Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Basketball
Topic:  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'

Topic:  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
Author
Message
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 1:26:47 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
Interesting - can you put others in this group of compensated but not employees category? Who would be such beings? Are they also paid a flat rate regardless of value? I would guess a contractor or free-lancer - but they are paid according to their worth? Who else lives in this compensated but not an employee world?


Sure.

A History major with an academic scholarship. She gets a break on tuition or maybe even free tuition. She is not an employee of the university. All scholarship recipients get the same benefit. They don't prorate it based upon earning potential.

Patrons of your local library, where they can read any book for free (compensation). They are not employees. All patrons receive the same benefit.


Edit, another: an attorney who agrees to draft a will for his buddy who is a house painter. The buddy paints the lawyer's house. The painter gets a will drafted. Both are compensated. Neither is an employee of the other.

Last Edited: 9/16/2019 1:32:42 PM by Robert Fox
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,285

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 1:40:57 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:

The athletes retain full "rights" to their own, future employability--be it athletic, professional or otherwise. They do not retain rights to the Ohio University Bobcats football team, nor should they. Just as the founder of Imgur had rights to his brainchild, but not rights to the Computer Science Department.


I never implied that they should retain rights to the Ohio Bobcats football team. I've only pointed out that they should be able to earn compensation beyond the scholarship they're provided.

As for Imgur example, you dodged the relevant question. Do you think Ohio University should have owned the rights to Imgur because the founder was on scholarship there when it was founded?

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

As for this. . .

Robert Fox wrote:

No. Because I believe this attempt to make things better will actually have the reverse effect.


Why?

[QUOTE=Robert Fox]
And it's worth noting that I don't hear all that many current athletes grumbling so much as I hear politicos grumbling. You're all working to supposedly look out for "the little guy." Meanwhile, your solution could sh!t can the whole thing.


How could this shit can the whole thing? That's the question I keep asking.

Folks on the other side (like you and OCF) keep insisting this could bring down the whole model, but it's not clear to me why or how. I keep asking that very directly, but nobody explains it. They just keep insisting it's the case.

Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,821

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 1:46:45 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
cc-cat wrote:
Interesting - can you put others in this group of compensated but not employees category? Who would be such beings? Are they also paid a flat rate regardless of value? I would guess a contractor or free-lancer - but they are paid according to their worth? Who else lives in this compensated but not an employee world?


Sure.

A History major with an academic scholarship. She gets a break on tuition or maybe even free tuition. She is not an employee of the university. All scholarship recipients get the same benefit. They don't prorate it based upon earning potential.

She has free will to earn as much money outside of the compensation of tuition and can go to another school next week and continue her pursuit without sitting out a year.

Robert Fox wrote:

Patrons of your local library, where they can read any book for free (compensation). They are not employees. All patrons receive the same benefit.

All patrons can pursue other riches as they wish

Robert Fox wrote:

Edit, another: an attorney who agrees to draft a will for his buddy who is a house painter. The buddy paints the lawyer's house. The painter gets a will drafted. Both are compensated. Neither is an employee of the other.


And if it is a murder trial the two parties can discuss even greater compensation.


Last Edited: 9/16/2019 1:47:24 PM by cc-cat
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 1:57:00 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


As for Imgur example, you dodged the relevant question. Do you think Ohio University should have owned the rights to Imgur because the founder was on scholarship there when it was founded?


I did answer that question. I simply took your analogy a step further. Does an athlete who performs well have the rights to the football team's financial success? I say no. I (assume) you say yes.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Folks on the other side (like you and OCF) keep insisting this could bring down the whole model, but it's not clear to me why or how. I keep asking that very directly, but nobody explains it. They just keep insisting it's the case.


I believe your system would pit the haves against the have-nots. I believe teams like OU would not be able to compete financially with the Power 5 teams. And of the Power 5, only some of those would prosper. This concept of compensation in the form of salary would be possible only from programs with money. Of all 120 or so teams, how many fit into that category? 10? 20? Beyond the schools themselves forking out dough, I assume your model would allow for corporate payments from Nike, Adidas, UnderArmour, whoever. Are those companies going to waste dollars on the Ohio Bobcats or Louisiana Lafeyette?

If we want to shake up the whole system and create a minor league for the NFL, which in essence is what this is, then I would prefer colleges like OU simply pull the plug and go back to the club sports model. Or, the alternative would be to completely separate from the Power 5. Make the Group of Five a completely independent league. Limit interconference play to other G5 teams, and play for a national championship.
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,821

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 2:10:40 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:

I believe your system would pit the haves against the have-nots. I believe teams like OU would not be able to compete financially with the Power 5 teams. And of the Power 5, only some of those would prosper. This concept of compensation in the form of salary would be possible only from programs with money. Of all 120 or so teams, how many fit into that category? 10? 20?


This is a accurate description of the current situation as well. So such compensation would arguable only solidify the status quo.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,285

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 2:23:59 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:


I did answer that question. I simply took your analogy a step further. Does an athlete who performs well have the rights to the football team's financial success? I say no. I (assume) you say yes.


In that case, I don't think you understood the analogy.

At no point did I say anything to infer that I thought the founder of Imgur had any right to the Computer Science department at Ohio University. In the analogy, the Computer Science Department = the Football team and Imgur = outside compensation, whatever form that takes.

My entire point is that the Imgur Founder's scholarship didn't preclude him from earning outside income or give Ohio University the right or ability to limit him from earning outside income.

What about that point makes you assume that I think a football player has rights to the football team's financial success?

Robert Fox wrote:

I believe your system would pit the haves against the have-nots. I believe teams like OU would not be able to compete financially with the Power 5 teams. And of the Power 5, only some of those would prosper. This concept of compensation in the form of salary would be possible only from programs with money. Of all 120 or so teams, how many fit into that category? 10? 20? Beyond the schools themselves forking out dough, I assume your model would allow for corporate payments from Nike, Adidas, UnderArmour, whoever. Are those companies going to waste dollars on the Ohio Bobcats or Louisiana Lafeyette?

If we want to shake up the whole system and create a minor league for the NFL, which in essence is what this is, then I would prefer colleges like OU simply pull the plug and go back to the club sports model. Or, the alternative would be to completely separate from the Power 5. Make the Group of Five a completely independent league. Limit interconference play to other G5 teams, and play for a national championship.



Respectfully, you're not paying attention at all.

Nobody here is suggesting that universities pay a salary. This thread and conversation is about a very specific piece of legislation that proposes a very specific change. Not only does the bill not include a salary paid by the university, its entire premise rests on the basic premise that universities not pay a salary.

As for outside dough, you're right. The Ohio Universities of the world aren't going to see much if any of that money. I don't care even a little bit. Maintaining the thin veneer of competitive balance that currently exists is not a good enough reason to strip people of their right to earn a living. I mean, for God's sake, the 'competitive balance' people are fighting to uphold is a system in which Ohio University isn't even eligible to win a national championship. If we dropped down to the club level, at least we'd be playing for something.


Last Edited: 9/16/2019 2:24:50 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,285

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 2:35:27 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:


Sure.

A History major with an academic scholarship. She gets a break on tuition or maybe even free tuition. She is not an employee of the university. All scholarship recipients get the same benefit. They don't prorate it based upon earning potential.


To hammer the point home, history majors do not have restrictions placed on income they can earn.

If I were a history major on scholarship at OU and Simon & Schuster offered me $200,000 to write a book about Frederick Douglass, I would be fully within my rights to do so.

On the other hand, if I'm on an athletic scholarship and playing Quarterback, and Nike offers be $500 a month to wear Nikes, my scholarship's voided and I'm no longer eligible to play football.

The entire point of the legislation proposed by the state of California is to remove restrictions on outside earnings for people on an athletic scholarship and to treat them comparably to those on academic scholarships.

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 2:42:17 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Maintaining the thin veneer of competitive balance that currently exists is not a good enough reason to strip people of their right to earn a living. I mean, for God's sake, the 'competitive balance' people are fighting to uphold is a system in which Ohio University isn't even eligible to win a national championship. If we dropped down to the club level, at least we'd be playing for something.




I'm not paying attention. OK.

No one's ability to earn a living is being stripped. You could argue it's being delayed, but not stripped. Players from Ohio University and schools like it have future ability to earn. The system does not take that away any more than the academic scholarship recipient has a future ability to earn. Allowing them to earn now via corporate dollars will exploit the system and ultimately make it crash. It's that simple. Apparently you agree it will crash, but you're OK with that. Instead, I say pursue the exclusive G5 model. Compete for a G5 National Championship. Compete with schools that have similar budgets and limitations. Leave the amateur status alone.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 2:46:47 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:


Sure.

A History major with an academic scholarship. She gets a break on tuition or maybe even free tuition. She is not an employee of the university. All scholarship recipients get the same benefit. They don't prorate it based upon earning potential.


To hammer the point home, history majors do not have restrictions placed on income they can earn.

If I were a history major on scholarship at OU and Simon & Schuster offered me $200,000 to write a book about Frederick Douglass, I would be fully within my rights to do so.

On the other hand, if I'm on an athletic scholarship and playing Quarterback, and Nike offers be $500 a month to wear Nikes, my scholarship's voided and I'm no longer eligible to play football.

The entire point of the legislation proposed by the state of California is to remove restrictions on outside earnings for people on an athletic scholarship and to treat them comparably to those on academic scholarships.


If you believe those two things are comparable, then we aren't going to get very far. The book on Frederick Douglas would be ENTIRELY of your own making. Your words. Your research. Your efforts. Alone.

The QB is capitalizing on a scenario that wouldn't exist without thousands of other people, including dozens of teammates, coaches, managers, trainers, facilities, and on and on and on.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 2:49:09 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:

I believe your system would pit the haves against the have-nots. I believe teams like OU would not be able to compete financially with the Power 5 teams. And of the Power 5, only some of those would prosper. This concept of compensation in the form of salary would be possible only from programs with money. Of all 120 or so teams, how many fit into that category? 10? 20?


This is a accurate description of the current situation as well. So such compensation would arguable only solidify the status quo.


Well keep in mind I'm not paying attention, so you may want to amend your post.

Edit: By the way, is that what you want? To solidify the status quo?

Last Edited: 9/16/2019 2:50:30 PM by Robert Fox
Back to Top
  
giacomo
General User

Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,624

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 2:49:50 PM 
You’re making too much sense. The money is there in the Power 5, but this would not be akin to paying players. They know this will open the door to much more. I’m certain the likes of OSU and Alabama love full stadiums and TV revenue and all they mostly do is assimilate 100 kids into the system. If you can pay your Coach 9M, you can pay players. Of course they won’t like it.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,285

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 2:54:37 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:


I'm not paying attention. OK.


I mean, you went on a whole rant about how no schools outside of the P5 can afford to pay salaries and the conversation has nothing to do with salaries. So sort of hard to conclude you understand what the legislation's proposing.

Robert Fox wrote:

The system does not take that away any more than the academic scholarship recipient has a future ability to earn.


It 100% does. I've explained how like 5 times. You can keep ignoring it, keep mixing up th Imgur analogy, but that doesn't make you right.


Robert Fox wrote:

Allowing them to earn now via corporate dollars will exploit the system and ultimately make it crash. It's that simple.


You keep insisting on this. But when I asked you what would cause it to crash, you explained that nobody can afford to pay salaries.

How will allowing players to earn income outside of their scholarships cause the system to crash? That's the single question I've asked you and OCF over and over, and neither of you have addressed it. You just keep insisting it's the case.


Robert Fox wrote:

Apparently you agree it will crash, but you're OK with that.


I didn't agree it will crash. I just acknowledged that Ohio University athletes will see less benefit than Zion Williamson will. How does that equal a crash?

Robert Fox wrote:

Instead, I say pursue the exclusive G5 model. Compete for a G5 National Championship. Compete with schools that have similar budgets and limitations. Leave the amateur status alone.


I wouldn't be opposed to this at all.

In fact, given how many people insist that what's so great about college football is the amateur status, one can only conclude that if G5 schools broke away and maintained amateur status would become a huge success and everybody would lose interest in Alabama and Clemson because Trevor Lawrence is on a Wheaties box and therefore doing everything for the wrong reasons, or whatever.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,285

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:01:37 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:


Sure.

A History major with an academic scholarship. She gets a break on tuition or maybe even free tuition. She is not an employee of the university. All scholarship recipients get the same benefit. They don't prorate it based upon earning potential.


To hammer the point home, history majors do not have restrictions placed on income they can earn.

If I were a history major on scholarship at OU and Simon & Schuster offered me $200,000 to write a book about Frederick Douglass, I would be fully within my rights to do so.

On the other hand, if I'm on an athletic scholarship and playing Quarterback, and Nike offers be $500 a month to wear Nikes, my scholarship's voided and I'm no longer eligible to play football.

The entire point of the legislation proposed by the state of California is to remove restrictions on outside earnings for people on an athletic scholarship and to treat them comparably to those on academic scholarships.


If you believe those two things are comparable, then we aren't going to get very far. The book on Frederick Douglas would be ENTIRELY of your own making. Your words. Your research. Your efforts. Alone.


If you believe this is true, I think you're the one accidentally making the case that a college education is worth nothing.

If my book on Frederick Douglass was in no way influenced by my time at OU -- nothing my professors said or assigned influenced my thinking in any way, than why did I bother show up? Somehow the history department's incapable of providing support to its students in any way, but our quarterback's absolutely nothing without his teammates?

C'mon dude. A little intellectual honesty here would go a long ways. Why not just admit that you recognize the hypocrisy in your viewpoint but you just like watching college football and are afraid of change? Sure, that's selfish and entitled, but at least it's honest and you'll be able to stop bending over backwards to make ridiculous points to try and defend your viewpoint.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:11:57 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:


Sure.

A History major with an academic scholarship. She gets a break on tuition or maybe even free tuition. She is not an employee of the university. All scholarship recipients get the same benefit. They don't prorate it based upon earning potential.


To hammer the point home, history majors do not have restrictions placed on income they can earn.

If I were a history major on scholarship at OU and Simon & Schuster offered me $200,000 to write a book about Frederick Douglass, I would be fully within my rights to do so.

On the other hand, if I'm on an athletic scholarship and playing Quarterback, and Nike offers be $500 a month to wear Nikes, my scholarship's voided and I'm no longer eligible to play football.

The entire point of the legislation proposed by the state of California is to remove restrictions on outside earnings for people on an athletic scholarship and to treat them comparably to those on academic scholarships.


If you believe those two things are comparable, then we aren't going to get very far. The book on Frederick Douglas would be ENTIRELY of your own making. Your words. Your research. Your efforts. Alone.


If you believe this is true, I think you're the one accidentally making the case that a college education is worth nothing.

If my book on Frederick Douglass was in no way influenced by my time at OU -- nothing my professors said or assigned influenced my thinking in any way, than why did I bother show up? Somehow the history department's incapable of providing support to its students in any way, but our quarterback's absolutely nothing without his teammates?

C'mon dude. A little intellectual honesty here would go a long ways. Why not just admit that you recognize the hypocrisy in your viewpoint but you just like watching college football and are afraid of change? Sure, that's selfish and entitled, but at least it's honest and you'll be able to stop bending over backwards to make ridiculous points to try and defend your viewpoint.

Good Lord, you are boring. The school would help you learn to research. How you apply that learning is up to you. The creativity, the choice of subject matter. All that stuff.

Your being on the field as a player is entirely dependent on the team, on the venue, etc etc.

In both examples, you were brought in to earn a degree. How you go about that (history major or QB) is up to your personal capabilities. In both cases, the expectation is that you will matriculate and then earn money in your chosen field. If you're a talented enough QB to play professionally, go for it. If not, you'll fall back on that history degree and you'll try to earn something with that.

Instead, you want to allow Nike to sponsor the QB. Therefore, the Alabama QB will be making $1 million while the Vanderbilt QB will be making $0. And given this, you need remedial explanation as to why this system would crash.

Right. That's a waste of everyone's time.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,285

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:17:55 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:


Sure.

A History major with an academic scholarship. She gets a break on tuition or maybe even free tuition. She is not an employee of the university. All scholarship recipients get the same benefit. They don't prorate it based upon earning potential.


To hammer the point home, history majors do not have restrictions placed on income they can earn.

If I were a history major on scholarship at OU and Simon & Schuster offered me $200,000 to write a book about Frederick Douglass, I would be fully within my rights to do so.

On the other hand, if I'm on an athletic scholarship and playing Quarterback, and Nike offers be $500 a month to wear Nikes, my scholarship's voided and I'm no longer eligible to play football.

The entire point of the legislation proposed by the state of California is to remove restrictions on outside earnings for people on an athletic scholarship and to treat them comparably to those on academic scholarships.


If you believe those two things are comparable, then we aren't going to get very far. The book on Frederick Douglas would be ENTIRELY of your own making. Your words. Your research. Your efforts. Alone.


If you believe this is true, I think you're the one accidentally making the case that a college education is worth nothing.

If my book on Frederick Douglass was in no way influenced by my time at OU -- nothing my professors said or assigned influenced my thinking in any way, than why did I bother show up? Somehow the history department's incapable of providing support to its students in any way, but our quarterback's absolutely nothing without his teammates?

C'mon dude. A little intellectual honesty here would go a long ways. Why not just admit that you recognize the hypocrisy in your viewpoint but you just like watching college football and are afraid of change? Sure, that's selfish and entitled, but at least it's honest and you'll be able to stop bending over backwards to make ridiculous points to try and defend your viewpoint.

Good Lord, you are boring. The school would help you learn to research. How you apply that learning is up to you. The creativity, the choice of subject matter. All that stuff.

Your being on the field as a player is entirely dependent on the team, on the venue, etc etc.

In both examples, you were brought in to earn a degree. How you go about that (history major or QB) is up to your personal capabilities. In both cases, the expectation is that you will matriculate and then earn money in your chosen field. If you're a talented enough QB to play professionally, go for it. If not, you'll fall back on that history degree and you'll try to earn something with that.

Instead, you want to allow Nike to sponsor the QB. Therefore, the Alabama QB will be making $1 million while the Vanderbilt QB will be making $0. And given this, you need remedial explanation as to why this system would crash.

Right. That's a waste of everyone's time.



If it's such a remedial explanation, why do you keep avoiding making it?

Because from my vantage point, you just described a system in which Alabama will be better at football than Vanderbilt. And in the current system, which is very fair and balanced, Vanderbilt last beat Alabama 60 years ago.

Where's the crash, exactly? Feel free to provide even a very remedial explanation. My feelings won't be hurt.

Again, what you're basically saying is you want things to be the same because you like the mere idea that Vanderbilt's on equal footing with Alabama, regardless of how true that is in practice. And because you like that idea, you're willing to say that another American citizen isn't allowed to earn money based on his talents so long as he's playing football in exchange for an academic scholarship. Even though nobody else on academic scholarships have their earning potential limited in any way.

Last Edited: 9/16/2019 3:22:12 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:23:58 PM 
OK, who will be left in this scenario?

Alabama?
Ohio State?
Michigan?
Clemson?

It's going to be a pretty short list, because Nike won't want to spread it's money any thinner than necessary.

So why don't you admit that what you're after is a "Super" conference of the top 20 or so teams. Everyone else is re-organized. And why don't you further admit you could have simply stated that from the outset.

Instead, you prefer being a dick.



Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,821

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:26:44 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
cc-cat wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:

I believe your system would pit the haves against the have-nots. I believe teams like OU would not be able to compete financially with the Power 5 teams. And of the Power 5, only some of those would prosper. This concept of compensation in the form of salary would be possible only from programs with money. Of all 120 or so teams, how many fit into that category? 10? 20?


This is a accurate description of the current situation as well. So such compensation would arguable only solidify the status quo.


Robert Fox wrote:

Well keep in mind I'm not paying attention, so you may want to amend your post.


You must be distracted by a shiny object - comment has nothing to do with my discussion.

[QUOTE=Robert Fox] Edit: By the way, is that what you want? To solidify the status quo?


I'm. a realist - and know that the system has always favored the few (even back to the stockpiling of scholarships in the 60's and 70's by the Bama and Buckeyes of the system). It is and always has been about money (I know - I'm captain obvious) - only reason we have a playoff now. So let's allow the players who are generating the millions in on it. Won't change that Trevor L. and Joey B were never going to consider Ohio (or Wake Forest).

I asked you about other non employee compensation and the examples you provide are academic scholarships (which don't have the handcuffs), library membership (really?), and barter payments. Non of which are generating 100s of millions for the "employer."

Each basketball season and football season only a handful of teams have a chance to win - the same over and over (hello Clemson/Bama 5). Has been like that since Wooden and Bear. At least now the players could share in the money.

Last Edited: 9/16/2019 3:29:05 PM by cc-cat
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:30:50 PM 
cc-cat wrote:


You must be distracted by a shiny object - comment has nothing to do with my discussion.


What's this line, CC?

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,285

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:36:41 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
OK, who will be left in this scenario?

Alabama?
Ohio State?
Michigan?
Clemson?

It's going to be a pretty short list, because Nike won't want to spread it's money any thinner than necessary.

So why don't you admit that what you're after is a "Super" conference of the top 20 or so teams. Everyone else is re-organized. And why don't you further admit you could have simply stated that from the outset.

Instead, you prefer being a dick.


Man do you get touchy.

You know who else will spend money in addition to Nike? Larry's Dog House. Car dealerships. People who go to events and are willing to pay $5 a pop to get DJ Cooper's autograph on their jersey.

Will it change OU players lives forever? No. Would it provide Delvar Barret with a bit more wiggle room taking care of his mom? Yep. Do I think allowing that will make me like watching Ohio Basketball less? Nope.

And yes, of course big schools will see more money from this. They already see more money now and spend it on players indirectly, from chartered flights to ridiculously lavish facilities. Everything you're describing exists already, the only difference is that as of now the money goes to the coffers of the athletic directors instead of the players. This law just proposes a way to reallocate some of that.

And again, what you've described is not a crash. It's just a change to the way you like watching college football.




Last Edited: 9/16/2019 3:38:03 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,821

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:37:42 PM 
Well keep in mind I'm not paying attention, so you may want to amend your post.

You're not paying attention? Did I say or imply that?

Last Edited: 9/16/2019 3:38:28 PM by cc-cat
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:40:42 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
Well keep in mind I'm not paying attention, so you may want to amend your post.

You're not paying attention? Did I say or imply that?


It was a reference to BL's post. Are you saying you didn't see that?
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,285

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:44:24 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
cc-cat wrote:
Well keep in mind I'm not paying attention, so you may want to amend your post.

You're not paying attention? Did I say or imply that?


It was a reference to BL's post. Are you saying you didn't see that?


Look man, we're on page three here and you just demonstrated you don't understand the law being proposed at all by talking about how the 'haves' can afford to pay salaries, while the 'have nots' can't.

It's obvious you're offended by my pointing that out, but hard to think you actually read the law we're all discussing. So not sure what to tell you exactly.
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,821

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:47:02 PM 
Honestly - no - I didn't bother to read through all the heavy back and forth of others. And if I had - it has nothing to do with my post or conversation with you. so it is irrelevant
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:47:32 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
OK, who will be left in this scenario?

Alabama?
Ohio State?
Michigan?
Clemson?

It's going to be a pretty short list, because Nike won't want to spread it's money any thinner than necessary.

So why don't you admit that what you're after is a "Super" conference of the top 20 or so teams. Everyone else is re-organized. And why don't you further admit you could have simply stated that from the outset.

Instead, you prefer being a dick.


Man do you get touchy.

You know who else will spend money in addition to Nike? Larry's Dog House. Car dealerships. People who go to events and are willing to pay $5 a pop to get DJ Cooper's autograph on their jersey.

Will it change OU players lives forever? No. Would it provide Delvar Barret with a bit more wiggle room taking care of his mom? Yep. Do I think allowing that will make me like watching Ohio Basketball less? Nope.

And yes, of course big schools will see more money from this. They already see more money now and spend it on players indirectly, from chartered flights to ridiculously lavish facilities. Everything you're describing exists already, the only difference is that as of now the money goes to the coffers of the athletic directors instead of the players. This law just proposes a way to reallocate some of that.

And again, what you've described is not a crash. It's just a change to the way you like watching college football.






Larry's Dog House. That's what will keep Ohio Football afloat. OSU will be bringing in millions from Nike, Budweiser, Levis, whoever. OU will be kept whole by the Burrito Buggy.

Here's an alternative, leave amateur status alone. Let these athletes play for a 4 or 5 years. If they're good enough, they'll make millions. If they're not, they'll fall back on the degree they got for free. (I know that's news to you.)

If you want to also consider breaking out a Super conference, go for it. I wouldn't object. And for that matter, you could champion the cause of a true minor league for football. I'd be OK with that too.

Last Edited: 9/16/2019 3:49:30 PM by Robert Fox
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
   Posted: 9/16/2019 3:48:04 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
Honestly - no - I didn't bother to read through all the heavy back and forth of others. And if I had - it has nothing to do with my post or conversation with you. so it is irrelevant


So your response was to take a shot at me. Ok.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  51 - 75  of 252 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11    Next >
View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 313 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
313 Guests
0 Registered Users
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties