College Football

[A_B]

Johnny Football's gonna get a few games off at a minimum, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's all of them.

[Gunpowder]

I actually have a mutual friend with the guy mentioned in the ESPN article. I saw the pictures of all the stuff he signed last year and was like....uh, he's going to get in trouble for that, no? Sure enough, here it is.

[P.D.X.]

Siri gives the correct answer if you ask her who her favorite team is.

[Weatherfrog]

Can't believe its only 12 days until RAZORBACKS FOOTBALL starts back up again. Needless to say, really excited to put last year in the past.

Also, Manziel won't miss any games. He's got the NCAA by the short hairs right now. This O'Bannon lawsuit affects every aspect of player image and the rights therein. NCAA is petrified. Ridiculous to say that a student athlete cannot profit off of his fame and good name.

Can NCAA players own stock? Of course they can.

Can NCAA own stock in a family owned business? Sure.

What if family owned business is a car dealership? No big deal.

What if car dealership sees huge bump in sales after athlete wins Heisman? Makes sense.

What if athlete shows up at the car lot and signs autographs? Umm.

What if autograph seekers buy cars at the car lot? Uhhh.

What if athlete makes money because he showed up to sign autographs?

Is the slippery slope fallacy that much of a fallacy?

I do not think college athletes should get paid. I just don't see how it would work. I do think they should be able to leverage their image/notoriety for profit. Also, they should be able to go pro whenever they are ready. And the schools should pay premiums on insurance policies in case they get injured.

[Gunpowder]

I don't think schools should pay them either, which makes this pretty much the only not-communist solution.

[Shirley]

The problem with the notion that schools shouldn't pay athletes, but they should be allowed to get jobs and profit off of their image is that in the end, it's gonna be pretty much the same thing. Schools will have guaranteed pipelines of "jobs" and promotions arranged for all of their key athletes. It'll go back to how it was back 50 years ago when guys got jobs turning off the lights in the gym for $1000 a week.

I understand why the NCAA tried to go with the zero tolerance policy. In the end, that's pretty much the only choice other than just saying "fuck it" and let the schools do what they want.

And I'm not so sure I'm not in the "fuck it" camp. You can't contain the beast - may was well just let it out.

[Gunpowder]

I'm sure you could still try to police jobs like that (Rhett Bomar comes to mind). But Manziel should be able to sign whatever the hell he wants for market value. OR the schools can donate all of their football jersey sales money to charity.

[Scottie]

OR the schools can donate all of their football jersey sales money to charity.

Or scholarships.

Is it clear that the NCAA has to do something? Or do they just keep rolling along as is? This discord arises every year. It's getting like the annual racist team name contentions. And as with the latter, little changes.

Obviously this is about money; all the recent conference shifting is about money. Can the schools deny that? A school doesn't leave the ACC for the B1G because it feels the players will get a better education in games against that other particular set of teams.

A line has to be established somewhere. If a fan purchases a licenced product, a jersey, then the school has made its money from it. So what if a player signs it later on? The school is not being denied profits from something that is at that point beyond their reach. They aren't going after eBay resellers, are they?

There's something fundamentally wrong with "we can make money off of your name but you cannot make money off of your name".