Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:07 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
It's not really about selling a product. That's just a polite cover for offering shoe money to bring their talents to the school.
And how many have a real chance at getting a shoe contract? Pretty sure the 3rd string kid on the Quidditch Club or whatever ain't interesting to Nike. Meanwhile, somebody with the talent of Tua will likely have to fend off competing offers from everybody in the business of selling athletic wear....

I'm not sure creating a superstar system where a handful of kids becoming wealthy while everyone else just continues mostly as they always have really solves any perceived problem with the current system. I'd rather see a system where all college athletes benefit...maybe pay them a set amount each semester, or an hourly rate for time spent on team activities, or something similar.
  #52  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:59 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
And how many have a real chance at getting a shoe contract? Pretty sure the 3rd string kid on the Quidditch Club or whatever ain't interesting to Nike. Meanwhile, somebody with the talent of Tua will likely have to fend off competing offers from everybody in the business of selling athletic wear....

I'm not sure creating a superstar system where a handful of kids becoming wealthy while everyone else just continues mostly as they always have really solves any perceived problem with the current system. I'd rather see a system where all college athletes benefit...maybe pay them a set amount each semester, or an hourly rate for time spent on team activities, or something similar.
I'm not sure what problem you're really seeing (or not seeing). Yes, some players have more value to schools' athletic programs than others do. That value being restricted arbitrarily is the problem that I see.
  #53  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:54 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I'm not sure what problem you're really seeing (or not seeing). Yes, some players have more value to schools' athletic programs than others do. That value being restricted arbitrarily is the problem that I see.
I'm looking at it from the perspective of the non-superstar athlete. That student will see Tua or another superstar driving around in a fancy car, with money to spend....while the non-superstar, who attends the exact same practices/games/events and works just as hard, gets nothing. From that perspective, letting some athletes have access to things the non-superstar can't seems unfair.

The real problem, as I see it, is that college athletes are usually not allowed to work--and really don't have time to work during their season anyway, yet their athletic scholarship doesn't usually provide spending money, or money to support families, or money for any other thing non-athletes could earn or do. Making a select few of them millionaires doesn't really help the majority of college athletes.
  #54  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:15 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I'm looking at it from the perspective of the non-superstar athlete. That student will see Tua or another superstar driving around in a fancy car, with money to spend....while the non-superstar, who attends the exact same practices/games/events and works just as hard, gets nothing. From that perspective, letting some athletes have access to things the non-superstar can't seems unfair.

The real problem, as I see it, is that college athletes are usually not allowed to work--and really don't have time to work during their season anyway, yet their athletic scholarship doesn't usually provide spending money, or money to support families, or money for any other thing non-athletes could earn or do. Making a select few of them millionaires doesn't really help the majority of college athletes.
Some athletes not having the skills to be compensated with more than a scholarship is not really a problem. Talented individuals being denied the right, enjoyed by everyone else, of earning as much money as they can, is a huge problem to me. This is a simple question of civil rights.

Time is indeed a problem for student athletes. We should all encourage our nation's institutions of higher education to reduce practice time by 40% and eliminate two games from the football schedule (maybe eight from basketball).
  #55  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:31 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I'm looking at it from the perspective of the non-superstar athlete. That student will see Tua or another superstar driving around in a fancy car, with money to spend....while the non-superstar, who attends the exact same practices/games/events and works just as hard, gets nothing. From that perspective, letting some athletes have access to things the non-superstar can't seems unfair.
How does this differ from what they will experience in real life, tho? I mean, once they leave college, isn't that how they are going to find themselves compensated? Not everyone makes the same salary as the star player, even tho they all go to the same meetings, practices, games, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
The real problem, as I see it, is that college athletes are usually not allowed to work--and really don't have time to work during their season anyway, yet their athletic scholarship doesn't usually provide spending money, or money to support families, or money for any other thing non-athletes could earn or do. Making a select few of them millionaires doesn't really help the majority of college athletes.
I agree that not being able to work and earn money is a problem for all NCAA athletes.

I admit that I'm unsure if the language of this bill enables that or not. Looking around the internet, I haven't yet found anyone who's addressed that issue.
  #56  
Old 09-12-2019, 03:08 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
How does this differ from what they will experience in real life, tho? I mean, once they leave college, isn't that how they are going to find themselves compensated?
After college, the vast majority of college athletes are not going to be playing professionally. Those that do make it to the pros have the ability to hire agents and negotiate their contracts at arms length, which a college athlete can't really do. I see that as making the situations different.
  #57  
Old 09-12-2019, 03:47 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
After college, the vast majority of college athletes are not going to be playing professionally. Those that do make it to the pros have the ability to hire agents and negotiate their contracts at arms length, which a college athlete can't really do. I see that as making the situations different.
Top tier pro athletes are the ones who can become wealthy on their talent. This just means that they get to start earning it earlier. And why not, the school is making money off them.

If an athlete has no chance to get paid after college, he should be exploring other sources of income anyway. Like earning a degree that leads to a good job, or networking, etc.

It would be like me complaining that Iím not getting paid like Aaron Rodgers. Of course Iím not.
  #58  
Old 09-12-2019, 05:30 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
After college, the vast majority of college athletes are not going to be playing professionally. Those that do make it to the pros have the ability to hire agents and negotiate their contracts at arms length, which a college athlete can't really do. I see that as making the situations different.
There are disparities in income in real life, in all industries, tho. I don't see how a star athlete being paid more is any different than, say, a star salesperson being paid more than another salesman. Both sell the same product, attend the same meetings, etc.

Besides, in the case of these athletes, they will be paid for services outside of sports. That is, they aren't being paid to play, they are being paid because of how they have played and how that translates into goodwill and/or sales for the people paying them.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-12-2019 at 05:32 PM.
  #59  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:13 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
After college, the vast majority of college athletes are not going to be playing professionally. Those that do make it to the pros have the ability to hire agents and negotiate their contracts at arms length, which a college athlete can't really do. I see that as making the situations different.
I still don't understand the basic point you're trying to make. Is it that income inequality is bad? Or just bad in college athletics? If a wealthy booster promises $100,000 per year to Stud Athlete to come play at State U but doesn't make the same offer to a kid whose potential is second string guard, is that something that has to be regulated from happening?
  #60  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:43 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I still don't understand the basic point you're trying to make. Is it that income inequality is bad? Or just bad in college athletics? If a wealthy booster promises $100,000 per year to Stud Athlete to come play at State U but doesn't make the same offer to a kid whose potential is second string guard, is that something that has to be regulated from happening?
I think maybe I've done a poor job of explaining myself. Let me try again.

I think this legislation is intended to address the problem of college athletes not being able to work or otherwise earn money while they're on the team. As such, I see it as helping a small number of athletes while doing nothing for the majority, and I'd prefer an alternative that would help the majority.

If that isn't the intent of this legislation, then I've wasted your time and countless pixels of internet usage blathering on and making no sense.
  #61  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:29 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I think maybe I've done a poor job of explaining myself. Let me try again.

I think this legislation is intended to address the problem of college athletes not being able to work or otherwise earn money while they're on the team. As such, I see it as helping a small number of athletes while doing nothing for the majority, and I'd prefer an alternative that would help the majority.

If that isn't the intent of this legislation, then I've wasted your time and countless pixels of internet usage blathering on and making no sense.
You aren't wasting anyone's time, Oak; be at ease about that. At the very least, you're helping me learn more about this bill and maybe consider things I hadn't before. If you weren't someone who is able to make cogent arguments and take new information into account you might be wasting time but I don't recall you being that type of person.

I've read the bill that passed the state Assembly a few times now, and it seems to only authorize players to make money from their "name, image or likeness" and to secure an agent for those purposes. I'm not sure it would enable an athlete to get a job at a car dealership or at a shoe store etc., and if it doesn't then I would agree that is a problem.

BUT I am fully okay with the things the bill does clearly authorize being authorized.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-13-2019 at 03:30 PM.
  #62  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:38 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I think maybe I've done a poor job of explaining myself. Let me try again.

I think this legislation is intended to address the problem of college athletes not being able to work or otherwise earn money while they're on the team. As such, I see it as helping a small number of athletes while doing nothing for the majority, and I'd prefer an alternative that would help the majority.

If that isn't the intent of this legislation, then I've wasted your time and countless pixels of internet usage blathering on and making no sense.
I donít think this is intended to fix the problem of having college athletes making money for their school and yet being unpaid, basically serving as free labor. Thatís a bigger issue thatís more complicated. Itís just trying to open up a way for some athletes to make money indirectly from their college sports career.

Think of it in terms of professional sports. The top tier of talent gets endorsement deals and makes money they way, they could even make more money from endorsements than their actual salary. Not all pro athletes make money that way, in fact the vast majority donít. If there was a problem with the way player-team contracts were being handled, a law involving endorsements would have very little effect on those contract problems, and would probably do nothing to fix them. Yet that doesnít mean that such a law isnít still useful.

To use a crude metaphor, when your car needs an oil change and tire rotation you donít skip filling the gas tank. Just because a solution wonít fix all problems, or even the biggest problems, that doesnít mean itís not worth pursuing. As long as that solution doesnít interfere with fixing the bigger ones.

In this case I donít think it will. Your concerns about this not helping most college athletes are exactly why it wonít get in the way of finding a solution for compensating players for their work. The NCAA isnít going to be able to point to endorsements (assuming they eventually allow them across all of their schools) and declare that students are now compensated, precisely because the vast majority of athletes still wonít be.

There are other efforts along those lines aside from this bill, with some recent success:
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/10/182589...d-court-ruling
  #63  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:16 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526
There was an interesting editorial in the LA Times over the weekend: NCAA’s argument against Fair Pay for Play has no merit and Week 3 mismatches prove it
Quote:
The NCAA’s contention is that if programs or boosters could pay players their free-market value, the top talent would end up at the same schools. What the NCAA neglected to mention is that there already is no competitive balance in college football.

Newsom shouldn’t entertain this argument. The NCAA is a cartel that fixes the price of its labor at the cost of a college education plus living expenses. The governor could find economists lining up at the steps of the capital who would tell him that cartels are more likely to be against competition than for it.

In a sport with real balance, Saturday’s slate would have been packed with potential upsets — although, the idea of an “upset” is based upon there not being a level playing field.

Four of the top six teams in the country played road games against fellow Power Five schools. No. 1 Clemson at Syracuse, No. 2 Alabama at South Carolina, No. 5 Oklahoma at UCLA and No. 6 Ohio State at Indiana all were set up to be titanic struggles in the NCAA’s fantasy world.

To get the day started, the Buckeyes smoked the Hoosiers 51-10. Then, the Crimson Tide ran away from the Gamecocks 47-23, as star quarterback Tua Tagovailoa had career highs for completions (28), passing yards (444) and touchdown passes (five). Later, Clemson and Oklahoma got up early and rolled the Orange and the Bruins, respectively.

The combined score of those four potentially marquee games? 187-53.

This is college football today, and the idea that the landscape could become any more uneven because the players get a cut of the hundreds of millions of dollars they’re bringing in for the schools is ridiculous. If that’s the NCAA’s best argument, it should stop talking. (It won’t.)

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-16-2019 at 10:16 AM.
  #64  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:07 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
There was an interesting editorial in the LA Times over the weekend:
Quote:
The NCAAís contention is that if programs or boosters could pay players their free-market value, the top talent would end up at the same schools. What the NCAA neglected to mention is that there already is no competitive balance in college football.
The NCAA's "argument" is, if anyone is paid to play, then they stop becoming student-athletes and start becoming athletes who may or may not be bona fide students. No, I don't think a one-and-done basketball player has any intention of being a serious student, and neither does Mark Emmert.

If there is some "universal" agreement as to athletes being compensated for licensing themselves, the NCAA might accept it. The problem is, trying to implement it without the people doing the paying being "rewarded" by the schools in question. (A school wants to pay a basketball recruit $100,000 for a season? Not a chance. A shoe company wants to pay the same recruit $100,000 to use him in ads? Nothing wrong with that, right? And if the school "just happens" to pay the shoe company an extra, oh, I don't know, how about, say, somewhere around $100,000 "as a bonus," well, that's just business, right?)

Remember that the NCAA has 1107 schools - not just the 80 or so that make up the "Power 5" plus Notre Dame and a handful of men's basketball power teams - and it has to look at the best interests of all of them. However, don't expect very many athletes outside of these schools' football and men's basketball players to be paid.

Besides - if any school does want to pay players, it has to keep four words in mind:
Title. Nine. Still. Exists.
Or do the top two basketball schools in the country become the ones that don't have to worry about that sort of thing, as there aren't enough women there to have women's sports - VMI and The Citadel?
  #65  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:31 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Don, those are just invented problems by the people who don't wish to have their applecarts upset. Every other industry in the western world has figured out how to compensate talented people performing a valuable service. The schools' supporters, along with their athletic departments, will figure out how to compete for and pay the athletes when this revolution succeeds.

Last edited by Red Wiggler; 09-16-2019 at 03:32 PM.
  #66  
Old 09-17-2019, 10:06 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
A charming story from FSU country: A 4-year-old Tallahassee boy is selling lemonade to raise money to buy out Willie Taggart's contract.
  #67  
Old 09-17-2019, 10:17 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
If there is some "universal" agreement as to athletes being compensated for licensing themselves, the NCAA might accept it. The problem is, trying to implement it without the people doing the paying being "rewarded" by the schools in question. (A school wants to pay a basketball recruit $100,000 for a season? Not a chance. A shoe company wants to pay the same recruit $100,000 to use him in ads? Nothing wrong with that, right? And if the school "just happens" to pay the shoe company an extra, oh, I don't know, how about, say, somewhere around $100,000 "as a bonus," well, that's just business, right?)
But that sort of wink-wink, nudge-nudge deal would be a rules violation. Whatís to stop them from doing it right now? Itís a rules violation. I donít see how allowing the endorsement changes things that much. Either way, the school paying the kid isnít allowed. If a school is going to be dirty and secretly pay athletes, theyíre going to be dirty and secretly pay athletes.

Youíre essentially arguing that allowing legitimate businesses to exist will enable organized crime to launder money, so in order to fight organized crime we should disallow legitimate businesses. Thatís not a great argument.
  #68  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:28 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Every other industry in the western world has figured out how to compensate talented people performing a valuable service.
"Every other industry in the western world" doesn't accept federal funds, which, as a condition for this, require the industries in question not to discriminate on the basis of gender - i.e. you're not paying your male athletes more than your female ones. Never mind how much money each one brings in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
But that sort of wink-wink, nudge-nudge deal would be a rules violation. Whatís to stop them from doing it right now? Itís a rules violation. I donít see how allowing the endorsement changes things that much. Either way, the school paying the kid isnít allowed.
Exactly - that was my point; the NCAA has to figure out a way to make sure there's no link between the people/endorsements paying for the licensing/marketing and the schools themselves before it tries to make any rules that apply to all of the schools.
  #69  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:39 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Exactly - that was my point; the NCAA has to figure out a way to make sure there's no link between the people/endorsements paying for the licensing/marketing and the schools themselves before it tries to make any rules that apply to all of the schools.
Those are pretty standard conflict of interest rules.
  #70  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:16 PM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,696
Thanks, Pac 12 officials, for fucking up the end of the MSU-ASU game. There needs to be a rule to require neutral conference officials for non-conference games. MSU got jobbed by the refs all game long.
  #71  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:19 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
"Every other industry in the western world" doesn't accept federal funds, which, as a condition for this, require the industries in question not to discriminate on the basis of gender - i.e. you're not paying your male athletes more than your female ones. Never mind how much money each one brings in.
We don't really know if that's true to the extent some are concerned it may be. And I won't have the Title IX discussion today because it's a sideshow to the real issue -- which is schools conspiring to fix the amount of their offers to student athletes and illegally restricting those students from maximizing their commercial liberties.

Sure, schools are gonna get involved, heavily involved, in influencing supporters on how they spend their funds for talents. This is a good thing. But Title IX concerns are just an excuse used by people who don't want this to happen for other reasons.
  #72  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:23 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526
Aye; invoking Title IX is a distraction.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-17-2019 at 02:24 PM.
  #73  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:10 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
New York and South Carolina legislatures now also introducing bills similar to California's. I don't have much hope for SC doing the right thing, seeing as how it revere's Dabo's disturbing marriage of god and footbaw success, but this could be an instance where other blue states join the bandwagon and render the NCAA's position completely untenable.
  #74  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:32 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Aye; invoking Title IX is a distraction.
So is talk of the schools outright paying players, if we want to limit the conversation to players having the ability to license themselves. Besides, I'm pretty sure SDMB has had that conversation before, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened multiple times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Sure, schools are gonna get involved, heavily involved, in influencing supporters on how they spend their funds for talents. This is a good thing.
"A good thing" in what way? Schools would now be buying football teams - which is pretty much the sole reason the NCAA came up with the amateurism rule in the first place.

If you do want to allow the schools to get money to the players somehow, I have two solutions:

One - create a separate "Division I-P" ("P" for "Professional" or "Paid"), that allows athletes to be paid like any other student employees of a school. The NCAA isn't that far from that already, as it has a number of bylaws that affect only the "autonomy" (i.e. Power 5) conferences.

Two, and this would be my choice because, among other things, it gets rid of both the Title IX and "having to take classes" "problems" - disassociate top-level football and men's basketball from the schools. The teams can use the school nickname/mascot, colors, and arenas (for the use of which, the teams would pay the schools), but there is no requirement that the players be students of the school in question.
  #75  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:40 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
So is talk of the schools outright paying players, if we want to limit the conversation to players having the ability to license themselves. Besides, I'm pretty sure SDMB has had that conversation before, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened multiple times.
I'm sorry; I didn't realize the high need to be extremely clear and not rely on context: Invoking Title IX when discussing athletes' right to make money from their image and/or likeness as laid out in the bill we are discussing is a distraction.

Kinda like how bringing up talk of schools outright paying players, which of course circles back to Title IX, is a distraction.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-18-2019 at 09:40 AM.
  #76  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:53 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I'm sorry; I didn't realize the high need to be extremely clear and not rely on context: Invoking Title IX when discussing athletes' right to make money from their image and/or likeness as laid out in the bill we are discussing is a distraction.

Kinda like how bringing up talk of schools outright paying players, which of course circles back to Title IX, is a distraction.
Again, I agree. However, when discussing allowing players to be compensated for use of their name and likeness, we have to distinguish between legitimate uses - e.g. if EA Sports wants to use the athlete in a video game - and attempts to use "marketing" as de facto pay-for-play.

I still say that there has to be a break between the people/companies paying the money and the schools the athletes in question play for. It does not have to be a 100% clean break - in fact, in the case of, say, video games, this may not be possible, as the company not only has to compensate the player for their likeness, but the school for use of its trademarks as well - but you can't have anybody paying an athlete for endorsement rights subsequently being compensated by the school.
  #77  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:24 PM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
...
I've read the bill that passed the state Assembly a few times now, and it seems to only authorize players to make money from their "name, image or likeness" and to secure an agent for those purposes. ...
I haven't read the bill, but I'm glad it allows the athlete to hire an agent. I was afraid it would specify that the university would negotiate on the athlete's behalf.

Is there anything that would prevent this from being the #1 topic of a recruiting battle? For instance, can Nike say, "if you go to USC we'll give you X but if you go to UCLA we'll only give you 0.5X?
  #78  
Old 09-18-2019, 03:02 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
I haven't read the bill, but I'm glad it allows the athlete to hire an agent. I was afraid it would specify that the university would negotiate on the athlete's behalf.

Is there anything that would prevent this from being the #1 topic of a recruiting battle? For instance, can Nike say, "if you go to USC we'll give you X but if you go to UCLA we'll only give you 0.5X?
ETA: I mis-read your post and on re-read after posting: no, I'm not sure what could prevent that from happening.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-18-2019 at 03:05 PM.
  #79  
Old 09-19-2019, 07:37 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
The New York bill contains wording requiring schools to set aside 15% of their sports revenues to be distributed equally to all of the school's student athletes. Win-win?
  #80  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:09 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Incidentally, the math for Syracuse is roughly the following: $90 million in annual athletic revenues X 15% divided by 800 athletes = $16k per athlete per year.
  #81  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:34 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526


But but butÖ that's almost $13 million dollars they won't have available to pay coaches!
  #82  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:01 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post


But but butÖ that's almost $13 million dollars they won't have available to pay coaches!
One of the most interesting questions that will be answered if we can ever get these stupid NCAA regulations put to pasture is how schools will allocate budgets between coaches, facilities and athletes. Which general formula will lead to maximum success? The difficulty in answering this question might be the basis of so many arguments along the lines of "we can't do this because we won't know how to pay everybody!"

The smaller question being answered by the NY legislation is that any school with sports revenues greater than (takes off shoes and socks) $21 million can afford to pay $500 (picking a number) monthly stipends to 800 athletes. There appear to be 133 schools nationwide able to meet this criteria.
  #83  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:50 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Is there anything that would prevent this from being the #1 topic of a recruiting battle? For instance, can Nike say, "if you go to USC we'll give you X but if you go to UCLA we'll only give you 0.5X?
Not that I know of - nor is there anything that prevents, say, Nike from trying to funnel the best athletes it can get to a particular school; perhaps Oregon can be a real "Team Nike." Well, one thing sort of prevents it; Nike would still have to make sure it's not getting any sort of benefit from the school in question.

In case anybody just asked, "Then why bother doing it?", simple; Nike has a team of athletes it can use (out of uniform, if necessary) in its ads. There is no need to associate directly with the school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
The smaller question being answered by the NY legislation is that any school with sports revenues greater than (takes off shoes and socks) $21 million can afford to pay $500 (picking a number) monthly stipends to 800 athletes. There appear to be 133 schools nationwide able to meet this criteria.
How do you afford paying every athlete $6000/year? To start, you cut every athletic scholarship by, oh, I don't know, let me pull a number out of thin air, say, how about, $6000/year?

That could be the real problem with playing players; there would be no more need for athletic scholarships, which makes it much easier to form "superteams" since the schools no longer have to limit how to divide up the scholarships it is allowed. This especially affects football, which currently has a limit on how many "first year of scholarship" players a team can have (25, in FBS; 30, in FCS) - "the version I heard was," some team (Pitt?) won a national championship three years after giving pretty much all of its scholarships to incoming freshmen.
  #84  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:03 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Not that I know of - nor is there anything that prevents, say, Nike from trying to funnel the best athletes it can get to a particular school; perhaps Oregon can be a real "Team Nike." Well, one thing sort of prevents it; Nike would still have to make sure it's not getting any sort of benefit from the school in question.

In case anybody just asked, "Then why bother doing it?", simple; Nike has a team of athletes it can use (out of uniform, if necessary) in its ads. There is no need to associate directly with the school.


How do you afford paying every athlete $6000/year? To start, you cut every athletic scholarship by, oh, I don't know, let me pull a number out of thin air, say, how about, $6000/year?

That could be the real problem with playing players; there would be no more need for athletic scholarships, which makes it much easier to form "superteams" since the schools no longer have to limit how to divide up the scholarships it is allowed. This especially affects football, which currently has a limit on how many "first year of scholarship" players a team can have (25, in FBS; 30, in FCS) - "the version I heard was," some team (Pitt?) won a national championship three years after giving pretty much all of its scholarships to incoming freshmen.
Yeah, if those rules are in place at all schools who offer athletic scholarships, schools will have some difficult decisions to make. OTOH, if all the schools are playing under those rules - no guarantee of that - then they all have the same tough decisions to make. They'll do what's best both financially and competitively, just like now.


Incidentally, if the legislation was enacted in Michigan, UM athletes would receive about $29,000 a year.
  #85  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:43 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
A bill is now being prepared for introduction in the Florida House.
  #86  
Old 09-21-2019, 01:41 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526
Thanks for the heads-up; my old morning newspaper has the story:
Quote:
Florida House Democratic Leader Kionne McGhee said Friday his objective is to fix a system where student athletes can’t even accept a bag of groceries while the NCAA generates revenues over $1 billion.

“Many of these kids aren’t from families that can afford to send them money, but they’re sports superstars and household names,” McGhee said in a prepared statement. "That’s not fair. It’s time we allowed these adults the ability to earn a living for themselves and their families while they make a fortune for others and entertain millions of fans.”

McGhee’s legislation would allow college athletes to sign endorsements using their name, image and likeness. Such deals are prohibited under existing rules. The bill, which is being filed for the first time in Florida, will likely face an uphill climb in the Republican-controlled Legislature.
Tim Tebow doesn't like it, but he's a fucking idiot and a failure. Don't listen to him, Florida legislature! Cover your ears, Governor Newsom!

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-21-2019 at 01:41 PM.
  #87  
Old 09-30-2019, 10:05 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,526
He signed it!
Quote:
Defying the NCAA, California’s governor signed a first-in-the-nation law Monday that will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements — a move that could upend amateur sports in the U.S. and trigger a legal challenge.

Under the law, which takes effect in 2023, students at public and private universities in the state will be allowed to sign deals with sneaker manufacturers, soft drink makers or other businesses and profit from their images, names or likenesses, just like the pros.

“It’s going to change college sports for the better by having now the interest, finally, of the athletes on par with the interests of the institutions,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a tweeted video. “Now we’re rebalancing that power arrangement.”

He predicted other states will introduce similar legislation.

The new law bans schools from kicking athletes off the team if they get paid. It does not apply to community colleges and bars athletes from accepting endorsement deals that conflict with their schools’ existing contracts

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-30-2019 at 10:06 AM.
  #88  
Old 09-30-2019, 10:14 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Was just coming to post that news, which Newsom took some pains to make loudly and forcefully. It's my understanding that both Ed O'Bannon and LeBron James were present at the signing.

History will judge our institutions of higher learning poorly for this period now coming to a conclusion.
  #89  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:08 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
The Florida bill was formally introduced yesterday as well. Unlike California's bill, it proposes to take effect July 1, 2020 (2023 for Cal.).

This issue really brings out the worst arguments on twitter. Looking at you, Darren Rovell. Dan Dakich and Doug Gottlieb, come on down!
  #90  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:48 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
A couple of Pennsylvania state reps are now looking for a few bi-partisan co-sponsors before formally introducing their own California-type bill, per Time Magazine.
  #91  
Old 10-01-2019, 01:12 PM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
This issue really brings out the worst arguments on twitter. Looking at you, Darren Rovell. Dan Dakich and Doug Gottlieb, come on down!
I haven't read everyone, but Rovell is not wrong.

Quote:
The NCAA did this to themselves. In 2005, then NCAA president Myles Brand told me they were looking into compensating players for jersey sales. It didnít go any further. Failure to evolve, all or nothing attitude, was eventually going to get them.

Completely true. The NCAA should have seen the writing on the wall a LONG time ago. They could have implemented changes step by step. College athletes were trying to unionize, what, 5 years ago? And the NCAA has done exactly nothing about it. Most college sports are fine as-is. But there needs to be a major, major change in college football and basketball. They're raking in WAY too much money to not pay player and on the biggest stage are only very loosely tied to academics.
  #92  
Old 10-01-2019, 01:53 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
College athletes were trying to unionize, what, 5 years ago? And the NCAA has done exactly nothing about it. Most college sports are fine as-is. But there needs to be a major, major change in college football and basketball. They're raking in WAY too much money to not pay player and on the biggest stage are only very loosely tied to academics.
They actually did do something about it. They allowed full cost of attendance stipends in 2015. The Power 5 conferences, where most of the actual money is, were free to set their own conference level rules. That actual creates some market forces indirectly since how much they are paying their athletes can be talked about during recruiting. It's not a huge amount. Still, the schools making money are literally paying their players now.

In 2014 they also significantly relaxed the rules about training table meals and snacks. Universities can now provide unlimited snacks and meals
to athletes. That even applies to walk-on/non-scholarship athletes. That can do quite a bit to reduce costs that formerly were out of pocket for the student. I can't find it but ISTR that being an area where the money making schools shell out for quite a bit more expensive meals. Most other schools, where they don't turn a profit on their athletic departments, have to get by with measures like simply paying for the normal student meal plan.

One could still argue about whether it's enough. The NCAA doing nothing isn't fact though.
  #93  
Old 10-01-2019, 02:24 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
I haven't read everyone, but Rovell is not wrong.
Rovell was making some laughably bad arguments earlier today on twitter, including some gobbledygook about "sham endorsements" (apparently this is when a booster would pay a player $1 million when the gig was only worth $50k) and a logic-free observation that relaxing the rules would somehow increase "cheating." I have no patience for this guy's unwillingness to understand new realities.
  #94  
Old 10-01-2019, 02:27 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
They actually did do something about it. They allowed full cost of attendance stipends in 2015. The Power 5 conferences, where most of the actual money is, were free to set their own conference level rules. That actual creates some market forces indirectly since how much they are paying their athletes can be talked about during recruiting. It's not a huge amount. Still, the schools making money are literally paying their players now.

In 2014 they also significantly relaxed the rules about training table meals and snacks. Universities can now provide unlimited snacks and meals
to athletes. That even applies to walk-on/non-scholarship athletes. That can do quite a bit to reduce costs that formerly were out of pocket for the student. I can't find it but ISTR that being an area where the money making schools shell out for quite a bit more expensive meals. Most other schools, where they don't turn a profit on their athletic departments, have to get by with measures like simply paying for the normal student meal plan.

One could still argue about whether it's enough. The NCAA doing nothing isn't fact though.
Yes, the schools have redefined amateurism for decades, usually in better terms for the players. But they still refuse to relinquish the power to restrict an athlete's commercial liberties in order to meet that always-vague definition and that's the part that has to go. I don't believe they have the right to do that.
  #95  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:49 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Noted radical Mike Krzyzewski came out in support of NIL rights for athletes this week. And on the political side of things, presidential candidate Corey Booker advocated for federal legislation guaranteeing student athletes their full commercial rights.
  #96  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:39 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,646
Mary Hardin-Baker has to hand back its 2016 Division III football championship after it was discovered that the head coach had lent one of the players his car.

Apparently, UMHB's 2018 championship is unaffected, even though the same car was lent to another player in early 2018 - and broke down one hour later.
  #97  
Old 10-10-2019, 05:22 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,561
This isn’t an issue I’m particularly interested in, but you might find it interesting to see how it’s being reported in the U.K.
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/vid...0285678550638/
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017