Here's a link to a different source. https://tinyurl.com/y3maz4qz 

My GUESS is that you're going to see about 3 years of litigation before we know anything.  Effective date is not until 2023.  I have mixed feelings.  But, it is a discussion that is long overdue.  If nothing else, this will force the issue. 

 

This has the potential to significantly shift the balance of power when it comes to recruiting even if adopted nationally.  Schools in large media markets will be able to pitch an income opportunity to prospective athletes that top schools in small markets can not match.  Highschool players will essentially become free agents open to accepting an offer from the school who is in the best positioned to get them paid endorsements.

It won't go anywhere IMO. It doesn't work, it changes the balance of power, it will destroy the NCAA (that may not be bad thing). They, all the remaining schools, will vote to toss the entire State of California out of the NCAA and then they are dead. 

Just more nonsense from the left-coast. A pipedream if you will. 

Carry on folks nothing see here. 

The problem is the NCAA has said that anyone or school that allows this will be removed from the NCAA and not be allowed to participate in NCAA sanctioned events.  So here we go.  No player or school is going to do it or accept it if they are not allowed to be a part of the NCAA.

I am actually a little surprised there was not a rider attached to this bill that would treat scholarship benefits as taxable income, that would be the next logical step considering the source.

Paying college athletes is an insane thought. I don't care how much money they make for the school, the money making athletes are going to college for free. Many are getting around 200-250k worth in tuition. Then let's tack on books, apparel, housing, transportation, food, etc. All for free. The only thing the majority of these kids have to pay for is their Chipotle lunch on sunday when they get bored of the dining hall, which they can afford because literally every other thing mentioned is free. The starving football player argument is inaccurate, meals are provided, it's a choice not to eat at that point.

It is one thing to do all that, which I have no problem with, I actually encourage. In college athletes becoming free agents, schools would literally be paying kids to go to college. That is an insane thought. The showcase platform to the pros is already provided, now they would be getting paid to showcase their talents and a degree. What happens when star RB stops going to class, how does that effect his signing bonus? Or when the 7'0 center can't pass intro to english composition? What happens when the junior QB gets drafted and is out of the league in a year. Can he go back to school? Does he get his paycheck? Does the QB get as much as the kicker? What happens when a paid player becomes a non starter, gets injured, quits?

As far as this goes, they'll be booted out of the NCAA. No school with the money to give players will opt out of the NCAA knowing they get the fat march madness and CFB money. This is a classic case of feelings getting involved in a logical argument. "Pay athletes" , "No, they already get XYZ", "But they deserve it!". As good as some athletes are they need the NCAA more than the NCAA needs them. People don't realize that. Duke didn't need Zion, but Zion could've went to Australia and played pro. He would've been popular, but not shoe deal popular. He would be in no immediate position for endorsements, etc. What he needed was airtime and constant top notch competition which he got. These guys can go elsewhere, but they don't want to because they know that with the platform the NCAA gives them they will be in a much better position afterwards.

I have no issue with players making money off their own name or school. If Baker Mayfield wants to sell his jersey he should be able to purchase it off the school for $200 or whatever they go for and sell it for however much he wants. Zion should be able to sign autographs on weekends. Kyler Murray should be able to accept a hamburger from a fan who sees him at McDonalds. Players should be able to make money off youtube, instagram, etc. But it gets tricky when star player is supposed to be in history class but is really at the mall doing a signing. That is where the change needs to lie, not in making 17 year olds millionaires. The NCAA has it's problems and I will stand in the crowd and chant all day, but "signing bonuses" are not one of them. 

Last edited by PABaseball

If it happens it will probably mean huge salaries for the top football and basketball programs and shitty salaries for almost anyone else.

And what about the non revenue sports? What are the title ix implications? I believe we may see non revenue sports dropped at some schools. 

Non revenue sports probably get nothing or a symbolic salary like milb. Probably salary will be tied to net revenue of the program.

There is no way a bottom d1 pays the same as the top football team

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

NewUmpire posted:

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

Well you can't pay them and give them scholarships. The scholarship is the compensation for the money they bring into the school so I wonder how many guys would be willing to take the money as opposed to the free education after all. If they were to be compensated they would have to pay tuition like every other student. How many California guys are going to head to Ohio State knowing they're in for 55k a year? These schools also have massive apparel contracts with Nike, Under Armor, etc. I'm not so sure they're willing to throw those away. 

PABaseball posted:
NewUmpire posted:

The way I read the article... it allows players to be compensated for the use of their name - image - likeness.  I do not see anywhere that says they are employees and the college has to pay them.  So the athletes will be free to contract with Nike, Under Armor, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds etc... and get paid as a spokesperson,   The schools will only need to compensate them if they put their name on the back of a jersey.  The players can't sell school logo jerseys with their name on it because the school owns the copyright / trademarks on the school logo and name.   What can happen is that big $ alum will entice the top players with the promise of endorsement deals.  This could help the non revenue sports  as more money may be available for scholarship to them.  Joe Stud QB gets a $1, 500,000 endorsement deal for Sally Jane's homemade soup shop.   Does he really care about a $40,000 scholarship?  On the other hand... if the school does not offer Joe Stud the scholarship, they can reduce the women's sport scholarship by an equal amount and still be in title IX compliance.   It will be interesting how the shrewd lawyers and agents exploit the loopholes - and the kids this is meant to assist.

If this expands nationwide... think of the power shifting possibilities.

Well you can't pay them and give them scholarships. The scholarship is the compensation for the money they bring into the school so I wonder how many guys would be willing to take the money as opposed to the free education after all. If they were to be compensated they would have to pay tuition like every other student. How many California guys are going to head to Ohio State knowing they're in for 55k a year? These schools also have massive apparel contracts with Nike, Under Armor, etc. I'm not so sure they're willing to throw those away. 

If I understand NewUmpire correctly. It would not be the school paying, but an outside source. So the school could still give a scholarship. 

As all things that change, the schools will figure it out and find a way to get an advantage. 

They aren't going to be paid because they aren't going to have any marketplace. They aren't going to be in the NCAA tournament or bowl series. They are going to be the Confederate colleges of CA. 

good luck with that. 

So here's a thought — don't pay the kids for their likeness, but also don't allow others to profit off of it. Right now people who make video games, jerseys, etc., get to make money by using the likeness of top players. The kid gets nothing out of that. At the least, a player should own the right to how his image is used — not the NCAA, not his college, and not Nintendo.

I think this is an interesting conversation to be having. I think the state legislator is right, the NCAA has had an opportunity to do something with this and has done nothing. Maybe having a three year deadline will light a fire.

 

It will never happen because there is no way USC, UCLA, Cal Poly or any other school that is worth a flip will pull out of the NCAA and go independent and not be allowed to be a part of the NCAA tournaments or play NCAA teams.  The schools have nothing to gain so why would they accept it.  The schools will make players sign a contract that says even though the state of California allows it, you cannot accept money and play on our team.  The NCAA has already addressed this when it was presented by saying they will ban all schools in California from NCAA participation if it is passed and put into effect. 

NCAA responds.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/res...rnia-senate-bill-206

"NCAA member schools already are working on changing rules for all student-athletes to appropriately use their name, image and likeness in accordance with our values — but not pay them to play. The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university."

Appears NCAA not against the idea of changing the rules. But probably wants to get the "boss's cut."

 

Last edited by Goosegg

At the bottom it says they belief this is unconstitutional. Who's constitution? I'm legitimately curious about this, particularly since it was sort of throw in at the end.

I also am curious about how they plan to change that. I admit I don't follow the NCAA that closely, but I hadn't heard anything. As I said earlier, maybe California's actions will light a fire under the NCAA to actually move on something.

Iowamom23 posted:

So here's a thought — don't pay the kids for their likeness, but also don't allow others to profit off of it. Right now people who make video games, jerseys, etc., get to make money by using the likeness of top players. The kid gets nothing out of that. At the least, a player should own the right to how his image is used — not the NCAA, not his college, and not Nintendo.

I think this is an interesting conversation to be having. I think the state legislator is right, the NCAA has had an opportunity to do something with this and has done nothing. Maybe having a three year deadline will light a fire.

 

They're getting a 200k + education, healthcare, meals, housing, etc, and the biggest showcase platform in the world to display their abilities so they can land sponsorships once they turn pro. They are definitely getting something out of it. That is the trade off. You can have all that but you can't sign autographs. College sports are optional, kids agree to those terms because they are better than playing pro ball abroad. 

I see kids from Michigan, Duke, and UCLA complaining. How many of those kids would have been accepted to these schools if they did not play a sport? That alone is enough to offset the complaints. 

FWIW the NCAA video game series was discontinued over 5 years ago. 

this is a tired old argument that is going nowhere. can't we start thread on something we can discuss with an open mind....like proper swing training?? 

I think there are different conversations here. 

"Skinner, who was elected to the State Senate three years ago, produced a bill that would allow college athletes in California to be paid for the use of their name, image and likeness — be they basketball stars signing their own marketing deals or water polo players advertising offers of swim lessons."

The first part I don't think affects very little in sports today, especially baseball.  The second is a different  ballgame.  The first is you can only be paid for advertising using your name, image, and likeness.  That does not happen very often as a whole.  The closest I see is the billboards with the players on them talking about  buying tickets or the conference ads for SEC, ACC, Big 10 or such.

The second is enormous.  A kid being able to hire an advertising company to get him advertising deals and being able to keep them is giant.  We have to know that Trevor Lawrence, Clemson QB, right now could make millions on advertising.  He may be bigger than most pro QB's and wants the money more than they do so would be doing them every day.  I could even see a small market baseball player making lots of money doing car ads or Nike commercials or the likes. 

I will still hold if the NCAA says don't touch it then the D1 schools will not touch it, especially the P5 schools.

As a Californian, nothing this legislature does surprises me.  But I will give them credit for making the effective date so far out that the NCAA has time to either fight it or find a compromise.  At least the NCAA has to do something now.

Lots of the focus is obviously on the big money makers in football and basketball.  But I wonder about a sport like baseball.  Will some kids who passed up college to grab the money after high school now consider committing three years to college?  How much money could Kumar Rocker make in the next two years as a college baseball pitcher after that CWS performance?  Would similar stud HS pitchers opt for college over a couple of years of minor league baseball and long bus rides?  College baseball could be even better with more players choosing college.

As for the "lesser" sports, I'm not sure how much money would really be out there for a star volleyball player or track and field pole vaulter to profit from.  Some of the ridiculous NCAA rules about not being able to put together a volleyball team calendar to raise money might actually be eliminated.

Maybe some good and common sense will come out of it.  Clearly, reading about the shoe scandal in NCAA basketball shows the current system is not working.

Why not just allow players to make money outside of salary (advertising, clothes contracts...) but don't make colleges pay a salary (except for scholarships)? That way NCAA wouldn't have to pay any more money and players still could make some if they are popular enough.

There are 3 scenarios. 1) Remove the CA schools from the  NCAA. This likely results in a Division 0 which P5 schools have been pushing for and  to leave and do their own thing. 2) Let CA do their own thing. Great for CA, and then other states would push for and the same thing. 3) Change the NCAA rules to allow the same thing as CA.

Don't know which one, but I think times are changing, and it's unlikely it's going to be as simple as the NCAA squashing CA.

old_school posted:

They aren't going to be paid because they aren't going to have any marketplace. They aren't going to be in the NCAA tournament or bowl series. They are going to be the Confederate colleges of CA. 

good luck with that. 

Poo-poo that now, but think about it. If a recruit knows they can come to school in California, make $ off their image, likeness or name, and still get a scholarship (assuming schools tell NCAA to pound sand and still give the kids athletic aid)...you don’t think the top recruits aren’t going to flock to USC, UCLA, Cal, SDSU and take advantage of that? That is a recruiting dream scenario! Other states university systems would be begging their state legislatures to pass bills like this in order to retain talent in state to keep their stadiums filled. 

Iowamom23 posted:

So here's a thought — don't pay the kids for their likeness, but also don't allow others to profit off of it. Right now people who make video games, jerseys, etc., get to make money by using the likeness of top players. The kid gets nothing out of that. At the least, a player should own the right to how his image is used — not the NCAA, not his college, and not Nintendo.

I think this is an interesting conversation to be having. I think the state legislator is right, the NCAA has had an opportunity to do something with this and has done nothing. Maybe having a three year deadline will light a fire.

 

You sure about that? EA sports stopped making NCAA themed games years ago for this reason...writing was on the wall on how this would play out in courts.

Last edited by collegebaseballrecruitingguide
PitchingFan posted:

It will never happen because there is no way USC, UCLA, Cal Poly or any other school that is worth a flip will pull out of the NCAA and go independent and not be allowed to be a part of the NCAA tournaments or play NCAA teams.  The schools have nothing to gain so why would they accept it.  The schools will make players sign a contract that says even though the state of California allows it, you cannot accept money and play on our team.  The NCAA has already addressed this when it was presented by saying they will ban all schools in California from NCAA participation if it is passed and put into effect. 

They have everything to gain. If these schools went independent, big deal. The PAC-12 sucks for revenue for teams, crappy TV deal for football, etc. This bill will immediately make these schools coveted by top players. Why wait 1 year (basketball) or 3 years (football) to start making serious coin when you can start as a freshman, start building your brand, and then expand on that when/if you go pro? You people have it all wrong. California D1 programs should be drooling over this. 

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
old_school posted:

They aren't going to be paid because they aren't going to have any marketplace. They aren't going to be in the NCAA tournament or bowl series. They are going to be the Confederate colleges of CA. 

good luck with that. 

Poo-poo that now, but think about it. If a recruit knows they can come to school in California, make $ off their image, likeness or name, and still get a scholarship (assuming schools tell NCAA to pound sand and still give the kids athletic aid)...you don’t think the top recruits aren’t going to flock to USC, UCLA, Cal, SDSU and take advantage of that? That is a recruiting dream scenario! Other states university systems would be begging their state legislatures to pass bills like this in order to retain talent in state to keep their stadiums filled. 

There will be many court battles before this is over. it will either fail or force a total realignment that we won't recognize the landscape to day. 

Lets face it folks, we are talking about football and basketball men...nothing else has any drawing power. And even in FB and BB it is only the very top. Nobody cares about getting Duke's star WR jersey or the 8th man at West Virginia who plays great Def. Richmond may have the best damn lacrosse goalie in the world but about 137 people care. As much as we all love baseball most schools average what maybe 200 people game? yea those Central Tennessee jersey sales will make some kid a fortune. 

There will be massive abuses at some schools which will organize some type of buyers union or whatever to make sure they can guarantee $$'s for kids. There will be studies to determine if it is racist, sexist and homophobic on how the athletes get or don't get support. 

Anytime you get big money involved it is going to turn into a huge shit show. Way more then today, the real student athletes, the ones that in theory should really matter are going to lose. the small conferences, the mid majors, the  minor sports...whatever I think NCAA sucks but this is going to be abused in ways those jackasses in CA who think they know the best way to do everything have never even contemplated. 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. the SEC may turn to starting charter schools for the elementary level so they have a steady pipeline of talents coming at all times. I can see Ole' Miss scouting the playground at recess. 

 

At least they are standing up to the NCAA, it’s more than anyone else has done. They can alway decide not to enact it if the NCAA takes acceptable steps to change its policy to favor the student athlete, I think this is the real goal here. I guess I am one of those jackasses in California who thinks they know the best way to do everything.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

At least they are standing up to the NCAA, it’s more than anyone else has done. They can alway decide not to enact it if the NCAA takes acceptable steps to change its policy to favor the student athlete, I think this is the real goal here. I guess I am one of those jackasses in California who thinks they know the best way to do everything.

How would you like the NCAA to address this and make the legislation of CA happy? you want to pay every water polo player? There are Title IX issues that prevent that, there is the problem that 90% or whatever schools aren't raking in huge profits from any of this. Yes I know that some of the P5's are making big money and all of them are probably making some money but that is 50ish of 350ish...what about the rest. 

Again is your goal is to change the landscape of college sports, deliver a blow to NCAA (not sure that is terrible by the way) and be able to feel good about righting years of oppression of poor kids (that argument is a joke by the way) I guess it is great. However if you want thousands of kids to have a chance to make an opportunity for themselves this isn't going to help them. 

This is about FB and BB dollars and nothing else. I mean baseball has 11.7 scholarships and 2 coaches how much demand do think there is for the likeness of players...it will be twisted, distorted, abused and bad for the whole of D1 athletics. 

And for the record I hate the NCAA but this is still just a stupid idea. Now please go clean up some of the tent cities before you start another plague out there. 

How did we get here?   As a society, what do we want?   Wasn't the goal of higher education...higher education?  These are the questions rolling around in my little brain. 

As much as I dislike the NCAA, the California "Law" is an over-rotation on college athletics.    I don't think the CA Law  is a good thing, but it does put some pressure on the NCAA to come up with something better.   Now that State Gov't has wanted to get involved in college athletics, it is only time before the Federal Gov't weighs in on how their funding is used.  The NCAA has had 40+ years to build a better college athletics model, but they've been too busy counting revenue for themselves, member institutions, and negotiating broadcast deals.   All of the sudden, the NCAA is looking like the more reasonable option, but they better up their game and keep academics at the center of higher education.

As always, JMO. 

1) Some comments here seem to assume CA has proposed paying salaries to players.  It has not.  The new law would allow players to collect money from endorsements--think appearing in ads for Nike or Gatorade.  Not many players will have this opportunity--we're mostly talking about a handful of basketball or football players in top-tier programs.  There also could be some chances for other athletes to appear on billboards for a local car dealership or local cable TV ads for a restaurant--these won't pay much compared with having your name on a shoe, but the money could be meaningful to a full-time college student.  You may oppose what California has done, but they aren't calling for schools to pay players.

Given the billions of dollars sloshing around college athletics, I'm not opposed in principle to letting athletes earn what the market is willing to pay them.  That's capitalism.  My main concern is the opportunities for corruption this will introduce.  Maybe there is little actual value to a car dealer to putting a particular college linebacker's face on a billboard; but if the dealership owner is a booster, he can pay that player (many) thousands of dollars and call it an endorsement deal.  I see no effective way to police that kind of arrangement.  (Even so, I'm not convinced the CA legislation is a bad idea.  Something needs to change in college sports.)

2)  If CA is the only state to enact such a law, then the NCAA holds all the cards here.  Within days of an announcement that Stanford, USC, UCLA, etc. can no longer play against NCAA programs, California legislators will be deluged with calls from angry alumni.  BUT, if other states go along, at some point the NCAA loses this option.  Maybe fans in other states would tolerate eliminating California teams (in theory--I doubt it would actually come to that), but if five or six large states' schools also would have to go, that's another story.  I make no predictions, but the Tampa Bay Times reported this morning that a Florida legislator plans to introduce California-style legislation in the next session, which begins in January.  This issue isn't going away any time soon.

Ha, this is so hypocritical to the typical CA legislator.  The only one's benefitting from this will be the elite athlete, who will end up making millions as a professional anyhow.  99% of college athletes, will reap 0% benefit from this.

 

CTbballDad posted:

Ha, this is so hypocritical to the typical CA legislator.  The only one's benefitting from this will be the elite athlete, who will end up making millions as a professional anyhow.  99% of college athletes, will reap 0% benefit from this.

 

But that's capitalism.  (And whatever opinion you hold of most CA legislators, I don't think any are seriously calling for repeal of that system.  But stop me before I veer into politics--I know none of here want to do that.) 

Nike will never cut me a check to put my name on a basketball shoe.  LeBron gets to earn from that and I don't.  It doesn't necessarily bother me if college athletes don't share equally in market-based compensation. 

The CA law would require a radical re-thinking of at least some aspects of college athletics.  Maybe the cure would be worse than the disease--I'm still thinking about that.  But IMO, it's fundamentally hard to justify allowing colleges to form a cartel (that would violate antitrust laws in almost any other context) to agree on limiting compensation for the folks who generate billions of dollars.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
PitchingFan posted:

It will never happen because there is no way USC, UCLA, Cal Poly or any other school that is worth a flip will pull out of the NCAA and go independent and not be allowed to be a part of the NCAA tournaments or play NCAA teams.  The schools have nothing to gain so why would they accept it.  The schools will make players sign a contract that says even though the state of California allows it, you cannot accept money and play on our team.  The NCAA has already addressed this when it was presented by saying they will ban all schools in California from NCAA participation if it is passed and put into effect. 

They have everything to gain. If these schools went independent, big deal. The PAC-12 sucks for revenue for teams, crappy TV deal for football, etc. This bill will immediately make these schools coveted by top players. Why wait 1 year (basketball) or 3 years (football) to start making serious coin when you can start as a freshman, start building your brand, and then expand on that when/if you go pro? You people have it all wrong. California D1 programs should be drooling over this. 

I understand your logic but disagree.  The NCAA still holds the cards.  No one, not even the top talent, will want to go to California schools if they can't play for a National Championship or play against the top teams.  it will make the Ca schools just play each other.  They will be on an island with a few paid athletes and a lot of guys not happy. 

I agree the only way this works is if other states come out with them at this point, but if there is much delay the NCAA will probably jump on this early and say any states that jump ship will be removed from NCAA starting January 1, 2023 and that will eliminate it unless other states, I mean lots of states get in this quickly.  I know here in SC it is being considered but is projected at this point to be voted down because Clemson and USC are afraid of the ramifications that the NCAA will attach to it.  They, meaning the administration and alumni, are not willing to give up the NCAA at this point.  It is a great idea but can you imagine the jump ship from Ca schools if the NCAA comes out next week and says CA schools are not eligible for playoffs or playing any non Ca schools starting next year. 

CTbballDad posted:

Ha, this is so hypocritical to the typical CA legislator.  The only one's benefitting from this will be the elite athlete, who will end up making millions as a professional anyhow.  99% of college athletes, will reap 0% benefit from this.

 

How about the not so elite athlete that wants to monetize his Youtube channel?

I just read that there is a CA-type bill in committee in the NC legislature also.  That doesn't necessarily mean much, but I do think this issue is going to garner more attention in the next year.  

PitchingFan, I agree with you that the NCAA may try to nip this in the proverbial bud by enacting some kind of ban on CA schools right away.  But I expect that would be stayed by litigation.  I won't venture a prediction what the end state will be here, but I think there are a lot of moves to be made yet before we know.

If this were to stick it is going to become a problem. Are schools going to have to pay their athletes to hang a billboard or show up on a schedule with the team picture on it? What about the school website? Can ESPN cut a promo of Clemson vs Alabama without paying Tua and Lawrence? What about unreported taxes? Wait until your star RB is under investigation for tax evasion. I don't see this sticking, but CA is trying to turn the opportunity for athletes to receive a free education into a bidding war. For those who think athletes will flock to UCLA and USC - who is cutting them the check when they're not playing other NCAA teams? When they can't play in March Madness? They lose value without the NCAA unless the NCAA were to dissolve altogether. 

PABaseball posted:

If this were to stick it is going to become a problem. Are schools going to have to pay their athletes to hang a billboard or show up on a schedule with the team picture on it? What about the school website? Can ESPN cut a promo of Clemson vs Alabama without paying Tua and Lawrence? What about unreported taxes? Wait until your star RB is under investigation for tax evasion. I don't see this sticking, but CA is trying to turn the opportunity for athletes to receive a free education into a bidding war. For those who think athletes will flock to UCLA and USC - who is cutting them the check when they're not playing other NCAA teams? When they can't play in March Madness? They lose value without the NCAA unless the NCAA were to dissolve altogether. 

I agree that the CA approach will create all kinds of problems within the current system.  And I'm not going to defend the CA law (not going to attack it either).  But I do believe in the old adage that "if a thing cannot go on forever, it will not."  The college sports model never remotely contemplated the amounts of money at stake today, or the myriad ways it is earned.  Right now we allow the NCAA to allocate those billions of dollars via a cartel.  Generally our laws and economy are built on the idea that markets are the best way to allocate resources--although there are certainly exceptions.  Professional sports leagues operate in a kind of half-and-half world:  MLB's practices would violate antitrust laws (if those laws were applied to it), but there are some market forces that constrain it, such as the requirement that it negotiate with the players union to divide revenues.

Right now, college athletes have almost zero ability to capture any part of the immense revenue stream that would not exist without them.  I admit, it's hard to imagine a world where a star QB recruit plays Clemson off of Alabama to see which school will let him wear his school uniform royalty-free when he appears in a Nike commercial.  And said recruit might need a detailed contract with his college spelling out when and where his likeness could be used without paying him, such as requiring him to show up for the team photo and appear in the annual media guide.  But given the dollars involved, something like that may have to happen.  The days when college sports were just about school spirit and keeping alumni happy are long past.  Seems to me it is time for a new model (of some kind--not sure what that is).  The NCAA can't just pretend it is still 1960.

I think everyone here should recall the fake no show jobs of the past. You have boosters and companies with athletes on retainer. It will open college sports to the booster with most money and or desire. 

This will be epic within a decade if it goes through. The fraud abuse and amount of scandle will be fun to read about at least. 

There's fraud and scandal now!  At least if Joe Booster is "hiring" an athlete to advertise his car dealership for $50,000, it will be legal - thus, no fraud or scandal.  Better than some player being kicked out because he took $500 for his practice jersey.  Capitalism at work.  I wonder how much these college athletes will really be worth on the open market?  It is really kind of mind-boggling.

There are about 3 groups that will be impacted here.  Football & Basketball players.  Olympic athletes primarily in individual sports like swimming and maybe a few regional things like UCONN women's basketball.

What everyone is missing here is the shoe money.  How much could Zion have commanded from Adidas?  But suppose he is at a Nike school?  Whose shoe does he wear?  Would he have stayed in college for another year or two with $100 million in his pocket?  If that happened it would be the best thing to happen in college basketball in 40 years since they brought the dunk back. 

This might hasten the time where we finally get rid of the student athlete and treat football and basketball for what they are - professional sports.  I have said for years that players should have a choice of getting paid or free school.  I also think they should have 5 or 6 years of eligibility.  The pay can be scaled with a base.  Say $50k base with 25K incentive for all conference and another $50k for all American.

Scholarships cost the school $0.  Room and board are about $20k.  For a big time football program 85 paid players would be about $5mm.  A home game with 75,000 at $25 per seat is almost $2 Million.  So 3 home games pays the freight with money to burn.  That still leaves TV, Shoe, jersey's etc. for the school to get fat on.  

Basketball math is 15 paid players or $750k.  A 14,000 seat area at $15 per seat means 4 home games cover it.

It could create a separate tier where the top 60 football schools (Power 5) break off the rest of Div I and basketball gets DI cut down to 100.  DII and DIII won't have too many issues from this.  All those mid majors will either drop to D1AA or form their own alliance with less cash sloshing around or they maintain the old model.  The bowls die and a 16 team football playoff results.  

The non revenue sports won't be impacted significantly.  Schools will fund them for conference TV content and to keep the Feds at bay for Title IX etc.   There is plenty of cheese to go around and if the players get a bite the world will stay on its axis.  

old_school posted:
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

At least they are standing up to the NCAA, it’s more than anyone else has done. They can alway decide not to enact it if the NCAA takes acceptable steps to change its policy to favor the student athlete, I think this is the real goal here. I guess I am one of those jackasses in California who thinks they know the best way to do everything.

How would you like the NCAA to address this and make the legislation of CA happy? you want to pay every water polo player? There are Title IX issues that prevent that, there is the problem that 90% or whatever schools aren't raking in huge profits from any of this. Yes I know that some of the P5's are making big money and all of them are probably making some money but that is 50ish of 350ish...what about the rest. 

Again is your goal is to change the landscape of college sports, deliver a blow to NCAA (not sure that is terrible by the way) and be able to feel good about righting years of oppression of poor kids (that argument is a joke by the way) I guess it is great. However if you want thousands of kids to have a chance to make an opportunity for themselves this isn't going to help them. 

This is about FB and BB dollars and nothing else. I mean baseball has 11.7 scholarships and 2 coaches how much demand do think there is for the likeness of players...it will be twisted, distorted, abused and bad for the whole of D1 athletics. 

And for the record I hate the NCAA but this is still just a stupid idea. Now please go clean up some of the tent cities before you start another plague out there. 

Dude, chill out.

CTbballDad posted:

Ha, this is so hypocritical to the typical CA legislator.  The only one's benefitting from this will be the elite athlete, who will end up making millions as a professional anyhow.  99% of college athletes, will reap 0% benefit from this.

 

And 99% of college athletes will never go pro, which is why a system is needed to address this. I think it’s starting a conversation, getting the ball rolling. These are the same pains that MLBPA went through (with strikes) to get changes for their members through the recent history of baseball. Change hurts sometimes. Nobody on this forum would gripe if their kid was drafted and got the big contract/signing bonus. If we can work through this reasonably and responsibly, guys like old school will have to find another reason to hate California...like the weather.

old_school posted:

I think everyone here should recall the fake no show jobs of the past. You have boosters and companies with athletes on retainer. It will open college sports to the booster with most money and or desire. 

This will be epic within a decade if it goes through. The fraud abuse and amount of scandle will be fun to read about at least. 

So you are saying we are doomed to making the same mistakes and cannot learn from them? Your cup seems always 1/2 fool...I mean full.

PABaseball posted:

If this were to stick it is going to become a problem. Are schools going to have to pay their athletes to hang a billboard or show up on a schedule with the team picture on it? What about the school website? Can ESPN cut a promo of Clemson vs Alabama without paying Tua and Lawrence? What about unreported taxes? Wait until your star RB is under investigation for tax evasion. I don't see this sticking, but CA is trying to turn the opportunity for athletes to receive a free education into a bidding war. For those who think athletes will flock to UCLA and USC - who is cutting them the check when they're not playing other NCAA teams? When they can't play in March Madness? They lose value without the NCAA unless the NCAA were to dissolve altogether. 

Good questions, not gonna lie. But there are 3 years to develope a framework to figure this our. California will not be the only state to enact these laws, many others are already proposing similar legislation. I think the NCAA will end up caving, but not without key states like California, Florida and New York passing these laws. And don’t forget the power of the protest. If athletes in other states see their peers being able to make $$$, there will be pressure to get them on par. Certainly not perfect now, but when you see how much $$$ the NCAA and gambling make on college sports, I don’t have a problem with these kids getting a piece of the action.

Last edited by collegebaseballrecruitingguide

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does that sound like making money from their image, likeness or name? No, that sounds like something different, and therefore outside the intent of what they are doing. 

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does that sound like making money from their image, likeness or name? No, that sounds like something different, and therefore outside the intent of what they are doing. 

Yea because we know that when a state government that operates in a bubble where they believe they are the only group that matters create garbage legislation without any real thought or knowledge that there would be unintended consequences...outside of the intent. I am shocked. 

Keep up the good work. 

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does that sound like making money from their image, likeness or name? No, that sounds like something different, and therefore outside the intent of what they are doing. 

I can imagine an endorsement deal that included some provisions about avoiding career-ending injury, so yes I could imagine this scenario. Athletes with multiple revenue streams (and hopes of future earnings) inevitably run some risk of divided loyalties.   But I haven't heard of NBA players malingering to avoid messing up their endorsement arrangements, and they have had shoe contracts for decades.  (And something similar to this essentially happens now when football players decide to skip bowl games rather than risk injuring themselves.  Also, recall the speculation about whether Zion should just have ended his season after he hurt his knee when his shoe blew out vs. UNC.) 

old_school posted:
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does that sound like making money from their image, likeness or name? No, that sounds like something different, and therefore outside the intent of what they are doing. 

Yea because we know that when a state government that operates in a bubble where they believe they are the only group that matters create garbage legislation without any real thought or knowledge that there would be unintended consequences...outside of the intent. I am shocked. 

Keep up the good work. 

I can understand why you might think the legislation is a bad idea.  I'm not sure I think it is a good idea myself.  But there are plenty of folks who are knowledgable about college sports and support this (see the link below, for example).  That doesn't mean you are wrong; but I do think you are wrong to assume the folks supporting this legislation didn't give it some serious thought.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...12d56a80b_story.html

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does that sound like making money from their image, likeness or name? No, that sounds like something different, and therefore outside the intent of what they are doing. 

Ah. I see what you are saying. Allow me to expand my fact pattern. Zion Williamson commits to attend Duke University. Nike and Addidas get into a bidding war, for the ability to use his likeness in a large poster and print advertisements showing a picture of Zion wearing their shoe that says "Zion Williamson wears Nike (or Addidas)." He is not making an endorsement or a commercial. They see he is valuable NOT really as a college player, but as the pro player he is going to become after one year in college. They see him as the next LeBron/Jordan/Durant/Curry and want to get him locked up. Zion goes with Nike who pays him $20 million so they can use his likeness in college - banking that creating this relationship will give them an edge when he goes pro. Zion then twists his ankle and is out several games. The injury, it is widely seen, could have been much worse. Nike sees its $20 million and the future hundreds of millions it was going to make off his endorsements and commercials and five different "Z Dubs" shoes flash before its eyes and nearly go down the tubes and up in smoke, respectively.

My fact pattern then continues on as above. We have already seen college athletes, like McCaffery, skip football bowl games to protect their professional future. Is it so hard to believe that athletes might do the same in this scenario? True, they can do it NOW, but NOW it is all speculation - they can't be communicating (I think). They probably rightly BELIEVE they will make millions on graduation, but with this legislation a perfectly legal business relationship can be created between the player and corporation - who primarily cares about its investment in the player - BEFORE graduation and DURING the competition season.

Is this not a possible interpretation of the legislation?

Last edited by NorCalBBDad
NorCalBBDad posted:
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
NorCalBBDad posted:
 

Ah. I see what you are saying. Allow me to expand my fact pattern. Zion Williamson commits to attend Duke University. Nike and Addidas get into a bidding war, for the ability to use his likeness in a large poster and print advertisements showing a picture of Zion wearing their shoe that says "Zion Williamson wears Nike (or Addidas)." He is not making an endorsement or a commercial. They see he is valuable NOT really as a college player, but as the pro player he is going to become after one year in college. They see him as the next LeBron/Jordan/Durant/Curry and want to get him locked up. Zion goes with Nike who pays him $20 million so they can use his likeness in college - banking that creating this relationship will give them an edge when he goes pro. Zion then twists his ankle and is out several games. The injury, it is widely seen, could have been much worse. Nike sees its $20 million and the future hundreds of millions it was going to make off his endorsements and commercials and five different "Z Dubs" shoes flash before its eyes and nearly go down the tubes and up in smoke, respectively.

My fact pattern then continues on as above. We have already seen college athletes, like McCaffery, skip football bowl games to protect their professional future. Is it so hard to believe that athletes might do the same in this scenario? True, they can do it NOW, but NOW it is all speculation - they can't be communicating (I think). They probably rightly BELIEVE they will make millions on graduation, but with this legislation a perfectly legal business relationship can be created between the player and corporation - who primarily cares about its investment in the player - BEFORE graduation and DURING the competition season.

Is this not a possible interpretation of the legislation?

I haven't read the CA legislation, but what you describe is an "endorsement" under any standard definition I know.  (If Nike or Adidas tried to issue your hyptothetical poster without Zion's permission, he could sue them for misappropriating his image.  And he would win, assuming he controls those rights rather than his school.)

What you describe is capitalism at work.  And it is why people write contracts.  Schools have lawyers, as does the NCAA.  If the CA law sticks, there will be adjustments by all parties via contracts, rule changes, etc.  All the risks you are concerned about exist for current pro athletes who don't want to jeopardize their earnings by getting hurt.  Sometimes they get into disputes with their teams about their health, about what treatment to pursue.  It all gets figured out (in court, if need be).  It may not be easy, pretty or inexpensive; but with the billions at stake, the deals will get papered.

Also, remember these kids stock will not be nearly as high as what many on here are imagining. At best, a handful of players will have national name recognition. Most will be regional (at best) which does not equate to as much $$$ as everyone thinks will be thrown around.

old_school posted:
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does that sound like making money from their image, likeness or name? No, that sounds like something different, and therefore outside the intent of what they are doing. 

Yea because we know that when a state government that operates in a bubble where they believe they are the only group that matters create garbage legislation without any real thought or knowledge that there would be unintended consequences...outside of the intent. I am shocked. 

Keep up the good work. 

What is your general problem, man? Did mommy and daddy not tell you they love you ever?

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

Also, remember these kids stock will not be nearly as high as what many on here are imagining. At best, a handful of players will have national name recognition. Most will be regional (at best) which does not equate to as much $$$ as everyone thinks will be thrown around.

And even the rare phenom like Zion has a calculation to make:  Is his image worth more in a Duke jersey with Duke's name involved?  And if so, what does he give Duke for permission to use it (a cut of profits? just agreeing to play for them? a promise to play in postseason tournaments?).  If you look carefully, in most of the ads you see on TV for Gatorade, Nike, etc. athletes are wearing uniforms that look sort of like their teams', but that have no names, logos, etc.  If a player is in his team's kit, then the team either was compensated or the player included a provision in his contract allowing him to use it.  Schools and players will have to work this out, too.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
old_school posted:
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does that sound like making money from their image, likeness or name? No, that sounds like something different, and therefore outside the intent of what they are doing. 

Yea because we know that when a state government that operates in a bubble where they believe they are the only group that matters create garbage legislation without any real thought or knowledge that there would be unintended consequences...outside of the intent. I am shocked. 

Keep up the good work. 

What is your general problem, man? Did mommy and daddy not tell you they love you ever?

My problem is not what government should be doing. We have enough problems without some bunch of yahoos in any state capital write ting some B S legislation that is going to have many unintended consequences and destroy college sports as we know them. 

I hate the NCAA but this law is ridiculous and will crush the games as we know them. You seem to have some pie in the sky fanatsy about this, fair enough but you are wrong and by the time folks like you figure it out it will be gone. 

It will crush mid majors and all small schools / non major conferences. I don’t particularly want watch 17 yr old freshman millionaires who will hold tremendous power. They are barely able to get to class, they need tremendous support they are children. 

To support this is delusional to the world and how business will get done. 

How many guys actually get their educations prior to turning pro? Look, I get it, virtually every decision anyone makes has an unintended consequence. You suss out as many of those as you can before the law goes live, and hopefully it’s 90% tight. After that, you make adjustments to close loopholes that are cause for abuse. Nobody is perfect, but what you seem to be trying to say, with a good dose of piss and vinegar, is that the status quo is just fine, we can’t do better than that. We can, and we will. I think enough states will join the march to make the NCAA change their philosophy on this. I do t think anyone really expects California to screw over their top educational universities for the benefit of a few athletes, but the idea that anyone else on that college campus can earn income from their name image or likeness except an athlete simply because they are an athlete is ridiculous.  You watch 18 year old millionaires every time you watch a 1st and sometimes 2nd rd draft pick play in the minor leagues.  Again, I really dont think the value of these endorsement deals, on average, will be anywhere close to making too many millionaires. Zion is a generational talent and not the norm.

 

 

NorCalBBDad posted:
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does that sound like making money from their image, likeness or name? No, that sounds like something different, and therefore outside the intent of what they are doing. 

Ah. I see what you are saying. Allow me to expand my fact pattern. Zion Williamson commits to attend Duke University. Nike and Addidas get into a bidding war, for the ability to use his likeness in a large poster and print advertisements showing a picture of Zion wearing their shoe that says "Zion Williamson wears Nike (or Addidas)." He is not making an endorsement or a commercial. They see he is valuable NOT really as a college player, but as the pro player he is going to become after one year in college. They see him as the next LeBron/Jordan/Durant/Curry and want to get him locked up. Zion goes with Nike who pays him $20 million so they can use his likeness in college - banking that creating this relationship will give them an edge when he goes pro. Zion then twists his ankle and is out several games. The injury, it is widely seen, could have been much worse. Nike sees its $20 million and the future hundreds of millions it was going to make off his endorsements and commercials and five different "Z Dubs" shoes flash before its eyes and nearly go down the tubes and up in smoke, respectively.

My fact pattern then continues on as above. We have already seen college athletes, like McCaffery, skip football bowl games to protect their professional future. Is it so hard to believe that athletes might do the same in this scenario? True, they can do it NOW, but NOW it is all speculation - they can't be communicating (I think). They probably rightly BELIEVE they will make millions on graduation, but with this legislation a perfectly legal business relationship can be created between the player and corporation - who primarily cares about its investment in the player - BEFORE graduation and DURING the competition season.

Is this not a possible interpretation of the legislation?

It’s called insurance. Players already can take out insurance policies to protect their financial future in the event of a career ending injury. Insurance policies can literally be written for ANYTHING, and if a company is going to tie up millions in an athlete, especially if they are anticipating future performance, they better have an insurance policy. Also, in your example, McCaffrey sat out bowl game so he could ensure he could play, not to ensure he would not get injured to protect an endorsement contract. I think there is a difference.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

How many guys actually get their educations prior to turning pro? Look, I get it, virtually every decision anyone makes has an unintended consequence. You suss out as many of those as you can before the law goes live, and hopefully it’s 90% tight. After that, you make adjustments to close loopholes that are cause for abuse. Nobody is perfect, but what you seem to be trying to say, with a good dose of piss and vinegar, is that the status quo is just fine, we can’t do better than that. We can, and we will. I think enough states will join the march to make the NCAA change their philosophy on this. I do t think anyone really expects California to screw over their top educational universities for the benefit of a few athletes, but the idea that anyone else on that college campus can earn income from their name image or likeness except an athlete simply because they are an athlete is ridiculous.  You watch 18 year old millionaires every time you watch a 1st and sometimes 2nd rd draft pick play in the minor leagues.  Again, I really dont think the value of these endorsement deals, on average, will be anywhere close to making too many millionaires. Zion is a generational talent and not the norm.

 

 

Fair enough, I think your intentions are good but you are being naive. I know business men and money. It is going to be an epic failure and is a mistake. Maybe there is better out there but this isn’t it. 

None of these kids will be worth a dime to any advertiser if they don’t compete...who cares if a kid is a 5-star recruit if he refuses to play the game for potential revenue. The athletes with value are performers on the field in their sports. I don’t see anyone with an endorsement deal who hasn’t separated themselves from their peers thru athletic performance. Oh, forgot to let you know that the sky is falling, guys.

Last edited by collegebaseballrecruitingguide
old_school posted:
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

How many guys actually get their educations prior to turning pro? Look, I get it, virtually every decision anyone makes has an unintended consequence. You suss out as many of those as you can before the law goes live, and hopefully it’s 90% tight. After that, you make adjustments to close loopholes that are cause for abuse. Nobody is perfect, but what you seem to be trying to say, with a good dose of piss and vinegar, is that the status quo is just fine, we can’t do better than that. We can, and we will. I think enough states will join the march to make the NCAA change their philosophy on this. I do t think anyone really expects California to screw over their top educational universities for the benefit of a few athletes, but the idea that anyone else on that college campus can earn income from their name image or likeness except an athlete simply because they are an athlete is ridiculous.  You watch 18 year old millionaires every time you watch a 1st and sometimes 2nd rd draft pick play in the minor leagues.  Again, I really dont think the value of these endorsement deals, on average, will be anywhere close to making too many millionaires. Zion is a generational talent and not the norm.

 

 

Fair enough, I think your intentions are good but you are being naive. I know business men and money. It is going to be an epic failure and is a mistake. Maybe there is better out there but this isn’t it. 

And the NCAA has been a white paper for success? Come up with a plan, share it. I am all ears.

NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Bingo!

This is why the rules are in place to begin with. If this passes you'e going to have guys transferring and picking schools based on which booster provides the biggest payday, it will have almost nothing to do with the education - which is the first part of student-athlete. You're going to have the check writer calling the shots. 

My problem isn't necessarily with the payday, it has more to do with the devaluation of the education. Good luck getting the star PG to go to history lecture when Nike is offering 20k for a commercial shoot. 

There are other options outside of college sports. For the people to say that it isn't fair they don't get a piece of the pie - that's nonsense. They're choosing to pass up other pro leagues for the rules that the NCAA has established. Because all these kids know that if they stink at the collegiate level they can always continue on with the education. How can you enter a contract with an institution (NCAA) and then complain about the terms. Fair pay to play still doesn't make sense. While it's a worthwhile idea (letting kids profit off their image) the reality of it is that star running back will do whatever the paycheck tells him to do and if that includes missing the last 6 games of the season that is what he'll do.

Last edited by PABaseball
PABaseball posted:
NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Bingo!

This is why the rules are in place to begin with. If this passes you'e going to have guys transferring and picking schools based on which booster provides the biggest payday, it will have almost nothing to do with the education - which is the first part of student-athlete. You're going to have the check writer calling the shots. 

My problem isn't necessarily with the payday, it has more to do with the devaluation of the education. Good luck getting the star PG to go to history lecture when Nike is offering 20k for a commercial shoot. 

There are other options outside of college sports. For the people to say that it isn't fair they don't get a piece of the pie - that's nonsense. They're choosing to pass up other pro leagues for the rules that the NCAA has established. Because all these kids know that if they stink at the collegiate level they can always continue on with the education. How can you enter a contract with an institution (NCAA) and then complain about the terms. Fair pay to play still doesn't make sense. While it's a worthwhile idea (letting kids profit off their image) the reality of it is that star running back will do whatever the paycheck tells him to do and if that includes missing the last 6 games of the season that is what he'll do.

1) Kids who will make meaningful money from endorsements don't choose their schools today because of the educations they offer.  No offense to Zion, who apparently was a pretty good student, but do you think he went to Duke because he really liked their History Department?

2)  These kinds of players go to college for a year or two to improve their marketability, maybe to grow up a little.  You can't "devalue" their college experience, because they aren't in it for the education.  Again, the CA bill is about endorsements.  This will not be an issue for water polo and field hockey players.  To talk about one-and-done basketball players as "student athletes" is insanity.

Can someone name one superstar football or basketball player who did a full 4-years at their school in recent history? Basketball players are attending colleges in large part because of the NBA’s rules (superstar caliber players). The rest attend because they know they either need to fix holes in their game against the best competition available or they really do want an education. Either way, they are getting a full ride. Football players aren’t eligible for the draft out of HS, nor are they physically mature enough to play at the pro level at that age. A lot of posters on here from California sure have a different outlook on this that those from other states with no skin in the game. As it currently stands, there are players already being pushed to play at certain schools due to impermissible benefits coming from boosters...so is this really a valid argument? By legalizing the ability to earn, it allows it to be regulated...and perhaps we can get it right 90% initially. I just don’t see how everyone thinks there is no better option than the status quo. If any of our kids became the next Bryce Harper while in college (endorsement-wise) I am pretty sure we would all appreciate that windfall.

Most of the stuff argued in this thread has been going on for years.  The shoe companies have been running college basketball for the last 20 years.  There is an ongoing FBI investigation into this very matter.  The shoe companies will be running college basketball for the next 20 years.  The difference is that the athletes will now get their endorsement money out in the open.  They have been getting paid for the last two decades.  Duke and Kentucky are 1 and 2 every year in recruiting, the new rules aren't going to change anything.  They will still be 1 and 2. 

In college football the same 10 schools will continue to be the top 10 every year in recruiting and the same blue bloods will continue to dominate.  Outside of a team here or there, that is how it has always been and how it will always be. 

Not sure how this changes anything for the mid majors.  They are always at a disadvantage and really have no shot outside of an occasional run in the NCAAT in basketball or on the baseball field.

I don't know the answers and I don't know exactly how this ends up .  I do know that when March Madness creates 900 million in revenue, the players are going to want a piece of the action.  I know when college football coaches are making 8-10 million a year, the players are going to want a piece of the action.  There are now laws being created in NY, NC, Florida to go along with the California law.  The NY law is the worst as it gives 15% of the gate to the athletes.  That will take money out of the school's budget and that law will kill the smaller schools.  Plus, it is a Title 9 nightmare.  I do think the best way to compensate players is to let them make money from their likeness.   

 

Last edited by d-mac
greatgame posted:

Collegebaseballrecruitingguide

How do you propose to this to be regulated?

 

Not sure, we have 3 years to figure it out. Smarter people than me will be chewing on this, but I don’t think this is as bad a thing as everyone thinks. 

d-mac posted:

I don't know the answers and I don't know exactly how this ends up .  I do know that when March Madness creates 900 million in revenue, the players are going to want a piece of the action.  I know when college football coaches are making 8-10 million a year, the players are going to want a piece of the action.  There are now laws being created in NY, NC, Florida to go along with the California law.  The NY law is the worst as it gives 15% of the gate to the athletes.  That will take money out of the school's budget and that law will kill the smaller schools.  Plus, it is a Title 9 nightmare.  I do think the best way to compensate players is to let them make money from their likeness.   

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

I'm not entirely sure what gives these guys the right to a piece of the action. Forfeit the free education, housing, max meal plan, healthcare, clothing, books, etc, let the guys pay out of pocket and gamble on themselves and watch how quickly the tables turn. There are probably close to 300 athletes who would be wise to take that deal, for the rest they will never come close to recouping  that investment in advertisements. 

The NY State Law makes the least sense to me. It really only has any meaningful value for Syracuse. Is Suny Binghampton really going to give 15% of the $2,000 gate to 14 different players? Lol 

PABaseball posted:
d-mac posted:

 

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

 

No disrespect, but I don’t understand this reasoning.  I have no qualms about a great coach getting paid a market rate salary, but no coach puts any “product on the field.”  I watch games to see the players, who are the ones actually competing. If Saban coached my local HS’s football team, they might win a few more games, but 50,000 people aren’t going to come to watch them play. 

For most athletes in most sports, a full scholarship is likely worth more than they could earn on the market. (Of course, many athletes get partial or no scholarships, and most sports generate negative net revenues.). But I have yet to see any commenter here even try to explain why players who generate outsized revenues for their schools (“name” players in basketball and football and a handful of Olympians, basically) shouldn’t be able to earn what they are worth. Are you opposed to capitalism in general?  If not, then why is it ok for college sports to permit capitalism for literally everyone involved except the “workers” who create the “product” people pay billions to watch?  It’s like arguing that every actor on a movie set should get $50k salary, including the big-time stars, even if the movie earns $300M after expenses.  There is a reason this doesn’t happen: because markets don’t work that way.  

There are all kinds of potential problems and pitfalls to changing the current system. But IMO the current system has to change. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are, but “pay everyone except the star players” just doesn’t sit right with me. 

Chico Escuela posted:
PABaseball posted:
d-mac posted:

 

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

 

No disrespect, but I don’t understand this reasoning.  I have no qualms about a great coach getting paid a market rate salary, but no coach puts any “product on the field.”  I watch games to see the players, who are the ones actually competing. If Saban coached my local HS’s football team, they might win a few more games, but 50,000 people aren’t going to come to watch them play. 

For most athletes in most sports, a full scholarship is likely worth more than they could earn on the market. (Of course, many athletes get partial or no scholarships, and most sports generate negative net revenues.). But I have yet to see any commenter here even try to explain why players who generate outsized revenues for their schools (“name” players in basketball and football and a handful of Olympians, basically) shouldn’t be able to earn what they are worth. Are you opposed to capitalism in general?  If not, then why is it ok for college sports to permit capitalism for literally everyone involved except the “workers” who create the “product” people pay billions to watch?  It’s like arguing that every actor on a movie set should get $50k salary, including the big-time stars, even if the movie earns $300M after expenses.  There is a reason this doesn’t happen: because markets don’t work that way.  

There are all kinds of potential problems and pitfalls to changing the current system. But IMO the current system has to change. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are, but “pay everyone except the star players” just doesn’t sit right with me. 

Thank you. It’s easy to sit in wherever USA and take pot shots at this, but these new laws are trying to level the economic playing field so athletes are not discriminated against in their ability to earn from something uniquely theirs. I just don’t understand all of the pushback and negativity toward something like this. Yes there has been corruption in the past, but please remember the past is still the present. Nothing has changed from the past. The future, however, is yet to unfold and we can still shape it.

Chico Escuela posted:
PABaseball posted:

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

No disrespect, but I don’t understand this reasoning.  I have no qualms about a great coach getting paid a market rate salary, but no coach puts any “product on the field.”  I watch games to see the players, who are the ones actually competing. If Saban coached my local HS’s football team, they might win a few more games, but 50,000 people aren’t going to come to watch them play. 

For most athletes in most sports, a full scholarship is likely worth more than they could earn on the market. (Of course, many athletes get partial or no scholarships, and most sports generate negative net revenues.). But I have yet to see any commenter here even try to explain why players who generate outsized revenues for their schools (“name” players in basketball and football and a handful of Olympians, basically) shouldn’t be able to earn what they are worth. Are you opposed to capitalism in general?  If not, then why is it ok for college sports to permit capitalism for literally everyone involved except the “workers” who create the “product” people pay billions to watch?  It’s like arguing that every actor on a movie set should get $50k salary, including the big-time stars, even if the movie earns $300M after expenses.  There is a reason this doesn’t happen: because markets don’t work that way.  

There are all kinds of potential problems and pitfalls to changing the current system. But IMO the current system has to change. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are, but “pay everyone except the star players” just doesn’t sit right with me. 

When HS athletes enter college there is no guarantee they go pro, there is no guarantee they are even successful at the collegiate level. They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage. For about 300 athletes, their worth exceeds this value. They are worth millions and college did hold them back financially, with the tradeoff to that being that they got a head start on a free degree or are almost done with it. Now for every other college athlete they need that degree and will never be worth anything more than a potential successful alumni to the school. 

As for the money here is the problem. Athletes can receive money from boosters and companies for their image, great. Mike StudQB goes on recruiting visits. On the visits, the pitch isn't about the school or the facilities, it's about which booster has the biggest paycheck. Now Mike StudQB is making a decision based on money. When Mike StudQB gets to college and isn't the starter the endorsers drop their contract. Now Mike StudQB is looking for a new school that will pay him, now it has nothing to do with the education. What happens when Nike tells Joe StudRB that they'll give him more money and a shoe deal when he is the first pick in the NFL draft. But his stock is already thru the roof, just sit out the last 5 games because you can only get injured. Johnny Touchdowns will get a nice paycheck for the car dealership. They'll also set his mom up with a nice job if he attends the school of their choice and make 4 more commercial appearances. What happens when Andre All Star starts missing class to go to he mall for a poster signing and can't stay eligible, but likely won't be drafted this year? What happens when Zion tears thru a shoe and decides he doesn't like Nike anymore. Does he leave his school and go elsewhere? Do brands still get to pay to supply apparel for the schools? These are very lucrative deals for the institutions that supply the full scholarships and pay coaches. 

Athletes do not need a piece. Things are structured the way that they are so things like this do not happen. Athletes enter into contracts in which all the things listed (tuition, food, etc) are all supplied and the only rule is they must remain amateur. The other option is to not take the bad deal (college) and go pro in another country or league. That is capitalism, deciding your worth and getting your true value in the market. Not entering in a contract that explicitly states you can't make money and then complaining that you're broke. These kids know that the NCAA provides the biggest platform for them to raise their stock, they know that if they are injured for 3 straight years that they will have a degree to fall back on, which is why they pass up other options - because they are not as good. They can wait 3 years and take the big money because the CFL does not give them the platform to do that. If you want to blame somebody blame the NBA for not allowing kids to come out of HS. Blame the NFL for not having a minor league/developmental program. 

The only alternatives I see to athletes being able to profit is to forfeit the tuition and all the benefits and pay out of pocket. Gamble on yourself if you feel you're worth it. If the education is worthless for the top athletes then why don't they go to Australia for a year and make some money while waiting for the next NBA draft? Because they know they are one injury away from having no money and no education. 

 

Last edited by PABaseball

It will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.   College football is already top heavy.  The same few schools playing musical chairs in the national championship playoffs.   The game will become unwatchable if bidding condenses talent to even fewer schools.  They need to find a way to increase parity. This won't do that.

Why is the choice framed as "make all of them give up the free education.  . . . ." in exchange for a relative handful getting big money?

I would suggest that the BASELINE owed (analogous to minimum wage) is the present setup; to those relative handful who could (by dint of their superior skills in a superior skills environment) earn more, well, that's a reward for hard, hard work.

Note that over the years since the present basic scholly structure evolved, the $$$$$$ have dramatically increased and schools, coaches, and the NCAA rake in fortunes - but players haven't fundamentally increased their well being.  This allows the very best - upon whose skills others make fortunes  - to get theirs (and not at the expense of the many). To the rest - the vast majority - they get what they've been getting (earned through their hard, hard work).

As problems arise under this change, adjustments will need to be made - just like under the present scheme.

PABaseball posted:
Chico Escuela posted:
PABaseball posted:

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

No disrespect, but I don’t understand this reasoning.  I have no qualms about a great coach getting paid a market rate salary, but no coach puts any “product on the field.”  I watch games to see the players, who are the ones actually competing. If Saban coached my local HS’s football team, they might win a few more games, but 50,000 people aren’t going to come to watch them play. 

For most athletes in most sports, a full scholarship is likely worth more than they could earn on the market. (Of course, many athletes get partial or no scholarships, and most sports generate negative net revenues.). But I have yet to see any commenter here even try to explain why players who generate outsized revenues for their schools (“name” players in basketball and football and a handful of Olympians, basically) shouldn’t be able to earn what they are worth. Are you opposed to capitalism in general?  If not, then why is it ok for college sports to permit capitalism for literally everyone involved except the “workers” who create the “product” people pay billions to watch?  It’s like arguing that every actor on a movie set should get $50k salary, including the big-time stars, even if the movie earns $300M after expenses.  There is a reason this doesn’t happen: because markets don’t work that way.  

There are all kinds of potential problems and pitfalls to changing the current system. But IMO the current system has to change. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are, but “pay everyone except the star players” just doesn’t sit right with me. 

When HS athletes enter college there is no guarantee they go pro, there is no guarantee they are even successful at the collegiate level. They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage. For about 300 athletes, their worth exceeds this value. They are worth millions and college did hold them back financially, with the tradeoff to that being that they got a head start on a free degree or are almost done with it. Now for every other college athlete they need that degree and will never be worth anything more than a potential successful alumni to the school. 

As for the money here is the problem. Athletes can receive money from boosters and companies for their image, great. Mike StudQB goes on recruiting visits. On the visits, the pitch isn't about the school or the facilities, it's about which booster has the biggest paycheck. Now Mike StudQB is making a decision based on money. When Mike StudQB gets to college and isn't the starter the endorsers drop their contract. Now Mike StudQB is looking for a new school that will pay him, now it has nothing to do with the education. What happens when Nike tells Joe StudRB that they'll give him more money and a shoe deal when he is the first pick in the NFL draft. But his stock is already thru the roof, just sit out the last 5 games because you can only get injured. Johnny Touchdowns will get a nice paycheck for the car dealership. They'll also set his mom up with a nice job if he attends the school of their choice and make 4 more commercial appearances. What happens when Andre All Star starts missing class to go to he mall for a poster signing and can't stay eligible, but likely won't be drafted this year? What happens when Zion tears thru a shoe and decides he doesn't like Nike anymore. Does he leave his school and go elsewhere? Do brands still get to pay to supply apparel for the schools? These are very lucrative deals for the institutions that supply the full scholarships and pay coaches. 

Athletes do not need a piece. Things are structured the way that they are so things like this do not happen. Athletes enter into contracts in which all the things listed (tuition, food, etc) are all supplied and the only rule is they must remain amateur. The other option is to not take the bad deal (college) and go pro in another country or league. That is capitalism, deciding your worth and getting your true value in the market. Not entering in a contract that explicitly states you can't make money and then complaining that you're broke. These kids know that the NCAA provides the biggest platform for them to raise their stock, they know that if they are injured for 3 straight years that they will have a degree to fall back on, which is why they pass up other options - because they are not as good. They can wait 3 years and take the big money because the CFL does not give them the platform to do that. If you want to blame somebody blame the NBA for not allowing kids to come out of HS. Blame the NFL for not having a minor league/developmental program. 

The only alternatives I see to athletes being able to profit is to forfeit the tuition and all the benefits and pay out of pocket. Gamble on yourself if you feel you're worth it. If the education is worthless for the top athletes then why don't they go to Australia for a year and make some money while waiting for the next NBA draft? Because they know they are one injury away from having no money and no education. 

 

You have a vivid imagination, my friend. May want to start writing fiction novels. Most of what you described already happens, btw.

Athletes transfer all the time anyway, so why would you be so wrapped around the axle about them transferring. Again, you are seeing this only in one light, that being corruption. Now, the way I see it, the most marketable athletes will be blue chip football and basketball players and Olympians. To say in a blanket way “athletes do not need a piece” I would reply: who the hell are you to say that? For some of these kids, they are the first in their families to attend college, let alone have a shot at a professional sports career. Some may come from a less than desirable socio-economic background. Here’s a great idea, let’s oppress them a little more, PABaseball. They are playing in college because they are either not good enough to go pro or are precluded from going pro due to rules designed to enrich the NCAA. The solution to this in your eyes is scholarship or endorsements, which to me is the WORST AND STUPIDIST approach to this! At this point, who do you think is going to step up to pay these kid’s tuition? BOOSTERS! At least there may be a way to make those agencies who may contract with the players to register through a process in which they agree to abide by a set of rules. Violate the rules? You can’t contract with an athlete. I don’t know, I am not an expert here...but what you seem to be wanting to perpetuate is the oppression of athletes who have the ability to earn from their fame...seems pretty elitist to me.

Last edited by collegebaseballrecruitingguide
PABaseball posted:

They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage.

I'd like to find the kid who got this deal because mine certainly didn't and I'm guessing most do not.

Iowamom23 posted:
PABaseball posted:

They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage.

I'd like to find the kid who got this deal because mine certainly didn't and I'm guessing most do not.

85 members of the football team at your son's school. Another 13 of the 16 on the basketball team (one of which I believe is also a baseball player at the school). 

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
PABaseball posted:

When HS athletes enter college there is no guarantee they go pro, there is no guarantee they are even successful at the collegiate level. They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage. For about 300 athletes, their worth exceeds this value. They are worth millions and college did hold them back financially, with the tradeoff to that being that they got a head start on a free degree or are almost done with it. Now for every other college athlete they need that degree and will never be worth anything more than a potential successful alumni to the school. 

As for the money here is the problem. Athletes can receive money from boosters and companies for their image, great. Mike StudQB goes on recruiting visits. On the visits, the pitch isn't about the school or the facilities, it's about which booster has the biggest paycheck. Now Mike StudQB is making a decision based on money. When Mike StudQB gets to college and isn't the starter the endorsers drop their contract. Now Mike StudQB is looking for a new school that will pay him, now it has nothing to do with the education. What happens when Nike tells Joe StudRB that they'll give him more money and a shoe deal when he is the first pick in the NFL draft. But his stock is already thru the roof, just sit out the last 5 games because you can only get injured. Johnny Touchdowns will get a nice paycheck for the car dealership. They'll also set his mom up with a nice job if he attends the school of their choice and make 4 more commercial appearances. What happens when Andre All Star starts missing class to go to he mall for a poster signing and can't stay eligible, but likely won't be drafted this year? What happens when Zion tears thru a shoe and decides he doesn't like Nike anymore. Does he leave his school and go elsewhere? Do brands still get to pay to supply apparel for the schools? These are very lucrative deals for the institutions that supply the full scholarships and pay coaches. 

Athletes do not need a piece. Things are structured the way that they are so things like this do not happen. Athletes enter into contracts in which all the things listed (tuition, food, etc) are all supplied and the only rule is they must remain amateur. The other option is to not take the bad deal (college) and go pro in another country or league. That is capitalism, deciding your worth and getting your true value in the market. Not entering in a contract that explicitly states you can't make money and then complaining that you're broke. These kids know that the NCAA provides the biggest platform for them to raise their stock, they know that if they are injured for 3 straight years that they will have a degree to fall back on, which is why they pass up other options - because they are not as good. They can wait 3 years and take the big money because the CFL does not give them the platform to do that. If you want to blame somebody blame the NBA for not allowing kids to come out of HS. Blame the NFL for not having a minor league/developmental program. 

The only alternatives I see to athletes being able to profit is to forfeit the tuition and all the benefits and pay out of pocket. Gamble on yourself if you feel you're worth it. If the education is worthless for the top athletes then why don't they go to Australia for a year and make some money while waiting for the next NBA draft? Because they know they are one injury away from having no money and no education. 

 

You have a vivid imagination, my friend. May want to start writing fiction novels. Most of what you described already happens, btw.

Athletes transfer all the time anyway, so why would you be so wrapped around the axle about them transferring. Again, you are seeing this only in one light, that being corruption. Now, the way I see it, the most marketable athletes will be blue chip football and basketball players and Olympians. To say in a blanket way “athletes do not need a piece” I would reply: who the hell are you to say that? For some of these kids, they are the first in their families to attend college, let alone have a shot at a professional sports career. Some may come from a less than desirable socio-economic background. Here’s a great idea, let’s oppress them a little more, PABaseball. They are playing in college because they are either not good enough to go pro or are precluded from going pro due to rules designed to enrich the NCAA. The solution to this in your eyes is scholarship or endorsements, which to me is the WORST AND STUPIDIST approach to this! At this point, who do you think is going to step up to pay these kid’s tuition? BOOSTERS! At least there may be a way to make those agencies who may contract with the players to register through a process in which they agree to abide by a set of rules. Violate the rules? You can’t contract with an athlete. I don’t know, I am not an expert here...but what you seem to be wanting to perpetuate is the oppression of athletes who have the ability to earn from their fame...seems pretty elitist to me.

Definitely oppressed 

Last edited by PABaseball

I believe it comes down to how much value is placed on getting a degree. I was the first in my family to attend college and also came from a less than desirable socio-economic background. If someone would have given me tuition, fees, books, a place to live, a card that would let me get a meal 3x a day and a stipend for cost of attendance. I can do this for 5 years (with a red shirt year) and leave with no debt and a masters degree and all I have to do is play a game that I love and keep my grades up, I would place a high value on that arrangement. 

Before anyone says they are not there for the education, than they should not be in college, go play somewhere else. But there isn't anywhere else for football players to play after high school. That sucks, but I do not see that as a NCAA problem. Maybe the new FXL will let them play.

This has been a good thread.  I have one more thing to add, then am going to try to withdraw from the debate:

I just do not understand the arguments that “college athletes should value their educations” and therefore we need to keep the current system. In the current system, highly rated football and basketball players are rarely real college students. And again I remind everyone, these are the athletes who will be affected by the CA law. The argument seems to say we ought have something the current system doesn’t provide, and therefore should keep the current system.

Similarly, I don’t know how you can defend the current system by saying changes will lead to corruption or to making sports all about money. The current system is not exactly a paragon on either of those measures.  Again, we are not talking about volleyball or water polo here.

Finally, when you say athletes can go play somewhere else if they don’t like NCAA rules, you are ignoring the fact that every major college athletic program in the US has formed a cartel for the express purpose of preventing athletes from playing elsewhere under different rules. When someone complains about an illegally maintained near-monopoly, it is no answer to say “if you don’t like the monopoly, then deal with someone else.”

Iowamom23 posted:
PABaseball posted:

They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage.

I'd like to find the kid who got this deal because mine certainly didn't and I'm guessing most do not.

Your son plays the wrong sport.

there is a committee meeting in a few weeks to discuss this from NCAA according to ESPN report yesterday.  They will discuss the ramifications and the response.  I think the problem is that it will be a bidders war for the top players in every sport.  The school that can pay the most will stack every team in every sport.  it is not just the boosters but the schools that will be able to pay players for their likeness and name.  I know it happens now but I think this in its present form will go unbound.  We can say Vandy and schools like it don't have an advantage right now but they do over most state schools because of scholarships offered.  This will give the ones with the most money a big advantage.  A kid gets hot this year and next year he gets an offer from X money school and transfers.  The best players will not take scholarships because they will get cash so that allows them to transfer easily.  I just think it opens the door for a pay to play system that can deteriorate more what is happening.  There has to be a happy medium.

Surely there will be an initial feeding frenzy, and then things will level out.  How much, honestly, can boosters be expected to pay?  What if you are a rich booster who "buys" a ton of players for your team, and they don't win the national championship (because the other teams are doing the same thing, someone gets injured, etc.)?  You are probably going to re-assess how much money you want to put into this.  Are coaches going to deal with the micro-managing that will go along with this (and it surely will), or will they fight back?  In fact, it might impact the smaller sports more than the larger:  one rich alum who happened to play, say, water polo could continually pay players for his/her team when most of the others don't have that support, and build a perpetual power.  Oh wait, doesn't that already happen?

Just thinking about all this in context of baseball....right now a stud high schooler can sign to play pro ball, collect millions of $ in a signing bonus, and if he’s that good start making endorsement deals. I get that it’s all different in football and basketball, but will this really impact baseball ? I think from a recruiting aspect the Vandys of the world already have an advantage over other schools that won’t change. I’m just not sure that a high schooler who would earn enough in college to make a difference vs going in the draft are all that numerous 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×