College Likeness Rights

[jknezek]

Well the NCAA was finally forced into it. Now they are asking all 3 divisions to come up with rules. It will be interesting to see how DIII responds. Do I think there is a big market for this in DIII? Absolutely not. But it all depends on the rules. I could see some schools finding donors to buy some autographs. Not many, and not in very many sports, but enough to land an impact player or two? Maybe. I'm not sure I'd see the upside, but then again, when you look at some of the facilities that have been built around DIII, what's a few hundred orchestrated dollars for autographs for that qb that is wavering between preferred walk on status at a DI or a DIII national football contender?

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-votes-allow-athletes-profit-likeness

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I was already planning to write about this issue this season, now I definitely will.  To me, one of the big effects for d3 will be those schools in smaller media markets.  Augustana gets big TV coverage in the Quad Cities.  Whitman is pretty prominent in Walla Walla.  Yeah, it might be $100 here or there for a TV spot or a promotional event, but that kind of exposure could help win a recruiting battle, couldn't it?

We already hear from coaches who say our (D3hoops.com) coverage of the sport wins them athletes over D2 and NAIA competition where they don't have the same chances for national exposure.  An ability to earn a little extra money (or, even more so, for many, notoriety), could certainly be a draw.

Not to mention the impact for schools with big pocket donors.  In the past they may have paid for a road trip to a tournament - what's to keep them from "hiring" students for promo events or paying them for autographs, if it means helping recruiting.

I imagine the big consideration for d3 would be limiting how these types of opportunities are used in recruiting - but, of course, none of us really knows what the issues will end up being.  It's pretty unknown territory at this point.

[jknezek]

Yes. Watching this play out will be fascinating. In my opinion, the NCAA had no choice, and I mostly side with the players on this issue, but I do see it as Pandora's Box. I would not want to be writing the rules, and I certainly would not want to be enforcing them. Given the NCAA's gutted enforcement division, I just don't see this ending well. On the other hand, I don't really care. The big effect will be in DI. As far as DIII goes, the contenders are the contenders and it is very rare to see teams move in and out of that contending tier in any sport. Dynasties are more the rule in DIII than the exception. I wonder if this will allow some of those dynasties to get broken up a bit, or just force them to find ways to solidify their holds.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I haven't read anything from the NCAA, but I will stat this: The NCAA was already working on this for quite a while. They had a committee set up that included membership from all three divisions and I believe student-athletes from all three divisions discussing what to do moving forward. They had this working group running prior to what California even considered doing and before anyone else. Sometime at least this year if not in the last year it was started.

The NCAA has been open about the fact they needed to reevaluate things especially at the highest level. I am not sure how much they were forced into anything. California certainly didn't force their hand. The NCAA President I believe talked about the ongoing work by the working group when addressing the California issue.

I will certainly agree there is a chance the working group accelerated it's work maybe post-California decision, but I also contend they didn't have to. California's bill was both still two-plus years away and was going to get tied up (and possibly knocked down) in the courts.

I plan to read what the NCAA is proposing and what it is asking each division to propose in the near future. I just wanted to make sure to clarify that this wasn't some shotgun decision from membership.

[jknezek]

I plan to read what the NCAA is proposing and what it is asking each division to propose in the near future. I just wanted to make sure to clarify that this wasn't some shotgun decision from membership.

Oh I agree this isn't cause and effect from California. But they were forced into this by societal changes starting with the video game lawsuits and proceeding on through the cases this year. They have steadily been backed into a corner, despite trying to resist at every juncture. Sure they won some legal cases, lost others, had some reviewed. It's not been a straight line of losses, but the encroachment has been apparent.

Yes they've been looking at this since before California, but I highly doubt in a world where they weren't under all kinds of legal and PR pressure they would have put that committee together voluntarily. I believe they were forced into it. It just depends on what you consider forced.

[Ron Boerger]

One thing I haven't seen much pickup on is that the NCAA Board of Governors voted unanimously Tuesday to permit college athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness “in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.”  That gives the AA an awful lot of wiggle room, and the "collegiate model" is not the same in D3 as it is D1.   

It's going to interesting to watch. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

One thing I haven't seen much pickup on is that the NCAA Board of Governors voted unanimously Tuesday to permit college athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness “in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.”  That gives the AA an awful lot of wiggle room, and the "collegiate model" is not the same in D3 as it is D1.   

It's going to interesting to watch.

Well, each division is going to be able to determine what it considers it's rules on it will be - as in most things throughout the NCAA.

[ADL70]

CWRU Athletes NIL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckKN-o555MQ