NCAA in "Deep Discussion" to Implement Revenue Sharing with Athletes

Toe said:
Guess they gotta pay for all of this somehow...
Click to expand...




baxter-cain-baseketball-gif-disgust-1.gif


 
Toe said:
Guess they gotta pay for all of this somehow...
Click to expand...


I don't mind the patch/logo on jersey's as long as it isn't too intrusive (I'm looking at you EPL). If they do it like the NBA does it, I'm fine with that. And I think the patch is better for schools as a lot of big-time schools do not have football (The Big East conference, Gonzaga etc), unless they can put additional logos on the court without making the court too busy.

 
ECisGod said:
These are just symptoms of the root cause that we, as a society, overvalue entertainment.
Click to expand...


RedDenver said:
Yep, CFB was effed as soon as it became a multi-billion dollar business.
Click to expand...
It was probably bound to get effed up anyway but, personally, I think the schools and NCAA should’ve held the ground that provided a scholarship and stipend in exchange for being a player. Had players sign a contract that they were not entitled to their NIL and that’s the deal. Other than that nobody is forcing them to be a CFB player. But here we are…

 
JJ Husker said:
It was probably bound to get effed up anyway but, personally, I think the schools and NCAA should’ve held the ground that provided a scholarship and stipend in exchange for being a player. Had players sign a contract that they were not entitled to their NIL and that’s the deal. Other than that nobody is forcing them to be a CFB player. But here we are…
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misremembering or misunderstanding, but I thought that the whole court case was that the schools could not sign away the players' NIL rights.

 
RedDenver said:
Maybe I'm misremembering or misunderstanding, but I thought that the whole court case was that the schools could not sign away the players' NIL rights.
Click to expand...


Correct. The court is essentially stating that if someone wants to pay a particular player a million dollars to play a season of football at a particular school, the NCAA can't tell the player "No". 

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if there is collective bargaining between the NCAA and a Player's org, common-sense rules on NIL, transfer, and etc. could be considered legal from an anti-trust perspective. 

 
RedDenver said:
Maybe I'm misremembering or misunderstanding, but I thought that the whole court case was that the schools could not sign away the players' NIL rights.
Click to expand...


hskrpwr13 said:
Correct. The court is essentially stating that if someone wants to pay a particular player a million dollars to play a season of football at a particular school, the NCAA can't tell the player "No". 

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if there is collective bargaining between the NCAA and a Player's org, common-sense rules on NIL, transfer, and etc. could be considered legal from an anti-trust perspective. 
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m not a lawyer either and I won’t pretend to know what could or could not be legal. But it seems to me that the schools could have all new players sign a contract that assigns their NIL rights to the school specifying that they aren’t entitled to anything except their scholly, a stipend and the perks of being a college athlete. I mean it worked that way for a long long time. Of course that goes out the window if all schools don’t agree to it.

It’s just wishful thinking at this point though. Cat’s out of the bag now. It’s just the NFL with fewer restrictions and framework.

And no, the old way wasn’t entirely fair for the players. :dunno But IDGAF, I liked it better before. Like I said, nobody is forcing anyone to be a college athlete.

 
Back
Top