College Football: Time for Pay for Play

Aggie QB Johnny "Football" Manziel may just prove to be the catalyst for a seismic change in college football. He's under scrutiny for ....gasp- ...maybe accepting a few bucks for signing a few autographs. Or a lot of money for signing a lot of autographs. None of this of course might be true but it's the stuff of sports TV and Radio up and down the dials.

College football has grown in a multi-billion dollar business. Networks are paying billions of dollars for rights fees to show the games, then charge us for watching. Colleges are selling all sorts of memorabilia with the names and yes, even "authorized" autographs of their players for millions of dollars more.

Everyone is getting rich. Except the players who make it all possible. The argument against actually sharing some of the loot with them is "purity." They tell us the players already get full-ride scholarships, great housing and food and the training facilities are top o' the line. But the players who put on the show we tune into, are required to be amateurs. Play for no pay.

Up until the flow of money to the schools and networks turned into a flood, one could accept the premise.

Not any more. It's time for the players to get a piece of the action.

Here's one solution: Players would earn money based on sales of everything from t-shirts to ball caps. Sure the big stars would get the most, but there could be a fund established for all players equally for a cut of a very juicy pie.

How would they get paid? Not while actually in school, but on a pro-rata basis. Play one year, you get 25% of what's in your trust account. Two years and you get 50%. Play all four and well ...a nice nest egg even for players that don't make it to the pros. Plus a degree which might come in handy if you don't get drafted or picked up in free agency.

The NCAA has long ago lost any power or true credibility. It's a toothless old lion from another time. I won't be surprised at all if the big programs like Texas, 'Bama, USC etc decide to go their own way without the NCAA. Then they can make even more money.

Take Johnny Maziel for example. He's not allowed to receive any sort of money for what he does, but Texas A&M can charge a bunch of money to sit with him at a fund raiser or take part in a meet and greet.

Fair? Hardly.

Time for the money, or at least some of it, to go to who is truly feeding the cash cow called college football in the first place.

The players.

Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relations
"We start the conversation about you."

The Hillary Movies. Perception is Reality.

Sorry not to have been more regular with this blog, but I essentially goofed off June and July. Time to re-engage and there is so much to talk about. And wouldn't you know it's political?

Not the least of which are the planned movies about former Secretary of State, former Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton by CNN and NBC.

Back when serving on the Board of Directors of the Radio-Television-Digital News Association I learned when it comes to watching the news, "Perception is Reality" on the viewer's part. What they believe is what they perceive to be true. Regardless of whether it is or not. It's their perception, at least to them, that counts.

Mrs. Clinton's story is certainly worthy of a movie. Like her or not, she is and remains a major political figure. But the timing of the movies is in question. There is no doubt among political experts that she's the presumptive nominee for the Democratic nomination for President in 2016.

NBC is quick to point out, and fairly so, that their news division is separate from their entertainment division. Over at CNN the lines are a little more blurred. Not the least of which is CNN stands for Cable NEWS Network. Neither network has plans for movies profiling Republican political figures.

There is a perception among at least some folks that both NBC and CNN lean a tad to the left. It may or not be true but it's their perception. Which re enforces GOP Chair Reince Priebus in his perception both NBC and CNN are playing partisan politics. His initial reaction is to ban both networks from covering the GOP debates.

This at a time when there is a declining perception/approval of journalists in general. So why push your own news divisions under the perception bus?

Frankly, regardless of one's political point of view, a movie about Clinton prior to the election seems suspicious, or at least coming off as obtuse on the parts of NBC and CNN.

My take on all this is "What's the hurry?" Her story is a legitimate one, and could even be more interesting after the election, win or lose. Why risk the perception you are taking sides in the 2016 election?

All this just muddies the waters when we should be focused on issues instead.

At least that's my perception. But at this point, what difference does it make?

Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relations
"We start the conversation about you"