Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote: Coach whose school might be paying players supports paying players.

What else is he going to say? "Screw you recruits who I need"

CNN opinion piece saying female athletes are the big winners in CA's pay to play act.

This is what happens when you let your feelings set policy over actual facts.

Who's going to pay female athletes? Universities who lose money on their sports? It's been proven time and time again that football is the only money maker. Basketball can make money, but at far fewer schools than football.

Why would a university pay female athletes unless it just has an embarrassment of riches? Even then, you're creating a very, very small market. Meaning you not only have eliminated competition, but you've also just eliminated bidding, meaning the price goes down.

Most schools will drop sports and focus on education rather than paying athletes, much less athletes who don't generate revenue.

Leisher wrote: Who's going to pay female athletes? Universities who lose money on their sports? It's been proven time and time again that football is the only money maker. Basketball can make money, but at far fewer schools than football.

The point of this law is NOT the universities/colleges paying students, but them being able to get licensing/marketing/etc deals on their own for their likeness.

Leisher wrote: Most schools will drop sports and focus on education rather than paying athletes, much less athletes who don't generate revenue.

So this is not what would happen.

What I am unsure about is how does that tie to college marketing departments? Can THEY pay the athletes for use of their likeness?

TheCatt wrote: The point of this law is NOT the universities/colleges paying students, but them being able to get licensing/marketing/etc deals on their own for their likeness.

The NCAA is already trashing the possibilities of players doing their own marketing. Why? Because it completely eliminates a fair playing field for all schools. Everyone who signs with Nike will be going to Oregon, and so on.

So my point about eliminating competition and all that stands. Thus, who is paying female athletes? Who's watching them compete at a college level? Nobody gives a fuck. Name 5 female basketball players from the past 5 years. That's the #1 female sport and I guarantee you 95+% of sports fans can't do that.

The bill is a small minded view of how college athletics work. It caters to, maybe, 5% of all college athletes. It completely ignores all the freebies players already get, which I hope get eliminated in any new model, because if they want paid, they can afford to pay. It also gives the finger to normal students who generate far, far more money than athletes (not individually, of course).

TheCatt wrote: What I am unsure about is how does that tie to college marketing departments? Can THEY pay the athletes for use of their likeness?

That is the current discussion. Somehow there needs to be a control in place to prevent outside entities from taking over college athletics.

PSU fan complains about player's dreadlocks. Says it isn't racist to complain.

Petersen said he did not intend for the letter to have a racist message.

"Was not the intent at all," Petersen told the Tribune-Democrat. "I would just like to see the coaches get the guys cleaned up and not looking like Florida State and Miami guys."

Petersen added that his letter "wasn't threatening or anything. I was just disgruntled about some of the hairdos that we're seeing. You think of Penn State as a bunch of clean-cut guys. And you do see so many who are clean cut. But the tattoos and the hair -- there are a lot of guys with hair coming down their backs and it just looks awful. And it's the same for the NFL and NBA, too."

If you were guessing that this fan was more than 70 years old, you are almost certainly correct, since he graduated in 1966.

Well, I'm going to agree with him that, technically, his complaint isn't racist.

His letter is only something an elderly person would write though.

Reminds me of the scene in The Mule where Eastwood is helping the young black couple and refers to them as "negros". They are taken aback and explain that word isn't used anymore. He apologizes and clearly meant no maliciousness by it, so all was forgiven immediately.

Same shit here. Just an old guy wishing for the good ol' days.

Undefeated Teams:

AAC: 2
ACC: 2
Big12: 2
B10: 4
MWC: 1
SEC: 4
SunBelt: 1
PAC12: 0

Go Cocks!

Georgia loses to an unranked and really bad SC team. They’ll probably only drop to 8 because the SEC needs to stay strong, right?

Leisher wrote: Georgia loses to an unranked and really bad SC team. They’ll probably only drop to 8 because the SEC needs to stay strong, right?

USC isn't REALLY bad, they're probably like 45th in the nation. I mean, UNC beat them, so I kinda have to defend them.

UGA should drop to 12 based on that game, cuz the media still loves their win over UND

TheCatt wrote: the media still loves their win over UND

Speaking of overrated teams...

OU won it's one "hard" game of the year. Guess that gives them the path to a #4 seed

I'm hearing hubbub about people wanting Dantonio out at MSU.

Leisher wrote: I'm hearing hubbub about people wanting Dantonio out at MSU.

Rough year, and some whiffs of scandal... wouldn’t be shocked

This is awesome.

UNC lands ESPN's #2 recruit: https://www.tarheelblog.com/2019/10/18/ ... -tar-heels

In football, no less