CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: rolltidefan on September 10, 2019, 01:56:26 PM
-
LINK (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/09/09/california-assembly-bill-allows-college-athletes-use-likeness/2269869001/)
cfb could be changed as we know it. i won't pretend to know how this will or even might play out, but it is sure to have major consequences.
doesn't go into effect until 2023, though.
and they're posturing for a fight.
"I just want to say, 'NCAA, don't threaten California. Don't threaten us'," Kamlager-Dove said. "Because we have formidable schools. We have formidable alumni. And we have formidable viewership. And we can leverage those things until 2023, when this bill takes effect. I'm sick of being leveraged by the NCAA on the backs of athletes who have the right to their own name and image."
-
Go California! Hopefully, other states pass similar legislation. Hopefully that NCAA Football video game comes back too. Might have to buy a PS5 or Xbox 3 if that does. I don't play video games much- but I was addicted to that one way back in the day. Think it's been almost 10 years since they released an NCAA football game.
-
Very nice - where the schools fail the players, the government should step in. Shameful it got this far.
-
Good for California.
But I wouldn't tout your fans as part of the press release
-
they are formidable
-
But I wouldn't tout your fans as part of the press release
I chuckled when he said that.
-
I think it's likely this will end up as a way for boosters to funnel money to prospects and active players. I won't make any judgment on whether that's a good or a bad thing, but I do think it's likely it will happen.
Given that, schools in states that pass laws like this, will have a competitive advantage over schools in states that do not. So it's likely that many other states will follow suit. That's going to put the schools at odds with the NCAA, and the conferences will be stuck somewhere in the middle, since most of them straddle multiple states. Managing the heterogeneous laws applying to various state and private institutions within their conference dominion is going to be very challenging. This might be the straw that ultimately breaks some or all major conferences from the umbrella of the NCAA.
-
So the California legislature basically just wrote a bill preventing their colleges from enforcing NCAA amateurism requirements. They can't affect NCAA requirements directly, so it's basically daring the NCAA to sanction them.
I imagine this will end well...
-
So the California legislature basically just wrote a bill preventing their colleges from enforcing NCAA amateurism requirements. They can't affect NCAA requirements directly, so it's basically daring the NCAA to sanction them.
I imagine this will end well...
Exactly. Hence the threatening language about having formidable schools and alumni, etc.
I would guess the first challenge will come from schools within the PAC but outside of California. They're a little closer to the workings of their own conference, and more likely to get the wheels turning faster than relying on the NCAA to do it. I could see calls for the PAC itself to sanction the California schools that decide to go along with the law.
But, because this is also a pretty easy and convenient vehicle to funnel funds to recruits and players, and therefore a pretty direct way to gain significant competitive advantage over any non-California schools, the protests from schools all over the country are going to become quite vocal as well. I could see schools threatening to back out of scheduling agreements with California schools, I could see conferences threatening to back out of scheduling agreements with the PAC, there's all sorts of fallout that could occur.
-
I guess the NCAA could isolate California but California has got enough large unis that they could start their own 8 team league, and it will be competive because people will flock to it if they are the lone state doing this. I would guess the PAC12 falls in line (they aren't losing USC, UCLA, Furd, Cali) and Oregon, Wash, Utah, Colorado passes the same leglisation which again could create a 2 different leagues. Most likely if it follows through the rest of the country follows suit.
This should have never happened but the NCAA is as bad as the AAU, FIFA and the IOC. There was always enough money for stipends for 200-250 mens and womens scholarship athletes at D1.
-
Not sure if this would pass in Arizona.
And then the Big 12 could be the Big 12 again.
-
California was able to strong arm the entire auto industry by setting their own emissions standards to a more stringent level than the National standard. They have a lot more power than the NCAA.
-
The most obvious next step is for the NCAA to state that California schools will be ineligible to compete in the NCAA, but that's a big deal because there are a lot of highly competitive NCAA programs in California (there's a reason Stanford wins the Directors Cup every year), not just in football and basketball. That said, the NCAA could probably carry on without them--but at a great cost to the Pac-12, which would hurt.
To put some data behind this, the top three schools for total Div I team championships are Stanford, UCLA, and USC, with Cal at #10. For team and individual championships, it's Stanford, USC, Texas, UCLA, and Cal is 8th.
-
I don't think California is going to have to stand by itself or strongarm anyone. I think there are plenty of states/universities that will likely enact similar law.
-
I've said this for a long time, and I'll say it again:
If the NCAA didn't fix their model, someone else will fix it for them, and they're not going to like how it gets fixed. And it appears that the California Legislature has gotten around to doing the fixing.
-
I don't think California is going to have to stand by itself or strongarm anyone. I think there are plenty of states/universities that will likely enact similar law.
you're probably right, but I'd really like to see the NCAA along with ASU, Zona, the Ducks, WSU, Washington, and Utah to say, "Hey, you're formidable. Go it on your own. Good Luck!"
-
Go California! Hopefully, other states pass similar legislation. Hopefully that NCAA Football video game comes back too. Might have to buy a PS5 or Xbox 3 if that does. I don't play video games much- but I was addicted to that one way back in the day. Think it's been almost 10 years since they released an NCAA football game.
You can get updated rosters every year, if you input the right gamertag. NCAA 14 becomes NCAA19 real easy.
-
Well if this won't get a B10 team into the playoff, nothing will! :57:
-
ASU & Zona & Colorado could join the Big 12
-
ASU & Zona & Colorado could join the Big 12
I think it's likely the state of Texas would do something similar to California.
-
friggin liberals
;)
-
friggin liberals
;)
Right to work, and uncapped compensation in a free market, aren't exactly liberal concepts. :)
But that's not the main reason Texas would adopt such a rule. The bottom line is that allowing payments of any kind to players would be a tremendous competitive advantage if not everyone is allowed to do it. College football is big business in the state of Texas, with more FBS programs than any other state (almost double each of the next two closest in California and Florida). The state legislature isn't about to let California or anyone else get ahead of them where a prolonged competitive advantage might be gained.
-
Former Nebraska State Senator and total Maverick and rabble rouser Ernie Chambers was way ahead of his time on this. He regularly proposed bills like this and once tried to get athletes designated as State employees. Not enough of his breatheren wanted to walk that plank risking NCAA eligibility.
He first proposed this in 1986, and carried on about it into the 2000s.
-
the Cali assembly might have as much success as Ernie
-
But that's not the main reason Texas would adopt such a rule. The bottom line is that allowing payments of any kind to players would be a tremendous competitive advantage if not everyone is allowed to do it. College football is big business in the state of Texas, with more FBS programs than any other state (almost double each of the next two closest in California and Florida). The state legislature isn't about to let California or anyone else get ahead of them where a prolonged competitive advantage might be gained.
I'd guess the NCAA will either be all in or all out
the NCAA mission is regulating competitive advantage
-
The NCAA derives its power solely and entirely from its member institutions. If the member institutions decide to revoke some or all of that power, the member institutions are all but guaranteed to be able to do so. Georgia and Oklahoma proved this beyond all doubt in 1984.
The state of California is enabling universities within its borders to take that another step further.
-
I'd guess the NCAA will either be all in or all out
the NCAA mission is regulating competitive advantage
Ehhh, 9 out of 10 top 10 teams are helmet programs and/or new helmets (UF, FSU, Miamiesque) in any given week/season.
Remember when TCU was good? That was cute. The next time they have a 10-win season, will anyone be claiming "they're back!"??? No. Because they're not Texas. The competitive advantage is a joke (P5 vs G5, SEC & B10 helmets vs the rest of the country, Big State U vs State Tech, etc.).
The idea of competitive balance in college football is like a grandparent ribbing a 14 year old if Santa is going to visit him this year. It's a lie, it's awkward, and it's unnecessary.
-
The NCAA derives its power solely and entirely from its member institutions. If the member institutions decide to revoke some or all of that power, the member institutions are all but guaranteed to be able to do so. Georgia and Oklahoma proved this beyond all doubt in 1984.
The state of California is enabling universities within its borders to take that another step further.
Well, remember the idea of the P5 programs + ND leaving the NCAA and starting their own thing? Maybe this is the start of that.
Alas, if that happens, it might be similar to getting rid of all the illegal immigrants in one fell swoop - the G5 schools do all the jobs none of the P5 programs want to do.....
(not getting political here, just seeing a parallel)
-
yup, and the member institutions will decide to either allow compensation such as Cali or the Cali schools would not be members any longer if they decide to pay players
I don't see some NCAA members paying players in one or two or three states and the other members NOT paying players
-
Ehhh, 9 out of 10 top 10 teams are helmet programs and/or new helmets (UF, FSU, Miamiesque) in any given week/season.
Remember when TCU was good? That was cute. The next time they have a 10-win season, will anyone be claiming "they're back!"??? No. Because they're not Texas. The competitive advantage is a joke (P5 vs G5, SEC & B10 helmets vs the rest of the country, Big State U vs State Tech, etc.).
The idea of competitive balance in college football is like a grandparent ribbing a 14 year old if Santa is going to visit him this year. It's a lie, it's awkward, and it's unnecessary.
I agree to an extent. But, Texas no longer gets more scholarships than TCU.
-
If 10 top recruits get offered by TCU and Texas, how many are going to TCU? One? Two?
What's the aggregate income of TCU's top 10 boosters vs Texas' top 10?
Magazine covers, fanbase sizes, national appeal,...literally anything you can think of - there is an advantage for one over the other. Same with USC vs Fresno State, same with Ohio State and Cincinnati, etc.
I'm not saying programs just aren't equal, I'm saying there is zero equality. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, just that the notion of "competitive balance" is an avalanche of BS.
-
Well, remember the idea of the P5 programs + ND leaving the NCAA and starting their own thing? Maybe this is the start of that.
Alas, if that happens, it might be similar to getting rid of all the illegal immigrants in one fell swoop - the G5 schools do all the jobs none of the P5 programs want to do.....
(not getting political here, just seeing a parallel)
Exactly and I totally agree. This could be a step toward that big breakaway.
I'm not saying I agree with it or like it, but nobody's asking me. G5 schools can be fun to watch, the top of the G5 tends to be better and more entertaining than the bottom of the P5, at least IMO.
-
I would like to learn how to turn it around from having to pay for my portrait, to being paid for my portrait or likeness.
-
Ehhh, 9 out of 10 top 10 teams are helmet programs and/or new helmets (UF, FSU, Miamiesque) in any given week/season.
Remember when TCU was good? That was cute. The next time they have a 10-win season, will anyone be claiming "they're back!"??? No. Because they're not Texas. The competitive advantage is a joke (P5 vs G5, SEC & B10 helmets vs the rest of the country, Big State U vs State Tech, etc.).
The idea of competitive balance in college football is like a grandparent ribbing a 14 year old if Santa is going to visit him this year. It's a lie, it's awkward, and it's unnecessary.
While I principally agree that competitive advantage isn't real, maybe not the TCU example.
They're a whole ONE SEASON removed from 11 wins and a top-10 finish. In the last two full seasons, they've hit 10 wins as many times as Texas has the past nine. Two years ago doesn't quite earn the "remember" treatment.
-
The NCAA derives its power solely and entirely from its member institutions. If the member institutions decide to revoke some or all of that power, the member institutions are all but guaranteed to be able to do so. Georgia and Oklahoma proved this beyond all doubt in 1984.
The state of California is enabling universities within its borders to take that another step further.
Great summation. All the case law with the OU/UGA TV Rights case, the J Tarkanian case puts forth a very clear road map to end run the NCAA. We debated this like crazy in a sports law seminar 15+ yrs ago, I can't believe we are in the same place. I was dead wrong on how fast this would unravel.
Like I need another lecture on how stupid market timing is...
-
I'd guess the NCAA will either be all in or all out
the NCAA mission is regulating competitive advantage
The NCAA mission is maintaining its own strange ecosystem, one that balances capitalistic and anti-capitalistic themes, always has its hand out to enrich of an amateur game and seeks to leverage its customers (and maybe get leveraged) at every turn.
-
While I principally agree that competitive advantage isn't real, maybe not the TCU example.
They're a whole ONE SEASON removed from 11 wins and a top-10 finish. In the last two full seasons, they've hit 10 wins as many times as Texas has the past nine. Two years ago doesn't quite earn the "remember" treatment.
You're also talking about possibly the worst decade in UT football history, but I don't disagree that TCU has been pretty good for a while now.
-
If 10 top recruits get offered by TCU and Texas, how many are going to TCU? One? Two?
What's the aggregate income of TCU's top 10 boosters vs Texas' top 10?
Magazine covers, fanbase sizes, national appeal,...literally anything you can think of - there is an advantage for one over the other. Same with USC vs Fresno State, same with Ohio State and Cincinnati, etc.
I'm not saying programs just aren't equal, I'm saying there is zero equality. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, just that the notion of "competitive balance" is an avalanche of BS.
ya gotta admit that there's more equality and competitive balance now than before the ships were limited to 85 in 1992
Georgia State didn't have a chance vs Tennessee back in 1972
-
So the California legislature basically just wrote a bill preventing their colleges from enforcing NCAA amateurism requirements. They can't affect NCAA requirements directly, so it's basically daring the NCAA to sanction them.
I imagine this will end well...
Here's an interesting article from Forbes.com arguing that it would violate antitrust laws for the NCAA to sanction the California schools. Because trade organizations bylaws are not allowed to force members to violate state or federal government.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2019/06/25/ncaa-cant-legally-ban-california-schools-for-allowing-athletes-to-profit-from-their-names-images-and-likenesses/#3181c74f273f
Anyway, as has been mentioned, this law was deliberately written to begin in 2023 because the legislators wanted to give the NCAA that long to come up with a new plan. If the NCAA and its lawyers wait that long and don't come up with something better than "try sanctioning California" schools, then they never even bothered to try.
Just strategically, the NCAA is at a critical moment. They are effectively losing all battles in courts and legislatures, but they haven't lost all leverage. There is still time for the NCAA to recognize the inevitable future of the sport, pivot accordingly, and try to pull off a "kids-NCAA compromise" about that future before the future gets sick of waiting and decides to smack that NCAA ass however it likes.
Frankly, when it comes to player compensation, the NCAA should probably consider it a win to allow kids to "independently collect whatever market value they have coming." Because that will negligibly (if at all) subtract from administrators salaries (at the NCAA and AD level), and if this goes all the way -- where the market values open AND the schools have to provide their revenue athletes market value stipends from AD revenue -- those administrator salaries are likely to be hit hardest and first. Likewise, many of these NCAA and AD suitcoat workforces are likely to see massive and permanent layoffs. And that isn't even to mention contraction of these AD's profit margins.
Just open the kids to their market value already. That 100% solves the moral issue while also staving off AD damage and loss of all these suitcoat jobs. The NCAA would do well to acknowledge this as a best-case compromise, rather than some radical future for them to block B.A.M.N.
-
I could see calls for the PAC itself to sanction the California schools that decide to go along with the law.
This would also likely be illegal (violate the same antitrust laws as if the NCAA tried it). You just can't punish someone for following a state or federal law.
-
But, because this is also a pretty easy and convenient vehicle to funnel funds to recruits and players, and therefore a pretty direct way to gain significant competitive advantage over any non-California schools, the protests from schools all over the country are going to become quite vocal as well.
For the fans or schools/administrators who make that argument, they come off as either blind or dishonest. These competitive advantages already exist in two types.
- There's the NCAA-legal way (helmet schools have what they have; Washington State, Rutgers and the MAC don't). Ignoring that is blind (and/or dishonest)
- And then there's the NCAA-illegal way (the culture of rampantly paying the players by bagmen). Ignoring that is dishonest (and/or blind)
All this rule change would do is look the current system in the face and admit that it is now all legal at the federal, state, *and* NCAA levels. Well, that, and two other effects:
- the schools cheating most right now would be damaged the most relative to the effect on schools cheating the least right now
- it'd make sure that the role player kids at P5 schools, the ones who start but will never play an NFL down, whose market value (across their whole lives) is never greater than it was from age 18 to 22, can finally collect on that market value, rather than be robbed of it because "our rules say capitalism is for everyone except you."
-
There was always enough money for stipends for 200-250 mens and womens scholarship athletes at D1.
I don't think any of the best solutions involve stipends. Just let the kids collect whatever their market value says they're worth. If that's a stranger passing a $100 restaurant gift card one time, well that kid's football talents weren't worth much, but hey how nice for him that he got what he had coming. If it's ten grand to smile for a local auto dealer commercial in syndication, well, then that kid has modest value and is getting every extra cent he's worth too. And if it's a half-million in a brief case. Well cool. That dude is sure worth a lot. And now that the NCAA allows it, he'll do well to finally claim it when it comes to tax season.
Each of these scenarios finally make the kids part of our capitalistic society like everyone else. Some get a little. Others get a lot. And everyone gets what the market says they deserve.
-
I don't think California is going to have to stand by itself or strongarm anyone. I think there are plenty of states/universities that will likely enact similar law.
There already are -- with varying likelihoods of success -- similar bills at earlier stages in several state legistures. I know that Washington, Maryland, and North Carolina are examples.
Whether those succeed, I can't say, but between the O'Bannon fallout and this, the movement has legs. It's accelerating to the point where some form of win is now inevitable (name and likeness rights, market value, and/or larger revenue sport stipends, etc.).
-
Right to work, and uncapped compensation in a free market, aren't exactly liberal concepts. :)
It does make me giggle how many fans in opposition to this are pro-free market and anti-regulation when it comes to everything except college athletes.
-
It does make me giggle how many fans in opposition to this are pro-free market and anti-regulation when it comes to everything except college athletes.
I wonder if that works both ways--if there's an equally amusing number of people who support this but are anti-free market and pro-regulation in everything else.
-
I wonder if that works both ways--if there's an equally amusing number of people who support this but are anti-free market and pro-regulation in everything else.
Absolutely! But both sides may generally be blind to their bias.
- Hardcore capitalists might be uncomfortable about capitalism-for-athletes but find comfort in the fact that their opinion is consistent with the nostalgia that "amateurism is the pure way it's always been"
- And capitalism-skeptics might be uncomfortable with NCAA market manipulation but find comfort in the fact that their opinion addresses a moral dilemma about kids, their real worth, and justice
-
the top of the G5 tends to be better and more entertaining than the bottom of the P5, at least IMO.
This is sort of statistically inevitable, btw.
-
While I principally agree that competitive advantage isn't real, maybe not the TCU example.
They're a whole ONE SEASON removed from 11 wins and a top-10 finish. In the last two full seasons, they've hit 10 wins as many times as Texas has the past nine. Two years ago doesn't quite earn the "remember" treatment.
They're 24-16 in their last 40 games. They've already peaked...like all-time program peaked. Their best HC in his best seasons didn't yield a NC. They're a .500 program with 10-win blips. That's good for them, historically, but pales in comparison to any one of the "haves" programs.
-
Frankly, when it comes to player compensation, the NCAA should probably consider it a win to allow kids to "independently collect whatever market value they have coming." Because that will negligibly (if at all) subtract from administrators salaries (at the NCAA and AD level), and if this goes all the way -- where the market values open AND the schools have to provide their revenue athletes market value stipends from AD revenue -- those administrator salaries are likely to be hit hardest and first. Likewise, many of these NCAA and AD suitcoat workforces are likely to see massive and permanent layoffs. And that isn't even to mention contraction of these AD's profit margins.
I disagree. People in positions of power rarely lose their power when change is made. It will be the other student athletes that get hurt. No AD is going to cut his salary drastically when instead he can get rid of 2 non-revenue sports and blame the Big Bad Football for it. "I had to get Volleyball and Fencing because of this new rule. I had no choice."
-
This would also likely be illegal (violate the same antitrust laws as if the NCAA tried it). You just can't punish someone for following a state or federal law.
Sure, that's expected, and then the the next logical step is to disband the PAC. Arizona and Oregon and Utah simply can't afford to allow the California schools' players to be paid, while theirs cannot. The playing field would be unbelievably slanted in that case, and any chance at competition would cease to exist.
One way or the other, this has to end up all or nothing. It might be within the construct of the NCAA. It might not. It might be within the construct of the current conferences. It might not.
-
For the fans or schools/administrators who make that argument, they come off as either blind or dishonest. These competitive advantages already exist in two types.
- There's the NCAA-legal way (helmet schools have what they have; Washington State, Rutgers and the MAC don't). Ignoring that is blind (and/or dishonest)
- And then there's the NCAA-illegal way (the culture of rampantly paying the players by bagmen). Ignoring that is dishonest (and/or blind)
All this rule change would do is look the current system in the face and admit that it is now all legal at the federal, state, *and* NCAA levels. Well, that, and two other effects:
- the schools cheating most right now would be damaged the most relative to the effect on schools cheating the least right now
- it'd make sure that the role player kids at P5 schools, the ones who start but will never play an NFL down, whose market value (across their whole lives) is never greater than it was from age 18 to 22, can finally collect on that market value, rather than be robbed of it because "our rules say capitalism is for everyone except you."
Oh I'm not disagreeing that a lot of schools cheat the system, I just don't agree that those that are cheating right now would be against this change.
The schools cheating the most right now would be happy to move that pay from under the table, to over the table. This is an incredibly easy vehicle for them to do so. And they'd avoid having to pay the bagmen and street agents and "trainers" and "7-on-7 Organizers" their cut. They could either save some money, or they'd have more money to pay off their players. The ones with the deepest pockets will be able to funnel the most money to recruits and they'd be delighted to be able to do it above-board.
Make no mistake about it, the schools that are already paying players, are licking their lips at this opportunity.
-
This is sort of statistically inevitable, btw.
By win/loss alone, sure. But I'm also talking about the quality of play and entertainment value. I don't think that's statistically inevitable.
-
If this moves forward - it's time for the NFL to fund their Minor League.Universities need to come back the basics,fund all the student athletes or none of them.The NFL and Network Greed are behind this upheaval.Let them fund it,this could turn into a real mess.While I'm all for a kid making money off his likeness,they're already getting paid to play.Hate to say it but let the whole stack of cards fold - then they'll find out what is important.
-
If this moves forward - it's time for the NFL to fund their Minor League.Universities need to come back the basics,fund all the student athletes or none of them.The NFL and Network Greed are behind this upheaval.Let them fund it,this could turn into a real mess.While I'm all for a kid making money off his likeness,they're already getting paid to play.Hate to say it but let the whole stack of cards fold - then they'll find out what is important.
Right now the NFL enjoys most of the benefits of a minor league, for free.
The only thing better than that, would be a minor league that generates profits. Since the NFL hasn't bothered to do this yet, it tells me they don't believe they can successfully create a minor league that would generate profits for them. And until they believe that can happen, they have no incentive to abandon their current free system and replace it with something that costs them money.
-
I get that,but Universities can just say enough we're in the business of educating young adults not providing entertainment for the networks.The problem is IMO from a collegiate POV is that most sports in most programs are money losers - this is what is brushed aside.Not a lot of DI programs turn a profit after "ALL" the bills/program expenses are paid for
-
ya gotta admit that there's more equality and competitive balance now than before the ships were limited to 85 in 1992
Georgia State didn't have a chance vs Tennessee back in 1972
there is some stats that, if they don't refute it, then at least muddy it so that that narrative isn't a clear one. i haven't looked at them in several years, but the win% of small schools vs big boys was actually higher before the limits (minutely, it was basically a wash). again, it's been a while, and these wins 'feel' more common, and maybe they are since i looked it up 5-10 years back, but i thought that was interesting.
-
I get that,but Universities can just say enough we're in the business of educating young adults not providing entertainment for the networks.The problem is IMO from a collegiate POV is that most sports in most programs are money losers - this is what is brushed aside.Not a lot of DI programs turn a profit after "ALL" the bills/program expenses are paid for
I get that,but Universities can just say enough we're in the business of educating young adults not providing entertainment for the networks.The problem is IMO from a collegiate POV is that most sports in most programs are money losers - this is what is brushed aside.Not a lot of DI programs turn a profit after "ALL" the bills/program expenses are paid for
I don't disagree that something's gotta give.
I just don't think it'll be the NFL doing the "giving" you know what I mean? :)
Anyway, after all of the liability for injuries/concussions/CTE comes home to roost, I think football is going to look very different at ALL levels. We're already seeing declining numbers of junior high and high school athletes playing football. The foundation is eroding and ultimately I don't think what we're doing is sustainable at all.
I'm just trying to enjoy it because what we're seeing rifght now ARE the "good old days" -- football just doesn't know it yet.
-
I don't think California is going to have to stand by itself or strongarm anyone. I think there are plenty of states/universities that will likely enact similar law.
i'm not so sure.
first, i might be wrong but i think i saw where most cal schools were against the law, or at least apprehensive about it. ncaa IS the schools, that's the only ones they represent. they wouldn't have the rules if the vast majority didn't want these rules. or even a strong minority.
second, and i am not an attorney so take this with a big block of salt, i don't think most states will need to. nothing they did in this act really changed anything. all they did is basically make a law that 'nullifies' the ncaa bylaw. ncaa has some interstate commerce and antitrust protection due to the type of entity it is, but they must be within state/federal laws. however, i don't think you can just make a law for the sole purpose of nullifying a bylaw of such entities. (everything i just said it amateur hour based on what i've read/seen/heard, and could be completely off. would love to hear some attorney thoughts on it).
also, and more importantly, most states won't need to because it will work itself out without them needing to do anything. as i said, this law doesn't make anything that was previously illegal legal, it just attacks this bylaw. whether the ncaa decides to just go along with it and adapt, fight it and win, or fight it and lose, it'll be resolved long before the other state will need to make changes. some will anyway.
-
there is some stats that, if they don't refute it, then at least muddy it so that that narrative isn't a clear one. i haven't looked at them in several years, but the win% of small schools vs big boys was actually higher before the limits (minutely, it was basically a wash). again, it's been a while, and these wins 'feel' more common, and maybe they are since i looked it up 5-10 years back, but i thought that was interesting.
you could be right
back in the 60s, 70's and early 80's I don't remember Nebraska and Michigan having close calls or huge upsets vs Appy St. and Northern Ill. Also don't remember North Dakota schools terrorizing the big boys.
-
Oh I'm not disagreeing that a lot of schools cheat the system, I just don't agree that those that are cheating right now would be against this change.
Make no mistake about it, the schools that are already paying players, are licking their lips at this opportunity.
Ed Zachery. Also, just because there would now be a legal way to pay players doesn't mean the cheaters would quit cheating. They would also continue paying players illegally. Such as recruits before they sign......
-
I disagree. People in positions of power rarely lose their power when change is made. It will be the other student athletes that get hurt. No AD is going to cut his salary drastically when instead he can get rid of 2 non-revenue sports and blame the Big Bad Football for it. "I had to get Volleyball and Fencing because of this new rule. I had no choice."
Yes, if (a) the NCAA refuses to compromise (on name/likeness or independent pursuit of market value) *and* (b) the ADs respond to that environment in the worst possible way, contraction of non-revenue sports is the remaining option. But that's the dumbest possible outcome. In that situation, (a) the NCAA and its inaction is to blame for its worst nightmare and (b) the ADs have chosen bad stewardship, since we already showed in the 1990s and early 2000s that these ADs could each support this many sports with 1990s/early-2000s budgets.
A "market value stipend" (which, to be clear, I strongly disprefer except as a last resort) might cost $100K *110 scholarship revenue athletes at a place like Michigan where the only revenue sports are football, bball, and hockey. That $11M *pales* in comparison to any Big Team's revenue growth (even accting for inflation) since 2000, when -- again -- these ADs were comfortably managing the same number (or approximately the same number) of sports they support now.
-
Arizona and Oregon and Utah simply can't afford to allow the California schools' players to be paid, while theirs cannot. The playing field would be unbelievably slanted in that case, and any chance at competition would cease to exist.
One way or the other, this has to end up all or nothing. It might be within the construct of the NCAA. It might not. It might be within the construct of the current conferences. It might not.
That is precisely accurate. And I think this groundswell of litigants against the NCAA and of Skinner-type bills in other legislatures all combine to indicate that the future is more likely to be "all" than "nothing."
-
Oh I'm not disagreeing that a lot of schools cheat the system, I just don't agree that those that are cheating right now would be against this change.
The schools cheating the most right now would be happy to move that pay from under the table, to over the table. This is an incredibly easy vehicle for them to do so. And they'd avoid having to pay the bagmen and street agents and "trainers" and "7-on-7 Organizers" their cut. They could either save some money, or they'd have more money to pay off their players. The ones with the deepest pockets will be able to funnel the most money to recruits and they'd be delighted to be able to do it above-board.
Make no mistake about it, the schools that are already paying players, are licking their lips at this opportunity.
I think you are making the mistake of assuming that (whether it's boosters or coaches) all of the richest schools are cheating (and/or cheating equally). If that were not true (if there are rich schools that aren't yet cheating as well as rich schools that are cheating to lesser degrees), then opening the market (and allowing the non-cheaters and lesser cheaters to come out of the woodwork) will be disproportionately favorable for them relative to the rich schools that were formerly cheating most. Because the biggest rich cheaters were previously accessing the largest chunk of their true "pay players" potential, they will be at a relative disadvantage in this new environment. They may well still grow in payer payments, just not as much as elsewhere.
-
and i am not an attorney so take this with a big block of salt, i don't think most states will need to. nothing they did in this act really changed anything. all they did is basically make a law that 'nullifies' the ncaa bylaw. ncaa has some interstate commerce and antitrust protection due to the type of entity it is, but they must be within state/federal laws. however, i don't think you can just make a law for the sole purpose of nullifying a bylaw of such entities. (everything i just said it amateur hour based on what i've read/seen/heard, and could be completely off. would love to hear some attorney thoughts on it).
How was your stay at Holiday Inn? :)
So a couple of things: states can certainly regulate commerce within their borders, but there could be an argument that California's actions interfere with the federal regulation of interstate commerce. Haven't put a lot of thought into that, but I think it's a stretch. There isn't a lot of direct federal regulation over the NCAA; it's a private organization operating primarily pursuant to its own rules. The NCAA could argue that this somehow infringes on distribution of Title IX funds, but, again, a stretch.
The NCAA doesn't really have any special antitrust protection. Unlike MLB, there is no special exemption for the NCAA. However, the NCAA has relied for decades on "amateurism" for the product it sells. So in an antitrust analysis, the NCAA wants courts to apply the antitrust laws in a way that maintains amateurism in college sports because without that, the NCAA says, it has no product, or at least not a competitive one. The big problem for the NCAA is that the courts have been pretty hostile to that view. Antitrust laws are all about economic analysis, and the analysis for amateurism as a product doesn't work very well.
-
Of course, this isn't just about the NCAA championship level programs. There are 58 Div. 1-3 schools in California. Although that's less than 10%, it's still a big number.
Now, at all but the major Div. 1 schools, this law will have no impact, or almost none. Few people clamber to buy the center's jersey for a D-3 program, or even most Div. 1 programs outside of major football and major basketball, and photographs (and even video game likenesses) of all of those non-major players aren't likely to drive a lot of royalty dollars. But it could really shake up how the big kids interact with the littles. And it will really confuse athletic directors as to how to treat their major sport athletes as opposed to their others.
What wouldn't surprise me is a players association that forms and negotiates for the rights of the players as a group, with its own system for divvying up the dollars that come in from royalties.
-
Of course, this isn't just about the NCAA championship level programs. There are 58 Div. 1-3 schools in California. Although that's less than 10%, it's still a big number.
Now, at all but the major Div. 1 schools, this law will have no impact, or almost none. Few people clamber to buy the center's jersey for a D-3 program, or even most Div. 1 programs outside of major football and major basketball, and photographs (and even video game likenesses) of all of those non-major players aren't likely to drive a lot of royalty dollars. But it could really shake up how the big kids interact with the littles. And it will really confuse athletic directors as to how to treat their major sport athletes as opposed to their others.
What wouldn't surprise me is a players association that forms and negotiates for the rights of the players as a group, with its own system for divvying up the dollars that come in from royalties.
If the eventual rules are "market value" rules and the smaller school athletes have little market value, their ADs should not be much affected by these rule changes. Ditto about P5 schools dealing with non-revenue athletes. They may be hurt in pride, and the small schools may be hurt in association, if the P5 breaks away, but I don't think we need to coddle them. Just acknowledge that this is the way of our capitalistic world and that college athletics is no longer in a separate reality.
-
the offensive guards and the women's sports members will love the player's union
the star QB, LB, RB, and WR on't like it so much.
instead of the NCAA members making money from the QB's likeness, it'll be the union making the money.
the star players will still be exploited
-
How was your stay at Holiday Inn? :)
So a couple of things: states can certainly regulate commerce within their borders, but there could be an argument that California's actions interfere with the federal regulation of interstate commerce. Haven't put a lot of thought into that, but I think it's a stretch. There isn't a lot of direct federal regulation over the NCAA; it's a private organization operating primarily pursuant to its own rules. The NCAA could argue that this somehow infringes on distribution of Title IX funds, but, again, a stretch.
The NCAA doesn't really have any special antitrust protection. Unlike MLB, there is no special exemption for the NCAA. However, the NCAA has relied for decades on "amateurism" for the product it sells. So in an antitrust analysis, the NCAA wants courts to apply the antitrust laws in a way that maintains amateurism in college sports because without that, the NCAA says, it has no product, or at least not a competitive one. The big problem for the NCAA is that the courts have been pretty hostile to that view. Antitrust laws are all about economic analysis, and the analysis for amateurism as a product doesn't work very well.
An excellent survey.
-
How was your stay at Holiday Inn? :)
So a couple of things: states can certainly regulate commerce within their borders, but there could be an argument that California's actions interfere with the federal regulation of interstate commerce. Haven't put a lot of thought into that, but I think it's a stretch. There isn't a lot of direct federal regulation over the NCAA; it's a private organization operating primarily pursuant to its own rules. The NCAA could argue that this somehow infringes on distribution of Title IX funds, but, again, a stretch.
The NCAA doesn't really have any special antitrust protection. Unlike MLB, there is no special exemption for the NCAA. However, the NCAA has relied for decades on "amateurism" for the product it sells. So in an antitrust analysis, the NCAA wants courts to apply the antitrust laws in a way that maintains amateurism in college sports because without that, the NCAA says, it has no product, or at least not a competitive one. The big problem for the NCAA is that the courts have been pretty hostile to that view. Antitrust laws are all about economic analysis, and the analysis for amateurism as a product doesn't work very well.
it was rough. my hair is all messed up, didn't sleep well, really effecting my posting and memory and, clearly, my understanding of the law. :)
thanks, btw. i read, apparently incorrectly, that the ncaa was in same boat as mlb/nfl in regards to antitrust... stuff.
i not inherently against the law, i'm just not sure it's the best course of action. it will be interesting, either way, to see where this lead cfb.
-
link to ncaa response (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-responds-california-senate-bill-206)
The NCAA Board of Governors sent a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, making clear its belief that this bill would wipe out the distinction between college and professional athletics and eliminate the element of fairness that supports all of college sports.
-
I think you are making the mistake of assuming that (whether it's boosters or coaches) all of the richest schools are cheating (and/or cheating equally). If that were not true (if there are rich schools that aren't yet cheating as well as rich schools that are cheating to lesser degrees), then opening the market (and allowing the non-cheaters and lesser cheaters to come out of the woodwork) will be disproportionately favorable for them relative to the rich schools that were formerly cheating most. Because the biggest rich cheaters were previously accessing the largest chunk of their true "pay players" potential, they will be at a relative disadvantage in this new environment. They may well still grow in payer payments, just not as much as elsewhere.
And I think you're making the mistake of believing that there aren't a LOT of wealthy cheaters already. They're more than willing to help this along. The "relative" disadvantage from current state to future state will be slight because they still have the deep pockets, and the reduced friction in the system will become a tremendous advantage to the wealthy cheaters. They'll no longer have to lie with the dogs and get fleas. That will make a lot of the coaches that currently know their boosters are cheating, but can't do anything to control them, quite happy.
-
There are a LOT. I'm not ignoring that. But that world is NOT flat. I'm specifying that there are bagman disparities. That not everyone is cheating to their full potential**. And if there are any disparities among these programs (in terms of living up to their true potential to pay players), then the ones living up to their true potential now (in paying players) will be fractionally disadvantaged when, in the future, the rules change and they can't "extra-activate" their paying players as much as everyone else. They'll prove to have been some fraction closer to topping out than everyone else. That means player payments across CFB will grow globally, including growth in what are now the cheating hotbeds, but that growth in today's cheating hotbeds will be less than the growth in areas where today's cheating is any amount less than maximal.
**(bagman actual divided by bagman potential multipled by 100%)
-
Maybe I can pull off a tortured analogy. After World War II, the american manufacturing economy dominated worldwide largely because wartime bombings lessened manufacturing capabilities on every continent spare ours. That was a massive temporary advantage in the same way that the #1 bagmanners in CFB now have a temporary advantage, but will cease to have this much of an advantage when the world around them more fully steps up to the plate. To take this tortured analogy even further, we might acknowledge that some of those other European/Asian nations still had factories but not as many as was their true potential after WWII. Likewise, the US -- despite not being decimated -- could still build even more factories than they started with. But what we care about is fractional growth. The US's fraction (of new factories) was smaller than that of Europe and Asia, which is a relative disadvantage for the US now as compared to its advantage in the immediate-post-WWII environment.
-
No, I know what you're saying, and I don't really disagree.
I just think it's going to be WORTH IT to the cheaters to give up some small margin of advantage. Currently they're always walking the tightrope of ethics and results. Especially some of the coaches and administrators that are basically good people, but know EXACTLY what their boosters are doing. And believe me, they all know EXACTLY what their boosters are doing.
These schools are always on the ragged edge of being caught and doing permanent damage to their reputation. They're going to be happy to move those payments above board. The boosters are going to be happy to do it. The legislators in those states are already in the pockets of those boosters and will go along with it because that's what they're paid to do.
This isn't the only reason that states/schools are going to want to push for similar laws or at least posture like they are, to break the NCAA's power. But it's definitely A reason, and a pretty widespread one.
Look at it another way, even if the cheaters didn't want to put all the payments over the table, if other schools are going to be doing it completely legally, then they can't afford to get behind and still be forced to do it illegally. Laws allowing player payment will effectively become table stakes just to continue playing the game of FBS college football.
-
No, I know what you're saying, and I don't really disagree.
I just think it's going to be WORTH IT to the cheaters to give up some small margin of advantage. Currently they're always walking the tightrope of ethics and results. Especially some of the coaches and administrators that are basically good people, but know EXACTLY what their boosters are doing. And believe me, they all know EXACTLY what their boosters are doing.
Mark Richt said once, sort of wistfully, that if he change one thing about his job at UGA, it would be to have more control over the boosters.
-
Ah, maybe we understood each other all along, utee. Because I don't disagree with you, either. At least not in direction. As far as the extent of things, however, I do think that the following developments have removed a lot of cheating risk from major football programs:
- last decade of NCAA investigations has empowered the approach of deny-deny, don't-cooperate-don't-cooperate; large programs who take that tack (when under investigation) have rarely been sanctioned
- the public perception of paying players has significantly changed into a moral issue; even many of those fans who hate the breaking of rules are now qualifying that anti-player payment rules are somewhere between dumb and bad for the sport
The first makes getting caught less likely as well as punishment (even when caught!) less likely. And the second makes people less judgy about the cheating.
-
Awesome! Now that we have THAT resolved, let's move on to the issue of soccer-style flopping and faking injuries in college football... :)
-
Maybe I can pull off a tortured analogy. After World War II, the american manufacturing economy dominated worldwide largely because wartime bombings lessened manufacturing capabilities on every continent spare ours. That was a massive temporary advantage in the same way that the #1 bagmanners in CFB now have a temporary advantage, but will cease to have this much of an advantage when the world around them more fully steps up to the plate. To take this tortured analogy even further, we might acknowledge that some of those other European/Asian nations still had factories but not as many as was their true potential after WWII. Likewise, the US -- despite not being decimated -- could still build even more factories than they started with. But what we care about is fractional growth. The US's fraction (of new factories) was smaller than that of Europe and Asia, which is a relative disadvantage for the US now as compared to its advantage in the immediate-post-WWII environment.
I don't know enough about the world of CFB financial cheating to say if your analogy is any good or not, but that is a very nice capsule summary of our manufacturing supremacy for the first 15 or so years after WWII compared to the highly competitive environment we face now.
:13:
-
Awesome! Now that we have THAT resolved, let's move on to the issue of soccer-style flopping and faking injuries in college football... :)
perhaps soccer should clean this up
-
perhaps soccer should clean this up
Perhaps they should, but since I care a lot more about American football than I do about South American soccer, I'd say we have our own mess to worry about.
-
"Simulation" is already supposed to earn a caution (yellow). The problem is it's really hard to tell at game speed what is simulation, and what isn't. Not in all cases-there are instances that are obvious, but more often than not two players are in close proximity, one goes down in a way that is entirely consistent with contact (whether illegal or not), and, ps, running at full speed and having your foot, ankle, or shin kicked or stepped on hurts...a lot. Even if it doesn't cause lasting injury.
There's also a question of what is "simulation" (i.e., there was no contact/foul) and embellishment (as one coach I've heard called it, "helping the referee see the foul").
The Alex Morgan PK against the Netherlands is a good example. A lot of people complained that Morgan was simulating, but on VAR there was enough contact to warrant awarding the foul. And the bruise on her arm showed that she really was drilled on that play.
All that said, the cautions for simulation should come more often than they do. That would help.
PS Morgan "simulates" and embellishes more than most women players.
-
Alex Morgan may simulate and embellish anything she likes. I'll allow it.
-
Awesome! Now that we have THAT resolved, let's move on to the issue of soccer-style flopping and faking injuries in college football... :)
Way worse in basketball
-
Yeah I also don't care about basketball, so no worries there.
-
how about MLB?
-
how about MLB?
Flopping? Feigning a tag maybe.
-
Hidden ball trick?
-
A pitcher with vaseline under the bill of his cap?
-
This is a thorough takedown of the NCAA's arguments against the Skinner Bill. It also seems pretty well informed. Getting takes from Cfb51's resident lawyers will be interesting.
Link: https://prospect.org/article/college-athletes-should-be-able-earn-money-their-likeness
Key excerpts:
- Those familiar with the O’Bannon v. NCAA case may be hard pressed to stifle their laughter upon seeing the NCAA trot out such risible, well-refuted claims. …
- …the California bill does not prevent any other state’s colleges and universities from participating in the NCAA cartel’s collusive restrictions. Nor does it prevent California’s own schools from continuing to collude with other NCAA members to limit athlete compensation in other areas. The bill simply says that California universities cannot participate in cartel restrictions only with regard to NIL rights. In raising a Commerce Clause challenge on this issue, the NCAA would offer the absurd argument that SB206’s removal of a restraint on trade should be subordinate to a cartel’s nationwide imposition of that same restraint, a position at clear odds with the Sherman Antitrust Act.
- Any claim that the bill would “burden” interstate commerce is suspect for at least two other reasons. First, the bill does not impose additional regulations. Rather it deregulates, freeing college athletes from the economic restraints imposed upon their own identities by the NCAA, an economic cartel that has lost the last two antitrust cases it has faced. Second, the benefits to athletes are not local. Colleges and universities in California, like any other state, recruit nationally and internationally. As such, the NIL benefits would not be restricted by any state boundary. Further, any third party may compensate athletes competing for California schools in exchange for their NIL rights, not just California companies or individuals.
-
it's officially law now.
-
It's ridiculous. It was LEGAL before this bill was passed to be paid for your likeness. NOTHING CHANGED, at all, not one iota.
They made something already legal legal again.
-
we obviously need more laws on the books
-
This is a law making something LEGAL that has always and forever been legal.
-
It's ridiculous. It was LEGAL before this bill was passed to be paid for your likeness. NOTHING CHANGED, at all, not one iota.
They made something already legal legal again.
What the changes is they made it ILLEGAL for the universities to in any way punish you for it.
Previously, it was legal on a state level, against NCAA guidelines, and the universities were free to punish you for violating NCAA guidelines. Now it's illegal for the university to do so.
They didn't legalize likeness rights. They made NCAA enforcement [via the university at least] illegal.
-
It's legal but violates NCAA rules.
One case you might remember would be Olympic skier Jeremy Bloom, who was also a football player at Colorado. He was offered paid endorsements (using his own likeness for profit) by ski equipment and lifestyle brand sponsors, but the NCAA blocked him from playing collegiate football due to those endorsements.
This has always been the case, and this is exactly what the California legislation is aiming to eliminate as a power that the NCAA is allowed to wield.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=1867015 (https://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=1867015)
-
Unless universities had a contract otherwise.
And the university is not the one making it "illegal", it's the NCAA.
The universities could always allow it, but they'd get penalized, same as it is today (in 2023).
How can this possibly affect NCAA rules? If UCLA lets their players do it, they will be declared ineligible and UCLA will be penalized.
-
Unless universities had a contract otherwise.
And the university is not the one making it "illegal", it's the NCAA.
The universities could always allow it, but they'd get penalized, same as it is today (in 2023).
How can this possibly affect NCAA rules? If UCLA lets their players do it, they will be declared ineligible and UCLA will be penalized.
As discussed some upthread, if the NCAA (or the PAC) bans UCLA, then they're opening themselves up to the potential for some pretty serious anti-trust enforcement.
-
Do the universities have previous contracts with the NCAA?
-
The bill would allow athletes at California schools to hire agents and be paid for the use of their name, image or likeness. It would stop universities and the NCAA from banning athletes that take the money.
How can California stop the NCAA from banning atheletes? It this report correct?
-
How would CA penalize the NCAA if they simply banned all CA programs from their association?
-
The bill would allow athletes at California schools to hire agents and be paid for the use of their name, image or likeness. It would stop universities and the NCAA from banning athletes that take the money.
How can California stop the NCAA from banning atheletes? It this report correct?
How would CA penalize the NCAA if they simply banned all CA programs from their association?
CA has no power over the NCAA. That summation of the report is incorrect because the CA legislature cannot stop the NCAA from expelling CA athletic programs from NCAA competition.
What it does is basically put the NCAA into the choice of doing two things it doesn't want to do:
- Relent and allow athletes to hire agents and profit off of their names/likenesses.
- Expel California schools from NCAA competition.
Other schools won't want to compete against CA if they have this advantage and they do not.
It's a gamble. It also is the first shot in the hopes that other states enact similar laws, forcing the NCAA into #1 because if several other large states with several NCAA athletic programs create the same law, the NCAA has no ability to enforce their own regulations without simply banning huge swaths of teams from competing. Teams which will then go create a parallel organization to sanction their athletics.
This is a major piece of legislation for college athletics. I don't know why you're having trouble seeing it.
-
The NCAA's power is solely, and wholely, granted to it by its member institutions.
To date, those member institutions have fallen in line with the NCAA on any types of payments to players, for a multitude of reasons, some of which are wholesome and some of which are less so. Regardless, as long as those member institutions toed the line, then the power remained with the NCAA.
But even aside from the state legislatures and their activities, there is now more sentiment than I've ever seen before, coming from coaches and athletic administrators all over the country including some of the richest, most powerful, and most prestigious, universities, that some type of payment should be allowed. And allowing 3rd party endorsements like this is the safest* way for universities to attempt to handle this.
*safest in this sense only because it has no direct risk or liability for the university since they wouldn't be providing any of the payments
I think the tide is changing on this issue, and I think we're talking WHEN not IF this occurs nation-wide. The only question remaining is, will the NCAA be a part of it, or will the member institutions revoke the power they've currently granted the NCAA, and move it elsewhere, into a separate governing body?
-
The NCAA is going to lose this battle. California will not be the only state and many will follow.
-
The NCAA is going to lose this battle. California will not be the only state and many will follow.
A Florida representative has already introduced a bill that would do the same thing starting July 2020.
-
Quote from Cincy on the other thread:
Are any other states considering this legislation? The NCAA could just go hardball if it's only CA and NY.
"Our rules will not change, and team that violates them will be penalized."
I believe there are several now, I've heard as many as ten? Florida is included. And I believe I read somewhere that a US Senator from North Carolina is working on a Federal bill. Not sure how that would work, but there are obviously a lot of folks interested in challenging the NCAA.
-
At least I understand the new law better now, it makes punishing the kid illegal by the university, which was not illegal before.
How many CFB players each year would "benefit" from this do you think? Of the current players, how many could make money from their likeness (ignore recruiting shiftiness)?
Are we talking ten?
-
At least I understand the new law better now, it makes punishing the kid illegal by the university, which was not illegal before.
How many CFB players each year would "benefit" from this do you think? Of the current players, how many could make money from their likeness (ignore recruiting shiftiness)?
Are we talking ten?
Nationally? Not many. Maybe not even ten.
But locally/regionally, I could imagine Colt McCoy could have made a fair chunk of change doing local ads. He did so right after he graduated, and so did Jordan Shipley, his best friend and best WR target over the years. Ricky Williams would have done well in the state. And Sam Ellingher could probably also make some decent money doing local endorsements starting today if he were allowed.
I'd expect the same would be true of a well liked QB or RB in Athens or Tuscaloosa or Columbus.
-
Nationally? Not many. Maybe not even ten.
But locally/regionally, I could imagine Colt McCoy could have made a fair chunk of change doing local ads. He did so right after he graduated, and so did Jordan Shipley, his best friend and best WR target over the years. Ricky Williams would have done well in the state. And Sam Ellingher could probably also make some decent money doing local endorsements starting today if he were allowed.
I'd expect the same would be true of a well liked QB or RB in Athens or Tuscaloosa or Columbus.
Agreed, but I'd expand the last comment (if your examples were intended to imply only blue blood markets would be interested). Depending on local support, I could see 2-5 players from each school being contacted immediately upon a rule/law change.
-
Agreed, but I'd expand the last comment (if your examples were intended to imply only blue blood markets would be interested). Depending on local support, I could see 2-5 players from each school being contacted immediately upon a rule/law change.
Sure. Not so much blueblood programs, as programs with large local/regional fanbases.
For example, just from personal experience, I'd expect a college-aged Colt McCoy to be able to gain a lot more compensation for his likeness, than I would a college-aged Robert Griffin III, despite the fact that RG3 ended up winning the Heisman and Colt McCoy did not. UT is simply a much larger school with a much larger local/regional following, than Baylor is.
-
A Florida representative has already introduced a bill that would do the same thing starting July 2020.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/after-california-illinois-lawmakers-rush-to-file-legislation-allowing-college/article_9e090bb0-e3c8-11e9-b239-63d5f5641b16.html?utm_source=Illinois&utm_campaign=ae94d6a4e5-ILLINOIS_B2C_NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3386e99c24-ae94d6a4e5-26273211
Illinois...
-
Formatting didn't come through, here's the link to the article. Lots of information about the various states and Federal bills in the works to challenge the NCAA's current amateurism policies.
https://theathletic.com/1247501/2019/10/01/looking-into-the-ncaas-model-i-saw-it-was-egregious-athlete-compensation-has-become-a-bipartisan-matter/ (https://theathletic.com/1247501/2019/10/01/looking-into-the-ncaas-model-i-saw-it-was-egregious-athlete-compensation-has-become-a-bipartisan-matter/)
‘Looking into the NCAA’s model, I saw it was egregious’: Athlete compensation has become a bipartisan matter
U.S. Congressman Mark Walker didn’t realize the power the NCAA holds until this spring. An incumbent from North Carolina, Walker traveled a unique path to Capitol Hill, working as a Baptist minister for 16 years before entering Congress in 2015 as a Republican elected on a campaign promise of “people over politics.” That promise brought NCAA leaders to his office earlier this year.
Walker represents North Carolina’s 6th District, a middle-class community located in the outskirts of the cities that college basketball’s blue-blood schools, Duke and the University of North Carolina, call home. Walker arrived in the state in 1991 during an era of Duke men’s basketball dominance punctuated by its rivalry with the University of Michigan. Over time, this rivalry and the characters playing a part in it served as a catalyst for him to consider as a legislator how to protect the publicity rights of NCAA athletes.
“Watching the Duke-Michigan rivalry in the heart of college basketball and becoming a Duke fan, I remember how the Fab Five changed basketball as it was then known,” Walker recounted. “There was a sense of marketing behind their black socks and longer shorts. While Chris Webber, Juwan Howard and Jalen Rose went on to professional basketball careers, Jimmy King and Ray Jackson didn’t profit from any of it. Over the years, I found myself thinking about this a time or two.”
As a minister, Walker has spent a fair amount of time working with underprivileged communities in the inner city. A sports fan, he has hosted sport camps for children who otherwise may not have access to such opportunities. These experiences drove him to investigate how NCAA athletes are compensated.
“I pay attention to college sports more than anything else,” Walker said. “The more I began looking into the NCAA’s model, I saw it was egregious. It is only the NCAA athlete who has to sign a moratorium to profit off of their name, image and likeness. We don’t ask other scholarship students, who unlike most NCAA athletes have time to pick up part-time work, play in bands or complete internships, to do this. I asked how it got this way and why there is such a resistance to even take a look at this.”
These findings led Walker to introduce to Congress the Student-Athlete Equity Act (https://walker.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/walker-introduces-student-athlete-equity-act-end-ncaa-restrictions). The legislation would change the NCAA’s amateurism model by defining “a qualified amateur sports organization in the tax code to remove the restriction on student-athletes using or being compensated for use of their name, image and likeness.” The proposal is a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Louisiana Democratic Congressman Cedric Richmond.
It is this proposal that led top NCAA officials to Walker’s Washington office and to Walker recognizing the power of the $1 billion annual revenue-generating (https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/news/companies/ncaa-revenue-billion/index.html) enterprise he had taken on.
“I found out how powerful the NCAA is, and even their influence in Washington D.C., when four of their top brass showed up in my office in the spring of 2019,” he said. “They weren’t ugly about it, but I was surprised by one of their questions. He said, ‘What do you think you’re trying to accomplish here?’ The other three were cordial, but tried to convince me this would open the door to corruption. I didn’t laugh out loud, but this was after LSU head men’s basketball coach, Will Wade, had been recorded with a middleman trying to make payments to obtain a recruit.” (While Wade was evasive (https://sports.yahoo.com/lsu-coach-will-wade-evades-questions-about-federal-wiretaps-185918777.html) when asked to explain what was meant by a “strong-ass offer,” LSU reinstated him following a meeting with the school and NCAA officials to explain and clarify the wiretap and said he denied wrongdoing related to college basketball recruiting.)
Walker’s federal proposal is one of a growing number of pieces of legislation recently proposed or passed aimed at changing how NCAA athletes can be compensated.
Last month, California legislators unanimously passed the Fair Pay to Play Act, which was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday during an episode of LeBron James’ “The Shop.” The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, 2023, prohibits the NCAA from preventing NCAA athletes from profiting off of their names, images and likenesses. The NCAA has indicated it will challenge the law (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-responds-california-senate-bill-206) in court on constitutional grounds.
California’s law is expected to lead to the enactment of similar state laws nationally. New York state Sen. Kevin Parker recently proposed a similar bill. South Carolina legislators Marlon Kimpson and Justin Bamberg, and two bipartisan legislators from Colorado have indicated they will propose bills when their respective legislatures convene in January 2020. Florida Democratic Rep. Kionne McGhee introduced FL HB 251, the Students Participating in Intercollegiate Athletics bill. While McGhee’s bill resembles California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, the New York proposal and South Carolina’s planned proposal include require NCAA member institutions to make additional revenue-based payments to NCAA athletes.
For South Carolina Rep. Bamberg, a momentum shift has allowed the possibility of changing how NCAA athletes are compensated.
“A few years ago, Sen. Kimpson and myself filed a bill that would have required schools, contingent on the revenue produced by respective sports, to compensate student-athletes in said sports, but were met with a lot of resistance,” he said. “The resistance wasn’t even so much from the schools disagreeing with the basic concept. It was the schools’ fear of the intimidation that was coming their way from the NCAA.”
Bamberg asserts he and Kimpson were inspired to revisit the issue after the passage of California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, recognizing the possibility of compensating athletes from an intellectual property and publicity rights model.
“There are players who can’t afford gas, pay their rent or take their girlfriend on a date,” he said. “If they get financial help from anybody, they lose their eligibility. I’ve had friends play college football who I watched struggle financially growing up. After college, it is as if they never left the poor area they grew up in. They are celebrated and everyone wants to buy their jerseys, but they still can’t afford to put gas in their car. It’s a new-age version of extortion.”
As other states follow California’s lead, legislators believe a legislative wave challenging the NCAA’s compensation model is rising.
“We have been talking to other legislators and I have fielded a number of calls from around the country from people, including community-based organizations, seeking to learn how they can help,” Kimpson said. “We will be meeting with legislators in the Democratic Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus on the matter.”
Both Republican and Democrat legislators see the issue as bipartisan.
“This is a non-partisan issue,” Kimpson said. “I’ve been reached out to by several Republican legislators in support of the proposal.”
U.S. Congressman Walker agreed.
“This is a bipartisan issue,” Walker said. “I am a small, limited government guy and my goal is not to tell the NCAA how to run their nonprofit. But I have a responsibility as a member of Congress to speak out about injustice if there is an infringement on the rights of these young adults. When you have an organization making hundreds of millions of dollars on the backs of unpaid labor, you have to ask how we got to this point. People like Rep. Cedric Richmond, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, partnered on this bill to make sure nobody would put it in a partisan camp. We think it will pass on the House floor and we would like that to happen by the Spring of 2020.”
While partisan politics may not present a barrier to the passage of the proposed legislation, each of the legislators fears that NCAA public relations may present a serious hurdle.
“The NCAA is branding this as ‘pay to play,’ which is not what it is,” Walker said of his bill. “The biggest concern we have to address is figuring out a way to unwind the stereotype or false message that this bill is ‘pay to play.’ Where the dam breaks in our favor is when people begin realizing we are not trying to take from their alma maters or the NCAA. We just want these young men and women to have the same earning potential as every other American. When people think about college athletes, they think most will turn professional and make millions of dollars. That is not the case. Ninety-nine percent of NCAA athletes never receive a dollar from a professional sports contract. When they have a chance during their early adulthood to market themselves, they should have access to do it. Maybe they can’t wear their university logo while doing it, but there’s a way through this. We don’t want to take anything from the universities or NCAA. I am a capitalist. Rock and roll with what you’re doing, but just don’t restrict other people from having access to do the same.”
Kimpson echoed Walker’s sentiments.
“The pushback we’ve heard time and time again is that this is violative of the NCAA’s rules and that in order to stay in good standing with the NCAA, we can’t do this,” Kimpson said. “People say it will ruin college football and basketball as we know it, but the evidence is quite to the contrary. There is already a competitive advantage the big colleges have against the smaller NCAA Division I schools and even among individual programs. Look at Clemson’s football program’s $55 million football facility (https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-clemsons-football-facility-2017-10), which has a barber shop and putt putt course. The Clemson soccer team doesn’t get to use that. Competitive balance is a fiction that needs to be exposed, and we are building a coalition of lawmakers across the country to expose that fiction.”
As the coalition assembles, time may be ticking for the NCAA to address this issue with its own legislation.
“The NCAA has been promising for years that they would look at this,” Walker said. “When I first talked to Jay Bilas about this two years ago, the NCAA promised they would resolve this. At their annual meetings over the last two years, nothing has been done.”
For Bamberg, addressing how NCAA athletes are compensated is an issue of fundamental fairness.
“College athletics has changed,” he said. “That is evident in the money the NCAA generates and the money people tied to it are paid. The only thing that hasn’t changed is how the athletes get treated. They are the last piece of the puzzle. We have to plug something in place to make sure they are taken care of. It is not cool to see a young man or woman, who by all accounts couldn’t even afford to buy a new pair of socks or underwear, struggling, knowing they are generating billions of dollars in revenue and if they were to borrow the money from someone, they would get kicked out of college sports.”
Walker, the minister-turned-politician who came to age in the shadows of blue-blood college basketball, is surprised as anyone that he is the federal legislator carrying the torch to reinvent how NCAA athletes are paid.
“I was in ministry for 16 years and do not have a law degree, but am surprised that in the last 40 years with the rising values of college television contracts, stadium size increases and exploding revenue generation that nobody took this up,” he said. “The fact that the NCAA refuses to engage on this at all really blows me away, because we are talking about a free market concept. It is the government’s job to make sure the rights of these students are protected.”
In response to a request for comment, the NCAA replied with a copy of the letter (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-responds-california-senate-bill-206) the NCAA Board of Governors sent Newsom in response to the Fair Pay to Play Act. In a statement (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-statement-gov-newsom-signing-sb-206) following Newsom’s signing of the Fair Pay to Play Act, the NCAA focused on the confusion the law could create as other states have yet to enact similar bills. The Pac-12 Conference, which is headquartered in California, indicated (https://pac-12.com/article/2019/09/30/statement-pac-12-signing-california-sb-206?amp&__twitter_impression=true) it was “disappointed” by the passage of the Fair Pay to Play Act and asserted the law would have a negative impact on NCAA athletes in the state.
-
Sure. Not so much blueblood programs, as programs with large local/regional fanbases.
For example, just from personal experience, I'd expect a college-aged Colt McCoy to be able to gain a lot more compensation for his likeness, than I would a college-aged Robert Griffin III, despite the fact that RG3 ended up winning the Heisman and Colt McCoy did not. UT is simply a much larger school with a much larger local/regional following, than Baylor is.
Sure, but RG3 is absolutely getting offers in that scenario. I took CD's comment to mean the quantity of players getting endorsement deals, not $ amount.
Every fanbase has local car dealerships, etc, in the area and every team has at least a couple marketable players.
-
I had not considered the potential for local offers from car dealerships etc., my bad.
Now I'm worried.
-
I had not considered the potential for local offers from car dealerships etc., my bad.
Now I'm worried.
This is how cheater programs funnel money to players anyway. They give them fake jobs at car dealerships owned by Friends of the Program, and don't make them show up. I'm not sure this aspect is really all that different except now, even programs that have shied away from cheating, will be able to do it above the table.
-
The NCAA is going to lose this battle. California will not be the only state and many will follow.
i've already offered up my expert legal opinion* once, and got promptly shut down by... someone, maybe you @Entropy (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1559) , i can't remember who is a lawyer here.
but some attorneys on reddit seem to think the ncaa has a decent leg to stand on with the commerce clause. this is a copy/paste from one such post on there, with a direct quote from a case concerning the commerce clause test:
"When a state statute directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, or when its effect is to favor in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry. When, however, a statute has only indirect effects on interstate commerce and regulates evenhandedly, we have examined whether the State's interest is legitimate and whether the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits."
Miller vs NCAA (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3708408270532117994&q=ncaa+v.+miller&hl=en&as_sdt=40006#p638)
"Translated, if a state statute affects interstate commerce (even if that's not the intention), it can be ruled unconstitutional."
the miller vs ncaa case dealt with a state enacting a law that affected ncaa rules/regulations and how one state's laws affected other state's institutions and how the ncaa treated them vs others. not all that different from the cal law. the 9th circuit court (which this law, if challenged in court, will be seen in 9th circuit, or so i'm told) ruled in ncaa favor, and attorneys and people much smarter than me think this has precedent. other, also much smarter than me, think otherwise. point is, i don't think it's a slam dunk either way.
my humble guess is that by the time all this is done, likeness, etc will be gainful for the students, but with major limitations in amounts and how-to's, etc.
* - all that "expert legal opinion" is fully tongue in cheek, i am clearly not an attorney, and have no expertise in the legal realm.
-
i've already offered up my expert legal opinion* once, and got promptly shut down by... someone, maybe you @Entropy (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1559) , i can't remember who is a lawyer here.
but some attorneys on reddit seem to think the ncaa has a decent leg to stand on with the commerce clause. this is a copy/paste from one such post on there, with a direct quote from a case concerning the commerce clause test:
"When a state statute directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, or when its effect is to favor in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry. When, however, a statute has only indirect effects on interstate commerce and regulates evenhandedly, we have examined whether the State's interest is legitimate and whether the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits."
Miller vs NCAA (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3708408270532117994&q=ncaa+v.+miller&hl=en&as_sdt=40006#p638)
"Translated, if a state statute affects interstate commerce (even if that's not the intention), it can be ruled unconstitutional."
the miller vs ncaa case dealt with a state enacting a law that affected ncaa rules/regulations and how one state's laws affected other state's institutions and how the ncaa treated them vs others. not all that different from the cal law. the 9th circuit court (which this law, if challenged in court, will be seen in 9th circuit, or so i
m told) ruled in ncaa favor, and attorneys and people much smarter than me think this has precedent. other, also much smarter than me, think otherwise. point it, i don't think it's a slam dunk either way.
my humble guess is that by the time all this is done, likeness, etc will be gainful for the students, but with major limitations in amounts and how-to's, etc.
* - all that "expert legal opinion" is fully tongue in cheek, i am clearly not an attorney, and have no expertise in the legal realm.
That's all well and good-- until the bipartisan-supported Federal bill passes.
-
That's all well and good-- until the bipartisan-supported Federal bill passes.
and that's fine too.
-
and that's fine too.
Heh. We're all just along for the ride, as always. It'll be interesting to see how it develops, and if anything changes fundamentally.
-
From the other thread:
I think the schools will want to protect the multi billion dollar pie
it's a slippery slope that slides to the unknown
guys holding big money don't like the unknown because they aren't assured the money won't go away
you know, like the end of the sport
I would guess the networks are also worried about the unknown and how it will affect their revenue
Most of that pie goes back to the students, FYI. There are close to a half billion athletes at NCAA schools, and the total revenue is $14 Billion. Add up the costs for tuition, fees, books, housing, food, training, medical staff, etc. and this becomes clear. Add it up.
But, the Governor of California claims that the athletes "put their lives on the line* and get nothing".
* He thinks athletes are forced to fight in Afghanistan too, apparently.
-
From the other thread:
Most of that pie goes back to the students, FYI. There are close to a half billion athletes at NCAA schools, and the total revenue is $14 Billion. Add up the costs for tuition, fees, books, housing, food, training, medical staff, etc. and this becomes clear. Add it up.
But, the Governor of California claims that the athletes "put their lives on the line* and get nothing".
* He thinks athletes are forced to fight in Afghanistan too, apparently.
Can I see those numbers added up? At Wisconsin scholarships were just short of half the facilities budget, 30 percent of what was spent on staff overall. The 11 football staffers and four basketball staffers earn 74 percent of the total scholarship payout. (I also assume that half billion includes the ones paying their own way, correct?)
Here's the thing, if the olympic model happens, it'll turn out, lots of players can't get the money they think they can. They'll go back to taking their scholarship and be pleased to have it. And the ones that don't have a scholarship and enjoy some perks, they'll like that too.
As for the getting money to being forced into all this. Paul Chryst would probably coach UW for $100,000 a year. Most of these guys would accept reasonable money. But they get unreasonable money. Because it's a business, and that dictates it. It's all a big, giant beautiful business, up until the bottom part.
-
Can I see those numbers added up? At Wisconsin scholarships were just short of half the facilities budget, 30 percent of what was spent on staff overall. The 11 football staffers and four basketball staffers earn 74 percent of the total scholarship payout. (I also assume that half billion includes the ones paying their own way, correct?)
Here's the thing, if the olympic model happens, it'll turn out, lots of players can't get the money they think they can. They'll go back to taking their scholarship and be pleased to have it. And the ones that don't have a scholarship and enjoy some perks, they'll like that too.
As for the getting money to being forced into all this. Paul Chryst would probably coach UW for $100,000 a year. Most of these guys would accept reasonable money. But they get unreasonable money. Because it's a business, and that dictates it. It's all a big, giant beautiful business, up until the bottom part.
Just to clarify, I don't think anyone's talking about removing the scholarships, and one reason is that you're right-- lots of players would receive very little endorsement money. These would be 3rd party payments above and beyond, and completely separate from, whatever the schools are already providing.
That's a major reason this particular path appeals to some university administrators and coaches-- it would be business as usual for the schools. Zero implications to their budgets or their liability.
-
I actually think this will be a bigger deal for basketball than football because they are more marketable because they don’t wear helmets.
If I’m a fan of Oregon and Maryland I’m licking my chops. They have prominent alumni who run major sporting apparel companies. We keep hearing about local car dealerships offering kids a little money to appear in local commercials. Nike and Under Armour have the ability to offer much more than that.
-
Just to clarify, I don't think anyone's talking about removing the scholarships, and one reason is that you're right-- lots of players would receive very little endorsement money. These would be 3rd party payments above and beyond, and completely separate from, whatever the schools are already providing.
That's a major reason this particular path appeals to some university administrators and coaches-- it would be business as usual for the schools. Zero implications to their budgets or their liability.
Well, I’m not exactly sure ZERO implications is accurate. If I’m a local businessman who does very well himself but still isn’t Bill Gates then maybe I give $50k a year to my school. If approached maybe I can start giving some of that directly to players for endorsement opportunities but I may not have the means to give $50k for endorsements and then give my usual $50k to the university. I might just have to tell the AD, “Look I have $50k set aside to give to the athletic department. I can funnel that anyway you choose but I can only afford to give my usual $50k.”
-
The scholarship athlete's pay is their scholarship, medical, room and board, and all the other goodies. If that's not enough for them they are free to take their wares elsewhere which many do after a couple years.
-
The scholarship athlete's pay is their scholarship, room and board, and all the other goodies. If that's not enough for them them they are free to take their wares elsewhere which many do after a couple years.
The counter to that though is the same is true for someone there on an academic scholarship and they aren’t punished by anyone if they earn a little extra money for their image and likeness being used.
-
Well, I’m not exactly sure ZERO implications is accurate. If I’m a local businessman who does very well himself but still isn’t Bill Gates then maybe I give $50k a year to my school. If approached maybe I can start giving some of that directly to players for endorsement opportunities but I may not have the means to give $50k for endorsements and then give my usual $50k to the university. I might just have to tell the AD, “Look I have $50k set aside to give to the athletic department. I can funnel that anyway you choose but I can only afford to give my usual $50k.”
Very good point, and another example of the many layers of nuance this will have. I'd expect the richest schools would be able to absorb it one way or the other. The middlin ones would end up making some choices, and the poorest schools already don't benefit from such donations, and wouldn't in the future state, either.
-
The counter to that though is the same is true for someone there on an academic scholarship and they aren’t punished by anyone if they earn a little extra money for their image and likeness being used.
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.
-
As I am now a lawyer, I am looking for those here that are to help me with a question. What exactly does this California bill do? AS far as I know, it is not currently illegal (from a legal standpoint, not an NCAA standpoint) for a player to profit from their likeness. It only becomes an issue with the NCAA as far as their eligibility to compete in a sport for a member institution. From what I can tell, this is really a meaningless bill. I don't know of any local or federal laws that would currently prohibit a player from doing that now. But if they are caught, they are ruled ineligible by the NCAA. I don't think a bill passed in California can tell the NCAA they have to change their rules.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
-
Great minds ... the new bill prevents the state universities from penalizing a player who uses this tactic.
That is really the law (as of 2023).
-
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.
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.
-
As I am now a lawyer, I am looking for those here that are to help me with a question. What exactly does this California bill do? AS far as I know, it is not currently illegal (from a legal standpoint, not an NCAA standpoint) for a player to profit from their likeness. It only becomes an issue with the NCAA as far as their eligibility to compete in a sport for a member institution. From what I can tell, this is really a meaningless bill. I don't know of any local or federal laws that would currently prohibit a player from doing that now. But if they are caught, they are ruled ineligible by the NCAA. I don't think a bill passed in California can tell the NCAA they have to change their rules.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
Hey, I hear you. I'm just exploring the details from an academic/scientific view. I do consider being in school to be a benefit, and especially if one would not have been able to attend school without the athletic ability.
-
Marshall had a VB player that had like 20 billion instagram followers. So she figured out a way to profit off of her likeness.
-
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.
Yeah, you can't tell me that all of those girls in "Naughty Coeds 69" weren't athletes. Rule-breakers! Spankings, all-around!
-
Marshall had a VB player that had like 20 billion instagram followers. So she figured out a way to profit off of her likeness.
Florida had one, too. She was from Puerto Rico I think. Short, but lovely.
-
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.
Imagine 80,000 people watching you, on baited breathe as you do your exam....no thanks, lol.
-
To sum up:
1. A law of this ilk appears probable to be passed in multiple states and eventually Federal.
2. The core of it prevents the school from penalizing a player for being compensated for use of his likeness etc.
Do I have that right, as from details like hiring an agent?
-
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.
As for your first comment, I didn't take it that you were being a jerk. I don't get to this board as often as I like and generally don't have time to read through the entire thread. I read the last couple of pages and it occurred to me that it seems highly unlikely that it is currently illegal for a college athlete to make money on their likeness, hence the question. But thanks for the explanation, you summed it up nicely. Thanks
-
The key is that the bill would make it illegal to penalize said player, that is a point I missed as well.
-
Yesterday afternoon I caught a little bit of ESPN's college football show with Joey Galloway and Dave Pollack discussing this issue. Pollack brought up a great point during the discussion. He said something to the effect that if a guy is at a smaller school and starts out the year putting up ridiculous numbers and really tearing it up, what is to stop him from leaving the team after the 4th game, taking a red shirt and entering the transfer portal to go looking for the big money.
-
Yesterday afternoon I caught a little bit of ESPN's college football show with Joey Galloway and Dave Pollack discussing this issue. Pollack brought up a great point during the discussion. He said something to the effect that if a guy is at a smaller school and starts out the year putting up ridiculous numbers and really tearing it up, what is to stop him from leaving the team after the 4th game, taking a red shirt and entering the transfer portal to go looking for the big money.
If this spreads all the way to all universities/conferences across the nation, as I believe it likely will, then nothing in the current rules will stop that. The transfer portal could become a free agency window. That's definitely one of the fears.
But the next question is, is that a bad thing? Is there a reason for it NOT to happen, other than our long-standing desire for "honor and commitment" from players that elect to attend our own universities? Coaches have never been forced to honor their contracts/commitments, and yet we expect and desire the players to do so?
Bottom line is that college athletics are ever-changing, and this is another one in a long line of changes. Whether or not we want to live with it is a choice we all must make. Many of the rule changes in the NFL game have rendered me almost non-caring about that sport. Some of the changes in college football are leading me in that direction, too.
-
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?
That kind of strikes me as a net negative, though with some positive stories coming out of it. Assuming we're talking about admission standards.
-
https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=yahoosports&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2_xjHU5jy_asJS2utKaUc7e3AFy9HoEA8_WhOuyv0DcllArujUh5Ej_B4 (https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=yahoosports&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2_xjHU5jy_asJS2utKaUc7e3AFy9HoEA8_WhOuyv0DcllArujUh5Ej_B4)
In the past three years in football recruiting there have been 97 players ranked as 5-star recruits by Rivals.com (http://rivals.com/). Five schools (Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio State and LSU) signed a combined 55 of them, leaving just 42 for the remaining 125 FBS schools. Five schools got nearly 57 percent of the best players.
The current top five teams in the weekly AP poll? No. 1. Alabama. 2. Clemson. 3. Georgia. 4. Ohio State. 5. LSU.
-
So it's the Jimmys and the Joes?
-
And coaching of course. I do see a chance for some lesser programs to become "competitive", as discussed.
-
I don't think colleges and universities should pay scholarship athletes for being athletes. But I guess I'm fine with a scholarship athlete taking a night job flipping pizzas or modeling his face. Any images of the athlete should not include school logos, unis, etc. unless the school gets a royalty as is the current case with t-shirts, caps, etc.
-
Yeah I don't think the schools would allow the individual athletes to use their team logos or team names. I suspect that would implicate them in ways I think they'd rather avoid.
But there'd be nothing stopping Tua from appearing in a red jersey with white numbers, holding a football, saying his name and mentioning he's a college football QB.
-
I haven't read the law, but the universities still control their own images, so this profiting from their likeness likely means two things: (1) selling themselves outside of the university, without the university's trappings; and maybe less likely, but I still think probable: (2) players unionizing to share in the profits of university sales of images/likenesses.
Will it change the landscape? Absolutely. Will it compromise the world of college athletics forever? Probably not. Will it make the world of big-time college athletics (e.g., football and men's basketball) even more slanted towards the haves? Maybe, but not necessarily. Phil Knight and T. Boone Pickens show that you don't have to be a helmet to have wealthy supporters.
-
I haven't read the law, but the universities still control their own images, so this profiting from their likeness likely means two things: (1) selling themselves outside of the university, without the university's trappings; and maybe less likely, but I still think probable: (2) players unionizing to share in the profits of university sales of images/likenesses.
Will it change the landscape? Absolutely. Will it compromise the world of college athletics forever? Probably not. Will it make the world of big-time college athletics (e.g., football and men's basketball) even more slanted towards the haves? Maybe, but not necessarily. Phil Knight and T. Boone Pickens show that you don't have to be a helmet to have wealthy supporters.
Right now it's specifically about ensuring the universities cannot prevent 3rd parties paying individual athletes directly, for the use of their own image/likeness. So right now it's all about scenario #1.
I could potentially see your second scenario eventually coming into play, but it would require additional legislation/courtroom activity. I'm pretty sure the universities would prefer to avoid #2, which is why I think they're going to cave on #1 quickly and try to avoid sliding any further down the slippery slope. But of course, we'll see.
-
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.
Trying to figure out the anti-trust violations in this. The NCAA doesn't require a school to be part of it for the school to have a football team. There are a number of college football organizations. If the NCAA kicks you out there is nothing to prevent you from forming your own football organization. There is no restrain of trade, the schools are free to get their own TV contracts, etc.
There has been talk for years about the upper level schools going out of their own separate from the NCAA for a number of years. If they did what can the NCAA do to stop them?
-
I used to work for a large company. "We" had to be careful, at least back when, to avoid restraint of trade issues with smaller competitors. A huge company can offer a grocery chain a "deal" on some product like say "Tide" if said company also puts "Always pads" on an end of aisle display. If you do this when some smaller operation has come out with a new sanitary pad, you might well be in for a fight with the guvmint. You can also just happen to drop your prices just as a new competitor enters the market.*
The NCAA is voluntary, but they also wield considerable power ($$$) and they could be seen to be preventing other schools from forming their own associations by for example locking up all the lucrative TV contracts ahead of time. Maybe.
What I know all of this could be summed up by saying "It's a tricky area" that makes lawyers wealthier.
*My favorite story was by the guy who started Formula 409. He was doing well enough to attract attention of a, um, large company who will remain nameless. Said large company developed it's own product and started a test market in Denver, CO. The Formula 409 guy saw this and pulled ALL of his product from the shelves in Denver. The large company had a HUGE test market result and then expended into the mountain states. The Formula 409 guy just before this dropped a two for one on his product in the mountain states. The test market expansion flopped, and the unnamed large company withdrew.
-
I agree regarding the universities' motivations, but they will run into problems when they sell their own images/access to their images, which they do all the time. The picture of my star quarterback delivering a pass under pressure during the big game? I license it for sale, but since he now owns rights to it also (and I can't prevent him, through a scholarship agreement, from having that right), I'm hamstrung. I want to sell that picture, so what am I to do, except negotiate some kind of payment to him?
-
Ok... So we're all arguing about the law now. Might be a good time to post the law. Since you know the googles makes it pretty easy to find it...
SEC. 2.
Section 67456 is added to the Education Code, to read:
67456.
(a) (1) A postsecondary educational institution shall not uphold any rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation that prevents a student of that institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. Earning compensation from the use of a student’s name, image, or likeness shall not affect the student’s scholarship eligibility.
(2) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a student of a postsecondary educational institution participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.
(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.
(b) A postsecondary educational institution, athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics shall not provide a prospective student athlete with compensation in relation to the athlete’s name, image, or likeness.
(c) (1) A postsecondary educational institution, athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics shall not prevent a California student participating in intercollegiate athletics from obtaining professional representation in relation to contracts or legal matters, including, but not limited to, representation provided by athlete agents or legal representation provided by attorneys.
(2) Professional representation obtained by student athletes shall be from persons licensed by the state. Professional representation provided by athlete agents shall be by persons licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 18895) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code. Legal representation of student athletes shall be by attorneys licensed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6000) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(3) Athlete agents representing student athletes shall comply with the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, established in Chapter 104 (commencing with Section 7801) of Title 15 of the United States Code, in their relationships with student athletes.
(d) A scholarship from the postsecondary educational institution in which a student is enrolled that provides the student with the cost of attendance at that institution is not compensation for purposes of this section, and a scholarship shall not be revoked as a result of earning compensation or obtaining legal representation pursuant to this section.
(e) (1) A student athlete shall not enter into a contract providing compensation to the athlete for use of the athlete’s name, image, or likeness if a provision of the contract is in conflict with a provision of the athlete’s team contract.
(2) A student athlete who enters into a contract providing compensation to the athlete for use of the athlete’s name, image, or likeness shall disclose the contract to an official of the institution, to be designated by the institution.
(3) An institution asserting a conflict described in paragraph (1) shall disclose to the athlete or the athlete’s legal representation the relevant contractual provisions that are in conflict.
(f) A team contract of a postsecondary educational institution’s athletic program shall not prevent a student athlete from using the athlete’s name, image, or likeness for a commercial purpose when the athlete is not engaged in official team activities. It is the intent of the Legislature that this prohibition shall apply only to contracts entered into, modified, or renewed on or after the enactment of this section.
(g) For purposes of this section, “postsecondary educational institution” means any campus of the University of California or the California State University, an independent institution of higher education, as defined in Section 66010, or a private postsecondary educational institution, as defined in Section 94858.
(h) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2023.
In bold are the portions I think might not stand up in court. I think this basically is trying to regulate the NCAA, which would likely fail. It explicitly bars the NCAA from enforcing their own rules, and explicitly bars the NCAA from expelling California athletic programs from NCAA-sanctioned competition over their inability to comply with NCAA rules after this bill passes.
I think someone earlier posted Miller v NCAA, which was adjudicated on very similar grounds. It was a Nevada law that put a bunch of requirements on the NCAA as it relates to due process when taking enforcement actions, and barred the NCAA from expelling Nevada colleges and universities from NCAA competition. It was struck down easily, and a good portion of it [from reading the decision] was based on interstate commerce precedent.
The italicized portion likely affects what we're talking about regarding actually referencing the team or appearing in team uniform, etc. I.e. the team itself can say via a team contract that any use of likeness rights cannot use the university's name or official logos, uniform, etc. I would expect that this will be the case, if for no other reason that the university itself makes a great deal of money based on licensing, and to allow a loophole where people are using the university name/logo without the university getting a cut goes around that.
-
Trying to figure out the anti-trust violations in this. The NCAA doesn't require a school to be part of it for the school to have a football team. There are a number of college football organizations. If the NCAA kicks you out there is nothing to prevent you from forming your own football organization. There is no restrain of trade, the schools are free to get their own TV contracts, etc.
There has been talk for years about the upper level schools going out of their own separate from the NCAA for a number of years. If they did what can the NCAA do to stop them?
This is not the analysis used for antitrust violations. Instead:
(1) Define the market: in this case, the market for college athletes' services is a pretty easy market to see;
(2) Determine market share: the NCAA has the overwhelming share;
(3) Determine the litigant's market power (for markets that have more contested market shares, this analysis often turns on the litigant's ability take action that significantly impacts market pricing): with the overwhelming share of the market, the NCAA wields massive market power;
(4) Is the litigant using its (the NCAA's overwhelming) market power in anti-competitive ways, i.e., restricting competition for those college athletes' services? The argument in favor of giving more to the athletes says yes.
Where the NCAA fights its fight is primarily directed at defining the market (1). The NCAA says there is no college athletes' services market if there is no amateur college athletics--that amateurism is what makes the market. This argument has generally not gone well for the NCAA.
The NCAA also says that its restrictions are to the benefit of all college athletes (4), providing benefits to them that, without its set of rules to set an even playing field across college athletics, would not be available. You could call this the goose with the golden eggs theory.
Also, upon reading that text, it looks like the law is designed to establish a players' union to negotiate with the NCAA and member institutions over the player contracts.
-
CHICAGO -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany opposes the California bill that would prevent schools from penalizing athletes for capitalizing on their names, images and likenesses, saying college sports are "an educational arrangement."
"To me, the outer limit is the cost of college," Delany said during his remarks at Big Ten men's basketball media day. "Once we're beyond the cost of college, we're in pay-for-play and it's a totally different game."
Delany, who will retire at the end of year before Minnesota Vikings executive Kevin Warren takes over as commissioner on Jan. 1, 2020, said each level of competitive sports has its own guidelines and he's content with the current rules in college sports because "we're not the minor leagues."
"The student who plays athletics in the Big Ten is in school to receive an education first," Delany said. "There's an amazing opportunity to get a world-class education here and it's an amazing opportunity to compete in a great conference with great recognition."
-
I don't think colleges and universities should pay scholarship athletes for being athletes. But I guess I'm fine with a scholarship athlete taking a night job flipping pizzas or modeling his face. Any images of the athlete should not include school logos, unis, etc. unless the school gets a royalty as is the current case with t-shirts, caps, etc.
they can already do the pizza flipping, technically. realistically, the time demands don't really allow it, but that's not against the ncaa rules. but the pay must be comparable for the work done. can't get $50/hr flipping dough.
-
An interesting case came up last year with UCF kicker Donald De La Haye.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/7/13/17565672/donald-de-la-haye-youtube-ncaa-deestroying (https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/7/13/17565672/donald-de-la-haye-youtube-ncaa-deestroying)
He was a YouTuber who had enough followers to monetize his YouTube channel, which included things that were sports/football related as well as things that were not sports-related at all.
Initially the NCAA ruled that he could satisfy the requirements by removing ads from his sports-related videos. But then it looks like they decided instead that he would have to remove ads from his YouTube channel (which ostensibly was seen as being tied to his likeness as a scholarship athlete) and that if he wanted to monetize videos, they would have to be on another YouTube channel that didn't reference his athletics.
Essentially the ruling was that you can have a job, even a made-up job like YouTuber, but if that job derives its popularity from your athletic reputation, you can't make any money from it.
-
But, the Governor of California claims that the athletes "put their lives on the line* and get nothing".
* He thinks athletes are forced to fight in Afghanistan too, apparently.
that is my biggest beef with the proponents of this bill. (for clarity, i'm not necessarily against it, but i'm cautious because it's going to have unintended consequences)
but they often frame it like the kids are "slaves" or "going to bed hungry" (those are 2 direct qoutes from prominent people in favor of the bill), and that's just disingenuous at best and more likely outright slanderous fabrications. these kids get treated very well. room and board, good meals whenever they want, clothing, tutors, school supplies (which aren't cheap at all), etc. should they get more... maybe, i don't know. but they aren't being mistreated and abused either.
-
That is true: the players are treated much better than the average student in many ways. BUT--and it's a fair point--they also help generate a ton of revenue for the universities they play for; revenue that goes particularly to coaches and administrators (in very large sums), but not to them, the players. Also, their collegiate experience is fundamentally different than the average student, largely due to the demands of their sport.
Players in football really are risking their bodies for the scholarship/the university's athletic budget. Not usually in a life-or-death way, but in a very likely to accelerate your body's deterioration way, up to and including CTI.
This issue is more complex than either side wants it to be--and the financials of different sports and even different schools participating in the same sports makes it even harder to unwind in an even-handed way.
-
Nobody* is forcing 50,000 kids to play college football. The kids do it because they want to.
And now we're talking unions? WTF.
* The NFL forces them to a degree. About 200 per year, I guess.
-
You and I largely agree on this issue, but "forcing them to" isn't the antitrust analysis. The question is anti-competitive wielding of market power. There's no doubt that the NCAA has market power. The question is whether it's anti-competitive. That is how the antitrust laws work.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/sf0G7MN.png)
-
heh
-
As most of us predicted, the NCAA is reacting in order to head this off at the pass and move in the direction they'd prefer. They're officially looking into allowing players to profit off their likeness/image/name/etc.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-clears-way-athletes-profit-names-images-likenesses (https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-clears-way-athletes-profit-names-images-likenesses)
But I expect the NCAA will want to put restrictions on it, and even if those restrictions seems "reasonable" I'm not certain that all of the lawmakers will be satisfied. If not, I'd expect them to continue to push the legislation.
Target date for the three NCAA divisions to come up with their rules regarding this, is January 2021.
-
Interesting happenings.
-
CHICAGO -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany opposes the California bill that would prevent schools from penalizing athletes for capitalizing on their names, images and likenesses, saying college sports are "an educational arrangement."
"To me, the outer limit is the cost of college," Delany said during his remarks at Big Ten men's basketball media day. "Once we're beyond the cost of college, we're in pay-for-play and it's a totally different game."
Delany, who will retire at the end of year before Minnesota Vikings executive Kevin Warren takes over as commissioner on Jan. 1, 2020, said each level of competitive sports has its own guidelines and he's content with the current rules in college sports because "we're not the minor leagues."
"The student who plays athletics in the Big Ten is in school to receive an education first," Delany said. "There's an amazing opportunity to get a world-class education here and it's an amazing opportunity to compete in a great conference with great recognition."
I roll my eyes at Jim and the education stuff, but he is less of a snake than Emmert.
But yeah, my school brought in $86 mil on rights and licensing and Jim earns $4 mil a year, with a $20 million bonus a few years back, for overseeing this educational endeavor.
-
As most of us predicted, the NCAA is reacting in order to head this off at the pass and move in the direction they'd prefer. They're officially looking into allowing players to profit off their likeness/image/name/etc.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-clears-way-athletes-profit-names-images-likenesses (https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-clears-way-athletes-profit-names-images-likenesses)
But I expect the NCAA will want to put restrictions on it, and even if those restrictions seems "reasonable" I'm not certain that all of the lawmakers will be satisfied. If not, I'd expect them to continue to push the legislation.
Target date for the three NCAA divisions to come up with their rules regarding this, is January 2021.
i'm guessing some states will take it to pay for play, which the cal law is not. some already have, i think. i'm still betting there's going to be some kind of lawsuit over this.
-
i'm guessing some states will take it to pay for play, which the cal law is not. some already have, i think. i'm still betting there's going to be some kind of lawsuit over this.
Pay for play is something the schools definitely DON'T want to get involved in, just so much liability and potential Title IX implications, so I could see a lot of the big money boosters leaning on their favorite politicians to avoid that. I can't speak for other states but I'd definitely expect politicians in Texas to work against that.
But, if even ONE state pushes it through, then others won't have much choice but to join in.
-
I thought the big boosters in Texas want as much payment as possible to gain a decided advantage over boosters with less $$$?
-
Pay for play is something the schools definitely DON'T want to get involved in, just so much liability and potential Title IX implications, so I could see a lot of the big money boosters leaning on their favorite politicians to avoid that. I can't speak for other states but I'd definitely expect politicians in Texas to work against that.
But, if even ONE state pushes it through, then others won't have much choice but to join in.
i agree. i just meant that there's still going to be some haggle over the actual rule (and who gets to decide it/enforce it) because so far none of the states have completely agreed on the details of the law. (not to mention the ncaa and schools)
the ny law, for example, has a part that the schools must put up 15% of revenue as payment for the players. that's not going to ever go over with the ncaa, and shouldn't, imo.
everyone is clamoring over this new ncaa rule (or really, just them asking the divisions to propose rules) but i don't think this really avoids the lawsuits that are to come. could be wrong, maybe now the states back down. but with politicians, i doubt it. i'm guessing more than a few see it as a platform boost and won't let it die.
-
I thought the big boosters in Texas want as much payment as possible to gain a decided advantage over boosters with less $$$?
Pay for play, at least the way it's commonly used, would be coming from the schools, not the boosters.
It's at best a headache and at worst a complete non-starter for most university administrators. They want no part of paying their student-athletes, it opens up about 3 dozens cans of worms that they have no desire to become involved with.
And because it would potentially represent a DECREASE in the amount of influence the boosters have, I doubt they'd want it, either.
-
tax opportunity for the states
big booster makes a tax deductable donation, money goes to the college player
college player's income is taxed!
perfect!!!
-
same as paying for player's likeness
player's income is gonna be taxed!
-
It's at best a headache and at worst a complete non-starter for most university administrators. They want no part of paying their student-athletes, it opens up about 3 dozens cans of worms that they have no desire to become involved with.
Ya they'd have to call the whole thing off.They're in the business of education not providing fodder for networks and the NFL for free.I'd imagine this could open a whole bag of snakes to student athletes on scholarship in other sports.Sense is turning to nonsense and has for quite some,paying coaches obscene amounts of money got the ball rolling
-
slashing coaching staff salaries and AD staff salaries won't help this situation
it's about athletes not getting enough
problem is that the starting QB isn't getting a fair share, but the women's soccer team is getting more than their fair share
-
I think we're on the cusp of a number of large changes, most of them not what we'd really like to see.
-
The Nebraska unicameral dipped its toe into college athletics on Monday when Omaha senator Megan Hunt and several other state senators introduced LB 962, which the bill is calling the Nebraska Fair Pay to Play Act.
The bill reads similar to other bills introduced around the country in recent months that allow college athletes to be paid for their name, likeness and image outside of their sport.
Among the noteworthy portions of the bill:
— Institutions cannot prevent an athlete from participating in an intercollegiate sport because that athlete earns compensation for their name, image, or likeness rights or athletic reputation.
— No collegiate athletic association can penalize or prevent a student-athlete from fully participating in an intercollegiate sport because they earn compensation for their name, image, or likeness rights or athletic reputation.
— No collegiate athletic association can penalize a University or prevent an institution from fully participating in an intercollegiate sport because a student-athlete earns compensation for the use of such student-athlete’s name, image, or likeness rights or athletic reputation.
— An institution cannot allow compensation earned to affect the duration, amount, or eligibility for or renewal of any athletic grant-in-aid or other institutional scholarship.
— Any athlete who enters into a contract to benefit from their name, image, likeness rights or athletic reputation must notify their academic institution.
— An athlete shall not enter into a contract that requires student-athlete to display a sponsor's apparel or to otherwise advertise for the sponsor during official team activities and compliance with such contract requirement would conflict with a team contract.
The act would go into effect on July 1, 2023.
The act is similar to those written by other states, and does not force schools to pay athletes, but the drumbeat of bills allowing college athletes to benefit from their name and likeness forced the NCAA to act earlier this fall.
-
Pay for play is something the schools definitely DON'T want to get involved in, just so much liability and potential Title IX implications, so I could see a lot of the big money boosters leaning on their favorite politicians to avoid that. I can't speak for other states but I'd definitely expect politicians in Texas to work against that.
But, if even ONE state pushes it through, then others won't have much choice but to join in.
gender neutrality might destroy Title IX in the next decade. Wouldn't it be odd that women's rights could end up being destroyed by the far left and not the far right?
-
gender neutrality might destroy Title IX in the next decade. Wouldn't it be odd that women's rights could end up being destroyed by the far left and not the far right?
Interesting point, Ent. That would be odd indeed.
-
Interesting point, Ent. That would be odd indeed.
A lot of this has been coming to a head at the high school levels. Some strange bedfellows in the debate too. The litigation has been interesting. I don't think there's been bigger lightning rod subject matter involving participatory sports since the ADA/Casey Martin case.
-
Unintended consequences, I like.
-
On Monday, Husker football head coach Scott Frost teased an announcement that would make Nebraska a leader in the name-image-likeness arena for student-athletes.
On Tuesday, Nebraska announced a new partnership with Lincoln-based social media startup Opendorse to launch the Ready Now Program, what Nebraska is calling a first-of-its-kind initiative designed to help student-athletes build their own individual brands. According to a release from the university, the program will provide every student-athlete competing for UNL (650-plus) an opportunity to assess, build, and manage their social media brands.
https://hailvarsity.com/s/9125/nebraska-launches-first-of-its-kind-brand-building-program-for-student-athletes (https://hailvarsity.com/s/9125/nebraska-launches-first-of-its-kind-brand-building-program-for-student-athletes)
-
gender neutrality might destroy Title IX in the next decade. Wouldn't it be odd that women's rights could end up being destroyed by the far left and not the far right?
Well, isn't the goal to not need Title IX? If successful, if equal rights were a thing, its job would be to no longer be needed. Yet I doubt anyone on either side would say the job was done....
-
well, it's not equal that folks prefer to watch men's sports on TV vs women's sports
with the exception of volleyball