https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/05/25/california-fair-pay-play-act-end-ncaa-amateurism

That worthless Skinner is finally doing something I can support. Under California law the name, likeness, and fame of an individual is the property of that individual when used for commercial purposes (as opposed to news reporting). For the NCAA to prohibit players from using their name, likeness, etc as they see fit is no different from prohibiting them from renting out a house they own. In all other respects they will be just like their teammates and will be just as much amateurs as they were before. The $10M that the institutions have been receiving is stolen money.

"Hmm, I don't see any student
names, images, or likenesses?"

Listen up, the so-called anti-sport Cal administration would love this law.

If this proposed law becomes the law, you Bear fans had better learn the "Mountain West Conference
Here We Come" song!

I think Modster and Garbers are worth at least $250,000 a season. But, hey, there would be some savings. Cal wouldn't have to worry about putting any players' name on the back of their football jersey ....ahahaa.....aHaHaHH.....AHAHAHAHAHHAAHHH!

I can see it now. Cheez-it and Chevron battling over where the next ***** QB or TB is going to go to school. Cal wouldn't need an AD or recruiting assistants, although these corporations would.

Moron says what?

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

the basketball powerhouses will gain another recruiting advantage

e.g. playing for Duke or UCLA will attract higher paid sponsors than Cal

and yes, seems like shoe companies can just flat out pay players directly for endorsement deals, basically cutting out the middle man

there is more equity within pro sports with salary caps than in the college game. how ironic.

I think there should be an x amount of pay for y number of positions in fb and bb. Every school has the same amount available to pay. This way there would be no advantages and talent would be spread around and not be concentrated to a few.

AunBear89 said:

---

Moron says what?

---

Uhh, aUNbear89 just farted. Now that really is a change in the wind! AHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHHH

CA schools would have NCAA ineligible athletes. This would cause mayhem. Nobody would schedule OOO games with us and are teams would be ineligible for post season play. Great idea doing this state by state. Just brilliant.

tequila4kapp said:

---

CA schools would have NCAA ineligible athletes. This would cause mayhem. Nobody would schedule OOO games with us and are teams would be ineligible for post season play. Great idea doing this state by state. Just brilliant.

---

It forces the NCAA to make a decision, and other states will likely follow suit. You're playing checkers.

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

There is a big difference to me between the schools paying salaries and allowing athletes to seek endorsement deals. Stanfurd is trying to influence the outcome. I can see taking a stand on not essentially owning and lending its name to a professional football team. I cannot see them dropping out because athletes can seek endorsements. Didn't we recognize the idiocy of this with Olympic athletes decades ago? Stanford's position would be very unpopular. And Stanford loves its athletic programs too much. I call BS on the threat.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

There is a big difference to me between the schools paying salaries and allowing athletes to seek endorsement deals. Stanfurd is trying to influence the outcome. I can see taking a stand on not essentially owning and lending its name to a professional football team. I cannot see them dropping out because athletes can seek endorsements. Didn't we recognize the idiocy of this with Olympic athletes decades ago? Stanford's position would be very unpopular. And Stanford loves its athletic programs too much. I call BS on the threat.

---

That may be true, but they were very pubic about their policy. To the degree they had a faculty vote, established a policy, and published an article in their alumni magazine. Doesn't mean they wouldn't change their mind if everyone else does it, but they have thrown down the gauntlet. I could see them allowing athletes to seek "appropriate" endorsements, but not pay athletes salaries under and circumstances. Furd is on a different model where the non-revenue sports are essentially endowed. So they have screw you money to decide to be less competitive in revenue sports, as payments or endorsement deals primarily impact the revenue sports. They in essence would go something akin to an Ivy model (I expect the Ivy schools to also reject paying students - they don't even provide scholies).

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

A couple of thoughts...

San Diego State would not be impacted because their media revenue does not meet the threshold mandated by the legislation.

Along with the legislation proposed at the Federal level by Congressman Walker (R-North Carolina), I believe this piece of legislation was the catalyst for the formation of the Bowlsby group. I suspect that we will see the NCAA move relatively quickly to adopt standards that will permit athletes to benefit from the sale of their name, likeness, image. I foresee payments by sponsors to a trust fund that can be accessed by the athletes upon completion of their athletic eligibility. This is basically the approach put forward by Judge Wilkins in her decision in the O'Bannon case (overturned on appeal).

A key point missed by some posters in this discussion - schools will not be paying anyone. Payments will be made by the sponsors.

Obviously, I think this is a step in the right direction. Highly visible personalities in college athletics should be able to benefit from their name, likeness, image. The athletes are the reason why millions of people watch the games. The multi-billion dollar media contracts that have been signed by conferences that, in turn, have made administrators and coaches extraordinarily wealthy are the result of the interest generated by these athletes. In addition, schools are using their highly visible athletic programs as a means to increase overall alumni giving. Why not allow the competitors responsible for this alumni largess to benefit as well?

P.S. IMO, Stanford is not going to rattle swords if the NCAA changes their policies to permit athletes from benefitting from the sale of their name, likeness, image. They are far too smart to do something stupid like that. Athletics is a critical component to their self-image.

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

A couple of thoughts...

San Diego State would not be impacted because their media revenue does not meet the threshold mandated by the legislation.

Along with the legislation proposed at the Federal level by Congressman Walker (R-North Carolina), I believe this piece of legislation was the catalyst for the formation of the Bowlsby group. I suspect that we will see the NCAA move relatively quickly to adopt standards that will permit athletes to benefit from the sale of their name, likeness, image. I foresee payments by sponsors to a trust fund that can be accessed by the athletes upon completion of their athletic eligibility. This is basically the approach put forward by Judge Wilkins in her decision in the O'Bannon case (overturned on appeal).

A key point missed by some posters in this discussion - schools will not be paying anyone. Payments will be made by the sponsors.

Obviously, I think this is a step in the right direction. Highly visible personalities in college athletics should be able to benefit from their name, likeness, image. The athletes are the reason why millions of people watch the games. The multi-billion dollar media contracts that have been signed by conferences that, in turn, have made administrators and coaches extraordinarily wealthy are the result of the interest generated by these athletes. In addition, schools are using their highly visible athletic programs as a means to increase overall alumni giving. Why not allow the competitors responsible for this alumni largess to benefit as well?

P.S. IMO, Stanford is not going to rattle swords if the NCAA changes their policies to permit athletes from benefitting from the sale of their name, likeness, image. They are far too smart to do something stupid like that. Athletics is a critical component to their self-image.

---

agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work

but as I understand it, the players can be paid for their name, likeness and image by any third-party sponsor. The example someone used was Nike.

So does Nike want a HS player to go to a school like, for example, Oregon more than to a school like Colorado?

Now Nike can tell Zion, go to Oregon and we will sponsor you $2M

I'm I missing something?

HoopDreams said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

A couple of thoughts...

San Diego State would not be impacted because their media revenue does not meet the threshold mandated by the legislation.

Along with the legislation proposed at the Federal level by Congressman Walker (R-North Carolina), I believe this piece of legislation was the catalyst for the formation of the Bowlsby group. I suspect that we will see the NCAA move relatively quickly to adopt standards that will permit athletes to benefit from the sale of their name, likeness, image. I foresee payments by sponsors to a trust fund that can be accessed by the athletes upon completion of their athletic eligibility. This is basically the approach put forward by Judge Wilkins in her decision in the O'Bannon case (overturned on appeal).

A key point missed by some posters in this discussion - schools will not be paying anyone. Payments will be made by the sponsors.

Obviously, I think this is a step in the right direction. Highly visible personalities in college athletics should be able to benefit from their name, likeness, image. The athletes are the reason why millions of people watch the games. The multi-billion dollar media contracts that have been signed by conferences that, in turn, have made administrators and coaches extraordinarily wealthy are the result of the interest generated by these athletes. In addition, schools are using their highly visible athletic programs as a means to increase overall alumni giving. Why not allow the competitors responsible for this alumni largess to benefit as well?

P.S. IMO, Stanford is not going to rattle swords if the NCAA changes their policies to permit athletes from benefitting from the sale of their name, likeness, image. They are far too smart to do something stupid like that. Athletics is a critical component to their self-image.

---

agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work

but as I understand it, the players can be paid for their name, likeness and image by any third-party sponsor. The example someone used was Nike.

So does Nike want a HS player to go to a school like, for example, Oregon more than to a school like Colorado?

Now Nike can tell Zion, go to Oregon and we will sponsor you $2M

I'm I missing something?

---

Nike can't tell anyone to do anything. The rule applies after an athlete has enrolled in college.

At that point, Nike could contact the agent of the athlete and make a proposal. Of course, athletes are aware of which companies provide equipment to colleges. Of course, a highly visible HS recruit might choose his college on the basis of which company provides the equipment.

Since Steph Curry is an Under Armor guy, is it possible that a HS kid who is a huge Curry fan might choose Cal because Cal is a UA school? I don't see this as a big deal. It is all about competition.

Heck, UO is currently using Knight's money (earned through his position at Nike) to upgrade their facilities. Is that unfair? Nope. Find your own generous benefactor.....

I know little about this, except my inclination is to defend amateur sports against the incursion of money.

I have read these posts, and I still see no reason why players should be paid. First of all, the players are already paid by being given a free education through scholarships which most could not have gotten without them being good athletes. That is about $200K, give or take some dollars, worth of pay for the student-athlete. Yes, colleges do benefit in many ways by having good players and good teams in the revenue sports, but the players also benefit from what the colleges give them. The players who will become professionals after college benefit from the school and the NCAA giving them a stage on which to perform. Giving them huge stadiums and arenas and providing access to an ever aggressive media to publicize their skills and game to the nation. It is the schools and their teams which makes the player so much more marketable after college than he was after high school. It is the NCAA and its marketing that provides the great spectacle of the NCAA tournament, and the bowl games to boost the marketability of the players to the NBA or NFL. It seems to me to be an even trade, the player benefits the college and the college benefits the player.

If you start paying players, where does it stop? You can pay Zion, but what about his supporting players? In the case of Duke, many of those support players will be good enough to play in the NBA, but in the case of Oregon, or Arizona, many of the support players will not be good enough for the NBA. So how much do you pay them? Will it be a sliding scale? Will players accept that, or will they demand equal pay for equal work? If you only pay the stars, or if you pay the support players less, there will be friction among the teammates, which will affect team performance, which will affect attendance and revenue. There will likely be more players transferring. 40% of players transfer now. Think how many more will transfer if they can get more pay from another school? How will you prevent schools from offering more money to a player to get them to switch schools?

And how do you not pay women players? Won't they demand it? Won't Title IX insist on it? And what will you do with baseball players? It is not a revenue sport, and right now MLB takes full advantage, treating colleges as their own minor leagues, with the exception that they do not have to pay for these leagues. The colleges foot the bill.

If the revenue sports start paying the players, more and more players will focus on playing a revenue sport, instead of playing two or more sports. It will hurt the sport of baseball, and others. That may also affect, and maybe already has affected the amount of injuries in sports, because players are training their muscles and bodies for one specific sport, which according to many doctors and therapists can lead to more injuries.

And then there are the high schools. They are training and providing these players for the revenue sports in the colleges. Do you think they won't start demanding their cut for doing this? They are providing the stage for high school players to perform on, giving them the exposure so that colleges will become interested in them. And most high schools are strapped for cash to pay for the equipment, uniforms, coaches, and facilities to continue training these kids and providing them for the colleges.

Money corrupts, and once you let the money in the door, it will corrupt more and more, and more.

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

There is a big difference to me between the schools paying salaries and allowing athletes to seek endorsement deals. Stanfurd is trying to influence the outcome. I can see taking a stand on not essentially owning and lending its name to a professional football team. I cannot see them dropping out because athletes can seek endorsements. Didn't we recognize the idiocy of this with Olympic athletes decades ago? Stanford's position would be very unpopular. And Stanford loves its athletic programs too much. I call BS on the threat.

---

That may be true, but they were very pubic about their policy. To the degree they had a faculty vote, established a policy, and published an article in their alumni magazine. Doesn't mean they wouldn't change their mind if everyone else does it, but they have thrown down the gauntlet. I could see them allowing athletes to seek "appropriate" endorsements, but not pay athletes salaries under and circumstances. Furd is on a different model where the non-revenue sports are essentially endowed. So they have screw you money to decide to be less competitive in revenue sports, as payments or endorsement deals primarily impact the revenue sports. They in essence would go something akin to an Ivy model (I expect the Ivy schools to also reject paying students - they don't even provide scholies).

---

This law doesn't call for salaries. It calls for allowing third party endorsements. You, and maybe Furd, are thinking of football. What happens the first time an Olympic swimmer or other Olympic athlete, and Stanford loves them Olympic athletes, says, why should I got to Stanford and be forbidden to take endorsements to aid my training and put some cash in my pocket, when I can go to Cal. I'll tell you what. El foldo. No amount of FU money can keep the top athletes coming if others can allow endorsements. And there is no justification to allow it for Olympic sports and not revenue sports. They may (doubtful) be willing to go Ivy model on revenue sports. They won't for Olympic sports. Not on this issue. And remember the percentage of athletes that make up their student body is much higher than Cal's. (In my opinion, embarrassingly so) sports is a key part of their identity.

By the way, I find their stance bullshyte. They are giving scholarships and admission preferences to a large portion of their students, mostly in sports that mostly wealthy have access to. They are going to take issue with SOMEBODY ELSE providing money for athletes in sports that have a much higher percentage of disadvantaged participants, so those people can maybe give something to their families? If that's the hill they want to die on, fine, but I'm not sure they've considered what that looks like

Would companies be able to lock down teams and conferences to exclusive deals? Would they be able to drive recruits to particular schools with the promise of a larger sponsorship? Drive current players into the transfer portal with the promise of better sponsor money elsewhere? I don't think Cal can compete in this new world.

SFCityBear said:

---

I know little about this, except my inclination is to defend amateur sports against the incursion of money.

I have read these posts, and I still see no reason why players should be paid. First of all, the players are already paid by being given a free education through scholarships which most could not have gotten without them being good athletes. That is about $200K, give or take some dollars, worth of pay for the student-athlete. Yes, colleges do benefit in many ways by having good players and good teams in the revenue sports, but the players also benefit from what the colleges give them. The players who will become professionals after college benefit from the school and the NCAA giving them a stage on which to perform. Giving them huge stadiums and arenas and providing access to an ever aggressive media to publicize their skills and game to the nation. It is the schools and their teams which makes the player so much more marketable after college than he was after high school. It is the NCAA and its marketing that provides the great spectacle of the NCAA tournament, and the bowl games to boost the marketability of the players to the NBA or NFL. It seems to me to be an even trade, the player benefits the college and the college benefits the player.

If you start paying players, where does it stop? You can pay Zion, but what about his supporting players? In the case of Duke, many of those support players will be good enough to play in the NBA, but in the case of Oregon, or Arizona, many of the support players will not be good enough for the NBA. So how much do you pay them? Will it be a sliding scale? Will players accept that, or will they demand equal pay for equal work? If you only pay the stars, or if you pay the support players less, there will be friction among the teammates, which will affect team performance, which will affect attendance and revenue. There will likely be more players transferring. 40% of players transfer now. Think how many more will transfer if they can get more pay from another school? How will you prevent schools from offering more money to a player to get them to switch schools?

And how do you not pay women players? Won't they demand it? Won't Title IX insist on it? And what will you do with baseball players? It is not a revenue sport, and right now MLB takes full advantage, treating colleges as their own minor leagues, with the exception that they do not have to pay for these leagues. The colleges foot the bill.

If the revenue sports start paying the players, more and more players will focus on playing a revenue sport, instead of playing two or more sports. It will hurt the sport of baseball, and others. That may also affect, and maybe already has affected the amount of injuries in sports, because players are training their muscles and bodies for one specific sport, which according to many doctors and therapists can lead to more injuries.

And then there are the high schools. They are training and providing these players for the revenue sports in the colleges. Do you think they won't start demanding their cut for doing this? They are providing the stage for high school players to perform on, giving them the exposure so that colleges will become interested in them. And most high schools are strapped for cash to pay for the equipment, uniforms, coaches, and facilities to continue training these kids and providing them for the colleges.

Money corrupts, and once you let the money in the door, it will corrupt more and more, and more.

---

Who said anything about paying players? This entire discussion revolves around sponsors compensating players for the use of their name, likeness, image. Schools will not be paying players. Any income derived by the athlete will come from sponsors.

You went on for several paragraphs without addressing the issue at hand.

Bear70 said:

---

Would companies be able to lock down teams and conferences to exclusive deals? Would they be able to drive recruits to particular schools with the promise of a larger sponsorship? Drive current players into the transfer portal with the promise of better sponsor money elsewhere? I don't think Cal can compete in this new world.

---

I would anticipate the rules will not allow exclusivity re: teams/conferences. That isn't the way it is in the pros and I believe the NCAA will do the same.

Cal isn't getting the top recruits today. Perhaps this model will help Cal sign the top guys.

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

A couple of thoughts...

San Diego State would not be impacted because their media revenue does not meet the threshold mandated by the legislation.

Along with the legislation proposed at the Federal level by Congressman Walker (R-North Carolina), I believe this piece of legislation was the catalyst for the formation of the Bowlsby group. I suspect that we will see the NCAA move relatively quickly to adopt standards that will permit athletes to benefit from the sale of their name, likeness, image. I foresee payments by sponsors to a trust fund that can be accessed by the athletes upon completion of their athletic eligibility. This is basically the approach put forward by Judge Wilkins in her decision in the O'Bannon case (overturned on appeal).

A key point missed by some posters in this discussion - schools will not be paying anyone. Payments will be made by the sponsors.

Obviously, I think this is a step in the right direction. Highly visible personalities in college athletics should be able to benefit from their name, likeness, image. The athletes are the reason why millions of people watch the games. The multi-billion dollar media contracts that have been signed by conferences that, in turn, have made administrators and coaches extraordinarily wealthy are the result of the interest generated by these athletes. In addition, schools are using their highly visible athletic programs as a means to increase overall alumni giving. Why not allow the competitors responsible for this alumni largess to benefit as well?

P.S. IMO, Stanford is not going to rattle swords if the NCAA changes their policies to permit athletes from benefitting from the sale of their name, likeness, image. They are far too smart to do something stupid like that. Athletics is a critical component to their self-image.

---

I agree to the extent you get national legislation all the issues go away, and schools like Furd just suck it up. A lot of this is timing. California may be jumping the shark, which could have bad consequences for the Californian schools.

I guess as much as we [word for female dog] about the lousy Pac media contact, it still is a lot better than non-P5 conferences.

HoopDreams said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

A couple of thoughts...

San Diego State would not be impacted because their media revenue does not meet the threshold mandated by the legislation.

Along with the legislation proposed at the Federal level by Congressman Walker (R-North Carolina), I believe this piece of legislation was the catalyst for the formation of the Bowlsby group. I suspect that we will see the NCAA move relatively quickly to adopt standards that will permit athletes to benefit from the sale of their name, likeness, image. I foresee payments by sponsors to a trust fund that can be accessed by the athletes upon completion of their athletic eligibility. This is basically the approach put forward by Judge Wilkins in her decision in the O'Bannon case (overturned on appeal).

A key point missed by some posters in this discussion - schools will not be paying anyone. Payments will be made by the sponsors.

Obviously, I think this is a step in the right direction. Highly visible personalities in college athletics should be able to benefit from their name, likeness, image. The athletes are the reason why millions of people watch the games. The multi-billion dollar media contracts that have been signed by conferences that, in turn, have made administrators and coaches extraordinarily wealthy are the result of the interest generated by these athletes. In addition, schools are using their highly visible athletic programs as a means to increase overall alumni giving. Why not allow the competitors responsible for this alumni largess to benefit as well?

P.S. IMO, Stanford is not going to rattle swords if the NCAA changes their policies to permit athletes from benefitting from the sale of their name, likeness, image. They are far too smart to do something stupid like that. Athletics is a critical component to their self-image.

---

agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work

but as I understand it, the players can be paid for their name, likeness and image by any third-party sponsor. The example someone used was Nike.

So does Nike want a HS player to go to a school like, for example, Oregon more than to a school like Colorado?

Now Nike can tell Zion, go to Oregon and we will sponsor you $2M

I'm I missing something?

---

I missed the word "not" on the discussion of what the working group was exploring in the article. Forget my comments about salaries.

Can we bring back the NCAA football and Basketball game titles back and let the athletes get a piece?

Corruption is name of the game. No wonder attendance is in decline most everywhere. Rooting for laundry gets old.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Corruption is name of the game. No wonder attendance is in decline most everywhere. Rooting for laundry gets old.

---

Attendance is down because old people are dying and young people aren't interested in sitting in a stadium for 3 1/2 hours to watch something they can glance at occasionally on television while checking their iPhones, keeping an eye on their kids and fixing something that needs attention around the house.

71Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

A couple of thoughts...

San Diego State would not be impacted because their media revenue does not meet the threshold mandated by the legislation.

Along with the legislation proposed at the Federal level by Congressman Walker (R-North Carolina), I believe this piece of legislation was the catalyst for the formation of the Bowlsby group. I suspect that we will see the NCAA move relatively quickly to adopt standards that will permit athletes to benefit from the sale of their name, likeness, image. I foresee payments by sponsors to a trust fund that can be accessed by the athletes upon completion of their athletic eligibility. This is basically the approach put forward by Judge Wilkins in her decision in the O'Bannon case (overturned on appeal).

A key point missed by some posters in this discussion - schools will not be paying anyone. Payments will be made by the sponsors.

Obviously, I think this is a step in the right direction. Highly visible personalities in college athletics should be able to benefit from their name, likeness, image. The athletes are the reason why millions of people watch the games. The multi-billion dollar media contracts that have been signed by conferences that, in turn, have made administrators and coaches extraordinarily wealthy are the result of the interest generated by these athletes. In addition, schools are using their highly visible athletic programs as a means to increase overall alumni giving. Why not allow the competitors responsible for this alumni largess to benefit as well?

P.S. IMO, Stanford is not going to rattle swords if the NCAA changes their policies to permit athletes from benefitting from the sale of their name, likeness, image. They are far too smart to do something stupid like that. Athletics is a critical component to their self-image.

---

agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work

but as I understand it, the players can be paid for their name, likeness and image by any third-party sponsor. The example someone used was Nike.

So does Nike want a HS player to go to a school like, for example, Oregon more than to a school like Colorado?

Now Nike can tell Zion, go to Oregon and we will sponsor you $2M

I'm I missing something?

---

Nike can't tell anyone to do anything. The rule applies after an athlete has enrolled in college.

At that point, Nike could contact the agent of the athlete and make a proposal. Of course, athletes are aware of which companies provide equipment to colleges. Of course, a highly visible HS recruit might choose his college on the basis of which company provides the equipment.

Since Steph Curry is an Under Armor guy, is it possible that a HS kid who is a huge Curry fan might choose Cal because Cal is a UA school? I don't see this as a big deal. It is all about competition.

Heck, UO is currently using Knight's money (earned through his position at Nike) to upgrade their facilities. Is that unfair? Nope. Find your own generous benefactor.....

---

So Nike will pay HS players through agents and handlers, but under the new rules they will follow the rules and never "talk" to a recruit?

And you are saying all Nike programs are equal in value to Nike? That Duke is not more valuable to a sponsor like Nike than Mississippi State?

My point is under the new rules any sponsor can market to players to come to certain schools and those will likely be the powerhouse schools because that makes their sponsor dollars more valuable

That gives the current powerhouse teams even a bigger advantage then they have today

HoopDreams said:

---

71Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

A couple of thoughts...

San Diego State would not be impacted because their media revenue does not meet the threshold mandated by the legislation.

Along with the legislation proposed at the Federal level by Congressman Walker (R-North Carolina), I believe this piece of legislation was the catalyst for the formation of the Bowlsby group. I suspect that we will see the NCAA move relatively quickly to adopt standards that will permit athletes to benefit from the sale of their name, likeness, image. I foresee payments by sponsors to a trust fund that can be accessed by the athletes upon completion of their athletic eligibility. This is basically the approach put forward by Judge Wilkins in her decision in the O'Bannon case (overturned on appeal).

A key point missed by some posters in this discussion - schools will not be paying anyone. Payments will be made by the sponsors.

Obviously, I think this is a step in the right direction. Highly visible personalities in college athletics should be able to benefit from their name, likeness, image. The athletes are the reason why millions of people watch the games. The multi-billion dollar media contracts that have been signed by conferences that, in turn, have made administrators and coaches extraordinarily wealthy are the result of the interest generated by these athletes. In addition, schools are using their highly visible athletic programs as a means to increase overall alumni giving. Why not allow the competitors responsible for this alumni largess to benefit as well?

P.S. IMO, Stanford is not going to rattle swords if the NCAA changes their policies to permit athletes from benefitting from the sale of their name, likeness, image. They are far too smart to do something stupid like that. Athletics is a critical component to their self-image.

---

agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work

but as I understand it, the players can be paid for their name, likeness and image by any third-party sponsor. The example someone used was Nike.

So does Nike want a HS player to go to a school like, for example, Oregon more than to a school like Colorado?

Now Nike can tell Zion, go to Oregon and we will sponsor you $2M

I'm I missing something?

---

Nike can't tell anyone to do anything. The rule applies after an athlete has enrolled in college.

At that point, Nike could contact the agent of the athlete and make a proposal. Of course, athletes are aware of which companies provide equipment to colleges. Of course, a highly visible HS recruit might choose his college on the basis of which company provides the equipment.

Since Steph Curry is an Under Armor guy, is it possible that a HS kid who is a huge Curry fan might choose Cal because Cal is a UA school? I don't see this as a big deal. It is all about competition.

Heck, UO is currently using Knight's money (earned through his position at Nike) to upgrade their facilities. Is that unfair? Nope. Find your own generous benefactor.....

---

So Nike will pay HS players through agents and handlers, but under the new rules they will follow the rules and never "talk" to a recruit?

And you are saying all Nike programs are equal in value to Nike? That Duke is not more valuable to a sponsor like Nike than Mississippi State?

My point is under the new rules any sponsor can market to players to come to certain schools and those will likely be the powerhouse schools because that makes their sponsor dollars more valuable

That gives the current powerhouse teams even a bigger advantage then they have today

---

Your first paragraph made no sense. I stopped reading after that....

Nike: Come to Oregon & play football. We'll sponsor you at $2M annually.

Top Dog: Come to play football at Cal. You can have all the Top Dogs you can eat, every Sunday after the games.

HoopDreams said:

---

71Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

First, I think at some point the NCAA will go to Congress for rule changes which will reform the amateur rules to allow some opportunities that are being discussed in the Bowlsby group, but not all of what is in the California proposal, and which will supersede all state acts. This will put everyone on an even playing field.

Second, if the law is passed it will be fought by the conferences and the NCAA, and I assume a federal judge will enjoin California thus allowing the NCAA time to seek federal legislative action. From that standpoint I applaud the California legislation for pushing the issue. OTOH, there is not once chance in hell any judge is going to allow the California to have jurisdiction over SC and Furd (or other private colleges). There is a bunch of legislation and a CA constitutional provision that doesn't allow a lot of State regulation of national or regionally accredited private colleges. That doesn't mean California could not change these these other laws or constitutional provision, but for the constitution, at least, they would have to get voter approval which takes time (and you have to get voters to agree).

Third, if the NCAA can't get an injunction (through surrogates suing), I do think the other members of the Pac will boot Cal and UCLA out as unfair competion, and other California school like SDSU will be booted from their confernce, and that will force the California politicians to back off. Now the article says:the Pac-12 conference is unlikely to expel UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal. I don't think the law will apply to Fund and SC, but if they try and take advantage, I could see Sc and Furd given the boot in due haste. The other problem is Furd has said publicly they won't allow players to be paid or have endorsement deals, they would withdraw from the NCAa framework first. Moreover, this would give a less competitive (financially) school like Cal a reason to stop supporting intercollegiate sports. I'm not so sure if the other schools can't compete in the same manner why they would not force the California schools out (the article has a good discussion on the size of the advantage, meaning a lot of litigation and foreign federal action. In the interim, absent injunction, I can envision this being harmful to the California state school athletics in the short term.

Overall, this is a major positive for revenue sports - much more revenue and possibly more player revenue could keep players in school longer. It also may force male non-revenue sports out or the modification of Title 9. It is somewhat ironic, that by regulating this area, California may unleash market forces which kill many non-revenue sports.

---

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

A couple of thoughts...

San Diego State would not be impacted because their media revenue does not meet the threshold mandated by the legislation.

Along with the legislation proposed at the Federal level by Congressman Walker (R-North Carolina), I believe this piece of legislation was the catalyst for the formation of the Bowlsby group. I suspect that we will see the NCAA move relatively quickly to adopt standards that will permit athletes to benefit from the sale of their name, likeness, image. I foresee payments by sponsors to a trust fund that can be accessed by the athletes upon completion of their athletic eligibility. This is basically the approach put forward by Judge Wilkins in her decision in the O'Bannon case (overturned on appeal).

A key point missed by some posters in this discussion - schools will not be paying anyone. Payments will be made by the sponsors.

Obviously, I think this is a step in the right direction. Highly visible personalities in college athletics should be able to benefit from their name, likeness, image. The athletes are the reason why millions of people watch the games. The multi-billion dollar media contracts that have been signed by conferences that, in turn, have made administrators and coaches extraordinarily wealthy are the result of the interest generated by these athletes. In addition, schools are using their highly visible athletic programs as a means to increase overall alumni giving. Why not allow the competitors responsible for this alumni largess to benefit as well?

P.S. IMO, Stanford is not going to rattle swords if the NCAA changes their policies to permit athletes from benefitting from the sale of their name, likeness, image. They are far too smart to do something stupid like that. Athletics is a critical component to their self-image.

---

agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work

but as I understand it, the players can be paid for their name, likeness and image by any third-party sponsor. The example someone used was Nike.

So does Nike want a HS player to go to a school like, for example, Oregon more than to a school like Colorado?

Now Nike can tell Zion, go to Oregon and we will sponsor you $2M

I'm I missing something?

---

Nike can't tell anyone to do anything. The rule applies after an athlete has enrolled in college.

At that point, Nike could contact the agent of the athlete and make a proposal. Of course, athletes are aware of which companies provide equipment to colleges. Of course, a highly visible HS recruit might choose his college on the basis of which company provides the equipment.

Since Steph Curry is an Under Armor guy, is it possible that a HS kid who is a huge Curry fan might choose Cal because Cal is a UA school? I don't see this as a big deal. It is all about competition.

Heck, UO is currently using Knight's money (earned through his position at Nike) to upgrade their facilities. Is that unfair? Nope. Find your own generous benefactor.....

---

So Nike will pay HS players through agents and handlers, but under the new rules they will follow the rules and never "talk" to a recruit?

And you are saying all Nike programs are equal in value to Nike? That Duke is not more valuable to a sponsor like Nike than Mississippi State?

My point is under the new rules any sponsor can market to players to come to certain schools and those will likely be the powerhouse schools because that makes their sponsor dollars more valuable

That gives the current powerhouse teams even a bigger advantage then they have today

---

Major college fb would be over, if this arrangement is implemented, or any such arrangement. Happens every time a bunch of people who think they know better than a system that has evolved over decades tries to institute a new mission or theme - in this case, equity. Instead, this will bring about massive inequity and, ultimately system failure. Hope I'm wrong.

71Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I know little about this, except my inclination is to defend amateur sports against the incursion of money.

I have read these posts, and I still see no reason why players should be paid. First of all, the players are already paid by being given a free education through scholarships which most could not have gotten without them being good athletes. That is about $200K, give or take some dollars, worth of pay for the student-athlete. Yes, colleges do benefit in many ways by having good players and good teams in the revenue sports, but the players also benefit from what the colleges give them. The players who will become professionals after college benefit from the school and the NCAA giving them a stage on which to perform. Giving them huge stadiums and arenas and providing access to an ever aggressive media to publicize their skills and game to the nation. It is the schools and their teams which makes the player so much more marketable after college than he was after high school. It is the NCAA and its marketing that provides the great spectacle of the NCAA tournament, and the bowl games to boost the marketability of the players to the NBA or NFL. It seems to me to be an even trade, the player benefits the college and the college benefits the player.

If you start paying players, where does it stop? You can pay Zion, but what about his supporting players? In the case of Duke, many of those support players will be good enough to play in the NBA, but in the case of Oregon, or Arizona, many of the support players will not be good enough for the NBA. So how much do you pay them? Will it be a sliding scale? Will players accept that, or will they demand equal pay for equal work? If you only pay the stars, or if you pay the support players less, there will be friction among the teammates, which will affect team performance, which will affect attendance and revenue. There will likely be more players transferring. 40% of players transfer now. Think how many more will transfer if they can get more pay from another school? How will you prevent schools from offering more money to a player to get them to switch schools?

And how do you not pay women players? Won't they demand it? Won't Title IX insist on it? And what will you do with baseball players? It is not a revenue sport, and right now MLB takes full advantage, treating colleges as their own minor leagues, with the exception that they do not have to pay for these leagues. The colleges foot the bill.

If the revenue sports start paying the players, more and more players will focus on playing a revenue sport, instead of playing two or more sports. It will hurt the sport of baseball, and others. That may also affect, and maybe already has affected the amount of injuries in sports, because players are training their muscles and bodies for one specific sport, which according to many doctors and therapists can lead to more injuries.

And then there are the high schools. They are training and providing these players for the revenue sports in the colleges. Do you think they won't start demanding their cut for doing this? They are providing the stage for high school players to perform on, giving them the exposure so that colleges will become interested in them. And most high schools are strapped for cash to pay for the equipment, uniforms, coaches, and facilities to continue training these kids and providing them for the colleges.

Money corrupts, and once you let the money in the door, it will corrupt more and more, and more.

---

Who said anything about paying players? This entire discussion revolves around sponsors compensating players for the use of their name, likeness, image. Schools will not be paying players. Any income derived by the athlete will come from sponsors.

You went on for several paragraphs without addressing the issue at hand.

---

My apologies, but I wrote the post because "paying the players" was mentioned in some of the posts, in case you missed them, and I was responding specifically to that idea in those posts the thread. Paying players or sponsors allowed to pay them endorsements both corrupt the player and the sport. I'm also not sure in the currently extreme politically correct climate that it would not be discriminatory for a sponsor to be allowed to endorse a player from one sport and not another, or endorse a male athlete and not female athlete, etc.

SFCityBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I know little about this, except my inclination is to defend amateur sports against the incursion of money.

I have read these posts, and I still see no reason why players should be paid. First of all, the players are already paid by being given a free education through scholarships which most could not have gotten without them being good athletes. That is about $200K, give or take some dollars, worth of pay for the student-athlete. Yes, colleges do benefit in many ways by having good players and good teams in the revenue sports, but the players also benefit from what the colleges give them. The players who will become professionals after college benefit from the school and the NCAA giving them a stage on which to perform. Giving them huge stadiums and arenas and providing access to an ever aggressive media to publicize their skills and game to the nation. It is the schools and their teams which makes the player so much more marketable after college than he was after high school. It is the NCAA and its marketing that provides the great spectacle of the NCAA tournament, and the bowl games to boost the marketability of the players to the NBA or NFL. It seems to me to be an even trade, the player benefits the college and the college benefits the player.

If you start paying players, where does it stop? You can pay Zion, but what about his supporting players? In the case of Duke, many of those support players will be good enough to play in the NBA, but in the case of Oregon, or Arizona, many of the support players will not be good enough for the NBA. So how much do you pay them? Will it be a sliding scale? Will players accept that, or will they demand equal pay for equal work? If you only pay the stars, or if you pay the support players less, there will be friction among the teammates, which will affect team performance, which will affect attendance and revenue. There will likely be more players transferring. 40% of players transfer now. Think how many more will transfer if they can get more pay from another school? How will you prevent schools from offering more money to a player to get them to switch schools?

And how do you not pay women players? Won't they demand it? Won't Title IX insist on it? And what will you do with baseball players? It is not a revenue sport, and right now MLB takes full advantage, treating colleges as their own minor leagues, with the exception that they do not have to pay for these leagues. The colleges foot the bill.

If the revenue sports start paying the players, more and more players will focus on playing a revenue sport, instead of playing two or more sports. It will hurt the sport of baseball, and others. That may also affect, and maybe already has affected the amount of injuries in sports, because players are training their muscles and bodies for one specific sport, which according to many doctors and therapists can lead to more injuries.

And then there are the high schools. They are training and providing these players for the revenue sports in the colleges. Do you think they won't start demanding their cut for doing this? They are providing the stage for high school players to perform on, giving them the exposure so that colleges will become interested in them. And most high schools are strapped for cash to pay for the equipment, uniforms, coaches, and facilities to continue training these kids and providing them for the colleges.

Money corrupts, and once you let the money in the door, it will corrupt more and more, and more.

---

Who said anything about paying players? This entire discussion revolves around sponsors compensating players for the use of their name, likeness, image. Schools will not be paying players. Any income derived by the athlete will come from sponsors.

You went on for several paragraphs without addressing the issue at hand.

---

My apologies, but I wrote the post because "paying the players" was mentioned in some of the posts, in case you missed them, and I was responding specifically to that idea in those posts the thread. Paying players or sponsors allowed to pay them endorsements both corrupt the player and the sport. I'm also not sure in the currently extreme politically correct climate that it would not be discriminatory for a sponsor to be allowed to endorse a player from one sport and not another, or endorse a male athlete and not female athlete, etc.

---

No problem....

It your last sentence were true, how is it possible that endorsement opportunities for professional athletes are heavily weighted towards men and no one has a problem with that? I believe the same would hold true for collegiate athletes as well when we finally come to the day when they are permitted to receive remuneration for the use of their name, likeness, image.

It is going to happen. Of that, there is little doubt. The NCAA has established a work group to develop a plan to "make it so". For once, they are being proactive. This will certainly ease existing pressure on the NCAA to permit direct payments to athletes by the schools.