Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-14-2016, 03:39 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552

The SDMB NCAA thread


So it popped up in the SRIOTD thread in the Pit that the NCAA has decided to withdraw all neutral-site championship events that were scheduled to take place in North Carolina due to HB2, which makes it illegal for people to use bathrooms unless they first consult their genitals at birth (or something like that, anyway).

Anyway, I noted that this is a huge thing because the NCAA is actually taking the high road and has for years with policies concerning LGBTQ players. That makes the state of North Carolina look like utter neanderthals when comparing them to an organization that persistently argues in favor of their ability to continue to exploit the labor and talents of children and young adults for billions of dollars.

So the NCAA has, IMO, come down on the right side of this issue and did so years ago; that's a good thing.

But when it comes to paying players, making sure players who are injured will get medical care and treatment, making sure injured players get a chance to finish their academic courses and get diplomas, etc. they still drag their feet and claim a special privilege.

Previously we had threads on the O'Bannon lawsuit in this forum and a thread on the Sackos lawsuit in Great Debates, but I've long thought that it would be great to have a single place to talk about this stuff, rather than a different thread for each and every lawsuit, public statement, etc.

So this thread is here for the purpose of keeping track of, debating, commenting on and highlighting the NCAA's policies, positions, legal battles and cultural changes.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-14-2016 at 03:43 PM.
  #3  
Old 09-14-2016, 08:02 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,169
I think the NCAA has no business staking out positions on political issues. They should limit themselves to regulating college sports, not practicing extortion to fellate an agenda.
  #4  
Old 09-14-2016, 08:20 PM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,619
Doing nothing in a situation like this IS a political position.

Funny how libertarian beliefs go out the window for some when it comes to things like this.
  #5  
Old 09-14-2016, 09:20 PM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 818
Sort of a hijack, or is it? Simon Fraser University is the only Canadian university that competes in the NCAA (Tier 47, I think...). To be eligible to play in the NCAA the university has had to become accredited by a US accrediting agency, and is the only Canadian university so accredited. This has ramifications for every department: there are rules the accrediting agency insists on that have ever been in place before.

Furthermore, the NCAA will not permit universities to compete if they are in legal jurisdictions that permit single event betting. The logic is it is easy to rig a single game, harder to rig a series. Canada today does not allow single event betting. You can bet on the winner of the Stanley Cup 7 game series, but not on a single game. Legislation to permit single event betting has been before the Canadian parliament for a few years. The university, which has paid several hundred thousand dollars and taken up tons of person hours to become accredited, has been pooping its pants and sending delegations to lobby against the bill.

Clearly not the NCAA's fault but perhaps a small window into the weirdness that it helps create?
  #6  
Old 09-14-2016, 11:12 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin View Post
Furthermore, the NCAA will not permit universities to compete if they are in legal jurisdictions that permit single event betting.
If this is true, how is UNLV in the NCAA?
  #7  
Old 09-15-2016, 09:38 AM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 818
I over-stated the case in a flight of hasty righteous indignation. I believe what the NCAA forbids is the holding of championship games in jurisdictions that allow single event betting. The Canadian university wet its pants when the single event legislation was pending.
  #8  
Old 09-18-2016, 05:18 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
If this is true, how is UNLV in the NCAA?
I believe the casinos don't book UNLV games.
  #9  
Old 09-24-2016, 01:40 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I believe the casinos don't book UNLV games.
This was a Nevada law for a long time, and this included nobody being allowed to bet on anyone to win the NCAA basketball championship as long as UNLV or Nevada were in the tournament, but not any more. (At one point, it was changed to "which non-Nevada team would finish highest in the tournament," then they were allowed to accept bets on the two Nevada schools.)

It's possible that some casinos don't let students bet on games, in part because any UNLV athlete who bets on a UNLV event, even in a different sport, immediately loses all college eligibility, but it's not a requirement.
  #10  
Old 01-01-2017, 09:03 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Last week the 129 FBS athletic directors formed a PAC. Does anyone doubt that there is but one end game in mind for this lobbying association? They will never find a more sympathetic congress than the current one for passing legislation that permanently restricts college athletes' commercial rights.
Thanks for the head's up, Red.

I found a brief article:
Quote:
The 129 FBS athletic directors and the programs they represent have formed a political action committee to financially support candidates for office.

LEAD1 Association, the group that was once known as the D1A Athletic Directors' Association, announced Thursday the creation of the PAC that will support candidates who align philosophically with its vision for the future of college sports.

The goal of the PAC is to influence how the rules of college sports are enacted and implemented when amateurism is facing legal challenges.

LEAD1 president and CEO Tom McMillen, the former Maryland basketball star and congressman, said: "With the PAC now approved, it further ensures that the concerns of the LEAD1 members will be heard by members of Congress and other key decision makers in Washington, D.C., and across the country."
How do I start a PAC to ensure that the concerns of people too young to vote and without the millions of dollars to spend who will be negatively affected by LEAD1's concerns can have a voice?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 01-01-2017 at 09:04 AM.
  #11  
Old 01-02-2017, 12:15 PM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
The schools, ostensibly bastions of freedom of thoughts and deeds, now find themselves in the position of tacitly condoning an organization of their employees dedicated to the denial of students' rights. More than any other aspect of this debate, this part of it may be the most disappointing. I don't expect better from the majority of fans, who are traditionalists by nature, but I do expect better from the nation's highest academic institutions.

I wonder if an anti-trust exemption will lead us closer to the athletes using the nuclear option (boycott)? It's a really difficult thing to organize but perhaps the motivation just needs to be greater.
  #12  
Old 01-02-2017, 01:10 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
The schools, ostensibly bastions of freedom of thoughts and deeds, now find themselves in the position of tacitly condoning an organization of their employees dedicated to the denial of students' rights. More than any other aspect of this debate, this part of it may be the most disappointing. I don't expect better from the majority of fans, who are traditionalists by nature, but I do expect better from the nation's highest academic institutions.

I wonder if an anti-trust exemption will lead us closer to the athletes using the nuclear option (boycott)? It's a really difficult thing to organize but perhaps the motivation just needs to be greater.
If the schools don't like it, then they can leave the NCAA and form a separate organization that allows players to be paid, or at least keep merchandising rights to their names and likenesses. This has happened before, albeit at a professional level, when the top soccer teams in England pulled out of the "football league" and joined with England's Football Association to form a "premier league," and I don't remember the reason being anything other than "we're the ones making the money; why should we share it with the three lower divisions?"

I still think that the reason they haven't already done this is, too many of the big schools are competitive in smaller sports that wouldn't be part of a breakaway association, and yes, there are parts of the country where this matters.

As for a boycott, sitting out a year would do far more harm than good to the top players in terms of their chances in the NBA/NFL, and a boycott by anybody else would be ignored.
  #13  
Old 01-02-2017, 01:51 PM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
If the schools don't like it, then they can leave the NCAA and form a separate organization that allows players to be paid, or at least keep merchandising rights to their names and likenesses. This has happened before, albeit at a professional level, when the top soccer teams in England pulled out of the "football league" and joined with England's Football Association to form a "premier league," and I don't remember the reason being anything other than "we're the ones making the money; why should we share it with the three lower divisions?"

I still think that the reason they haven't already done this is, too many of the big schools are competitive in smaller sports that wouldn't be part of a breakaway association, and yes, there are parts of the country where this matters.

As for a boycott, sitting out a year would do far more harm than good to the top players in terms of their chances in the NBA/NFL, and a boycott by anybody else would be ignored.
If the schools dislike it, they don't dislike it enough to rein in their employees who are working against the athletes' interests and that's something I fault them for very much.

A boycott doesn't have to be season long for it to be effective (see U. of Missouri football); it just has to be fairly widespread. But even that is incredibly difficult to organize, in part for the reason you noted. The athletes have so much to lose and the power imbalance is huge. But if congress and the courts will not give them justice, what other options are left?

The whole point of the ADs' PAC is to beat Jeffrey Kessler to the punch re: anti-trust. The schools are in violation of anti-trust laws with their conspiracy to limit compensation and sooner or later an enlightened court will find for the market. Congressional exemption, while bringing a host of other problems with it, pretty much ties the courts' hands in favor of maintaining "amateurism."
  #14  
Old 06-14-2017, 04:59 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
PastTense posted a story about a guy at UCF who's been told by the NCAA that he cannot post videos to YouTube because he would be profiting off of his likeness; I thought that should also be available in this thread.

And today I found an article on VICE about the NCAA's notion that not being paid somehow enhances the educational experience of players.
Quote:
Pay players, the NCAA warns, and the delicate competitive balance between the University of Akron and Ohio State University will implode. Athletic departments—like the one at the University of Texas, which earned $183.5 million in revenue in 2014-15—will go broke. Athletes might even have to pay income taxes, and really, who wants extra cash if it means hassling with W-2 forms? And perhaps most the risible reason yet: if we compensate athletes, their educations will suffer.

Former United States Naval Academy player and retired NBA Hall of Famer David Robinson chuckled out loud when VICE Sports recently asked him about that last one.

"Would getting paid [as a college basketball player] have affected my ability to study?" he said. "No. I don't think so."
Quote:
While arguing that no, actually, people like O'Bannon should not get a bigger slice of the money pie, the NCAA's lawyers insisted that the current one-small-size-fits-all portion doled out to players somehow enhances their schooling. And believe it or not, the three-judge panel that oversaw an association appeal of the case agreed-
Quote:
There's more. The same tether could apply to a pending class-action suit brought against the NCAA and the major college conferences by former Clemson University football player Martin Jenkins, a case that essentially seeks to bring free agency to campus sports. Which means that the ludicrous logic of "if we write them checks, they won't study" could end up acting as a legal firewall that prevents college players from ever being paid.

"It's insane," says David Grenardo, a 40-year-old attorney and associate professor at St. Mary's School of Law in San Antonio, Texas, who played football at Rice University in the 1990s. "What the NCAA has done is a great job of marketing and propaganda to say that amateurism is all about education."

It's a good article; well-researched with lots of input from former players. It's also fairly long and covers a lot of ground, but for anyone truly interested in this subject, I think you'll find it informative and possibly persuasive.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 06-14-2017 at 05:02 PM.
  #15  
Old 06-14-2017, 05:28 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,663
Given that the generic educational experiences of athletes is downright shite at most institutions, I fear how much worse it could get if the money the players were earning got passed on to them instead of the NCAA.
  #16  
Old 06-14-2017, 05:42 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Given that the generic educational experiences of athletes is downright shite at most institutions, I fear how much worse it could get if the money the players were earning got passed on to them instead of the NCAA.
Did you read the article?

What do you think of the opinions of the former players interviewed for it?

What do you base your own opinion on and how exactly do you think things would get worse and why?
  #17  
Old 06-15-2017, 11:40 AM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,473
We're already at a point where education is a secondary (or lower) priority for many student athletes. Does anyone in the entire Alabama football organization (to use an example) give a rip about their players' education, other than to make sure they meet the minimum requirements to remain eligible to play?

At the very least, I think the highest levels of college football and basketball have completely diminished the spirit of college sports. I've said before that I'd like to see some level of professional football between high school and the NFL that eliminates the need for top players who couldn't care less about school to play NCAA football. The way college programs, coaches and directors bend and outright break rules to gain a competitive advantage is so much worse in the NCAA than any American professional sports league.
  #18  
Old 06-15-2017, 01:03 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Did you read the article?

What do you think of the opinions of the former players interviewed for it?

What do you base your own opinion on and how exactly do you think things would get worse and why?
The snark in the second half of my statement must have been effectively communicated. The educational support for a very large portion of big-sport athletes is woefully inadequate, while blatant malfeasance like that at UNC continues and expands. At UNC, over the course of 18 years, over 3000 students took classes that just didn't exist. And that's coming from the guy the university itself hired. That's just the end of investigations spanning back for years prior. The NCAA punished the university and their basketball team by...doing nothing. North Carolina won the NCAA Men's basketball tournament this last year. Contrast that with the NCAA suspending the eligibility of baseball players for playing fantasy football, suspending players for buying school supplies, or trading memorabilia for tattoos and cash.

The NCAA is a sham that pulls in over a billion dollars a year. The highest-paid public employee in 39 states is a head football or basketball coach. Many of those states have multiple coaches making more than Over a hundred ASSISTANT coaches make over half a million dollars annually. College sports are huge money for everyone except the ones actually on the court or field. Of those 39 states, you could take a full million away from 35 of those coaches to pay players and they'd STILL make far more than anyone else in the state.

FYI, I love John Urschel. The articles and math challenges he's posted the the Player's Tribune are fantastic.
  #19  
Old 02-23-2018, 11:11 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552

Bump!


AP story here:
Quote:
Bank records and other expense reports that are part of a federal probe into college basketball list a wide range of impermissible payments from agents to at least two dozen players or their relatives, according to documents obtained by Yahoo Sports.

Yahoo said Friday that the documents obtained in discovery during the investigation link current players including Michigan State’s Miles Bridges, Duke’s Wendell Carter and Alabama’s Collin Sexton to potential benefits that would be violations of NCAA rules. According to the report, players and family members allegedly received cash, entertainment and travel expenses from former NBA agent Andy Miller and his agency ASM Sports.

NCAA president Mark Emmert says in a statement Friday the allegations “if true, point to systematic failures that must be fixed and fixed now if we want college sports in America.”

A balance sheet from December 2015 lists several payments under “Loan to Players,” including $43,500 to Dallas Mavericks guard Dennis Smith, who played one season at North Carolina State in 2016-17.
I admit that I'm still not clear on what laws might have been broken here, tho.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 02-23-2018 at 11:12 AM.
  #20  
Old 02-23-2018, 12:43 PM
Wilson is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Metro NYC
Posts: 1,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I admit that I'm still not clear on what laws might have been broken here, tho.
I'm curious about that as well: the ESPN piece I read did mention wire fraud.
  #21  
Old 02-23-2018, 02:10 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
More details:
Quote:
South Carolina athletic director Ray Tanner says he had not heard the latest allegations regarding current and former Gamecock players Brian Bowen Jr. and P.J. Dozier until Thursday night and pledged continued cooperation with investigating authorities.
Quote:
Documents that are part of the FBI’s college corruption case reviewed by Yahoo Sports show Bowen received $7,000, including $1,500 in plane tickets before enrolling in Louisville.

Bowen was already at the center of the FBI’s case and his family was alleged to have accepted $100,000. The allegations led to the firing of Louisville coach Rick Pitino and Bowen was suspended by the school.
Quote:
Dozier is alleged to have received $6,115 from Miller’s agency, ASM, during his two years with the Gamecocks. Dozier was part of South Carolina’s Final Four team a season ago.
  #22  
Old 02-24-2018, 04:07 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
New AP story has tons of info on this latest development:
Quote:
The documents obtained by Yahoo include bank records and expense reports from former NBA agent Andy Miller and his agency, ASM Sports. Duke, North Carolina, Texas, Kentucky and Michigan State are among the schools involved.

The documents, obtained in discovery phase of the investigation, also link current players including Michigan State’s Miles Bridges, Duke’s Wendell Carter and Alabama’s Collin Sexton to potential benefits that would be violations of NCAA rules.

The NCAA was obviously outraged, but is in a difficult spot. The documents have not been made public and the organization can’t exactly take action against schools or student-athletes based upon a report by a news agency.

Should the information be made public before or during the NCAA Tournament, the NCAA would be faced with potentially having to declare some of the nation’s top players ineligible and impose sanctions on many of the game’s most recognizable programs. The NCAA Tournament has generated $19.6 billion in TV money over the past 22 years and a tarnished product could hurt the bottom line.

Long term, it could force the NCAA to take a much harder look at its amateurism rules. The organization has had many discussions about this very issue, but the magnitude of the latest allegations could spin the conversation forward much quicker.

“This problem can be solved if players are compensated,” said Don Jackson, an Alabama-based attorney who has worked on numerous college eligibility cases. “The NCAA is not capable of adequately policing tens of thousands of athletes around the country.”
If those documents are made public before the tournament selection, the NCAA either has to ignore it's own rules or suspend the players and/or programs, which could prove financially disastrous.

Countdown clock is on and ticking...
  #23  
Old 02-24-2018, 11:31 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,330
I find this story to be an antidote to claims that paying "student athletes" will end massive corruption involving NCAA Division I schools.

Why would college players be satisfied with a few thousand bucks when money like that is available?
  #24  
Old 02-24-2018, 11:34 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
I find this story to be an antidote to claims that paying "student athletes" will end massive corruption involving NCAA Division I schools.

Why would college players be satisfied with a few thousand bucks when money like that is available?
I don't understand what you mean here. Why wouldn't the players just be able to be paid $100,000 dollars or whatever their market value is, like anyone else in any profession?
  #25  
Old 02-24-2018, 09:23 PM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
I find this story to be an antidote to claims that paying "student athletes" will end massive corruption involving NCAA Division I schools.

Why would college players be satisfied with a few thousand bucks when money like that is available?
Yeah, I've been grappling with your chain of logic here, too.
  #26  
Old 02-25-2018, 09:13 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
The olympics were a joke for a long time with their rules against pro athletes. The US went along because we still won a lot of medals. When USA basketball failed to win the gold the rules were changed to allow pros in all sports.

Eventually college football and basketball will be forced to follow the olympics model.
  #27  
Old 02-25-2018, 11:37 AM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
Tennis and English football were two other notable sports which were late to professionalize at the highest levels and the popularity of both only increased afterwards. The lingering need that college athletes must have their earnings restricted, even if doing so violates American commercial custom and law, is a concept that escapes me.
  #28  
Old 02-25-2018, 01:06 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I don't understand what you mean here. Why wouldn't the players just be able to be paid $100,000 dollars or whatever their market value is, like anyone else in any profession?
Two words: Title IX. There would be an immediate demand that either (a) a team pay its women's players the same that it pays its men's players, or (b) have the same number of paid women as men on the men's team (not that the women would actually have to play, mind you - just get paid, and paid the same as the men.)

"But the men should get paid more because, by far, they're the better players!" Congratulations; you have just confirmed the continued need for both Title IX and sex-based Affirmative Action.

There may be one way around all of this, and it may be how this ends up; get rid of rules concerning what athletes receive from outside sources, as long as there is no link between the persons paying the money and the school. A talent agent wants to pay a player $100,000? Not a problem (especially with one-and-dones after their first semester, as you know they're dropping out of school after their last game anyway). A coach wants to pay an agent $100,000 to have him steer a kid to his school? Very large problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Tennis and English football were two other notable sports which were late to professionalize at the highest levels and the popularity of both only increased afterwards. The lingering need that college athletes must have their earnings restricted, even if doing so violates American commercial custom and law, is a concept that escapes me.
It is because schools were afraid that other schools would bring in "ringers" that did not actually attend the school to play football.

And going back to the Title IX problem, remember that Wimbledon paid the men 25% more than the women until relatively recently.

Last edited by That Don Guy; 02-25-2018 at 01:08 PM.
  #29  
Old 02-25-2018, 01:46 PM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
The school's shakiest legal grounds are indeed their restrictions against athletes'incomes. And that's also probably the most potentially lucrative part of the equation for them. But if schools wanted to chip in on their own they could abide by Title IV rules and pay something to all of their scholarship athletes.
  #30  
Old 02-26-2018, 09:57 AM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,473
The NCAA is a joke and a fraud and this is nothing new. Personally, I would abolish it and maybe even eliminate athletic scholarships. Make all college sports "club" sports. Leave it up to professional leagues to create their own developmental programs.

Or maybe you just pull football and basketball out of the NCAA and leave the rest of the sports alone. I don't know, but you've got an organization making billions of dollars whose talent pool becomes ineligible if they get paid. What could go wrong?
  #31  
Old 02-28-2018, 01:20 AM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,816
You can't pay student athletes. Who do you pay and how much? What about the women's lacrosse team? Why shouldn't they be paid as much as the star QB? Oh yeah the football team makes more money? Then lets take it to court to make sure its not sex discrimination.

What about other revenue generating extra curricular activities? I was in drama club in college I would have loved to collect a percentage of the gate when I was the lead in the Spring play. Hey, we generated revenue, just like the football team. How do YOU know some of the crowd wasn't there just to see the marching band at halftime? Why are they travelling around the money making football team all over the pace and not getting paid salary?

The bottom line is this anyway: no matter how good a plan you come up with for paying college athletes, the colleges will NEVER go for it or allow it to happen, anyway.

Isn't a college scholarship payment enough? Or if a one and done the year learning from great college coaches like John Calipari to better prepare yourself for the NBA, or three years under Nick Saban for the NFL? Student athletes DO get something for their time served.

As for alumni money laundering to give athletes under-the-table cars, jobs and apartments, you'll NEVER stop that from happening. And I have a bulletin for you: even if athletes get paid, that is STILL going to happen, maybe at an even bigger scale because if you can make $35,000 a year at Kentucky, well maybe Mr. Big Time Donor here at Louisville can hook you up with a BMW to go with your $35,000 salary-----it could get even WORSE.

All the NCAA can do is suspend programs, vacate titles etc etc its really not the NCAA's fault. There will always be corruption in college athletics and the only way to get rid of it is to abolish it all together, and there's too much money in it for that. Its like steroids in baseball and corruption in Mexican politics---you can rail against it, try to penalize it, but if you lose sleep thinking you'll eliminate it, you are wasting your time.

Just sit back, relax and enjoy.

Last edited by russian heel; 02-28-2018 at 01:23 AM.
  #32  
Old 02-28-2018, 07:23 AM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
There's no plan needed. All that's needed is for the courts to strike the schools' restrictions on income by scholarship athletes.
  #33  
Old 02-28-2018, 09:35 AM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,473
Even if you say athletes can make income on endorsements and non-university related activities, it doesn't address coaches paying recruits to go to their school.

It sounds like Adam Silver may actually be thinking about using the NBA's G League properly, which is as a developmental league for players not-quite-ready for the NBA. Not just a league for has-beens or guys who never had a shot. Get rid of one and done NCAA players who don't care about college in the first place and put 'em in the G League. There's no reason the NBA couldn't have tiers of developmental leagues like MLB. Hell, they could have the G League here and another developmental league in Europe and it would probably do well.
  #34  
Old 02-28-2018, 10:38 AM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Even if you say athletes can make income on endorsements and non-university related activities, it doesn't address coaches paying recruits to go to their school.

It sounds like Adam Silver may actually be thinking about using the NBA's G League properly, which is as a developmental league for players not-quite-ready for the NBA. Not just a league for has-beens or guys who never had a shot. Get rid of one and done NCAA players who don't care about college in the first place and put 'em in the G League. There's no reason the NBA couldn't have tiers of developmental leagues like MLB. Hell, they could have the G League here and another developmental league in Europe and it would probably do well.
I don't understand the issue of "coaches paying recruits to go to their school." It doesn't seem like the most efficient way of recruiting talented athletes but what would be the problem? (I understand why it's an issue under current rules)
  #35  
Old 02-28-2018, 11:34 AM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,473
I thought by restrictions on income you meant income from outside the university, such as endorsements, outside jobs and so forth. That seems the only reasonable way to proceed without almost certainly violating Title IX.
If indeed you mean universities and coaches should be able to pay money directly to players or recruits, then I misunderstood. Of course, in that case, it becomes professional sports.
  #36  
Old 02-28-2018, 12:56 PM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
If the restrictions on income are stricken, then schools would also be free to compensate athletes within the framework of Title IX. The federal laws may make it difficult for the schools to pay players lavish amounts but not more modest sums (because equal amounts may have to be paid women's golf).
  #37  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:47 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
It's been awhile since this thread was active, but there's some news: California closer to letting college athletes make money!
Quote:
The bill would let college athletes hire agents and be paid for the use of their name, image or likeness. And it would stop universities and the NCAA from banning athletes who take the money.

The Assembly passed the bill 66-0 on Monday, a few days after the bill got an endorsement from NBA superstar Lebron James, who did not go to college.
I whole-heartedly endorse this bill and hope it gets signed into law ASAP.
  #38  
Old 09-09-2019, 11:13 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
It's been awhile since this thread was active, but there's some news: California closer to letting college athletes make money!I whole-heartedly endorse this bill and hope it gets signed into law ASAP.
College athletics are interstate commerce. Im not sure whether California could enforce it. Involving agents will only increase corruption and likely indebt players to them before their pro careers. This is another poorly thought out emotional bill which wont help the athletes much and will only enrich agents and lawyers.
  #39  
Old 09-09-2019, 11:29 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
An "emotional bill"? Would you care to clarify what that is?

And why you don't think it will help athletes much?
  #40  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:37 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
The NCAA doesn't like this bill.
Quote:
In a six-paragraph letter released Wednesday, the board urged Newsom not to sign the legislation known as the Fair Pay to Play Act, which would allow college athletes to be paid for the use of their names, likenesses and images. The move comes two days after approval of the measure by the California Assembly, with the state Senate expected to consider the measure later this week.

The board warned that California schools may be declared ineligible for NCAA competition if the bill becomes law because they would have an unfair recruiting advantage.

“We’ve explored how it might impact the association and what it might do. We believe it would inappropriately affect interstate commerce,” Donald Remy, the NCAA’s chief operating officer and chief legal officer, told The Associated Press. “It is not intended to be a threat at all. It’s a reflection about the way California is going about this.

“I’m not saying there will never be a day we would consider that (legal action), but it is not meant to be a threat,” Remy said.


A threat is a threat, even when couched in fancy formal language. Own it, you weasel, or give it up.
  #41  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:33 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,569
How would the bill not give CA schools a recruiting advantage? If I was an athlete being recruited by different schools, and playing in a CA school meant I could get legally-protected endorsement deals, I’d probably favor them. It’s like the underhanded ways recruiters get kids and/or their families paid to get them to go to their schools, but now the law says it’s allowed. You can call it a threat, but it’s also not an unreasonable response from their perspective.

If the law passes, the NCAA will then have 3 choices. Do nothing, and allow schools in one state to have a clear advantage. Tell the schools there that they are now ineligible to be in the NCAA because their state law violates NCAA rules. Or, change the rules so that they allow all athletes to get endorsements, because one state forced your hand.

I think they really hate that last option. And I think they might follow through on their threat. They’re dead-set against players making money, and I think they really don’t want California pushing them around. I’m interested to see what happens.
  #42  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:03 PM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
The bill doesn't take effect until 2023 and the NCAA will use every method in its arsenal to blunt its effects. But Michael McCann of SI pointed out that invoking the commerce clause opens them up to stricter scrutiny of their antitrust activities. I really think the Association is in a tough spot here -- it cannot defeat the nation's largest state on an issue like this, imo.

Kicking out schools representing 11% of the country's population seems like a losing proposition itself, too. California can construct a tidy D1-equivalent conference all of its own and stock it with the bluest of the blue chip talent in the two revenue sports. The annual Alabama-Clemson championship game will become a second rate championship and it won't matter how many watch -- all of them will still know where the best football is being played.

Time for the last holdouts to surrender and give in to reality and, above all, fairness and civil liberties.
  #43  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:13 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
How would the bill not give CA schools a recruiting advantage?
I wasn't aware that anyone was making the argument that it wouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I think they really hate that last option. And I think they might follow through on their threat. They’re dead-set against players making money, and I think they really don’t want California pushing them around. I’m interested to see what happens.
You don't have to just think that; it's true. The NCAA is constructed on a model of not paying athletes for their labor nor allowing anyone else to pay them either.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-11-2019 at 03:13 PM.
  #44  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:37 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
If the law passes, the NCAA will then have 3 choices. Do nothing, and allow schools in one state to have a clear advantage. Tell the schools there that they are now ineligible to be in the NCAA because their state law violates NCAA rules. Or, change the rules so that they allow all athletes to get endorsements, because one state forced your hand.
#1 won't happen - the other schools wouldn't allow it. Remember, the bylaws are whatever a majority of the Division I schools (or, in some cases, a majority of the Power 5 Conference schools) want them to be.

#2 will result in going back to the days of two national champions, but this time, one in California, and another in the other 49 states.

#3 is a tough one. Do you let, say, Nike sign anybody it wants to endorsement deals (which could extend into their NBA/NFL careers) for whatever amounts the players demand?

Meanwhile, the NCAA has responded. It claims to be working out the details on allowing endorsements. I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA ends up allowing them, provided whoever is paying the endorsement has no direct link with anybody at the schools involved.

Also, here is the version of the bill that passed the state Assembly; it added some things to the Senate-passed version (mainly, an athlete's endorsement deal cannot be in conflict with a deal made by the team - presumably, you can't sign a deal with Nike if the team has one with Adidas, for example - and any endorsement deals have to be revealed to the school), so it has to go back to the Senate, but I have a feeling this is pretty much what is going to end up on Governor Newsom's desk.
  #45  
Old 09-11-2019, 04:40 PM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
I agree, it doesn't look like the NCAA can win this one - finally - but I've thought this before and been wrong, well, kinda wrong, before. Nobody can delay like the NCAA, especially with the assistance it routinely gets from sympathetic courts.
  #46  
Old 09-11-2019, 09:11 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
Well, the bill is sitting on Gov. Newsom's desk now.
  #47  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:24 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
The link to the bill I have above is the final version; the state Senate voted 39-0 (with one not voting) to accept the Assembly's amended version as is.

Note that the bill tries to prohibit the NCAA from banning California schools from "participating in intercollegiate athletics" if the school allows any of its athletes to accept money for use of their name/image/likeness. Violating the Commerce Clause notwithstanding, all the NCAA would have to do is say, "We're not preventing your schools from playing sports - we are telling the other NCAA schools that if they play any games against your schools, they run the risk of being declared ineligible for our championships."
  #48  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:12 AM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
The NCAA banning California schools from competing for championships would be an interesting conflict to observe. What if Washington/Oregon/Colorado/Arizona legislatures follow suit? How long will the rest of the nation's coaches put up with schools from those states procuring the best athletes and making their programs look like Division II?

I did not see this one coming.
  #49  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:33 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,169
Realistically, how many college athletes are going to make any money on their name/likeness? A handful of star players in popular sports like football, basketball, baseball/softball, maybe even soccer might have a chance at selling some merchandise, but the majority of college athletes just aren't that famous....
  #50  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:47 PM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Realistically, how many college athletes are going to make any money on their name/likeness? A handful of star players in popular sports like football, basketball, baseball/softball, maybe even soccer might have a chance at selling some merchandise, but the majority of college athletes just aren't that famous....
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.
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 12:53 PM.

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