Thoughts on MBB players getting

[BigTime]

paid for profits on their image and/or likeness?

Yay? Nay? Don't care either way?

 

[sperry]

I wish the NBA would establish an actual minor league for basketball that paid competitive wages, instead of the garbage d-league. Players who don't want to play for free should have a viable alternative, but those who are interested in amateur basketball should be allowed to play. I wish all the sports were on the baseball model you have the option to go pro or to college out of high school, but then are obligated to stay for 3 years.

 

[BCSooners]

Unless you were a high draft pick you aren't getting paid much in minor league baseball.

 

[NickZepp]

I'm not against it as long as we get rid of the current scholarship arrangement we have right now.

 

[WTSooner]

paid for profits on their image and/or likeness?

Yay? Nay? Don't care either way?

I don't really feel like re-arguing this, but IMO, they already are. It's called a scholarship. They get a free college education. Free room and board. Free food. Free access to workout facilities, doctors, and nutritionists. And they get to play the sport they love.

And the school gets to make money off them for a few years.

 

[brumFTW]

paid for profits on their image and/or likeness?

Yay? Nay? Don't care either way?

I think it depends on how they're using their image. If you're selling a jersey with a number that has been worn by numerous athletes that's one thing, if you're selling a player's name and face to video game and other media developers years after you've ceased compensating an athlete in anyway that's unacceptable.

 

[StatGeek]

As a father I would hope that OU or Stanford never wants to exploit and profit off of my boys talents, it's such a bad deal and all. SMH, that this is even considered a debate.

 

[sperry]

Unless you were a high draft pick you aren't getting paid much in minor league baseball.

You are right. The ones who get screwed now are the Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parkers, and Julius Randles of the world: the guys who have an established and valuable brand before they even get to college, and are unable to capitalize on that, despite the fact that the NCAA and their own university will both rake in dough because of it.

 

[Speedy17]

You are right. The ones who get screwed now are the Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parkers, and Julius Randles of the world: the guys who have an established and valuable brand before they even get to college, and are unable to capitalize on that, despite the fact that the NCAA and their own university will both rake in dough because of it.

I keep on trying to figure out how people think that most schools are raking in the dough in men's hoops. I guarantee you that OU might break even but that is it - they are definitely not raking in the dough. In fact, in 2012, OU men's hoops made a whopping $1,008,014. In contrast, the women's hoops lost $3,118,362 so in reality, OU lost over 2 million in hoops. By the way, the NCAA had nothing to do with the Wiggins, Parkers, and Randles, that was the NBA. I heard Silver is trying to increase the age to enter the NBA to keep them in college.

 

[WTSooner]

I keep on trying to figure out how people think that most schools are raking in the dough in men's hoops. I guarantee you that OU might break even but that is it - they are definitely not raking in the dough. In fact, in 2012, OU men's hoops made a whopping $1,008,014. In contrast, the women's hoops lost 3,118,362 so in reality, OU lost over 2 million in hoops. By the way, the NCAA had nothing to do with the Wiggins, Parkers, and Randles, that was the NBA. I heard Silver is trying to increase the age to enter the NBA to keep them in college.

Exactly. Towards the end of the Sampson-era, I believe, I read something that said there were less than 10 basketball programs that were self sufficient. I think OU was at the tail end of that list, like you stated, basically breaking even, but making just a tad. Every other program in the country lost money.

 

[AdaSooner]

paid for profits on their image and/or likeness?

Yay? Nay? Don't care either way?

Does that mean we may have to change the header on this web site?

To answer your question, I don't like the idea for the reasons WT gave. I also think it would open a can of worms in future lawsuits that will tie up the courts even more than they are now, as well as become a nightmare for the schools to police. It's a big fat NAY for me!

 

[NickZepp]

The only way that players get paid is if outside sources are involved through endorsements. But the NCAA and school presidents will never allow that. It doesn't matter how much money is being made the system is too socialized for all the players to get paid and the NCAA to really function.

 

[snydrosooner]

Not against players getting extra spending money or free money with there scholarship, but it needs to be equal for all players and all universities. If each school is able to pay what they want ( or what they can afford) schools will just get into a bidding war of money they will offer instead of on education and facilities.

The money from the TV contracts that the NCAA is getting needs to be divided up and go to the schools so they can use it to benefit the players in better facilities and tutoring.

 

[NickZepp]

Not against players getting extra spending money or free money with there scholarship, but it needs to be equal for all players and all universities. If each school is able to pay what they want ( or what they can afford) schools will just get into a bidding war of money they will offer instead of on education and facilities.

The money from the TV contracts that the NCAA is getting needs to be divided up and go to the schools so they can use it to benefit the players in better facilities and tutoring.

This all sounds good in theory but it's not how things work out. Even in football very few programs make that much money. Same with basketball. When it gets to most other sports practically no programs make money.

Almost all the money ends up going to facilities, coaches, and education right now. If that's what you want then there's no reason for changing it.

 

[bocabull]

The key point is the judged ruled what we all know to be true ... these players are not amateurs. That's a bogus argument. It's big business. The NCAA has constantly changed rules on amateur status and there is no evidence classifying the players as student-athletes has improved academic outcomes.

The writing is on the wall. The NCAA & major conferences saw this coming which is why they just announced the top 5 conferences will have more sway in setting rules. This will move rapidly through the courts just like same sex marriage. The legal precedent is set. First it's a share of revenue from likeness, then it will be a share of TV revenue, etc.

Game over.

 

[sperry]

I keep on trying to figure out how people think that most schools are raking in the dough in men's hoops. I guarantee you that OU might break even but that is it - they are definitely not raking in the dough. In fact, in 2012, OU men's hoops made a whopping $1,008,014. In contrast, the women's hoops lost $3,118,362 so in reality, OU lost over 2 million in hoops. By the way, the NCAA had nothing to do with the Wiggins, Parkers, and Randles, that was the NBA. I heard Silver is trying to increase the age to enter the NBA to keep them in college.

Again, the Jabari Parkers, Julius Randles, and Andrew Wiggins of the world are the ones who are getting the short end of the stick. And they attend schools where the basketball programs are massively profitable.

 

[WTSooner]

Again, the Jabari Parkers, Julius Randles, and Andrew Wiggins of the world are the ones who are getting the short end of the stick. And they attend schools where the basketball programs are massively profitable.

If they want to give up their amateur status, they are more than welcome to do as Mudiay(sp) just did, and go play pro basketball overseas for a season.

 

[DenverSooner]

The key point is the judged ruled what we all know to be true ... these players are not amateurs. That's a bogus argument. It's big business. The NCAA has constantly changed rules on amateur status and there is no evidence classifying the players as student-athletes has improved academic outcomes.

The writing is on the wall. The NCAA & major conferences saw this coming which is why they just announced the top 5 conferences will have more sway in setting rules. This will move rapidly through the courts just like same sex marriage. The legal precedent is set. First it's a share of revenue from likeness, then it will be a share of TV revenue, etc.

Game over.

I seriously doubt it was even an issue of the case whether or not the players were amateurs. Link the opinion, I will read it.

 

[sperry]

If they want to give up their amateur status, they are more than welcome to do as Mudiay(sp) just did, and go play pro basketball overseas for a season.

Not being able to seek your chosen vocation in your country is not exactly a viable alternative.

 

[thebigabd]

If they want to give up their amateur status, they are more than welcome to do as Mudiay(sp) just did, and go play pro basketball overseas for a season.

The goal is achieve a few things, in my opinion.

1.) Keep college sports as the official pipeline into the professional leagues.
2.) Maintain academic integrity.
3.) Reward athletes who generate millions of dollars for their schools.

Your suggestion violates #1. If it became mainstream for all the best players to go to Italy that would hurt college basketball. It would hurt the schools. They would sell less tickets. They would have fewer fans. They would sell fewer jerseys, posters, etc.

What is the difference between watching Kentucky and Duke play vs watching Tulsa and ORU play? The quality of player, of course. The reason "mid major" schools don't fill the seats in football or basketball is because their players aren't as good and it is therefore less fun to watch.

If Tulsa pulled in a Kentucky-quality recruiting class next year they would fill the seats and generate national interest from ESPN, etc. All of which results in revenue.

If this premise is true, then it is the player that is generating revenue for the school. If Kentucky put the exact same team that ORU has on the floor next year, not even Ashley Judd would show up. If the quality of player is responsible for the revenue stream, they are entitled to profit in one way or another from that.

Free school and a dorm room is not sufficient compensation. A lot of these guys are broke, and other people are profiting millions from their ability.

And, it won't be equal. Suzy from the equestrian team will not make any money, because she doesnt generate any. The 4th string nose-tackle will not make any money. But if you are a star and Nike wants to put you in a commercial, damn right you should be able to do that. If you are Cam Newton at Auburn and Body Armour wants to release a new shoe called "Body Armour Cam Newtons", you sign a million dollar deal and move on.