It’s complicated. And if it’s not, they’ll make it complicated.

College athletes, Gene Smith is here for you.

“We need to come up with a method to allow our student-athletes to take advantage of their name, image and likeness, make sure it’s something we can regulate, and make sure it’s something that’s not tied to athletic ability,” he said. “We don’t want to turn this into a pay-to-play model or a situation where they’re compensated for their athletic ability. We’re trying to find a way to keep it tethered to the educational process.

“It’s a complex issue, and we feel good about the direction we’re headed in. But the reality is we’ve got to work with the federal government to come up with a national law,” he said.

Though name, image and likeness attention tends to be focused on the fraction of top athletes who are destined for the pros, Smith said Olympic sport athletes stand to benefit significantly because many of them are on partial scholarships that cover between 15 and 30 percent of their college costs.

“Many of them leave with debt … so they’ll take advantage of this opportunity to hopefully reduce the debt they incur getting their education,” he said.

So… kids, feel free to bring in those dollars, as long as they find their way back to the schools in some form or fashion.  I figure Gene is just months away from putting together a company store proposal so kids will have an official NCAA-approved resource where they can take their hard-earned bucks — at a profit, of course.

At least at Ohio State, they’d be able to get their tats on campus.  Progress, of a sort.

(h/t)

9 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

9 responses to “It’s complicated. And if it’s not, they’ll make it complicated.

  1. Hogbody Spradlin

    “make sure it’s something we can regulate, and make sure it’s something that’s not tied to athletic ability”
    Isn’t that what they’re doing now?

    Like

  2. Dawg1

    “We need to come up with a method to allow our student-athletes to take advantage of their name, image and likeness, make sure it’s something we can regulate, and make sure it’s something that’s not tied to athletic ability,”

    WTF does that even mean??

    Who would be paying a student that doesn’t have athletic ability for their name, image and likeness? I think that is called a model? 🙂

    Like

    • Yeah, he’s completely underestimated the landscape and the way things are moving, but desperately hanging on to some form of control. Who can blame him? The current system made him very, very, very rich.

      Like

    • Tony Barnfart

      I would say (generously) that he may have bungled his words. If he’s trying to say the system should be able to regulate in a manner that prevents Golden Flake and Yella Wood from simply engaging in a bidding war for a letter of intent, before a kid has ever darkened a university doorway, then I am good with that.

      The universities should be able to say collectively as an association that we’re not going to be this side participant with little control, while being the meat of the quid pro quo, between 2 parties that aren’t operating within our association. The kid and the university have no agreement yet and the booster is only part of the university for regulatory purposes that are the circular subject of this debate.

      Like

  3. I think it might be wise to have all of the money earned on NIL pooled and distributed evenly to very team member at the end of the year. That way everyone benefits and they would have to cheat to make it pay for play.

    Like

  4. Duronimo

    Money will insert an “I” in the word team. Highly publicized, skilled players will prosper, leaving the “team” that makes it all possible uncompensated. I’m proposing 50% to the star athlete, 30% to a team pool and 20% to the school.

    Like

  5. Faulkner

    I like the sharing a portion with team concept. Schools should get nothing. Unless the want to start sharing tv revenue etc…

    Like