(10-07-2019 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 11:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 07:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I do know none of the laws proposed to date appear to even consider the issue of booster abuse.

I would guess that's because the concept of "booster abuse" is a nonesuch concept. It doesn't really exist in the real world, only in the propaganda-universe of the NCAA. It's like the "wrecker" concept in the Stalin-era USSR. It doesn't mean anything outside the vocabulary of communist slogans of that regime, which of course were entirely self-referential and had no connection to an objective reality, the vocabulary was created to ensure the stability of the regime.

If a rich Houston supporter wants to pay a 4-star recruit $50,000 for a Billboard ad so that he plays for Houston and not SMU, there's no harm done to anyone in the real world. It is only a violation in the Newspeak world of NCAA parlance, propaganda designed to maintain the 'stability' of the system that makes the NCAA a ton of money.

So IMO it's kind of silly to expect real-world legislators to consider that concept.

This is the kind of argument that completely destroys any sense of you presenting a reasonable point of view. One would have to be completely obtuse to not be able to see there are legitimate concerns on either side of the issue.

The "concern" about booster abuse is a purely-fabricated one, it is not a societal concern at all. As I explained, it exists only in the world of the NCAA. There is zero of societal concern at stake if Houston boosters pay recruits to play football at Houston. None, doesn't matter at all.

The notion that a congressman or state legislator should be crafting legislation that takes a non-concern seriously just doesn't make any sense. It would be harmful to do so, as that would shroud the NCAA's private concern in the color of law.

In this case California has said that its schools won't abide by an NCAA rule any longer, and they are perfectly within their right to do that, at least for the public schools.

If there is zero societal concern over third party pay for play, then why is the FBI investigating it? As for the law itself---Legislatures and branches of government over reach all the time. Its part of how the different branches of government interact with each other and the people. Frankly, my guess is the California law as it currently stands has almost no chance of withstanding a court challenge. It's possible part of it might be left standing after a challenge---but all of it? Zero chance.