Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

The Victors Local Exchange

"opening the floodgates" is not really a good metaphor here... I think we could get ourselves in a lot of trouble here.

I'm curious, what kind of sane person would take product recommendations from a college football player? So There's a pretty limited scope of what legit advertisement money is going to go to players. Athletic apparel, equipment... and maybe some consumer shit. There's probably a limited number of "big dollar" sponsors... Nike, Under Armour, etc. And unfortunately for us, those brands weren't founded by UM alums...

I assume this really just allows schools like ours a legit way for local businesses to funnel money to players to stay and play well... local car dealerships, restaurants, etc. stuff the SEC, Texas schools, and OSU has been doing for decades.

But while that's fine, I'm sure we don't want shady deals that will reflect poorly on the school going on. Like do we want our players endorsing a local tattoo parler or bar? All sorts of shady shit happens in cash businesses like that. That's my concern with "opening the floodgates."
 
when this was first getting talked about, I understood it was going to take licensing deals involving players' names and likenesses away from the NCAA and giving it to the players, who earn it, like the EA Sports NCAA football series for example.

Instead the NCAA refused to give that up, but they will allow players to sell their names and likenesses to other people that wouldn't advertise with them otherwise... smaller, local brands and advertisers.
 
The school has already outlined the types of businesses that they're willing to allow athletes to work with to prevent against the negative images. By opening the floodgates I mean that they are getting closer to being able to not being negatively impacted by their NIL policies in recruiting.

And as far as I'm concerned if Stephen Ross and other boosters want to create slush funds for players I don't care. If they are willing to pay a kid a mil to show up to their kid's birthday party who am I to say that's not okay? And more importantly, if you have a legitimate system in place that offers athletes access to to those types revenue streams then they won't need to get involved with tattoo parlers and corner liquor stores if you're worried about protecting your brand.
 
The school has already outlined the types of businesses that they're willing to allow athletes to work with to prevent against the negative images. By opening the floodgates I mean that they are getting closer to being able to not being negatively impacted by their NIL policies in recruiting.

And as far as I'm concerned if Stephen Ross and other boosters want to create slush funds for players I don't care. If they are willing to pay a kid a mil to show up to their kid's birthday party who am I to say that's not okay? And more importantly, if you have a legitimate system in place that offers athletes access to to those types revenue streams then they won't need to get involved with tattoo parlers and corner liquor stores if you're worried about protecting your brand.


it's certainly an improvement, but it's just kinda absurd that they'll do pretty much anything except just fucking pay the players to play football.



I get that they'd rather destroy the NCAA than just do that, but it's ridiculous.
 
Do schools have any say in what not to allow? I thought the question was whether or not the school would help organize the funneling of money to players, but the whole NIL ruling meant the answer to 'can schools stop players from making their own deals' was 'no'.
 
Do schools have any say in what not to allow? I thought the question was whether or not the school would help organize the funneling of money to players, but the whole NIL ruling meant the answer to 'can schools stop players from making their own deals' was 'no'.

I believe the restriction that was held unconstitutional was set by the NCAA, so presumably the Supreme Court's opinion applied only to NCAA restrictions here not also restrictions from the schools.

But I didn't actually read it.
 
Do schools have any say in what not to allow? I thought the question was whether or not the school would help organize the funneling of money to players, but the whole NIL ruling meant the answer to 'can schools stop players from making their own deals' was 'no'.

My understanding was that they left it to the states to write the laws that would apply to their schools.

One thing that I know has been mentioned is how Michigan won't allow their players to use the M on any of their NIL stuff. I read somewhere that it was part of the State's law to not authorize use of their institutions' trademarks for third party use.

And regarding the school's ability to limit their athletes, I'm sure that's a condition that they agree to when they accept the scholarship. And I think it's perfectly understandable why Michigan does not want to see one of their student athletes endorsing Porn Hub or a sports betting app. And while I'm not sure that they've ruled out tattoo parlors, I certainly think it would be an epic dig if they were to announce that they did not allow their athletes to partner with tattoo shops that serve as fronts for narcotics trafficking.
 
Last edited:
NIL will destroy college football.

How so? It's not like there has been a lot of competition with the top 5 teams in the past decade. And for what it's worth I see NIL as an opportunity to keep some kids in school longer. Think of someone like DPJ leaving early only to drop to the 6th round. If he had money coming in while he was in college maybe he could afford to stay an extra year.
 
With as protective of trademarks as the university is, how did the Steiner Brothers gets away their use in WWF?
iu

iu
 
With as protective of trademarks as the university is, how did the Steiner Brothers gets away their use in WWF?
iu

iu

maybe they licensed them from the university?

or the university felt it was good publicity? bring in more fans from the "dumb guys who watch pro wrestling" demographic.
 
Back
Top