Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:13 pm Conspiracy!
Put on the sparko tin hat!

jfish26 wrote:The first study you produced today, which was conducted in 2017, showed that nearly 70% of respondents were in favor of N/I/L compensation.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:32 pm

jfish26 wrote:The first study you produced today, which was conducted in 2017, showed that nearly 70% of respondents were in favor of N/I/L compensation.

Wut?

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:46 pm Well fine.
And I’d be with them I think—if you were going to make a video game or sell merch, then you probably should pay them.
But that poll asks a specific question about likeness...not that you think that companies should create that content.

There are likely a number of respondents who read it as such. You’d have to pay them if you made the content but let’s not have the content in the first place.

Q: Do you think college athletes should or should not be paid when their name or image is used in video games or to sell merchandise?

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:55 pm A.
If I was asked that question I think I would respond yes. But if given a follow up question “Do you think college athletes likenesses should be used in video games and merchandise” I’d select no. And I think a number of people would respond the same.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:02 pm Lol.
60% of us just dying on hills.

And the best part of this is I can’t even argue ( because for some reason you don’t want to admit it? ) that I’m not alone in thinking this.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:33 pm https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... e-players/

"There has been some discussion of paying money to college football and basketball student-athletes in addition to providing scholarships that cover college expenses. Some people are in favor of paying money to student-athletes who are on college football or men's basketball teams. Some people are opposed to paying these student-athletes. Which of these statements comes closest to your opinion?"

"38 percent of respondents are less likely to watch or attend games if athletes are paid $20,000; 47 percent if athletes are paid $50,000; and 53 percent if athletes are paid $200,000. The fact that four out of 10 people are less likely to watch or attend college games is potentially "a huge loss of market share," Dennis testified."

"Dennis said he didn't think NIL questions needed to be asked and that respondents could interpret his pay questions however they wanted. Also, Dennis said NIL-related questions could be "very complicated" with legal jargon that would be difficult for survey respondents to understand."

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:57 pm And considering 60% of people think scholarships are enough compensation, I believe that’s likely what people think.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:48 pm I’d like the video games to come back without the players names and likenesses.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:33 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:57 pm And considering 60% of people think scholarships are enough compensation, I believe that’s likely what people think.

But probably 50% are already getting some form of benefit(s) in addition to that scholarship....

So how do we address that?

Or is the better course of action to stick our heads back in the sand and pretend it's not happening?

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:27 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:48 pm I’d like the video games to come back without the players names and likenesses.

Buy NBA2K19 and download the college rosters that some user creates every year. Done.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:31 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:33 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:57 pm And considering 60% of people think scholarships are enough compensation, I believe that’s likely what people think.

But probably 50% are already getting some form of benefit(s) in addition to that scholarship....

So how do we address that?

Or is the better course of action to stick our heads back in the sand and pretend it's not happening?

I am sure you did not mean that 50% of D1 hoops scholarship athletes are getting additional (I assume you mean from agents/boosters, etc...) money outside of their allowed scholarships/housing/per diem, right? 13 schollies at 360+ schools is 4,500+ athletes. I doubt that 2,200+ basketball players are getting impermissible benefits.