Spts1

California passing legislation to allow athletes to profit from their likeness. NCAA is fighting it...

58 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, Sun Tzu 7 said:

Ok I'm thinking that's the chart for football and yes those 10 Football programs make insane amounts of money but even then.  NCAA football rosters can have up to 125 players.  If you payed just 100 players the "fair market value"... yikes.  That would be $58 million for Texas. Even the article says 'Giving 50% of all revenue to players would destroy the entire structure of how college athletics is funded, so it's not realistic at this point.'

But I wasn't talking about the football players.  I was talking about every student athlete.  When you add up every school and every athlete... gymnastics, swimming,  wrestling, basket ball, base ball, soft ball, lacrosse, football, etc.  The NCAA web site says over 460,000 student athletes but that number seems low to me.

Anyway the California law is talking about image and likeness.. so marketability and endorsements basically.  So we're taking about the stars which is maybe 3 to 4 people on each team... and that's the big ones. 

I guess they unknown guys could get some of that TV money but again,  that's a small population because not every football team and not every sport is being televised.

Its not even just the pay. Its medical expenses and the other stuff that comes with it.  They could work out a payscale if they wanted to but they don't want to pay wages or medical...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, slickgadawg said:

Its not even just the pay. Its medical expenses and the other stuff that comes with it.  They could work out a payscale if they wanted to but they don't want to pay wages or medical...

Wow.  I thought schools provided medical coverage but after looking around I see NCAA requires schools to have insurance but doesn't have to cover what insurance doesn't.

Yeah, schools need to fully cover all medical expenses related to any sports related injuries.  If the smaller schools can't do this maybe they shouldn't have the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sun Tzu 7 said:

Wow.  I thought schools provided medical coverage but after looking around I see NCAA requires schools to have insurance but doesn't have to cover what insurance doesn't.

Yeah, schools need to fully cover all medical expenses related to any sports related injuries.  If the smaller schools can't do this maybe they shouldn't have the sport.

read this. Walter Byers, the man who CREATED the NCAA,  after a falling out with them,  told how he created the term " student athlete" to shield colleges from medical liability.  If you have ANY ounce of respect for the NCAA after reading this right here...

https://deadspin.com/how-the-myth-of-the-ncaa-student-athlete-was-born-1524282374

 

Bunchy Carter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Falcanuck said:

Wouldn't it just make it so every big name recruit will head to a Californian school?

yes, but even if you made it country wide, location will matter more for the cream of the crop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Falcanuck said:

Wouldn't it just make it so every big name recruit will head to a Californian school?

This is exactly what I was thinking.  This might be one of the reasons the that the schools would be banned from the current format of post season play, creating an unfair advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Redswingline2 said:

This is exactly what I was thinking.  This might be one of the reasons the that the schools would be banned from the current format of post season play, creating an unfair advantage.

First, the NCAA KNOWS they can't ban any colleges from post season play based on a state or federal law.  Its propaganda to try and deflect the issue.  Second, the balance of power is already skewed in college sports, especially football.  You got  handful of schools that dominate recruiting because of their resources ( Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, etc.)  Whats really wrong about these arguments is the colleges are CLAIMING to be not in the football business, but then CLAIM that there would be a unfair football advantage in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, slickgadawg said:

First, the NCAA KNOWS they can't ban any colleges from post season play based on a state or federal law.  Its propaganda to try and deflect the issue.  Second, the balance of power is already skewed in college sports, especially football.  You got  handful of schools that dominate recruiting because of their resources ( Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, etc.)  Whats really wrong about these arguments is the colleges are CLAIMING to be not in the football business, but then CLAIM that there would be a unfair football advantage in California.

You don't think that players getting paid in California would create an unfair advantage for them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Redswingline2 said:

You don't think that players getting paid in California would create an unfair advantage for them? 

GOOD!  Remember, this is SUPPOSE to be about STUDENT athletes,  not ATHLETE student.   The game is already skewed to the power schools.  You glossed right over that fact in my previous post.  Tennessee just paid Georgia State $950,000 to play a game.  Its already skewed to where power 5 schools PAY lesser programs to play against them.  The only difference would be the earners ( players) get their share of the pie...

Colleges are not afraid of a balance of power, they are afraid that California paying players would FORCE them to do the same...

Edited by slickgadawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, slickgadawg said:

GOOD!  Remember, this is SUPPOSE to be about STUDENT athletes,  not ATHLETE student.   The game is already skewed to the power schools.  You glossed right over that fact in my previous post.  Tennessee just paid Georgia State $950,000 to play a game.  Its already skewed to where power 5 schools PAY lesser programs to play against them.  The only difference would be the earners ( players) get their share of the pie...

Colleges are not afraid of a balance of power, they are afraid that California paying players would FORCE them to do the same...

I agree that players should get paid, but you can't have just one state allowing this and have a fair playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, slickgadawg said:

GOOD!  Remember, this is SUPPOSE to be about STUDENT athletes,  not ATHLETE student.   The game is already skewed to the power schools.  You glossed right over that fact in my previous post.  Tennessee just paid Georgia State $950,000 to play a game.  Its already skewed to where power 5 schools PAY lesser programs to play against them.  The only difference would be the earners ( players) get their share of the pie...

Colleges are not afraid of a balance of power, they are afraid that California paying players would FORCE them to do the same...

Wait.  How is paying student athletes supposed to rectify this?

If anything it would only make this worse.

Bigger schools are bigger schools because they have more money.  If colleges had to pay athletes the bigger schools could afford more because they have more money.... a ton more.

And while the athletes should get compensated I'm not sure it would necessarily help them academically.

Their academic requirements don't change.  The time they spend on athletics wouldn't change.  It would be one less thing to worry about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sun Tzu 7 said:

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

California has a history of passing laws other states wouldn't dream of doing... especially if it comes to the environment.

It would be a shame for all California schools to be banned from all conference games and championships.

I suppose they could put them in a statewide conference.

Cal Poly and UC Davis playing USC and Stanford.  That should be fair.

Can't wait to see how recruiting goes next year.

Personally, I think the NCAA is a 'dead man walking' situation.  

The NCAA is outdated and if a few other states also pass similar bills, the NCAA will quickly crumble... as it should IMHO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Well, don't stop at the college level. Lets pay high school players as well. Then we can set it up for peewee players to be paid. The schools are training players to succeed in the business world of football. Should science students be paid also? Or medical students? This show me the money will ruin sports in my lifetime and I'm already old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Chaz said:

 Well, don't stop at the college level. Lets pay high school players as well. Then we can set it up for peewee players to be paid. The schools are training players to succeed in the business world of football. Should science students be paid also? Or medical students? This show me the money will ruin sports in my lifetime and I'm already old. 

When i was in high school, the team had players on it that I didn't even know went to school...:lol:

Edited by slickgadawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I really like football. Played it in Jr. and High school. I can see a time in the near future where the game as we know it will cease. May be touch or flag which would stop some of the fierce contact, but I played in the trenches and that would still be mano, mano. Fewer parents are going to allow their kids to participate as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sun Tzu 7 said:

Wow.  I thought schools provided medical coverage but after looking around I see NCAA requires schools to have insurance but doesn't have to cover what insurance doesn't.

Yeah, schools need to fully cover all medical expenses related to any sports related injuries.  If the smaller schools can't do this maybe they shouldn't have the sport.

And so it begins.  South Carolina filing legislation to pay its athletes...

The legislation passed in California is a sign of the times,” Kimpson said. “The NCAA is not an amateur sports league. This is a multibillion dollar sports empire where everyone involved makes money except the players on the field who earn it.”

 

https://amp.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article235015452.html

Edited by slickgadawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, slickgadawg said:

And so it begins.  South Carolina filing legislation to pay its athletes...

https://amp.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article235015452.html

1.  This law is basically only going to apply to USC and Clemson and maybe 20 kids total as far as autographs and endorsements.

2.  If they even get it approved it's going to face legal challenge and eventually have to go Federal and the below quote makes me think it won't fare well there either.

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, a Clemson graduate, said he is concerned paying players would ruin the excitement and atmosphere that makes college football unique. He said a scholarship provides plenty of value, especially since most student-athletes won’t go pro in sports.

This won't go anywhere at the Federal Level thanks to the lobbying the NCAA and every school with an athletic program will do.  They will hire super expensive lobbying firms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NCAA will win. California will lose. NCAA Football generates billions of revenue each year and that's just for the schools. The NCAA has deep enough pockets to where they will win through lobbying and any other means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad California did this. Likely the only state with the muscle to pull this off. Great for them. Once the NCAA tries (laughably) to block them from competition, they'll go to the Supreme Court, not have a constitutional leg to stand-on, and then all states (not wanting to lose an recruiting advantage) will allow for students to make money off their images.

People that think college sports at that level is true "amateurism" are pie-in-the-sky, slack-jaw, morons. These schools make millions. The coaches make millions. The networks make millions. Why not let the players profit off their likeness? Not doing so is truly unconstitutional. Heck, even Olympic athletes like gymnasts can still keep their amateur status and do so. This will likely only affect 2-3% of the entire student-athlete body; the Tua's and the TLaw's of the world. 

I sometimes wonder if people from rural areas cling to these "amateur" ideals as to defend to the death why they prefer college sports over pro... it certainly isn't for the balance in competition, venues, or talent on the playing field.

MattM12 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, grandcanyonaz said:

The NCAA will win. California will lose. NCAA Football generates billions of revenue each year and that's just for the schools. The NCAA has deep enough pockets to where they will win through lobbying and any other means.

The NCAA's record in court on these type issues is Cleveland Browns-esque. They almost always lose. Haven't won a con law challenge since before most of us were born. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, tactician said:

NCAA reminds me of antebellum slavers that claimed slavery was actually beneficial for slaves.

lmfao and the sad part is there are really people out there on the internet that still defend that position TO THIS DAY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now