Do you support allowing college athletes to be paid for ''their likeness''?

[K9Buck]

Let them get paid as much as they can.  I'm all for it.  

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, K9Buck said:

 

As I suspected, you are a far-left socialist that believes government should run everything under the sun to make it "fair".  You probably work in government or education. 

You mean like soldiers, police officers, firefighters, etc????

 

Quit making an interesting topic about government.  There is a place for that on this board, and if you keep doing it here you'll wind up banned.  If you like talking about the sports side of things and the general effects of politics in sports I'd suggest toning it down a bit...

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

I've repeatedly stated my SUPPORT for letting players be paid as much as they can get.

You say that but your posts really read like you would rather things stay the way they are, which isn't an uncommoj position.

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, K9Buck said:

 

As I suspected, you are a far-left socialist that believes government should run everything under the sun to make it "fair".  You probably work in government or education. 

 

 

I mean, this just makes my point for me which clearly went over your head. 

 

I don’t necessarily think things are unfair now, but it’s ok to figure out whether they’re unlawful and whether students should be able to get paid for their likeness. So then you start arguing with communist ideology just so you can believe you’re arguing with me, when none of it is anything I said. I’m the pro capitalism one in this conversation, not you.

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, K9Buck said:

Let them get paid as much as they can.  I'm all for it.  

Now I'm confused.  If you feel this way, why do you not support a law like this.  It is the literal intention of the legislation: 

 

 (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to monitor the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) working group created in May 2019 to examine issues relating to the use of a student’s name, image, and likeness and revisit this issue to implement significant findings and recommendations of the NCAA working group in furtherance of the statutory changes proposed by this act.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to continue to develop policies to ensure appropriate protections are in place to avoid exploitation of student athletes, colleges, and universities.

[RedDenver]

57 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

Membership to the NCAA is voluntary just like membership here in this forum is voluntary.  Should the state of California take this over too?

As others have pointed out, there's absolutely no "take over" in the bill being proposed.

 

3 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

Let them get paid as much as they can.  I'm all for it.  

So now you're in favor of the California bill?

[K9Buck]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

 

So now you're in favor of the California bill?

 

Where did I express opposition?

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, K9Buck said:

 

Where did I express opposition?

 

18 hours ago, K9Buck said:

I understand that the state of California may pass a law that would require the NCAA to permit athletes to be compensated for ''their likeness''. Do you support this potential new law? 

I'm not Nostradamus so I won't make any predictions on how it would affect NCAA athletics, but I'll take a guess that such a law would be detrimental. After all, what isn't detrimentally affected once the government decides to step in and take over?

 

Were you drunk when you started the thread 

 

[K9Buck]

3 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Now I'm confused.  If you feel this way, why do you not support a law like this.  It is the literal intention of the legislation: 

 

 (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to monitor the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) working group created in May 2019 to examine issues relating to the use of a student’s name, image, and likeness and revisit this issue to implement significant findings and recommendations of the NCAA working group in furtherance of the statutory changes proposed by this act.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to continue to develop policies to ensure appropriate protections are in place to avoid exploitation of student athletes, colleges, and universities.

 

Yes, the California legislature views student-athletes as exploited victims and I agree with them.  What will they do if women's sports is no longer funded because all of the available revenue is going to male, revenue athletes?  Are they going to say it's "unfair" and pass more laws?

[K9Buck]

1 minute ago, funhusker said:

 

 

Were you drunk when you started the thread 

 

 

Nope.

 

Potentially, it could be beneficial for athletes that produce revenue and detrimental to those who don't.

 

The California legislature probably doesn't understand this.  

[K9Buck]

9 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Now I'm confused.  If you feel this way, why do you not support a law like this.  It is the literal intention of the legislation: 

 

 (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to monitor the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) working group created in May 2019 to examine issues relating to the use of a student’s name, image, and likeness and revisit this issue to implement significant findings and recommendations of the NCAA working group in furtherance of the statutory changes proposed by this act.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to continue to develop policies to ensure appropriate protections are in place to avoid exploitation of student athletes, colleges, and universities.

 

Nowhere did I say that I'm opposed to it.  

[funhusker]

2 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

Yes, the California legislature views student-athletes as exploited victims and I agree with them.  What will they do if women's sports is no longer funded because all of the available revenue is going to male, revenue athletes?  Are they going to say it's "unfair" and pass more laws?

And what if they make it illegal to buy tacos?  What if they make it illegal to wear pants?  

 

I'm not wasting time conversing on something that isn't an issue....

 

The law in question does not take revenue from anyone.  It allows for students to make money that they currently aren't allowed to...

1 minute ago, K9Buck said:

 

Nowhere did I say that I'm opposed to it.  

So, are you normally "for" laws that you find detrimental to the greater good???

[K9Buck]

I don't pretend to have the answers.  I believe it's a very convoluted matter, as evidenced by this thread.  I think it's safe to say that this will be settled in a courtroom. 

[funhusker]

What this thread has accomplished:

 

1. Paying athletes is a complicated matter.

2. California is a liberal state legislating free enterprise.

3. Buckeye fans don't have answers

4. Moiraine is moving to China

 

Mods, Lock it up! Our work here is done...

[LumberJackSker]

If any other state would have proposed this I don't think the op would have had a problem with it.