Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 80

Thread: Withers: Zags & the NIL issue

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Spokane Valley
    Posts
    8,199

    Default

    GU, Portland and BYU would be on the outside looking in-- the clock is running -- 2023 to find a new home if the NCAA drops the hammer on California.

    The Pac/MWC are in the same boat with some of their schools.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    There was an implication, in a statement by the Pac 12 commissioner, that while the legislation can make any in state educational institution allow their athletes to profit from their name and likeness, the legislature cannot require the institutions to allow those student athletes to be permitted to be on the team.

    That commissioner sees a very real battle that the NCAA will fight, that schools, and conferences, have entered into a binding agreement whereby in exchange for operating under the auspices of the by-laws of the NCAA, they also reap the rewards. That failure to do so would/could result in expulsion from the NCAA and not be allowed in any NCAA sanctioned events and/or tournaments.

    A conundrum, to be sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    Will it's designed to be trouble. That's the point of all things in CA with Gavin Gov. It's the "new" way of thinking. I was sorta serious. I'd let everyone who want the extra goodies enroll in Ca as the NCAA surely will be fighting this in court for ages. I'd get serious and simply shut it down. Those who want the extra money, etc.... should play for the CA college championship. Isolate them, just say NO, and let it wind it's way where it's bound to go. At least the mayhem generated by the Gov will be contained and we can get on with the seasons. This is deliberate on CA part. SO let em reap their rewards while the rest of the country gets on with tradition.
    Quote Originally Posted by Larryzag View Post
    +1 The only problem is that GU and Portland would have to look for a new league to join. MWC?
    Abe's response was to mine, that the PAC 12 commissioner, doesn't foresee allowing it to happen. The schools CAN be required to allow the players to be paid for likeness and name usage, but they CANNOT be required to allow those same student athletes to be enrolled in school.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    206

    Default

    A few quick points. The horse is already out of the barn with this one. Football is driving this not basketball. Every single major football state already has something in the works or will have something in the works by the time this comes around. The NLI issue is a workaround so the NCAA can keep it's student athlete designation, but the players can get fair market value for their labor through other means. Donors giving money makes about around a third of college sports revenue already. Just divert that money to the players above and beyond scholarships. The schools that already get the best talent will continue to get the best talent.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasZagFan View Post
    I take great exception to your phrase .There's a direct implication of indentured servitude, when it couldn't be farther from the truth. These student athletes were not forced to sign an LOI to Gonzaga, they chose to from their own free will.

    No doubt the University has benefited greatly from the exposure generated by those early teams 20 years ago. I would argue the student body has benefited as a whole from the greatly superior facilities now in use at Gonzaga. I attended GU from 72-76, when the Crosby Student Center housed the Crosby Library. I've been in the new library, and seen the other facilities built over the past 20 years.

    It wouldn't surprise me if you took a jab at those of us who attended Gonzaga on an ROTC scholarship. In exchange for 4 years of the Army paying for my books, tuition, lab fees, etc. I agreed to serve 4 years on active duty. It was one of the best decisions of my life, taking advantage of that scholarship to matriculate at Gonzaga. It was the springboard to experiences I never could have imagined as a teenager.

    IMO, you are giving little or no weight or consideration to the value of the scholarships these athletes receive. There is more to attending Gonzaga than just the sheer money value of that scholarship, the intangible benefits are enormous.

    If it's just about money, let these players take their skills overseas or in the NBA's developmental leagues. The NCAA does need to step up and adjust the system, but to scrap the system for less than 5% of student athletes is not a solution.
    I think its pretty obvious that the basketball program over the past 20 years has had a directly and very profitable impact on Gonzaga. Its not an impact of a few million. We are talking about 100's of millions. The players are the ones who win the games on the court.

    My whole point, is that there are vast amounts of money in the system. And the players are the ones putting in the work entertaining everyone. I don't know the answer. But to act as if the scholarship and other benefits is adequate based on the revenues generated. Its not.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asoc View Post
    I think its pretty obvious that the basketball program over the past 20 years has had a directly and very profitable impact on Gonzaga. Its not an impact of a few million. We are talking about 100's of millions. The players are the ones who win the games on the court.

    My whole point, is that there are vast amounts of money in the system. And the players are the ones putting in the work entertaining everyone. I don't know the answer. But to act as if the scholarship and other benefits is adequate based on the revenues generated. Its not.
    And that is your opinion. You are entitled to it. TZF has a different opinion, one that is derived from his time at Gonzaga. Mine is also different from yours because of my love of amateur athletics. IN MY OPINION, when donors are once again able to directly funnel money to the athletes, once again the state of college athletics will suffer.

    I have shared the idea of not allowing current athletes jerseys or images to be used. If the athletes are not getting enough money, increase the stipend for every athlete, male and female, in every sport at every institution.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ladyzag12 View Post
    A few quick points. The horse is already out of the barn with this one. Football is driving this not basketball. Every single major football state already has something in the works or will have something in the works by the time this comes around. The NLI issue is a workaround so the NCAA can keep it's student athlete designation, but the players can get fair market value for their labor through other means. Donors giving money makes about around a third of college sports revenue already. Just divert that money to the players above and beyond scholarships. The schools that already get the best talent will continue to get the best talent.
    I wouldn’t be so sure. Long miles to go on this. Years in the making and more years to unwind it. Anything Newsom. Like up is bound to flummox. It’s his nature but let’s not let this issue corrupt the game. I still like the idea of the money boys compete for the Ca st championship and let the rest of the country move in.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    And that is your opinion. You are entitled to it. TZF has a different opinion, one that is derived from his time at Gonzaga. Mine is also different from yours because of my love of amateur athletics. IN MY OPINION, when donors are once again able to directly funnel money to the athletes, once again the state of college athletics will suffer.

    I have shared the idea of not allowing current athletes jerseys or images to be used. If the athletes are not getting enough money, increase the stipend for every athlete, male and female, in every sport at every institution.
    I agree with Will on this. When the agents colleges or lawyer get greedy for the NCAAs stack , amateurism will suffer. I hate the idea of amateurs who come and go in a short period of time peeing in their own back yard for a few bucks more. Maybe be a bit more but not so much as to distract from their mission in college.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    812

    Default

    Let's not forget that the NBA creates a lot of these problems with the one and done rule, too. American players can't play professionally in their own country at 18 years old and are better off marketing their skills in college rather than taking the $125K G-League option. If we lose the one and done rule the top high school kids will be able to capitalize on their skills without having to do this whole year long college dog and pony show thing that's going on now.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,389

    Default

    if being a college athlete is a business opportunity, then all of their scholarships/room and board/monthly stipend should be considered income....and taxed...

    seriously, who would not want to play on a college team especially someplace like Gonzaga, or Duke, or NC etc...its such a privilege and so rewarding in itself....

    but the money people will ruin it.....

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,567

    Default

    Doc,

    CA is just the FIRST state to pass such a law and this law only applies to public institutions...schools such as USD or USC, SCU and Stanford will not be under the jurisdiction of this new law.

    There will be many other states that pass the same type of law that will come into play in 2023.

    My view is, IF a CA public university/college signs a kid to a scholarship to play a sport and afterwards that kid accepts money for doing a TV or radio commercial, the AD would not be able to take his scholarship away; however, presently the NCAA could declare that player ineligible and any games the kids plays will be forfeited.

    Once other states implement similar laws, the NCAA will have no choice but to adjust or go the way of the Dodo bird...adjustments will have to be made and some kinds of rules will have to be implemented BUT still, booster money will have an impact on where the 5* recruit goes to school.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogozags View Post
    Doc,

    CA is just the FIRST state to pass such a law and this law only applies to public institutions...schools such as USD or USC, SCU and Stanford will not be under the jurisdiction of this new law.
    This is incorrect. The law specifically applies to all public and private universities in CA.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    This is incorrect. The law specifically applies to all public and private universities in CA.
    I'm not understanding how the State can dictate to religious/private schools what they can and cannot do...don't think this will hold up in the SCOTUS...at leastI think in this court.

    I just assumed and that made me wrong...thanks for the correction!

    Other states will follow the direction of CA law and that will make the NCAA adjust.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogozags View Post
    I'm not understanding how the State can dictate to religious/private schools what they can and cannot do...don't think this will hold up in the SCOTUS...at leastI think in this court.

    I just assumed and that made me wrong...thanks for the correction!

    Other states will follow the direction of CA law and that will make the NCAA adjust.
    If they or their students get state aid... and I'd bet bottom dollar they do... the state can enforce rules on them.
    "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

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    I don't think I saw anyone post this yet but WA politicians now officially pushing for NCAA athletes to be able to be paid as well. Hitting very close to home now and it will be interesting to see what happens.

    https://mynorthwest.com/1563723/ncaa...shington-state

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    If they or their students get state aid... and I'd bet bottom dollar they do... the state can enforce rules on them.
    Exactly right. I had a discussion about accepting school vouchers with my pastor. I warned him to be careful what he wished for. Accepting money from the state always has strings attached that result in unintended consequences.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    812

    Default

    Private schools in CA (and elsewhere) need to comply with virtually all CA (or local state) laws. This law is no different. USC and USD and Stanford need to comply with employment laws for their employees, real estate permitting and oversight via state laws and regulations, state tax laws, etc. etc.

    Colleges don't get a pass from state law because theyre a private educational school. These colleges are still incorporated as nonprofit corporations under state law and are treated no different that a private business.

    It really has nothing to do with accepting state funds. It's more like if you're operating in CA you need to follow state law.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    Private schools in CA (and elsewhere) need to comply with virtually all CA (or local state) laws. This law is no different. USC and USD and Stanford need to comply with employment laws for their employees, real estate permitting and oversight via state laws and regulations, state tax laws, etc. etc.

    Colleges don't get a pass from state law because theyre a private educational school. These colleges are still incorporated as nonprofit corporations under state law and are treated no different that a private business.

    It really has nothing to do with accepting state funds. It's more like if you're operating in CA you need to follow state law.
    It's a little more complicated than that. The CDE (California Department of Education) has no authority to monitor or regulate private schools. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ps/psfaq.asp#a11

    https://www.educationnext.org/privat...-discriminate/

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    It's a little more complicated than that. The CDE (California Department of Education) has no authority to monitor or regulate private schools. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ps/psfaq.asp#a11

    https://www.educationnext.org/privat...-discriminate/
    You are conflating school vouchers (a K-12 program) with Higher-ed. They are NOT the same thing. Federal financial aid at the school level (which likely bankrolls most schools) comes with federal restrictions. Likewise at the state level. California gives out grants, loans and scholarships as well. These give them oversight in how that money is used. Private does NOT mean ignoring rules stipulated by the government(s) provided to the college or university. A private college that completely forgoes this money is free to do what they want... but since many students depend on these state and federal grants/scholarships/loans... they would likely be hard-pressed to survive as a viable entity.

    There are definitely legal issues with the California law, but their right to assert rules (based on state financial aid) on private universities within the state is NOT one of those issues.

    For the record, I work at a private university and have been working in Higher Ed for close to 20 years, so I do have some idea as to how this works.
    "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

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    You are conflating school vouchers (a K-12 program) with Higher-ed. They are NOT the same thing. Federal financial aid at the school level (which likely bankrolls most schools) comes with federal restrictions. Likewise at the state level. California gives out grants, loans and scholarships as well. These give them oversight in how that money is used. Private does NOT mean ignoring rules stipulated by the government(s) provided to the college or university. A private college that completely forgoes this money is free to do what they want... but since many students depend on these state and federal grants/scholarships/loans... they would likely be hard-pressed to survive as a viable entity.

    There are definitely legal issues with the California law, but their right to assert rules (based on state financial aid) on private universities within the state is NOT one of those issues.

    For the record, I work at a private university and have been working in Higher Ed for close to 20 years, so I do have some idea as to how this works.
    I'm not disagreeing with you. CB4 cited all private schools in California. That's why I said it is more complicated than that.

    He also said it has nothing to do with accepting state funds.

    Anytime anyone or any institution accepts government money, they are immediately placed under the thumb of said government.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    I'm not disagreeing with you. CB4 cited all private schools in California. That's why I said it is more complicated than that.

    Anytime anyone or any institution accepts government money, they are immediately placed under the thumb of said government.
    Not sure I'd use that terminology... but I agree with you that the government has oversight. Your average private school likely gets at or close to or above 8-9 figures in federal and state monies depending on the school size. That is serious coin and just like any "investor" that bankrolls are large amount of an enterprise, they get some say.
    "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

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,122

    Default

    Little appreciated fact Mark. It includes hospitals and buildings. If even a small amount (20% or less) of government money is used, the Government rules generally apply across the board. Corrupt trap.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    If they or their students get state aid... and I'd bet bottom dollar they do... the state can enforce rules on them.
    Yes ur right, forgot about private school’s using state funds...Thanks for ring up that point!

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,768

    Default

    https://apnews.com/d115b6a1ba974a98abee92c7c728a89d
    Some new info from Ralph Russo of the AP

    the NCAA would like to draw a line between allowing athletes access to money-making opportunities that have well-defined market value and those where payments could be arbitrary and used in lieu of improper recruiting inducements ... Such a stance would mean prohibiting an athlete from cutting a deal with a local business to appear in a commercial, for example, but letting athletes take advantage of opportunities to monetize their social media followings.
    Agent provocateur

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    8,612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonuvazag View Post
    https://apnews.com/d115b6a1ba974a98abee92c7c728a89d
    Some new info from Ralph Russo of the AP
    The fatal flaw in that argument: money is fungible, there will always be those who will skirt the rules to benefit their dear, old alma mater.

    Any athlete seeking to earn money beyond their scholarship and stipend need to take the leap and go professional. IMO, the vast majority of those never desired the educational opportunity, so why change the rules to benefit such a small minority of college athletes?

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasZagFan View Post
    The fatal flaw in that argument: money is fungible, there will always be those who will skirt the rules to benefit their dear, old alma mater.

    Any athlete seeking to earn money beyond their scholarship and stipend need to take the leap and go professional. IMO, the vast majority of those never desired the educational opportunity, so why change the rules to benefit such a small minority of college athletes?
    I agree.

    I don't understand why the NCAA doesn't take a stance on athletes and attending college, as they have in Baseball and Football. I DO get it that the NBA won't allow high school seniors to come directly, but that should be THEIR problem and not the NCAA. Maybe working with the NBA and have them drop that age requirement, which is not likely, or have them expand it one more year. Then those that choose college would have to attend and keep up their grades to continue playing, or go to a lesser professional league, either domestically or overseas.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

Posting Permissions

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