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

[AlaskaGuy]

Leave it to California to kill the PAC. That state is pure fvcking sh1t.

 

[GoldRusher]

You can call it what ya like, it’s virtually the same thing. My main point is there is no way on Gods green earth these other schools would be in the same conference as the California schools if they aren’t able to pay recruits like california schools would be.

Creates instability and as we all know, instability causes.... realignment.

 

[wazzu31]

Simple fix, just do what $EC does and play neutral site games except play ours in California just like they play theirs in their back yards.

 

[Rolltide94]

Simple fix, just do what $EC does and play neutral site games except play ours in California just like they play theirs in their back yards.

Nothing has prevented you from doing that for 30 years...and yet, crickets.

 

[wazzu31]

Nothing has prevented you from doing that for 30 years...and yet, crickets.

Umm ya, you guys play in your back yard. The NW school’s backyard isn’t in California and in case you don’t understand football outside of the Semi Educated Conference, all of the California stadiums are homes of other schools except the Mistake in Santa Clara.

 

[Olyduck]

And I answered it clearly

Not really

 

[ralphiewvu]

Creates instability and as we all know, instability causes.... realignment.

NAILED IT

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

I'm sorta torn on players getting paid, do I think the student athlete who makes millions for his university should get something if the university, TV networks use their likeness to sell their product? Yeah, probably do. As I think what those student athletes do for their respected schools and now sometimes even their entire conference is far more than JUST a free college education.

However, I think what needs to happen if they decide to allow players to make money off their likeness, etc. is have like an account that the player will have access to after they graduate or leave school. And maybe this is only my concern, but the reason I wouldn't want players getting paid hundreds of thousands or millions and having access to it right away is I don't want it to become about me, me, me. You look at the NFL and the Antonio Brown's and OBJ's of the league, and I don't want to hear the drama that these "Contracts" create. I don't want to hear about an Alabama player having an entire week of news dedicated to them on whether or not they are going to wear a 250k watch at their next game.

Also what would that do for the transfer portal? Suddenly you really almost have contracts. Player 1 currently at UCLA, but knows they can get more money if they go to USC, so player 1 now transfers?

I think eventually college sports will go the way of having student athletes getting compensated in some way for making so much money for their schools, but I think California, as usual, made some sort of knee jerk reaction not thinking how to properly work and iron this all out.

All you’re doing is making the kids wait a few years to get the money, it doesn’t solve the obvious recruiting and player poaching issue. If you’re going to let people buy players, there’s no sense in making them wait to get the payoff.

 

[trojanfan12]

lol

Despite AG's hysterics, I don't believe this bill would allow the California schools to pay their players. In other words, the checks wouldn't be coming from USC, UCLA, Stanford, etc.

The way I understand it, it would allow players to benefit from their own likeness.

When it comes to the issue of paying players, it would essentially be no different than a student on an academic scholarship that writes some kind of computer program that Apple or Microsoft is willing to pay them for.

It would also only be a handful of players from a handful of schools who would even benefit from it.

It also gets around Title IX issues as well.

It's something that should probably be done. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it.

The NCAA isn't going to go down without a fight, that's for sure. End of the day though, I doubt much comes of it.

 

[7Samurai13]

Leave it to California to kill the PAC. That state is pure fvcking sh1t.

Yes, because before this, the PAC was the model of stability.

 

[NU_FTW]

West coast is full of tards who would rather watch home decoration shows than football, they would rather sit in a coffee shop talking shit about their neighbor than go to a football game..

 

[Tin Man]

So, California schools will have to create their own association... They might just have enough schools to do it.

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

lol

Despite AG's hysterics, I don't believe this bill would allow the California schools to pay their players. In other words, the checks wouldn't be coming from USC, UCLA, Stanford, etc.

The way I understand it, it would allow players to benefit from their own likeness.

When it comes to the issue of paying players, it would essentially be no different than a student on an academic scholarship that writes some kind of computer program that Apple or Microsoft is willing to pay them for.

It would also only be a handful of players from a handful of schools who would even benefit from it.

It also gets around Title IX issues as well.

It's something that should probably be done. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it.

The NCAA isn't going to go down without a fight, that's for sure. End of the day though, I doubt much comes of it.

The issue is not the schools paying players, it’s the player recruiting and poaching problems. If you don’t think that this is going to result in boosters and companies like Nike structuring endorsements and autograph and memorabilia deals to pay the recruits to attend specific schools and to lure them away from their existing school, then you’re just naive, or dishonest.

A relative few high profile recruits and players will make some money, the great majority will not benefit at all, the rich schools and the ones with rabid boosters will get richer without having to do all that recruiting stuff, and the poors will get poorer.

 

[trojanfan12]

The issue is not the schools paying players, it’s the player recruiting and poaching problems. If you don’t think that this is going to result in boosters and companies like Nike structuring endorsements and autograph and memorabilia deals to pay the recruits to attend specific schools and to lure them away from their existing school, then you’re just naive, or dishonest.

A relative few high profile recruits and players will make some money, the great majority will not benefit at all, the rich schools and the ones with rabid boosters will get richer without having to do all that recruiting stuff, and the poors will get poorer.

It wouldn't be an advantage if all schools are able to do it, which is what could possibly come of this. As far as luring a player way from his existing school. It's unlikely to be much different than it is now.

Also, since it wouldn't be the schools paying the players, what school they attend is irrelevant.

As for the rich getting richer...And?

Either a program can compete or it can't. That's why we have different divisions of football. If you can't compete in your current division, then drop to a lower one.

Also, I'm not in favor of paying the kids directly while they're in school. I'd prefer that the money be placed in a trust that they get when they leave school.

 

[Rolltide94]

Umm ya, you guys play in your back yard. The NW school’s backyard isn’t in California and in case you don’t understand football outside of the Semi Educated Conference, all of the California stadiums are homes of other schools except the Mistake in Santa Clara.

...and yet the Pigskin Classic happened for years...at the Angels Stadium, also neither UCLA, nor USC owns their stadium. Not to mention the empty football stadium in San Diego. You could always play in Seattle, but why would you, that would defeat the point, hardly anybody recruits the PNW because the # of recruits is shit.

I'm hardly going to apologize because, we recruit Texas, Florida and Georgia heavily.

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

It wouldn't be an advantage if all schools are able to do it, which is what could possibly come of this. As far as luring a player way from his existing school. It's unlikely to be much different than it is now.

Also, since it wouldn't be the schools paying the players, what school they attend is irrelevant.

As for the rich getting richer...And?

Either a program can compete or it can't. That's why we have different divisions of football. If you can't compete in your current division, then drop to a lower one.

Also, I'm not in favor of paying the kids directly while they're in school. I'd prefer that the money be placed in a trust that they get when they leave school.

So it’s ok for the schools to have boosters buy players and for Nike to give them deals to direct them to favored schools because the schools aren’t paying them themselves?

Brilliant.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

...and yet the Pigskin Classic happened for years...at the Angels Stadium, also neither UCLA, nor USC owns their stadium. Not to mention the empty football stadium in San Diego. You could always play in Seattle, but why would you, that would defeat the point, hardly anybody recruits the PNW because the # of recruits is shit.

I'm hardly going to apologize because, we recruit Texas, Florida and Georgia heavily.

USC gains control of L.A. Coliseum, Arena

 

[Rolltide94]

USC gains control of L.A. Coliseum, Arena

Didn't know that, that happened after I left LA...doesn't change the point though, there are plenty of stadiums in Southern California to play a game at.

 

[tnapucco]

 

[ralphiewvu]

Well, it’s up to the ole Governor now. Newsome will sign it and this goes into effect in 2023. NCAA says they are “hopeful” a resolution will come. LOL what freakin resolution would that be?