Jet Offensive
Collegiate Football => NCAA Football => Topic started by: Johnny English on September 30, 2019, 10:42:14 AM
-
I'm not smart enough to figure out all the ramifications of this but they have to be immense. Presumably USC, UCLA etc just got a huge recruiting advantage unless the NCAA either immediately makes a move to allow it across all of their schools, or refuses to allow California schools to participate in NCAA sanctioned competition which creates a massive legal battle. Where the hell does this go?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/sports/college-athletes-paid-california.html
-
My detailed analysis: it's good.
-
My guess? NCAA kicks off the big-derriere legal battle as suggested in the article as a stall tactic to achieve one of the following:
1) enough time for the rest of the nation to catch up to California and make an orderly transition, or
2) enough time to politicize this topic and recruit millions of Southerners against those fags in California trying to take away college footbaw.
Hoping it's the former.
-
My guess? NCAA kicks off the big-derriere legal battle as suggested in the article as a stall tactic to achieve one of the following:
1) enough time for the rest of the nation to catch up to California and make an orderly transition, or
2) enough time to politicize this topic and recruit millions of Southerners against those fags in California trying to take away college footbaw.
Hoping it's the former.
PAYING COLLEGE ATHLETES IS DISRESPECTFUL TO THE TROOPS
THEY FOUGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO GET A CONCUSSION PLAYING SPECIAL TEAMS FOR THE FRESNO STATE BULLDOGS
-
1. College athletes in revenue sports deserve to be paid more than simply tuition.
2. This could absolutely create an unlevel playing field, which is a valid concern for people who care about the future of major college sports.
-
- Are all schools paying the same compensation?
- Are all sports funded the same?
- Are Male/Female teams funded the same?
- Are the star recruits paid the same as walk ons?
-
Some things will get better, some worse
/Boldprediction
-
- Are all schools paying the same compensation?
- Are all sports funded the same?
- Are Male/Female teams funded the same?
- Are the star recruits paid the same as walk ons?
I don't believe that the proposal is that schools will pay any compensation, rather that players will be allowed to profit from their own likeness and profile. Which is an answer to all of your questions.
-
I don't believe that the proposal is that schools will pay any compensation, rather that players will be allowed to profit from their own likeness and profile. Which is an answer to all of your questions.
That I have no problem with. Don’t like how that will become part of the recruiting process though.
-
Rutgers is already over the cap. I've had it with this excrement.
-
That I have no problem with. Don’t like how that will become part of the recruiting process though.
I agree, I think it will encourage some high quality but not elite players to go to big schools where they can get more appearance money at the potential cost of reps; they'll essentially be hurting their draft stock in order to chase early money. But all that will do is open up opportunities for other players at mid majors to get more reps and show what they can do, and TBH the recruitment process seems to be pretty lopsided right now anyway.
My biggest concern is that it will create opportunities for some schools (yes, Oregon, you) to use their corporate partnerships to create impossibly lucrative opportunities for stars.
-
I've always been against college players getting paid to play. Tuition is a valuable asset. It's no one's business/problem if a collegiate athlete has no "need" for school or actual desire for the education. If you get a free or partial ride, you're being compensated. I doubt student-athletes complain when they suffer career-ending injuries and have that degree to fall back on.
That said, I've always thought it was utterly ridiculous that players couldn't profit from their likeness/stardom/etc. If an "average" college student writes a book and it goes bestseller, no one tells them they can't collect the profits.
To me, letting athletes profit from their status is the right thing to do.
-
I've always been against college players getting paid to play. Tuition is a valuable asset. It's no one's business/problem if a collegiate athlete has no "need" for school or actual desire for the education. If you get a free or partial ride, you're being compensated. I doubt student-athletes complain when they suffer career-ending injuries and have that degree to fall back on.
That said, I've always thought it was utterly ridiculous that players couldn't profit from their likeness/stardom/etc. If an "average" college student writes a book and it goes bestseller, no one tells them they can't collect the profits.
To me, letting athletes profit from their status is the right thing to do.
It's definitely the right thing to do.
The bottom line is that even if you view the scholarship as a form of payment (and in some ways it is), it pales in comparison to the amount of money that CFB and CBB make for some of these schools. The players should get a bigger cut of it.
Of course, once you start doing that, the whole landscape of college sports changes.
-
Rutgers is already over the cap. I've had it with this excrement.
All the honks.
-
When the slaves on the plantation are getting too uppity
https://twitter.com/SenatorBurr/status/1189262863552208896?s=09
-
burr must be a virginia fan
-
UNLV was 30 years ahead of its time.
-
When the slaves on the plantation are getting too uppity
https://twitter.com/SenatorBurr/status/1189262863552208896?s=09
I dont understand.
Does he get off at taking money from teenagers?
Is he so daft that he thinks twitter will see him as a financial justice warrior?
Its hilariously confusing.