NCAA Threatens to Ban California Schools
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 22794

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:03 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
Even if the Governor signs, this will be tied up in the courts for years.


Naw. I read a description of the supposed legal problems with the bill. It listed some of the stupidest legal arguments I've seen in a long time, and I see a lot of stupid legal arguments.

The bill will not take effect until 2023. Basically, it is going to force the NCAA to reform its antiquated amateurism rules. The NCAA barely managed to avoid this result in the antitrust litigation. The NCAA lost the cases, but the courts weren't willing to dictate specific rules to the NCAA. The writing was on the wall.

The California legislature is essentially telling the NCAA that society is no longer buying the BS that the NCAA has been spewing for decades. When it comes to Power 5 revenue sports, universities are not academic institutions, and everyone knows it. The Power 5 revenue programs are professional sports leagues, except that they do not pay their players. What a shock that the universities are against this bill. Employers are against the $15 minimum wage, too. Oh, but the universities provide an education, right? Riiiight. They admit kids who don't meet their academic requirements, then find ways to keep them in school (including outright cheating) until they get hurt, drop out, move on to the pros, or squeak through with a general studies degree.

We still haven't reached the point at which society demands that the schools actually pay the players. It's coming, though. This bill just addresses the absurdity of allowing universities to make money off the images of players and the like, but not allowing Trevor Lawrence to sign an autograph for five bucks. It is stupid, and it should offend everyone.

But a lot of people still aren't offended because they have been fed the NCAA's BS for so long. These are student-athletes! That might have been a respectable argument 40 years ago, but in 2019, the Power 5 revenue sports are an industry that makes money for everyone other than the players. That's the point of the report by Senator Murphy, which I linked. It is also the point of the California bill. The winds of change have been blowing for years, but now we're up to Category 1,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mark_in_Tulsa
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 12895

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:14 am    Post subject:

So then kids won't need scholarships anymore. They can pay for their schooling with their likeness image.

Also if this went through nation wide. Oregon will win every sport for ever.
Phil Knight will pay Oregon kids top dollar to go there so he can use their likeness.
_________________
Think about how stupid the avg. person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

---George Carlin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36823
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:14 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
gng930 wrote:
It's been argued that California essentially becomes a "super-league" as the best recruits will come to California because they can make a lot of money while competing at a top program. For the truly elite talent, it's not about school pride anymore, it's about setting yourself up for the pros and for life. Does a guy like Zion Williamson still choose Duke when he can come to UCLA instead while making millions? You can make an argument either way.


From what I've read is that the athletes would benefit by getting paid but they would essentially be barred from postseason play. That means no March Madness or college bowl games, etc.....
But if you are an elite athlete trying to showcase your talents to the next level do you really care about a bowl game or winning the NCAA championship? Probably not.


it would not just be postseason, it would be any NCAA sanctioned event. No school would schedule them in fear of causing their own players. As it stands right now, there is no way Notre Dame is going to take the field against USC if the NCAA has ruled USC players ineligible.
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36823
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:25 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Even if the Governor signs, this will be tied up in the courts for years.


Naw. I read a description of the supposed legal problems with the bill. It listed some of the stupidest legal arguments I've seen in a long time, and I see a lot of stupid legal arguments.

The bill will not take effect until 2023. Basically, it is going to force the NCAA to reform its antiquated amateurism rules. The NCAA barely managed to avoid this result in the antitrust litigation. The NCAA lost the cases, but the courts weren't willing to dictate specific rules to the NCAA. The writing was on the wall.

The California legislature is essentially telling the NCAA that society is no longer buying the BS that the NCAA has been spewing for decades. When it comes to Power 5 revenue sports, universities are not academic institutions, and everyone knows it. The Power 5 revenue programs are professional sports leagues, except that they do not pay their players. What a shock that the universities are against this bill. Employers are against the $15 minimum wage, too. Oh, but the universities provide an education, right? Riiiight. They admit kids who don't meet their academic requirements, then find ways to keep them in school (including outright cheating) until they get hurt, drop out, move on to the pros, or squeak through with a general studies degree.

We still haven't reached the point at which society demands that the schools actually pay the players. It's coming, though. This bill just addresses the absurdity of allowing universities to make money off the images of players and the like, but not allowing Trevor Lawrence to sign an autograph for five bucks. It is stupid, and it should offend everyone.

But a lot of people still aren't offended because they have been fed the NCAA's BS for so long. These are student-athletes! That might have been a respectable argument 40 years ago, but in 2019, the Power 5 revenue sports are an industry that makes money for everyone other than the players. That's the point of the report by Senator Murphy, which I linked. It is also the point of the California bill. The winds of change have been blowing for years, but now we're up to Category 1,


Not use to seeing you being so wrong on the subject, but you clearly have taken an advocates position. The diatribe you write has little to no legal argument, but is mostly hyperbole and outright false statements. Senator Murphy is one of the great charlatans in elected office, especially on this issue. He has continuously been called out for been misleading at best on the topic. Playing college athletics is a choice.
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 32581

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:38 am    Post subject:

Mark_in_Tulsa wrote:
So then kids won't need scholarships anymore. They can pay for their schooling with their likeness image.

Also if this went through nation wide. Oregon will win every sport for ever.
Phil Knight will pay Oregon kids top dollar to go there so he can use their likeness
.


I fail to see how this would be worse than the current system where we know they are being paid under the table.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 22794

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:52 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
Not use to seeing you being so wrong on the subject, but you clearly have taken an advocates position. The diatribe you write has little to no legal argument, but is mostly hyperbole and outright false statements. Senator Murphy is one of the great charlatans in elected office, especially on this issue. He has continuously been called out for been misleading at best on the topic. Playing college athletics is a choice.


So I am "so wrong," what I say is "mostly hyperbole and outright false statements," and Senator Murphy is a "charlatan," . . . but I am the one who has taken an "advocate's position" and make "no legal argument." Good grief.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26305

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:17 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


Because IMO sports has nothing to do with higher education. Ugly things can happen when you mesh two things with opposing goals.

College athletics may create a line to a degree, but that is not the reason for attending university. The degree is the desired byproduct. In other words, is all that matters that you get the degree, and not whether you were sufficiently educated to earn it? College sports as it is makes education secondary unless it is only intramural.


But college is supposed to help develop you for the job you want to work in after college. Professional sports is a career choice, so it makes sense that a college would provide development for it.


Ok. So allowing them to make money off their likeness solves what problem?

I’m not sure what this solves for other than helping that small number of kids who are set up to make a ton of money, make a ton of money earlier.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nickuku
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 5660
Location: Orange County

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:18 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Not use to seeing you being so wrong on the subject, but you clearly have taken an advocates position. The diatribe you write has little to no legal argument, but is mostly hyperbole and outright false statements. Senator Murphy is one of the great charlatans in elected office, especially on this issue. He has continuously been called out for been misleading at best on the topic. Playing college athletics is a choice.


So I am "so wrong," what I say is "mostly hyperbole and outright false statements," and Senator Murphy is a "charlatan," . . . but I am the one who has taken an "advocate's position" and make "no legal argument." Good grief.


My initial reaction to his post.
_________________
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36823
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:33 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Not use to seeing you being so wrong on the subject, but you clearly have taken an advocates position. The diatribe you write has little to no legal argument, but is mostly hyperbole and outright false statements. Senator Murphy is one of the great charlatans in elected office, especially on this issue. He has continuously been called out for been misleading at best on the topic. Playing college athletics is a choice.


So I am "so wrong," what I say is "mostly hyperbole and outright false statements," and Senator Murphy is a "charlatan," . . . but I am the one who has taken an "advocate's position" and make "no legal argument." Good grief.


let's not do the good grief bit.....you clearly was throwing out talking points, and not once made a legal argument while beginning your entire position claiming those that oppose your view made "stupid legal arguments". Is that a correct statement? You claimed admissions offices are lowering the standards for admissions, but what is that statement based on? Also, you state that universities are making money off of students likeness....but they no longer are allowed to do this, so I am unsure why you make the claim. And yes, I believe Murphy to be a charlatan.

Here is the thing...you are an attorney, correct? I point out what every report I have read states, if signed, it will be immediately challenged in court....then it will go through the appeals process....end up in the 9th circuit and likely a few others around the country before it goes to the Supreme Court. We both know that will take years, yet you respond to me with "naw".
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36823
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:48 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


Because IMO sports has nothing to do with higher education. Ugly things can happen when you mesh two things with opposing goals.

College athletics may create a line to a degree, but that is not the reason for attending university. The degree is the desired byproduct. In other words, is all that matters that you get the degree, and not whether you were sufficiently educated to earn it? College sports as it is makes education secondary unless it is only intramural.


But college is supposed to help develop you for the job you want to work in after college. Professional sports is a career choice, so it makes sense that a college would provide development for it.


Ok. So allowing them to make money off their likeness solves what problem?

I’m not sure what this solves for other than helping that small number of kids who are set up to make a ton of money, make a ton of money earlier.


The issue is so much more complicated than it seems on the surface. First, someone mentioned Trevor Lawrence getting paid for an autograph, but what is Trevor Lawrence's signature worth not attached to Clemson? Nobody wanted his autograph 14 months ago. Only when he became a member of the Clemson University football team did his likeness gain value. Who gained the most value from who last year.....Duke from Zion Williamson or Zion Williamson from Duke? If Zion attends the University of South Carolina, is his Nike deal the same this year?

Also, you would simply upend the entire competitive balance remaining in college athletics. Why would a 4 or 5 star athlete ever come to Morgantown, WV, Madison, WI or Starkville, MS? The potential to earn money off their likeness in those markets would be a fraction of what could be earned in LA or Miami. It would be a disadvantage that simply could not be overcome.

Finally, how long is it before a Women's Basketball player or an athlete from any other sport files a lawsuit claiming the University if promoting the mens football team more giving them an unfair advantage in earning likeness revenue, and tie that into Title IX?
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 22794

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:50 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
let's not do the good grief bit.....you clearly was throwing out talking points, and not once made a legal argument while beginning your entire position claiming those that oppose your view made "stupid legal arguments". Is that a correct statement? You claimed admissions offices are lowering the standards for admissions, but what is that statement based on? Also, you state that universities are making money off of students likeness....but they no longer are allowed to do this, so I am unsure why you make the claim. And yes, I believe Murphy to be a charlatan.

Here is the thing...you are an attorney, correct? I point out what every report I have read states, if signed, it will be immediately challenged in court....then it will go through the appeals process....end up in the 9th circuit and likely a few others around the country before it goes to the Supreme Court. We both know that will take years, yet you respond to me with "naw".


1. I read the legal arguments. They were stupid. Now, in fairness, this may be the fault of the person who was trying to explain them in the media. But yes, I consider the idea that the California statute violates the Commerce Clause to be ridiculous, and I find the idea that the California statute is a taking of property from the universities to be something that we would expect to hear from a sovereign citizen.

2. If you were not aware that admissions standards are lowered for football and basketball players, I don't know what to say to you. Even Rice does this. Seriously, how could this possibly come as a surprise to you?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-22/athletes-have-huge-college-admissions-advantages

https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores

3. If Murphy is a charlatan, please tell us which of the facts in his report are not true. Oh, you can disagree with his opinions if you choose. But which of his facts are inaccurate?

4. Litigation can take years, but it will not stop the California law from going into effect unless the litigation is meritorious. Filing a lawsuit does not grant an automatic stay of a statute. Getting a preliminary injunction against the statute requires a showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 32581

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:59 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
Even if the Governor signs, this will be tied up in the courts for years.


Big problem for the NCAA is that California laws are backed by the power of the state government, NCAA bylaws have no effect outside of their member institutions.....and if this bill gets signed, which set of laws do you think the universities are going to comply with?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36823
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:08 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
let's not do the good grief bit.....you clearly was throwing out talking points, and not once made a legal argument while beginning your entire position claiming those that oppose your view made "stupid legal arguments". Is that a correct statement? You claimed admissions offices are lowering the standards for admissions, but what is that statement based on? Also, you state that universities are making money off of students likeness....but they no longer are allowed to do this, so I am unsure why you make the claim. And yes, I believe Murphy to be a charlatan.

Here is the thing...you are an attorney, correct? I point out what every report I have read states, if signed, it will be immediately challenged in court....then it will go through the appeals process....end up in the 9th circuit and likely a few others around the country before it goes to the Supreme Court. We both know that will take years, yet you respond to me with "naw".


1. I read the legal arguments. They were stupid. Now, in fairness, this may be the fault of the person who was trying to explain them in the media. But yes, I consider the idea that the California statute violates the Commerce Clause to be ridiculous, and I find the idea that the California statute is a taking of property from the universities to be something that we would expect to hear from a sovereign citizen.

2. If you were not aware that admissions standards are lowered for football and basketball players, I don't know what to say to you. Even Rice does this. Seriously, how could this possibly come as a surprise to you?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-22/athletes-have-huge-college-admissions-advantages

https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores

3. If Murphy is a charlatan, please tell us which of the facts in his report are not true. Oh, you can disagree with his opinions if you choose. But which of his facts are inaccurate?

4. Litigation can take years, but it will not stop the California law from going into effect unless the litigation is meritorious. Filing a lawsuit does not grant an automatic stay of a statute. Getting a preliminary injunction against the statute requires a showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.


1. The point I was making is I never attempted to make a "legal argument". Do not even know which direction they plan on going. You began your opposition referencing a legal shortcoming, but never mentioned again or gave any detail.

2. Schools adjust admission standards for all types of students including athletes. That includes art, music, and band members among others. It is justified by the schools by claiming the student has unique abilities that add to the university. So do you wish to do away with all of these adjustments, or only for athletes? I recall an article within the last 5 years that pointed out that over 30% of FAMU's band members would not have been admitted as general students....but nobody is throwing a fit over that. Every student, no matter the university has to meet minimum requirements, or they are not cleared via the Clearinghouse....and the school has zero say in that matter.

3. Murphy has been on this for a while. The dude sticks his finger up in the air and takes on parties that clearly have a poor reputation.....hence he is a charlatan. I have not read the link you provided, but I know that he is not considered a credible source on the subject as he has made false statements about the NCAA for years. Why is a Senator from freakin Connecticut so concerned?

4. So lets cut through the word games. You are taking the position that if signed into law, it would take effect as defined by the written legislation, and a court would not issue a stay halting implementation through the appeals process? That is truly what you believe?
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36823
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:12 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Even if the Governor signs, this will be tied up in the courts for years.


Big problem for the NCAA is that California laws are backed by the power of the state government, NCAA bylaws have no effect outside of their member institutions.....and if this bill gets signed, which set of laws do you think the universities are going to comply with?


They would seek a stay, but of course they would have to follow the state legislation, but why does that matter if their teams are not allowed to compete in NCAA events? It would take years, probably decades to make up for the damage done to the USC football team if it was ruled ineligible for even a year. They would lose PAC12 membership, television revenue, etc.
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26305

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:17 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


Because IMO sports has nothing to do with higher education. Ugly things can happen when you mesh two things with opposing goals.

College athletics may create a line to a degree, but that is not the reason for attending university. The degree is the desired byproduct. In other words, is all that matters that you get the degree, and not whether you were sufficiently educated to earn it? College sports as it is makes education secondary unless it is only intramural.


But college is supposed to help develop you for the job you want to work in after college. Professional sports is a career choice, so it makes sense that a college would provide development for it.


Ok. So allowing them to make money off their likeness solves what problem?

I’m not sure what this solves for other than helping that small number of kids who are set up to make a ton of money, make a ton of money earlier.


The issue is so much more complicated than it seems on the surface. First, someone mentioned Trevor Lawrence getting paid for an autograph, but what is Trevor Lawrence's signature worth not attached to Clemson? Nobody wanted his autograph 14 months ago. Only when he became a member of the Clemson University football team did his likeness gain value. Who gained the most value from who last year.....Duke from Zion Williamson or Zion Williamson from Duke? If Zion attends the University of South Carolina, is his Nike deal the same this year?

Also, you would simply upend the entire competitive balance remaining in college athletics. Why would a 4 or 5 star athlete ever come to Morgantown, WV, Madison, WI or Starkville, MS? The potential to earn money off their likeness in those markets would be a fraction of what could be earned in LA or Miami. It would be a disadvantage that simply could not be overcome.

Finally, how long is it before a Women's Basketball player or an athlete from any other sport files a lawsuit claiming the University if promoting the mens football team more giving them an unfair advantage in earning likeness revenue, and tie that into Title IX?


Well this is why you get rid of sports, outside of intramural type for fun leagues. =)

Otherwise, I can’t take too much issue with a business student taking investor money to start a business. Or someone paying an athlete for his or her “likeness”.

Can agents pay for an athletes likeness? Either directly or indirectly?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 29385

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:44 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


Because IMO sports has nothing to do with higher education. Ugly things can happen when you mesh two things with opposing goals.

College athletics may create a line to a degree, but that is not the reason for attending university. The degree is the desired byproduct. In other words, is all that matters that you get the degree, and not whether you were sufficiently educated to earn it? College sports as it is makes education secondary unless it is only intramural.


But college is supposed to help develop you for the job you want to work in after college. Professional sports is a career choice, so it makes sense that a college would provide development for it.


Ok. So allowing them to make money off their likeness solves what problem?

I’m not sure what this solves for other than helping that small number of kids who are set up to make a ton of money, make a ton of money earlier.


It's less about "solving" something, more about providing a free market for athletes to earn a portion of the billion dollars industry that the NCAA, schools and all their sponsors make off them playing sports.

There should be zero objection to this, aside from the fact it pokes holes in the NCAA's monopoly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 22794

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:30 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
1. The point I was making is I never attempted to make a "legal argument". Do not even know which direction they plan on going. You began your opposition referencing a legal shortcoming, but never mentioned again or gave any detail.

2. Schools adjust admission standards for all types of students including athletes. That includes art, music, and band members among others. It is justified by the schools by claiming the student has unique abilities that add to the university. So do you wish to do away with all of these adjustments, or only for athletes? I recall an article within the last 5 years that pointed out that over 30% of FAMU's band members would not have been admitted as general students....but nobody is throwing a fit over that. Every student, no matter the university has to meet minimum requirements, or they are not cleared via the Clearinghouse....and the school has zero say in that matter.

3. Murphy has been on this for a while. The dude sticks his finger up in the air and takes on parties that clearly have a poor reputation.....hence he is a charlatan. I have not read the link you provided, but I know that he is not considered a credible source on the subject as he has made false statements about the NCAA for years. Why is a Senator from freakin Connecticut so concerned?

4. So lets cut through the word games. You are taking the position that if signed into law, it would take effect as defined by the written legislation, and a court would not issue a stay halting implementation through the appeals process? That is truly what you believe?


1. Okay, but it appears that you don't have a point.

2. Wow. The NCAA enacted Prop 48 to address this issue with respect to sports. So you want to talk about band members? Here's the sliding scale under the current version of Prop 48.

https://www.ncsasports.org/ncaa-eligibility-center/ncaa-sliding-scale

Those scores are not within light years of the admissions standards for any Power 5 school outside of West Virginia. And yet many of these schools have players who are required to redshirt (or go to junior college) because they can't meet the Prop 48 standard.

3. I don't really know what to say to that. You can't be bothered to look, but you are certain that it's all false.

4. Yes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 12818

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:48 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Even if the Governor signs, this will be tied up in the courts for years.


Naw. I read a description of the supposed legal problems with the bill. It listed some of the stupidest legal arguments I've seen in a long time, and I see a lot of stupid legal arguments.

The bill will not take effect until 2023. Basically, it is going to force the NCAA to reform its antiquated amateurism rules. The NCAA barely managed to avoid this result in the antitrust litigation. The NCAA lost the cases, but the courts weren't willing to dictate specific rules to the NCAA. The writing was on the wall.

The California legislature is essentially telling the NCAA that society is no longer buying the BS that the NCAA has been spewing for decades. When it comes to Power 5 revenue sports, universities are not academic institutions, and everyone knows it. The Power 5 revenue programs are professional sports leagues, except that they do not pay their players. What a shock that the universities are against this bill. Employers are against the $15 minimum wage, too. Oh, but the universities provide an education, right? Riiiight. They admit kids who don't meet their academic requirements, then find ways to keep them in school (including outright cheating) until they get hurt, drop out, move on to the pros, or squeak through with a general studies degree.

We still haven't reached the point at which society demands that the schools actually pay the players. It's coming, though. This bill just addresses the absurdity of allowing universities to make money off the images of players and the like, but not allowing Trevor Lawrence to sign an autograph for five bucks. It is stupid, and it should offend everyone.

But a lot of people still aren't offended because they have been fed the NCAA's BS for so long. These are student-athletes! That might have been a respectable argument 40 years ago, but in 2019, the Power 5 revenue sports are an industry that makes money for everyone other than the players. That's the point of the report by Senator Murphy, which I linked. It is also the point of the California bill. The winds of change have been blowing for years, but now we're up to Category 1,


Oh wow, standing O

By the way, the argument should be how much of revenue/profit sharing is between universities and their players (no diff than NBA and NBPA, with its different tier salaries for different players), so Zion and duke should revenue share the likeness of Zion (what ratio is the debate). And for argument sake, you can argue that Zion would’ve done as well in another school with less history than duke
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gng930
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 8766

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:03 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
gng930 wrote:
It's been argued that California essentially becomes a "super-league" as the best recruits will come to California because they can make a lot of money while competing at a top program. For the truly elite talent, it's not about school pride anymore, it's about setting yourself up for the pros and for life. Does a guy like Zion Williamson still choose Duke when he can come to UCLA instead while making millions? You can make an argument either way.


From what I've read is that the athletes would benefit by getting paid but they would essentially be barred from postseason play. That means no March Madness or college bowl games, etc.....
But if you are an elite athlete trying to showcase your talents to the next level do you really care about a bowl game or winning the NCAA championship? Probably not.


What if the California schools decided to set up their own postseason tourney?
_________________
Free Agent Spreadsheet (Save to your Google Drive to edit)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 22269

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:15 pm    Post subject:

Break the back of "amateur" athletics! Yesss!
_________________
The Dennis Miller of LG.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 22269

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:24 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Even if the Governor signs, this will be tied up in the courts for years.


Naw. I read a description of the supposed legal problems with the bill. It listed some of the stupidest legal arguments I've seen in a long time, and I see a lot of stupid legal arguments.

The bill will not take effect until 2023. Basically, it is going to force the NCAA to reform its antiquated amateurism rules. The NCAA barely managed to avoid this result in the antitrust litigation. The NCAA lost the cases, but the courts weren't willing to dictate specific rules to the NCAA. The writing was on the wall.

The California legislature is essentially telling the NCAA that society is no longer buying the BS that the NCAA has been spewing for decades. When it comes to Power 5 revenue sports, universities are not academic institutions, and everyone knows it. The Power 5 revenue programs are professional sports leagues, except that they do not pay their players. What a shock that the universities are against this bill. Employers are against the $15 minimum wage, too. Oh, but the universities provide an education, right? Riiiight. They admit kids who don't meet their academic requirements, then find ways to keep them in school (including outright cheating) until they get hurt, drop out, move on to the pros, or squeak through with a general studies degree.

We still haven't reached the point at which society demands that the schools actually pay the players. It's coming, though. This bill just addresses the absurdity of allowing universities to make money off the images of players and the like, but not allowing Trevor Lawrence to sign an autograph for five bucks. It is stupid, and it should offend everyone.

But a lot of people still aren't offended because they have been fed the NCAA's BS for so long. These are student-athletes! That might have been a respectable argument 40 years ago, but in 2019, the Power 5 revenue sports are an industry that makes money for everyone other than the players. That's the point of the report by Senator Murphy, which I linked. It is also the point of the California bill. The winds of change have been blowing for years, but now we're up to Category 1,


Oh wow, standing O

By the way, the argument should be how much of revenue/profit sharing is between universities and their players (no diff than NBA and NBPA, with its different tier salaries for different players), so Zion and duke should revenue share the likeness of Zion (what ratio is the debate). And for argument sake, you can argue that Zion would’ve done as well in another school with less history than duke

Jay Bilas gushed about Zion's number of Instagram followers before every Duke game. The kid was a YouTube sensation when he was 16 years old. The only difference between Duke and South Carolina in terms of Zion's public profile was boosting him to the aging casual ESPN viewer contingent many of whom would've learned who he was through SportsCenter Top 10 plays, anyway.
_________________
The Dennis Miller of LG.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 22269

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:25 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


Because IMO sports has nothing to do with higher education. Ugly things can happen when you mesh two things with opposing goals.

College athletics may create a line to a degree, but that is not the reason for attending university. The degree is the desired byproduct. In other words, is all that matters that you get the degree, and not whether you were sufficiently educated to earn it? College sports as it is makes education secondary unless it is only intramural.


But college is supposed to help develop you for the job you want to work in after college. Professional sports is a career choice, so it makes sense that a college would provide development for it.


Ok. So allowing them to make money off their likeness solves what problem?

I’m not sure what this solves for other than helping that small number of kids who are set up to make a ton of money, make a ton of money earlier.

You seem to be a bad libertarian.
_________________
The Dennis Miller of LG.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26305

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:36 am    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


Because IMO sports has nothing to do with higher education. Ugly things can happen when you mesh two things with opposing goals.

College athletics may create a line to a degree, but that is not the reason for attending university. The degree is the desired byproduct. In other words, is all that matters that you get the degree, and not whether you were sufficiently educated to earn it? College sports as it is makes education secondary unless it is only intramural.


But college is supposed to help develop you for the job you want to work in after college. Professional sports is a career choice, so it makes sense that a college would provide development for it.


Ok. So allowing them to make money off their likeness solves what problem?

I’m not sure what this solves for other than helping that small number of kids who are set up to make a ton of money, make a ton of money earlier.

You seem to be a bad libertarian.


Haha. Well, not really. A libertarian would say a business shall be left to run their business as they see fit and the market will correct it.

I’m not really all that opposed to the idea that a student shall be allowed to earn money while a student. I’m more opposed to how deeply integrated a virtually pro sports league is within an institution that should be about higher learning first and foremost. But I also believe that student athletes are already compensated through scholarships and future opportunities made possible by the universities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 32581

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:53 am    Post subject:

gng930 wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
gng930 wrote:
It's been argued that California essentially becomes a "super-league" as the best recruits will come to California because they can make a lot of money while competing at a top program. For the truly elite talent, it's not about school pride anymore, it's about setting yourself up for the pros and for life. Does a guy like Zion Williamson still choose Duke when he can come to UCLA instead while making millions? You can make an argument either way.


From what I've read is that the athletes would benefit by getting paid but they would essentially be barred from postseason play. That means no March Madness or college bowl games, etc.....
But if you are an elite athlete trying to showcase your talents to the next level do you really care about a bowl game or winning the NCAA championship? Probably not.


What if the California schools decided to set up their own postseason tourney?


That would probably be a result if this ever came to fruition and no other states joined them. That being said, I can see some of the smaller schools getting a big boost to their athletic programs. Think San Diego State, Fresno State, Cal Poly SLO, Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Northridge, San Jose State, Long Beach State, UCI, etc. They already have football or basketball programs, but they are not as well funded as other programs around the nation. Now imagine if players can get commercial support without consequences. Those schools would instantly become more attractive.


Last edited by lakersken80 on Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:59 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36823
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:54 am    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Break the back of "amateur" athletics! Yesss!


I feel this is mostly the other side.....some just want to watch the world burn. Again, choosing to accept and academic scholarship in exchange for participating on an athletic team is a choice. We are seeing players in recent years make the choice to not engage in that exchange and still end up in professional sports which is evidence that college athletics is not a requirement.

I disagree with your comments on Zion if he did not attend Duke. I do not have any credible evidence to provide, but I have heard some one the most hardened "pay the college athlete" advocates admit that his initial 2-3 years of off court earnings would likely be significantly less if he attended a non blue blood school. Duke was very good for Zion's bank account, and Zion was very good for Dukes bank account.
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB