Interesting angle: cali to pay college players

[Dolemite 143]

Utee is right. This isn't paying players. This is allowing them to make money off of their playing. Big difference.

This is the can of worms that I  have been waiting to be opened for a number of years and this could be the end of college football as we have known it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2019/06/25/ncaa-cant-legally-ban-california-schools-for-allowing-athletes-to-profit-from-their-names-images-and-likenesses/amp/

Edited June 27, 2019 by Dolemite

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

Let them be professionals. I would support the Texas intramural football team if that’s all that was left. The name TEXAS on the front has way more value than a minor league NFL franchise. 

The wemon’s World Cup has great ratings because of the USA on the jersey, not elite skill.  We will support all things USA

Edited June 27, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Dolemite 143]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Let them be professionals. I would support the Texas intramural football team if that’s all that was left. The name TEXAS on the front has way more value than a minor league NFL franchise. 

The wemon’s World Cup has great ratings because of the USA on the jersey, not elite skill.  We will support all things USA

LOLz.

 

I will never watch Women's soccer on any level on TV, save for an immediate family member playing in it.

Men's soccer sucks ass too.

IDGAF whose name is on the jersey, front or back.

Edited June 28, 2019 by slorch

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

Your loss bro.  I can watch Alex Morgan run around all day. USA USA USA

[Beau Vine 54,012]

10 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Your loss bro.  I can watch Alex Morgan run around all day. USA USA USA

I can watch internet pron all day, which is more interesting.  

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I can watch internet pron all day, which is more interesting.  

[Jkwellborn 6,656]

Your loss bro.  I can watch Alex Morgan run around all day. USA USA USA

She’s damn good looking, but them titties ain’t moving when she runs.

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Valmy77 13,121]

On 6/25/2019 at 11:27 AM, 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.  

Really? For the giant college football player constituency?

[Beau Vine 54,012]

[Machinator 32,097]

 

[Pato del Muerto 52,354]

On 6/25/2019 at 8:35 AM, JMFP said:

On 6/25/2019 at 7:15 AM, ChickenSandwich said:

Do it. The Olympic model. If some dude wants to pay an 18year old 100k for an autograph who gives a shit. Just make sure the schools educate them on tax withholding etc. It could also be a good learning experience to see just how much Uncle Sam takes and maybe start training them with money in a controlled environment to lower the number of professional athletes who file for bankruptcy 
have the schools offer to manage their money in a trust or retirement account as another additional option. (Not mandatory and a good excuse to keep kid off of the front line from friends and family assault for that money)

Read more  

That would be awesome if T Boone could offer the top 20 or so recruits every year 100k to sign with OSU. He hasn't got much longer and he's still waiting for that championship...

Hmmm

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

I wonder if the NCAA might use this as an excuse to stop tilting at that particular windmill. This potentially expands the talent pool at the collegiate level, it doesn't cost the NCAA anything, and (assuming Newsom signs it into law which I think is a safe bet), it's certainly easier to give in on this than to try to fight California in any way.

I wonder how the California schools respond to this, if they would have the ability (if so inclined) to prohibit likeness compensation for scholarship athletes. The state says it's legal, but it's not mandatory. Without having seen the law, I'm wondering if UCLA could say "that's fine, you're entitled and able to profit from your likeness, but at UCLA we prohibit that for scholarship athletes so as to remain compliant with the NCAA". I'm not saying UCLA would or should. I'm curious if they could, legally (if this law is more of a gesture). 

Edited September 12, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[CowboyFred 1,151]

It is going to be very interesting to see how this works out.  They are no doubt going to fuck this up.

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

31 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I wonder if the NCAA might use this as an excuse to stop tilting at that particular windmill. This potentially expands the talent pool at the collegiate level, it doesn't cost the NCAA anything, and (assuming Newsom signs it into law which I think is a safe bet), it's certainly easier to give in on this than to try to fight California in any way.

I wonder how the California schools respond to this, if they would have the ability (if so inclined) to prohibit likeness compensation for scholarship athletes. The state says it's legal, but it's not mandatory. Without having seen the law, I'm wondering if UCLA could say "that's fine, you're entitled and able to profit from your likeness, but at UCLA we prohibit that for scholarship athletes so as to remain compliant with the NCAA". I'm not saying UCLA would or should. I'm curious if they could, legally (if this law is more of a gesture). 

Possibly no use of School Logo, name or image and it’s kosher?

I would assume this would be SOP nationwide 

[aggie08 21,439]

16 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

It is going to be very interesting to see how this works out.  They are no doubt going to fuck this up.

Most likely. But good to start working out the kinks one state at a time. Not allowing adults to profit off their names has always been objectively criminal, so this is just a matter of time.

[Huckleberry 32,710]

Yep. Absolutely ridiculous that players can't profit off their name and image. If Colt McCoy can appear in a boot store commercial while still playing for Texas using only his name with no reference to UT in any way then good for him.

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

On 8/13/2019 at 10:13 AM, Beau Vine said:

That scholarship line is so bogus, it goes up because the cost of tuition goes up, but it's not like these guys were going to be paying full fare and the school gave that money away. The dorms already exist, they're holding the classes already, in most cases the actual cost of sticking a football player in there is going to be negligible. It's absurd to suggest that the actual cost to the university of having 85 extra students is anywhere close to what they're paying for Tom Herman and his assistants. 

[JMFP 1,117]

Hmmm

Too late

[dingleberryswitzer 2,724]

If NCAA tells California to fuck off I wonder if they have the balls to just break away.  form their own California athletics association.  They should have enough D1 schools to form a conference, and I doubt the d2 and under schools do much traveling outside the state either.  

[Randolph Duke 4,034]

1 minute ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

If NCAA tells California to fuck off I wonder if they have the balls to just break away.  form their own California athletics association.  They should have enough D1 schools to form a conference, and I doubt the d2 and under schools do much traveling outside the state either.  

The Ivy league men's crew teams told the NCAA to fuck off many, many years ago. If the Calif schools told the NCAA to get lost, they will do just fine. The North Carolina legislature  is already working on their own version of a compensation bill for D1 athletes. Other states will follow.

[utee94 15,746]

12 minutes ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

If NCAA tells California to fuck off I wonder if they have the balls to just break away.  form their own California athletics association.  They should have enough D1 schools to form a conference, and I doubt the d2 and under schools do much traveling outside the state either.  

Those California schools would have a significant recruiting advantage, with the ability for their players to get paid legally and within the rules, while other universities in other states would not be able to do so.  That's an advantage that I don't think would be tolerable to many of the largest non-California college athletic programs in the country, so I expect to see other state legislatures considering similar laws.  It's already happening in a handful of states including North Carolina, and if this gets signed through by the governor, then I believe even more will follow, and relatively quickly.

California obviously gave the NCAA some time to sort this out on its own, but ultimately if the NCAA doesn't, then the member institutions will either force a change, or abandon the NCAA's governing structure.  The NCAA derives its power solely and entirely from its member institutions.  If the member institutions decide to revoke some or all of that power, the member institutions are all but guaranteed to be able to do so.  Georgia and Oklahoma proved this beyond all doubt in 1984.

The state of California is enabling universities within its borders to take that another step further. And they won't be the last one.

This could be the first step in a breakaway from the NCAA that many people have anticipated for quite some time.

Edited September 12, 2019 by utee94

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

11 minutes ago, Randolph Duke said:

If the Calif schools told the NCAA to get lost, they will do just fine.

Not necessarily. It really depends on how the rest of the member schools respond. It's questionable whether the non-California NCAA schools will want to compete with the California schools on the field, and a California-only college football conference would really lack national interest. The California schools don't need the pointless and bureaucratic NCAA itself, but they arguably need the membership (the P5 at least) in order to produce a compelling TV product. 

I agree with utee94 that other states will follow California's example because the states fall into one of two categories. They either don't give a shit and will do this because it doesn't cost them anything (and, to be fair, some of them might do it simply because they think it's the right thing to do), or they give a tremendous shit and are not about to intentionally hamstring the biggest football program(s) in their states, whether it's Ohio State or Clemson or Alabama. 

[Gene Parmesan 3,993]

31 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Not necessarily. It really depends on how the rest of the member schools respond. It's questionable whether the non-California NCAA schools will want to compete with the California schools on the field, and a California-only college football conference would really lack national interest. The California schools don't need the pointless and bureaucratic NCAA itself, but they arguably need the membership (the P5 at least) in order to produce a compelling TV product. 

I agree with utee94 that other states will follow California's example because the states fall into one of two categories. They either don't give a shit and will do this because it doesn't cost them anything (and, to be fair, some of them might do it simply because they think it's the right thing to do), or they give a tremendous shit and are not about to intentionally hamstring the biggest football program(s) in their states, whether it's Ohio State or Clemson or Alabama. 

Agree.  Allowing players to profit off their likeness doesn't mean much if the only games you play are against other Cali schools.  Longterm other states would follow suit and the NCAA caves or is gone, but short term they can't just start their own conference.  The players need exposure and development to get to the NFL which is still their ultimate goal.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

8 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Longterm other states would follow suit and the NCAA caves or is gone, but short term they can't just start their own conference. 

It will be fascinating to see what the California schools do given that they're wedded to an equal number of non-California western schools. Like I said upthread, I doubt it will take Oregon or Washington very long to pass similar legislation. But if the NCAA says "we forbid our member institutions from complying" and the California schools leave the NCAA en masse, the rest of the Pac-12 schools have to decide how certain they are that their states will legalize likeness compensation before following USC and Stanford out the door. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

From what I'm reading, it doesn't sound like the NCAA can easily prevent California schools from following the law without violating the relevant antitrust statutes. All very interesting. 

Why NCAA Likely Can't Keep California Schools From Allowing Athletes To Profit From Their Names And Likenesses

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.

 

First, a reasonable interpretation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act would likely conclude it be both an illegal form of wage fixing and an illegal concerted refusal to deal if the NCAA were to ban California colleges from post-season tournaments for complying with state laws that grant additional financial rights to athletes. Although the NCAA has long maintained its rules to limit athlete financial freedom, the NCAA's internal rules cannot trump free trade principles or government mandates.

By way of analogy, under federal antitrust law, if a national association of retailers with market power were to decide to ban all members that chose to operate in California and thus complied with California's minimum wage laws, such conduct would fairly easily be recognized as an illegal restraint of trade. The NCAA's proposed conduct — to ban all California member schools that seek to operate in California and comply with California state law — for all intents and purposes, should be viewed the same way.

In addition, the NCAA's attempt to ban California colleges from postseason tournaments in retaliation for the State of California passing a bill to increase the financial rights and economic well-being of college athletes is likely to be deemed to violate the implied common law rights of good faith and fair dealing that exist in every contract. This is because the NCAA, as a monopolist trade association, is punishing several of its private members for doing exactly what their state law requires them to do.

Of course, there is nothing per se illegal about NCAA President Mark Emmert sending a letter to the California legislature arguing against the change of its current state laws. Even under federal antitrust law, the existing Noerr-Pennington exemption preserves behavior that constitutes bona fide government lobbying.

But there is still a big difference between lobbying against a state's changing of its laws and seeking to ban an association member for complying with an enacted law. Not only would banning a California member college for complying with state name, image and likeness laws likely violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, but such conduct would also seem to violate other common law principles including, among others, California common law's implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep. Absolutely ridiculous that players can't profit off their name and image. If Colt McCoy can appear in a boot store commercial while still playing for Texas using only his name with no reference to UT in any way then good for him.

People often think of this as only an avenue for college athletes to make commercials or get paid for autographs, but Dusty Dvoracek brought up an interesting angle on XM radio that never really occurred to me. He said that he was the first player from his town to ever get a D1 football scholi and mentioned how he wanted to hold football camps back in his hometown and was prevented from doing so. Also mentioned how at the time his family didnt qualify for Pell grants and he ended up graduating with nearly 15k in student loans. The California legislature put out a statement talking about the absurdity of the UCF kicker who had to quit playing football to continue his youtube page and swimmers being unable to teach swimming or hold camps where they could make side money. Even if this rule just prevents this level of inanity from continuing it will be a good thing. 

[Beau Vine 54,012]

So apparently the Cal legislature took a prelim vote and it passed 31-5.  The NCAA then sent them a threatening letter and they took a revote after an amendment was added, and it passed 72-0. 
It's really remarkable that the NCAA doesn't realize that there is not a way for them to eventually win this battle, yet they keep fighting. 

 

[Beau Vine 54,012]

If you want to see pure idiocy, look at Darren Rovell tweet something that farcically wrong because he doesn't understand, get corrected/mocked by half of the people on twitter, and then double down on his stupidity over and over:

 

[HtownHorn 14,496]

On 7/16/2019 at 4:31 PM, Machinator said:

 

This is insane. Ehlinger is not responsible for the hundreds of million of dollars the university takes in, he's one guy on a team of 85. We've had shitty QBs and still made hundreds of millions of dollars. It's always going to be the name on the front. Texas is the brand that is selling apparel. It's likely in 2 years the #11 jersey will have another name on the back that will generate some cash value as well.

If Ehlinger's name was on the back of uniform with SFA on the front, his likeness would be worth shit.

[HtownHorn 14,496]

On 7/16/2019 at 8:23 PM, Valmy77 said:

Really? For the giant college football player constituency?

They are woke, but they are really doing this to expand the tax base.

[Neonmoon 38,127]

2 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

People often think of this as only an avenue for college athletes to make commercials or get paid for autographs, but Dusty Dvoracek brought up an interesting angle on XM radio that never really occurred to me. He said that he was the first player from his town to ever get a D1 football scholi and mentioned how he wanted to hold football camps back in his hometown and was prevented from doing so. Also mentioned how at the time his family didnt qualify for Pell grants and he ended up graduating with nearly 15k in student loans. The California legislature put out a statement talking about the absurdity of the UCF kicker who had to quit playing football to continue his youtube page and swimmers being unable to teach swimming or hold camps where they could make side money. Even if this rule just prevents this level of inanity from continuing it will be a good thing. 

Dusty Dvoracek can get fucked. 

[HtownHorn 14,496]

5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep. Absolutely ridiculous that players can't profit off their name and image. If Colt McCoy can appear in a boot store commercial while still playing for Texas using only his name with no reference to UT in any way then good for him.

He probably didn't get paid.

[Valmy77 13,121]

4 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

They are woke, but they are really doing this to expand the tax base.

I guess every little expansion counts. I don't know why they are really doing this, some evil and self serving reason no doubt, but I doubt it is to please the vast constituency of football players or to add a few hundred people to the tax base.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Valmy77

[Valmy77 13,121]

Just now, HtownHorn said:

He probably didn't get paid.

He does free boot commercials? Damn that is some Texas loyalty.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

43 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

This is insane. Ehlinger is not responsible for the hundreds of million of dollars the university takes in, he's one guy on a team of 85. We've had shitty QBs and still made hundreds of millions of dollars. It's always going to be the name on the front. Texas is the brand that is selling apparel. It's likely in 2 years the #11 jersey will have another name on the back that will generate some cash value as well.

If Ehlinger's name was on the back of uniform with SFA on the front, his likeness would be worth shit.

Replace Dak with Ehlinger and the Dallas Cowboys with Texas and how does anything you said suddenly not apply. Michael Jordan wouldn't have been marketable had he been relegated to playing basketball on the outdoor courts of North Carolina nor would Derek Jeter have anything to sell if he was stuck playing baseball on the sandlots of Michigan. The fact that the NFL, NBA, MLB, or byGod The University of Texas provides a platform for athletes marketability doesn't mean they should be denied their right to sell their likeness. 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Catdaddyhorn

[Beau Vine 54,012]

1 hour ago, HtownHorn said:

This is insane. Ehlinger is not responsible for the hundreds of million of dollars the university takes in, he's one guy on a team of 85. We've had shitty QBs and still made hundreds of millions of dollars. It's always going to be the name on the front. Texas is the brand that is selling apparel. It's likely in 2 years the #11 jersey will have another name on the back that will generate some cash value as well.

If Ehlinger's name was on the back of uniform with SFA on the front, his likeness would be worth shit.

So what's the problem then?  There's nothing in this proposed law that says that U$C's QB can use U$C's logo.  How about we let Sam Ehlinger have the right to make endorsements without the Longhorn logo, and then we'll see if his likeness is worth shit?

[HtownHorn 14,496]

44 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Replace Dak with Ehlinger and the Dallas Cowboys with Texas and how does anything you said suddenly not apply. Michael Jordan wouldn't have been marketable had he been relegated to playing basketball on the outdoor courts of North Carolina nor would Derek Jeter have anything to sell if he was stuck playing baseball on the sandlots of Michigan. The fact that the NFL, NBA, MLB, or byGod The University of Texas provides a platform for athletes marketability doesn't mean they should be denied their right to sell their likeness. 

So then stop selling jerseys/tees with player's names and faces on them. I'm not sure where else Sam or any player's likeness is being used to generate the massive amount of money Texas football brings in a year. I could go on the coop and buy literally hundreds of pieces of apparel that have nothing to do with any player on the team.

All those guys were marketable because they played professional sports. How marketable are the Rucker stars, do you even know who those guys are? What about the players in A ball, how many of those guys are pulling down million dollar endorsement deals? Can you name the Gleague MVP without googling, shit can you name the Gleauge champion? 

[HtownHorn 14,496]

3 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

So what's the problem then?  There's nothing in this proposed law that says that U$C's QB can use U$C's logo.  How about we let Sam Ehlinger have the right to make endorsements without the Longhorn logo, and then we'll see if his likeness is worth shit?

It's not, but that isn't going to stop rich alums from abusing this law to cheat in recruiting. College basketball is already a cesspool, so let's make it worse.

[Beau Vine 54,012]

5 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

So then stop selling jerseys/tees with player's names and faces on them. I'm not sure where else Sam or any player's likeness is being used to generate the massive amount of money Texas football brings in a year. I could go on the coop and buy literally hundreds of pieces of apparel that have nothing to do with any player on the team.

 

Then you should do that.  And you should let everyone else buy what they want to buy, too, including jerseys/tees with player's names and faces on them.  And you should let the Coop choose what they want to sell, including  jerseys/tees with player's names and faces on them and if no one wants to buy those, they'll lose money and suffer the consequences.  

[Helobious 9,483]

6 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

This is insane. Ehlinger is not responsible for the hundreds of million of dollars the university takes in, he's one guy on a team of 85. We've had shitty QBs and still made hundreds of millions of dollars. It's always going to be the name on the front. Texas is the brand that is selling apparel. It's likely in 2 years the #11 jersey will have another name on the back that will generate some cash value as well.

If Ehlinger's name was on the back of uniform with SFA on the front, his likeness would be worth shit.

Is your assertion that I started seeing a shit ton more A&M gear and #2 aggy jerseys a few years back just out of pure coincidence? None of that had anything to do with Manziel?

[TKthunder2 4,981]

53 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Is your assertion that I started seeing a shit ton more A&M gear and #2 aggy jerseys a few years back just out of pure coincidence? None of that had anything to do with Manziel?

His point is, that if you could theoretically swap Texas players with Arkansas State players for a year in secret; and Ark St had an awesome year while UT had a shitty year you’d obviously see increase in revenue at Arky State and the decrease in revenue at Texas...however the totals wouldn't change all that much for a myriad of reasons: size of state, city, stadium, conference, student population, alumni, existing season ticket holders, etc, etc.

The University of Texas would still be in the top 10 in revenue and Arkansas State would be an after thought.  While I agree the players have value (obvious statement since the market dictates that they do) the counter argument is that the Team Name provides far more which is why it’s disingenuous to say these players make The University $100 million each year.

According to BC https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2016/8/22/12584762/university-of-texas-football-more-profitable-than-most-nfl-teams-college-football-revenue-profit in 2015 Texas made more money than 25 NFL teams.  Take the best 53 men from that 5-7 roster and stick them in Cleveland and they would not make even half the amount of money that flows through Austin.

You point out Manziel, but what happened to him after he left A&M?  His value plummeted, and while ex-NFL athletes like reality TV stars can always find a way to make a cheap buck, it’s obvious to anyone that Manziel’s value would be highest in association with A&M.  Without a solid organization to fall back on the value of these athletes diminishes greatly (i.e. Pete Rose without official association with MLB, or sadly Earl Campbell without the Houston Oilers, or any other athlete that lost their connection to local fan base when a franchise relocates.

The point simply is that the organization provides tremendous value to these athletes, and that point is rarely ever acknowledged or discussed.  Still allowing athletes to make money off their name while in college seems like a no brainer and will likely happen in the next few years.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Rovell is partly right but saying it wrong. California cannot compel the NCAA to do anything. But the influence of California's law will cause so many sympathetic responses that the NCAA will end up compelled. California just tapped on the aquarium glass with a ball peen hammer. You can call that "cute" because the glass hasn't broken and we're not standing in four inches of water surrounded by flopping fish, but it's now just a matter of time. NCAA amateurism can't be sustained under the competitive pressures the other states will feel when a student-athlete can make $250,000 a year selling his likeness. This isn't a $2500 or $5000 COLA differential in their stipend, this is literally "you can get paid six figures for doing almost nothing because of who you are and because people love USC football, or you can go to Alabama or Clemson and take a few thousand under the table for a few years". Basketball is even more financially cutthroat. We'd go from Duke and Kentucky having 12-man 5* rosters to it being UCLA, USC, and Stanford.

The NCAA's only hope of victory here would be if the other 49 states said "California can get fucked, we love NCAA style amateurism and we don't want our universities competing with athletic programs that allow for likeness compensation" and the NCAA booted out the California schools. 

How fucking likely does THAT sound?'

[utee94 15,746]

23 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Rovell is partly right but saying it wrong. California cannot compel the NCAA to do anything. But the influence of California's law will cause so many sympathetic responses that the NCAA will end up compelled. California just tapped on the aquarium glass with a ball peen hammer. You can call that "cute" because the glass hasn't broken and we're not standing in four inches of water surrounded by flopping fish, but it's now just a matter of time. NCAA amateurism can't be sustained under the competitive pressures the other states will feel when a student-athlete can make $250,000 a year selling his likeness. This isn't a $2500 or $5000 COLA differential in their stipend, this is literally "you can get paid six figures for doing almost nothing because of who you are and because people love USC football, or you can go to Alabama or Clemson and take a few thousand under the table for a few years". Basketball is even more financially cutthroat. We'd go from Duke and Kentucky having 12-man 5* rosters to it being UCLA, USC, and Stanford.

The NCAA's only hope of victory here would be if the other 49 states said "California can get fucked, we love NCAA style amateurism and we don't want our universities competing with athletic programs that allow for likeness compensation" and the NCAA booted out the California schools. 

How fucking likely does THAT sound?'

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but sometimes it's WAY more than a few thousand under the table.  We know that Cam Newton's "estate" made at least $180,000 at Auburn.  Now that's not necessarily the going rate for a quarterback in the SEC, but that conference is long past the days of a hundred dollar handshake from a big cigar after a game well played.

That just struck another thought for me, though-- I wonder how much the LSU boosters paid the LSU defense on Saturday?  I'm going to guess the deal was per dive rather than a flat rate, and boy howdy did they earn it!

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by utee94

[Beau Vine 54,012]

1 hour ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Rovell is partly right but saying it wrong.

Rovell is not within a million miles of being partly right.  Here's his main point: "state doesn’t have any jurisdiction here."  A state doesn't have jurisdiction over the way the way a private organization does business within the state?  Seriously?  I guess the Mexican drug cartel would love for him to be correct.  All of the various UFC and boxing organizations are immune to the laws of California because the state doesn't have jurisdiction?

[TreatyOak 16,157]

 Speaking of getting paid. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

20 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Rovell is not within a million miles of being partly right.  

Yes, he is, if you understand his poorly made point. I get that Rovell is a real hobbyhorse to some people for typical 2019 America reasons, so keep fucking that chicken if you want to.

[kopp0e 1,135]

On 6/24/2019 at 8:43 PM, gmr548 said:

UCLA will still find a way to underachieve.

For are buddy sbbruin, I hope this is incorrect..! 😉