Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
NCAA explores compensation for names, likeness
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dtm1997" data-source="post: 579856" data-attributes="member: 572"><p>Good arguments here, so let me take these in order...</p><p></p><p>1) I'm not sure the exclusivity agreement concept is accurate, but I see where you're going. Quid pro quo - we're giving you this educational package, you're giving us your hard work in the class room and on the field. You're pointing out the portion about not seeking other earnings, but the way a law can be changed based on the social mores of a society, that is easily changed based on prevailing thought. I can appreciate your desire for a somewhat level playing field, but does that even exist in football & basketball at this point? In my opinion, it doesn't.</p><p></p><p>2) This happens to be a really good point. It doesn't change the fact that someone may very well be willing to provide incentive regardless who sits in a particular spot or that spot may earn nothing. I like to use the free pizza example because it's kind of dumb and innocuous compared to the rampant cheating in football and men's hoops. Using the free pizza example, let's say the State Street Papa John's was willing to give free pizza annually to whoever was on the GT women's volleyball team in exchange for participating in an annual production of a poster in-uniform. Team members can opt out, but wouldn't get the free pizza. GT has approved use of trademarks because Papa John's is a sponsor. I think I've described a situation and I ask where's the harm? Why should that be prohibited?</p><p></p><p>3) Fair points. I'm absolutely in favor of the NBA eliminating 1 & done, which will skim the top layer off where a lot of the cheating goes on. The next level kids may be called 5* in name, but if their value goes down to or near $0 and all they get is a scholarship, then fine by me. If the market says they should only get $25,000 instead of $250,000, also fine by me. Regardless of what they do or don't get, I'm in favor of them being afforded that opportunity and the external sources, as I call them, being allowed to put forth what they're willing to offer.</p><p></p><p>Separately, a single data point is not a trend, nor is this enough observations for a sample size, but I found this interesting. We can all only hope the ACC Network starts creeping us towards the old B1G numbers so it can be reinvested in our GTAA programs.</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=twitter]1128804452268294144[/MEDIA]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dtm1997, post: 579856, member: 572"] Good arguments here, so let me take these in order... 1) I'm not sure the exclusivity agreement concept is accurate, but I see where you're going. Quid pro quo - we're giving you this educational package, you're giving us your hard work in the class room and on the field. You're pointing out the portion about not seeking other earnings, but the way a law can be changed based on the social mores of a society, that is easily changed based on prevailing thought. I can appreciate your desire for a somewhat level playing field, but does that even exist in football & basketball at this point? In my opinion, it doesn't. 2) This happens to be a really good point. It doesn't change the fact that someone may very well be willing to provide incentive regardless who sits in a particular spot or that spot may earn nothing. I like to use the free pizza example because it's kind of dumb and innocuous compared to the rampant cheating in football and men's hoops. Using the free pizza example, let's say the State Street Papa John's was willing to give free pizza annually to whoever was on the GT women's volleyball team in exchange for participating in an annual production of a poster in-uniform. Team members can opt out, but wouldn't get the free pizza. GT has approved use of trademarks because Papa John's is a sponsor. I think I've described a situation and I ask where's the harm? Why should that be prohibited? 3) Fair points. I'm absolutely in favor of the NBA eliminating 1 & done, which will skim the top layer off where a lot of the cheating goes on. The next level kids may be called 5* in name, but if their value goes down to or near $0 and all they get is a scholarship, then fine by me. If the market says they should only get $25,000 instead of $250,000, also fine by me. Regardless of what they do or don't get, I'm in favor of them being afforded that opportunity and the external sources, as I call them, being allowed to put forth what they're willing to offer. Separately, a single data point is not a trend, nor is this enough observations for a sample size, but I found this interesting. We can all only hope the ACC Network starts creeping us towards the old B1G numbers so it can be reinvested in our GTAA programs. [MEDIA=twitter]1128804452268294144[/MEDIA] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Justin Thomas wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
NCAA explores compensation for names, likeness
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top