Cali schools out of the NCAA

vex · 10-29-2003, 12:41 PM

Only if they do something stupid,

like this.

TroyF · 10-29-2003, 01:25 PM

What Brand and the NCAA don't realize is that other states will follow suit. There is already proposed bills in other states that would do essentially the same thing. The NCAA is the one that is going to be forced to change. The change is going to happen a lot quicker than most people suspect.

TroyF

sooner333 · 10-29-2003, 01:44 PM

Hmmmm...could the US Congress do something about this, with the reasoning that the athletes are involved in interstate commerce when they play games in other states? It would be tricky, but something would have to be done in the NCAA.

Huckleberry · 10-29-2003, 01:56 PM

I think Oklahoma should do this first and make it retroactive to October 1, 2000.

Airhog · 10-29-2003, 03:22 PM

that still wouldnt give Texas the chance to play for the championship

TroyF · 10-29-2003, 04:08 PM

I think Nebraska is one of the other states where a similar bill has been brought up. (I don't think it ever went for a vote, but it has been talked about)

Sadly, the city of Norman hasn't passed such a bill. We'd all be happy if they did.

TroyF

dawgfan · 10-29-2003, 06:44 PM

If someone can come up with an economic model that shows how paying players could be acheived without ruining school's athletic department budgets I'd consider it.

As it is right now, only a few programs generate enough money to where their athletic departments are self-sufficient and don't require help from the overall school funding (i.e. state taxpayer subsidy).

Without additional revenue, paying football players will wreck the budgets of most schools' athletic departments, forcing them to look for additional support from their state legislatures (good luck) and/or cutting other non-revenue sports, which would have to be men's sports due to title 9 requirements.

There have suggestions that this revenue could be supplied by loosening amateur rules and allowing more endorsement opportunities for players, as well as enabling playoffs and using that revenue.

vex · 10-29-2003, 08:22 PM

The SEC has a way around this though

10-29-2003, 01:56 PM	#4
Huckleberry College Starter Join Date: Dec 2001	I think Oklahoma should do this first and make it retroactive to October 1, 2000. __________________ The one thing all your failed relationships have in common is you. The Barking Carnival (Longhorn-centered sports blog) College Football Adjusted Stats and Ratings

10-29-2003, 03:22 PM	#5
Airhog Captain Obvious Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Norman, Oklahoma	that still wouldnt give Texas the chance to play for the championship __________________ Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again!

10-29-2003, 01:25 PM	#2
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	What Brand and the NCAA don't realize is that other states will follow suit. There is already proposed bills in other states that would do essentially the same thing. The NCAA is the one that is going to be forced to change. The change is going to happen a lot quicker than most people suspect. TroyF

10-29-2003, 01:44 PM	#3
sooner333 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Norman, OK	Hmmmm...could the US Congress do something about this, with the reasoning that the athletes are involved in interstate commerce when they play games in other states? It would be tricky, but something would have to be done in the NCAA.

10-29-2003, 04:08 PM	#6
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I think Nebraska is one of the other states where a similar bill has been brought up. (I don't think it ever went for a vote, but it has been talked about) Sadly, the city of Norman hasn't passed such a bill. We'd all be happy if they did. TroyF

10-29-2003, 06:44 PM	#7
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	If someone can come up with an economic model that shows how paying players could be acheived without ruining school's athletic department budgets I'd consider it. As it is right now, only a few programs generate enough money to where their athletic departments are self-sufficient and don't require help from the overall school funding (i.e. state taxpayer subsidy). Without additional revenue, paying football players will wreck the budgets of most schools' athletic departments, forcing them to look for additional support from their state legislatures (good luck) and/or cutting other non-revenue sports, which would have to be men's sports due to title 9 requirements. There have suggestions that this revenue could be supplied by loosening amateur rules and allowing more endorsement opportunities for players, as well as enabling playoffs and using that revenue.

10-29-2003, 08:22 PM	#8
vex Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tulsa	The SEC has a way around this though

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)