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

[WhiteMamba]

The alternative must have been worse

Should’ve given Obama another 2 or 3 terms.

 

[Deep Creek]

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.

You could see this shit coming when the revenue started going crazy...and subsequently the other things that said revenue funded, i.e. coaching salaries, facilities, etc.

Only a few are generating enough revenue to be considered "profit" which brings another issue into the discussion. But even those that aren't generating "profit" level revenues are spending significant amounts so the perception is that all of them are flush with cash.

Just the coaching salaries is a good example. You have some schools paying some very large salaries to coaches that really don't have the track record to warrant such. But they feel they have to in order to "compete".

 

[7Samurai13]

Should’ve given Obama another 2 or 3 terms.

Or just don’t rig the primaries against what the Democrat voters wanted.

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

Should’ve given Obama another 2 or 3 terms.

That too would have been worse.

 

[Olyduck]

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.

thats because the NCAA only regulates ATHLETICS using music and art and such are not comparable. and Im pretty sure scholarships dont matter either as a walk on is just as subject to NCAA rules as any scholarship player.

 

[socaljim242]

thats because the NCAA only regulates ATHLETICS using music and art and such are not comparable. and Im pretty sure scholarships dont matter either as a walk on is just as subject to NCAA rules as any scholarship player.

Thats because the NCAA is there to collect any and all money made from these young men. Don't give them an inch/nickle because we (NCAA/schools) want it all. It was fine and a good exchange when there wasn't this type of money being made by everyone. You cant tell me people aren't getting rich off this players. If you took Larry Scotts yearly salery and payed 80 players from each PAC football team they would get over 5K .

 

[trojanfan12]

thats because the NCAA only regulates ATHLETICS using music and art and such are not comparable. and Im pretty sure scholarships dont matter either as a walk on is just as subject to NCAA rules as any scholarship player.

But that's the problem. One student can profit off of their talent and earn as much as they want while still in school and another can't.

Part of the argument against paying players is that they get scholarships (which we are told should be enough), yet being on scholarship isn't enough for the non-athlete?

To be clear, while I'm not necessarily against the idea of players being able to make money while in school, I am not in favor of this law being passed. I don't trust that the California legislature has researched it enough.

I just don't see it as the Armageddon that some on here seem to.

I do think that if we are ever going to see players get paid, it will be something along the lines of this law.

Something where they can profit from their likeness, but also ensuring that none of the money comes from the school or boosters. Maybe also placing the money or a percentage of it in a trust that they can access after they leave school.

 

[7Samurai13]

But that's the problem. One student can profit off of their talent and earn as much as they want while still in school and another can't.

Part of the argument against paying players is that they get scholarships (which we are told should be enough), yet being on scholarship isn't enough for the non-athlete?

To be clear, while I'm not necessarily against the idea of players being able to make money while in school, I am not in favor of this law being passed. I don't trust that the California legislature has researched it enough.

I just don't see it as the Armageddon that some on here seem to.

I do think that if we are ever going to see players get paid, it will be something along the lines of this law.

Something where they can profit from their likeness, but also ensuring that none of the money comes from the school or boosters. Maybe also placing the money or a percentage of it in a trust that they can access after they leave school.

So are the bidding for these athletes going to be done out in the open, online, or will it all be blind.

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

But that's the problem. One student can profit off of their talent and earn as much as they want while still in school and another can't.

Part of the argument against paying players is that they get scholarships (which we are told should be enough), yet being on scholarship isn't enough for the non-athlete?

To be clear, while I'm not necessarily against the idea of players being able to make money while in school, I am not in favor of this law being passed. I don't trust that the California legislature has researched it enough.

I just don't see it as the Armageddon that some on here seem to.

I do think that if we are ever going to see players get paid, it will be something along the lines of this law.

Something where they can profit from their likeness, but also ensuring that none of the money comes from the school or boosters. Maybe also placing the money or a percentage of it in a trust that they can access after they leave school.

Define who a booster is. Why is it ok for a business to use endorsements to steer recruits to schools they favor but not ok for a booster to? If they can’t collect the money until after they leave school, why not just wait until they’re out of school to sign endorsement deals?

 

[Deep Creek]

Thats because the NCAA is there to collect any and all money made from these young men. Don't give them an inch/nickle because we (NCAA/schools) want it all. It was fine and a good exchange when there wasn't this type of money being made by everyone. You cant tell me people aren't getting rich off this players. If you took Larry Scotts yearly salery and payed 80 players from each PAC football team they would get over 5K .

 

[ralphiewvu]

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

Do they not have TV stations in West Virginia?

Your link does not disprove anything I said. Just an FYI. An I’m not in WV. I only went there.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Your link does not disprove anything I said. Just an FYI. An I’m not in WV. I only went there.

My link is all about the free television stations (over the air) that don't require a carrier to be paid in order to watch...which runs counter to what you had stated.

 

[trojanfan12]

So are the bidding for these athletes going to be done out in the open, online, or will it all be blind.

If it's done properly, I don't think it would result in a bidding war. First off, I don't think they'd even be able to make money until their sophomore season at the earliest. I doubt anyone is going to be too interested in some kid coming straight out of high school who hasn't played a down of college football repping their products.

2nd, it should be done in a way that keeps the school and boosters out of it.

 

[trojanfan12]

Define who a booster is. Why is it ok for a business to use endorsements to steer recruits to schools they favor but not ok for a booster to? If they can’t collect the money until after they leave school, why not just wait until they’re out of school to sign endorsement deals?

I think we all know what a booster is. Why do you assume a business or corporation is going to look to steer a kid to a specific school? Is that last one a real question? The answer seems obvious.

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

I think we all know what a booster is. Why do you assume a business or corporation is going to look to steer a kid to a specific school? Is that last one a real question? The answer seems obvious.

You didn’t answer a single question.

 

[trojanfan12]

You didn’t answer a single question.

If you don't know what a booster is, you probably shouldn't be in this convo. I answered one of your questions with a question and if the last one was a real question...again, you probably shouldn't be in this convo.

 

[7Samurai13]

If it's done properly, I don't think it would result in a bidding war. First off, I don't think they'd even be able to make money until their sophomore season at the earliest. I doubt anyone is going to be too interested in some kid coming straight out of high school who hasn't played a down of college football repping their products.

2nd, it should be done in a way that keeps the school and boosters out of it.

You have way more faith in the boosters not trying to buy the best recruits than I do. You have boosters making $200k donations to busted up churches. It’s a pretty side held opinion that the top recruits are already getting paid money but when you make it completely legal to buy up the best players, that all will stop.

You aren’t going to be able to keep the boosters out because they are just going to be like “I have a dealership and I want to pay you $50k to come do a one hour signing at my store”. It will keep the “boosters out of it” but it is absolutely the boosters neck deep in it.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Not sure if this was already posted, but NY is considering a similar bill:

N.Y. senator proposes bill to pay college athletes

 

[HuskerOC]

Need to start building a wall up the Left Coast and keep Cali, Oregon, and Washington the Fuck out. (Mebe keep Wash in and exlude most of Seattle).

Cotdam you is a bunch a non-brithces wearing bitches wanting to ruin everything and shit.

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

If you don't know what a booster is, you probably shouldn't be in this convo. I answered one of your questions with a question and if the last one was a real question...again, you probably shouldn't be in this convo.

If you can’t define what a booster is, and you can’t understand how a business could steer a recruit to a school that would benefit them, and if you don’t understand why it makes a difference that a player couldn’t get an endorsement after they left school, then maybe you don’t belong in the convo.

Would it be ok for Phil Knight to pay $10k for the autographed pictures of any 5 star players who sign with Oregon? What about if all the members of the Nike board agreed to too? Would it be ok for Nike to sign them to an endorsement deal if they go to Oregon, or any other Nike school for that matter? How would that be different? Remember, the law does not allow for a player to endorse a product that competes with the schools sponsor, so they would have to go to a Nike school if they sign a deal with Nike.