Well that was a waste

[muguru]

I just don't understand why people are so hell bent on wanting this?? What is wrong with the way it is now?? The ONLY responses I have heard are related to A. They hate the NCAA(and b*itch about how much money they rake in, like they wouldn't do the same if they could). B. Because it's time for the NCAA to "get with the times". Which is a very weak argument. get with the times how?? C. They HATE how much $$ these schools make. D. "Because it's time". Every single one of them is an incredibly weak argument, simply because they can't come up with a VALID reason why it should change. No one is being harmed by the way it is, and shockingly, athletes still go to college knowing they aren't going to make any money. Why is that?? They have other options don't they?? And if the answer is yes(and it is), why do they still choose to go to college to continue their athletic careers?? No one is making them.

[The Sultan]

I just don't understand why people are so hell bent on wanting this?? What is wrong with the way it is now?? The ONLY responses I have heard are related to A. They hate the NCAA(and b*itch about how much money they rake in, like they wouldn't do the same if they could). B. Because it's time for the NCAA to "get with the times". Which is a very weak argument. get with the times how?? C. They HATE how much $$ these schools make. D. "Because it's time". Every single one of them is an incredibly weak argument, simply because they can't come up with a VALID reason why it should change. No one is being harmed by the way it is, and shockingly, athletes still go to college knowing they aren't going to make any money. Why is that?? They have other options don't they?? And if the answer is yes(and it is), why do they still choose to go to college to continue their athletic careers?? No one is making them.

Because I think its fair that athletes should be able to profit off their likeness. 

[Uncle Rico]

I just don't understand why people are so hell bent on wanting this?? What is wrong with the way it is now?? The ONLY responses I have heard are related to A. They hate the NCAA(and b*itch about how much money they rake in, like they wouldn't do the same if they could). B. Because it's time for the NCAA to "get with the times". Which is a very weak argument. get with the times how?? C. They HATE how much $$ these schools make. D. "Because it's time". Every single one of them is an incredibly weak argument, simply because they can't come up with a VALID reason why it should change. No one is being harmed by the way it is, and shockingly, athletes still go to college knowing they aren't going to make any money. Why is that?? They have other options don't they?? And if the answer is yes(and it is), why do they still choose to go to college to continue their athletic careers?? No one is making them.

The student athletes are the revenue generators

[forgetful]

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

The market doesn't bear it, because the athletes voluntarily forgo other options for the NCAA agreement that transfers their likeness to the university.

Courts/congress is stepping in to force institutions into something the market doesn't bear.

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.

You don't understand the laws at play here. There was serious concern that college coaches salaries, and the large profits associated with athletics may violate the 501(c)(3) status these universities use to fund their athletics. That was moot, because the coaches are paid salaries commensurate with competing industry, therefore no unfair advantage. Similarly, it was granted that the athletics were part of the "educational mission," therefore profits could be viewed as supporting the not-for-profit mission.

If athletes are getting paid compensation in excess of what the g-league or other competitive leagues are offering, then the NCAA is using their not-for-profit status to effectively out-compete for profit entities. That would be a violation of the 501(c)(3) status.

Similarly, if the athletes are using their association with the university, and its facilities for for-profit (likeness) enterprises, then any profits would be subject to the 5% bad money (really around 3%) that is allowed for for-profit activities. That would mean that legitimate research endeavors by the university would have to be cancelled or they may exceed the 5% bad money. That would result in academics suffering, for the benefit of athletes.

There are a crap-ton of other variables at play in these decisions. How courts would rule in these cases is unknown. But institutions are concerned about the ramifications.

[muguru]

Because I think its fair that athletes should be able to profit off their likeness.

LOL Great answer! That's all you got?? You are also one that believes ALL NCAA rules are silly, and want the inmates to run the asylum. No rules for the athletes, right Sultan?? How are the student athletes being irreparably harmed in any way by NOT profiting off their likeness??

[lawdog77]

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

I am sorry you cannot see the difference between a regular college student versus a student athlete.  Student athleyes are closer to research students than to a political science or history.major. No amount of discussion will seem to change or modify your opinion.

[muguru]

The student athletes are the revenue generators

And?? What's your point?? Again, another VERY weak argument. That's all you got?? They are the revenue generators?? We, the people are revenue generators for business we frequent and pay them for whatever it is we buy. What do we get out of that?? I like this...you might be on to something, maybe we should be compensated for generating their revenue as well!

[Uncle Rico]

And?? What's your point?? Again, another VERY weak argument. That's all you got?? They are the revenue generators?? We, the people are revenue generators for business we frequent and pay them for whatever it is we buy. What do we get out of that?? I like this...you might be on to something, maybe we should be compensated for generating their revenue as well!

Okay, take the goods and services out of those businesses and then I won't frequent them and they won't produce revenue. 

[muguru]

The market doesn't bear it, because the athletes voluntarily forgo other options for the NCAA agreement that transfers their likeness to the university.

Courts/congress is stepping in to force institutions into something the market doesn't bear.

You don't understand the laws at play here. There was serious concern that college coaches salaries, and the large profits associated with athletics may violate the 501(c)(3) status these universities use to fund their athletics. That was moot, because the coaches are paid salaries commensurate with competing industry, therefore no unfair advantage. Similarly, it was granted that the athletics were part of the "educational mission," therefore profits could be viewed as supporting the not-for-profit mission.

If athletes are getting paid compensation in excess of what the g-league or other competitive leagues are offering, then the NCAA is using their not-for-profit status to effectively out-compete for profit entities. That would be a violation of the 501(c)(3) status.

Similarly, if the athletes are using their association with the university, and its facilities for for-profit (likeness) enterprises, then any profits would be subject to the 5% bad money (really around 3%) that is allowed for for-profit activities. That would mean that legitimate research endeavors by the university would have to be cancelled or they may exceed the 5% bad money. That would result in academics suffering, for the benefit of athletes.

There are a crap-ton of other variables at play in these decisions. How courts would rule in these cases is unknown. But institutions are concerned about the ramifications.

I think this thread can be closed now...You just ran Rico and Sultan through the ringer, spit them out, chewed them up and went back for more. Their simple response to this will be "It's not fair college athletes aren't getting compensated". or..."student athletes are the revenue generators". You're getting too logical and technical for them to generate any defense to this IRON clad LEGAL position.

[muguru]

Okay, take the goods and services out of those businesses and then I won't frequent them and they won't produce revenue.

Okay, then take the scholarships away from the student athletes(goods and services). Make them pay their own way to play sports at the college level. How many do you think would do that??

[Uncle Rico]

I think this thread can be closed now...You just ran Rico and Sultan through the ringer, spit them out, chewed them up and went back for more. Their simple response to this will be "It's not fair college athletes aren't getting compensated". or..."student athletes are the revenue generators". You're getting too logical and technical for them to generate any defense to this IRON clad LEGAL position.

What's iron clad about it?   Forgetful ends his post by saying there's no way to know how courts would rule. 

You're shaking your fist at the clouds when state legislatures and the federal government are talking about passing laws too allow athletes at universities to earn likeness compensation. The NCAA is going to pass something that allows it.  What it is, no one knows but the cows are out of the barn.

[The Sultan]

The market doesn't bear it, because the athletes voluntarily forgo other options for the NCAA agreement that transfers their likeness to the university.

Courts/congress is stepping in to force institutions into something the market doesn't bear.

You don't understand the laws at play here. There was serious concern that college coaches salaries, and the large profits associated with athletics may violate the 501(c)(3) status these universities use to fund their athletics. That was moot, because the coaches are paid salaries commensurate with competing industry, therefore no unfair advantage. Similarly, it was granted that the athletics were part of the "educational mission," therefore profits could be viewed as supporting the not-for-profit mission.

If athletes are getting paid compensation in excess of what the g-league or other competitive leagues are offering, then the NCAA is using their not-for-profit status to effectively out-compete for profit entities. That would be a violation of the 501(c)(3) status.

Similarly, if the athletes are using their association with the university, and its facilities for for-profit (likeness) enterprises, then any profits would be subject to the 5% bad money (really around 3%) that is allowed for for-profit activities. That would mean that legitimate research endeavors by the university would have to be cancelled or they may exceed the 5% bad money. That would result in academics suffering, for the benefit of athletes.

There are a crap-ton of other variables at play in these decisions. How courts would rule in these cases is unknown. But institutions are concerned about the ramifications.

Oh I know the law in question. "Intermediate sanctions" which have been further amplified by various IRS rulings.

But you don't understand them. If the payments are made by an outside entity, such as for their likeness, it isn't applicable. Second, there are arguably substantial differences in exposure between the GLeague and the NCAA that would account for any difference in direct payments. Simply put, an athlete who plays for Duke is going to be more valuable likeness wise than one who plays for some crappy G League team.  Third, the resolution to an initial intermediate sanctions violation isn't loss of non profit status. It starts as a fine and progresses from there. And that's a long process that has rarely been applied.

So are there some risks?  Sure. Excess compensation isn't one of them. And the rest are easily mitigated.

[The Sultan]

I think this thread can be closed now...You just ran Rico and Sultan through the ringer, spit them out, chewed them up and went back for more. Their simple response to this will be "It's not fair college athletes aren't getting compensated". or..."student athletes are the revenue generators". You're getting too logical and technical for them to generate any defense to this IRON clad LEGAL position.

Lol. He inaccurately applied a law that doesn't even cover the situation we are talking about.

Yeah...through the ringer. 🙄🙄🙄

[muguru]

What I absolutely LOVE the most about this is, the major bullet in the NCAA's gun is making these athletes ineligible for at minimum post season competition. That is one thing I don't think they will back down from either. Because if they do, then they might as well just close up shop because they will have no more power. There isn't ANYONE even if they support this that can say legally the NCAA would lose that ability. You can say all you want that they would lose in the PR department...says who?? Who would really care?? There might be some outcry at first but from who?? The fans?? Alumni?? Big freaking deal. The TV networks aren't going to pull out, the NCAA tourney would be just as popular as ever(you think they care or it affects them if a school has suspended a player for whatever reason, this would be no different). Nope, they still have product and still pay the conferences/schools to cover them. That wouldn't change anything. Want to get compensated for your likeness?? Absolutely 100% go for it, we hope you do very well actually. But, unfortunately, you can no longer compete in postseason. Take your pick..

I mean is their outcry or state's trying to pass laws trying to tell the NCAA that they CAN'T punish schools(ie Kansas) for committing violations of rules that are governed by the very organization they belong to?? Nope. Only people that think it's "unfair" or complein about it are the fans of the schools affected. Imagine that.

[Pakuni]

The market doesn't bear it, because the athletes voluntarily forgo other options for the NCAA agreement that transfers their likeness to the university.

Courts/congress is stepping in to force institutions into something the market doesn't bear.

The market doesn't bear it because the NCAA system suppresses the market? Wut?
Respectfully, if this is your understanding of how markets work, then you have no idea of how markets work.
This legislation isn't forcing the market to do anything. Th the contrary, it's freeing the market from the restrictions forced upon it by the NCAA.

If the market won't bear it as you claim, then the players won't see a dime and all the hyperventilating doomsday prophesying around here will have all been for naught, right?

[Cheeks]

The student athletes are the revenue generators

That must be why most student athletes drive no revenue at all.  And those that do and those that don't...all get an amazingly great deal for the value they bring.  Of course there are also a number of people that will say the coaches are what counts in college. 

[forgetful]

Oh I know the law in question. "Intermediate sanctions" which have been further amplified by various IRS rulings.

But you don't understand them. If the payments are made by an outside entity, such as for their likeness, it isn't applicable.

Wrong. If they involve institutional resources, or are based on/dependent on university resources it still applies.

Second, there are arguably substantial differences in exposure between the GLeague and the NCAA that would account for any difference in direct payments. Simply put, an athlete who plays for Duke is going to be more valuable likeness wise than one who plays for some crappy G League team. 

You actually highlight the exact legal argument that jeopardizes NCAA institutions. The substantial differences in exposure are leveraged on their ability to cut costs and reinvest profits due to their not-for-profit status. That is the exact reason why such laws exist, it creates an unfair marketplace, that allows a not-for-profit institution to leverage tax exempt status to create "substantial differences".

It also highlights why athletes, knowingly, and agreeably forgo G-league options. Because of the value of the institutional name.

Third, the resolution to an initial intermediate sanctions violation isn't loss of non profit status. It starts as a fine and progresses from there. And that's a long process that has rarely been applied.

So are there some risks?  Sure. Excess compensation isn't one of them. And the rest are easily mitigated.

Fines, and as I said immediate repayment of taxes and interest penalties. It has not been rarely applied. It just hasn't been applied in athletics. Also, it isn't applied more because Universities spend an inordinate amount of effort to determine how many dollars are going to bad-money to ensure they do not exceed legal thresholds. That includes forbidding many lucrative research contracts, because they do not want to jeopardize their status.

This also results in many employees, and students, having to forgo financial opportunities, and external-salaries, because it would jeopardize the 501(c)(3) status. What you are saying is that, the student-athletes, should be treated differently than these students, and employees, because they are "special".

[Pakuni]

If athletes are getting paid compensation in excess of what the g-league or other competitive leagues are offering, then the NCAA is using their not-for-profit status to effectively out-compete for profit entities. That would be a violation of the 501(c)(3) status.

Ugh. No.
This isn't a concern for many reasons, starting with the fact that neither the NCAA nor its member institutions would be providing the compensation or even facilitating it.

[muguru]

Ugh. No.
This isn't a concern for many reasons, starting with the fact that neither the NCAA nor its member institutions would be providing the compensation or even facilitating it.

However, I think it's probably fair to assume that if the compensation is coming from a "sponsor" or "representative of the institutions interests" IE someone that does advertising with them, that's going to create a problem in regards to 501C. A season ticket holder for example is considered a "booster". So let's say that season ticket holder owns a business and decides he wants "Johnny QB" to do an ad spot for them. Now, not only is that a violation because it's a booster providing a benefit, but it's also probably muddying the watersi n regards to the 501C law.

[muguru]

Mark Few with the Big "F" you to Gavin Newsome, media members and people like Rico and Sultan who non nonchalantly support this for no good reason other than "just because it's the right thing to do". You tell em Mark! 

https://twitter.com/Stadium/status/1181396304322273281?s=20

[mu03eng]

Mark Few with the Big "F" you to Gavin Newsome, media members and people like Rico and Sultan who non nonchalantly support this for no good reason other than "just because it's the right thing to do". You tell em Mark! 

https://twitter.com/Stadium/status/1181396304322273281?s=20

In a shocking turn of events a man who profits off the current status quo is upset by a potential change of the status quo.....this proves what exactly?

[mu03eng]

That must be why most student athletes drive no revenue at all.  And those that do and those that don't...all get an amazingly great deal for the value they bring.  Of course there are also a number of people that will say the coaches are what counts in college.

And what does that have to do with NIL, if a player doesn't generate revenue now they won't generate revenue un the future so....

[mu03eng]

Those arguing against the NIL changes understand that the Olympic model allows athletes to have control over their NIL monetization as still retain their amateur status, why would this possibly be disastrous to the college model?

[muguru]

In a shocking turn of events a man who profits off the current status quo is upset by a potential change of the status quo.....this proves what exactly?

Again, as i said before, a majority of you just don't like the fact that people are making a lot of money, that others don't think they deserve to make. It's jealousy, plain and simple. That's the only reason you all support this...it's basically to "stick it" to those that make millions of dollars that you don't like them making. It's really that simple.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Again, as i said before, a majority of you just don't like the fact that people are making a lot of money, that others don't think they deserve to make. It's jealousy, plain and simple. That's the only reason you all support this...it's basically to "stick it" to those that make millions of dollars that you don't like them making. It's really that simple.

I think ADs, coaches, etc. all (with exceptions on the extremes) deserve the money they make. Most do damn fine work.

I also think athlete should be able to profit off their likeness.

If this passes, I think the ADs, coaches, etc will continue to earn big money while the players also get some more green in their pocket. I think it will ultimately end up being a win win situation all around.