|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Oct 7, 2019 10:15:04 GMT -8
Now that it the bill has been signed, I wanted to reopen the discussion. I think this is a terrible law, and will make my case by offering a few hypothetical possibilities. For the purposes of doing that, we'll assume such a law is in effect in Oregon and elsewhere.
Example #1. You will recall when Oregon reintroduced baseball some years ago, and Uncle Phil threw a ton of money into building state of the art facilities and hiring a big name coach. That was somewhat successful, and they very rapidly became competitive. What if Uncle Phil could also tell all incoming baseball recruits that he'd pay them each $150,000 per year for the use of their likeness in Nike commercials. That's way more than a minor league player earns. Would that not give Oregon an unfair advantage in recruiting against schools without such a sugar daddy?
Example #2. With Van Lith eliminating OSU, our point guard situation for the 2020 season becomes a big problem if Slocum goes pro. But the WNBA doesn't pay anything. So everybody on this board chips in, and we pay her $150,000 to return next year. Or some local business does; doesn't matter who. In the case of women's basketball, and many other sports, it is very feasible for the college to pay more than the pros.
Example #3. So let's take it to the next logical step along California's path. If I'm being paid $150,000 per year to play college sports, and you tell me I can only do that for 4 years, are you not depriving me of my opportunity, and right, to earn a living? Jake Luton is in his sixth year. If I can earn more playing basketball at OSU than I can in the WNBA, or, better yet, I'm not good enough to play professionally, shouldn't Coach be able to keep me on the team for as long as he wants? Why give a scholarship to an untested 17 year old when you can have a wily veteran with 9 years experience playing college ball?
Facetious? Maybe some, but not totally unrealistic. It's just part of the can of worms being opened.
|
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,828 
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Oct 7, 2019 11:46:55 GMT -8
I love your three examples bvrbooster ! I think California is about to explode the notion of "amateur" athletes - the NCAA will either have to challenge or embrace what California has just enacted (note California has provided enough runway for the NCAA to address the issue before they change things with this law). But I think just like we are exponentially altering our physical landscape, technology is exponentially altering almost every facet of life, sports included. What technology has done in the case of your example is make it possible for players to receive untraceable payments (e.g. bitcoin), or be a paid "influencer" via instragram/youtube etc. just by having a social presence and a personal brand. So the concept of a person "just" going to school is becoming antiquated, as is the notion that a person should spend a 4-5 year period of time unemployed acquiring skills with a half-life of......about 4-5 years, which is what higher education amounts to anymore. And the ability of the NCAA to enforce has been antiquated for some time (as has been noted elsewhere, OSU was prevented more than once by advancing to the Rose Bowl in the 2000s by paid athletes). Example #1 - Is it mere coincidence that uo has recruited a bazillion top-20 guards to the WBB team since a video was posted of Kobe Bryant coming into the locker room and signing SI's sneakers? Recruits can do the math........That will only become worse when your example comes true, because you can bet Nike is already working on it. Example #2 - is GoFundMe allowed by players in California law? Intriguing thought......someone posted on here how communities in Eastern Europe subsidize their pro WBB teams, and manage to pay more than WNBA. Example #3 - back to my point of people needing to re-educate themselves during their lives now more than once, why not allow "older than average" students to play sports? Or maybe I am a promising high schooler, I go test the waters in Europe, Australia, and then decide to go to school........what happens to the clause of "you can't have been off getting paid in the big leagues and then come back to school" when everyone is getting paid? Great examples. I actually think we are seeing the sunset era of amateur sports, and I wouldn't be surprised if sports in general get a technology makeover (replays, television are doing that now). I am glad I am old enough to remember when not everything was a business and not everyone was glued to technology 24x7, and note I work in high tech. I think we are in the process of losing something, but the changes are coming so fast and furious we don't have time to take a step back and ponder the changes....... Go Beavers! |
|
|
|
Post by alwaysorange on Oct 7, 2019 12:25:23 GMT -8
This law will be the end of college sports. Period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 13:21:28 GMT -8
This law will be the end of college sports. Period. No it won't!! It will mean change. A kid studying at college can have a job, be a social influencer, even have a business of sorts while in college to help make ends meet, and heaven forbid make some money. Athletes on the other hand cannot. It just means the NCAA can't stop another human from making some money when they want it all. Boo Frikkin Hoo. Other states are now starting to line up, so it is inevitable and won't kill off college sports it will just change things and all the people will adapt and the world will be a better place and college sports will thrive, the moon won't fall and really important things will still be there - like is Trump really that bad?  ?  |
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Oct 7, 2019 13:26:00 GMT -8
The rich will get richer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 13:37:49 GMT -8
I love your three examples bvrbooster ! I think California is about to explode the notion of "amateur" athletes - the NCAA will either have to challenge or embrace what California has just enacted (note California has provided enough runway for the NCAA to address the issue before they change things with this law). Great examples. I actually think we are seeing the sunset era of amateur sports, and I wouldn't be surprised if sports in general get a technology makeover (replays, television are doing that now). I am glad I am old enough to remember when not everything was a business and not everyone was glued to technology 24x7, and note I work in high tech. I think we are in the process of losing something, but the changes are coming so fast and furious we don't have time to take a step back and ponder the changes....... Go Beavers! 2017 the NCAA topped $1,000,000,000.00 and when the 2018 amounts are disclosed it will be higher as they seem to grow every year with bigger network deals. There is nothing amateur about college sports. Coaches making millions (and good on them by the way, I'm all for that) - there is nothing amateur about college sports Athletes can spend up to 50 hours a week in their sport - there is nothing amateur about college sports link |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Oct 7, 2019 13:42:30 GMT -8
I love your three examples bvrbooster ! I think California is about to explode the notion of "amateur" athletes - the NCAA will either have to challenge or embrace what California has just enacted (note California has provided enough runway for the NCAA to address the issue before they change things with this law). But I think just like we are exponentially altering our physical landscape, technology is exponentially altering almost every facet of life, sports included. What technology has done in the case of your example is make it possible for players to receive untraceable payments (e.g. bitcoin), or be a paid "influencer" via instragram/youtube etc. just by having a social presence and a personal brand. So the concept of a person "just" going to school is becoming antiquated, as is the notion that a person should spend a 4-5 year period of time unemployed acquiring skills with a half-life of......about 4-5 years, which is what higher education amounts to anymore. And the ability of the NCAA to enforce has been antiquated for some time (as has been noted elsewhere, OSU was prevented more than once by advancing to the Rose Bowl in the 2000s by paid athletes). Example #1 - Is it mere coincidence that uo has recruited a bazillion top-20 guards to the WBB team since a video was posted of Kobe Bryant coming into the locker room and signing SI's sneakers? Recruits can do the math........That will only become worse when your example comes true, because you can bet Nike is already working on it. Example #2 - is GoFundMe allowed by players in California law? Intriguing thought......someone posted on here how communities in Eastern Europe subsidize their pro WBB teams, and manage to pay more than WNBA. Example #3 - back to my point of people needing to re-educate themselves during their lives now more than once, why not allow "older than average" students to play sports? Or maybe I am a promising high schooler, I go test the waters in Europe, Australia, and then decide to go to school........what happens to the clause of "you can't have been off getting paid in the big leagues and then come back to school" when everyone is getting paid? Great examples. I actually think we are seeing the sunset era of amateur sports, and I wouldn't be surprised if sports in general get a technology makeover (replays, television are doing that now). I am glad I am old enough to remember when not everything was a business and not everyone was glued to technology 24x7, and note I work in high tech. I think we are in the process of losing something, but the changes are coming so fast and furious we don't have time to take a step back and ponder the changes....... Go Beavers! One point that needs to be made is that someone couldn't go overseas to play and still maintain their amature status - so this law does not impact that aspect. Besides, playing overseas is not a hindrance to moving into the US pro ranks, at least in basketball, so skipping college entirely has always been an option for top players. It also doesn't kick in for 4 years, so there is some time to sort through things. But honestly, if you didn't see this coming down the pike at some point in the future however it was sorted out, either by legislative or by legal action, I'm surprised. Even pro baseball, which has the ultimate in control in it's anti-trust exemptions, has had to bend to things like a player's union and free agency. The NCAA is subject not only to it's own rules, but also to the largess of system in allowing it's rules to stand. The system is changing, free market forces are starting to get the upper hand, and my bet is that the courts will stand with the free market. Is it bad for Oregon State football and basketball, quite possibly. But it is great for all those athletes who don't have a future in a pro level, especially on the women's side of things and in the Olympic sports, to make hay while their star shines in college. |
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,828
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Oct 7, 2019 14:00:40 GMT -8
I love your three examples bvrbooster ! I think California is about to explode the notion of "amateur" athletes - the NCAA will either have to challenge or embrace what California has just enacted (note California has provided enough runway for the NCAA to address the issue before they change things with this law). Great examples. I actually think we are seeing the sunset era of amateur sports, and I wouldn't be surprised if sports in general get a technology makeover (replays, television are doing that now). I am glad I am old enough to remember when not everything was a business and not everyone was glued to technology 24x7, and note I work in high tech. I think we are in the process of losing something, but the changes are coming so fast and furious we don't have time to take a step back and ponder the changes....... Go Beavers! 2017 the NCAA topped $1,000,000,000.00 and when the 2018 amounts are disclosed it will be higher as they seem to grow every year with bigger network deals. There is nothing amateur about college sports. Coaches making millions (and good on them by the way, I'm all for that) - there is nothing amateur about college sports Athletes can spend up to 50 hours a week in their sport - there is nothing amateur about college sports linkVery good points - I should have said: I actually think we are seeing the sunset era of "amateur" sports, and I wouldn't be surprised if sports in general get a technology makeover.... You are right - the accelerating commercialization of NCAA activities over these many years is the death knell of college sports as it has been imaged - and technology is accelerating the makeover. Again - you are correct - there is nothing amateur about college sports today. Go Beavers! |
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,828
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Oct 7, 2019 14:18:14 GMT -8
I love your three examples bvrbooster ! I think California is about to explode the notion of "amateur" athletes - the NCAA will either have to challenge or embrace what California has just enacted (note California has provided enough runway for the NCAA to address the issue before they change things with this law). But I think just like we are exponentially altering our physical landscape, technology is exponentially altering almost every facet of life, sports included. What technology has done in the case of your example is make it possible for players to receive untraceable payments (e.g. bitcoin), or be a paid "influencer" via instragram/youtube etc. just by having a social presence and a personal brand. So the concept of a person "just" going to school is becoming antiquated, as is the notion that a person should spend a 4-5 year period of time unemployed acquiring skills with a half-life of......about 4-5 years, which is what higher education amounts to anymore. And the ability of the NCAA to enforce has been antiquated for some time (as has been noted elsewhere, OSU was prevented more than once by advancing to the Rose Bowl in the 2000s by paid athletes). Example #1 - Is it mere coincidence that uo has recruited a bazillion top-20 guards to the WBB team since a video was posted of Kobe Bryant coming into the locker room and signing SI's sneakers? Recruits can do the math........That will only become worse when your example comes true, because you can bet Nike is already working on it. Example #2 - is GoFundMe allowed by players in California law? Intriguing thought......someone posted on here how communities in Eastern Europe subsidize their pro WBB teams, and manage to pay more than WNBA. Example #3 - back to my point of people needing to re-educate themselves during their lives now more than once, why not allow "older than average" students to play sports? Or maybe I am a promising high schooler, I go test the waters in Europe, Australia, and then decide to go to school........what happens to the clause of "you can't have been off getting paid in the big leagues and then come back to school" when everyone is getting paid? Great examples. I actually think we are seeing the sunset era of amateur sports, and I wouldn't be surprised if sports in general get a technology makeover (replays, television are doing that now). I am glad I am old enough to remember when not everything was a business and not everyone was glued to technology 24x7, and note I work in high tech. I think we are in the process of losing something, but the changes are coming so fast and furious we don't have time to take a step back and ponder the changes....... Go Beavers! One point that needs to be made is that someone couldn't go overseas to play and still maintain their amature status - so this law does not impact that aspect. Besides, playing overseas is not a hindrance to moving into the US pro ranks, at least in basketball, so skipping college entirely has always been an option for top players. It also doesn't kick in for 4 years, so there is some time to sort through things. But honestly, if you didn't see this coming down the pike at some point in the future however it was sorted out, either by legislative or by legal action, I'm surprised. Even pro baseball, which has the ultimate in control in it's anti-trust exemptions, has had to bend to things like a player's union and free agency. The NCAA is subject not only to it's own rules, but also to the largess of system in allowing it's rules to stand. The system is changing, free market forces are starting to get the upper hand, and my bet is that the courts will stand with the free market. Is it bad for Oregon State football and basketball, quite possibly. But it is great for all those athletes who don't have a future in a pro level, especially on the women's side of things and in the Olympic sports, to make hay while their star shines in college. Great observations. I don't want to verge into political realms, but the presence of large amounts of money quickly and radically changes the shape and character of what ever space is being monetized. I have a friend in the legal business who talks about the correlation of 3-strikes laws with mandatory sentencing guidelines and privatized for-profit prison businesses...... I think that the shape and character of NCAA sports is about to be blown up by California's law. I am just not sure I am ready for a world where my beloved OSU Beavers are the McMinamin's Beavers, and everything is an ad for something and clickbait for something.......but I am rarely the target audience as I continue to age :-). But the best part of the illusion of amateur athletes was the illusion that education was a valuable thing, and a valuable part of the "amateur" sports equation. We learn, once again, that it's all about the money. And, when the sums of money are so large, why shouldn't it be? And, as my old boss would say, "there is chump in every business equation" - the 'chump' being exploited in this case was the 'amateur' athletes. Kudos to California for attempting to address. It would have been good for the NCAA to be proactive about remedying the exploitative nature of the business, but most all of our business models are extractive and exploitative in nature. Hence the tenuous position we are in overall as a race (great TED talk on Circular Economies by Dame Ellen McCarthur out there, but since this is getting far afield from the topic at hand, I will not link). Go Beavers! |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 7, 2019 14:49:53 GMT -8
First... the NCAA is a 501(3)(c) nonprofit. 90-95% of its $1 bil+ revenue goes directly to conferences, schools, and student athletes. 80-85% of that revenue comes from one event... the MBB tourney.
Another mention, players can work... out of season with university permission.
Both systems can coexist. One has universities that want to deal with the impossible task of policing and enforcing athletes getting paid. The others in a paired down, more amateur sports giving the NCAA a chance to revamp/reinvent itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Oct 7, 2019 17:06:44 GMT -8
If I were running the NCAA, I'd tell the California schools that, if they want to allow their athletes to be paid, they will have to give up their voluntary affiliation with the NCAA. It is voluntary, and membership is predicated upon agreeing to follow the rules laid out by the member institutions over many decades. It seems to me that the NCAA and the affected schools should sue the state of California, and should do it sooner rather than later.
Once again, it's not just the big revenue sports.I don't know off hand where Jeff Bezos went to college, but if he were a water polo or cross country fan, he could turn his alma mater from not even having a team to perennial national champions in about 3 years. Oprah likes field hockey, and went to some obscure little college somewhere? Good bye Johns Hopkins, hello Oprah's school.
|
|
zzufrevaeb
Sophomore
Not beaverfuzz
hi
Posts: 1,502
|
Post by zzufrevaeb on Oct 8, 2019 7:26:17 GMT -8
Anyone who receives outside income shall have their scholarship money taxed. It's only fair.
If you're a walk-on, more power to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Oct 8, 2019 14:15:33 GMT -8
Anyone who receives outside income shall have their scholarship money taxed. It's only fair. If you're a walk-on, more power to you. their earnings from all things not scholarship will be taxed, I don't believe actual school scholarships are taxed now regardless of how much a student (or student/athlete) earns outside of school. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Oct 8, 2019 21:11:44 GMT -8
I agree it will change things, and very likely in a bad way for the smaller markets. I think the perspectives that it's ok as-is though can only come from not wanting a change. If the current farce of the NCAA and amateur athletes didn't previously exist and the concept was proposed fresh today, it would be laughed out of the country as a ridiculously parasitic and anti-capitalistic proposal.
Worldwide, it works just fine paying kids early on. Sure hasn't hurt the soccer or hockey worldwide. Their junior clubs indeed aren't affiliated with universities though. We like the culture of sports connected to our academic institutions, but everybody else just looks at it as an odd fit.
I do hope though that it ends the ludicrous arms race of college sports, rather than ramp it up - but that seems unlikely at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by sewingbeaver on Oct 29, 2019 19:51:08 GMT -8
NCAA has made a decision....
|
|
? 
