Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Discuss anything and everything relating to Bobcat Football here.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

User avatar
codecat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2656
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: Laurel

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by codecat » Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:54 am

91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:53 am
BleedingBLue wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:35 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:11 am
I'm not sure I understand who exactly is getting rich off college football. Certainly the universities make money, and at the P5 level they make a lot of it. They also have hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities.
The NCAA makes money too, but where does that money go?
That's really a great question. Maybe somebody needs to ask Mark Emmert that question. A little transparency might be very good in this situation. I'm sure it will never happen, but what if a percentage of NCAA profits were split evenly between teams at each division based on profitability? Like professional CBAs in a sense. That money could go towards "payments" to each athlete on each team, in equal amounts regardless of sport. Scholarships could stay in place to pay for education, room & board etc. On top of that, companies like EA sports could pay each athlete from any team they feature on a game a one time fee each year that their character is put into a new game, and they are then allowed to use real names as well.
I'm pretty sure the NCAA does redistribute most of the money they receive back to the universities. But I have no idea how that's done exactly. Perhaps it's kept under wraps for similar reasons listed here - some universities will cry that it's not fair.
Great points guys - up to this point, i was thinking everyone on here was thinking it was ok to do anything they wanted, just because somebody is rich (guess that's a pretty common attitude among some generations).

I think that we sometimes forget that Both the Universities and the NCAA government organizations, the Universities in a true sense, and the NCAA as a quasi- government entity formed by government entities - therefor it they are supposedly "we the people". Then we are surprised there is corruption where in these entities where there is no competition for position?

I wonder if the volleyball, golf, cross country, track, ski, basketball, tennis, and golf teams realize they are so rich, and come to think of it, i didn't realize that i was either. The California law is designed to place more more government in the mix to fix the government, which is the problem in the first place.


London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, Bye-Bye Fauci!

User avatar
kennethnoisewater
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3603
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:41 pm
Location: Kalispell, MT

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by kennethnoisewater » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:05 am

onceacat wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:35 pm
kennethnoisewater wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:10 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:11 am
I'm not sure I understand who exactly is getting rich off college football. Certainly the universities make money, and at the P5 level they make a lot of it. They also have hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities.
The NCAA makes money too, but where does that money go?
I was going to say something about this in my post but it got too long, haha. I think there are a handful of people getting rich, like Nick Saban, Dabo Sweeney, maybe some TV execs, but I don't have a problem with that. If somebody's that good at what they do, they deserve to be paid well. If it was easy we'd all do it. There is a ton of money that goes to the universities, and that money is spent lavishly on recruiting, facilities, and obviously on other sports that don't make money or actually lose money. But I really believe that money is spent on students, it's just not given to students. Programs, when abiding by NCAA rules, are trying to find ways to give the best "stuff" to student-athletes to attract them to their university. Locker rooms are for the players. Training facilities are for the players. Stadiums are for the players as well as the fans. But beyond coaches' salaries, locker rooms, training facilities, and stadiums, is there really a bunch of money going through back channels and lining the pockets of anybody? I don't know the answer to that and if there is, I do believe there's something that needs to be exposed.
I think telling a kid who has life altering injuries “you got paid with a nice locker room” while a whole host of executives become multi millionaires is more than a little disingenuous.

Why not just dispense with the NCAA’s pretense of giving a rats ass about anything other than the money & just acknowledge that football & mens BB is a farm system for the pros?

I don’t know about you, but I still loved minor league baseball & nobody is making them pretend to care about school.
I'd agree that college athletics at the highest level aren't about education, and the one-and-done rule in college basketball makes it an even bigger joke. You take the value of a scholarship for five years compared to what a few execs are making (I don't know the number so I'm not prepared to agree it's a "whole host"), and the athletes at Alabama, Clemson, etc. are underpaid. But for the VAST majority of college athletes, there is a ton of value in a scholarship. I'm tired of people acting like that's got no value and then lamenting the cost of education and the student loan epidemic in this country. People act like it's criminal that athletes only get a scholarship, but I still have injuries from high school sports and I don't have any hard feelings toward anybody for that. I understand that nobody was getting rich off Bigfork High School sports, but there was an understanding that injuries were just part of doing what you wanted to do.

You make it sound like all that money that's injected into college athletics goes to some fat-cat execs. I'm not saying somebody's not getting rich, but I'd need to be shown who is getting rich. I think universities are getting rich, not many individuals. I think the reality is that it's somewhere in between what you think and what I think.


Image

User avatar
wbtfg
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 13621
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by wbtfg » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:23 am

I see Kansas brought in snoop dogg to perform at their opening practice event. Snoop brought pole dancers and used a money gun to shoot cash into the crowd. I hear it was lit.



Cat Grad
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7463
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:05 am

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by Cat Grad » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:35 am

Get real please! We participate, that's all. There will be Full Cost of Attendance and Stipends offered to our student-athletes when there is a snowstorm in Miami, Florida on the Fourth of July. That our fanbase is even entering in this discussion is ludicrous as we can't even keep our outstanding track and field athletes in-state and I have more than a passing interest in nonrevenue sports. Both North Dakota schools now offer their athletes FCOA and Stipends (albeit minor compared to the Power 5 and a few Group of 5 schools). Our football team is competing against schools (by our Board of Regents choice) that their entire season attendance does not match one game at Michigan or Tennessee.

Wonder why kids choose to go to a school such as Alabama? This is what they're competing for: https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... elections/



ghobs95
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by ghobs95 » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:36 am

codecat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:54 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:53 am
BleedingBLue wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:35 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:11 am
I'm not sure I understand who exactly is getting rich off college football. Certainly the universities make money, and at the P5 level they make a lot of it. They also have hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities.
The NCAA makes money too, but where does that money go?
That's really a great question. Maybe somebody needs to ask Mark Emmert that question. A little transparency might be very good in this situation. I'm sure it will never happen, but what if a percentage of NCAA profits were split evenly between teams at each division based on profitability? Like professional CBAs in a sense. That money could go towards "payments" to each athlete on each team, in equal amounts regardless of sport. Scholarships could stay in place to pay for education, room & board etc. On top of that, companies like EA sports could pay each athlete from any team they feature on a game a one time fee each year that their character is put into a new game, and they are then allowed to use real names as well.
I'm pretty sure the NCAA does redistribute most of the money they receive back to the universities. But I have no idea how that's done exactly. Perhaps it's kept under wraps for similar reasons listed here - some universities will cry that it's not fair.
Great points guys - up to this point, i was thinking everyone on here was thinking it was ok to do anything they wanted, just because somebody is rich (guess that's a pretty common attitude among some generations).

I think that we sometimes forget that Both the Universities and the NCAA government organizations, the Universities in a true sense, and the NCAA as a quasi- government entity formed by government entities - therefor it they are supposedly "we the people". Then we are surprised there is corruption where in these entities where there is no competition for position?

I wonder if the volleyball, golf, cross country, track, ski, basketball, tennis, and golf teams realize they are so rich, and come to think of it, i didn't realize that i was either. The California law is designed to place more more government in the mix to fix the government, which is the problem in the first place.
I don't see the California law being a "more government" situation at all, if anything it's the opposite. This is about taking one power out of the NCAA's jurisdiction and handing it directly to the players. Is it easy to see the potential for abuse in recruiting and whatnot? Of course. But I don't think for a second that it outweighs the benefit to the kids.

2 years ago Davis De La Haye lost his NCAA eligibility over his YouTube channel where he made a small amount of money from allowing youtube advertisements. A couple years before that, Johnny Manziel was suspended for selling autographs.

I don't think it's even remotely a question of whether a scholarship is "enough." Most student-atheletes would be thrilled with that, especially those that aren't receiving assistance at all or are only on a partial. But if anyone is in favor of a less government approach, I don't see how it would be possible to argue against Ressler Motors being allowed to pay Troy to appear in a TV commercial, or Tyler Hall to sell hot tubs. If the coaches are allowed to do it, why shouldn't the players? Every college football player I've known personally would be ecstatic to play the NCAA football video game with their own name and face in it. And if that comes with a $100 check to every guy on the team, who is that hurting?



User avatar
codecat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2656
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: Laurel

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by codecat » Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:42 pm

ghobs95 wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:36 am
codecat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:54 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:53 am
BleedingBLue wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:35 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:11 am
I'm not sure I understand who exactly is getting rich off college football. Certainly the universities make money, and at the P5 level they make a lot of it. They also have hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities.
The NCAA makes money too, but where does that money go?
That's really a great question. Maybe somebody needs to ask Mark Emmert that question. A little transparency might be very good in this situation. I'm sure it will never happen, but what if a percentage of NCAA profits were split evenly between teams at each division based on profitability? Like professional CBAs in a sense. That money could go towards "payments" to each athlete on each team, in equal amounts regardless of sport. Scholarships could stay in place to pay for education, room & board etc. On top of that, companies like EA sports could pay each athlete from any team they feature on a game a one time fee each year that their character is put into a new game, and they are then allowed to use real names as well.
I'm pretty sure the NCAA does redistribute most of the money they receive back to the universities. But I have no idea how that's done exactly. Perhaps it's kept under wraps for similar reasons listed here - some universities will cry that it's not fair.
Great points guys - up to this point, i was thinking everyone on here was thinking it was ok to do anything they wanted, just because somebody is rich (guess that's a pretty common attitude among some generations).

I think that we sometimes forget that Both the Universities and the NCAA government organizations, the Universities in a true sense, and the NCAA as a quasi- government entity formed by government entities - therefor it they are supposedly "we the people". Then we are surprised there is corruption where in these entities where there is no competition for position?

I wonder if the volleyball, golf, cross country, track, ski, basketball, tennis, and golf teams realize they are so rich, and come to think of it, i didn't realize that i was either. The California law is designed to place more more government in the mix to fix the government, which is the problem in the first place.
I don't see the California law being a "more government" situation at all, if anything it's the opposite. This is about taking one power out of the NCAA's jurisdiction and handing it directly to the players. Is it easy to see the potential for abuse in recruiting and whatnot? Of course. But I don't think for a second that it outweighs the benefit to the kids.

2 years ago Davis De La Haye lost his NCAA eligibility over his YouTube channel where he made a small amount of money from allowing youtube advertisements. A couple years before that, Johnny Manziel was suspended for selling autographs.

I don't think it's even remotely a question of whether a scholarship is "enough." Most student-atheletes would be thrilled with that, especially those that aren't receiving assistance at all or are only on a partial. But if anyone is in favor of a less government approach, I don't see how it would be possible to argue against Ressler Motors being allowed to pay Troy to appear in a TV commercial, or Tyler Hall to sell hot tubs. If the coaches are allowed to do it, why shouldn't the players? Every college football player I've known personally would be ecstatic to play the NCAA football video game with their own name and face in it. And if that comes with a $100 check to every guy on the team, who is that hurting?
I see your point but have to respectfully disagree. I see the this law as a government entity overriding the will of an association of Universities called the NCAA. Furthermore, it threatens the amateur status of the game at this level which has the intent of preserving the game. I have to ask what California's real motive is?


London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, Bye-Bye Fauci!

onceacat
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3615
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:35 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by onceacat » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:09 pm

codecat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:42 pm
ghobs95 wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:36 am
codecat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:54 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:53 am
BleedingBLue wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:35 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:11 am
I'm not sure I understand who exactly is getting rich off college football. Certainly the universities make money, and at the P5 level they make a lot of it. They also have hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities.
The NCAA makes money too, but where does that money go?
That's really a great question. Maybe somebody needs to ask Mark Emmert that question. A little transparency might be very good in this situation. I'm sure it will never happen, but what if a percentage of NCAA profits were split evenly between teams at each division based on profitability? Like professional CBAs in a sense. That money could go towards "payments" to each athlete on each team, in equal amounts regardless of sport. Scholarships could stay in place to pay for education, room & board etc. On top of that, companies like EA sports could pay each athlete from any team they feature on a game a one time fee each year that their character is put into a new game, and they are then allowed to use real names as well.
I'm pretty sure the NCAA does redistribute most of the money they receive back to the universities. But I have no idea how that's done exactly. Perhaps it's kept under wraps for similar reasons listed here - some universities will cry that it's not fair.
Great points guys - up to this point, i was thinking everyone on here was thinking it was ok to do anything they wanted, just because somebody is rich (guess that's a pretty common attitude among some generations).

I think that we sometimes forget that Both the Universities and the NCAA government organizations, the Universities in a true sense, and the NCAA as a quasi- government entity formed by government entities - therefor it they are supposedly "we the people". Then we are surprised there is corruption where in these entities where there is no competition for position?

I wonder if the volleyball, golf, cross country, track, ski, basketball, tennis, and golf teams realize they are so rich, and come to think of it, i didn't realize that i was either. The California law is designed to place more more government in the mix to fix the government, which is the problem in the first place.
I don't see the California law being a "more government" situation at all, if anything it's the opposite. This is about taking one power out of the NCAA's jurisdiction and handing it directly to the players. Is it easy to see the potential for abuse in recruiting and whatnot? Of course. But I don't think for a second that it outweighs the benefit to the kids.

2 years ago Davis De La Haye lost his NCAA eligibility over his YouTube channel where he made a small amount of money from allowing youtube advertisements. A couple years before that, Johnny Manziel was suspended for selling autographs.

I don't think it's even remotely a question of whether a scholarship is "enough." Most student-atheletes would be thrilled with that, especially those that aren't receiving assistance at all or are only on a partial. But if anyone is in favor of a less government approach, I don't see how it would be possible to argue against Ressler Motors being allowed to pay Troy to appear in a TV commercial, or Tyler Hall to sell hot tubs. If the coaches are allowed to do it, why shouldn't the players? Every college football player I've known personally would be ecstatic to play the NCAA football video game with their own name and face in it. And if that comes with a $100 check to every guy on the team, who is that hurting?
I see your point but have to respectfully disagree. I see the this law as a government entity overriding the will of an association of Universities called the NCAA. Furthermore, it threatens the amateur status of the game at this level which has the intent of preserving the game. I have to ask what California's real motive is?
Overriding the will of an association is also known as 'trust busting' or anti-cartel legislation. Prohibiting corporations (even non-profit ones) from conspiring to limit competition is one of the most basic tasks of a government in a free market system. That goes straight back to Adam Smith himself.



User avatar
codecat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2656
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: Laurel

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by codecat » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:06 pm

onceacat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:09 pm
codecat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:42 pm
ghobs95 wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:36 am
codecat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:54 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:53 am
BleedingBLue wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:35 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:11 am
I'm not sure I understand who exactly is getting rich off college football. Certainly the universities make money, and at the P5 level they make a lot of it. They also have hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities.
The NCAA makes money too, but where does that money go?
That's really a great question. Maybe somebody needs to ask Mark Emmert that question. A little transparency might be very good in this situation. I'm sure it will never happen, but what if a percentage of NCAA profits were split evenly between teams at each division based on profitability? Like professional CBAs in a sense. That money could go towards "payments" to each athlete on each team, in equal amounts regardless of sport. Scholarships could stay in place to pay for education, room & board etc. On top of that, companies like EA sports could pay each athlete from any team they feature on a game a one time fee each year that their character is put into a new game, and they are then allowed to use real names as well.
I'm pretty sure the NCAA does redistribute most of the money they receive back to the universities. But I have no idea how that's done exactly. Perhaps it's kept under wraps for similar reasons listed here - some universities will cry that it's not fair.
Great points guys - up to this point, i was thinking everyone on here was thinking it was ok to do anything they wanted, just because somebody is rich (guess that's a pretty common attitude among some generations).

I think that we sometimes forget that Both the Universities and the NCAA government organizations, the Universities in a true sense, and the NCAA as a quasi- government entity formed by government entities - therefor it they are supposedly "we the people". Then we are surprised there is corruption where in these entities where there is no competition for position?

I wonder if the volleyball, golf, cross country, track, ski, basketball, tennis, and golf teams realize they are so rich, and come to think of it, i didn't realize that i was either. The California law is designed to place more more government in the mix to fix the government, which is the problem in the first place.
I don't see the California law being a "more government" situation at all, if anything it's the opposite. This is about taking one power out of the NCAA's jurisdiction and handing it directly to the players. Is it easy to see the potential for abuse in recruiting and whatnot? Of course. But I don't think for a second that it outweighs the benefit to the kids.

2 years ago Davis De La Haye lost his NCAA eligibility over his YouTube channel where he made a small amount of money from allowing youtube advertisements. A couple years before that, Johnny Manziel was suspended for selling autographs.

I don't think it's even remotely a question of whether a scholarship is "enough." Most student-atheletes would be thrilled with that, especially those that aren't receiving assistance at all or are only on a partial. But if anyone is in favor of a less government approach, I don't see how it would be possible to argue against Ressler Motors being allowed to pay Troy to appear in a TV commercial, or Tyler Hall to sell hot tubs. If the coaches are allowed to do it, why shouldn't the players? Every college football player I've known personally would be ecstatic to play the NCAA football video game with their own name and face in it. And if that comes with a $100 check to every guy on the team, who is that hurting?
I see your point but have to respectfully disagree. I see the this law as a government entity overriding the will of an association of Universities called the NCAA. Furthermore, it threatens the amateur status of the game at this level which has the intent of preserving the game. I have to ask what California's real motive is?
Overriding the will of an association is also known as 'trust busting' or anti-cartel legislation. Prohibiting corporations (even non-profit ones) from conspiring to limit competition is one of the most basic tasks of a government in a free market system. That goes straight back to Adam Smith himself.
I had to chuckle that you would use the most used/publicised and controlling of all the press "catch words" since 2016 - "conspiring". My view is that California has taken yet another divisive action, with the larger intent on ruining the amateur status of the game to break down yet another large organized group of people, and are selling it as "fairness".

With that, my last word on the topic will be that California has no moral high-ground to stand on considering their deliberate action cooperating with the Mexican cartels in human trafficking, drug smuggling, importing u13 gang members, openly defying the laws of our land by opening the boarder for the sole purpose of importing/buying votes, and in the process hobbling our country in the primary obligation of the executive branch which is to protect the citizens of the country. On the surface their actions may seem fair, competitive, and even nobel but to me they have proven an age old flaw in human nature - to hide a bad motive behind a good one, and with their control of the mainstream press, they are getting away with it.


London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, Bye-Bye Fauci!

ghobs95
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by ghobs95 » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:14 pm

codecat wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:06 pm
onceacat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:09 pm
codecat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:42 pm
ghobs95 wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:36 am
codecat wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:54 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:53 am
BleedingBLue wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:35 am
91catAlum wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:11 am
I'm not sure I understand who exactly is getting rich off college football. Certainly the universities make money, and at the P5 level they make a lot of it. They also have hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities.
The NCAA makes money too, but where does that money go?
That's really a great question. Maybe somebody needs to ask Mark Emmert that question. A little transparency might be very good in this situation. I'm sure it will never happen, but what if a percentage of NCAA profits were split evenly between teams at each division based on profitability? Like professional CBAs in a sense. That money could go towards "payments" to each athlete on each team, in equal amounts regardless of sport. Scholarships could stay in place to pay for education, room & board etc. On top of that, companies like EA sports could pay each athlete from any team they feature on a game a one time fee each year that their character is put into a new game, and they are then allowed to use real names as well.
I'm pretty sure the NCAA does redistribute most of the money they receive back to the universities. But I have no idea how that's done exactly. Perhaps it's kept under wraps for similar reasons listed here - some universities will cry that it's not fair.
Great points guys - up to this point, i was thinking everyone on here was thinking it was ok to do anything they wanted, just because somebody is rich (guess that's a pretty common attitude among some generations).

I think that we sometimes forget that Both the Universities and the NCAA government organizations, the Universities in a true sense, and the NCAA as a quasi- government entity formed by government entities - therefor it they are supposedly "we the people". Then we are surprised there is corruption where in these entities where there is no competition for position?

I wonder if the volleyball, golf, cross country, track, ski, basketball, tennis, and golf teams realize they are so rich, and come to think of it, i didn't realize that i was either. The California law is designed to place more more government in the mix to fix the government, which is the problem in the first place.
I don't see the California law being a "more government" situation at all, if anything it's the opposite. This is about taking one power out of the NCAA's jurisdiction and handing it directly to the players. Is it easy to see the potential for abuse in recruiting and whatnot? Of course. But I don't think for a second that it outweighs the benefit to the kids.

2 years ago Davis De La Haye lost his NCAA eligibility over his YouTube channel where he made a small amount of money from allowing youtube advertisements. A couple years before that, Johnny Manziel was suspended for selling autographs.

I don't think it's even remotely a question of whether a scholarship is "enough." Most student-atheletes would be thrilled with that, especially those that aren't receiving assistance at all or are only on a partial. But if anyone is in favor of a less government approach, I don't see how it would be possible to argue against Ressler Motors being allowed to pay Troy to appear in a TV commercial, or Tyler Hall to sell hot tubs. If the coaches are allowed to do it, why shouldn't the players? Every college football player I've known personally would be ecstatic to play the NCAA football video game with their own name and face in it. And if that comes with a $100 check to every guy on the team, who is that hurting?
I see your point but have to respectfully disagree. I see the this law as a government entity overriding the will of an association of Universities called the NCAA. Furthermore, it threatens the amateur status of the game at this level which has the intent of preserving the game. I have to ask what California's real motive is?
Overriding the will of an association is also known as 'trust busting' or anti-cartel legislation. Prohibiting corporations (even non-profit ones) from conspiring to limit competition is one of the most basic tasks of a government in a free market system. That goes straight back to Adam Smith himself.
I had to chuckle that you would use the most used/publicised and controlling of all the press "catch words" since 2016 - "conspiring". My view is that California has taken yet another divisive action, with the larger intent on ruining the amateur status of the game to break down yet another large organized group of people, and are selling it as "fairness".

With that, my last word on the topic will be that California has no moral high-ground to stand on considering their deliberate action cooperating with the Mexican cartels in human trafficking, drug smuggling, importing u13 gang members, openly defying the laws of our land by opening the boarder for the sole purpose of importing/buying votes, and in the process hobbling our country in the primary obligation of the executive branch which is to protect the citizens of the country. On the surface their actions may seem fair, competitive, and even nobel but to me they have proven an age old flaw in human nature - to hide a bad motive behind a good one, and with their control of the mainstream press, they are getting away with it.
Man, I don't know how your brain made the jump from student-atheletes being allowed to profit on their own likeness to Mexican cartels and human trafficking. Talk about a stretch.

I'd like to clarify; is the your only argument against TA or Ifanse making a couple bucks for #15 or 22 jerseys they sell in the bookstore that it's how it's how it's always been? Or does big bad California have some evil agenda behind it? You sound delusional



User avatar
RickRund
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7315
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Post Falls ID

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by RickRund » Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:37 pm

I just want to say from my experience as a california native,46-70 and 82-17 that the present governing body for probably the last 16 years is TOTAL ineptitude and with each new legislature it becomes increasingly worse. Anything coming out of that state is poison. Why do you think we left along with roughly 5m more? I am sure there are some on this site that love cali. Great, you can have it.


msubobcats@outlook.com
Audiatur et altura pars: Let both sides be fairly heard.
Audi alteram partem: listen to the other side.

User avatar
cats2506
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 9226
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Lewistown

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by cats2506 » Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:33 pm

I heard a good question today.
"Would this new law allow a booster to pay an athlete $20,000 for a signed jersey?"

The selling of signed memorabilia is one of the things included in the law as I understand it. How would the fair market value of memorabilia be established?


PlayerRep wrote:The point is not the record of the teams UM beat, it's the quality and record of the teams UM almost beat.

User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by Cledus » Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:47 pm

cats2506 wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:33 pm
I heard a good question today.
"Would this new law allow a booster to pay an athlete $20,000 for a signed jersey?"

The selling of signed memorabilia is one of the things included in the law as I understand it. How would the fair market value of memorabilia be established?
Interesting question. The nerd in me immediately started thinking of taxes. If this booster in your example paid $20k for a jersey and then five years later sold it at a garage sale for $10, would he try to deduct a loss of $19,990? It would clearly be disallowed by the IRS on the grounds of abuse, but I think it puts a point to the issue that this law and its effects will be tied up in courts for a long time. I think it will have an impact far beyond just paying athletes.


UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.

User avatar
Hawks86
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10588
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: MT

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by Hawks86 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:58 am



"I'm a Bobcat forever its in my soul..."

bobcat99
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:11 am

Re: Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

Post by bobcat99 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:03 pm

cats2506 wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:33 pm
I heard a good question today.
"Would this new law allow a booster to pay an athlete $20,000 for a signed jersey?"

The selling of signed memorabilia is one of the things included in the law as I understand it. How would the fair market value of memorabilia be established?
I mean, who cares if they do?

Good for the player!



Post Reply