California NCAA Legislation

[14 in Green]

I haven't read the thread, but as someone who played 4 years of what would be considered a "non revenue" sport back in the 70's, this is a story that I've been following closely for the last couple of years.

Back in my day, we looked at the NCAA as the organization that ruled over intercollegiate sports with an iron fist. This wasn't a bad thing in our minds, because we thought they were needed to ensure a level playing field, and were there to police the various institutions.

Looking back at how athletic departments and coaching salaries have grown, priorities at D! schools are now completely out of whack. When the larger schools banded together to form "super conferences" the death knell of the NCAA first sounded. These conferences then formed their own tv networks and are now small to midsize "major leagues of their own". If any of or one of the SEC, ACC, Pac 12 or any other major conference decided tomorrow to withdraw from the NCAA, they would continue to prosper. That's how big they've become.

The NCAA exists merely at their whim, and I have no sympathy for an organization that has so mismanaged and allowed the system to be taken over the way they have. In fact, they've profited from it by exploiting the images and selling the names of amateur athletes. The video game lawsuit brought to light the illegality of what they were doing, yet they danced around it by removing the "names" of the players, all the while keeping their uniform numbers, stats and likenesses the same.

The system is totally corrupt now. Everyone from the NCAA, the conferences, the schools, the athletic depts., and the coaches are getting rich off it, not to mention apparel and video game companies. The only ones who aren't are the kids, and they are the actual product that everyone else is profiting off.

[CTM]

17 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

My concern, from the competitive side (team) of things is this will create an elite 1% of haves vs a large group of have nots. And any time there is a disproportion of how people are treated, it creates animosity and jealousy. And, in a team sense that is always a game killer.

Competitive balance is surely important to the overall health of the league and ultimately everybody's earnings. Seems like a better point than not wanting athletes to change schools for fandom reasons 

[Jetsfan80]

The endgame should be for these kids to become Student-Athlete-Employees.  But there's a downside to that for the players:  If they become employees, they can be "fired" for just about any reason.  Scholarships are all year-to-year anyways so that's not a huge deal.  But it'll be an adjustment period for 17 and 18 year old kids who aren't mentally prepared to have "real jobs" yet.  

[msena88]

13 minutes ago, CTM said:

I think you need to better understand the terms you are using. Net revenue is not profit just because you changed the word gross to net

And I already conceded I do not know the issue well, it was my second sentence.

I’m well aware of the terms I’m using but in the waterfall of calculating profits, we have to get to net revenue first. If you prefer me only using gross revenue and profit that’s fine, but everyone is only looking at gross revenue figures they see from tv deals.

[msena88]

19 minutes ago, CTM said:

Competitive balance is surely important to the overall health of the league and ultimately everybody's earnings. Seems like a better point than not wanting athletes to change schools for fandom reasons 

Competitive balance while obviously important isn’t worth arguing because it doesn’t exist today with the current rules. Go look at recruiting class rankings, it’s the same schools consistently in the top 5. This will only widen that gap which while a downside, is one that already exists and the creation of others that don’t exist today are more important IMO.

[CTM]

1 minute ago, msena88 said:

Competitive balance while obviously important isn’t worth arguing because it doesn’t exist today with the current rules. Go look at recruiting class rankings, it’s the same schools consistently in the top 5. This will only widen that gap which while a downside, is one that already exists and the creation of others that don’t exist today are more important IMO.

Right, I actually typed that out, that it seems like the same schools are always good, but I dont follow college football closely enough to feel confident that was accurate 

[Scott Dierking]

12 minutes ago, CTM said:

Competitive balance is surely important to the overall health of the league and ultimately everybody's earnings. Seems like a better point than not wanting athletes to change schools for fandom reasons 

Certainly.

Let's suppose it another way. No one will deny that a school like Alabama has more star athletes than the majority of universities. Of course, Alabama helps in a large way to uphold the SEC.

But, I would also argue that Vanderbilt, in its own way is an important part of the SEC. The SEC would have a lesser allure (my personal opinion, of course) without a Vanderbilt. And Vanderbilt athletes by and large are there for a different reason than some Alabama athletes. But Vanderbilt athletes do not go through any less rigor and training than Alabama athletes. 

Should they have less ability to earn endorsement money in a sport and conference that they play a large part in? My opinion is no.

The NCAA has released some of the shackles on NCAA athletes by introducing the transfer portal. That has been a great step in allowing athletes movement and ability to go where they feel they can play. 

But the hypocrisies of the NCAA and how it treats athletes is rampant. They recently allowed that a student athlete can participate in 4 football games, and still have redshirt status. Smart move. But in baseball, if you step on the diamond for 1/3 of an inning, you lose redshirt status. Baseball players can have as many as 50 games in a season.

Obviously, the NCAA looks out for its bell cow sports. But in doing so, hurts so many other student athletes.

 

 

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

But the hypocrisies of the NCAA and how it treats athletes is rampant. They recently allowed that a student athlete can participate in 4 football games, and still have redshirt status. Smart move. But in baseball, if you step on the diamond for 1/3 of an inning, you lose redshirt status. Baseball players can have as many as 50 games in a season.

Obviously, the NCAA looks out for its bell cow sports. But in doing so, hurts so many other student athletes.

Not to mention they only allow a max of 11.7 scholarships.  Baseball rosters have 30+ guys on them.  

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Not to mention they only allow a max of 11.7 scholarships.  Baseball rosters have 30+ guys on them.  

My son's former teammate is poised to have a big year for UNCW this year. They should have a nice team, after a good run to end last year.

[14 in Green]

14 hours ago, New York Mick said:

Wouldn’t this give an unfair advantage to schools in large markets?

The system doesn't rely on "market size" when it comes to revenue sports at the college level.

Is Alabama or Oklahoma in a major market? What about Clemson or LSU?

Rabid fan bases, powerful alumni groups, and the forming of "super conferences" are the determining factors now, and will still be if athletes are compensated.

At this point the NCAA exists solely to be the face of, and take the bullets aimed at these groups. At this point they serve no other purpose. Football and basketball programs within these conferences have become so powerful, that even within their own institution, the rest of the athletics program are beholden to them, and the HCs are paid more and have more power then the school Presidents. Hell, most of them are their state's highest paid employee.

[msena88]

32 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

The endgame should be for these kids to become Student-Athlete-Employees.  But there's a downside to that for the players:  If they become employees, they can be "fired" for just about any reason.  Scholarships are all year-to-year anyways so that's not a huge deal.  But it'll be an adjustment period for 17 and 18 year old kids who aren't mentally prepared to have "real jobs" yet.  

This is total misinformation, one year scholarships are obviously year to year but four year scholarships while not fully guaranteed are basically guaranteed unless you screw up. They cannot be reduced or revoked for athletic underperformance, you’d have to become academically ineligible, off field issues, etc... in order to have it revoked.

Athletes on four year scholarships stand to lose that security if they become paid. 

It’s also worth noting, that at most major universities for either football or basketball you are basically on scholarship for life. The university welcomes players back, gives them access to facilities and merchandise, tickets to games, employment opportunities with the university, etc...

This is not to say the NCAA and colleges are completely innocent, but the one sided view that the kids are being scammed that is being portrayed just isn’t true.

[Irish Jet]

1 hour ago, CTM said:

Intuitively I support the athletes, not governing bodies, profiting from thier abilities. However I dont really understand the issue and there is lots of fear mongering in the thread about how awful this would be, but really no details as to why it would be awful.

THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE BAD INVESTMENTS

[sec101row23]

12 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Not to mention they only allow a max of 11.7 scholarships.  Baseball rosters have 30+ guys on them.  

A lot of players on D1 baseball teams don’t get anything.  Not only are there only 11.7 scholarships, they can’t be divided up by more than 27 players I believe, with a 25% scholarship being the minimum.   Had my son not torn his labrum in the fall of his freshman year he would have played ball at Lehigh.   He was going to be a walk on as a freshman, with the possibility of playing himself into a scholarship.  Very few guys get full rides in baseball.  Some bigger programs will give elite players full rides, but typically most baseball players are on partial rides.  

[Darnold Schwarzenegger]

Alabama football generated 108 million in revenue with 46 million dollars in profit. Alabama athletics as a whole generated 174 million in revenue with a net profit of 16 million dollars. 

My question is, Why does a school or institution need  to profit millions of dollars each year. I mean Is it a school, or is it a business? And Where is that money going. Who is it going to. And why not give some of it to the athletes. They are the ones that are actually producing that revenue for the school in the first place. 

 

[Jetsfan80]

16 minutes ago, msena88 said:

This is total misinformation, one year scholarships are obviously year to year but four year scholarships while not fully guaranteed are basically guaranteed unless you screw up. They cannot be reduced or revoked for athletic underperformance, you’d have to become academically ineligible, off field issues, etc... in order to have it revoked.

Not true, I've seen it before.  New coach comes in and strips players of their scholarship because they're not high enough on the depth chart.  At least in Basketball.  I've even seen that at the mid-major level.  

Maybe they come up with a bogus non-athletic reason for the scholarship being lost, but we all know the coach just wants to replace the old regimes players and "recruit over" the weaker players or ones that don't fit the system.

[Matt39]

14 minutes ago, msena88 said:

It’s also worth noting, that at most major universities for either football or basketball you are basically on scholarship for life. The university welcomes players back, gives them access to facilities and merchandise, tickets to games, employment opportunities with the university, etc...

Crazy how these benefits are never brought up in the mainstream discussion...almost as if Lebron's a bad actor in this...

[Scott Dierking]

5 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

A lot of players on D1 baseball teams don’t get anything.  Not only are there only 11.7 scholarships, they can’t be divided up by more than 27 players I believe, with a 25% scholarship being the minimum.   Had my son not torn his labrum in the fall of his freshman year he would have played ball at Lehigh.   He was going to be a walk on as a freshman, with the possibility of playing himself into a scholarship.  Very few guys get full rides in baseball.  Some bigger programs will give elite players full rides, but typically most baseball players are on partial rides.  

You are absolutely correct in everything that you state. Very few players get 100% schollies in baseball. 

As has been pointed out here earlier, there are scholastic monies that can help subsidize the athletes, but you also have to maintain a 3.00 or better.

Can you tell me what travel team your son played with, if he played with one?

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, Darnold Schwarzenegger said:

I mean Is it a school, or is it a business?

A business, pure and simple.  They're run like Central American Republics, and that's just the stuff that is visible.  

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Not true, I've seen it before.  New coach comes in and strips players of their scholarship because they're not high enough on the depth chart.  At least in Basketball.  I've even seen that at the mid-major level.  

Maybe they come up with a bogus non-athletic reason for the scholarship being lost, but we all know the coach just wants to replace the old regimes players and "recruit over" the weaker players or ones that don't fit the system.

The NLI that we signed said that the scholarship can NOT be taken away for non-performance, or injury, etc.

Now, maybe there are other ways to weasel out of it, but I have not heard many of those stories. That NLI is pretty hard and fast.

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

The NLI that we signed said that the scholarship can NOT be taken away for non-performance, or injury, etc.

Now, maybe there are other ways to weasel out of it, but I have not heard many of those stories. That NLI is pretty hard and fast.

 

2 words:  Kevin Keatts.  

The man practically invented "weaseling".  And I say that as someone who liked the guy.  You don't get voted the most feared recruiter in the nation (when he was Pitino's top assistant at Louisville) by your peers without some sketchy practices.  

[14 in Green]

25 minutes ago, msena88 said:

This is total misinformation, one year scholarships are obviously year to year but four year scholarships while not fully guaranteed are basically guaranteed unless you screw up. They cannot be reduced or revoked for athletic underperformance, you’d have to become academically ineligible, off field issues, etc... in order to have it revoked.

Athletes on four year scholarships stand to lose that security if they become paid. 

It’s also worth noting, that at most major universities for either football or basketball you are basically on scholarship for life. The university welcomes players back, gives them access to facilities and merchandise, tickets to games, employment opportunities with the university, etc...

This is not to say the NCAA and colleges are completely innocent, but the one sided view that the kids are being scammed that is being portrayed just isn’t true.

I don't know if this story is relevant to how coaches can do things today, but let me tell you how "my" coach got around this years ago.

We had a young pitcher on our team. He was pretty good, a nice kid, good student, he was doing everything right. Early in his sophomore season, he complained of arm pain. The trainers and doctor couldn't find a problem, and our HC became more and more annoyed.Back then the term used was "jaking it" when it was thought someone was feigning injury. Our coaches rode the kid non stop. They never referred to him as anything but "Jake".

Well, you guessed it, they ran the kid off the team. It turned out the kid needed some type of arm surgery. He sat out a year, then enrolled at another school in our league.

Lo and behold, his senior year he faces us in an ECAC playoff game. Our coaches are riding him all day, "Jake. Jake. Jake." We hated them for it. The kid ended up beating us 2-0. Of course we wanted to win, but there was a tiny piece of us that loved him shoving it up our Coach's as*. The entire bus ride home we were berated for losing to someone with "no guts". By that point, nobody cared. Our coach had lost us.

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

2 words:  Kevin Keatts.  

The man practically invented "weaseling".  And I say that as someone who liked the guy.  You don't get voted the most feared recruiter in the nation (when he was Pitino's top assistant at Louisville) by your peers without some sketchy practices.  

Word gets around on those types, and eventually kids will not go there.

[sec101row23]

4 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

You are absolutely correct in everything that you state. Very few players get 100% schollies in baseball. 

As has been pointed out here earlier, there are scholastic monies that can help subsidize the athletes, but you also have to maintain a 3.00 or better.

Can you tell me what travel team your son played with, if he played with one?

He played  for a couple, but through High School he played with Locked In Expos. 

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

Word gets around on those types, and eventually kids will not go there.

You would think.  But if you think you can make the cut for a good coach like that, the upside is high.  If he was only a lackluster coach that would be another matter entirely.  

[sec101row23]

8 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

The NLI that we signed said that the scholarship can NOT be taken away for non-performance, or injury, etc.

Now, maybe there are other ways to weasel out of it, but I have not heard many of those stories. That NLI is pretty hard and fast.

Some of the bigger programs also utilize the gray shirt strategy which is a little shady IMO.   

[slimjasi]

11 hours ago, msena88 said:

First off because there is no direct pay to play system that would work. As has been discussed here, allowing them to profit off their own names is going to be a gigantic mess that isn’t going to work either.

 

 

I'm not sure if I think the bolded is true or not. It might be. 

Regardless, my main contention is that the NCAA has become filthy rich on the backs of student athletes for years, and therefore, it only makes sense to find a way to get these kids a larger "piece of the pie," as you put it. 

I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers. The only thing I know is that the NCAA has been completely and utterly full of sh*t for a long, long time. 

[Jetsfan80]

22 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers. The only thing I know is that the NCAA has been completely and utterly full of sh*t for a long, long time. 

The NCAA's entire existence was based off a bluff.  They never had any real authority.  There was nothing they could do to enforce their laws from the start; schools were just dumb enough to buy that the NCAA had real power.  I suppose they also felt it was better to pawn off responsibilities on the NCAA similar to the way pro leagues use Commissioners.  

Schools could have taken their ball and went home whenever they wanted, and still can band together and do so today. 

[Thai Jet]

8 hours ago, kelticwizard said:

Must disagree.  California is over 10% of the country's population, and produces a lot more than 10% of the country's outstanding athletes.  If the NCAA kicked them out, California can just laugh and start their own collegiate league immediately.  Guaranteed, the NFL will be drafting kids from the California league right off the bat.  Not only will the California league easily hold its own against the NCAA from the first year on, but if they partner up with other states like New York and others, the NCAA is in distinct danger of being replaced as the primary representative of collegiate sports by the new league, since the California league will be offering outstanding players a better deal.

I fully understand what your saying but my point is just who are these Cal teams going to play if the NCAA forbids other states schools from playing them ? I forgot Fresno and San Jose in there so maybe we're only talking 6 Div 1 schools. If other states join in then of course that changes the balance of power with the NCAA.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

4 hours ago, CTM said:

And likewise, weird how the commies dont worry so much about inequality when the right people are coming out on top.

https://forums.jetnation.com/topic/123650-your-2015-2016-new-york-knicks-melo-kp-fisher-barnes-gloria/page/30/

I'm equal opportunity. And there's no privilege in poker.

4 hours ago, msena88 said:

I think you need to go back and re-read some of the posts then, it has clearly been outlined how this has far reaching negative impacts across college athletics.

I think you need to go back and re-read The Cat in the Hat because it has only been vaguely insinuated that curtailing the ability of people who haven't got talent to profit off people who do will be the end of civilization as we know it.

[msena88]

6 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

I think you need to go back and re-read The Cat in the Hat because it has only been vaguely insinuated that curtailing the ability of people who haven't got talent to profit off people who do will be the end of civilization as we know it.

If college athletics is the equivalent of civilization then yes, that's exactly what I said.

[Scott Dierking]

12 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

it has only been vaguely insinuated that curtailing the ability of people who haven't got talent to profit off people who do will be the end of civilization as we know it.

Wait. This happens? The world seems just so, so, unfair at times.

[kelticwizard]

11 hours ago, Thai Jet said:

I fully understand what your saying but my point is just who are these Cal teams going to play if the NCAA forbids other states schools from playing them ? I forgot Fresno and San Jose in there so maybe we're only talking 6 Div 1 schools. If other states join in then of course that changes the balance of power with the NCAA.

By this website, I counted 24 Division I schools in California, so they can play each other with room to spare.    Granted, not all of them are presently big football powers, but if there is an influx of sought-after players looking to go to California colleges so they can get paid for all that effort, those lesser schools will become real good quickly.  Talented lesser high school players will also be drawn to smaller California schools because they know that if they can make good plays against USC, UCLA, and Stanford, they are going to move up NFL teams' draft boards.

 

The NFL will of course be drafting players from the new collegiate league right away.  While a recruit to a California school will not be able to play in the NCAA championship, getting into the NFL is more of a draw for collegiate players than the college championship anyway. Besides, the California league will have their own playoff system which will gain notice.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

15 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

Wait. This happens? The world seems just so, so, unfair at times.

I'm not saying I don't understand its appeal to the people to whom it appeals.

[NYJ1]

On 10/1/2019 at 12:10 PM, msena88 said:

To break up the monotony of arguing about if the trainers suck more than Gase, for those of you who follow college sports (specifically football) what are your thoughts on the bill that California has passed allowing college athletes to profit off of their own name and likeness?

Personally, I think people don't quite understand the ramifications this would have. In a vacuum it makes total sense but just doesn't work in real world applications, even if it was allowed in every state.

Flakes, fruits, and nuts