Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Lobo Amor

To pay or not to pay?

Recommended Posts

Hard to believe California did something really smart and fair to everyone.

They should allow athletes to negotiate their scholarships as well.

 

SJSU, Fresno, SDSU could all have a big recruiting advantage over the rest of the MWC and the country.    What might have been an SEC guy might go to SJSU instead of Alabama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news for Boise and a couple others.

 

 

When the California schools are booted from the NCAA for non-compliance, that'll open up some slots in the Pac 12.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RSF said:

Good news for Boise and a couple others.

 

 

When the California schools are booted from the NCAA for non-compliance, that'll open up some slots in the Pac 12.

Better news for all non-Californian western schools that recruit men's soccer...golf...cross country... wrestling...track and field... and baseball teams. With the amount of money needed for football and hoop recruits..there will have to be cuts to the rest of the athletic department. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Swoll Cracker said:

Homeless people and disease on the streets of their major cities and California legislators have time for this frivołity? 

Who here really has the time to send them back to colorado?

San Jose State
Announced: 85,235
Scanned: 33,892
Percentage: 39.8%
Actual Attendance Per Game: 5,648

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, coalman29 said:

Better news for all non-Californian western schools that recruit men's soccer...golf...cross country... wrestling...track and field... and baseball teams. With the amount of money needed for football and hoop recruits..there will have to be cuts to the rest of the athletic department. 

you seem to be missing the point.  California schools will not be allowed - by the NCAA or the schools in the rest of the country - to operate under a different set of rules.  As the article points out, the NCAA is a voluntary organization.  You think the other P5 schools will let USC, etc, have that advantage?  Hell, no.

 

Probably wont come to that, though.  And it'll be a long time before any such law (if it even passes) can/will be enacted, anyways.  There will be a lawsuit about 5 minutes after it becomes law.  And, based on the final ruling in the O'Bannon case (that cost-of-attendance payments cured anti-trust issues), the NCAA would have a decent chance of winning.

 

 

 

 

 

While O’Bannon prevailed at the Ninth Circuit, he and many college athlete advocates hoped that the Supreme Court would review the case and decree a more substantial remedy. There were expectations, for example, that student-athletes might receive significant compensation through licensing agreements and other arrangements related to broadcasts and other commercial products. (In 2013, Electronic Arts reached a $40 million settlement to resolve related name, image and likeness claims connected to the company’s college video games.) The Ninth Circuit essentially rejected more substantial remedies. It instead reasoned that, by allowing colleges to offer student-athletes additional compensation up to the full cost of attendance, the NCAA cures the antitrust harm caused by its otherwise unlawful amateurism rules. Such a measure is already in place, meaning the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in O’Bannon compels no additional changes of the NCAA or its member schools, conferences and other affiliated organizations.

 

Two of the three Ninth Circuit judges also vacated a more substantial remedy imposed earlier in the litigation by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. In 2014, Judge Wilken ruled that colleges must reward men’s basketball and football players up to $5,000 per year while they are in school for the use of their names, images and likenesses, with payment made after they graduate. This idea encountered problems for several reasons, including that it was never clear why $5,000 and not $1,000, $10,000, $100,000 or some other number was the appropriate cap or, for that matter, why any fixed cap was appropriate under antitrust law—an area of law that promotes competition. To the disappointment of some, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling ensures that a payment system won’t be implanted. As a result, the NCAA’s controversial system of “amateurism” largely remains in place.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RSF said:

you seem to be missing the point.  California schools will not be allowed - by the NCAA or the schools in the rest of the country - to operate under a different set of rules.  As the article points out, the NCAA is a voluntary organization.  You think the other P5 schools will let USC, etc, have that advantage?  Hell, no.

 

Probably wont come to that, though.  And it'll be a long time before any such law (if it even passes) can/will be enacted, anyways.  There will be a lawsuit about 5 minutes after it becomes law.  And, based on the final ruling in the O'Bannon case (that cost-of-attendance payments cured anti-trust issues), the NCAA would have a decent chance of winning.

 

 

 

 

 

While O’Bannon prevailed at the Ninth Circuit, he and many college athlete advocates hoped that the Supreme Court would review the case and decree a more substantial remedy. There were expectations, for example, that student-athletes might receive significant compensation through licensing agreements and other arrangements related to broadcasts and other commercial products. (In 2013, Electronic Arts reached a $40 million settlement to resolve related name, image and likeness claims connected to the company’s college video games.) The Ninth Circuit essentially rejected more substantial remedies. It instead reasoned that, by allowing colleges to offer student-athletes additional compensation up to the full cost of attendance, the NCAA cures the antitrust harm caused by its otherwise unlawful amateurism rules. Such a measure is already in place, meaning the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in O’Bannon compels no additional changes of the NCAA or its member schools, conferences and other affiliated organizations.

 

Two of the three Ninth Circuit judges also vacated a more substantial remedy imposed earlier in the litigation by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. In 2014, Judge Wilken ruled that colleges must reward men’s basketball and football players up to $5,000 per year while they are in school for the use of their names, images and likenesses, with payment made after they graduate. This idea encountered problems for several reasons, including that it was never clear why $5,000 and not $1,000, $10,000, $100,000 or some other number was the appropriate cap or, for that matter, why any fixed cap was appropriate under antitrust law—an area of law that promotes competition. To the disappointment of some, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling ensures that a payment system won’t be implanted. As a result, the NCAA’s controversial system of “amateurism” largely remains in place.

The NCAA can't afford to lose California schools especially if they are stealing the best athletes from across the country. 

It would be the end of the Big 10 and SEC as all the best athletes would be stupid to not go to a california school.  

The NCAA has nothing they can sue about.  All they can do is get sued and lose.

Not to mention this will go nationwide.  Lots of support for it among blacks who feel like they are getting screwed and they are.  So every democratic state will pass it.  Every presidential candidate that wants the black vote, all 20+ will support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

The NCAA can't afford to lose California schools especially if they are stealing the best athletes from across the country. 

It would be the end of the Big 10 and SEC as all the best athletes would be stupid to not go to a california school.  

The NCAA has nothing they can sue about.  All they can do is get sued and lose.

Not to mention this will go nationwide.  Lots of support for it among blacks who feel like they are getting screwed and they are.  So every democratic state will pass it.  Every presidential candidate that wants the black vote, all 20+ will support it.

 

There's one little wrench in this drama.  The Cal State's, UC's, Stanford and USC all oppose the bill.  And they hold some sway here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jdgaucho said:

 

There's one little wrench in this drama.  The Cal State's, UC's, Stanford and USC all oppose the bill.  And they hold some sway here.

 

It already passed is my understanding.

They hold no sway.

Not to be surprised that institutions of higher learning in California are short sighted, ignorant and have no understanding the huge opportunity this provides them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

It already passed is my understanding.

They hold no sway.

Not to be surprised that institutions of higher learning in California are short sighted, ignorant and have no understanding the huge opportunity this provides them.

 

It might be a formality at this point (31-4 yes vote in the state senate), but the bill isn't enacted just yet.  Per the OP's link.

"Assuming the bill passes the California state Assembly and is ratified by Governor Gavin Newsom, California college athletes would have the right to sign an agent and market their name, image and likeness beginning in 2023."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 5:54 AM, bluerules009 said:

Hard to believe California did something really smart and fair to everyone.

They should allow athletes to negotiate their scholarships as well.

 

SJSU, Fresno, SDSU could all have a big recruiting advantage over the rest of the MWC and the country.    What might have been an SEC guy might go to SJSU instead of Alabama.

That " might have been"  would have been the stupidest human in living memory. They would be trading a probable NFL career and big bucks for a job as night manager at Carl Jr's. I hope you are being sly on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, 1066 said:

That " might have been"  would have been the stupidest human in living memory. They would be trading a probable NFL career and big bucks for a job as night manager at Carl Jr's. I hope you are being sly on this.

They are still an NFL player and SJSU won't screw that up.  Especially since SJSU would have a whole team of them.

Alabama is one of the lower tier coached teams in the country.  It would be hard for SJSU to do worse.   NFL players that go to Alabama were NFL players out of their mothers womb and Saban had nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The schtick is thick today.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jdgaucho said:

 

There's one little wrench in this drama.  The Cal State's, UC's, Stanford and USC all oppose the bill.  And they hold some sway here.

 

There's a lot of wrenches.  Like, they cant really stop the NCAA from enforcing its rules.  Sign with an agent and cut a side deal?  Fine, every time you play your team forfeits.  No bowls, no post season.  

 

 

Come to think of it, schools in the rest of the country would love that.

 

 

But thats where the lawsuit would come from, not the NCAA.  And given that OBannon ruling already covers most of whats in the bill, the NCAA would be on some pretty firm.ground.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RSF said:

There's a lot of wrenches.  Like, they cant really stop the NCAA from enforcing its rules.  Sign with an agent and cut a side deal?  Fine, every time you play your team forfeits.  No bowls, no post season.  

 

 

Come to think of it, schools in the rest of the country would love that.

 

 

But thats where the lawsuit would come from, not the NCAA.  And given that OBannon ruling already covers most of whats in the bill, the NCAA would be on some pretty firm.ground.

 

OTOH, I suppose other schools might like what California's doing and were just waiting for someone to lead the way??

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...