Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
Author Message
Eldonabe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,338
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 167
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #121
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-07-2019 04:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 10:36 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 10:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:55 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  IMO there are two major groups who hate this idea (for now).

The Schools: They are afraid of the money - this will morph into their bill and they will have to pay everyone from the equestrian team to the football team; and they will lose school endorsement deals and the money will go straight to the kids and take them out of the equation... not to mention the NCAA chits for the major tournament appearances.


The Fans (the ones who don't like it obviously): There are really two subgroups of haters here.

- The first are the ones who think these kids are already lucky and privileged enough to get free school. To me that is just jealousy. 95% of the "school bill" doesn't even pay for education costs anymore, it is all fees and administration BS.
- The second are the sky screamers who firmly believe that corruption will take over and the T. Boon Pickens of the world (god rest his soul) will just buy everything in sight for their school

Right now, the money paid out is hidden and there is a lot of it nobody knows about (or willfully ignores - see Rick Pitino)... Put it on the table for all to see, that actually will level the playing field not distort it. Yes some school will have more aggressive buyers than others, but that is life and that is already in play behind the scenes - expose it.

The NCAA f'kd this up royally years ago when they selectively enforced rules.... I think Calapari once said while at Umass.... [to paraphrase] Kentucky got caught, University of New Orleans is in a lot of trouble for this! If they had done their job and truly practiced what they preached about this stuff instead of thinking about the affects of punishing UNC or Kentucky (for example) on the cash register.... a lot of this inequity babble would never have existed.

There are really three groups of people who are for professionalization of college sports:

Those who are hypothetically for free markets everywhere and don't care about the collateral damage;
Those who are jealous of the money made by the institutions and want to "get them;" and
Pro sports fans who don't understand anything about college sports.

In other words, y'all are all ignorant sluts.04-cheers

Or:

Those of us who don't want free markets everywhere, want people to be able to make money for things like writing a book without being punished (see the Div III golfer who was kicked out of the NCAA because he wrote a book about golfing), and also don't care if there's collateral damage to a system we already view as extremely broken.

That last bit is the key part. The system is broken right now, and quite frankly I'd be fine with it burning to the ground and starting fresh if it means it'll eventually get to a better working order.


I don't anticipate it to burn to the ground, that's only the stance of those of you who seem to think the sky will fall, and somehow boosters will be able to completely run everything as if there won't be any precautions put in place to prevent people from signing potential recruits to come to their favorite schools by offering them money before signing...or that somehow players who weren't considered good enough to earn scholarships would suddenly be deemed worthy enough to businesses to pay for their entire education. Like really, do you honestly believe a walk-on that barely sees the field would be a marketable person to that degree? If this is done right, a player would first need to turn down a scholarship offer elsewhere to come as a walk-on to a top program (not crazy, it does happen), and then have some booster or business decide to step in get them as part of a marketing campaign high profile enough to cover the costs in order to...keep them at a school they already decided to attend despite not really having a measurable impact on the team to that point?

You do realize it would be entirely possible and encouraged to have communications leading up to the actual exchange of money tracked and monitored to make sure nothing fishy is going on right? Just allowing people to be paid for their likeness doesn't instantly turn it into open season where recruiting violations no longer exist.

My comment was a satire. Most people probably missed the old SNL reference.
But the serious part-collateral damage-I'm talking about the athletes in sports other than football and basketball, the athletes who aren't stars, the academic programs that won't be getting money back (Texas gives over $10 million a year), the open takeover of programs and players by sponsors, the financial burden on schools that aren't part of the P5, ...

The NCAA is a mess. The book thing is a bureaucracy run amok. I am pretty sure he did not really violate their rules. But they make it up as they go. They penalize Penn St. for a nasty incident that involved an ex-coach and a non-student, but can't penalize UNC for making a mockery of the idea of student and athlete. And they nail Georgia Tech to the wall for an agent giving a player $300 of clothes which he reimbursed for once caught. They nail USC to the wall because they didn't control agents but didn't do anything of significance that actually gave them an advantage on the field. Montana gets a relative slap on the wrist for protecting rapists to keep them playing, but since its FCS and not highly publicized, the NCAA doesn't care that much. I'm fine if the NCAA gets burned to the ground. Its all the other things I'm concerned about.


Bullet - you ignorant slut!!!!!!!! I thought you worked for Sofa-King?
10-08-2019 07:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,982
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #122
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-07-2019 06:22 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  My cynical nature tells me pay to play is already here and alive and well. The people that don't want to give up the money and the power are the universities that profit from the media deals.

There is too much money in collegiate sports( read revenue sports) for parties to not want a cut of it. And the other angle there is, the revenue sports in collegiate athletics generate the funds that pay for all of a school's non-revenue sports so....

I get a inner chuckle about the amateurism angle used by the ones getting the cut of money.


Yeah, there are only a few schools that are making a profit from the media and ticket sales. There is a difference between Ohio State and Duke in football ticket sales and money from media. That is the problem with these lawmakers making these laws. It is an unbalance industry. Duke is at 65 on the Blue Blood football schools while Ohio State is at number 3. That is why you can't make these laws for pay for play and NIL. NCAA needs to be remodel and conferences have to reformed where everybody is on equal footing. Schools like Boise State need to earn from the media rights just like Ohio State, and open G5 to the playoffs.
10-08-2019 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PicksUp Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 85
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 22
I Root For: UTEP
Location:
Post: #123
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-08-2019 04:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 06:22 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  My cynical nature tells me pay to play is already here and alive and well. The people that don't want to give up the money and the power are the universities that profit from the media deals.

There is too much money in collegiate sports( read revenue sports) for parties to not want a cut of it. And the other angle there is, the revenue sports in collegiate athletics generate the funds that pay for all of a school's non-revenue sports so....

I get a inner chuckle about the amateurism angle used by the ones getting the cut of money.


Yeah, there are only a few schools that are making a profit from the media and ticket sales. There is a difference between Ohio State and Duke in football ticket sales and money from media. That is the problem with these lawmakers making these laws. It is an unbalance industry. Duke is at 65 on the Blue Blood football schools while Ohio State is at number 3. That is why you can't make these laws for pay for play and NIL. NCAA needs to be remodel and conferences have to reformed where everybody is on equal footing. Schools like Boise State need to earn from the media rights just like Ohio State, and open G5 to the playoffs.

Duke is in the ACC, I’m sure they make decent money compared to the G5.

G5 deserves nothing. At all. I’m just glad communists like you don’t decide playoffs.
10-08-2019 04:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,982
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #124
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
Can we stop calling people names for stating an opinion about what is wrong with the NCAA and why laws will not work until the NCAA and the P5 needs to reform. The P5 caused all of this mess, and they need to be the leaders to reform the system so that all schools be partners and equal to tackle these issues.
10-08-2019 05:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,481
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #125
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-08-2019 05:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Can we stop calling people names for stating an opinion about what is wrong with the NCAA and why laws will not work until the NCAA and the P5 needs to reform. The P5 caused all of this mess, and they need to be the leaders to reform the system so that all schools be partners and equal to tackle these issues.

Except ..... why on earth would Ohio State, which brings tremendous viewer and media interest, and hence money, to the table, want to just give that away and be an "equal partner" with San Jose State, Or North Dakota Stat, that brings only a tiny fraction of that?

Makes zero sense.
10-08-2019 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,982
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #126
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-08-2019 10:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 05:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Can we stop calling people names for stating an opinion about what is wrong with the NCAA and why laws will not work until the NCAA and the P5 needs to reform. The P5 caused all of this mess, and they need to be the leaders to reform the system so that all schools be partners and equal to tackle these issues.

Except ..... why on earth would Ohio State, which brings tremendous viewer and media interest, and hence money, to the table, want to just give that away and be an "equal partner" with San Jose State, Or North Dakota Stat, that brings only a tiny fraction of that?

Makes zero sense.


Same question why Miami Florida make more money from tv media when they get half the viewership than Boise State, UCF and North Dakota State?
10-08-2019 10:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,481
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #127
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-08-2019 10:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 10:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 05:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Can we stop calling people names for stating an opinion about what is wrong with the NCAA and why laws will not work until the NCAA and the P5 needs to reform. The P5 caused all of this mess, and they need to be the leaders to reform the system so that all schools be partners and equal to tackle these issues.

Except ..... why on earth would Ohio State, which brings tremendous viewer and media interest, and hence money, to the table, want to just give that away and be an "equal partner" with San Jose State, Or North Dakota Stat, that brings only a tiny fraction of that?

Makes zero sense.


Same question why Miami Florida make more money from tv media when they get half the viewership than Boise State, UCF and North Dakota State?

So you don't like conferences, eh? Well, IMO, that's not up to you, or me. The ACC wanted Miami, and therefore offered to share its media money with Miami. They don't want Boise or UCF or NDST, so don't offer to share their media money with them. It's their media money and conference, so their decision.

BTW, I seriously doubt Miami gets half the viewership of those schools.
10-09-2019 08:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shox Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 450
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
Post: #128
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
In an odd twist of fate, the only entity that can stop this madness and save College sports is Notre Dame. Swarbrick is on record saying that in no way shape or form will Notre Dame support pay for play. He has even gone as far to say that they would move divisions if necessary. (My take on his statement.)

If Notre Dame holds the line on this the other privates and perceived elite scholastic P5's will come on board. One could easily see schools like Stanford, Cal, Michigan, Northwestern, Vandy Duke, Virginia, the Academies etc, joining ranks to keep college athletics amateur. Obviously schools like Ohio State along with pretty much every P5 south of the Mason Dixen line are all in on pay for play as it further seperates them from them G5.

I just find it funny that the one school that everybody loves to hate is the one school that can save what most on here dearly love.
10-09-2019 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,481
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #129
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-09-2019 12:16 PM)Shox Wrote:  In an odd twist of fate, the only entity that can stop this madness and save College sports is Notre Dame. Swarbrick is on record saying that in no way shape or form will Notre Dame support pay for play.

But is the California law "pay for play"? Arguably no, since the schools can't pay the players, the pay would come from third parties.
10-09-2019 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,870
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #130
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-09-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 12:16 PM)Shox Wrote:  In an odd twist of fate, the only entity that can stop this madness and save College sports is Notre Dame. Swarbrick is on record saying that in no way shape or form will Notre Dame support pay for play.

But is the California law "pay for play"? Arguably no, since the schools can't pay the players, the pay would come from third parties.

It would effectively create a pay for play dynamic where none exists (within the rules at least).

Frankly, the more I think about it, the more Im convinced none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. Furthermore, Im also not convinced a federal law will stand up either. As long as the NCAA definition of amateurism does not discriminate based on religion, sex, or race---Im not sure the government has any right to define who is and is not eligible to play in the NCAA sponsored events. You might be able to argue monopoly---but so what? Every sports league engages in some monopolistic behaviors in order to create a playing field that is considered to be balanced enough that fans perceive it as "fair". In the final analysis, the NCAA is an amateur league league run by non-profit institutions---most of whom are losing money---who are all giving away scholarships. Who's is the NCAA actually competing with?
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 01:15 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-09-2019 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,481
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #131
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-09-2019 01:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 12:16 PM)Shox Wrote:  In an odd twist of fate, the only entity that can stop this madness and save College sports is Notre Dame. Swarbrick is on record saying that in no way shape or form will Notre Dame support pay for play.

But is the California law "pay for play"? Arguably no, since the schools can't pay the players, the pay would come from third parties.

It would effectively create a pay for play dynamic where none exists (within the rules at least).

Frankly, the more I think about it, the more Im convinced none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. Furthermore, Im also not convinced a federal law will stand up either. As long as the NCAA definition of amateurism does not discriminate based on religion, sex, or race---Im not sure the government has any right to define who is and is not eligible to play in the NCAA sponsored events. You might be able to argue monopoly---but so what? Every sports league engages in some monopolistic behaviors in order to create a playing field that is considered to be balanced enough that fans perceive it as "fair". In the final analysis, the NCAA is an amateur league league run by non-profit institutions---most of whom are losing money---who are all giving away scholarships. Who's is the NCAA actually competing with?

The first issue is how Notre Dame would view it, and I could see them viewing it either way. I just don't know.

As to the second issue, it's hard to imagine that courts will rule that states lack control over their own institutions. The state schools are creatures of the state and obviously subject to state government, well, governance. It would be absurd for a court to rule that when it comes to their athletics, the president of Cal-State Santa Barbara is free to join an organization that has rules contrary to the wishes of the people of the state, and the people of the state, via their elected officials, have no power to overrule that. IMO that's not going to happen. The NCAA will be able to punish California schools if the laws go in to effect, but if other states join California, then the NCAA will have to capitulate.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that I don't get all worked up about the NCAA as a monopoly. I know that has tremendous legal significance, but it doesn't bother me. What does make me laugh of course is calling NCAA athletics an "amateur model" when its really just amateur for the players. All the coaches and athletics admins and staff are allowed to be fully professional. Did you know that the head football coach at Ball State makes $420,000? To run that program that nobody on his own campus even cares about? It's farcical.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 04:19 PM by quo vadis.)
10-09-2019 04:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,870
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #132
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-09-2019 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 12:16 PM)Shox Wrote:  In an odd twist of fate, the only entity that can stop this madness and save College sports is Notre Dame. Swarbrick is on record saying that in no way shape or form will Notre Dame support pay for play.

But is the California law "pay for play"? Arguably no, since the schools can't pay the players, the pay would come from third parties.

It would effectively create a pay for play dynamic where none exists (within the rules at least).

Frankly, the more I think about it, the more Im convinced none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. Furthermore, Im also not convinced a federal law will stand up either. As long as the NCAA definition of amateurism does not discriminate based on religion, sex, or race---Im not sure the government has any right to define who is and is not eligible to play in the NCAA sponsored events. You might be able to argue monopoly---but so what? Every sports league engages in some monopolistic behaviors in order to create a playing field that is considered to be balanced enough that fans perceive it as "fair". In the final analysis, the NCAA is an amateur league league run by non-profit institutions---most of whom are losing money---who are all giving away scholarships. Who's is the NCAA actually competing with?

The first issue is how Notre Dame would view it, and I could see them viewing it either way. I just don't know.

As to the second issue, it's hard to imagine that courts will rule that states lack control over their own institutions. The state schools are creatures of the state and obviously subject to state government, well, governance. It would be absurd for a court to rule that when it comes to their athletics, the president of Cal-State Santa Barbara is free to join an organization that has rules contrary to the wishes of the people of the state, and the people of the state, via their elected officials, have no power to overrule that. IMO that's not going to happen. The NCAA will be able to punish California schools if the laws go in to effect, but if other states join California, then the NCAA will have to capitulate.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that I don't get all worked up about the NCAA as a monopoly. I know that has tremendous legal significance, but it doesn't bother me. What does make me laugh of course is calling NCAA athletics an "amateur model" when its really just amateur for the players. All the coaches and athletics admins and staff are allowed to be fully professional. Did you know that the head football coach at Ball State makes $420,000? To run that program that nobody on his own campus even cares about? It's farcical.


Yet the same is true for both High School and Middle School sports. Are you contending those are not amateur sports either? FYI---for most sports, "amateur" refers to the actual contestants or performers---and pretty much always has. Just because a kid pays a coach for swimming lessons doesn't make the kid a pro.

As for the states being able to control their schools---we will see. There was a time where some states only wanted to let white kids attend--so we know state control over schools has limits. As a general rule, your constitutional ability to exercise your rights end when the exercise of your rights begins to encroach the ability of another entity to exercise their rights. The law that California has passed has far reaching negative repercussions for organizations outside of the border of California. Its basically telling the NCAA they cannot have a national amateur league where the association is voluntary----and both the players and league agree to be bound by the current NCAA definition of amateurism. That kind of dispute gets into the area the Commerce Clause was designed to resolve. I'd also guess this law has some freedom of association issues as well. Thats just off the top of my head. Given time, I suspect there are other grounds on which the law could be challenged.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 11:35 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-09-2019 11:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 179
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 5
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #133
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
Putting aside the nonsense about high school sports, you're still not explaining on what actual basis California’s right to make rules for its public schools and those schools students would be subordinate to the NCAAs right to do the same, other than your wishful thinking. The NCAA can have its voluntary membership in the states which agree to have its institutions continue to voluntarily be members. Unfortunately for the NCAA, that list will be significantly smaller in five years.
10-10-2019 12:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,481
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #134
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-09-2019 11:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 12:16 PM)Shox Wrote:  In an odd twist of fate, the only entity that can stop this madness and save College sports is Notre Dame. Swarbrick is on record saying that in no way shape or form will Notre Dame support pay for play.

But is the California law "pay for play"? Arguably no, since the schools can't pay the players, the pay would come from third parties.

It would effectively create a pay for play dynamic where none exists (within the rules at least).

Frankly, the more I think about it, the more Im convinced none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. Furthermore, Im also not convinced a federal law will stand up either. As long as the NCAA definition of amateurism does not discriminate based on religion, sex, or race---Im not sure the government has any right to define who is and is not eligible to play in the NCAA sponsored events. You might be able to argue monopoly---but so what? Every sports league engages in some monopolistic behaviors in order to create a playing field that is considered to be balanced enough that fans perceive it as "fair". In the final analysis, the NCAA is an amateur league league run by non-profit institutions---most of whom are losing money---who are all giving away scholarships. Who's is the NCAA actually competing with?

The first issue is how Notre Dame would view it, and I could see them viewing it either way. I just don't know.

As to the second issue, it's hard to imagine that courts will rule that states lack control over their own institutions. The state schools are creatures of the state and obviously subject to state government, well, governance. It would be absurd for a court to rule that when it comes to their athletics, the president of Cal-State Santa Barbara is free to join an organization that has rules contrary to the wishes of the people of the state, and the people of the state, via their elected officials, have no power to overrule that. IMO that's not going to happen. The NCAA will be able to punish California schools if the laws go in to effect, but if other states join California, then the NCAA will have to capitulate.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that I don't get all worked up about the NCAA as a monopoly. I know that has tremendous legal significance, but it doesn't bother me. What does make me laugh of course is calling NCAA athletics an "amateur model" when its really just amateur for the players. All the coaches and athletics admins and staff are allowed to be fully professional. Did you know that the head football coach at Ball State makes $420,000? To run that program that nobody on his own campus even cares about? It's farcical.


Yet the same is true for both High School and Middle School sports. Are you contending those are not amateur sports either? FYI---for most sports, "amateur" refers to the actual contestants or performers---and pretty much always has. Just because a kid pays a coach for swimming lessons doesn't make the kid a pro.

As for the states being able to control their schools---we will see. There was a time where some states only wanted to let white kids attend--so we know state control over schools has limits. As a general rule, your constitutional ability to exercise your rights end when the exercise of your rights begins to encroach the ability of another entity to exercise their rights. The law that California has passed has far reaching negative repercussions for organizations outside of the border of California. Its basically telling the NCAA they cannot have a national amateur league where the association is voluntary----and both the players and league agree to be bound by the current NCAA definition of amateurism. That kind of dispute gets into the area the Commerce Clause was designed to resolve. I'd also guess this law has some freedom of association issues as well. Thats just off the top of my head. Given time, I suspect there are other grounds on which the law could be challenged.

Even if we accept your definition of 'amateur' as applying to the participants only, the logic fails in this case, because HS students don't get anything to play their sports. At least in Division I, the athletes get scholarships and FCOA, which as many have said here is indeed a form of payment. So D1 already is "pay for play" but just with a salary cap for the players in the form of the "athletic scholarship" an oxymoron if there ever was one.

As for your legal arguments, I'm not a lawyer but ... good grief, comparing California's law to white/black segregation? That's a new one, and one that I don't see any connection between at all, as we all know states cannot violate the federal constitution. The issue is, what is the federal constitutional issue here?

It can't be the "far reaching ramifications", because a lot of state laws do that. E.g., if California raises its minimum wage to $15 an hour, which it surely can do, that could have very big reverberations for businesses and employees in the state and throughout the country.

And the US constitution doesn't have special provisions for the NCAA. If California passes a law saying its schools can't abide by certain NCAA rules, that just means the NCAA can't have those schools as members if it wants to keep those rules. The NCAA can still exist in California, but just not while enforcing that rule. And no, having an "association" doesn't mean you get to have whatever rules you want, they have to comply with the law. Also, the California law doesn't prevent the NCAA from existing, with other schools in other states.

None of us knows how the federal courts will rule, but it seems very unlikely to me that the NCAA can win in court. Their best bet is to try and convince other states not to follow California, so that they can punish California schools and force the state to back down.
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2019 09:00 AM by quo vadis.)
10-10-2019 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,144
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 564
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #135
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-10-2019 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But is the California law "pay for play"? Arguably no, since the schools can't pay the players, the pay would come from third parties.

It would effectively create a pay for play dynamic where none exists (within the rules at least).

Frankly, the more I think about it, the more Im convinced none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. Furthermore, Im also not convinced a federal law will stand up either. As long as the NCAA definition of amateurism does not discriminate based on religion, sex, or race---Im not sure the government has any right to define who is and is not eligible to play in the NCAA sponsored events. You might be able to argue monopoly---but so what? Every sports league engages in some monopolistic behaviors in order to create a playing field that is considered to be balanced enough that fans perceive it as "fair". In the final analysis, the NCAA is an amateur league league run by non-profit institutions---most of whom are losing money---who are all giving away scholarships. Who's is the NCAA actually competing with?

The first issue is how Notre Dame would view it, and I could see them viewing it either way. I just don't know.

As to the second issue, it's hard to imagine that courts will rule that states lack control over their own institutions. The state schools are creatures of the state and obviously subject to state government, well, governance. It would be absurd for a court to rule that when it comes to their athletics, the president of Cal-State Santa Barbara is free to join an organization that has rules contrary to the wishes of the people of the state, and the people of the state, via their elected officials, have no power to overrule that. IMO that's not going to happen. The NCAA will be able to punish California schools if the laws go in to effect, but if other states join California, then the NCAA will have to capitulate.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that I don't get all worked up about the NCAA as a monopoly. I know that has tremendous legal significance, but it doesn't bother me. What does make me laugh of course is calling NCAA athletics an "amateur model" when its really just amateur for the players. All the coaches and athletics admins and staff are allowed to be fully professional. Did you know that the head football coach at Ball State makes $420,000? To run that program that nobody on his own campus even cares about? It's farcical.


Yet the same is true for both High School and Middle School sports. Are you contending those are not amateur sports either? FYI---for most sports, "amateur" refers to the actual contestants or performers---and pretty much always has. Just because a kid pays a coach for swimming lessons doesn't make the kid a pro.

As for the states being able to control their schools---we will see. There was a time where some states only wanted to let white kids attend--so we know state control over schools has limits. As a general rule, your constitutional ability to exercise your rights end when the exercise of your rights begins to encroach the ability of another entity to exercise their rights. The law that California has passed has far reaching negative repercussions for organizations outside of the border of California. Its basically telling the NCAA they cannot have a national amateur league where the association is voluntary----and both the players and league agree to be bound by the current NCAA definition of amateurism. That kind of dispute gets into the area the Commerce Clause was designed to resolve. I'd also guess this law has some freedom of association issues as well. Thats just off the top of my head. Given time, I suspect there are other grounds on which the law could be challenged.

Even if we accept your definition of 'amateur' as applying to the participants only, the logic fails in this case, because HS students don't get anything to play their sports. At least in Division I, the athletes get scholarships and FCOA, which as many have said here is indeed a form of payment. So D1 already is "pay for play" but just with a salary cap for the players in the form of the "athletic scholarship" an oxymoron if there ever was one.

As for your legal arguments, I'm not a lawyer but ... good grief, comparing California's law to white/black segregation? That's a new one, and one that I don't see any connection between at all, as we all know states cannot violate the federal constitution. The issue is, what is the federal constitutional issue here?

It can't be the "far reaching ramifications", because a lot of state laws do that. E.g., if California raises its minimum wage to $15 an hour, which it surely can do, that could have very big reverberations for businesses and employees in the state and throughout the country.

And the US constitution doesn't have special provisions for the NCAA. If California passes a law saying its schools can't abide by certain NCAA rules, that just means the NCAA can't have those schools as members if it wants to keep those rules. The NCAA can still exist in California, but just not while enforcing that rule. And no, having an "association" doesn't mean you get to have whatever rules you want, they have to comply with the law. Also, the California law doesn't prevent the NCAA from existing, with other schools in other states.

None of us knows how the federal courts will rule, but it seems very unlikely to me that the NCAA can win in court. Their best bet is to try and convince other states not to follow California, so that they can punish California schools and force the state to back down.

Yeah, I agree. I've long said that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. Your point that a voluntary association doesn't give carte blanche ability to make up any rule that it wants is what's critical here. In fact, voluntary associations are VERY much under heavy antitrust scrutiny. People shouldn't conflate free speech protection for voluntary associations (which is very much enshrined in the Constitution) with economic protection for voluntary associations (which is where antitrust law very much directly applies).

Ultimately, either the NCAA can (a) agree that students are employees, in which case they *can* collectively bargain with those students to limit or cap third party compensation or (b) agree that students are not employees, which means that the NCAA *doesn't* have the ability to limit or cap third party compensation. It can't continue to have it both ways.

In fact, I feel very strongly that the NCAA would completely get demolished in court... and I feel very strongly that the NCAA knows it, too. You can see it with all of the public comments from Mark Emmert and the conference commissioners. They might criticize the California law, bemoan the end of "amateur" athletics, and worry about the outcomes... yet not a single one of them has actually said that they would *fight* California law. Instead, you see talk about getting together with legislators and committees to work out a "solution" or find common ground. Note that this is VERY different from the O'Bannon case or the unionization efforts of students, where the powers that be were very clear that they were going to fight those issues tooth and nail through the court system.

The NCAA realizes that a tsunami is going to come through and it's not going to win in the court system, so they're making a last ditch effort to get public opinion on their side (which is failing miserably). On top of California, we can just point to efforts for similar laws in New York, Illinois and Florida (much less the long list of other states considering similar laws plus the federal government). With just those 4 states, you have 4 of the 6 largest states and 8 of the 20 largest TV markets (including the 3 largest of them all). People need to get rid of the fantasy that the NCAA is going to start banning schools from states that pass these laws from competition - the people with MONEY (the TV networks, the shoe companies, the sponsors, etc.) aren't going to put up with that position for one second. The NCAA is going to lose here with legislators and the general public and it's going to lose badly... and they frankly risk losing even worse in the courts since, once again, they are a walking antitrust violation.

EDIT: Those 4 states alone actually have 8 of the 20 largest TV markets. I forgot about Sacramento, which is actually #20.
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2019 10:14 AM by Frank the Tank.)
10-10-2019 09:29 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,870
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #136
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-10-2019 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 11:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 01:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-09-2019 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But is the California law "pay for play"? Arguably no, since the schools can't pay the players, the pay would come from third parties.

It would effectively create a pay for play dynamic where none exists (within the rules at least).

Frankly, the more I think about it, the more Im convinced none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. Furthermore, Im also not convinced a federal law will stand up either. As long as the NCAA definition of amateurism does not discriminate based on religion, sex, or race---Im not sure the government has any right to define who is and is not eligible to play in the NCAA sponsored events. You might be able to argue monopoly---but so what? Every sports league engages in some monopolistic behaviors in order to create a playing field that is considered to be balanced enough that fans perceive it as "fair". In the final analysis, the NCAA is an amateur league league run by non-profit institutions---most of whom are losing money---who are all giving away scholarships. Who's is the NCAA actually competing with?

The first issue is how Notre Dame would view it, and I could see them viewing it either way. I just don't know.

As to the second issue, it's hard to imagine that courts will rule that states lack control over their own institutions. The state schools are creatures of the state and obviously subject to state government, well, governance. It would be absurd for a court to rule that when it comes to their athletics, the president of Cal-State Santa Barbara is free to join an organization that has rules contrary to the wishes of the people of the state, and the people of the state, via their elected officials, have no power to overrule that. IMO that's not going to happen. The NCAA will be able to punish California schools if the laws go in to effect, but if other states join California, then the NCAA will have to capitulate.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that I don't get all worked up about the NCAA as a monopoly. I know that has tremendous legal significance, but it doesn't bother me. What does make me laugh of course is calling NCAA athletics an "amateur model" when its really just amateur for the players. All the coaches and athletics admins and staff are allowed to be fully professional. Did you know that the head football coach at Ball State makes $420,000? To run that program that nobody on his own campus even cares about? It's farcical.


Yet the same is true for both High School and Middle School sports. Are you contending those are not amateur sports either? FYI---for most sports, "amateur" refers to the actual contestants or performers---and pretty much always has. Just because a kid pays a coach for swimming lessons doesn't make the kid a pro.

As for the states being able to control their schools---we will see. There was a time where some states only wanted to let white kids attend--so we know state control over schools has limits. As a general rule, your constitutional ability to exercise your rights end when the exercise of your rights begins to encroach the ability of another entity to exercise their rights. The law that California has passed has far reaching negative repercussions for organizations outside of the border of California. Its basically telling the NCAA they cannot have a national amateur league where the association is voluntary----and both the players and league agree to be bound by the current NCAA definition of amateurism. That kind of dispute gets into the area the Commerce Clause was designed to resolve. I'd also guess this law has some freedom of association issues as well. Thats just off the top of my head. Given time, I suspect there are other grounds on which the law could be challenged.

Even if we accept your definition of 'amateur' as applying to the participants only, the logic fails in this case, because HS students don't get anything to play their sports. At least in Division I, the athletes get scholarships and FCOA, which as many have said here is indeed a form of payment. So D1 already is "pay for play" but just with a salary cap for the players in the form of the "athletic scholarship" an oxymoron if there ever was one.

As for your legal arguments, I'm not a lawyer but ... good grief, comparing California's law to white/black segregation? That's a new one, and one that I don't see any connection between at all, as we all know states cannot violate the federal constitution. The issue is, what is the federal constitutional issue here?

It can't be the "far reaching ramifications", because a lot of state laws do that. E.g., if California raises its minimum wage to $15 an hour, which it surely can do, that could have very big reverberations for businesses and employees in the state and throughout the country.

And the US constitution doesn't have special provisions for the NCAA. If California passes a law saying its schools can't abide by certain NCAA rules, that just means the NCAA can't have those schools as members if it wants to keep those rules. The NCAA can still exist in California, but just not while enforcing that rule. And no, having an "association" doesn't mean you get to have whatever rules you want, they have to comply with the law. Also, the California law doesn't prevent the NCAA from existing, with other schools in other states.

None of us knows how the federal courts will rule, but it seems very unlikely to me that the NCAA can win in court. Their best bet is to try and convince other states not to follow California, so that they can punish California schools and force the state to back down.

To be fair, high school and middle schools students get free education. That’s effectively the compensation college athletes are currently limited to as well. I agree that a scholarship it’s a form of compensation—however, it’s also fair to note That a scholarship merely places the athlete in the exact same position he was in high school (free school).
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2019 09:31 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-10-2019 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,144
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 564
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #137
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
The other thing is that it's illusory to try comparing the compensation of middle school and high school coaches to Division I coaches. Middle school and high school coaches are virtually always on a standard teacher salary with an additional extracurricular stipend. They are teachers in line with all other teachers at their respective schools.

In contrast, my own alma mater of Illinois pays football coach Lovie Smith nearly $5 million per year, which is more than what half of the coaches in the NFL (the pros) get paid. Basketball coach Brad Underwood gets paid over $2.5 million per year, which is nearly twice as much as what Jim Boylan, the coach of the Chicago Bulls (the pro NBA team in the same state) gets paid. Meanwhile, their ultimate "boss" of the Chancellor of the University of Illinois gets paid $650,000 per year, and the very highest paid tenured professors receive around $300,000 per year (and those are the top mega-star professors in computer science that could otherwise be making millions at a Silicon Valley company if they weren't in academia).

Could we argue Division III athletic programs are true amateurs? Sure - their investments in coaches and athletic facilities are right in line with any other academic activities at those schools. A Division III sport is legitimately an extracurricular activity that isn't tied to any type of scholarship.

However, we can't possibly state with a straight face that the same is the case at Division I programs, particularly in the Power 5. Look at those figures that I just gave for Illinois and simply compare them to *pro* coaches, much less their "fellow" teachers at the university... and we're not even Alabama or Ohio State! There's absolutely nothing that's amateur about those operations. Simply labeling athletes as "amateurs" doesn't make it true. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, then it's a duck. When Power Five programs are paying every single person associated with them as pros (except, conveniently, for the athletes themselves), then they're pro programs regardless of what they try to market themselves as.
10-10-2019 09:58 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,870
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #138
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-10-2019 09:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The other thing is that it's illusory to try comparing the compensation of middle school and high school coaches to Division I coaches. Middle school and high school coaches are virtually always on a standard teacher salary with an additional extracurricular stipend. They are teachers in line with all other teachers at their respective schools.

In contrast, my own alma mater of Illinois pays football coach Lovie Smith nearly $5 million per year, which is more than what half of the coaches in the NFL (the pros) get paid. Basketball coach Brad Underwood gets paid over $2.5 million per year, which is nearly twice as much as what Jim Boylan, the coach of the Chicago Bulls (the pro NBA team in the same state) gets paid. Meanwhile, their ultimate "boss" of the Chancellor of the University of Illinois gets paid $650,000 per year, and the very highest paid tenured professors receive around $300,000 per year (and those are the top mega-star professors in computer science that could otherwise be making millions at a Silicon Valley company if they weren't in academia).

Could we argue Division III athletic programs are true amateurs? Sure - their investments in coaches and athletic facilities are right in line with any other academic activities at those schools. A Division III sport is legitimately an extracurricular activity that isn't tied to any type of scholarship.

However, we can't possibly state with a straight face that the same is the case at Division I programs, particularly in the Power 5. Look at those figures that I just gave for Illinois and simply compare them to *pro* coaches, much less their "fellow" teachers at the university... and we're not even Alabama or Ohio State! There's absolutely nothing that's amateur about those operations. Simply labeling athletes as "amateurs" doesn't make it true. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, then it's a duck. When Power Five programs are paying every single person associated with them as pros (except, conveniently, for the athletes themselves), then they're pro programs regardless of what they try to market themselves as.

Not necessarily. In most districts the football coach makes much more than a regular teacher and in some, the football coach makes more than the principal. That said, Im fairly sure your right about the coaching pay at the middle school level. My point is, that the presence of paid coaches, regardless of their pay, has nothing to do with whether a sport is amateur. I think that's a red herring. Same goes with the size of the stadiums--most of which were built with donated money and/or student fees (not profit or earnings). Furthermore, professional sports leagues dont exist for long if they dont make a profit...yet another place where most college sports teams fails to pass the pro smell test. Pro sports are not forced by the federal government to provide the equivalent playing opportunities to females. Title 9 is yet another clear indicator the NCAA does not represent a pro sports league. The truth is these are colleges first---with sports being but a very small part of most school budgets. They are not professional sports franchises. That is by choice. The NCAA may not be purely amateur, but they much closer to a amateur league than they are a pro league.

With respect to the language Emmert has used and how it differs from O'Bannon---well, of course it differs. The NCAA fully intends to fight the Cali law. However, the easiest and cheapest way to win that battle is to get a federal law the NCAA can live with. So, thats the current course of action. I'd also point out, the NCAA was actually directly sued by the O'Bannon, so of course they talked openly about fighting the suit. Currently, we are talking about a law that is 3 years from becoming active and may never be an issue if a federal law is enacted. Zero reason to poke the bear right now.

That said, I tend to agree with you that the NCAA probably is a walking anti-trust violation. For that matter, so are most sports leagues. The real question is---what damage is the NCAA monopoly causing? Is there even a competitor? Much like utilities, the NCAA represents a public benefit via educating many students who would otherwise not get an education (especially when it comes to the womens sports where absolutely no profit motive exists at all). Where we have monopolistic utilities that benefit the public, we have increased governmental regulation and oversight. The NCAA has already submitted to regulation (like Title 9) previously. I suspect a higher more defined level of governmental regulation from the Feds is where the NCAA is eventually headed.




Article about HS coaching salaries--

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/dfw...82762.html
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2019 10:52 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-10-2019 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 179
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 5
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #139
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
There are no significant differences between elite level college revenue sports and professional sports other than the $0 salary cap imposed on its athletes. Any differences are in scale, not in type. College athletes at the elite level in revenue sports have athletics as their primary focus in life. (Of course, this is also true of some athletes below the elite level and/or in non-revenue sports).

Arguing about what constitutes amateurism is tautological since the concept of amateurism in adult sports in 2019 is almost wholly limited to US college sports so the argument amounts to "because the NCAA says so".
10-10-2019 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
colohank Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,042
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 89
I Root For: Cincy
Location: Colorado
Post: #140
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
Maybe the solution would be to offer incoming student-athletes a choice:

(1) accept a full-ride five-year scholarship (assuming they maintain grades) with no opportunity to earn outside income relating to or deriving from their athletic prowess/reputation, or

(2) accept a full-ride one-year scholarship with the understanding that, after their freshman year (again assuming that they maintain grades), they'd have the freedom to earn as much money as they could from their athletic prowess/reputation, but that they'd have to pay tuition, fees, and books out of their own pockets.

My guess is that the vast majority of them would opt to take the five-year scholarships. The few that didn't would more than likely be the athletically elite one-and-dones who aren't even remotely interested in getting an education. If nothing else, the choice would quickly separate the wheat from the chaff academically.
10-10-2019 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.