CA college athletes can now get paid$$

Discussion in 'SoCalScene' started by oh canada, Sep 30, 2019.

  1. Dos Equis

    Dos Equis GOLD

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    373
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +1,339 / 18
    I was right there with you Simi. Same thoughts. Donors buying players. Money influencing programs.

    Then, while writing that comment, and using U Denver as my example, I realized I was actually making the opposite point. UD does not ring a bell? They had rich alums/donors fund facilities, coach salaries, and their teams, and went from zero to NCAA champions in LAX and Hockey. Money bought them titles. Why not have that money go to players? It is already there, changing the competitive balance. In football and basketball there is tons of earmarked money, donations in kind, funded coach endowments, season ticket licensing agreements (yes, talking about you USC).

    I prefer college to be amateur. But as long as the NFL and the NBA are using the NCAA as their minor leagues, it is not. Let the players go pro as soon as they are ready and skip college, then the NCAA becomes a choice and not a scam. Notice no one ever mentions baseball? The kids who go to college and skip the draft do so voluntarily for the education.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. The Outlaw

    The Outlaw SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2018
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +307 / 4
    I don't know, Mess. Do you think, if Peter becomes the nominee, fans will fly rainbow flags and chant, "BOOTY... BOOTY..." ???
     
  3. Janie270

    Janie270 BRONZE

    Joined:
    May 21, 2019
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +27 / 1
    • Like Like x 1
  4. The Outlaw

    The Outlaw SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2018
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +307 / 4
    You call that a great opinion piece? She wrote it on herself. She's expecting to make money after 1 great routine? If we give her the cover of a Wheaties box, will that make her AND you go away?
     
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. End of the Line

    End of the Line SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2018
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +343 / 15
    Why doesn't the NY Times interview any of the 99.9% of student athletes who participate in non-revenue generating sports who will be harmed by this law? Why doesn't the Times ask how they're going to feel when their program is defunded and the money goes to "endorse" a couple basketball and football players who are going to make millions in less than a year anyway?

    Ohashi's assertion that she is entitled to some of the billions in revenue the NCAA receives "on the backs of athletes" is such b.s. Even ignoring that "revenue" is not profit, UCLA and the NCAA lose a fortune on gymnastics and her personally, and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. If anyone has been exploited with respect to her participation in college gymnastics, it is taxpayers. The actual cost of a UCLA education is roughly $70k a year. About half of that is subsidized by taxpayers. The other half - for her anyway - was also probably subsidized by taxpayers to the extent she received a full ride, or at least by athletic department boosters who probably would have preferred if the money went to the woeful football and basketball programs. Taxpayers funded her acceptance and education at UCLA and allowed her to prance around on the mat like she's important for four years doing something that has absolutely no future. If she thinks she's so valuable, why doesn't she just pay for all of the infrastructure she takes for granted and rent out Pauley, pay for her own coaching and equipment and marketing, pay for event staff, and sell 10,000 tickets to cover the costs, and then pay her own tuition? Seriously, can someone please tell me exactly how much someone like Ohashi would made in endorsements if she could? She had approximately 2 gymnastics meets left in her entire life when she has her two minutes of fame by scoring her "perfect 10". In the end, Ohashi's "viral" video has virtually no value. It is the type of performance that might be shown for a minute as filler on Sports Center, but that's all it's worth. Ohashi has never been good enough to make an Olympic team and her "perfect 10", although kinda fun to watch for the few people who are into that sort of thing, was purely the result of NCAA created hype from the watered down scoring used in college compared to what you see from the real elite national team gymnasts. Ohashi is a very good college gymnast, but she's mostly just ungrateful about UCLA's and the NCAA's role in providing her with the tools and exposure to generate 10 million hits on YouTube. She has unrealistic expectations about what this law might do for someone like her.

    The Times also ignores that apparel companies will start offering HS seniors cheap, long-term endorsement deals because they know signing 100 HS seniors to long term deals on the cheap is far more likely to pay dividends than paying someone like Zion alone $75 million after he proves he's legit in college and then goes pro. Think about that. After his freshman year, Nike reportedly signed Zion to a 7-year $75 million deal. There are maybe 10 HS senior basketball players every year with legit future endorsement potential. Nike probably could have signed all of them, including Zion, to deals right out of HS for less than half what it paid Zion alone a year later. The new law will allow them to exploit 18 year old kids on the cheap, whereas currently things are harder and more expensive after they've already drafted no. 1 and have millions from their first pro contract. In other words, the great irony of this law is that it harms many of those who can "benefit" from endorsements in college, as well as real student athletes whose non-revenue generating programs will collapse or turn into glorified inter-mural sports with no scholarships as money gets shifted from college programs to a few individual players in revenue generating sports. The law also "benefits" an even higher percentage of affluent families who can afford to pay tuition after scholarship opportunities vaporize, to the detriment of the poor. The law also harms the universities, given that few of them make money from sports, and some of the money they desperately need to fund non-revenue generators will go instead to go to a handful of players, instead of the schools that incur the massive infrastructure costs that these selfish kiddos take for granted. At the same time, the ones who win are apparel companies and boosters, plus a very small handful of basketball and football players who got deals out of HS but didn't pan out professionally. We should call this the official Law of Unintended Consequences. Overall, the law hurts the student athletes it is intended to help, but it helps rich apparel companies, boosters and affluent families that can pay tuition once scholarships go away in non-revenue sports. Nice.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. oh canada

    oh canada SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +530 / 9
    Yup.
     
  7. Janie270

    Janie270 BRONZE

    Joined:
    May 21, 2019
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +27 / 1
    So your answer is to let the schools profit off the athletes because if they don't it will hurt athletes?

    You don't want apparel companies to exploit and take advantage of athletes, but it's ok for the schools to?

    Other students can profit off of NIL, but not athletes?

    Paying the coach doesn't harm other students or athletes, but football players getting a shoe deal will? By the way, the law is written to protect the school's shoe deals by making it legal for them to require athletes to wear the school sponsor apparel.

    It's all such nonsense and quite honestly a slave owner mentality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. messy

    messy PREMIER

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +1,278 / 37
    See my post above noting Saban’s salary.
    It’s a lowly technique to fight this fairness by pitting the athletes against each other, when the coaches are always the highest paid public employees in the state, making millions.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Dubs

    Dubs SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +268 / 5
    Ultimately this is a very complex issue that requires very careful thought and deliberation about how it would/should be rolled out. As you mention here "unintended consquences". Those all need to be analyzed and vetted before anything could possbily be done. Things are not right as they stand and many folks on here bring up excellent points on both sides. The rhetoric has obviously ratcheted up, but that's what the introduction of this law was supposed to do. How it all plays out is totally unknown and I think it's safe to say it will be years down the road before anything of substance will actually be done.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Supermodel56

    Supermodel56 SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +301 / 11
    It has nothing to do with intentionally exploiting the athletes. The NCAA has to have rules against paying athletes - which means the schools and boosters already want to pay them and give them more. The reason they can't is because it gives certain schools a significant advantage over others in terms of recruiting. If they create an uneven playing field - then it undermines the credibility of the competition - people lose interest in watching and the entire ship sinks.
     
  11. oh canada

    oh canada SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +530 / 9
    Appreciate your enthusiasm on this topic, but there is a consistent disconnect in all of your posts..."colleges making money".

    Yes, colleges have big endowments (UCLA $2 Billion - 47th in country) and have benefited tremendously from the student loan windfall. If they tapped into those endowments they could reduce college costs for all students, not just athletes. The big problem with university budgets is the bloated growth of administration officials and their budgets. One study found that the California State University system had 11,614 full-time faculty in 1973, and 12,019 in 2008. During that same time period, administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183, ending up with more administrators than faculty!

    Now, endowment money would be athletes getting paid directly from the school. Maybe you're in favor of that, but that's not the issue here. Not the CA law. We are talking about college athletic program budgets, which are supported by outside interests. And but for less than 10 programs across the country, the ADs DO NOT make a profit.

    And the NCAA isn't rolling in the dough either. NCAA gets $475 million from ESPN each year. That's a big number for sure. But there are more than 1,200 colleges that the NCAA represents. $1 Billion divided by 1000 = $1 million. How many athletic programs you think $1MM covers?

    Also, another interesting and relevant fact...in its 2016–17 fiscal year the NCAA took in $1.06 billion in revenue (not profit), over 82% of which was generated by the Division I Men's Basketball Tournament. My guess is that the revenue taken in by the Div I women's gymnastics tournament was less than the cost of a Toyota Prius (without options).
     
  12. The Outlaw

    The Outlaw SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2018
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +307 / 4
    Yeah... $50k worth of free education, every year, SCREAMS OF SLAVERY! OH THE FUCKING HUMANITYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  13. The Outlaw

    The Outlaw SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2018
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +307 / 4
    Yes, we wouldn't want college athletes pitted against one another. I'd rather they pretend to give a shit on the court and then drive their twin Bentleys to Morton's and laugh together at how fucking stupid Americans are for paying their $30M annual salaries. Because that's what they do... in case you didn't know. They don't give a shit about the fans. They don't give a shit about what the jersey says on their chests. They give a shit about how long they can play in the show because that equates to dollars. It's akin to a celebrity pretending to be a liberal. You think rich, famous people believe in liberalism? Really? Or do you grasp that they need us minions to keep paying $15 to see their shitty movies and they can't afford to piss us off?
     
  14. End of the Line

    End of the Line SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2018
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +343 / 15
    @Janie270, you are in over your head. I'm sure you mean well and want to be an advocate for the "oppressed", but you lack the thoughtfulness to fully comprehend the implications of this law and probable impact on the underprivileged. The vast majority of schools do not profit from athletics. So when you claim that schools profit off athletes (especially those like Ohashi who do nothing but lose money for UCLA), you're just wrong. Even if you just look at football, most programs still lose money. Just ask Wazzu, which is staring at $85 million in debt caused mostly by football, which could bankrupt the school.

    Your "slave owner mentality" argument also does a huge disservice to those I suspect you hope will benefit from this law, because the fact is the law is harmful overall to the underserved and underprivileged for reasons already stated. You can't seem to put a cogent analysis together in your head, let alone in writing, so you're resorting to a desperate false trope that people make when they lack the brainpower to understand and explain their position. No one is forcing anyone to accept $75k a year in benefits and a free education from UCLA or anywhere, and there is nothing about UCLA's handling of athletics that justifies comparing it to a slaveowner, let alone suggests it is exploiting student athletes. Seriously, that is just stupid.

    I'm pretty sure every single person who claims that universities and the NCAA "exploit" student athletes is someone who just doesn't value education. They think the $300K that UCLA and the State of California give to the likes of Ohashi lack value. They don't look at the opportunity to attend an elite academic institution like the Ivies or Stanford, which would otherwise be inaccessible in the absence of athletic prowess, to be a meaningful opportunity. But there's no sense debating someone who thinks a degree from Stanford (especially a free one) is the same as a degree from SDSU. There's no sense debating anyone who sees a few football players at USC getting drafted and, from that, assumes that every football player at USC is only there for football and doesn't care or receive any academic benefit from the school. There's no debating someone who thinks a free academic and athletic education isn't worth anything, but only demands more, more, more.

    The long and the short of it is, UCLA gave Ohashi $300k and she also got to continue doing something she loves for four more years at considerable financial loss to UCLA and CA, but which has no meaningful purpose or societal value whatsoever. If you ever stop looking at the $300k in public assistance she received as an entitlement, you'll realize she easily received the benefit of the deal and we taxpayers got "exploited". Maybe this law is good actually; maybe it means taxpayers can stop wasting money paying for uneven bars and mats, and can kill off this expensive sport off at the 6 remaining DI schools in CA that haven't already gotten the hint.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  15. Simisoccerfan

    Simisoccerfan GOLD

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2016
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    444
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +1,111 / 63
    This pains me to no end that I agree completely with End of the Line.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  16. mirage

    mirage GOLD

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +995 / 11
    Personally, I see the whole thing a bit of no issue.

    It is a change against the status quo and threatens NCAA stronghold but by the time CA law goes into effect, there are over 20 other states wanting something similar for their own athletes. The tide is definitely against the status quo.

    I see the monetary thing rather simplistically. Let athletes that get paid receive no scholarships or fraction thereof. In other words, the athlete lose 1:1 ratio of every dollar they make, they lose a dollar of scholarship until full scholarship goes away. Beyond that, well, good for the athlete.

    Since we're talking about endorsed merchandizes and commercials/ads, I don't see how schools lose out a significant amount of money. It is a personal endorsement only. If the argument is that because of personal endorsement ability, sponsors have no need to goto the institution, then its a classic case of splitting the existing size of the pie, rather than finding a bigger pie.

    Players come and go but school spirit and affiliations tend to stay lifetime with most adults. Just look at the professional sports and athletes. When an star athlete signs a free agent contract with another team or gets traded, do fans follow the athlete or stay with the club? Some may follow the athlete IN ADDITION TO the club they are fan of.

    The way I see it is that by letting those athletes that can make money, let them and reallocate the scholarships to others. Its not a question of revenue making or non revenue making sports issue at all. That said, I do agree from the earlier post that said vast majority of money makers will be male athletes. Not a bias, just how our society looks at athletes. Sure, there will be exceptions but as an aggrigate, it will be male dominated....

    Cheers!
     
  17. End of the Line

    End of the Line SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2018
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +343 / 15
    I guess I must be wrong then. Shoot.
     
  18. focomoso

    focomoso SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +304 / 7
    Are there no conduct standards here? Most places this should get you banned.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  19. The Outlaw

    The Outlaw SILVER ELITE

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2018
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +307 / 4
    Well, if it hurts that much, take out your tampon and walk home.
     
  20. outside!

    outside! PREMIER

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +2,257 / 40
    The ignore feature works really well for filtering out trolls.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page