tailgater
6 years ago
The NCAA is a governing body for collegiate sports.
To participate, those teams agree to abide by their rules.

CA is telling their student athletes that they don't need to follow the rules.

And they're doing it because they feel the NCAA is taking more than their fair share.

Nevermind that it is through the NCAA programs that allow these schools to make millions. And it allows these schools to provide scholarships to kids who otherwise might not be able to go to school.
No. that's not enough.
Because the NCAA makes even more.

Maybe it's a conversation that needs to take place.
Maybe the kids should get endorsements.
But it's prone to abuse, and if allowed is likely to lead to geographical favoritism.
Why would a kid go to Iowa when he can make more in endorsements from southern CA?

If the state of CA wants to build a new athletic governance, fine.
But to ignore the rules and make state laws to bypass them is beyond ridiculous.



View All Posts by User
Phil222
  • Phil222
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
6 years ago
There has been illegal compensation for athletes since probably the beginning of organized sports, and my comments on this matter are in regards to what will be considered legal compensation in the state of California under this new law.

It is important to note that this law does not require the school or NCAA to share any money they make from college athletics with the athletes. I have a feeling that most schools in California and around the country share similar views with the NCAA in regards to athletes and monetary compensation.

Looking at this from the standpoint of a college sports fan, I hate the idea of players being paid. I believe this new law will be a stepping stone to far more drastic changes that will ultimately change college athletics in a way that I would consider to be negative.

That being said, it was mainly the NCAA and the schools that opened up Pandora’s box with the whole monetary aspect a long time ago. I don’t blame the athletes for wanting to be involved with that aspect too. Looking at this merely from a humanist perspective, I fully support an athlete's right to seek out compensation above what is currently offered by the school as long as it doesn’t interfere with their agreed upon obligations to the university.

For the vast majority of these kids, this will be the only opportunity for them to make money in a field which has taken them many years of hard work and dedication to achieve this level of success. I would also add that many of these kids do not come from wealthy backgrounds, and this money could be life changing for them and their families. If John or Jane Student wants to try and make money from a clothing line, YouTube channel, or do a commercial for the local mattress warehouse, I could care less. That same thought process applies to John or Jane Athlete.

I see nothing wrong with putting legislative pressure on what is essentially a billion dollar monopoly, and currently feel like this legislation is a reasonable middle-ground between the athletes and owners.
View All Posts by User
Speyside
6 years ago
Thank you.
View All Posts by User
tailgater
6 years ago



For the vast majority of these kids, this will be the only opportunity for them to make money in a field which has taken them many years of hard work and dedication to achieve this level of success. I would also add that many of these kids do not come from wealthy backgrounds, and this money could be life changing for them and their families. If John or Jane Student wants to try and make money from a clothing line, YouTube channel, or do a commercial for the local mattress warehouse, I could care less. That same thought process applies to John or Jane Athlete.

Phil222 wrote:



These kids get free college. At schools that would cost $200k++ otherwise.

The perception is these kids are getting screwed.
Simply because the NCAA makes MORE.

If today was the first day you ever heard of college athletics, and your kid were offered free schooling at a top notch school to play some basketball, I bet you'd be thrilled.
Probably have ZERO complaints, right?

Would that perspective change simply because you learn the NCAA is making money off your kids abilities?


View All Posts by User
Phil222
  • Phil222
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
6 years ago
Not every school costs $200,000, and not all of the players stay until graduation. Some are cut. Some get injured and leave, etc. Some of those who would be able to earn the biggest incomes outside of school only stay for one year before turning professional.

If a scholarship is truly adequate compensation for what some of these athletes bring to the table, then why do so many of them get paid big money/gifts/benefits/ under the table?

They must be bringing value to these schools that far exceeds the benefits of those scholarships, correct? And if they have the ability to bring that value to these schools and the NCAA, then should they not be adequately and legally compensated for it?

And to answer your questions broadly I would say that, YES, money certainly has the ability to change people's perspectives....morals...ethics...name it.
View All Posts by User
MACS
6 years ago

Let me be the first to congratulate California in solving all of their problems (i.e. homelessness, poverty, illegal emigrates, etc., etc., etc.) so that they could devote tax payer dollars to tackle this problem that effects the state as a whole. 🌫 🍺

Buckwheat wrote:



We agree on that, fuh sho!

This state has far too many leftist caused problems to be worried about paying college athletes and devoting their time in office to this, and not the real issues you just mentioned.
View All Posts by User
opelmanta1900
6 years ago

Not every school costs $200,000, and not all of the players stay until graduation. Some are cut. Some get injured and leave, etc. Some of those who would be able to earn the biggest incomes outside of school only stay for one year before turning professional.

If a scholarship is truly adequate compensation for what some of these athletes bring to the table, then why do so many of them get paid big money/gifts/benefits/ under the table?

They must be bringing value to these schools that far exceeds the benefits of those scholarships, correct? And if they have the ability to bring that value to these schools and the NCAA, then should they not be adequately and legally compensated for it?

And to answer your questions broadly I would say that, YES, money certainly has the ability to change people's perspectives....morals...ethics...name it.

Phil222 wrote:



all of this and, I've known some college ball players from big schools... they didn't get a $200k education... they may have graduated, but edumacated theys is nots...
View All Posts by User
dstieger
6 years ago
I expect that enrollment in Sports Management educational programs will go through the roof....fast.

Agents will be big winners here.

And, there's going to be near-term job openings for about 130 positions requiring a sports finance/legal mix. Here comes caps and freshman minimums and ....holy crap, can you imagine free agency???? ....mid major walk WR on has Heisman-esque freshman season --- bids will be coming from every corner of the NFL, CFL and every bowl conference team...gonna be nuts

So....how come the NFL never created a viable minor league to mitigate this coming mess? Collusion with NCAA?
View All Posts by User
tailgater
6 years ago

Not every school costs $200,000, and not all of the players stay until graduation. Some are cut. Some get injured and leave, etc. Some of those who would be able to earn the biggest incomes outside of school only stay for one year before turning professional.

If a scholarship is truly adequate compensation for what some of these athletes bring to the table, then why do so many of them get paid big money/gifts/benefits/ under the table?

They must be bringing value to these schools that far exceeds the benefits of those scholarships, correct? And if they have the ability to bring that value to these schools and the NCAA, then should they not be adequately and legally compensated for it?

And to answer your questions broadly I would say that, YES, money certainly has the ability to change people's perspectives....morals...ethics...name it.

Phil222 wrote:



The lower schools will remain unaffected, since the endorsement dollars aren't likely to trickle down that far.
If the kids that exceed expectations bring benefits that "far exceed" the scholarship value should get paid, then shouldn't the inverse be true? Shouldn't those who fall short of expectations then be dismissed? And I'm not talking failures. I'm talking decent players that maybe don't start but still make the team and get the grades.

It's a slippery slope and in my opinion it's not up to the state to redefine how a national organization runs. Nobody's rights are being stomped on here. It's simply about money, and how much the NCAA makes. If the NCAA performed their same function but wasn't a financial behemoth nobody would be complaining.
View All Posts by User
ZRX1200
6 years ago
A big advantage when their scholarships are now taxable?

California is finding new ways to tax that is all this is.
View All Posts by User
tailgater
6 years ago

all of this and, I've known some college ball players from big schools... they didn't get a $200k education... they may have graduated, but edumacated theys is nots...

opelmanta1900 wrote:



You'd think the state would be more concerned about this.

View All Posts by User
Phil222
  • Phil222
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
6 years ago

The lower schools will remain unaffected, since the endorsement dollars aren't likely to trickle down that far.
If the kids that exceed expectations bring benefits that "far exceed" the scholarship value should get paid, then shouldn't the inverse be true? Shouldn't those who fall short of expectations then be dismissed? And I'm not talking failures. I'm talking decent players that maybe don't start but still make the team and get the grades.

It's a slippery slope and in my opinion it's not up to the state to redefine how a national organization runs. Nobody's rights are being stomped on here. It's simply about money, and how much the NCAA makes. If the NCAA performed their same function but wasn't a financial behemoth nobody would be complaining.

tailgater wrote:


I’m pretty sure the kids who underperform for whatever reason already get “dismissed,” and I see no issue if that is the case.

The smaller programs will not remain unaffected. I think you vastly underestimate the market and many different ways these players will be able to make money.

Sure, they probably won’t get anywhere near the amount of money some of the players at bigger schools will be able to bring in, but the money will flow nonetheless.

I imagine many companies are excited they will be able to negotiate directly with the athletes bypassing the schools and NCAA probably signing kids for pennies on the dollar.

I agree this issue is a slippery slope. I also understand your concerns about government interference, but I do believe that sort of thing is warranted in certain situations and we don’t have to agree on that. I appreciate reading your input on the subject either way.

ZRX- I have no idea about any of the tax implications. I wouldn't be suprised if what you stated was true.
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com