Always pros and cons to each state. California provides the tools for any willing person to better educate him or herself. CA has a basically free Juco system and an affordable Cal State system. The UC system is an elite state run university system. The housing system is the way it is mainly because of supply and demand.
It's their world, we schmucks are just living in it.
Why are they treated differently? They are not! They get to go to college and prove their worth for a lucrative NFL career when they otherwise would not be able to afford college. Worst case scenario is they have a degree that allows them to earn more than in their lifetime.
Turn me in, damn I did not know that when I JOINED THE ARMY in 66. WOW nobody even asked me. Live and Learn. Holy crap I have a family of law breakers. Thanx for the info.
It's an odd set of circumstances, and makes you wonder what the legislature is thinking. So now it's going to be legal for kids to make money off their likeness, etc. Does that imply that it was illegal previously? I don't think there was any California state law barring kids from doing that. It's membership in the NCAA that was baring kids from doing that. So why is the state delving into this subject?
Now now, getting a world class education in field your heart desires for playing a kids game isn’t enough.
I could see ND taking part in a program where scholarship athletes got a standard stipend, even if it is a decently generous one. I see no way that ND gets into paying signing bonuses or getting into financial bidding wars for recruits. That's so anathema to they way ND operates and views the college sports world, I just can't imagine that happening.
They ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality
because they are not allowed to generate personal income. "regular" students on full scholarship are not denied that right to benefit from their likeness or talent. the NCAA has allowed the issue to get to this point with their unwillingness to address the issue.
i disagree. he has helped create the position they are in now. treat them like olympians.
what's not true in what i stated other than not stipulating a structured stipend ? you gave your opinion about what might happen but nothing i stated is false.
If we bowed out, my bet is we'll have a lot of company. A lot. That's why I don't think it will happen.
I agree completely and that's why this won't get any steam.
The schools you named would be the ones to not do it on principle. I think there'd be many more for whom the economics just wouldn't work. There's no shortage of even FBS schools that are not rolling in money.
Now when you mean like a stipend just like a monthly amount. Not like personal endorsements for paying for contracts for a player. I'm all good with that as long as it's a level playing field and you don't get paid more for going to a better football school.
That's just it...
