State of California and NCAA may reach tipping point

[xubrew]

Similar legislation has now been proposed in South Carolina. This would actually give more to the players than the California bill would.

https://amp.thestate.com/news/politi...235015452.html

[Xuperman]

This is a far too complex issue for me and I probably shouldn’t even post on this thread but wouldn’t eliminating “one and dones” and NFL age requirements solve most of the problem? AND I don’t understand why the NCAA has struggled in making a bulletproof legal case against paying players. The monetary value of a scholarship has to be considered “pay to play”. It’s the only way to evenly compensate all athletes that can earn one.

The HIGHEST PROFILE players wanting financial compensation for their name and image where the real battle is. The players name and likeness only has real value when coupled with the schools name and logo. I realize that the NCAA uses the amateur status to avoid compensating players but they’ve gotten away with that for far too long. Solution...what if schools were no longer permitted to profit that way? Wouldn’t that go a long way toward solving the problem? I think it would.

If that happened, players should be able to make money anyway they want BUT without using the school name or logo....so it cuts both ways. I mean if KyKy Tandy wants to try and market a plain white/blue jersey with his name and the #24, more power to him but I don’t think there would be much interest without XAVIER on the front.

[scoscox]

Schools already pay players above the table. It’s called a monthly stipend. Kids get housed, clothed, fed, paid, and educated for free for four years by their universities. I’m very unsympathetic to the idea any athletes are “exploited”. I think messing with this gravy train would be disastrous for student athletes in every sport. I think most athletes understand that. It’s an outspoken few who disagree. I don’t blame them for that, but I think the alternative would be worse for them. There’s a reason players aren’t leaving en masse to play in the g league. What they offer you in the ncaa is infinitely more valuable at every level than getting paid 40,000 a year to play lower level professional basketball

[xubrew]

Schools already pay players above the table. It’s called a monthly stipend. Kids get housed, clothed, fed, paid, and educated for free for four years by their universities. I’m very unsympathetic to the idea any athletes are “exploited”. I think messing with this gravy train would be disastrous for student athletes in every sport. I think most athletes understand that. It’s an outspoken few who disagree. I don’t blame them for that, but I think the alternative would be worse for them. There’s a reason players aren’t leaving en masse to play in the g league. What they offer you in the ncaa is infinitely more valuable at every level than getting paid 40,000 a year to play lower level professional basketball

I agree with most of these sentiments. Hearing people whine about how college athletes were basically living in sweatshop like conditions and were barely able to get by always struck me the same way nails on a chalkboard do. The reality is that being a college athlete, especially a div1 athlete, is a pretty sweet gig. It's still tons harder than what most people realize, but it's certainly got its perks.

The problem is this, though. The NCAA has been making a similar argument, and every time they've done it, they've lost. My frustration with the NCAA isn't so much that I think they're exploiting people. I think they're an example of hubris run amok. I think they're too dumb to see how much their structure is being threatened, and are not only don't know what to do about it, but have convinced themselves that there is no need to really do anything.

If what you're saying isn't working, then you need to change what you're saying. The NCAA isn't doing that.

Are student-athletes employees?? The NCAA is saying they're not. They need to do more than just say that. They also need to strongly consider what the other side is arguing, and look at cases in which the other side has made arguments that have won. Is work or service being performed?? and is the work or service benefiting the person who is exerting control over it?? That's basically the standard for employment. That's a lot of gray area, but it seems as though whenever someone tries to argue that college athletes are employees, they win. That's a problem. Simply saying that you don't feel that the are athletes doesn't solve the problem. Saying that they get all this great stuff also doesn't solve the problem, even though they're not wrong. Saying that they don't have to play college sports is true (at least to a point), but it's also irrelevant. No employee is forced to work at their current job, but that's not a disqualifier from them being able to sue their employer and win.

So, some of the things the NCAA could be doing, but aren't, is showing how athletics is an extension of education. Show how that in looking at the preferred qualifications of almost any entry level job that student-athletes get those experiences from playing college sports. Point out that student-athletes must be academically eligible to compete regardless of how good at their sport they are, and that being eligible requires them to be in good academic standing and that they progress toward a degree. THE IDIOTS AT THE NCAA DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT!! Then again, the comeback to that would be "well, how would paying them make it any less academic?" but at least the NCAA could demonstrate that athletics are tied in with academics.

It looks to me that the NCAA has decided to fight to the death on this hill of amateurism. I question whether or not it is winnable. I question further whether or not the NCAA is capable of winning it even if it is winnable. They don't exactly strike me as the best and brightest, and the fact that no one really likes them will make it even more difficult. If you've picked your hill to die on, and you're not capable of defending it, then you're pretty much already dead. The more and more I see the NCAA making the same arguments that never seem to work and not doing ANYTHING to either build a stronger case, or proactively get ahead of it and try to make concessions that would keep them from getting taken to court in the first place, the more and more I think that they're ultimately doomed. Saying athletes don't have to play won't work. Pointing out all the nice stuff that they already get won't work. Saying that amateurism is vital won't work. They need to try something else!

Also, this will keep getting worse. California has legislation in regards to names, images, and likenesses. South Carolina is proposing legislation that allows schools to pay players up to $5000 a year on top of their scholarship and cost of living, and on top of having the rights to their NIL. What's the next state going to do? In order to remain competitive, are they going to allow schools to pay up to $10k? Are they going to make it legal for schools to offer incentives? Is the NCAA even THINKING about any of that?? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that. They aren't.)

[scoscox]

I mean what are they supposed to do? If those states want to do that there’s nothing the ncaa can do to stop them. If it passes they’ll likely ban them from competition which is why I think it’s unlikely they pass unless those states are really intent on sticking it to all the universities in their state

[xubrew]

I mean what are they supposed to do? If those states want to do that there’s nothing the ncaa can do to stop them. If it passes they’ll likely ban them from competition which is why I think it’s unlikely they pass unless those states are really intent on sticking it to all the universities in their state

Not likely to pass?? California has basically already passed it. It was a near unanimous vote and it's just waiting to be signed by the governor. If those schools are banned from competition then I'm sure they'll sue the NCAA on the grounds that the NCAA is violating anti-trust laws, and that the rules they broke were illegal in the first place. Based on how those cases have been going over the past few years I'm way less than confident that the NCAA will win.

[Xavgrad08]

Article on why The NCAA could not ban the California schools if this passes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede.../#ea83ae5273f8

[xubrew]

Article on why The NCAA could not ban the California schools if this passes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede.../#ea83ae5273f8

I think the NCAA will still try it. If they do they’ll get sued, and will almost assuredly lose, but they won’t be smart enough to realize that.

[Final4]

I think the NCAA will still try it. If they do they’ll get sued, and will almost assuredly lose, but they won’t be smart enough to realize that.

And isn't the operative word(s) in the Forbes article the following: California "member" schools? Is there something that precludes the NCAA from telling USC that if you no longer intend to comply with our rules and regulations you can no longer (by choice) be a "member" of our association?

[xubrew]

If the NCAA's rules and regulations are deemed to be in violation of anti-trust laws, then that would preclude them from being able to kick a school out for not following them. But, they may try it anyway, and WOW will that be a shit show!!