Jump to content

California's 'Fair Pay to Play Act'


tdhoosier

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, JugRox said:

 

College sports are a business that support thousands and thousands of student athletes. And ESPN and the shoe companies want a bigger piece of that pie and they don't care if Ball State Cross Country, Butler Swimming, or IUPUI Golf, and etc get destroyed in the process.

 

I don't see why it would have to lead to that, but, let's say that it does. Why do I care? I don't understand why those programs exist. Why does IUPUI spend a bunch of money recruiting kids and sending them all over the country, for them to miss class playing a game that in no way relates to their future profession? I think sports have a lot to offer kids, but if you haven't learned those lessons by the time you finish high school, are those extra 4 years going to help? I don't get it.

If a sports program is taking kids who are at the school anyway, for academic purposes, and happen to be pretty good at a sport, then great. But why should schools be spending a bunch of money on a golf team? Why should kids miss school for that? Why should kids who otherwise wouldn't be able to get into a school, now get in because they are good at a sport that is just going to suck up a lot of school resources and not return money or draw the real interest of anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 454
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I get people dont agree with it, Im not saying I do either. But, what I think isnt going to change a thing. I very rarely if ever talk in absolutes, but I feel very strongly this is going to be a done deal.  The NCAA and college sports have been a business for a long time, there is nothing amateur about it.  Cuban will definitely push for it at IU, he hates the NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rico said:

The NCAA is the organization that has let it get to this point.  Sad, but true.

Actually the blame should go to the NBA for the dumb one and done rule.  They are using the colleges as a free minor league and don't have to use their money for a real minor league.  They know that the college game is way more popular than the G-League ever will be so why change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

I see both sides of this.  It's certainly not a cut & dried issue.  Kids choosing college are obviously getting a free education and a lot of free publicity that they likely would not get in the G-league or even overseas.  If it was just a question of getting paid cash compensation, none of the really elite kids would bother with college.  It's obvious they see value in taking the college route as it exists today.

...and yes, the bigger schools make some money, although how much profit is shown is up for debate.  I've yet to hear a solution that is fair and equitable for all involved parties.

The answer is and has been obvious.  Either do it the NFL way or do it the MLB way and CBB would be better for it.  Because basketball is where most of this comes from.  We have been over it countless times on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Actually the blame should go to the NBA for the dumb one and done rule.  They are using the colleges as a free minor league and don't have to use their money for a real minor league.  They know that the college game is way more popular than the G-League ever will be so why change it.

Sorry, I posted at the same time you did...and I concur with what you just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Probably will and I would hope the NCAA say if your school allows this then you can't participate in NCAA events.  I would also hope IU would never go for this and stay in the NCAA and let the one and done factories have their own league.  I just find it stupid to change the whole landscape of college athletics for may be 30 kids a year in college basketball.

Said it before but the NCAA and schools have their hands tied on this.   Once the bill passes in California it will spread fast to other states.  Banning teams from the tournament may slow it down but eventually you would have very few if any schools left.

And for the millionth time this isn't about just a handful of athletes making endorsement deals.   It's any athlete from any sport.  For example... the local running store uses the star male and female cross country runners to promote their place.   Or say a local golf course wants a few players to promote an event. 

 This isn't just big name athletes that will benefit from the ability to market themselves.  And remember as well many athletes are not on full rides like basketball and football players.   

Go Hoosiers!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Let's say they do this so how would recruiting work.  Do you sign with a team or a sponsor and when can you sign.  Would it just be a bidding war and go all the way until school starts.  How would coaches be able to build there teams if they don't know when a player will sign.

That is what the NCAA needs to be figuring out right now.  I'd hope that advertisers couldn't come calling until after a player signs.  But who knows what it will look like.  The one plus is money would be above the table now.  

Go Hoosiers!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2019 at 4:49 PM, tdhoosier said:

The law doesn't' propose that they'd be paid directly from a college - just off their likeness. 

Like what IUthruandthru said, they could get paid for autograph sessions, sports camps, endorsements from car dealerships, etc. If a kid chose to go to Northern Iowa he could get $2,500 to sponsor a corn maze. Or if a kid good looking kid with nice teeth chose Eastern Kentucky we could endorse a dentist. The possibilities are endless!

 

 

And a booster could call up and say come to IU and i will give you a million a year to be in my car lot photos. When does it stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Let's say they do this so how would recruiting work.  Do you sign with a team or a sponsor and when can you sign.  Would it just be a bidding war and go all the way until school starts.  How would coaches be able to build there teams if they don't know when a player will sign.

A coach just loads up all his top donors on one of their planes, takes them in a recruits home and says, have at it guys, open those check book wide and i'll just stand over here in the corner. But why shouldn't Cali be the first to f up everything, thats what they are good at. NCAA should ban every Cali school from playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along those lines and in this discussion...back when the Olympics were just supposed to be amateurs.  The athletes were allowed to make endorsement deals and such and get paid for it.  They could keep their amateur status if they only used money for living expenses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Feathery for clarifying that it's not University's paying players. This keeps on getting misconstrued. A college with a smaller budget does not need to worry about finding money to pay athletes because under the law universities STILL can NOT pay athletes. The money flow would be coming from outside sources. 

Everybody is focusing on whether they think an athlete should be paid and I don't think this is the right tree to bark up. I think the argument needs to slightly shift to IF an athlete is paid off of their likeness would it un-level the playing field even more than it already is? This seems to be the NCAA's argument, and as I've said, I think this is a facade hiding the real reason they don't want this to happen: they want the money pie all to themselves. 

I want to know from the opponents of this change, do you think think the hierarchy would change if the law goes through? Do you think the competition level would diminish? And if so, why?

And by the way, according to a few articles I've read there's not much of a chance that the NCAA will be able to kick participating CA schools out of the NCAA tournament, BCS playoffs, etc. Legal experts mentioned some mumbo jumbo about antitrust laws. I also heard that Washington state and Colorado are considering similar bills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2019 at 3:29 PM, IU Scott said:

I have always thought differently about my college sports teams compared to my pro sports team.  For some reason I feel a closer relationship with my college teams compared to the pro teams and I think one of the reasons is that they were not being paid or are professional athletes.

Also did I surprise you that I did not come out and give my opinion on this topic.

if i understand this right, colleges are not going to be paying their athletes. only those good enough would get endorsement deals while still playing. for instance, on iu's basketball team last season, only romeo would have gotten one. no one else on the team would have got a penny. the nba is soon going to allow high school players to jump straight to pro ball so that will eliminate a lot of those. i think this might affect other sports that most college sports fans don't care about, like college athletes who do well in the olympics. lily king has had the potential to earn millions in endorsements while a student at iu. i think she had to turn these down until she stopped swimming here. tiger woods at stanford, chase young at osu now, that kind of thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rico said:

Along those lines and in this discussion...back when the Olympics were just supposed to be amateurs.  The athletes were allowed to make endorsement deals and such and get paid for it.  They could keep their amateur status if they only used money for living expenses.  

What constitutes living expenses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2019 at 5:05 PM, Indy1987 said:

Right and that just puts everything out in the open.  All under the table stuff we have now with boosters and sponsors will be transparent.   Let the bidding wars begin.  

Go Hoosiers!!!

 

oh, that gives me a thought. before it dies of loneliness let's think about this possibility. a car dealership offers a recruit $200,000 if the kid signs with a certain school with an additional $100,000 for each season he stays with the school. would that be legal under this bill? that would be a nightmare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Indykev said:

And a booster could call up and say come to IU and i will give you a million a year to be in my car lot photos. When does it stop?

While true, is this really going to happen? You're talking ONE MILLION DOLLARS (said like Dr. Evil). I know boosters are crazy but their not going to be blowing a million dollars year after year on a recruit that will attend college for 1 year. That's 'corporation' endorsement dollars; and the thing about corporations who have that much money to spend is that they have shareholders to answer to. 

The market will stabilize itself if boosters get involved. And you know what? The programs with a lot of booster money, are the same programs who already get the best recruits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, coachv said:

if i understand this right, colleges are not going to be paying their athletes. only those good enough would get endorsement deals while still playing. for instance, on iu's basketball team last season, only romeo would have gotten one. no one else on the team would have got a penny. the nba is soon going to allow high school players to jump straight to pro ball so that will eliminate a lot of those. i think this might affect other sports that most college sports fans don't care about, like college athletes who do well in the olympics. lily king has had the potential to earn millions in endorsements while a student at iu. i think she had to turn these down until she stopped swimming here. tiger woods at stanford, chase young at osu now, that kind of thing

So to me that would only cause more friction among teams if only a couple are getting paid and the others don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

What constitutes living expenses

That is a good question that I don't have an answer for.  But let's say a college kid wants a car or uses the money to help his parents out, I am cool with that to maintain his/her college eligibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, coachv said:

if i understand this right, colleges are not going to be paying their athletes. only those good enough would get endorsement deals while still playing. for instance, on iu's basketball team last season, only romeo would have gotten one. no one else on the team would have got a penny. the nba is soon going to allow high school players to jump straight to pro ball so that will eliminate a lot of those. i think this might affect other sports that most college sports fans don't care about, like college athletes who do well in the olympics. lily king has had the potential to earn millions in endorsements while a student at iu. i think she had to turn these down until she stopped swimming here. tiger woods at stanford, chase young at osu now, that kind of thing

According to Wiki, Lily's net worth is a cool $2 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

While true, is this really going to happen? You're talking ONE MILLION DOLLARS (said like Dr. Evil). I know boosters are crazy but their not going to be blowing a million dollars year after year on a recruit that will attend college for 1 year. That's 'corporation' endorsement dollars; and the thing about corporations who have that much money to spend is that they have shareholders to answer to. 

The market will stabilize itself if boosters get involved. And you know what? The programs with a lot of booster money, are the same programs who already get the best recruits.

 

What would worry me is that the UK and Dukes of the world could stock pile more players by taking players who might go to a UVA or UW.  If they can offer those players more money and they don't care about playing time it could cause other teams losing out on those kind of players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU Scott said:

So to me that would only cause more friction among teams if only a couple are getting paid and the others don't.

It's supply and demand, Scott. The best players would get compensated, the others, either to a lesser extent or not at all. No different than anything else. Those with the most talent are paid compensated for it. Is there friction on any NFL team over the fact that the quarterback or star player makes more?

If anything, what you describe should be used as a motivator--if I am a player not getting mine, I better improve to the point that I will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rico said:

That is a good question that I don't have an answer for.  But let's say a college kid wants a car or uses the money to help his parents out, I am cool with that to maintain his/her college eligibility.

Also who could really monitor what these kids would be spending their money on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU Scott said:

What would worry me is that the UK and Dukes of the world could stock pile more players by taking players who might go to a UVA or UW.  If they can offer those players more money and they don't care about playing time it could cause other teams losing out on those kind of players.

First, there are limits on scholarships, so they couldn't extend beyond that.

Second, kids at this level wouldn't be satisfied not playing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...