Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
Author Message
PicksUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,914
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 135
I Root For: UTEP, Texas
Location:
Post: #141
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
NBA has been talking about allowing 18 year olds and high school grads the opportunity to jump int the draft. I never understood that rule change some 15 years ago. Should be a couple years when that is worked into the CBA.
10-07-2019 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #142
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 04:32 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  NBA has been talking about allowing 18 year olds and high school grads the opportunity to jump int the draft. I never understood that rule change some 15 years ago. Should be a couple years when that is worked into the CBA.

NBA wanted to take advantage of colleges as a free farm system. Players came out better after a year or two in college and were more likely to stick in the NBA.

The only good part was helping some players who weren't really ready reach their potential. It was bad for the colleges and bad for the ones who were ready. It was bad for some of the ones who would wash out in college.
10-07-2019 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #143
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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?

What exactly is the FBI investigating? They don't care about NCAA rules, just federal crimes such as bribery, fraud, and tax violations.

As for California, they aren't obligated to have their schools follow NCAA rules. They own the schools, the public ones, not the NCAA.
10-07-2019 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 314
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 30
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #144
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-06-2019 08:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Division III golfer kicked out of the NCAA for....writing a book.

https://www.golf.com/news/features/2019/...hier-ncaa/


"The language in the NCAA’s bylaws has changed slightly since then, but in 2013 I was deemed to have used my athletic ability for commercial gain (only the NCAA’s corporate partners are allowed to profit from said ability). In their defense, I was a college golfer, and the book involved golf."

This is the type of stuff that makes the NCAA look stupid. No common sense.
A Division III golfer writes a book about life and gets suspended.

It's not the NCAA. It's inherent in the system. When you cling to an antiquated system of strict amateurism, there's no room for "common sense". The NCAA can't possibly adjudicate and enforce the rules dependent on the particulars of every situation across tens of thousands of athletes.
10-07-2019 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #145
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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:  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?

What exactly is the FBI investigating? They don't care about NCAA rules, just federal crimes such as bribery, fraud, and tax violations.

As for California, they aren't obligated to have their schools follow NCAA rules. They own the schools, the public ones, not the NCAA.

The California law also says that the NCAA cannot punish or kick out the the schools for ignoring the NCAA NIL rules. Now, California is perfectly within their rights to order their school to ignore NCAA rules. By the same token, California has absolutely no power to dictate how the NCAA reacts to those rules violations. If the NCAA wants to bar those schools from the postseason--or kick them out of the NCAA completely---there is absolutely nothing the California can do about it. The power of the California legislature ends at the California border. Only federal law crosses the border. It would be like the Texas legislature passing a law requiring the Pac12 to make Houston a member. Good luck with that. Thats why I say part of the law might remain standing after a challenge---but the law has zero chance of surviving a challenge 100% intact. Not to mention, while the legislature clearly can dictate terms to the state schools---Im not so sure the law will hold up with respect to private schools like USC and Stanford.
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2019 07:18 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-07-2019 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wrcwolf Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 95
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation: 2
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #146
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
People really think multi-national companies are going to tell their stockholders that they need to spend thousands of dollars for an everyday 18-year-old prospect to attend the founders college? Good luck with that, Mr. Knight. Haha.

If the local car dealer wants to do it, let him. My guess is after a few years of getting burned by the guys that don't live up to their potential, transfers and flunkies, they will realize the ROR isn't worth the little commerce they get from the ads. I mean, do you all go to businesses today because the coach is a spokesman? No, you don't. [/align]
10-07-2019 09:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 625
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #147
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 07:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 11:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  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?

What exactly is the FBI investigating? They don't care about NCAA rules, just federal crimes such as bribery, fraud, and tax violations.

As for California, they aren't obligated to have their schools follow NCAA rules. They own the schools, the public ones, not the NCAA.

The California law also says that the NCAA cannot punish or kick out the the schools for ignoring the NCAA NIL rules. Now, California is perfectly within their rights to order their school to ignore NCAA rules. By the same token, California has absolutely no power to dictate how the NCAA reacts to those rules violations. If the NCAA wants to bar those schools from the postseason--or kick them out of the NCAA completely---there is absolutely nothing the California can do about it. The power of the California legislature ends at the California border. Only federal law crosses the border. It would be like the Texas legislature passing a law requiring the Pac12 to make Houston a member. Good luck with that. Thats why I say part of the law might remain standing after a challenge---but the law has zero chance of surviving a challenge 100% intact. Not to mention, while the legislature clearly can dictate terms to the state schools---Im not so sure the law will hold up with respect to private schools like USC and Stanford.

Hypothetically, if the NCAA attempted to ban Cali schools then California would sue the heck out of the NCAA, and maybe win. I cannot say from personal knowledge, but Marc Edelman, a law professor who appeared at one of the hearings on SB 206, says that banning Cali schools would constitute a group boycott, illegal under federal law. Here's the most recent of two or three Forbes articles he's written about it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman...t-of-1984/

The head of the DOJ's Antitrust Division recently invited Ramogi Huma to speak at a workshop on competition in labor markets. Huma said the same thing: group boycott. (See here.) Huma's timely talk at the DOJ may indicate that the DOJ agrees that the NCAA is subject to that particular element of the law.
10-07-2019 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #148
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 10:01 PM)chester Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 07:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  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?

What exactly is the FBI investigating? They don't care about NCAA rules, just federal crimes such as bribery, fraud, and tax violations.

As for California, they aren't obligated to have their schools follow NCAA rules. They own the schools, the public ones, not the NCAA.

The California law also says that the NCAA cannot punish or kick out the the schools for ignoring the NCAA NIL rules. Now, California is perfectly within their rights to order their school to ignore NCAA rules. By the same token, California has absolutely no power to dictate how the NCAA reacts to those rules violations. If the NCAA wants to bar those schools from the postseason--or kick them out of the NCAA completely---there is absolutely nothing the California can do about it. The power of the California legislature ends at the California border. Only federal law crosses the border. It would be like the Texas legislature passing a law requiring the Pac12 to make Houston a member. Good luck with that. Thats why I say part of the law might remain standing after a challenge---but the law has zero chance of surviving a challenge 100% intact. Not to mention, while the legislature clearly can dictate terms to the state schools---Im not so sure the law will hold up with respect to private schools like USC and Stanford.

Hypothetically, if the NCAA attempted to ban Cali schools then California would sue the heck out of the NCAA, and maybe win. I cannot say from personal knowledge, but Marc Edelman, a law professor who appeared at one of the hearings on SB 206, says that banning Cali schools would constitute a group boycott, illegal under federal law. Here's the most recent of two or three Forbes articles he's written about it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman...t-of-1984/

The head of the DOJ's Antitrust Division recently invited Ramogi Huma to speak at a workshop on competition in labor markets. Huma said the same thing: group boycott. (See here.) Huma's timely talk at the DOJ may indicate that the DOJ agrees that the NCAA is subject to that particular element of the law.

Those attacks are based in federal law. My point is that California law cant decree anything once it reaches the border of California. The NCAA has already faced that issue before with Tarkanian.

That said, my hesitation about outright booting the Cali teams from the NCAA would come from the 1984 Oklahoma Regents vs NCAA decision. Thats why I think the NCAA will take the more conservative road and simply ban them from post season play. That's basically the same penalty that every other team guilty of that infraction gets and that penalty has already been successfully defended in court on multiple occasions. It would seem to be a more reasonable and proportional act that would maintain the integrity of the league while doing as little damage as possible to the schools (who are frankly just caught in the middle). I seriously doubt any attack on a post season ban would be successful.
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2019 10:52 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-07-2019 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,010
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 729
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #149
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
Those NCAA rules are in place to stop the likes of the SMU scandal back in the 1980s. All the NCAA have to do is show the proof of the scandal, and I do think some boosters did gone to prison. SMU got way too good at football because boosters bribedthe athletes and their family to go to SMU. The California law would look like it is on steroids compare to SMU.
10-07-2019 11:35 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 625
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #150
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 10:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Those attacks are based in federal law. My point is that California law cant decree anything once it reaches the border of California. The NCAA has already faced that issue before with Tarkanian.

That said, my hesitation about outright booting the Cali teams from the NCAA would come from the 1984 Oklahoma Regents vs NCAA decision. Thats why I think the NCAA will take the more conservative road and simply ban them from post season play. That's basically the same penalty that every other team guilty of that infraction gets and that penalty has already been successfully defended in court on multiple occasions. It would seem to be a more reasonable and proportional act that would maintain the integrity of the league while doing as little damage as possible to the schools (who are frankly just caught in the middle). I seriously doubt any attack on a post season ban would be successful.

Right, but my understanding is that that too might be an illegal group boycott. I'm just interested in the hypothetical, though. IMO, there is zero chance the NCAA would actually try to ban Cali schools from anything. Lost revenue, rotten PR, pissed off media partners, pissed off fans, pissed off everyone.

The NCAA is either going to relent to the mounting public and state governmental pressure or it will be forced to by congress or (least likely because I don't think it will go this far) courts that uphold state laws. I see no realistic escape path for the NCAA. It's not going to challenge the Cali law. If Congress doesn't act, the NCAA and the Cali legislature will come to an agreement. Section 1 of the Cali law is a signal to the NCAA that the Cali legislature will repeal the law once an agreement is reached, or at least amend it to be in agreement with the NCAA's new rules.

*repeal
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2019 11:53 PM by chester.)
10-07-2019 11:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 625
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #151
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
Suggested Hail Mary Play for the Cartel: A bunch of bagmen go left and then straight up to Washington in hopes of an antitrust exemption. Rah!!!
10-08-2019 01:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #152
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 11:37 PM)chester Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 10:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Those attacks are based in federal law. My point is that California law cant decree anything once it reaches the border of California. The NCAA has already faced that issue before with Tarkanian.

That said, my hesitation about outright booting the Cali teams from the NCAA would come from the 1984 Oklahoma Regents vs NCAA decision. Thats why I think the NCAA will take the more conservative road and simply ban them from post season play. That's basically the same penalty that every other team guilty of that infraction gets and that penalty has already been successfully defended in court on multiple occasions. It would seem to be a more reasonable and proportional act that would maintain the integrity of the league while doing as little damage as possible to the schools (who are frankly just caught in the middle). I seriously doubt any attack on a post season ban would be successful.

Right, but my understanding is that that too might be an illegal group boycott. I'm just interested in the hypothetical, though. IMO, there is zero chance the NCAA would actually try to ban Cali schools from anything. Lost revenue, rotten PR, pissed off media partners, pissed off fans, pissed off everyone.

The NCAA is either going to relent to the mounting public and state governmental pressure or it will be forced to by congress or (least likely because I don't think it will go this far) courts that uphold state laws. I see no realistic escape path for the NCAA. It's not going to challenge the Cali law. If Congress doesn't act, the NCAA and the Cali legislature will come to an agreement. Section 1 of the Cali law is a signal to the NCAA that the Cali legislature will repeal the law once an agreement is reached, or at least amend it to be in agreement with the NCAA's new rules.

*repeal

Actually, I wonder if offense might be the best strategy. All the Cali schools are against the bill. So, say USC and Stanford, a couple of Cali private schools, team up with the NCAA and sue to block the enforcement of the law in Federal court. That way, the schools and NCAA get to select the court they think is most likely to be sympathetic their arguments. Because most of the laws being proposed are generally similar, if you get the Cali law shut down, the other very similar laws probably probably become unenforceable as well. Once you shut down the mad rush to pass laws that cause more trouble than they solve---you have time to try to figure out a reasoned smart approach that might allow some sort of revenue to flow to the athletes without creating a pay-for-play league via third parties.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2019 01:28 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-08-2019 01:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 625
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #153
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-08-2019 01:24 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 11:37 PM)chester Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 10:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Those attacks are based in federal law. My point is that California law cant decree anything once it reaches the border of California. The NCAA has already faced that issue before with Tarkanian.

That said, my hesitation about outright booting the Cali teams from the NCAA would come from the 1984 Oklahoma Regents vs NCAA decision. Thats why I think the NCAA will take the more conservative road and simply ban them from post season play. That's basically the same penalty that every other team guilty of that infraction gets and that penalty has already been successfully defended in court on multiple occasions. It would seem to be a more reasonable and proportional act that would maintain the integrity of the league while doing as little damage as possible to the schools (who are frankly just caught in the middle). I seriously doubt any attack on a post season ban would be successful.

Right, but my understanding is that that too might be an illegal group boycott. I'm just interested in the hypothetical, though. IMO, there is zero chance the NCAA would actually try to ban Cali schools from anything. Lost revenue, rotten PR, pissed off media partners, pissed off fans, pissed off everyone.

The NCAA is either going to relent to the mounting public and state governmental pressure or it will be forced to by congress or (least likely because I don't think it will go this far) courts that uphold state laws. I see no realistic escape path for the NCAA. It's not going to challenge the Cali law. If Congress doesn't act, the NCAA and the Cali legislature will come to an agreement. Section 1 of the Cali law is a signal to the NCAA that the Cali legislature will repeal the law once an agreement is reached, or at least amend it to be in agreement with the NCAA's new rules.

*repeal

Actually, I wonder if offense might be the best strategy. All the Cali schools are against the bill. So, say USC and Stanford, a couple of Cali private schools, team up with the NCAA and sue to block the enforcement of the law in Federal court. That way, the schools and NCAA get to select the court they think is most likely to be sympathetic their arguments. Because most of the laws being proposed are generally similar, if you get the Cali law shut down, the other very similar laws probably probably become unenforceable as well. Once you shut down the mad rush to pass laws that cause more trouble than they solve---you have time to try to figure out a reasoned smart approach that might allow some sort of revenue to flow to the athletes without creating a pay-for-play league via third parties.

Man, Cali schools may only be officially against the bill. In the very first hearing on SB 206, one particular senator grilled the present representatives of Cali schools on whether Cali schools, themselves, were against it. I mean, he drilled deep (paraphrasing) "Forget about NCAA rules, I understand that, what are Cali schools doing about this? Are you working toward this reform? Where do California schools stand on the matter??" etc. Those representatives ummm'd and ahhhh'd and had no real answer. They were quite clearly...reticent to speak.

A little prior to that, in Olympia, Washington, where similar, predesessing bills were being heard, representatives of Washington schools said straight up "We don't won't to be the guinea pigs."

I'm telling you, NCAA schools are all afraid of one another. They are petrified of one another. This 100+ year monstrous bureaucracy that is the NCAA has become an animal unto itself. No one's willing to take a stand on anything other than the status quo.

For pity's sake, the NCAA just rejected a perfectly reasonable recommendation on how to better tackle academic fraud. Why is that? I'd say no one wants to get caught for their own misdeeds and they are all afraid of one another.

I joked about Jay Bilas as NCAA president in another thread, but honestly, he's EXACTLY the sort of leader the NCAA needs.

Anyway, I know that's not what you were talking about. Maybe offense is the best strategy, I dunno. Seems to me, though, that the battle is already lost for the NCAA and that it's only a matter of time before it becomes official.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2019 03:05 AM by chester.)
10-08-2019 03:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #154
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 07:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 11:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  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?

What exactly is the FBI investigating? They don't care about NCAA rules, just federal crimes such as bribery, fraud, and tax violations.

As for California, they aren't obligated to have their schools follow NCAA rules. They own the schools, the public ones, not the NCAA.

The California law also says that the NCAA cannot punish or kick out the the schools for ignoring the NCAA NIL rules.

As I said very early in this discussion, I agree the California law overreaches on that point, it can't control what the NCAA does to California schools that violate its rules. California can tell UCLA that it can't stop its players from selling their names and likenesses, and the NCAA can expel them or ban them from championships, etc. as a result. California law has no valid reach beyond its own borders.

Also, I think the law may overreach when it comes to dictating to private schools like USC and Stanford. It probably doesn't, because states do regulate and govern private entities - e.g., California can pass a minimum wage law that applies to private businesses, not just public employers, but if I had drafted the law, I would have made it apply only to public universities. There's no state interest in whether a private university allows its athletes to exploit their likenesses or not. That should be up to the university.

Point is, though, if other states follow California's lead, and pass their own state laws doing the same thing, the NCAA's position on this will be untenable. It already might be, as California alone is such a big state and market.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2019 09:11 AM by quo vadis.)
10-08-2019 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #155
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Too tepid Quo! Why has the NCAA bureaucracy continued to grow and why did the NCAA find it necessary to skim over 1 Billion in revenue from the schools participating in the annual Tournament to be placed in a couple of endowments (which continues to grow) and claim that is for future expense? Is a continually bloating organization not a sufficient enough tug on the revenue of those basketball schools participating that so skimming a billion more to ensure NCAA operations is also justified? That's a really nice chunk of change (likely better spent by a school on facilities or the athletes) than by an entity which is answerable to no one and claims to be structure to enforce amateurism.

Ohio State, Alabama and Texas may glean between 170 million to 200 million a year but the vast majority of that money goes back into the athletic program where it supports numerous non revenue sports for men and women. Therefore they don't carry over funds or rat hole them. The V.C.U.'s, Chicago State's, and Green Bay Wisconsin's of the world don't rake that in and a fair share distributed annually in full rather than over 6 years in credits would go a lot farther towards helping their programs and athletes.

I see no justification or moral authority at all for the NCAA to stick back a billion which is more their to guarantee a financial safety net for the NCAA than as anything to help schools or athletes.
10-08-2019 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,010
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 729
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #156
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-08-2019 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Too tepid Quo! Why has the NCAA bureaucracy continued to grow and why did the NCAA find it necessary to skim over 1 Billion in revenue from the schools participating in the annual Tournament to be placed in a couple of endowments (which continues to grow) and claim that is for future expense? Is a continually bloating organization not a sufficient enough tug on the revenue of those basketball schools participating that so skimming a billion more to ensure NCAA operations is also justified? That's a really nice chunk of change (likely better spent by a school on facilities or the athletes) than by an entity which is answerable to no one and claims to be structure to enforce amateurism.

Ohio State, Alabama and Texas may glean between 170 million to 200 million a year but the vast majority of that money goes back into the athletic program where it supports numerous non revenue sports for men and women. Therefore they don't carry over funds or rat hole them. The V.C.U.'s, Chicago State's, and Green Bay Wisconsin's of the world don't rake that in and a fair share distributed annually in full rather than over 6 years in credits would go a lot farther towards helping their programs and athletes.

I see no justification or moral authority at all for the NCAA to stick back a billion which is more their to guarantee a financial safety net for the NCAA than as anything to help schools or athletes.


It is not the NCAA problem. The P5 schools have all the power and control of the whole thing which led to this. It is their greed and power hungry where they make a lot of money, but the laws are targeting all schools at all levels. The laws in all state includes California added D3 to it since schools at D1 could downgrade to D3 to avoid the laws. That means schools like the Big 10, PAC 12 and Notre Dame can't escape the laws. These bills could kill all athletics where schools rather drop the sports completely where they do not have the pay to play.
10-08-2019 05:48 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #157
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-08-2019 05:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Too tepid Quo! Why has the NCAA bureaucracy continued to grow and why did the NCAA find it necessary to skim over 1 Billion in revenue from the schools participating in the annual Tournament to be placed in a couple of endowments (which continues to grow) and claim that is for future expense? Is a continually bloating organization not a sufficient enough tug on the revenue of those basketball schools participating that so skimming a billion more to ensure NCAA operations is also justified? That's a really nice chunk of change (likely better spent by a school on facilities or the athletes) than by an entity which is answerable to no one and claims to be structure to enforce amateurism.

Ohio State, Alabama and Texas may glean between 170 million to 200 million a year but the vast majority of that money goes back into the athletic program where it supports numerous non revenue sports for men and women. Therefore they don't carry over funds or rat hole them. The V.C.U.'s, Chicago State's, and Green Bay Wisconsin's of the world don't rake that in and a fair share distributed annually in full rather than over 6 years in credits would go a lot farther towards helping their programs and athletes.

I see no justification or moral authority at all for the NCAA to stick back a billion which is more their to guarantee a financial safety net for the NCAA than as anything to help schools or athletes.


It is not the NCAA problem. The P5 schools have all the power and control of the whole thing which led to this. It is their greed and power hungry where they make a lot of money, but the laws are targeting all schools at all levels. The laws in all state includes California added D3 to it since schools at D1 could downgrade to D3 to avoid the laws. That means schools like the Big 10, PAC 12 and Notre Dame can't escape the laws. These bills could kill all athletics where schools rather drop the sports completely where they do not have the pay to play.
Believe what you wish David, but the NCAA is hosing the little schools, particularly in basketball, far more than the big bad P5. The NCAA is literally making their living off of the expansion of the FBS, many of which are schools which don't meet metrics for inclusion.
10-08-2019 05:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Mav Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,331
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation: 155
I Root For: Omaha
Location:
Post: #158
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-07-2019 09:55 PM)wrcwolf Wrote:  People really think multi-national companies are going to tell their stockholders that they need to spend thousands of dollars for an everyday 18-year-old prospect to attend the founders college? Good luck with that, Mr. Knight. Haha.

If the local car dealer wants to do it, let him. My guess is after a few years of getting burned by the guys that don't live up to their potential, transfers and flunkies, they will realize the ROR isn't worth the little commerce they get from the ads. I mean, do you all go to businesses today because the coach is a spokesman? No, you don't. [/align]
What makes you think it's going to be shareholders and not corporate reps? You really think this is just going to be individual boosters and used car lot owners, huh? Have you been paying any attention to the AAU or the college basketball scandal? This isn't 1965 anymore.
10-08-2019 07:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #159
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-08-2019 07:54 PM)Mav Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 09:55 PM)wrcwolf Wrote:  People really think multi-national companies are going to tell their stockholders that they need to spend thousands of dollars for an everyday 18-year-old prospect to attend the founders college? Good luck with that, Mr. Knight. Haha.

If the local car dealer wants to do it, let him. My guess is after a few years of getting burned by the guys that don't live up to their potential, transfers and flunkies, they will realize the ROR isn't worth the little commerce they get from the ads. I mean, do you all go to businesses today because the coach is a spokesman? No, you don't. [/align]
What makes you think it's going to be shareholders and not corporate reps? You really think this is just going to be individual boosters and used car lot owners, huh? Have you been paying any attention to the AAU or the college basketball scandal? This isn't 1965 anymore.

The problem with boosters paying in the past isn't the actual paying, it was the under-handed nature of it, because it is against NCAA rules. And that's why it also can become criminal, because in an effort to avoid NCAA detection, oftentimes schemes are devised that also break federal laws related to bribery or tax evasion, etc. and that's when the FBI gets involved.

If its all above-board, then those problems fall away. As for corporate involvement, corporations usually appeal to a wide audience so are unlikely to want to focus on particular schools. E.g., Nike isn't going to want to help pay for a recruit to go to Texas, because then that will piss off supporters of USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, etc. So the business sponsorship is more likely to be local.
10-09-2019 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #160
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-09-2019 10:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 07:54 PM)Mav Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 09:55 PM)wrcwolf Wrote:  People really think multi-national companies are going to tell their stockholders that they need to spend thousands of dollars for an everyday 18-year-old prospect to attend the founders college? Good luck with that, Mr. Knight. Haha.

If the local car dealer wants to do it, let him. My guess is after a few years of getting burned by the guys that don't live up to their potential, transfers and flunkies, they will realize the ROR isn't worth the little commerce they get from the ads. I mean, do you all go to businesses today because the coach is a spokesman? No, you don't. [/align]
What makes you think it's going to be shareholders and not corporate reps? You really think this is just going to be individual boosters and used car lot owners, huh? Have you been paying any attention to the AAU or the college basketball scandal? This isn't 1965 anymore.

The problem with boosters paying in the past isn't the actual paying, it was the under-handed nature of it, because it is against NCAA rules. And that's why it also can become criminal, because in an effort to avoid NCAA detection, oftentimes schemes are devised that also break federal laws related to bribery or tax evasion, etc. and that's when the FBI gets involved.

If its all above-board, then those problems fall away. As for corporate involvement, corporations usually appeal to a wide audience so are unlikely to want to focus on particular schools. E.g., Nike isn't going to want to help pay for a recruit to go to Texas, because then that will piss off supporters of USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, etc. So the business sponsorship is more likely to be local.

Adidas has already been caught doing just that.

ESPN has promoted schools it has over schools that are not on its network.
10-09-2019 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.