NCAA threatens to boot the whole state of California if bill becomes law

[HtownOrange]

The seats are long since accounted for.

The dining, etc., is done for the sole purpose of winning games. It’s not an altruistic investment.

I agree, the whole deal is not altruistic. However, your argument is that paying kids is altruistic (from a pure market position). Yet you ignore the fact that schools shutting down cash losing programs will affect your market. The best way around the problem is to let the parties work out the details.

 

[NKR1978]

You should be able to figure that out by yourself. You seem like a bright guy.

Boosters unchained. Bidding wars among schools. Kids with more money than sense.

What could possibly go wrong?

This is hilarious. I really don’t care what an 18 year old does with his or her money. And I certainly don’t care if a rich idiot decides its worth it to him to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to entice players to his alma mater.

Your argument is paternalistic and elitist.

 

[Townie72]

The seats are long since accounted for.

The dining, etc., is done for the sole purpose of winning games. It’s not an altruistic investment.

If a scholarship athlete were not in that seat, who would be?

The answer is “tuition paying student”.

If you studied Economics, you may recall the “opportunity cost” concept. It’s about the tuition revenue the school loses or foregoes when a scholarship student sits in that seat.

 

[Horn88]

You should be able to figure that out by yourself. You seem like a bright guy.

Boosters unchained. Bidding wars among schools. Kids with more money than sense.

What could possibly go wrong?

So boosters unchained and bidding wars among schools is only ok if it’s a coach getting money? Because that happens pretty much every offseason on the coaching carousel. Why is it ok for coaches but not players to benefit from whatever their skill set is worth in the free market as well?

And who are you to say who is and isn’t allowed to make money and when? Weird that nobody seems to be concerned about college aged kids income unless they happen to be a football or basketball player.

 

[NKR1978]

I agree, the whole deal is not altruistic. However, your argument is that paying kids is altruistic (from a pure market position). Yet you ignore the fact that schools shutting down cash losing programs will affect your market. The best way around the problem is to let the parties work out the details.

The schools won’t pay the players, unless they use them in marketing material.

We have public universities owned by the various states that are members of the NCAA. They have as much a stake and right to affect change as anyone else. The NCAA has dragged its feet and people are tired of it.

 

[Townie72]

This is hilarious. I really don’t care what an 18 year old does with his or her money. And I certainly don’t care if a rich idiot decides its worth it to him to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to entice players to his alma mater.

Your argument is paternalistic and elitist.

You are ignoring the impact of this on college athletics and how impossible it will be to manage and police.

“Consequences, be damned” seems to be your idea.

 

[NKR1978]

If a scholarship athlete were not in that seat, who would be?

The answer is “tuition paying student”.

If you studied Economics, you may recall the “opportunity cost” concept. It’s about the tuition revenue the school loses or foregoes when a scholarship student sits in that seat.

Then a school that feels so strongly should give up D1 athletics and go to D3 and then they’ll see how many fewer applications they’ll get, how much less they’ll receive in alumni donations, and how much they’ll lose from their contract affiliation money. Along with the concessions, tickets, T-shirt’s, etc., that they’ll lose.

The full tuition for a few hundred students is exponentially less than what they would lose.

And I seriously doubt that any school offsets their class admissions by the number of athletic scholarships they give out in a year.

 

[Townie72]

The schools won’t pay the players, unless they use them in marketing material.

We have public universities owned by the various states that are members of the NCAA. They have as much a stake and right to affect change as anyone else. The NCAA has dragged its feet and people are tired of it.

The school’s (college presidents) don’t want to do this, whether private or public. The NCAA represents all colleges and their presidents.

Are you appointing yourself as The People”.

 

[NKR1978]

You are ignoring the impact of this on college athletics and how impossible it will be to manage and police.

“Consequences, be damned” seems to be your idea.

The thing is they don’t have to police it. It makes the NCAA’s job easier because now it’s up to the IRS to police.

The only consequence I see is that money is put in the hands of students that might otherwise go to someone else.

 

[Townie72]

Then a school that feels so strongly should give up D1 athletics and go to D3 and then they’ll see how many fewer applications they’ll get, how much less they’ll receive in alumni donations, and how much they’ll lose from their contract affiliation money. Along with the concessions, tickets, T-shirt’s, etc., that they’ll lose.

The full tuition for a few hundred students is exponentially less than what they would lose.

And I seriously doubt that any school offsets their class admissions by the number of athletic scholarships they give out in a year.

Syracuse turns away full tuition paying students. If athletes weren’t in those seats, full tuition students would be.

Besides, it seems obvious the SU student body doesn’t care all that much about sports. The SU athletic program mostly benefits the locals and townies.

Also, what exponent are you suggesting. 2? 3? That’s an awfully big number.

 

[NKR1978]

The school’s (college presidents) don’t want to do this, whether private or public. The NCAA represents all colleges and their presidents.

Are you appointing yourself as The People”.

The California legislature is a stakeholder. They have an interest in the governing of the UC and CSU systems. I’m pretty sure the bill was unanimous, or close to it, in both houses of the legislature. That’s a fairly good representation of the will of the people of California.

 

[Townie72]

The thing is they don’t have to police it. It makes the NCAA’s job easier because now it’s up to the IRS to police.

The only consequence I see is that money is put in the hands of students that might otherwise go to someone else.

No policing by the IRS. it’s a legitimate business expense. Just like the write off businesses take for the Carrier Dome seats they use for “customer entertainment”.

 

[NKR1978]

No policing by the IRS. it’s a legitimate business expense. Just like the write off businesses take for the Carrier Dome seats they use for “customer entertainment”.

Great. So what’s your complaint? Other than not wanting young adults to have money because you think they’re not worthy of it.

 

[Townie72]

The California legislature is a stakeholder. They have an interest in the governing of the UC and CSU systems. I’m pretty sure the bill was unanimous, or close to it, in both houses of the legislature. That’s a fairly good representation of the will of the people of California.

This argument is strained and quite silly.

 

[NKR1978]

This argument is strained and quite silly.

A government has a right to govern its universities. I don’t know why that’s silly.

 

[RandomGuy]

Here’s how it will work.

“Recruit, if you come to our school we have a booster that give you an advertising / PR job that’ll net you $20,000 a year to start. if you make All Conference, your deal with this guy gets better”


And/or.

Dear prized recruit,

Did you know that our average starting player earned $10,000 last year and only had to show up twice to shake a few hands at a car dealership? Our players made more money for their likenesses than any other team in our conference!

Just imagine what you could do with these thousands of dollars..

Signed, Bill Jones
Coach and Recruiting Coordinator

Tell me how this won’t be allowed under this law.

if Nike can do it, why can’t Sam’s Muffler Shop?

Who can prove this isn’t a legit business expense for Sam’s Muffler Shop?

Why wouldn't it be allowed? That's what happens in a free market. Winners and losers.

Police what? If the market bears Sam's muffler shop paying X to put player Y's picture up in his shop? What do I care? Is Sam not free to spend his money as foolishly as he wants in a free market? Player Y will pay the tax.

If tax write off donations are used through boosters to pay recruits? Reclassify Recruiting boosters gifts as not tax deductible.

That's a free market.

 

[kcsu]

its simply amateur vs professional. Getting paid as a result of being an athlete by anyone makes you a pro. Period. Schools dont have to preclude the kid from playing at a California University or College but they also dont have to provide them with a scholarship.

 

[RandomGuy]

The school’s (college presidents) don’t want to do this, whether private or public. The NCAA represents all colleges and their presidents.

Are you appointing yourself as The People”.

They don't want it, because they want the control and the $$. If a kid gets anything, it can open the door to paying them.

Inflation adjusted, the highest paid 2019 coach is making over 30 times more than the highest in 1982. (About the beginning of tv deals, sponsorships, etc.) More than 25 making 18 times.. (good for them) Across the board additional profit taking has been 5-30 times.

Would you want to potentially give that up?

 

[RandomGuy]

its simply amateur vs professional. Getting paid as a result of being an athlete by anyone makes you a pro. Period. Schools dont have to preclude the kid from playing at a California University or College but they also dont have to provide them with a scholarship.

I believe the bill is just the Olympic model of amateurism. The international definition of Amateur. (Allowed to make $$ of of likeness)

 

[NKR1978]

its simply amateur vs professional. Getting paid as a result of being an athlete by anyone makes you a pro. Period. Schools dont have to preclude the kid from playing at a California University or College but they also dont have to provide them with a scholarship.

You're right, they don't. And hopefully schools and players can negotiate that. But if you're recruited by a school who will let you make money on fame and give you a scholarship and by one who makes you choose, then my guess is the kid will choose option 1.

I really hope SU wouldn't be so dumb as to put us at an even greater competitive disadvantage.

 

[upperdeck]

the ncaa could also just adjust the scholie limits so instead of 85 each school gets 20 that allow kids to be paid and 65 get a free ride. If Calif really wants this to be a thing they should also pass a tougher allow on people who get caught doing it under the table.

kids choose what they want to do, 1) free ride 2) scholie with a bennie 3) make money and pay your own way like the walkons

the other thing thats over looked.. schools have deals with all the shoe companies so kids cant go to non nike schools and really sign a converse deal. The schools also already have deals with tons of local companies so you cant get the chevy contract if ford is a school sponser.

 

[Townie72]

Great. So what’s your complaint? Other than not wanting young adults to have money because you think they’re not worthy of it.
[/QUO

They don't want it, because they want the control and the $$. If a kid gets anything, it can open the door to paying them.

Inflation adjusted, the highest paid 2019 coach is making over 30 times more than the highest in 1982. (About the beginning of tv deals, sponsorships, etc.) More than 25 making 18 times.. (good for them) Across the board additional profit taking has been 5-30 times.

Would you want to potentially give that up?

What the coaches get paid has nothing to do with what the players get.

No coach will have to give up a nickel.

That’s not why they are against it.

 

[upperdeck]

You're right, they don't. And hopefully schools and players can negotiate that. But if you're recruited by a school who will let you make money on fame and give you a scholarship and by one who makes you choose, then my guess is the kid will choose option 1.

I really hope SU wouldn't be so dumb as to put us at an even greater competitive disadvantage.

ivies dont and compete in lots of sports

 

[NKR1978]

ivies dont and compete in lots of sports

They, Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt and Northwestern offer something much different than most schools can offer.

And they certainly bend their own rules to make sure kids can get on campus.

 

[upperdeck]

i know they dont bend them nearly as much as you think.