AunBear89 said:
Moron says what?
It forces the NCAA to make a decision, and other states will likely follow suit. You're playing checkers.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.
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.
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).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.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206wifeisafurd 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.
agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work71Bear said:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206wifeisafurd 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.
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.
Nike can't tell anyone to do anything. The rule applies after an athlete has enrolled in college.HoopDreams said:agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work71Bear said:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206wifeisafurd 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.
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.
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?
wifeisafurd said: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).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.
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.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.
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.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 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.71Bear said:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206wifeisafurd 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.
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 missed the word "not" on the discussion of what the working group was exploring in the article. Forget my comments about salaries.HoopDreams said:agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work71Bear said:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206wifeisafurd 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.
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.
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?
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.Bobodeluxe said:
Corruption is name of the game. No wonder attendance is in decline most everywhere. Rooting for laundry gets old.
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?71Bear said:Nike can't tell anyone to do anything. The rule applies after an athlete has enrolled in college.HoopDreams said:agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work71Bear said:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206wifeisafurd 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.
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.
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?
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.....
Your first paragraph made no sense. I stopped reading after that....HoopDreams said: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?71Bear said:Nike can't tell anyone to do anything. The rule applies after an athlete has enrolled in college.HoopDreams said:agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work71Bear said:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206wifeisafurd 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.
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.
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?
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.....
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.HoopDreams said: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?71Bear said:Nike can't tell anyone to do anything. The rule applies after an athlete has enrolled in college.HoopDreams said:agree that schools will not be paying players, that's why the salary cap concept won't work71Bear said:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206wifeisafurd 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.
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.
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?
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.....
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
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.71Bear said: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.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.
You went on for several paragraphs without addressing the issue at hand.
No problem....SFCityBear said: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.71Bear said: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.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.
You went on for several paragraphs without addressing the issue at hand.