re: NCAA says California schools could be banned from championships if bill isn't dropped

quote:

---

So what? Why should he have to provide his talents for below market value? If someone is willing to pay him 500k to go to their school, so be it

---

Amen. This is the basic problem with the NCAA prohibition. People are willing to pay and players are willing to be paid.

There's only so long you can stand in the way of the natural market forces.

quote:

---

They have to know the NCAA wouldn't go for this, so I wonder if their endgame is to pass the bill knowing its going to get challenged in court by the NCAA, PAC-12 and member schools in California with the state hoping that it eventually gets to the US Supreme Court and gets a ruling that changes everything nationwide for the NCAA.

---

this.

So what?

quote:

---

If the NCAA tries this, it will go all the way to SCOTUS and result in the death of the NCAA. They're not winning that.

---

disagree, even the liberal 9th court ruled

quote:

---

That decision held that the rules governing college athletics would be better developed outside the courtroom, including rules around the education-related support that schools provide.

---

quote:

---

Its ridiculous that kids cant make money off of their name.

---

Its even more ridiculous that the school are allowed to make money off their names, in return for a "free" education.

quote:

---

He doesn’t have to.

---

Except he does, because professional leagues have determined arbitrary age requirements to join their leagues and there are no viable alternatives for him before he reaches the arbitrary age limit.

I'm guessing your argument is that he could choose to just not play college athletics, and forgo the chance to showcase his skills at the amateur level. To which, I would say what purpose does that serve? His choices are play for less than what the market dictates or do not play at all. I think if any of us were faced with the same conundrum, we would be screaming foul also.

quote:

---

I'll play devil's advocate.

If NCAA allows student athletes to profit off their name while still maintaining NCAA eligibility, its ripe for abuse and its going to make the gap between the top tier programs and everyone else even bigger.

School wants a big time recruit? Now a booster can offer them big bucks and not even have to try and hide it. They can just offer the money in exchange for a few commercials or personal appearance at the booster's business, contingent on the player signing with that school. Obviously schools with top tier programs will have more wealthy boosters willing to do such a thing, so its a huge advantage in recruiting on top of all their existing advantages.

If it happens then the NCAA might as well split Divison 1 for basketball and football to put Power 5 conferences in their own division...and maybe for baseball too.

---

Ever heard of free market economics before?

As far as the gap goes... The Durham Bulls play in a different division than the NY Yankees so why can't South Central Iowa State play in a different Division than Georgia?

Well, it's not like they actually compete for championships.

quote:

---

None of these athletes have to go to college. They can all just take 2-3 years off and then enter the draft.

---

This. Or, they can go overseas. Or they can go play in other leagues. Etc.

If you are ruling to pay Athletes, then you would be ruling to have a league of maybe 32 teams for football and probably less for basketball and baseball.

How many schools could actually compete in basketball if they were paid? I'd say 8-10 maybe. All it takes is 5 players.

Football, you'd have maybe 32 teams.

ALL the talent would filter to the top schools with the top programs.

Acting like there won't be an NCAA anymore is laughable. There will always be college sports programs with amateurs. There will just be some schools that are no longer NCAA that also pay their players.