California Thumbs Nose At NCAA

[Stuhoo 80,430]

On 9/30/2019 at 1:34 PM, Hardwood83 said:

I'm very pro-capitalism and free market. These kids have every right to make all the money they can from their skills, likeness, etc ......they do that by going pro. However, if they want to attend college and participate in amateur competition they gotta wait. It's not that complicated and the model worked fine for a very long time.

Playing college sports is not compulsory, so if you don't want the stipulation that come with it, don't play.   

I suppose High school kids deserve a percentage of the gate from Friday night's game too? Maybe the dance recital made enough from the bake sale that the girls deserve a cut? Sheesh. 

(btw I understand the NCAA is making a lot of $$ that isn't the point, to me it's principle not balance sheet) 

 

Let's take off the table that I am an absolutist about following the rules that have been established - I'm already there on that front.

But SHOULD the rules be changed?

Let me give you a real-life scenario and tell me what you think:

My oldest son is a high school senior, and is a classical vocalist. He will be going to college as a music performance major, and is being 'recruited' by many top schools. The school he attends will (very likely) be offering him a substantial scholarship completely based on his merit as a musician. 

The school he attends will have performances attended by hundreds (or more) at a time, and the school will profit from those performances through ticket revenue and advertising sales. He will perform for his university without compensation.

HOWEVER, my son will have opportunities to be paid for performances anytime he is not in a university production, (he already has in high school), and that will in no way affect his scholarship or college eligibility. Seems okay to me in a different scenario, so why shouldn't Trayce Jackson Davis be paid for revenue opportunities that are not directly incorporated into playing for IUBB? 

 

 

 

[Hardwood83 4,764]

11 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

Let's take off the table that I am an absolutist about following the rules that have been established - I'm already there on that front.

But SHOULD the rules be changed?

Let me give you a real-life scenario and tell me what you think:

My oldest son is a high school senior, and is a classical vocalist. He will be going to college as music performance major, and is being 'recruited' by many top schools. The school he attends will (very likely) be offering him a scholarship completely based on his merit as a musician. 

The school he attends will have performances attended by hundreds (or more) at a time, and the school will profit from the performances through ticket revenue and advertising sales. He will perform for his university without compensation.

HOWEVER, my son will have opportunities to be paid for performances anytime he is not in a university production, (he already has in high school), and that will in no way affect his scholarship or college eligibility. Seems okay to me in a different scenario, so why can't Trayce Jackson Davis be paid for revenue opportunities that are not directly incorporated into playing for IUBB? 

 

 

 

I think the basic question is "do we want to maintain amateur, school-based sports?"

I have to admit to kind of conflating "paying players" with the slightly more narrow California law that simply allows them to profit from their likeness, appearances etc. I am definitely against paying amateurs (oxy-moron?), but  you give an excellent real world example that shows how complicated this is. To be an apples to apples comparison to your son, wouldn't we have to say TJD gets paid for playing basketball outside of IU/NCAA? I don't think that is compatible with anything like the current system, unless you want to burn it all to the ground. Under that scenario UK would have their players put on an exhibition game that charges boosters $250,000 a head to attend and let the players split the proceeds. (Actually, they probably ALREADY do that). So, nothing against your son, but I would say "no" because revenue sports are different. They just are. There is clear incentive to influence the outcome of games that doesn't exist for field hockey or fine arts. There is already plenty of cheating and this would open a whole new arena for it.  

A better question (related to the Cali law) is more like should TJD be allowed get paid for signing pictures, or attending a car dealership promo, etc? That is definitely tougher, but I think it's a seriously slippery slope too. Won't this just legitimize paying players? I think a lot of posters here are ok with that, but I am not. Probably gets back to the heart of my original question "do we want to maintain amateur sports ?" If yes, then paying players because they are players is a no-go. If 'no' then just get rid of intercollegiate sports altogether and just have different levels of pro sports. Why should pro athletes have to enroll in school?   

So that was a lot of words to come back to, are these professionals or amateurs? Proceed accordingly. 

[HoosierAloha 30,067]

 
Let's take off the table that I am an absolutist about following the rules that have been established - I'm already there on that front.
But SHOULD the rules be changed?
Let me give you a real-life scenario and tell me what you think:
My oldest son is a high school senior, and is a classical vocalist. He will be going to college as a music performance major, and is being 'recruited' by many top schools. The school he attends will (very likely) be offering him a substantial scholarship completely based on his merit as a musician. 
The school he attends will have performances attended by hundreds (or more) at a time, and the school will profit from those performances through ticket revenue and advertising sales. He will perform for his university without compensation.
HOWEVER, my son will have opportunities to be paid for performances anytime he is not in a university production, (he already has in high school), and that will in no way affect his scholarship or college eligibility. Seems okay to me in a different scenario, so why shouldn't Trayce Jackson Davis be paid for revenue opportunities that are not directly incorporated into playing for IUBB? 
 
 
 

Just to be that dude..

What are the chances your son suffers an injury performing outside of the school performances? Ditto for an athlete..


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

10 minutes ago, Hardwood83 said:

I think the basic question is "do we want to maintain amateur, school-based sports?"

I have to admit to kind of conflating "paying players" with the slightly more narrow California law that simply allows them to profit from their likeness, appearances etc. I am definitely against paying amateurs (oxy-moron?), but  you give an excellent real world example that shows how complicated this is. To be an apples to apples comparison to your son, wouldn't we have to say TJD gets paid for playing basketball outside of IU/NCAA? I don't think that is compatible with anything like the current system, unless you want to burn it all to the ground. Under that scenario UK would have their players put on an exhibition game that charges boosters $250,000 a head to attend and let the players split the proceeds. (Actually, they probably ALREADY do that). So, nothing against your son, but I would say "no" because revenue sports are different. They just are. There is clear incentive to influence the outcome of games that doesn't exist for field hockey or fine arts. There is already plenty of cheating and this would open a whole new arena for it.  

A better question (related to the Cali law) is more like should TJD be allowed get paid for signing pictures, or attending a car dealership promo, etc? That is definitely tougher, but I think it's a seriously slippery slope too. Won't this just legitimize paying players? I think a lot of posters here are ok with that, but I am not. Probably gets back to the heart of my original question "do we want to maintain amateur sports ?" If yes, then paying players because they are players is a no-go. If 'no' then just get rid of intercollegiate sports altogether and just have different levels of pro sports. Why should pro athletes have to enroll in school?   

So that was a lot of words to come back to, are these professionals or amateurs? Proceed accordingly. 

I just don't see how profiting from your likeness invalidates the current amateur system. They cannot be paid by the schools, but if Dagwood's wants Chef Boyargreen to pose for a local advertisement, he can collect earnings from that.

[Hoosierfan2017 21,227]

Priller would've made a killing if he had been able to sign endorsements. 

[Stuhoo 80,430]

21 minutes ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

I just don't see how profiting from your likeness invalidates the current amateur system. They cannot be paid by the schools, but if Dagwood's wants Chef Boyargreen to pose for a local advertisement, he can collect earnings from that.

 

Well that's a completely invalid argument. 

Without question, the only product that DeVonte "ChefBoyAreGreen" Green could get an endorsement deal for is over-salted canned raviolis.

 

[Stuhoo 80,430]

33 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

Just to be that dude..

What are the chances your son suffers an injury performing outside of the school performances? Ditto for an athlete..


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

 

Much smaller, of course. Does that make it MORE logical that athletes should be able to work away from the school?

 

[Brass Cannon 24,613]

These athletes aren’t going to be playing sports to make money though. This would be more like a musician letting themselves be used on a mailer by a local music store. 

[Stuhoo 80,430]

41 minutes ago, Hardwood83 said:

I think the basic question is "do we want to maintain amateur, school-based sports?"

I have to admit to kind of conflating "paying players" with the slightly more narrow California law that simply allows them to profit from their likeness, appearances etc. I am definitely against paying amateurs (oxy-moron?), but  you give an excellent real world example that shows how complicated this is. To be an apples to apples comparison to your son, wouldn't we have to say TJD gets paid for playing basketball outside of IU/NCAA? I don't think that is compatible with anything like the current system, unless you want to burn it all to the ground. Under that scenario UK would have their players put on an exhibition game that charges boosters $250,000 a head to attend and let the players split the proceeds. (Actually, they probably ALREADY do that). So, nothing against your son, but I would say "no" because revenue sports are different. They just are. There is clear incentive to influence the outcome of games that doesn't exist for field hockey or fine arts. There is already plenty of cheating and this would open a whole new arena for it.  

A better question (related to the Cali law) is more like should TJD be allowed get paid for signing pictures, or attending a car dealership promo, etc? That is definitely tougher, but I think it's a seriously slippery slope too. Won't this just legitimize paying players? I think a lot of posters here are ok with that, but I am not. Probably gets back to the heart of my original question "do we want to maintain amateur sports ?" If yes, then paying players because they are players is a no-go. If 'no' then just get rid of intercollegiate sports altogether and just have different levels of pro sports. Why should pro athletes have to enroll in school?   

So that was a lot of words to come back to, are these professionals or amateurs? Proceed accordingly. 

 

Interesting. My son won't be allowed to perform away from his future program if it conflicts with the university's schedule - same could work for athletes. 

Each school can set 'away from program' performance metrics - for instance,  it would devalue a college basketball program if the team played exhibitions apart from their college schedule for player profit. So, in theory the free market would encourage the universities to prohibit that kind of thing, especially when it could lead to player injuries.

I'm guessing that California anticipated some of the issues you raised, and allowed only for compensation in cases where that can of worms wouldn't be opened.

 

[Old Friend 8,389]

1 hour ago, Stuhoo said:

 

Let's take off the table that I am an absolutist about following the rules that have been established - I'm already there on that front.

But SHOULD the rules be changed?

Let me give you a real-life scenario and tell me what you think:

My oldest son is a high school senior, and is a classical vocalist. He will be going to college as a music performance major, and is being 'recruited' by many top schools. The school he attends will (very likely) be offering him a substantial scholarship completely based on his merit as a musician. 

The school he attends will have performances attended by hundreds (or more) at a time, and the school will profit from those performances through ticket revenue and advertising sales. He will perform for his university without compensation.

HOWEVER, my son will have opportunities to be paid for performances anytime he is not in a university production, (he already has in high school), and that will in no way affect his scholarship or college eligibility. Seems okay to me in a different scenario, so why shouldn't Trayce Jackson Davis be paid for revenue opportunities that are not directly incorporated into playing for IUBB? 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why I'm posting because I see both sides of this and nobody wants someone who's on the fence....but.....  I do agree with your last, because companies can hire whoever they want to represent them as spokespeople, etc.   My only issue with it is how do you govern it?  Let's say X University funnels $250,000 to a car wash to hire Jimmy Speedback to do commercials for them.  The car wash shows it paid Jimmy $5,000 for his services, but he really got the $250K.  Where's his incentive to go to class?  To be a student at the University at all?   We already have minor league sports.  We don't need more.   I'd be in favor of allowing high school grads to go pro as soon as they want to; and those who want to attend college may do so.  I don't see the need to create a revenue source for kids because one of those already exists.   It's imperfect, but that seems an easy answer and really takes care of only the players in question.  Nobody's hiring a freshman women's soccer player to endorse anything.  College sports are for student athletes.  Professional sports are for paid athletes.

That university IS giving Jimmy a lot....   A free education if he chooses to accept that he is a student athlete - and that education has significant value once he graduates - just as it does with your son.  Free food, free shoes, free clothes, free tutors, free healthcare, preferential class selection, a weekly stipend, and myriad other things.  But...I don't have a problem with the simple hiring of an athlete to represent a business.  I think there's value in that for both; but the old man in me (and I'm not that old) finds it sad that businesses feel they need college athletes (aged 18-22) to represent them, as I think that plays into the same disease I see in recruit stalkers.

The other part of me says the following :

1)   A scholarship is compensation, and I can't be convinced otherwise.  It's not cash, but it's at the very least a free or discounted service provided to a kid who can then use the fruits of that service to succeed in the "real world" and leave with little or no debt.   That has value, and I'd call it compensation.  98% of college students would love to have the "it's not compensation" that athletes get.

2)  The NCAA has its rules and is a membership organization.  Any school who wants to pay athletes and provide access to companies which want to give those players endorsements is free to do so.  They just can't be part of the NCAA.   It's like joining the boy scouts and trying to change their admission standa.......okay, bad example.  But the point is the same.

3)  Every organization makes money off its employees and members.  The NCAA and schools are hardly the only organizations making money on the backs of others.  

4)  I am trying to imagine how travel sports and high school sports parents can be worse than they already are; and this is one way to get that done in a hurry.  I find many of them intolerable NOW.  Seriously, how is a kid (junior) from Delphi high school with a 76 MPH fastball who also strikes out a lot and can't hit a curveball ever going to be a major leaguer?   But sure enough, his dad claims to be getting feedback from a scout with the Reds and the kid lists Vanderbilt and Arizona State as his preferred colleges.  I know that kid and I know his parents.  They aren't close to the top of the idiot parent list in terms of people I know personally. 

I guess I completely support companies being able to pay for whoever they want to advertise for them, but I think it opens a Pandora's box which can't ever be closed and sure can't be governed.  At some point, money can't control everything, but this opens that door.

[WayneFleekHoosier 48,226]

I just don't see how profiting from your likeness invalidates the current amateur system. They cannot be paid by the schools, but if Dagwood's wants Chef Boyargreen to pose for a local advertisement, he can collect earnings from that.

Because it opens up the can of worms of all the shady booster activities that used to be the “shoe companies” and agents.

I don’t really care personally, if boosters, agents, etc want to pay these kids I think I’m ok with that.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

1 minute ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

Because it opens up the can of worms of all the shady booster activities that used to be the “shoe companies” and agents.

I don’t really care personally, if boosters, agents, etc want to pay these kids I think I’m ok with that.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

All of those things already happen

[WayneFleekHoosier 48,226]

All of those things already happen

I agree. I think the level and amount increase though.

Maybe Indiana can compete in that model.

Side note/thought- anyone think buffalouies is connected to the football/basketball players? Free food? Or something?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Old Friend 8,389]

5 minutes ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

I agree. I think the level and amount increase though.

Maybe Indiana can compete in that model.

Side note/thought- anyone think buffalouies is connected to the football/basketball players? Free food? Or something?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I think Buffalouie's would be stupid NOT to.   I think Buffalouie probably runs casinos somewhere, and I bet he has a file on Dagwood.

[HoosierAloha 30,067]

I agree. I think the level and amount increase though.

Maybe Indiana can compete in that model.

Side note/thought- anyone think buffalouies is connected to the football/basketball players? Free food? Or something?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Yes, at a minimum free food.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[WayneFleekHoosier 48,226]

Yes, at a minimum free food.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

That’s my take as well. Just find it interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Alford Bailey 12,373]

7 hours ago, Hardwood83 said:

I hope this is sarcasm. Even if you think college athletes deserve compensation (obviously I don't) you can't seriously argue they are being abused and forced to perform against their will. That isn't just laughable it's insulting. College athletes can quit & drop out of school at anytime. Happens frequently. Even better- pay your own way like all the other schmoes. 

Why have Title IX to subject women to the same horrors men have to endure? If college sports are so corrupt and unfair why are kids lining up to participate? If NCAA sports are tantamount to slavery, shouldn't they all be shut down?

They are not professionals. If they want to be then fine- go to the NBA, China, Poland or wherever and get paid as much as you can. Don't want to do that? Then shut up your whining about how unfair the system is.    

The NCAA IS as corrupt as FIFA in general is all I meant.

[Chips&Dipo 1,464]

I can really see both sides to this, but I think we need to stop kidding ourselves that NCAA is amateurism. That is lollipop land. 

NCAA has official sponsorship/endorsements with AT&T, CapitalOne, Coca Cola, BWW, Buick, Geico, Google, Intel, Lowe's, Pizza Hut, Reeese's, Wendy's, and others. NCAA is using their profile (i.e. likeness) to get billions of dollars. I don't see a problem with a student setting up an instagram and selling some muscle-milk on the side for some extra cash. I don't think schools should pay the student directly, but I don't have an issue with them using their likeness to sell some stuff. 

Regarding everyone's concerns, if the NCAA would have adapted when it decided it wanted to transition to a billion dollar company and set up a system that was fair for everyone that addressed legitimate concerns, we wouldn't have states jumping in and forcing their hand. Now it looks like they will have a legal battle and eventually play catch-up instead of being at the forefront of this issue.

 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,662]

I can really see both sides to this, but I think we need to stop kidding ourselves that NCAA is amateurism. That is lollipop land. 
NCAA has official sponsorship/endorsements with AT&T, CapitalOne, Coca Cola, BWW, Buick, Geico, Google, Intel, Lowe's, Pizza Hut, Reeese's, Wendy's, and others. NCAA is using their profile (i.e. likeness) to get billions of dollars. I don't see a problem with a student setting up an instagram and selling some muscle-milk on the side for some extra cash. I don't think schools should pay the student directly, but I don't have an issue with them using their likeness to sell some stuff. 
Regarding everyone's concerns, if the NCAA would have adapted when it decided it wanted to transition to a billion dollar company and set up a system that was fair for everyone that addressed legitimate concerns, we wouldn't have states jumping in and forcing their hand. Now it looks like they will have a legal battle and eventually play catch-up instead of being at the forefront of this issue.
 

So change the rules for what? 50 kids? Basketball and football combined?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Hurryin' Hoosiers 1,965]

If they go this route, then we need to do a draft like the nba.  Otherwise, better hope your school has the richest boosters willing to pony up.