A different take on player payment

No one is refuting the rule exists as it stands. I'm simply refuting the rule's constitutionality. It's a rule that should be changed, and my argument is simply for that change.

And no, they might not be holding a gun to your head, but if it's the only way you can ever afford to go to college, you have to take it. It's not coercion. It's extortion.

 

Hypothetical:

Let's assume players can profit off of their own signatures. Let's also assume Mathieu was selling his during his last season and those in the locker room knew the money he was making but more importantly he was failing to meet other requirements instituted for the team.

How do you see the chemistry in that locker room?

I don't disagree with the suggestion this rule needs to be looked at in depth. Yet, I've not seen any suggestions on how to make it work without giving some athletes a distinct advantage over others. And, in the end, what amounts to approximately 1/3rd of the D1 teams being at a disadvantage.

How is it governed? How is it made equitable for all D1 student athletes?

 

Failing to meet team requirements gets your playing time cut, which cuts into your celebrity. And I don't really see this have much effect in locker room chemistry. In any locker room, there are stars and there are extras. The extras may be just as important as the stars to the final cut, but they certainly aren't rewarded the same. It's one of those things that you either accept, or you elevate your game to become a star yourself.

Athletes already have distinct advantages over others. It's a fact of life. If I were a third-string walk-on in the locker room with, say, a Tim Tebow, I would wish I had the ability that he has, but I'd accept that I just don't.

As far as schools, much more than 1/3 of D1 teams are already at a disadvantage, and have been for some time, mainly because they typically get the talent that nobody else wants. That's something that will never change.

That being said, occassionally a second or third-tier school will get a highlight-reel kind of guy that gets national recognition for his abilities, ala RGIII. He would not have had much trouble getting an endorsement deal.

It's capitalism. In my example above, Tebow has something that is marketable, and I don't. I can bitch and moan about it, cry that people should willingly pay for my autographs and endorsements, but you can't force people to buy something they don't want.

 

I've addressed this earlier in the thread: the same backroom deal could be made about any number of things as it stands already. A coach or a booster could guarantee him $1,000 every time the player comes and washes his car. $10,000 for painting his house in the off-season. All cash, mind you. Granted, autographs would just be one more alley through which shady deals can be made, but as long as people are free to charge what they want for services offered, the possibility remains. There are rules in place to keep these things from happening, and they would apply to the scenario you describe above. I'm sure that if Jim's Sports Memorabilia isn't selling ALL of the autographs without taking losses on them, red flags would be raised. If, however, all of the autographs you mention are sold at or above cost...well, that's just capitalism. Tim has a product for which there is a demand.

 

I like environments that are intended to create more competitive atmospheres by striving for parity through equal opportunity. There are natural advantages and disadvantages everywhere you go but introducing player compensation only creates more opportunity for more corruption. We don't have a perfect system (and the NCAA has a wealth of improvement opportunities). What makes anyone think that organization is prepared to regulate a more compex environment by introducing player compensation. Bottom line here is that the introduction of compensation will create more issues than it fixes.

When I want to watch overpaid athletes I will click over to the NFL. To me, one of the attractive aspects of college athletics is the amatuer environment. Although not true in every player's case, our college athletes do have a sense of pride and loyalty for the team they represent. When they turn pro, typically the uniform becomes just a piece of laundry.

That being said, I do understand the arguments. But I also understand that many players get paid to go to school while doing something they love and putting themselves in position for a huge pay day when they turn pro. That's something not everyone receives. When our business was started, we ate ramen noodles, wondered if we were going to be able to pay the bills, feared losing our home and made numerous sacrifices. Now we have a nice business that is continuing to grow. The point is, you make the sacrifices and accept a little less than what you want today for a brighter and better tomorrow. Three years of sacrifice is not a long time to wait for $MM's. The rest of the team walks off with a degree. That's not too bad when only 30% of Americans have a bachelor's degree.

Besides, I haven't seen any starving players on any of the sidelines ...

 

Even if your dream comes to pass, the question still stands about actual, real-world enforcement. If the NCAA is unable to adequately police a relatively simple no-tolerance policy on payola, how will they be able to enforce a complex one where there are multiple shades of gray? Your position is akin to someone who gets outraged about some situation and says "There needs to be a law to fix this!", without giving thought to whether its enforcement is practical or even possible, or the potential unintended consequences.

 

This should not be a reason for a law not to exist. The BRPD is grossly undermanned and unable to slow the body count here in the capital city. Does that make murder okay? Should we just let it happen because it's unenforceable?

Somebody with a better mind for it than myself should have the burden of hashing out the details. The NCAA's incompetence is no excuse for allowing players to get ripped off. Even if it can't be done, it at least needs to be attempted.

Nobody is talking about paying the players for participating. I'm just saying that if they have or become a marketable asset, they should at least be entitled to a cut. Make no mistake...just like the whole EA Sports thing, people are going to use their image and celebrity status to sell their product with or without their permission. See the "Honey Badger" shirts that came out a couple of years ago. LSU put a stop to it, but it wasn't because they were worried about TM7 getting ripped off...

If players can't get royalties on these types of things, then "there should be a law against" marketers from profiting off of them. As far as I know, a similar law already exists that protects people's names, likenesses, etc. from being used against their wishes for somebody else's monetary gain. Please don't ask me to quote it, because I can't, but I know that if I write and copywrite a song, and it suddenly ends up on the new Kenny Chesney album, that sumbitch owes me some money.

 

If a law or rule makes a bad situation worse, then yes, we "let it happen". Prohibition did wonders for curbing alcohol consumption, right? You would have us open college football's version of Pandora's Box so Johnny Football can afford a new set of rims.

 

Prohibition was a law that never should have been passed, which is pretty much why it was repealed. Laws against marijuana do very little to curb the consumption of it, speeding laws do almost nothing to fight the issue of excessive speed on the interstates, and drinking laws are impotent against people under 21 getting hammered. But they still try.

This isn't about Manziel. At least not specifically. It's about fairness in a capitalist society. If you have something somebody else wants, nobody should have the right to tell you that you can't sell it. Certainly, nobody has the right to take it without permission, as EA Sports does on its game covers.