The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Fuck The NCAA: We Own Your Likeness Edition
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, the NCAA is threatening a MN wrestler over his using his likeness to sell inspirational records.
Of course, what is really driving this is the lawsuit against the NCAA over their use of the likenesses of former players without compensation. Allowing a current player to control his likeness would endanger their case. And so the hammer falls unjustly, for the sake of profits.
This needs to fucking stop.
Of course, what is really driving this is the lawsuit against the NCAA over their use of the likenesses of former players without compensation. Allowing a current player to control his likeness would endanger their case. And so the hammer falls unjustly, for the sake of profits.
This needs to fucking stop.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
0
Posts
I am very confused. How can the NCAA assert legal ownership over a person's 'likeness'? Are they claiming that his likeness somehow became their intellectual property at some point? Did he sign away his 'likeness', somehow?
However, the NCAA can use your likeness in relation to your program and university to represent their brand until such time as you are no longer a part of it.
But it's okay. In exchange, you get a really limited selection of shitty degree plans you may or may not receive tuition for.
They are threatening his eligibility, saying that if he sells records under his name, he can no longer compete in the NCAA. The idea is to keep marquee players from selling their likeness to do an end run around the amateurism rules.
To be fair, you can't do ANYTHING to make money while under NCAA contract. Per bylaw.
Yep.
A statistically insignificant amount of players come to the NFL outside of the NCAA. I can't even recall a single one.
This. I'm not coming down in support of their rules, however I can see where this reasoning might be used. If a big problem that the NCAA is trying to curtail is boosters, or situations like SMU, then they have to make a pretty broad statement like no making money. Because if they change the rule to, you are allowed to earn money by selling of your services, then it can be come a backdoor/loophole for boosters to funnel money to athletes by having them sell some arbitrary item for an absurd amount of money.
Not that i agree with that, or with not paying student athletes, or with student athletes, or with the NCCA, but per their laws, i can see where this would be an issue
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
This whole thing is insane. Why the Hell should they be allowed to determine whether or not an aspiring professional player can make a fucking living doing things not even related to the sport? That's crazy.
A booster is a rich fan who donates money to the program. They have a nasty habit of giving athletes money (or other things) on the sly. Having actually played in the NCAA system, I still have no idea why boosters would ever risk a star player's eligibility by doing this. It's this kind of thing that got Reggie Bush busted and forced to give up his Heisman.
There is like, a slight good intention behind this but in light of the fact that the NCAA is the minor leagues for the NFL and NBA it's just fucking asinine.
Ostensibly, the argument is that A) NCAA athletes are already being given a large monetary gift in their tuition (which is total bullshit, for reasons I've already stated), and
But throwing a game in exchange for a bribe is already (I assume?) a major offense, right? I don't see why accepting extra gifts / inducements from fans because they think you're so awesome would somehow affect your performance.
...Versus paying for one by lifting boxes in a retail stock room?
The fact that American universities have managed to find exactly the wrong way to do it doesn't mean it's wrong in principle for people that want to be career athletes to pay for an education via that career. The NCAA seems, to me, to be a big part of your problems.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
Fairness, too, I suppose?
So that Johnny Manziel doesn't get showered with booster checks and free cars while the linemen that blocked for him, thus enabling his success, don't get shit because they're ugly burly dudes from Nebraska?
The problem (well, A problem) is that is creates a separate system for the student-athletes than it does for the regular schmoes actually trying (and paying) to get an education that will better their lives and economic prospects.
Athletes are generally poor students that wouldn't have been accepted to college otherwise, yet are given a disproportionate amount of academic aid and tutorship by the athletic system to maintain their eligibility. Conversely, the athletes that are actually decent students are forced into degree plans they don't want because the course schedule won't allow for them to take classes that keep them out of practice or games. This leaves you with a system that only produces poor students with useless degrees or good students with underperforming degrees. Your degree options are basically limited to Liberal Arts, Communications, Journalism, Criminal Justice, General Business, or Sports Science (the bullshittingest of all bullshit degrees).
Hard to say. The reason my brother turned down minor league offers after he graduated was because they offered him a small apartment and $200/week.
Okay, I can see that point.
My head is still spinning at this article. Like, what if there was one monolithic publisher, and they did this to every author? "Sorry, Charlie, but we found out that you were writing stories for a local rag to keep your utilities on. We've thrown out your manuscript and also blacklisted you from ever publishing work in exchange for money ever again."
It also enables a school to buy players. I don't think the NCAA goes to far in the opposite direction though, at my school some of the players had money issues because they aren't even allowed to get a minimum wage job. I'm not sure what the solution should be, but it's ridiculous that certain sports rake in huge sums of money for the schools, TV, etc and the players don't see any of it and to boot they get a sub-standard education because the time commitment required by sports doesn't allow for most people to be able to complete a real degree. With how the current system works I do have to agree with SKFM that it doesn't make sense to have the two linked since there doesn't actually seem to be any benefit for the players which should be the basis for the entire system to begin with instead of taking advantage of them.
Well keep in mind it'd be something replacing the current NCAA games where every major conference has big TV deals. I know the minor league games around here are never televised so there is no money there. Clearly, people are willing to pay money to see NCAA level of performance in games.
The second point, is just how much is the actual value of that degree to most NBA/NFL players? Do they ever use it? While those who don't break probably do they are actually poorly served by the academic coaching scandals, not helped.
And that doesn't even count for the varsity sports that don't actually give out enough scholarships to all their players. Wresting at Penn State doesn't allocate enough scholarships for all of the weight classes as is, let alone the backups. So half the team is there paying their own education, and can't even get a part time job if they want to remain eligible.
THAT is why it's fucked up.
Agreed. Divs 1AA and II largely run on a system of half-scholarships, where high-performing upperclassmen eventually earn full scholarships in the last year or so, and Div III doesn't offer scholarships at all, which private colleges cheat their way around by offering vague "merit" scholarships of some horseshit. I had a buddy that got a full ride to an expensive private college on one of those things despite the fact he never passed the ACT or SAT.
Yet all the same restrictions on money, gifts, and employment are the same for every level.
I think at this point we can't realistically expect to separate high-level NCAA athletics from the schools that sponsor them, but we can institute reforms so that the money that the athletics programs bring in is spread around the rest of the school a little more evenly, and we can encourage universities to offer vocational programs that teach actual trades and skills to those students who are earning useless degrees.
I had another friend who played a season for UCLA, got injured and came back home, and went to junior college to get a certification in corrosion technologies that allowed him to get a job in lucrative oilfield work. Had he not been injured, if he didn't go to the NFL after UCLA, his education would have only enabled him to get a job teaching or coaching in public school. As it stands, he makes easily twice what he could make in public education and has a much more in-demand vocation.
Edit: Actually I think the best reform, is letting athletes accumulate years of scholarship at a school. You play for 4 years, you get 4 years tuition credit. You can cash the credits in as you play if you want (for the smaller sports that offer scholarships and aren't as time demanding), or bank them and use them later after you eligibility ends. So if you're the star QB, you play for 4 years but don't get drafted, you have a chance to go and get a useful degree without the crazy other commitments required.
The argument for higher academic standards is tricky if we can't reform the system that forces students into shitty majors.
I was accepted to an Ivy League college out of high school, but my options were "Get a great education and accrue $120k in debt" or "Get a middling education and come out debt-free."
I still can't say whether or not I made the right choice.
Depends on what you consider competitive. Stanford, PSU, Northwestern do it. It's not impossible. UF isn't quite on their level, but they are generally a step above the rest of the SEC minus Vanderbilt.
Well they are just minor league teams right now. Most schools don't allow their football or basketball players to take real courses because it gets in the way of their sports. This basically holds the schools to the responsibility of giving them a real opportunity to gain an education after their commitment to the school ends.
I've read accounts from athletes who have said they've recently been coached by athletic departments that they can't even do things like say "Boy I really liked eating at Joe's Wing House this afternoon!" on twitter because it could create the perception that they are advertising in exchange for free meals.
When "student" athletes are having their right to expression curtailed simply to maintain a front of amateurism (because ... please ...) it's seriously fucked up. I think we all agree students should be able to post whatever bullshit they want about their lunch.
Unless, of course, that student is a victim of the sick, twisted world of denial and profiteering that is the utterly, utterly corrupt NCAA.
And this article from grantland.com is the best recent summary I've read of just exactly why such a house of cards built on lies and deceit only stands to perpetuate those lies and deceits.
Oh no, they totally are. You aren't getting disagreement from me. But at the same time, some schools do manage to make it happen, while others fail fucking miserably (Hello University of Texas and your graduation rate for African American players).
Basically, you need a system that allows poor-performing HS students to play Div. 1 sports without giving them more economic aid than you do your brilliant students, and you still need to offer those poor-performing students a tangible real benefit for their time and effort.
There are athletes on scholarship that absolutely have part-time jobs and get paid. They don't get paid EXTRA or PREFERENTIALLY because of their skills, but they get paid within the NCAA rules. There are also athletes who major in tough stuff and do just fine.
Edit: Actually that first article makes Tressel look like a dick.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
That's great.
It doesn't make the NCAA any less corrupt or the entire enterprise any less exploitative of its athletes. It just means in a small # of cases it somehow managed to achieve its stated mission. Hooray!
Thank you -- I was sure I remembered seeing starters from my school's basketball team working in the library. I no longer feel like I'm completely out of the loop.