Would this help recruiting? NCAA Permit Athletes to Profit

[Trotsky]

Regardless of what the NC$$ decides, the Ivies will never permit student athletes to earn money.  They have a lucrative marketing brand principles to protect.

[ajh258]

Maybe we should hire someone to help drive revenues here if Ivy League allows this.

$1.5m profitability is not a crazy sales profitability target even if we can't find a rich alumnus.

[Trotsky]

Maybe we should hire someone to help drive revenues here if Ivy League allows this.

$1.5m profitability is not a crazy sales profitability target even if we can't find a rich alumnus.

One of us studied to do exactly this.  Just sayin'.

[ugarte]

Regardless of what the NC$$ decides, the Ivies will never permit student athletes to earn money.  They have a lucrative marketing brand principles to protect.

If the NCAA relents on NIL rights it will be because of litigation fears. The Ivies will allow it if for no other reason than NIL rights for Ivy athletes are probably negligible.

[Tom Lento]

What about the next Cornellian, who happens to play hockey, that wants to create a better version of the beer tap? Under the new NC$$ regs, would s/he be able to get the patent and profit and still keep their eligibility?

That part of the NC$$ rules always bugged me. If an athlete has talent in another area (musician, cupcake baker) why couldn't they make money from that and still keep their scholarship  and eligibility?

Based on the press article, the NCAA rule change is limited to likeness, name, and image. Assuming that's correct, the athlete can sign a deal with Nike or Reebok or EA Sports but can't sell other things. What'd be interesting, though, is if the athlete entered a business deal with a manufacturer to sell a beer tap as the "Douglas Murray Beer Tap" or similar.

I believe the rationale behind not allowing bake sales and whatnot is that it's a vector for skirting the rules on alumni gifts to athletes. Imagine:

Top HS Football Player: "Oh, I'm also an aspiring cake artist."
Rich alum: "Really? Can you do a cake for my daughter's birthday during your redshirt year here? Make it really luxurious, my birthday cake budget is $10,000. I'm sure some other folks in the football boosters would like similar cakes for their kids..."

[Tom Lento]

Regardless of what the NC$$ decides, the Ivies will never permit student athletes to earn money.  They have a lucrative marketing brand principles to protect.

If the NCAA relents on NIL rights it will be because of litigation fears. The Ivies will allow it if for no other reason than NIL rights for Ivy athletes are probably negligible.

In the absence of litigation risk I can see the Ivies taking a pointless principled stance on this for league marketing reasons, but I agree it won't matter to the athletes. That's not just an Ivy thing, either - outside of a few places like Minnesota I don't think D-I hockey players will generate meaningful revenue from likeness or image so I can't imagine this'd be useful as a recruiting tool in general.

As far as I understand it this rule change really only affects top tier D-I Football and Basketball, plus a handful of international superstar level players (maybe US Women's Soccer team players who are still in college, that sort of thing).

[ugarte]

What about the next Cornellian, who happens to play hockey, that wants to create a better version of the beer tap? Under the new NC$$ regs, would s/he be able to get the patent and profit and still keep their eligibility?

That part of the NC$$ rules always bugged me. If an athlete has talent in another area (musician, cupcake baker) why couldn't they make money from that and still keep their scholarship  and eligibility?

Based on the press article, the NCAA rule change is limited to likeness, name, and image. Assuming that's correct, the athlete can sign a deal with Nike or Reebok or EA Sports but can't sell other things. What'd be interesting, though, is if the athlete entered a business deal with a manufacturer to sell a beer tap as the "Douglas Murray Beer Tap" or similar."

I don't think so. NIL rights aren't about sponsorship, I don't think. It's about jerseys with your name on it or to use your name/stats/likeness for EA College Football or Topps cards.

[Tom Lento]

What about the next Cornellian, who happens to play hockey, that wants to create a better version of the beer tap? Under the new NC$$ regs, would s/he be able to get the patent and profit and still keep their eligibility?

That part of the NC$$ rules always bugged me. If an athlete has talent in another area (musician, cupcake baker) why couldn't they make money from that and still keep their scholarship  and eligibility?

Based on the press article, the NCAA rule change is limited to likeness, name, and image. Assuming that's correct, the athlete can sign a deal with Nike or Reebok or EA Sports but can't sell other things. What'd be interesting, though, is if the athlete entered a business deal with a manufacturer to sell a beer tap as the "Douglas Murray Beer Tap" or similar."

I don't think so. NIL rights aren't about sponsorship, I don't think. It's about jerseys with your name on it or to use your name/stats/likeness for EA College Football or Topps cards.

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

[ugarte]

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

putting your name on a product is an endorsement, not a NIL issue. NIL is about being able to sell the three things in the acronym, as themselves, as opposed to the school or another third party being able to exploit them without compensating you. It's not Doug Murray on the Doug Murray Ubertap, but using the name Doug Murray itself in a college hockey video game (name) with his stats and an avatar designed to accurately represent him (likeness) and a picture of him in uniform on the packaging (image).

[Swampy]

Regardless of what the NC$$ decides, the Ivies will never permit student athletes to earn money.  They have a lucrative marketing brand principles to protect.

If the NCAA relents on NIL rights it will be because of litigation fears. The Ivies will allow it if for no other reason than NIL rights for Ivy athletes are probably negligible.

In the absence of litigation risk I can see the Ivies taking a pointless principled stance on this for league marketing reasons, but I agree it won't matter to the athletes. That's not just an Ivy thing, either - outside of a few places like Minnesota I don't think D-I hockey players will generate meaningful revenue from likeness or image so I can't imagine this'd be useful as a recruiting tool in general.

As far as I understand it this rule change really only affects top tier D-I Football and Basketball, plus a handful of international superstar level players (maybe US Women's Soccer team players who are still in college, that sort of thing).

I think sports like lacrosse might be affected. Unlike hockey or soccer, there's no professional league whose superheroes attract all the attention, yet there's a growing population of kids who would ask Uncle Punch & Aunt Judy to spend a few more bucks for a birthday present (lacrosse stick, jersey, or cleats) with Jeff Teat's name on it.

[ugarte]

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

putting your name on a product is an endorsement, not a NIL issue. NIL is about being able to sell the three things in the acronym, as themselves, as opposed to the school or another third party being able to exploit them without compensating you. It's not Doug Murray on the Doug Murray Ubertap, but using the name Doug Murray itself in a college hockey video game (name) with his stats and an avatar designed to accurately represent him (likeness) and a picture of him in uniform on the packaging (image).

i've been noodling around and NIL rights in this context may actually include endorsement deals but the NCAA may be involved in capping the value

[Beeeej]

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

putting your name on a product is an endorsement, not a NIL issue. NIL is about being able to sell the three things in the acronym, as themselves, as opposed to the school or another third party being able to exploit them without compensating you. It's not Doug Murray on the Doug Murray Ubertap, but using the name Doug Murray itself in a college hockey video game (name) with his stats and an avatar designed to accurately represent him (likeness) and a picture of him in uniform on the packaging (image).

i've been noodling around and NIL rights in this context may actually include endorsement deals but the NCAA may be involved in capping the value

I smell a podcast.

[Tom Lento]

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

putting your name on a product is an endorsement, not a NIL issue. NIL is about being able to sell the three things in the acronym, as themselves, as opposed to the school or another third party being able to exploit them without compensating you. It's not Doug Murray on the Doug Murray Ubertap, but using the name Doug Murray itself in a college hockey video game (name) with his stats and an avatar designed to accurately represent him (likeness) and a picture of him in uniform on the packaging (image).

i've been noodling around and NIL rights in this context may actually include endorsement deals but the NCAA may be involved in capping the value

I smell a podcast.

I'd give that a listen.