on the new CA law allowing players to receive compensation? I think its going to open up a can of worms and I'm not sure its going to be good for the game.
any thoughts
- Thread starter OUnabomber
- Start date
Doesn’t California do everything wrong in life? Sure they do.
Of course, but it usually ends up infecting the rest of the country. I'm afraid this is going to be a big issue when it goes into effect a few years from now.
Florida is going to attempt to do it next year according to rumors going around.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.si...ive-proposed-legislation-pay-student-athletes
The best idea I've seen is the suggestion that the money earned be put into a trust account that cannot be accessed until the player matriculated. Remember, of the give or take 85 players on any team's roster, only a handful have any consumer interest in their gear. My great-nephew was a preferred walk-on at OU and lettered during his career but other than his mother none would have paid for his jersey.
I agree as I think it will destroy CFB as we know it today. Recruiting will now come down to which school offers them the most money through boosters who will promise them the moon. I know it happens already but to make it legal will open the pandoras box.
Been giving this a lot of thought over the last few days. How do you quantify the "offer"? Most all schools will say, you can benefit from the proceeds of using your likeness. If you are looking for the biggest paycheck, likely, your attention will be diverted from football. If you know the money will be "a lot" wherever you sign (Power 5, upper-echelon), you still have the same decision to make outside the money.
As owenfieldofdreams stated, only a handful of these guys are really going to be highly marketable.
I hope this is how it turns out, for the good of the game.
I'm not convinced this will destroy the game.
There just is not enough money to "buy" a large number of players.
Remember, you don't buy them for 20 years.
Players worth buying are 3 year Max guys and then you have to buy another to replace them.
And, this might even change - might reduce the number of years you have to wait.
A good court challenge would probably lay the 3 year rule to rest.
Call me naive, I guess.
Next it trickles down to the "superstars" in big HS; madness must be stopped
If this is not well regulated by the NCAA it sets up a wild west situation...
In that event I probably abandon my attendance and donations to all college sports... which I have already done with all professional sports.
This also means no sports for me on TV, radio or in publications.
However, the NCAA can legally challenge this new California law in our courts based on the Commerce Claus which would likely in effect over turn this California law or similar laws passed in other states.
Another option is for the US Congress to give the NCAA an antitrust exemption like Major league baseball has
In that event I probably abandon my attendance and donations to all college sports... which I have already done with all professional sports.
This also means no sports for me on TV, radio or in publications.
However, the NCAA can legally challenge this new California law in our courts based on the Commerce Claus which would likely in effect over turn this California law or similar laws passed in other states.
Another option is for the US Congress to give the NCAA an antitrust exemption like Major league baseball has
The Title IX advocates aren't likely to sit down and allow this only for football. I do think something like this is a good idea, but states getting involved in this rather than something at the NCAA level isn't feasible.
Colleges are, if something like this comes to pass, going to have to hire accountants to keep players free of IRS troubles.
Ive heard some bring up the very valid point that the school with the wealthiest boosters are going to have a huge recruiting advantage. Kids will go the school that will pay the most money via its supporters.
Objectively thinking here... perhaps recruiting doesn’t change much. I mean take a look. Over the past 20 years, w the exception of a few schools, it’s always the same 20 schools in the Top 20.
Is this going to change? I doubt it. It’ll be the same 20 in five years. And most likely the same in five years after that. With an exception here and there.
The Blue Dogs will always be Blue Dogs.
Is this going to change? I doubt it. It’ll be the same 20 in five years. And most likely the same in five years after that. With an exception here and there.
The Blue Dogs will always be Blue Dogs.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Time to spill the beans BD and PT it’s offseason baby!- Latest: Chiefgelanta
-
