Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 209
  1. #21
    Sophomore XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,277
    The bill has nothing to do with any college paying any players.

    It states that it would be illegal for a college in the state of California to declare a student-athlete ineligible, and to revoke their scholarship, because the student-athlete received compensation for the use of their image.

    Of course, receiving such compensation is against NCAA rules and regulations, so the colleges are stuck right in the middle.

    If they do declare an athlete ineligible and revoke their scholarship, they face legal proceedings and the consequences of that.
    If they don’t declare them ineligible then they face penalties from the NCAA, or any other sanctioning body.

    The NCAA is justifiably upset by the idea that one state has taken it upon themselves to pass legislation (and all it needs is the governors signature to become law in 2023 at this point) that upsets the competitive balance across the whole country and gives the schools in that state an unfair advantage over all others.

    The NCAA’s position at this time is not that the rules regarding compensation of this type SHOULD be revised and updated, but that it should be done on a national basis and not on a state by state basis. The state legislature (both houses have passed the legislation with NO opposition) is doing this in order to place pressure on the NCAA to act before it becomes law.

    The problem as I see it.....allowing student athletes to be compensated for the use of their image opens up a whole box of potential problems and questions that will only result in much more in the way of rules and regulations. In addition, it gives an unfair advantage to those universities that have little or no competition in their specific geographic areas or industry leading sports.

    For example...

    Who decides how much the student-athlete can be paid for the use of their image?
    Who decides just who can pay this? Does it have to be a company? Can it be a booster?
    Is it paid directly to the player? Or the school?
    Can the S-A now hire an agent to handle this?
    How is this going to effect Title IX...will the companies/boosters be forced to pay male and female athletes the same amount? And if they don’t, will the university be in trouble for it?
    Are the student-athletes going to be considered employees of the university? Or independent contractors?
    What’s to keep someone like Nike or Coke from using the image of some hot-shot freshman/HS star in a national ad and paying them millions?

    Also...

    Even if it goes nationwide....doesn’t that mean that schools like Ohio State or U of Kentucky will have an even greater advantage over schools like Xavier? I mean c’mon, you can’t tell me that a student-athlete at X will have the same opportunities to cash in as one at OSU will have, let alone those at UK. Keep in mind that this effect ALL student-athletes, not just basketball. Baseball, soccer, swimming, women’s sports, etc. Baseball isn’t really that big around here, but it certainly is in Florida. I can also see where a potential recruit might choose one conference over another just because of the potential within that conference to make money, based on the interest generated by that conference....Football- SEC/Big10. Basketball-ACC. Or choose a school based on the media market and/or marketing potential within the geographic area...NYC, LA, Chicago etc.

    Pandora’s box. I see nothing good coming out of this whole mess.

  2. #22
    Sophomore XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,277
    Some other thoughts/questions...

    This will undoubtedly go to court at some point, and if the courts uphold this new law, what next?

    Can a state legislature pass laws that effect other NCAA rules and regulations, such as...

    Scholarship limits? What if the California Legislature decides that having scholarship limits is unfair to those students that want to go to a California school but can’t because the school has already given out all of its available (under current limits) scholarships? Will they pass a law saying the NCAA can’t place limits on how many scholarships a school can give out?

    Can they pass laws demanding that a certain % of athletic scholarships must go to state residents? Minorities? Disadvantaged youth? Etc.

    Right now the NCAA has rules limiting the available scholarships that many of the so called minor sports can give out. In many cases the available scholarships are not enough to field a full team and are split into partial scholarships so more people can get something. What if they pass a law requiring every student-athlete to get a full scholarship? Who pays for that? Couldn’t that result in a lot of sports being dropped?

    Bottom line....once you start letting legislative bodies writing the rules, anything goes. There are no limits to what can happen.

  3. #23
    I still believe. muskiefan82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,839
    this may be a stupid question, but does the word "likeness" mean the same thing as the "actual" image of a person? To me "Likeness" indicates the use of an image that is so similar in appearance to the actual person that it is obvious that it is supposed to represent the actual person (such as in a video game). In that case, I think the "user" of the "likeness" should pay. As for universities using the actual image of a player, is that considered a "likeness"? To me, these are different things.
    We've come a long way since my bench seat at the Fieldhouse!

  4. #24
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by waggy View Post
    It doesn't change the fact that there will be haves and have nots. I realize that is the case now, but it only gets worse with pay for play.
    I agree.

    Now, if only that were a legitimate legal defense. It's not. It's one that the NCAA seems to be going to, but they keep losing.

    To me, this is not a discussion about whether athletes should or should not be paid. We are way past that now. This is a discussion on what the NCAA needs to do in order to stop getting destroyed in court and to keep from losing everything. What they've been doing for the last several years isn't working. Saying it will "get worse" won't work either.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  5. #25
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by sirthought View Post
    Getting paid by a shoe company or McDonald's is one thing, but if a taxpayer funded institution starts to pay athletes in some sports and not others, or the top player for one sport isn't getting what the top player for another sport is...then this goes up the flagpole even further. And it should.

    Look, we all know how much colleges gain from their performance on the court, but athletes don't have to play in college. They don't. They can organize a minor league just like everywhere else in the world and they'll have to compete with even more experienced men. They don't have to follow that NCAA system. But there are enough benefits out of it that the majority who can just earn a spot on a team will try to do just that, scholarship or not.

    As a taxpayer, I'm not interested in the politics and lobbying that it's going to take to get certain players to play at Big State U, but we're still funding money to Wee Mac College. It becomes a case of why even try. And why are we spending money on this when they can't compete? Then, as a taxpayer, I'm going to ask someone that controls funding on some level to look for a way to make it more balanced. But they can't. But as taxpayers we shouldn't be subjected to the needs of an eighteen year old who's holding out for the best offer. The competition is entertaining, but people have bigger problems in life.

    I have no issue if a coach stops earning their extra salary from a shoe contract and that gets diverted into giving kids more money during the time they are there. I'm all for saying that players can earn a percentage from a video game for using their likeness.

    We haven't even gotten into how does this effect play on the field if guys are worrying at this level about what they have to do to earn more. It's a mess and this bill is really going to make it more of a mess if it leads to college teams putting out money.

    Making this argument is a bad idea.

    If McDonalds, Wendys, Hardees, and Burger King all agreed to only pay their cooks and cashiers $9 an hour as a means of keeping the cost of overhead down and to avoid bidding wars for employees, that would be illegal. Saying "well, people don't HAVE to work at our restaurants, they can work at other restaurants or in other industries" doesn't make it any less illegal. It's price fixing, and it denies workers the right to whatever their fair market value is.

    In my opinion, THAT is what is going to ultimately break college sports. This California bill might push the issue, but it won't ultimately be what kills it. If you read it, it's actually not THAT bad. What the NCAA really needs to watch out for are these other cases that are pushing for players to have access to the free market. Some of those have a lot of teeth. If that lands in court, and all the NCAA shows up with is "It will make it worse," or "They don't have to play college sports," or my personal favorite "We believe that amateurism is vital" then GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE!!

    So, I think the NCAA should SERIOUSLY explore ways to keep that from happening and to stop doubling down on all the things that have not been working these past few years.
    Last edited by xubrew; 09-13-2019 at 09:24 AM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    Making this argument is a bad idea.

    If McDonalds, Wendys, Hardees, and Burger King all agreed to only pay their cooks and cashiers $9 an hour as a means of keeping the cost of overhead down and to avoid bidding wars for employees, that would be illegal. Saying "well, people don't HAVE to work at our restaurants, they can work at other restaurants or in other industries" doesn't make it any less illegal. It's price fixing, and it denies workers the right to whatever their fair market value is.

    In my opinion, THAT is what is going to ultimately break college sports. This California bill might push the issue, but it won't ultimately be what kills it. If you read it, it's actually not THAT bad. What the NCAA really needs to watch out for are these other cases that are pushing for players to have access to the free market. Some of those have a lot of teeth. If that lands in court, and all the NCAA shows up with is "It will make it worse," or "They don't have to play college sports," or my personal favorite "We believe that amateurism is vital" then GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE!!

    So, I think the NCAA should SERIOUSLY explore ways to keep that from happening and to stop doubling down on all the things that have not been working these past few years.
    Maybe I simply don't have the IQ points to totally comprehend this but who ultimately benefits from this? At the end of the day who is the winner?

  7. #27
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Final4 View Post
    Maybe I simply don't have the IQ points to totally comprehend this but who ultimately benefits from this? At the end of the day who is the winner?
    Great question. I admit that my instincts are usually pessimistic, but I'd say there would be far more losers than winners if they don't get a handle on this. The players who are good enough to get paid will win, the lawyers who are dying to get this to trial because see dollar signs and fame will win. I suppose the power programs who put money into paying players instead of all kinds of other stuff won't be the worst thing in the world.

    But for the most part the already wide gap between the halves and the halves nots will likely get wider, some schools will stretch themselves too far in an attempt to keep up, and some others may just give up.

    Having said that, I thought the P5 would damage college sports far more than it has. For the most part, the non-P5 schools seem to be keeping up just as much as before. Maybe that will be the case again this time if this all plays out, but I don't think so.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  8. #28
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    1,761
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    Making this argument is a bad idea.

    If McDonalds, Wendys, Hardees, and Burger King all agreed to only pay their cooks and cashiers $9 an hour as a means of keeping the cost of overhead down and to avoid bidding wars for employees, that would be illegal. Saying "well, people don't HAVE to work at our restaurants, they can work at other restaurants or in other industries" doesn't make it any less illegal. It's price fixing, and it denies workers the right to whatever their fair market value.
    Don't McDonalds, Wendy's, Hardees and Burger King already do that. All those places pay about the same. Schools will just use generic images.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    Great question. I admit that my instincts are usually pessimistic, but I'd say there would be far more losers than winners if they don't get a handle on this. The players who are good enough to get paid will win, the lawyers who are dying to get this to trial because see dollar signs and fame will win. I suppose the power programs who put money into paying players instead of all kinds of other stuff won't be the worst thing in the world.

    But for the most part the already wide gap between the halves and the halves nots will likely get wider, some schools will stretch themselves too far in an attempt to keep up, and some others may just give up.

    Having said that, I thought the P5 would damage college sports far more than it has. For the most part, the non-P5 schools seem to be keeping up just as much as before. Maybe that will be the case again this time if this all plays out, but I don't think so.
    I recognize that football clouds the issue and makes this discussion more complex
    ........therefore I'm going to ignore it. We start every basketball season with 350 teams. Every team has the opportunity to play for the national championship. No team is institutionally advantaged. By that I mean every team has 13 scholarships, plays on 10' rims, etc. Clearly certain schools have better coaches, attract better players, have a greater tradition. But there is nothing that precludes Belmont from going out and getting a coach who can bring in 5 star players. I think this concept is something that most schools embrace. And in doing so I think they endorse the NCAA model and thus agree to comply with all rules and regulations. I'm old school. I don't like the idea of paying players. Why would I sit around and pretend that watching UK play (with a player payroll of $500k) is college sports. It's semi-pro and I would have no interest in that. I don't think that gap between schools get bigger. To the contrary I think 330 schools endorse the NCAA model (and compete for national championships) and 20 schools play each other in a semi-pro league..........and beg for re-admittance in few years when their experiment fails.

  10. #30
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,893
    The problem is that simply saying you like it the way it is now isn’t necessarily going to keep it that way. I don’t think the NCAA, or it’s members, really grasps that. Another thing that doesn’t help is that I think a lot of their lawyers are kinda stupid.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

Posting Permissions

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