Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 206
  1. #1
    Administrator Muskie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    12,327

    State of California and NCAA may reach tipping point

    Link


    According to a history and summary of the bill that was written last week by the staff of an Assembly committee and includes comments for and against, Stanford University’s written opposition states, in part, that the bill "is inconsistent with recent court rulings …that determined that all student-athlete benefits must be tied directly to education purposes only."One of the rulings specifically cited by Stanford is pending with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.NCAA rules presently allow athletes to make money from their name, image or likeness, but only under a series of specific conditions, including that no reference can be made to their involvement in college sports.
    "He's a little bit ball-dominant, he needs to have the ball in his hands, and he's not a good shooter." Ball-dominant … isn't that a nice way of calling someone a ball hog? Where is my Jay Bilas Thesaurus?

    Follow XH on Twitter

    Follow XH on Facebook

  2. #2
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,815
    The bill is kind of sloppily written. If all endorsements have to be "of an educational purpose," and they cannot conflict with any apparel contract that a school has that is already in place, then what else is left? Most deals that athletic departments make, especially apparel deals, are exclusive.

    My thinking is that if this is going to happen, it won't be because of this California bill. It will be because of the P5. They can do it. They can make it so that players at P5 schools are allowed to make money off of their likenesses. If they do that, then the rest of the NCAA will do it within a year.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  3. #3
    Supporting Member noteggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    796
    Interesting response from the NCAA

    http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...enate-bill-206

  4. #4
    Sophomore XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,253
    I think that is a very good response by the NCAA and brings up the one fact that seems to escape so many politicians at state levels...NATIONAL means NATIONAL!

    It’s the NATIONAL Collegiate Athletic Administration, not the CALIFORNIA CAA. If you want the universities and athletes in your state to compete for NATIONAL championships, the rules have to be the same for ALL universities across the country. Additionally, the choice to compete under NCAA sanctioning is just that...a choice. No university MUST be a member of the NCAA. If you don’t like the rules of that organization, find a different one or even start up a new one.

    Seems to me that those politicians should have enough other things to concern themselves with. Stay out of college athletics.

  5. #5
    Sophomore surfxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    F'ing Catalina Wine Festival
    Posts
    534
    How about that... wow... basically "if you pass this law then all of the universities in California are out of all NCAA competitions". No NCAA tournaments at all. Got to imagine that all other universities in all other states would not schedule CA teams leaving them all to fill out their schedules to just play each other!
    I have complete faith in coach Steele and Co.

  6. #6
    Sophomore XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by surfxu View Post
    How about that... wow... basically "if you pass this law then all of the universities in California are out of all NCAA competitions". No NCAA tournaments at all. Got to imagine that all other universities in all other states would not schedule CA teams leaving them all to fill out their schedules to just play each other!
    If that is the response then the state of California plans to take the NCAA to court and charge it with restraint of interstate trade....what a mess.

    Xavier fans really need to be wary of this. iF it ever gets to a situation where college athletes CAN be paid for the use of their image, etc. then Xavier will be at a drastic disadvantage to all other schools that can ensure the athletes of a much greater opportunity to cash in on their status as a college athlete. Heck, Xavier can’t even get a coach’s show on local TV, does anyone realistically believe that the basketball players at OSU, Indiana, WV, UL, etc. won’t have a much greater opportunity to sell their images and profit off of their status as a college athlete than the ones that attend Xavier? Talk about an uneven playing field.

  7. #7
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,815
    Quote Originally Posted by noteggs View Post
    It's a pretty weak response.

    1. I seriously doubt that California is going to change their minds, but like I said earlier I don't think that's really going to matter.

    2. It makes claims that aren't true, most notably that close to 500,000 all compete under the same rules. They don't. Each division has different rules, and in some cases each conference has different rules. It also makes claims that there is currently a level playing field, when there isn't. The NAIA has a level playing field (or close to it). When virtually every conference gets at least two teams into a 32 team tournament, that's a level playing field. The NCAA does not. It's not even close.

    3. If it is their belief that "The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university." Okay, that's great. The problem is that the NLRB has already ruled contrary to this. If you believe in one thing, and the court rules differently, guess who wins. If the NCAA REALLY wants to address this problem then they need to quit pretending that the things they simply say are rock solid just because they said so. They are not.

    4. To build on that, if they REALLY think that the distinction between amateur sports and pro sports is critical, then they need to do more than just say that. I can tell you right now what the arguments will be agains the NCAA. Div3 receives no scholarships and no cost of living, yet it gets nowhere near the attention that div1 gets despite those players being able to get full rides and cost of attendance. They said the same thing about cost of attendance, yet the popularity of college sports didn't go down once it was implemented. Can they explain why it didn't?? Can they explain why the players who are paid the most are the ones that play on the teams and in the division that generates the most interest?? Can they actually quantitatively prove what they are saying is true? Because if they cannot, then they will lose.



    The NCAA has been getting it's ass kicked all over the place in court for the last several years. I would STRONGLY advise them to try and stay out of court. I don't know exactly how, but the NCAA needs to try and work out some sort of an agreement that satisfies those advocating for pay for play, and allows them to keep some sort of control. If they don't, and this goes to court, they will lose. They will lose HUGE. They simply cannot prove to a court that what they are saying is true. They haven't been able to do that for the last several years, and I don't see that changing now. I realize that they may have to make concessions that they do not want to make, but if they don't do that now, then we will probably all be wishing they had in a few years.
    Last edited by xubrew; 09-11-2019 at 04:47 PM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  8. #8
    Supporting Member waggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gold Country
    Posts
    10,811
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    It's a pretty weak response.

    1. I seriously doubt that California is going to change their minds, but like I said earlier I don't think that's really going to matter.

    2. It makes claims that aren't true, most notably that close to 500,000 all compete under the same rules. They don't. Each division has different rules, and in some cases each conference has different rules. It also makes claims that there is currently a level playing field, when there isn't. The NAIA has a level playing field (or close to it). When virtually every conference gets at least two teams into a 32 team tournament, that's a level playing field. The NCAA does not. It's not even close.

    3. If it is their belief that "The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university." Okay, that's great. The problem is that the NLRB has already ruled contrary to this. If you believe in one thing, and the court rules differently, guess who wins. If the NCAA REALLY wants to address this problem then they need to quit pretending that the things they simply say are rock solid just because they said so. They are not.

    4. To build on that, if they REALLY think that the distinction between amateur sports and pro sports is critical, then they need to do more than just say that. I can tell you right now what the arguments will be agains the NCAA. Div3 receives no scholarships and no cost of living, yet it gets nowhere near the attention that div1 gets despite those players being able to get full rides and cost of attendance. They said the same thing about cost of attendance, yet the popularity of college sports didn't go down once it was implemented. Can they explain why it didn't?? Can they explain why the players who are paid the most are the ones that play on the teams and in the division that generates the most interest?? Can they actually quantitatively prove what they are saying is true? Because if they cannot, then they will lose.



    The NCAA has been getting it's ass kicked all over the place in court for the last several years. I would STRONGLY advise them to try and stay out of court. I don't know exactly how, but the NCAA needs to try and work out some sort of an agreement that satisfies those advocating for pay for play, and allows them to keep some sort of control. If they don't, and this goes to court, they will lose. They will lose HUGE. They simply cannot prove to a court that what they are saying is true. They haven't been able to do that for the last several years, and I don't see that changing now. I realize that they may have to make concessions that they do not want to make, but if they don't do that now, then we will probably all be wishing they had in a few years.

    Huh? All D1 players play under the same rules the way I see it. Maybe I'm missing where different conferences have different rules?

  9. #9
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,815
    Quote Originally Posted by waggy View Post
    Huh? All D1 players play under the same rules the way I see it. Maybe I'm missing where different conferences have different rules?
    There are three divisions, not one, and they said that all 1100ish schools and 480,000ish student athletes were all the same. They’re not.

    As far as different conferences having different rules, the P5 has different rules In the sense that they can make their own rules that only apply to them and no one else can.

    Two other differences that come to mind are that the Ivy League doesn’t allow athletic scholarships. Neither does the PFL.

    Now if the NCAA can somehow prove that the Ivy League and the PFL are the most popular conferences in all of college sports because they are more amateur than all the others, then they’ve got way less to worry about.
    Last edited by xubrew; 09-11-2019 at 09:21 PM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  10. #10
    Supporting Member waggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gold Country
    Posts
    10,811
    Three divisions? Ok, and this is a problem why? If you can't understand why divisions exist no one can't help you.

    If the P5 has different rules, site them. Then we can consider if they make sense.

    The Ivy League don't have scholarships because they don't want to give them. Are you saying the NCAA (or better yet, some court) should make them? How do they field a team? At gunpoint?

    Popularity? Next thing you'll say is that women pro atheletes "deserve" what men get. But you're right, popularity does drive things, it's just you're oblivious to what that means.

    Ultimately, how does a school such as X use it's "profit"?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •