Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 206
  1. #191
    Sophomore XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by 94GRAD View Post
    Cheaters are going to cheat no matter what. Why penalize the athletes who could/should be paid legitimately for their NIL's? Don't penalized the majority because of the cheating minority.
    Because a national program like the CA. bill will place schools like Xavier at an even greater competitive disadvantage than they are already, and give other schools, like UL, UC, OSU, UK, Indiana, etc. an ever greater advantage than they already have. In my eyes, the goal should be to make things as even as possible and not to support programs that make it so that is next to impossible. Those people that are cheating can, and do, get caught and punished at times. Like I said, all this new program does is legalize it and move it outside the realm of what the NCAA can be involved in. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of D1 schools don’t want this.

    I certainly understand that things are not currently equal. Yet schools like Xavier, Butler, ‘Nova, have found a way to actually compete for (and sometimes win) a national championship in basketball. In many other sports this has also happened, where individuals or schools, that are not the big state schools have found a way to compete successfully. If athletes start choosing their schools based on what the economic opportunity for them to make money is, I am afraid that will end. I’m realistic enough to understand that Xavier is really a small fish in a big ocean when it comes to outside sponsorship and support. I just don’t see how they can compete in that arena. In fact, I would say that it would be impossible for 90% of the D1 schools to compete against the other 10% and I don’t think that is what the NCAA wants. I certainly know it’s not what I want.

    Perhaps the solution is to just allow the 60 or so schools that want to compete in that arena to break off and form their own association? Then let the others keep things as they are. Let every school choose what they want their athletic programs to stand for and promote.

  2. #192
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,815
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post
    Because a national program like the CA. bill will place schools like Xavier at an even greater competitive disadvantage than they are already, and give other schools, like UL, UC, OSU, UK, Indiana, etc. an ever greater advantage than they already have. In my eyes, the goal should be to make things as even as possible and not to support programs that make it so that is next to impossible. Those people that are cheating can, and do, get caught and punished at times. Like I said, all this new program does is legalize it and move it outside the realm of what the NCAA can be involved in. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of D1 schools don’t want this.

    I certainly understand that things are not currently equal. Yet schools like Xavier, Butler, ‘Nova, have found a way to actually compete for (and sometimes win) a national championship in basketball. In many other sports this has also happened, where individuals or schools, that are not the big state schools have found a way to compete successfully. If athletes start choosing their schools based on what the economic opportunity for them to make money is, I am afraid that will end. I’m realistic enough to understand that Xavier is really a small fish in a big ocean when it comes to outside sponsorship and support. I just don’t see how they can compete in that arena. In fact, I would say that it would be impossible for 90% of the D1 schools to compete against the other 10% and I don’t think that is what the NCAA wants. I certainly know it’s not what I want.

    Perhaps the solution is to just allow the 60 or so schools that want to compete in that arena to break off and form their own association? Then let the others keep things as they are. Let every school choose what they want their athletic programs to stand for and promote.
    I understand you're concerns about competitive balance, but I also think that it's too late for that. I do not foresee the NCAA winning if they try to dig in against that. I think they'd be much better off allowing players the rights to their NILs, and setting up a clearinghouse to oversee the endorsements to try and ensure that they are all legit. That way at least the NCAA would be able to maintain some level of control. Otherwise, the courts will eventually take it away from them and they'll probably lose a lot more in the process.

    So, while you may not like the idea of players getting rights to their NILs, I guess my question is...well, do you want it to end up being even worse??
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  3. #193
    Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,445
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post

    I certainly understand that things are not currently equal. Yet schools like Xavier, Butler, ĎNova, have found a way to actually compete for (and sometimes win) a national championship in basketball. In many other sports this has also happened, where individuals or schools, that are not the big state schools have found a way to compete successfully. If athletes start choosing their schools based on what the economic opportunity for them to make money is, I am afraid that will end. Iím realistic enough to understand that Xavier is really a small fish in a big ocean when it comes to outside sponsorship and support. I just donít see how they can compete in that arena. In fact, I would say that it would be impossible for 90% of the D1 schools to compete against the other 10% and I donít think that is what the NCAA wants. I certainly know itís not what I want.
    I think youíre looking at the current situation with rose colored glasses. Of the 300+ schools, Iíd say almost every year there is about 10% that have a real shot at winning it all. Even worse in CFB. I donít think it will be much different than it is now if kids get paid. The best solution I saw was a salary cap type situation. Even then, most teams will cheat (like they do now) and it wonít look much different than it is.

  4. #194
    Administrator Muskie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    12,327
    Has anyone done a commerce clause analysis? It seems like that might be the NCAA's one argument that prevents states from doing this.
    "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 Ö 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

  5. #195
    Sophomore XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Xavier View Post
    I think you’re looking at the current situation with rose colored glasses. Of the 300+ schools, I’d say almost every year there is about 10% that have a real shot at winning it all. Even worse in CFB. I don’t think it will be much different than it is now if kids get paid. The best solution I saw was a salary cap type situation. Even then, most teams will cheat (like they do now) and it won’t look much different than it is.
    Actually, my fear is more along the lines of recruiting. Schools like Xavier will be even more at a disadvantage because they can’t offer the same opportunities to make cash that even the school across town can. It will almost force every school that does want to compete to seek out even more corporate partnerships and possibly even give those corporations a much larger say in what is happening in the program.

    If money is the root of the problems in college sports.....how will bringing more money into it be a good thing?

  6. #196
    Walk-On
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    52
    My prediction is this:
    First.There is no turning back. Players will get the rights to sell their IML.
    Second, all the state legislatures will rush to pass on their own IML bills but each will add a unique wrinkle that it will make the legal landscape impossible to navigate and manage.
    Third , Congress will assert commerce clause jurisdiction since travel, tv rights , merchandise sales, etc , cross state lines and there will be a federal law .
    Fourth, the idea of schools being legally required to pay student athletes on top of scholarships will not happen.
    So what will happen. A lot or a little depending on your school.
    First, If you are now an elite program you will compete for the 5 Stars with non elite programs whose wealthy alumni will pay for the athletes IML . At the top, you will have more, not less competitive balance.
    Second, athletes will stay longer in college if they are not first, second round NBA picks since they can make money and improve their draft status.
    Third, if you are a Xavier, a great program with relatively smaller resources, you will cause the donor base to mimic the bigger schools, and not give their money to the school but to the entity buying IML rights. The may get 4 stars that they now donít get.
    Fourth, if you are a small school, or are not athletics driven, there will no change.
    In the end , what will you see.
    First, the competitive balance will look like it does today.
    Second, the schools will lose much direct Alumni support diverted to buying IML rights and the other non revenue sports will suffer.
    Third, it will be messy. The power will dramatically shift to the wealthy alumni who will be the recruiters/funders.
    Fourth, the orchestra leaders will be the agents who will be working the kids , apparel companies, and the Alumni.
    And you know what that will look like.

  7. #197
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Muskie View Post
    Has anyone done a commerce clause analysis? It seems like that might be the NCAA's one argument that prevents states from doing this.
    This is an EXCELLENT question! To which I’m guessing the answer to is No.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  8. #198
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    590
    Quote Originally Posted by GOX View Post
    My prediction is this:
    First.There is no turning back. Players will get the rights to sell their IML.
    Second, all the state legislatures will rush to pass on their own IML bills but each will add a unique wrinkle that it will make the legal landscape impossible to navigate and manage.
    Third , Congress will assert commerce clause jurisdiction since travel, tv rights , merchandise sales, etc , cross state lines and there will be a federal law .
    Fourth, the idea of schools being legally required to pay student athletes on top of scholarships will not happen.
    So what will happen. A lot or a little depending on your school.
    First, If you are now an elite program you will compete for the 5 Stars with non elite programs whose wealthy alumni will pay for the athletes IML . At the top, you will have more, not less competitive balance.
    Second, athletes will stay longer in college if they are not first, second round NBA picks since they can make money and improve their draft status.
    Third, if you are a Xavier, a great program with relatively smaller resources, you will cause the donor base to mimic the bigger schools, and not give their money to the school but to the entity buying IML rights. The may get 4 stars that they now donít get.
    Fourth, if you are a small school, or are not athletics driven, there will no change.
    In the end , what will you see.
    First, the competitive balance will look like it does today.
    Second, the schools will lose much direct Alumni support diverted to buying IML rights and the other non revenue sports will suffer.
    Third, it will be messy. The power will dramatically shift to the wealthy alumni who will be the recruiters/funders.
    Fourth, the orchestra leaders will be the agents who will be working the kids , apparel companies, and the Alumni.
    And you know what that will look like.
    The missing inputs are two:
    1. What happens to the athletes (the majority of them) who do NOT get paid because they have no value? There will likely be a lot of dissension and likely lawsuits.
    2. Title IX is the real question. Even though the players will get the money and not the schools you expect a lot of litigation in this area too.

  9. #199
    Supporting Member bjf123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Section 105
    Posts
    3,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Olsingledigit View Post
    The missing inputs are two:
    1. What happens to the athletes (the majority of them) who do NOT get paid because they have no value? There will likely be a lot of dissension and likely lawsuits.
    2. Title IX is the real question. Even though the players will get the money and not the schools you expect a lot of litigation in this area too.
    There will definitely be some dissension when the star QB is showing up in his new Maserati while the O-Line that lets him shine arenít getting anything. Might start getting some ďLook out!Ē blocks from that line.

    The Title IX issue will be interesting if the schools are still meeting the requirements based on scholarships, or whatever else might be factored in. If some of the male players are getting big bucks from endorsement deals, how is that the fault of the school? Theyíre not paying anyone.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Golf is a relatively simple game, played by reasonably intelligent people, stupidly.

  10. #200
    Sophomore surfxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    F'ing Catalina Wine Festival
    Posts
    534
    And then there's THIS take: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ts/3908164002/

    Specifically this paragraph: "In his sport, Plona could see name, image and likeness compensation helping schools without football, such as Marquette and Xavier. That allows boosters and local companies to focus their contributions on basketball.

    “The Creightons of the world. The Wichita States of the world,” Plona said. “There could be some programs that really get some of those significant donors or boosters or owners of small companies around the area, and all of a sudden, the basketball kids could be their top guys.”
    I have complete faith in coach Steele and Co.

Posting Permissions

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