Just cause it may hurt Houston doesn’t make it not the right thing to do.
1 Like
I agree, yet when they make that decision to profit off of their name/accomplishments, they should walk on without accepting the “profit off of their name/accomplishments” with a scholarship, just like all of the other students on campus . . . . .
1 Like
Never said that would be a justification. My response was to the “just want Houston to win” statement as a justification for it. An open system where boosters/whoever can openly pay people to go to schools will be worse for UH. For Ron or whoever that doesn’t understand that, they are not looking at the bigger picture.
My bigger rationale for being neutral to slightly against this is that it could irreparably harm college sports as an enterprise. By my calcs, just FBS football and D1 men’s basketball alone provides annual “income” in the form of scholarships and room and board in the neighborhood of $700 million to athletes in those sports, conservatively. When you take into account that they aren’t taxed on it, the amount gets closer to $800-$900 million. While top players being limited to education and room and board vs. someone like Saban making $9 million or whatever a year bothers me, I’m not also going to pretend like college athletics as-is isn’t beneficial to a lot of people who participate in it (noting of course that plenty of players would probably rather just have the cash than free tuition).
I think a better incremental result would be to get rid of age minimums for the NFL and NBA, and ease into this with maybe like a $10k cap or something on annual earnings per player and see how it works. Once the door is open eliminating any restrictions it’s going to be hard to close it, even if the result is not great.
1 Like
I don’t support an open system but one with rules, regulations and limitations. The NCAA has been dragging their feet on the issue for 5 years. I’ll glad that Cali has brought the topic to the forefront. Now the NCAA has to do something.
No one knows how it will turn out or affect schools like UH but if it get out if hand, I’m sure the NCAA will tighten things up. That’s what their doing with basketball now.
I don’t have such a doom and gloom view on the matter like some on this board but I know if I am a track athlete with a partial scholarship, I would love to have the opportunity to have a partime job.
I know everyone is focusing on the talented 4 or 5 athletes at top programs but there are about 300 other athletes at the school this would benefit the most.
The NCAA working group on this matter is supposed to make a report next month. Let’s see what they come up with but it is inevitable.
I am so pleased to hear that you are OK with those that have an opinion different than yours!
You must have me mixed up with someone else on this board. I am always open to differences in opinions. That’s what makes this country great.
My apologies Ron. Your post included comments from Dick Vitale (who I can’t stand) who said he “respects a different opinion”. IMO Dick Vitale is a pompous arse.
Again, my apologies to you sir.
2 Likes
It looks like this train is pulling out from the station. All aboard! South Carolina is the 4th state talking about introducing a bill similar to California’s Fair Pay to Play Act. The other 3 are California, Washington state and Colorado.
South Carolina State Senator Marlon Kimpson and Representative Justin Bamberg have announced that they intend to introduce a bill similar to California SB 206 when the South Carolina General Assembly reconvenes in January. Their proposal would allow the state’s largest schools to pay $5,000 a year in stipends to athletes in profitable sports like football and basketball. It would also allow other student-athletes who would be eligible to receive athletic scholarships benefits, but not the stipend, an opportunity to earn money from potential sponsorships and sales of their personal autograph.
In response to questions about introducing his proposed legislation, Senator Kimpson said, “The legislation passed in California is a sign of the time. The NCAA is not an amateur sports league. This is a multibillion dollar sports empire where everyone involved makes money except the players on the field who earn it.”
they should just disband the NCAA and eliminate all conferences. Schedule who you can and let the free-for-all begin.
1 Like
The ncaa and its cfp friends wanted/want to keep the money to themselves.
They did not evolve with the times. You do remember when the Olympics started opening up for professional athletes. I am against Schools paying athletes but it makes perfect sense for players to be sponsored by the brands that they choose.
We won’t get four or five stars recruits? To the contrary a brand might be inclined to sponsor an athlete to stay home in a media market like Houston.
The ncaa made their own bed. They have had plenty of times to adjust. Their legal response says it all.
2 Likes
Sure. We’ll see what happens. But I believe the NCAA was telling California not to pass their bill as-is and to work with the NCAA on coming up with something. I think the CA bill is extremely broad.
2 Likes
TJ, I bet that is exactly what’s going on. The NCAA is going to do something but they want to make sure the right restrictions are put into place. You absolutely don’t want it to be the wild wild west.
I consider government as any body of elected officials whether local, state or national.
1 Like
I agree with you Bear on this one. Vitale is an overrated know it all, with a bull horn for a pie hole. And I agree with Jim Rome on when people say “meaning no disrespect”…trust me, they are getting ready to get disrespected…
Vitale is a mouthpiece for the Bigs anyway, so I don’t care what chuckles thinks about anything.
What is the ncaa is trying to do is somehow “control” the money.
Now regarding apparel contracts. A School might have a contract with Adidas, Nike or others. Having a player being sponsored by another company than the School’s one is not new in sports. It is current with sports leagues all over the world. This “amateurish” rule is non sense and unconstitutional like the California ruling states.
1 Like
If the law passes, Utah and Washington will both have to match it or find another conference to play in . . . . .
California has always been a leader on good things !!!
That is why they are broke !!
2 Likes
With that being said, this is a pretty smart move on their part with this new bill.
- They are not starting a new program and spending millions on it.
- They are not increasing taxes to implement this bill.
- But they are gaining a possible 24,000 new tax payers (college athletes). California does have a state income tax.
- Most athletes want to earn money so it could be a win win for the athletes and California.
It’s all about money. The state wants more tax revenues, the athlete wants to be able to earn money and the NCAA wants to control the money the athletes make for them.
I’m sure in the end, all of those “wants” will be taken care of.
No, Dick…no!
SMU should be given back pay from 1989 if this is allowed.
1 Like