Page 268 of 397 FirstFirst ... 168218258264265266267268269270271272278318368 ... LastLast
Results 6,676 to 6,700 of 9906
  1. #6676
    Veteran texas4ever's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    6,807
    texas4ever is offline

  2. #6677
    Respecting Decisions TFloss32's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    35,047
    TFloss32 is offline

  3. #6678
    Respecting Decisions TFloss32's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    35,047
    TFloss32 is offline

  4. #6679
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    38,143
    Wasn't it 20 or so years ago that the Cotton bowl had a renovation and that was when it first got stadium lights. I'm thinking Texas blOwU has pretty much always been a 11 am to 2:30 pm kickoff.

    BTW I will be pissed if this game is played anywhere but the Cotton bowl. However, if they did move to a home and home, Texas should dangle the state fair game to aggsy to see if they will bite.
    Aggie does not need us.
    They are a member of the SEC.
    Honor that membership dammit.
    pgardn is offline

  5. #6680
    yeah, this pretty much sucks to me. Sure, I get the notion of kids and "deserving" to be paid, etc. There are arguments that can be made on either side.
    I just hate to see the game become nothing more than another pro league in a sense, only that kids are going to school too.
    The idea of the amateur athlete has long been strained due to under the table payments, etc, but combined with the portal this year, it pushes any notion of "school pride" and "playing for the love of the game" further out to pasture.

    It's like the NFL once more states pass legislation accordingly.

    Sad.
    SlickStreet is offline

  6. #6681
    The GodFather Vito Corleone's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    3,715
    yeah, this pretty much sucks to me. Sure, I get the notion of kids and "deserving" to be paid, etc. There are arguments that can be made on either side.
    I just hate to see the game become nothing more than another pro league in a sense, only that kids are going to school too.
    The idea of the amateur athlete has long been strained due to under the table payments, etc, but combined with the portal this year, it pushes any notion of "school pride" and "playing for the love of the game" further out to pasture.

    It's like the NFL once more states pass legislation accordingly.

    Sad.
    Pretty sure you are going to see about 50% of schools drop athletics all together if this happens. At some point the cost out ways the benefits.
    Vito Corleone is offline

  7. #6682
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    38,143
    yeah, this pretty much sucks to me. Sure, I get the notion of kids and "deserving" to be paid, etc. There are arguments that can be made on either side.
    I just hate to see the game become nothing more than another pro league in a sense, only that kids are going to school too.
    The idea of the amateur athlete has long been strained due to under the table payments, etc, but combined with the portal this year, it pushes any notion of "school pride" and "playing for the love of the game" further out to pasture.

    It's like the NFL once more states pass legislation accordingly.

    Sad.
    Deserving definitely includes entertainment value if you are a professional athlete paid for your name recognition.
    Good luck to the offensive guards, they most likely wont need agents in college.
    The number of problems this will create with equity issues could be massive.

    And Im out if this plays out like the pros.
    Done.
    I'll just go watch more HS games.
    pgardn is offline

  8. #6683
    Respecting Decisions TFloss32's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    35,047
    TFloss32 is offline

  9. #6684
    The GodFather Vito Corleone's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    3,715
    Texas is one of a hand full of schools that actually make money off of athletics. This means nothing when no one else has a program to play against. Just a guess, but I think you will see schools drawing up some kind of contract that basically says they give up their rights when they sign their scholarship. Or maybe if they make money it has to come through the school and the school gets a cut. Might even be like researchers where the school gets part of what the researcher invents when he does it using school facilities.

    It's a huge can of worms. Figures this crap would all start in California.
    Vito Corleone is offline

  10. #6685
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    Post Count
    21,198
    Jeff is apparently a pretty smart guy. I believe he also had a Stanford scholarship offer.
    DMX7 is offline

  11. #6686
    The GodFather Vito Corleone's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    3,715
    Jeff is apparently a pretty smart guy. I believe he also had a Stanford scholarship offer.
    He is also finally playing up to his ability. I think he is going to be all conference this year.
    Vito Corleone is offline

  12. #6687
    Texas is one of a hand full of schools that actually make money off of athletics. This means nothing when no one else has a program to play against. Just a guess, but I think you will see schools drawing up some kind of contract that basically says they give up their rights when they sign their scholarship. Or maybe if they make money it has to come through the school and the school gets a cut. Might even be like researchers where the school gets part of what the researcher invents when he does it using school facilities.

    It's a huge can of worms. Figures this crap would all start in California.
    The terms of the contract would have to apply to all students equally, so you are saying the schools would tell all students receiving aid of any sort the instution that they must give a portion of their private earnings from any source to the ins ution in return for the financial aid.

    I'm not sure that would fly.

    In reality, if this gets passed, it will be horribly abused for at least the first few years, and then various regulations will be put in place to curb those abuses. Individuals will find ways to cir vent those regulations, and additional regulations will be put in place to curb the abuses. Regulations will continuiously be behind the tactics for abuse and the enforcement of the regulations will vary drastically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

    That's how most of life works.

    There will be schools better suited than others to have their athletes paid absurd amounts of money. Agents will pop up to negotiate deals for college athletes and that will lead to abuses. Some players will be incredibly self destructive with their financial windfall. Most probably, in a number of states, taxpayers will question why they are subsidizing scholarships and athletics facilities for individuals who have no interest (or financial incentive) in obtaining an education and have the financial wherewithall to pay for their education (and facilities) out of pocket. If the money for scholarships for men's sports are reduced because the athletes have the ability to pay out of pocket, that will affect the money allocated to women's sports ( le IX). Once the athletes are paid for endorsements, the tax exempt status of college athletics will be reviewed and donations to college athletics facilities will no longer be deductible.

    In time, I can see a number of schools breaking off from the existing structure and forming a new athletics organization focused on smaller scale intercollegiate athletics where the participants are actually students with a legitimate interest in obtaining an education and who also enjoy athletic compe ion.
    Last edited by Randolph Duke; 10-01-2019 at 10:45 AM.
    Randolph Duke is offline

  13. #6688
    Kang Trill Clinton's Avatar
    My Team
    Colorado Buffaloes
    Post Count
    20,426
    Good. Crazy these kids can't monetize their youtube pages to make extra cash.
    Trill Clinton is offline

  14. #6689
    Respecting Decisions TFloss32's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    35,047
    TFloss32 is offline

  15. #6690
    Respecting Decisions TFloss32's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    35,047
    Can someone loan me some cash?

    TFloss32 is offline

  16. #6691
    Pretty sure you are going to see about 50% of schools drop athletics all together if this happens. At some point the cost out ways the benefits.
    yeah, that's another point to consider: what about the comparative "have nots?" Perhaps they'll drop down to another level, but I'm not sure what that's going to look like.
    Changing times for sure
    SlickStreet is offline

  17. #6692
    Deserving definitely includes entertainment value if you are a professional athlete paid for your name recognition.
    Good luck to the offensive guards, they most likely wont need agents in college.
    The number of problems this will create with equity issues could be massive.

    And Im out if this plays out like the pros.
    Done.
    I'll just go watch more HS games.
    I tend this way too, at least to some extent, and that's before it goes into effect. The aftermath might be worse than imagined, though time will tell.
    Pandora's box of sorts imo.
    SlickStreet is offline

  18. #6693
    Texas is one of a hand full of schools that actually make money off of athletics. This means nothing when no one else has a program to play against. Just a guess, but I think you will see schools drawing up some kind of contract that basically says they give up their rights when they sign their scholarship. Or maybe if they make money it has to come through the school and the school gets a cut. Might even be like researchers where the school gets part of what the researcher invents when he does it using school facilities.

    It's a huge can of worms. Figures this crap would all start in California.
    that's another thing; everyone always screams how the players are screwed not getting their cut of all this money--but, yeah, how many schools really make meaningful money in football, and what about all the other sports (where the money is actually in the losing area)?
    How many schools can truly afford to pay players what they're "worth" and then how many times will we see said players demand to be recompensed for being "underpaid" when they hear of the next big time talent making such-and-such?

    the whole thing reeks of total professionalism, to put it mildly.
    SlickStreet is offline

  19. #6694
    Texas is one of a hand full of schools that actually make money off of athletics. This means nothing when no one else has a program to play against. Just a guess, but I think you will see schools drawing up some kind of contract that basically says they give up their rights when they sign their scholarship. Or maybe if they make money it has to come through the school and the school gets a cut. Might even be like researchers where the school gets part of what the researcher invents when he does it using school facilities.
    It's a huge can of worms. Figures this crap would all start in California.
    I dont know if it makes any difference if it doesnt involve the school but it will be a headache for the ncaa. Olympic athletes in other sports take advantage of the olympic revenue model, which is essentially funnels endorsements to the athlete. From what I understand, the cali law allows players to receive revenue from endorsements and, esp from the commercialization of their likeness, which allows for the olympic revenue model. if this is all it is, then it doesnt affect the school at all.

    There is, however, no way for the ncaa to control it. The ncaa can not control what is done in secret now, I can imagine how bad it could (would) get if businesses could endorse players. wow. Big Red Auto wouldnt have to pretend to employ 17 players, they could just endorse them.
    soldierhorn is offline

  20. #6695
    Kang Trill Clinton's Avatar
    My Team
    Colorado Buffaloes
    Post Count
    20,426
    TFloss32 I see you have a hornssports avi on twitter now. Did you get a new gig? If so, congrats!
    Trill Clinton is offline

  21. #6696
    Veteran playblair's Avatar
    My Team
    Brigham Young Cougars
    Post Count
    5,177
    TFloss32 I see you have a hornssports avi on twitter now. Did you get a new gig? If so, congrats!
    yep playblair was right he called this the moment TFloss32 posted he had a twitter account...........

    https://www.hornsports.com/forums/to...-mod-tfloss32/
    playblair is offline

  22. #6697
    that's another thing; everyone always screams how the players are screwed not getting their cut of all this money--but, yeah, how many schools really make meaningful money in football, and what about all the other sports (where the money is actually in the losing area)?
    How many schools can truly afford to pay players what they're "worth" and then how many times will we see said players demand to be recompensed for being "underpaid" when they hear of the next big time talent making such-and-such?
    the whole thing reeks of total professionalism, to put it mildly.
    SS, I remember a discussion on the Longhorn Scout board a long time ago about a similar topic. Apparently, before 1953, players could be paid to play sports. aggy often did this and their 1939 team supposedly had paid players from south Texas but it wasnt illegal by the ncaa then. However, there was a court case in 1953 between a colorado player and a school (colorado st?) that centered around workman's comp. The player logically stated that if players can be paid (making them an employee), then a hurt player should receive workman's comp. There was even less money in sports back then (a lot less than there is today) and schools collectively were concerned that if the player wins the case and schools have to pay workman's comp (esp in football since football finances all the other sports), then virtually ALL athletic departments would be insolvent and would have to go back to being club sports or discontinue entirely. The ncaa came to the defense of the school and schools collectively pointing out the obvious consequence if the ruling supports the player. The ncaa argued that college sports was meant to be played by amateurs and first used the term "student-athlete." However tenuous the argument was at the time, the judge sided with the school(s) and ncaa and the student-athlete amateur status was adopted.

    Before the Larry Scott cobbled the PAC12 together increasing revenues slightly for most of the conference schools, some PAC programs such as CAL were already on the brink of cutting some athletic teams in order to keep their athletic department solvent or acceptably in the red. If schools are determined to be responsible for any revenues funneled to athletes (esp schools sponsoring 30+ teams), then a lot of schools will have to turn 1/3 or more of their athletic departments into club sports. Should that happen anyway? maybe (yes) but I dont know. If players are determined to be employees or schools employers of the athletes, then a lot of things kick in such as workman's comp, taxes of all sorts, leave and family leave, on and on. That could throw athletic departments back over 70 yrs and into a tailspin. Is that a good thing? Do athletic departments need to cut the fat anyway?

    I think people will realize the unintended consequence of attaching any revenue requirements to the schools themselves. AND, not just for P5 programs - ALL sports at ALL levels, including FCS, Div2, Div3, NAIA, etc. Or, if the revenue supporting schools and majority of school presidents agree, the ncaa can just say that players have the right to receive endorsements... but that doesnt mean they have a right to participate in the club (ncaa) if it violates club by-laws. Even as big as it is, I think legally the ncaa is still just a club and clubs can set their own rules and by-laws. the player can then choose to abide by the club rules or leave the club.
    Last edited by soldierhorn; 10-01-2019 at 12:41 PM.
    soldierhorn is offline

  23. #6698
    SS, I remember a discussion on the Longhorn Scout board a long time ago about a similar topic. Apparently, before 1953, players could be paid to play sports. aggy often did this and their 1939 team supposedly had paid players from south Texas but it wasnt illegal by the ncaa then. However, there was a court case in 1953 between a colorado player and a school (colorado st?) that centered around workman's comp. The player logically stated that if players can be paid (making them an employee), then a hurt player should receive workman's comp. There was even less money in sports back then (a lot less than there is today) and schools collectively were concerned that if the player wins the case and schools have to pay workman's comp (esp in football since football finances all the other sports), then virtually ALL athletic departments would be insolvent and would have to go back to being club sports or discontinue entirely. The ncaa came to the defense of the school and schools collectively pointing out the obvious consequence if the ruling supports the player. The ncaa argued that college sports was meant to be played by amateurs and first used the term "student-athlete." However tenuous the argument was at the time, the judge sided with the school(s) and ncaa and the student-athlete amateur status was adopted.

    Before the Larry Scott cobbled the PAC12 together increasing revenues slightly for most of the conference schools, some PAC programs such as CAL were already on the brink of cutting some athletic teams in order to keep their athletic department solvent or acceptably in the red. If schools are determined to be responsible for any revenues funneled to athletes (esp schools sponsoring 30+ teams), then a lot of schools will have to turn 1/3 or more of their athletic departments into club sports. Should that happen anyway? maybe (yes) but I dont know. If players are determined to be employees or schools employers of the athletes, then a lot of things kick in such as workman's comp, taxes of all sorts, leave and family leave, on and on. That could throw athletic departments back over 70 yrs and into a tailspin. Is that a good thing? Do athletic departments need to cut the fat anyway?

    I think people will realize the unintended consequence of attaching any revenue requirements to the schools themselves. AND, not just for P5 programs - ALL sports at ALL levels, including FCS, Div2, Div3, NAIA, etc. Or, if the revenue supporting schools and majority of school presidents agree, the ncaa can just say that players have the right to receive endorsements... but that doesnt mean they have a right to participate in the club (ncaa) if it violates club by-laws. Even as big as it is, I think legally the ncaa is still just a club and clubs can set their own rules and by-laws. the player can then choose to abide by the club rules or leave the club.
    good stuff, soldier'. A lot to contemplate, imo.
    friend of mine brought up the point that if some states allow for this while others don't, then schools in the former states would have a huge recruiting advantage (seemingly, at least).
    SlickStreet is offline

  24. #6699
    Respecting Decisions TFloss32's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    35,047
    TFloss32 is offline

  25. #6700
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    Texas Longhorns
    Post Count
    38,143
    Just go to minor leagues like baseball.
    Then neither I or the majority of current viewers will watch it.
    Associate it with NFL teams and not schools.
    pgardn is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •