NCAA threatens to boot the whole state of California if bill becomes law | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

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

Easy to change those rules. If kids want money, play for pay in the pros. It’s not for college to line their pockets.
How exactly is it easy to change those rules? The NFL is going to start letting 18 year olds out of high school play next season? No one is saying the college is going to spend a dime in this situation. This is the players making money off their names and likeness through endorsements, paid appearances or things of that nature. But sure let’s say things that are completely untrue haha
 
How exactly is it easy to change those rules? The NFL is going to start letting 18 year olds out of high school play next season? No one is saying the college is going to spend a dime in this situation. This is the players making money off their names and likeness through endorsements, paid appearances or things of that nature. But sure let’s say things that are completely untrue haha

It’s easy as long as the colleges and the pros agreed to change them. If you’re 18, you don’t have to go to college first. Go straight to the pros. Earn every dollar you can. Good luck.
 
Kids 18+ have the G league and Europe in addition to the NBA. Colleges don’t owe them anything should they choose to accept a scholarship.
 
Kids 18+ have the G league and Europe in addition to the NBA. Colleges don’t owe them anything should they choose to accept a scholarship.
That works for hoops, but not American football.
18 year old kids will get crushed in the NFL.
A developmental league might be interesting. Play there for 2 years in hopes of getting drafted. 8 or so teams. Kids that make the teams get room & board + $50k or so.

Then the question is... do you want to get paid to play on dev league team in a high school stadium, or do you want to play in front of 40-110k crowds.

Even "paying for likeness" types of situations are troublesome. "Hey, Johnny! The Ford dealership thinks so highly of you that if you visit there one off-season Saturday morning for a photo shoot and fan picture signing they'll put $250,000 in your 'likeness bank account'. We hear that Tech's Chevy dealer will only pay $100,000. We trust that you'll be signing to play with State. Go Johnny! Go State!"
 
That works for hoops, but not American football.
18 year old kids will get crushed in the NFL.
A developmental league might be interesting. Play there for 2 years in hopes of getting drafted. 8 or so teams. Kids that make the teams get room & board + $50k or so.

Then the question is... do you want to get paid to play on dev league team in a high school stadium, or do you want to play in front of 40-110k crowds.

Even "paying for likeness" types of situations are troublesome. "Hey, Johnny! The Ford dealership thinks so highly of you that if you visit there one off-season Saturday morning for a photo shoot and fan picture signing they'll put $250,000 in your 'likeness bank account'. We hear that Tech's Chevy dealer will only pay $100,000. We trust that you'll be signing to play with State. Go Johnny! Go State!"

Integrity in the system has always been an issue. So long as the NCAA will avoid punishing the big state U's for fundamental violations (PSU molesting children, UNC no classes, Auburn paying dad, not the player, etc.) the money issue sits on the back burner and will not be resolved or even clarified. Add the above the NCAA's weak "leadership" and you end up with the SEC paying far more than a developmental football league would pay.

If the developmental league did pay enough to attract kids away from college, the SEC would not be able to field teams.
 
It's a damn shame that a quarter of a million dollar education isn't enough. JB said the other day that Buddy also gets $1300/month cost of living expenses. Let California get banned. USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford haven't been players in the championships in recent years anyway.
 
We all know the equation is not as simple as your argument. While I have no issue with kids getting a cut from sales of merchandise with their name or likeness, schools do pay the kids with a free education, assuming the kids actually go to class (UNC is obviously excepted as are SEC schools).

Whether anyone likes to admit this or not, the average cost to attend is about the cost of the average private school. State schools are subsidized by taxpayers, the costs are hidden to lower tuition rates at state schools. Thus, each athlete is already being paid about $60-65k, tax free, plus enhanced dining privileges and a lot of sportswear.

So long as every athlete is treated the same, the federal courts are not likely to change the system. Title IX is the elephant in the room and it sits where it likes. Schools and the NCAA will argue that most schools do not turn a profit and the loss of revenue costs the school that much more making it harder to finance all the athletics teams (meaning sports will get cut and less free rides,sholarships will be awarded).

There is no easy answer.

The scholarship argument held some weight until defensive coordinators started making over $2 million a year...
 
Is there anyone here that is under 40 or 50 that opposes this? I can't tell if this is just a get off my lawn type generational issue or what because I have absolutely no issue with this and don't even see how you could be against it. Is it really preferable that Nick Saban and Jimbo Fisher are now making $9m a year and their coordinators are up around $2m to coach kids in a sport? That is disgusting, but guess what, they can afford to do it with cheap labor. Give him $7m a year instead and each scholarship kid could get an extra $25k per year. Pretty sure that seems reasonable for all parties.

Now kids like GMac could do a car commercial while in school instead of having to wait until his Senior season finished. Kids can go do autograph signings at the mall in January instead of waiting until April like they do now. Got 10 year old YouTube kids out making money off their likeness but god forbid you want to do that while being a "student-athlete". That would just be so gosh darn upsetting, I don't know how anyone could possibly enjoy watching kids play sports anymore.
 
The biggest problem with it for me is that I think it would lead to the "rich getting richer". We already struggle to recruit in some ways, it won't be easier if students have access to financial incentives that might not be possible (to the same degree) at/in Syracuse. The big schools, with big donors, and big business tie-ins will be able to provide the highest rated recruits with those financial opportunities (I realize some people like building teams with 2 stars because some 4 and 5 star players don't pan out...)
 
It's a damn shame that a quarter of a million dollar education isn't enough. JB said the other day that Buddy also gets $1300/month cost of living expenses. Let California get banned. USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford haven't been players in the championships in recent years anyway.

Should we cap NCAA coaches salaries and school apparel deals at $250k? I mean, that really should be "enough" for them, right?
 
Last edited:
If Tully’s wanted to pay DeVito to do a meet and greet.
Or the mall memorabilia shop wanted to pay Elijah Hughes a couple hundred bucks to sign let the players make some money.

Or EA sports wants to make a college football video game these players should get paid for their likeness.

The schools aren’t going to pay the players.
The schools and NCAA want to keep control over their players.
The marketplace would determine what a player would make.
These top kids are already paid under the table with bags of cash.
Let them make what they care in endorsements.
 
people forget that if they pay football they have to pay womens soccer too? its not the money for fball but the other 2-500 scholies they also have to fund in a system where almost every school is not making money..
 
If Tully’s wanted to pay DeVito to do a meet and greet.
Or the mall memorabilia shop wanted to pay Elijah Hughes a couple hundred bucks to sign let the players make some money.

Or EA sports wants to make a college football video game these players should get paid for their likeness.

The schools aren’t going to pay the players.
The schools and NCAA want to keep control over their players.
The marketplace would determine what a player would make.
These top kids are already paid under the table with bags of cash.
Let them make what they care in endorsements.
Paying the players will be abused. If you think they get big bags of cash under the table, just wait to see what they get when they get to be paid above the table. The problem is that the NBA and NFL get a free minor league system with the colleges. If the new basketball system works, it will reduce the number of kids playing in college who don't want to be there. The NFL doesn't want to pay for one, so that won't change.
 
people forget that if they pay football they have to pay womens soccer too? its not the money for fball but the other 2-500 scholies they also have to fund in a system where almost every school is not making money..
The schools aren’t paying football players.
You know how Nissan does those heisman house commercials.
If a freshman or sophomore wins the Heisman trophy they can’t do those commercials until they leave school.
As the NCAA won’t let them get paid and keep eligibility.
Under the CA law if a USC kid wins the Heisman they could get paid by Nissan do the commercial while still in college.

The NCAA treats players like a indentured servants. They should be free to make money off endorsements or their likeness.
 
people forget that if they pay football they have to pay womens soccer too? its not the money for fball but the other 2-500 scholies they also have to fund in a system where almost every school is not making money..

Nope.
 
Paying the players will be abused. If you think they get big bags of cash under the table, just wait to see what they get when they get to be paid above the table. The problem is that the NBA and NFL get a free minor league system with the colleges. If the new basketball system works, it will reduce the number of kids playing in college who don't want to be there. The NFL doesn't want to pay for one, so that won't change.
The amount of money we are talking about isn’t a lot.

Boosters aren’t going to throw tons of money at non-star athletes.
The starting MLB at UVA wouldn’t get money that a local pizza chain in Charlottesville might throw at Kyle Guy to do a meet and greet.

These players should be able to make money off their name and celebrity while in college. The schools aren’t paying this money.
 
Paying the players will be abused. If you think they get big bags of cash under the table, just wait to see what they get when they get to be paid above the table. The problem is that the NBA and NFL get a free minor league system with the colleges. If the new basketball system works, it will reduce the number of kids playing in college who don't want to be there. The NFL doesn't want to pay for one, so that won't change.

And who loses if the players are paid above the table? The coaches? If they are really too dumb to be able to not operate within a defined budget than they probably shouldn't be getting paid more than $20/hour.
 
I know but some were saying to just pay players by lowering coaches salaries.. kids already get stipends so in some cases are getting 10k a yr how much more do they need? My kids are at college and getting by on way less than what Buddys Stipend is.
 
One of our boosters on this board talked about how she couldn’t even buy water for one of the players parents while on the Italy trip.

The NCAA is a joke and needs to evolve. If their line in the sand is colleges don’t directly pay players like employees that is fine. To prevent the players from making money while under scholarship is a joke. When administrators make millions without restrictions off the athletes games.
 
Is there anyone here that is under 40 or 50 that opposes this? I can't tell if this is just a get off my lawn type generational issue or what because I have absolutely no issue with this and don't even see how you could be against it. Is it really preferable that Nick Saban and Jimbo Fisher are now making $9m a year and their coordinators are up around $2m to coach kids in a sport? That is disgusting, but guess what, they can afford to do it with cheap labor. Give him $7m a year instead and each scholarship kid could get an extra $25k per year. Pretty sure that seems reasonable for all parties.

Now kids like GMac could do a car commercial while in school instead of having to wait until his Senior season finished. Kids can go do autograph signings at the mall in January instead of waiting until April like they do now. Got 10 year old YouTube kids out making money off their likeness but god forbid you want to do that while being a "student-athlete". That would just be so gosh darn upsetting, I don't know how anyone could possibly enjoy watching kids play sports anymore.
While in theory your suggestion works but you left out the major fact that ALL student athletes MUST be treated equally. You are claimed by fairness but ignoring the several hundred other athletes outside of hoops and pigskins.

Besides, the fundamental model is one made up by the participating schools. They get to make the rules. While your model, aside from the equal payments to all athletes argum it aside, the non-elite schools cannot afford your plan. You have cherry picker two coaches, yet the hundreds of HCs at most schools do not make enough to take the $2MM pay cut you suggest. Recall, there are only 65 P5 schools.

While I agree that coaching salaries are out of whack, they are still generally less in comparison to the entirety of the scholarships for the entire athletic department.

Then you have to factor in the cost of keeping great coaches in college v. going to the NFL. The issues are far more complex than what we have discussed. Fundamentally, the schools will eventually change their model but it is not likely to happen as quickly, nor as easily, as many would like.
 
And that's exactly NCAA's argument: if you want to be paid, go pro.
Then how do coaches get paid and why don’t we have “student-coaches”

The money these colleges get goes away without players.
It’s why college basketball has become a one month a year sport nationally.
 
While in theory your suggestion works but you left out the major fact that ALL student athletes MUST be treated equally. You are claimed by fairness but ignoring the several hundred other athletes outside of hoops and pigskins.

Besides, the fundamental model is one made up by the participating schools. They get to make the rules. While your model, aside from the equal payments to all athletes argum it aside, the non-elite schools cannot afford your plan. You have cherry picker two coaches, yet the hundreds of HCs at most schools do not make enough to take the $2MM pay cut you suggest. Recall, there are only 65 P5 schools.

While I agree that coaching salaries are out of whack, they are still generally less in comparison to the entirety of the scholarships for the entire athletic department.

Then you have to factor in the cost of keeping great coaches in college v. going to the NFL. The issues are far more complex than what we have discussed. Fundamentally, the schools will eventually change their model but it is not likely to happen as quickly, nor as easily, as many would like.
Treating the players equally is very simple.

All athletes can have the right to profit from their name and likeness.

Boom. Done. Equal.
 
people forget that if they pay football they have to pay womens soccer too? its not the money for fball but the other 2-500 scholies they also have to fund in a system where almost every school is not making money..

If Rebecca Lobo were allowed, she might have been able to make as much or more money than any college athlete in the country in Connecticut in 1995. That entire state went crazy for that UConn women's team.

Title IX has nothing to do with this. This is all about marketability and the athletes being able to earn money off their celebrity. If there was a womens college soccer player on the World Cup team, I imagine she could market herself.
 

Similar threads

    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
11
Views
451
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
5
Views
648
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
6
Views
583
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
6
Views
379
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
7
Views
427

Forum statistics

Threads
167,475
Messages
4,706,056
Members
5,908
Latest member
Cuseman17

Online statistics

Members online
337
Guests online
2,217
Total visitors
2,554


Top Bottom