Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/11/21 at 3:38 pm to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
Pay the players. If the NCAA is worried about it getting
So an education, books, food, a stipend, etc., even though those benefits alone can be worth tens of thousands of dollars, that's not enough?? I guess if you major in basket weaving, gender studies, or hospitality management then that type of degree isn't worth shite and you'd need to get paid....
Greedy mf'ers are opening Pandora's box...
Posted on 2/11/21 at 3:41 pm to forestwhitackersgood
quote:
So an education, books, food, a stipend, etc., even though those benefits alone can be worth tens of thousands of dollars, that's not enough?? I guess if you major in basket weaving, gender studies, or hospitality management then that type of degree isn't worth shite and you'd need to get paid....
Greedy mf'ers are opening Pandora's box...
my favorite major I' see more and more of with college athletes is "general studies." Can't say I remember that being an option when I was declaring a major in the early 2000s
Would love to see what that curriculum consists ofPosted on 2/11/21 at 3:43 pm to paperwasp
quote:
I think the NCAA believes this opens the door for schools to call anything 'educational' and use that to provide additional benefits.
The NCAA thus wants to place restrictions on what these benefits from the schools are, and the courts say they can't.
And while this may be true, federal law still absolutely prohibits a school from paying anything to a male that they don't pay to a female.
Posted on 2/11/21 at 3:45 pm to paperwasp
This is where the Dem's and congress are heading:
Sen. Cory Booker Wants to Replace Major College Football With Federally Controlled Pro Game
To repair this perceived evil, Booker joined with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut to introduce what they call “The College Athletes Bill of Rights.”
LINK
What would this “Bill of Rights” do?
“The most ambitious—and likely the most contentious—provision,” reports The New York Times, “would require colleges to share the profits they make with the athletes who generate them. In sports where revenues exceed the cost of scholarships across an entire division—at the moment that would be athletes who play football, men’s and women’s basketball and baseball—the profits generated in each sport would be shared equally with the scholarship players.”
But not with the walk-ons or with the players at schools—or participating on sports teams—that do not offer athletic scholarships.
What type of salary would a college athlete on a scholarship get under Booker’s bill?
“Using data supplied by universities to the Department of Education, Booker said that would mean payments of $173,000 a year to football players, $115,600 to men’s basketball players, $19,050 to women’s basketball players, and $8,670 to baseball players who are on full scholarship,” The New York Times reported.
To make sure these salaries are paid and colleges fully comply with Booker’s mandates, the law would also create a Commission on College Athletics. This commission would consist of nine presidential appointees and would have potentially sweeping powers.
Booker’s bill states in part: “There is established a commission, to be known as the ‘Commission on College Athletics,’ for the following purposes: (1) To act for the benefit of all college athletes without regard to receipt of grant-in-aid. (2) To protect the economic interests of college athletes.”
“This group, which would receive $50 million in taxpayer funding for its first two years, would take on a lot of the work of policing college sports,” ESPN reported.
The New York Times noted it would also have the power to “ban individuals from working in college athletics.”
Booker’s bill says: “An enforcement action carried out by the Commission shall be construed as an enforcement action carried out by the Federal Government.”
Sen. Cory Booker Wants to Replace Major College Football With Federally Controlled Pro Game
To repair this perceived evil, Booker joined with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut to introduce what they call “The College Athletes Bill of Rights.”
LINK
What would this “Bill of Rights” do?
“The most ambitious—and likely the most contentious—provision,” reports The New York Times, “would require colleges to share the profits they make with the athletes who generate them. In sports where revenues exceed the cost of scholarships across an entire division—at the moment that would be athletes who play football, men’s and women’s basketball and baseball—the profits generated in each sport would be shared equally with the scholarship players.”
But not with the walk-ons or with the players at schools—or participating on sports teams—that do not offer athletic scholarships.
What type of salary would a college athlete on a scholarship get under Booker’s bill?
“Using data supplied by universities to the Department of Education, Booker said that would mean payments of $173,000 a year to football players, $115,600 to men’s basketball players, $19,050 to women’s basketball players, and $8,670 to baseball players who are on full scholarship,” The New York Times reported.
To make sure these salaries are paid and colleges fully comply with Booker’s mandates, the law would also create a Commission on College Athletics. This commission would consist of nine presidential appointees and would have potentially sweeping powers.
Booker’s bill states in part: “There is established a commission, to be known as the ‘Commission on College Athletics,’ for the following purposes: (1) To act for the benefit of all college athletes without regard to receipt of grant-in-aid. (2) To protect the economic interests of college athletes.”
“This group, which would receive $50 million in taxpayer funding for its first two years, would take on a lot of the work of policing college sports,” ESPN reported.
The New York Times noted it would also have the power to “ban individuals from working in college athletics.”
Booker’s bill says: “An enforcement action carried out by the Commission shall be construed as an enforcement action carried out by the Federal Government.”
This post was edited on 2/11/21 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 2/11/21 at 3:46 pm to GulfCoastOutlaw
quote:
Why has there never been a black president of the NCAA?
Why should there have been? Why does the race of the president matter? There have only been 8 total btw. The first president held that role for nearly 40 years.
Posted on 2/11/21 at 3:55 pm to Taskrj
quote:
This group, which would receive $50 million in taxpayer funding for its first two years, would take on a lot of the work of policing college sports
I wonder which politician's friends would make up this committee?
And why would such a group be funded by taxpayers?
Posted on 2/11/21 at 3:57 pm to paperwasp
None of this would happen under Obama administration. Idiots
Posted on 2/11/21 at 4:00 pm to GulfCoastOutlaw
quote:
Players no matter what players are not going to Chicago to play.
Really? There are no football players in Chicago?
Posted on 2/11/21 at 4:00 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Not sure how this shows the NCAA is racist
There's a lot of legal wrangling going on with the powers that be, either out of fear for the loss of control, a financial hit, or both.
But I fail to see how any of this equates to racism, or why it was even brought up in this thread.
Posted on 2/11/21 at 4:01 pm to myflabbersghasted
quote:
Check out Korey Foreman's recruitment by USC and you will see this is already coming to fruition. USC has developed a program aimed at maximizing their player's "brand" and this appealed to Foreman and likely others this year, and certainly going forward.
Exactly this. Big market places like Los Angeles and New York will strike recruiting gold.
Posted on 2/11/21 at 4:07 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
nd while this may be true, federal law still absolutely prohibits a school from paying anything to a male that they don't pay to a female.
Yeah, that's an interesting point, I don't know how Title IX plays into this at all.
I guess they would have to prove that female athletes were denied these same educational benefits or discriminated against in some way?
Posted on 2/11/21 at 4:38 pm to paperwasp
quote:
I guess they would have to prove that female athletes were denied these same educational benefits or discriminated against in some way?
If this bill by Booker becomes law, it would absolutely contradict Title IX. As Taskrj posted above...
"“Using data supplied by universities to the Department of Education, Booker said that would mean payments of $173,000 a year to football players, $115,600 to men’s basketball players, $19,050 to women’s basketball players, and $8,670 to baseball players who are on full scholarship,” The New York Times reported."
That on its face is a blatant contradiction of Title IX. I could be wrong, but when every member of Congress realizes that male BKB players get over $115,000 while women only get $19,000, I don't believe there's any way in hell that it will pass.
Title IX isn't an issue with NIL as long as the universities' fingerprints aren't on the money.
This post was edited on 2/11/21 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 2/11/21 at 4:42 pm to paperwasp
quote:
I don't know how Title IX plays into this at all.
I don't think Title IX plays into NIL at all. NIL just allows athletes to remain eligible while seeking gainful employment opportunities in the private sector. Now, if the NCAA were to introduce some sort of enhanced stipend to athletes, then yes, females would have to be treated equally. The only thing Title IX covers in regards to the NCAA is providing equal opportunity, regardless of sex, to all educational programs, public and private, that receive federal funds. Title IX does not extend to the private sector, requiring businesses to provide female athletes with equal endorsement money just because some males may make more (some males will make more than other males as well). As log as the NIL issue allows women to seek opportunities on the open market, Title IX shouldn't even be applicable.
This post was edited on 2/11/21 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 2/11/21 at 4:49 pm to lsufball19
quote:
. Now, if the NCAA were to introduce some sort of enhanced stipend to athletes, then yes, females would have to be treated equally.
That appears to be exactly what Booker's bill would do.
Posted on 2/11/21 at 4:55 pm to BamaGradinTn
When all the female athletes at Rutgers get wind of this, there will be hell to pay for Cory Booker.
Posted on 2/11/21 at 5:04 pm to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
If the NCAA is worried about it getting out of hand, create a framework and cap the benefits.
That's what this is about, dumbfrick. A California judge says they can't create a framework.
Posted on 2/11/21 at 5:08 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
That appears to be exactly what Booker's bill would do.
Well that bill wouldn't be enforceable the way I see it, so regardless of support, it is self-defeating. The NCAA's own bylaw that has been discussed this year is more of what I'm referring to
This post was edited on 2/11/21 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 2/11/21 at 7:17 pm to GulfCoastOutlaw
quote:
Why has there never been a black president of the NCAA?
Cause they racist!
That’s the answer for everything now, right? Always the easy answer.
Posted on 2/11/21 at 7:25 pm to Taskrj
A federal commission on college football? Yeah, that’s where I want my taxes going. Stupid fricking Democrats.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News