EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 8, 2019 20:55:51 GMT -5
I take Napier at his word. No reason to believe he was lying or had any reason to lie imo. I don't think he lied. I think he omitted some of the entire story. At that age, young people can deflect blame or not accept their part of their responsibility. Here's the clip, I don't think there was much more to it than the fact that he thought players deserved more than they were getting...
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Oct 8, 2019 20:59:56 GMT -5
I don't think he lied. I think he omitted some of the entire story. At that age, young people can deflect blame or not accept their part of their responsibility. Here's the clip, I don't think there was much more to it than the fact that he thought players deserved more than they were getting... I completely agreed with him then that athletes needed more and continue to believe they deserve more...
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Oct 8, 2019 22:11:14 GMT -5
It’s always funny when the folks making millions of dollars talk about making sure the “playing field” is level for everyone... Rich guy doesn’t want his employees to make more which would cause him to make less. Shocking. These coaches look like real a-holes when talking about this subject. It’s funny to me how it’s usually rich guys saying how these kids shouldn’t be paid.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 8, 2019 22:36:04 GMT -5
It’s funny to me how it’s usually rich guys saying how these kids shouldn’t be paid. They should not. That's what the G League is for. What's particularly objectionable about the CA law is that it mandates all schools to comply. Why should a private school be forced to provide compensation if it chooses not to do so? Example: if California mandated that UC college admissions must mirror the state population at large (40% Hispanic, 37% White, 15% Asian, 5% black), it would be controversial but otherwise legal. Should Stanford and USC also be forced to follow? Or, closer to home, if DC mandated admissions to follow population, UDC might make sense, but should Georgetown be mandated to do so?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 8, 2019 23:29:54 GMT -5
It’s funny to me how it’s usually rich guys saying how these kids shouldn’t be paid. They should not. That's what the G League is for. What's particularly objectionable about the CA law is that it mandates all schools to comply. Why should a private school be forced to provide compensation if it chooses not to do so?Example: if California mandated that UC college admissions must mirror the state population at large (40% Hispanic, 37% White, 15% Asian, 5% black), it would be controversial but otherwise legal. Should Stanford and USC also be forced to follow? Or, closer to home, if DC mandated admissions to follow population, UDC might make sense, but should Georgetown be mandated to do so? What compensation are you referring to? I thought this bill was about allowing kids to make money from their likeness...
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 9, 2019 7:29:58 GMT -5
What compensation are you referring to? I thought this bill was about allowing kids to make money from their likeness... Poor choice of words. Allowing outside compensation based on likeness was my point. California shouldn't be mandating public rules for private institutions, but Newsom and the legislature are going full-bore on this.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Oct 9, 2019 7:36:31 GMT -5
It’s funny to me how it’s usually rich guys saying how these kids shouldn’t be paid. They should not. That's what the G League is for. What's particularly objectionable about the CA law is that it mandates all schools to comply. Why should a private school be forced to provide compensation if it chooses not to do so? Example: if California mandated that UC college admissions must mirror the state population at large (40% Hispanic, 37% White, 15% Asian, 5% black), it would be controversial but otherwise legal. Should Stanford and USC also be forced to follow? Or, closer to home, if DC mandated admissions to follow population, UDC might make sense, but should Georgetown be mandated to do so? What are you talking about provide compensation? Do you even understand the law?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 9, 2019 9:56:13 GMT -5
What compensation are you referring to? I thought this bill was about allowing kids to make money from their likeness... Poor choice of words. Allowing outside compensation based on likeness was my point. California shouldn't be mandating public rules for private institutions, but Newsom and the legislature are going full-bore on this. But aren’t the great majority of laws passed by legislators in effect for all citizens? How would being exempt help private institutions? Also this isn’t full bore at all, the law won’t go into effect for 3 years and we all know the ncaa members could fix this in a few meetings if they wanted to...
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Oct 9, 2019 12:29:33 GMT -5
What compensation are you referring to? I thought this bill was about allowing kids to make money from their likeness... Poor choice of words. Allowing outside compensation based on likeness was my point. California shouldn't be mandating public rules for private institutions, but Newsom and the legislature are going full-bore on this. I still don't get your point. I think you didn't quite understand the California law and are trying to background/change the subject. Aren't laws made so companies must abide by them not give them the choice to pick and choose? Should private institutions still be allowed to segregate or should they have been forced? These colleges/NCAA have shown that they are not going to do anything substantially different unless forced. This was a more than reasonable compromise to keep the money from coming from them but yet still allowing the athletes to profit off their skill. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be against that. Who is the victim here?
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Oct 9, 2019 12:36:23 GMT -5
What compensation are you referring to? I thought this bill was about allowing kids to make money from their likeness... Poor choice of words. Allowing outside compensation based on likeness was my point. California shouldn't be mandating public rules for private institutions, but Newsom and the legislature are going full-bore on this. Isn't that one of the primary purposes of government?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 9, 2019 12:44:31 GMT -5
This was a more than reasonable compromise to keep the money from coming from them but yet still allowing the athletes to profit off their skill. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be against that. Who is the victim here? You used the operative phrase--"profit off their skill". That's the definition of a professional athlete and one which, like it or not, is incompatible with an intercollegiate model, emphasis on "inter"-collegiate. You cannot long maintain a tenable Division I when athletes are shopping themselves to shoe companies for commercials and for car dealers to appear on TV ads and others are not. Now, the contrary argument may well be, "So be it," letting the market drive NCAA Division I into oblivion and the remaining schools can recruit talent for Nike or Budweiser or William Hill to their wallet's content. Be careful what you wish for, however, because that's a future that will not include Georgetown University among those schools.
|
|
One
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 192
|
Post by One on Oct 9, 2019 13:22:59 GMT -5
This was a more than reasonable compromise to keep the money from coming from them but yet still allowing the athletes to profit off their skill. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be against that. Who is the victim here? You used the operative phrase--"profit off their skill". That's the definition of a professional athlete and one which, like it or not, is incompatible with an intercollegiate model, emphasis on "inter"-collegiate. You cannot long maintain a tenable Division I when athletes are shopping themselves to shoe companies for commercials and for car dealers to appear on TV ads and others are not. Now, the contrary argument may well be, "So be it," letting the market drive NCAA Division I into oblivion and the remaining schools can recruit talent for Nike or Budweiser or William Hill to their wallet's content. Be careful what you wish for, however, because that's a future that will not include Georgetown University among those schools. So let the schools/coaches be the only ones to "profit off their skill"? Your argument is asinine.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Oct 9, 2019 14:03:45 GMT -5
I think DFW is just saying this would be the death knell of competitive basketball at Gtown and he may not be wrong. Kids would be encouraged to go to the biggest markets with the most followers and that ain't Gtown. Maybe this becomes moot with the upcoming repeal of one and done. Those top 20 guys go pro so now you are talking mainly about 2-4 year players. If that is the case, the "likeness" royalties should go to some sort of trust to be paid out to all (either in that sport or from that university) once kids graduate. If they don't graduate, those royalties go to those who do to provide some incentive for the "education" part of the student/athlete.
Players don't have a union like pro sports that spread out the wealth. I also think Universities should be forced to cap coaches salaries at some multiple of the cost of the school tuition (20 times?). This would give Gtown an advantage with how expensive it is and we can Bernie this thing up!
|
|
DudeSlade
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I got through the Esherick years. I can get through anything.
Posts: 1,209
|
Post by DudeSlade on Oct 9, 2019 14:12:55 GMT -5
My understanding is that because private universities receive aid, grants, etc. from public sources -- federal and state -- they are faced with abiding by the same dictates as public universities. If they didn't take anything from the government, then they can fully set their own rules as private institutions. But if I recall correctly there's barely any if at all that don't take that aid. I'm not a lawyer so the specifics may be fuzzy, but that was the hook that I'd always heard impacted private universities.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 9, 2019 14:27:26 GMT -5
I think DFW is just saying this would be the death knell of competitive basketball at Gtown and he may not be wrong. Kids would be encouraged to go to the biggest markets with the most followers and that ain't Gtown. Maybe this becomes moot with the upcoming repeal of one and done. Those top 20 guys go pro so now you are talking mainly about 2-4 year players. If that is the case, the "likeness" royalties should go to some sort of trust to be paid out to all (either in that sport or from that university) once kids graduate. If they don't graduate, those royalties go to those who do to provide some incentive for the "education" part of the student/athlete. Players don't have a union like pro sports that spread out the wealth. I also think Universities should be forced to cap coaches salaries at some multiple of the cost of the school tuition (20 times?). This would give Gtown an advantage with how expensive it is and we can Bernie this thing up! How would this be any different than what's going on right now? Btw an easy way to really help spread the wealth would be to drop the number of scholarships down to 12 or 11...
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Oct 9, 2019 14:51:59 GMT -5
I think DFW is just saying this would be the death knell of competitive basketball at Gtown and he may not be wrong. Kids would be encouraged to go to the biggest markets with the most followers and that ain't Gtown. Maybe this becomes moot with the upcoming repeal of one and done. Those top 20 guys go pro so now you are talking mainly about 2-4 year players. If that is the case, the "likeness" royalties should go to some sort of trust to be paid out to all (either in that sport or from that university) once kids graduate. If they don't graduate, those royalties go to those who do to provide some incentive for the "education" part of the student/athlete. Players don't have a union like pro sports that spread out the wealth. I also think Universities should be forced to cap coaches salaries at some multiple of the cost of the school tuition (20 times?). This would give Gtown an advantage with how expensive it is and we can Bernie this thing up! How would this be any different than what's going on right now? Btw an easy way to really help spread the wealth would be to drop the number of scholarships down to 12 or 11... I think it would be different because in theory you could profit off of the followers you have via social media where today you can't so a school with a large following would benefit the player more. That isn't the case today.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 9, 2019 15:07:33 GMT -5
How would this be any different than what's going on right now? Btw an easy way to really help spread the wealth would be to drop the number of scholarships down to 12 or 11... I think it would be different because in theory you could profit off of the followers you have via social media where today you can't so a school with a large following would benefit the player more. That isn't the case today. My point is the hierarchy in college sports won't change much if at all if or when players are allowed to profit off their likeness... Honestly, I don't think the size of the school will matter much if you're interesting enough... Doesn't Mac have a big following on social media?
|
|
kbones17
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,186
|
Post by kbones17 on Oct 9, 2019 15:28:01 GMT -5
I think it would be different because in theory you could profit off of the followers you have via social media where today you can't so a school with a large following would benefit the player more. That isn't the case today. My point is the hierarchy in college sports won't change much if at all if or when players are allowed to profit off their likeness... Honestly, I don't think the size of the school will matter much if you're interesting enough... Doesn't Mac have a big following on social media? My concern is the booster angle. It would be open season for boosters to buy the best players for their teams. Yes, currently booster backed teams have built in advantages (facilities) and some are throwing money around in the shadows, but it is still somewhat restricted by the possibillty that these deals could inflict real pain on the team they are trying to support. Take away that possibility and then boosters are really running big time college sports as quasi-owners. I agree with pooling money in some form and creating a pension-like program for athletes in money sports but I am really wary of athletes being able to profit off of their likeness simply because I don’t think it will be actual “free market” situation.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Oct 9, 2019 15:34:42 GMT -5
My point is the hierarchy in college sports won't change much if at all if or when players are allowed to profit off their likeness... Honestly, I don't think the size of the school will matter much if you're interesting enough... Doesn't Mac have a big following on social media? My concern is the booster angle. It would be open season for boosters to buy the best players for their teams. Yes, currently booster backed teams have built in advantages (facilities) and some are throwing money around in the shadows, but it is still somewhat restricted by the possibillty that these deals could inflict real pain on the team they are trying to support. Take away that possibility and then boosters are really running big time college sports as quasi-owners. I agree with pooling money in some form and creating a pension-like program for athletes in money sports but I am really wary of athletes being able to profit off of their likeness simply because I don’t think it will be actual “free market” situation. Why is the current situation with schools sending a shiitton of money on facilities and coaches (all aimed at getting talent) better than just paying the talent directly?
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Oct 9, 2019 15:41:36 GMT -5
This was a more than reasonable compromise to keep the money from coming from them but yet still allowing the athletes to profit off their skill. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be against that. Who is the victim here? You used the operative phrase--"profit off their skill". That's the definition of a professional athlete and one which, like it or not, is incompatible with an intercollegiate model, emphasis on "inter"-collegiate. You cannot long maintain a tenable Division I when athletes are shopping themselves to shoe companies for commercials and for car dealers to appear on TV ads and others are not. Now, the contrary argument may well be, "So be it," letting the market drive NCAA Division I into oblivion and the remaining schools can recruit talent for Nike or Budweiser or William Hill to their wallet's content. Be careful what you wish for, however, because that's a future that will not include Georgetown University among those schools. The only reason the definition exists is because it was created by the NCAA to pull off this charade. I have no idea what you mean by "athletes shopping themselves". If you mean that as some time constraint don't worry it won't be. The shoe deals will be limited but the other avenues this law would open up for most college athletes would be immense. I am not trying to be snarky but do you understand how much these kids could make off just YouTube alone? It wouldn't require them to do anything they aren't already doing. Look at Donald De La Haye. His fame wasn't derived from being the UCF kicker. His skill was his personality. He was making so much he just gave up his scholarship and place on the team because the money was too important to him and his family. Why rob the kid of that opportunity for having a YouTube channel. is it really a bad thing that the athletes get what they deserve and it all doesn't go to Google? The best part is the advertising $ does not flow directly to the athlete from the sponsor in that circumstance so there is no "shopping". Do you realize it takes very little time to make a social media post that could bring them money? Believe me they are already posting and there will be marketplaces that handle the specifics of what needs to be done like Open Sponsorship. You realize they could make the video games and use the players again and they could all get a equal fair share. If you aren't aware of the clamoring for the return of these college games that the O'Bannon decision caused then go look it up. There would be plenty of happy fans and players. Win-win. How about an hour signing autographs at a local place of business? That isn't a huge time constraint but benefits both the athlete and the business owner. Win-win again. I contend that I don't think you understand the law or all the avenues it could provide to these athletes. The law also states that there will be some oversight in place to keep track of the deals. If it is legal and there is no reason to cheat then we will finally have transparency which I consider a good thing.
|
|