T1B

That could see CA schools lose their NCAA status and no longer be eligible for NCAA Championships.

The bill would allow CA student athletes to sign with agents while in college and to collect income from endorsements using their voice, image or likeness. Think radio, TV and in person ads.

The NCAA says this will create an uneven playing field and CA schools would lose most of their NCAA status and their athletic teams would not be eligible for NCAA postseason tournaments or Bowl games.

CA says most college athletes on scholarship live below the poverty line. I would argue most college students live below the poverty line. But scholarship athletes are guaranteed 3 full meals a day, unlike many living below the poverty line. They are also getting a free education.

This bill will likely end up hurting the athletes it is alleged to help.

https://abc7news.com/amp/sports/califor ... s/5313249/

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:18 am But scholarship athletes are guaranteed 3 full meals a day,

Link?

Full scholarship athletes get room and board. Board means full meals.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:20 am Full scholarship athletes get room and board. Board means full meals.

It means whatever the school decides it means. A lot of times “full” meals only count during training and whatever season they’re competing in. And most athletes aren’t on “full” scholarships.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:18 am

CA says most college athletes on scholarship live below the poverty line.

https://abc7news.com/amp/sports/califor ... s/5313249/

You might want to read the article you linked. It does not say that.

Really? You do know that the NCAA has a handbook and it defines much of this.

Further what are you basing your statement that most athletes aren’t on full scholarships? There are 85 full scholarships for football, 13 for men’s basketball, 15 for women’s basketball, 12 for women’s volleyball, 18 for women’s track, 12 for men’s track, etc.

Is everyone on a full ride? No, but in the three main sports they mostly are.

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:36 am

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:18 am

CA says most college athletes on scholarship live below the poverty line.

https://abc7news.com/amp/sports/califor ... s/5313249/

You might want to read the article you linked. It does not say that.

Correct CA didn’t say that. A study did. CA appreas to use that as justification.

But keep avoiding the issue here. Are you ok if Stanford can no longer compete for a spot in a bowl game, or the tennis or golf teams can’t compete in the post season? Or if their baseball team can’t compete for the College World Series?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:39 am Really? You do know that the NCAA has a handbook and it defines much of this.

Further what are you basing your statement that most athletes aren’t on full scholarships? There are 85 full scholarships for football, 13 for men’s basketball, 15 for women’s basketball, 12 for women’s volleyball, 18 for women’s track, 12 for men’s track, etc.

Is everyone on a full ride? No, but in the three main sports they mostly are.

Most of the rules about meals say that the school “may” not that they “shall.” And you’re talking about the three “main” sports at D1 schools. That doesn’t cover the vast majority of student athletes who will never have a chance to make any money in a professional league.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:40 am

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:36 am

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:18 am

CA says most college athletes on scholarship live below the poverty line.

https://abc7news.com/amp/sports/califor ... s/5313249/

You might want to read the article you linked. It does not say that.

Correct CA didn’t say that. A study did. CA appreas to use that as justification.

But keep avoiding the issue here. Are you ok if Stanford can no longer compete for a spot in a bowl game, or the tennis or golf teams can’t compete in the post season? Or if their baseball team can’t compete for the College World Series?

Maybe somebody needs to challenge the status quo in a highly exploitative system for any meaningful change to happen. You seem to think that the NCAA sits right up there with God and tRump.

This probably has zero bearing on Div III athletes. Most will not have enough appeal to get endorsements. The same could be said for Div II.

But you have one athlete on the football or basketball team sign with an agent, say goodbye to NCAA postseason.

Sure challenge the system. But athletes get a free college education which is often well over $100K. We don’t need to be paid as we already are receiving a ton of compensation for our competition. Further should high school athletes be paid? 8th graders?

But the biggest issue is Title IX. When you start allowing payments to a handful of male athletes, Title IX is going to be brought up by the female field hockey players that aren’t getting squat.

You already have a lot of football players sitting out of bowl games to avoid jeopardizing their professional careers. Who really GARA about most of the bowl games anymore anyway. With the advent of the BCS they’re mostly meaningless money making opportunities for the conferences anyway.

Well, there’s that too.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:03 am

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:30 am Well, there’s that too.

You a good man, Mikey. Fuck the haters.

There's nothing Californians hate more than a suck up.


How fucking pathetic,

schmick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:39 am Even on a partial scholarship the student-athlete still gets full "training table" which means they can eat as many meals as they like in the athletic departments facilities.
My son's baseball scholarship was only 50% of his tuition but he was still given stacks of clothes and equipment, free books, free room and board and all he could eat

Your “son” is a dyke softball player, and its situation doesn’t represent the entire system.

Mikey you keep saying this about not representing the entire system. The 60 or so power 5 schools are one thing, but athletes at the rest of the schools have it quite well.

Any player in the athletic program from walk on to full scholarship, gets the full attention of the athletic department. Gone are the days of the athletes having their own private dinning halls, but that has been replaced with nutritionist who greet the athletes with a meal card as the enter the dinning room. Snacks are then provided for meetings and classes depending on what that specific athlete is trying to accomplish.

Tutors are provided free of charge and academic advisors are always available. Athletes are able to register for classes before the general population. Clothing is provided free of charge.

All of this is available to all athletes regardless of sport from Stanford to Rice to St Norbert’s.


Don’t kid yourself of listen to the politicians who claim otherwise. Just ask a couple of current students if they would swap places with the athletes on their campus.

Brokenseater sucking the cock of big biz and trying to screw the little guy. How surprising.

schmick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:24 pm My son is 24 and went to Stanford on a baseball scholarship before transferring to a school closer to home after an injury....and a gf that talked him in to coming back closer to home

You clearly didn't teach him well.

What percentage of tuition was his scholly?

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:33 pm

You clearly didn't teach him well.

His whole family sounds extremely fragile.

BTW...this bill does not allow the universities to pay their athletes beyond their scholarships. It allows the athletes to hold a part time job if they want, which other students can do but athletes mostly can't, or profit by using their own name.

Also BTW...

Stanford wins 25th Directors’ Cup, six Pac-12 members among top 25

The success of the Pac-12 in the Cup was bolstered by the capturing of 13 NCAA titles, most among all conferences. In addition, nine Pac-12 league members combined to post 32 top-four finishes in 24 NCAA championships.

I guess this isn't really news, though. Because Stanford has won it every year since it was started 25 years ago.

Props to Stanford for winning it again.

Also have to give props to schools like Florida and Texas who don’t even field five of the sports that can accrue points, but still finish in the top 5.

schmick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:22 pm USC has more national championships in Mens sports

A lot more sexual predators on the faculty, too.

I have relatives that graduated from both Stanford (parents, sister, brother in law) and USC (brother, step daughter).
I went to neither but I love to throw shit on SC whenever possible.

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:35 pm I went to neither but I love to throw shit on SC whenever possible.

Smackie Chan?
C'mon...I know listenership has been lagging on T1B Radio lately, but don't you think you're being unnecessarily cruel?


:(

I’ll have to admit, the two SC grads prolly make more than the rest of us combined. But they also went to grad school elsewhere.