California to pass bill called "fair pay to play act"...to compensate players

[Dr. Blackheart]

So the reward for them is to allow them to do it even more and penalize the schools that are playing by the rules.

Outstanding logic.

Spoken like a true monopolist.

That rat has already left the ship. The NCAA had their chance to reform but they enabled, rather than killed the vermin. 

Character matters!

[brewcity77]

Upon graduating, many of the stars are dominant, but not good enough to play in the NBA. If they could make more income off NCAA related endorsements, why should they be excluded from this market because of age/experience?

Right now, no one is preventing college players from playing professionally and profiting off their likeness. Yet people still say the NCAA needs to pay them. It seems people like to apply an argument differently depending on if it supports their case or not.

This is all incorrect. The NCAA won't be paying them. The endorsements won't be NCAA related. If David Gruber pays Markus Howard $100,000 to do an endorsement, he can. And if Markus wants to continue that work after he matriculates, he is free to. But no entity will be forcing Gruber to pay Howard after he leaves Marquette. That would be like Gruber paying me to endorse him. He can do so if he chooses.

They won't be excluded because of age or experience. They won't be excluded at all. The companies that once paid them may choose to not continue those payments, just like shoe companies often don't pay athletes years after their retirements, but none of it will be mandated by the NCAA or governments.

[Cheeks]

Spoken like a true monopolist.

That rat has already left the ship. The NCAA had their chance to reform but they enabled, rather than killed the vermin. 

Character matters!

Pro govt’ folks like you, the ultimate monopolists.  LOL.  Their way or the highway.


Your Buzz fairy tale was totally dismissed by the way....I knew it would and thankfully someone in the dept with absolute knowledge confirmed for me....we would have accepted the NIT bid...we didn’t get one nor did we tell the NIT we didn’t want it.

[Cheeks]

I didn't realize this!  I always thought they couldn't have any job.   

Here's a fun list of other ways they can earn money:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/10-ways-college-athletes-can-get-paid-and-remain-eligible-for-their-sport/

Yup, and this falsehood is continually perpetuated here constantly....for years.....here and many other places.  Repeat the lie often enough and it becomes real.  Student athletes have been able to work for a long time, including examples of our own at Marquette.

[Cheeks]

I was mostly talking about basketball and football.

However, I’d say the others do. I mean tennis has 5/11 men’s players from outside the US and the women have 7/8. The below article seems businesslike to me. It’s not as lucrative as basketball or football, but I don’t view it as the pure as snow amateurism to give the kids an opportunity to play for their school that people want to think.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12561534

Let me repeat, the men’s tennis team drives zero revenue.  Zero.  Same for track.  How is that a business?

[Dr. Blackheart]

Pro govt’ folks like you, the ultimate monopolists.  LOL.  Their way or the highway.


Your Buzz fairy tale was totally dismissed by the way....I knew it would and thankfully someone in the dept with absolute knowledge confirmed for me....we would have accepted the NIT bid...we didn’t get one nor did we tell the NIT we didn’t want it.

Where do you get I am pro government?  I am a free market man. Big governments like the NCAA restrict freedom of markets. I am surprised, frankly, as I am more aligned with you politically in actuality. Open'em up!  Cartels never are efficient. 

As to the "post season" (not NIT) claim, I stand by Bill Cords' letter.

[forgetful]

This is all incorrect. The NCAA won't be paying them. The endorsements won't be NCAA related. If David Gruber pays Markus Howard $100,000 to do an endorsement, he can. And if Markus wants to continue that work after he matriculates, he is free to. But no entity will be forcing Gruber to pay Howard after he leaves Marquette. That would be like Gruber paying me to endorse him. He can do so if he chooses.

They won't be excluded because of age or experience. They won't be excluded at all. The companies that once paid them may choose to not continue those payments, just like shoe companies often don't pay athletes years after their retirements, but none of it will be mandated by the NCAA or governments.

I don't think you understand. The endorsement with Gruber, would be because he is in the NCAA and playing for Marquette. When he graduates, he will be better than almost any NCAA player, but if he doesn't make the NBA, he  would be making peanuts compared to his Gruber endorsements (Gruber won't pay him anymore, because the payment was solely due to his affiliation with MU).

He would be more skilled, and qualified, to continue playing for MU in the NCAA, but would be barred from that professional activity, because of an arbitrary, age/experience related rule. So because of said rule, he would be financially harmed.

No other industry has a rule that when you become too good at your job, you have to leave.

[Cheeks]

As to the "post season" (not NIT) claim, I stand by Bill Cords' letter.

That’s what makes it all the funnier

[muguru]

What should surprise no one about this is the most far left off the rails state in the country was the first to pass this...color me shocked...not!

[Dr. Blackheart]

That’s what makes it all the funnier

Did he produce his letter between casts?

[Cheeks]

I don't think you understand. The endorsement with Gruber, would be because he is in the NCAA and playing for Marquette. When he graduates, he will be better than almost any NCAA player, but if he doesn't make the NBA, he  would be making peanuts compared to his Gruber endorsements (Gruber won't pay him anymore, because the payment was solely due to his affiliation with MU).

He would be more skilled, and qualified, to continue playing for MU in the NCAA, but would be barred from that professional activity, because of an arbitrary, age/experience related rule. So because of said rule, he would be financially harmed.

No other industry has a rule that when you become too good at your job, you have to leave.

Because it isn’t a job.  You are playing while a student.  When you are no longer a student, you don’t get to play for the school.

[Cheeks]

Did he produce his letter between casts?

As I said last week, I didn’t meet with Bill.

[Jockey]

+1

This is going to lead to the end of collegiate sports the same way free agency destroyed baseball, as hilltopper noted. I miss baseball, even though it ended a couple years before I was born. Too bad Cubs fans never got to see their team win a World Series.

I agree with all you (and a couple others) have said Brew. I see this as a win / win.

For the players? Premier college athletes will be able to earn money from their skills - free market and all. This could even keep some of them in college an extras year or two. Many players love the college experience, but go pro because the money is to tempting. If they are able to earn a decent amount of cash, maybe that will be the incentive to stay.

For the colleges? Very simple. Exposure and advertising. There is little advertising of the basketball program now. If players can sell their likeness, it is not only the product that they are advertising that gets seen. It is MU basketball that gets exposure.

[Dr. Blackheart]

As I said last week, I didn’t meet with Bill.

So, you don't have a copy of the donor letter he sent either?

[brewcity77]

I don't think you understand. The endorsement with Gruber, would be because he is in the NCAA and playing for Marquette. When he graduates, he will be better than almost any NCAA player, but if he doesn't make the NBA, he  would be making peanuts compared to his Gruber endorsements (Gruber won't pay him anymore, because the payment was solely due to his affiliation with MU).

He would be more skilled, and qualified, to continue playing for MU in the NCAA, but would be barred from that professional activity, because of an arbitrary, age/experience related rule. So because of said rule, he would be financially harmed.

No other industry has a rule that when you become too good at your job, you have to leave.

The endorsement with Gruber would be for whatever reason Gruber chose. Maybe it's his affiliation to Marquette. Maybe it's his affable personality. Maybe he was in an accident and made one call, that's all. The players would be able to earn money from their likeness. There would be no mandate or prerequisite that they do so or to companies like Gruber that they be paid.

You're digging a rabbit hole to China and expecting people to follow. This is where NCAA rules would come in. 5 years to complete 4 seasons of eligibility. Because it's not a job, the labor regulations you are trying to apply here wouldn't be applicable.

Once school is over, they can still sell their likeness, still do endorsements, whatever. If people don't want to pay at the same rate they did while they were attending school, that's up to the free market to decide.

[Jockey]

The trouble with this law as I see it is that it will promote more inequality. Only the very top players will be making money on this. The average player might get some money here or there, but it is not going to benefit them very much. Even in pro sports the dollars mostly go to players who do not need it. How, many Packers besides Rogers do you see in commercials?

Isn't that the point of a free market?

Should crappy bands get attention for their music? Or do the best bands - whether artistically or relevancy - get the money?

[Cheeks]

So, you don't have a copy of the donor letter he sent either?

You don’t have it, what I have is the absolute certainty they went down the path to secure facilities for a NIT bid to host when available....something you don’t do if you have already said you aren’t taking a bid.  And more....

[Cheeks]

Isn't that the point of a free market?

Should crappy bands get attention for their music? Or do the best bands - whether artistically or relevancy - get the money?

Since when is college a free market Jockey?  Based on this lunacy I should be able to go to Harvard if I have the money, just pay for it.  That’s the free market.....when does that start?  It doesn’t exist, yet you want it to for college sports?  Amazing

Crappy bands that look good to teenage girls got a ton of money.

[Jockey]

I don't think you understand. The endorsement with Gruber, would be because he is in the NCAA and playing for Marquette. When he graduates, he will be better than almost any NCAA player, but if he doesn't make the NBA, he  would be making peanuts compared to his Gruber endorsements (Gruber won't pay him anymore, because the payment was solely due to his affiliation with MU).

He would be more skilled, and qualified, to continue playing for MU in the NCAA, but would be barred from that professional activity, because of an arbitrary, age/experience related rule. So because of said rule, he would be financially harmed.

No other industry has a rule that when you become too good at your job, you have to leave.

You have made some good points, Forgetful - even though we aren't in agreement here.

Sadly, they have mostly gotten lost in the carpet bombing of this thread from chico and Guru.

[Pakuni]

Voter ID laws, Harvard admissions and  boy bands.

Yup..We've reached the Cheeks Unhinged portion of the program.  Sooner or later it's bound to happen in every thread.

[Dr. Blackheart]

You don’t have it, what I have is the absolute certainty they went down the path to secure facilities for a NIT bid to host when available....something you don’t do if you have already said you aren’t taking a bid.  And more....

But...but...but...you have said in the past that Buzz tanked the season early on and even "embezzled" from Marquette.  And you also know Marquette AD plans early on around January/February for post-season facilities/contingencies. That's when I get my ticket forms.

So, what story is it? Buzz tanked early and embezzled? Or, Buzz competed and MUAD was prepping for an NIT bid as a contingency? I am confused.

I go by my Cords story...it was clear both MU and Buzz were moving quickly on at season's end.

[dgies9156]

Because it isn’t a job.  You are playing while a student.  When you are no longer a student, you don’t get to play for the school.

Brother Cheeks, I disagree.

College Athletics is a job. The student-athlete signs a contract. The student-athlete shows up for work. The student-athlete trains in the off-season. The student-athlete performs when an entity (a university) demands.

The student-athlete is compensated with a college education. If the student-athlete ceases playing basketball, except under certain hardship or medical circumstances, the compensation ends.

In my world (MBA-land), that's called a barter transaction. You call in a valuation specialist to determine the fair market value under the Internal Revenue Code. The student athlete is then taxed by the State of Wisconsin and the United States Government for the fair market value of the reimbursement. Just for good measure, make 'em pay Social Security and Medicare on the scholarship-compensation as well.

Look, I know the NCAA, with its infinite lobbying ability, has convinced the U.S. Congress and State Legislatures to not treat this as compensation. But from an economic standpoint, there's no way this is not an employer/employee relationship. If the California legislature really wanted to do something for student athletes, forget this nickel and dime fair pay act. Start taxing athletic scholarships and ban the NCAA from monopolistic practices in the State of California. Hell, they tax everything else out there.

[WhiteTrash]

Isn't that the point of a free market?

Should crappy bands get attention for their music? Or do the best bands - whether artistically or relevancy - get the money?

That is the point of free markets but college and pro sports are not free market enterprises within the leagues.

The NBA, NFL, NCAA, etc. operate in a free market for entertainment dollars against the music, movie, theater, etc. industries.

Within sports leagues restriction on pay and sharing of revenue is a legal way to promote the quality of the product and the success of sports against other entertainment competitors.

True free markets do not work for pro sports and will never work for the NCAA.

[MU82]

Wow.

The misinformation, political harangues, lies, and hair-on-fire chicken-littlism from those desperate to preserve the status quo has really been something to see. I especially love all the cries of "liberals are doing this," when it has been bipartisan with strong conservative support. And why wouldn't it? What is more of a conservative ideal than free markets, capitalism, and hard-working Americans getting compensated fairly?

I agree with brewski -- a handful of Scoopers can cry and whine and rail and pout and threaten and warn, but the end of faux amateurism in college sports is coming. (And it won't mean an end of Marquette basketball any more than the current rich-keep-getting-richer system has meant an end to Marquette basketball.)

As an aside, that was a really interesting list of ways athletes can make money and retain their eligibility.

If I play Sport A and make $5 million doing it, I can still claim I'm an amateur while playing Sport B. I can have jobs but I can't use my association with NCAA-sponsored athletics in any way ... unless the NCAA grants me a waiver. So much faux amateurism, so many loopholes.

No. 1 on the list is something called "Cost of attendance." As the article explained:

The NCAA and universities spin this as additional scholarship money, not a payment stipend. And while semantically that's true, just a decade ago, the NCAA argued in court that cost-of-attendance stipends were a form of "pay for play" and a threat to amateurism. Cost of attendance is the estimated extra money of the price to attend a particular college, as determined by financial aid offices. By 2015, many schools were providing all or some of their athletes with a couple extra thousand dollars a year through cost of attendance. Some coaches publicly worried that other schools' cost of attendance numbers were inflated for competitive reasons and the money would impact recruiting. One year into cost of attendance, there are virtually no stories about players choosing schools due to the extra stipend.

So this was one of the first "this will start the slippery slope to the end of college sports as we know it" issues. The NCAA fought it, just as it is fighting the right of athletes to profit from their own likeness. But the NCAA caved (as it surely will do with this issue), and it's been a big ho-hum so far.

This "cost of attendance" compensation automatically makes athletes not amateurs, but the NCAA uses semantics to pretend otherwise. The NCAA does a lot of pretending, including that it actually cares about academics. Given the chance just recently to adopt a Rice Commission recommendation to take oversight of academic-fraud cases such as the one at UNC, the NCAA passed. They don't want oversight; that would be too messy.

Faux amateurism. It's on its way out. Deal with it.

[Cheeks]

Voter ID laws, Harvard admissions and  boy bands.

Yup..We've reached the Cheeks Unhinged portion of the program.  Sooner or later it's bound to happen in every thread.

When you have nothing else, attack the person. 

You suggested it was a GOP lawmaker in North Carolina that wants to federalize this.  Why did party matter?  I responded in kind with the same approach.

Jockey talks about the need for a free market working in college sports.  I ask if that is the case why do we even have admissions criteria? The free market answer would be I can choose any damn school I want and pay for it.

Jockey said bands that make money are the best bands....that is also wrong.


Please tell me where any of those statements are unhinged.