Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well this is ultimately the biggest point. California is just trying to pressure the NCAA to pass this rule for all student athletes that they already have in place for athletes in the Olympic sports.

It’s ultimately a question of “rights” and “freedoms” of adult men and women in this country. Should every person have the right to profit off his or her name? Or should we allow that to be stifled because we like watching college football on Saturdays?
that's fine, like i said.

i just don't think the NCAA is being backed in to a corner because of this. i wonder how the Pac 12 in general feels about this? i feel pretty confident in saying that the other p5 conferences aren't doing anything until they absolutely have to.

i could see a couple states down south following suit just to make a point and to attempt to apply some pressure.

but nobody is going to sign up to secede from the NCAA w/out having the ability to actually play the games that make all these schools money in the first place....at that point, they really don't care if the kid can get a few bucks for the jersey/autograph sale.....

nobody is going to turn over millions of dollars in a TV deal to watch INTRA state college athletics.................
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
Look at it legally. “Everyone” pays taxes on income. I say it loosely because not everyone files tax returns, which is illegal. The compensation that students receive is not taxable because it’s a benefit from a scholarship. It’s not a workforce.

You're argument is "because they aren't getting paid, it's not a workforce" you do realize that right? Guess parenting isn't a "workforce" in your mind either?
 
that's fine, like i said.

i just don't think the NCAA is being backed in to a corner because of this. i wonder how the Pac 12 in general feels about this? i feel pretty confident in saying that the other p5 conferences aren't doing anything until they absolutely have to.

i could see a couple states down south following suit just to make a point and to attempt to apply some pressure.

but nobody is going to sign up to secede from the NCAA w/out having the ability to actually play the games that make all these schools money in the first place....at that point, they really don't care if the kid can get a few bucks for the jersey/autograph sale.....

nobody is going to turn over millions of dollars in a TV deal to watch INTRA state college athletics.................
This is my point as well. Schools will make the decisions and be the only ones to lose millions. It ain't happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jakez4ut
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.

Uhh.... Do you even San Diego St bro?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
You're argument is "because they aren't getting paid, it's not a workforce" you do realize that right? Guess parenting isn't a "workforce" in your mind either?
Parenting is not a workforce.. as a parent of two... it's a responsibility, not a job and I'll never expect to get paid for it.
 
Anyone watch that Clemson A&M game this weekend? That 3-3-5 was a thing of beauty. I wonder if we will employ that at all in the future. I’m not a football expert but we seem to primarily stay in a 4-2-5.
 
FBS (7 Teams):
California Golden Bears
Fresno State Bulldogs
San Diego State Aztecs
San Jose State Spartans
Stanford Cardinal
UCLA Bruins
USC Trojans

FCS (4 Teams):
Cal Poly Mustangs
Sacramento State Hornets
San Diego Toreros
UC Davis Aggies


Not a bad league for the CCAA...

That is boring just thinking about it.
92jPLZk.gif
 
You're argument is "because they aren't getting paid, it's not a workforce" you do realize that right? Guess parenting isn't a "workforce" in your mind either?

I am an attorney. If you don’t receive income, I think it’s a poor choice of words. Pretty sure I know the topic I am discussing.

You can call it whatever you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
Maybe that’s where you and I differ - I don’t care about “college football” - I care about the workforce being adequately compensated for its time and labor.

The system is corrupt and needs to be corrected.
we're definitley not on the same page here.

and they're not a work force. there is a mutually beneficial relationship here. now, no one can argue who gets the better befenfit in that relationship while they're on campus, but let's not paint the college football player as a vicitim. they're not slaves and they're not being held in a dungeon....and they weren't forced in to action.

they're getting, or they have the opportunity to get, potentially a 6 figure beneift by way of a college education. they get the best healthcare they could possibly get, and for many, that they've ever gotten while they're a student athlete. they get all the extra ciricular benefits that come with being a college football player, including some monetary rewards we don't like to talk about....but we all know happen.

they get a stipend now funded by the university..... not to mention the added benefit of being a VFL after school and what kind of opportunities that tag can afford you later in life.

i've already made it clear how i feel, in general, on the name/likeness deal...but i hate it when this issue gets turned into an 'equal rights' type issue. this isn't a labor foce that's being taken advantage of. every single advantage those players can be given that the rules allow, they are given.........and then some.

the revenue sharing system isn't corrupt....the TV deals that exist now have actually made it as equitable as it's ever been, cause everyone has a lot more money to spend on its program.....if you want to blame someone for that blame the fans that tune in every week and make college football one of hte highest rated products out there. thats why everyone is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for the rights to show it. that system is just good old market based capitalism.

your blame is mislpaced. it's not the schools' fault everybody is willing to hand them millions upon millions every year lol....nor is it 'the NCAA's fault.

the "system" has always been corrupt from the standpoint of how players are acquired/recruiting.....
 
You do realize they’ve already passed the bill, right? (Pending signature from the governor and that is supposedly a formality.) So while you can argue til you’re blue in the face that it’ll “never happen,” well, it already has.
signing hte bill in to law doesn't mean anything. it doesn't make it "illegal" not to make money from your name and likeness.

it's just making "not illegal" to do so.

has nothing to do with eligibilty rules set forth by the NCAA.
 
I don't follow the logic here? Most of these athletes have 4-12 years of experience in the profession before ever setting foot on a college campus, some have paid thousands of dollars to invest in specialist related skilled training.

I guess I don't think the "it's not a workforce" is a valid argument. It's an unpaid workforce, which one could argue at the HS level is child labor even. But athletes are doing a job, it is work. And currently they are simply being paid through different means than direct wages. The argument is that no other workforce has legal ability to prevent you from making money outside of that career.

Even military personnel have the ability to work additionally outside the armed forces for profit.

This is insane. No one is being forced to play sports. You said 4-12 years of experience, are you saying pee wee league is experience for professional sports? Do you also think that digging as a child would give one the experience to be an archaeologist? There is also nothing legally or illegally stopping an athlete from having a job so that argument is illogical. You could argue it would be a lot of work to be an athlete with a part-time job.

High school sports are also not child labor. You should ask some actual child laborers working in terrible conditions in other countries if they think that playing a game is "child labor".
 
Guys you’re wasting your time on this California state law. It is meaningless because of interstate commerce clause. Even if they keep all their games and broadcasts in state it still violates the commerce clause because it has impacts in other states. Clearly won’t ever be enforceable so don’t waste your time thinking about it. Would take the US Congress to pass something like this to have any real impact.

And if you doubt me on this, google the 1942 case Wickard v Filburn.

It may be unconstitutional under the “Dormant Commerce Clause” doctrine, but I don’t think it’s quite the slam dunk that you do. It will be a fight either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top