Well that was a waste

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

And you're right, there is no way the NCAA wants to fight this.  They want a compromise that allows for a limited compensation.  That's why they put out the statement they did.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You are absolutely correct for football, and will only get worse.  That’s when you will see even less parity.

LOL.  So when presented data that shows hardly any parity, your response is..."IT WILL EVEN BE WORSE!!!"

I mean, how can it be worse?  Clemson v. Alabama for the next decade? 

Chicken little nonsense.

[muguru]

Kind of. They lost on the restraint of trade fact but won by appealing the original order that provided immediate compensation. The appeals court ruled that a full cost of attendance scholarship is sufficient compensation.

[/b]

They ruled correctly...it is fair compensation. I have a question for you Sultan...since you have openly stated you are pro fairness for everyone, in regards to everything, isn't it then hypocritical to be for something like this when not everyone would be compensated at the same level, or in most cases not at all, so how is that fair for everyone which you are a staunch supporter of??

[muguru]

And you're right, there is no way the NCAA wants to fight this.  They want a compromise that allows for a limited compensation.  That's why they put out the statement they did.

Are you sure they don't?? What if(and it sounds like they are) all their member institutions are 100% in lock step with them in regards to this?? If they have their support, they have to fight it. I mean when Gene Smith, AD of the largest athletic department in the country comes out against it and says that it would give them an advantage other schools wouldn't have...that should be all you need to know.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Are you sure they don't?? What if(and it sounds like they are) all their member institutions are 100% in lock step with them in regards to this?? If they have their support, they have to fight it. I mean when Gene Smith, AD of the largest athletic department in the country comes out against it and says that it would give them an advantage other schools wouldn't have...that should be all you need to know.

They've already said that they want to offer limited payment on likeness. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

[/b]

They ruled correctly...it is fair compensation. I have a question for you Sultan...since you have openly stated you are pro fairness for everyone, in regards to everything, isn't it then hypocritical to be for something like this when not everyone would be compensated at the same level, or in most cases not at all, so how is that fair for everyone which you are a staunch supporter of??

Because "fair" IMO means a world where people for the most part can earn what they can, not a world where everyone makes the same.

[muguru]

Because "fair" IMO means a world where people for the most part can earn what they can, not a world where everyone makes the same.

And yet a vast majority of people that are for this HATE how much University Presidents, and athletic departments make. That is the MAIN argument for people wanting this. They can't stand the NCAA making as much money as they do. Yet...you just said by your statement that there should be nothing wrong with that.

[muguru]

In case anyone has forgotten...this was recent...

https://www.sbnation.com/2018/9/18/17872150/ncaa-case-verdict-ruling-explained

[Cheeks]

Because "fair" IMO means a world where people for the most part can earn what they can, not a world where everyone makes the same.

So interesting you say this but for CEOs and others it is a different response.  LOL

[lawdog77]

Simplest solution: 1. NBA-allow kids staight out of highschool to go to the NBA
2. G-League, pay the players more
3. Let kids sign with shoe companies who hold shared exclusive licensing rights with the schools (% to athletes vs % to schools to be determined later)
4. Scholarships are for 4 years. Only way to transfer is to graduate with eligibility remaining, unless school voluntarily releases player, and that player becomes immediately eligible.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

And yet a vast majority of people that are for this HATE how much University Presidents, and athletic departments make. That is the MAIN argument for people wanting this. They can't stand the NCAA making as much money as they do. Yet...you just said by your statement that there should be nothing wrong with that.

I have never made that argument.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Simplest solution: 1. NBA-allow kids staight out of highschool to go to the NBA
2. G-League, pay the players more
3. Let kids sign with shoe companies who hold shared exclusive licensing rights with the schools (% to athletes vs % to schools to be determined later)
4. Scholarships are for 4 years. Only way to transfer is to graduate with eligibility remaining, unless school voluntarily releases player, and that player becomes immediately eligible.

4 is ridiculously restrictive.  Bad idea.

[forgetful]

Because "fair" IMO means a world where people for the most part can earn what they can, not a world where everyone makes the same.

So, if they are worth more they can enter the G-league, or play overseas an market the crap out of their likeness. No one is saying they can't do that.

They are saying, if the athlete knowingly signs an agreement that grants an entity sole marketer of their likeness in exchange for full cost of enrollment in a prestigious university, then they should be held to that contract. If they choose not to sign said agreement, they can pursue their value to "earn what they can".

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So interesting you say this but for CEOs and others it is a different response.  LOL

It is?  Because I don't think I have ever mentioned anything about CEO compensation. 

[Uncle Rico]

So, if they are worth more they can enter the G-league, or play overseas an market the crap out of their likeness. No one is saying they can't do that.

They are saying, if the athlete knowingly signs an agreement that grants an entity sole marketer of their likeness in exchange for full cost of enrollment in a prestigious university, then they should be held to that contract. If they choose not to sign said agreement, they can pursue their value to "earn what they can".

It isn’t a basketball only argument.  Student athletes in other sports can market their likeness as well

[Cheeks]

If you believe there is parity in college basketball, a national NIL shouldn’t concern you.

Since 2010, Kentucky has had the first or second best recruiting classes in 24/7.  In that span, they’ve made 4 Final Fours and won one national title and haven’t been to the Final 4 since 2015.  Reasonable people would agree they’d be the most aggressive user of a NIL.

Since 2014, Duke has had the first or second best class.  They’ve made one Final Four in that stretch and won a national title. 

Since 2010, Arizona has been in the top 5 for recruiting rankings according to 24/7 5 different times and don’t have a Final 4.  They’ve certainly cheated.

The past 3 national champions are as follows with their 24/7 rankings for the 4 years leading to their titles

2019 Virginia: 65, 95, 7, 62
2018 Villanova: 28,45, 29, 48
2017 UNC: 14, 70, 10, 15

Carolina has one top 5 class this decade

If it’s the 1% of college basketball players that will receive benefits, it shouldn’t change what has happened on the court if you believe the game has parity right now.

I believe what I said over the course of the last few weeks is any parity will suffer more.  There is no doubt dominance by some programs, and you think that isn’t going to become even more so?  I disagree.  Parity exists in better numbers in pro sports because there is a cap of dollars that can be spent and it is “regulated” by the leagues. 

The exact opposite is about to happen in college sports with this insanity.  And the powerful will drive a truck through it.  The haves will dominate more so than ever.

[lawdog77]

4 is ridiculously restrictive.  Bad idea.

Why? They would know what they are getting into by signing with a university. They are adults.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So, if they are worth more they can enter the G-league, or play overseas an market the crap out of their likeness. No one is saying they can't do that.

They are saying, if the athlete knowingly signs an agreement that grants an entity sole marketer of their likeness in exchange for full cost of enrollment in a prestigious university, then they should be held to that contract. If they choose not to sign said agreement, they can pursue their value to "earn what they can".

No kidding.

My argument is the contract should be changed.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Why? They would know what they are getting into by signing with a university. They are adults.

Right.  And like most adults, they are allowed to transfer from one school to another without receiving permission.

[mu03eng]

[/b]

They ruled correctly...it is fair compensation. I have a question for you Sultan...since you have openly stated you are pro fairness for everyone, in regards to everything, isn't it then hypocritical to be for something like this when not everyone would be compensated at the same level, or in most cases not at all, so how is that fair for everyone which you are a staunch supporter of??

Except we know it's not fair compensation because if athletes are allowed to profit off their likeness then all these boosters will be paying all the best athletes and itll be madness or at least that's what you and Cheeks are saying. So which is it, either the market will blow up (meaning their compensation is artificially limited and therefore unfair) or they are fairly compensated to the market (and this change would have almost no impact whatsover).....you can't argue it both ways

[mu03eng]

I believe what I said over the course of the last few weeks is any parity will suffer more.  There is no doubt dominance by some programs, and you think that isn’t going to become even more so?  I disagree.  Parity exists in better numbers in pro sports because there is a cap of dollars that can be spent and it is “regulated” by the leagues. 

The exact opposite is about to happen in college sports with this insanity.  And the powerful will drive a truck through it.  The haves will dominate more so than ever.

Parity in pro sports is a fallacy, all the salary cap does is keep the majority of the teams in the middle, while the handful of well run franchises continue to make deep runs/win championships

[lawdog77]

Right.  And like most adults, they are allowed to transfer from one school to another without receiving permission.

most, but not all. Many students in certain research fields cant just simply transfer to a competing research institution.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

most, but not all. Many students in certain research fields cant just simply transfer to a competing research institution.

Yes.  At the graduate level.  How that is relevant to this, I have no idea.

[forgetful]

No kidding.

My argument is the contract should be changed.

Why? The market doesn't bear that. If it did, the G-league would offer more to steal the best talent. They don't, because there is no market for it. There is a market for alumni/fans of college teams to watch that college team play.

That is the issue here. People want to arbitrarily force a not-for-profit enterprise into allowing individuals within that enterprise to profit more than the market supports.

Technically, that is a violation of all the bond-agreements, loans, and other aspects of the not-for-profit status of these entities, that if anyone wanted to sue, for unfair business practices would win, resulting in all these schools having to pay back interest and penalties on all their low-interest bond agreements that funded their athletic programs and facilities.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Why? The market doesn't bear that. If it did, the G-league would offer more to steal the best talent. They don't, because there is no market for it. There is a market for alumni/fans of college teams to watch that college team play.

That is the issue here. People want to arbitrarily force a not-for-profit enterprise into allowing individuals within that enterprise to profit more than the market supports.

I'm not arbitrarily forcing anything.  If the market bears it for the student athletes, they will be paid for their likeness.

Technically, that is a violation of all the bond-agreements, loans, and other aspects of the not-for-profit status of these entities, that if anyone wanted to sue, for unfair business practices would win, resulting in all these schools having to pay back interest and penalties on all their low-interest bond agreements that funded their athletic programs and facilities.

LOL what???  Students make money doing all sorts of things without having any impact on not for profit status.  Where did you get that???  Even if they were directly paid, it wouldn't have impact.