They have to be very cautious. There are a lot of people for whom scholarships are the only way to get a college education.
Don’t see that being impacted by this. This law changes nothing in terms of how schools interact with their athletes. It’s outside school where athletes can now obtain income if so warranted or desired.
Pull out any list you like, you show me where the 3 promoted clubs are only destined for relegation the following year, remind me how Leicesters only hope for glory was 'not going straight back down' show me where the same 10 clubs always finish in the same order at the top, time and time again reality has proven you wrong and it will continue to do so. By your reasoning Man U should be top, Sunderland should be pushing for Europe, Leicester should be bottom and Bournemouth should be languishing somewhere in a minor league!
I literally just showed you how after Leicester's miracle run, the league reverted to the SAME TOP SIX three years running. Exact order? No, but the same six teams finished top 6 the last three years. Reality shows your ramblings to be nonsensical. https://www.skysports.com/football/...oted-teams-and-the-battle-to-avoid-relegation ^ only 5 newly promoted teams to the EPL have ever finished better than 10th. It's getting harder to stay up as two promoted teams were relegated last season - Fulham and Cardiff - with the same number of teams suffering immediate relegation in 2016/17 and 2014/15 (the last five years HALF of newly promoted teams have gown straight back down). From the piece: There is a strong correlation between significant spending on transfers and survival. In total, 21 clubs have recorded a net spend of £20m or more on transfers after winning promotion - only five of those were relegated.
That’s the real question. And I’m sure it depends on just how much they resist this. Because it is the future, whether they like it or not. Several other states are following CA’s lead so they better start preparing for it rather than resisting it. I mean if they keep resisting they may not exist in 10 years.
It has to be alot as California is one of thebiggest and richest states in the USA. In fact California on itself would be a top 20 world economy. Free California
Three years! Three whole years! lol. Not even I am daft enough to think that if there is a 'good' team one year then it is likely to be cr*p a year or two later!! Good grief man do you realise the concept of team building!? Nevertheless as literally hundreds of teams have proved (and will continue to prove) pro/rel has NOT resulted in the same teams at the top and the same teams at the bottom!! Ask former Europen Champions Nottingham Forest or former minor league clubs Watford or Bournemouth! Tell me about relegation certs Leicester or Bournemouth, Palace or Wolves (to name but a few) why didn't these inevitabilities happen?
His experience is a typical USA "everybody is a winner" league aka closed shop aka cartel, that cherishes 30+ teams of mediocracy in stead of every team has to go one step further to realise it's goals, staying up/qualifying for the CL etc. The fact is the level playing field doctrine is only viable as there's nothing below the league to fear or above it to aspire. It's a stagnant dead pool.
Yeah, I STILL don’t get it. If NCAA rules are illegal, have they just outlawed NCAA sports in the state? I mean, they could pass a law saying that all soccer matches played in the state now require the use of shootouts instead of penalty kicks. But they wouldn’t be able to be a part of FIFA anymore.
It could be that the rules restricting the athletes beyond the sport itself is illegal. From what I think I learned in these threads about the NCAA is their total grip on what an athlete can or not do relating to sport. For instance the total ban on anything that might be considered pro sport related, like trialing with a pro club. It has nothing to do with a player playing soccer at a college or university.
Actually yeah, we here in the US are VERY familiar with team building as our system affords that opportunity to its clubs. You ever going to update to the actual discussion being had? Myself, and ESSENTIALLY EVERYONE ELSE IN THE THREAD acknowledges the history (such as Forest) of things but are speaking to the reality of the game today. This isn't the climate of the sport in which Forest was able to do what they did. The money involved is only making it HARDER for non big 6 clubs (as evidenced by the facts I presented) and newly promoted clubs. Why have HALF of the newly promoted teams gone straight back down over the last 5yrs? Why are two of the newly promoted teams sitting in a relegation spot and 1pt above it just 7 games in this season? Will well run teams still find a place? Of course, and we've spoken to that as well (but that has nothing to do with the system as we find those clubs here in the US). Yes anomalies happen (Leicester) as that's just the law of averages working out. I showed how the NORMAL returned and played out the subsequent seasons since the anomaly. But let's go even further .... the year before Leicester? The BIG 6 finished top 6. In 13-14 the Big 6 finished in the top 7 with Everton crashing the party in 5th. In 12-13 the Big 6 finished top 7 with Everton crashing the party in 6th. In 11-2 the Big 6 finished top 8 with Newcastle and Everton crashing the party in 5th and 7th. In 10-11 the Big 6 finished top 6. In 09-10 the Big 6 finished top 7 with Aston Villa crashing the party in 6th. OH, and the year Leicester won it was the WORST season for the Big 6 by far as they finished top 10 with Leicester (champs), Southampton 6th, West Ham 7th, and Stoke 9th crashing the party. The LAST DECADE OF EPL FOOTBALL: 60 total slots possible in the top 6 available 51 were claimed by BIG 6 clubs = 85% of top 6 slots claimed by big 6 clubs *Of the 9 top 6 finishes there were only 7 different clubs (Everton did it 3x) 140 possible teams (20 EPL clubs - big 6 = 14 each season) could have claimed a top 6 spot. 7 clubs NOT in the big 6 have finished top 6 in the last decade = .05% of non big 6 clubs finished in the top 6 in the last decade Again, of the 140 NON big 6 clubs ONLY 7 DIFFERENT clubs have managed a top 6 finish in the last decade. Of the 7 NON big 6 clubs to finish in the top 6 ... FOUR of them did it in the same season (again, the anomaly year of Leicester's title winning season). Yes, the same teams finish at the top. As of right now the NCAA says that the Cali schools that go ahead and allow it won't be able to compete in NCAA competitions. However, the NCAA rules are written as such: "do not allow a player to accept any compensation related to his or her status as a college athlete from outside sources" ... YES, I KNOW but that's just verbiage that can be circumvented on a player's endorsement deal by saying "star underwater basket weaving student at CAL" ... sure we all know why but the contract can be written up without any mention of the athlete being an athlete and it doesn't violate the verbiage of the rule. In a lovely ironic twist it's just as shamtastic as the NCAA is. All in all it's a huge deal on the NCAA losing anti-trust lawsuits all the time (and this all climbs on the back of what the 'Obannon case has done). The NCAA is going to have to change SOMETHING by 2023.
I suppose the NCAA could decide to de-sanction all of the California schools. That's not going to happen, because that would cost the NCAA huge amounts of money because you're talking about schools like USC, UCLA, Stanford etc. The NCAA (and FIFA) can pass whatever rules they want, but those rules can't override California's laws. The only recourse those governing bodies have is to pull their sanctioning. FIFA might be willing to do so if California mandated shootouts, since California isn't a big enough market to make a difference to them. But, imagine if the EU passed a law where all soccer matches within its borders had to be played a certain way in contravention of what FIFA wanted. What could FIFA do?
Apples and Oranges comparison. What they’ve limited is entirely off field activity. A more apt comparison would be if MLS had a rule banning players from engaging in sponsorship activities outside the league’s prevue and the state ruled that illegal. That’s why the NCAA restrictions have always been asinine.
You jest, but NCAA has two choices. Move in the direction the law is going, or ban schools in states like California and soon NY. Which will lead to schools like Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, SDSU, Fresno St, Syracuse, St. John’s, Cornell, Buffalo, etc... breaking away and forming their own NCAA competitor. One that will be far more appealing to top athletes who will be free to market themselves outside of school.
The flat circle has once again rolled around to the NCAA, which of course has nothing to do with pro/rel.
Continuing the tangent, I've been following the NCAA/CA SB206 story for a while. Essentially in boils down to this. Calfornia is finally calling the NCAA's bluff. This would be the equivalent of FIFA actually enforcing the non-existent pro/rel mandate and MLS/USSF saying "Oh yeah? Come make us". The legislators built in a 4 year delay on the law for a reason, because they know this is never going to go into effect. Essentially this is the Brexit deadline for the NCAA. They've got 4 years to figure out how to change their rules to something that both they and California can be happy with (or more accurately, equally unhappy) or the California schools will dare the NCAA to bounce them. And by 2023 it will be more than just California schools. Washington, Colorado, South Carolina, and New York have similar bills under consideration and more are coming. I predict that the NCAA will make some changes and the states will consider them "good enough" so they can all avoid the lawsuits that would come should the NCAA kick schools out.
Yeah add Florida, West Virginia and Pennsylvania to the list as well. States are moving swiftly to follow CA. NCAA will have to act to mirror it or end up a non entity before too long.
Actually thew structure of college sport, along with the NCAA's cartelesque restrictions, and its relationship to closed leagues most pdefinitely does have something to do with pro/rel.
Except for the small caveat that pro/rel is a completely alien term to NCAA and is unlikely to have ever been proposed or considered.
Oh please oh expert of all things sports in the US (despite actually no knowing jack) pleas explain to me, who actually worked in NCAA sports for a decade how the NCAA (which sponsors multiple divisions) has cartelesque restrictions. By typing what you did you really hit it out of the ballpark on not contributing and displaying your ignorance of how sports, especially college sports, actually work. Take a bow. That was your magnum opus
"The College Sports Cartel" https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/nocera-the-college-sports-cartel.html