- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NCAA says California schools could be banned from championships if bill isn't dropped
Posted on 6/24/19 at 3:25 pm to baldona
Posted on 6/24/19 at 3:25 pm to baldona
quote:
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.
Exactly. I will use another exanple to further the point we are both making. Let's say a kid wants to be a computer scientist. I know plenty of people who got a very low paying Jr. analyst job almost out of high school. They took low pay because they did not have a formal education, which is what most employers are looking for. Then on the other hand, you have people who went to college and got a degree for CS. Out of college they made much more than the guy with no degree. Both of said people could eventually make the same pay towards the end of their careers. The opportunity is there, each just chose their own path to get there.
0
Posted on 6/24/19 at 3:27 pm to QuackAttack716
quote:they could just do the other sports like they do baseball
quote:
NCAA says California schools could be banned from championships if bill isn't dropped
quote:
In a letter to the chairs of two State Assembly committees last week, NCAA President Mark Emmert implied that if the bill becomes law as it is written, California schools could face the prospect of being prohibited from participating in NCAA championships. That includes 23 NCAA Division I schools, four of which are in the Pac-12 Conference
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.
death of the ncaa
Posted on 6/24/19 at 6:00 pm to CarolinaGamecock99
Damn California is going to miss out on all those water polo and chess national championships.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 6:04 pm to bigberg2000
quote:
Its ridiculous that kids cant make money off of their name.
They can.
They just can't do it and be eligible to play in the NCAA...as per the voluntary agreement they enter into when they choose to play in the NCAA.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 6:06 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
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.
This is obvious to anyone who has thought about this for more than 10 seconds.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 6:28 pm to CarolinaGamecock99
I don’t know what’s a more ridiculous thought at this point:
The idiotic NCAA governing the paying of players
Or
Billion dollar industries still using the “college degree” excuse to not pay athletes and getting away with it because no one can compete with their infrastructure already in place.
As a fan judging purely by what benefits my sport and team the most, I’m all for free scouting at the level of competition the NCAA provides and not having to gamble on 18 year old kids out of high school. I’m all for them having a “maturity buffer” which allows them to grow up on their own before being handed millions of dollars. As an observer, the whole thing just seems ridiculous.
ETA: I would also argue that “maturity buffer” would give them a better shot at being successful long term financially.
The idiotic NCAA governing the paying of players
Or
Billion dollar industries still using the “college degree” excuse to not pay athletes and getting away with it because no one can compete with their infrastructure already in place.
As a fan judging purely by what benefits my sport and team the most, I’m all for free scouting at the level of competition the NCAA provides and not having to gamble on 18 year old kids out of high school. I’m all for them having a “maturity buffer” which allows them to grow up on their own before being handed millions of dollars. As an observer, the whole thing just seems ridiculous.
ETA: I would also argue that “maturity buffer” would give them a better shot at being successful long term financially.
This post was edited on 6/24/19 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:02 pm to TH03
quote:
quote:
NCAA says California schools could be banned from championships if bill isn't dropped
They've self banned for awhile now in football and basketball
Does not compute.
Football doesn't have an NCAA Champion. They have a MNC sponsored by Dr. Pepper.
The NCAA could never exclude a California school from the CFB playoff.
This post was edited on 6/24/19 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:10 pm to baldona
quote:good. We dont need to waste time watching the shite conferences
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
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:16 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Does not compute.
Football doesn't have an NCAA Champion. They have a MNC sponsored by Dr. Pepper.
The NCAA could never exclude a California school from the CFB playoff.
It's a joke. Lighten up on the autism.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:25 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Ever heard of free market economics before?
I haven't, but I'm interested in learning about economics. Could you please explain your understandings of free market economics to me?
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:34 pm to moneyg
quote:
They just can't do it and be eligible to play in the NCAA...as per the voluntary agreement they enter into when they choose to play in the NCAA.
How voluntary is it really when the NCAA is a monopoly and the NFL and NBA won't let you enter the league straight out of high school?
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:41 pm to Bestbank Tiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/7/23 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:45 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
good. We dont need to waste time watching the shite conferences
I agree, for a top division. But the idea that the Tulane’s and Troy and Southern Miss’s and UCF’s could pay players is laughable. They can’t. Not compared to places like the SEC and other top 30 schools.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:50 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
How voluntary is it really when the NCAA is a monopoly and the NFL and NBA won't let you enter the league straight out of high school?
Wake up to reality Bruh. How many 18-19 year olds can compete with 25 year old nfl players?
Furthermore, you guys are failing to realize that there are 85 scholarship players PER school. Sure, maybe 5-10 deserve to be paid. What about the other 75? You think you can pay your All-sec athlete $50,000/ year and pay your 18 year old freshmen $5,000/ year and those immature freshmen can take it?
Nba and basketball you have maybe 100 players TOTAL in the country that deserve to be paid. There are like 4,000 D1 basketball players on scholly.
Again, I’m not against paying some players but the idea we should pay them all is laughable. The idea that paying those that actually deserve it will make the ncaa better is laughable. Paying them complicates matters to so many degrees it will never work.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:55 pm to baldona
quote:
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.
Well, there are only 31 programs with a national championship in football since the beginning of the poll era. That 32 number isn't really all that different from the norm.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:56 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
good. We dont need to waste time watching the shite conferences
Eliminate the smaller conferences and college football dies.
Right now a below average P5 team can go 8-4 be scheduling small schools. Take away small schools and many P5 teams are going to have much worse records.
Attendance will drop if fans start seeing their teams go 5-7, 6-6 every year
Posted on 6/24/19 at 7:57 pm to baldona
quote:
Again, I’m not against paying some players but the idea we should pay them all is laughable. The idea that paying those that actually deserve it will make the ncaa better is laughable. Paying them complicates matters to so many degrees it will never work.
It really doesn't. This proposal isn't saying the school should pay them. It's allowing outside sources to.
Who gets paid? Whoever the market is there for. This approach also keeps it Title IX safe.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 8:03 pm to Rep520
quote:
Who gets paid? Whoever the market is there for.
It won’t be about market. It will only be about whoever has the richest donors to buy top recruits to their school. Would be a horrible thing for NCAA
Posted on 6/24/19 at 8:11 pm to Olric
quote:No, he doesn’t.
Except he does
quote:Thats an issue between he and the professional leagues, not the NCAA. Pretty simple.
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.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 9:07 pm to ProfFrink
quote:
It will only be about whoever has the richest donors to buy top recruits to their school
Is that really different from how it works now?
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News