forums

Protect College Sports Act [formerly “SCORE Act” thread]

JamesQuall said:
Do you think a long snapper at UM is the vast majority of scholarships?

If you’re saying vast majority of collegiate football and basketball players at the p4 level, then yes I agree.

If you’re saying the vast majority of the ~200k collegiate athletes in the US? You’re smoking bath salts.
Click to expand...

This isn’t that difficult to follow. I’m confident you can keep up.

Collegiate athletics are meant to be an extracurricular activity, not an occupation. With the exception of football and men’s basketball college sports do not make money. So any sort of scholarship at all is more than ample compensation for any athlete outside of football players and men’s basketball players. If, for example, the captain of the women’s field hockey team is getting a partial scholarship that is more than fair compensation for playing women’s field hockey, a sport that brings in no money.

Football and men’s basketball are intended to operate this way too, but America loves football (plus the NFL uses it as its minor league) and March Madness so much that these sports turned into multibillion dollar operations. That’s how you land on the problem of athletes getting paid.

In reality the only athletes that should be receiving compensation directly from the school are football and men’s basketball players. All other athletes should be free to explore third party NIL, and a lucky few, more than likely attractive females, will manage to go the Livvy Dunne route and make a bunch of cash by blowing up on social media. Otherwise scholarships are more than fair compensation for the majority of college athletes.
 
Have the bill's supporters ever publicly explained the rationale for the 19-team cap? If so, what is the stated reason?
 
NicKane said:
No, what created all this was the NCAA trying to profit off athletes, name, image and likeness. Does Eddie OBannion ring a bell, sir? You’re spewing nonsense! NIL is the law and anything that goes against it will lose in court. Those are facts right there.
Click to expand...

This is a stupid response. I’m guessing you must be young.

The O’Bannon decision is what it is, but we all played those games that his lawsuit was based off of and the players in the games often looked nothing like the player they were supposed to be. Even the video game characters that had a passing resemblance to the actual athlete didn’t look that much like them because the graphics just weren’t that good. Where the NCAA made their mistake is that in most cases they used the jersey number of the actual athlete and that’s what lead to being able to tie mediocre graphics as being a “likeness”.

Anyway, that doesn’t matter because your entire post is wrong. The biggest cause of CFB becoming a multibillion behemoth is the combination of the NFL using it as an unofficial developmental league and America’s insatiable love of football. Because of that the top football players have in the nation have no choice but to use CFB as a stepping stone to the NFL, which in turn created a product where people know they are watching future NFL guys grow.

Ask yourself this, if the NFL actually had a developmental league that players could go into right out of HS And play in for 3-5 years as a stepping stone what would CFB look like? Do think CFB would still be loaded with future NFL players, or would those guys be skipping college and going straight to the NFL developmental league.
 
Applecane said:
Have the bill's supporters ever publicly explained the rationale for the 19-team cap? If so, what is the stated reason?
Click to expand...

An oil baron doesn't want the SEC/duopoly leaving his Texas Tech Red Raiders (further) in the dust

A senator from the state of Washington doesn't want her Cougars banished even deeper into oblivion

The ACC commissioner wants to keep collecting his $4.5M annual compensation.

Those are three main cogs in this wheel
 
AuoraCane said:
You are correct but ESPN has no incentive to move them to the SEC. They get the product/programming for a steep discount compared to what they would have to pay if they were in SEC.
Click to expand...
1000 percent agree; which is why I have for the longest maintained that expansion has more or less cooled off. In general i believe there is much ado about nothing and a lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

People forget that Oregon, Washington, SMU, Stanford, and Cal all took major financial hits to join the B1G and the ACC; & that Texas + OU had been trying to move into the PAC12 prior to going to the SEC, and were trying to take Texas Tech plus Oklahoma State with them.

Nebraska made the first move going from the big 12 to the B1G, and the pac-12 commissioner invited 6 other big 12 schools: TT, Texas, OU, OSU, Colorado, and Texas A&M. Notably, not Missouri. Colorado would join before making a U-turn a dozen years later. The result of Texas’ pump-fake was the creation of the Longhorn Network, which held the Big 12 in tact for a decade longer before it absorbed all but 2 of the remaining big XII schools.

The SEC pursued A&M + OU hard, but OU didn’t want to go to the SEC back then. A&M could be the only SEC in Texas, which is really liked the potential of. Before A&M made the move:

Boren said the SEC extended offers only to Oklahoma and Texas A&M, both of which opted to stay in a slimmed-down Big 12 after Colorado left for the Pac-10 and Nebraska left for the Big Ten. Because the SEC offer didn't include two of the Sooners' key rivals, Oklahoma State and Texas, Boren said he didn't consider it a good option.

"There was a time when A&M thought they were going to the SEC and they very much wanted us to go with them," Boren said. "Oklahoma, in the whole thing, we were positioned in a way where virtually we could not have lost."

Last Friday, Oklahoma State president Burns Hargis confirmed that his school "never had an offer" from the SEC, "so it was never anything to consider." Both he and Boren expressed a strong interest in sticking together through any future conference realignment.
Click to expand...


A&M didn’t like so much power revolving around Texas in the Big 12. After all the chaos and creation of the longhorn network, A&M finalized its decision to go to the SEC, leaving behind Texas, and the SEC brought along Missouri as a partner instead because they did not want to have an odd number of teams; and they knew OU was out, and A&M wanted to go to solo.

IMG_9534.jpeg


This was John Calipari after A&M + Mizzou joined. While still wanting Oklahoma in the conference without OKState, getting Texas (after a decade of struggles) to pair with OU was a longtime coming and the natural outcome to get to grow the conference’s footprint.

Calipari said he still wants to see the SEC add two more schools to get to 16, while Alabama coach Anthony Grant suggested revisiting the division split after the addition of Texas A&M and Missouri
Click to expand...
 
Angry Ibis said:
So these caps and restrictions wouldn’t hurt those student athletes?
Click to expand...

First, the Cartman joke you posted is calling student athletes slaves, which is beyond ridiculous even prior to NIL.

Second, which athletes are you talking about? There are loads of student athletes across numerous sports. Are we discussing all of them? Because if so the majority are more than fairly compensated by any form of scholarship they get. The only reason paying students is even a discussion is because CFB and men’s basketball bring in a **** ton of cash.
 
bathtubgin said:
This is a stupid response. I’m guessing you must be young.

The O’Bannon decision is what it is, but we all played those games that his lawsuit was based off of and the players in the games often looked nothing like the player they were supposed to be. Even the video game characters that had a passing resemblance to the actual athlete didn’t look that much like them because the graphics just weren’t that good. Where the NCAA made their mistake is that in most cases they used the jersey number of the actual athlete and that’s what lead to being able to tie mediocre graphics as being a “likeness”.

Anyway, that doesn’t matter because your entire post is wrong. The biggest cause of CFB becoming a multibillion behemoth is the combination of the NFL using it as an unofficial developmental league and America’s insatiable love of football. Because of that the top football players have in the nation have no choice but to use CFB as a stepping stone to the NFL, which in turn created a product where people know they are watching future NFL guys grow.

Ask yourself this, if the NFL actually had a developmental league that players could go into right out of HS And play in for 3-5 years as a stepping stone what would CFB look like? Do think CFB would still be loaded with future NFL players, or would those guys be skipping college and going straight to the NFL developmental league.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not young, I’m old enough to realize all you’re doing is spewing nonsense on here. Clearly you’re an NCAA shill or maybe Nick Saban himself but whatever you’re selling, nobody’s buying, including Congress sport! Lol
 
NicKane said:
Get this NCAA shill out of here! Lmao
Click to expand...

What did I write that was inaccurate?

Do you think women’s soccer players should be paid by the university? Women’s soccer doesn’t generate money so where should that money come from? Should it be taken from the football teams budget to pay football players?

I’m getting the impression that you’re a socialist who believes everything is just free.
 
NicKane said:
No, I’m not young, I’m old enough to realize all you’re doing is spewing nonsense on here. Clearly you’re an NCAA shill or maybe Nick Saban himself but whatever you’re selling, nobody’s buying, including Congress sport! Lol
Click to expand...

You suffer from severe reading comprehension issues.

No where have I said there shouldn’t be payments to revenue generating sports. Unlike you I’m dealing in reality though. Football generates revenue, and a lot of it, which is why player payment even became a thing. Other sports, aside from men’s basketball, just siphon cash from an athletic department.

You seem to be advocating for all student athletes across all sports to be getting paid, despite the fact that they participate in sports that make no money. Can you explain to me how a scholarship is not fair compensation for someone on say the swim team, another sport that makes no money?
 
RightSaidFred said:
Even if you take race out of it, it’s eyebrow raising. Usually…

Sees a perceived problem -> Thinks Government needs to step in and regulate

Sees a wage disparity-> Thinks government needs to redistribute the wealth

Isn’t how Republicans think, but in this case that’s exactly what they’re doing.

It’s hypocritical and inconsistent, and it makes you wonder about their motives
Click to expand...
It is an attempt to get the CBC on board.
 
bathtubgin said:
What did I write that was inaccurate?

Do you think women’s soccer players should be paid by the university? Women’s soccer doesn’t generate money so where should that money come from? Should it be taken from the football teams budget to pay football players?

I’m getting the impression that you’re a socialist who believes everything is just
Click to expand...
Whatever dude, post whatever you want. I ain’t buying it.
 
bathtubgin said:
What did I write that was inaccurate?

Do you think women’s soccer players should be paid by the university? Women’s soccer doesn’t generate money so where should that money come from? Should it be taken from the football teams budget to pay football players?

I’m getting the impression that you’re a socialist who believes everything is just free.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because we know universities are totally free market and don't get any federal or state funding. :cool:
 
bathtubgin said:
You suffer from severe reading comprehension issues.

No where have I said there shouldn’t be payments to revenue generating sports. Unlike you I’m dealing in reality though. Football generates revenue, and a lot of it, which is why player payment even became a thing. Other sports, aside from men’s basketball, just siphon cash from an athletic department.

You seem to be advocating for all student athletes across all sports to be getting paid, despite the fact that they participate in sports that make no money. Can you explain to me how a scholarship is not fair compensation for someone on say the swim team, another sport that makes no money?
Click to expand...
1789757093471.gif
 
If Congress really wants to truly restrict conference realignment and "protect" college sports, they would mandate the pooling of TV contracts - at least for the P4.
 
Our senators need to be throwing as many poison pills into this bill as they can.

Ban independent schools not under the 3 year quarantine period ineligible for the playoffs. (Indiana delegation)

Cap conference games at 7. (**** off the SEC / ESPN)

Cap on coaching salaries
(Tommy Tuberville)

Require employement contracts
Require collective bargaining
Require environmental impact studies of increase CO2 emissions for extra travel
 
Back
Top