Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 101

Thread: NCAA & Monetizing a Name/Image/Likeness

  1. #76
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    Haven't they done that redefining?

    Room, board, tuition, books and a stipend to provide you with a showcase AND a fall back for the end of a presumed pro career. Somewhere close to the 100K figure for a year at Gonzaga?

    Much better, and easier plus fairer to just ban the selling of jerseys with name and the use of a SA likeness while they are in school.
    That is the current definition but it's clearly going to change from that. The use of N/L is going to be implemented one way or the other. I'm not saying I agree with the legislation necessarily, but there do need to be limits in the end...in my opinion.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Related question: Will Gonzaga recruiting be better or worse off once athletes can profit from their NIL?

    I suspect Gonzaga will actually be better off. Unlike in most major markets, where the non-starters don't get much fan fare, Spokane knows all the players At Gonzaga, Gonzaga is the biggest name in a nice sized media market similar in size to Omaha, Toledo, Tuscan. The non-starters are generally known and will be targets for businesses that want to affiliate with the players.

    Do we really think the 8th guy on Dukes bench will have the same opportunities? I don't think so. The top players at Duke will get the big national endorsements but I suspect they'd get those same endorsements if they were at Gonzaga.

    For example, Zion would likely have had the same endorsements if he were at Gonzaga. If Gonzaga gets a lottery pick, I don't think his marketability is hurt because he's at Gonzaga versus another school. Players like Rui are unique too and will have unique opportunities.

    I am setting aside for a moment the concerns that have been voiced about recruits being promised endorsements to enroll at certain schools. Let's assume the NCAA does a meaningful job to prevent that.

    I think Gonzaga is really positioned well for players to capitalize on the range of national/international endorsement opportunities in addition to the local smaller endorsement opportunities that will uniquely arise in places like Spokane but will not exist for players in places like LA or Seattle.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,582

    Default

    I'd still love someone to explain how this will keep massively rich alumni from throwing money at the best players and essentially narrowing all championships down to 2-3 schools every single year. UCLA under Wooden is all you need to know. The real wizard of Westwood was Sam Gilbert who paid the best players to play there. 10 championships in 12 years. I just see this being such a bad thing if not thought out thoroughly.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    Related question: Will Gonzaga recruiting be better or worse off once athletes can profit from their NIL?
    Far worse off. Don't have the $$$ to pay kids like schools like the big boys do.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    Far worse off. Don't have the $$$ to pay kids like schools like the big boys do.
    The NCAA at least says they try to prevent schools and boosters from paying kids under the table now. They do take enforcement efforts that seem to act as some kind of deterrent. I suspect we agree that the NCAA doesn't do a good enough job and that programs, like Gonzaga, that don't pay players are at a strategic disadvantage by being honest and following the rules.

    Nevertheless, wouldn't the NCAA be able to enforce rules specifically against boosters providing endorsements to players in exchange for their commitment to the booster's desired university?

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    I'd still love someone to explain how this will keep massively rich alumni from throwing money at the best players and essentially narrowing all championships down to 2-3 schools every single year. UCLA under Wooden is all you need to know. The real wizard of Westwood was Sam Gilbert who paid the best players to play there. 10 championships in 12 years. I just see this being such a bad thing if not thought out thoroughly.
    Don't they, in essence, do this now? Rich alumni throw massive amounts into the programs, allowing for amenities for teams and athletes that are certainly a piece of the recruiting pitch. Even more importantly, would anything really change? The big programs already attract almost all of the 5 star talent. There are, fortunately, enough big programs and few enough transcendently talented players so they don't all tend to pile up on one team. Even when there is a massive influx of stars (see Zion, Cam, RJ, and Tre) the fact that these players now leave so quickly actually helps limit the impact. I see what you are saying...I don't want money influencing the game any more than it already does...but from a practical standpoint I guess I don't see much changing on that front. At the end of the day, some players will still value being the face of a program, getting a quality education, being in a family atmosphere, etc. just like they do now.

    I think the biggest issue that this all ultimately boils down to is the awkward and ultimately misguided fit between academic institutions and amateur athletics. We can keep jamming together those puzzle pieces in different configurations, but as long as these sports bring in billions, the influence of that money will always play a role.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagfan24 View Post
    Don't they, in essence, do this now? Rich alumni throw massive amounts into the programs, allowing for amenities for teams and athletes that are certainly a piece of the recruiting pitch. Even more importantly, would anything really change? The big programs already attract almost all of the 5 star talent. There are, fortunately, enough big programs and few enough transcendently talented players so they don't all tend to pile up on one team. Even when there is a massive influx of stars (see Zion, Cam, RJ, and Tre) the fact that these players now leave so quickly actually helps limit the impact. I see what you are saying...I don't want money influencing the game any more than it already does...but from a practical standpoint I guess I don't see much changing on that front. At the end of the day, some players will still value being the face of a program, getting a quality education, being in a family atmosphere, etc. just like they do now.

    I think the biggest issue that this all ultimately boils down to is the awkward and ultimately misguided fit between academic institutions and amateur athletics. We can keep jamming together those puzzle pieces in different configurations, but as long as these sports bring in billions, the influence of that money will always play a role.
    One thing for it to go towards facilities. Another to literally pay students, which is where this is going. Top 50 players go to the highest bidders. I think there can be a middle ground on this... but blanketly saying, like the law passed did, that they can go out and make money selling their image is a wide open door for the Sam Gilberts of today. You don't think Phil Knight is going to throw money through Nike at Oregon recruits?
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    8,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    One thing for it to go towards facilities. Another to literally pay students, which is where this is going. Top 50 players go to the highest bidders. I think there can be a middle ground on this... but blanketly saying, like the law passed did, that they can go out and make money selling their image is a wide open door for the Sam Gilberts of today. You don't think Phil Knight is going to throw money through Nike at Oregon recruits?
    Just thinking aloud, but there could be an ethical way for a school like Gonzaga to benefit those few athletes that will actually make money from NIL.

    Create classes within the sports management program that address these financial issues, such as marketing (building your brand), instruction on how to deal with extended family members, investment and tax planning, and money management, to name just a few. It's my impression that today's mega-rich athletes are very unhappy, Kevin Durant being the best example. Their newfound wealth has created a very complicated life for them.

    Just my $.02.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasZagFan View Post
    Just thinking aloud, but there could be an ethical way for a school like Gonzaga to benefit those few athletes that will actually make money from NIL.

    Create classes within the sports management program that address these financial issues, such as marketing (building your brand), instruction on how to deal with extended family members, investment and tax planning, and money management, to name just a few. It's my impression that today's mega-rich athletes are very unhappy, Kevin Durant being the best example. Their newfound wealth has created a very complicated life for them.

    Just my $.02.
    I don't disagree, but there has to be some reasonable limits. Otherwise it is going to be a waste of time to bother trying for all but maybe 5-10 teams every single year. Look at college football... it is the same 5 or 6 teams ... every... single... year.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bainbridge Island
    Posts
    1,119

    Default My take

    This is an interesting thread and many thoughtful posts here.

    I will say I agree generally with Mark Few. I think the statute passed on California was more about posturing politically than it was about solving an actual problem. The reality is that this entire discussion is a solution in search of a problem.

    A couple points I wish to make.

    1. No adult college student who accepts a scholarship in exchange for playing a sport is "exploited." The bargain is, with extraordinarily few exceptions, a fair bargain or even a generous bargain in favor of the student athlete. For 99.9 percent of this cohort, the athlete involved has precisely zero prospect of ever earning even one dime from endorsements or other deals profiting from his or her image or "likeness" before enrolling in college or without enrolling in college. If anything, the scholarship and the opportunity to play for a college itself offers not just a post-secondary education (which is itself ever-more-valuable by the day it seems), but also the best and proven platform for that athlete to transition from that status to a more elevated station in life where profiting from his or her image or likeness is indeed something that is possible in the marketplace. For this cohort of athletes, the current model and paradigm is fair, mutually-beneficial, and not in any way "exploitative" or problematic.

    2. For the .1 percent or less who, upon high school graduation or earlier, could sign and enter into endorsement deals, this legislation does nothing for them that could not have been done to begin with had this law not passed. Many articles incorrectly state that California's law will "allow" such an athlete to profit from their image or likeness now. This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, nothing in the law currently prohibits such an adult athlete from entering into contracts to so profit. In this respect, the law "allows" what is already allowed and not forbidden. It "legalizes" what is already perfectly legal.

    Instead, what the law actually does is make it illegal for a college, at its discretion and according to its own policies, to penalize a student who did this (whether under the aegis of the NCAA rules or any other rule, for that matter). In other words, the law applies to and affects institutions of higher education, organizations such as the NCAA who administer intercollegiate athletics, and only them--not individual athletes. it is worth keeping this point in mind, because I think many here falsely think that individual athletes may someday be able to litigate or bring cases under the new law. They most likely could not, as they likely would not have standing to do so under the statute, which is completely silent on its enforcement mechanism and provides for no private right of action at all for student athletes.

    Which means:

    3. This law will likely never be enforced. It reads as if it were written specifically to draw a legal challenge (which is surely will) from the NCAA or from a school. And reading the statute, I cannot see how it would ever survive such a challenge. Neither California nor any other state has any business telling colleges how to award athletic scholarships, and under what terms. What is missing from this discussion is an appreciation for the fact that both athletic programs and their administration (whether by NCAA or NAIA or whoever) are engaged in VOLUNTARY non-mandatory behavior when playing sports and awarding scholarships to athletes. No athlete has to play a sport. No school has to field a team. No conference has to retain its members. And the NCAA certainly does NOT have to continue to allow any school that broke its internal bylaws on amateurism from participating in the NCAA. California can do or saw what it wants, but California most definitely cannot legislate hte bylaws of the NCAA (with appropriate caveats that discrimination on sex, race, etc could never be approved through such bylaws).

    Which brings me back to my main point: this is a solution in search of a problem. There are almost no athletes today who can earn endorsements coming out of high school and into their college years. And those very very few who can, will be able to by just skipping college a la LeBron James. This statute is an overbearing solution to a strictly hypothetical problem. The reality is that the athletes need the NCAA and the current paradigm just as much as vice versa and there is too much on the line for the current system to simply be scrapped. CBS/TBS etc paid billions and billions for the rights to the NCAA tournament for years, and I can assure you that they expect to get what they paid for in terms of a quality event with competitive games from both big and small schools going forward. They will fight tooth and nail to obtain the benefit of their bargain. Same goes for ESPN with the College Football Playoff, the bowl games, etc.

    Meanwhile, there are so many ways that actual deployment of this law will create new problems it is almost impossible to fathom.

    It is my opinion that this law will generate discussion and that some of that discussion may prove useful, but that at the end of the day, money talks and money wins--and money won't let this statute stand. Therefore, it won't. And the status quo will by and large persist, current political grandstanding on this issue notwithstanding.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,661

    Default


  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    505

    Default

    Awesome post. It won't just be the NCAA fighting, every school in California was opposed. Like you said, they dont want to be banned from competing for NCAA championships.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    17,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoopaholic View Post
    Athletes can have jobs that’s a myth and the vast majority of college athletes do work
    I wrote prior to reviewing the newer laws. You are right, they are allowed to hold a job, if it is approved by the school, and remains within exemption limits. https://static.gohuskies.com/pdf/gen...loyment-06.pdf

    Do you have any cite for the "vast majority of athletes have jobs"?
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
    Mark Twain.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DixieZag View Post
    I wrote prior to reviewing the newer laws. You are right, they are allowed to hold a job, if it is approved by the school, and remains within exemption limits. https://static.gohuskies.com/pdf/gen...loyment-06.pdf

    Do you have any cite for the "vast majority of athletes have jobs"?
    I would guess a lot of the D2 and D3 athletes would have jobs, especially in the offseason, and in many of the sports that dont offer full rides, but partial scholarships divided out among the athletes.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bdmiller7 View Post
    I would guess a lot of the D2 and D3 athletes would have jobs, especially in the offseason, and in many of the sports that dont offer full rides, but partial scholarships divided out among the athletes.
    this... many girls on my daughter’s tennis team had work study type jobs at the D2 level
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Maybe California could do something really helpful. They could make homelessness against the law and then it would no longer be a problem!

















    sarcasm
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 229SintoZag View Post
    This is an interesting thread and many thoughtful posts here.

    I will say I agree generally with Mark Few. I think the statute passed on California was more about posturing politically than it was about solving an actual problem. The reality is that this entire discussion is a solution in search of a problem.

    A couple points I wish to make.

    1. No adult college student who accepts a scholarship in exchange for playing a sport is "exploited." The bargain is, with extraordinarily few exceptions, a fair bargain or even a generous bargain in favor of the student athlete. For 99.9 percent of this cohort, the athlete involved has precisely zero prospect of ever earning even one dime from endorsements or other deals profiting from his or her image or "likeness" before enrolling in college or without enrolling in college. If anything, the scholarship and the opportunity to play for a college itself offers not just a post-secondary education (which is itself ever-more-valuable by the day it seems), but also the best and proven platform for that athlete to transition from that status to a more elevated station in life where profiting from his or her image or likeness is indeed something that is possible in the marketplace. For this cohort of athletes, the current model and paradigm is fair, mutually-beneficial, and not in any way "exploitative" or problematic.

    2. For the .1 percent or less who, upon high school graduation or earlier, could sign and enter into endorsement deals, this legislation does nothing for them that could not have been done to begin with had this law not passed. Many articles incorrectly state that California's law will "allow" such an athlete to profit from their image or likeness now. This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, nothing in the law currently prohibits such an adult athlete from entering into contracts to so profit. In this respect, the law "allows" what is already allowed and not forbidden. It "legalizes" what is already perfectly legal.

    Instead, what the law actually does is make it illegal for a college, at its discretion and according to its own policies, to penalize a student who did this (whether under the aegis of the NCAA rules or any other rule, for that matter). In other words, the law applies to and affects institutions of higher education, organizations such as the NCAA who administer intercollegiate athletics, and only them--not individual athletes. it is worth keeping this point in mind, because I think many here falsely think that individual athletes may someday be able to litigate or bring cases under the new law. They most likely could not, as they likely would not have standing to do so under the statute, which is completely silent on its enforcement mechanism and provides for no private right of action at all for student athletes.

    Which means:

    3. This law will likely never be enforced. It reads as if it were written specifically to draw a legal challenge (which is surely will) from the NCAA or from a school. And reading the statute, I cannot see how it would ever survive such a challenge. Neither California nor any other state has any business telling colleges how to award athletic scholarships, and under what terms. What is missing from this discussion is an appreciation for the fact that both athletic programs and their administration (whether by NCAA or NAIA or whoever) are engaged in VOLUNTARY non-mandatory behavior when playing sports and awarding scholarships to athletes. No athlete has to play a sport. No school has to field a team. No conference has to retain its members. And the NCAA certainly does NOT have to continue to allow any school that broke its internal bylaws on amateurism from participating in the NCAA. California can do or saw what it wants, but California most definitely cannot legislate hte bylaws of the NCAA (with appropriate caveats that discrimination on sex, race, etc could never be approved through such bylaws).

    Which brings me back to my main point: this is a solution in search of a problem. There are almost no athletes today who can earn endorsements coming out of high school and into their college years. And those very very few who can, will be able to by just skipping college a la LeBron James. This statute is an overbearing solution to a strictly hypothetical problem. The reality is that the athletes need the NCAA and the current paradigm just as much as vice versa and there is too much on the line for the current system to simply be scrapped. CBS/TBS etc paid billions and billions for the rights to the NCAA tournament for years, and I can assure you that they expect to get what they paid for in terms of a quality event with competitive games from both big and small schools going forward. They will fight tooth and nail to obtain the benefit of their bargain. Same goes for ESPN with the College Football Playoff, the bowl games, etc.

    Meanwhile, there are so many ways that actual deployment of this law will create new problems it is almost impossible to fathom.

    It is my opinion that this law will generate discussion and that some of that discussion may prove useful, but that at the end of the day, money talks and money wins--and money won't let this statute stand. Therefore, it won't. And the status quo will by and large persist, current political grandstanding on this issue notwithstanding.
    Thank You, 229SintoZag for taking almost 4 pages of comments and boiling it down to a few, very articulate paragraphs which succinctly lays out the issues.

    Very well done.



    ZagDad

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 229SintoZag View Post
    This is an interesting thread and many thoughtful posts here.

    I will say I agree generally with Mark Few. I think the statute passed on California was more about posturing politically than it was about solving an actual problem. The reality is that this entire discussion is a solution in search of a problem.

    A couple points I wish to make.

    1. No adult college student who accepts a scholarship in exchange for playing a sport is "exploited." The bargain is, with extraordinarily few exceptions, a fair bargain or even a generous bargain in favor of the student athlete. For 99.9 percent of this cohort, the athlete involved has precisely zero prospect of ever earning even one dime from endorsements or other deals profiting from his or her image or "likeness" before enrolling in college or without enrolling in college. If anything, the scholarship and the opportunity to play for a college itself offers not just a post-secondary education (which is itself ever-more-valuable by the day it seems), but also the best and proven platform for that athlete to transition from that status to a more elevated station in life where profiting from his or her image or likeness is indeed something that is possible in the marketplace. For this cohort of athletes, the current model and paradigm is fair, mutually-beneficial, and not in any way "exploitative" or problematic.

    2. For the .1 percent or less who, upon high school graduation or earlier, could sign and enter into endorsement deals, this legislation does nothing for them that could not have been done to begin with had this law not passed. Many articles incorrectly state that California's law will "allow" such an athlete to profit from their image or likeness now. This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, nothing in the law currently prohibits such an adult athlete from entering into contracts to so profit. In this respect, the law "allows" what is already allowed and not forbidden. It "legalizes" what is already perfectly legal.

    Instead, what the law actually does is make it illegal for a college, at its discretion and according to its own policies, to penalize a student who did this (whether under the aegis of the NCAA rules or any other rule, for that matter). In other words, the law applies to and affects institutions of higher education, organizations such as the NCAA who administer intercollegiate athletics, and only them--not individual athletes. it is worth keeping this point in mind, because I think many here falsely think that individual athletes may someday be able to litigate or bring cases under the new law. They most likely could not, as they likely would not have standing to do so under the statute, which is completely silent on its enforcement mechanism and provides for no private right of action at all for student athletes.

    Which means:

    3. This law will likely never be enforced. It reads as if it were written specifically to draw a legal challenge (which is surely will) from the NCAA or from a school. And reading the statute, I cannot see how it would ever survive such a challenge. Neither California nor any other state has any business telling colleges how to award athletic scholarships, and under what terms. What is missing from this discussion is an appreciation for the fact that both athletic programs and their administration (whether by NCAA or NAIA or whoever) are engaged in VOLUNTARY non-mandatory behavior when playing sports and awarding scholarships to athletes. No athlete has to play a sport. No school has to field a team. No conference has to retain its members. And the NCAA certainly does NOT have to continue to allow any school that broke its internal bylaws on amateurism from participating in the NCAA. California can do or saw what it wants, but California most definitely cannot legislate hte bylaws of the NCAA (with appropriate caveats that discrimination on sex, race, etc could never be approved through such bylaws).

    Which brings me back to my main point: this is a solution in search of a problem. There are almost no athletes today who can earn endorsements coming out of high school and into their college years. And those very very few who can, will be able to by just skipping college a la LeBron James. This statute is an overbearing solution to a strictly hypothetical problem. The reality is that the athletes need the NCAA and the current paradigm just as much as vice versa and there is too much on the line for the current system to simply be scrapped. CBS/TBS etc paid billions and billions for the rights to the NCAA tournament for years, and I can assure you that they expect to get what they paid for in terms of a quality event with competitive games from both big and small schools going forward. They will fight tooth and nail to obtain the benefit of their bargain. Same goes for ESPN with the College Football Playoff, the bowl games, etc.

    Meanwhile, there are so many ways that actual deployment of this law will create new problems it is almost impossible to fathom.

    It is my opinion that this law will generate discussion and that some of that discussion may prove useful, but that at the end of the day, money talks and money wins--and money won't let this statute stand. Therefore, it won't. And the status quo will by and large persist, current political grandstanding on this issue notwithstanding.
    Please post more frequently on these forums.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    754

    Default

    California can regulate its own schools. NCAA can kick out those schools. NCAA can see what the landscape looks like with CA schools not participating and other states following it's lead. CA law will apply to CA schools over NCAA regulations. Not sure why you think the CA law is certainly unlikely to stand.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chattaroy
    Posts
    3,379

    Default

    A good read on this subject:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...itself/599926/

    The NCAA and its member schools are adept at pretending that figuring out a way to compensate athletes is as impossible as time travel. “It’s an incredibly complex issue. It’s like health care in America,” the Gonzaga head basketball coach Mark Few recently told Jeff Goodman, a senior college-basketball reporter for the digital sports network Stadium.

    But the truth is far simpler than that. The NCAA has no interest in sharing its vast wealth with its labor force. The system may change only if elected leaders—first Newsom and now Booker—step in and force the issue.
    http://www.fowlplaces.com/zags/GoZagsTinySignGuyGlassesColor.png

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    this... many girls on my daughter’s tennis team had work study type jobs at the D2 level
    I wonder, was she receiving scholarship money? From what I remember, student/athletes on scholarship were not permitted to have work study type jobs.

    I remember Hunt, who was a UNLV starting guard on their final four teams, had a t-shirt business and was making money selling his t-shirts. I don't have access to the exact wordage but the NCAA basically stated he could no longer own that business and play basketball. It was a big thing at the time and spoken about frequently when UNLV played on TV. Whether he was or wasn't trying to capitalize on his position as a UNLV starter but it seemed the NCAA didn't want an gray areas within their definition on "amateur standing."

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogozags View Post
    I wonder, was she receiving scholarship money? From what I remember, student/athletes on scholarship were not permitted to have work study type jobs.

    I remember Hunt, who was a UNLV starting guard on their final four teams, had a t-shirt business and was making money selling his t-shirts. I don't have access to the exact wordage but the NCAA basically stated he could no longer own that business and play basketball. It was a big thing at the time and spoken about frequently when UNLV played on TV. Whether he was or wasn't trying to capitalize on his position as a UNLV starter but it seemed the NCAA didn't want an gray areas within their definition on "amateur standing."
    Not her personally, but yes at least 2 of the girls had partial scholarships... nobody on her team had full-ride scholarships.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    California can regulate its own schools. NCAA can kick out those schools. NCAA can see what the landscape looks like with CA schools not participating and other states following it's lead. CA law will apply to CA schools over NCAA regulations. Not sure why you think the CA law is certainly unlikely to stand.
    negative commerce clause?

    (I have no clue whether the Act would withstand it; sounds like an interesting question though.)
    Last edited by Grand Valley Zag; 10-15-2019 at 08:06 AM. Reason: eta: Obvs that's not the argument 229 is making

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Valley Zag View Post
    negative commerce clause?

    (I have no clue whether the Act would withstand it; sounds like an interesting question though.)
    Good article on the issue :

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.si....ifornia-pac-12

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Spokane Valley
    Posts
    8,051

    Default

    This would also impact the WCC-- just signed with ESPN through 2027.
    "The Pac-12, meanwhile, is poised to lose four of its members—UCLA, USC, Cal and Stanford—in the event those schools can’t continue as NCAA members. The Pac-12 might need to be reconstituted as the Pac-8. The potential loss of revenue to the conference is considerable. The Pac-12 is in the middle of a $3 billion, 12-year TV rights deal where both ESPN and Fox pay for the right to broadcast Pac-12 games. The deal will expire in 2024—one year after the Act is scheduled to go into effect. Future conference business deals without the California schools, along with their fan bases and purchasing power, would be more difficult to negotiate. It’s thus not surprising that the Pac-12 swiftly issued a statement on Monday denouncing the Act. These same basic points also apply to the Mountain West Conference, which includes as members San Diego State, Fresno State and San Jose State."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •