A co-op community for Arizona Fans
http://beardownwildcats.com/
It's true, Newport. How do you make November through February more compelling, more viable? I don't like that the non-conference games are over by January. Wasn't always that way. I think a good marquee matchup in mid-Jan or mid-Feb can build anticipation for March, while also boosting interest in the conference races.Newportcat wrote:
The game to me outside of the tournament is a shell of its former self
Back to the future...Beachcat97 wrote:It's true, Newport. How do you make November through February more compelling, more viable? I don't like that the non-conference games are over by January. Wasn't always that way. I think a good marquee matchup in mid-Jan or mid-Feb can build anticipation for March, while also boosting interest in the conference races.Newportcat wrote:
The game to me outside of the tournament is a shell of its former self
As for the Pac, the Pac 12 Network needs to be dragged out back and shot immediately. It hasn't been good for the league, and it's so damn irritating seeing other schools/programs thrive on the strength of ESPN's and Fox's promotional efforts. I know ESPN isn't too popular among AZ fans these days, and for good reason. But I still wish we were part of that network.
Sure, why not? That $100K(?) Zion Williamson was paid can now go elsewhere to the program.84Cat wrote:Uh oh
Pac-12's Larry Scott expresses concern with Fair Pay to Play Act
SAN FRANCISCO -- Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has expressed serious concerns about a new law that would allow college athletes in California to hire agents and be compensated for the use of their names or likenesses through endorsement deals and other moneymaking opportunities.
The law signed last week by Gov. Gavin Newsom would blur the lines between college athletics and professional sports, Scott said Monday at Pac-12 women's basketball media day. He noted that other states considering similar legislation would create an unbalanced state-by-state approach to governing amateur sports.
"We are for choice, and if young people want to earn money from their name, image or likeness or get paid to play, they should have that opportunity. That's called pro sports," said Scott, who met with Pac-12 coaches and student-athletes Monday and discussed the issue. "College sports is different. You go to get an education. It's amateur, they're students. Those are the defining characteristics, and we'd like to see those lines not get blurred."
The NCAA, the main governing body for college sports, had called on Newsom to veto the bill. Some opponents argued it would give California schools an unfair recruiting advantage because student-athletes would have added incentive to go where they could make money.
"Schools recruit nationally, compete for national championships. There have to be common rules that apply," Scott said. "I don't think state-by-state legislators deciding how college sports should run is the way to go, and we're going to be very active in trying to seek a national response and solution, whether it's through the NCAA or otherwise.
"I think the other concern we've got -- while I'm sure the legislators and Gov. Newsom are very well-intended -- those of us that work in college sports understand a lot of flaws with this bill and the way it's written. ... People that understand college sports would immediately understand there's recruiting in college sports, and there's very aggressive recruiting and a lot of competition for student-athletes. And I think the concern is that while it may be well-intentioned to try to provide name, image and likeness opportunities for that very, very small handful -- maybe half a percent, 1% of our student-athletes go on to have successful professional careers and maybe have a name, image and likeness value -- it's pretty clear that there's a market for recruiting student-athletes."
"So the idea that agents would be involved, helping negotiate deals for student-athletes, our concern is that winds up being payment for recruiting and trying to get student-athletes to go to a certain school."
The California law, which is set to take effect in 2023, could have implications for women's sports, Scott and coaches said, though everyone is still evaluating how this might work.
"It's such a delicate line, right? You want players to have opportunities and you never want to limit opportunities, but you also don't want unintended consequences to maybe trickle down to how it could affect women's opportunities and how it could play out in recruiting circles," UCLA coach Cori Close said. "It's this good intention to try to reward image and likeness, is it really going to play out to reward that, or will there be some other things that are taken away that are unintended?
"I think that's sort of my caution, but I don't think I'm educated enough yet to do a side. I think it's a complicated issue that we need to think carefully about and we need to not get sucked up into the momentum of public opinion but at the same time listen well, consider well, research well, and my job is always to look out for especially women's basketball, but women in sport in general."
Oregon State coach Scott Rueck takes great pride in knowing his players will leave the program with an education after having been part of a tight-knit team community through highs and lows.
"There are so many benefits to that experience that I have watched with my own eyes, and their preparation for life beyond what we do, that if this classroom were to be changed in some way that would impact that negatively it would make me sad," Rueck said.
U.P. Zona Fan wrote:When I was in college I swam competitively, I also posed for the life art class for money that the college paid me. Does this mean that I profited off of my likeness? Oh my gosh, I was a violator!!! All those wins from the alma college swim team need to be vacated, I'm gonna call Mark emmert in the morning and self report! I'm so ashamed.
Good lord, I feel like only a few carefully selected edits could change the tone of that paragraph dramatically.UAEebs86 wrote:U.P. Zona Fan wrote:When I was in college I swam competitively, I also posed for the life art class for money that the college paid me. Does this mean that I profited off of my likeness? Oh my gosh, I was a violator!!! All those wins from the alma college swim team need to be vacated, I'm gonna call Mark emmert in the morning and self report! I'm so ashamed.
Did you pose nude?
The NCAA is hellbent on making sure that athletes are NOT treated like employees. Taxing the value of their scholarships is a total non-starter.U.P. Zona Fan wrote:It'll be interesting, now these kids will be taxed, and now state income tax regs may have an influence on what states get more kids. States with no income tax may benefit more than say.... California.
I heard on a radio show on xm, can't remember which one, that some states might propose that if you are making enough money off of name, image, likeness, that the value of the scholarship could be counted as income, as well as books, meals, travel...... And counted as taxable income. It would be crazy, make 150,000 off NIL and owe the state 125,000 because your education and perks are worth 350,000 and you made 150,00 with no write-offs. Effing government.
This ruling definitely does not mean that student athletes will be classified as employees. It really just means the NCAA cannot put arbitrary limits on the benefits of their scholarships.YoDeFoe wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:24 am I have no idea how this will all shake out and anyone who feels confident about what college athletics will look like if we define student athletes as employees... well you're more optimistic than I am. Glad I got to experience college sports in its original form while at Arizona.
I don't mean this ruling specifically, I know its a limited opinion, but rather the direction this is heading (of which this is one step).Chicat wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:59 amThis ruling definitely does not mean that student athletes will be classified as employees. It really just means the NCAA cannot put arbitrary limits on the benefits of their scholarships.YoDeFoe wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:24 am I have no idea how this will all shake out and anyone who feels confident about what college athletics will look like if we define student athletes as employees... well you're more optimistic than I am. Glad I got to experience college sports in its original form while at Arizona.
While I’m not sure what college sports would look like if athletes were treated like employees, I’m ready to see a system where the benefits they receive are more in line with their labor.YoDeFoe wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:14 pmI don't mean this ruling specifically, I know its a limited opinion, but rather the direction this is heading (of which this is one step).Chicat wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:59 amThis ruling definitely does not mean that student athletes will be classified as employees. It really just means the NCAA cannot put arbitrary limits on the benefits of their scholarships.YoDeFoe wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:24 am I have no idea how this will all shake out and anyone who feels confident about what college athletics will look like if we define student athletes as employees... well you're more optimistic than I am. Glad I got to experience college sports in its original form while at Arizona.
You talk like some schools don’t already have inherent advantages and that their boosters and athletic apparel partners don’t already pay to get them access to top level talent in recruiting.dmjcat wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:37 pm I think we better be careful what we wish for.
If college basketball recruiting turns into an all out bidding war the poor ole UA is going to wind up at the bottom of the food chain.
Imagine the UA going up against Oregon (and Phil Knights $$$$). Oregon could offer recruits one hell of a shoe deal that the UA would never be able to match.
The UA will never be able to compete with the California schools or Mr. Knight. If college basketball doesn't stay primarily an amateur sport you can kiss the UA's glory days bye forever.