Interesting angle: cali to pay college players

[Beau Vine 54,466]

6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

side note: NCAA football video games. If they try to offer a contact for all students to be in the game does that then violate Title 9?  Could they avoid this by having contacts with individuals only?  

Who is "they" in that sentence?  It's EA Sports, right?  EA Sports is not covered by Title IX. 

BTW, the standard answer for "How will Title IX affect any of this?" should be "Not much."  Title IX is mainly a convenient bogeyman for the NCAA to summon every time there's any discussion of compensating college athletes.  Title IX doesn't affect nearly as much as the NCAA wants you to think it does.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

Who is "they" in that sentence?  It's EA Sports, right?  EA Sports is not covered by Title IX. 

BTW, the standard answer for "How will Title IX affect any of this?" should be "Not much."  Title IX is mainly a convenient bogeyman for the NCAA to summon every time there's any discussion of compensating college athletes.  Title IX doesn't affect nearly as much as the NCAA wants you to think it does.

Sort of. It depends entirely on what is meant by "any of this". If the proposal is, "we should take the windfall profits from the CFB Playoff and write each participating football player a check", how that will square with Title IX ends up being the kind of speculation I was referring to in my last post. We don't know. We can read Title IX and try to interpret that hypothetical, and/or we can look at how Title IX is currently applied to "opportunity" vis a vis scholarship headcounts, and/or we can look at lawfare in 21st century America and guess at who will sue first and how successful they'll be, but when you get into hypotheticals involving direct school-to-athlete cash/salary compensation, we don't know.

If we restrict "any of this" to "profit via third party from likeness", then it is pretty clear there is no "violation" of Title IX in allowing Tua Tagovailoa to star in TV ads for a Tuscaloosa car dealer. "Any of this" gets murky if we talk about Tua getting any portion of the profits Alabama generates. 

[Beau Vine 54,466]

1 minute ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Sort of. It depends entirely on what is meant by "any of this". If the proposal is, "we should take the windfall profits from the CFB Playoff and write each participating football player a check",

There is absolutely no one proposing that, so it's again nothing but a red herring that gets brought up by people every time we have one of these threads for who the hell knows why. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

There is absolutely no one proposing that

What? Come on, man.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/college-football-has-money-pay-players-college-football-playoff-proves-ncna833486

I wasn't saying YOU were proposing it, but yes, there are plenty of people who advocate for compensation beyond profiting from likeness. I'm surprised this was even an arguable assertion. 

[Beau Vine 54,466]

WAPO:
 

Quote

California is close to passing a law that would return to athletes what the NCAA unjustly stole: the rights to their own names, images, and likenesses. One’s name and face are what some people might call a birthright. But in the eyes of the NCAA, college athletes don’t have birthrights; they’re serfs. NCAA President Mark Emmert, the Lord High of the Carillon Towers, has threatened to ban all of California from competition with a wave of his hand before he will allow an athlete to make a profit from his or her own name, picture or signature.

On Tuesday the California state assembly is scheduled to hold a hearing and a vote on the bill, “SB-206, Collegiate athletics: Fair Pay to Play Act.”Emmert is so concerned by it that he sent lawmakers a letter with more than a smack of extortion in it. If they don’t put off consideration of the bill, according to Lord Emmert, His High Grace of the Citadel of Amateurism, it could be “impossible to host fair national championships” in the state. The Rose Bowl is scheduled to host the BCS Championship in 2022-2023. His Excellency also suggested California athletes could all be ruled ineligible.

Here is more of Emmert’s letter, which has the benign quality of the talcum Emmert uses to powder his wig, until you smell the arsenic laced in it.

“We recognize all of the efforts that have been undertaken to develop this bill in the context of complex issues related to the current collegiate model that have been the subject of litigation and much national debate,” Emmert wrote. “Nonetheless, when contrasted with current NCAA rules, as drafted the bill threatens to alter materially the principles of intercollegiate athletics . . .”

Actually, the only thing the bill would materially alter is the reach of Lord Emmert’s power, and the bottom-line profits at those ducal estates Emmert presides over: the turreted athletic departments that purloin and sell the images of athletes like sheaves of wheat. Clemson will sell stacks of No. 16 jerseys, but quarterback Trevor Lawrence won’t see a dime. You want a T-shirt that shows Tua Tagovailoa in Alabama crimson, characteristically pointing to the sky? You can get one for $20. Also, a sticker, and a coffee cup with his image. He’ll likely never be paid for any of it.

Unless he moves to California.

Emmert is bluffing, and California should call him on it. Emmert’s threat to excise the entire left coast reeks of pure desperation and is in no way realistic. This is not a man holding a good hand of cards. He’s a guy with nothing more than a deuce in the hole, who is just trying to delay losing the whole pot. You really think Emmert is going to tell ESPN, CBS and Turner to take a hit in one of their biggest media markets, that the tournaments and bowl championships they paid billions of dollars in rights fees for will have to be played without the heart of the Pac-12? “Sorry, CBS, but you can’t have Stanford, Southern Cal, UCLA or Cal, because their kids might’ve made some cash from selling T-shirts with their own pictures on them.”

The NCAA had years to correct its system of feudal injustice and join the modern world, but it steadfastly refused to, and now an industrial revolution is upon them. UCLA’s Ed O’Bannon woke up one day and saw himself playing basketball in an Electronic Arts video game, for which no one had bothered to ask his permission, much less paid him. He sued the NCAA, and he won. Now lawmakers at the federal level also are considering legislation to make things right for athletes. Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), proposed a bill to Congress in March that would strip the NCAA’s tax-exempt status if it doesn’t stop robbing athletes “of their identity and sovereignty over their public image.”

[Kevin B. Blackistone: Almost half the NCAA’s athletes are women. It needs to make a stand for them.]

Suddenly, behold! In May, the NCAA convened “a working group” to study the issue of name and likeness. Lord Emmert, High Guardian of the Pure Bastion, promises his panel will “examine the NCAA’s position on name, image and likeness benefits and potentially propose rule modifications tethered to education.” He’s like a man trying to bring down the portcullis on an invading horde.

It’s all just a delaying action while more cash is diverted from players’ publicity rights and merchandising into the pockets of associate athletic directors, conference commissioners, NCAA senior vice presidents, and all the other earls and barons who nibble at the corners of the feudal feasting table. The NCAA is too addicted to this system of lieges and vassals to change on its own. The leadership simply doesn’t know how it will exist without the cottagers tithing them millions.

There is nothing to study. There are no “complex issues related to the current collegiate model.” These are rights the NCAA never should have interfered with in the first place. A player’s name, image or likeness should never be anyone else’s to sell or merchandise except by explicit consent. The NCAA has no business considering them in a “working group,” or blocking the exercise of those rights for another second more. There is only one thing to do: Give them back.

Every other citizen in this country owns their name, visage and other biographical details. To rob college athletes of these things is flat out stealing, and it leaves athletes as a separate, permanently impoverished disenfranchised class. California lawmakers should pass their bill, and while they’re at it, ask Emmert just who he thinks he is, to try to threaten an entire state.Presumably, Emmert sent such a letter because the NCAA leadership is scared. A law such as this could very well be how it all ends, how the NCAA’s feudal castle is finally dismantled, rotting old beam by beam.

 

[utee94 15,868]

1 minute ago, SwanderedTalent said:

What? Come on, man.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/college-football-has-money-pay-players-college-football-playoff-proves-ncna833486

I wasn't saying YOU were proposing it, but yes, there are plenty of people who advocate for compensation beyond profiting from likeness. I'm surprised this was even an arguable assertion. 

That is not what THIS proposed California law is about, so it's not what THIS thread topic is about.  I mean, that's ANOTHER discussion that people have regarding paying college athletes, but it has nothing to do with this specific article about this specific potential law in California.

6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

There is absolutely no one proposing that, so it's again nothing but a red herring that gets brought up by people every time we have one of these threads for who the hell knows why. 

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by utee94

[Beau Vine 54,466]

2 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

What? Come on, man.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/college-football-has-money-pay-players-college-football-playoff-proves-ncna833486

I wasn't saying YOU were proposing it, but yes, there are plenty of people who advocate for compensation beyond profiting from likeness. I'm surprised this was even an arguable assertion. 

Sure, if you want to go dig up a random article on the internet, then you can argue that people are proposing anything.  There's nothing in this thread that proposes schools paying players, and there's nothing in the California bill that proposes it, so bringing in that proposal to the thread is pretty much the definition of a red herring. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Just now, utee94 said:

That is now that THIS proposed California law is about, so it's not what THIS thread topic is about.  I mean, that's ANOTHER discussion that people have regarding paying college athletes, but it has nothing to do with this specific article about this specific potential law in California.

Am I really going to have to explain this?

Sort of. It depends entirely on what is meant by "any of this".

The question of Title IX came up. Beau Vine correctly stated that, specific to Title IX, the "likeness statute" wouldn't be a problem. In saying that, he said "any of this", and in response, because the phrase "any of this" is so broad that it could and likely did mean TO THE PERSON ORIGINALLY ASKING ABOUT TITLE IX, I wanted to clarify Beau Vine's post by saying that Title IX is NOT automatically irrelevant when we're talking about athlete compensation. 

It is, and I have now acknowledged repeatedly, not relevant to the California proposal. It IS relevant to discussion about athlete compensation because "WHU BOUT ALL DEM PROFITS" comes up every fucking time.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Sure, if you want to go dig up a random article on the internet, 

do you want me to dig up a fucking hundred of them? I've explained this. 

[Beau Vine 54,466]

2 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

do you want me to dig up a fucking hundred of them? I've explained this. 

Yes, dig up a hundred of them *ON THIS THREAD* which is about the California bill.

I'll dig up a hundred articles about Oscar Giles being lazy and overpaid, which is exactly as relevant to this thread. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Beau Vine

[utee94 15,868]

Just now, SwanderedTalent said:

Am I really going to have to explain this?

 

 

The question of Title IX came up. Beau Vine correctly stated that, specific to Title IX, the "likeness statute" wouldn't be a problem. In saying that, he said "any of this", and in response, because the phrase "any of this" is so broad that it could and likely did mean TO THE PERSON ORIGINALLY ASKING ABOUT TITLE IX, I wanted to clarify Beau Vine's post by saying that Title IX is NOT automatically irrelevant when we're talking about athlete compensation. 

It is, and I have now acknowledged repeatedly, not relevant to the California proposal. It IS relevant to discussion about athlete compensation because "WHU BOUT ALL DEM PROFITS" comes up every fucking time.

You're tilting at windmills, man.  There's enough to discuss on this proposed law alone. Not sure why you are trying to bring up completely unrelated subjects.  Your ideas seem like a great topic for ANOTHER thread, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this OP or this topic or this potential California law.

 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

I don't have the tolerance for frustration the Internet requires anymore.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

@ ============8

Edited June 25, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[sheeeit 129]

There really are very big problems with this.  Cali is not doing this for the athletes, the politicians are doing it for votes.  

I typically hate slippery slope arguments, but lets look at a hypothetical that would be completely "legal" under the proposed regulation.

Wealthy Stanford alum decides to have a monthly podcast/call in show/whatever called "the lives of stanford football players".  Every current stanford player can log on the show and, if they do, they get $1,000.  $12,000/year per player. Costs about $1M per year which is insignificant to alum (for that matter you could sell subscriptions to it for $1/month and easily get enough die hards to cover the actual cost).  That would be perfectly legal under the proposed bill.  

Take that scenario and multiply it by anything you can imagine.  

The potential for harm is even greater in small sports.  Maybe some of you have seen Ricky Fowler's golf channel show about college golf teams?  Just pay the 6 OSU golfers $20K each for the show season.  $120K.  Think OSU might get all of the best golf recruits?  They already get many of the best and have amazing facilities and if they also get $20K per year for doing what they are already doing- who wouldn't go there?

There would be no policing this.  Suddenly Harvard and Yale will be relevant in sports again.

I think stipends of up to $5K/year are already available for scholarship athletes.  I would have no problem with schools offering additional grants to athletes based on need.  Maybe another $5K/year.   There would have to be a cap.

 

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1,084]

12 hours ago, markstanco said:

Maybe I should have used 4d, 5d, and 6d like texags uses constantly concerning jimbo.

I think that's in reference to how many defeats Jimbo will suffer in a given year.

[aggie08 21,555]

22 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

There really are very big problems with this.  Cali is not doing this for the athletes, the politicians are doing it for votes.  

I typically hate slippery slope arguments, but lets look at a hypothetical that would be completely "legal" under the proposed regulation.

Wealthy Stanford alum decides to have a monthly podcast/call in show/whatever called "the lives of stanford football players".  Every current stanford player can log on the show and, if they do, they get $1,000.  $12,000/year per player. Costs about $1M per year which is insignificant to alum (for that matter you could sell subscriptions to it for $1/month and easily get enough die hards to cover the actual cost).  That would be perfectly legal under the proposed bill.  

Take that scenario and multiply it by anything you can imagine.  

The potential for harm is even greater in small sports.  Maybe some of you have seen Ricky Fowler's golf channel show about college golf teams?  Just pay the 6 OSU golfers $20K each for the show season.  $120K.  Think OSU might get all of the best golf recruits?  They already get many of the best and have amazing facilities and if they also get $20K per year for doing what they are already doing- who wouldn't go there?

There would be no policing this.  Suddenly Harvard and Yale will be relevant in sports again.

I think stipends of up to $5K/year are already available for scholarship athletes.  I would have no problem with schools offering additional grants to athletes based on need.  Maybe another $5K/year.   There would have to be a cap.

 

And if those alums get what they feel is a reasonable return on investment, good for them.  My guess is, a couple years down the road, they start getting ornery that they're paying thousands to back-up safeties and still can't win a Pac-12 title.  Plus, the over-saturation of the market will eventually regulate itself, and only the star players will make truly lucrative deals.  As it should be. 

Harvard and Yale won't be relevant in sports again because their players still need to academically qualify to get into Harvard and Yale.

[Burt Macklin 19,053]

28 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

There really are very big problems with this.  Cali is not doing this for the athletes, the politicians are doing it for votes.  

I typically hate slippery slope arguments, but lets look at a hypothetical that would be completely "legal" under the proposed regulation.

Wealthy Stanford alum decides to have a monthly podcast/call in show/whatever called "the lives of stanford football players".  Every current stanford player can log on the show and, if they do, they get $1,000.  $12,000/year per player. Costs about $1M per year which is insignificant to alum (for that matter you could sell subscriptions to it for $1/month and easily get enough die hards to cover the actual cost).  That would be perfectly legal under the proposed bill.  

Take that scenario and multiply it by anything you can imagine.  

The potential for harm is even greater in small sports.  Maybe some of you have seen Ricky Fowler's golf channel show about college golf teams?  Just pay the 6 OSU golfers $20K each for the show season.  $120K.  Think OSU might get all of the best golf recruits?  They already get many of the best and have amazing facilities and if they also get $20K per year for doing what they are already doing- who wouldn't go there?

There would be no policing this.  Suddenly Harvard and Yale will be relevant in sports again.

I think stipends of up to $5K/year are already available for scholarship athletes.  I would have no problem with schools offering additional grants to athletes based on need.  Maybe another $5K/year.   There would have to be a cap.

 

“The potential for harm.” 

Yes, athletes participating in billion dollar industries being given compensation for doing so sounds extremely harmful. 

['stache 21,892]

This doesn't require payment. Wouldn't the effect be that if Nike or Pepsi pays a player, that player becomes ineligible, thereby defeating the point, at least until they go pro? It seems this is more a policy statement from a major state trying to influence the wider debate. I'm not aware of any current law that deprives a college player of the rights to their likeness, its NCAA rules that would make them ineligible if they were to accept payment for endorsement. If the bill required the NCAA or the school or network to pay the player every time they appear on television, that would be a major problem, but I"m not seeing that it goes that far. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

There really are very big problems with this.  Cali is not doing this for the athletes, the politicians are doing it for votes.  

I typically hate slippery slope arguments, but lets look at a hypothetical that would be completely "legal" under the proposed regulation.

Wealthy Stanford alum decides to have a monthly podcast/call in show/whatever called "the lives of stanford football players".  Every current stanford player can log on the show and, if they do, they get $1,000.  $12,000/year per player. Costs about $1M per year which is insignificant to alum (for that matter you could sell subscriptions to it for $1/month and easily get enough die hards to cover the actual cost).  That would be perfectly legal under the proposed bill.  

Take that scenario and multiply it by anything you can imagine.  

The potential for harm is even greater in small sports.  Maybe some of you have seen Ricky Fowler's golf channel show about college golf teams?  Just pay the 6 OSU golfers $20K each for the show season.  $120K.  Think OSU might get all of the best golf recruits?  They already get many of the best and have amazing facilities and if they also get $20K per year for doing what they are already doing- who wouldn't go there?

There would be no policing this.  Suddenly Harvard and Yale will be relevant in sports again.

I think stipends of up to $5K/year are already available for scholarship athletes.  I would have no problem with schools offering additional grants to athletes based on need.  Maybe another $5K/year.   There would have to be a cap.

 

but who cares about "harm" to faux amateur college sports?  It's not about the sport remember?  The kid gets paid, not the school or NCAA, so what.  I'm not seeing a downside to millionaires passing wealth to young athletes at their own discretion and withing the current tax law. 

[El Diablo 4,232]

Aside from 'stache's comment the day's gonna come where some booster gets pissed at his investment underperforming and sues the student for repayment. Throw 3 picks in the championship game? Oops, you got proof that you fulfilled that contract son?

[Beau Vine 54,466]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

There really are very big problems with this.  Cali is not doing this for the athletes, the politicians are doing it for votes.  

I typically hate slippery slope arguments, but lets look at a hypothetical that would be completely "legal" under the proposed regulation.

Wealthy Stanford alum decides to have a monthly podcast/call in show/whatever called "the lives of stanford football players".  Every current stanford player can log on the show and, if they do, they get $1,000.  $12,000/year per player. Costs about $1M per year which is insignificant to alum (for that matter you could sell subscriptions to it for $1/month and easily get enough die hards to cover the actual cost).  That would be perfectly legal under the proposed bill.  

Take that scenario and multiply it by anything you can imagine.  

The potential for harm is even greater in small sports.  Maybe some of you have seen Ricky Fowler's golf channel show about college golf teams?  Just pay the 6 OSU golfers $20K each for the show season.  $120K.  Think OSU might get all of the best golf recruits?  They already get many of the best and have amazing facilities and if they also get $20K per year for doing what they are already doing- who wouldn't go there?

There would be no policing this.  Suddenly Harvard and Yale will be relevant in sports again.

 

And why is any of what you described a problem?  Who is harmed?

[Beau Vine 54,466]

1 hour ago, Burt Macklin said:

“The potential for harm.” 

Yes, athletes participating in billion dollar industries being given compensation for doing so sounds extremely harmful. 

Seriously, that post sounds like it was written by Mark Emmert.

[aggie08 21,555]

24 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Aside from 'stache's comment the day's gonna come where some booster gets pissed at his investment underperforming and sues the student for repayment. Throw 3 picks in the championship game? Oops, you got proof that you fulfilled that contract son?

Because that happens all the time with Nike and Papa Johns?

Good luck suing a 20 year old because they didn't meet the arbitrary performance standards (that wouldn't be written in) for the bogus endorsement that you created for them.

Edited June 25, 2019 by aggie08

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

How often are professional athletes sued for sucking?

[HRSchenker 2,274]

Everyone wanted to call O'Bannon's bluff on the NCAA football game but that game is now dead. Now people are wanting California to do it to Emmert? I think he's crazy enough to tell USC, UCLA, and Cal that they're ineligible for the national championship.

[El Diablo 4,232]

5 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Because that happens all the time with Nike and Papa Johns?

Good luck suing a 20 year old because they didn't meet the arbitrary performance standards (that wouldn't be written in) for the bogus endorsement that you created for them.

If Big Red Autos don't like the way Bomar is playing and it's all above board and he doesn't show up on his Saturday to sit around the dealership or can't prove he showed up...

[aggie08 21,555]

3 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

If Big Red Autos don't like the way Bomar is playing and it's all above board and he doesn't show up on his Saturday to sit around the dealership or can't prove he showed up...

Then Big Red Autos earns a reputation as a company that is willing to breach its endorsement deals over performance, and they get sued. Or, at very least, hurts Oklahoma's chances at landing the next 5* QB.

[Machinator 32,099]

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

Then Big Red Autos earns a reputation as a company that is willing to breach its endorsement deals over performance, and they get sued. Or, at very least, hurts Oklahoma's chances at landing the next 5* QB.

They don't need to recruit 5* QBs out of high school anymore, they'll just take one from the portal.

[El Diablo 4,232]

2 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Then Big Red Autos earns a reputation as a company that is willing to breach its endorsement deals over performance, and they get sued. Or, at very least, hurts Oklahoma's chances at landing the next 5* QB.

You think that next 5* QB doesn't think he's better? And it's not about performance on the field (wink, wink) the kid signed a contract to come by the dealership one day a week and he welched. If you sign a contract with Pepsi to do their commercials and then don't show up they don't still pay you.

[El Diablo 4,232]

I'd imagine too that the timing of signing and endorsement deal could be significant, all of this assuming that the NCAA eventually bends over. Kid sign before his LOI? Underperform and not get playing time and head for the portal? Fulfill the contract while playing for a different school and doing ads for their dealership? Things could get sticky.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

15 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Everyone wanted to call O'Bannon's bluff on the NCAA football game but that game is now dead. Now people are wanting California to do it to Emmert? I think he's crazy enough to tell USC, UCLA, and Cal that they're ineligible for the national championship.

It's going to boil down to what the 12-15 biggest programs want them to do. If Alabama, Ohio State, and Texas all say "we think de-legitimizing the Pac-12 is a great idea", the Pac-12 schools will end up withdrawing from the NCAA-- they're not going to stay but be ineligible for the post-season. If for some reason the top of the power 5 tells the NCAA not to enjoin/punish/sanction the Pac-12, then the NCAA can either back down or kick the entire P5 out. 

But, if they do that, there's seemingly no chance those schools will stay in the NCAA for basketball, either, and if the NCAA loses the March Madness revenue stream, it ceases to be a going concern. Without that money, the NCAA has no purpose in existing. 

[aggie08 21,555]

3 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

You think that next 5* QB doesn't think he's better? And it's not about performance on the field (wink, wink) the kid signed a contract to come by the dealership one day a week and he welched. If you sign a contract with Pepsi to do their commercials and then don't show up they don't still pay you.

I have no idea what you're arguing anymore. If either side doesn't fulfill their contractual obligations, the repercussions are on them. 

You're saying that you think a booster will sue a student-athlete for a "refund" when he sucks on the field under the guise of fraudulently claiming that they didn't meet the appearance requirements--in the age of social media--of their bogus, sweetheart endorsement deal?  Okay...

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

8 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

You think that next 5* QB doesn't think he's better? And it's not about performance on the field (wink, wink) the kid signed a contract to come by the dealership one day a week and he welched. If you sign a contract with Pepsi to do their commercials and then don't show up they don't still pay you.

Why aren't they showing up to do the commercial?

[Beau Vine 54,466]

4 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I'd imagine too that the timing of signing and endorsement deal could be significant, all of this assuming that the NCAA eventually bends over. Kid sign before his LOI? Underperform and not get playing time and head for the portal? Fulfill the contract while playing for a different school and doing ads for their dealership? Things could get sticky.

Or they could just mutually terminate a contract that's no longer benefiting both sides, like millions of businesses do all the time. 

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

Endorsement deals aren't exactly a new frontier.  None of this is uncharted waters.

[El Diablo 4,232]

56 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Endorsement deals aren't exactly a new frontier.  None of this is uncharted waters.

With unsophisticated 19 year olds and unsophisticated boosters at some of these schools? I guess if the rules change significantly they'll all have agent anyway. It would be interesting though with the snowflake generation and the transfer portal if claims of tortious interference don't begin to crop up. Can an endorsement contract be tied to a kids attending school? Or academic eligibility?

[F250 28,826]

So no more payments in F250's?

[utee94 15,868]

40 minutes ago, F250 said:

So no more payments in F250's?

Why not?  Only now, it'll all be legal-like.  We get Big Orange Auto of Austin to give free F250s to all incoming recruits as an "endorsement."  

[pacman 7,371]

Quote

"Like you, the NCAA is committed to providing a fair, inclusive and fulfilling environment for our student-athletes and we recognize that reforms often are necessary to improve the student-athlete experience," Emmert wrote.

lol horseshit

Emmert made almost $4 million in 2017, while presiding over a huge basketball scandal and athletes who can't make a dime off their own name.

Edited June 26, 2019 by pacman

[Big Frog II 511]

If this happens, the SEC would no longer have an advantage over the other schools.  Is that a bad thing?

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

Nothing should be off the table as long as it is executed above it. Make all potential employers register with the school compliance office to offer contracts to the student athlete. The school could provide legal assistance for the contract and for financial assistance/planning as well. (And background checks in the potential employer)

If a booster wants to change someone’s life and relocate a family and provide them with a new job, so be it. People helping people. As long as the school is not paying or employing, who is harmed?  

There is no level playing field currently, and the one who stand to lose the most are the ones already committed to paying the athletes anyway. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Victorious1 166]

It won't long before we see this headline:  "Heisman Winner Sentenced to Prison For Failure to Pay Taxes on College Endorsements"

[Beau Vine 54,466]

5 minutes ago, Victorious1 said:

It won't long before we see this headline:  "Heisman Winner Sentenced to Prison For Failure to Pay Taxes on College Endorsements"

Better than killing two people.

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

23 minutes ago, Victorious1 said:

It won't long before we see this headline:  "Heisman Winner Sentenced to Prison For Failure to Pay Taxes on College Endorsements"

He will do the American thing and hire the best attorney he can and pay a fine. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

this site is so shitty

Edited June 26, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[Jkwellborn 6,748]

Just trying to get more tax dollars.

[formermav43 4,606]

21 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

this site is so shitty

That’s the old site.

[Beau Vine 54,466]

Fuck you, Emmert:

Quote

According to a USA Today article, NCAA president Mark Emmert has sent a letter to the California state legislature threatening to ban California schools from postseason events if the state passes a bill that would allow college athletes to earn money for the use of their own name, image or likeness.

Although this threat is rightfully scary to some California member colleges, it is doubtful whether the NCAA could truly enforce a postseason ban on these grounds. Banning a member college for allowing athletes compensation in compliance with state law is likely an act that would violate federal antitrust laws, as well as California's common law right to good faith and fair dealing.

As many college sports fans already know, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has long maintained a series of bylaws that disallow college athletes from accepting "payment" for participation in their sport. The NCAA's definition of "payment," nevertheless, has changed throughout time. At present, "payment" includes not only direct sums of money provided by colleges to athletes but also the receipt of proceeds derived from the licensing of one's name, image or likeness to third-party endorsers such as Nike or Coca-Cola. This is the very right that California state law seeks to allow state athletes to control and monetize.

 

As a private trade association, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is generally free to adopt any bylaws that it wants. But there are two important caveats to the general principle of non-interference with trade association rules. First, a trade association such as the NCAA may not enforce any bylaw that violates federal or state law. Second, a trade association must enact its bylaws in good faith, and in compliance with the "basic rudiments of due process."

With these two caveats in mind, there is a strong argument that any attempt by the NCAA to ban California member colleges from competing in postseason events based on their compliance with state laws around names, images and likeness would violate both federal antitrust laws and state common-law rights.

 

[TriStone 1,724]

On 6/26/2019 at 10:27 AM, SwanderedTalent said:

this site is so shitty

Go start your own.  You have our blessing.

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

Is Howdy Honda still around?  Asking for a  cuck I know?