BTW, how does this California bill align with Title IX requirements? If the male athletes are compensated for their likeness, wouldn't female athletes be required to be equally compensated? For example, let's say this leads to EA releasing a new college football game and all D1 football players in the game are given a check. Wouldn't there need to be a equal amount allocated to female athletes to meet the Title IX requirements?
NCAA reacts to california athlete compensation bill
- Thread starter BoxsterCy
- Start date
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,113
- 29,325
- 113
Yes? I mean, is this a trick question?
Have I not been clear about my position?
Yes, I think athletes should be able to shop their services around and find the best fit for them. I'd love to introduce the free market into the process. The result wouldn't be any more lopsided than the system we've already got.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,113
- 29,325
- 113
No, it wouldn't be the university giving them the money, so Title IX wouldn't apply.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,113
- 29,325
- 113
Their very existence keeps out competition. How many NFL players since the turn of the century haven't played for a team under the NCAA's purview? Is it more than a handful? The NCAA controls virtually the only path to the NFL. They have a monopoly on it. That's not even debatable. It's a fact.
I always love the free market defenses of America’s most communist industry.
Compared to what a free market would look like, the athletes (as a group, not necessarily every individual) are underpaid and coaches/administrators are over-paid. That is why this issue is not going to go away.
Compared to what a free market would look like, the athletes (as a group, not necessarily every individual) are underpaid and coaches/administrators are over-paid. That is why this issue is not going to go away.
College football players really should be looked at as more of an internship. Except the players can't go work in the professional business because of obvious competitive reasons. They'd be in serious danger and would affect the outcomes so they wouldn't play.
I'm not sure communist is the right term but the idea is right. There aren't many free markets left in America, this just happens to be one of the few completely monopolized and government hybridized industries out there.
But a monopoly does not mean they actively stamp out competition. There are barriers that prevent competitors from entering the market, but those are not caused by the NCAA.
For example, did the NCAA do anything to prevent the success of the AAF? Did the NFL?
Actively? To the best of my knowledge, no. But the eligibility rules of the NCAA and NFL work to prevent a second league from gaining a foothold. Because leagues like the AAF cannot use college players, they are forced to rely on fringe NFL players and cast-offs. That means an inferior product, and a larger hurdle to establishing a brand and enough revenue to continue operations.
Meanwhile, college players that may have been eligible for a secondary/minor league, but not the NFL (age rule), won't realistically consider a secondary league like the AAF if it risks any potential future they may have in football. First, there is the instability inherent in an upstart league. As we saw with the AAF, a league like this can easily fold in under a season. Secondly, an 18- or 19-year old may be talented enough, and mature enough to play professionally, but playing for the new league would make them ineligible for college football. That means that if the league should shutdown, they would be ineligible to play at the college level.
The AAF actually used the NFL’s eligibility rules, so 18 and 19 year olds weren’t eligible. Last I read, the XFL wouldn’t be following suit.
NCAA members get a leg up on any potential competition by claiming that their amateur model precludes them from having to follow any labor laws that a competitor would be subject to.
I don’t hate the idea of amateurism, but the arguments for it aren’t holding a lot of weight in practice. The primary beneficiaries seem to be the basketball/ football coaches who make more than the value of scholarships handed out to their entire teams. Some money is flowing to other sports or back to the universities, but not so much that the athletes should have to give up rights that anyone on this forum takes for granted in our careers. I haven’t heard a very compelling argument for why the amateur model should continue to exist in its current form.
That's what you got out of the post? You do understand what amateur athletics are, right? Players can go pro instead of going to college if they don't feel like they are being adequately compensated for their time, R.J. Hampton is proof. If that is a "ridiculous argument" let's hear yours for why college shouldn't be amateur sports. Does this mean we have to start paying softball players and wrestlers? They put in long hours too, shouldn't they get paid? The opportunities for corruption if you allow arbitrary pay scales in college is huge. Do you really think that any Big 12 team will be able to compete with Adidas' pro team in Lawrence when the rest of the league is getting tier 3,4, or 5 of their shoe companies' player allocations?
I just don't understand why I don't see all of this outrage for the poor unpaid interns of the world who aren't even getting free educations.
I guess I disagree with the notion that the situation couldn't be any more lopsided than it already is. Schools like Texas, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State with lots of oil money will be able to offer huge sales of merchandise to "fans" (read - filthy rich alumni.)
If their alumni-funded facilities give them a leg up in recruiting now, imagine the additional advantage from legal cash payments.
If those softball players can make money from someone willing to pay them, sure. That’s fine. The opportunity for corruption is already happening and the ncaa isn’t doing **** about it, so might as well let the rest of them do it legally so the kids aren’t getting in trouble for it.
An unpaid internship is what you are making the comparison to? How is that remotely similar?
I thought everyone wanted the rich to disperse their money? Isn’t this a great way to do that?
What? Great logic, If someone isn't following the rules let's just throw the rules out. How about if we find a way to enforce the rules instead? Nah, That makes too much sense.
Rules? Like not letting someone make money when they can make money? You like that rule? That makes sense. Great logic.
So they can make everyone else around them millions but they can’t? And for what reason?
