N/P: Breaking News: Gov. Gavin Newsom of California will sign a bill to let college athletes make endorsement deals

[SmokinwithWilly]

2 hours ago, g5jamz said:

No one makes anyone go to college.  

Actually the NBA does. Players aren't allowed to be drafted out of HS any more. 

You have to be 19 to play in the NBA which pretty much rules out any HS graduate. They either sit out a year or go to college for a "one and done" season. 

[1of10Charnatives]

2 hours ago, 4Corners said:

Oh boy this is so rich, I had to come back for seconds. 
 

a duke fan lecturing someone about “cheating” and how clean of a program dook runs is almost as bad as North Korea giving a presentation to the UN on human rights. 

But if come back and use the same NCAA has handed down no penalties argument you used , you’re not gonna like that are you? See you wanna make allegations but I never blindly asserted the program was clean the way you did. All I did was challenge you to provide proof to back up your assertions. Note you cited infractions committed by people at other schools when recruiting players who eventually came to Duke. Last time I checked Duke wasn’t responsible for Ga Tech’s recruiting practices so stop trying to smear by association.

The OTL report and others are not meaningfully different from independent reporting that shows the fake class stuff stank to high heaven regardless of what the NCAA said. The difference between you and I is I don’t have my head stuck in the sand trying to pretend my school is squeaky clean and everybody else is cheating. Get off your high horse and face reality. The whole system is broken and that includes every top program out there, no exception for your personal favorites.

There is no more or less evidence that Duke cheats than Carolina. The difference is I never said they didn’t, I just challenged you to live up to the same standard by documenting your allegations. So here’s the deal: either outside reports count as evidence of cheating and both schools are guilty or only NCAA reports count and neither is. You don’t get to point to one standard about Duke and apply another to UNC. Pick whichever standard you want but either neither has been found guilty or they both have. You can’t have it both ways.

[1of10Charnatives]

1 hour ago, SBiii said:

You really believe all this drivel?

Not bothering to dignify something that is nothing but an insult with a meaningful reply. Come up with an argument, not just a flat assertion something you disagree with is nonsense.

[1of10Charnatives]

2 hours ago, 4Corners said:

Oh boy this is so rich, I had to come back for seconds. 
 

a duke fan lecturing someone about “cheating” and how clean of a program dook runs is almost as bad as North Korea giving a presentation to the UN on human rights. 

And another thing, not only does all your “proof” of Duke wrongdoing involve what was done by other schools, which has got to be some of the biggest bs notion of proof of wrongdoing I’ve ever heard, but you actually tried to cite message board posts as evidence.

Please. 

Anybody can post anything they want to a message board. Please don’t tell me you’re dumb enough to believe that counts as credible evidence of anything.

But again, I’m not the one claiming everything is squeaky clean at my school. That’s you. It’s just that when you’re called on it, you want to use one standard for your fave and a different one for everybody else.

[rippadonn]

VIDEO GAMES will get better and guys on a team with a super star get income for their likeness in VIDEO GAMES.

Huge!

[MadHatter]

4 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

By the way, you should read a book or speak with former student athletes to get a clearer picture of how the demands of being an athlete in a revenue generating sport water down the value of the scholarship by leaving them time and energy starved, making taking advantage of the scholarships value an uphill struggle. Scandals that reveal football and basketball players shunted into bs classes that exist only to keep less than academically inclined athletes eligible reveal the dubious true worth of these scholarships where many are concerned.

I know many former athletes and am fully aware of the pressures and time constraints that both revenue generating and non-generating sports put on students....many in my family and my son is actually one of them.

They are not able to have part time jobs...they struggle to make ends meet...etc.  I am all for providing a monthly stipend to athletes to compensate them for this.

however, opening up college athletes to endorsement deals, etc is wrought with issues.

[1of10Charnatives]

9 minutes ago, MadHatter said:

I know many former athletes and am fully aware of the pressures and time constraints that both revenue generating and non-generating sports put on students....many in my family and my son is actually one of them.

They are not able to have part time jobs...they struggle to make ends meet...etc.  I am all for providing a monthly stipend to athletes to compensate them for this.

however, opening up college athletes to endorsement deals, etc is wrought with issues.

I don’t ever recall having claimed the change would be without issue. What I questioned was any legitimate basis on which the NCAA can credibly assert it should have this level of control over someone merely because they accept a scholarship. The notion that their priority is the education of young student athletes and not the enlargement of their own bank accounts is a dubious one at best.

[cookinbrak]

They need to do something. You can walk up to one hundred students on a college campus and hand them a hundred dollar bill. 99 will say "Thank you" and one will say "I can't take that".

The CA thing won't work, because it violates NCAA rules, but it might be the beginning of a change. Maybe a student athlete stipend of some sort.

[1of10Charnatives]

12 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

They need to do something. You can walk up to one hundred students on a college campus and hand them a hundred dollar bill. 99 will say "Thank you" and one will say "I can't take that".

The CA thing won't work, because it violates NCAA rules, but it might be the beginning of a change. Maybe a student athlete stipend of some sort.

Why are we deferring to the notion that NCAA authority, which is private, supersedes actual laws passed by elected public officials?

I would think that if the state of CA passes a law, NCAA rules can not override it. The NCAA is not a governmental body, just a collection of member institutions.

By the way if you are handing out $100 bills to college students, I’m perfectly willing to pretend to still be one.

[cookinbrak]

Just now, 1of10Charnatives said:

Why are we deferring to the notion that NCAA authority, which is private, supersedes actual laws passed by elected public officials?

I would think that if the state of CA passes a law, NCAA rules can not override it. The NCAA is not a governmental body, just a collection of member institutions.

Because all of the money goes through the NCAA, and Stanford isn't going to give up their slice of the pie to make a point. So unless Cali starts their own leagues, it ain't happening. And just because one state passes a law, that doesn't make it nationwide. Otherwise we'd all be smoking weed.

[1of10Charnatives]

37 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

Because all of the money goes through the NCAA, and Stanford isn't going to give up their slice of the pie to make a point. So unless Cali starts their own leagues, it ain't happening. And just because one state passes a law, that doesn't make it nationwide. Otherwise we'd all be smoking weed.

You might be right there. Not sure how things would play out as a practical reality but he who controls the purse strings does often have final say.

You know in that case it might very well come down to the wording of the law. Does the law merely allow Stanford to allow its student athletes to sign endorsements, or does it prohibit Stanford from limiting athletes from obtaining endorsements in any way? If that were the case Stanford and the NCAA’s hands are tied.

This sort of thing is often where you tell whether politicians are just grandstanding or not, by looking at whether a popular law has teeth.

[Bartin]

42 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Why are we deferring to the notion that NCAA authority, which is private, supersedes actual laws passed by elected public officials?

I would think that if the state of CA passes a law, NCAA rules can not override it. The NCAA is not a governmental body, just a collection of member institutions.

By the way if you are handing out $100 bills to college students, I’m perfectly willing to pretend to still be one.

The NCAA very likely has an easy win in the courts against this law due to the commerce clause.

[1of10Charnatives]

18 minutes ago, Bartin said:

The NCAA very likely has an easy win in the courts against this law due to the commerce clause.

You think so? I mean I've never been to law school, but my thinking is that in order to make the commerce clause argument, the NCAA would have to admit on the public record that what we all know to be true but they steadfastly refuse to admit, that regulating student athletes is a business for them. I think this might run the risk of creating an on the record precedent that student athletes should be regarded as employees by subsequently turning the NCAA's own legal arguments against them. I might be wrong, but I wouldn't be shocked if the NCAA wants to stay far away from invoking the commerce clause.

[Bartin]

8 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

You think so? I mean I've never been to law school, but my thinking is that in order to make the commerce clause argument, the NCAA would have to admit on the public record that what we all know to be true but they steadfastly refuse to admit, that regulating student athletes is a business for them. I think this might run the risk of creating an on the record precedent that student athletes should be regarded as employees by subsequently turning the NCAA's own legal arguments against them. I might be wrong, but I wouldn't be shocked if the NCAA wants to stay far away from invoking the commerce clause.

The NCAA has already publicly called the law unconstitutional so I’m fairly sure that is exactly what they plan to do. They’ve already used and won with the commerce clause in the past. Most notably when Nevada passed a law that the NCAA needed to be able to show more proof than they had in order to punish UNLV basketball back in the 90s.

What they will argue is that a state law can’t force a national member institution to treat some of its members differently than they treat the other members. The courts will very likely back them as they have previously. NY, SC and Florida are all also looking into passing laws but they are all slightly different which helps the NCAA because they can’t be expected to govern an organization that has 50 different sets of rules. Something is probably going to have to come from the federal level for this stick.

Also, I’m pretty sure the O’Bannon case firmly established that regulating student athletes is a business,