NBC: California Governor signs bill allowing college athletes to get paid

[tshile]

46 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

These details are going to have to get worked out.  Another concern is whether you can pay your all-american QB more than your freshman punter.  Meaning, is there a payscale and what is it based on.  And does every team have a "salary cap" or can Texas and Alabama and Ohio State just go ****ing crazy?  Same cap within conferences?  Same cap nationwide (meaning, power 5)?  

aren’t we getting a little carried away?

 

theyre only allowing them to make money in endorsements - ie: not being paid by the school 

[DCSaints_fan]

 

8 hours ago, Larry said:

I think the state of Maryland should pass a law allowing the Redskins and Ravens to ignore the NFL salary cap, and forbidding the NFL from doing anything about it. 

  

Making them immune from offensive holding penalties might be good, too. 

 

The NFL has a specific anti-trust exemption, the NCAA currently does not.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

It would be straight BS if the colleges decided not to give academic scholarships to players because they can get endorsement deals.  In fact, that reaction would be suicide because then players would only go to schools that give them the best chance to get one in order to afford to go to school.  

 

 

This is only true to star high school players.  It feels fair that college athletes get paid. I think the end result is it will help a relatively small number of student athletes and hurt more of them. Because the people who make money off the backs of the bruised aren’t going to shrug their shoulders and accept whatever this ends up costing them.

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

What I want to see next is level 11 and caps on coaches salaries.  It is absolutely atrocious that the highest paid government employee in nearly every state is a college coach making millions in the Middle of a student debt crisis. 

 

I agree a hundred percent, this probably would have been a better place to start. Maybe we should have forced ncaa directors salary caps.

 

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I've long felt like the obvious compromise was to forget about the schools paying the players and just simply let them make money for being celebrities. Does that introduce the problem of a wealthy boomer paying a crap ton of money to some kid to be in their local hot dog commercial? Sure, and I don't care. School recruiting isn't equal anyway, we don't need to try to force it to be. 

 

Letting celebrity athletes make their money without worrying about the school actually paying them is favorable because it maintains the status quo for the 98% of student athletes that aren't famous enough to profit off of themselves, and avoids the title IX issues of why your women's volleyball or field hockey player isn't getting paid like a football player. 

[Larry]

4 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

 

The NFL has a specific anti-trust exemption, the NCAA currently does not.  

 

The NFL also has an "F" in their acronym, and the NCAA does not. 

 

Which is about as good a reason to try to claim that a state legislature has the authority to demand that an interstate sporting league exempt their state's teams from the rules of the competition as your post. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

The NFL also has an "F" in their acronym, and the NCAA does not. 

 

Which is about as good a reason to try to claim that a state legislature has the authority to demand that an interstate sporting league exempt their state's teams from the rules of the competition as your post. 

Wait, what?

 

The big difference is State budgets fund schools. They can compel them for that reason alone.

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Wait, what?

 

The big difference is State budgets fund schools. They can compel them for that reason alone.

 

Oh, there's a good one. My state can demand that our chess team gets to use different rules than ever other state's teams, because my state pays some of the expenses of the school.  (But not the chess team.)

 

But I'll stick with my original analogy. State and local governments give lots of goodies to NFL teams, too. Therefore Maryland can demand special NFL rules for the Redskins. 

[DCSaints_fan]

23 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

The NFL also has an "F" in their acronym, and the NCAA does not. 

 

Which is about as good a reason to try to claim that a state legislature has the authority to demand that an interstate sporting league exempt their state's teams from the rules of the competition as your post. 

 

Ah I see.  So the state of Washington can't raise the minimum wage for workers because some of them work at McDonalds which is an interstate company. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Oh, there's a good one. My state can demand that our chess team gets to use different rules than ever other state's teams, because my state pays some of the expenses of the school.  (But not the chess team.)

 

But I'll stick with my original analogy. State and local governments give lots of goodies to NFL teams, too. Therefore Maryland can demand special NFL rules for the Redskins. 

 

They probably could for that chess team since they are funding the school. (Not subsidizing or giving tax breaks but actually funding)

 

Also the NCAA isn’t an interstate sporting league and wouldn’t call themselves that.

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

Also, college athletics isn’t even at all. Some schools have huge budgets while others do not. Playing in the SEC isn’t the same as playing in the Ohio Valley Conference.

[RichmondRedskin88]

Note the PAC 12 where the major Cal schools are don’t support the move. Awkward situation there.

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

Also the NCAA isn’t an interstate sporting league and wouldn’t call themselves that.

 

They aren't?  They don't set the rules for what is or isn't a catch or when the game clock stops or the number of practices?  

 

Which part of "interstate sporting league" do you think doesn't apply to them?  (Or think that they think doesn't apply?)

[Larry]

BTW, since I've made an analogy, here, but not actually stated my own feelings on the actual issue:. 

 

1). College athletics (at least the tiny segment that I pay attention to. The football and basketball programs that compete for the national title. I assume that they represent around 99% of the attention, and 1% of the athletes) is crooked, and has been for longer than I've been alive. I remember Mom and Dad telling me about the flagrant cheating that they saw going on, at Oklahoma, in the 40s and 50s. 

 

The primary reason it's crooked, is the money. 

 

"Well, they should just stop punishing us for cheating" will not fix it. It will make it vastly worse. 

 

2). If the State of California actually thinks that paying football players is some kind of fairness issue, then demanding that "we demand that the NCAA keep us in their competition, but allow us to compete in ways that our opponents can't" isn't the way. It's both the creation of an unfair competitive advantage and an exceeding of their authority. (Regulating interstate commerce.)

 

If they feel morally obligated to change things, then the right way to do it is to leave the NCAA and start their own league, or threaten to. That way, every team on the field has the same rules. 

[tshile]

Jesus your tiffs are nauseating

 

it doesn’t matter because if the NCAA challenges it the CA schools will leave the NCAA and the NCAA can’t afford that. At all. Because the entire SEC would go next and it would collapse. 
 

It was a well orchestrated move. They banned blocking income from other sources. 
 

game over. NCAA had years to address it. They refused. So they won’t get a say in the rules much longer. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

Also people that work for the University of California Los Angeles are state employees. I have no idea why the NFL analogy was brought up.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

If they feel morally obligated to change things, then the right way to do it is to leave the NCAA and start their own league, or threaten to

 

that’s what they’re doing. 

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Jesus your tiffs are nauseating

 

Yours are always so charming. And rational and well supported, too. 

 

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

it doesn’t matter because if the NCAA challenges it the CA schools will leave the NCAA and the NCAA can’t afford that. At all. Because the entire SEC would go next and it would collapse. 
 

 

Oh, well. That makes it better. 

 

"What they're doing is wrong, but that doesn't matter, because if the other guy complains about it, then they'll just do the right thing that they should have done in the first place."

 

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

that’s what they’re doing. 

 

Could you point me at the part where they're leaving the NCAA?  I must have missed it. All I saw was them declaring that the rules don't apply to their teams. 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

Could you point me at the part where they're leaving the NCAA?  I must have missed it.

😂

yes. You did miss it. 

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

Oh, well. That makes it better. 

 

"What they're doing is wrong, but that doesn't matter, because if the other guy complains about it, then they'll just do the right thing that they should have done in the first place."

um, I didn’t agree with your silly notion that they’ve done something wrong. 

[DCSaints_fan]

33 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Also people that work for the University of California Los Angeles are state employees. I have no idea why the NFL analogy was brought up.

But people who work for USC aren't.   This just doesn't apply to state schools. 

 

My point with the NFL anti-trust exemption, was that if they can't settle this and the NCAA plays hardball, affected athletes could bring an anti-trust case against the NCAA.  The NFL has (limited) anti-trust exemption, so it would be harder. 

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

You did miss it. 

 

Then for the second time, could you support the untrue claim you've now made twice?  Please point out to the class anywhere in which the State of California has withdrawn from the NCAA. 

 

I'll even agree to give you bonus points if you can explain why you originally claimed that well, if what they're doing doesn't work, then their next move COULD be to drop out of the NCAA, if, as you've now claimed twice, they're already doing it.  

[tshile]

Wow

[Larry]

29 minutes ago, tshile said:

um, I didn’t agree with your silly notion that they’ve done something wrong. 

 

Then I wonder why, when I claimed it was wrong, (and supported why it is. I know, that silly support thing.), you didn't respond by attempting to argue why you think that a sporting competition between two teams that are playing by different rules is perfectly ok with you. And instead replied with "it doesn't matter, because if they complain, then we can do (something which you also claim they're already doing)". 

[DCSaints_fan]

Actually there was a case back involved the states vs the NFL back in 2009, where Minnesota had passed a law regarding drug testing on by employers on employees.  Then two Vikings players, Kevin Williams and Pat Williams, tested positive and were given four-game suspensions.   They sued the NFL, claiming that the Minnesota law pre-empted the CBA.   They won the first round, but a higher court sided with the NFL.   However, the last judgement was a total dodge, claiming that the Minnesota law didn't apply, not because it didn't pre-empt the CBA, but because the substance they tested positive for (bumetanide) wasn't covered by the Minnesota law

 

Here's an article on the initial ruling

 

https://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources-publication/nfl-players-minnesota-drug-testing-claims-not-preempted-federal-law-eighth-circuit-rules

 

And when the lose the appeal:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/sports/football/09starcap.html

 

 

 

 

 

[RichmondRedskin88]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Jesus your tiffs are nauseating

 

it doesn’t matter because if the NCAA challenges it the CA schools will leave the NCAA and the NCAA can’t afford that. At all. Because the entire SEC would go next and it would collapse. 
 

It was a well orchestrated move. They banned blocking income from other sources. 
 

game over. NCAA had years to address it. They refused. So they won’t get a say in the rules much longer. 

 

The other conferences have no reason to duck out.  PAC 12 where Cal schools are isn’t one of the major money makers.  Even their premier rivalry games aren’t watched especially when they start late night for the East Coast. The other conferences could just do their deal and the NCAA could bar Cal.  Two major parts to consider. One the Cal schools weren’t behind this move.  They think this would be a excuse to tax them harder for income.  Two the PAC 12 is against it.  This is already a tough battle but then to not have the conference’s support or the instate school behind you that’s a mountain. 

[DCSaints_fan]

15 hours ago, Larry said:

I think the state of Maryland should pass a law allowing the Redskins and Ravens to ignore the NFL salary cap, and forbidding the NFL from doing anything about it. 

 

Making them immune from offensive holding penalties might be good, too. 

 

Maryland could try that.  But the NFL would pull out of Maryland if push came to shove. 

 

Also the 14th amendment pretty much prohibits favorable treatment of certain groups.    You cannot say that one team is immune from offensive holding while the other is not, it would have to be both teams.

 

The NCAA could kick out all the California schools, and California couldn't do anything about it.  I doubt it comes to that though.   Either the NCAA changes, the law gets tossed out in federal court or essentially rendered unenforceable,  or California repeals the statute.