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
Name and Likeness Law Signed by Kemp
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="85Escape" data-source="post: 800513" data-attributes="member: 3560"><p>TL/DR; Most arguments for NIL are weak. One is not. It is enough.</p><p></p><p>I'm conflicted about the whole thing because, like so many things in life, it's not a simple situation. Yes, I can see the argument that 'the schools make <insert large sums of revenue and pretend it is profit> dollars a year on TV contracts' and the 'kids get nothing.' It typically goes pretty much along the lines of: "X makes $$$. -> They are so greedy and undeserving. -> The 'kids' get nothing (because 'do it for the kids never gets old'. -> They are being exploited. -> They deserve a piece of the pie. -> etc."</p><p></p><p>That whole argument train is <em>so tired and flawed</em> that I fail to take it seriously and it really pushes me to be against the NIL push. Frankly, to me, it reeks of victim-mentality with a hidden subtext of race-baiting. Pretty much the standard 'us against The Man' weakness that dominates American society at the moment.</p><p></p><p>The truth is that everyone involved in this affair knows pretty much what they signed up for, and it's a cooperative attempt to take advantage of American love for sports to get what they (parents, kids, schools, networks) can out of it. In 99+% of cases the SAs were THRILLED to get the free-ride to school in exchange for playing a sport representing the school. Another kid would be more than happy to take that free ride, and for 95% of athletes the drop-off in performance likely wouldn't be all-that great (bell-curves are awesome that way.) I would have been more than thrilled, personally, to exchange a 20 hour a week (on average) job for _complete_ free ride to school. So to discount that really, really weakens the argument of those who are baffled by those who oppose the NIL question.</p><p></p><p>And the vast majority of people who argue against NIL rules really have zero problem seeing others 'get theirs.' To argue otherwise is just standard straw-man tactics and not even a very subtle attempt at that. Most people who are opposed to NIL are fighting for the <em>very concept of amateur athletics</em>. The reasonable arguments against NIL are attempts to fight the slippery slope of the 'money sports' going from amateur to professional. I think it's a legitimate concern for Basketball and Football; although likely too late.</p><p></p><p>All that being said, there is one legitimate argument that comes down <strong>hard</strong> on the NIL question. That is, any college kid can get a job while in college and be paid. That includes Student Athletes that are on scholarship as long as the pay is reasonably connected to actual work (and not just a booster-job.) So SAs should be allowed to take jobs as 'models' (for instance) in that situation, right? So the fact that their notoriety stems from their athletic performance should not be a determining factor if they can take a job selling their name, image or likeness, just like they can sell their time today. In fact, I'm not even sure rules should have been needed, as I can't see how schools or the NCAA can restrict a player from getting compensated for being a model or selling a product with their name on it. So, I think that SA's should be able to be fairly compensated for their NIL as I think it is a job just like any other. But that should not, in my opinion, include being paid by the school itself for their NIL related to the sport activity that they have signed a contract to participate in exchange for an education.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="85Escape, post: 800513, member: 3560"] TL/DR; Most arguments for NIL are weak. One is not. It is enough. I'm conflicted about the whole thing because, like so many things in life, it's not a simple situation. Yes, I can see the argument that 'the schools make <insert large sums of revenue and pretend it is profit> dollars a year on TV contracts' and the 'kids get nothing.' It typically goes pretty much along the lines of: "X makes $$$. -> They are so greedy and undeserving. -> The 'kids' get nothing (because 'do it for the kids never gets old'. -> They are being exploited. -> They deserve a piece of the pie. -> etc." That whole argument train is [I]so tired and flawed[/I] that I fail to take it seriously and it really pushes me to be against the NIL push. Frankly, to me, it reeks of victim-mentality with a hidden subtext of race-baiting. Pretty much the standard 'us against The Man' weakness that dominates American society at the moment. The truth is that everyone involved in this affair knows pretty much what they signed up for, and it's a cooperative attempt to take advantage of American love for sports to get what they (parents, kids, schools, networks) can out of it. In 99+% of cases the SAs were THRILLED to get the free-ride to school in exchange for playing a sport representing the school. Another kid would be more than happy to take that free ride, and for 95% of athletes the drop-off in performance likely wouldn't be all-that great (bell-curves are awesome that way.) I would have been more than thrilled, personally, to exchange a 20 hour a week (on average) job for _complete_ free ride to school. So to discount that really, really weakens the argument of those who are baffled by those who oppose the NIL question. And the vast majority of people who argue against NIL rules really have zero problem seeing others 'get theirs.' To argue otherwise is just standard straw-man tactics and not even a very subtle attempt at that. Most people who are opposed to NIL are fighting for the [I]very concept of amateur athletics[/I]. The reasonable arguments against NIL are attempts to fight the slippery slope of the 'money sports' going from amateur to professional. I think it's a legitimate concern for Basketball and Football; although likely too late. All that being said, there is one legitimate argument that comes down [B]hard[/B] on the NIL question. That is, any college kid can get a job while in college and be paid. That includes Student Athletes that are on scholarship as long as the pay is reasonably connected to actual work (and not just a booster-job.) So SAs should be allowed to take jobs as 'models' (for instance) in that situation, right? So the fact that their notoriety stems from their athletic performance should not be a determining factor if they can take a job selling their name, image or likeness, just like they can sell their time today. In fact, I'm not even sure rules should have been needed, as I can't see how schools or the NCAA can restrict a player from getting compensated for being a model or selling a product with their name on it. So, I think that SA's should be able to be fairly compensated for their NIL as I think it is a job just like any other. But that should not, in my opinion, include being paid by the school itself for their NIL related to the sport activity that they have signed a contract to participate in exchange for an education. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Name and Likeness Law Signed by Kemp
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