Yet more NCAA hypocrisy

#3
#3
golfballs said:
The application of the rule lacks all common sense.
Click to expand...

Put yourself in the shoes of the NCAA and it makes perfect sense.

There is no financially viable model whereby the athletes get paid directly from their schools, the conference, or the NCAA. There is a model where just the students in the money-making sports get paid, but the irony there is as soon as you start doing that the SJWs will start complaining about the unfairness of the football players making money while the women's swim team gets far less money or nothing at all.

There also is a model (not even a model, just a rule change) where you allow athletes, any athlete, to make money off their likeness. I actually think this is going to happen one day, because it placates a lot of different parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
05_never_again said:
Put yourself in the shoes of the NCAA and it makes perfect sense.

There is no financially viable model whereby the athletes get paid directly from their schools, the conference, or the NCAA. There is a model where just the students in the money-making sports get paid, but the irony there is as soon as you start doing that the SJWs will start complaining about the unfairness of the football players making money while the women's swim team gets far less money or nothing at all.

There also is a model (not even a model, just a rule change) where you allow athletes, any athlete, to make money off their likeness. I actually think this is going to happen one day, because it placates a lot of different parties.
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of schools paying players.

This is a YouTube channel..I'm sure whatever he makes from that is meager
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#5
#5
05_never_again said:
Put yourself in the shoes of the NCAA and it makes perfect sense.

There is no financially viable model whereby the athletes get paid directly from their schools, the conference, or the NCAA. There is a model where just the students in the money-making sports get paid, but the irony there is as soon as you start doing that the SJWs will start complaining about the unfairness of the football players making money while the women's swim team gets far less money or nothing at all.

There also is a model (not even a model, just a rule change) where you allow athletes, any athlete, to make money off their likeness. I actually think this is going to happen one day, because it placates a lot of different parties.
Click to expand...

Power over one aspect of these players lives doesn't make them slaves. I see why the NCAA feels entitled to dictate to these players on matters like this, but it's an overreach imo.

As for the SJWs possibly getting mad about football players making money on YouTube and not the women's swim team, they can make a video blog too. Free market/viewer choice will determine if they are as popular.

The internet makes some of our models of business and rules awkward. If you have a life blog about your baby and film more than whatever child labor laws state they can be filmed in the movie industry, are you in violation of those child labor laws if you make ad revenue from youtube from it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
I'm just interested in the NCAAs reasoning if this kid decides to take them to court. Not that I'm advocating for this to happen. Just curious as to what the outcome would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
VolinMichigan said:
I'm just interested in the NCAAs reasoning if this kid decides to take them to court. Not that I'm advocating for this to happen. Just curious as to what the outcome would be.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting and I think I would like to see him sue them if only to get a ruling and not an out of court settlement. The NCAA needs to have the boundaries of their "rules" set by an authority above themselves in this case imo.
 
#8
#8
Madscientistvol said:
As for the SJWs possibly getting mad about football players making money on YouTube and not the women's swim team, they can make a video blog too. Free market/viewer choice will determine if they are as popular.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why if college athletes do end up getting paid, it would be under such a system.
 
#9
#9
But a kid can sign a baseball contract then decide to go back and play football? Tell me how Chris Weinke and Kelly Washington were amateurs. I get it that they're 2 different sports, but still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#12
#12
This is absolutely ridiculous. If any other student on campus can set up a you tube page, or invent computer software, or invent something and turn it into a business...I don't see how it can be called a benefit, I certainly don't see how this gives UCF football a competitive advantage on the field or in recruiting.

The NCAA needs to quit trying to hold on to the outdated notion that it's the 1950's.
 
#13
#13
golfballs said:
$600 - $9,700?
Click to expand...

Based off his subscriber numbers, viewing trends, and average revenue per view which typically has a large window from as low as $.27-$1.84 depending on which advertisers want their ads on your videos.

You can check the link for the details on how those numbers are extrapolated.
 
#14
#14
vol66 said:
This is absolutely ridiculous. If any other student on campus can set up a you tube page, or invent computer software, or invent something and turn it into a business...I don't see how it can be called a benefit, I certainly don't see how this gives UCF football a competitive advantage on the field or in recruiting.

The NCAA needs to quit trying to hold on to the outdated notion that it's the 1950's.
Click to expand...

The NCAA argument is that through his YouTube videos that he's effectively 'making money on his likeness as a UCF athelete'. Basically the NCAA doesn't understand the concept of YouTube video monetization, and just wants to shoehorn it into their archaic rules without any discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#15
#15
Madscientistvol said:
It would be interesting and I think I would like to see him sue them if only to get a ruling and not an out of court settlement. The NCAA needs to have the boundaries of their "rules" set by an authority above themselves in this case imo.
Click to expand...

Precisely. That's a huge part of the NCAA's perceived authority. There just aren't that many cases about amateurism that people can argue under.
 
#16
#16
BeardedVol said:
The NCAA argument is that though his YouTube videos that he's effectively 'making money on his likeness as a UCF athelete'. Basically the NCAA doesn't understand the concept of YouTube video monetization, and just wants to shoehorn it into their archaic rules without any discussion.
Click to expand...

Yep. And say that his videos weren't even about football...say he was doing cooking videos. They would still claim that he has name recognition/noticeability because he is a UCF athlete, and even if his videos aren't about UCF athletics he cannot make money off of them either.

AFAIK, this is how the stop kids from making money off of autographs. When a football, helmet, or jersey is signed I guess their argument is easier, but if I paid Quinten Dormady $50 to sign a sheet of paper, which has absolutely nothing to do with football, he'd still get in trouble for that because he's using his likeness to make money.
 
#17
#17
05_never_again said:
Yep. And say that his videos weren't even about football...say he was doing cooking videos. They would still claim that he has name recognition/noticeability because he is a UCF athlete, and even if his videos aren't about UCF athletics he cannot make money off of them either.

AFAIK, this is how the stop kids from making money off of autographs. When a football, helmet, or jersey is signed I guess their argument is easier, but if I paid Quinten Dormady $50 to sign a sheet of paper, which has absolutely nothing to do with football, he'd still get in trouble for that because he's using his likeness to make money.
Click to expand...

I would assume part of the NCAA's argument is also that allowing athletes to sell autographs, etc would be a way for teams to (more) easily cheat. The idea being that boosters or whoever would overpay for those items, essentially creating a loophole for schools to pay players. FTR, I'm not giving any type of opinion on whether or not players should be paid or able to benefit from their likeness in this post, I'm merely stating that I believe this is part of the NCAA's thought process.
 
#18
#18
Diceman said:
I would assume part of the NCAA's argument is also that allowing athletes to sell autographs, etc would be a way for teams to (more) easily cheat. The idea being that boosters or whoever would overpay for those items, essentially creating a loophole for schools to pay players.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's the NCAA's justification as to why they can't have jobs either.
 
#19
#19
I'm surprised this hasn't happened more with teenage rappers/actors, etc. who are also good athletes. How would the NCAA react if a situation like this happened where a kid was already famous before he/she went to college?
 
#20
#20
What the NCAA doesn't seem to understand is that Google is actually who is truly profiting from this kid's video content. He's just a accepted a profit sharing agreement from them. He's not a paid employee, and he doesn't receive direct income from the creation or publication of his videos on YouTube. Even if a booster, or anyone for that matter, attempted to inflate his YouTube views to try and enrich him artificially, Google would shut that down before the NCAA even had an inkling that it had occurred.
 
#21
#21
So with his logic if he coded and made an app involving football or kicking he could not make money off of t even if his name wasn't on it??
 
#22
#22
05_never_again said:
Put yourself in the shoes of the NCAA and it makes perfect sense.

There is no financially viable model whereby the athletes get paid directly from their schools, the conference, or the NCAA. There is a model where just the students in the money-making sports get paid, but the irony there is as soon as you start doing that the SJWs will start complaining about the unfairness of the football players making money while the women's swim team gets far less money or nothing at all.

There also is a model (not even a model, just a rule change) where you allow athletes, any athlete, to make money off their likeness. I actually think this is going to happen one day, because it placates a lot of different parties.
Click to expand...

What difference would it make if a guy profited off of his likeness or profited off of Youtube? The SJW would still complain.

I say screw those clowns and let these kids get paid. Hell, I'm sure you would see a lot of volleyball and tennis players on Instagram showing their product and getting all kinds of likes and gifts that would exceed most men anyways.
 
#23
#23
The NCAA probably draws the line because it could easily be abused. 30,000 idiots signed an online petition. It wouldn't be difficult for fans to promise players millions of clicks if they were to sign scholarship papers.

Wasn't Swiper Boy on YouTube while he still had eligibility?
 
#24
#24
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The NCAA probably draws the line because it could easily be abused. 30,000 idiots signed an online petition. It wouldn't be difficult for fans to promise players millions of clicks if they were to sign scholarship papers.

Wasn't Swiper Boy on YouTube while he still had eligibility?
Click to expand...

That's a highly unlikely scenario given that Google already has systems in place to not count YouTube views generated by 'clickfarms', and polices ad revenue-generating channels heavily in order to protect their advertisement agreements.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top