Name and Likeness Law Signed by Kemp

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,303
Not understanding your point, either.
But, yes, if Olivia is promoting her brand through a publicly funded scholarship, e.g. revenue, then she should forfeit that scholarship. She can make her her money in her own way.. not via LSU. She can do her flips and turns in her own environment.

Is that not simple?

And why do we care how much LSU is making anyway? (could you even remotely quantify this???) That’s not part of the equation.
She had her brand and her followers before she went to LSU. She was famous before she stepped foot at LSU. If not for NCAA rules, Dunne could have made millions while she was in high school. I don't know any numbers, but I highly suspect ratings for LSU gymnastics increased greatly after she joined the team. From anecdotal evidence, I am pretty sure that LSU gymnastics merchandise has increased, precisely because she is there. Is it wrong for Samuel L Jackson to make money for Capital One advertisements? If not, why is it wrong for Dunne to advertise for a company that values her audience?

You are the one that is posting about caring where the value comes from. You state that a player shouldn't be able to profit, because that value is not from the player only from the school. I gave you an example where the value of the school sport increased because of an athlete, not because of anything the school did. I am satirically using your logic, which you now say is not good logic. If (ticket sales and merchandise sales)[player A's value] increase only because (Dunne is competing for LSU)[player A is playing for university], why should (the school)[Player A] benefit? Exactly the same logic that you profess.
 

MusicalBuzz

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
60
She had her brand and her followers before she went to LSU. She was famous before she stepped foot at LSU. If not for NCAA rules, Dunne could have made millions while she was in high school. I don't know any numbers, but I highly suspect ratings for LSU gymnastics increased greatly after she joined the team. From anecdotal evidence, I am pretty sure that LSU gymnastics merchandise has increased, precisely because she is there. Is it wrong for Samuel L Jackson to make money for Capital One advertisements? If not, why is it wrong for Dunne to advertise for a company that values her audience?

You are the one that is posting about caring where the value comes from. You state that a player shouldn't be able to profit, because that value is not from the player only from the school. I gave you an example where the value of the school sport increased because of an athlete, not because of anything the school did. I am satirically using your logic, which you now say is not good logic. If (ticket sales and merchandise sales)[player A's value] increase only because (Dunne is competing for LSU)[player A is playing for university], why should (the school)[Player A] benefit? Exactly the same logic that you profess.

I haven’t asserted anything to what you are saying. What are you talking about?

And I haven’t mentioned whether a school benefits or not (according to whatever logic you have?). It’s absolutely irrelevant to NIL.

Your examples are ridiculous. Samuel L Jackson, ffs??? Okay, fine. He had decades of accomplishment prior to anything vis-a-vis or endorsements. But, a) he was already a professional entertainer for decades, b) HE WASNT BEING PAID AN ***AMATEUR ATHLETIC STUDENT** SCHOLARSHIP at the same time!!!

And why the focus on this one person? I get that she had something going before NIL. Irrespective of NIL she’d still have that going. So to associate NIL to her is a moot point.
 
Last edited:

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,303
I haven’t asserted anything to what you are saying. What are you talking about?
.... Understand that NIL has nothing to do with the kid as an individual, but rather a) what school, b) what position
You state that the NIL value has nothing to do with the kid, but is derived from the school. You asserted exactly what I said. I gave you an example where value is added to the school because of the athlete.

I do agree with you that in an amateur sport, the athletes should not be paid for competing. I do agree with you that factories will use NIL to pay players for competing. However, I do not agree that NCAA athletes should be lockdown prevented from being able to make any money whatsoever. Those rules have not stopped factories from paying players under the table. Those rules did prevent Dunne from becoming a millionaire in high school. Those rules did prevent De La Haye from living a dream and playing college football. Those rules almost made McElrathbey have to choose to put his brother in an orphanage or quit college football. Those rules didn't stop the factories from paying high caliber players. Those rules made it bad to provide charity to a family whose apartment and possessions burned down. In the real world, who would stop you from giving a place to sleep to such a family? In the real world, who would stop you from providing food to such a family? In the real world, not providing assistance to such a family would be considered bad. In the NCAA world, preventing help to such a family is the method to keep them all in their place.
 

Lee

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
707
Oh, good grief .. the whole “never played past xxx” tripe. So predictable.
Ohhhh…but I’m sure you were just talking one injury away from making the League. Yeah, right. Pffftt.

You haven’t said a single meaningful thing here.

- As far as “hone their skills”.. I already addressed that and it comes down to physical attributes and not specifically effort.
- As far as “willing to pay”.. I already addressed that: few have heard of these names except, a) the SCHOOL and, b) the POSITION. You are silly to think otheraise.
- As far “great ones special”.. sure, we can agree on that. But to this point nearly none of these of these kids are ”special“..yet. Calvin and Adrian are absolutely extreme outliers, if that’s not so obvious.
Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but I did play professionally for 8 years after I left GT so I have a pretty good idea of what it takes.

And yes, I did have an injury that cost me two of those seasons so I also know how much work and how hard it is to come back from that as well.

The rest of your post is just jibberish and anyone who has been around good athletes know it.

Stick to music.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,685
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Come on now: as is often said in Recruit threads these guys are kids. They haven‘t worked for “years” in the life’s big picture and really have contributed nothing in the greater good. They are primarily worthy only because of their DNA-gifted attributes — not effort (yeah.. let’s be clear.. a 5’8” guy giving the same EFFORT is not likely to be in the conversation). And most of them will fail in the next couple years and be forgotten by all of us. But, of course, they are just kids whom we excuse for their youthful misgivings. The contradiction is staggering.

I played baseball through college. Honing your talent takes more than DNA. Sure, having certain physical traits is a huge boost, but it doesn't assure you success. You have to work hard to develop your talent and skill set. That's just to make the cut line. To become elite to the point where schools are fighting over you takes even more work. These guys are working throughout the year, not just during the season.
And, I’ll just repeat what I’ve said previously: these “benefactors” don‘t give two-****s about these kids. They’re cashing in on the advertisement of associating themselves to the SCHOOL. Or, I suppose in some cases the very short term name association.

And what is wrong with this? I reap benefits from my associations. Why shouldn't they?

Irregardless, this whole thing SUCKS and we WILL reap the consequence of this misattribution of resources to amateur athletics/entertainment at a time of crucial personal development of this next generation. I will not ever —period — fund this madness that organizations and institutions are promoting. This NIL sucks utterly and completely.

Why does it suck? Because you don't like it? Because GT isn't as attractive for NIL offers as the factories? Are you still laboring under the antiquated idea that college athletes are amateurs? Making money while going to college does not prevent character development. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Looking forward to the continued conversation -

Next time let’s talk about Coaches’ salaries .. smdh

Wrong thread for coaches salaries, but they are determined by the free market value.
 

MountainBuzzMan

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
950
I mean, sure, this is America and it’s all for one, and none for the rest, mentality. I get that.
It speaks MONUMENTALLY to the character of a person who would take the easy, unearned cash. No person of self-worth, anyway.

The issue is that most will receive nowhere near this sum, while at the same time the potential is constantly dangled in front of them. It is a near predetermined pipe dream.
And so instead of perusing the purpose of college and preparation for the future they will chase only the dream of short term money.

Or, as you described yourself, sufficient to take the million and not develop as a person?
Growing up in a dirt poor home. I can guarantee you I would take that 100 times out of 100 times. But good choices, hard work and perseverance will also break you out of poverty.
you really could not be more wrong. Taking the athletic route to break out of poverty is also a good choice if you have the capability.
 

ugacdawg

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
25
She had her brand and her followers before she went to LSU. She was famous before she stepped foot at LSU. If not for NCAA rules, Dunne could have made millions while she was in high school. I don't know any numbers, but I highly suspect ratings for LSU gymnastics increased greatly after she joined the team. From anecdotal evidence, I am pretty sure that LSU gymnastics merchandise has increased, precisely because she is there.

This is a pretty difficult topic because there are always exceptions one can find either way. Recently Ohio State University came out and made the statement that their student athletes could use their brand for NIL endorsements as part of a group licensing program. I found this to be really interesting, and potentially pretty risky. I too agree, that for the vast majority of the cases, the school brand far outweighs the individual's brand.

In the case of Olivia Dunne, I would have thought fair would have been for her to make all the money she wants from 'being a gymnast who gains notoriety during her time at LSU' but not using the LSU uniform, logos or colors to do it. That's the case for most pro athletes, who use their own likeness, not that of their franchise. However, if LSU wanted to sell jerseys (I know they don't have those for gymnastics) with 'Dunne' on the back of it in the bookstore and compensate her for that NIL usage, then that sounds great, because they are licensing her brand for use with theirs.

However, in the OSU model, having a marketing compliance department police all the posts, approve/deny requests, etc. seems crazy in the world of social media, etc. Especially if athletes have to comply by the same conditions as normal licensees (can't modify the logo, logo can't be next to another, has to be a certain size, etc.).

I wonder when we'll hear the first case of a University suing it's own student athlete for copyright infringement?
 

85Escape

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
775
On the other side of that are athletes who don't have the a) school nor the b) position who were prevented from using brand that they themselves developed. Donald De La Haye chose to develop his brand instead of dropping his brand to keep a football scholarship. He now makes an estimated $1 million per year from the brand that he dropped the UCF scholarship for. Olivia Dunne is now making money that she could have previously been making on her own if the NCAA had not prevented her from making it.

I understand that you are concerned that athletes might be provided money to play at a school. The NCAA and the NCAA rules have not prevented that. The have caused De La Haye to lose his scholarship. They have prevented people like Olivia Dunne from making lots of money not derived from the college nor the NCAA. They have blasted a school because the football coach let a player and his wife and kids stay in a cabin after the player's apartment burned. If you have a player whose mother is an alcoholic and father has an extreme gambling addiction and he has to take custody of his 11 year old brother, the NCAA prevents that player from getting a job during the season and from receiving any financial assistance from anyone unless the college jumps thru hoops to gain an exception.

NCAA rules and enforcement have been to do nothing if LSU is handing out $100 bills to players on national TV, but to force a player to put his 11 year old brother in an orphanage if he wants to play college football.
I was going to stay out of this but I really can't let this example pass by without comment.

Donald De La Haye made a choice. Sounds like it was a good one. Just like almost every successful business person has had to make at one point or more points in their career. I don't get this belief that student-athletes have some inherent right to a system that allows them to not have to make choices like everyone else.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,303
I was going to stay out of this but I really can't let this example pass by without comment.

Donald De La Haye made a choice. Sounds like it was a good one. Just like almost every successful business person has had to make at one point or more points in their career. I don't get this belief that student-athletes have some inherent right to a system that allows them to not have to make choices like everyone else.
Everyone has to make choices. I would not say that student-athletes should not have to make choices "like everyone else". Is "everyone else" forced to decide between making money and attending college? No. In fact, most people I know are forced by their economic situation to make money in order to be able to go to college. Is "everyone else" forced to decide between caring for their 11 year old pseudo-orphaned brother and attending college? No. Many in that situation would be forced to drop out of college based on their financial situation. However, many would be able to solicit assistance from friends and family. Many would reach out to their church for support. Many would start a GoFundMe or similar crowdfunding program.

Give college athletes the same choice that "everyone else" has, and I wouldn't have an issue.
 

85Escape

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
775
Everyone has to make choices. I would not say that student-athletes should not have to make choices "like everyone else". Is "everyone else" forced to decide between making money and attending college? No. In fact, most people I know are forced by their economic situation to make money in order to be able to go to college. Is "everyone else" forced to decide between caring for their 11 year old pseudo-orphaned brother and attending college? No. Many in that situation would be forced to drop out of college based on their financial situation. However, many would be able to solicit assistance from friends and family. Many would reach out to their church for support. Many would start a GoFundMe or similar crowdfunding program.

Give college athletes the same choice that "everyone else" has, and I wouldn't have an issue.
To assume that student-athletes have it the worse than others is just intentionally ignoring the very-many-multiples more of college kids who worked their own way through college without any support from anyone. I guess in the age of Virtuous Victimhood, I'm not completely surprised.

I have no issue with NIL, personally. But I'm getting tired of the "poor-ol-us" act. I guess if you get what you want by crying then it's a good plan.

But it's not for me...I'd rather be poor.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,303
To assume that student-athletes have it the worse than others is just intentionally ignoring the very-many-multiples more of college kids who worked their own way through college without any support from anyone. I guess in the age of Virtuous Victimhood, I'm not completely surprised.

I have no issue with NIL, personally. But I'm getting tired of the "poor-ol-us" act. I guess if you get what you want by crying then it's a good plan.

But it's not for me...I'd rather be poor.
I have not made any assumption that athletes have it worse. I am not crying.

What I am saying is that it makes no sense for the NCAA to prevent them from doing things that can make money. I do agree that NIL will be exploited and misused by factories. Dunne created an audience BEFORE attending LSU. Why should the NCAA prevent her from putting a picture of a clothes company or a perfume company on an Instagram post of HER followers for ad money? She could have made millions of dollars before attending LSU, but she didn't. She gave up millions of dollars in order to join the LSU team, that indicates to me that she had a desire to compete in college gymnastics. What justification do you have for such NCAA rules that she has to lose millions of dollars in order to compete in college gymnastics? If she were being paid for gymnastics competitions, then I would understand the loss of amateurism. If teenage boys like her, and pre-teen girls look up to her and she uses that audience for ads, I don't understand what that has to do with her amateur status. I am not saying "poor-little-miss-Dunne". I am asking for a justification for taking millions of non-athletic dollars out of her pocket as a condition of her playing an amateur sport. You can take digs at me with "poor-ol-us" type language all you want, but how about just giving me a justification for preventing a high school student from making non-athletic money on their own as a condition of participating college athletics.
 

85Escape

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
775
I wasn't taking digs at you, so ease up. I was saying that most of the arguments I hear for NIL have a very heavy does of victimhood, including this one. As I said, I support NIL, but justifying it with an appeal to unfairness weakens the argument more than makes it. It's been said before but was best made by the greatest of philosophers: "You can't always get what you want." It's unfair. Yawn. Who cares. We can point a hundred cases of stuff that is 'unfair' every day I bet. So what's one more unfairness? Why is this one more worthy of redress than another? You think Miss Dunne's situation is more unfair than those guys standing at the bottom of the 14th Street ramp with a 'Will Work For Food' sign? I don't hear as many people complaining about their lot in life as I've heard complaining about how unfair NIL restrictions were.

For Miss Dunne, it wasn't that she owned a small business, it was that she took sponsorship money in the form of endorsements that was the problem. She could have run a huge dog-walking business, or a chain of car washes, or a factory that made guns for that matter. But taking money for endorsements is the line, as I understand it. If she wanted to join the Marine's she would have had to consider that when she ran her business. I own a small business and work for a huge multi-national, but I'm not free to do what I want. We all have to make adjustments and compromises between the different things we puruse. She just happened to pick to mutually exclusive activities. It happens.

I think a better argument for NIL rules is that it legalizes something that has been happening anyway. Locks only keep honest people honest, after all.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,303
I wasn't taking digs at you, so ease up. I was saying that most of the arguments I hear for NIL have a very heavy does of victimhood, including this one. As I said, I support NIL, but justifying it with an appeal to unfairness weakens the argument more than makes it. It's been said before but was best made by the greatest of philosophers: "You can't always get what you want." It's unfair. Yawn. Who cares. We can point a hundred cases of stuff that is 'unfair' every day I bet. So what's one more unfairness? Why is this one more worthy of redress than another? You think Miss Dunne's situation is more unfair than those guys standing at the bottom of the 14th Street ramp with a 'Will Work For Food' sign? I don't hear as many people complaining about their lot in life as I've heard complaining about how unfair NIL restrictions were.

For Miss Dunne, it wasn't that she owned a small business, it was that she took sponsorship money in the form of endorsements that was the problem. She could have run a huge dog-walking business, or a chain of car washes, or a factory that made guns for that matter. But taking money for endorsements is the line, as I understand it. If she wanted to join the Marine's she would have had to consider that when she ran her business. I own a small business and work for a huge multi-national, but I'm not free to do what I want. We all have to make adjustments and compromises between the different things we puruse. She just happened to pick to mutually exclusive activities. It happens.

I think a better argument for NIL rules is that it legalizes something that has been happening anyway. Locks only keep honest people honest, after all.
As I said, I am not saying NIL is unfair. I am asking for a justification for the NCAA not allowing NIL. I am asking for justification for the NCAA not allowing people to help a family whose apartment burned down. I have not heard any justification at all for the rules to have been set up the way they were.

If your multi-national employer instituted an arbitrary rule that all employees must exclusively wear commando kilts to the office, would you just accept it or would you protest and try to get a justification out of the company? People point out things that they are unhappy with in work situations all of the time without acting like they are victims.

I would go even further in the only keeping honest people honest. It wasn't like the old expression "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". The NCAA intentionally kept the bathwater and simply threw out the baby.
 

85Escape

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
775
If your multi-national employer instituted an arbitrary rule that all employees must exclusively wear commando kilts to the office, would you just accept it or would you protest and try to get a justification out of the company? People point out things that they are unhappy with in work situations all of the time without acting like they are victims.

I would go even further in the only keeping honest people honest. It wasn't like the old expression "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". The NCAA intentionally kept the bathwater and simply threw out the baby.
How do you know where I work? ;)

Protest? Not so much. I'd expect a justification so that I could understand why the decision. But I'm pretty sure that we've been given one by the NCAA, we just don't accept it. But honestly, I'd work someplace else, even if it meant taking less money or doing something else. I'm not owed a right to practice my trade. And I know, there is the argument that the NCAA has a monopoly. But do they? Or are they just the best place to practice that trade and it feels like they have a monopoly. I think I work at the best company in my field by a wide margin, so if I left because I didn't like what was going on then it would definitely be a tough decision. But it would be mine to make and move on.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,303
How do you know where I work? ;)

Protest? Not so much. I'd expect a justification so that I could understand why the decision. But I'm pretty sure that we've been given one by the NCAA, we just don't accept it. But honestly, I'd work someplace else, even if it meant taking less money or doing something else. I'm not owed a right to practice my trade. And I know, there is the argument that the NCAA has a monopoly. But do they? Or are they just the best place to practice that trade and it feels like they have a monopoly. I think I work at the best company in my field by a wide margin, so if I left because I didn't like what was going on then it would definitely be a tough decision. But it would be mine to make and move on.
Your previous post said you run a small business and work for a multi-national, I wasn't stalking or anything.

The NCAA has attempted to provide justifications, but even those justifications are dubious at best. They want to protect amateurism and amateur athletics. That is understandable. However, under the rules, you can be a professional baseball player, while still an amateur football player. You cannot have a successful Vlog about your life and make money off of it. Looking purely objectively at it, if the goal is to protect amateurism and amateur athletics, then each rule and sub-rule should be examined to see if it protects amateur athletics or not. I am not looking for an over-arching justification like "protect amateur athletics". I am looking for justification of the actual language of and application of the rules. Does preventing assistance to a family whose apartment burned down "protect amateur athletics", or is it simply wrong?

I would say that the NCAA is a monopoly. There are 250 NAIA schools, but there are over 1,000 NCAA schools. Looking thru the list of NAIA schools, I didn't notice any major state universities. The NCAA schools have a vastly larger portion of educational opportunities available in the US than non-NCAA schools. I don't know actual numbers, but I could easily believe that the NCAA schools make up greater than 99% of the revenue in college athletics. The NCAA has been petitioning Congress to grant them blanket anti-trust protection, so they must believe that they are a monopoly also, or at least don't believe they can successfully counter arguments in court that they are.
 

85Escape

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
775
Your previous post said you run a small business and work for a multi-national, I wasn't stalking or anything.
LOL. Just a joke on the kilt-comment :)

Well, they are a monopoly. But are they really? By that I mean are their other options that could be pursued by athletes that don't require that they attend an NCAA school? There are. They aren't good, but there are options (Europe for some sports, minor leagues, club programs, etc.)

Anyway, I understand your points and they are reasonable. I'm just not in full agreement. I think I've had more than my say :)
 
Top