Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Amateurism Lawsuit

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Why can't Nike do that for whomever they wish....

    When that happens let us know....they have zero reason to do so in track.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post
      Why can't Nike do that for whomever they wish....
      When that happens let us know....they have zero reason to do so in track.
      Still missing my point . . . . sigh.
      In the past, you couldn't turn pro (i.e., get paid for your sport) and retain your scholarship. Now you can.
      What NIL has done is make it much easier to get paid, in addition to the value of your scholatship. This will help the little guy (BYU women), but may hurt the big guy, who, if he signs an exclusive NIL contract while in college, may make it more difficult to get a fat contract to 'go pro' in the old sense. The Studs will still get their money, of course.

      So my point remains - NIL changes the entire landscape of what it means to go pro in track. For Oregon athletes, it goes far beyond shoes and gear. Now Nike can throw in some serious cash to the ones they like, while keeping them running for OU. I'll guess that people like Hocker were attracted to NOT running for Oregon as he prepares for 22, 23, 24. Otherwise he could have had his cake and eat it too. The difference is that 'full pro' means Nike can dictate his racing plans also . . . although who knows how NIL contracts will be written. It's a Brave New World.

      Comment


      • #48
        Still missing my point .

        When you make one that makes sense....let us know...

        I'll guess that people like Hocker were attracted to NOT running for Oregon as he prepares for 22, 23, 24.

        This is probably the silliest thing you've ever said....which is quite a high bar....

        Have you ever met Hocker? Or know the slightest thing about him. I saw him Friday in town and mentioned we missed him Thursday....he looked a bit sad.

        He won NCAAs indoors, outdoors....the Trials and 6th in Tokyo in 3:31....at 20...so yeah definitely needs to change his program.... why stick with what works.
        Last edited by Conor Dary; 09-26-2021, 10:54 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post
          When you make one that makes sense....let us know.
          Arguing with fools (which each thinks the other is) is . . . foolish. PROVING that we are both indeed fools!
          I needn't address it further.

          Comment


          • #50
            the key to Hocker may lie in the fact that I've still never seen any indication that one could accept DL prize money and remain eligible for NCAA competition.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Atticus View Post
              So my point remains - NIL changes the entire landscape of what it means to go pro in track.
              For track, only a few blades of grass on the landscape will change, not the entire landscape. Nobody in college T&F will get a NIL deal worth more than the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage job, except 3 categories:

              (1) U of Oregon athletes,
              (2) Olympic or Worlds medalists at other colleges, and
              (3) Teen phenoms who were in the headlines throughout their high school years (e.g. Cain, Syd, Felix, B.Williams, Mu if they had enrolled and stayed in the NCAA).

              The last 2 categories combined will be less than a half-dozen athletes in any given year, sometimes none.

              Comment


              • #52
                I think that when the big schools have their current Nike/Adidas/etc. contract about to expire, the new contracts will include a cut for athletes in at least football and basketball. What's another $850K to Nike to add in a $10K NIL contract for each scholarship football player in order to get the apparel contract for a blue blood program.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Cooter Brown View Post
                  I think that when the big schools have their current Nike/Adidas/etc. contract about to expire, the new contracts will include a cut for athletes in at least football and basketball. What's another $850K to Nike to add in a $10K NIL contract for each scholarship football player in order to get the apparel contract for a blue blood program.
                  Or they could just subtract it from the millions they give the coaches. Are coaches making 8-figure salaries going to make a fuss over less than a million going to his players? It would be a public relations and recruiting disaster.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by gh View Post
                    the key to Hocker may lie in the fact that I've still never seen any indication that one could accept DL prize money and remain eligible for NCAA competition.
                    Could be..but why not wait until next summer....unless of course he was burnt out and didn't want to do cross country. So why delay it. It has been a long season. Teare's ended in June.
                    Last edited by Conor Dary; 09-28-2021, 09:49 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      NLRB weighs in, saying college athletes are employees (link to story posted on home page)

                      <<The memo also told the NCAA and its member institutions to stop using “student-athlete” to refer to its students who are athletes. Abruzzo said the effect of the term is to disguise the true nature of the employment relationship and thus discourage players, i.e. workers, from asserting their rights>>

                      at long last we might be free of that ridiculous "student-athlete" terminology?

                      my only fear is that the NCAA's reaction will be to modify it to "student-athlete-employee"!



                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by gh View Post
                        NLRB weighs in, saying college athletes are employees (link to story posted on home page)

                        <<The memo also told the NCAA and its member institutions to stop using “student-athlete” to refer to its students who are athletes. Abruzzo said the effect of the term is to disguise the true nature of the employment relationship and thus discourage players, i.e. workers, from asserting their rights>>

                        at long last we might be free of that ridiculous "student-athlete" terminology?

                        my only fear is that the NCAA's reaction will be to modify it to "student-athlete-employee"!


                        I believe the proper term is "student worker"...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by gm View Post

                          I believe the proper term is "student worker"...
                          that sounds straight out of the Comintern!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Perhaps they'll just be enrolled in their university's work study program 😏

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by gh View Post

                              that sounds straight out of the Comintern!
                              Many non-athletes are already called "student workers." They work in the library, the dining halls, the residence halls, etc.

                              Of course, American universities are known for their communist indoctrination.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by TN1965 View Post
                                Of course, American universities are known for their communist indoctrination.
                                I know that actually is a stereotype, but as someone who studied at the epicenter (with Berzerkely-across-the-bay) at the absolute height of the radical leftist movement (early 70s), I recall ZERO Communistic ideologies being bandied around. This was still the height of the Cold War and very few ideologues who wanted to wield any power were espousing Communism as it existed then.

                                Super-left-wing Progressivism? Absolutely. I think (we) Baby Boomers used that momentum to get Obama elected. That's about it.
                                Maybe that's the silver-lining to the current political impasse we find ourselves mired in today. Neither side is getting their way, and in many cases, that's a good thing!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X