Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 154
  1. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by die hard gopher View Post
    California, Minnesota, North and south Carolina, NY, Texas, Michigan, Louisiana, Florida and Texas have all considered adopting similar legislation.
    States “consider” legislation for practically everything all of the time. There is no zero chance this passes in every state.

    In the meantime, California schools have effectively been voted out of the NCAA by their state’s government (against their will).

    Everyone is assuming that the NCAA and its member schools will just defer to the state of California. The likelier scenario seems to be that California schools will need to form their own collegiate athletic organization.


  2. #137

    Default

    A little premature here. The endorsement opportunities are not going to be as plentiful as you think. local endorsement will not bring a lot more than lunch money. They get free education, what more do people want. One can go on and on about the revenue the entire university gets from athletics that benefits all students in part.

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Eagan, MN
    Posts
    6,635

    Default

    A couple of things about the CA legislation:

    1. It only applies to the PAC-12 schools (the only 4 schools that receive over $10 million in media rights)
    2. Players cannot sign contracts that counteract school contracts (players at a Nike school can't sign a contract with Adidas).
    Follow me on twitter: @skiumahgopher

  4. #139

    Default

    In would assume the Zions of the world would want to sign with California teams. Wonder what the Dukes of the world think of this.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldmember View Post
    States “consider” legislation for practically everything all of the time. There is no zero chance this passes in every state.

    In the meantime, California schools have effectively been voted out of the NCAA by their state’s government (against their will).

    Everyone is assuming that the NCAA and its member schools will just defer to the state of California. The likelier scenario seems to be that California schools will need to form their own collegiate athletic organization.
    It doesn't have to pass in every state.
    But if it passes in enough states, with enough powerful colleges in them, you can bet the NCAA will have no choice but to break, or very likely lose in court as they did in 1984.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v...ty_of_Oklahoma

  6. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discochris View Post
    It doesn't have to pass in every state.
    But if it passes in enough states, with enough powerful colleges in them, you can bet the NCAA will have no choice but to break, or very likely lose in court as they did in 1984.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v...ty_of_Oklahoma
    The NCAA works on behalf of its member schools. People are talking about this as though they are out there on an island imposing their will on everyone. That’s not how it works. They just do what their member schools collectively want them to do. I suspect this one will be easy for them. The 4 CA schools will be out of the NCAA soon, and likely out of the Pac12.
    Last edited by Goldmember; 10-01-2019 at 05:48 PM.

  7. #142

    Default

    Except in the example I gave, they were actively working against the best interest of their member schools by restraining trade in terms of TV contracts. And tried to fight them in court. And lost in the highest court in the land which eventually resulted in a massive windfall for the schools and conferences.

  8. #143

    Default

    I don't know, I think this passing can really help schools located in big cities. The money changing hands will be less under the table. I think it leads on some level to parity over traditional powerhouses. Plus, selfishly, it paves the way to college sports video games again.
    Last edited by kisarazu; 10-01-2019 at 07:19 PM.

  9. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discochris View Post
    Except in the example I gave, they were actively working against the best interest of their member schools by restraining trade in terms of TV contracts. And tried to fight them in court. And lost in the highest court in the land which eventually resulted in a massive windfall for the schools and conferences.
    The two cases couldn’t be more different.

    But the key difference is that “Pay for NIL” is NOT something the member schools are wanting to pursue. AT ALL. Even the California schools.

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    3,004
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldmember View Post
    The two cases couldn’t be more different.

    But the key difference is that “Pay for NIL” is NOT something the member schools are wanting to pursue. AT ALL. Even the California schools.
    Too bad for the universities. No sympathy.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gopherjay View Post
    A little premature here. The endorsement opportunities are not going to be as plentiful as you think. local endorsement will not bring a lot more than lunch money. They get free education, what more do people want. One can go on and on about the revenue the entire university gets from athletics that benefits all students in part.
    You’re assumption is these have to be legitimate sponsorships. There is nothing in the text of the law to require this or a mechanism to prove it or even to compel a student or their agent to divulge what kind of deals they are receiving as I hardly think that is public record. A don’t ask don’t tell for our modern age.

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discochris View Post
    Except in the example I gave, they were actively working against the best interest of their member schools by restraining trade in terms of TV contracts. And tried to fight them in court. And lost in the highest court in the land which eventually resulted in a massive windfall for the schools and conferences.

    And...here we are. Maybe they were right all along hmmm?

  13. #148

    Default

    Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany opposes California's Fair Pay to Play Act: https://es.pn/2mScE9I

  14. #149

    Default

    Dan Patrick had the governor of California on to talk about it.

    The question was asked of won't thing cause issues with car dealers, etc., providing an uneven landscape.
    Gov basically thought we already have some of that.

    Made me think this is similar to the argument to legalize drugs.
    If we legalize it, it would hurt those who are most abusing the current system.
    So those currently cheating would gain less than others who are not.
    "Do Not Be Afraid to Be A Legend"

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,255

    Default

    I mean, if it’s that easy to cheat why isn’t everyone doing it? I would guess there are examples out there but I don’t think it is as close to widespread as “everyone knows“. If it were that easy to assemble a supergroup like turncoat James taking his talents to....then T Boone, Phil Knight, or any other number of high rollers have ways to make things happen.

    Funny, if anyone knows about lining pockets with envelopes of cash it’s Gov Newsom.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •