Almost time for Rachel Garcia Signature Cleats?

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Jul 17, 2012
175
28
Kenmore, WA
While everyone is talking about how the passage of the name, image, likeness bill in California will possibly change things in football and men's basketball it could have an even bigger affect on women's athletics where the is basically no money to be made professionally. The law doesn't take effect until 2023, so Garcia will be long graduated, but surely there will be some new big name start in California softball, or volleyball, or whatever women's sport that could pocket some nice coin for lending their name to some endorsement deal. It will be interesting to see what the NCAA's counter move is.
 
Apr 28, 2019
1,423
83
While everyone is talking about how the passage of the name, image, likeness bill in California will possibly change things in football and men's basketball it could have an even bigger affect on women's athletics where the is basically no money to be made professionally. The law doesn't take effect until 2023, so Garcia will be long graduated, but surely there will be some new big name start in California softball, or volleyball, or whatever women's sport that could pocket some nice coin for lending their name to some endorsement deal. It will be interesting to see what the NCAA's counter move is.
Slippery slope. The benefit/reward for a college player is a scholarship with a “free ride”. Maybe the NCAA should have been a little more generous and stopped nickel and diming athletes.
I’m not a fan of paying college athletes. Free tuition, free books, free food card, free accommodations, etc...
The NCAA should not be able to use any athletes likeness for any promotion of any kind.
Pro’s get paid, amateurs get benefits.
 
May 16, 2016
1,024
113
Illinois
This new rule has me concerned to an extent. The way I look at it is that there are only so many sponsorship dollars each company has to spend. If these companies start spending that money on individual college athletes that the money will not trickle down to the non-revenue sports such as softball, track and field, volleyball, swimming, etc. That could have a very negative effect of those sports.
 

Josh Greer

DFP Vendor
Jul 31, 2013
934
93
Central Missouri
I just do not like how this opens the door.....kicks the door down on the separation between amateur and professional. And I can't even imagine a college coach having to deal with a player with an active agent.
 
May 20, 2016
433
63
Pro’s get paid, amateurs get benefits

While i agree to en extent, but do you think that the free ride and such given to Zion Williams of Duke is equal to what they made in additional ticket sales, jerseys, ect? Figure his all in cost at Duke was probably $50-$60K. Assuming he produced that 10 fold for the school. We shouldn't pretend the NCAA is there to protect students as much as they are there to create wealth for institutions.
 
Jun 4, 2014
159
28
This won't be about likeness, endorsements, and all that. It will be about the sports with the richest boosters paying the best players to come to their school. They can pretend it's for an endorsement or some such thing, but it's just about buying the best players.
 
Mar 28, 2014
1,081
113
While everyone is talking about how the passage of the name, image, likeness bill in California will possibly change things in football and men's basketball it could have an even bigger affect on women's athletics where the is basically no money to be made professionally. The law doesn't take effect until 2023, so Garcia will be long graduated, but surely there will be some new big name start in California softball, or volleyball, or whatever women's sport that could pocket some nice coin for lending their name to some endorsement deal. It will be interesting to see what the NCAA's counter move is.
It's important to remember that this new law does not "allow" athletes to make money from their likeness, image, etc..... That is already legal. What this new law does is restrict California schools from punishing them for doing so. That's an important distinction to make.

The NCAA's first move will be to challenge it in court, where it will make the case that this new law is unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of an organization the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed as private (in the Jerry Tarkanian case) to make and enforce its own bylaws. Based on the NCAA’s track record, I like its chances to win that argument.
 
Oct 4, 2018
4,611
113
I think the athletes should get paid. Above and beyond scholarships.

I mean they already are, as most of you know. They get handed wads of cash by boosters, get summer jobs that they don't have to actually show up for (but they get paid). In the absurd cases their parents get jobs, cash, cars, etc. etc.

When your DD goes to college and plays softball, she will miss out on some future earning potential as she's (in most cases) not going to study as much. And that can likely put her back on the earning curve for her professional career.
 

Josh Greer

DFP Vendor
Jul 31, 2013
934
93
Central Missouri
For what it's worth: my daughter, who gave up her athletic career and athletic scholarship to pursue a nursing program, left the house at 0500 today for her second 12 hour unpaid clinical of the week. She's currently an LPN (which averages a $30-50K salary in Missouri) and now working on her RN. Nursing students don't get paid for clinical's even though they are doing the work, albeit with no experience, along side their paid counter parts. I'm not whining and neither is she. But tell me again why an athlete should be paid to go to college?
 
Apr 20, 2015
961
93
Make all scholarships full rides and limit roster size...when players aren't getting all their school paid for it's not fair to them that they can't work for tuition and spending money.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,468
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top