Leave it to California
- Thread starter Cloneon
- Start date
That is about the only move they can make to keep up their pretense of existence. I would laugh and laugh at Commiefornia though beingg excluded from college sports for a couple years (until the NCAA comes crashing down).
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
Good luck with that, NCAA. There are 20+ schools in California that play D1 sports in one way or another. I don't see them going through with any kind of ban.
I'm all for students getting paid off their likeness. I'm in favor of paying players outright but that's a sticky situation.
If you pay players outright everyone would agree that a cross country athlete isn't worth the same amount of the starting QB on the football team. However I could see some non revenue athlete asking why not?
Making money of their likeness is more of a supply and demand now. If restaurants and commercials want that cross country athlete's talents they can hire him. If not they dont need to.
Plus it wouldn't be the schools that would have to pay.
My only hesitation is, how long does it take before a Texas AM fan that owns a dealership pays an 18 year old football players 10,000 dollars to wave in a commercial? At that point this isn't about the kids education. However you can argue the NCAA isn't about education already.
If you pay players outright everyone would agree that a cross country athlete isn't worth the same amount of the starting QB on the football team. However I could see some non revenue athlete asking why not?
Making money of their likeness is more of a supply and demand now. If restaurants and commercials want that cross country athlete's talents they can hire him. If not they dont need to.
Plus it wouldn't be the schools that would have to pay.
My only hesitation is, how long does it take before a Texas AM fan that owns a dealership pays an 18 year old football players 10,000 dollars to wave in a commercial? At that point this isn't about the kids education. However you can argue the NCAA isn't about education already.
The problem is that everyone looks at the star QB from Alabama and says hey this guy should get more, but the problem is really with Susie Soccer. No one has every paid to see here and the other 26 ladies on the soccer team, but they are still student athletes, and they deserve to be treated the same as Joe Football, right? I mean, we have already gone through this once with title 19. I am not arguing that Susie shouldn't get a piece of the pie, but, if you are going to do this you have to include everyone or it will be endless lawsuits. If you do include everyone, as you should, then everyone needs to be treated the same across sports and across universities.
It’s their only move they can make. Whether it would be successful or not is another question.
Schools are going bankrupt not paying student athletes, this ought to be great for college athletics.
Making the system more complicated will not eliminate corruption.
Yes, I was trying my best attempt at purposely poor English but it takes talent to be that bad.
I have a love/hate relationship with this topic due to my inner struggles. I love college athletics as they are and have always felt that scholarships are payment enough for their services. College debt is only growing and not being burdened with that is extremely significant. Yet, I also realize that athletes shouldn't be restricted from making money from their own likeness while other people do. It's the symbiotic relationship that makes it tricky for me.
Is there truly parity now, or just the perception of parity that is trying to be protected?
I've never been a fan of paying players, because I envision a scenario where the rich get richer and recruiting battles are exclusively won by the team with the deepest pockets. I realize that is done to an extent now, but I feel like the NCAA is the cloud of smoke that is obstructing these deals from the general public. Once that cloud lifts, will viewership decline when fans truly realize they are not given an equal chance?
Conversely, would paying players have as big of an impact as I'm imagining? Or would it have an initial spike and then eventually level out and affect only the top 1-2% of the athletes and make it a bidding war for the select few universities and boosters?
Is there truly parity now, or just the perception of parity that is trying to be protected?
I've never been a fan of paying players, because I envision a scenario where the rich get richer and recruiting battles are exclusively won by the team with the deepest pockets. I realize that is done to an extent now, but I feel like the NCAA is the cloud of smoke that is obstructing these deals from the general public. Once that cloud lifts, will viewership decline when fans truly realize they are not given an equal chance?
Conversely, would paying players have as big of an impact as I'm imagining? Or would it have an initial spike and then eventually level out and affect only the top 1-2% of the athletes and make it a bidding war for the select few universities and boosters?
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
It's not their only move. The NCAA has already been exploring the idea of players being able to profit from their likeness. They know it's coming, and they can't stop it. This is all about them trying to control it. But make no mistake, this is going to happen. That's why I think the post season ban is a bluff. Going through with it will result in lawsuits. And the NCAA doesn't want to risk that because their model doesn't hold up very well to legal scrutiny, and there's always the risk that their hand will be forced by a judge. They definitely don't want that. That's why I think they'll hem and haw and make threats, but by the time this law would go into effect in 2023, they'll come up with their own plan to allow it
Honestly, how many athletes are out there that can actually market their likeness successfully on a national level? Maybe 100-200? Certainly no one that plays men's BB for the TOE, despite what they think. Unless woman athletes start releasing scantly dressed posters of course, but that would open another can of worms.
Somebody may have one but I’m can’t think of a solution put forth that doesn’t have difficult problems.
The intent of this is to force the NCAA to look at it seriously. The law isn't intended to be the answer or the end all, just start the process. That was stated when the bill was introduced. It's a tough issue without easy answers so when you have that situation administrative bodies, like the NCAA, and governmental legislative bodies usually take the easiest route which is to ignore and hope it goes away.
But cowering to this California law does just as much if not more damage. Letting this law go unchallenged guarantees the collapse of the NCAA IMO. Fighting it probably eventually leads to that but at least there is a chance.
Quite frankly like the other poster said I have a love hate relationship with this issue. Should the star athletes be able to profit yes. The thing is I don’t think the problem is really with the NCAA. It’s with the leagues that restrict the age of players. There’s no reason Zion shouldn’t have been able to go to the NBA out of high school. I think a lot of people especially myself don’t particularly care about the elite athletes. Yes we want the best who play college but I couldn’t care less if great athletes skipped college. They aren’t why I’m watching college football or basketball. I’m watching because of my school. In the next 10-20 years it will look dramatically different but I don’t see the NCAA rolling over.
Would you put a cap on the amount of profit at all or let it be unrestricted? What would all be included in this allowance? Autographs and various local advertising spots? Video games? Would Nike be able to use college athletes for ads? If they sign something with the university logo, would they have to negotiate an individual contract with the university for using their logo and work out a percentage? Can athletes sell game-worn gear provided by the university?
Do you foresee a way to curb the lopsided effect this will have for the haves and have-nots, or do you not think it will have a significant impact in terms of overall recruiting?
I'm not attacking you at all. This is just discussion for me. I fee like I'm consistently poking holes in both sides of my own arguments.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
If a student on a non-athletic scholarship can do it, then a student on athletic scholarship should be able to do it. That's my cap. Additionally, if a student has a deal with Nike and the school has an Adidas contract, the school's contract takes precedence for the purposes of game attire and whatnot. That's how it works in the pros, so it feels right in this case as well.