NCAA Threatens to Ban California Schools
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:59 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
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.


I honestly do not understand where the opposition comes from combining academics and athletics. It is in the American model long before college. Kids start representing their school in athletics as early as elementary school in some locations....and by middle school athletics is fully ingrained into the educational experience. At this point we are looking at over 150 years that these two areas have been joined.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:04 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
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.


I think it is far more likely many of those programs would simply be dropped because the lack of revenue. The television revenue which is the driver would be a fraction of what a current PAC12 member receives.

As I have said from the beginning, I do not know the end results of this, but I do not think it ever gets to the point of USC and UCLA not being in the PAC12 competing for NCAA championships.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38750

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:09 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
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.


I think it is far more likely many of those programs would simply be dropped because the lack of revenue. The television revenue which is the driver would be a fraction of what a current PAC12 member receives.

As I have said from the beginning, I do not know the end results of this, but I do not think it ever gets to the point of USC and UCLA not being in the PAC12 competing for NCAA championships.


Those programs currently don't get very much TV revenue.... if anything the allowance of increased commercial support would allow them to get more money and create their own TV network.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:21 am    Post subject:

Next up, South Carolina.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27607396/s-carolina-consider-fair-pay-play-type-bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:33 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
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.


I honestly do not understand where the opposition comes from combining academics and athletics. It is in the American model long before college. Kids start representing their school in athletics as early as elementary school in some locations....and by middle school athletics is fully ingrained into the educational experience. At this point we are looking at over 150 years that these two areas have been joined.


Not sure who is opposed.

And I personally have no problems with intramural and other friendly sports being made available to students for extracurricular downtime from studying and learning.

The only time I personally have an issue with it is when the sports (or anything else) is the priority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16025

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:58 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.


Yeah, plus I’ve not heard about any caps on how much you can get paid.

Imagine Zion getting a $100M endorsement deal from Nike while in college.

This is also great for football players who have to wait 3 yrs before they can go to the NFL.

What top prospect don’t want to get paid for 3 yrs before joining the NFL.

This brings up 3 interesting by-issues:

1) what about getting paid in high school?
2) what about agents? These kids will need some professional help in signing these endorsement deals
3) can the NCAA still use the players likeness? I know they do already. Will they need to stop?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:28 am    Post subject:

There was an amendment added to the final bill in California that was not part of the original bill that makes it clear who is paying for this legislation. The amendment bars student athletes from taking money to endorse shoes/athletic gear different from the schools official shoe/athletic company. So if a kid goes to a Nike school, he can be paid by Nike but not a direct competitor of Nike. This is absolute evidence that this bill is not focused on what is best for the student athlete, and is a back door for the shoe companies to fully control college basketball. Shoe companies will finally be able to do in the open what they have tried to do behind the scenes for years.......literally direct which students attend which schools.

Here is how it would work.

Example #1 - Zion Williamson tells Nike that he wants to stay home and attend Clemson. Nike responds it is their preference he attends Duke because his value at Duke is much greater to the company and therefore his endorsement offer would be significantly more to attend Duke.

Example #2 - Oscar Tshiebwe informs Nike that he has a great relationship with Bob Huggins and will attend WVU. Nike responds that they need Oscar to attend U of Texas because it is a higher priority program to Nike. His endorsement offer is only to attend Texas.

The shoe companies have clearly been identified as the biggest problem in college basketball cheating for decades. In an effort to clean up the sport, California is trying to give them power to control college athletics. I have seen some online say they understand the bill because you do not want Zion wearing Adidas in a game when Duke is sponsored by Nike....but that is not what the bill prevents. Even if Adidas says to Zion we fully get you have to wear Nike in Duke games, but we are paying for your likeness and our endorsement just requires you to rep Adidas when you are off the court and via social media. The bill does not allow this which ensures the shoe companies will control player team choices.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:07 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
There was an amendment added to the final bill in California that was not part of the original bill that makes it clear who is paying for this legislation. The amendment bars student athletes from taking money to endorse shoes/athletic gear different from the schools official shoe/athletic company. So if a kid goes to a Nike school, he can be paid by Nike but not a direct competitor of Nike. This is absolute evidence that this bill is not focused on what is best for the student athlete, and is a back door for the shoe companies to fully control college basketball. Shoe companies will finally be able to do in the open what they have tried to do behind the scenes for years.......literally direct which students attend which schools.

Here is how it would work.

Example #1 - Zion Williamson tells Nike that he wants to stay home and attend Clemson. Nike responds it is their preference he attends Duke because his value at Duke is much greater to the company and therefore his endorsement offer would be significantly more to attend Duke.

Example #2 - Oscar Tshiebwe informs Nike that he has a great relationship with Bob Huggins and will attend WVU. Nike responds that they need Oscar to attend U of Texas because it is a higher priority program to Nike. His endorsement offer is only to attend Texas.

The shoe companies have clearly been identified as the biggest problem in college basketball cheating for decades. In an effort to clean up the sport, California is trying to give them power to control college athletics. I have seen some online say they understand the bill because you do not want Zion wearing Adidas in a game when Duke is sponsored by Nike....but that is not what the bill prevents. Even if Adidas says to Zion we fully get you have to wear Nike in Duke games, but we are paying for your likeness and our endorsement just requires you to rep Adidas when you are off the court and via social media. The bill does not allow this which ensures the shoe companies will control player team choices.



Wouldn't that also create a bidding war for a player like Zion? He could say, I want to play for (Nike School A) or (Adidas School B). Whoever gives me the most money is where I will play.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:14 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
adkindo wrote:
There was an amendment added to the final bill in California that was not part of the original bill that makes it clear who is paying for this legislation. The amendment bars student athletes from taking money to endorse shoes/athletic gear different from the schools official shoe/athletic company. So if a kid goes to a Nike school, he can be paid by Nike but not a direct competitor of Nike. This is absolute evidence that this bill is not focused on what is best for the student athlete, and is a back door for the shoe companies to fully control college basketball. Shoe companies will finally be able to do in the open what they have tried to do behind the scenes for years.......literally direct which students attend which schools.

Here is how it would work.

Example #1 - Zion Williamson tells Nike that he wants to stay home and attend Clemson. Nike responds it is their preference he attends Duke because his value at Duke is much greater to the company and therefore his endorsement offer would be significantly more to attend Duke.

Example #2 - Oscar Tshiebwe informs Nike that he has a great relationship with Bob Huggins and will attend WVU. Nike responds that they need Oscar to attend U of Texas because it is a higher priority program to Nike. His endorsement offer is only to attend Texas.

The shoe companies have clearly been identified as the biggest problem in college basketball cheating for decades. In an effort to clean up the sport, California is trying to give them power to control college athletics. I have seen some online say they understand the bill because you do not want Zion wearing Adidas in a game when Duke is sponsored by Nike....but that is not what the bill prevents. Even if Adidas says to Zion we fully get you have to wear Nike in Duke games, but we are paying for your likeness and our endorsement just requires you to rep Adidas when you are off the court and via social media. The bill does not allow this which ensures the shoe companies will control player team choices.



Wouldn't that also create a bidding war for a player like Zion? He could say, I want to play for (Nike School A) or (Adidas School B). Whoever gives me the most money is where I will play.


of course it will, but I think that is a terrible situation where the shoe companies will be in full control of where elite recruits play. It will lead to student athletes and their agents specifically choosing at least one school from each shoe company to try to create bidding wars. It will lead to that 3 Star kid that chooses Ole Miss then blossoms transferring out at the request of a shoe company because he will be more valuable to the company at Kentucky or Kansas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:18 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
adkindo wrote:
There was an amendment added to the final bill in California that was not part of the original bill that makes it clear who is paying for this legislation. The amendment bars student athletes from taking money to endorse shoes/athletic gear different from the schools official shoe/athletic company. So if a kid goes to a Nike school, he can be paid by Nike but not a direct competitor of Nike. This is absolute evidence that this bill is not focused on what is best for the student athlete, and is a back door for the shoe companies to fully control college basketball. Shoe companies will finally be able to do in the open what they have tried to do behind the scenes for years.......literally direct which students attend which schools.

Here is how it would work.

Example #1 - Zion Williamson tells Nike that he wants to stay home and attend Clemson. Nike responds it is their preference he attends Duke because his value at Duke is much greater to the company and therefore his endorsement offer would be significantly more to attend Duke.

Example #2 - Oscar Tshiebwe informs Nike that he has a great relationship with Bob Huggins and will attend WVU. Nike responds that they need Oscar to attend U of Texas because it is a higher priority program to Nike. His endorsement offer is only to attend Texas.

The shoe companies have clearly been identified as the biggest problem in college basketball cheating for decades. In an effort to clean up the sport, California is trying to give them power to control college athletics. I have seen some online say they understand the bill because you do not want Zion wearing Adidas in a game when Duke is sponsored by Nike....but that is not what the bill prevents. Even if Adidas says to Zion we fully get you have to wear Nike in Duke games, but we are paying for your likeness and our endorsement just requires you to rep Adidas when you are off the court and via social media. The bill does not allow this which ensures the shoe companies will control player team choices.



Wouldn't that also create a bidding war for a player like Zion? He could say, I want to play for (Nike School A) or (Adidas School B). Whoever gives me the most money is where I will play.


of course it will, but I think that is a terrible situation where the shoe companies will be in full control of where elite recruits play. It will lead to student athletes and their agents specifically choosing at least one school from each shoe company to try to create bidding wars. It will lead to that 3 Star kid that chooses Ole Miss then blossoms transferring out at the request of a shoe company because he will be more valuable to the company at Kentucky or Kansas.


this is just during college years, the biggest point is that this 'students' will be monetarily compensated accordingly for their likeness instead of just the school profiting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:24 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
adkindo wrote:
There was an amendment added to the final bill in California that was not part of the original bill that makes it clear who is paying for this legislation. The amendment bars student athletes from taking money to endorse shoes/athletic gear different from the schools official shoe/athletic company. So if a kid goes to a Nike school, he can be paid by Nike but not a direct competitor of Nike. This is absolute evidence that this bill is not focused on what is best for the student athlete, and is a back door for the shoe companies to fully control college basketball. Shoe companies will finally be able to do in the open what they have tried to do behind the scenes for years.......literally direct which students attend which schools.

Here is how it would work.

Example #1 - Zion Williamson tells Nike that he wants to stay home and attend Clemson. Nike responds it is their preference he attends Duke because his value at Duke is much greater to the company and therefore his endorsement offer would be significantly more to attend Duke.

Example #2 - Oscar Tshiebwe informs Nike that he has a great relationship with Bob Huggins and will attend WVU. Nike responds that they need Oscar to attend U of Texas because it is a higher priority program to Nike. His endorsement offer is only to attend Texas.

The shoe companies have clearly been identified as the biggest problem in college basketball cheating for decades. In an effort to clean up the sport, California is trying to give them power to control college athletics. I have seen some online say they understand the bill because you do not want Zion wearing Adidas in a game when Duke is sponsored by Nike....but that is not what the bill prevents. Even if Adidas says to Zion we fully get you have to wear Nike in Duke games, but we are paying for your likeness and our endorsement just requires you to rep Adidas when you are off the court and via social media. The bill does not allow this which ensures the shoe companies will control player team choices.



Wouldn't that also create a bidding war for a player like Zion? He could say, I want to play for (Nike School A) or (Adidas School B). Whoever gives me the most money is where I will play.


of course it will, but I think that is a terrible situation where the shoe companies will be in full control of where elite recruits play. It will lead to student athletes and their agents specifically choosing at least one school from each shoe company to try to create bidding wars. It will lead to that 3 Star kid that chooses Ole Miss then blossoms transferring out at the request of a shoe company because he will be more valuable to the company at Kentucky or Kansas.


this is just during college years, the biggest point is that this 'students' will be monetarily compensated accordingly for their likeness instead of just the school profiting


Again, the schools do not profit from student athletes likeness....and have not since the O'Bannon case. There is a reason you cannot go to a Alabama book store or and online site and buy a Tua Tagovailoa jersey.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:23 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
This is absolute evidence that this bill is not focused on what is best for the student athlete


Only for you, and you had already convinced yourself of this anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:27 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
This is absolute evidence that this bill is not focused on what is best for the student athlete


Only for you, and you had already convinced yourself of this anyway.


Actually you are wrong (which is becoming a trend)....I had never directly linked it to the shoe companies as legislation drivers until I saw the last minute amendment. Why else include the amendment?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:28 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
this is just during college years, the biggest point is that this 'students' will be monetarily compensated accordingly for their likeness instead of just the school profiting


Yep. The underlying problem is that the NCAA became an economic cartel, not just a vehicle for promulgating rules and facilitating competitions. Back in the old days, the NCAA acted independently. The schools beat the NCAA under the antitrust laws in 1984, but over time they figured out that there were aspects of the NCAA that benefited them financially. The winds of change have been blowing for years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:34 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
This is absolute evidence that this bill is not focused on what is best for the student athlete


Only for you, and you had already convinced yourself of this anyway.


Actually you are wrong (which is becoming a trend)....I had never directly linked it to the shoe companies as legislation drivers until I saw the last minute amendment. Why else include the amendment?


That's just a load of BS as you grasp at straws to convince yourself that this is really bad for the athletes. The colleges convinced the legislature to protect their contracts with the shoe companies. Duh. If Mickey Mountaineer wears Nikes and his school has an Adidas contract, Adidas is not going to pay the school as much. Duh. So who wants this change to the bill? The colleges. Duh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38750

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:48 am    Post subject:

When your last line of defense against players getting compensated for their likeness is the big bad evil shoe companies, you know you've already lost.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:37 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:



Wouldn't that also create a bidding war for a player like Zion? He could say, I want to play for (Nike School A) or (Adidas School B). Whoever gives me the most money is where I will play.


of course it will, but I think that is a terrible situation where the shoe companies will be in full control of where elite recruits play. It will lead to student athletes and their agents specifically choosing at least one school from each shoe company to try to create bidding wars. It will lead to that 3 Star kid that chooses Ole Miss then blossoms transferring out at the request of a shoe company because he will be more valuable to the company at Kentucky or Kansas.


How is that an example of the shoe company deciding? The player, in this instance Zion, would be able to cause his own value to go up. He's in the drivers seat.

Frankly, this is more of a reason to ban schools from signing such deals with sponsors. No player should be forced to market a certain brand without compensation. You can argue that schools pay athletes in the form of a free scholarship, but there's no reason they also get to force those players to promote their own sponsors without getting paid for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38750

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:11 pm    Post subject:

New York next....
https://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2019/09/18/new-york-senator-the-latest-to-propose-bill-to-abolish-amateurism/

This will probably be the beginning of an avalanche where the NCAA will be forced to change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:21 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:



Wouldn't that also create a bidding war for a player like Zion? He could say, I want to play for (Nike School A) or (Adidas School B). Whoever gives me the most money is where I will play.


of course it will, but I think that is a terrible situation where the shoe companies will be in full control of where elite recruits play. It will lead to student athletes and their agents specifically choosing at least one school from each shoe company to try to create bidding wars. It will lead to that 3 Star kid that chooses Ole Miss then blossoms transferring out at the request of a shoe company because he will be more valuable to the company at Kentucky or Kansas.


How is that an example of the shoe company deciding? The player, in this instance Zion, would be able to cause his own value to go up. He's in the drivers seat.

Frankly, this is more of a reason to ban schools from signing such deals with sponsors. No player should be forced to market a certain brand without compensation. You can argue that schools pay athletes in the form of a free scholarship, but there's no reason they also get to force those players to promote their own sponsors without getting paid for it.


Well they are getting paid for it (via scholarships, future earning potential, etc)

I’m in favor of students in general being able to generate income on their own so let me be clear I am not opposed to the concept.

That said, I’m opposed to the logic that the reason students shall be paid is because the NCAA generates profit.

ANY student should be allowed to make money in any way that is legal regardless of athlete status. But ANY student shall also be held accountable to maintaining certain academic standards regardless of athlete status.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:29 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
But ANY student shall also be held accountable to maintaining certain academic standards regardless of athlete status.


I'm not sure what you mean by that. The athletes must meet the NCAA's academic standards, which are tied to the school's graduation requirements. The reality is that the graduation requirements for many schools are not that tough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:15 pm    Post subject:

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



Wouldn't that also create a bidding war for a player like Zion? He could say, I want to play for (Nike School A) or (Adidas School B). Whoever gives me the most money is where I will play.


of course it will, but I think that is a terrible situation where the shoe companies will be in full control of where elite recruits play. It will lead to student athletes and their agents specifically choosing at least one school from each shoe company to try to create bidding wars. It will lead to that 3 Star kid that chooses Ole Miss then blossoms transferring out at the request of a shoe company because he will be more valuable to the company at Kentucky or Kansas.


How is that an example of the shoe company deciding? The player, in this instance Zion, would be able to cause his own value to go up. He's in the drivers seat.

Frankly, this is more of a reason to ban schools from signing such deals with sponsors. No player should be forced to market a certain brand without compensation. You can argue that schools pay athletes in the form of a free scholarship, but there's no reason they also get to force those players to promote their own sponsors without getting paid for it.


Well they are getting paid for it (via scholarships, future earning potential, etc)

I’m in favor of students in general being able to generate income on their own so let me be clear I am not opposed to the concept.

That said, I’m opposed to the logic that the reason students shall be paid is because the NCAA generates profit.

ANY student should be allowed to make money in any way that is legal regardless of athlete status. But ANY student shall also be held accountable to maintaining certain academic standards regardless of athlete status.


The scholarship is to enroll in the school. No other student is forced to wear Nike gear to class, as far as I know. No other student is forced to appear on tv to sale Nike gear. That's all forced on them by the athletics department's outside business deals. Coach K gets his bag. Zion is barred from making his.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31788
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:24 pm    Post subject:

Burn the NCAA to the ground. And take FIFA and the IOC with them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:33 am    Post subject:

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



Wouldn't that also create a bidding war for a player like Zion? He could say, I want to play for (Nike School A) or (Adidas School B). Whoever gives me the most money is where I will play.


of course it will, but I think that is a terrible situation where the shoe companies will be in full control of where elite recruits play. It will lead to student athletes and their agents specifically choosing at least one school from each shoe company to try to create bidding wars. It will lead to that 3 Star kid that chooses Ole Miss then blossoms transferring out at the request of a shoe company because he will be more valuable to the company at Kentucky or Kansas.


How is that an example of the shoe company deciding? The player, in this instance Zion, would be able to cause his own value to go up. He's in the drivers seat.

Frankly, this is more of a reason to ban schools from signing such deals with sponsors. No player should be forced to market a certain brand without compensation. You can argue that schools pay athletes in the form of a free scholarship, but there's no reason they also get to force those players to promote their own sponsors without getting paid for it.


Well they are getting paid for it (via scholarships, future earning potential, etc)

I’m in favor of students in general being able to generate income on their own so let me be clear I am not opposed to the concept.

That said, I’m opposed to the logic that the reason students shall be paid is because the NCAA generates profit.

ANY student should be allowed to make money in any way that is legal regardless of athlete status. But ANY student shall also be held accountable to maintaining certain academic standards regardless of athlete status.


The scholarship is to enroll in the school. No other student is forced to wear Nike gear to class, as far as I know. No other student is forced to appear on tv to sale Nike gear. That's all forced on them by the athletics department's outside business deals. Coach K gets his bag. Zion is barred from making his.


They aren’t forced to wear Nike gear anymore than students are forced to use certain books.

If these athletes are being forced at gunpoint to wear Nike, I have a serious issue with that.

The scholarship isn’t to enroll in the school, not all students who enroll get a scholarship. That said, it is my belief that standards of academic achievement shall be met by all students equally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:06 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


Well they are getting paid for it (via scholarships, future earning potential, etc)



The scholarship is to enroll in the school. No other student is forced to wear Nike gear to class, as far as I know. No other student is forced to appear on tv to sale Nike gear. That's all forced on them by the athletics department's outside business deals. Coach K gets his bag. Zion is barred from making his.


They aren’t forced to wear Nike gear anymore than students are forced to use certain books.

If these athletes are being forced at gunpoint to wear Nike, I have a serious issue with that.

The scholarship isn’t to enroll in the school, not all students who enroll get a scholarship. That said, it is my belief that standards of academic achievement shall be met by all students equally.


You said the athletes are getting paid in form of a scholarship. The scholarship is so they can enroll in the school for free, in order to play on the team.

The schools Athletic department then strikes a sponsorship deal worth millions of dollars. The coaches are allowed to profit off of such sponsorship. The AD profits off the sponsorship. The players, who don't profit off the sponsorship can only play on the team if they wear the sponsors branding and appear on tv with the branding. TV Networks create commercials featuring the players wearing the branding and sell other sponsors based on the viewers watching these player play.

So the "student-athlete" can only be paid to attend the school. Everyone else not only get paid to work at the school, but they make side money off of the players. Does that seem fair to you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:17 am    Post subject:

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


Well they are getting paid for it (via scholarships, future earning potential, etc)



The scholarship is to enroll in the school. No other student is forced to wear Nike gear to class, as far as I know. No other student is forced to appear on tv to sale Nike gear. That's all forced on them by the athletics department's outside business deals. Coach K gets his bag. Zion is barred from making his.


They aren’t forced to wear Nike gear anymore than students are forced to use certain books.

If these athletes are being forced at gunpoint to wear Nike, I have a serious issue with that.

The scholarship isn’t to enroll in the school, not all students who enroll get a scholarship. That said, it is my belief that standards of academic achievement shall be met by all students equally.


You said the athletes are getting paid in form of a scholarship. The scholarship is so they can enroll in the school for free, in order to play on the team.

The schools Athletic department then strikes a sponsorship deal worth millions of dollars. The coaches are allowed to profit off of such sponsorship. The AD profits off the sponsorship. The players, who don't profit off the sponsorship can only play on the team if they wear the sponsors branding and appear on tv with the branding. TV Networks create commercials featuring the players wearing the branding and sell other sponsors based on the viewers watching these player play.

So the "student-athlete" can only be paid to attend the school. Everyone else not only get paid to work at the school, but they make side money off of the players. Does that seem fair to you?


It doesn’t seem fair to me that if you’re a student athlete, you can’t earn money off your likeness. Same with a business student. Or any student like Malia Obama.

Not my primary or even secondary concern though. I’m far more concerned with the fact that education is not a priority for certain athletes and think that that is more important than money.
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, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 4 of 8
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