or are we going to have to start paying Rhode scholars as well? How about the music scholarships? Mascots? Where does it end? Scholarships are for performance either in or outside of the classroom representing the school. That IS the pay.
Sent from my SM-N910T using TapatalkComment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
What do you think the power 5 is doing? BCS bowls, Playoffs that's all creating more money for the bigger schools. They are already trying to create it as a Monopoly.
Comment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
for anyone who doesn't quite understand the business side of the NCAA, watch this, it's about 20 mins long. But a good video.
Comment
-
Re: NCAA Punts on Athlete Likeness Monetization, College Games Still Not Viable
I don't think that players should be paid directly by the universities or the NCAA. They are valuable, no doubt. But the NCAA also provides the stage and exposure for these guys to show their stuff and potentially go pro. Who is Johnny Football without Texas A&M? It's a mutually beneficial relationship. That in addition to an education, provided the athlete actually wants one. I think that's more than fair. Especially when you consider the fact that about 1% actually go on to play professionally. Plus you have Title 9 and all that red tape. And the fact that the vast majority of the schools aren't exactly printng money like a Texas or Ohio State.
Where the NCAA errs, in my opinion, is how they try to cap the players's earning potential otherwise. And how they try to be greedy with everything. Let the free market speak and don't take their eligibility for utilizing it. The NCAA does. And I think that's a fair trade off for proving the platform and education. Everything over that though should be on the players. If the starting QB for Ohio State can make a few thousand signing autographs, let him. The NCAA and schools can sign an agreement with EA sports and be paid. Let the players unionize and have the money that they could make go into an account and evenly distribute it to the players part of said union. There's enough money to go around. The NCAA could monitor the whole thing. I actually think that this would led to fewer violations and under the table shenanigans as the players would be making a little something themselves.Comment
Comment