Fair Pay to Play Act

[midatlantech]

And really I wonder how the NCAA pays out b-ball schools. Is Arizona and Utah ok to play when the rest of the PAC 12 can not?

 

[zippyGT]

It will be interesting to see if/how it breaks and what replaces it.

Conferences will form their own unaffiliated leagues and set their own rules on things like academic qualification and player salaries. National championships will be based on cross conference agreements. An NAIA organization will form to cover G5, Div II, and Div III.

 

[GTSaxophone]

Although I'm a big fan of amateurism, I can imagine some version of this rule which would be OK.

What I'm definitely not OK with, is letting the nutjobs who run California dictate collegiate sports policy to the rest of the nation. This is akin to their retarded "something in this product causes cancer" labels and their emissions rules, which all of us get stuck with. California officials are already claiming it would be illegal for the NCAA to prevent Cali schools from engaging in post-season play for violating NCAA rules.

I sure hope the NCAA and the feds push back on yet another California power grab.

You do realize that several other states, from Washington and Oregon, to New York and South Carolina have already announced intentions to, or are beginning the process of introducing similar legislation, right? This isn't some isolated thing of one state trying to make a "power grab". This is a shifting tide of lawmakers rallying momentum behind something the NCAA had every chance to handle themselves, but were too concerned with trying to preserve the goose that lays the golden eggs.

 

[BrentwoodJacket]

Will this be market driven where only certain players are paid or will every scholarship player get the same amount? Do walk ons get paid too?
The players are not forced to play college sports. They can choose to pursue a professional career at any time.
How can the NCAA require academic requirements (a joke in reality) if it will prevent a player from earning their compensation?

 

[18in32]

You do realize that several other states, from Washington and Oregon, to New York and South Carolina have already announced intentions to, or are beginning the process of introducing similar legislation, right? This isn't some isolated thing of one state trying to make a "power grab". This is a shifting tide of lawmakers rallying momentum behind something the NCAA had every chance to handle themselves, but were too concerned with trying to preserve the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Do you realize that a legislator announcing his intention to introduce a bill – a common technique of political grandstanding – is very different from those states passing laws? In some lefty states like Oregon and NY, perhaps they will get passed, who knows...?

Either way, California attempting to force the NCAA to allow paid players to participate in amateur sports in violation of NCAA rules (which California has explicitly announced its intention to do), is definitely California being the tail that wags the dog, as usual.

 

[Flywheel]

No, it did not.

There is no evidence that the Cali schools not being present would correspond to a 12% drop in revenue. I would bet any amount of money the impact would be far, far below 12%.

There is no evidence it would be far less than the proportional pop/GDP either. You bet however you like with your pretend money. So will the NCAA who has skin in the game (unlike either of us). It's not like the NCAA is a captive market. The switch from the BCS taught us people will spend their time and money elsewhere, and the NCAA has a lot to lose from changes to the status quo.

AND, March Madness is split back out, so less participation for Cali just means more money for everyone else.

It means more of the NCAA pot. That's not the same as more money (see above).

Yes any slight decline would be more than offset.

... was that the end of that argument? Offset by what?

This isnt filthy rich players bashing the USA and Americans, dude. I think most people will side with the NCAA here bigtime that college should remain "amateur" and that pro sports should be pro. I dont think many people will actually side with California. We shall see.

Dare we use Stingtalk as a metric for sports fans in general? I don't see many people siding with the NCAA in here. Just you and my crazy aunt (who does not Stingtalk).

 

[savbandjacket]

Just wait until every state with an SEC member institution specially convenes it’s legislature to pass a similar law. There ain’t no way that Alabama even entertains the idea that California schools could even have a 1 year recruiting advantage due to a disparity in state laws.

 

[gtchief]

Sticky Smelly Nasty. You expose your kids and your family to this garbage and you may think you're cute but you are an enemy of mine.

 

[ibeeballin]

College players are already paid with stipends.

Not to mention about $60,000 cash essentially being in full ride free housing free food.

Bad decision by Cali governor.

There is no such thing as "free" room, food, and board

Athletes provide a service. In exchange for that service they are compensated. If they don't provide the service, they don't get compensated.

 

[midatlantech]

Even my nominally interested in sports wife realized how damaging this law will be.
Argue all you want but the haves will simply New York Yankee everyone MORE to death. The colleges will lose income as fans will directly pay athletes in a bigger way and the big big loser will be all secondary sports both in college and below.
I for one hopes that Bama will in fact hold tight. The California schools will lose kids when they are not included.

 

[thegtstunner08]

The ruin of our favorite sport as we know it. I can't believe some of you are on board for this. These kids get a FULL SCHOLARSHIP to play football. Could they use more stipens for food and travel? Yes! They do need more help in that department. But to pay them? They will lose all incintive to give it 100 on the field. Mark my words.

 

[savbandjacket]

If they’re going to do this, they need to reduce the number of scholarships from 85 and put tighter restrictions on the number of people who can be carried on roster. There should also be a “salary cap” so that schools have to deal with that. The penalty for paying players outside of the cap or shuttling people around to cheat the rules should be astoundingly severe.

 

[Killick]

And all of the payments will be tax deductible as a business expense. Some of the business owning rich alumni better get their checkbooks out. In a weird way it might help Tech. How many five stars have we gotten the old fashioned way? Zip. Now we just got to get together the money to keep some of them here in Atlanta. Right now, they go to Clemson and Bama so that in three years they can cash an NFL check if they don't get hurt in the meantime. We can write the check right now for a five star qb for the next four years. For enough cash, a five star would gladly run the TO. How many five stars does Clemson have right now? Are they going to be able to pay them all when the bidding starts? Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and Southern Cal will be the four teams in the playoffs before the end of the 2020's. Bama's got chump change compared to them, if they decide to spend it. Why live in Tuscaloosa for three years, hope you don't get processed out so that you can be drafted by Cleveland in the third round, and play three years in the league if you're lucky. Stay in ATL or go to California, draw a big check for three or four years, see your face on billboards all over town, and retire.

 

[Killick]

If they’re going to do this, they need to reduce the number of scholarships from 85 and put tighter restrictions on the number of people who can be carried on roster. There should also be a “salary cap” so that schools have to deal with that. The penalty for paying players outside of the cap or shuttling people around to cheat the rules should be astoundingly severe.

NCAA got burned when they tried to restrict how much assistant coaches can be paid, IIRC. I don't think that collusion to hold down player endorsement deals would pass muster. Besides, the schools probably aren't going to know how much a player is being paid for his image. That will be between a rich alumni and the player.

 

[tomknight]

Three Pac-12 men’s basketball programs earned bids for the 2019 NCAA Tournament on Selection Sunday with ARIZONA STATE, OREGON and WASHINGTON chosen to represent the league in March Madness.

Oregon made it to the 3rd round, AzState went out in the 1st, and Wash in the 2nd. How badly did that hurt revenue?

There is no evidence it would be far less than the proportional pop/GDP either. You bet however you like with your pretend money. So will the NCAA who has skin in the game (unlike either of us). It's not like the NCAA is a captive market. The switch from the BCS taught us people will spend their time and money elsewhere, and the NCAA has a lot to lose from changes to the status quo.



It means more of the NCAA pot. That's not the same as more money (see above).



... was that the end of that argument? Offset by what?



Dare we use Stingtalk as a metric for sports fans in general? I don't see many people siding with the NCAA in here. Just you and my crazy aunt (who does not Stingtalk).

 

[tomknight]

Oh they will be- for GT exclusively.

If they’re going to do this, they need to reduce the number of scholarships from 85 and put tighter restrictions on the number of people who can be carried on roster. There should also be a “salary cap” so that schools have to deal with that. The penalty for paying players outside of the cap or shuttling people around to cheat the rules should be astoundingly severe.

 

[Flywheel]

Three Pac-12 men’s basketball programs earned bids for the 2019 NCAA Tournament on Selection Sunday with ARIZONA STATE, OREGON and WASHINGTON chosen to represent the league in March Madness.

Oregon made it to the 3rd round, AzState went out in the 1st, and Wash in the 2nd. How badly did that hurt revenue?

I feel like I shouldn't even have to say that playing & losing <> banned, but Stingtalk.

 

[GTCrew]

There is no evidence it would be far less than the proportional pop/GDP either.

Yes there is. People in California will watch March Madness even if no team is in.

You bet however you like with your pretend money.

I see you dont have confidence in your opinions, either.

So will the NCAA who has skin in the game (unlike either of us).

They have skin in the current game as well. This is a stupid argument you are making.

It's not like the NCAA is a captive market.

YES, it is a captive market. Thats why antitrust is their argument.

The switch from the BCS taught us people will spend their time and money elsewhere, and the NCAA has a lot to lose from changes to the status quo.

No, they make more money off the new system.

It means more of the NCAA pot. That's not the same as more money (see above).

You arent that good at math are you? The pot will go down a miniscule amount. California will still have millions of eyeballs watching, but few or no California schools will participate and therefore California as a whole will get less pay out than those eyeballs are worth.

... was that the end of that argument? Offset by what?



Dare we use Stingtalk as a metric for sports fans in general? I don't see many people siding with the NCAA in here. Just you and my crazy aunt (who does not Stingtalk).

Take a poll. I think very few of us want to see the competition get worse. Because if this goes through, there will only be a small handful of huge state schools who have any chance whatsoever.

 

[This is Tucker]

I think amateurism must win out, to keep a meaningful college sport landscape . These amateur athletes only have value because of their relationship with the particular university or institute brand. Remove them from the amateur institution , and they have no value .

 

[This is Tucker]

If the amateur institutions hold their ground , then the professional football and basketball leagues will have to go the way of baseball and invest in professional development of their athletes