»
Topic: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)
Replies: 59   Last Post: Oct 4, 2019 12:00 PM by: JPF16®
[ Tiger Boards - Football ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 59  

I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)

[4]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:17 AM
    Reply

Proponents say "Player X is 'only' getting roughly $100,000 of value over 4 years (tuition, clothing, meals, stipend, top facilities and body care, fame, etc), while the college is making millions".

Why is the focus so narrowed down to specific players "only" getting so much (which is actually a lot)? Then say the college is getting "millions".

Seems to me that these athletes all think they are Lebron James or Tom Brady. News flash, they are not. There is only 10-20 players nationwide that normal people could name off the top of there head without being a die hard fan of a particular school.

Also, do they not realize the sum total impact that is necessary to keep this thing going? Just on the football team alone, if every scholarship athlete (85) gets $100,000, that equals $8.5 million! This does not include all the other costs associated with the football team such as coaches salaries (which I think are bloated, but its market value unfortunately), buses, planes, uniforms, equipment, band, stadium upkeep, salaries of misc staff, concessions, you name it.

Then multiply that by every other sport. Then the college awards regular students academic scholarships, there is thousands of staff and professors to pay.

I just don't think these colleges are making as much as they think they are making off their "sweat" and "backs" (similar to slavery).

If there is so much money in the pot, then why is every college $200 million in long term debt?

I understand the players argument, this is a way for players to potentially profit during this time. I get that and understand the struggle many families go through.

I don't like the out in the open bidding war it will create. College football will never be the same.

That is my two cents. I am sure there are other opinions on this...and things I am not considering.


How will it be regulated?

[5]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:23 AM
    Reply

Who’s to stop a rich booster from giving a player $1M for a signed jersey if he agrees to play for his team?

2019 white level member

Well for one, the IRS and state departments of revenue

[4]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:30 AM
    Reply

That will create an interesting situation for kids to go to states with no income tax like Tennessee, Texas and Florida. A kid attending USC will pay a lot of money in income tax to the state of CA and the IRS for selling a jersey for $1M.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Good point, there are hundreds of problems to consider***


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:32 AM
    Reply

.


K.. he gets a million.. pays his 400k taxes


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:30 AM
    Reply

And pockets 600k.

No 1 plays the lottery ...and worries about taxes.


Not in CA, inocme tax alone means he would


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 1:31 PM
    Reply

pocket ~$500k. Of course CA will require an agent licensed in CA who will likely get 20% of an endorsement/memorabilia deal. But in reality the question is who will regulate it. Should endorsements be allowed for a player's likeness there will be regulations that would likely prevent a player selling a jersey for $1M.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Re: Not in CA, inocme tax alone means he would


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 2:04 PM
    Reply

Well if they made a cap on how much a player can make off of a jersey then boosters would just buy multiple jerseys to satisfy the player. The only way what you're saying would work is if there is a hard cap on how much players are allowed to make period. Then it would be all about which schools have the boosters that could pay all of their players that cap.

2019 student level member

I'm not necessarily talking about a cap, but more of a


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 3:58 PM
    Reply

typical market value. Jerseys are probably a bad example for all of this because they would be sold through a licensing deal with an individual entity. Maybe the players would need to form a players association similar to the NFLPA to do that for them.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Exactly, then players will hold teams hostage like they


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:35 AM
    Reply

do now. Well...Mr. Booster, Team A said they would give me a Million, can you do 2 Million?

Then some booster will swoop in moments before signing day and offer the 2 Million.

Chaos!!!


I think it breaks down to 2 groups....

[1]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:32 AM
    Reply

Group A: A VERY limited set of star athletes whose names are used to additionally promote the school. There is something wrong about the availability of a Clemson official Jersey with TL's name and number on it and none of the proceeds for that shirt benefit TL. These also tend to be the players who get broadcast stories and interviews because the fans hunger for a story on the hero. Sure if they can get drafted this is a positive for them, but the school benefits from the additional coverage.

Group B: Every other athlete. These folks are the traditional true student athletes because they do their work behind the scenes for themselves and the University with little to no recognition.

If we want to keep Group A truly amateur there must be a concerted effort to eliminate discussions of individual players and remove their names from broadcast and forbid anyone from making money off of their likeness. Not sure if this is possible.

So it's a terribly difficult situation. Without defining what puts a player in Group A (needs to be paid) and Group B (still amateur) this is just going to turn into a mess and schools will simply hire professionals to make up a "Clemson Football Team"

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: I think it breaks down to 2 groups....

[2]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 10:09 AM
    Reply

An easy fix is to put away money earned for each athlete until graduation.

When the athlete graduates, then he or she can do what they want with the money in their individual account.

This can be done for every athlete even though we know the amounts will be very different for some than others.

The other idea is to allow each high school athlete to make a choice when they sign with a school.

Option A: Receive athletic scholarship and rules remain unchanged.

Option B: Choose to forgo the athletic scholarship to be able to earn money on your own. This means having to earn enough money to pay for: tuition, housing, food, medical, and everything else that is currently available for free to athletes.

There are still a few holes in that idea in terms of regulating that rogue booster, but I would guess athletes would have a hard time accepting the responsibility to count on themselves to earn everything like the professionals that they want to be.


Re: I think it breaks down to 2 groups....


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:42 AM
    Reply

does not fix the graft issues, deepest pockets still get the players. Now if you made players who make money like this reimburse the school for the fair market value of the investment the school made into the player that might be a wrinkle... to include "exposure" ...

Tuition
Food
Facilities (weight room, etc)
Lodging
Clothing
Tutoring
Training
Counseling
Marketing
Exposure
Currently reimbursed expenses

This could all add up...

military_donation.jpg

I don't think there are official jersey's with TLs name


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:25 AM
    Reply

on it (are there)?

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg


Re: I don't think there are official jersey's with TLs name


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 12:22 AM
    Reply

No, those with current players are bootleg jerseys.


Re: I think it breaks down to 2 groups....


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:32 AM
    Reply

In your group A, the law could say the schools cannot benefit financially and close that, no TL Jerseys for sale. Sucks for the fan who wants one but it protects the players right to his image. You could argue jerseys are walking billboards for that player as well... its all nuanced.

Fix the players ability to work a legit job or get compensated because they cannot work (athletic schedule is pretty much 24-7). It's preset simple, you could use local government per diem rates or the NCAA could establish the rates based on the cost of living per school.

Pretty sure the school just started a womans softball program on the backs of the football team success, facilities and growth on the backs of the football teams success, players benefit, school benefits... that will get destroyed if there is pay to play.

Hope the NCAA responds by kicking all the Cali schools out and no playoff games... buy-buy Rose Bowl and the death grip they have on the bowl season...

military_donation.jpg

Link to either Clemson or the NCAA selling a jersey with a


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 12:08 PM
    Reply

current player’s name on it?

I know anyone can throw a Lawrence on the back of a 16 jersey, but Clemson doesn’t do that, I don’t think. Nor does the NCAA.

And I am all for eliminating any promotion of any player by Clemson. As a matter of fact, I’d love to be in the room when the player is told that hey...don’t worry...we aren’t going to even tell anyone you exist. Because that helps you in your quest to make the pros, right?

null


What's different re: bloated 'market value' coaches salary?

[1]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:36 AM
    Reply

I don't feel strongly one way or the other on the argument. Just curious how you rationalize being okay with bloated market value coach salaries, but so strongly against players earning what they perceive to be market value.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: What's different re: bloated 'market value' coaches salary?


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 10:12 AM
    Reply

Every coach has the same earning potential. If they progress and choose to continue to move up in the ranks, then they can get what the elite coaches receive.

This is not true for players. The best offensive lineman in the country on any given year would be capped at hundreds of thousands if not a million dollars below the QB that he is allowed to sit back and toss TDs.

And that's only the beginning of the difference in how the players' values would not apply in the same way.


For one, the coaches are in a profession.

[2]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 10:34 AM
    Reply

They already went to school.

For baseball and basketball, it is simple, let the players jump right to the pros. Don't hold them back.


Re: For one, the coaches are in a profession.


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:05 AM
    Reply

This is not good logic because it leads you to assume that the only way to be successful (as defined as the right to make money) is determined on if you went to college. Possibly the most outrageous take on here.


I don’t understand. How is that what he said?***


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 12:12 PM
    Reply



null


Re: I don’t understand. How is that what he said?***


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 5:02 PM
    Reply

Because he said they coaches get paid because they already went to school, implying that you have to go to school to be able to get paid, which there is no way you can agree with that.


Nothing is preventing college students from taking


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 4:55 AM
    Reply

endorsements. They just can't play amateur sports if they are paid professionals.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Because coaches are professionals and


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:16 AM
    Reply

athletes are amateurs who coincidentally are being compensated about the same amount ($250k) as the base salary for most of our football coaching staff. Pretty simple concept. And not all coaches make bloated salaries but that’s how a market works.


Re: Because coaches are professionals and


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 8:48 PM
    Reply

Wouldn’t that 250k come out to about $62k per year? What assistant is making that low of a salary? Also, let’s see how our coaches feel about the idea of being paid in scholarships from now on instead of money.


Re: What's different re: bloated 'market value' coaches salary?


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:34 AM
    Reply

mostly because it will destroy the college game... think about it for 1/2 second, the reality of unrestrained money to the players...

military_donation.jpg

Pig

Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)

[3]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:38 AM
    Reply

I put this on another thread earlier.
The players already get (I estimate) around $250000.00 to attend and play for Clemson for 4-5 years. Tuition, room and board, best food money can buy, healthcare, and probably the most expensive benefit... Television coverage to showcase their skills. That last one is totally priceless!!! They get to travel and see the world for free and get the best tutoring money can buy. This doesn't even include the facilities they get to take full advantage of.
As Dabo says, "They can't have it both ways."

But then people say that amount doesn't take care of everything else like cars, gas, dating, fun, etc.
The players are being given stipends already to help with some of that. How much is enough?
The question is not, "What do we do?"... It should be, "What should we do?"
If the parents can't afford to send their kids to college (even with everything being paid for), then they should simply not send them at all. That's the way life works. Better learn that now. This is not a Socialist country.


Without jumping into the debate

[1]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:40 AM
    Reply

I'd just like to point out that athletes wanting to get reimbursed for schools making money off of their efforts is NOT socialism. Pretty much the opposite.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Shhh. Everything can turn into an uninformed insult


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:49 AM
    Reply

Yeah, I was also trying to wrap my head around being paid 'fair market value' = socialism. The current argument logic is if you disagree with something, then you need to find a political type insult that aligns with their thinking.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Without jumping into the debate


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:59 AM
    Reply

I agree that college athletics is a socialist system, and though it doesn't work out economically, I think it works better here. If we turn it into capitalism, I think we end up with oligopolies. Colleges will consolidate their money into revenue generating sports and a handful will dominate the industry.

Even the NFL, NBA, and MLB have rules to level the playing field. These rules work only moderately well and they only have around 30 programs for each. If you add more money into the NCAA system, I don't know you do it for 130 just for major college football programs, and basketball would be even worse.


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:47 AM
    Reply

What does that have to do with the current laws which allow the players to make money off of their own likeness? Why should they not be allowed to make a few hundred bucks signing autographs somewhere simply because they get to go to school for free? Not only does Dabo make a high salary at Clemson, but there's nothing stopping him from making money from outside sources as well to my knowledge. If Nike wants to pay Dabo 1 million to be in a television commercial then he can do so. Somehow though, it would be the end of the world if Lawrence got paid $500 to sign autographs for a few hours?


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 10:23 AM
    Reply

If those things are so valuable (i do think there is some great value there), then pay the coaches in the same manner. Nick Saban is getting an amazing free house to live in, why does he also have to get 10+ million dollars a year? Everyone here is using "cost" and "value" as synonyms, when they are not. You can look up what the tuition rates are for the average student and say "oh, that's the value of the scholarship", but it isn't costing the school what the "value" of the scholarship is. Basic economics here. You learned this in ECON 201 in Brackett Hall.


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:43 AM
    Reply

I don't understand how saying there's only a certain number of athletes who have enough name value to earn money is an argument against the law. Let's say that a team has 10 players who have enough value to earn money from various things. Well then the other players end up not earning money, and nothing changes for those players compared to what it's like now. It doesn't cost the school anything, so why does it matter what the value of their education is?

I also don't buy into the thought that it would cause issues with the players who aren't making money. How is that different now from there being a handful of players each year that will end up being drafted, while several others never will? Or different from all the attention someone like Lawrence gets compared to everyone else on the team? Or for a player on the team that comes from a rich family compared to one whose family is currently in poverty?


I’m with you. The argument against paying college players is

[1]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 12:26 PM
    Reply

Easily accomplished through looking at the economics. The only reason to bring up the value of their college tuition, room, board, training, etc is in response to people who claim that they do this for “nothing”, which is clearly not true, or the news would stop boring me about a student debt “crisis.”

All anyone needs to look at is the fact that no FBS is begging for someone to take their scholarship. As a matter of fact, there are tens of thousands of kids who would love to have gotten that scholarship but were turned away. As a matter of fact, Clemson played 111 kids against Charlotte, which means AT LEAST 26 kids say “that’s okay that you aren’t giving me a benefit to be on your team...I still want to be here.” If anything, given that market signal, Universities are giving players too much.

null


Pig

Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:57 AM
    Reply

It would be easier to just make it against NCAA rules for schools to use the "likeness" of an athlete to make money. If a gaming company or advertiser wants to use the "likeness" of a specific player, he or she cannot collect on it until they turn professional, graduate, or drop out of school.
There are a million things the NCAA does not allow already. Simply make this one of them.
Why is this so difficult?


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 10:02 AM
    Reply

Unfortunately, I think it's too late for the NCAA to try and go with something like this now. With it already being passed in California that(starting in 2023) players can make money off of these things NOW, it's highly unlikely to get people on board with waiting to collect the money a few years later. I'm not sure how many states will actually pass the law, but several more have already started the process, and I'd be shocked if several more don't end up passing it as well. The NCAA may have been able to pass something similar to what you're saying before all of this, but they waited too long IMO.


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 10:36 AM
    Reply

Unless the NCAA can clearly point out the many many flaws in the idea of free market with no regulations for athletes starting in high school.


This is such a NON issue... but...


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 10:17 AM
    Reply

keep spending millions of brain cells and hours on something that will affect only the top 1% of players in college athletics. geez......

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

..:: ru4god2 ::..


Re: This is such a NON issue... but...


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:00 AM
    Reply

It will really affect recruiting and a much higher percentage than 1%. The parents and athletes alike will know which schools like Texas, Ohio St, Bama, UGA etc.. have the big money boosters willing to pay big bucks for theirs sons jersey. It may turn out their son never starts nor makes a dime, but the promise of the money during recruitment could shift the balance of power even more and make things more challenging for Clemson.


It's stupid because players can make money now.

[1]
Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:12 AM
    Reply

It;s not illegal. It breaks an NCAA rule which they agreed to when they signed up.


But, why is their likeness valuable? Ponder that for a minute.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Pig

Re: It's stupid because players can make money now.


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:22 AM
    Reply

The only reason I can think of is because kids and some adults idolize them, and want to buy shirts and games with their name or picture on it.


Umm, sir/madam, you missed that one badly


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:27 AM
    Reply

How many players at Charleston Southern have a valuable likeness? Or, Gardner Webb? Or Elon?

Are you catching on?

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: Umm, sir/madam, you missed that one badly


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 8:27 PM
    Reply


How many players at Charleston Southern have a valuable likeness? Or, Gardner Webb? Or Elon?

Are you catching on?


You're trying to say the school provides their ability to have a likeness unlike the smaller schools. Well a player for Gardner Webb would never play at Clemson because they aren't good enough to play there. Clemson needs Trevor Lawrence just as much if not more than Trevor needs Clemson. Both sides benefit in this equation, its a partnership. Clemson doesn't "own" Trevor or his likeness.


Re: Umm, sir/madam, you missed that one badly


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 9:01 PM
    Reply

How valuable is the likeness of a walk on player at Clemson? If it’s all Clemson then shouldn’t the value be pretty much the same for all our players? With that logic, what would the value of an NFL players likeness be if they never got drafted? Why pay a salary to the NFL players at all then?

How valuable would Dabo Swinney be had Clemson not given him a chance? That doesn’t seem to stop Clemson from paying him nearly 10 million per year.

Obviously the schools add value to the players, but I fail to see why that means the player can’t profit off of their own name.


Simple story from Greeks sums all:


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:22 AM
    Reply

Pandora's Box.

There's a reason this story is written in our core and goes back thousands of years - it explains our nature in one basic metaphor.


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:23 AM
    Reply

This is bad, bad, bad ....

military_donation.jpg

Side note: out of state tuition at Clemson is over $200K...


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 11:28 AM
    Reply

...and most football players are out of state.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg


Re: Side note: out of state tuition at Clemson is over $200K...


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 12:16 PM
    Reply

And of it were not for football, they wouldn't be coming to Clemson anyway.


Re: Side note: out of state tuition at Clemson is over $200K...


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 8:21 PM
    Reply

joeyb® said:

...and most football players are out of state.


Lol. The school doesn't charge more money for out of state tuition because it costs more to educate an out of state student. Do you even logic bro?


Yeah - I was looking at it from the cost savings to the


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 10:02 AM
    Reply

player as opposed to the cost to the University.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 12:14 PM
    Reply

I kind of like the law. Football has become pure business. May as well pay the employees.


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 12:14 PM
    Reply

I kind of like the law. Football has become pure business. May as well pay the employees.


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 6:16 PM
    Reply

why are you on this board? you must hate college football. This will ruin college football as plain as day... tell me how this will work in your utopian world? It barely works now...

military_donation.jpg

Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 2:10 PM
    Reply

It's certainly not good news for Clemson athletics.

2019 student level member

TV networks are the ones making money


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 8:40 PM
    Reply

off of students. Schools put all of their money back into various programs. It would probably end college athletics. We just need a minor league for football and basketball. Problem solved. College baseball is thriving despite minor leagues. Go make 100k a year and have 4 people in the stands. The pageantry of CFB won't go anywhere.

2019 student level member

TV networks are the ones making money


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 8:40 PM
    Reply

off of students. Schools put all of their money back into various programs. It would probably end college athletics. We just need a minor league for football and basketball. Problem solved. College baseball is thriving despite minor leagues. Go make 100k a year and have 4 people in the stands. The pageantry of CFB won't go anywhere.

2019 student level member

TV networks are the ones making money


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 8:40 PM
    Reply

off of students. Schools put all of their money back into various programs. It would probably end college athletics. We just need a minor league for football and basketball. Problem solved. College baseball is thriving despite minor leagues. Go make 100k a year and have 4 people in the stands. The pageantry of CFB won't go anywhere.

2019 student level member

TV networks are the ones making money


Posted: Oct 2, 2019 8:40 PM
    Reply

off of students. Schools put all of their money back into various programs. It would probably end college athletics. We just need a minor league for football and basketball. Problem solved. College baseball is thriving despite minor leagues. Go make 100k a year and have 4 people in the stands. The pageantry of CFB won't go anywhere.

2019 student level member

Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 3, 2019 1:55 AM
    Reply

NCAA is making squillions...time to give the $$ back to the players who got them there. That's my opinion.


Re: I am AGAINST the new California Fair Pay to Play Act (long)


Posted: Oct 4, 2019 12:00 PM
    Reply

Players? Schools don't matter, Administrations don't matter, Coaches don't matter, trainers don't matter, Tutors don't matter, teachers don't matter, Fans don't matter? Only the players Hugh...

It's a bad idea that invites massive corruption... and it will all be outside the NCAA or the Schools ability to control... bad, bad, bad...

military_donation.jpg

Replies: 59  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Wake Forest
FOR SALE: Three home lower deck seats for the Wake senior day game. Section UH, row N, seats 7,9,11. $125 ea...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Tiger Boards - Football ]
Start New Topic
1615 people have read this post