Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Fair enough, but the counter to THAT is that it's not really an apples/apples comparison.

I attended college on a full 4-year academic scholarship.  I could have-- legally and without violating any NCAA rules-- used my image and likeness to gain endorsement money.  However, my image and likeness had no market value, so it's not actually a tangible benefit that could have aided me.  In your scenario, the athletes are certainly having a potential benefit removed from them by the NCAA rules, but it's not a benefit they would realistically be able to enjoy as an average non-athlete student on an academic scholarship.

As a Free Market purist, I'm okay with restoring this benefit to the athletes, but I think we all need to be clear when we say "any other student could do it" that this is not a realistic or true statement, because the image and likeness of an average student has no market value.

Fair enough, but the counter to THAT is that it's not really an apples/apples comparison.

I attended college on a full 4-year academic scholarship.  I could have-- legally and without violating any NCAA rules-- used my image and likeness to gain endorsement money.  However, my image and likeness had no market value, so it's not actually a tangible benefit that could have aided me.  In your scenario, the athletes are certainly having a potential benefit removed from them by the NCAA rules, but it's not a benefit they would realistically be able to enjoy as an average non-athlete student on an academic scholarship.

As a Free Market purist, I'm okay with restoring this benefit to the athletes, but I think we all need to be clear when we say "any other student could do it" that this is not a realistic or true statement, because the image and likeness of an average student has no market value.

Some of the athletes being discussed wouldn't even be going to school if they weren't athletes. But, that's not a benefit, I guess?

I agree with your overall point but advertisers use people for their looks as much as their fame.  If a good looking volleyball player wants to make a few bucks modeling or doing an ad for a local business she can’t.  If a good looking chick there on an academic scholarship wants to do the same she can.  But I concede there probably aren’t a lot of kids doing that.

Hey, I was a good looking kid on an engineering scholarship, why didn't Red McCombs Pontiac/GMC offer ME money for endorsing their products????

Looks are important, but it's the recognition they're actually paying for.  And the association with something a potential customer views as positive, like a winning volleyball team for Big Money U.

Honestly, not trying to be a jerk at all, but I'd suggest you go back and re-read this thread in its entirety, because we've discussed this from a few angles.  And the other thread that bwar started also has some interesting nuggets.

To sum up, though, you are correct that the state of California can't dictate the NCAA rules.  It can, however, control the actions of the schools within its state boundaries.  This law is saying that universities within the borders of California-- UCLA, for example-- cannot deny any athlete from getting compensation from a 3rd party for using his image and likeness in endorsements, for his own profit.  So although it's against NCAA rules, UCLA can't deny its own student athletes this benefit.  Even if UCLA wanted to, they're in violation of California state law if they attempt to comply with the NCAA rules.  So UCLA has to accept athletes that are being paid 3rd party endorsements, they are legally bound to do so.

The logical progression, then, is that either the PAC (because not all PAC members are in California), or the NCAA itself, would have to suspend a California school for violating and NCAA policy.  At that point, though, the PAC or the NCAA are entering dangerous territory and exposing themselves to antitrust prosecution, among other potential problems.  The NCAA can posture and bluster as much as it wants, but there's no way they actually want to end up in court against the state of California, or the Federal government.

Add to it that other states are considering similar legislation and the NCAA's footing becomes even more precarious.  I really don't see how they're going to survive this if they insist on maintaining the status quo.