mrwallace2ku
Treehugger
- 38,407
- 4,613
- 293
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 200.00
So which imaginary victim group do you belong to??The fact that you have a picture of the Worst POTUS of all time as your avatar says everything we need to know about you.
Trump is a racist, rapist, traitor, corrupt, egomaniac, pathological liar, and overall disgusting human being.
"Attendance is a problem throughout college football, and Boise State is a lot better off than most programs."
You forgot xenophobe and homophobe, CNN would be let down with this weak effort.The fact that you have a picture of the Worst POTUS of all time as your avatar says everything we need to know about you.
Trump is a racist, rapist, traitor, corrupt, egomaniac, pathological liar, and overall disgusting human being.
The one thing I will say about the California law is that it seems like a way around Title IX. It allows a player to profit from their likeness and name. That is only going to involve, at most, a handful of players and since the school isn't paying them, no Title IX violation.
And a program can be "arrested" by the NCAA. Again, the law allows an athlete to profit from their likeness. It doesn't say that the athletes have to be paid. I don't see schools risking getting in hot water with the NCAA over a law in 1 state that only effects a handful of players (if that) at any given school.
And suppose it goes to SCOTUS and is deemed constitutional? It doesn't change the number of players who would even be able to take advantage of it and it doesn't change the fact that it's against NCAA rules and a school can be severely punished.
Assuming that the law was deemed constitutional, it wouldn't automatically make the NCAA rule unconstitutional. Especially since schools technically participate voluntarily and agree to abide by their rules in order to be members.
This is where I think the California bill is bunk. Like I said the local rep here did the say exact thing. No matter what a rep says it does not go around title IX. A lawyer has to argue an athlete can profit off of their likeness because they play a sport at any educational institution. There is no argument a football player is more profitable than a chick, but issue is Title IX does not allow a difference between the two genders.
I agree, except Cal, which runs into the whole Pac 12 issue, it allows Cali schools to do it. USC and Stanford are ok because you guys are private, UCLA is not and obviously Cal will follow the law or have a protest by every non athlete there.
It will go to the SCOTUS and if it is deemed constitutional it means the NCAA cannot make a law without federal government consent. It’s exactly why the NFLPA did not want Tom Brady to further his suit against the NFL even though he had the appeals on his side. This is where the disconnect is, if it is deemed constitutional then there is no NCAA just as if Tom Brady won there is no NFL. It means government is now the governing body of the NFLPA and in this case NCAA athletes. There is not a difference between an athlete getting paid for his/her likeness and athletes not being allowed to smoke weed in states that have legalized weed.
I will admit I’m heavily bias in this area because of the pro and con debate I listened to and it is just another solid idea on paper (like California and Washington have all the time) but the rabbit hole hurts many more people than the 1% it helps.
If you think this is only about one state making a law and it won’t really affect anything, then you’re just clueless or pretending to be. If schools and their proxies in some states are allowed to pay the athletes, then all will have to be, because those schools will have a tremendous recruiting advantage. If all are allowed, then recruiting is going to turn into a bidding war for the best prospects, with a relative few players getting all the money and the rest getting little or nothing, with the richest schools with the richest and most rabid boosters and alum having an even greater advantage than they do now. It doesn’t make a rat’s ass that the school won’t be the one writing the check, just like the way it is now.It works around Title IX because the school isn't paying them and it isn't exclusively for football and basketball players or exclusively for male athletes. Any athlete, regardless of gender or sport can profit from their likeness.
So, if the football team has a stud quarterback, this law, he would be able to profit from his likeness and name. If the women's basketball team has a star player like a Lisa Leslie or Diana Taurasi, etc. they are also free to try to profit from their likeness.
Not sure what USC and Stanford being private has to do with it. They still have to follow NCAA rules.
I'm not so sure about this. The NCAA can still make it's own rules and technically speaking, schools are part of the NCAA voluntarily and agree to follow it's rules. Maybe that can be challenged because it could be argued that schools have to be part of it and can't compete if they're not. But I don't know as that has ever been challenged.
I guess I just don't see it as the rabbit hole than some here do. I see 1 state making law that isn't really going to impact anything. To me, it's just another one of those laws that legislatures (especially liberal ones like we have here) pass in order to make themselves feel like they've done something.
If you think this is only about one state making a law and it won’t really affect anything, then you’re just clueless or pretending to be. If schools and their proxies in some states are allowed to pay the athletes, then all will have to be, because those schools will have a tremendous recruiting advantage.
This is where I think the California bill is bunk. Like I said the local rep here did the say exact thing. No matter what a rep says it does not go around title IX. A lawyer has to argue an athlete can profit off of their likeness because they play a sport at any educational institution. There is no argument a football player is more profitable than a chick, but issue is Title IX does not allow a difference between the two genders.
I agree, except Cal, which runs into the whole Pac 12 issue, it allows Cali schools to do it. USC and Stanford are ok because you guys are private, UCLA is not and obviously Cal will follow the law or have a protest by every non athlete there.
It will go to the SCOTUS and if it is deemed constitutional it means the NCAA cannot make a law without federal government consent. It’s exactly why the NFLPA did not want Tom Brady to further his suit against the NFL even though he had the appeals on his side. This is where the disconnect is, if it is deemed constitutional then there is no NCAA just as if Tom Brady won there is no NFL. It means government is now the governing body of the NFLPA and in this case NCAA athletes. There is not a difference between an athlete getting paid for his/her likeness and athletes not being allowed to smoke weed in states that have legalized weed.
I will admit I’m heavily bias in this area because of the pro and con debate I listened to and it is just another solid idea on paper (like California and Washington have all the time) but the rabbit hole hurts many more people than the 1% it helps.
Damn it Janet!Looks like as of today none of the Cali schools will be doing a home & home with any of the Iowa schools.
California adds Iowa to 'travel ban' over refusal to fund gender transitions
What they’re attempting to do isn’t as important as what will actually happen as a result. Explain to us how this won’t turn recruiting into a bidding war. Explain how this doesn’t benefit only the high profile recruits and players, and the richest and most rabid boosters. Explain how companies like Nike won’t use their endorsements to steer players to schools that use their products. If you can’t, then explain why those are good things for college football.I stopped reading here. You call me clueless, but you have no clue what this law attempts to do.
I stopped reading here. You call me clueless, but you have no clue what this law attempts to do.
It doesn’t matter what it attempts to do. It’s what it will allow colleges to do. California schools will not be part of the ncaa national championship picture if this goes through. The only saving grace for people of those schools that don’t want this is that maybe other states start to do this and force the ncaa hand.
Don't forget about a reduction in sponsorship dollars for cutting out the most populous state.
So the NCAA won’t broadcast other games that are outside the state of California? Yeah, good one