[martyup]

If I were a NCAA member institution, I would try to get my fellow members to agree to have any (maybe not all) monies earned through image and likeness go toward defraying the cost of the athlete's scholarship.

If you are saying that all NCAA schools that offer scholarships reduced the scholarship by the amount of funds earned by the athlete, I like the idea.  It's fair.  However, I don't think you could ever get them all to agree.  All it would take is one Power 5 holdout to torpedo the idea.  I can hear the pitch, "Hey, come to Alabama and you can get a full ride and keep all of the money from selling your image.  And, we've got rich boosters that will give you lots of money for your image."

[martyup]

If I were a NCAA member institution, I would try to get my fellow members to agree to have any (maybe not all) monies earned through image and likeness go toward defraying the cost of the athlete's scholarship.

If you are saying that all NCAA schools that offer scholarships reduced the scholarship by the amount of funds earned by the athlete, I like the idea.  It's fair.  However, I don't think you could ever get them all to agree.  All it would take is one Power 5 holdout to torpedo the idea.  I can hear the pitch, "Hey, come to Alabama and you can get a full ride and keep all of the money from selling your image.  And, we've got rich boosters that will give you lots of money for your image."

[CowboyIndian]

If you are saying that all NCAA schools that offer scholarships reduced the scholarship by the amount of funds earned by the athlete, I like the idea.  It's fair.  However, I don't think you could ever get them all to agree.  All it would take is one Power 5 holdout to torpedo the idea.  I can hear the pitch, "Hey, come to Alabama and you can get a full ride and keep all of the money from selling your image.  And, we've got rich boosters that will give you lots of money for your image."

Yup...that's what I was saying and I imagine you're right...that one holdout might make it moot and the $EC would likely provide more than one. Maybe, though, if there were just a few holdouts (I can't imagine too many ADs or university presidents will like the NIL idea) the scholarship limit of 85 would make it work. I see a tiered system in the future for college football, anyway.

[CowboyIndian]

If you are saying that all NCAA schools that offer scholarships reduced the scholarship by the amount of funds earned by the athlete, I like the idea.  It's fair.  However, I don't think you could ever get them all to agree.  All it would take is one Power 5 holdout to torpedo the idea.  I can hear the pitch, "Hey, come to Alabama and you can get a full ride and keep all of the money from selling your image.  And, we've got rich boosters that will give you lots of money for your image."

Yup...that's what I was saying and I imagine you're right...that one holdout might make it moot and the $EC would likely provide more than one. Maybe, though, if there were just a few holdouts (I can't imagine too many ADs or university presidents will like the NIL idea) the scholarship limit of 85 would make it work. I see a tiered system in the future for college football, anyway.

[CTcard]

From my own crystal ball, there is too much drama in the responses here.

I probably read the law too quickly, but I don't see it would really change the overall landscape much, in any direction. I certainly see nothing that would "destroy the NCAA" in Sherman's words. I don't see any measure that would have a substantial impact on athletic department revenue streams or basic methods of operation.

I also don't see a big windfall for many athletes, and almost none for the vast majority of NCAA athletes. A rough guess would be maybe 200 have real endorsement potential and receive significant cash, another ~2000 would receive a bit of booster "endorsement" pay, possibly several hundred who will be able to take advantage of the general freedom to run side-gigs for a bit of cash, and the balance of about 457,000 NCAA athletes see nothing different. 

A few agents will make some money, and more "agents" will siphon off a fair amount of the minor money the 2000 above would receive.

What it does appear to do is make booster payments to lure star players to their favorite team legal, as long as the player throws in an autograph or something. That will further drive the recruiting inequities in football and men's basketball. In the short run most fans won't care much, but in the long term I wonder how much popularity a sport that consists of say a dozen halves spending most of their time pummeling another 100 have-nots can really sustain.

Stanford is a have in non-revenue sports, and could become moreso. As noted, Stanford has relatively rich alums and generally more likely to have the single rich-guy fan for many sports who desperately wants to collect his favorite athlete's autograph - particularly during the time they decide which school to attend.

I see a tiered system in the future for college football, anyway.

You have very good vision.
There will probably be a double tier at the top - let's call it the Power 5 and then the Group of 5.
The next level we'll call FCS.
Then maybe Division 2 and Division 3.

If I were a NCAA member institution, I would try to get my fellow members to agree to have any (maybe not all) monies earned through image and likeness go toward defraying the cost of the athlete's scholarship.

Of course getting fellow NCAA members to agree is called making a rule, which are generally designed to rein in those few rogue holdouts.
At any rate, I think the California law has language forbidding such "punishment" of students for accepting such payments. And if it doesn't it could soon enough.

with some bills, like one pending in New York, going further and permitting students to hire agents or receive a specific share of athletic revenue

The California bill permits students to hire agents.

I won't mind seeing football and basketball minor leagues form and taking the players that aren't interested in the 40-year or even 4-year commitment. 

As I've said here before, I endorse the baseball model, since it gives players the choice of turning pro or going to college--but not doing both at the same time.

While I kind of agree, there are at least two issues that give me pause.

1. It seems likely to me that if college football and basketball were structured like baseball, then eventually their popularity would be about the same as college baseball. That's fine in and of itself, but it would wipe out the money source for most all ncaa sports. That would hugely restrict the opportunities and level of play for hundreds of thousands of college students.

2. I don't have much direct knowledge of the minor league baseball world, but I did have some familiarity with Canadian hockey some years ago. Hockey has a college option in both Canada and the US (US college scholarships much better), but the sport really relies (relied?) upon the major junior leagues for its professionals. That keeps much of the corruption out of colleges but also produces a ton of mid-twenties washouts with no savings, no college degree, sometimes no high school degree, and no idea how to proceed with life.
At least in the college football/basketball system the washouts have exposure to college and often either a degree or a route back to get a degree that can provide a new direction.

[CTcard]

From my own crystal ball, there is too much drama in the responses here.

I probably read the law too quickly, but I don't see it would really change the overall landscape much, in any direction. I certainly see nothing that would "destroy the NCAA" in Sherman's words. I don't see any measure that would have a substantial impact on athletic department revenue streams or basic methods of operation.

I also don't see a big windfall for many athletes, and almost none for the vast majority of NCAA athletes. A rough guess would be maybe 200 have real endorsement potential and receive significant cash, another ~2000 would receive a bit of booster "endorsement" pay, possibly several hundred who will be able to take advantage of the general freedom to run side-gigs for a bit of cash, and the balance of about 457,000 NCAA athletes see nothing different. 

A few agents will make some money, and more "agents" will siphon off a fair amount of the minor money the 2000 above would receive.

What it does appear to do is make booster payments to lure star players to their favorite team legal, as long as the player throws in an autograph or something. That will further drive the recruiting inequities in football and men's basketball. In the short run most fans won't care much, but in the long term I wonder how much popularity a sport that consists of say a dozen halves spending most of their time pummeling another 100 have-nots can really sustain.

Stanford is a have in non-revenue sports, and could become moreso. As noted, Stanford has relatively rich alums and generally more likely to have the single rich-guy fan for many sports who desperately wants to collect his favorite athlete's autograph - particularly during the time they decide which school to attend.

I see a tiered system in the future for college football, anyway.

You have very good vision.
There will probably be a double tier at the top - let's call it the Power 5 and then the Group of 5.
The next level we'll call FCS.
Then maybe Division 2 and Division 3.

If I were a NCAA member institution, I would try to get my fellow members to agree to have any (maybe not all) monies earned through image and likeness go toward defraying the cost of the athlete's scholarship.

Of course getting fellow NCAA members to agree is called making a rule, which are generally designed to rein in those few rogue holdouts.
At any rate, I think the California law has language forbidding such "punishment" of students for accepting such payments. And if it doesn't it could soon enough.

with some bills, like one pending in New York, going further and permitting students to hire agents or receive a specific share of athletic revenue

The California bill permits students to hire agents.

I won't mind seeing football and basketball minor leagues form and taking the players that aren't interested in the 40-year or even 4-year commitment. 

As I've said here before, I endorse the baseball model, since it gives players the choice of turning pro or going to college--but not doing both at the same time.

While I kind of agree, there are at least two issues that give me pause.

1. It seems likely to me that if college football and basketball were structured like baseball, then eventually their popularity would be about the same as college baseball. That's fine in and of itself, but it would wipe out the money source for most all ncaa sports. That would hugely restrict the opportunities and level of play for hundreds of thousands of college students.

2. I don't have much direct knowledge of the minor league baseball world, but I did have some familiarity with Canadian hockey some years ago. Hockey has a college option in both Canada and the US (US college scholarships much better), but the sport really relies (relied?) upon the major junior leagues for its professionals. That keeps much of the corruption out of colleges but also produces a ton of mid-twenties washouts with no savings, no college degree, sometimes no high school degree, and no idea how to proceed with life.
At least in the college football/basketball system the washouts have exposure to college and often either a degree or a route back to get a degree that can provide a new direction.

[OutsiderFan]

Just listening to the national reaction to this law passing, it seems evident the NCAA is going to lose its fight in a very large way.  

I would imagine Class of 2021 athletes will be the first ones who will give thought to monetizing their NIL as part of their decision making about where to attend school.  And I can't imagine the CA Pac-12 schools will not use this in their recruiting pitches to some degree.

The one thing that just needs to be continually hammered home is the law doesn't require or even allow athletes to be paid directly from schools.  It's all about allowing them to earn money when not participating with their teams.  

One other thing to consider.  People talk about players being able to sell jerseys. There is no reason on Earth schools have to allow players to keep their jerseys as if they are their property to sell.  They could rightfully have language in the scholarship contract say all game jerseys are the property of the school and must be returned to the school after use; athletes are prohibited from selling game worn jerseys. Athletes would have to have rights to sell school copyrighted jerseys even with their names and numbers on them, and the schools have no obligation to give them those rights.

Though it's entirely possible a school could give the athlete those rights and split revenue from the sale with the athlete.  This could be one reason why Stanford is setting up the Athlete Endorsement Department. Would also cover video game licensing, although more schools would have to be participating to allow that to be viable.

Otherwise, if a company wants to pay athletes to endorse their products off the field, or come do autograph signings, they can.  I really don't see anything wrong with this.  One of the most basic marketing promotions is to have someone famous present at a business as a means of driving traffic to it.  Will business owners pay excessively to lure recruits to play for schools that will benefit from the compensation? Maybe. But even if they do, at least it will be being done above board and in the open, not by bag men in dark parking lots, while the NCAA is asleep while it happens.

[OutsiderFan]

Just listening to the national reaction to this law passing, it seems evident the NCAA is going to lose its fight in a very large way.  

I would imagine Class of 2021 athletes will be the first ones who will give thought to monetizing their NIL as part of their decision making about where to attend school.  And I can't imagine the CA Pac-12 schools will not use this in their recruiting pitches to some degree.

The one thing that just needs to be continually hammered home is the law doesn't require or even allow athletes to be paid directly from schools.  It's all about allowing them to earn money when not participating with their teams.  

One other thing to consider.  People talk about players being able to sell jerseys. There is no reason on Earth schools have to allow players to keep their jerseys as if they are their property to sell.  They could rightfully have language in the scholarship contract say all game jerseys are the property of the school and must be returned to the school after use; athletes are prohibited from selling game worn jerseys. Athletes would have to have rights to sell school copyrighted jerseys even with their names and numbers on them, and the schools have no obligation to give them those rights.

Though it's entirely possible a school could give the athlete those rights and split revenue from the sale with the athlete.  This could be one reason why Stanford is setting up the Athlete Endorsement Department. Would also cover video game licensing, although more schools would have to be participating to allow that to be viable.

Otherwise, if a company wants to pay athletes to endorse their products off the field, or come do autograph signings, they can.  I really don't see anything wrong with this.  One of the most basic marketing promotions is to have someone famous present at a business as a means of driving traffic to it.  Will business owners pay excessively to lure recruits to play for schools that will benefit from the compensation? Maybe. But even if they do, at least it will be being done above board and in the open, not by bag men in dark parking lots, while the NCAA is asleep while it happens.

[cardcrimson]

Though it's entirely possible a school could give the athlete those rights and split revenue from the sale with the athlete.  This could be one reason why Stanford is setting up the Athlete Endorsement Department. Would also cover video game licensing, although more schools would have to be participating to allow that to be viable.

Oh Fan, it was the William J. Le Petomane Director of Athletic Endorsements, iirc. . . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRB1mpEFeCQ

[cardcrimson]

Though it's entirely possible a school could give the athlete those rights and split revenue from the sale with the athlete.  This could be one reason why Stanford is setting up the Athlete Endorsement Department. Would also cover video game licensing, although more schools would have to be participating to allow that to be viable.

Oh Fan, it was the William J. Le Petomane Director of Athletic Endorsements, iirc. . . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRB1mpEFeCQ

[OutsiderFan]

https://sports.yahoo.com/politicians-nca...19746.html

[OutsiderFan]

https://sports.yahoo.com/politicians-nca...19746.html

[CowboyIndian]

Otherwise, if a company wants to pay athletes to endorse their products off the field, or come do autograph signings, they can.  I really don't see anything wrong with this.  

I can recommend a good optometrist.

[CowboyIndian]

Otherwise, if a company wants to pay athletes to endorse their products off the field, or come do autograph signings, they can.  I really don't see anything wrong with this.  

I can recommend a good optometrist.

[81alum]

This simply makes booster bribery legal, given that boosters can buy things from athletes--maybe just an autographed picture for however much money is in the bribe. 

Figuring out how much cash the boosters can contribute will now become part of a decision on where to go to school.  There will be a bidding war for the best players.  At first, this may not go too far down the ladder.  But as more and more schools get in the act, ponying up cash from boosters will extend deeper and deeper into the ranks. 

I wonder if a bidding war will also become an incentive to jump ship.  An athlete become successful at a poor school, it may be worth a year off to transfer to a rich school where the boosters offer a lot more cash. 

I'm assuming that we are not really talking about legitimate market forces.  We are not talking about an athlete getting a shoe deal because the shoe company thinks the athlete's likeness is worth a lot in advertising.  No, we are talking about a rich booster buying a grossly overpriced item just to put cash in the athlete's pocket.  Heck, I could imagine one booster buying $20k autographs from everyone on the football team for a cool $1.2 million just to be sure that everyone has spending money. 

Until the rich alum at the next school does $30k, and the rich alum at the next does $40k, and at some point it is a university-managed but booster-paid professional team.

[81alum]

This simply makes booster bribery legal, given that boosters can buy things from athletes--maybe just an autographed picture for however much money is in the bribe. 

Figuring out how much cash the boosters can contribute will now become part of a decision on where to go to school.  There will be a bidding war for the best players.  At first, this may not go too far down the ladder.  But as more and more schools get in the act, ponying up cash from boosters will extend deeper and deeper into the ranks. 

I wonder if a bidding war will also become an incentive to jump ship.  An athlete become successful at a poor school, it may be worth a year off to transfer to a rich school where the boosters offer a lot more cash. 

I'm assuming that we are not really talking about legitimate market forces.  We are not talking about an athlete getting a shoe deal because the shoe company thinks the athlete's likeness is worth a lot in advertising.  No, we are talking about a rich booster buying a grossly overpriced item just to put cash in the athlete's pocket.  Heck, I could imagine one booster buying $20k autographs from everyone on the football team for a cool $1.2 million just to be sure that everyone has spending money. 

Until the rich alum at the next school does $30k, and the rich alum at the next does $40k, and at some point it is a university-managed but booster-paid professional team.

[OutsiderFan]

Is a Stanford scholarship more valuable than a San Jose State one? Maybe a rhetorical question, but nobody has a problem with the fact attending Stanford offers more value to an athlete than San Jose State. This sets up a flimsy argument against allowing athletes to profit from NIL.  It's not OK to be paid now, but ability to get to the top of candidate lists for jobs, have more valuable networking opportunities, to ostensibly to earn more in the long run by going to Stanford, is OK for an athlete. What? This position comes down to dictating not when young people can have money earned off of them, but who can earn it, and basically saying it's OK for someone else to exclusively profit from a legal adult's talent, but not the adult. 

So what if a San Jose State booster decides to give big endorsement checks to athletes that make them choose San Jose State over Stanford. Maybe San Jose State becomes a national power in whatever sport that way.  It's just the market working if this happens. What would be wrong with this?  The school isn't paying the athletes, so it isn't their expense.  Of course, maybe coaches won't be paid so much when athletes can get paid for their NIL, but what, exactly, would be wrong with that? 

I can appreciate the arguments that a booster would way overpay players endorsement money to get the best players to play for their school. So what, it's a free country. If a business owner wants to overpay and hurt his/her personal of professional endeavors to do that, that's his/or her prerogative to do so.  My assumption is the schools that have the most booster and fan support will continue getting the best players and nothing will materially change in terms of who the top programs are. Coaches will be paid less, and the facility arms race will be replaced by an endorsement one. IOW, nothing really changes other than college athletes earning money for their market value, like every other person in the country can. The horror.

[OutsiderFan]

Is a Stanford scholarship more valuable than a San Jose State one? Maybe a rhetorical question, but nobody has a problem with the fact attending Stanford offers more value to an athlete than San Jose State. This sets up a flimsy argument against allowing athletes to profit from NIL.  It's not OK to be paid now, but ability to get to the top of candidate lists for jobs, have more valuable networking opportunities, to ostensibly to earn more in the long run by going to Stanford, is OK for an athlete. What? This position comes down to dictating not when young people can have money earned off of them, but who can earn it, and basically saying it's OK for someone else to exclusively profit from a legal adult's talent, but not the adult. 

So what if a San Jose State booster decides to give big endorsement checks to athletes that make them choose San Jose State over Stanford. Maybe San Jose State becomes a national power in whatever sport that way.  It's just the market working if this happens. What would be wrong with this?  The school isn't paying the athletes, so it isn't their expense.  Of course, maybe coaches won't be paid so much when athletes can get paid for their NIL, but what, exactly, would be wrong with that? 

I can appreciate the arguments that a booster would way overpay players endorsement money to get the best players to play for their school. So what, it's a free country. If a business owner wants to overpay and hurt his/her personal of professional endeavors to do that, that's his/or her prerogative to do so.  My assumption is the schools that have the most booster and fan support will continue getting the best players and nothing will materially change in terms of who the top programs are. Coaches will be paid less, and the facility arms race will be replaced by an endorsement one. IOW, nothing really changes other than college athletes earning money for their market value, like every other person in the country can. The horror.

[CTcard]

My assumption is the schools that have the most booster and fan support will continue getting the best players and nothing will materially change in terms of who the top programs are. Coaches will be paid less, and the facility arms race will be replaced by an endorsement one. IOW, nothing really changes other than college athletes earning money for their market value, like every other person in the country can. The horror.

At least as far as the concerns I hold go, you are making arguments of kind for situations where the concern is of degree.

For most situations it does seem likely that the qualitative result is that the currently most advantaged programs will become even more advantaged. Thus while it would seem not to change who is on top, it would seem to increase the divide. That does not seem healthy to me.

I would also guess that getting paid significant booster-endorsement cash would tend to decrease one's incentives to do things like actually attend classes. Again that isn't a qualitative change from the current situation, it just makes things worse. On the other hand, I don't know that would be how the incentives would pan out and the vast majority of NCAA athletes won't be getting much of anything anyway so I am not very worked up on this one.

I also see no reason that coaches, or any other people that are deemed unworthy, will be getting paid less. The sources of money are different, and I don't see how the incentives that funnel money to coaches or bowl trustees etc. would change via this law/rule change.

[CTcard]

My assumption is the schools that have the most booster and fan support will continue getting the best players and nothing will materially change in terms of who the top programs are. Coaches will be paid less, and the facility arms race will be replaced by an endorsement one. IOW, nothing really changes other than college athletes earning money for their market value, like every other person in the country can. The horror.

At least as far as the concerns I hold go, you are making arguments of kind for situations where the concern is of degree.

For most situations it does seem likely that the qualitative result is that the currently most advantaged programs will become even more advantaged. Thus while it would seem not to change who is on top, it would seem to increase the divide. That does not seem healthy to me.

I would also guess that getting paid significant booster-endorsement cash would tend to decrease one's incentives to do things like actually attend classes. Again that isn't a qualitative change from the current situation, it just makes things worse. On the other hand, I don't know that would be how the incentives would pan out and the vast majority of NCAA athletes won't be getting much of anything anyway so I am not very worked up on this one.

I also see no reason that coaches, or any other people that are deemed unworthy, will be getting paid less. The sources of money are different, and I don't see how the incentives that funnel money to coaches or bowl trustees etc. would change via this law/rule change.

[OutsiderFan]

Most coaching salaries are significantly paid by boosters. If more booster money goes to athletes, by definition there wouldn't be as much available to pay coaches or build facilities.  Like one national reporter said this week, instead of having 3 waterfalls in the sports performance center, there would be just one.

[OutsiderFan]

Most coaching salaries are significantly paid by boosters. If more booster money goes to athletes, by definition there wouldn't be as much available to pay coaches or build facilities.  Like one national reporter said this week, instead of having 3 waterfalls in the sports performance center, there would be just one.

[martyup]

The fairness of the Stanford student athlete getting a more valuable scholarship than the San Jose St athlete is that he/she earned it by getting admitted to Stanford.

[martyup]

The fairness of the Stanford student athlete getting a more valuable scholarship than the San Jose St athlete is that he/she earned it by getting admitted to Stanford.

[indiancardinal]

Does the new law mean that Stanford athletes can now get high paying summer internships? Investment banks? VCs? Add on to the value of the 40 yr decision ??

[indiancardinal]

Does the new law mean that Stanford athletes can now get high paying summer internships? Investment banks? VCs? Add on to the value of the 40 yr decision ??

[BobK]

Many do already. That’s not new.

[BobK]

Many do already. That’s not new.

[indiancardinal]

Paid internships? Does the NCAA allow scholarship athletes to get paid for summer jobs?

[indiancardinal]

Paid internships? Does the NCAA allow scholarship athletes to get paid for summer jobs?

[CowboyIndian]

This simply makes booster bribery legal, given that boosters can buy things from athletes--maybe just an autographed picture for however much money is in the bribe. 

Figuring out how much cash the boosters can contribute will now become part of a decision on where to go to school.  There will be a bidding war for the best players.  At first, this may not go too far down the ladder.  But as more and more schools get in the act, ponying up cash from boosters will extend deeper and deeper into the ranks. 

I wonder if a bidding war will also become an incentive to jump ship.  An athlete become successful at a poor school, it may be worth a year off to transfer to a rich school where the boosters offer a lot more cash. 

I'm assuming that we are not really talking about legitimate market forces.  We are not talking about an athlete getting a shoe deal because the shoe company thinks the athlete's likeness is worth a lot in advertising.  No, we are talking about a rich booster buying a grossly overpriced item just to put cash in the athlete's pocket.  Heck, I could imagine one booster buying $20k autographs from everyone on the football team for a cool $1.2 million just to be sure that everyone has spending money. 

Until the rich alum at the next school does $30k, and the rich alum at the next does $40k, and at some point it is a university-managed but booster-paid professional team.

This, this, this....+1000

[CowboyIndian]

This simply makes booster bribery legal, given that boosters can buy things from athletes--maybe just an autographed picture for however much money is in the bribe. 

Figuring out how much cash the boosters can contribute will now become part of a decision on where to go to school.  There will be a bidding war for the best players.  At first, this may not go too far down the ladder.  But as more and more schools get in the act, ponying up cash from boosters will extend deeper and deeper into the ranks. 

I wonder if a bidding war will also become an incentive to jump ship.  An athlete become successful at a poor school, it may be worth a year off to transfer to a rich school where the boosters offer a lot more cash. 

I'm assuming that we are not really talking about legitimate market forces.  We are not talking about an athlete getting a shoe deal because the shoe company thinks the athlete's likeness is worth a lot in advertising.  No, we are talking about a rich booster buying a grossly overpriced item just to put cash in the athlete's pocket.  Heck, I could imagine one booster buying $20k autographs from everyone on the football team for a cool $1.2 million just to be sure that everyone has spending money. 

Until the rich alum at the next school does $30k, and the rich alum at the next does $40k, and at some point it is a university-managed but booster-paid professional team.

This, this, this....+1000

[OutsiderFan]

The fairness of the Stanford student athlete getting a more valuable scholarship than the San Jose St athlete is that he/she earned it by getting admitted to Stanford.

And so too would a San Jose State athlete being paid endorsement money have earned their right to be paid as well. Maybe that athlete decided it was more valuable to spend time honing his athletic skills than studying Calculus?  And who is anyone to say that whoever did this is somehow less deserving of being given something of value than a Stanford athlete who did spend more time on Calculus?

[OutsiderFan]

The fairness of the Stanford student athlete getting a more valuable scholarship than the San Jose St athlete is that he/she earned it by getting admitted to Stanford.

And so too would a San Jose State athlete being paid endorsement money have earned their right to be paid as well. Maybe that athlete decided it was more valuable to spend time honing his athletic skills than studying Calculus?  And who is anyone to say that whoever did this is somehow less deserving of being given something of value than a Stanford athlete who did spend more time on Calculus?

[BobK]

Boosters pay coaches?

https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/ReportB...,8,7,10,11

[BobK]

Boosters pay coaches?

https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/ReportB...,8,7,10,11

[martyup]

The fairness of the Stanford student athlete getting a more valuable scholarship than the San Jose St athlete is that he/she earned it by getting admitted to Stanford.

And so too would a San Jose State athlete being paid endorsement money have earned their right to be paid as well. Maybe that athlete decided it was more valuable to spend time honing his athletic skills than studying Calculus?  And who is anyone to say that whoever did this is somehow less deserving of being given something of value than a Stanford athlete who did spend more time on Calculus?

The difference is simple -- student athletes versus professional athletes.

[martyup]

The fairness of the Stanford student athlete getting a more valuable scholarship than the San Jose St athlete is that he/she earned it by getting admitted to Stanford.

And so too would a San Jose State athlete being paid endorsement money have earned their right to be paid as well. Maybe that athlete decided it was more valuable to spend time honing his athletic skills than studying Calculus?  And who is anyone to say that whoever did this is somehow less deserving of being given something of value than a Stanford athlete who did spend more time on Calculus?

The difference is simple -- student athletes versus professional athletes.

[OutsiderFan]

The fairness of the Stanford student athlete getting a more valuable scholarship than the San Jose St athlete is that he/she earned it by getting admitted to Stanford.

And so too would a San Jose State athlete being paid endorsement money have earned their right to be paid as well. Maybe that athlete decided it was more valuable to spend time honing his athletic skills than studying Calculus?  And who is anyone to say that whoever did this is somehow less deserving of being given something of value than a Stanford athlete who did spend more time on Calculus?

The difference is simple -- student athletes versus professional athletes.

OK, I'll agree as soon as schools stop profiting on the backs of people they don't pay.

[OutsiderFan]

The fairness of the Stanford student athlete getting a more valuable scholarship than the San Jose St athlete is that he/she earned it by getting admitted to Stanford.

And so too would a San Jose State athlete being paid endorsement money have earned their right to be paid as well. Maybe that athlete decided it was more valuable to spend time honing his athletic skills than studying Calculus?  And who is anyone to say that whoever did this is somehow less deserving of being given something of value than a Stanford athlete who did spend more time on Calculus?

The difference is simple -- student athletes versus professional athletes.

OK, I'll agree as soon as schools stop profiting on the backs of people they don't pay.