TrippieRedd
Wang Chun
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 21,643
- Likes
- 73,279
There's two things I want to see from this. Will the NCAA have any backbone. And what will happen to the teams when it's horribly unbalanced on who gets money and how much.
Like you said the freshmen are already playing and losing just like the rest of the team.Sooooo lose every game with the upper classmen. Our freshmen transfer from not beating out the losers from the past 3 years. No depth. I mean you can say all of those scenarios in any case.
He’s a true sophomore. So not impossible but unlikely. If you play during a season, that’s a season you PARTICIPATED in...redshirt isn’t a factor in that reality. I know Blake Barnett used some kind of JUCO loophole to play at his next stop the very next season, when he transferred from Alabama, but I think it involved graduating from that JUCO in less than a calendar year.Was he a graduate transfer?
Going to be an interesting domino effect here.
If USC, UCLA, etc. can pay the best players, then it makes sense that the best players will sign there.
What’ll happen then is Florida and Texas will pass similar laws in order to compete.
Once that happens, the floodgates open.
Down with the NCAA.
Talked to wife about that this morning.Just do what I did. Call them out for being fos relentlessly and finally Hubbs will send you a PM cancelling your script.
It’s going to work. Because what’s going to happen with “image and likeness” payments is that it’ll be totally legal for a booster at Alabama to pay $25k for a player to come sign autographs at his car lot. Not having to hide that stuff will be a huge benefit- because we all know it’s happening either way.Schools won't pull from ncaa unless the southeast does it and why would they? Too much money flowing through.
With CA, they'd need a new TV deal and there isnt enough money to make it worth it for the big schools. College football isnt player driven, its region and school driven so eastern eyes wont care about a CA league, which means ads wont be as expensive, which means less money to USC, UCLA, Stanford, etc.
Regarding endorsements, why would anyone pay big money to players of a sport so hard to predict pro success especially at the freshman phase? And when they are upperclassmen, no one is watching and competition sucks so it's still unknown.
Also a CA league isnt even intriguing. USC vs Stanford vs UCLA. That's it. No thanks.
Are they? Seems like the Cali schools would be in the pickle. Even if the state says they can pay players, the NCAA doesn't, so they couldn't pay players and remain in the NCAA. So who are they going to play? Each other? That would be a very short season, with no profit. It doesn't really matter what the state allows if it's against NCAA by-laws. They can avoid legal penalties, but not NCAA penalties.The NCAA is in a pickle.
Again I’ll ask - what’s wrong with any of this?The part that’s going to be tough to control is the local car dealership paying guys tons of money to be in an commercial because the owner is a booster. The coach can sell to a recruit that he can get paid by these local brands. The kids just want money and boosters want to win. Think about all that oil money in Texas. All a kid might have to do is send out a simple tweet and maybe their 1k followers see it but the booster pays them because it was in the recruitment agreement.
It's not like the school has to ensure that every athlete gets paid though, it just allows the really good players to make money off their likeness.That won't work though. Schools can't make enough to ensure every athlete gets paid because only a small amount of schools make any profit from sports..
Why would anyone additional watch this CA league? You're competing with the all other states and their games. When will CA play? Cfb is thursday, some fridays and Saturdays. You telling me Oregon, washington, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona fans are all going to drop their school fandom to watch usc, ucla and Stanford play Fresno, San diego, etc? If anything, the viewership will be substantially less which means less money for usc, ucla and stanford. No way they would pull out. It'd be financially crippling to the school for owing pac12, the networks (fox?) and schools they scheduled already money and then going to a tv deal, if they can get it, worth substantially less.It’s going to work. Because what’s going to happen with “image and likeness” payments is that it’ll be totally legal for a booster at Alabama to pay $25k for a player to come sign autographs at his car lot. Not having to hide that stuff will be a huge benefit- because we all know it’s happening either way.
You’re right that it might hurt the California teams in the short term - not being allowed to play other NCAA teams would make it tough. But when those schools are getting the top players, ESPN and Fox will still want to televise it.
As soon as the top talent starts flowing that way, other states will jump on board. Then the NCAA will cave and allow “image and likeness” payments like they do for Olympic athletes already.
it's my understanding that this has to do with making money on your name/likeness....so that's going to be market driven.There's two things I want to see from this. Will the NCAA have any backbone. And what will happen to the teams when it's horribly unbalanced on who gets money and how much.
Yeah, it might draw some players at first due to novelty, but if the NCAA stands firm, which really depends on their member universities, it will die a quick death. There are not enough college teams in California to sustain a league. They would need other states and schools to jump on board NOW, and if that doesn't happen, it goes no where.It’s going to work. Because what’s going to happen with “image and likeness” payments is that it’ll be totally legal for a booster at Alabama to pay $25k for a player to come sign autographs at his car lot. Not having to hide that stuff will be a huge benefit- because we all know it’s happening either way.
You’re right that it might hurt the California teams in the short term - not being allowed to play other NCAA teams would make it tough. But when those schools are getting the top players, ESPN and Fox will still want to televise it.
As soon as the top talent starts flowing that way, other states will jump on board. Then the NCAA will cave and allow “image and likeness” payments like they do for Olympic athletes already.
"NCAA rules bar athletes from being compensated for use of their names, images or likenesses. The bill would not allow schools to directly pay athletes, but would permit students to receive compensation from outside sources — for example, from a video game company or for signing autographs or memorabilia."That won't work though. Schools can't make enough to ensure every athlete gets paid because only a small amount of schools make any profit from sports..