California Lawmakers Vote to Undo N.C.A.A. Amateurism

#52
#52
Dustin4Vols said:
South Carolina trying to pass a law on this now.
Click to expand...
This is where I'd think Title IX might have some affect on what SC is proposing....

State Sen. Marlon Kimpson said he and Rep. Justin Bamberg plan to introduce a bill in January that would allow college athletes to profit from selling their name, image and likeness. Kimpson said the bill would also include a proposal to make schools put money into a trust fund for football and basketball player to collect after they graduate.
Click to expand...
S. Carolina to consider Fair Pay to Play-type bill

I'd think excluding every other sport would be a problem. Can they play favorites with which student athletes get benefits provided by the school? I'd think if they want to set up a fund for one or two teams, they'd be forced to do it for every university sport.
 
#55
#55
Q. Does Title IX require that equal dollars be spent on men and women's sports?

No. The only provision that requires that the same dollars be spent proportional to participation is scholarships. Otherwise, male and female student-athletes must receive equitable "treatment" and "benefits."​
Click to expand...
I'd think a trust fund would qualify as a benefit.

Title IX Frequently Asked Questions
 
#56
#56
dobre_shunka said:
Why doesn't California ban all salary caps in pro sports also? Doesn't that limit what professional athletes can earn?

College sports and the NCAA are voluntary organizations. Don't like the rules, don't play.

Maybe California doesn't like the limit of 85 scholarships in football or the all of the rules during recruiting. Or they think when a offensive team fumbles the ball through endzone, the defense shouldn't get the ball as that's too severe for a simple mistake. Can they legislate the touchback rule out of the game also?
Click to expand...
Because those caps are collectively bargained by the players union and ownership.
 
#63
#63
RDU VOL#14 said:
Me and Mike are on the same page here
Click to expand...


The guy is a moron. That is not how any of this works - colleges can't just decide to have a draft and restrict players, or start trading players... that's the whole point is they trying to restrict trade and employment. LOL WTF is he talking about? There really isn't anything complex about this, the colleges can't just get together and decide what they want to do to restrict college players from employment and compensation i.e. trade. Which is what they have been doing.

The guy would have some serious issues if the NCAA told him he can only receive a scholarship for coaching.
 
#64
#64
LSU-SIU said:
The guy is a moron. That is not how any of this works - colleges can't just decide to have a draft and restrict players, or start trading players... that's the whole point is they trying to restrict trade and employment. LOL WTF is he talking about? There really isn't anything complex about this, the colleges can't just get together and decide what they want to do to restrict college players from employment and compensation i.e. trade. Which is what they have been doing.

The guy would have some serious issues if the NCAA told him he can only receive a scholarship for coaching.
Click to expand...
The point went waaaay over your head I do believe. Allowing the bigger schools the ability to use money as an even bigger recruiting advantage, coupled with more lax transfer rules is definitely creating a slippery slope. You’ll have about 8 elite schools, 15 or so teams that could surprise any given year and a lot of schools having to fold up shop. That’s what I got from Leach’s answer. And I think he’s right
 
#65
#65
volfanbill said:
The point went waaaay over your head I do believe. Allowing the bigger schools the ability to use money as an even bigger recruiting advantage, coupled with more lax transfer rules is definitely creating a slippery slope. You’ll have about 8 elite schools, 15 or so teams that could surprise any given year and a lot of schools having to fold up shop. That’s what I got from Leach’s answer. And I think he’s right
Click to expand...

No its not over my head. Of course it will be an advantage (just like schools that build nicer stadiums or employ higher paying coaches have), that's moot though. Its not a slippery slope, the slippery slope is when they try to restrict trade which is what they have been doing. The issue I have is he isn't making any sense, "what next a draft...". That would be further violation of the Sherman Act.

On another note, he doesn't appear to be willing to work for a scholarship, my guess he would sign up on a federal lawsuit if the NCAA/schools put a salary cap on coaches. Why? Because its a clear violation of the law i.e. the Sherman Act at the federal level. What he is talking about is self serving nonsense. Tell him to move into the dorm for payment, all of sudden he sees the light. The colleges simply shouldn't be joining forces to stop trade/employment, if they want to join together for basic rules of particular sports, I generally don't see anything wrong with that.

There are actually a few issues with what the colleges have been doing, the heat is going to continously get worse until they fix the glitch, imo.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#66
#66
LSU-SIU said:
The guy is a moron. That is not how any of this works - colleges can't just decide to have a draft and restrict players, or start trading players... that's the whole point is they trying to restrict trade and employment. LOL WTF is he talking about? There really isn't anything complex about this, the colleges can't just get together and decide what they want to do to restrict college players from employment and compensation i.e. trade. Which is what they have been doing.

The guy would have some serious issues if the NCAA told him he can only receive a scholarship for coaching.
Click to expand...
I know this. I’m taking what he’s saying with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
#67
#67
TheDeeble said:
I'd be interested to see what regular universities think of this proposed legislation.

What will end up happening is anyone outside of a handful of major football programs will just be outbid for the best recruits. Bunch of Power 5 schools won't be able to keep up with what will be spent. USC/Bama/Oregon/Ohio St boosters for example will be paying 50k for "the autograph of a student athlete". Someone else matched that? Ok, here's 60k for your autograph. Or better yet, here's another 50k for taking a picture with my family.

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/spo...d0a324-d3e6-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html
Click to expand...

Good to all of this! Us Tennessee fans are tired of putting our money into a program that is unable to use funds to our successful advantage. We should have the best players. We have the money to get them. This is America. I don't give a **** about Vandy or Memphis. They can continue to be basketball schools.

College football as we know it needs a major shake up. There are 50 games every weekend and 40 of them are dog **** matchups. Who really wants to preserve this system? Let's get all the big money schools into one division and the schools that don't have the clout can continue to be amateurs.
 
#68
#68
RDU VOL#14 said:
Ahh California... The beacon of capitalism

The fact that they use Bernie and LeBron tweets showing support for this bill tells me all i need to know. 2 people who don’t know **** about economics.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean they are wrong about this.
 
#70
#70
golfballs said:
View attachment 224724
Click to expand...

Duke may be paying players, but there are perfectly logical reasons for going to Duke instead of a school that would pay you. If you're a one and done guy, you're giving up, what?...$100k when you're about to be making $4M-$8M in year 1 + endorsements. Go to Durham and play on ESPN 20 times, and also play in the most watched NCAA tournament games. Get your name out there. Zion got $95M guaranteed between shoes and salary before he's ever played an NBA minute. If a measly $100k is a reason he went to Duke, he's got dumb people in his corner.
 
#71
#71
What people forget is that the football players (as well as many other athletes) are being paid. I will use Stanford as an example sense it is in California. It costs $75,000 per year to go to Stanford. Let’s say an athlete spends 20 hours a week every week for a year. That is basically 1,000 hours of work a year. So a Stanford football player is making $75 an hour. This does not include the cost of the benefits they get which are far above what other students get.

The per hour figure would vary greatly across the country but to say athletes are not getting paid is totally inaccurate.
 
#73
#73
OrangeVolMan said:
What people forget is that the football players (as well as many other athletes) are being paid. I will use Stanford as an example sense it is in California. It costs $75,000 per year to go to Stanford. Let’s say an athlete spends 20 hours a week every week for a year. That is basically 1,000 hours of work a year. So a Stanford football player is making $75 an hour. This does not include the cost of the benefits they get which are far above what other students get.

The per hour figure would vary greatly across the country but to say athletes are not getting paid is totally inaccurate.
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. It's like being paid in food by a restaurant you work for.

One big reason why it's not at all like being paid $75/hr is that it is nowhere near the cost to the school. When somebody gets paid $20/hr, the cost to the employer is probably something like $30/hr. When a student athlete is "paid" $75/hr, the cost to the school is probably like $10-15/hr. The only real costs that someone would use pay for are food, housing, and books. Tuition is by far the most expensive part of going to Stanford, but the cost of adding 84 football players to your student body is essentially zero.
 
#74
#74
n_huffhines said:
Duke may be paying players, but there are perfectly logical reasons for going to Duke instead of a school that would pay you. If you're a one and done guy, you're giving up, what?...$100k when you're about to be making $4M-$8M in year 1 + endorsements. Go to Durham and play on ESPN 20 times, and also play in the most watched NCAA tournament games. Get your name out there. Zion got $95M guaranteed between shoes and salary before he's ever played an NBA minute. If a measly $100k is a reason he went to Duke, he's got dumb people in his corner.
Click to expand...
Would Gilbert Arenas make something up
 
#75
#75
golfballs said:
Would Gilbert Arenas make something up
Click to expand...

Is this a trick question? He's a psychopath, so yeah, he would lie. He should say what Duke offered him, if they did. And maybe they did 20 years ago, or whenever he came out of HS, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about the way it works now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top