Jump to content

Archived

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

Jalapeno

California Fair Pay To Play Act SIGNED

Recommended Posts

I would love to be in on internal meetings at Nike right now. Does Knight have the power to ensure Oregon players get all of the Nike funds (or 2×/5×/10× players at other schools)? Can Nike then give them limited commercial spots...like they already give them limited uniforms? Can you imagine being in a five star recruit's home and telling them come to Oregon and you will be in Nike's latest commercials during MNF?

All the while schools like UNM will be offering $500 to be in a Lotaburger ad. That only runs locally.

I see this as just another step in creating a bigger gap in the haves and have-more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people assume that once players are able to profit off NIL that the marketing and promotions budgets of boosters and other interested parties will somehow exponentially balloon, so as to allow for players to reap untold millions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 307dude said:

I love how people assume that once players are able to profit off NIL that the marketing and promotions budgets of boosters and other interested parties will somehow exponentially balloon, so as to allow for players to reap untold millions. 

I don’t think they will increase. Just be diverted to the players. Which I guess isn’t all bad. 

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 307dude said:

I love how people assume that once players are able to profit off NIL that the marketing and promotions budgets of boosters and other interested parties will somehow exponentially balloon, so as to allow for players to reap untold millions. 

Thats the whole point. Most won't balloon. But you don't think there is a handful of Phil Knights... TBoonePickens.... Fred Smiths... That would open up their wallets in the millions? The collective of Alabama fans willing to send $20 to a trust fund set up a non-profit booster club org that is run by a board hand picked by the AD? Most schools won't have it...but for the ones that do....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well....maybe not T Boone Pickens.....

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 minutes ago, RSF said:

Well....maybe not T Boone Pickens.....

Lol... I knew not him for the purpose of 2023. The point was there is a history of at least a handful that love opening the checkbooks for their alma mater. And again....forget money. If oregon can say you will get in commercials...or even a shoe line. They control who gets it. Do you think the Nike commercial would have a Morant...or a Justin Herbert? That is a really powerful recruiting tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NCAA is very familiar with Commerce Clause challenges. It likely feels optimistic that one would work against the Act. In 1993, the NCAA secured a legal victory against a state statute on Commerce Clause grounds. In NCAA v. Miller, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Commerce Clause barred the State of Nevada from requiring the NCAA to provide “a Nevada institution, employee, student-athlete, or booster who is accused of a rules infraction with certain procedural due process protections during an enforcement proceeding in which sanctions may be imposed.” The statute was passed in the wake of the UNLV men’s basketball recruiting controversy.

The core problem with the state statute, noted Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, is that it in order to apply equal rules across the 50 states, the NCAA would be required to adopt the rules of Nevada for every state. “The practical requirement that the NCAA would have to use the Statute in enforcement proceedings in every state in the union,” Judge Fernandez reasoned, “runs afoul of the Commerce Clause.” Indeed, Nevada’s statute would “directly control commerce occurring wholly outside the boundaries of the state.”

 

Judge Fernandez also expressed concern that other states could adopt requirements that diverge from those in Nevada. The NCAA would then be forced to deal with “conflicting requirements” by state.

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

Boise brought up by Dan Wetzel as how mid majors can win.

https://sports.yahoo.com/after-jim-delanys-asinine-slippery-slope-remark-here-are-9-potential-impacts-of-payforplay-changes-235859965.html

Quote

The most valuable thing on the recruiting trail has been conference affiliation. Top players tend to sign with teams in the top leagues. Now? Perhaps not.

Are you better off being the starting quarterback at Boise State, where by definition you become the biggest star in a metro area that is approaching 1 million (let alone the entire state) or just another guy battling for a job at USC (where, in Los Angeles, no one will know your name)? How about Oregon State?

In the past, USC won all those recruiting battles. Even Oregon State won most of them. Now? Places such as Boise State, or even lower-level programs in major conferences such as Iowa State or Indiana or Wake Forest are not broke. Maybe they can’t win every bidding war against the Clemsons and Alabamas, but they might be able to win more now than in the past.

“I think a school such as Boise can do really well,” one athletic director said. “When everyone was offering the same package — a scholarship, room and board — then conference membership mattered. Now that they can, at times, offer more money, playing in the Mountain West rather than the Pac-12, it matters a lot less.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could win against the "2nd group" of players.  And in football, which is a big team sport that might actually matter. 

There's also some thought that this could cause boosters to "redirect" where their spending--instead of donating 2 million to the university, they might spend 1 mill on players, and the other one million to the university.  So this could (in theory) cause some schools to lose money too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was the school, I wouldn't use any likeness of any player in their promotions unless they request it, first.  If a student athlete wants to be promoted visually, let him/her request it.  The school can then negotiate payment or not. Practice videos, and news bits, however are a separate animal. I think the student athletes need to concede there.  Going to be hard to set the rules . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought there was some wording in the law that states that companies under contract with the university could not also sign a contract with the player. That would eliminate companies like Nike from taking over as the university is likely more valuable to them long term than the player. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, CPslograd said:

I read it and listened to it.

Again, I kind of think an athlete should get paid if his mug is on a billboard.

But athletes like Eddie O on their highhorse about it are a little tiring.  OK, so O'Bannon's NBA career didn't work out.  He still made lots of money.  And life is a journey, not a destination.  There is no reason he couldn't have utilized his fame from basketball to enhance his post basketball career.  He would have had every opportunity to do so.  McClain had a longer NBA career, but he wasn't a star.  Yet he parlayed that into a successful career as a commentator.  Did O'Bannon get screwed?  Sure, I can see how it wasn't fair that UCLA made money off of him.  But shit, life isn't fair, no one ever said it was.  We've all been screwed one time or another, focusing on that isn't helpful to him.  It's up to him to figure out what to do post career.  Let's say he got paid 300 grand for royalties, would that really matter in his life in 2019?  

Sam Keller too.  It's not our fault you are a bartender in Scottsdale.  Not that I am putting that occupation down, I did it for about 6 years, but some of these guys are ridiculous.  At least O'Bannon was a household name during their title years.  Sam Keller??  People barely know who he is.  

O'Bannon had a lot of opportunities I'm sure if he wanted to take them.  The networks that these athletes can build, has to be very helpful post playing career if they work them right and aren't dicks to people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WAC_FAN said:

They could win against the "2nd group" of players.  And in football, which is a big team sport that might actually matter. 

There's also some thought that this could cause boosters to "redirect" where their spending--instead of donating 2 million to the university, they might spend 1 mill on players, and the other one million to the university.  So this could (in theory) cause some schools to lose money too.

This is one reason why the schools are fighting it no doubt.  Boosters who truly care about the school though will still give to the schools because long term, that should be the best ROI for the money.  Facilities can be used for years, kids can blow out knees, go pro early, or transfer when they don't get their way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AD from Ohio State said this is a grass fire we can't put out. Well you know that's true when New Mexico is about to join the frey. Who else's state is doing this? I believe in order for this to work it will need to be heavily regulated with severe penalties for those that go around the rules. That way the Alabamas of the college football world will have to play semifair in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well college football is what made the game and in the beginning was against the upstart professional football leagues. Now that's it's given into it let's call it what it is: semi-pro football. I know this is going to flip a lot of college football only people upside down. No matter how you spin this I don't find it as a positive in anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lobo Amor said:

Well college football is what made the game and in the beginning was against the upstart professional football leagues. Now that's it's given into it let's call it what it is: semi-pro football. I know this is going to flip a lot of college football only people upside down. No matter how you spin this I don't find it as a positive in anyway.

Actually, not even close to semi-pro. They are NOT being paid to play. Just being paid for the use of their "likeness" in advertising.  Paying them to come play for a team will probably still be illegal, it would be a bribe.  BUT, hard to prove is they are used in advertising.  We shall see. Lot's of fine lines to walk... lots of fines for crossing certain lines, I'm sure.   If they get paid to play a down, snap a ball, throw a ball in uniform, etc. they could lose their eligibility, as they become pros.  The lawyers will get rich on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...