Jump to content

NCAA Threatens California Schools


aujeff11

Recommended Posts

this is going to very interesting to see who blinks first here. I'm guessing california backs down but notice to the NCAA has been sent. Either fix this issue or move over. 

I feel pretty sure you can find a way to pay players and keep a level playing field. Hell i think you can make it a more level playing field by actually regulating what is already happening under the table. I mean you can't pay players in bball and look at how corrupt that sport has become. What good are all those amateur rules doing there?

All you gotta do is have one big pool that it used to pay out to all the players. Every school pays in the same and every school draws out the same. All the players get paid the same amount of money. Then for any extras like selling jersey and likeness just cap the amount the player can make. Max of $100 for selling a jersey, max of $50 dollars for selling an autograph. Sure a player maybe could make an extra 20 bucks off their autograph by going to a bigger school but the amount of money will be so negligible that it won't likely steer players in one direction or the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

See? Look how many ideas we on this forum can come up with.

Invent ways to do it. Don't invent reasons not to. 

Lots of ideas...none of them controllable or workable...would require an army of accountants and lawyers to do the above p!an...chasing transfer students who get a better offer from another school...etc.

some of you apparently have no imagination...but he sports world is full of sleazy characters just waiting on this...all to help a couple dozen players each year who are going pro anyway in a year? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Lots of ideas...none of them controllable or workable...would require an army of accountants and lawyers to do the above p!an...chasing transfer students who get a better offer from another school...etc.

some of you apparently have no imagination...but he sports world is full of sleazy characters just waiting on this...all to help a couple dozen players each year who are going pro anyway in a year? 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Lots of ideas...none of them controllable or workable...would require an army of accountants and lawyers to do the above p!an...chasing transfer students who get a better offer from another school...etc.

some of you apparently have no imagination...but he sports world is full of sleazy characters just waiting on this...all to help a couple dozen players each year who are going pro anyway in a year? 

The NCAA could take months to analyze and parse through a ruling and the *sleazy characters* would have loop holes to acquire personal wealth before the ink is dry.  Leave amateur sports amateur sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The NCAA could take months to analyze and parse through a ruling and the *sleazy characters* would have loop holes to acquire personal wealth before the ink is dry.  Leave amateur sports amateur sports.

I hope you don't believe this is truly amateur...It hasn't been that way for a while now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAG said:

I hope you don't believe this is truly amateur...It hasn't been that way for a while now.

In the sense that there are only two categories, yes I do.  Is it pure, no it isn’t. The Olympic sports used to be for amateurs only and that has changed dramatically.  

Money changes people and giving more money to 18-22 year old kids does nothing to enhance the sport.  The kids that can make money off of their fame will be (at some point) more interested in scheduling their autograph session than their teammates. JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

In the sense that there are only two categories, yes I do.  Is it pure, no it isn’t. The Olympic sports used to be for amateurs only and that has changed dramatically.  

Money changes people and giving more money to 18-22 year old kids does nothing to enhance the sport.  The kids that can make money off of their fame will be (at some point) more interested in scheduling their autograph session than their teammates. JMO.

And that is fine, you can be against young collegiate athletes being paid, but please don't try to make it seem like this is an amateur game. There is a reason why we I have seen an uptake in the FBI handling these cases. The top tier kids will always find ways to get benefits and schools (Including Auburn) will oblige if they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DAG said:

And that is fine, you can be against young collegiate athletes being paid, but please don't try to make it seem like this is an amateur game. There is a reason why we I have seen an uptake in the FBI handling these cases. The top tier kids will always find ways to get benefits and schools (Including Auburn) will oblige if they can.

Is there another category that I am unaware of?  Something between amateur sports and professional sports?  You can make up one if you like.  Semi-Pro is already taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Lots of ideas...none of them controllable or workable...would require an army of accountants and lawyers to do the above p!an...chasing transfer students who get a better offer from another school...etc.

some of you apparently have no imagination...but he sports world is full of sleazy characters just waiting on this...all to help a couple dozen players each year who are going pro anyway in a year? 

Haha. If it's only a couple dozen players then what are y'all freaking out about? 

No imagination? That's rich. DAG responded to you perfectly about that.

By the way, ask Tyrone Prothro his feelings on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tigerbelle said:

They are not like regular students who can hold down a part time job. That would do nothing to help student athletes get through school.

Most regular students don’t have nice apartment style dorms, dining dollars, free food in the nutrition center (great quality food that team nutritionists and coaches recommend), 5,585 dollar stipends per semester, books, gear, access to medical care, tutorial service and more provided without high performance scholarships.  I will never forget one day I was sitting in class at the conclusion when I heard a tutor tell a Bama football defensive lineman “make sure you write down the test date, Damion, (Square) because this test is important!”  Guys these players are pampered. 

 

When I went to Bama, it cost me 15 dining dollars just for the food that Bama players eat for free multiple times a day. My eating plan (which restricted me from eating at the athletic cafeteria without spending 15dining dollars) was also the cheapest and only allowed me roughly 2 meals per day. Still, that was an additional 1,000+ dollars per semester for me to pay for. The student athletes live and eat right, already. My brother which was a juco athlete and had a room and education provided still had to support his nutritional maintenance on his own. Sure, nobody cares about juco, but most don’t care about most of the non-revenue sports at the big schools either. What should those athletes receive? The same as football because they also don’t get to have jobs, or less because they don’t sell tickets? 

Yeah, “regular students” can have a part time job waiting tables, but they can also have student debts that they have to (and should have to) carry for the majority of their lives afterwards. 

1 hour ago, Tigerbelle said:

It takes so much more money now and they do have many of the normal expenses of living, and some have families to support

Up the “cost of living” stipend. But they really don’t need much more. They don’t have to travel to Atlanta or home every weekend. Frugality should be taught. I’m not sure why the NCAA should be responsible for helping take care of the athletes plus the families. The NCAA isn’t responsible for putting Peyton Barber’s mom in a home. It did provide Peyton a way for him to make it to the NFL which in turn,  allowed him to take care of his momma. 

 

If they cannot support their families as is, they can always quit and find a job like most “regular” people.  These athletes are not condemned to sports and their free ride in college. They can make their situations better via other means if the NCAA isn’t enough for them. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is there another category that I am unaware of?  Something between amateur sports and professional sports?  You can make up one if you like.  Semi-Pro is already taken.

I don't need to make up anything. I am just not going to keep my head in the sand about it. To call this amateur sports is laughable. This is a big money maker and I think it is great to have this discussion and I hope they keep exploring this discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAG said:

I don't need to make up anything. I am just not going to keep my head in the sand about it. To call this amateur sports is laughable. This is a big money maker and I think it is great to have this discussion and I hope they keep exploring this discussion. 

The law makers still have their head in the sand.  If the NCAA wants to acknowledge it is pay for play, then so be it.  So far they have not, they don’t want to go there for whatever reason.  I’m just staying in the confines of their language.                                                                                   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The law makers still have their head in the sand.  If the NCAA wants to acknowledge it is pay for play, then so be it.  So far they have not, they don’t want to go there for whatever reason.  I’m just staying in the confines of their language.                                                                                   

I am not talking about the NCAA. I am talking about YOU. You are the one that made that statement, and I am saying that is a laughable statement. The NCAA has acknowledged players have gotten paid or else they wouldn't have handed out penalties. When that stuff happened, the game ceased to be innocent or amateur. Now, if you want to believe that, that is on you, but facts are slapping you right in the face.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/2/23/14704892/ole-miss-ncaa-allegations-list-updated-2017

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ole-miss-lacked-institutional-control-football-program

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DAG said:

I am not talking about the NCAA. I am talking about YOU. You are the one that made that statement, and I am saying that is a laughable statement. The NCAA has acknowledged players have gotten paid or else they wouldn't have handed out penalties. When that stuff happened, the game ceased to be innocent or amateur. Now, if you want to believe that, that is on you, but facts are slapping you right in the face.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/2/23/14704892/ole-miss-ncaa-allegations-list-updated-2017

The fact that the NCAA *acknowledged* players got paid is the reason Ole Miss got the hammer, because is was illegal and the NCAA is trying to control this type of illegal payments to keep College Football the way it is.  I think we are arguing over semantics. I fully realize money is changing hands, but the image the NCAA is trying to protect is that of a non-professional sport.

What you or I personally believe is not at issue, it what is legal. I speed all the time even though I know its illegal and have been very successful at avoiding detection (I’ve probably just jinxed myself).  Anybody that goes slower than I do is stupid, while anybody that goes faster is crazy.  It doesn’t change the law just because I think the law is useless.  Its still the law.

We could be in a paradigm shift in college sports and discussion is good.  If the players end up being paid, so be it, but then call it what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more reminder. This thread is about players making money for themselves. It is not about the schools paying them. So this bill could pass and the players would still very much be amateurs. Not that "amateur" means anything important. 

So far, I've yet to see a compelling argument against it. Not even close. Some of y'all, per usual, are just scared of change for the sake of it. Kinda like the new transfer rules. Tell us again how Clemson, bama, Oklahoma and the rest of the college elite are distancing themselves from the pack by stealing players from lesser programs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DAG said:

I can't do anymore @McLoofus

The lines are drawn. You know how it is. The only thing that will change minds is when these dumb rules are fixed and people see that it's not that much different. There'll be a learning period and things will need to get fixed but progress is going to happen eventually. 

Also, I love the "money ruined the pros" thing. I'm guessing those folks don't live in cities that have pro sports teams. Nor do they pause to consider that most college players probably don't make it to 4 years with the program they signed with out of high school while pro players can stick around for 6, 7, 8 years or more. And *all* good college players are trying to leverage their college experience for an NFL contract. Also, college *coaches* have a shorter shelf life every year. Sometimes it works out but they usually get fired or get a better gig before too long. Everybody's just trying to take care of their business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

One more reminder. This thread is about players making money for themselves. It is not about the schools paying them. So this bill could pass and the players would still very much be amateurs. Not that "amateur" means anything important. 

So far, I've yet to see a compelling argument against it. Not even close. Some of y'all, per usual, are just scared of change for the sake of it. Kinda like the new transfer rules. Tell us again how Clemson, bama, Oklahoma and the rest of the college elite are distancing themselves from the pack by stealing players from lesser programs...

I think why you are seeing such a diverse discussion from the OP is what you will see if the main rule is changed.  Each one is a branch off the other.  It will open up for other rules to be changed.  I am not sure how to approach it to be honest.  I do have my reservations just due to my profession seeing how it can get jumbled.  Both sides do make great points however, including yours.  Scared?  Not sure.  I do think you are correct that it will not change the big schools, but it might affect a TCU, Boise State, West Virginia, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

The lines are drawn. You know how it is. The only thing that will change minds is when these dumb rules are fixed and people see that it's not that much different. There'll be a learning period and things will need to get fixed but progress is going to happen eventually. 

Also, I love the "money ruined the pros" thing. I'm guessing those folks don't live in cities that have pro sports teams. Nor do they pause to consider that most college players probably don't make it to 4 years with the program they signed with out of high school while pro players can stick around for 6, 7, 8 years or more. And *all* good college players are trying to leverage their college experience for an NFL contract. Also, college *coaches* have a shorter shelf life every year. Sometimes it works out but they usually get fired or get a better gig before too long. Everybody's just trying to take care of their business. 

To the bolded part.  That’s the whole point.  The rules haven’t changed and when they do, then those will be the new rules people can argue over.  Right now you have to work in the framework of the existing rules.  Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

One more reminder. This thread is about players making money for themselves. It is not about the schools paying them. So this bill could pass and the players would still very much be amateurs. Not that "amateur" means anything important. 

So far, I've yet to see a compelling argument against it. Not even close. Some of y'all, per usual, are just scared of change for the sake of it. Kinda like the new transfer rules. Tell us again how Clemson, bama, Oklahoma and the rest of the college elite are distancing themselves from the pack by stealing players from lesser programs...

NCAA has come out with new guidelines for transferring. Suppose to limit players ability to play immediately. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/06/26/ncaas-changes-transfer-guidelines-limit-immediate-eligibility/1569260001/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Auburn Kev said:

NCAA has come out with new guidelines for transferring. Suppose to limit players ability to play immediately. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/06/26/ncaas-changes-transfer-guidelines-limit-immediate-eligibility/1569260001/

Just saw that over in the recruiting forum. Haven't read through it yet. But yeah, learning curve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

To the bolded part.  That’s the whole point.  The rules haven’t changed and when they do, then those will be the new rules people can argue over.  Right now you have to work in the framework of the existing rules.  Wow.

The conversation is about changing the rules. Wow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

So far, I've yet to see a compelling argument against it.

If this is how it is, I haven’t heard a compelling argument for it either. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

The conversation is about changing the rules. Wow. 

Right? Don't have a meaningful discussion about something clearly affecting college athletics until the rules are actually changed. Can't do anything about so might as well not discuss it or even acknowledge it. WTF.  Only if Auburn felt that way back in 2010 with Cam Newton. Remember, based on the NCAA by laws Cam Newton was deemed ineligible and Auburn followed through with that, yet they still argued Cam didn't know, rightfully so. LOOPHOLE. NCAA goes against their own rules lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAG said:

Right? Don't have a meaningful discussion about something clearly affecting college athletics until the rules are actually changed. Can't do anything about so might as well not discuss it or even acknowledge it. WTF.  Only if Auburn felt that way back in 2010 with Cam Newton. Remember, based on the NCAA by laws Cam Newton was deemed ineligible and Auburn followed through with that, yet they still argued Cam didn't know, rightfully so. LOOPHOLE. NCAA goes against their own rules lol. 

Yeah. Everything is "that's just how it is" and "that's how it's always been" and "I will find something wrong with it, just give me some time". Nobody's talking about the positives of it or even trying to think of how to do it correctly. (Well, except in California, I guess.)

We even have people who don't care that the current rules aren't fair to the players off whose backs a bunch of non-athletes are getting rich, but suddenly they're worried about it being fair for the kids whose names nobody knows? Good lord. Y'all crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...