California just voted in favor of killing off the PAC-12

ralphiewvu · Sep 17, 2019

michaeljordan_fan said:
So you believe NCAA viewership numbers will have no dropoff in California after the NCAA excommunicates all the California schools?

You aren't really that dumb, are you?

It doesn’t matter if anyone in the state watches them, as long as the cable/satellite provider can still charge them which they obviously will it doesn’t make one iota of a difference if anyone in the state of California ever watches.

You aren’t really that dumb, are you?

TigerBait1971 · Sep 17, 2019

Anybody advocating for this either is clueless or hates college sports.

AlaskaGuy · Sep 17, 2019

TigerBait1971 said:
Anybody advocating for this either is clueless or hates college sports.

This ^^

ralphiewvu · Sep 17, 2019

TigerBait1971 said:
Anybody advocating for this either is clueless or hates college sports.

Well said you handsome devil :eyebrows:

michaeljordan_fan · Sep 17, 2019

ralphiewvu said:
It doesn’t matter if anyone in the state watches them, as long as the cable/satellite provider can still charge them which they obviously will it doesn’t make one iota of a difference if anyone in the state of California ever watches.

You aren’t really that dumb, are you?

Right, because the cable/satellite company is charging the advertisers on CBS/ABC/FOX...

You aren't really that dumb, are you?

AlaskaGuy · Sep 17, 2019

ralphiewvu · Sep 17, 2019

michaeljordan_fan said:
Right, because the cable/satellite company is charging the advertisers on CBS/ABC/FOX...

You aren't really that dumb, are you?

You stated NCAA viewership numbers. I stated it doesn’t matter if anyone in California watches because people are still getting charged for it. You don’t know the difference?

You aren’t really this dumb, are you?

michaeljordan_fan · Sep 17, 2019

ralphiewvu said:
You stated NCAA viewership numbers. I stated it doesn’t matter if anyone in California watches because people are still getting charged for it. You don’t know the difference?

You aren’t really this dumb, are you?

Who's getting charged for ABC/CBS/FOX? They are free over the air.

You aren't really this dumb, are you?

AlaskaGuy · Sep 17, 2019

AlaskaGuy said:
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

ralphiewvu · Sep 17, 2019

michaeljordan_fan said:
Who's getting charged for ABC/CBS/FOX? They are free over the air.

You aren't really this dumb, are you?

Are you under some impression every television in America comes instantly with ABC/CBS/FOX without needing a service provider? Just like you think every corporate sponsorship for each university hinges on the viewers in California?

You aren’t really this dumb, are you?

wazzu31 · Sep 17, 2019

trojanfan12 said:
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.

This is the main issue. Is it does not work around title IX, someone is getting compensated strictly because they are an athlete at an institution. Your likeness only means something if you are an athlete. Normal society doesn’t pay for your likeness, they go all Reggie Bush and pay for you to come straight to work for them.

USC and Stanford being private alleviates the pressure such as bills that are passed banning public employees from non LGBTQ. So it’s a positive yet a negative in the same way but I don’t think that affects those two schools. Cal and UCLA it does and where this whole Pac 12 issue will stem from.

The NCAA has been challenged several times, but this is where a ton of hatred is towards the NCAA especially on the politics board. People/uneducated voters are pissec off at the NCAA because they don’t understand that athletes can’t jump straight to the pros because of professional leagues. There are a ton of reasons to dislike the NCAA but because student athletes live ten times better than your average student who has a part time job on the side isn’t one of them. But this is where it gets complicated and I completely disagree with this bill because IMO it is ignorant as hell. I do believe athletes should get compensated for signatures, jersey sells etc. Big problem is, that it opens a Pandora’s box of alumni/fans being legally able to buy recruits because they get paid for being an athlete. Which I think you are saying USC wouldn’t while I completely disagree with Cal wouldn’t. That school has already tried dropping most of their sports because academics/athletics.

I will concede your last part is how you feel. My big objection to this besides how I feel politically, is because a local rep here proposed the identical bill and I heard the arguments for and against it at a hearing they held at Central Washington before it went to a single committee and every single politician and pro the bill were ignorant as hell as to what athletics are and did not care/think about the ramifications of it. It was academics who already dislike sports because coaches make more money and fans who just say the kids deserve more money because they bring in money that don’t realize what an athletic departments budget it.

The last part is a legit argument except the rebuttal is always well the athletes from non revenue sports can receive the same or later on down the line. I will fully disclose I am bias against shit like this because these bills are always just about feelings and the immediate instead of what the fallout will be and since I have girls who love sports I am highly against a bill like this or the trying of allowing transgendered females compete in women sports. So on surface I agree with the intent of the bill, but just like on the surface I’d agree with dropping an atomic bomb on the Middle East but then the fallout is why I’d object to it.

wazzu31 · Sep 17, 2019

michaeljordan_fan said:
The schools not paying them makes Title IX irrelevant. No one is stopping a female athlete from seeking endorsements.

Hmm, nearly every single high profiled case of the NCAA sanctioning schools say your statement is wrong. Let alone the FBI just busting schools for bribing kids. Which USC employee paid Reggie Bush’s family? Which SMU employee paid for all the players that cost them the death penalty. I will never understand how any person pro this type of bill is pro having college athletics at all. What is one reason if a player is allowed to make money off of his/her’s only reason for making money is because they are an exceptional athlete receive a scholarship or anything from a university? The NCAA isn’t the federal government but without the NCAA college athletics is the AAF.

michaeljordan_fan · Sep 17, 2019

wazzu31 said:
Hmm, nearly every single high profiled case of the NCAA sanctioning schools say your statement is wrong. Let alone the FBI just busting schools for bribing kids. Which USC employee paid Reggie Bush’s family? Which SMU employee paid for all the players that cost them the death penalty. I will never understand how any person pro this type of bill is pro having college athletics at all. What is one reason if a player is allowed to make money off of his/her’s only reason for making money is because they are an exceptional athlete receive a scholarship or anything from a university? The NCAA isn’t the federal government but without the NCAA college athletics is the AAF.

Neither of those had anything to do with title IX.

michaeljordan_fan · Sep 17, 2019

ralphiewvu said:
Are you under some impression every television in America comes instantly with ABC/CBS/FOX without needing a service provider? Just like you think every corporate sponsorship for each university hinges on the viewers in California?

You aren’t really this dumb, are you?

Are you under some impression that you need a service provider to watch ABC/CBS/FOX?

You aren't really this dumb, are you?

wazzu31 · Sep 18, 2019

michaeljordan_fan said:
Neither of those had anything to do with title IX.

No they don’t. But it goes against your little faux argument. There are two arguments against and yours is false. It’s either the NCAA is the governing body which I and @trojanfan12 are having a disconnect on the outcome of the California schools not seceding from the NCAA. He feels one way, I disagree and feel different.

Yours is idiotic as the other argument against the dumb bill is title IX which is a flat out fact if somehow a state can overrule the NCAA but a court battle will happen for that one and for the liberals in California/West Coast they are going to be at odds with their argument since the only argument is that Title IX is unconstitutional. As of right now any student affiliated with an academic instruction falls under Title IX. Have fun selling to a judge that DeVos is right with wanting to reform it.

michaeljordan_fan · Sep 18, 2019

wazzu31 said:
No they don’t. But it goes against your little faux argument. There are two arguments against and yours is false. It’s either the NCAA is the governing body which I and @trojanfan12 are having a disconnect on the outcome of the California schools not seceding from the NCAA. He feels one way, I disagree and feel different.

Yours is idiotic as the other argument against the dumb bill is title IX which is a flat out fact if somehow a state can overrule the NCAA but a court battle will happen for that one and for the liberals in California/West Coast they are going to be at odds with their argument since the only argument is that Title IX is unconstitutional. As of right now any student affiliated with an academic instruction falls under Title IX. Have fun selling to a judge that DeVos is right with wanting to reform it.

Your argument would hold water if the school was paying them. They aren't. Title IX doesn't apply; this is obvious and should be simple for you to understand.

ralphiewvu · Sep 18, 2019

michaeljordan_fan said:
Are you under some impression that you need a service provider to watch ABC/CBS/FOX?

You aren't really this dumb, are you?

So riddle me this ichibod, how do you watch them without a service provider? I’ll wait

7Samurai13 · Sep 18, 2019

cooljack said:
It's amazing that we elected a person that bad as POTUS isn't it?

The alternative must have been worse

trojanfan12 · Sep 18, 2019

wazzu31 said:
This is the main issue. Is it does not work around title IX, someone is getting compensated strictly because they are an athlete at an institution. Your likeness only means something if you are an athlete. Normal society doesn’t pay for your likeness, they go all Reggie Bush and pay for you to come straight to work for them.

Which is why all athletes would have that ability. If it were exclusive to male athletes or football/basketball players, that would be an issue.

Also, if a regular student who was on a music scholarship wrote a hit song, they would be free to collect any money from the song and from use of their likeness.

michaeljordan_fan · Sep 18, 2019

ralphiewvu said:
So riddle me this ichibod, how do you watch them without a service provider? I’ll wait

List of United States over-the-air television networks - Wikipedia

Do they not have TV stations in West Virginia?

California just voted in favor of killing off the PAC-12

Well-Known Member

Roll Tide? What? FUCK YOU! lolz

Throbbing Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Throbbing Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Throbbing Member

Well-Known Member

Never go full Husky

Never go full Husky

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Never go full Husky

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Funniest SH member

R.I.P. Robotic Dreams. Fight On!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads