State of Georgia considering bill similar to Cal

These bills seem to all be based on use of the athletes name, publicity etc.
Just wonder if that actually helps GT because of being in Atl. Does it help schools located in big metro areas over the more rural located schools? I don't know, just wonder.
 
ramblin57 said:
These bills seem to all be based on use of the athletes name, publicity etc.
Just wonder if that actually helps GT because of being in Atl. Does it help schools located in big metro areas over the more rural located schools? I don't know, just wonder.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t help relative to the factories, they have alumni owners of small business all over the place. Wouldn’t be surprised if you see 85 athletes do a ford commercial and now the whole team can get new cars in exchange for their likeness (hyperbole).
 
ramblin57 said:
These bills seem to all be based on use of the athletes name, publicity etc.
Just wonder if that actually helps GT because of being in Atl. Does it help schools located in big metro areas over the more rural located schools? I don't know, just wonder.
Click to expand...

Good point. I like the California law. The hypocrisy of NCAA regulations and enforcement simply supports the status quo. Top revenue producers are protected while those that might threaten them are punished. So, I had started arguing for paying athletes their market price to play. But, that would have hurt schools that are not flush with cash. It would have likely divided schools into more divisions based on their ability and willingness to pay.

With this law the schools don’t have to come up with the money. The only revenue loss to the school might be some payment for selling a jersey number or athletes might get a little cash from the NCAA for video game images. But, they can make a commercial, sell an autograph, get employment to represent a company or product, including shoe/apparel companies.

This will give an advantage to big, high profile programs. But, it will also give some advantage to programs in large media markets. It should also be a plus for schools with connections to large companies willing to spend some cash on using college athletes for promotion. The big issue will be if players sue for revenue sharing on media contracts, a suit the players would likely win.

This will change college athletics. But, we should have some advantages being in Atlanta and with our corporate connections. We have to be prepared to use these advantages.
 
Gaggers will champion this bill because it would currently give them an edge over other schools in the region. Once GT starts rolling with "404","Juice", etc.. and usurps that marketing mojo, the Gaggers will rue the day they ever proposed this.

mind rite
 
77GTFan said:
With this law the schools don’t have to come up with the money. The only revenue loss to the school might be some payment for selling a jersey number or athletes might get a little cash from the NCAA for video game images. But, they can make a commercial, sell an autograph, get employment to represent a company or product, including shoe/apparel companies.
Click to expand...

If this law brings back NCAA football, it will have been worth it.
 
giphy.gif
 
GTCrew4b said:
Well...It will certainly help us too, right?
Click to expand...

They have an exceptionally higher revenue stream than we do.
Partly because of the ACC network is still getting off the ground and the SEC is about to negotiate a MASSIVE new deal.

https://awfulannouncing.com/cbs/sec-on-cbs-evolution-media-caa-deal-tv.html

The SEC's current deal expires with CBS in 2023, but they've already hired outside firms to manage the bidding process and create new league infrastructure to make digital streaming a bigger deal. They have the advantage in that they can build the costs into any deal they negotiate and come out on top.
 
But the schools don’t pay for these things so those revenue streams don’t matter. This just means car dealerships and that sort of thing can pay the player to advertise for them.
 
I told you guys this was coming. We will have to make a decision to get in the semi-pro league (college sponsored football teams) and pay for our players or get into the alt league of schools who decide not to pursue this and form a different association of amateur college football. These leagues will become the "Super" league (paid to play) and the "Legacy" league. I guess Division III could continue as a "Volunteer" league since they don't even allow scholarships.
 
GTCrew4b said:
But the schools don’t pay for these things so those revenue streams don’t matter. This just means car dealerships and that sort of thing can pay the player to advertise for them.
Click to expand...

Yes. Actual advocates of paying players are saying these bills are nothing burgers. They want salaries.
 
GTCrew4b said:
But the schools don’t pay for these things so those revenue streams don’t matter. This just means car dealerships and that sort of thing can pay the player to advertise for them.
Click to expand...
So today the sponsors donate to the school, the school gives out schollies, and the players select the school they want from offers.

After this the sponsors sign up the players directly so they don't donate so much to the school's AA if at all. So the schools will be affected. The real question is what the aggregate limit a player could receive, is it unlimited or will there be a standard set. If its unlimited its basically a pro league.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
UGA is in our boat, it's a state boat. We get all the California teams and the Georgia teams, then everybody gets to sit and decide whether they want to keep trying to recruit either state with one hand tied behind their backs while we all fly coast to coast playing really cool games with all the best players.

Anyway, this is another leg in a race to the bottom I predicted a while back. I don't think my prediction was very popular, but hey, I'll say it again. Payer play is now a social issue, in the postmodern sense. Oppression math is the irresistible lever of the future of the sport in this regard. Whether we like it or not, no matter what results, the NCAA can't win this fight. There are just too many political points in play in too many places, both legislative and university administration related. Players will be getting paid everywhere and very soon. It'll happen quite suddenly when it does.

Off with my head (again).
Click to expand...


My very brief study of this is that it is not about players being paid - they are now.

But it is about endorsements for certain players.

If they are that good let them go to the NFL, or an NFL funded farm system, out of high school.
 
texstinger said:
My very brief study of this is that it is not about players being paid - they are now.

But it is about endorsements for certain players.

If they are that good let them go to the NFL, or an NFL funded farm system, out of high school.
Click to expand...

"What it's about" and "how you sell it" are often quite different. Justice is what people want right now, that's how this will be sold.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
So today the sponsors donate to the school, the school gives out schollies, and the players select the school they want from offers.

After this the sponsors sign up the players directly so they don't donate so much to the school's AA if at all. So the schools will be affected. The real question is what the aggregate limit a player could receive, is it unlimited or will there be a standard set. If its unlimited its basically a pro league.
Click to expand...
This is my thought as well. Unless the pool of money grows the schools will be receiving less and the premier athletes will receive more. This leaves non-revenue sports in a very bad spot.
 
gtg970g said:
This is my thought as well. Unless the pool of money grows the schools will be receiving less and the premier athletes will receive more. This leaves non-revenue men's sports in a very bad spot.
Click to expand...
Fixed
 
The California bill allows college players to hire agents; I think that is a bridge too far for most colleges.

I think the income should be capped but can't come up with a good reason that players can't receive income that they EARN.
 
Possible downside:

The factories and their donors will make every UGA, Clemson, Ohio State, and Alabama players millionaires overnight.

If this makes it legal for alumni to directly pay players then this will make college football even worse than it has already become.
 
I hate the NCAssholeAssociation so much that I would welcome a switch over to ISIS. If paying athletes through endorsements and sales hastens the death of those Aholes, then let me write the first check. Gonna get me our current great QB's jersey. Harvin, of course.
 
I’m just sort of at the opinion that nothing will change only the players will get money and some teams further down won’t be able to afford to keep up. GT is great at what it is designed to do. So is Alabama football, LSU football, OSU football, etc. I don’t see where this will help, hurt, or have much change as the schools who do whatever they can to win will step it up to continue doing whatever it takes to win. I mean hasn’t Saban taught everyone no matter what he will skirt/break the rules at will and if you make changes he will find another way to work it out to his benefit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top