Well that was a waste

[WhiteTrash]

I don't agree with Gene Smith. He is biased on this subject, as so many of us are. I don't know why his view is any more legitimate than Jay Bilas' is. Or yours. Or mine.

It's gonna happen, and it will be sooner than later. So we'll all find out who was "right" and "wrong" here.

All I know is that just about every time there has been a doomsday prediction about something or other "ruining" or "decimating" this sport or that, it has turned out to be a wild exaggeration that did not come true.

Agreed. We will all find out and none of our opinions here will change the out come.

I also don't think this change will ruin college sports (BK & FB). Some fans will be lost but maybe new fans will come to the sports.

I do think it is foolhardy to think that other equally disrupting changes will not be coming.

Free agency could have ruined pro sports but owners and players recognized the problem and agreed to revenue sharing and salary caps/luxury taxes.

[Pakuni]

California has a $21B, as in billion, budget surplus.  But I guess it is easier to spew ignorant misinformation that it is to do even a cursory search.

And even if this were not the case, the idea that this all some enormous ruse to gain maybe a few hundred thousand dollars in tax revenue - on a $215 billion  budget - is the kind of conspiracy theory Alex Jones would call crazy.

[WhiteTrash]

So what you're saying is that the large, wealthy athletic departments will leverage their ability to outspend their rivals in order to land the top players?
Can't imagine what the college landscape would look like if that happens.
Wait, I can.
From Wetzel's column:

Consider this: In the past three years in football recruiting there have been 97 players ranked as 5-star recruits by Rivals.com. Five schools (Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio State and LSU) signed a combined 55 of them, leaving just 42 for the remaining 125 FBS schools. Five schools got nearly 57 percent of the best players.
The current top five teams in the weekly AP poll? No. 1. Alabama. 2. Clemson. 3. Georgia. 4. Ohio State. 5. LSU.


Shall we talk about what percent of 5-star basketball players wind up at Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kerntukcy and Arizona?

I am not Gene Smith. I wish I was with his paycheck.

I get what your saying and it has a lot of merit but (a) just because something is already happening does not justify making it legal (b) those 5 schools could end up 95 of the 97 five star recruits under the new rules. I think that is what Smith was getting at.

[MU82]

Agreed. We will all find out and none of our opinions here will change the out come.

I also don't think this change will ruin college sports (BK & FB). Some fans will be lost but maybe new fans will come to the sports.

I do think it is foolhardy to think that other equally disrupting changes will not be coming.

Free agency could have ruined pro sports but owners and players recognized the problem and agreed to revenue sharing and salary caps/luxury taxes.

Reasonable take, WT. I do know that this will beget change, which could beget more change. I just happen to be OK with that.

[MU82]

So what you're saying is that the large, wealthy athletic departments will leverage their ability to outspend their rivals in order to land the top players?
Can't imagine what the college landscape would look like if that happens.
Wait, I can.
From Wetzel's column:

Consider this: In the past three years in football recruiting there have been 97 players ranked as 5-star recruits by Rivals.com. Five schools (Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio State and LSU) signed a combined 55 of them, leaving just 42 for the remaining 125 FBS schools. Five schools got nearly 57 percent of the best players.
The current top five teams in the weekly AP poll? No. 1. Alabama. 2. Clemson. 3. Georgia. 4. Ohio State. 5. LSU.


Shall we talk about what percent of 5-star basketball players wind up at Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kerntukcy and Arizona?

So what you're saying is that the large, wealthy athletic departments will leverage their ability to outspend their rivals in order to land the top players?
Can't imagine what the college landscape would look like if that happens.
Wait, I can.
From Wetzel's column:

Consider this: In the past three years in football recruiting there have been 97 players ranked as 5-star recruits by Rivals.com. Five schools (Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio State and LSU) signed a combined 55 of them, leaving just 42 for the remaining 125 FBS schools. Five schools got nearly 57 percent of the best players.
The current top five teams in the weekly AP poll? No. 1. Alabama. 2. Clemson. 3. Georgia. 4. Ohio State. 5. LSU.


Shall we talk about what percent of 5-star basketball players wind up at Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kerntukcy and Arizona?

Yeah, Pak ... there is NOTHING equitable about the status quo of college basketball and football today.

So why are some Scoopers (and many others out there) adamantly defending the status quo?

In general, people fear change. There is always a level of comfort in what we know - even if we don't always like everything about it. What we don't know can be scary.

But letting blacks play college sports didn't ruin them. Giving women athletic scholarships didn't ruin college football and basketball. Reducing the number of scholarships to those sports didn't ruin them. Freshmen being eligible to play actually made college hoops and football better.

Superstar basketball players leaving after their junior year ... then their sophomore year ... then their freshman year ... then not even going to college ... then back to one-and-done ... none of that ruined the game.

The 3-point line and the shot clock. Many moaned back then, "Why do we want to be like the NBA? College basketball already is better than the NBA! Why ruin it?" ... didn't ruin anything.

Grad transfers, despite the ridiculous (and already proven false) claim that they "decimate" programs, haven't hurt basketball or football one iota. Coaches making 2x, then 10x, then 25x as much as college presidents hasn't killed college sports. Coaches making a mockery of meaningless buyout clauses ... well, that might decimate some programs, but the athletic programs themselves end up being just fine.

Most recently, the NCAA fought stipends for athletes tooth and nail. I bet most fans don't even know they exist, though.

None of the above had any kind of lasting negative effect on big-time college sports, and much of it ended up being extremely positive.

College sports also have overcome point-shaving scandals, sex scandals, massive academic fraud, team doctors molesting athletes, and so on and so on.

Chill, folks! College football and basketball will be just fine when athletes are allowed to profit off their own likenesses.

[WhiteTrash]

California has a $21B, as in billion, budget surplus.  But I guess it is easier to spew ignorant misinformation that it is to do even a cursory search.

California has admitted to $1.3T, as in trillion, in debt. (many estimates put it at 2x that when local governments and special agencies are included). Pensions alone are underfunded by $1T .

Anyone who has visited the state can also verify the numerous reports of how far behind the state is in maintaining it's infrastructure. Any annual surplus the state has is a result of underfunding needed projects to the detriment of its citizens.

But I guess it is easier to spew ignorant misinformation that it is to do even a cursory search.

Anyway, any tax revenues from student athletes would be  spit in the ocean and I also doubt it is the state's motivation. But please don't paint California as financially sound state. That is horribly untrue.

[WhiteTrash]

Reasonable take, WT. I do know that this will beget change, which could beget more change. I just happen to be OK with that.

MU82, thanks and I think your outlook is reasonable also.

I guess I get frustrated with those who think the issue is no big deal and it will be business as usual with no other consequences. Those people are as equally as guilty of 'burying their heads in the sand' as those who don't think change is coming.

*now let's get some more recruits so we can all celebrate together.

[rocket surgeon]

California has a $21B, as in billion, budget surplus.  But I guess it is easier to spew ignorant misinformation that it is to do even a cursory search.

  seriously?  no, seriously??  you gotta stay in your lane there smith and who's the ignoramus?  jackwagon


  "How much in debt are the California governments?  That’s hard to know too.  According to a January 2017 study, “California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015.”  The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.”

In other words, that $1.3 trillion in debt is the amount to which California governments admit.  Other studies believe it to be more.  Indeed, one study says it is actually $2.3 trillion and a recent Hoover Institute stated that there is over $1 trillion in pension liability alone, or $76,884 per household.  Incredibly, there are 4 million current pension beneficiaries, a number that continues to grow and which exceeds the total population of 22 states.

What’s the right number?  Apparently, it is so large it is hard to accurately estimate.  In every case, the number is staggering."


from forbes(not fox)-
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2018/04/19/the-top-four-reasons-california-is-unsustainable/#72a63d973a23

[Pakuni]

  seriously?  no, seriously??  you gotta stay in your lane there smith and who's the ignoramus?  jackwagon


  "How much in debt are the California governments?  That’s hard to know too.  According to a January 2017 study, “California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015.”  The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.”

In other words, that $1.3 trillion in debt is the amount to which California governments admit.  Other studies believe it to be more.  Indeed, one study says it is actually $2.3 trillion and a recent Hoover Institute stated that there is over $1 trillion in pension liability alone, or $76,884 per household.  Incredibly, there are 4 million current pension beneficiaries, a number that continues to grow and which exceeds the total population of 22 states.

What’s the right number?  Apparently, it is so large it is hard to accurately estimate.  In every case, the number is staggering."


from forbes(not fox)-
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2018/04/19/the-top-four-reasons-california-is-unsustainable/#72a63d973a23

First, you guys are confusing debt with deficit. They are not synonymous. TSmith is talking surplus/deficit. You're talking debt.

Second, I'm no government finance expert, but I know enough to know that public debt is not inherently bad. The mere fact that California has a debt - like every other state in the country - means little. The fact it has a large debt also means little. It's a large state with a huge economy and lot of people.
The real questions when dealing with public debt are: How does the debt compare to the state's gross domestic product, and is the government able to service its debt (i.e. pay off the interest) without those costs negatively impacting its ability to provide  necessary services.
On the former, Cali's state and local debt as a percent of its GDP ranks about 18th in the nation. So, not great, but not the worst by far.
https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/state_debt_rank

On the latter, I unfortunately couldn't find recent numbers, but as of 2105, debt service represented about 5 percent of the state's spending, which is considered a reasonable (for comparison's sake, 13 percent of the federal budget goes to debt service).
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-greece-and-california-debt-20150127-story.html

By no means is California is great fiscal shape, but the assertion that tax revenue is the driving force behind the Fair Play Act is ridiculous.

Lastly, rocket, you may want to investigate your sources a little more thoroughly. The article you linked was written by Thomas Del Beccaro, the former head of the California state GOP, a former Republican Senate candidate and private practice attorney. So, not only is he not an expert on government finance, but he's clearly someone with an axe to grind with the state's political leadership.

And what any of this has to do with NCAA athletes, I'm not sure. I apologize for going so far astray.

[79Warrior]

If you listened to Newsome on our show today to say he over reached and has no grasp of the subject other than platitudes would be kind.  He basically is saying we want to force the NCAA’s hand on this, we have no solution at all, our solution sucks balls, so ncaa you find a better solution because we aren’t smart enough to do it ourselves.  Ready...Go.   And if you don’t do it, well we will have destroyed a system or product as we have done in many other areas, but too bad.

It was cringe worthy.

Not really

[rocket surgeon]

First, you guys are confusing debt with deficit. They are not synonymous. TSmith is talking surplus/deficit. You're talking debt.

Second, I'm no government finance expert, but I know enough to know that public debt is not inherently bad. The mere fact that California has a debt - like every other state in the country - means little. The fact it has a large debt also means little. It's a large state with a huge economy and lot of people.
The real questions when dealing with public debt are: How does the debt compare to the state's gross domestic product, and is the government able to service its debt (i.e. pay off the interest) without those costs negatively impacting its ability to provide  necessary services.
On the former, Cali's state and local debt as a percent of its GDP ranks about 18th in the nation. So, not great, but not the worst by far.
https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/state_debt_rank

On the latter, I unfortunately couldn't find recent numbers, but as of 2105, debt service represented about 5 percent of the state's spending, which is considered a reasonable (for comparison's sake, 13 percent of the federal budget goes to debt service).
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-greece-and-california-debt-20150127-story.html

By no means is California is great fiscal shape, but the assertion that tax revenue is the driving force behind the Fair Play Act is ridiculous.

Lastly, rocket, you may want to investigate your sources a little more thoroughly. The article you linked was written by Thomas Del Beccaro, the former head of the California state GOP, a former Republican Senate candidate and private practice attorney. So, not only is he not an expert on government finance, but he's clearly someone with an axe to grind with the state's political leadership.

And what any of this has to do with NCAA athletes, I'm not sure. I apologize for going so far astray.

forbes is typically pretty reputable, but when it's "the other side" as opposed to the the ny times et.al. you guys eye glaze over.  i suggest many of the the so called "main stream" sources have hurt themselves unless if their articles favors their opinions i guess.  i've lost count of how many retracted stories there have been abd those are only the ones where they were red faced enough to retract them.  that takes a lot for today's "journalist" to admit they were wrong.  reminds of that infamous austin powers scene about that swedish contraption that is supposed to aid in the male endowment and his denial that it was his...1 receipt for a ...."that's not my bag man"

[WhiteTrash]

First, you guys are confusing debt with deficit. They are not synonymous. TSmith is talking surplus/deficit. You're talking debt.

Not sure if I'm one of the "guys" you are talking about but I specifically address debt and deficit in my post. I've understood the difference since about 7th grade.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

forbes is typically pretty reputable, but when it's "the other side" as opposed to the the ny times et.al. you guys eye glaze over.

Forbes is quite reputable as a news source.  As is the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

However you linked to an opinion piece written by someone with a clear partisan bias.  That doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, but that bias needs to be acknowledged. 

[mu03eng]

forbes is typically pretty reputable, but when it's "the other side" as opposed to the the ny times et.al. you guys eye glaze over.  i suggest many of the the so called "main stream" sources have hurt themselves unless if their articles favors their opinions i guess.  i've lost count of how many retracted stories there have been abd those are only the ones where they were red faced enough to retract them.  that takes a lot for today's "journalist" to admit they were wrong.  reminds of that infamous austin powers scene about that swedish contraption that is supposed to aid in the male endowment and his denial that it was his...1 receipt for a ...."that's not my bag man"

[MU82]

Thank goodness for the outstanding, important work being done by reporters from the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post and other top news outlets.

[WarriorDad]

Big Ten commissioner came out against law this morning.  Have to imagine long legal proceedings in this.

[Uncle Rico]

Big Ten commissioner came out against law this morning.  Have to imagine long legal proceedings in this.

Jim Delaney made $5.5 million last year.  He added Rutgers to his league on purpose

[Pakuni]

Big Ten commissioner came out against law this morning.  Have to imagine long legal proceedings in this.

Jim Delaney is retiring in three months. Not sure what he thinks matters at this point.
His replacement is an NFL giuy who may not be so devoted to phony amateurism.

[MU82]

Which brings to mind another thing that college football and basketball have survived: The significant shifting in conferences.

Many of the shifts altered (or eliminated) decades-long rivalries, seriously hurt universities that were left on the outside looking in at "better" conferences, resulted in ever-longer seasons that jeopardize athletes' safety, etc.

[brewcity77]

Jim Delaney made $5.5 million last year.  He added Rutgers to his league on purpose

That'll work great once legislation in Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania goes through.

[Uncle Rico]

That'll work great once legislation in Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania goes through.

I’d like to see him follow through on his original statement on players getting financial compensation and take the Big Ten to the Ivy League model.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Really good article here.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/10/02/ncaa-wrong-message-name-image-likeness-law/3843790002/

"In conversations with several college athletics administrators, all of which took place on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be viewed as publicly critical of the NCAA, there was both sharp criticism for the NCAAs inability to communicate effectively and also frustration that years of inaction on an obvious issue has backed college athletics into a corner without a clear path forward."

...

"As one official put it, it really shouldn’t be this difficult to find common ground and employ some realistic name, image and likeness rules that are fair to the athletes while preserving the basic tenets of the collegiate model. And many of the administrators who plan to work in college athletics 20 years from now are not only open to the idea of significant freedom on name, image and likeness rights, they see it as an inevitability they’d rather have a hand in shaping as opposed to having it dictated by Congress or the Supreme Court after millions of dollars in legal fees spent fighting it. "

[MU82]

Really good article here.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/10/02/ncaa-wrong-message-name-image-likeness-law/3843790002/

"In conversations with several college athletics administrators, all of which took place on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be viewed as publicly critical of the NCAA, there was both sharp criticism for the NCAAs inability to communicate effectively and also frustration that years of inaction on an obvious issue has backed college athletics into a corner without a clear path forward."

...

"As one official put it, it really shouldn’t be this difficult to find common ground and employ some realistic name, image and likeness rules that are fair to the athletes while preserving the basic tenets of the collegiate model. And many of the administrators who plan to work in college athletics 20 years from now are not only open to the idea of significant freedom on name, image and likeness rights, they see it as an inevitability they’d rather have a hand in shaping as opposed to having it dictated by Congress or the Supreme Court after millions of dollars in legal fees spent fighting it. "

Thanks for posting this. It's a shame that these commenters felt they couldn't speak openly about what should be a pretty basic issue. I don't blame them for wanting to protect themselves from scorn or worse.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

  seriously?  no, seriously??  you gotta stay in your lane there smith and who's the ignoramus?  jackwagon


  "How much in debt are the California governments?  That’s hard to know too.  According to a January 2017 study, “California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015.”  The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.”

In other words, that $1.3 trillion in debt is the amount to which California governments admit.  Other studies believe it to be more.  Indeed, one study says it is actually $2.3 trillion and a recent Hoover Institute stated that there is over $1 trillion in pension liability alone, or $76,884 per household.  Incredibly, there are 4 million current pension beneficiaries, a number that continues to grow and which exceeds the total population of 22 states.

What’s the right number?  Apparently, it is so large it is hard to accurately estimate.  In every case, the number is staggering."


from forbes(not fox)-
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2018/04/19/the-top-four-reasons-california-is-unsustainable/#72a63d973a23

You don't understand the difference between a deficit and debt??  Jesus Crist on a trailer hitch.  Your ignorance is breathtaking.

[WhiteTrash]

Jesus Crist on a trailer hitch.  Your ignorance is breathtaking.

LOL! I think this is how you put a bow on this thread and lock it down.