- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NCAA will allow athletes to be compensated per CNBC
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:31 pm to shel311
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:31 pm to shel311
quote:
Let me try this....you're in here acting like it's the worst thing every when its consequences might not actually be so consequential.
The very first step, paying players for their likeness, is in and of itself consequential.
You’re already losing your grip my dude.
1
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:31 pm to RB10
quote:
Meaning when the numbers don’t mesh, which will happen, you’ll have the same clusterfrick of “pay for play” issues you have now. Only it will be even more difficult to prove because you’ve allowed players to be paid for their likeness and now have to distinguish what was allowed income and what wasn’t. Yeah, this would be a brilliant move.
That's not going to happen, meaning the NCAA should not be regulating how the player is receiving money, the school could restrict but they should not be colluding with other schools with the NCAA to stop trade - Sherman Act.
This really isn't difficult.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:33 pm to shel311
quote:
That's REALLY your argument? IT will go from really hard to prove to a little bit more reall hard to prove, so everything will fall apart? C'mon man.
No, my argument is it’s going from really hard to prove to impossible to prove. Making those payments that you thought we sp awful even more prevalent, they’ll just be hidden in income for advertising and endorsements.
Please, try and keep up.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:33 pm to RB10
quote:You don't know that in the shape of this discussion.
The very first step, paying players for their likeness, is in and of itself consequential.
You don't know for sure that it'll have this monumental negative effect on the college game.
It'll absolutely be a huge change in general, not necessarily will change the game as we know it and it will forever not be the same!!!!
quote:Not at all. You keep telling me it'll be just like it was before while FREAKING OUT ABOUT WHAT THIS WLL DO, but I need to get a grip. Ok
You’re already losing your grip my dude.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:34 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
That's not going to happen, meaning the NCAA should not be regulating how the player is receiving money, the school could restrict but they should not be colluding with other schools with the NCAA to stop trade - Sherman Act.
It is going to happen. The NCAA has already said its going to happen.
Players cannot be paid for play. They can receive compensation for their likeness being used.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:34 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
I'd assume this might benefit the bigger markets like L.A. unless there's a cap put on it.
Not necessarily
It will benefit schools with rich donors and alumni
For example, this. An really help aTm, Texas and Oregon.
Unless there is a cap, what’s to stop Phil Knight from putting Oregon players on Nike billboards or commercials for a million dollars a pop.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:35 pm to RB10
quote:That's a ridiculous argument, so yea, it is hard for me to keep up with that nonsense.
No, my argument is it’s going from really hard to prove to impossible to prove. Making those payments that you thought we sp awful even more prevalent, they’ll just be hidden in income for advertising and endorsements.
Please, try and keep up.
Sure, some dude will get a few mil to sign a few footballs, and that will be that. Nothing can be done about it. OK, sure thing.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:36 pm to RB10
quote:
It is going to happen. The NCAA has already said its going to happen. Players cannot be paid for play. They can receive compensation for their likeness being used.
All the restriction are in the process of going bye bye - they really don't have a choice.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:36 pm to shel311
quote:
Not at all. You keep telling me it'll be just like it was before while FREAKING OUT ABOUT WHAT THIS WLL DO, but I need to get a grip. Ok
Telling you that paying players is going to be easier than ever is not telling you it will be just like it was before.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:37 pm to RB10
quote:
Beats just giving them money under the table like they do now.
No, it doesn’t. If they don’t cap this it’s going to be outrageous
And let’s not be naive. They will still be getting under the table money too
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:38 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
And let’s not be naive. They will still be getting under the table money too
There will be no table.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:38 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
All the restriction are in the process of going bye bye - they really don't have a choice.
Again, from the article:
quote:
Student-athletes must be treated similarly to non-athlete students, must not be treated like employees of their respective universities, and there should be a “clear distinction between college and professional opportunities,” the NCAA said.
I.e. players cannot be paid for their services by the school, meaning they cannot be paid to play.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:39 pm to RB10
Now you’re going to hear that softball players should be compensated as much as football players.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:39 pm to RB10
quote:Well, let's see...
Telling you that paying players is going to be easier than ever is not telling you it will be just like it was before.
quote:
You do realize the same thing will happen if it appears these kids are getting money they shouldn’t, correct?
quote:
you’ll have the same clusterfrick of “pay for play” issues you have now.
Uh huh, that's what you were telling me. How in the world could I have possibly thought you were saying it would be the same thing!!!
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:40 pm to tiger91
quote:That makes no sense.
Now you’re going to here softball players should be compensated as much as football players.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:40 pm to RB10
quote:
I.e. players cannot be paid for their services by the school, meaning they cannot be paid to play.
As I said, they are in the process... the current restrictions and even their alluded to restrictions are violation of the Sherman Act, and probably against statutory laws of all the States.
The States are quietly telling them to get their shite straight, or I would imagine the indictments could fly anytime an AG would like them too.
They really don't have a choice. :rimshot:
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:44 pm to shel311
If I lose $10 one night, and $10,000 the next, the same thing technically happened. Though anyone with any common sense would tell you they aren’t the same at all. The process of what will happen remains the same, but the scope of what’s happening will widen simply because it’s easier to do so.
That logic applies here and your little semantics act doesn’t change that.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:47 pm to RB10
quote:That's a long winded way for you to say you did a terrible job of articulating your point.
If I lose $10 one night, and $10,000 the next, the same thing technically happened. Though anyone with any common sense would tell you they aren’t the same at all. The process of what will happen remains the same, but the scope of what’s happening will widen simply because it’s easier to do so.
That logic applies here and your little semantics act doesn’t change that.
Yea, you said it would be the same clusterfrick it's always been but in saying that you meant something totally different and it was totally obvious you meant something totally different. Ok, sure thing.
Another thing I find funny is your point never changed until Pride made his point, then you started repeating what he said.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:50 pm to shel311
quote:
Yea, you said it would be the same clusterfrick it's always been but in saying that you meant something totally different and it was totally obvious you meant something totally different. Ok, sure thing.
Saying the cheating will remain is not even remotely close to saying the entire operation will remain the same.
College football is being fundamentally changed by these rules, but the cheating that’s been involved for decades will still be there, the scope of it will be much wider though.
quote:
Another thing I find funny is your point never changed until Pride made his point, then you started repeating what he said.
I’ve posted in several threads about this, and have always made the point about paying players being a problem.
Understanding there are more possible consequences to this rule change than just the pay for play aspect is something I’m capable of.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:52 pm to RB10
quote:So let me get this straight. You're admitting you clarified your stance better in other threads, but in this thread just kept saying "it'll be the same thing" but it's MY Fault for only seeing your posts in this thread and reading them for what they are?
I’ve posted in several threads about this
My bad for not seeing/remembering all those previous posts in other threads.
quote:Possibly, and maybe it won't be some monumental change that just ruins the game as we know it.
Understanding there are more possible consequences to this rule change than just the pay for play aspect is something I’m capable of.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News