Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,504
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1055
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #21
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 01:33 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 07:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "The biggest worry is that when you have complete unfettered licensing agreements or unfettered endorsement deals, the model of college athletics is negligible at best and maybe doesn't even exist," he said. "Those deals would be arranged with support or engagement of school... so they do become professional employees of schools. That is what most member schools are concerned about, not that people are opposed to have an appropriate way to get some form of (compensation for athletes).

"We really need to get to a place where it becomes clear to everyone, especially to young men and women who play sports and their families, there needs to be a clear choice," Emmert said. "If you want to be a professional athlete, there ought to be those opportunities. If you look at baseball, for example, a young man at 18 can go out and be a professional baseball player. He can say, 'I can go here or I can go to college and if I go to college I can live by those rules. And then everybody goes by those rules. If he goes to launch his life, he can say, 'I'm not going to get an education, I'm not going to go to campus, I'm not going to play in the College World Series. And that's a free choice they can make."


https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/co...850522002/

That's a false argument. We're talking solely about football and basketball. In those two sports, athletes can't skip college and go straight to the pros, as they can in baseball.

Colleges take in billions in football and basketball. Those two sports fund everything else. Yet they still don't want to even let a few top athletes get paid for local commercials. That's asinine.

Emmert is also arguing that the colleges have to administer the payments, and thus they become employees, blah blah blah...no, they can just earn outside income like any other student does when he gets a job. The colleges don't administer those earnings, lol.

They can go to minor leagues or international in basketball. There are a number of minor leagues. But obviously, salaries are limited by the NBA rule.
10-04-2019 10:20 AM
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: #22
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 10:16 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:30 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  i know this is an unpopular opinion but I m going to share it anyway. The kids that will really benefit from this arrangement are already getting FREE room, board and education. How much does it cost to go to a school like Stanford or as an out of state student to Cal? A better law IMO would be to prevent schools and others from using images of the athletes for profit.
does anyone really believe that a star FB or BB recruit is going to get a job at the local grocery store making $5 an hour?

Exactly. The kids ARE receiving significant compensation. Tuition and living expenses at a state school runs around 20-30K a year---more at many private schools. Many students are graduating with over $100K in student debt. So, lets not pretend the scholarship is worthless. That said, I do believe they should be some sort of stipend or revenue sharing that gives them a little spending money/earnings over and above the scholarship. As Ive said before, I think it should be a group NCAA players revenue pool for each sport that is divided evenly among all the players of that sport. If the sport makes little revenue--there wont be much money in that sports NCAA shared players pool. If the sport generates significant revenue--there will be a nice little stream of monthly checks for those players. Basically, such a system gives the players a share of the revenue with altering the current competitive balance or general character of the college game.

As for name and likeness---I would like to see the current NCAA rules stay in place with the following exception---

1) Olympic athletes who also play college sports are exempt from the current name and likeness rule.

Show me the rule that says people who are going to college on academic scholarships are not allowed to make money.

The way I understand it, they can work--but only within certain very strict limits. In fact, its such a compliance headache for the schools, and so fraught with possible NCAA violations, that many schools simply forbid their athletes from working. Additionally, with the year round demands of many sports these days---it's very difficult for the athletes to find the time or, for that matter, a workplace willing to be flexible enough to deal with the outside demands of the athletes school/athletic schedule.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 10:30 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-04-2019 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,504
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1055
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #23
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:30 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  i know this is an unpopular opinion but I m going to share it anyway. The kids that will really benefit from this arrangement are already getting FREE room, board and education. How much does it cost to go to a school like Stanford or as an out of state student to Cal? A better law IMO would be to prevent schools and others from using images of the athletes for profit.
does anyone really believe that a star FB or BB recruit is going to get a job at the local grocery store making $5 an hour?

Exactly. The kids ARE receiving significant compensation. Tuition and living expenses at a state school runs around 20-30K a year---more at many private schools. Many students are graduating with over $100K in student debt. So, lets not pretend the scholarship is worthless. That said, I do believe they should be some sort of stipend or revenue sharing that gives them a little spending money/earnings over and above the scholarship. As Ive said before, I think it should be a group NCAA players revenue pool for each sport that is divided evenly among all the players of that sport. If the sport makes little revenue--there wont be much money in that sports NCAA shared players pool. If the sport generates significant revenue--there will be a nice little stream of monthly checks for those players. Basically, such a system gives the players a share of the revenue with altering the current competitive balance or general character of the college game.

As for name and likeness---I would like to see the current NCAA rules stay in place with the following exception---

1) Olympic athletes who also play college sports are exempt from the current name and likeness rule.

They have quite a bit of compensation.

The issue they have is now that training is year around, they have a hard time getting a job over the summer. And during the year, of course, it is impossible.

The colleges really don't want an employee relationship as they have with tutors and TAs, which they would have if they paid them for their time.
10-04-2019 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 375
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 39
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #24
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 10:16 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:30 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  i know this is an unpopular opinion but I m going to share it anyway. The kids that will really benefit from this arrangement are already getting FREE room, board and education. How much does it cost to go to a school like Stanford or as an out of state student to Cal? A better law IMO would be to prevent schools and others from using images of the athletes for profit.
does anyone really believe that a star FB or BB recruit is going to get a job at the local grocery store making $5 an hour?

Exactly. The kids ARE receiving significant compensation. Tuition and living expenses at a state school runs around 20-30K a year---more at many private schools. Many students are graduating with over $100K in student debt. So, lets not pretend the scholarship is worthless. That said, I do believe they should be some sort of stipend or revenue sharing that gives them a little spending money/earnings over and above the scholarship. As Ive said before, I think it should be a group NCAA players revenue pool for each sport that is divided evenly among all the players of that sport. If the sport makes little revenue--there wont be much money in that sports NCAA shared players pool. If the sport generates significant revenue--there will be a nice little stream of monthly checks for those players. Basically, such a system gives the players a share of the revenue with altering the current competitive balance or general character of the college game.

As for name and likeness---I would like to see the current NCAA rules stay in place with the following exception---

1) Olympic athletes who also play college sports are exempt from the current name and likeness rule.

Show me the rule that says people who are going to college on academic scholarships are not allowed to make money.

The way I understand it, they can work--but only within certain very strict limits. In fact, its such a compliance headache for the schools that many schools simply forbid their athletes from working. Additionally, with the year round demands of many sports these days---it would be almost impossible for the athletes to find the time or, for that matter, a workplace willing to be flexible enough to deal with the outside demands of the athletes school/athletic schedule.

Does anything prevent someone who is on an academic scholarship from being in a commercial? From having their picture used in an advertisement and getting reimbursed for it?

If it's within strict limits for the amount of time they can spend doing it, then let them do commercials, pose for pictures, etc. within those time limits. This isn't "the athlete has a full time job" - it's "the athlete spent an hour shooting a commercial and gets compensated every time the commercial airs" (which is fairly standard for actors and spokespeople).
10-04-2019 10:32 AM
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: #25
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:30 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  i know this is an unpopular opinion but I m going to share it anyway. The kids that will really benefit from this arrangement are already getting FREE room, board and education. How much does it cost to go to a school like Stanford or as an out of state student to Cal? A better law IMO would be to prevent schools and others from using images of the athletes for profit.
does anyone really believe that a star FB or BB recruit is going to get a job at the local grocery store making $5 an hour?

Exactly. The kids ARE receiving significant compensation. Tuition and living expenses at a state school runs around 20-30K a year---more at many private schools. Many students are graduating with over $100K in student debt. So, lets not pretend the scholarship is worthless. That said, I do believe they should be some sort of stipend or revenue sharing that gives them a little spending money/earnings over and above the scholarship. As Ive said before, I think it should be a group NCAA players revenue pool for each sport that is divided evenly among all the players of that sport. If the sport makes little revenue--there wont be much money in that sports NCAA shared players pool. If the sport generates significant revenue--there will be a nice little stream of monthly checks for those players. Basically, such a system gives the players a share of the revenue with altering the current competitive balance or general character of the college game.

As for name and likeness---I would like to see the current NCAA rules stay in place with the following exception---

1) Olympic athletes who also play college sports are exempt from the current name and likeness rule.

They have quite a bit of compensation.

The issue they have is now that training is year around, they have a hard time getting a job over the summer. And during the year, of course, it is impossible.

The colleges really don't want an employee relationship as they have with tutors and TAs, which they would have if they paid them for their time.

I would agree. I'd like to see something that gets them a "spending money" allowance. Maybe just an extra line item added to the FCOA passed a few years ago. Not a lot---just something so the kid can go to a movie, buy a video game, or go out on a date just like any other college student.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 10:34 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-04-2019 10:33 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: #26
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 10:01 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD 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.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

This is a bogus argument. Many charities have full-time paid staff. Does that make them unworthy and evil?

This is a bogus argument. First, many charities have gotten in to trouble in the past for paying their staff high salaries, for having a high percentage of donations go to "administrative costs", etc.

Second, the problem isn't that Emmert makes $2.5m, it's that he makes $2.5m while insisting that players be amateurs.

Third, a charity is different from college athletics, in that a charity doesn't have unpaid "players" who they make money off of unwillingly. They have donors who know they are freely giving away their money to the cause, and volunteers who also do it out of a sense of moral duty and don't expect compensation either.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 10:35 AM by quo vadis.)
10-04-2019 10:33 AM
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: #27
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 10:32 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 10:16 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:30 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  i know this is an unpopular opinion but I m going to share it anyway. The kids that will really benefit from this arrangement are already getting FREE room, board and education. How much does it cost to go to a school like Stanford or as an out of state student to Cal? A better law IMO would be to prevent schools and others from using images of the athletes for profit.
does anyone really believe that a star FB or BB recruit is going to get a job at the local grocery store making $5 an hour?

Exactly. The kids ARE receiving significant compensation. Tuition and living expenses at a state school runs around 20-30K a year---more at many private schools. Many students are graduating with over $100K in student debt. So, lets not pretend the scholarship is worthless. That said, I do believe they should be some sort of stipend or revenue sharing that gives them a little spending money/earnings over and above the scholarship. As Ive said before, I think it should be a group NCAA players revenue pool for each sport that is divided evenly among all the players of that sport. If the sport makes little revenue--there wont be much money in that sports NCAA shared players pool. If the sport generates significant revenue--there will be a nice little stream of monthly checks for those players. Basically, such a system gives the players a share of the revenue with altering the current competitive balance or general character of the college game.

As for name and likeness---I would like to see the current NCAA rules stay in place with the following exception---

1) Olympic athletes who also play college sports are exempt from the current name and likeness rule.

Show me the rule that says people who are going to college on academic scholarships are not allowed to make money.

The way I understand it, they can work--but only within certain very strict limits. In fact, its such a compliance headache for the schools that many schools simply forbid their athletes from working. Additionally, with the year round demands of many sports these days---it would be almost impossible for the athletes to find the time or, for that matter, a workplace willing to be flexible enough to deal with the outside demands of the athletes school/athletic schedule.

Does anything prevent someone who is on an academic scholarship from being in a commercial? From having their picture used in an advertisement and getting reimbursed for it?

If it's within strict limits for the amount of time they can spend doing it, then let them do commercials, pose for pictures, etc. within those time limits. This isn't "the athlete has a full time job" - it's "the athlete spent an hour shooting a commercial and gets compensated every time the commercial airs" (which is fairly standard for actors and spokespeople).

Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They dont want boosters paying players 10K a month to turn the sprinklers on an off. They arent trying to screw over players--they are trying to maintain a competitive balance in the league where everyone is on a relatively similar footing. That said--Im very open to options that share some revenue with players without upsetting the current competitive balance and character of college sports. Unfortunately, this "olympic model" concept being batted about does not do that.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 10:43 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-04-2019 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 375
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 39
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #28
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 10:32 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 10:16 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. The kids ARE receiving significant compensation. Tuition and living expenses at a state school runs around 20-30K a year---more at many private schools. Many students are graduating with over $100K in student debt. So, lets not pretend the scholarship is worthless. That said, I do believe they should be some sort of stipend or revenue sharing that gives them a little spending money/earnings over and above the scholarship. As Ive said before, I think it should be a group NCAA players revenue pool for each sport that is divided evenly among all the players of that sport. If the sport makes little revenue--there wont be much money in that sports NCAA shared players pool. If the sport generates significant revenue--there will be a nice little stream of monthly checks for those players. Basically, such a system gives the players a share of the revenue with altering the current competitive balance or general character of the college game.

As for name and likeness---I would like to see the current NCAA rules stay in place with the following exception---

1) Olympic athletes who also play college sports are exempt from the current name and likeness rule.

Show me the rule that says people who are going to college on academic scholarships are not allowed to make money.

The way I understand it, they can work--but only within certain very strict limits. In fact, its such a compliance headache for the schools that many schools simply forbid their athletes from working. Additionally, with the year round demands of many sports these days---it would be almost impossible for the athletes to find the time or, for that matter, a workplace willing to be flexible enough to deal with the outside demands of the athletes school/athletic schedule.

Does anything prevent someone who is on an academic scholarship from being in a commercial? From having their picture used in an advertisement and getting reimbursed for it?

If it's within strict limits for the amount of time they can spend doing it, then let them do commercials, pose for pictures, etc. within those time limits. This isn't "the athlete has a full time job" - it's "the athlete spent an hour shooting a commercial and gets compensated every time the commercial airs" (which is fairly standard for actors and spokespeople).

Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They arent trying to screw over players.

It's against the rules for people on academic scholarships to do these things?

That's literally what I'm asking you about. You mentioned that the scholarship should be enough, so I'm asking you to compare it to other people have scholarships to see if they're equal. If people on academic scholarships are able to do things that people who are on athletic scholarships are not, then certain full scholarships are not worth the same as others.


Also, the California legislation (I believe I've seen it mentioned) has rules in place where players can't sign onto these sorts of deals, or have communications about them, until after they're signed/enrolled. EDIT: strike this, I remembered it wrong. I believe it was about it still being against the rules to influence where they go. Clearly that would need to be regulated, and mean things like you couldn't have a bunch of people who go to Oregon go on to be Nike spokespeople (or Memphis with FedEx, etc.)
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 10:44 AM by e-parade.)
10-04-2019 10:41 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: #29
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 09:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can already see some kid getting $1 million to do 1 billboard ad or only 1 30 sec TV ad.

OK, let's say you're correct, that there really is no valid name/likeness market for college athletes, so there will be a lot of sham situations where a player gets a wad of cash from a business or booster ostensibly for his likeness, but it's really a recruit signing bonus, or a payment to make sure he doesn't transfer to another school.

So what? If the value in a athlete is that he come to our school and play for us, and him coming is worth $200,000 or whatever to the boosters, why shouldn't he be able to capture that value?

In other words, why shouldn’t we make what SMU got the death penalty for legal? Let me flip the question—if the schools want to have an amateur league with competitive balance where booster don’t have undue influence, why can’t they? To the best of my knowledge—not a single player has ever been forced to play for a school. In fact, these kids show up in droves to camps where they PAY just to be seen by coaches in the hopes they will be recruited. The model has resulted in a successful product that’s been a useful tool for getting many kids an education they may not have received otherwise. Let’s keep in mind that only a tiny percentage of these kids go on to be pro athletes. Most college athletes will make their living off the degree they earn—not their athletic ability.

Yes, IOW's, legalize what SMU got the death penalty for. That often happens as values and societies change. E.g., at one point in our history, people were, under the color of law, burned at the stake for being witches, LOL.

Second, if the kids don't really want to be paid above and beyond the value of their scholarship (which I agree is a form of payment) then it won't be a problem, will it? Kids will gladly turn down the offer of booster money, they will say "sorry pal, I don't need your $25,000, I am very happy with my room and board and tuition and so are all the rest of us who have turned up in droves in hopes of playing for UCF for that and nothing more". So rest easy on that.

Third, remember, the public schools at least do not govern themselves, they are organs of their states, and now, at least one state, California, has said that it doesn't want its schools participating in any "amateur leagues" where players are limited the way you want them to be.

Also, as a G5 fan, maybe you should consider that this could be a big opportunity for UCF/USF/Memphis types that are frozen out by the 'cartel'. If anything can upset a cartel, it is an infusion of money. UCF and Memphis can't compete with Alabama for 5-star athletes because the athletes want to go to the schools with the legacy and prestige and status and *approved* money in the form of big athletic budgets**. UCF and Memphis can't compete on that basis. But if boosters can pay players for endorsements maybe schools like Memphis that have a sugar daddy like Fed Ex, or schools that turn out enormous amounts of graduates like UCF and USF, can raise the money to compete on a more equal footing?

** E.g., see LSU's new locker room for football:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKyG4nq2s4o
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 10:50 AM by quo vadis.)
10-04-2019 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,982
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #30
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 09:30 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  i know this is an unpopular opinion but I m going to share it anyway. The kids that will really benefit from this arrangement are already getting FREE room, board and education. How much does it cost to go to a school like Stanford or as an out of state student to Cal? A better law IMO would be to prevent schools and others from using images of the athletes for profit.
does anyone really believe that a star FB or BB recruit is going to get a job at the local grocery store making $5 an hour?



Scholarships free
free room and board
free education
FCOAs = spending money

It is something I said in another thread.
10-04-2019 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
msm96wolf Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,942
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 139
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #31
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:30 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  i know this is an unpopular opinion but I m going to share it anyway. The kids that will really benefit from this arrangement are already getting FREE room, board and education. How much does it cost to go to a school like Stanford or as an out of state student to Cal? A better law IMO would be to prevent schools and others from using images of the athletes for profit.
does anyone really believe that a star FB or BB recruit is going to get a job at the local grocery store making $5 an hour?

Exactly. The kids ARE receiving significant compensation. Tuition and living expenses at a state school runs around 20-30K a year---more at many private schools. Many students are graduating with over $100K in student debt. So, lets not pretend the scholarship is worthless. That said, I do believe they should be some sort of stipend or revenue sharing that gives them a little spending money/earnings over and above the scholarship. As Ive said before, I think it should be a group NCAA players revenue pool for each sport that is divided evenly among all the players of that sport. If the sport makes little revenue--there wont be much money in that sports NCAA shared players pool. If the sport generates significant revenue--there will be a nice little stream of monthly checks for those players. Basically, such a system gives the players a share of the revenue with altering the current competitive balance or general character of the college game.

As for name and likeness---I would like to see the current NCAA rules stay in place with the following exception---

1) Olympic athletes who also play college sports are exempt from the current name and likeness rule.

Another issue will be the Income Tax collections. Governement is not doing this for the benefit of the kids. they know they get nearly 40% a pop of these deals. Call me a cynic, but states like CA and Federal gov't will suck every penny they can get.
10-04-2019 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,956
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 548
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA
Post: #32
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 10:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 10:01 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD 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.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

This is a bogus argument. Many charities have full-time paid staff. Does that make them unworthy and evil?

This is a bogus argument. First, many charities have gotten in to trouble in the past for paying their staff high salaries, for having a high percentage of donations go to "administrative costs", etc.

Second, the problem isn't that Emmert makes $2.5m, it's that he makes $2.5m while insisting that players be amateurs.

Third, a charity is different from college athletics, in that a charity doesn't have unpaid "players" who they make money off of unwillingly. They have donors who know they are freely giving away their money to the cause, and volunteers who also do it out of a sense of moral duty and don't expect compensation either.

Yeah, its bull****. I guess every charity spends almost all of its money on itself and none to anyone else.
10-04-2019 12:59 PM
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: #33
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
The "Scholarships are compensation!" argument is a red herring because the NCAA regulations apply to ALL athletes, regardless of whether they are receiving a scholarship. Many Division I athletes, most Division II athletes and all Division III athletes do NOT receive scholarships, yet are still prohibited to obtain compensation for their names and likenesses. Therefore, simply stating that scholarships are enough of a compensation neglects the fact that the vast majority of NCAA athletes don't receive a scholarship at all.

As I noted elsewhere, my kids' summer swim team coach is a Division I swimmer at an Ivy League school, which does NOT provide athletic scholarships. (Repeat: this person does NOT receive an athletic scholarship despite being a Division I athlete. Do I need to repeat that again?) Despite the fact that this person does NOT receive an athletic scholarship as a Division I athlete, that person still has to abide by the NCAA's compensation rules. Therefore, that person had to coach as a volunteer without compensation despite the fact that person's twin sibling (who was not a Division I athlete) was able to get paid for doing the exact same job. This is a real life scenario that I witnessed with my very own eyes and can't be called anything other than monumentally stupid.

For the love of everything holy, please stop using the "Scholarships are compensation!" argument because it's straight up not true for the vast majority of NCAA athletes that are still subject to NCAA compensation rules.
10-04-2019 01:00 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,956
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 548
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA
Post: #34
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The "Scholarships are compensation!" argument is a red herring because the NCAA regulations apply to ALL athletes, regardless of whether they are receiving a scholarship. Many Division I athletes, most Division II athletes and all Division III athletes do NOT receive scholarships, yet are still prohibited to obtain compensation for their names and likenesses. Therefore, simply stating that scholarships are enough of a compensation neglects the fact that the vast majority of NCAA athletes don't receive a scholarship at all.

As I noted elsewhere, my kids' summer swim team coach is a Division I swimmer at an Ivy League school, which does NOT provide athletic scholarships. (Repeat: this person does NOT receive an athletic scholarship despite being a Division I athlete. Do I need to repeat that again?) Despite the fact that this person does NOT receive an athletic scholarship as a Division I athlete, that person still has to abide by the NCAA's compensation rules. Therefore, that person had to coach as a volunteer without compensation despite the fact that person's twin sibling (who was not a Division I athlete) was able to get paid for doing the exact same job. This is a real life scenario that I witnessed with my very own eyes and can't be called anything other than monumentally stupid.

For the love of everything holy, please stop using the "Scholarships are compensation!" argument because it's straight up not true for the vast majority of NCAA athletes that are still subject to NCAA compensation rules.


It is also not ENOUGH compensation for the players (workers) in the massive billion dollar industry that is college football and basketball.

That money is made through their efforts and upon their backs.

It is a curious thing in American society that some people can't stand for other people to make more money than the pittance they currently get.

On the other hand, they admire people who make mega millions or billions no matter how they did it or how despicable they may be.
10-04-2019 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,595
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #35
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 09:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can already see some kid getting $1 million to do 1 billboard ad or only 1 30 sec TV ad.

OK, let's say you're correct, that there really is no valid name/likeness market for college athletes, so there will be a lot of sham situations where a player gets a wad of cash from a business or booster ostensibly for his likeness, but it's really a recruit signing bonus, or a payment to make sure he doesn't transfer to another school.

So what? If the value in a athlete is that he come to our school and play for us, and him coming is worth $200,000 or whatever to the boosters, why shouldn't he be able to capture that value?

In other words, why shouldn’t we make what SMU got the death penalty for legal? Let me flip the question—if the schools want to have an amateur league with competitive balance where booster don’t have undue influence, why can’t they? To the best of my knowledge—not a single player has ever been forced to play for a school. In fact, these kids show up in droves to camps where they PAY just to be seen by coaches in the hopes they will be recruited. The model has resulted in a successful product that’s been a useful tool for getting many kids an education they may not have received otherwise. Let’s keep in mind that only a tiny percentage of these kids go on to be pro athletes. Most college athletes will make their living off the degree they earn—not their athletic ability.

Yes, IOW's, legalize what SMU got the death penalty for. That often happens as values and societies change. E.g., at one point in our history, people were, under the color of law, burned at the stake for being witches, LOL.

Second, if the kids don't really want to be paid above and beyond the value of their scholarship (which I agree is a form of payment) then it won't be a problem, will it? Kids will gladly turn down the offer of booster money, they will say "sorry pal, I don't need your $25,000, I am very happy with my room and board and tuition and so are all the rest of us who have turned up in droves in hopes of playing for UCF for that and nothing more". So rest easy on that.

Third, remember, the public schools at least do not govern themselves, they are organs of their states, and now, at least one state, California, has said that it doesn't want its schools participating in any "amateur leagues" where players are limited the way you want them to be.

Also, as a G5 fan, maybe you should consider that this could be a big opportunity for UCF/USF/Memphis types that are frozen out by the 'cartel'. If anything can upset a cartel, it is an infusion of money. UCF and Memphis can't compete with Alabama for 5-star athletes because the athletes want to go to the schools with the legacy and prestige and status and *approved* money in the form of big athletic budgets**. UCF and Memphis can't compete on that basis. But if boosters can pay players for endorsements maybe schools like Memphis that have a sugar daddy like Fed Ex, or schools that turn out enormous amounts of graduates like UCF and USF, can raise the money to compete on a more equal footing?

** E.g., see LSU's new locker room for football:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKyG4nq2s4o

Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

I see so many arguments for and against the California law when in the end the whole issue boils down to just one simple question: Is it a good thing to eliminate all restrictions on people with money being able to buy championships for their favorite school by paying "market rate" for the best athletes?

Anyone who thinks this debate is about doing what's best for the kids is fooling themselves. If the restrictions come off then the top 10% of players (possibly fewer) will reap almost all of the financial benefits. The rest will play for schools that are invariably outmatched competitively and in unending danger of losing their fan support. And in the long run many kids will not even have that opportunity as schools lacking a sufficient number of deep-pocket boosters to stock rosters at market rates decide it's not worth competing against semi-pros and choose instead to just eliminate scholarship athletics.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 02:07 PM by HawaiiMongoose.)
10-04-2019 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,588
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 77
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #36
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
Don't you brag about ND athletic dept turning money over to general fund, that would be FB players pay.
100 women's scholarships also get their cut.
Olympic athlete also use the facility's to train
Athletic dept salaries
I agree something gotta be done
To many hands in the pot
10-04-2019 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,692
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 61
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #37
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
Bill Plaschke of the LA Times made a few good points about the passing of this bill in an article a few days ago:

The USC quarterback can promote his favorite video game. The UCLA soccer player can be paid to coach at her high school’s summer camp. The entire Stanford volleyball team can make money appearing in an advertisement for Facebook.

The legislation does not require the colleges to pay the athletes. That idea is filled with too many complications — which ones do you pay, and how much? — and will probably never happen. This is the next best thing: athletes finally able to pay themselves, to use their talents for personal gain, the same talents that have long been exploited by colleges in the name of a scholarship that doesn’t begin to cover the value provided by today’s top stars.

The inequity at USC is mirrored at UCLA, where football coach Chip Kelly is being paid $23.3 million over five years to field a football team that is watched by almost nobody, attracting historically small crowds to the Rose Bowl. Meanwhile, in January, Bruins gymnast Katelyn Ohashi performed a stirring gymnastics routine in a video that went viral with more than 44 million views, yet rules prevented her from making a penny from it.

Kelly, UCLA’s football coach, supports the bill, telling reporters Monday it was, “the right thing to do … it doesn’t cost the universities, it doesn’t cost the NCAA.”
10-04-2019 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,924
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 151
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #38
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
No sooner when this implemented there will rise a Title 9 issue to shut this down.
10-04-2019 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 375
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 39
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #39
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 02:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  No sooner when this implemented there will rise a Title 9 issue to shut this down.

How would title 9 come into play when it isn't the universities paying people?
10-04-2019 02:49 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: #40
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The "Scholarships are compensation!" argument is a red herring because the NCAA regulations apply to ALL athletes, regardless of whether they are receiving a scholarship. Many Division I athletes, most Division II athletes and all Division III athletes do NOT receive scholarships, yet are still prohibited to obtain compensation for their names and likenesses. Therefore, simply stating that scholarships are enough of a compensation neglects the fact that the vast majority of NCAA athletes don't receive a scholarship at all.

As I noted elsewhere, my kids' summer swim team coach is a Division I swimmer at an Ivy League school, which does NOT provide athletic scholarships. (Repeat: this person does NOT receive an athletic scholarship despite being a Division I athlete. Do I need to repeat that again?) Despite the fact that this person does NOT receive an athletic scholarship as a Division I athlete, that person still has to abide by the NCAA's compensation rules. Therefore, that person had to coach as a volunteer without compensation despite the fact that person's twin sibling (who was not a Division I athlete) was able to get paid for doing the exact same job. This is a real life scenario that I witnessed with my very own eyes and can't be called anything other than monumentally stupid.

For the love of everything holy, please stop using the "Scholarships are compensation!" argument because it's straight up not true for the vast majority of NCAA athletes that are still subject to NCAA compensation rules.

Actually, you bring up a HUGE point I had not really considered until now.

The key to competitive balance in the NCAA D-1 is two fold. One key has been the amateur rule that limits the outside influence of money on recruiting. The other, and perhaps the most important key----is the scholarship limit. With unlimited funds sloshing around by boosters---spots that currently go to non-scholarship "walk-on" players can now in effect become paid "scholarship" slots. All a booster need do is sign the kid to a 30K "appearance fee" and that kid now has the money to pay his tuition just like any "scholarship player" (without a dime coming out of the players pocket). Using this method, a school could potentially raise it EFFECTIVE scholarship limit from 85 to 105. In other words, this change will also undermine the scholarship limit. Undermining the scholarship limit WOULD most definitely vastly change how the game looks today.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 02:54 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-04-2019 02:52 PM
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.