(10-01-2019 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:53 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:15 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Not receiving money from the school, but from third party advertisers and the like. It's called the free market.

Absolutely and argument can be made that they are receiving money from the school, indirectly. If the school disappears, so does the market for their likeness value.

It's not quite free market when a third, possibly more, entities are involved. You can't unilaterally make laws without courts getting involved with potential lawsuits from the NCAA and maybe others. It's not as simple as you're making it.

My guess is Cali schools will be barred from the post season and will sue. They will lose. The courts have already upheld the NCAA's amateur model. The courts have already found that the NCAA is well within its rights to enforce rules that maintain competitive balance within the organization. I dont know how California schools can argue that allowing its athletes to accept outside third party money isnt against the NCAA bylaws and isnt a competitive advantage.

The law doesnt kick in until 2023. So, I suspect the Cali schools will submit legislation that allow 3rd party payments to the NCAA. Of course, it will be voted down. At that point, a law suit is inevitable. Interestingly, the Florida proposed law would accelerate the time table. If if passes, it would take affect on July 31 of 2020. A New York legislator is proposing a law that requires the schools to pay the athletes DIRECTLY---no third parties. So, this is the problem with trying to deal with this issue on the state legislature level. Your going to end up with a patchwork of 50 different recruiting/pay-for-play laws in 50 different states. Every conference will operate under different recruiting/pay-for-play rules---heck---the recruiting/pay-for-play rules will actually vary WITHIN conferences changing at each state line.

The list of states now pursuing similar athlete fairness laws directly affects about 40% of the P5 schools and about 30% of the G5/independent schools. So, while the NCAA might win a lawsuit concerning its current model, its membership will take a huge hit if it resists change.

Sure, Wisconsin can publicize its principles and refuse to schedule any California teams. But, will it refuse to play two teams within its conference division?

I don't think this will be a significantly polarizing issue, so I doubt it would come to this...but it would be fascinating to see not only conference, but association realignment, based on state laws and those that entrench themselves in a pure amateurism model.

If they lose the lawsuit---how long do you think schools are going want to be left out when it comes to bowl games, the CFP, or the NCAA basketball tournament? One season? Two? Those laws will be repealed faster than they passed---and with more support for the repeal than they ever had when passed.

Regardless of what you think of "pay for play" or the "olympic model"---the problem is the state legislatures are simply the wrong route to address the issue. If there are 50 different state laws all saying something different---it doesnt matter what the NCAA does---schools in some states are going to be left out. State legislatures are simply the wrong tool to fix the problem. Those that are concerned about this issue need to address the issue at the NCAA level or address it legislatively at the national level in Washington DC.

It's up to 40% of the P5 schools that could be affected now, and it was passed unanimously (and yes, California has a **** ton of republicans).

With it being that large of the P5, do you think the more likely thing is the NCAA will win out or that if necessary those schools will form their own group to be a part of, competing with the NCAA, full of the recruiting advantages that come with this bill?

(10-01-2019 12:27 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:53 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Absolutely and argument can be made that they are receiving money from the school, indirectly. If the school disappears, so does the market for their likeness value.

It's not quite free market when a third, possibly more, entities are involved. You can't unilaterally make laws without courts getting involved with potential lawsuits from the NCAA and maybe others. It's not as simple as you're making it.

My guess is Cali schools will be barred from the post season and will sue. They will lose. The courts have already upheld the NCAA's amateur model. The courts have already found that the NCAA is well within its rights to enforce rules that maintain competitive balance within the organization. I dont know how California schools can argue that allowing its athletes to accept outside third party money isnt against the NCAA bylaws and isnt a competitive advantage.

The law doesnt kick in until 2023. So, I suspect the Cali schools will submit legislation that allow 3rd party payments to the NCAA. Of course, it will be voted down. At that point, a law suit is inevitable. Interestingly, the Florida proposed law would accelerate the time table. If if passes, it would take affect on July 31 of 2020. A New York legislator is proposing a law that requires the schools to pay the athletes DIRECTLY---no third parties. So, this is the problem with trying to deal with this issue on the state legislature level. Your going to end up with a patchwork of 50 different recruiting/pay-for-play laws in 50 different states. Every conference will operate under different recruiting/pay-for-play rules---heck---the recruiting/pay-for-play rules will actually vary WITHIN conferences changing at each state line.

The list of states now pursuing similar athlete fairness laws directly affects about 40% of the P5 schools and about 30% of the G5/independent schools. So, while the NCAA might win a lawsuit concerning its current model, its membership will take a huge hit if it resists change.

Sure, Wisconsin can publicize its principles and refuse to schedule any California teams. But, will it refuse to play two teams within its conference division?

I don't think this will be a significantly polarizing issue, so I doubt it would come to this...but it would be fascinating to see not only conference, but association realignment, based on state laws and those that entrench themselves in a pure amateurism model.

If they lose the lawsuit---how long do you think schools are going want to be left out when it comes to bowl games, the CFP, or the NCAA basketball tournament? One season? Two? Those laws will be repealed faster than they passed---and with more support for the repeal than they ever had when passed.

Regardless of what you think of "pay for play" or the "olympic model"---the problem is the state legislatures are simply the wrong route to address the issue. If there are 50 different state laws all saying something different---it doesnt matter what the NCAA does---schools in some states are going to be left out. State legislatures are simply the wrong tool to fix the problem. Those that are concerned about this issue need to address the issue at the NCAA level or address it legislatively at the national level in Washington DC.

It's up to 40% of the P5 schools that could be affected now, and it was passed unanimously (and yes, California has a **** ton of republicans).

With it being that large of the P5, do you think the more likely thing is the NCAA will win out or that if necessary those schools will form their own group to be a part of, competing with the NCAA, full of the recruiting advantages that come with this bill?

Again---how are they going to it? Every state law will be different. Also, what about conferences? How do they reconcile different state laws within the conferences? How does it work in the Pac12 if Cali schools can pay players and Arizona schools cannot. The NCAA has already said the Cali schools would be banned from post season play. The Cali schools were actually opposed to this bill and can now show damages. Dont be surprised if schools in California (and other schools in similar situations in other states) sue for an injunction blocking the enforcement of these bills until the issue can be litigated in the courts.

It is inevitable that players are going to get paid, whether fans like it, or not. And how it happens isn't as important as the fact that it will happen.

(10-01-2019 11:51 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:15 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:07 PM)reddyray Wrote:  This is not about paying an athlete to play a sport so equal pay does not apply here. This is all about what a student athlete can negotiate for his/her endorsement. Same as if they were in any other line of work.

It's not? They are to receive money (compensation), correct? It seems that the courts, the NCAA, and perhaps others will decide this newly opened can of worms.

Not receiving money from the school, but from third party advertisers and the like. It's called the free market.

Absolutely and argument can be made that they are receiving money from the school, indirectly. If the school disappears, so does the market for their likeness value.

It's not quite free market when a third, possibly more, entities are involved. You can't unilaterally make laws without courts getting involved with potential lawsuits from the NCAA and maybe others. It's not as simple as you're making it.

Nothing ever is, lol. I'm not typing that much.

So what is your solution?

Bilateral discussions with the NCAA is a start.

FWIW, I see these kids as pawns for adults. The question is, are they professionals or not? I don't see it that way since the sport they chose does have professionals playing it. They already get tuition, materials, and expenses paid for as agreed to. That agreement separates them IMHO.

Let's put this in perspective and the different directions politicians lean, depending on which cause helps them and which one doesn't. The kids we are talking about are 18 years old. I wasn't even allowed to vote at 18 years old. Yet I could join the military if I chose to. Other other side, 18 year old are being asked to give up their guns and weapons, due to their apparent lack of maturity, and the gun debate. It's too confusing to me.

Finally, the argument that colleges are making tons of money on these athletes falls on deaf ears. Colleges survive more on endowments that sports revenue. For example, Texas received a deal worth $300 million from ESPN yet their endowment is about $30 billion. Texas could survive dropping their sports programs altogether versus losing their endowment. Yale has an even higher endowment and still doesn't offer athletic scholarships.

(10-01-2019 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:27 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:53 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My guess is Cali schools will be barred from the post season and will sue. They will lose. The courts have already upheld the NCAA's amateur model. The courts have already found that the NCAA is well within its rights to enforce rules that maintain competitive balance within the organization. I dont know how California schools can argue that allowing its athletes to accept outside third party money isnt against the NCAA bylaws and isnt a competitive advantage.

The law doesnt kick in until 2023. So, I suspect the Cali schools will submit legislation that allow 3rd party payments to the NCAA. Of course, it will be voted down. At that point, a law suit is inevitable. Interestingly, the Florida proposed law would accelerate the time table. If if passes, it would take affect on July 31 of 2020. A New York legislator is proposing a law that requires the schools to pay the athletes DIRECTLY---no third parties. So, this is the problem with trying to deal with this issue on the state legislature level. Your going to end up with a patchwork of 50 different recruiting/pay-for-play laws in 50 different states. Every conference will operate under different recruiting/pay-for-play rules---heck---the recruiting/pay-for-play rules will actually vary WITHIN conferences changing at each state line.

The list of states now pursuing similar athlete fairness laws directly affects about 40% of the P5 schools and about 30% of the G5/independent schools. So, while the NCAA might win a lawsuit concerning its current model, its membership will take a huge hit if it resists change.

Sure, Wisconsin can publicize its principles and refuse to schedule any California teams. But, will it refuse to play two teams within its conference division?

I don't think this will be a significantly polarizing issue, so I doubt it would come to this...but it would be fascinating to see not only conference, but association realignment, based on state laws and those that entrench themselves in a pure amateurism model.

If they lose the lawsuit---how long do you think schools are going want to be left out when it comes to bowl games, the CFP, or the NCAA basketball tournament? One season? Two? Those laws will be repealed faster than they passed---and with more support for the repeal than they ever had when passed.

Regardless of what you think of "pay for play" or the "olympic model"---the problem is the state legislatures are simply the wrong route to address the issue. If there are 50 different state laws all saying something different---it doesnt matter what the NCAA does---schools in some states are going to be left out. State legislatures are simply the wrong tool to fix the problem. Those that are concerned about this issue need to address the issue at the NCAA level or address it legislatively at the national level in Washington DC.

It's up to 40% of the P5 schools that could be affected now, and it was passed unanimously (and yes, California has a **** ton of republicans).

With it being that large of the P5, do you think the more likely thing is the NCAA will win out or that if necessary those schools will form their own group to be a part of, competing with the NCAA, full of the recruiting advantages that come with this bill?

Again---how are they going to it? Every state law will be different. Also, what about conferences? How do they reconcile different state laws within the conferences? How does it work in the Pac12 if Cali schools can pay players and Arizona schools cannot. The NCAA has already said the Cali schools would be banned from post season play. The Cali schools were actually opposed to this bill and can now show damages. Dont be surprised if schools in California (and other schools in similar situations in other states) sue for an injunction blocking the enforcement of these bills until the issue can be litigated in the courts.

How are they going to do it? We'll see.

But you're providing an ends to this seeing only through the lens you want to. More states are getting on board, and some will likely just look at the California law and try to make one that mimics it pretty closely.

The NCAA is amateur sports in name only. It's a billion dollar machine that acts as a de fact minor league for the most prominent sports. People (not those college fans who are stuck in the past and never want to see anything change) need to see this and treat it as such.

(10-01-2019 12:53 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:51 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:15 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  It's not? They are to receive money (compensation), correct? It seems that the courts, the NCAA, and perhaps others will decide this newly opened can of worms.

Not receiving money from the school, but from third party advertisers and the like. It's called the free market.

Absolutely and argument can be made that they are receiving money from the school, indirectly. If the school disappears, so does the market for their likeness value.

It's not quite free market when a third, possibly more, entities are involved. You can't unilaterally make laws without courts getting involved with potential lawsuits from the NCAA and maybe others. It's not as simple as you're making it.

Nothing ever is, lol. I'm not typing that much.

So what is your solution?

Bilateral discussions with the NCAA is a start.

FWIW, I see these kids as pawns for adults. The question is, are they professionals or not? I don't see it that way since the sport they chose does have professionals playing it. They already get tuition, materials, and expenses paid for as agreed to. That agreement separates them IMHO.

Let's put this in perspective and the different directions politicians lean, depending on which cause helps them and which one doesn't. The kids we are talking about are 18 years old. I wasn't even allowed to vote at 18 years old. Yet I could join the military if I chose to. Other other side, 18 year old are being asked to give up their guns and weapons, due to their apparent lack of maturity, and the gun debate. It's too confusing to me.

Finally, the argument that colleges are making tons of money on these athletes falls on deaf ears. Colleges survive more on endowments that sports revenue. For example, Texas received a deal worth $300 million from ESPN yet their endowment is about $30 billion. Texas could survive dropping their sports programs altogether versus losing their endowment. Yale has an even higher endowment and still doesn't offer athletic scholarships.

Bilateral discussions isn't a solution. There is no easy solution, but players are going to get paid in some fashion. I think third party income is fine.

(10-01-2019 12:57 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:53 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:51 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:15 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Not receiving money from the school, but from third party advertisers and the like. It's called the free market.

Absolutely and argument can be made that they are receiving money from the school, indirectly. If the school disappears, so does the market for their likeness value.

It's not quite free market when a third, possibly more, entities are involved. You can't unilaterally make laws without courts getting involved with potential lawsuits from the NCAA and maybe others. It's not as simple as you're making it.

Nothing ever is, lol. I'm not typing that much.

So what is your solution?

Bilateral discussions with the NCAA is a start.

FWIW, I see these kids as pawns for adults. The question is, are they professionals or not? I don't see it that way since the sport they chose does have professionals playing it. They already get tuition, materials, and expenses paid for as agreed to. That agreement separates them IMHO.

Let's put this in perspective and the different directions politicians lean, depending on which cause helps them and which one doesn't. The kids we are talking about are 18 years old. I wasn't even allowed to vote at 18 years old. Yet I could join the military if I chose to. Other other side, 18 year old are being asked to give up their guns and weapons, due to their apparent lack of maturity, and the gun debate. It's too confusing to me.

Finally, the argument that colleges are making tons of money on these athletes falls on deaf ears. Colleges survive more on endowments that sports revenue. For example, Texas received a deal worth $300 million from ESPN yet their endowment is about $30 billion. Texas could survive dropping their sports programs altogether versus losing their endowment. Yale has an even higher endowment and still doesn't offer athletic scholarships.

Bilateral discussions isn't a solution. There is no easy solution, but players are going to get paid in some fashion. I think third party income is fine.

We'll have to agree to disagree at this point because I find it unlikely the third party idea will pass the courts. That said, there has been forced partial breakups in the past, including AT&T and Microsoft. The courts will have the final say (NCAA?). Thrid party payments end the competitive balance in the NCAA organization. The thrid parties will have to win in courts otherwise.

(10-01-2019 12:14 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:05 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 09:25 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 09:19 AM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:12 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  No, I don’t want players paid in college because I think it’s inequitable to the rest o of the student body. There are kids who do research at universities and publish papers which make consortium groups millions, but they don’t see a dime of that. And I’m not angry about that. It’s the price they pay for getting their education and it allows them greater opportunities going forward. It also helps fund their research programs. Athletics should be treated the same way.

I look at athletics as a sort of internship for the highest level athletes. It’s a try out. They will get paid handsomely if they are good enough to merit reward.

If a university makes millions from the R & D of a student, what's wrong with him getting a royalty. Students would have a tremendous incentive to work harder and come up with even better ideas. Capitalism.........it works!

It works, until it ends up destroying the programs of smaller schools around the country that can't keep up and consolidates the power in the hands of several monopolistic chains. You're basically talking about killing "mom and pops" so to speak in favor of Walmarts.... just because it works doesn't make it preferable in every situation. Capitalism creates a ton of problems whether you like to acknowledge them or not.

There are reasons that Universities keep research funding.... it's because it funds academics.

Sounds like we already have a system in place that kills the smaller schools. It's called the Power 5.

There has never been a better time in our lives for mom and pops to compete with major corporations. Start a web store. I can make my shop appear just as impressive as Apple's. Actually better. Thanks to the internet we all look like big businesses.

The port of entry is very low, I don't have to waste money on real estate, deal with OSHA, employee taxes, overhead, etc. I can technically buy stuff from Walmart and sell it on Amazon if I want to. I can sell anything I want with hardly any investment. Let Amazon handle your distribution. Everybody makes money. Just use your noodle.

LMAO.... the free market determined that it was going to give 4 companies all the power in lobbying for regulations and imposing policies that hurt small startups from outpacing their competition. Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon more or less control the devices you get your information on, how that information comes up when searched for, how their own advertisements will be placed higher than yours, how the tangible assets are priced, how they are stored, and how they are shipped.... and if there is no way you can compete with them unless they let you. If any one of their companies wants to put another company under in their realms of influence (tech hardware, searching, advertising, or electronic sales) they could do so without much fuss.

Dude, I owned a small business for almost 20 years. Corporations were better suited to absorb the effects of the recession better than moms and pops were. I'm well aware of what corporations were able to do. Most of my business was direct to corporations so for this mom and pop, corporations were my customer.

I'm well aware of the atrocities of Google too. They need to be regulated. Just google "white American families" and see what you get. They can shape our society as they see fit. Big problem indeed. My point is you can't pick winners and losers (like Google,). That is what the NCAA is. Besides, there are work arounds with google anyway. Sell through Amazon then. It's nothing more than a large distribution center. You don't even need advertising.

Say you want to buy a printer cable (whatever)via a search on Amazon. Several listings will come up and you'll pick the one you want regardless if you ever heard of the store. The person who sold you that cable bought it in bulk from China. It took six weeks to have it delivered to Amazon where they store it. Amazon ships that cable overnight to the customer. Could the customer have bought it directly from China at a cheaper price? Yeah if he wanted to buy 100 of them and wait six weeks. Would he?

Point is, It's still capitalism today like it always was. We just use different mechanisms to get product to the customer. We still have anti-trust laws. We just need to enforce them. If somebody figures out a way to job the system (China) then we'll make new laws.

(10-01-2019 12:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  It is inevitable that players are going to get paid, whether fans like it, or not. And how it happens isn't as important as the fact that it will happen.

I agree with the first sentence. Not so much with the second. The "how" will make a HUGE difference in what the game looks like when it emerges from the change. In fact, I'd argue that the "how" will be far more of a change than the fact that the players are being paid. Even if was just a scholarship---players were always being compensated on some level. The "how" of the compensation formula will be the driver that determines winners, losers, and if the game is even attractive to most current college fans when it's all said and done.

(10-01-2019 12:53 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:27 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:53 AM)YNot Wrote:  The list of states now pursuing similar athlete fairness laws directly affects about 40% of the P5 schools and about 30% of the G5/independent schools. So, while the NCAA might win a lawsuit concerning its current model, its membership will take a huge hit if it resists change.

Sure, Wisconsin can publicize its principles and refuse to schedule any California teams. But, will it refuse to play two teams within its conference division?

I don't think this will be a significantly polarizing issue, so I doubt it would come to this...but it would be fascinating to see not only conference, but association realignment, based on state laws and those that entrench themselves in a pure amateurism model.

If they lose the lawsuit---how long do you think schools are going want to be left out when it comes to bowl games, the CFP, or the NCAA basketball tournament? One season? Two? Those laws will be repealed faster than they passed---and with more support for the repeal than they ever had when passed.

Regardless of what you think of "pay for play" or the "olympic model"---the problem is the state legislatures are simply the wrong route to address the issue. If there are 50 different state laws all saying something different---it doesnt matter what the NCAA does---schools in some states are going to be left out. State legislatures are simply the wrong tool to fix the problem. Those that are concerned about this issue need to address the issue at the NCAA level or address it legislatively at the national level in Washington DC.

It's up to 40% of the P5 schools that could be affected now, and it was passed unanimously (and yes, California has a **** ton of republicans).

With it being that large of the P5, do you think the more likely thing is the NCAA will win out or that if necessary those schools will form their own group to be a part of, competing with the NCAA, full of the recruiting advantages that come with this bill?

Again---how are they going to it? Every state law will be different. Also, what about conferences? How do they reconcile different state laws within the conferences? How does it work in the Pac12 if Cali schools can pay players and Arizona schools cannot. The NCAA has already said the Cali schools would be banned from post season play. The Cali schools were actually opposed to this bill and can now show damages. Dont be surprised if schools in California (and other schools in similar situations in other states) sue for an injunction blocking the enforcement of these bills until the issue can be litigated in the courts.

How are they going to do it? We'll see.

But you're providing an ends to this seeing only through the lens you want to. More states are getting on board, and some will likely just look at the California law and try to make one that mimics it pretty closely.

The NCAA is amateur sports in name only. It's a billion dollar machine that acts as a de fact minor league for the most prominent sports. People (not those college fans who are stuck in the past and never want to see anything change) need to see this and treat it as such.

Im not looking at it through any lens other than reality. This amateur model issue has already been litigated and the NCAA won. The courts have said the NCAA can act in a monopolistic fashion if the intent is to create a competitive balance. The courts have also already ruled in favor of the NCAA against a state legislature attempting to alter national NCAA rules (during the Tarkanian law suit in in the late 1990's).

Again, I do think this is goiung to force the NCAA's hand and that the players are going to get some sort of compensation model. I think the NCAA will probably have to address the issue this year. I just dont think it takes much imagination to see the olympic model wont work for the NCAA. The only thing the olympic model has going for it is it doesnt cost the schools a cent directly. However, I suspect it actually would cost them as donated funds that would have come to the athletic department are redirected to player compensation by donors. It will also result in a significant loss of institutional control as the boosters become the primary recruiting arm of the athletic department.

And now here comes Florida.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019...t-athletes

(10-01-2019 01:06 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:57 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:53 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:51 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 10:29 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Absolutely and argument can be made that they are receiving money from the school, indirectly. If the school disappears, so does the market for their likeness value.

It's not quite free market when a third, possibly more, entities are involved. You can't unilaterally make laws without courts getting involved with potential lawsuits from the NCAA and maybe others. It's not as simple as you're making it.

Nothing ever is, lol. I'm not typing that much.

So what is your solution?

Bilateral discussions with the NCAA is a start.

FWIW, I see these kids as pawns for adults. The question is, are they professionals or not? I don't see it that way since the sport they chose does have professionals playing it. They already get tuition, materials, and expenses paid for as agreed to. That agreement separates them IMHO.

Let's put this in perspective and the different directions politicians lean, depending on which cause helps them and which one doesn't. The kids we are talking about are 18 years old. I wasn't even allowed to vote at 18 years old. Yet I could join the military if I chose to. Other other side, 18 year old are being asked to give up their guns and weapons, due to their apparent lack of maturity, and the gun debate. It's too confusing to me.

Finally, the argument that colleges are making tons of money on these athletes falls on deaf ears. Colleges survive more on endowments that sports revenue. For example, Texas received a deal worth $300 million from ESPN yet their endowment is about $30 billion. Texas could survive dropping their sports programs altogether versus losing their endowment. Yale has an even higher endowment and still doesn't offer athletic scholarships.

Bilateral discussions isn't a solution. There is no easy solution, but players are going to get paid in some fashion. I think third party income is fine.

We'll have to agree to disagree at this point because I find it unlikely the third party idea will pass the courts. That said, there has been forced partial breakups in the past, including AT&T and Microsoft. The courts will have the final say (NCAA?). Thrid party payments end the competitive balance in the NCAA organization. The thrid parties will have to win in courts otherwise.

They have already won in the courts, lol. It's called O'Bannon vs. the NCAA. Players won the right to profit from their likeness with THIRD PARTIES. It is already settled. The legislation is following it, b/c the NCAA has been slow to comply.

(10-01-2019 02:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 01:06 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:57 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:53 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:51 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Nothing ever is, lol. I'm not typing that much.

So what is your solution?

Bilateral discussions with the NCAA is a start.

FWIW, I see these kids as pawns for adults. The question is, are they professionals or not? I don't see it that way since the sport they chose does have professionals playing it. They already get tuition, materials, and expenses paid for as agreed to. That agreement separates them IMHO.

Let's put this in perspective and the different directions politicians lean, depending on which cause helps them and which one doesn't. The kids we are talking about are 18 years old. I wasn't even allowed to vote at 18 years old. Yet I could join the military if I chose to. Other other side, 18 year old are being asked to give up their guns and weapons, due to their apparent lack of maturity, and the gun debate. It's too confusing to me.

Finally, the argument that colleges are making tons of money on these athletes falls on deaf ears. Colleges survive more on endowments that sports revenue. For example, Texas received a deal worth $300 million from ESPN yet their endowment is about $30 billion. Texas could survive dropping their sports programs altogether versus losing their endowment. Yale has an even higher endowment and still doesn't offer athletic scholarships.

Bilateral discussions isn't a solution. There is no easy solution, but players are going to get paid in some fashion. I think third party income is fine.

We'll have to agree to disagree at this point because I find it unlikely the third party idea will pass the courts. That said, there has been forced partial breakups in the past, including AT&T and Microsoft. The courts will have the final say (NCAA?). Thrid party payments end the competitive balance in the NCAA organization. The thrid parties will have to win in courts otherwise.

They have already won in the courts, lol. It's called O'Bannon vs. the NCAA. Players won the right to profit from their likeness with THIRD PARTIES. It is already settled. The legislation is following it, b/c the NCAA has been slow to comply.

That's a district court opinion and I don't believe the finding was as broadly scoped as you hope it is. The 9th circuit appeals' court upheld some of the lower courts' ruling and reversed some of it as well.... the 9th circuit court also said: "To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid."

The USSC declined to hear the case; however, that doesn't mean future cases won't proceed in that direction if the arguments being made have some fundamental distinctions from the Ed O'Bannon case.

XCONN and UCF could have monetized teh Civil ConFLiCT!!!! Left money on the table!

(10-01-2019 02:15 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 02:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 01:06 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:57 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:53 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  Bilateral discussions with the NCAA is a start.

FWIW, I see these kids as pawns for adults. The question is, are they professionals or not? I don't see it that way since the sport they chose does have professionals playing it. They already get tuition, materials, and expenses paid for as agreed to. That agreement separates them IMHO.

Let's put this in perspective and the different directions politicians lean, depending on which cause helps them and which one doesn't. The kids we are talking about are 18 years old. I wasn't even allowed to vote at 18 years old. Yet I could join the military if I chose to. Other other side, 18 year old are being asked to give up their guns and weapons, due to their apparent lack of maturity, and the gun debate. It's too confusing to me.

Finally, the argument that colleges are making tons of money on these athletes falls on deaf ears. Colleges survive more on endowments that sports revenue. For example, Texas received a deal worth $300 million from ESPN yet their endowment is about $30 billion. Texas could survive dropping their sports programs altogether versus losing their endowment. Yale has an even higher endowment and still doesn't offer athletic scholarships.

Bilateral discussions isn't a solution. There is no easy solution, but players are going to get paid in some fashion. I think third party income is fine.

We'll have to agree to disagree at this point because I find it unlikely the third party idea will pass the courts. That said, there has been forced partial breakups in the past, including AT&T and Microsoft. The courts will have the final say (NCAA?). Thrid party payments end the competitive balance in the NCAA organization. The thrid parties will have to win in courts otherwise.

They have already won in the courts, lol. It's called O'Bannon vs. the NCAA. Players won the right to profit from their likeness with THIRD PARTIES. It is already settled. The legislation is following it, b/c the NCAA has been slow to comply.

That's a district court opinion and I don't believe the finding was as broadly scoped as you hope it is. The 9th circuit appeals' court upheld some of the lower courts' ruling and reversed some of it as well.... the 9th circuit court also said: "To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid."

I don't hope a damn thing, lol. I don't care which way it goes. Doesn't affect me at all. I'm just giving my opinion about what will happen now.

And I think you're wrong about O'Bannon. You're forcing me to look it up, lol.

I looked it up. O'Bannon won. But the 9th Circuit Court left it in limbo, saying the scholarships were essentially payment enough. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from either side, leaving specific compensation in limbo, but the idea that college players are entitled to compensation for their likeness and image is settled.

The states coming behind with legislation puts the teeth in the compensation.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...reme-court

(10-01-2019 08:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:16 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Florida has officially filed similar legislation.

You watch--in Florida where care about football---that bill will go down in flames.

No it won't. Check out the list of states that already have similar legislation to California's in the works. I bet more will follow.

Colorado
Florida
Illinois
New York
South Carolina
Tennessee
Washington
West Virginia

That covers every FBS conference in the country.

Now add North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Minnesota to the list.

(10-01-2019 02:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I looked it up. O'Bannon won. But the 9th Circuit Court left it in limbo, saying the scholarships were essentially payment enough. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from either side, leaving specific compensation in limbo, but the idea that college players are entitled to compensation for their likeness and image is settled.

The states coming behind with legislation puts the teeth in the compensation.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...reme-court

I looked it up too. And I read the decision of the Appellate Court. I believe you're wrong about the interpretation of the courts as far as whether or not they are entitled to compensation for their likeness....

The NCAA licensed these players' likenesses and profited off of that via their deal with EA. The court basically ruled that the NCAA couldn't do that while still maintaining an argument for amateurism. However the court also declined to assert whether the NCAA's use of these players' likenesses in broadcasts constituted a violation. There's been no court case that asserted a player should have the right to negotiate their own third party deal and that the NCAA's limitation on that negotiation is punitive. My guess is that that case would go to the Supreme Court who declined the last one for various reasons, some of which had to do with the fact that they were missing one justice (Scolia) at the time.

2.

Allowing students to receive cash compensation for their NILs

In our judgment, however, the district court clearly erredin finding it a viable alternative to allow students to receive NIL cash payments untethered to their education expenses. Again, the district court identified two pro competitive purposes served by the NCAA’s current rules: “preserving the popularity of the NCAA’s product by promoting its current understanding of amateurism” and “integrating academics and athletics.” O’Bannon, 7 F. Supp. 3d at 1005; see also Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 117 (“It is reasonable to assume that most of the regulatory controls of the NCAA are justifiable means of fostering competition among amateur athletic teams and therefore pro competitive because they enhance public interest in intercollegiate athletics.”). The question is whether the alternative of allowing students to be paid NIL compensation unrelated to their education expenses,is “virtually as effective” in preserving amateurism as no tallowing compensation. Cnty. of Tuolumne, 236 F.3d at 1159(internal quotation marks omitted).We cannot agree that a rule permitting schools to pay students pure cash compensation and a rule forbidding them from paying NIL compensation are both equally effective in promoting amateurism and preserving consumer demand.19 Both we and the district court agree that the NCAA’s amateurism rule has pro competitive benefits. But in finding that paying students cash compensation would promote amateurism as effectively as not paying them, the district court ignored that not paying student-athletes is precisely what makes them amateurs.20

(10-01-2019 02:53 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 02:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I looked it up. O'Bannon won. But the 9th Circuit Court left it in limbo, saying the scholarships were essentially payment enough. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from either side, leaving specific compensation in limbo, but the idea that college players are entitled to compensation for their likeness and image is settled.

The states coming behind with legislation puts the teeth in the compensation.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...reme-court

I looked it up too. And I read the decision of the Appellate Court. I believe you're wrong about the interpretation of the courts as far as whether or not they are entitled to compensation for their likeness....

The NCAA licensed these players' likenesses and profited off of that via their deal with EA. The court basically ruled that the NCAA couldn't do that while still maintaining an argument for amateurism. However the court also declined to assert whether the NCAA's use of these players' likenesses in broadcasts constituted a violation. There's been no court case that asserted a player should have the right to negotiate their own third party deal and that the NCAA's limitation on that negotiation is punitive. My guess is that that case would go to the Supreme Court who declined the last one for various reasons, some of which had to do with the fact that they were missing one justice (Scolia) at the time.

Did you read the article I linked? It's pretty clear.

"The denial also leaves in place a 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in favor of O’Bannon. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Judges Sidney Thomas, Jay Bybee and Gordon Quist found that certain NCAA amateurism rules violate federal antirust law. Those rules, the court determined, constituted an anti-competitive conspiracy by the more than 1,200 member NCAA colleges, conferences and affiliate organizations. The purpose of such a conspiracy was to deny men’s basketball and football players of the monetary value of their names, images and likenesses when used for commercial purposes."