-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
That's when a women's team can sue the NCAA for not doing anything because of title ix and it go to the supreme court. Who knows, maybe the court will come back with recommendations the NCAA schools and boosters have to follow. Or not. The NCAA hasn't shown much care for women's sports lately anyway.
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
-
1
- Show all
I don't disagree but I don't think that's what DG is saying.
You have "the way it was" which at the surface level at least pretended to be about amateur athletics and you have the way it is now which is a wild wild west and is not sustainable for the vast majority of institutions, including us as you said. It can't go back and it can't go forward in it's current form so a reasonable dialogue needs to be had and the starting point isn't "everyone should get paid whatever, whenever."
HS kids choosing to graduate early, committing to powerhouse school they have no intention of ever playing for, taking a spot in the recruiting class and on the scholarship limitation, collecting their $1,000,000 deal, just to transfer a semester later back to their home state to be named the starter immediately is asinine. Great for him but for the sport and viability it cannot be continued long term. And he did all because in the state he left, HS kids cannot realize NIL money but in Ohio he could. That is ludicrous and needs to be addressed. Further to your point, I think Cade should have been able to go pro right out of high school and a year in college or the G league at pennies on the dollar for an NIL deal is even more unreasonable. Where does the line get drawn on when you can monetize and when you can't?
DG's suggestions are merely a starting point to discuss college athletics. Without it, its doomed to an even worse version of pro sports today which is nothing more than sports entertainment a la WWE wrestling.
You have "the way it was" which at the surface level at least pretended to be about amateur athletics and you have the way it is now which is a wild wild west and is not sustainable for the vast majority of institutions, including us as you said. It can't go back and it can't go forward in it's current form so a reasonable dialogue needs to be had and the starting point isn't "everyone should get paid whatever, whenever."
HS kids choosing to graduate early, committing to powerhouse school they have no intention of ever playing for, taking a spot in the recruiting class and on the scholarship limitation, collecting their $1,000,000 deal, just to transfer a semester later back to their home state to be named the starter immediately is asinine. Great for him but for the sport and viability it cannot be continued long term. And he did all because in the state he left, HS kids cannot realize NIL money but in Ohio he could. That is ludicrous and needs to be addressed. Further to your point, I think Cade should have been able to go pro right out of high school and a year in college or the G league at pennies on the dollar for an NIL deal is even more unreasonable. Where does the line get drawn on when you can monetize and when you can't?
DG's suggestions are merely a starting point to discuss college athletics. Without it, its doomed to an even worse version of pro sports today which is nothing more than sports entertainment a la WWE wrestling.
So the NCAA could fix it by claiming all athletes are employees and therefore 'sign away' their NIL rights to the university they choose while they are at school. The kids would have to pay taxes on their benefits and the NCAA could then allow for scholarships to include/offset those educational taxes/price of education. OR legislatures could then make a law making scholarships or what would become 'jobs' tax free or fully tax deductible. That would include healthcare, food and housing, books and education expenses up to a potential max amount per 'scholarship'
-
1
- Show all
I have felt for some time that a reasonable solution is to make scholarships act more like two-way contracts. Here’s what I mean by that:
You sign a three year scholarship with a school? You are free to transfer at will after your third year, but you face a penalty for transferring early (pay back scholarship? Sit out? Lose eligibility? I don’t know…). However, for those three years you are protected. The school can’t cut you or take away your scholarship without due cause (grades, misbehavior, etc.).
This makes the scholarship length a bargaining chip. Some kids will insist on only one-year scholarships, but at least the coach knows what he’s getting: a kid who will be looking around each year.
You sign a three year scholarship with a school? You are free to transfer at will after your third year, but you face a penalty for transferring early (pay back scholarship? Sit out? Lose eligibility? I don’t know…). However, for those three years you are protected. The school can’t cut you or take away your scholarship without due cause (grades, misbehavior, etc.).
This makes the scholarship length a bargaining chip. Some kids will insist on only one-year scholarships, but at least the coach knows what he’s getting: a kid who will be looking around each year.
-
1
- Show all
Good post.
The discussion on the NBA removing the one and done rule started again over a year ago, and gained some traction due to G league salaries becoming so lucrative. I think you'll see the rule go away in the next five years and some of these kids will go straight to the NBA or G league and make good money.
The discussion on the NBA removing the one and done rule started again over a year ago, and gained some traction due to G league salaries becoming so lucrative. I think you'll see the rule go away in the next five years and some of these kids will go straight to the NBA or G league and make good money.
-
1
- Show all
What makes this problematic is when all universities get together and put a cap on the amount any athlete can earn. Setting up an organization to police their institutions to make sure no one gets ab improper benefit. This is called collusion and is illegal.
If each school chooses for itself how to regulate NIL rights and how to set compensation levels, the courts would have no problems. But it doesn’t solve any of the challenges facing college athletics at the moment.
If each school chooses for itself how to regulate NIL rights and how to set compensation levels, the courts would have no problems. But it doesn’t solve any of the challenges facing college athletics at the moment.
-
1
- Show all
Former Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops appeared on ‘The Rush’, a talk show hosted by Tyler McComas and Teddy Lehman and broadcast around the state of Oklahoma. During his appearance, Stoops made a point to say how bad the NCAA has done in enforcing laws for one problem, while they make hasty decisions regarding other cases that come across their desk.
“The bottom line, be careful what you wish for. It’s totally different than what we’ve been used to. My opinion, we need a new leadership group. The NCAA and the way it’s been has really failed overall. Who goes by rules anymore and how they enforce it just seems so ambiguous. Look at Oklahoma State and their basketball program and what happened to them, brutal and just so wrong and so late. And then other teams, nothing happens to them.
“I’m not pointing fingers at anyone, it happens in football too,” Stoops added. “I’ve been very disillusioned for a long, long time on the NCAA. Just through my football years and how they enforce things or don’t.”
“Maybe we need to have a new league of Power Five teams that have their own league, with their own whatever it be — commissioner, or governing board. You may have to put a salary cap on everybody and every team. Who knows? I don’t know. Again, I’m not living it like these other people are. But from afar, it looks like right now, nobody has control of anything. I don’t know if that’s ever good.”
“The bottom line, be careful what you wish for. It’s totally different than what we’ve been used to. My opinion, we need a new leadership group. The NCAA and the way it’s been has really failed overall. Who goes by rules anymore and how they enforce it just seems so ambiguous. Look at Oklahoma State and their basketball program and what happened to them, brutal and just so wrong and so late. And then other teams, nothing happens to them.
“I’m not pointing fingers at anyone, it happens in football too,” Stoops added. “I’ve been very disillusioned for a long, long time on the NCAA. Just through my football years and how they enforce things or don’t.”
“Maybe we need to have a new league of Power Five teams that have their own league, with their own whatever it be — commissioner, or governing board. You may have to put a salary cap on everybody and every team. Who knows? I don’t know. Again, I’m not living it like these other people are. But from afar, it looks like right now, nobody has control of anything. I don’t know if that’s ever good.”
-
1
- Show all
https://www.si.com/college/2022/05/03/task-force-to-big-money-boosters-nil-sanctions-could-be-coming
COTTSDALE Ariz.—College leaders are gearing up to issue a warning to hundreds of wealthy boosters who are using name, image and likeness (NIL) ventures to involve themselves in recruiting.
University administrators, part of a task force to review NIL, are finalizing additional guidelines that are expected to clarify that boosters and booster-led collectives are prohibited from involvement in recruiting, multiple sources tell Sports Illustrated. The guidelines will provide more guidance to member schools on what many administrators say are NIL-disguised “pay for play” deals orchestrated by donors to induce prospects, recruit players off other college teams and retain their own athletes.
The new directives will highlight existing NCAA bylaws that outlaw boosters from participating in recruiting, reminding member schools of guardrails that, while in place for years, have been bent and broken during the first 10 months of the NIL era, officials say. Under a long-held NCAA rule, boosters are a representative arm of an athletic department and are not supposed to associate with or persuade prospects.
Schools that do not control their donors’ spending could be found to have violated NCAA rules and will be sanctioned, according to the document. The NCAA enforcement staff have made inquiries only into a small handful of programs so far, but the guidelines could spark deeper investigations into improper inducements tied to NIL payments.
COTTSDALE Ariz.—College leaders are gearing up to issue a warning to hundreds of wealthy boosters who are using name, image and likeness (NIL) ventures to involve themselves in recruiting.
University administrators, part of a task force to review NIL, are finalizing additional guidelines that are expected to clarify that boosters and booster-led collectives are prohibited from involvement in recruiting, multiple sources tell Sports Illustrated. The guidelines will provide more guidance to member schools on what many administrators say are NIL-disguised “pay for play” deals orchestrated by donors to induce prospects, recruit players off other college teams and retain their own athletes.
The new directives will highlight existing NCAA bylaws that outlaw boosters from participating in recruiting, reminding member schools of guardrails that, while in place for years, have been bent and broken during the first 10 months of the NIL era, officials say. Under a long-held NCAA rule, boosters are a representative arm of an athletic department and are not supposed to associate with or persuade prospects.
Schools that do not control their donors’ spending could be found to have violated NCAA rules and will be sanctioned, according to the document. The NCAA enforcement staff have made inquiries only into a small handful of programs so far, but the guidelines could spark deeper investigations into improper inducements tied to NIL payments.