Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
Author Message
TrojanCampaign Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,332
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 122
I Root For: USC, UA, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #41
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
I wish people would just be honest about why this want this current system to stand.

People simply do not want athletes to take money away from the school. Fans and school administrators have grown to love those fat checks that pay for coach salaries, facilities, and the athletic department.

Absolutely no one has a problem if the child of a Doctor gets an academic scholarship. And then is able to work with his mom/dad at their practice as a medical assistant and get paid while in school. No one cares if Uncle Johnny buys that kid a brand new car so he/she can look fancy in medical school.

No one cares if a kid studying Biology gets an paid research grant while on academic scholarship.

No one cares if a MIT student on academic scholarship invents something and then gets rich. We even applaud them for doing so even if they are on academic scholarship.

-----------------

We only have a problem when it's a football/basketball player.

Notice how now one is even discussing other sports? Do you think Tiger Woods would not have gotten extra $$$ while he is in college? And women can benefit from this also.

Do you think an exceptional black female athlete could not make a Nike commercial during black history month? Do you think an a female athlete could not double as a model?

People who support this model just need to have the balls and just admit the only reason you like it is so your school can benefit at the expense of the athlete.
10-04-2019 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,151
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 566
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #42
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 01:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

How is this different than today's system? The only difference is that today's systems funnels the money either (a) indirectly toward higher coaching staff salaries and more expensive facilities or (b) directly to the athletes under the table. The California law (and inevitably other states and the federal government) allows for direct, above the board payments to athletes.

Quote: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?

Once again, how is this different than today's system? Please see reasoning above.

Quote: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.

Ah yes, the horror of "semi-pros!" [sarcasm font]

Nick Saban's salary as the head of Alabama is over $8.3 million per year. My own alma mater (Illinois) is paying over $5 million per year for Lovie Smith and we'll consider ourselves lucky to get 5 wins this season, much less be bowl eligible.

No one is paying millions of dollars per year for the coach of an "amateur" operation no matter what fiction people tell themselves to make them sleep well at night.

Your point about only the top 10% of the players benefiting from this would seem to be a feature instead of a bug. If this is going to be a true free market, then it would stand to reason that only the very best and marketable athletes would be receiving endorsement, so that 10% level would indicate that things are actually being done above board and logically consistent with the free market.

Look - if people want to argue that schools should stop entering into TV contracts, start paying head coaches the equivalent of a normal professor's salary, eliminate all sponsorships for sports, and give away tickets for free, then all of this wailing about student compensation would have a little more validity. I'd personally disagree that all of the foregoing would be a positive thing, but it would least be consistent and not hypocritical, which I can respect.

I just can't wrap my head around this artificial delineation of so many fans between "amateurs" and "semi-pros," though.

WTF is an "amateur" system that pays Nick Saban $8.3 million per year... which is more than all but two coaches in the NFL (one of which is the Jon Gruden contract that the Raiders agreed to with the insane Mark Davis at the helm)?

WTF is an "amateur" system that tells athletes that they can't make money off of their own names and likenesses, which under virtually any other walk of life is something that only an employer can really tell you to do... yet they're somehow *not* employees?

WTF are we scared of the "big bad boosters from rich schools" supposedly dominating this new system when we have had essentially the *exact* same list of elite football programs for the past 50 years or more (with essentially only the Florida-based schools being added on over the past few decades)? Do we really think those elite programs have stayed on top for the past 50 years simply through good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money?

Believing that today's college sports system is anything other than a straight up professional system (much less "semi-pro") is the sports fan equivalent of still believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. "Amateur" college sports is a fiction of people's imaginations supported by a willful blindness to how things actually are today.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 03:16 PM by Frank the Tank.)
10-04-2019 03:13 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrojanCampaign Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,332
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 122
I Root For: USC, UA, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #43
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 01:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

How is this different than today's system? The only difference is that today's systems funnels the money either (a) indirectly toward higher coaching staff salaries and more expensive facilities or (b) directly to the athletes under the table. The California law (and inevitably other states and the federal government) allows for direct, above the board payments to athletes.

Quote: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?

Once again, how is this different than today's system? Please see reasoning above.

Quote: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.

Ah yes, the horror of "semi-pros!" [sarcasm font]

Nick Saban's salary as the head of Alabama is over $8.3 million per year. My own alma mater (Illinois) is paying over $5 million per year for Lovie Smith and we'll consider ourselves lucky to get 5 wins this season, much less be bowl eligible.

No one is paying millions of dollars per year for the coach of an "amateur" operation no matter what fiction people tell themselves to make them sleep well at night.

Your point about only the top 10% of the players benefiting from this would seem to be a feature instead of a bug. If this is going to be a true free market, then it would stand to reason that only the very best and marketable athletes would be receiving endorsement, so that 10% level would indicate that things are actually being done above board and logically consistent with the free market.

Look - if people want to argue that schools should stop entering into TV contracts, start paying head coaches the equivalent of a normal professor's salary, eliminate all sponsorships for sports, and give away tickets for free, then all of this wailing about student compensation would have a little more validity. I'd personally disagree that all of the foregoing would be a positive thing, but it would least be consistent and not hypocritical, which I can respect.

I just can't wrap my head around this artificial delineation of so many fans between "amateurs" and "semi-pros," though.

WTF is an "amateur" system that pays Nick Saban $8.3 million per year... which is more than all but two coaches in the NFL (one of which is the Jon Gruden contract that the Raiders agreed to with the insane Mark Davis at the helm)?

WTF is an "amateur" system that tells athletes that they can't make money off of their own names and likenesses, which under virtually any other walk of life is something that only an employer can really tell you to do... yet they're somehow *not* employees?

WTF are we scared of the "big bad boosters from rich schools" supposedly dominating this new system when we have had essentially the *exact* same list of elite football programs for the past 50 years or more (with essentially only the Florida-based schools being added on over the past few decades)? Do we really think those elite programs have stayed on top for the past 50 years simply through good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money?

Believing that today's college sports system is anything other than a straight up professional system (much less "semi-pro") is the sports fan equivalent of still believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. "Amateur" college sports is a fiction of people's imaginations supported by a willful blindness to how things actually are today.

Agree, seriously nothing is going to change in the big scheme of things.

Players are still going to want to go to the teams that have the best coaches, facilities, and visibility. (Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, ND, etc.).

You may have a few more situations where guys like Ed Oliver choose to go to Houston. But is that really the end of the world? Ed Oliver still got an NFL contract. Who really cares of some rich dude in Houston bought him a car?
10-04-2019 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,151
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 566
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #44
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 02:59 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I wish people would just be honest about why this want this current system to stand.

People simply do not want athletes to take money away from the school. Fans and school administrators have grown to love those fat checks that pay for coach salaries, facilities, and the athletic department.

Absolutely no one has a problem if the child of a Doctor gets an academic scholarship. And then is able to work with his mom/dad at their practice as a medical assistant and get paid while in school. No one cares if Uncle Johnny buys that kid a brand new car so he/she can look fancy in medical school.

No one cares if a kid studying Biology gets an paid research grant while on academic scholarship.

No one cares if a MIT student on academic scholarship invents something and then gets rich. We even applaud them for doing so even if they are on academic scholarship.

-----------------

We only have a problem when it's a football/basketball player.

Notice how now one is even discussing other sports? Do you think Tiger Woods would not have gotten extra $$$ while he is in college? And women can benefit from this also.

Do you think an exceptional black female athlete could not make a Nike commercial during black history month? Do you think an a female athlete could not double as a model?

People who support this model just need to have the balls and just admit the only reason you like it is so your school can benefit at the expense of the athlete.

Totally agree - we need to call a spade a spade.

Heck, even beyond the doctor example, it's interesting that it's so easy for some people to give athletes an ultimatum that they can choose between a scholarship and outside compensation, but not both. Of course, that's no sweat for your average lacrosse, golf or tennis player at a Division I program that disproportionately come from higher income families that can pay for college, anyway. Yet, some people get all hot and bothered when it comes to endorsements for football and basketball players that, let's face the facts, come disproportionately from lower income minority households that don't have any other way to pay for college. Basically, those people are saying that we need to force some of the lowest income students on campus (particularly at virtually any Power Five school, nearly all of whom have affluent student bodies compared to the general population) into a decision at 18 years old to essentially forego college altogether if they choose to have outside compensation.

It's quite funny to me (and not in a "ha-ha" way) that this athlete compensation issue is what riles up emotions in some fans as opposed to, say, the fact that the highest paid public employee in virtually every state is a sports coach, or that hundreds of millions of dollars are funneled into athletic facilities instead of academic programs or financial aid, or a whole host of other issues that clearly turn college sports into straight up professional programs (much less "semi-pro") way more an athlete being able to receive third party compensation in a way that every single other student on campus is already able to do today.
10-04-2019 03:29 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,542
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 177
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #45
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 08:55 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Why do people, including Emmett, keep trying to paint athletes as school employees? They are independent contractors of the 3rd party and their earnings should be reported on a 1099 not a W-2.

because they understand that to be an independent contractor you need to show some actual independence

like supplying all or almost all of your own tools and equipment to do the job, you are not dependent on working at a venue supplied by one entity or a few entities IE a stajium

you are not dependent on coaches, training facilities, housing, meals, and many other things provided to you by another

you do not have a large team of other people all working (or I guess in your world pretend contracting) for the same entity

by your logic someone working on an oil rig could be classified as an independent contractor never mind that they work on a rig provided by others, most of the tools needed for the job, the uniforms (often down to everything but underwear), and in some areas the food and housing is provided by the company especially off shore or in remote locations with little to no supporting population
10-04-2019 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #46
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 03:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 02:59 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I wish people would just be honest about why this want this current system to stand.

People simply do not want athletes to take money away from the school. Fans and school administrators have grown to love those fat checks that pay for coach salaries, facilities, and the athletic department.

Absolutely no one has a problem if the child of a Doctor gets an academic scholarship. And then is able to work with his mom/dad at their practice as a medical assistant and get paid while in school. No one cares if Uncle Johnny buys that kid a brand new car so he/she can look fancy in medical school.

No one cares if a kid studying Biology gets an paid research grant while on academic scholarship.

No one cares if a MIT student on academic scholarship invents something and then gets rich. We even applaud them for doing so even if they are on academic scholarship.

-----------------

We only have a problem when it's a football/basketball player.

Notice how now one is even discussing other sports? Do you think Tiger Woods would not have gotten extra $$$ while he is in college? And women can benefit from this also.

Do you think an exceptional black female athlete could not make a Nike commercial during black history month? Do you think an a female athlete could not double as a model?

People who support this model just need to have the balls and just admit the only reason you like it is so your school can benefit at the expense of the athlete.

Totally agree - we need to call a spade a spade.

Heck, even beyond the doctor example, it's interesting that it's so easy for some people to give athletes an ultimatum that they can choose between a scholarship and outside compensation, but not both. Of course, that's no sweat for your average lacrosse, golf or tennis player at a Division I program that disproportionately come from higher income families that can pay for college, anyway. Yet, some people get all hot and bothered when it comes to endorsements for football and basketball players that, let's face the facts, come disproportionately from lower income minority households that don't have any other way to pay for college. Basically, those people are saying that we need to force some of the lowest income students on campus (particularly at virtually any Power Five school, nearly all of whom have affluent student bodies compared to the general population) into a decision at 18 years old to essentially forego college altogether if they choose to have outside compensation.

It's quite funny to me (and not in a "ha-ha" way) that this athlete compensation issue is what riles up emotions in some fans as opposed to, say, the fact that the highest paid public employee in virtually every state is a sports coach, or that hundreds of millions of dollars are funneled into athletic facilities instead of academic programs or financial aid, or a whole host of other issues that clearly turn college sports into straight up professional programs (much less "semi-pro") way more an athlete being able to receive third party compensation in a way that every single other student on campus is already able to do today.

Its about as hypocritical as how the argument has morphed to "helping the poor downtrodden athlete from a low-income background" while at the same time claiming that all the benefits will almost certainly gravitate to a tiny percentage of the athletes while the rest will get nothing under this system. At the very least---if you used a system like I advocated (where there was some sort of pooled revenue for the players that was then distributed equally among the student athletes) you insure ALL the athletes who need the help the most at least got something.

Again, many of us are not necessarily against the players somehow sharing in the revenue generated by the sport (although, many college athletes work hard for sports that have no following and are nothing more than a big expense item for the school), we just think the olympic model is an absolutely horrible fit for the college game.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 04:10 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-04-2019 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,961
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 548
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA
Post: #47
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 01:51 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  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

That money goes to academic scholarships at ND, but I would be just fine if it were used to pay athletes.

Look, ND is just as hypocritical on this issue as anyone.

I am always for the advancement of the worker/labor over management/ownership.

Pay the workers more money and quit pretending about the "student-athlete" fantasy.
10-04-2019 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #48
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 03:23 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 01:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

How is this different than today's system? The only difference is that today's systems funnels the money either (a) indirectly toward higher coaching staff salaries and more expensive facilities or (b) directly to the athletes under the table. The California law (and inevitably other states and the federal government) allows for direct, above the board payments to athletes.

Quote: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?

Once again, how is this different than today's system? Please see reasoning above.

Quote: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.

Ah yes, the horror of "semi-pros!" [sarcasm font]

Nick Saban's salary as the head of Alabama is over $8.3 million per year. My own alma mater (Illinois) is paying over $5 million per year for Lovie Smith and we'll consider ourselves lucky to get 5 wins this season, much less be bowl eligible.

No one is paying millions of dollars per year for the coach of an "amateur" operation no matter what fiction people tell themselves to make them sleep well at night.

Your point about only the top 10% of the players benefiting from this would seem to be a feature instead of a bug. If this is going to be a true free market, then it would stand to reason that only the very best and marketable athletes would be receiving endorsement, so that 10% level would indicate that things are actually being done above board and logically consistent with the free market.

Look - if people want to argue that schools should stop entering into TV contracts, start paying head coaches the equivalent of a normal professor's salary, eliminate all sponsorships for sports, and give away tickets for free, then all of this wailing about student compensation would have a little more validity. I'd personally disagree that all of the foregoing would be a positive thing, but it would least be consistent and not hypocritical, which I can respect.

I just can't wrap my head around this artificial delineation of so many fans between "amateurs" and "semi-pros," though.

WTF is an "amateur" system that pays Nick Saban $8.3 million per year... which is more than all but two coaches in the NFL (one of which is the Jon Gruden contract that the Raiders agreed to with the insane Mark Davis at the helm)?

WTF is an "amateur" system that tells athletes that they can't make money off of their own names and likenesses, which under virtually any other walk of life is something that only an employer can really tell you to do... yet they're somehow *not* employees?

WTF are we scared of the "big bad boosters from rich schools" supposedly dominating this new system when we have had essentially the *exact* same list of elite football programs for the past 50 years or more (with essentially only the Florida-based schools being added on over the past few decades)? Do we really think those elite programs have stayed on top for the past 50 years simply through good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money?

Believing that today's college sports system is anything other than a straight up professional system (much less "semi-pro") is the sports fan equivalent of still believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. "Amateur" college sports is a fiction of people's imaginations supported by a willful blindness to how things actually are today.

Agree, seriously nothing is going to change in the big scheme of things.

Players are still going to want to go to the teams that have the best coaches, facilities, and visibility. (Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, ND, etc.).

You may have a few more situations where guys like Ed Oliver choose to go to Houston. But is that really the end of the world? Ed Oliver still got an NFL contract. Who really cares of some rich dude in Houston bought him a car?

I just explained how this is patently FALSE. Not only will the money influence how recruiting goes for the 85 scholarship players on every roster---it will also undermine the 85 scholarship limit itself. Effectively, if there is unlimited booster money sloshing around, a school can offer 105 kids a free ride--not just 85. It wouldnt be an "official" scholarship---but its still a free education. There is no way to argue that is not a DRASTIC change in the current system.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 04:14 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-04-2019 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,577
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 218
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #49
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 02:49 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(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?

Because Title IX is the big bad boogieman that ruins everything for the male athlete.
10-04-2019 04:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 983
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 84
I Root For: Buckeyes/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #50
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 04:13 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 02:49 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(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?

Because Title IX is the big bad boogieman that ruins everything for the male athlete.
Lol, great response!

e-parade, Volleyball players at Nebraska can make money off their name the same as a Football player at Clemson. The university isn't funding mens and womens athletes at all in this act.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 04:30 PM by cubucks.)
10-04-2019 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,598
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #51
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 01:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

How is this different than today's system? The only difference is that today's systems funnels the money either (a) indirectly toward higher coaching staff salaries and more expensive facilities or (b) directly to the athletes under the table. The California law (and inevitably other states and the federal government) allows for direct, above the board payments to athletes.

Quote: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?

Once again, how is this different than today's system? Please see reasoning above.

Quote: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.

Ah yes, the horror of "semi-pros!" [sarcasm font]

Nick Saban's salary as the head of Alabama is over $8.3 million per year. My own alma mater (Illinois) is paying over $5 million per year for Lovie Smith and we'll consider ourselves lucky to get 5 wins this season, much less be bowl eligible.

No one is paying millions of dollars per year for the coach of an "amateur" operation no matter what fiction people tell themselves to make them sleep well at night.

Your point about only the top 10% of the players benefiting from this would seem to be a feature instead of a bug. If this is going to be a true free market, then it would stand to reason that only the very best and marketable athletes would be receiving endorsement, so that 10% level would indicate that things are actually being done above board and logically consistent with the free market.

Look - if people want to argue that schools should stop entering into TV contracts, start paying head coaches the equivalent of a normal professor's salary, eliminate all sponsorships for sports, and give away tickets for free, then all of this wailing about student compensation would have a little more validity. I'd personally disagree that all of the foregoing would be a positive thing, but it would least be consistent and not hypocritical, which I can respect.

I just can't wrap my head around this artificial delineation of so many fans between "amateurs" and "semi-pros," though.

WTF is an "amateur" system that pays Nick Saban $8.3 million per year... which is more than all but two coaches in the NFL (one of which is the Jon Gruden contract that the Raiders agreed to with the insane Mark Davis at the helm)?

WTF is an "amateur" system that tells athletes that they can't make money off of their own names and likenesses, which under virtually any other walk of life is something that only an employer can really tell you to do... yet they're somehow *not* employees?

WTF are we scared of the "big bad boosters from rich schools" supposedly dominating this new system when we have had essentially the *exact* same list of elite football programs for the past 50 years or more (with essentially only the Florida-based schools being added on over the past few decades)? Do we really think those elite programs have stayed on top for the past 50 years simply through good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money?

Believing that today's college sports system is anything other than a straight up professional system (much less "semi-pro") is the sports fan equivalent of still believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. "Amateur" college sports is a fiction of people's imaginations supported by a willful blindness to how things actually are today.

Well, it's pretty obvious why we disagree.

You look at the world from the standpoint of the P5 schools and your focus is on the big money sports. You conclude that because the P5 schools already have a big money-driven advantage over everyone else in those sports, there is no semblance of a level playing field in college athletics and never can be and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive or stupid. And so the question you ask is, why not blow away the obstacles to letting boosters pay players and simply accept that going forward championships in any sport can be determined based on whomever is willing to invest the most cash?

I look at the world from the standpoint of the non-P5 schools and my focus is on the entire spectrum of D-I college athletics. I see Cal State Fullerton with 18 College World Series appearances (including 3 in the past 10 years) and Coastal Carolina winning the whole thing just three years ago. I see non-P5 schools having won the NCAA title in men's ice hockey for the past 7 consecutive seasons. I see Northern Arizona dominating men's cross country competition with 3 consecutive national championships. I see Hawaii having made it to the NCAA final four in beach volleyball for the past 4 seasons, and narrowly losing to Long Beach State in the men's volleyball championship match just six months ago. I see a semblance of a level playing field in those sports, and kids fighting for championships based on "good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money" and thousands of fans rooting for them. And so the question I ask is, why should I sit back and say it's fine for boosters to pay players without restriction and simply accept that going forward championships in any and all NCAA sports will be available for purchase by whomever is willing to invest the most cash?

I'm not going to do that no matter how many shades of naive you choose to label me.
10-04-2019 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 35,568
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1060
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #52
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.

And it is 100% true for every athlete in football and basketball which is where the payment of likenesses is relevant and the big issue on payment is.

Also, being an athlete is a factor in getting academic scholarships. Do you really believe the Ivy League schools (and a lot of Div. 3 schools) don't consider that with their football players and other athletes?

As for your situation, I know that isn't true for swimmers at all schools. Maybe that's an Ivy League rule.

So please stop using your red herring.

And as I said, there are some issues with summer employment. We should as much as possible put the athletes in the same position as non-athletes. It was ridiculous that full cost of attendance could be paid to someone on academic scholarship but until a few years ago could not be paid to an athlete.
10-04-2019 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #53
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
All the boasters or outside people do is wag a lot of money for all the best players to go to the Blue Blood teams. The problem is Washington beats Washington State 110 to 0. This is why I am against the bill. It would lure players away from the low end P5 and all of D1. How is this fair and balance? These bills are opening up corruption big time.
10-04-2019 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #54
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 01:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(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.

Well first, to me, it's wrong in principle to limit the compensation of the top 10% or whatever it would be to make the lesser talents feel better or have more opportunities. That's socialism.

Second, where is the competitive balance right now? We don't have it and never have, the top 20 or so programs dominate college football and always have.

What happens is that like competes with like - if your school can't compete with the big money at other schools, then you form a conference with schools who are at the same level you are at, and compete with them. Look at your Hawaii - you're not in the SEC with LSU, Alabama, Auburn, etc., schools that are just too big and moneyed and powerful, you compete in the MW, with schools that have roughly your resources.

That's the way it's always been, it's why we have NAIA, Division III, Division II, FCS, FBS, G5, and P5.

So nothing new there at all.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 06:26 PM by quo vadis.)
10-04-2019 06:21 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: #55
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 03:23 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 01:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

How is this different than today's system? The only difference is that today's systems funnels the money either (a) indirectly toward higher coaching staff salaries and more expensive facilities or (b) directly to the athletes under the table. The California law (and inevitably other states and the federal government) allows for direct, above the board payments to athletes.

Quote: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?

Once again, how is this different than today's system? Please see reasoning above.

Quote: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.

Ah yes, the horror of "semi-pros!" [sarcasm font]

Nick Saban's salary as the head of Alabama is over $8.3 million per year. My own alma mater (Illinois) is paying over $5 million per year for Lovie Smith and we'll consider ourselves lucky to get 5 wins this season, much less be bowl eligible.

No one is paying millions of dollars per year for the coach of an "amateur" operation no matter what fiction people tell themselves to make them sleep well at night.

Your point about only the top 10% of the players benefiting from this would seem to be a feature instead of a bug. If this is going to be a true free market, then it would stand to reason that only the very best and marketable athletes would be receiving endorsement, so that 10% level would indicate that things are actually being done above board and logically consistent with the free market.

Look - if people want to argue that schools should stop entering into TV contracts, start paying head coaches the equivalent of a normal professor's salary, eliminate all sponsorships for sports, and give away tickets for free, then all of this wailing about student compensation would have a little more validity. I'd personally disagree that all of the foregoing would be a positive thing, but it would least be consistent and not hypocritical, which I can respect.

I just can't wrap my head around this artificial delineation of so many fans between "amateurs" and "semi-pros," though.

WTF is an "amateur" system that pays Nick Saban $8.3 million per year... which is more than all but two coaches in the NFL (one of which is the Jon Gruden contract that the Raiders agreed to with the insane Mark Davis at the helm)?

WTF is an "amateur" system that tells athletes that they can't make money off of their own names and likenesses, which under virtually any other walk of life is something that only an employer can really tell you to do... yet they're somehow *not* employees?

WTF are we scared of the "big bad boosters from rich schools" supposedly dominating this new system when we have had essentially the *exact* same list of elite football programs for the past 50 years or more (with essentially only the Florida-based schools being added on over the past few decades)? Do we really think those elite programs have stayed on top for the past 50 years simply through good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money?

Believing that today's college sports system is anything other than a straight up professional system (much less "semi-pro") is the sports fan equivalent of still believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. "Amateur" college sports is a fiction of people's imaginations supported by a willful blindness to how things actually are today.

Agree, seriously nothing is going to change in the big scheme of things.

Players are still going to want to go to the teams that have the best coaches, facilities, and visibility. (Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, ND, etc.).

You may have a few more situations where guys like Ed Oliver choose to go to Houston. But is that really the end of the world? Ed Oliver still got an NFL contract. Who really cares of some rich dude in Houston bought him a car?

I just explained how this is patently FALSE. Not only will the money influence how recruiting goes for the 85 scholarship players on every roster---it will also undermine the 85 scholarship limit itself. Effectively, if there is unlimited booster money sloshing around, a school can offer 105 kids a free ride--not just 85. It wouldnt be an "official" scholarship---but its still a free education. There is no way to argue that is not a DRASTIC change in the current system.

And of course this is a trivial problem to solve. Hard cap roster size at 85 (or pick your favorite number). Next.
10-04-2019 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #56
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 06:35 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 03:23 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 01:44 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Is that what should determine competitiveness in college athletics? Whichever school can line up the most sugar daddies wins?

How is this different than today's system? The only difference is that today's systems funnels the money either (a) indirectly toward higher coaching staff salaries and more expensive facilities or (b) directly to the athletes under the table. The California law (and inevitably other states and the federal government) allows for direct, above the board payments to athletes.

Quote: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?

Once again, how is this different than today's system? Please see reasoning above.

Quote: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.

Ah yes, the horror of "semi-pros!" [sarcasm font]

Nick Saban's salary as the head of Alabama is over $8.3 million per year. My own alma mater (Illinois) is paying over $5 million per year for Lovie Smith and we'll consider ourselves lucky to get 5 wins this season, much less be bowl eligible.

No one is paying millions of dollars per year for the coach of an "amateur" operation no matter what fiction people tell themselves to make them sleep well at night.

Your point about only the top 10% of the players benefiting from this would seem to be a feature instead of a bug. If this is going to be a true free market, then it would stand to reason that only the very best and marketable athletes would be receiving endorsement, so that 10% level would indicate that things are actually being done above board and logically consistent with the free market.

Look - if people want to argue that schools should stop entering into TV contracts, start paying head coaches the equivalent of a normal professor's salary, eliminate all sponsorships for sports, and give away tickets for free, then all of this wailing about student compensation would have a little more validity. I'd personally disagree that all of the foregoing would be a positive thing, but it would least be consistent and not hypocritical, which I can respect.

I just can't wrap my head around this artificial delineation of so many fans between "amateurs" and "semi-pros," though.

WTF is an "amateur" system that pays Nick Saban $8.3 million per year... which is more than all but two coaches in the NFL (one of which is the Jon Gruden contract that the Raiders agreed to with the insane Mark Davis at the helm)?

WTF is an "amateur" system that tells athletes that they can't make money off of their own names and likenesses, which under virtually any other walk of life is something that only an employer can really tell you to do... yet they're somehow *not* employees?

WTF are we scared of the "big bad boosters from rich schools" supposedly dominating this new system when we have had essentially the *exact* same list of elite football programs for the past 50 years or more (with essentially only the Florida-based schools being added on over the past few decades)? Do we really think those elite programs have stayed on top for the past 50 years simply through good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money?

Believing that today's college sports system is anything other than a straight up professional system (much less "semi-pro") is the sports fan equivalent of still believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. "Amateur" college sports is a fiction of people's imaginations supported by a willful blindness to how things actually are today.

Agree, seriously nothing is going to change in the big scheme of things.

Players are still going to want to go to the teams that have the best coaches, facilities, and visibility. (Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, ND, etc.).

You may have a few more situations where guys like Ed Oliver choose to go to Houston. But is that really the end of the world? Ed Oliver still got an NFL contract. Who really cares of some rich dude in Houston bought him a car?

I just explained how this is patently FALSE. Not only will the money influence how recruiting goes for the 85 scholarship players on every roster---it will also undermine the 85 scholarship limit itself. Effectively, if there is unlimited booster money sloshing around, a school can offer 105 kids a free ride--not just 85. It wouldnt be an "official" scholarship---but its still a free education. There is no way to argue that is not a DRASTIC change in the current system.

And of course this is a trivial problem to solve. Hard cap roster size at 85 (or pick your favorite number). Next.

Why not just pay the players in a way that maintains the current competitive balance? Right now, everyone gets "0". Pick a percentage of revenue and have the players split it evenly. This third party mess is just a bad idea. If you want to avoid the employee relationship, maybe the money can be run through the NCAA.
10-04-2019 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #57
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 03:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 02:59 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I wish people would just be honest about why this want this current system to stand.

People simply do not want athletes to take money away from the school. Fans and school administrators have grown to love those fat checks that pay for coach salaries, facilities, and the athletic department.

Absolutely no one has a problem if the child of a Doctor gets an academic scholarship. And then is able to work with his mom/dad at their practice as a medical assistant and get paid while in school. No one cares if Uncle Johnny buys that kid a brand new car so he/she can look fancy in medical school.

No one cares if a kid studying Biology gets an paid research grant while on academic scholarship.

No one cares if a MIT student on academic scholarship invents something and then gets rich. We even applaud them for doing so even if they are on academic scholarship.

-----------------

We only have a problem when it's a football/basketball player.

Notice how now one is even discussing other sports? Do you think Tiger Woods would not have gotten extra $$$ while he is in college? And women can benefit from this also.

Do you think an exceptional black female athlete could not make a Nike commercial during black history month? Do you think an a female athlete could not double as a model?

People who support this model just need to have the balls and just admit the only reason you like it is so your school can benefit at the expense of the athlete.

Totally agree - we need to call a spade a spade.

Heck, even beyond the doctor example, it's interesting that it's so easy for some people to give athletes an ultimatum that they can choose between a scholarship and outside compensation, but not both. Of course, that's no sweat for your average lacrosse, golf or tennis player at a Division I program that disproportionately come from higher income families that can pay for college, anyway. Yet, some people get all hot and bothered when it comes to endorsements for football and basketball players that, let's face the facts, come disproportionately from lower income minority households that don't have any other way to pay for college. Basically, those people are saying that we need to force some of the lowest income students on campus (particularly at virtually any Power Five school, nearly all of whom have affluent student bodies compared to the general population) into a decision at 18 years old to essentially forego college altogether if they choose to have outside compensation.

It's quite funny to me (and not in a "ha-ha" way) that this athlete compensation issue is what riles up emotions in some fans as opposed to, say, the fact that the highest paid public employee in virtually every state is a sports coach, or that hundreds of millions of dollars are funneled into athletic facilities instead of academic programs or financial aid, or a whole host of other issues that clearly turn college sports into straight up professional programs (much less "semi-pro") way more an athlete being able to receive third party compensation in a way that every single other student on campus is already able to do today.

You know---I think there is actually a reason for that. As a Houston fan, Im all too familiar with the idea that your coach is just a hired gun. Yeah, he'll sing the alma mater after games, but he's not really "one of us". He's just a mercenary. He's here only because we were the high bidder and will be gone the moment we are not. But the players--they are students and will one day be alums like us.......Now we are looking at a system where the players will be just like the coach.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 06:58 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-04-2019 06:54 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: #58
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why not just pay the players in a way that maintains the current competitive balance? Right now, everyone gets "0". Pick a percentage of revenue and have the players split it evenly. This third party mess is just a bad idea. If you want to avoid the employee relationship, maybe the money can be run through the NCAA.

What balance? The fiction that anyone outside the elite is going to beat out Alabama football or Duke basketball for a recruit those schools want?
10-04-2019 07:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #59
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 07:34 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why not just pay the players in a way that maintains the current competitive balance? Right now, everyone gets "0". Pick a percentage of revenue and have the players split it evenly. This third party mess is just a bad idea. If you want to avoid the employee relationship, maybe the money can be run through the NCAA.

What balance? The fiction that anyone outside the elite is going to beat out Alabama football or Duke basketball for a recruit those schools want?

The only monetary compensation players at Bama receive is a scholarship---same as Georgia State or Clemson. Thats balanced. There is plenty that is unequal in college football---but the two things that largely keep college football somewhat competitive is equal compensation rules and the scholarship limit---both of which are undermined by the the rule some think is so great. If your whining and crying about "balance" now---just wait till pay-for-play gets rolling with boosters calling the shots.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2019 08:01 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-04-2019 07:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,598
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #60
RE: NCAA Prez Mark Emmert Speaks on California Fair Play Act
(10-04-2019 07:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 07:34 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(10-04-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why not just pay the players in a way that maintains the current competitive balance? Right now, everyone gets "0". Pick a percentage of revenue and have the players split it evenly. This third party mess is just a bad idea. If you want to avoid the employee relationship, maybe the money can be run through the NCAA.

What balance? The fiction that anyone outside the elite is going to beat out Alabama football or Duke basketball for a recruit those schools want?

The only monetary compensation players at Bama receive is a scholarship---same as Georgia State or Clemson. Thats balanced. There is plenty that is unequal in college football---but the two things that largely keep college football somewhat competitive is equal compensation rules and the scholarship limit---both of which are undermined by the the rule some think is so great. If your whining and crying about "balance" now---just wait till pay-for-play gets rolling with boosters calling the shots.

Moreover this isn't only about football and men's basketball, where the concern is about making a bad situation worse. In other sports where there is significantly more parity, the impact on competitive balance of eliminating compensation restrictions would be far more pronounced. That's not something to just brush off. It matters to the kids who play those sports, to the fans who support them, and to the schools that have had success in them.
10-04-2019 08:14 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.