Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 143
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    I am ok with the idea of players profiting from sales of their jerseys, etc., but I really don't like the idea that boosters can pay them. How does that not eventually just turn college basketball into a G league with the best teams being fielded by the schools who have the wealthiest boosters?

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    I look forward to your future detailed thoughts on this topic, sage. I too expect some major unintended consequences as it's impossible to predict how this will all shake out.

    I think if there weren't a bunch of shady characters trying to take advantage of these guys, the model of them getting paid via endoresments and other deals (i.e. the olympic model) would work, but unfortunately that's not the case...Money complicates things. Hard to see how it will all play out, but the great article about the "bag man" phenomenon prevalent in SEC football will essentially be legitimized so we can expect a lot of bags of cash (well, I guess they will be able to be checks now?!?). We shall see...
    Money complicates things, sure. But I don't like the tone set by "we need to protect these young men from the sketchy influence of money!"

    A bit too paternalistic to me.

    To be clear - I have many times said players should be able to earn money in the current system. I have also said that I would be perfectly happy if Duke wanted to move to an Ivy League-ish separatist league with a bizarre vision of "let's have our best college student athletes line up against your best students and see who's better."

    In other words, I watch for the front of the jersey. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize the rights of the name on the back of the jersey.

    Between the changes the NBA is moving forward and the ones the NCAA is entertaining, it is becoming clear that most recognize that the current system is broken.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Whenever this discussion comes up I always do a little math...

    I start with the number of sports where there are professional leagues which may restrict when players become pro.

    That leaves out sports such as swimming, track, tennis, golf, lacrosse (perhaps just women's lacrosse...is their a restriction for men's lacrosse?) so all of those college athletes can make their own choice right now to go pro or not. If they stay in school and want to make money in an endeavor that is related to their sport that is great. Why not pay them for being coaches at sports camps or giving lessons.

    So we are really looking at the ~400 men's basketball programs and ~400 women's basketball programs and ~200 football programs and ~200 baseball programs (some of these numbers are guesses and rounded to make the math easier). With 15 players in basketball programs, 80 in football programs and 30 in baseball programs the number of athletes really affected by any new rules would be ~34000 total. However, perhaps 2-5% of these players are elite enough to make money from their "image" (I am excluding the money from sports camps etc...). That brings this down to between 700 and 1700 athletes that would be affected by this. (My math is a lot of estimates so I may be off a bit).

    The point being is that there is a lot of brain power being used to deal with an issue that may effect a very small fraction of student athletes. So, instead of the "powers that be" thinking up the rules to pay these athletes just ask the 700-1700 athletes that would be affected what would make them "happy". This does not seem to be a daunting task.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkD83 View Post
    Whenever this discussion comes up I always do a little math...

    I start with the number of sports where there are professional leagues which may restrict when players become pro.

    That leaves out sports such as swimming, track, tennis, golf, lacrosse (perhaps just women's lacrosse...is their a restriction for men's lacrosse?) so all of those college athletes can make their own choice right now to go pro or not. If they stay in school and want to make money in an endeavor that is related to their sport that is great. Why not pay them for being coaches at sports camps or giving lessons.

    So we are really looking at the ~400 men's basketball programs and ~400 women's basketball programs and ~200 football programs and ~200 baseball programs (some of these numbers are guesses and rounded to make the math easier). With 15 players in basketball programs, 80 in football programs and 30 in baseball programs the number of athletes really affected by any new rules would be ~34000 total. However, perhaps 2-5% of these players are elite enough to make money from their "image" (I am excluding the money from sports camps etc...). That brings this down to between 700 and 1700 athletes that would be affected by this. (My math is a lot of estimates so I may be off a bit).

    The point being is that there is a lot of brain power being used to deal with an issue that may effect a very small fraction of student athletes. So, instead of the "powers that be" thinking up the rules to pay these athletes just ask the 700-1700 athletes that would be affected what would make them "happy". This does not seem to be a daunting task.
    And what happens to "fairness" and "social justice" to the 33.000+/- who do not get the big (or small) payoff?

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkD83 View Post
    Whenever this discussion comes up I always do a little math...

    I start with the number of sports where there are professional leagues which may restrict when players become pro.

    That leaves out sports such as swimming, track, tennis, golf, lacrosse (perhaps just women's lacrosse...is their a restriction for men's lacrosse?) so all of those college athletes can make their own choice right now to go pro or not. If they stay in school and want to make money in an endeavor that is related to their sport that is great. Why not pay them for being coaches at sports camps or giving lessons.

    So we are really looking at the ~400 men's basketball programs and ~400 women's basketball programs and ~200 football programs and ~200 baseball programs (some of these numbers are guesses and rounded to make the math easier). With 15 players in basketball programs, 80 in football programs and 30 in baseball programs the number of athletes really affected by any new rules would be ~34000 total. However, perhaps 2-5% of these players are elite enough to make money from their "image" (I am excluding the money from sports camps etc...). That brings this down to between 700 and 1700 athletes that would be affected by this. (My math is a lot of estimates so I may be off a bit).

    The point being is that there is a lot of brain power being used to deal with an issue that may effect a very small fraction of student athletes. So, instead of the "powers that be" thinking up the rules to pay these athletes just ask the 700-1700 athletes that would be affected what would make them "happy". This does not seem to be a daunting task.
    Being good enough to be paid for their image just means being good enough to help UK win some basketball games which may not equate to making a dime on their image or playing basketball after “college”. This will cause a straight up bidding war for ball players by the schools who want to win. Shoe company influence will be even greater, which may be good for Duke. Those Wake boosters who are apparently willing to pay Danny Manning $15M not to coach can just funnel that money direct to the players. The NCAA has no ability to police it. It will be a joke. Why the NCAA would make this move just as the NBA is making positive strides toward paying HS grads who are actually good enough to get paid is beyond me. Now the College teams will be recruiting against the NBA offering greater endorsements. Even the NBA has a draft and salary cap. College hoop$ Is about to jump the shark. I don’t mind selling the Brotherhood to recruits but I don’t give a rats arse about the best team money can buy.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    And what happens to "fairness" and "social justice" to the 33.000+/- who do not get the big (or small) payoff?
    The ones that are most affected may ask for a lot more than the other 33,000+. So poll the ones that are most affected first then see if that is what the rest of the folks would be happy with.

  7. #47
    I see this as a move towards more fairness to the athletes, which is more important to me than how it affects my entertainment level.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    I could also see a development over time where schools located in big advertising markets - NY and LA - have a massive recruiting advantage as well. Schools with renowned marketing programs have an easy sell to bring players in and set them up with deals based on their connections and alumni.
    Yup. Market dynamics are now more important than ever. In what I'm calling BC for "Before Corona", players were likely heavily influenced by the program and the coaching staff moreso than any other variable. Now, you can likely add market dynamics to those. And that's not a bad thing if you're a biiiiiiig school, a blue chipper, or in a massive market.

    IMO, schools like St John's and UCLA are going to come out of this really, really well. Schools like Gonzaga, Marquette, etc are going to struggle. And coaches are going to leave these solid coaching jobs for bigger market jobs (not necessarily better basketball schools).
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Will Endorsements Break the NCAA Economic Model?

    As promised:

    The NCAA and the colleges are losing their battle against college athletes receiving benefits from endorsements and license fees on use of “their image.” California passed a law allowing it, and the die was cast. Certainly, it is an equitable move, but it is one that risks the functioning and highly elaborate college sports model. The model thrives on revenue received from competition. There is a risk that the biggest and best-known schools with the largest number and the richest supporters will be able to recruit all the best players.

    College sports are immensely popular and generate huge sums of money -- $10 billion, says the NCAA, and tens of millions of fans. Spending was higher and presumably a lot of the difference was made up from donations from supporters through organizations like Iron Dukes.

    What’s at stake if the NCAA competition is lessened? First, enjoyable college sports competition, which has been a big part of American life for 100 years. Then, benefits for athletes – the NCAA says $2.9 billion is given in athletic scholarship aid to 150,000 student-athletes. Finally, the training of world-class athletes in the US college system.

    Let’s review the current system. College athletics operate under a model where maximum prices are set for athletes – college expenses, living costs, some amount of stipend. Some get less – one-half scholarships are common in soccer, baseball and other sports, and many athletes are just regular students who go out for sports. Of course, colleges compete for athletes on the qualitative side: coaching, facilities, travel standards (chartered flights vs. buses, e.g.), and softer things like “prestige” – ta-DUM –“the Brotherhood!”

    With these fixed labor costs, the leading programs generate sizable surpluses for football and men’s basketball. These “economic rents” go to pay higher salaries for coaches and AD staff, even better facilities for the programs, but also to pay scholarships and program expenses for sports outside of football and men’s basketball. These cross-subsidies make it possible for up to 200 players in other sports at each school to receive financial aid to compete.

    Some of the leading performers in national and international sports come out of these non-revenue, or subsidized programs. “Olympic sports” is the designation often used. Moreover, everyone realizes that Title IX has pushed women’s college athletics far, far ahead of where they would have been without it. And it costs money.

    Who suffers from the current system? The stars of football and basketball could earn more under a competitive salary system, where teams bid for players. It is not clear that many other players could earn more than scholarship money – and, of course, more money going to the stars means less money and fewer scholarships for college sports in general. Football stars will have multiple seasons of lower pay, but the top basketball stars are gone after one season.

    If you, moreover, are an 18-22-year-old highly competitive American athlete in virtually any sport, you look to colleges for financial support, training, and athletic competition with other athletes. Academics is also a benefit and part of the consideration, but I won’t linger on it here. You expect to go to college unless you are good enough at a very young age to get remuneration from professional sports organizations. This is an American approach – in other countries, professional sports clubs seem to offer more than just soccer and support men’s and women’s basketball and other sports. There are also national sports organizations with money to support promising athletes. But the US system is hu-u-uge – with hundreds of colleges offering athletic scholarships in a couple of dozen different sports to 150,000 players.

    Is the current system illegal, immoral or unethical? I would argue it is not. The colleges say, this is our system: you can play here or go somewhere else. They are not covered by antitrust laws (combinations in restraint of trade, etc.), and Congress is not likely to pass laws restricting athletics at Bama, Texas, Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC and elsewhere. But the current system will change rapidly when college athletes can get endorsements.

    And competition could well suffer, and competition is why football and men’s hoops can generate such surpluses from attendance, TV and media, and donations from supporters. There are 50-60 programs in a position to compete for the highest honors. Many of them, of course, are “a few seasons away,” but they still play against the best and have some success. If the number of top-echelon program sinks to ten or twelve colleges, the economic model may be irretrievably broken.

    Giving athletes the right to make endorsements and earn from their own images could endanger the college athletics model and have the unintended consequence of limiting the number of players who are able to compete in college. If you are trying to balance off the good and the bad, you and I may make different judgments – but the important point is that the college sports world is likely to change substantially.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    As promised:

    The NCAA and the colleges are losing their battle against college athletes receiving benefits from endorsements and license fees on use of “their image.” California passed a law allowing it, and the die was cast. Certainly, it is an equitable move, but it is one that risks the functioning and highly elaborate college sports model. The model thrives on revenue received from competition. There is a risk that the biggest and best-known schools with the largest number and the richest supporters will be able to recruit all the best players.

    College sports are immensely popular and generate huge sums of money -- $10 billion, says the NCAA, and tens of millions of fans. Spending was higher and presumably a lot of the difference was made up from donations from supporters through organizations like Iron Dukes.

    What’s at stake if the NCAA competition is lessened? First, enjoyable college sports competition, which has been a big part of American life for 100 years. Then, benefits for athletes – the NCAA says $2.9 billion is given in athletic scholarship aid to 150,000 student-athletes. Finally, the training of world-class athletes in the US college system.

    Let’s review the current system. College athletics operate under a model where maximum prices are set for athletes – college expenses, living costs, some amount of stipend. Some get less – one-half scholarships are common in soccer, baseball and other sports, and many athletes are just regular students who go out for sports. Of course, colleges compete for athletes on the qualitative side: coaching, facilities, travel standards (chartered flights vs. buses, e.g.), and softer things like “prestige” – ta-DUM –“the Brotherhood!”

    With these fixed labor costs, the leading programs generate sizable surpluses for football and men’s basketball. These “economic rents” go to pay higher salaries for coaches and AD staff, even better facilities for the programs, but also to pay scholarships and program expenses for sports outside of football and men’s basketball. These cross-subsidies make it possible for up to 200 players in other sports at each school to receive financial aid to compete.

    Some of the leading performers in national and international sports come out of these non-revenue, or subsidized programs. “Olympic sports” is the designation often used. Moreover, everyone realizes that Title IX has pushed women’s college athletics far, far ahead of where they would have been without it. And it costs money.

    Who suffers from the current system? The stars of football and basketball could earn more under a competitive salary system, where teams bid for players. It is not clear that many other players could earn more than scholarship money – and, of course, more money going to the stars means less money and fewer scholarships for college sports in general. Football stars will have multiple seasons of lower pay, but the top basketball stars are gone after one season.

    If you, moreover, are an 18-22-year-old highly competitive American athlete in virtually any sport, you look to colleges for financial support, training, and athletic competition with other athletes. Academics is also a benefit and part of the consideration, but I won’t linger on it here. You expect to go to college unless you are good enough at a very young age to get remuneration from professional sports organizations. This is an American approach – in other countries, professional sports clubs seem to offer more than just soccer and support men’s and women’s basketball and other sports. There are also national sports organizations with money to support promising athletes. But the US system is hu-u-uge – with hundreds of colleges offering athletic scholarships in a couple of dozen different sports to 150,000 players.

    Is the current system illegal, immoral or unethical? I would argue it is not. The colleges say, this is our system: you can play here or go somewhere else. They are not covered by antitrust laws (combinations in restraint of trade, etc.), and Congress is not likely to pass laws restricting athletics at Bama, Texas, Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC and elsewhere. But the current system will change rapidly when college athletes can get endorsements.

    And competition could well suffer, and competition is why football and men’s hoops can generate such surpluses from attendance, TV and media, and donations from supporters. There are 50-60 programs in a position to compete for the highest honors. Many of them, of course, are “a few seasons away,” but they still play against the best and have some success. If the number of top-echelon program sinks to ten or twelve colleges, the economic model may be irretrievably broken.

    Giving athletes the right to make endorsements and earn from their own images could endanger the college athletics model and have the unintended consequence of limiting the number of players who are able to compete in college. If you are trying to balance off the good and the bad, you and I may make different judgments – but the important point is that the college sports world is likely to change substantially.

    While I agree that the college sports landscape is likely to change dramatically, I would disagree on the idea that this will break college sports as we know it. Top recruits will go to blue blood schools (with a few exceptions) - that is unlikely to change outside of this new G league trend. Bigger programs are the most likely to have the best endorsement opportunities because of their larger/more dedicated fan base. 3/4 star guys are still going to be going to non blue blood power five/G5 schools, and will have the chance to earn slightly less lucrative endorsements.

    Furthermore, there have been multiple shifts in the definition of "amateurism" in college sports that have not broken the model and I have a hard time believing this will be any different.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Elon, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I see this as a move towards more fairness to the athletes, which is more important to me than how it affects my entertainment level.
    Without the entertainment value, fan support and TV money, college revenue sports would be just like rowing or tennis. I for one still hold to the idea that college sports is still for amateurs, just like the Olympics once were. With one and done and now paid football and basketball paid players, I'll probably just give up on college sports and just watch NFL and MLB. Still can't stand the NBA until the playoff finals.
    Tom Mac

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Tommac View Post
    Without the entertainment value, fan support and TV money, college revenue sports would be just like rowing or tennis. I for one still hold to the idea that college sports is still for amateurs, just like the Olympics once were. With one and done and now paid football and basketball paid players, I'll probably just give up on college sports and just watch NFL and MLB. Still can't stand the NBA until the playoff finals.
    I'm the opposite. I'll watch Duke basketball regardless of whether we have Zion or he goes to the G League, whether we play a home and home with UNC or just with Yale.

    College athletics stopped being amateur when so much money started changing hands above the heads of the players. To fault the players for wanting a piece of the pie feels wrong to me.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    College athletics stopped being amateur when so much money started changing hands above the heads of the players. To fault the players for wanting a piece of the pie feels wrong to me.
    I don't think anyone in this thread has faulted the players, or at least I don't read anyone to be doing so. On the other hand, playing with the fundamental structure of the league is a pretty big deal.

    By the way, something I haven't seen addressed in this thread: How do personal endorsements work if they don't involve the school? Does anyone believe the separating those two things is truly possible? According to this piece on NPR, "While student-athletes would be permitted to identify themselves by sport and school, the use of conference and school logos, trademarks or other involvement would not be allowed." But there are a ton of other issues. Just off the top of my head, Duke has a well-publicized, exclusive deal with Nike. What if a student athlete wants to endorse another sportswear company? Can the student sign an exclusive agreement to wear only a competing brand? How is that not "involvement" with the school? Or to borrow from another thread, what about the transfer rules? A student could have a minor deal with a local outfit, but decide a tranfer is in order. Do the rights move with them? Do students need to form a union so they can resolve these kinds of potential disputes as a group, or is this just an every-student-for-themselves situation?

    The NCAA rule book is notoriously long and ridiculously detailed, and the endorsements and procedures of the many schools are complex and high-value. This will have a major impact on that structure. It seems to me that it is potentially a multi-year process just to work out the details of how to manage it. That's not the fault of the players, it's just the result of the existing structures.

    It's certainly not an unclimable mountain, but it's a mountain nonetheless.
    Last edited by Phredd3; 04-30-2020 at 05:51 PM. Reason: Add comment from other thread.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    I moved. Now 12 miles from Heaven, 13 from Hell
    How about taxes. Now that these athletes are making money “at their trade”, will everything they receive be taxable. That would include the ~$75K or so in tuition and room and board at Duke. Does that affect the decision between attending Duke and, say UNC-ch, where the comparable value of tuition is small. (On a price tag value, as opposed to actual value to the cheaters, the out-of-State tuition is much closer to Duke and the in-State amount.)

    Something else, would a walk-on at Duke have a better chance at endorsements than a starter at, say, Mt. St. Mary’s? Sit on the bench at Duke and make money, or play some or a lot at a lower D1 school, or D2.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    I don't disagree with Mt. Devil that there are matters of equity and fairness that come into play. But, at the same time, if the practices hurt college athletics, there will be less compensation for everyone. That's the realpolitik of it -- urr... realekonomik of it.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  16. #56
    Academics don't matter--witness UNC cheating for 20 years with no punishment. Now schools/boosters will be able to pay whatever they are willing and can afford for the best players--just pay it thru an "endorsement" company. It will become a bidding war for the best players. Some athletes will appreciate the academic side of college. But most college football and basketball players will be just "hired meat". You can throw the concept of "student"/athlete out the window.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by JimBD View Post
    Now schools/boosters will be able to pay whatever they are willing and can afford for the best players--just pay it thru an "endorsement" company. It will become a bidding war for the best players.
    Speaking of which, how does that get controlled, from the NCAA's and NBA's perspective? The NBA has a salary cap because owners bid themselves out of financial viability in an effort to get the Next Great Thing. Will the NCAA have to institute any rules about the size of "endorsement" deals? Boosters can be involved, according to the latest rule. Can an NBA owner "endorse" a player? What happens if he gets drafted by a different team? Can the NBA itself "endorse" a player? So many questions to be asked.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    Speaking of which, how does that get controlled, from the NCAA's and NBA's perspective? The NBA has a salary cap because owners bid themselves out of financial viability in an effort to get the Next Great Thing. Will the NCAA have to institute any rules about the size of "endorsement" deals? Boosters can be involved, according to the latest rule. Can an NBA owner "endorse" a player? What happens if he gets drafted by a different team? Can the NBA itself "endorse" a player? So many questions to be asked.
    Building on this point, I think there is going to be a lot of sketchy characters (primarily agents, lawyers and financial advisors) reaching out to these kids. Everyone has heard the horror stories of the countless NBA players and other professional athletes who were multi-millionaires and now have nothing. I believe the NBA allegedly certifies agents and has increased player education on this, but it still remains a huge problem. These top prospects will be getting non-stop phone calls, and many do not have the support systems or the background to help them manage this.

    Also, now that college athletes will be able to do whatever they want, it will flow downhill to high schools to determine their eligibility rules. Historically they were protected under the umbrella of the NCAA - athletes would theoretically not want to take payments that could jeopardize their college eligibility. How young will companies start recruiting kids? There was a 5-year old in my son's sports class with a ridiculous handle - should I sign him up now? This is opening a huge can of worms. Not saying that it is wrong, but there are a lot of things that need to be thought through and I'm not sure whose responsibility it is to think these things through. Some might argue that it is no one's responsibility but I'm not sure if I am comfortable with that.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    So many good points in this thread. My thoughts...

    1) There is great potential for abuse by boosters and schools
    2) The NCAA has not made it at all clear how this will be implemented or (more importantly) policed
    3) As flawed and imperfect as this may be, it is (to me) far better than continuing to force these players to make no money for services that are clearly worth a tremendous amount of money

    We can wring our hands over #1 and #2 all day long... and I am happy to join in the concerns raised about both of them, but I see #3 as the most important thing that had to be addressed. The system was fundamentally flawed and unfair under the old rules. It was a system that gave all the money and power to rich Universities (and their highest paid employees) at the expense of gifted young men (and some women) who generally came from less advantaged families. Now, finally, we have a mechanism for giving tangible compensation to those previously powerless young athletes. I see that as an exceedingly good thing.

    Is this change perfect? No, not even close. We can have endless debates about how imperfect it is. But it is far better than what existed before. In that regard, I am quite happy to see this happening. Long overdue.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    So many good points in this thread. My thoughts...

    3) As flawed and imperfect as this may be, it is (to me) far better than continuing to force these players to make no money for services that are clearly worth a tremendous amount of money

    We can wring our hands over #1 and #2 all day long... and I am happy to join in the concerns raised about both of them, but I see #3 as the most important thing that had to be addressed. The system was fundamentally flawed and unfair under the old rules. It was a system that gave all the money and power to rich Universities (and their highest paid employees) at the expense of gifted young men (and some women) who generally came from less advantaged families. Now, finally, we have a mechanism for giving tangible compensation to those previously powerless young athletes. I see that as an exceedingly good thing.
    And just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with that assessment. My issues was with the proposed timing of it. The original announcement said they were looking to make a recommendation by January, in the hopes of having something passed by 2021. That's a really, really aggressive timeline. California's law won't be effective until 2023. Maybe take an extra year to work this out before leaping in.

    Making this move seems virtually inevitable, but it is unquestionably a massive change. Take the time to do it right.

    Edit: And everyone knows that, no matter what they decide, it won't be "right" for everybody. There will be lawsuits no matter what else happens. If making this fair for the students is the goal, just declaring open season likely won't achieve that goal.
    Last edited by Phredd3; 05-01-2020 at 01:27 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-09-2020, 09:01 PM
  2. How to Pay NCAA Revenue Athletes
    By Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 03-03-2018, 03:55 PM
  3. A way NCAA athletes could receive compensation
    By g-money in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-28-2013, 04:06 PM
  4. NCAA Rules: Student-Athletes and Earning
    By ElSid in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-19-2010, 06:37 PM
  5. NCAA: Serious about graduating student-athletes?
    By Verga3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 11:53 AM

Posting Permissions

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