토토사이트 검증

Ten days ago, the NCAA issued guidelines regarding NIL. Not rules, we note, but “guidelines.” Said Jere Morehead, chair of the NCAA’s board of directors and Georgia’s president: “While the NCAA may pursue the most outrageous violations that were clearly contrary to the interim policy adopted last summer, our focus is on the future.” 토토사이트 검증

Translation: “Given that our enforcement department consists of an intern named Timmy, don’t expect us to penalize anybody for anything ever. We suggest you contact your state legislator.”

For decades, coaches have groused that NCAA regulations are whimsical at best and moronic at worst. We’ve now ventured into a realm where the purported ruling body hasn’t gotten around to making any rules, not that it would matter if it had. (Wake me when those Kansas basketball sanctions are announced.)

It’s impossible to govern when your membership has no confidence in your ability to do so. NIL money has turned athletes into independent contractors. The portal empowers them to follow the money wherever it leads. The NCAA’s response is to issue guidelines offering zero guidance. Here sits collegiate sports in all its color and pageantry – and chaos.

Think NIL blew up college sports? California is going for the knockout with new bill How would the revenue sharing be structured?

California college athletes would be the first to receive payments related to their athletic performance directly from schools. The NCAA, following what’s been laid out in court decisions, has always fought to keep benefits “tethered to education.”

Well, in SB 1401, much of the compensation still would be related to academics. The bill states a noble goal of improving graduation rates for Black athletes in football and men’s and women’s basketball — the only three sports where players currently don’t receive more than 50% of revenues back purely through their scholarships.

Schools would establish a degree completion fund for each athlete, and the contents of the fund — fed annually — would be made available soon after degree completion (within six years). If the athlete does not graduate within six years, he or she will forfeit the fund and it will go back into the athletic budget. Players would have immediate access to a maximum of $25,000 each year, while the rest would build over time.

Eric Gay How much money are we talking?

The amount owed to each athlete would be the half of the sport’s total revenue minus the team’s total student grant-in-aid package divided by the number of players. For instance, each USC football player could make upwards of $200,000 a year.

Think about taking $15 million to $20 million that currently has been used to reinvest in football resources and to fund the rest of the athletic department and transferring it to football players, and it’s easy to see why administrators are getting ready for a fight.

On the other side of the coin — and this point will have been argued by Sen. Steven Bradford, the bill’s author, and National College Players Assn. Executive director Ramogi Huma — should it really have been college football and basketball players’ sacrifice all these years to subsidize the training of America’s future Olympians?

There’s a compelling argument that the amateur model — particularly in the last two decades as television revenues have exploded — has led to a displacement of what could have been generational wealth for young Black athletes and their families.

Aaron M. Sprecher Under SB 1401, would athletes be classified as employees?

The bill establishes a “pay for play” model but stops at designating athletes as employees, stating, “This does not establish evidence of an employment relationship between a student athlete and their institution of higher education.”