California Gives NCAA The Middle Finger
- Thread starter Fryowa
- Start date
- Status
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
F California and F the NCAA. The ensuing drama and fallout should be fun to watch.
Fryowa
Administrator
Paying players directly is a separate issue, but banning players from making money on endorsements, autographs, etc? F that.
But I agree this will be fun to watch just like Aaron Calvin.
I can't help but feel this is going to backfire immensely.
I'm all for players being able to control their own likenesses and even profit from them, but I'm afraid this method is going to further widen the gulf between blueblood programs and your average college program. Imagine a player deciding between Washington State and Oregon. The latter has a pre-built relationship with Nike, which could be more lucrative.
This is great in theory, but I really can't see it being very equal in practice. Football and men's basketball are the cash cows, and their players are absolutely going to receive much more attention in most places than the wrestlers, women's basketball players, field hockey players, and so on.
I'm all for players being able to control their own likenesses and even profit from them, but I'm afraid this method is going to further widen the gulf between blueblood programs and your average college program. Imagine a player deciding between Washington State and Oregon. The latter has a pre-built relationship with Nike, which could be more lucrative.
This is great in theory, but I really can't see it being very equal in practice. Football and men's basketball are the cash cows, and their players are absolutely going to receive much more attention in most places than the wrestlers, women's basketball players, field hockey players, and so on.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Legally compensating NCAA athletes has been gaining momentum for at least thirty years.
It's inevitable that some form of unified NCAA approved payment plan for the major sports will be enacted. And it's long overdue. And perhaps it will eliminate some of the temptation for athletes to get involved with certain shady characters.
One of the hangups all these years has been whether or not athletes in the non revenue producing sports deserve the same compensation. It depends. When 80,000 people attend a field hockey game or a swim meet or a rowing match perhaps then there will be discussion about it.
If this passes the NCAA will have no choice but to step in and make it national. Talk about an unfair recruiting advantage. It's bad enough as it is that athletes at certain schools are getting cash, jewelry. hotrods, "academic assistance", etc. Think about what will happen in the first state that passes something like this.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
If they can do this in California, it will require the NCAA to allow it nationally. Car dealers in Alabama and Georgia better get their checkbooks out. Thank God T. Boone is dead or Oklahoma State would be an unstoppable force.
Fryowa
Administrator
To Dochterman's point, though, if a wrestler in IC can make a couple grand in a year doing a local commercial and signing autographs to help pay some tuition, would that person care if he didn't make as much as guy with Desmond King-level popularity?
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
I’m with you. I can see some arguments on both sides, but it’s not right for schools to profit off a player’s likeness without that player getting paid a dime. I think seeing stars like Tua doing a Nike commercial would do more harm than good, but selling an autograph or some old cleats? Frankly that sort of thing is none of the NCAA’s business. That’s between the athlete and the IRS.
Fryowa
Administrator
Regardless of what one thinks about the issue, it isn't debatable that the NCAA dug this grave themselves and jumped in with both feet. They created the market and now they want to restrict access to it.
Wonder how that's gonna turn out...
Probably not, and maybe I'm out of my element here, but wouldn't that not play well with Title IX?
Fryowa
Administrator
The market might shift, but it will even out.
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
The big problem is when the House and Senate start having hearings about how all of that is affected by Title IX. On the upside it will take those bozos 5 years to figure out how they respond, and then the NCAA will drag that decision out in the courts for another 15.
Fryowa
Administrator
What's the difference between an athlete having rich parents or being gifted enough at a sport to have an endorser pay them?
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
The NCAA's prohibitions actually protect the absolute biggest stars. These kids can't get agents. They are 18, they don't know shit. Kids are going to sign long term exclusive deals for peanuts.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Yeah but Phil Knight isn't.
Fryowa
Administrator
There's no way the California bill prevents athletes from getting agents. NCAA maybe, but not the Cali bill.
I saw just now in some of the other news stories that other states are hoppping on quickly.
I think you'll be amazed at how fast this shit snowballs once every states' ADs see how fast they're going to lose recruits.
homes
Well-Known Member
As opposed to the currently employed method of an envelope filled with non-serial cash.
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
Some of them, sure, but they aren’t all retarded. I don’t think they should be doing big dollar deals. I’d be all for the NCAA putting a dollar amount ceiling on the level of deals an athlete can do and remain eligible to compete at the collegiate level ($100,000? That’s totally arbitrary, and there’s really no “right” number). Of course they might (will) get sued by California, but that’s all part of the fun.
homes
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Another in the long line of unintended consequences, which will begat more legislation (and litigation).
- Status
