How California's Historic NCAA Fair Pay Law Will Change College Sports for the Better

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://time.com/5689548/california-ncaa-law/

After word broke around 10 a.m. ET Monday that California governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 206, the historic bill that would allow college athletes in the state to profit off their name, image, and likeness and sign endorsement deals despite NCAA rules forbidding them, Pennsylvania state representative Dan Miller sensed an opportunity. He phoned Ramogi Huma, the former UCLA college football player and executive director of the National College Players Association, who helped push through the California legislation. Miller consulted with Huma on possible next steps for his state. By 2:20 p.m., Miller and Pennsylvania House member Ed Gainey, a fellow Democrat, circulated a bill, the Pennsylvania “Fair Pay to Play Act,” which will “capitalize on recent efforts in California to help balance the scales and allow our college athletes to sign endorsement deals, earn compensation for their name, image, and likeness, and sign licensing contracts that will allow them to earn money,” the lawmakers wrote in a memo. Miller and Gainey are seeking a bipartisan group of legislatures to sign onto the bill before formally introducing it. The California law, also known as the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” passed both the Assembly (73-0) and the Senate (39-0) without a single no vote.

[DMC]

So you have no opinion about it, just an RG/Ducks/Boutons style regurgitation of an article?

[koriwhat]

:tu

too bad you live with your parents, play 2k in their garage, and went to school for lithographs instead of becoming the nba baller you could never be.

[koriwhat]

So you have no opinion about it, just an RG/Ducks/Boutons style regurgitation of an article?

his intellect is too much for us so he refrains from supplying us with his godly wisdom.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:tu

too bad you live with your parents, play 2k in their garage, and went to school for lithographs instead of becoming the nba baller you could never be.

You suck as a fiction writer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you have no opinion about it, just an RG/Ducks/Boutons style regurgitation of an article?

It's big news IMO. Students will now be able to make money and take jobs.

I do like how butthurt I get you and Joey. Like peas in a pod.

[koriwhat]

I do like how butthurt I get you and Joey. Like peas in a pod.

i'm butthurt you faux intellectual? :lmao

either way, college athletes should get paid if the school is banking off them.

[Spurtacular]

The students are the ones being hurt; but this doesn't matter to Fuzzy. As long as they're being indoctrinated to vote Democrat, that shit doesn't matter.

[DMC]

It's big news IMO. Students will now be able to make money and take jobs.

I do like how butthurt I get you and Joey. Like peas in a pod.

I'm sure it's not exclusive news. Anyone here can find an article about it. You're another one of those article regurgitating faggots.

[DMC]

You suck as a fiction writer.

While all that shit you post about how smart you are and your predictions of the election are great fiction. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

While all that shit you post about how smart you are and your predictions of the election are great fiction. :lol

Again. The week of the election I spoke of the election being within the margin of error. You keep repeating yourself after being refuted; it makes you look dim. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

And I really do not write about how smart I am. I call out stupidity. I get why that bothers you as you identify with it.

[FrostKing]

Terrible development. Will hurt 99.99% of college athletes and probably kill off many programs.

[DMC]

Again. The week of the election I spoke of the election being within the margin of error. You keep repeating yourself after being refuted; it makes you look dim. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

And I really do not write about how smart I am. I call out stupidity. I get why that bothers you as you identify with it.

I showed your conflicting posts. Joust at that. Hillary is polished politician and lawyer prior to election, Hillary is an awful candidate after she loses.

Hey, you're on a sports forum. People swap sides all the time, it's what alts are for here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I showed your conflicting posts. Joust at that. Hillary is polished politician and lawyer prior to election, Hillary is an awful candidate after she loses.

Hey, you're on a sports forum. People swap sides all the time, it's what alts are for here.

You posted something from July and another thing from 2 days before the Comey bombshell. That is not in conflict as I stated once she dived in the polls subsequent to that I started speaking to the new reality.

You've had this explained to you several times. Things changing over time seems to be a struggle for you.

[DMC]

You posted something from July and another thing from 2 days before the Comey bombshell. That is not in conflict as I stated once she dived in the polls subsequent to that I started speaking to the new reality.

You've had this explained to you several times. Things changing over time seems to be a struggle for you.

Why are you so stupid? I am not talking about the polls or the outcome of the election. I am talking about you claiming Hillary is a polished lawyer and politician, then saying she was an awful candidate.

If she wasn't an awful candidate in July 2016, what changed about her political and lawyering abilities to precipitate that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you so stupid? I am not talking about the polls or the outcome of the election. I am talking about you claiming Hillary is a polished lawyer and politician, then saying she was an awful candidate.

If she wasn't an awful candidate in July 2016, what changed about her political and lawyering abilities to precipitate that?

that's not what you were arguing initially. you've now moved the goalposts to this. even if you're right, so what?

and nothing has happened to her political or lawyering abilities. as I pointed out to you in the post you've been dodging with this shit ever since, the election was about alleged corruption a la Clinton Cash and the Comey bombshell the week before the election.

You are a dimwit if you don't care about the polls because the election turned because of those particularly the latter. What do correlation mean?

I must say your narrative of how the election this time around was going to go was steeped in ignorance and far right wishcasting.

[koriwhat]

that's not what you were arguing initially. you've now moved the goalposts to this. even if you're right, so what?

and nothing has happened to her political or lawyering abilities. as I pointed out to you in the post you've been dodging with this shit ever since, the election was about alleged corruption a la Clinton Cash and the Comey bombshell the week before the election.

You are a dimwit if you don't care about the polls because the election turned because of those particularly the latter. What do correlation mean?

I must say your narrative of how the election this time around was going to go was steeped in ignorance and far right wishcasting.

Haha you're such a bitch

[ducks]

Depends on how much they make will determine how it will effect the sport

I wanted athletes to make some money so they could buy things
Like 3-4 k a month free school
That is more then fair

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Depends on how much they make will determine how it will effect the sport

I wanted athletes to make some money so they could buy things
Like 3-4 k a month free school
That is more then fair

Luckily college athletes will be able to make as much as the free market will bear.

the industry you work in should limit your income.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Terrible development. Will hurt 99.99% of college athletes and probably kill off many programs.

you don't like free markets?

[FrostKing]

you don't like free markets?
The big villain in all this is the NFL. Because they could/should have created a functional development league as MLB/NBA/NHL etc have but they enjoyed sitting back and waiting while NCAA did all the heavy lifting.

I don't see how CFB can continue when any booster (the schools with the largest/wealthiest and most committed to Football) can create "a business" and hire recruits. Schools should in part now slash the benefits they offer student-athletes forcing the other 99.99% to also "work". And what happens when player tears his knee and is no longer employed by "a business" and struggles to pay his tuition?

California ignorantly just opened up an enormous clusterfuck. Specifically in terms of Football - if I'm a 2nd tier Conference I dump the NCAA and establish my own league with 12 game seasons and pay the players x,000 amount per year. Ton of kids from the inner city will sign up.

And my point about programs dying off is because CFB indirectly funds a bunch of these struggling sports especially female. Bye bye to womens sports as some schools will not be able or willing to directly pay players.

Also goodbye to those "worthless" college degrees Dequan was able to fall back on. Now when he's bankrupt and unemployed at 25, he can celebrate that tiny amount of money he was paid in the "free market"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The big villain in all this is the NFL. Because they could/should have created a functional development league as MLB/NBA/NHL etc have but they enjoyed sitting back and waiting while NCAA did all the heavy lifting.

I don't see how CFB can continue when any booster (the schools with the largest/wealthiest and most committed to Football) can create "a business" and hire recruits. Schools should in part now slash the benefits they offer student-athletes forcing the other 99.99% to also "work". And what happens when player tears his knee and is no longer employed by "a business" and struggles to pay his tuition?

California ignorantly just opened up an enormous clusterfuck. Specifically in terms of Football - if I'm a 2nd tier Conference I dump the NCAA and establish my own league with 12 game seasons and pay the players x,000 amount per year. Ton of kids from the inner city will sign up.

And my point about programs dying off is because CFB indirectly funds a bunch of these struggling sports especially female. Bye bye to womens sports as some schools will not be able or willing to directly pay players.

Also goodbye to those "worthless" college degrees Dequan was able to fall back on. Now when he's bankrupt and unemployed at 25, he can celebrate that tiny amount of money he was paid in the "free market"

the law doesn't require schools to pay athletes; the NCAA still has their trust. Their ability to give scholarships is unabated. Their ability to require passing grades to play is still there.

The article addresses the issue of women's athletics. you should read it. Suppressing wages amongst one group to fund another is literally communism anyway.

[baseline bum]

And what happens when player tears his knee and is no longer employed by "a business" and struggles to pay his tuition?

The player already got fucked in that case since athletic scholarships are only year to year.

[Will Hunting]

Depends on how much they make will determine how it will effect the sport

I wanted athletes to make some money so they could buy things
Like 3-4 k a month free school
That is more then fair
Why can’t college athletes benefit from your beloved free market system the same way everyone else does?

[FrostKing]

The player already got fucked in that case since athletic scholarships are only year to year.
Many programs honor the commitment and won't pull the scholarship

[Will Hunting]

It’s remarkable to me that Republicans fawn over free market principles in every situation except for one obscure instance when it would benefit poor and predominantly black kids in their late teens / early twenties.

[Will Hunting]

Many programs honor the commitment and won't pull the scholarship
There’s nothing in this new law that would stop them from continuing to do so.

[DMC]

It’s remarkable to me that Republicans fawn over free market principles in every situation except for one obscure instance when it would benefit poor and predominantly black kids in their late teens / early twenties.

I am all for the kids getting paid. It will be interesting to see how it reshapes the NCAA landscape. What colleges will be the San Antonio's and Milwaukee's of the college sports world where no one really wants to go?

Big difference from the pros is that pros get drafted to low win teams whereas in college the best players will likely go to the larger market colleges.

[Will Hunting]

I am all for the kids getting paid. It will be interesting to see how it reshapes the NCAA landscape. What colleges will be the San Antonio's and Milwaukee's of the college sports world where no one really wants to go?

Big difference from the pros is that pros get drafted to low win teams whereas in college the best players will likely go to the larger market colleges.
I think when it’s all said and done the NBA and NFL will eventually have their own minor league system for kids to go right out of high school (and I mean a real minor league, not stupid shit like the D-league) which is where all of the elite recruits will end up going.

[DMC]

I think when it’s all said and done the NBA and NFL will eventually have their own minor league system for kids to go right out of high school (and I mean a real minor league, not stupid shit like the D-league) which is where all of the elite recruits will end up going.

The issue with that is that not all the elite HS folks will become pro level players, and if they aren't, they'll not only not have a pro level income, they won't even have an education. Not like the radio and television or comms degrees these athletes get ever amounts to anything, since if they aren't in pro sports - ever - they aren't going to become broadcasters suddenly. They'll likely be Remax agents or something... maybe YMCA coaches.

[Will Hunting]

The issue with that is that not all the elite HS folks will become pro level players, and if they aren't, they'll not only not have a pro level income, they won't even have an education.
I think people in the class you’re describing are the ones who won’t be able to command money from college teams free market or not so the best option for them will be to go to college on scholarship like they always have.

[Chucho]

It’s remarkable to me that Republicans fawn over free market principles in every situation except for one obscure instance when it would benefit poor and predominantly black kids in their late teens / early twenties.

LOL, that's a reach considering ducks and frosting are the only ones who really posted in here and neither said that.

[boutons_deux]

ST racists don't want college blacks to make money

[Will Hunting]

LOL, that's a reach considering ducks and frosting are the only ones who really posted in here and neither said that.
ducks and frostking aren't arguing against college athletes getting paid ITT? Could have fooled me.

[koriwhat]

I think people in the class you’re describing are the ones who won’t be able to command money from college teams free market or not so the best option for them will be to go to college on scholarship like they always have.


LOL, that's a reach considering ducks and frosting are the only ones who really posted in here and neither said that.

funny yall call me a republican day and night here on ST but somehow my "republican" voice means nothing. yall are worse than FakeNews!

[Will Hunting]

funny yall call me a republican day and night here on ST but somehow my "republican" voice means nothing. yall are worse than FakeNews!
You strike me as more of a libertarian at heart who's gotten suckered by politicians who've blur the line between Republican and libertarian too much in the last 10 years, tbh.

[koriwhat]

You strike me as more of a libertarian at heart who's gotten suckered by politicians who've blur the line between Republican and libertarian too much in the last 10 years, tbh.

i guess if i had to cling to a specific pol ideology then it would be libertarian because i def don't see myself as a liberal nor a republican. i'm merely a fence sitter who is sick of this PC world we live in.

[Chucho]

ducks and frostking aren't arguing against college athletes getting paid ITT? Could have fooled me.

Ducks says he thinks they should be paid. Frost king argues how it will hurt a lot of other schools.

So, it's a reach. Also two guys, one being a troll racist and the other being ducks, representing all "Republicans" is a reach. Its ducks and a troll racist.

[Chucho]

funny yall call me a republican day and night here on ST but somehow my "republican" voice means nothing. yall are worse than FakeNews!

Oh look, Kori wants to make something about him. Again.

Dude, get a life. Get a woman. Get a friend. Go get a cat. Something, anything to give you the attention you crave.

[koriwhat]

Oh look, Kori wants to make something about him. Again.

Dude, get a life. Get a woman. Get a friend. Go get a cat. Something, anything to give you the attention you crave.

:lmao i woke up next to my lady today but yeah i need to get a woman... keep on being a dipshit you old lame fuck! as well, faggots like you love cats so i wouldn't doubt if you have a few at your pad. i'd never suggest a cat to anyone but then again i'm no faggot like you are.

btw, i wasn't trying to make it about me but seeing how yall claim i am such a republican it's quite comical that i was one of the first to agree with college athletes getting paid and still got overlooked because it didn't fit the narrative yall are trying to push. :tu

[Will Hunting]

Ducks says he thinks they should be paid. Frost king argues how it will hurt a lot of other schools.

So, it's a reach. Also two guys, one being a troll racist and the other being ducks, representing all "Republicans" is a reach. Its ducks and a troll racist.
Ducks (assuming I'm reading his incoherent 47-chromosome-induced ramblings correctly) wants the amount they're paid to be a controlled stipend, which is better than saying no pay at all but it's still anti-free market.

Others on this site have argued against payment iirc, DarrinS and Wild Chodebrah being the two biggest examples.

[Chucho]

:lmao i woke up next to my lady today but yeah i need to get a woman... keep on being a dipshit you old lame fuck! as well, faggots like you love cats so i wouldn't doubt if you have a few at your pad. i'd never suggest a cat to anyone but then again i'm no faggot like you are.

btw, i wasn't trying to make it about me but seeing how yall claim i am such a republican it's quite comical that i was one of the first to agree with college athletes getting paid and still got overlooked because it didn't fit the narrative yall are trying to push. :tu

Sure, sure. You're screaming your shitty existence to everyone who doesnt care. Shut up, you femme. Go whine to your "woman".

[AaronY]

ducks and a troll racist.
yeah, hate to break it to you but this is the main trump republican base in 2019 lol

[koriwhat]

Sure, sure. You're screaming your shitty existence to everyone who doesnt care. Shut up, you femme. Go whine to your "woman".

lol you old stupid fuck trying to be hip on an internet messageboard... :lmao

you claim this and that about me but i'm just supposed to sit back and allow it? yeah you're definitely a liberal piece of shit!

you're just an old faggot with cats and a woman who's all dried up. :tu

[AaronY]

^case in point choochie^

[koriwhat]

^case in point choochie^

^weak faggot aarony^

[DMC]

Ducks (assuming I'm reading his incoherent 47-chromosome-induced ramblings correctly) wants the amount they're paid to be a controlled stipend, which is better than saying no pay at all but it's still anti-free market.

Others on this site have argued against payment iirc, DarrinS and Wild Chodebrah being the two biggest examples.

I don't see how colleges that receive federal funds are part of the free market. They aren't required to be self sufficient, so the fact that they can operate their athletic programs without making a profit on them sort of disqualifies them from the free market model, I would think. I'd have to defer to your opinion on this. The students that get accepted into these colleges aren't required to be media attractions, or to have endorsements. For those that can swing it though, where does the line in the sand exist between what the public funds provide and what the athlete is raking in? how does the athlete risk anything? If they can't swing an endorsement, they still get a free education. If they can, they get money and a free education.

[Will Hunting]

I don't see how colleges that receive federal funds are part of the free market. They aren't required to be self sufficient, so the fact that they can operate their athletic programs without making a profit on them sort of disqualifies them from the free market model, I would think. I'd have to defer to your opinion on this. The students that get accepted into these colleges aren't required to be media attractions, or to have endorsements. For those that can swing it though, where does the line in the sand exist between what the public funds provide and what the athlete is raking in? how does the athlete risk anything? If they can't swing an endorsement, they still get a free education. If they can, they get money and a free education.
I think college football and college basketball are both free market enterprises. Multi-billion dollar TV deals, coaches who get paid into the 7-8 figures, stadiums that hold even more seats and bring in even more money than pro stadiums do, etc. I get your point and I think it applies to nearly every other aspect of a federally funded college, but basketball and football function differently, which is why I think the argument that football/basketball players are amateurs who are there for an education as much as they're there to play sports is absurd. These programs have become outliers that function differently than the rest of the college does.

[DMC]

I think college football and college basketball are both free market enterprises. Multi-billion dollar TV deals, coaches who get paid into the 7-8 figures, stadiums that hold even more seats and bring in even more money than pro stadiums do, etc. I get your point and I think it applies to nearly every other aspect of a federally funded college, but basketball and football function differently, which is why I think the argument that football/basketball players are amateurs who are there for an education as much as they're there to play sports is absurd. These programs have become outliers that function differently than the rest of the college does.

What if this was being done at the HS level? Would that change anything?

Someone at Duke will make bank. Someone at Baylor won't even if the better player is at Baylor. For football QBs and RBs might make money, maybe a WR.

Could you imagine how the role players would not be as compelled to dish the ball if making the points means a possible endorsement vs giving it up and giving the money to the "star" player instead? Wouldn't there need to be some incentive for role players other than free education?

Will the athlete be beholden to the school or the sponsor?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

funny yall call me a republican day and night here on ST but somehow my "republican" voice means nothing. yall are worse than FakeNews!

You quote right wing talking points (:lol fakenews) and bash anything moderate or liberal. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. . . . .

[boutons_deux]

"football/basketball players are amateurs who are there for an education as much as they're there to play sports is absurd"

I remember hearing about the Darrel Royal '60s Univ Texas football players segregated in their own dorm, eating in their own dining room.

No doubt that is the norm in most Division I programs now.

Money and money chasing prioritized over everything.

Sorta like the comment that Harvard U is effectively a $40B investment fund which stoops to share its name with a university subsidiary.

[FrostKing]

ducks and frostking aren't arguing against college athletes getting paid ITT? Could have fooled me.
Sharing from a CFB forum
"How much college athletes worth to universities? That's easy to answer and calculate. In the case of football and men's basketball, it is the full cost of a scholarship, each year, for 5 years. This includes all tuition, books, room, board, medical care, nutritionist, tutors, equipment, facilities, insurance, transportation to and from their home, tickets to games, special accommodations for learning disabilities, clothing/uniforms, rehab/training staff and equipment, compliance staff, security, coaching and counseling. Today in a P5 school, this is estimated to cost between $400 to $500 thousand per scholarship. There are 100 or so students on scholarship in these 2 sports. In 2017, NCAA schools granted over $4BILLON in athletic scholarships; that's 4 with a B dollars. This does not apparently include the fixed costs of coaching, facilities, equipment, security, etc. Just tuition, books room and board."

If the student-athletes have part-time jobs then some/many of these benefits should be eliminated.

[boutons_deux]

If the student-athletes have part-time jobs then some/many of these benefits should be eliminated.

one of the many hard-core ST racists wanting to screw blacks in every possible, most remote way.

[spurraider21]

You quote right wing talking points (:lol fakenews) and bash anything moderate or liberal. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. . . . .
if it posts like ducks...

[FrostKing]

one of the many hard-core ST racists wanting to screw blacks in every possible, most remote way.
A) Taking into account all sports especially female - the percentage of blacks isn't that large

B) These changes will hurt blacks especially those from the inner city. Teenage blacks with the freedom to act responsibly with their education money.

The current system guarantees these kids will at-least walk away with a college degree. You will now see a shift towards a European style. Based on the short shelf life of professional athletes - these changes will further cripple the black community

[koriwhat]

You quote right wing talking points (:lol fakenews) and bash anything moderate or liberal. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. . . . .

i never quote anything but you losers here on ST tbh. you talk out of your ass you faux intellectual duck.

[boutons_deux]

Football, basketball win because of blacks. It ain't a percentage of blacks that's important.

Blacks aren't given given generous full scholarships based on their their need, or their size, but because they make teams win and bring the $10Ms of revenue.

If black athletes can get some liquidity from non-sports-playing side-hustles, WTF not? (unless your a racist relentlessly fucking over blacks)

[FrostKing]

Football, basketball win because of blacks. It ain't a percentage of blacks that's important.

Blacks aren't given given generous full scholarships based on their their need, or their size, but because they make teams win and bring the $10Ms of revenue.

If black athletes can get some liquidity from non-sports-playing side-hustles, WTF not? (unless your a racist relentlessly fucking over blacks)
Football & basketball represent a tiny portion of the student-athlete pool

Why don't these "black" athletes turn professional after high school? That option exists.

[Will Hunting]

Football & basketball represent a tiny portion of the student-athlete pool

Why don't these "black" athletes turn professional after high school? That option exists.
That’s a disingenuous argument, we both know that going to play pro overseas and skipping college kills draft stock and gets the athlete blackballed from the NFL or NBA.

Provide me with even one example where a top prospect was able to skip college without it impacting his draft stock.

[DMC]

That’s a disingenuous argument, we both know that going to play pro overseas and skipping college kills draft stock and gets the athlete blackballed from the NFL or NBA.

Provide me with even one example where a top prospect was able to skip college without it impacting his draft stock.

Lebron

[FrostKing]

That’s a disingenuous argument, we both know that going to play pro overseas and skipping college kills draft stock and gets the athlete blackballed from the NFL or NBA.

Provide me with even one example where a top prospect was able to skip college without it impacting his draft stock.
Well why should the NCAA diminish it's product because the NFL acts in such a manner

[Will Hunting]

Lebron
He went straight from high school and wasn’t required to waste a year in some shitty irrelevant Euroleague. I clearly wasn’t talking about players who were able to go straight from HS to the NBA.

[Will Hunting]

Well why should the NCAA diminish it's product because the NFL acts in such a manner
You’re a naive retard if you don’t think the 3 year rule is a coordinated effort the NFL and NCAA both have their hands in. It benefits both of them.

[DMC]

You’re a naive retard if you don’t think the 3 year rule is a coordinated effort the NFL and NCAA both have their hands in. It benefits both of them.

Same guy can be carrying a rifle in Iraq but not a football in Dallas because he's not ready mentally.

[DMC]

So what about someone who accepts a 4 year scholarship to play ball for college X, becomes a star in year 2 and then Kawhi Leonards his way to a bigger school so he can get paid? Will lower ranked schools become farming systems for top tier, high profile schools?

[Will Hunting]

So what about someone who accepts a 4 year scholarship to play ball for college X, becomes a star in year 2 and then Kawhi Leonards his way to a bigger school so he can get paid? Will lower ranked schools become farming systems for top tier, high profile schools?
The scholarships aren’t for 4 years, they’re year-to-year and the school has no obligation to renew them each year. People think the schools are making a :cry4 year commitment:cry to athletes and they’re simply not.

[clambake]

The scholarships aren’t for 4 years, they’re year-to-year and the school has no obligation to renew them each year. People think the schools are making a :cry4 year commitment:cry to athletes and they’re simply not.

hey fuck you did you serve your country?

i ate army food.

[ducks]

Why can’t college athletes benefit from your beloved free market system the same way everyone else does?

The schools need the income from sports so others can go there to keep the cost down


If they take to much money the price to attend will go up

[FrostKing]

You’re a naive retard if you don’t think the 3 year rule is a coordinated effort the NFL and NCAA both have their hands in. It benefits both of them.
People watch CFB for the programs
People watch NFL for the players (fantasy)

[DMC]

hey fuck you did you serve your country?

i ate army food.
You're so much better with help. Hopefully you get some soon. Come on guise

[DMC]

The scholarships aren’t for 4 years, they’re year-to-year and the school has no obligation to renew them each year. People think the schools are making a :cry4 year commitment:cry to athletes and they’re simply not.

Will lower ranked schools become a talent farm for the bigger schools?

[Will Hunting]

Will lower ranked schools become a talent farm for the bigger schools?
If they are then who cares. I don’t see why we should communize college athletics just to make it so Bumfuck State U can keep the recruit it was lucky to get. They’re not a victim as far as I’m concerned, the real victim in my book is their recruit who’s forced to play for free.

[DMC]

If they are then who cares. I don’t see why we should communize college athletics just to make it so Bumfuck State U can keep the recruit it was lucky to get. They’re not a victim as far as I’m concerned, the real victim in my book is their recruit who’s forced to play for free.

If that's the case will some of these smaller schools stop offering basketball and football scholarships to students they think will flee to money schools, when those could go to someone who needs the education instead?

Imagine the NBA didn't use the draft, but allowed anyone to go to any team they wanted. How would the NBA fare in terms of competitiveness? It's damn near there now, but they do have to wait a couple years in a shit system. Maybe the NBA can take notes and contract to about 16 teams that actually have talent instead of an entire roster full of YMCA guys.

[FrostKing]

If they are then who cares. I don’t see why we should communize college athletics just to make it so Bumfuck State U can keep the recruit it was lucky to get. They’re not a victim as far as I’m concerned, the real victim in my book is their recruit who’s forcedto play for free.
But they are not

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If they are then who cares. I don’t see why we should communize college athletics just to make it so Bumfuck State U can keep the recruit it was lucky to get. They’re not a victim as far as I’m concerned, the real victim in my book is their recruit who’s forced to play for free.

DMC hates free markets.

[DMC]

DMC hates free markets.

Quite the opposite. There seems to be a lot of issues with the concept of paying college athletes. Would the schools still compete in the NCAA? Would title IX come into play? Who would pay the athletes? How many schools actually operate in the black? Would the athletes have agents? Could the agents coerce students to go to this or that school? Could alumni pay athletes to attend a school of the alumni's choice?

I'm all for students getting some of the money. Just seems to be a lot of prefabbed roadblocks, perhaps intentionally so or perhaps it wasn't originally intended to be a cash cow but became one, and so rules were built to keep the money with the wealthy. It just seems it could crumble pretty easily.

[ElNono]

I thought this whole thing was about kids being allowed to collect monies from endorsements without repercussions, not schools actually paying the players?

I get that certain schools in big markets might have an implicit edge over smaller schools for recruiting, but players are still raw as hell coming out of highschool (Lebron notwithstanding), it doesn't sound like it would be a major issue, and it's generally a gamble.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But they are not

That article you posted was BS one sided accounting. I have never worked at a place where the computer or similar work instruments I worked on, the office I worked in, the training classes I attended etc was counted as part of my compensation. Health care is not cut and dry considering that the universities offer clinical care as part of their tuition and further because of the injuries that are incurred from the service they provide. For the sake of argument lets include health care as compensation.

The average yearly cost of going to Stanford, a private school renowned for being costly, is $75k. That is room, board, tuition, books, etc. Health insurance for a 21 year old is on average $200/month or $2400/year. So they compensate college athletes with at most $80k.

We both know that all american athletes would all be making $1m or more given a free market. It's wage suppression plain and simple.

Why do you support a communist ideal?

[DMC]

That article you posted was BS one sided accounting. I have never worked at a place where the computer or similar work instruments I worked on, the office I worked in, the training classes I attended etc was counted as part of my compensation. Health care is not cut and dry considering that the universities offer clinical care as part of their tuition and further because of the injuries that are incurred from the service they provide. For the sake of argument lets include health care as compensation.

The average yearly cost of going to Stanford, a private school renowned for being costly, is $75k. That is room, board, tuition, books, etc. Health insurance for a 21 year old is on average $200/month or $2400/year. So they compensate college athletes with at most $80k.

We both know that all american athletes would all be making $1m or more given a free market. It's wage suppression plain and simple.

Why do you support a communist ideal?

How many places have you worked at that require you to pay $40K fees to be there normally?

Right now almost anyone who would have endorsements would get paid if they entered the draft anyhow. Some choose to stick it out through school. If you create a vacuum toward the big name schools, the competition will cease to exist and the program will fail overall. It's a simple ecology system. Not everything is as exciting in nature as a lion vs a bear, there's a shrimp vs an eel that... meh. You still need all of them to maintain the balance. If you allow the shrimp and eel to suffer so the lion and bear show can get all the wildlife funding, that would make all the Irwins cry.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Quite the opposite. There seems to be a lot of issues with the concept of paying college athletes. Would the schools still compete in the NCAA? Would title IX come into play? Who would pay the athletes? How many schools actually operate in the black? Would the athletes have agents? Could the agents coerce students to go to this or that school? Could alumni pay athletes to attend a school of the alumni's choice?

I'm all for students getting some of the money. Just seems to be a lot of prefabbed roadblocks, perhaps intentionally so or perhaps it wasn't originally intended to be a cash cow but became one, and so rules were built to keep the money with the wealthy. It just seems it could crumble pretty easily.

There is nothing saying that the NCAA should be dissolved. Let the free market decide.

Title IX is an NCAA construct. Let the free market decide if it is viable.

Who cares how many schools would operate in the black? Let the market decide.

Athletes should have the freedom to choose their own representation.

Agents would have to operate within the law. Otherwise let the free market decide how successful an agent is.

And of course an alumni could pay someone. That is free market.

All of your questions demonstrate a decided lack of faith in the free market on your part.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How many places have you worked at that require you to pay $40K fees to be there normally?

The $40k is not to play football. i guarantee you when they get their bill it says nowhere on there anything about their ability to play a sport representing the school. The $40k is for the education.

That is the point. There is a finite dollar value associated with the scholarships the NCAA affords some student athletes. The walkons are really getting screwed.

[DMC]

There is nothing saying that the NCAA should be dissolved. Let the free market decide.

Title IX is an NCAA construct. Let the free market decide if it is viable.

Who cares how many schools would operate in the black? Let the market decide.

Athletes should have the freedom to choose their own representation.

Agents would have to operate within the law. Otherwise let the free market decide how successful an agent is.

And of course an alumni could pay someone. That is free market.

All of your questions demonstrate a decided lack of faith in the free market on your part.

I don't give 2 shits about college sports.

I presented the talking points those opposed or undecided would present. When the smoke clears and all the cute quips fade, those talking points will be what drives debate.

[DMC]

The $40k is not to play football. i guarantee you when they get their bill it says nowhere on there anything about their ability to play a sport representing the school. The $40k is for the education.

That is the point. There is a finite dollar value associated with the scholarships the NCAA affords some student athletes. The walkons are really getting screwed.

Why doesn't the free market already exist? Basically someone else start a football program and hire the students to play ball. If a student is going to accept a scholarship knowing the rules, isn't that free market? Don't you have the right to start your own football league?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why doesn't the free market already exist? Basically someone else start a football program and hire the students to play ball. If a student is going to accept a scholarship knowing the rules, isn't that free market? Don't you have the right to start your own football league?

The NCAA is a trust. Do you not understand how monopolies control markets?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't give 2 shits about college sports.

I presented the talking points those opposed or undecided would present. When the smoke clears and all the cute quips fade, those talking points will be what drives debate.

You should stop writing in declarations about things you have no way of knowing. My sig is all about that.

[DMC]

The NCAA is a trust. Do you not understand how monopolies control markets?

In a free market monopolies arise for two reasons: 1. A business drives competitors from the market by being more efficient or providing a better product, or 2. An entrepreneur is the first to offer a new product. In each case, if the monopoly persists it means that provider is more efficient or more innovative than its rivals. When government protects businesses from competition or subsidizes costs, efficiency and innovation suffer. But that, of course, is not the free market.

So, free market or no? If the rules are only NCAA rules, ignore them and create a better system.

Ah but Title IX isn't NCAA construct (as you said). It's a federal thinggy.

[DMC]

You should stop writing in declarations about things you have no way of knowing. My sig is all about that.

Can't I change my mind as the event unfolds like you do?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In a free market monopolies arise for two reasons: 1. A business drives competitors from the market by being more efficient or providing a better product, or 2. An entrepreneur is the first to offer a new product. In each case, if the monopoly persists it means that provider is more efficient or more innovative than its rivals. When government protects businesses from competition or subsidizes costs, efficiency and innovation suffer. But that, of course, is not the free market.

So, free market or no? If the rules are only NCAA rules, ignore them and create a better system.

Ah but Title IX isn't NCAA construct (as you said). It's a federal thinggy.

Or independent firms collectively agree to fix the market thus creating a trust which is the case here. Or all manner of other reasons.

And I have to say that 1) is incredibly naive. Now some monopolies may be formed by benign or admirable methods as you describe but the issue is what happens once they dominate the market. Prices go up, innovation and product/service quality goes down amongst all manner of undesirable outcomes occur because there is no competition. There are centuries of empirical evidence demonstrating this dynamic.

Personally, I am all for a mixed economy where free market is the default. In the case of trusts, markets of scale, societal need, vertical demand markets, and similar phenomenon I support market intervention. I reject economic puritanism either way. For myself, you have hundreds of firms in the market and zero economic basis for intervention when it comes to the NCAA beyond the trust itself. End the collusion and let the market decide as they compete for market share.

I just find it interesting that conservatives who tend towards said puritanism lose their religion when it comes to NCAA athletics.

[DMC]

Or independent firms collectively agree to fix the market thus creating a trust which is the case here. Or all manner of other reasons.

Explain why you cannot start your own football league and pay the athletes. Colleges attract students, and those students sometimes have special skills colleges can use to sell entertainment. They make an agreement with the student and it works for both, historically.


And I have to say that 1) is incredibly naive. Now some monopolies may be formed by benign or admirable methods as you describe but the issue is what happens once they dominate the market. Prices go up, innovation and product/service quality goes down amongst all manner of undesirable outcomes occur because there is no competition. There are centuries of empirical evidence demonstrating this dynamic.

Personally, I am all for a mixed economy where free market is the default. In the case of trusts, markets of scale, societal need, vertical demand markets, and similar phenomenon I support market intervention. I reject economic puritanism either way. For myself, you have hundreds of firms in the market and zero economic basis for intervention when it comes to the NCAA beyond the trust itself. End the collusion and let the market decide as they compete for market share.

I just find it interesting that conservatives who tend towards said puritanism lose their religion when it comes to NCAA athletics.
It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Free market is free market. Intervention to prevent monopolies isn't free market. It might be better for the market health overall but it's not free market. So if you're ok with market intervention for the sake of market health, why aren't you concerned with the college football market? How will the health of that market fare if all the talent is pooled in just a few big name schools? With those types of incentives that some schools cannot afford, that would happen. Do you care? Maybe not, let it crumble since it's free market, but it's hypocritical to be for intervention for one market and not for the other. It's as if the college market (and it is a college market, the demand doesn't exist elsewhere yet and we saw how the USFL and other "leagues" fared) doesn't need health to survive as long as it churns out NFL prospects. Is college ball really just a farm for the pros?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Explain why you cannot start your own football league and pay the athletes. Colleges attract students, and those students sometimes have special skills colleges can use to sell entertainment. They make an agreement with the student and it works for both, historically.

It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Free market is free market. Intervention to prevent monopolies isn't free market. It might be better for the market health overall but it's not free market. So if you're ok with market intervention for the sake of market health, why aren't you concerned with the college football market? How will the health of that market fare if all the talent is pooled in just a few big name schools? With those types of incentives that some schools cannot afford, that would happen. Do you care? Maybe not, let it crumble since it's free market, but it's hypocritical to be for intervention for one market and not for the other. It's as if the college market (and it is a college market, the demand doesn't exist elsewhere yet and we saw how the USFL and other "leagues" fared) doesn't need health to survive as long as it churns out NFL prospects. Is college ball really just a farm for the pros?

The NCAA is a trust and monopolizes the market with it's agreement with the NFL. The NFL at least has a collective bargaining agreement which is negotiated with the players and is renegotiated periodically. The NCAA charter was not created in a similar fashion. It was done by the firms themselves. I am fine with a collectively bargained agreement with the players.

And the US has been having its cake and eating it too ever since the Roosevelts ended the laissez faire stupidity a century ago. It's not hypocritical because I do not espouse to be puritan. i simply say that you can only intervene in markets with cause else it defaults to free market. Monopolies are certainly cause.

And all the talent is already concentrated in a handful of schools. And no I do not care if some sports programs fail because the market will not bear their existence. And the USFL, XFL, etc all have to deal with a trust. It's collectively bargained so it is exempt from the Sherman Act but it's still there. At least their workers aren't getting screwed.

[DMC]

The NCAA is a trust and monopolizes the market with it's agreement with the NFL. The NFL at least has a collective bargaining agreement which is negotiated with the players and is renegotiated periodically. The NCAA charter was not created in a similar fashion. It was done by the firms themselves. I am fine with a collectively bargained agreement with the players.

And the US has been having its cake and eating it too ever since the Roosevelts ended the laissez faire stupidity a century ago. It's not hypocritical because I do not espouse to be puritan. i simply say that you can only intervene in markets with cause else it defaults to free market. Monopolies are certainly cause.

And all the talent is already concentrated in a handful of schools. And no I do not care if some sports programs fail because the market will not bear their existence. And the USFL, XFL, etc all have to deal with a trust. It's collectively bargained so it is exempt from the Sherman Act but it's still there. At least their workers aren't getting screwed.

While I personally won't mind seeing the whole thing unravel if that's what happens because I subscribe to the George Carlin theory of Chaos, I don't believe those in power will allow that to happen because .. Well you know why.

[FrostKing]

The only positive. The return of NCAA series

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/10/NCAA_Football_06_Coverart.jpg/220px-NCAA_Football_06_Coverart.jpg

[spurraider21]

1189238254266126336

boom

[boutons_deux]

NCAA yields to pressure, to allow players to profit from their names