Interesting angle: cali to pay college players

[Agent 13 315]

USC player: "I would like to announce that I will be entering the transfer portal. I would also like to announce that I will only be considering UCLA, Stanford and Cal." 

[Beau Vine 54,949]

5 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

Go back and read my original post from today. I said I'm all for what California is doing As far as letting them profit from their image and likeness. 

Then I said I AM AGAINST UNIVERSITIES PAYING THE PLAYERS DIRECTLY for the reasons I stated above. 

Again, there is literally nothing in any of these bills, passed or proposed, that involves the universities paying the players directly, so you're just being a dumb shit for introducing a red herring to the discussion.  

[Beau Vine 54,949]

5 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

Here from 12 hours ago. Made it easy for you. 

I wasn't saying California or this case is saying the universities should pay players. I was outlining why taking it a step further and having the universities pay players the way people like Jay Bilas and Kenny Smith advocate would be a terrible idea. 

Could you post any tweet or article in which Jay Bilas advocates universities paying players?  Thanks.  

[Catdaddyhorn 3,448]

8 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

Here from 12 hours ago. Made it easy for you. 

I wasn't saying California or this case is saying the universities should pay players. I was outlining why taking it a step further and having the universities pay players the way people like Jay Bilas and Kenny Smith advocate would be a terrible idea. 

That's funny you mention Kenny Smith. He was the featured speaker at the SMU athletics forum luncheon this past week, and as per usual with forum luncheon guest, he was on BaD radio as result. To my surprise he is against paying players, so I wonder where you got this notion that he's, not only for it, but as big an advocate as the most notable college sports figure to come out for paying players. Are you pulling shit out of your ass again?

[Poolflood 845]

Players cannot go to the nfl unless they've been out of high school for 3 years.  That's not an ncaa rule, correct?  In that case leave the rules as they are.  But I'm old and u kids need to get off my lawn.  

[Scooter Monzingo 821]

Wow, I’m shocked how many are totally missing the significance of the legislation. Stop looking at it as a single law.

It is when this law is combined with other legislation like the TV lawsuit in the early 80’s to the more recent O’Bannon case. Along with any other legislation that may be enacted. Will allow lawyers to eventually have enough case law to dismantle the institution that believes itself to be untouchable. That is what scares the power brokers at the NCAA. The NCAA really doesn’t give a rats ass about a player making thousands off of their likeness. It is about the NCAA trying to prevent a toe hold in chipping away their millions, their power, their jobs, and who ultimately has control of the sport. Case law is how you bring down a bully. It worked against Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. It worked in the civil rights movement, and it will work against the NCAA.

No one gives a shit about the players. They care about the money, and who has control of it. Honestly of the 400,000 ametuer college athletes in the US, how many will have an opportunity to actually parlay their likeness into cash? Sure, some will do well, hell its America, good for em. 

 

[Junior Miller 1,502]

13 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Could you post any tweet or article in which Jay Bilas advocates universities paying players?  Thanks.  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theundefeated.com/features/college-football-championship-pay-that-man-four-proposals-for-compensating-college-athletes/amp/

A little down under the heading "open the free market". Bilas has advocated the universities having a free market system where they can pay the players directly any amount they choose. 

I'm not introducing a red herring, this is a legitimate proposal that has many advocates in the college sports world, but they never confront the financial downsides and how to handle them. I didn't just make this shit up. 

[Junior Miller 1,502]

12 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

That's funny you mention Kenny Smith. He was the featured speaker at the SMU athletics forum luncheon this past week, and as per usual with forum luncheon guest, he was on BaD radio as result. To my surprise he is against paying players, so I wonder where you got this notion that he's, not only for it, but as big an advocate as the most notable college sports figure to come out for paying players. Are you pulling shit out of your ass again?

He wasn't against paying players, I heard him on bad radio say directly players should be paid by the university an amount that gets put in a collection or trust and once they graduate they get a lump sum. That's not as bad as Bilas' complete free market proposal but it's still going to open up a lot of financial issues that none of these people address.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Junior Miller

[Beau Vine 54,949]

2 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theundefeated.com/features/college-football-championship-pay-that-man-four-proposals-for-compensating-college-athletes/amp/

A little down under the heading "open the free market". Bilas has advocated the universities having a free market system where they can pay the players directly any amount they choose. 

I'm not introducing a red herring, this is a legitimate proposal that has many advocates in the college sports world, but they never confront the financial downsides and how to handle them. I didn't just make this shit up. 

He's not saying the universities should pay the players; he's saying they should be able to if they choose.  There's a huge difference.  

And what you're doing is the very definition of red herring, since this thread is about the Cali bill, which entirely about NIL and we've .already been through literally this exact same shit on page 2 and page 4 of this thread.  You have made the exact same claim Swandered Talent made on page 2, so congrats.  

[Catdaddyhorn 3,448]

4 minutes ago, Scooter Monzingo said:

Wow, I’m shocked how many are totally missing the significance of the legislation. Stop looking at it as a single law.

It is when this law is combined with other legislation like the TV lawsuit in the early 80’s to the more recent O’Bannon case. Along with any other legislation that may be enacted. Will allow lawyers to eventually have enough case law to dismantle the institution that believes itself to be untouchable. That is what scares the power brokers at the NCAA. The NCAA really doesn’t give a rats ass about a player making thousands off of their likeness. It is about the NCAA trying to prevent a toe hold in chipping away their millions, their power, their jobs, and who ultimately has control of the sport. Case law is how you bring down a bully. It worked against Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. It worked in the civil rights movement, and it will work against the NCAA.

No one gives a shit about the players. They care about the money, and who has control of it. Honestly of the 400,000 ametuer college athletes in the US, how many will have an opportunity to actually parlay their likeness into cash? Sure, some will do well, hell its America, good for em. 

 

While it's true that only a few can parlay their likeness into big money (mostly basketball players) through traditional avenues, I think people are underestimating the ability of enterprising kids to utilize social media as a money making tool.  

[Junior Miller 1,502]

18 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

He's not saying the universities should pay the players; he's saying they should be able to if they choose.  There's a huge difference.  

And what you're doing is the very definition of red herring, since this thread is about the Cali bill, which entirely about NIL and we've .already been through literally this exact same shit on page 2 and page 4 of this thread.  You have made the exact same claim Swandered Talent made on page 2, so congrats.  

and I'm saying under no circumstances should universities ever pay the players because of the financial/tax issues.

dude, you were wrong and you were a cunt so just fucking apologize and be done with it 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Junior Miller

[Beau Vine 54,949]

 

3 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

and I'm saying under no circumstances should universities ever pay the players because of the financial implications.

dude, you were wrong and you were a cunt so just fucking apologize and be done with it 

I'm not wrong, and here are quotes from page 2 that apply directly to your posts, which we already had to deal with from another poster on page 2:

On 6/25/2019 at 10:54 AM, 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. 

 

On 6/25/2019 at 11:00 AM, utee94 said:

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.

 

 

On 6/25/2019 at 11:08 AM, utee94 said:

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.

 

 

[CooterBrown 18,099]

I wonder how long until boosters offer full rides and a paycheck for a 5-star to “walk on” at a program where all their spots already full.

[Beau Vine 54,949]

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act on Monday, which will allow college athletes to be paid for the use of their name, likeness and image.

Then, Florida state representative Kionne McGhee filed a similar bill in the Florida House of Representatives aimed at preventing the NCAA from blocking student-athletes from receiving compensation for the use of their likeness or name. McGhee's House Bill 251 would go into effect July 1, 2020. The California Fair Pay to Play Act will not go into effect until Jan. 1, 2023.

According to the HB 251 website, the bill, "Authorizes students participating in intercollegiate athletics to receive specified compensation; provides requirements for specified students, postsecondary educational institutions, certain organizations, & specified representatives; & creates Florida College System Athlete Name, Image, & Likeness Task Force."

 

USA Today's Steve Berkowitz reports that a spokesman for Fla. representative Chip LaMarca says another bill is coming.

McGhee joins a group of other states that have proposed legislation on the matter, including a New York state senator who proposed a bill that would make the state the first to require colleges to pay student-athletes directly. 

The California bill does not force schools to pay athletes, but rather allow athletes to hire agents who can procure business and sponsorship deals. California schools and the NCAA have long opposed the bill, which makes it impossible for schools to follow the NCAA's amateurism rules. 

[Loco 3,754]

McGhee's Florida bill is going nowhere.  GOP controlled house/senate/governor already on record against it.

[jimmyjazz 46,502]

I'm catching up here -- is there any possibility that this will become a real thing in just some states?  Talk about a competitive advantage in recruiting.

I can see Texas being one of the first OR one of the last states to take this up.  It could go either way.  Pot will be legal in Texas roughly one year after the sun burns out, and never mind that over half the legislature hates Austin and UT and will gladly cut their own schools' metaphorical nose off to spite their face.

But, football.

[bschoolprof 6,280]

I'm fine - in theory - with players being able to make money off their likeness, name, etc, for the sake of basic fairness.

However, recruiting is going to be even more of a circus, with each school's rich boosters trying to craft the most attractive and creative endorsement deals.  I actually think this might help smaller schools with rich alumni, like SMU.  They were good when they were illegally paying players, but now can't compete against the big boys (except TCU!) post death penalty.  If we now let SMU boosters pay players, they might start getting some top recruits again.  

 

[Bevo 13,655]

2 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

However, recruiting is going to be even more of a circus, with each school's rich boosters trying to craft the most attractive and creative endorsement deals. 

Yes, it will help end the farce of student athletics as students in all sports will get paid. With the open recruiting of players I think the inevitable will be true minor leagues and club teams depending on the sport. Will it have an effect on the Olympics when swimmers and skiers and track and field athletes start getting paid in college?

[Huckleberry 33,609]

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Yes, it will help end the farce of student athletics as students in all sports will get paid. With the open recruiting of players I think the inevitable will be true minor leagues and club teams depending on the sport. Will it have an effect on the Olympics when swimmers and skiers and track and field athletes start getting paid in college?

Welcome to 1986, dude. It's pretty sad when the NCAA is still hanging onto the farcical notion of amateurism when even the IOC gave up on it over three decades ago.

 

[jimmyjazz 46,502]

5 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Will it have an effect on the Olympics when swimmers and skiers and track and field athletes start getting paid in college?

Uh . . . what?  Have you noticed any NBA players in the Olympics?  Amateur status was abandoned decades ago in the Olympics.

[Gene Parmesan 4,024]

You trying to tell me that the Dream Team wasn't just playing for the love of the game? 

[Bevo 13,655]

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Welcome to 1986, dude. It's pretty sad when the NCAA is still hanging onto the farcical notion of amateurism when even the IOC gave up on it over three decades ago.

 

Did the IOC get rid of amateurism for all sports? Did that issue with the Colorado WR and return guy who was an Olympic skier happen before '86? It sucks getting old.

[Gene Parmesan 4,024]

Just now, Bevo said:

Did the IOC get rid of amateurism for all sports? Did that issue with the Colorado WR and return guy who was an Olympic skier happen before '86? It sucks getting old.

His status was never in question as far as the IOC was concerned.  The issue was NCAA ruling him ineligible for football.  The IOC was fine with him getting paid and competing in the Olympics.

[pops 7,044]

12 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

I wonder how long until boosters offer full rides and a paycheck for a 5-star to “walk on” at a program where all their spots already full.

January 2nd 2023

[Machinator 32,099]

 

[Machinator 32,099]

 

[Bevo 13,655]

4 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

Brian, I think the question is, 'Card/JQJ, if you sign my football, can I write you a check for $250,000 and date it after NSD?'

[Rimbo 26,465]

So, for those of you who still think Twitter is a better place to get your news than long-form journalism, the NYT piece on this had some interesting points.

First, I didn't know that California's governor was a former UC Regent, and student-athlete (baseball, I think?)

Second, Newsom was very explicit as to why this became a law: To force the NCAA to respond to it, and do something, rather than delay the issue more.

 

I think they knew the NCAA would go the interstate commerce approach, and wrote the law to make that argument extremely difficult (to wit, it does nothing to prevent interstate commerce; it's written to say that players can't be prevented from participating.

This law isn't about legalizing the stuff the FBI investigated in basketball, nor is it about universities paying players directly. On its surface, it's just about allowing student athletes the same rights that every other student has. But that's not the point. The supposedly "unintended" consequences are explicitly intentional. They want to force the NCAA to act, or die, or change.

[Magus Ossis 2,889]

Time to start the R McCombs Make-a-Wish-for-an-Athlete foundation.

[Machinator 32,099]

 

[Loco 3,754]

14 minutes ago, Magus Ossis said:

Time to start the R McCombs Make-a-Wish-for-an-Athlete foundation.

I'd just want to have access to read their entries

 

Get ready to see your favorite recruit in a Gatorade ad...    "It's going to be a long night in jail and barking at police dogs makes be thirsty, I reach for Gatoraide!"

Edited October 1, 2019 by Loco

[Beau Vine 54,949]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm catching up here -- is there any possibility that this will become a real thing in just some states?  Talk about a competitive advantage in recruiting.

 

A senator from NC (?) is introducing a federal bill that mirrors the CA law.

[Beau Vine 54,949]

3 hours ago, Bevo said:

Yes, it will help end the farce of student athletics as students in all sports will get paid. With the open recruiting of players I think the inevitable will be true minor leagues and club teams depending on the sport. Will it have an effect on the Olympics when swimmers and skiers and track and field athletes start getting paid in college?

Gotdam, dude, get out more. 

 

 

[JBJ 3,694]

4 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

His status was never in question as far as the IOC was concerned.  The issue was NCAA ruling him ineligible for football.  The IOC was fine with him getting paid and competing in the Olympics.

And the NCAA changed that rule.

[Beau Vine 54,949]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

A senator from NC (?) is introducing a federal bill that mirrors the CA law.

Quote

U.S. Congressman Mark Walker didn’t realize the power the NCAA holds until this spring. An incumbent from North Carolina, Walker traveled a unique path to Capitol Hill, working as a Baptist minister for 16 years before entering Congress in 2015 as a Republican elected on a campaign promise of “people over politics.” That promise brought NCAA leaders to his office earlier this year.

Walker represents North Carolina’s 6th District, a middle-class community located in the outskirts of the cities that college basketball’s blue-blood schools, Duke and the University of North Carolina, call home. Walker arrived in the state in 1991 during an era of Duke men’s basketball dominance punctuated by its rivalry with the University of Michigan. Over time, this rivalry and the characters playing a part in it served as a catalyst for him to consider as a legislator how to protect the publicity rights of NCAA athletes.

“Watching the Duke-Michigan rivalry in the heart of college basketball and becoming a Duke fan, I remember how the Fab Five changed basketball as it was then known,” Walker recounted. “There was a sense of marketing behind their black socks and longer shorts. While Chris Webber, Juwan Howard and Jalen Rose went on to professional basketball careers, Jimmy King and Ray Jackson didn’t profit from any of it. Over the years, I found myself thinking about this a time or two.”

As a minister, Walker has spent a fair amount of time working with underprivileged communities in the inner city. A sports fan, he has hosted sport camps for children who otherwise may not have access to such opportunities. These experiences drove him to investigate how NCAA athletes are compensated.

“I pay attention to college sports more than anything else,” Walker said. “The more I began looking into the NCAA’s model, I saw it was egregious. It is only the NCAA athlete who has to sign a moratorium to profit off of their name, image and likeness. We don’t ask other scholarship students, who unlike most NCAA athletes have time to pick up part-time work, play in bands or complete internships, to do this. I asked how it got this way and why there is such a resistance to even take a look at this.”

These findings led Walker to introduce to Congress the Student-Athlete Equity Act. The legislation would change the NCAA’s amateurism model by defining “a qualified amateur sports organization in the tax code to remove the restriction on student-athletes using or being compensated for use of their name, image and likeness.” The proposal is a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Louisiana Democratic Congressman Cedric Richmond.

It is this proposal that led top NCAA officials to Walker’s Washington office and to Walker recognizing the power of the $1 billion annual revenue-generating enterprise he had taken on.

“I found out how powerful the NCAA is, and even their influence in Washington D.C., when four of their top brass showed up in my office in the spring of 2019,” he said. “They weren’t ugly about it, but I was surprised by one of their questions. He said, ‘What do you think you’re trying to accomplish here?’ The other three were cordial, but tried to convince me this would open the door to corruption. I didn’t laugh out loud, but this was after LSU head men’s basketball coach, Will Wade, had been recorded with a middleman trying to make payments to obtain a recruit.” (While Wade was evasive when asked to explain what was meant by a “strong-ass offer,” LSU reinstated him following a meeting with the school and NCAA officials to explain and clarify the wiretap and said he denied wrongdoing related to college basketball recruiting.)

Walker’s federal proposal is one of a growing number of pieces of legislation recently proposed or passed aimed at changing how NCAA athletes can be compensated.

Last month, California legislators unanimously passed the Fair Pay to Play Act, which was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday during an episode of LeBron James’ “The Shop.” The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, 2023, prohibits the NCAA from preventing NCAA athletes from profiting off of their names, images and likenesses. The NCAA has indicated it will challenge the law in court on constitutional grounds.

California’s law is expected to lead to the enactment of similar state laws nationally. New York state Sen. Kevin Parker recently proposed a similar bill. South Carolina legislators Marlon Kimpson and Justin Bamberg, and two bipartisan legislators from Colorado have indicated they will propose bills when their respective legislatures convene in January 2020. Florida Democratic Rep. Kionne McGhee introduced FL HB 251, the Students Participating in Intercollegiate Athletics bill. While McGhee’s bill resembles California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, the New York proposal and South Carolina’s planned proposal include require NCAA member institutions to make additional revenue-based payments to NCAA athletes.

For South Carolina Rep. Bamberg, a momentum shift has allowed the possibility of changing how NCAA athletes are compensated.

“A few years ago, Sen. Kimpson and myself filed a bill that would have required schools, contingent on the revenue produced by respective sports, to compensate student-athletes in said sports, but were met with a lot of resistance,” he said. “The resistance wasn’t even so much from the schools disagreeing with the basic concept. It was the schools’ fear of the intimidation that was coming their way from the NCAA.”

Bamberg asserts he and Kimpson were inspired to revisit the issue after the passage of California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, recognizing the possibility of compensating athletes from an intellectual property and publicity rights model.

“There are players who can’t afford gas, pay their rent or take their girlfriend on a date,” he said. “If they get financial help from anybody, they lose their eligibility. I’ve had friends play college football who I watched struggle financially growing up. After college, it is as if they never left the poor area they grew up in. They are celebrated and everyone wants to buy their jerseys, but they still can’t afford to put gas in their car. It’s a new-age version of extortion.”

As other states follow California’s lead, legislators believe a legislative wave challenging the NCAA’s compensation model is rising.

“We have been talking to other legislators and I have fielded a number of calls from around the country from people, including community-based organizations, seeking to learn how they can help,” Kimpson said. “We will be meeting with legislators in the Democratic Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus on the matter.”

Both Republican and Democrat legislators see the issue as bipartisan.

“This is a non-partisan issue,” Kimpson said. “I’ve been reached out to by several Republican legislators in support of the proposal.”

U.S. Congressman Walker agreed.

“This is a bipartisan issue,” Walker said. “I am a small, limited government guy and my goal is not to tell the NCAA how to run their nonprofit. But I have a responsibility as a member of Congress to speak out about injustice if there is an infringement on the rights of these young adults. When you have an organization making hundreds of millions of dollars on the backs of unpaid labor, you have to ask how we got to this point. People like Rep. Cedric Richmond, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, partnered on this bill to make sure nobody would put it in a partisan camp. We think it will pass on the House floor and we would like that to happen by the Spring of 2020.”

While partisan politics may not present a barrier to the passage of the proposed legislation, each of the legislators fears that NCAA public relations may present a serious hurdle.

“The NCAA is branding this as ‘pay to play,’ which is not what it is,” Walker said of his bill. “The biggest concern we have to address is figuring out a way to unwind the stereotype or false message that this bill is ‘pay to play.’ Where the dam breaks in our favor is when people begin realizing we are not trying to take from their alma maters or the NCAA. We just want these young men and women to have the same earning potential as every other American. When people think about college athletes, they think most will turn professional and make millions of dollars. That is not the case. Ninety-nine percent of NCAA athletes never receive a dollar from a professional sports contract. When they have a chance during their early adulthood to market themselves, they should have access to do it. Maybe they can’t wear their university logo while doing it, but there’s a way through this. We don’t want to take anything from the universities or NCAA. I am a capitalist. Rock and roll with what you’re doing, but just don’t restrict other people from having access to do the same.”

Kimpson echoed Walker’s sentiments.

“The pushback we’ve heard time and time again is that this is violative of the NCAA’s rules and that in order to stay in good standing with the NCAA, we can’t do this,” Kimpson said. “People say it will ruin college football and basketball as we know it, but the evidence is quite to the contrary. There is already a competitive advantage the big colleges have against the smaller NCAA Division I schools and even among individual programs. Look at Clemson’s football program’s $55 million football facility, which has a barber shop and putt putt course. The Clemson soccer team doesn’t get to use that. Competitive balance is a fiction that needs to be exposed, and we are building a coalition of lawmakers across the country to expose that fiction.”

As the coalition assembles, time may be ticking for the NCAA to address this issue with its own legislation.

“The NCAA has been promising for years that they would look at this,” Walker said. “When I first talked to Jay Bilas about this two years ago, the NCAA promised they would resolve this. At their annual meetings over the last two years, nothing has been done.”

For Bamberg, addressing how NCAA athletes are compensated is an issue of fundamental fairness.

“College athletics has changed,” he said. “That is evident in the money the NCAA generates and the money people tied to it are paid. The only thing that hasn’t changed is how the athletes get treated. They are the last piece of the puzzle. We have to plug something in place to make sure they are taken care of. It is not cool to see a young man or woman, who by all accounts couldn’t even afford to buy a new pair of socks or underwear, struggling, knowing they are generating billions of dollars in revenue and if they were to borrow the money from someone, they would get kicked out of college sports.”

Walker, the minister-turned-politician who came to age in the shadows of blue-blood college basketball, is surprised as anyone that he is the federal legislator carrying the torch to reinvent how NCAA athletes are paid.

“I was in ministry for 16 years and do not have a law degree, but am surprised that in the last 40 years with the rising values of college television contracts, stadium size increases and exploding revenue generation that nobody took this up,” he said. “The fact that the NCAA refuses to engage on this at all really blows me away, because we are talking about a free market concept. It is the government’s job to make sure the rights of these students are protected.”

In response to a request for comment, the NCAA replied with a copy of the letter the NCAA Board of Governors sent Newsom in response to the Fair Pay to Play Act. In a statement following Newsom’s signing of the Fair Pay to Play Act, the NCAA focused on the confusion the law could create as other states have yet to enact similar bills. The Pac-12 Conference, which is headquartered in California, indicated it was “disappointed” by the passage of the Fair Pay to Play Act and asserted the law would have a negative impact on NCAA athletes in the state.

 

[Bevo 13,655]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Gotdam, dude, get out more. 

 

For sure, but with interim sports such as baseball, I don't remember seeing professionals. And I don't follow the track pro circuit: I don't know if there are collegians in track who participate in the Olympics or if you are a collegian and world class, whether you drop out of school at that point and join a club team. And for some reason I don't remember seeing pro boxers and wrestlers. In other words, I thought the Olympic amateur rules depended on the sport.

[Beau Vine 54,949]

34 minutes ago, Bevo said:

For sure, but with interim sports such as baseball, I don't remember seeing professionals.

Basically all minor leaguers. which is why the IOC dropped baseball.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Beau Vine

[Jkwellborn 6,894]

Is this gonna get us NCAA ‘21? Because chop chop.

[JBJ 3,694]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

For sure, but with interim sports such as baseball, I don't remember seeing professionals. And I don't follow the track pro circuit: I don't know if there are collegians in track who participate in the Olympics or if you are a collegian and world class, whether you drop out of school at that point and join a club team. And for some reason I don't remember seeing pro boxers and wrestlers. In other words, I thought the Olympic amateur rules depended on the sport.

Boxing is different due to certain boxing league rules and not the IOC.  Boxing hates cross-league fights unless they are getting paid handsomely for title matches. Baseball conflicts with professional seasons.

You can do NCAA track/swimming/wrestling and do Olympics as well (Goodwin). You can receive training stipends through an amateur team or the USOC and win prize money.  There was a wrestler a couple years ago (at Louisville?) who accumulated $500,000 in wrestling competitions.  You can be paid/sponsored for sports that you don't participate in NCAA.  You can't appear in advertising.

The Olympic rules are simple: you can't advertise a product conflicting with the IOC sponsors (no Pepsi when Coke sponsors the games).  And you can't appear in advertising during the promotional period leading up to the games or during the games themselves.

Edited October 1, 2019 by JBJ

[Jkwellborn 6,894]

Wasn’t Jermey Bloom ruled ineligible because he was an Olympic skier?

[HtownHorn 14,952]

5 hours ago, Machinator said:

 

What if the #11 jersey had no name on the back? Who, then, would get the cut? Ricky, Johnson, Sam, Major?

[HtownHorn 14,952]

13 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

Wasn’t Jermey Bloom ruled ineligible because he was an Olympic skier?

No he was ruled ineligible if he got paid from endorsements because he was the best mogul skier in the world.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

5 hours ago, Machinator said:

 

That’s the best juke move I’ve seen from Sam yet 

[Valmy77 13,448]

20 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

I wonder how long until boosters offer full rides and a paycheck for a 5-star to “walk on” at a program where all their spots already full.

Yeah I am really interested in how this is going to impact recruiting even if no obvious corruption is going on.

I mean even if nobody is there saying "I promise to pay you 70K a year to market your likeness if you come to Cal!" to some 5 star recruit, but it is actually working as intended.

[Valmy77 13,448]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

That’s the best juke move I’ve seen from Sam yet 

He has a little bit on his mind right now then trying to delve into this stuff.

[utee94 15,898]

28 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Yeah I am really interested in how this is going to impact recruiting even if no obvious corruption is going on.

I mean even if nobody is there saying "I promise to pay you 70K a year to market your likeness if you come to Cal!" to some 5 star recruit, but it is actually working as intended.

But, why wouldn't there be someone there saying, "I promise to pay you 70K a year to market your likeness if you come to Cal?"

Because it would be completely legal and acceptable.  No "corruption" at all since it's all above the table.  So it would definitely happen.  There's no way to extricate the one situation from the other.

Now, I don't know if 70K/year will be the market rate for a 5*.  But it might be.  We know Cam Newton was paid over $180,000 for his year at Auburn, so...

Edited October 2, 2019 by utee94

[Valmy77 13,448]

I cannot think of any reason, but then I do not know specifically how this law works.

If it does work like that then maybe we can look forward to UCLA, Cal, Stanford, and USC dominating the NCAA for a bit.

I mean even if Texas wanted to pass a similar law we have to wait at least until 2021 for the next legislative session.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Valmy77

[JBJ 3,694]

51 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

Wasn’t Jermey Bloom ruled ineligible because he was an Olympic skier?

Because he was taking sponsors for it.  They changed the "same sport / other sport" rules after his case.

He went on to pose for Tommy Hilfiger, though, which still isn't allowed. 

[CooterBrown 18,099]

19 hours ago, Magus Ossis said:

Time to start the R McCombs Make-a-Wish-for-an-Athlete foundation.

T.Boone died too soon. He could've changed up his will to create a billion dollar trust fund for funding athlete endorsements at OSU.

[ChickenSandwich 9,856]

Could be some interesting locker room dynamics if there are guys making 6 figures vs guys on meal plans. 
 

That inequality can be used as a jumping point to push to have the schools or NCAA pay the players directly. 
 

Edited October 2, 2019 by ChickenSandwich