Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

NIL act passed - NCAA allows athletes to monetise their name, image, likeness

SBP said:
šŸ˜‚
I get it. Players should be paid. I just hate to see the end of CFB as we know it. Like it or not, there is almost no scenario where compensating players doesnā€™t eliminate our beloved Buffaloes from the ranks of the relevant.
Click to expand...

Actually, this solution is one of the only viable ones that may make it possible for Colorado to remain relevant. Players are economic agents that will eventually get whatā€™s theirs. If folks donā€™t think the super haves donā€™t have under the table dealings with superstar players, weā€™re all lost.
 
manhattanbuf said:
Actually, this solution is one of the only viable ones that may make it possible for Colorado to remain relevant. Players are economic agents that will eventually get whatā€™s theirs. If folks donā€™t think the super haves donā€™t have under the table dealings with superstar players, weā€™re all lost.
Click to expand...
For some reason the current ā€œunder the tableā€ status quo seem much more sustainable than the solution that the legislature in California has come up with. Donā€™t ask me to justify or defend my opinion because i canā€™t. But I do believe that paying players will he end of college sports. It will be a shame when that happens.
 
So how will this play out? Some player for a California school will sell tee shirts with his likeness or autographs or something. The school wonā€™t be able to discipline him because it violates state law. Then the NCAA will take action against the school. Maybe ban them from post season or chop scholarships or something.

Then what? Does the school or state, if itā€™s a state university, sue the NCAA? If so it will work itā€™s way through the legal system for a while until it gets to the SCOTUS. It seems to me that the player has the right to sell his likeness but that the NCAA has the right to set amateurism rules and can punish schools that violate those rules.

Iā€™d think a private school like Stanford could implement amateurism rules barring players from making money but state schools would be liable to state law. Of course I may be totally wrong because I have no ****ing clue. But this issue will ultimately be decided in the courts.
 
Last edited:
DBT said:
So how will this play out? Some player for a California school will sell tee shirts with his likeness or autographs or something. The school wonā€™t be able to discipline him because it violates state law. Then the NCAA will take action against the school. Maybe ban them from post season or chop scholarships or something.

Then what? Does the school or state, if itā€™s a state university, sue the NCAA? If so it will work itā€™s way through the legal system for a while until it gets to the SCOTUS. It seems to me that the player has the right to sell his likeness but that the NCAA has the right to set amateurism rules and can punish schools that violate those rules.
Click to expand...
Except that contracts that require illegal action are legally void. The NCAA cannot enforce "amateurism rules" that are illegal - to do so, is...



wait for it...




illegal.

An organization cannot enforce a rule that requires someone to take an illegal action. These legal precedents are literally hundreds of years old; it won't take courts very long to issue injunctions preventing the NCAA from enforcing its "rules" that require California schools to do something that is illegal (think months or even weeks, not years).

This really is forcing the NCAA's and P5 conference's hands. The college athletic landscape is going to look dramatically different in 3-4 years time.

About the only way "out" that I can see (presuming CA doesn't fundamentally alter the law, and even this way out might require some tweaking) is for some sort of separate trust to be formed wherein the proceeds from selling the kids' likeness, etc are placed, to be distributed later.

Whether that's a collective trust, or individual trust, I can't foresee - although a large part of me thinks it should be a collective trust to provide at a minimum, lifetime health and disability benefits for injuries incurred by any/all players. It would be nice if the trust was financially successful enough to also provide job training, career assistance, etc.

If the NCAA transforms itself into an organization that really cares about, and takes care of the student athletes instead of a vehicle to maximize college sports profits, it might survive.

Who am I kidding? Presuming this goes through, the NCAA is toast.
 
SBP said:
Donā€™t ask me to justify or defend my opinion because i canā€™t.
Click to expand...

That is the weakest sentence Iā€™ve seen posted on here in forever. At least you deserve credit for admitting you donā€™t know what the **** you are talking about, you just like the sound of your own voice.
 
Big Jim said:
That is the weakest sentence Iā€™ve seen posted on here in forever. At least you deserve credit for admitting you donā€™t know what the **** you are talking about, you just like the sound of your own voice.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ, untwist your panties
 
What's kind of ironic is that the Trump administration is probably going to change service academy rules to allow athletes to not only defer their service until after a potential pro career but also leave early to go pro, therefore substantially increasing the service academies ability to compete in football and basketball.

Now this rule will utterly demolish them.
 
Big Jim said:
That is the weakest sentence Iā€™ve seen posted on here in forever. At least you deserve credit for admitting you donā€™t know what the **** you are talking about, you just like the sound of your own voice.
Click to expand...
Now Jim, is that a nice thing to say?
 
Would the NCAA trying to enforce amateurism rules violate federal anti-trust law?
 
DBT said:
What a mess. Iā€™m totally against players getting paid unless there is some way to level the playing field and I donā€™t see how that would be possible.

Okay NCAA. Check. Your move.
Click to expand...
This is the silliest argument against paying players, because it suggests that there is some sort of level playing field now. If we start paying players then Alabama/Ohio State/etc might be too powerful!
 
NW Buff said:
This is the silliest argument against paying players, because it suggests that there is some sort of level playing field now. If we start paying players then Alabama/Ohio State/etc might be too powerful!
Click to expand...
It isnā€™t ā€œsillyā€ at all. So you suggest bending over and grab your ankles and take it?
 
The upshots are that (1) this California law does not go into effect until 2023 at the earliest, allowing for time to work this all out; (2) the NCAA threat against California teams is all hat and no cattle; (3) several other states and even the federal government may follow suit by enacting similar laws; (4) the NCAA will eventually come to grips with the fact that it is unfair for them to control the images of young adults just because they play sports, and rules will be changed.
 
L Buff said:
I got to buy Pez a beer at the Blake Street Tavern in 2010 and tell him how he was a huge part to what was then my best moment as a Buff. Unfortunately the game were watching that day was the last time we played the nubs in the Big 12 and lost to them ... but that particular mental scar has now been forever erased!
Click to expand...

I believe I was sitting next to you that day. We were talking Michigan football, and your soup still had the bay leaf in it and you mentioned to the bartender that something like that was a lawsuit in the making.
 
Big Jim said:
That is the weakest sentence Iā€™ve seen posted on here in forever. At least you deserve credit for admitting you donā€™t know what the **** you are talking about, you just like the sound of your own voice.
Click to expand...
I doubt he heard the sound of his own voice, it was typed. Although I do think the concept of DBT proofreading his posts aloud to be a pretty funny mental image.
 
Stanford, SC, Cal, all the big schools are lobbing against this. Looking at other school sites and this is very unpopular.
 
Headline of this should have read something like: ā€œRich kid, Tim Tebow, doesnā€™t believes that college players should get paid, because they should have pride in their university and it could ruin the tradition and pageantry of college football, and their parent should just send them extra money every monthā€
 
Please ignore (and sorry) if this has been mentioned somewhere else, and I'm too lazy too look into details, but looks like Colorado's legislature has passed something "similar" to California's bill. (Per the article linked to in the tweet, below, It has passed both houses and is just pending the governor's signing it.)



Edit - Per https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb20-123 , it will take effect 1/1/2023.
 
AztecBuff said:
Please ignore (and sorry) if this has been mentioned somewhere else, and I'm too lazy too look into details, but looks like Colorado's legislature has passed something "similar" to California's bill. (Per the article linked to in the tweet, below, It has passed both houses and is just pending the governor's signing it.)



Edit - Per https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb20-123 , it will take effect 1/1/2023.
Click to expand...


ā€œThis is a huge win and we hope that the bill will bring equity to the world of collegiate sports and allow more student athletes to stay in school without fear of financial instability.ā€

LOL. Try paying for the full time schooling while working and paying for your rent, food and everything else.

Iā€™m all for them being paid but financial instability? Gtfo.
 
AztecBuff said:
Please ignore (and sorry) if this has been mentioned somewhere else, and I'm too lazy too look into details, but looks like Colorado's legislature has passed something "similar" to California's bill. (Per the article linked to in the tweet, below, It has passed both houses and is just pending the governor's signing it.)



Edit - Per https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb20-123 , it will take effect 1/1/2023.
Click to expand...


Sorry to quote myself, but wanted to mention this bill has now been signed.

 
TSchekler said:
Now Dorrell can really get a jump on recruiting!
Click to expand...
MT gonna be pissed when hr loses a recruit to CU because we can and will pay them.

(yes, I know Michigan will grudgingly follow along, but let me have my joke damnit!)
 
This "news" is a few days old, and sorry if it's covered in another thread, but wanted to mention Florida joined California and Colorado in passing a law on this. It sounds like the big difference in THEIR law is that it takes effect July 1, 2021, rather than in 2023 as CA's and CO's laws did.



From article linked to in above tweet:
"
Florida wasnā€™t the first state to introduce legislation that would allow college athletes to make money off their name, image and likeness. It wasnā€™t the first to pass a bill on the subject, either.

But when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the stateā€™s bill into law Friday at a ceremony at the University of Miami, it represented one of the biggest steps in a years-long nationwide movement to overhaul the NCAAā€™s amateur model.

Because the law takes effect July 1, 2021, about 18 months earlier than similar laws previously approved in California and Colorado, it puts pressure on a notoriously slow-moving organization to act quickly on the issue.
...
"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top