LaxPower Back-Up Stick

About time. Athletes are the product. Enough of the student-slave, er, athlete nonsense.

Bunch of tired old white men are going to have to find a new scam.

NCAA doesn’t like it they can suit up and show us what they’ve got.

“Suit up or shut up.”

The Act is a game changer in college sports. It makes it illegal for California colleges to deny their student athletes opportunities to gain compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses. Stated more concisely, the Act guarantees college athletes a right to profit from their identities. The Act also authorizes college athletes to hire agents and other representatives to assist them in negotiating and securing commercial opportunities.


Pursuant to the Act, college athletes at California schools can negotiate with video game publishers for their avatars to appear in college sports video games. They can also be paid to sponsor summer camps for young athletes and sign endorsement deals with apparel companies, sports beverages, car dealerships and numerous other businesses that would pay for an athlete’s public stamp of approval.

I don't read the law the same as some here. Schools won't pay the kids. The free market will. Car dealerships, lacrosse equipment companies, video games, etc.

There are sooooo many unintended consequences and unexpected results that will flow from this.

For example, if you're a lacrosse loving kid, would you rather go to a camp and learn pointers from Ament and OKeefe at Penn State? Or would you rather go to a camp taught by Jeff Tambroni? Easy choice.

If you're STX or Brine, how much more money is it worth to be able to have a CURRENT Ncaa superstar hyping your goods? Quite a bit more than an ex-player who is no longer on TV every week playing for Duke or Syracuse, or....

And all the professional talent agencies will arrive to manage their players.

I can't wrap my head around all the directions this could be pulled....

Co-signing car loans could be back en vogue.

Actually, WOMBAT, while I realize your intention here is to throw a dig and be a smart a*s*s, you use a real good example of what is wrong with the grip the NCAA has on student athletes, and the reason things are heading in the direction they are. If a Canadian music student couldn't get a car loan while attending University X in the USofA because, well, because he/she is Canadian, that person could get whoever is willing to sign as a co-signer with no questions asked. If that person happens to be, let's say a married lacrosse player who is part of a duo that is catapulting his program to a different level and bringing a whole lot of positive national attention to University X, well, that person can't. Something is wrong there, thanks for bringing it up.

The road to hell is filled with good intentions

A third amigo

WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:20 am Co-signing car loans could be back en vogue.

Of course influencing potential rats won’t be as effective in Baltimore in order to keep things under wraps.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cnaoVV46hk4

Oprah could help.

You get a car! You get a car! Everyone gets a car!

i have a question. what exactly are the students being paid for? is it being a student-athlete, or an athlete? i know it's "identity" but really, behind that identity is the sport, and there'd be no intercollegiate sport without college.

in other words, if you accept that a... car dealer... is paying a "student-athlete", the moment you don't show up to class, you should be docked. like any other job. (this is a job now isnt it?)

or, if someone is paying one to be just an athlete (with no likeness of the university or studentship attached), then let's be upfront about it- and require payors to say they are paying athletes, and not students.

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:41 am i have a question. what exactly are the students being paid for? is it being a student-athlete, or an athlete? i know it's "identity" but really, behind that identity is the sport, and there'd be no intercollegiate sport without college.

in other words, if you accept that a... car dealer... is paying a "student-athlete", the moment you don't show up to class, you should be docked. like any other job. (this is a job now isnt it?)

or, if someone is paying one to be just an athlete (with no likeness of the university or studentship attached), then let's be upfront about it- and require payors to say they are paying athletes, and not students.

Following Sinatra's comments, which are very good...I have further thoughts.

Is the idea that you're paid according to your ability? And if by "ability" we mean proven, on-the-field success, and not 'high school accolades and 5 stars' given to high schoolers with better marketing chops than talent who, ummm, tend to underperform on the big stage, shouldn't some programs be a little leery of this proposal? I'm thinking of one program in particular.

The alternative is socialism where each player is given an equal bounty regardless of talent, and we all know the end result of socialism (regardless of DocB's dreams). Very un-American, I say.

Choose your poison.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:46 am

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:41 am i have a question. what exactly are the students being paid for? is it being a student-athlete, or an athlete? i know it's "identity" but really, behind that identity is the sport, and there'd be no intercollegiate sport without college.

in other words, if you accept that a... car dealer... is paying a "student-athlete", the moment you don't show up to class, you should be docked. like any other job. (this is a job now isnt it?)

or, if someone is paying one to be just an athlete (with no likeness of the university or studentship attached), then let's be upfront about it- and require payors to say they are paying athletes, and not students.

Following Sinatra's comments, which are very good...I have further thoughts.

Is the idea that you're paid according to your ability? And if by "ability" we mean proven, on-the-field success, and not 'high school accolades and 5 stars' given to high schoolers with better marketing chops than talent who, ummm, tend to underperform on the big stage, shouldn't some programs be a little leery of this proposal? I'm thinking of one program in particular.

The alternative is socialism where each player is given an equal bounty regardless of talent, and we all know the end result of socialism (regardless of DocB's dreams). Very un-American, I say.

Choose your poison.

thanks peter brown! i was channeling my inner aFan analytics. i'll try once again-

now converge with early recruiting. can a video game manufacturer strike a deal with State, and then Coach recruits a 10th grader with the promise of a you'll get your likeness into a video game, name, jersey #, etc, and a paycheck. just sign with us. And then sell that deal to 200 recruits, and commit it to 10 incoming recruits annually?

I see all these numbers being thrown around about how much money schools are making. I suggest your do some research before selling the koolaid. Yes there are big numbers in football and basketball, but most athletic programs at universities run in the red. Very few are able to get enough revenue to cover their cost. One of the few elite programs that does is Penn State, who runs many non revenue sport like lacrosse, they are the rare exception not the rule. You think the IVY or Patriot league are cashing in on the Football or B Ball money I would say highly unlikely you'd see them on a Saturday afternoon on a non conference channel. Other then the Army Navy game played when most teams are off or headed to bowls. Not every team is making money. Figure out what is cost to run a men's lacrosse team for a season, I think $500,000 would be close to the number.

Lets look at this from the athletes side. If your a lax player mostly from affluent areas you have the financial support of your parents and let be honest there aren't many endorsement opportunities. Now if your a kid playing football or basketball without the financial support and your picture is used in marketing and hangs over the side of the stadium, I'd say you would feel a bit cheated that the school making money off your hard work. Yes they are getting an education but how many are really taking advantage of that versus how many of taking the athletic track.

I am not opposed to them getting paid, One possible suggestion it goes to a trust fund where they can draw down a percentage by filing a expense report.and they get the balance upon graduating from college.

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:55 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:46 am

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:41 am i have a question. what exactly are the students being paid for? is it being a student-athlete, or an athlete? i know it's "identity" but really, behind that identity is the sport, and there'd be no intercollegiate sport without college.

in other words, if you accept that a... car dealer... is paying a "student-athlete", the moment you don't show up to class, you should be docked. like any other job. (this is a job now isnt it?)

or, if someone is paying one to be just an athlete (with no likeness of the university or studentship attached), then let's be upfront about it- and require payors to say they are paying athletes, and not students.

Following Sinatra's comments, which are very good...I have further thoughts.

Is the idea that you're paid according to your ability? And if by "ability" we mean proven, on-the-field success, and not 'high school accolades and 5 stars' given to high schoolers with better marketing chops than talent who, ummm, tend to underperform on the big stage, shouldn't some programs be a little leery of this proposal? I'm thinking of one program in particular.

The alternative is socialism where each player is given an equal bounty regardless of talent, and we all know the end result of socialism (regardless of DocB's dreams). Very un-American, I say.

Choose your poison.

thanks peter brown! i was channeling my inner aFan analytics. i'll try once again-

now converge with early recruiting. can a video game manufacturer strike a deal with State, and then Coach recruits a 10th grader with the promise of a you'll get your likeness into a video game, name, jersey #, etc, and a paycheck. just sign with us. And then sell that deal to 200 recruits, and commit it to 10 incoming recruits annually?

Hmmm, more thoughts.

If you sign up to play 4 years, and you go pro or transfer after year 1, do you owe the school back its money for year 1? You didn't live up to the contract, costing your chosen school its investment in you. Shouldn't you pay back that investment?

What if you injure a player from another school in a game, are you personally liable for that monetary loss to the other school and player?

Will Alabama pay massive money to some players to sit on their bench so as simply not to enroll at other, less well-heeled programs?

If its grades we pay for, shouldn't there be some ongoing standardized testing so we know who is actually learning and not simply a grade given by a school? What if there is a race gap on standardized tests? What then?

Bernie Sanders will have mental pretzel contortions trying to figure out what's fair.

Apparently the "student" athlete, the university, the advertisers, the broadcast media, NO ONE regards a 250,000 education as having any value.

Politicians sticking their noses in without understanding any of the unintended consequences—game over.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:43 am Apparently the "student" athlete, the university, the advertisers, the broadcast media, NO ONE regards a 250,000 education as having any value.

Politicians sticking their noses in without understanding any of the unintended consequences—game over.

+1

Jackie Evancho, Grace Vanderwaal, and Connie Talbot all going to University X on a music scholly. They decide to put on a concert and charge $20 admission to pick up a few bucks while young college gals. No problem there.
Gary Gait, Paul Gait, and Tommy Marechek going to University X on lacrosse schollies. They decide to put on a lacrosse clinic and charge $20 to attend. Big problem there, what's the diff?

The $250K education is laughable, that's some mighty over priced basket weaving courses.

DMac wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:03 am Jackie Evancho, Grace Vanderwaal, and Connie Talbot all going to University X on a music scholly. They decide to put on a concert and charge $20 admission to pick up a few bucks while young college gals. No problem there.
Gary Gait, Paul Gait, and Tommy Marechek going to University X on lacrosse schollies. They decide to put on a lacrosse clinic and charge $20 to attend. Big problem there, what's the diff?

The $250K education is laughable, that's some mighty over priced basket weaving courses.

Maybe the university could fully fund 40 lacrosse scholarships instead of 12 before they throw cash at the new Gaits Rables and Harrissons.

But this isn't really about lacrosse. Its all football, basketball and some idiot politicians in california.

Maybe they could find some cash for the epidemic of homelessness in their state.

No, it's about all student athletes on scholarships living under the heavy handed restrictions put on them by the NCAA that are just flat out unfair and ridiculous. Maybe you can leave the politics to the threads that are dedicated to such discussions and just answer the question as to why the singers can charge for a concert but the lacrosse players can't charge for a clinic.

DMac wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:31 am No, it's about all student athletes on scholarships living under the heavy handed restrictions put on them by the NCAA that are just flat out unfair and ridiculous. Maybe you can leave the politics to the threads that are dedicated to such discussions and just answer the question as to why the singers can charge for a concert but the lacrosse players can't charge for a clinic.

It is unfair in many ways. I would figure out a way to get players compensated out of college sports revenue. I don’t like the unregulated nature of the payments. I believe the player will suffer in the long run.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:43 am Apparently the "student" athlete, the university, the advertisers, the broadcast media, NO ONE regards a 250,000 education as having any value.

Politicians sticking their noses in without understanding any of the unintended consequences—game over.

So everyone else gets to operate in the free market except the people who are doing the actual work? And all players are compensated the same, even if they win the National Championship as the MVP, or if they ride the pine? Sounds like communism.

Is there a wage cap for coaches and administrators? The obvious alternative solution here is to make this fair and cap the amount anyone working at the University----coaches, Presidents, Administrators------earns at the price of Tuition and Room and Board. And disallow them from making any other money outside of this wage.

So, for example, Nick Saban's or the President of the University of Alabama's maximum wage would be $45,022 per year, and he would be barred from any endorsements or any other income.

Sound fair to you guys? Or does that sound more like a economic system we'd see in the Soviet Union?

Do we believe in the free market, or don't we?

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:55 am I believe the player will suffer in the long run.

Some will get paid more, some will get paid less.

And yes, we're bringing free market forces to bear. This might kill sports like lacrosse.

Or it might not. Who knows?