The NCAA is effectively a union for the colleges. Until the players have an equivalent things will always be lopsided, imo.
Results 101 to 110 of 210
-
09-25-2019, 03:05 PM #101
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
- Posts
- 408
-
09-25-2019, 11:02 PM #102
Commentary: Why NCAA athletes marketing themselves would hurt college sports.
Not sure the writers opinion agrees with yours Brew?
-
09-26-2019, 07:14 AM #103
What the hell are you talking about??
I DO think it will hurt college sports. That's why I'm concerned. What's disturbing is that the writers are three members of the NCAA Board of Governors, and their opinions are INCREDIBLY weak. They say nothing more than they don't like the law and that it will mess things up for the NCAA if it is passed. As if messing things up for the NCAA is somehow a mitigating thing for the governor and the courts to consider. They say that as if that is somehow relevant enough to keep it from happening. If that's all the NCAA's leadership has to say about it, then they are completely fucked.Last edited by xubrew; 09-26-2019 at 07:32 AM.
"You can't fix stupid." Ron White
-
09-26-2019, 07:46 AM #104
And then this gem came out today...
https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ollege-sports/
Quotes from Emmert...
Emmert on Tuesday, while speaking to a group of Division I athletic directors, called the current debate over name, image and likeness rights the "single biggest issue" in his almost-decade on the job.
This is a "huge, huge issue. As big a one as we've seen in modern times," Emmert said
"My personal view is folks in general think that every student-athlete is going to be making hundreds of thousands of dollars," Emmert told CBS Sports. "One or two will be making some significant amount of money. Nobody else will."
The third statement is either a flat out lie, or it's grossly misinformed. Either way, it does not instill a lot of confidence that the NCAA is going to get this right.
Let's pretend that Emmert actually believes the third statement is true. Can he explain why this "huge huge issue" that is the biggest in modern times is so big when it is really only going to impact "one or two people" who will be making significant money??
The more they talk, the more I'm starting to believe that they are ultimately going to get crushed.Last edited by xubrew; 09-26-2019 at 07:49 AM.
"You can't fix stupid." Ron White
-
09-26-2019, 09:11 AM #105
I will agree that the NCAA is doing a poor job of defining it's position. But I think his last statement is pretty close to true. Really not many athletic departments are profitable. They may have big budgets, but that is different than profitability. The us government has a giant budget, and yet is always broke.
-
09-26-2019, 09:18 AM #106
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
- Posts
- 2,111
the only thing that i think is a problem for the ncaa is coaching salaries. if they could reign in some of the exorbitant coaches' salaries out there, there'd be a lot less controversy imo. obviously that's unlikely, but i think it'd go a long way
-
09-26-2019, 09:23 AM #107
They tried in the early 1990s. They wanted to put a cap on how much coaches could make. The coaches took it to court and won on the grounds that what the NCAA was trying to do constituted wage fixing. Expect to see that ruling referenced in the near future if/when the issue of allowing college players access to the free market lands in court.
Last edited by xubrew; 09-26-2019 at 09:28 AM.
"You can't fix stupid." Ron White
-
09-26-2019, 09:24 AM #108
Giving players the rights to their NILs will not cost the athletic departments or schools any additional money. If only one or two people are able to make money off of their NILs, then what's the problem?? Why would they even care about the law in California, much less call it the biggest issue of modern times, if it was only going to really effect one or two people?
"You can't fix stupid." Ron White
-
09-26-2019, 09:30 AM #109
-
09-26-2019, 09:54 AM #110
Last edited by xubrew; 09-26-2019 at 10:10 AM.
"You can't fix stupid." Ron White
Bookmarks