All California-based NCAA schools could be banned from National Championships

[bonarae]

... bad news for the Toreros and the Big Sky schools in the state if this bill passes. Also applies to other sports as well, not just FCS. But I'll post this here because of the Toreros having a potential impact... could this open the door for Drake or other PFL contenders?

USA Today article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/06/24/ncaa-california-schools-could-banned-championships-over-bill/1542632001/

Bill link is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

At the D1 level, a full ride plus COA is not enough?

[Iridebikes]

There is no doubt that if California does this it would distort the ability to have fair competition. For me, if something like this became the norm, across the US, it would be enough for me to limit if not totally eliminate my interest and participation in college athletics. What with the new graduate transfer rules, redshirt rules and something like this, there is not a lot of difference between amateur and professional athletes.

[walliver]

To be honest, this really only affects D-1 basketball.
The NCAA has no National Championship at FBS level football. It will be interesting to see how the CFP addresses this.
FCS and other sports don't really have a market for athlete endorsements.

[WileECoyote06]

In my opinion, California is taking a step in the right direction. Athletes should be allowed to use their likeness/image to gain endorsements; just like other influencers, youtubers, e-sports athletes, etc.

The NCAA has some nerve. Just five (and ten) years ago they were making money off EA college sports games. hypocrites.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

I would take it a step farther and completely bar California teams from the NCAA. What's the point of having NCAA rules if each individual state can decide what the NCAA rules will be for their state.

And no one points a gun at anyone and forces them to be a student athlete. Don't like the rules? Don't go on scholarship. There's plenty of reasons to not like the NCAA, but it's not their fault that elite high school football and basketball players don't have a developmental league to earn money until they're old enough for the draft.

[FUBeAR]

In my opinion, California is taking a step in the right direction. Athletes should be allowed to use their likeness/image to gain endorsements; just like other influencers, youtubers, e-sports athletes, etc.

The NCAA has some nerve. Just five (and ten) years ago they were making money off EA college sports games. hypocrites.Yep & I hear ya ... but, in theory, the NCAA cares about ‘competitive balance’ ... so they don’t want UCLA to have a recruiting advantage over Murray State (in theory)...So, how ’bout this ... and all these young college students will love the fairness of it.

1) NCAA Athletes can cut their own endorsement deals & get unlimited contracts to do so
2) Money is paid by ‘Sponsors’ into an NCAA-managed (with independent auditing/reporting, of course) interest-bearing account - 1 Account for each Sport for each Division.
3) Every quarter, NCAA adds 10% of paid-in amount to each fund (because they care) and fully distributes the fund EQUALLY to each qualified participating athlete in that sport and that division. NOTE: All NCAA D1Football is in ONE fund.
4) No deferred payment plans - if endorsement occurs, sponsor must pay NOW - send the NCAA Enforcers after them!

No competitive advantages by school
Athletes get paid based on the popularity of their sport/division
Popular college ethos of wealth-sharing is realized
FCS Players are VERY HAPPY
NCAA is a slight bit less dirty


Perfect Plan!!!

[Sycamore62]

the only people not getting paid in the whole equation are the players. everyone else is WILDLY overpaid.

[uni88]

Yep & I hear ya ... but, in theory, the NCAA cares about ‘competitive balance’ ... so they don’t want UCLA to have a recruiting advantage over Murray State (in theory)...So, how ’bout this ... and all these young college students will love the fairness of it.

1) NCAA Athletes can cut their own endorsement deals & get unlimited contracts to do so
2) Money is paid by ‘Sponsors’ into an NCAA-managed (with independent auditing/reporting, of course) interest-bearing account - 1 Account for each Sport for each Division.
3) Every quarter, NCAA adds 10% of paid-in amount to each fund (because they care) and fully distributes the fund EQUALLY to each qualified participating athlete in that sport and that division. NOTE: All NCAA D1Football is in ONE fund.
4) No deferred payment plans - if endorsement occurs, sponsor must pay NOW - send the NCAA Enforcers after them!

No competitive advantages by school
Athletes get paid based on the popularity of their sport/division
Popular college ethos of wealth-sharing is realized
FCS Players are VERY HAPPY
NCAA is a slight bit less dirty

Perfect Plan!!!

I like it! xthumbsupx

[Outsider1]

1) I don't like the idea at all because these are STUDENT-athletes. Yes I know my over emphasis on students, but they need to focus on their studies as we as their sports. I know some very good students who leave and go on to the NFL (and other sports) come back to finish their degrees. I don't know if enough of them do it. I still feel they should leave with the degree first. Even successful athletes require careers outside their sport. I also recognize these kids do get taken advantage of by many institutions, so I can see why states are beginning to look at changing laws. I just personally don't like the precedent; opinion only.
2) IF we did have to start making such changes than I would agree with FUBeAR and uni88 to a degree. Do it in a way that improves over-all benefit, doesn't alter the current competitiveness and keeps the student athlete's total long-term interest at the forefront. Again, opinion only...

[Model Citizen]

... bad news for the Toreros



" requires intercollegiate athletic programs at 4-year private universities or campuses of the University of California or the California State University that receive, as an average, $10,000,000 or more in annual revenue derived from media rights for intercollegiate athletics to comply with prescribed requirements relating to student athlete rights."

San Diego's entire athletic budget is $25M, and they're in the media-shy WCC and Pioneer. I don't think this applies to them. Stanford and SC are the intended private school targets.

The NCAA isn't going to take action against every school in California.

[Outsider1]

" requires intercollegiate athletic programs at 4-year private universities or campuses of the University of California or the California State University that receive, as an average, $10,000,000 or more in annual revenue derived from media rights for intercollegiate athletics to comply with prescribed requirements relating to student athlete rights."

San Diego's entire athletic budget is $25M, and they're in the media-shy WCC and Pioneer. I don't think this applies to them. Stanford and SC are the intended private school targets.

The NCAA isn't going to take action against every school in California.





Those are good and important distinctions, so again I can see why. I still don't like the idea. BUT, I don't like the idea even more for the bigger and more heavily funded teams because those ARE the areas where the biggest effects are felt. I still wouldn't like it at a small school like us. To me, student athletes are student athletes regardless of where they go. With big schools, big media contracts, etc..mixed in with the NCAA and their cuts I know something needs to happen.

[lionsrking2]

Yep & I hear ya ... but, in theory, the NCAA cares about ‘competitive balance’ ... so they don’t want UCLA to have a recruiting advantage over Murray State (in theory)...So, how ’bout this ... and all these young college students will love the fairness of it.

1) NCAA Athletes can cut their own endorsement deals & get unlimited contracts to do so
2) Money is paid by ‘Sponsors’ into an NCAA-managed (with independent auditing/reporting, of course) interest-bearing account - 1 Account for each Sport for each Division.
3) Every quarter, NCAA adds 10% of paid-in amount to each fund (because they care) and fully distributes the fund EQUALLY to each qualified participating athlete in that sport and that division. NOTE: All NCAA D1Football is in ONE fund.
4) No deferred payment plans - if endorsement occurs, sponsor must pay NOW - send the NCAA Enforcers after them!

No competitive advantages by school
Athletes get paid based on the popularity of their sport/division
Popular college ethos of wealth-sharing is realized
FCS Players are VERY HAPPY
NCAA is a slight bit less dirty


Perfect Plan!!!

How does that alleviate the competitive balance issue? UCLA would still have the advantage over Murray State under your scenario.

[uni88]

I would take it a step farther and completely bar California teams from the NCAA. What's the point of having NCAA rules if each individual state can decide what the NCAA rules will be for their state.

And no one points a gun at anyone and forces them to be a student athlete. Don't like the rules? Don't go on scholarship. There's plenty of reasons to not like the NCAA, but it's not their fault that elite high school football and basketball players don't have a developmental league to earn money until they're old enough for the draft.

What would paying them mean for FCS schools and other smaller programs?

What would the landscape look like if there wasn't NCAA/CFP football and basketball? What is better - scholarships, COA and the living, training, travel, etc. accommodations for major college football & basketball or life in baseball's minor leagues? I get that it's hypocritical for the NCAA and programs to make millions off of these athletes in exchange for a scholarship and COA but there are probably some benefits to playing for Ole State U (meals & housing, the opportunity to get a degree, chartered flights, tutoring, etc.) that beat bus trips and trying to work your way up through the minor leagues if major college football didn't exist.

[TheKingpin28]

As long as NCAA Football comes back to the Xbox platform, then I am all for that solution.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[walliver]

" requires intercollegiate athletic programs at 4-year private universities or campuses of the University of California or the California State University that receive, as an average, $10,000,000 or more in annual revenue derived from media rights for intercollegiate athletics to comply with prescribed requirements relating to student athlete rights."

San Diego's entire athletic budget is $25M, and they're in the media-shy WCC and Pioneer. I don't think this applies to them. Stanford and SC are the intended private school targets.

The NCAA isn't going to take action against every school in California.




Re-read the document:


Existing law, known as the Student Athlete Bill of Rights, requires intercollegiate athletic programs at 4-year private universities or campuses of the University of California or the California State University that receive, as an average, $10,000,000 or more in annual revenue derived from media rights for intercollegiate athletics to comply with prescribed requirements relating to student athlete rights.
This bill, the Fair Pay to Play Act, would prohibit every California postsecondary educational institution, athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from providing a prospective intercollegiate student athlete with compensation in relation to the athlete’s name, image, or likeness, or preventing a student participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness or obtaining professional representation relating to the student’s participation in intercollegiate athletics.

This bill extends these rules to everybody. The $10M criterion applies to existing law, not the new law.

They also try to extend the law to the NCAA as a whole.

The law wouldn't take effect until 2023 and probably will face a long court battle.

What's next, will the State of Alabama mandate that all FBS football players in the state receive at least $25,000/year

[JSUSoutherner]

As long as NCAA Football comes back to the Xbox platform, then I am all for that solution.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

EA is trash.

[TheKingpin28]

EA is trash.

Doesn't mean the NCAA series was.

[Model Citizen]

Re-read the document:



This bill extends these rules to everybody. The $10M criterion applies to existing law, not the new law.

They also try to extend the law to the NCAA as a whole.

The law wouldn't take effect until 2023 and probably will face a long court battle.

What's next, will the State of Alabama mandate that all FBS football players in the state receive at least $25,000/year

I see what you are saying. Maybe a future Dan Cooney will get a local taco endorsement. Until then, I'm not giving this another thought.

[WileECoyote06]

As long as NCAA Football comes back to the Xbox platform, then I am all for that solution.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

https://media.giphy.com/media/l1ug5sWBCJOOGzN84/giphy.gif

[FUBeAR]

How does that alleviate the competitive balance issue? UCLA would still have the advantage over Murray State under your scenario.
Not from that ‘dirty’ endorsement money. The Racers’ Football players in Murraysville (or wherever...never been there) are gonna get paid the same as those Bruins’ Players in the Westwood section of LA. Now, the Bruins or the Trojans or the Fightin’ Irish QB’s may sign an 8-figure endorsement deal, but the 4th Team OT for Murray or Colgate or Dayton is gonna get the same share as the guys who landed the endorsements. That maintains perfect competitive balance & fosters the noble principle of sharing.

[Redbird 4th & short]

so then all these student-athletes will start paying income taxes on all income and have no issue with this ? Not just endorsements, apparel, shoe contracts, but also on schollie money for room & board stipends, COA money, etc. Tuition & Fees schollie would be tax deductible for most part, if they filed individually from the parents. Then will they be allowed to have agents represent them in getting these deals ?

Yeah ... this is all a great idea for college athletics ... put this kind of money and decision making in hands of 18-22 year olds ... what could go wrong !!!

Wish them luck if it goes this direction ... it will be an unmitigated bloodbath .. it will get so cut throat. Wait till these student-ahtletes start disappointing their coaches and endorsers. Then what ... we rush in to protect them ? They think they want all that a free market has to offer .. until sh-t happens, right ??? Then they go running to mom and dad for protection and cry foul.

I'm sure they've thought this all the way thru.

My advice .. take your schollie, your apparel, and your COA money .. play for fun, study and graduate, and then go get a real job ... statistically, 99% of you will never play professionally anyway.

[FUBeAR]

The simple answer to all of this is D1 FBS Schools all start-up affiliated Professional Football & Basketball Teams as subsidiaries & form their own League - with or without NCAA involvement - could go either way. They can be run as Non-Profit subs and still provide benefit to their Parent org.’s. Slick Finance / Legal peeps can work thru all that.

Then the rest of College Athletics can resume its original purpose.

[Mike296]

The simple answer to all of this is D1 FBS Schools all start-up affiliated Professional Football & Basketball Teams as subsidiaries & form their own League - with or without NCAA involvement - could go either way. They can be run as Non-Profit subs and still provide benefit to their Parent org.’s. Slick Finance / Legal peeps can work thru all that.

Then the rest of College Athletics can resume its original purpose.

Or we could do what Europe does for a lot of sports and make teams their own “entity” and allow the entity themselves to decide on proper compensation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BisonTru]

http://youtu.be/4XEq6XYtMVU

[FUBeAR]

Or we could do what Europe does for a lot of sports and make teams their own “entity” and allow the entity themselves to decide on proper compensation.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkNah..the Alumni & “Alumni” of those FBS programs need to be able to cheer for & give their money to Teams of Players (not necessarily Students, just Players - the proliferation & popularity of 1 & Done’s in ‘major college’ hoops has proven they absolutely do not care one whit if the Players are Students of the school or not) wearing the logos & colors of their Alma Maters & “Alma Maters.”

[OhioHen]

Nah..the Alumni & “Alumni” ... their Alma Maters & “Alma Maters.”

Reminds me of some tee shirts and bumper stickers I've seen - many schools in Texas don't have Alumni Associations - they have Former Student Associations.

[Reign of Terrier]

As long as NCAA Football comes back to the Xbox platform, then I am all for that solution.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

This is the only correct take tbh

[Sycamore62]

Oh, and if you break your neck or get nerve damage that paralyzes one of your arms (as happened to one of EIU's star LBs a while back on the opening kickoff in their money game vs Illinois), we're not on the hook for anything.

-NCAA

[lucchesicourt]

Actually this is a sure way to END collegiate sports in CA. Kids will just attend school out of state.

[bonarae]

Actually this is a sure way to END collegiate sports in CA. Kids will just attend school out of state.

Like what the top prep players in CA usually do (most sports) or in the case of baseball, turn pro after getting drafted out of HS?

[lucchesicourt]

CA politicians are not the brightest in the state. They just count find work anywhere else

[phoenix3]

The thing that bothers me the most is that universities and the NCAA can make money by leveraging individual players' names & images, but the player can't. This is almost criminal IMO.

[lucchesicourt]

It is their decision whether to play or not. They are getting a great education at the UCs, and they don't have to pay to attend, for books, and rent. That is about 35-40K a year or more. So, it is not nothing. That comes to about $40k for a non athletic schollie student needs to pay per year or $160K for 4 years. So, that is not too bad, considering the athlete decides not to plat, so he would need to fork over $160K for 4years. Is that not enough?

[Redbird 4th & short]

It is their decision whether to play or not. They are getting a great education at the UCs, and they don't have to pay to attend, for books, and rent. That is about 35-40K a year or more. So, it is not nothing. That comes to about $40k for a non athletic schollie student needs to pay per year or $160K for 4 years. So, that is not too bad, considering the athlete decides not to plat, so he would need to fork over $160K for 4years. Is that not enough?

this x 100

Take the college game "as is" .. all the coaches and players, move it off campus into some random city ... how well would it do without the college affiliation and campus environment, combined with NCAA admin to create the interest there is in those sports ?? It would fail like every other attemp to form a semi-pro type league from lack of interest. Don't ruin it by thinking these kids need to be "paid" like professionals just because there is "money to be made". They are there to get a degree .. the whole one and done thing is fine for some.

But it would a shame to give in to the idea of letting 18 year olds market themselves while they get educated and wear a uniform representing their college ... the college invested all the money, provided the full scholarships, hired all the coaches trainers ... not to mention, built the campus, all the buildings/facilitis, etc. That college team/program backed by the university is the reason there is "money to be made" .. not the player. Want proof .... most teams keep winning long after their stars have left after 1 season. Players come and go every year ... teams continue to win about the same # of games with or without those specific players .. the game goes on regardless of the specific players.

Stop giving in to kids just because they say they want something ... life will go on after they leave.

And I worry what will happen to college unifirms ... in theory, these 4 guys could be on same team !!! It would all get very confusing and a lot more turnovers. :D

https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/usp_nascar__coke_zero_400_powered_by_coca-cola-qua_92062255.jpg?w=1000&h=600&crop=1 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwixobyts5HjAhVIXM0KHZySBXIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fftw.usatoday.com%2F2017%2F07%2Fd ale-earnhardt-jr-jimmie-johnson-nascar-daytona-international-speedway-coke-zero-400-kevin-harvick-kurt-busch-daytona-500&psig=AOvVaw1R7IsYADrNYB_BpCNBL6Gz&ust=1561990807819541)

[lucchesicourt]

Actually, I think pro football should have to fork cash over to colleges after the draft depending on where the athlete gets picked. It's not like the NFL has its own farm system.
Same for basketball. Only baseball has its own system to train future athletes

[unknown3]

It is their decision whether to play or not. They are getting a great education at the UCs, and they don't have to pay to attend, for books, and rent. That is about 35-40K a year or more. So, it is not nothing. That comes to about $40k for a non athletic schollie student needs to pay per year or $160K for 4 years. So, that is not too bad, considering the athlete decides not to plat, so he would need to fork over $160K for 4years. Is that not enough?

And even with this, it probably isn't a tenth what schools make off of selling those kids jerseys with their names on it. An education doesn't even come close to the money that top athletes make for these schools. But of course, people dont mind that these kids get exploited as long as their team is winning. And to be honest, many of these degrees that they end up with aren't worth the paper that they're written on anyways. Especially considering many schools push them into majors that will do little to nothing to assist them in the job market after graduation. If the school can make money off the kids' name there shouldnt be anything wrong with them making money off their own name. And being realistic, not only do these athletes bring in millions in revenue via ticket sales, jerseys, etc... good teams also increase the school's applications for students. That little scholarship doesn't equate at all.

[Redbird 4th & short]

And even with this, it probably isn't a tenth what schools make off of selling those kids jerseys with their names on it. An education doesn't even come close to the money that top athletes make for these schools. But of course, people dont mind that these kids get exploited as long as their team is winning. And to be honest, many of these degrees that they end up with aren't worth the paper that they're written on anyways. Especially considering many schools push them into majors that will do little to nothing to assist them in the job market after graduation. If the school can make money off the kids' name there shouldnt be anything wrong with them making money off their own name. And being realistic, not only do these athletes bring in millions in revenue via ticket sales, jerseys, etc... good teams also increase the school's applications for students. That little scholarship doesn't equate at all.
Which kids and at which programs and at which levels. Maybe the all Americans at P5 level for teams that win are what you describe ... the same kids who are usually one and done .. those kids ?? That small % of the kids. The college took all the risks and made all the investments ... the kid your talking about will be gone in one year .... and will be replaced easily. And the program will continue to field good teams and make playoff runs. The players are easily replaced and very few actually make a real difference to the revenue line ... the stadium would likely be filled regardless of that one truly spacial player.

[lucchesicourt]

Well. Does is in the NFL right now and is not making 50K a year salary. And, I bet the NFL is making money too.

[lucchesicourt]

You are talking about UC schools here mostly. Look at the fields of which the athletic/students are getting degrees in. They are not like the school you attend. And the athletes are in the same classes as the other students on campus. This is about UCs and private schools and cal Poly and Sac State. None of these schools are cupcake schools for any student athlete of not.

[lucchesicourt]

Unknown,selling jerseys with names on the back. Which schools do this?

[ST_Lawson]

It's not like the NFL has its own farm system. Same for basketball. Only baseball has its own system to train future athletes

Not arguing against any of the points above, just wanted to point out that the NBA does have a "minor league". Used to be called the D-League, although it's the G League now (got sponsored by Gatorade).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_G_League

They also have the NBA Summer League: https://www.nba.com/summerleague#/
Which, I'll admit, I didn't know anything about until one of our basketball players got an invite to participate in with Denver this year. (https://goleathernecks.com/news/2019/6/29/mens-basketball-former-leatherneck-turned-nba-hopeful.aspx)

[Redbird 4th & short]

[QUOTE=ST_Lawson;2778085]Not arguing against any of the points above, just wanted to point out that the NBA does have a "minor league". Used to be called the D-League, although it's the G League now (got sponsored by Gatorade).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_G_League
Yep .. and can anyone remember the last time you saw a player or team from this NBA minor league do something that made front page of sports section??

Why is that ? Again take all the coaches and players who want to be paid and put them in this G league .... good luck getting 1% of the attention you get today playing for your college team .. especially the one and done superstars.

Again ... the players are 100% replaceable. Dean Smith survived losing Michael Jordan ... and he played 3 seasons. These one and done stars do little for their programs .. they just keep churning new players.

[lucchesicourt]

You are so right. If the athlete isn't smart and plays one season and stands out, he can enter the draft. So, the school gave them the opportunity to have a professional career even though he may lack the smarts. So, does the school benefit more or the athlete? The fact is no one knows whether a student is academically qualified until he has spent a year at least a quarter (UCD is on quarter system) or semester as an undergrad.
I actually think the schools should require at least a year in the system before being qualified to play sports.
I just think if the Raiders are paying Doss a salary of $49K, an education at UCD is worth much more than what the Raiders are currently paying him.
So, I think his scholarship will pay him back many times over his career thanks to his 4 years at UCD. So, I believe a scholarship whether academic or sports related can be worth more or less depending on the institution.
Ivy league schools obviously have more prestige than the UC's (except maybe UC Berkeley or UC San Francisco), and hence their graduates tend to earn quite a bit more than UC graduates over their careers. Stanford probably is closest to
the Ivies in CA.

[Redbird 4th & short]

You are so right. If the athlete isn't smart and plays one season and stands out, he can enter the draft. So, the school gave them the opportunity to have a professional career even though he may lack the smarts. So, does the school benefit more or the athlete? The fact is no one knows whether a student is academically qualified until he has spent a year at least a quarter (UCD is on quarter system) or semester as an undergrad.
I actually think the schools should require at least a year in the system before being qualified to play sports.
I just think if the Raiders are paying Doss a salary of $49K, an education at UCD is worth much more than what the Raiders are currently paying him.
So, I think his scholarship will pay him back many times over his career thanks to his 4 years at UCD. So, I believe a scholarship whether academic or sports related can be worth more or less depending on the institution.
Ivy league schools obviously have more prestige than the UC's (except maybe UC Berkeley or UC San Francisco), and hence their graduates tend to earn quite a bit more than UC graduates over their careers. Stanford probably is closest to
the Ivies in CA.
yes, they went to college to represent the university and don't pay a dime of income tax for their scholarship money. Very few college players actually move the needle for their colllege program ... For every Larry Bird (one of the very few who did move his college onto map), there are 10,000 nobodies. And how kong did Larry Bird's presence at ISUb benefit them .... not very long. BUt it made him a top 2 pick in NBA .. and to think he took time off from school as garbage collector or something. I'd say, ISUb was beneficial to Larry Bird too. Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, name any other transformational player from a big time school ....their programs kept winning without them after they left ... ISUb and Larry Bird is a very rare exception as far as single player impacting a college program.

Take your scholarship, go to class, work hard on field/court, graduate, etc .... 98% of you at D-I level will then need to go find a real job.

Don't further ruin the college game and bring more money into equation. It just gets worse if you do that. Just because they want it, doon;t mean you have to give in to it.

[Sycamore62]

do any students pay taxes on scholarships? Do any students get paid for things they do for the university? Are any other people connected to the university prevented from making money off their likeness?

[bonarae]

Somewhat non-FCS but still related to this topic...

From the Trojan Horses fans' point of view... xcoffeex

https://reignoftroy.com/2019/07/01/ncaa-championship-ban-usc-ucla-stanford-cal-mark-emmert/

[OhioHen]

Do any students get paid for things they do for the university?

Resident assistants
Graduate assistants
Teaching assistants
Tutors
Tour guides
Security aides
Students on work study programs
etc.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Resident assistants
Graduate assistants
Teaching assistants
Tutors
Tour guides
Security aides
Students on work study programs
etc.
All of those positions represent actual work that is needed .. whether done by a student or not ... meaning, someone has to do it .. and it might as well be a student but could just as easily be a nonstudent who they would have to pay to do that job. So it's not the same thing as an athlete choosing to play a sport.

The only exception is work study. And I think if there is one area I would fully support "paying" student athletes over and above their schollie it would be with allowing and regulating more paid work study time into the budget .. easy jobs and require them to bring school books. This could give athletes spending money .. especially the ones that cant easily afford to travel home for holidays, or other basic living expenses since most athletes wouldn't be able to work a part time job. Beyond work study money, i think it is a big mistake to bring any more money into the equation.

[Sycamore62]

All of those positions represent actual work that is needed .. whether done by a student or not ... meaning, someone has to do it .. and it might as well be a student but could just as easily be a nonstudent who they would have to pay to do that job. So it's not the same thing as an athlete choosing to play a sport.

The only exception is work study. And I think if there is one area I would fully support "paying" student athletes over and above their schollie it would be with allowing and regulating more paid work study time into the budget .. easy jobs and require them to bring school books. This could give athletes spending money .. especially the ones that cant easily afford to travel home for holidays, or other basic living expenses since most athletes wouldn't be able to work a part time job. Beyond work study money, i think it is a big mistake to bring any more money into the equation.

But you, as in the university, isnt having to "pay" the athlete anything. apps to Florida Gulf Coast increased significantly due to 5+ guys i couldnt identify. the players are performing a job...whether you feel it is needed or not is a subjective as whether you need any of those jobs. my point is that EVERYBODY else gets paid.

[Redbird 4th & short]

But you, as in the university, isnt having to "pay" the athlete anything. apps to Florida Gulf Coast increased significantly due to 5+ guys i couldnt identify. the players are performing a job...whether you feel it is needed or not is a subjective as whether you need any of those jobs. my point is that EVERYBODY else gets paid.
I'm combining arguments against student athletes getting paid in any way, whether by university or thru endorsements ... very slippery slope either way IMO.

[lucchesicourt]

No,there is one big difference. The student athlete does NOT need to play football or any other sport. It is his choice. It is NOT a job. He can attend school like most other students. And the other students don't get paid. The other students who do not play football, but excel as students also greatly contribute to the schools academic integrity. So, why should athletes only get paid for contributing to the school? Athletes who don't graduate hurt the schools reputation. That is why APR is important.

[OhioHen]

No,there is one big difference. The student athlete does NOT need to play football or any other sport. It is his choice. It is NOT a job. He can attend school like most other students.

In some cases, this is not true. He cannot attend school like most other students if the only way he got admitted was because of athletic prowess. He cannot attend school like most other students if he comes from an economic background that precludes him from paying for college without the full-ride scholarship.

[Sycamore62]

No,there is one big difference. The student athlete does NOT need to play football or any other sport. It is his choice. It is NOT a job. He can attend school like most other students. And the other students don't get paid. The other students who do not play football, but excel as students also greatly contribute to the schools academic integrity. So, why should athletes only get paid for contributing to the school? Athletes who don't graduate hurt the schools reputation. That is why APR is important.

Other students arent doing anything. If other students do something, they get paid. My wife got a music scholarship at a pretty good school. She could have taken ANY endorsement she wanted.

And we shouldn't refer to any schools "Integrity" when the cost has gone up 5 times the rate of the CPI for a majority of degrees that are very close to worthless.

[Daytripper]

In my opinion, California is taking a step in the right direction. Athletes should be allowed to use their likeness/image to gain endorsements; just like other influencers, youtubers, e-sports athletes, etc.

The NCAA has some nerve. Just five (and ten) years ago they were making money off EA college sports games. hypocrites.

This right here..^^^
The NCAA is simply a money making machine that enriches itself on the work of "student-athletes".. Sure, they get a free education. But, just like any person working in any field, if you are elite at what you do you should get paid. AND especially if the people you work for are making millions on your likeness, you should get paid. Period.

[DFW HOYA]

But you, as in the university, isnt having to "pay" the athlete anything. apps to Florida Gulf Coast increased significantly due to 5+ guys i couldnt identify. the players are performing a job...

In the age of the common application, number of applications mean very little. Which of the following schools would be the most selective? You wouldn't know by applications:

School A: 60,825 applicants
School B: 36,000 applicants
School C: 85,102 applicants
School D: 22,788 applicants

School A: Boston University
School B: Baylor University
School C: University of California-Irvine
School D: Georgetown University

[Sycamore62]

In the age of the common application, number of applications mean very little. Which of the following schools would be the most selective? You wouldn't know by applications:

School A: 60,825 applicants
School B: 36,000 applicants
School C: 85,102 applicants
School D: 22,788 applicants

School A: Boston University
School B: Baylor University
School C: University of California-Irvine
School D: Georgetown University

do you know how many students those universities admitted that didn't submit an application?

[Redbird 4th & short]

This right here..^^^
The NCAA is simply a money making machine that enriches itself on the work of "student-athletes".. Sure, they get a free education. But, just like any person working in any field, if you are elite at what you do you should get paid. AND especially if the people you work for are making millions on your likeness, you should get paid. Period.
Problems with NCAA should be addressed as separate issue.

Where does paying student t athletes end ? Do you let it drop down to High Schools ? Elite club teams ? Then who will represent the student athletes... think there is maybe some scrum bags out there who wont completely exploit the student athlete ? It will only make it all worse.

Keep the focus where it should be ... college sports are NOT professional sports. If there was a viable market for team sports outside of college that prepared athletes for pro's ... it would already exist.

Dont look a gift horse in the mouth. Address NCAA problems with NCAA ... paying students will not "fix" any problems .. it will only create new ones .. IMO

[Sycamore62]

Problems with NCAA should be addressed as separate issue.

Where does paying student t athletes end ? Do you let it drop down to High Schools ? Elite club teams ? Then who will represent the student athletes... think there is maybe some scrum bags out there who wont completely exploit the student athlete ? It will only make it all worse.

Keep the focus where it should be ... college sports are NOT professional sports. If there was a viable market for team sports outside of college that prepared athletes for pro's ... it would already exist.

Dont look a gift horse in the mouth. Address NCAA problems with NCAA ... paying students will not "fix" any problems .. it will only create new ones .. IMO

maybe the rest of the school should be amateur too. right now you have universities completely exploiting the student athlete. how could a lower level league compete with the NCAA? the top 20 teams in 2017 brought in around $3Billion. They have also have government funded facilities.

[walliver]

I am not opposed to athletes getting a small stipend. These athletes don't have time to work part-time jobs and need a little spending money like everyone else.

As the recent Hollywood admissions scandal has pointed out, many well-respected institutions do lower admission standards for athletes, even in fringe sports. So obviously some of these players, even at the PAC-12 privates, would otherwise not be admitted, so they do get some benefit.

What is most worrisome about this whole deal is that only a very few selected players would make any money. Trevor Lawrence would get rich, but his linemen wouldn't. And it is not at all beyond belief that wealthy donors would sign players to top endorsement deals to encourage players to attend their schools.

On the other hand, I believe that all players should have access to agents, specifically agents meeting defined criteria. Most college athletes really need help form someone who know the game and the market. Too many athletes make bad decisions based on help from uninformed people. I would allow athletes to enter the draft, but keep their eligibility if not drafted (although the school could cancel the scholarship at their discretion - otherwise schools end up with roster vacancies long after signing day has come and gone.)

[Daytripper]

I am not opposed to athletes getting a small stipend. These athletes don't have time to work part-time jobs and need a little spending money like everyone else.

As the recent Hollywood admissions scandal has pointed out, many well-respected institutions do lower admission standards for athletes, even in fringe sports. So obviously some of these players, even at the PAC-12 privates, would otherwise not be admitted, so they do get some benefit.

What is most worrisome about this whole deal is that only a very few selected players would make any money. Trevor Lawrence would get rich, but his linemen wouldn't. And it is not at all beyond belief that wealthy donors would sign players to top endorsement deals to encourage players to attend their schools.

On the other hand, I believe that all players should have access to agents, specifically agents meeting defined criteria. Most college athletes really need help form someone who know the game and the market. Too many athletes make bad decisions based on help from uninformed people. I would allow athletes to enter the draft, but keep their eligibility if not drafted (although the school could cancel the scholarship at their discretion - otherwise schools end up with roster vacancies long after signing day has come and gone.)

To me, this is probably the biggest issue that would need to be addressed.

[lucchesicourt]

In some cases, this is not true. He cannot attend school like most other students if the only way he got admitted was because of athletic prowess. He cannot attend school like most other students if he comes from an economic background that precludes him from paying for college without the full-ride scholarship.

Well, if you are a student and applied oneself during high school, he could do what I did. Get a full ride academic schollie. Some of these schollies are only based on NEED and sowing the ability to succeed in college. You don't even have to excel in CA. Yeah, I worked hard or harder to get into UCD than a football player ever does on the field. Academic work is there all the time, and athletic work is not. Also, shouldn't I also get paid then for all the hard work (academic) that I put in?
The key word here is "STUDENT". If he cannot qualify for a full ride schollie somewhere, my guess is he would not be able to attend top schools anywhere.
An athlete for a university must be able to keep himself eligible to play by proving he is academically qualified as a student. That is why I say he should not be able to play until he has proven he is academically qualified.

I get tired of people getting into schools just based on athletic prowess or cheating. That is NOT a student. I know every athlete at UCD is more than qualified to excel at any other college in the country. That is what I expect. So, an athlete should be able to get into a school based on his academics alone. Forget athleticism. If athleticism is all you have, then you do not belong in college.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I am not opposed to athletes getting a small stipend. These athletes don't have time to work part-time jobs and need a little spending money like everyone else.

As the recent Hollywood admissions scandal has pointed out, many well-respected institutions do lower admission standards for athletes, even in fringe sports. So obviously some of these players, even at the PAC-12 privates, would otherwise not be admitted, so they do get some benefit.

What is most worrisome about this whole deal is that only a very few selected players would make any money. Trevor Lawrence would get rich, but his linemen wouldn't. And it is not at all beyond belief that wealthy donors would sign players to top endorsement deals to encourage players to attend their schools.

On the other hand, I believe that all players should have access to agents, specifically agents meeting defined criteria. Most college athletes really need help form someone who know the game and the market. Too many athletes make bad decisions based on help from uninformed people. I would allow athletes to enter the draft, but keep their eligibility if not drafted (although the school could cancel the scholarship at their discretion - otherwise schools end up with roster vacancies long after signing day has come and gone.)

I prefer work studies ... easy job and make them bring their school books. In season, limit hours to 8 or 10 hours a week .. $100 per week, $400 per month .. plenty of spending money for college student with no other bills. Offseason, maybe bump to 12-15 hours per week if there is budget.

As for agents .. plenty of scum bags out there trying to take advantage of 18 year old kids. They will be like vultures circling these HS kids and their club teams waiting to pounce.

And when does this all start, when can they first get paid ? During HS ? Could they get more after they sign LOI at Duke versus falling to some G5 school ? After they graduate or turn 18 ? Or do they have to be on college campus before they paid ? Signing bonuses ? Under the table stuff ?

It gets pretty complicated and corruptible as soon as you allow agents and money to factor into a HS kids decision making. Slippery slope ..... and it won't fix a thing.

[lucchesicourt]

... bad news for the Toreros and the Big Sky schools in the state if this bill passes. Also applies to other sports as well, not just FCS. But I'll post this here because of the Toreros having a potential impact... could this open the door for Drake or other PFL contenders?

USA Today article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/06/24/ncaa-california-schools-could-banned-championships-over-bill/1542632001/

Bill link is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206
.
So, if this Bill passes, does that mean the students no longer have to pay part of their tuition to cover athletics. After all, if you do not attend, why should you have to pay for it then. At UCD students had to pass a school referendum to agree to pay a higher tuition to subsidize football at the school or it would have been discontinued. So, if they are getting paid- where is the money going to come from? Surely, the students are not going to agrree to pay players for their education. I sure wouldn't. I worked hard to get what I got when I was a student. So, does this mean tuition will decline for all students?, since the players are getting paid to play by the commercial industries?

[FUBeAR]

What is most worrisome about this whole deal is that only a very few selected players would make any money. Trevor Lawrence would get rich, but his linemen wouldn't. And it is not at all beyond belief that wealthy donors would sign players to top endorsement deals to encourage players to attend their schools.FUBeAR resolved this issue way back in post #7. Not only would those Clemson OLmen get paid under the FUBeAR Plan, but the 4th Team Left Guard at Wofford would get the same quarterly endorsement check amount as Sunshine. It’s called income equality & it’s all the rage on college campuses these days. They’ll ALL LOVE it! And, yeah, maybe that wealthy Triple Platinum IPTAY Member, with his chain of 999 burger joints, would still stroke that FAT check to encourage the next Wunderkind QB to spend 3 years in Greater Anderson, SC, while slurpin’ down his tasty burgers on WSPA & WYFF TV...but that’s OK cuz ya boy, that never-gonna-see-any-PT OG in SparkleCity, is bringin’ home his fat stacks too!

How ‘bout dat?

[lucchesicourt]

I have a suggestion Do away with college scholarships for athletes altogether and let them all get a salary from their sports contracts Why should other students pay for athletes schooling if they are getting paid to play

[Redbird 4th & short]

I have a suggestion Do away with college scholarships for athletes altogether and let them all get a salary from their sports contracts Why should other students pay for athletes schooling if they are getting paid to play
very well played sir .... but let's see how students feel if all the athletes got paid to play instead of schollies ... after all, they are allegedly "working" for the university just like a Grad Asst or Teachers Assistant .. right !!! Money comes from somewhere no matter what you call it .. schollie or pay check.

Then tax it like all other income . which means yo uhave to pay the athlete more than it actually costs so Uncle Sam can have his cut.

[Bisonoline]

Well, if you are a student and applied oneself during high school, he could do what I did. Get a full ride academic schollie. Some of these schollies are only based on NEED and sowing the ability to succeed in college. You don't even have to excel in CA. Yeah, I worked hard or harder to get into UCD than a football player ever does on the field. Academic work is there all the time, and athletic work is not. Also, shouldn't I also get paid then for all the hard work (academic) that I put in?
The key word here is "STUDENT". If he cannot qualify for a full ride schollie somewhere, my guess is he would not be able to attend top schools anywhere.
An athlete for a university must be able to keep himself eligible to play by proving he is academically qualified as a student. That is why I say he should not be able to play until he has proven he is academically qualified.

I get tired of people getting into schools just based on athletic prowess or cheating. That is NOT a student. I know every athlete at UCD is more than qualified to excel at any other college in the country. That is what I expect. So, an athlete should be able to get into a school based on his academics alone. Forget athleticism. If athleticism is all you have, then you do not belong in college.

There is no way I was qualified academically to receive a academic scholarship. But with class ranking and my ACT and current HS grades I was eligible
to receive a scholarship to the university of Iowa which I might add had higher academic requirements than the NCAA.

By being accepted shows you is qualified to attend. Many factors come it to whether you will graduate or not.

[lucchesicourt]

There are scholarships based on need, not just academic credentials. If you meet the schools standards and get accepted there are need based schollies

[Professor Chaos]

The bill passed the California state senate assembly unanimously: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/sports/college-athlete-pay-california.html

Now they just have to resolve the differences between the state senate and state assembly versions of the bill (which doesn't sound like it'll be tough to do) before they send the bill to the governor for his signature. If he signs it the law wouldn't take effect until 2023 but it's almost certainly going to cause a ****storm between the state of California and the NCAA that'll probably have implications across the country for all NCAA member schools.

[DFW HOYA]

The bill passed the California state senate assembly unanimously: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/sports/college-athlete-pay-california.html

Now they just have to resolve the differences between the state senate and state assembly versions of the bill (which doesn't sound like it'll be tough to do) before they send the bill to the governor for his signature. If he signs it the law wouldn't take effect until 2023 but it's almost certainly going to cause a ****storm between the state of California and the NCAA that'll probably have implications across the country for all NCAA member schools.

Stanford came out against the bill. There is case to be made that private schools are under no obligation to provide this. If so, the reality of the big-money endorsements would be limited to UC and UCLA.

[NDB]

Disagree.

Whats to stop a health foods store from paying a star volleyball player at long beach state from be a paid spokeswoman?

[BearDownMU]

Well, if you are a student and applied oneself during high school, he could do what I did. Get a full ride academic schollie. Some of these schollies are only based on NEED and sowing the ability to succeed in college. You don't even have to excel in CA. Yeah, I worked hard or harder to get into UCD than a football player ever does on the field. Academic work is there all the time, and athletic work is not. Also, shouldn't I also get paid then for all the hard work (academic) that I put in?
The key word here is "STUDENT". If he cannot qualify for a full ride schollie somewhere, my guess is he would not be able to attend top schools anywhere.
An athlete for a university must be able to keep himself eligible to play by proving he is academically qualified as a student. That is why I say he should not be able to play until he has proven he is academically qualified.

I get tired of people getting into schools just based on athletic prowess or cheating. That is NOT a student. I know every athlete at UCD is more than qualified to excel at any other college in the country. That is what I expect. So, an athlete should be able to get into a school based on his academics alone. Forget athleticism. If athleticism is all you have, then you do not belong in college.

This is a common take and one I find rather funny. For this reason:

Let's say you are gifted naturally with intelligence, work at it, and understand organic chemistry better than 1% of the population, matriculate to a school to study further via an academic scholarship, practice and improve, spend time in a lab, and go to med school/get a Ph.D./invent some medicine that saves a million lives.

And somewhere in your mind, you believe that should have more value than someone who is naturally gifted with speed, works hard at it, runs faster than 1% of the population, matriculates to a school to study further via athletic scholarship, practices and improves, spends time on the field, and goes to the NFL and makes $20m catching footballs.

In reality, they are no different, it's just that non-athletes like to think that their gifts of intelligence more valuable/important than someone else's physicals gifts. Prolly because that person got all the pretty girls and had more friends in high school. LOL

[Professor Chaos]

Stanford came out against the bill. There is case to be made that private schools are under no obligation to provide this. If so, the reality of the big-money endorsements would be limited to UC and UCLA.
I don't think the schools have a choice in the matter if this law does hit the books. I guess they can kick an athlete off the team if they take outside payments but good luck recruiting against Cal and UCLA if they start doing that.

It's no mystery why colleges and the NCAA are dead against this. It eliminates them as the middlemen. Corporations and private donors will lower the dollars they "donate" to the athletic department and instead go directly to the athlete and pay them to promote their business.

[lucchesicourt]

Actually, athletes who are not academcally qualified to attend a university, and has the skill set you mentioned should attend a camp for that particular sportt, and prove their worth to professional teams. Academic instiutions are NOT there for gifted athletes, but gifted athletes who ARE academically qualified. If you cannot pass classes, why should you even be there? Let the NFL produce their own camps for such athletes just like the MLB does. The universities are not there to produce athletes for the NFL.
If they were the NFL should also compensate each university who has a football program at all levels.

[BearDownMU]

What about people who are on music scholarships? Playing an instrument is a physical activity. Yet, they have a music school and can major in their discipline. Are you making a case for eliminating music as an area of study?

And I'm all for athletes having to academically qualify. It would be a different story if you asked everyone to meet a minimum physical standard tho, wouldn't it?

[lucchesicourt]

Requiring everyone to meet a physical standard would be discrimination, That would eliminate a lot of handicapped individuals who are smart. You keep thinking physical standards are important to academics. They are NOT.

If you can perform the work at the school you are qualified. Otherwise you are saying all students who aren't great athletes cannot attend your university. That is not what universities are.

u·ni·ver·si·ty

/ˌyo͞onəˈvərsədē/
https://www.anygivensaturday.com/image/svg xml;base64,PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmc vMjAwMC9zdmciIHhtbG5zOnhsaW5rPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczL m9yZy8xOTk5L3hsaW5rIiB3aWR0aD0iMzIiIGhlaWdodD0iMzI iIHZpZXdCb3g9IjAgMCAzMiAzMiI CiAgPGRlZnM CiAgICA8cG9seWdvbiBpZD0ic21hbGwtdmlzZW1lLXYzLWEiIH BvaW50cz0iMCAwIDMyIDAgMzIgMzIgMCAzMiIvPgogIDwvZGVm cz4KICA8ZyBmaWxsPSJub25lIiBmaWxsLXJ1bGU9ImV2ZW5vZG QiPgogICAgPG1hc2sgaWQ9InNtYWxsLXZpc2VtZS12My1iIiBm aWxsPSIjZmZmIj4KICAgICAgPHVzZSB4bGluazpocmVmPSIjc2 1hbGwtdmlzZW1lLXYzLWEiLz4KICAgIDwvbWFzaz4KICAgIDx1 c2UgZmlsbD0iIzQyODVGNCIgeGxpbms6aHJlZj0iI3NtYWxsLX Zpc2VtZS12My1hIi8 CiAgICA8cGF0aCBmaWxsPSIjRDJFM0ZDIiBkPSJNMCwxNS4yMz k3OTYzIEMyLjU0Mzg1NzE0LDE4Ljg3MDUyMDMgNS42NTIsMjIu MDgyMTk0NiA5LjIwMjI4NTcxLDI0Ljc0NDg3NjkgQzEzLjIxMT U3MTQsMjcuNzUxNzA3NyAxOC43ODg0Mjg2LDI3Ljc1MTcwNzcg MjIuNzk3NzE0MywyNC43NDQ4NzY5IEMyNi4zNDgsMjIuMDgyMT k0NiAyOS40NTYxNDI5LDE4Ljg3MDUyMDMgMzIsMTUuMjM5Nzk2 MyBMMzIsLTcgTDAsLTcgTDAsMTUuMjM5Nzk2MyBaIiBtYXNrPS J1cmwoI3NtYWxsLXZpc2VtZS12My1iKSIvPgogICAgPHBhdGgg ZmlsbD0iIzQyODVGNCIgZmlsbC1vcGFjaXR5PSIuNiIgZD0iTT E2LDIxLjIzMDY0OTIgQzE2LjkyNjA5OTEsMjEuMjMwNjQ5MiAx Ny43OTEyNDY3LDIxLjQ5NDMxNTcgMTguNTI3MjEzNSwyMS45NT E1MDE5IEMxOC44MTA0NDEsMjIuMTI3MzMwOSAxOS4xMzYyNzM4 LDIxLjc4ODc0ODUgMTguOTQwMzc5OSwyMS41MTY0Njc0IEMxOC 4yNzg1NTU2LDIwLjU5NzMyNjMgMTcuMjA4MTEzNiwyMCAxNiwy MCBDMTQuNzkxODg2NCwyMCAxMy43MjE0NDQ0LDIwLjU5NzMyNj MgMTMuMDU5NjIwMSwyMS41MTY0Njc0IEMxMi44NjM3MjYyLDIx Ljc4ODc0ODUgMTMuMTg5NTU5LDIyLjEyNzMzMDkgMTMuNDcyNz g2NSwyMS45NTE1MDE5IEMxNC4yMDg3NTMzLDIxLjQ5NDMxNTcg MTUuMDczOTAwOSwyMS4yMzA2NDkyIDE2LDIxLjIzMDY0OTIiIG 1hc2s9InVybCgjc21hbGwtdmlzZW1lLXYzLWIpIi8 CiAgICA8cGF0aCBzdHJva2U9IiM0Mjg1RjQiIHN0cm9rZS1saW 5lY2FwPSJzcXVhcmUiIGQ9Ik0yNSwxMyBDMjMsMTUuMzMzMzMz MyAyMCwxNi41IDE2LDE2LjUgQzEyLDE2LjUgOSwxNS4zMzMzMz MzIDcsMTMgTDEzLDEwLjUgTDE5LDEwLjUgTDI1LDEzIFoiIG1h c2s9InVybCgjc21hbGwtdmlzZW1lLXYzLWIpIi8 CiAgICA8cG9seWdvbiBmaWxsPSIjNDI4NUY0IiBmaWxsLXJ1bG U9Im5vbnplcm8iIHBvaW50cz0iOCAxNCA3IDEzIDI1IDEzIDI0 IDE0IiBtYXNrPSJ1cmwoI3NtYWxsLXZpc2VtZS12My1iKSIvPg ogICAgPHBhdGggc3Ryb2tlPSIjNDI4NUY0IiBzdHJva2UtbGlu ZWNhcD0icm91bmQiIGQ9Ik0yMCwzIEwxNy43Njc4NzUsNS4yNT g5MjYyMiBDMTYuNzkxNSw2LjI0NzAyNDU5IDE1LjIwODUsNi4y NDcwMjQ1OSAxNC4yMzIxMjUsNS4yNTg5MjYyMiBMMTIsMyIgbW Fzaz0idXJsKCNzbWFsbC12aXNlbWUtdjMtYikiLz4KICA8L2c Cjwvc3ZnPgo=Learn to pronounce
(https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+pronounce+university&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRowy3w8sc9YSnjSWtOXmPU5eIN KMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLjYglJLcoV4pPi4eIqzcssSy0qziyptG JRYkrN41nEKp2RX65Qkq9QANSVD9SWqoBQBADi1HVeXwAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirvM_DrsnkAhWPsp4KHdoxDFcQ3eEDMAB6BAgAE Ag)


noun




an educational institution designed for instruction, examination, or both, of students in many branches of advanced learning, conferring degrees in various faculties (includes music), and often embodying colleges and similar institutions.



"Athletics has nothing to do with accomplishing a goal of the university"

[BEAR]

What about people who are on music scholarships? Playing an instrument is a physical activity. Yet, they have a music school and can major in their discipline. Are you making a case for eliminating music as an area of study?

And I'm all for athletes having to academically qualify. It would be a different story if you asked everyone to meet a minimum physical standard tho, wouldn't it?

Problem with the first part of that is once you finish college football and aren't talented enough to play professionally on some level...you're career in that field is done. A musician can always TEACH music. An althlete even in high schools has to teach some subject area along with coaching duties (teaching kids football for example). Musicians can make money writing songs, jingles, lyrics, masterpieces, be backup artists, musicians assistants....it goes on and on. Athletes are pretty much players or coaches once they leave college. If not players, then they have to have a second skillset to go with their coaching unless they get college level jobs or higher...which ain't that available.

[lucchesicourt]

What schools offer a degree in athletics. Sure there are degrees in Physical Education, but if you cannot pass the classes you will not be allowed to play, and you should not. Why? Because you are NOT meeting the goals of the university.

[lucchesicourt]

Bear, you need to get a degree to teach. You cannot teach without a BA or BS and 1 year of post grad to get the teaching credential. Just being a great football player will not allow you to teach in your specialty (football in this case)., If you do not get a degree, no matter how great an athlete you are, you cannot move into the teaching prgrams. Yes, I use to teach high school, but it does not pay well. So, I moved on. My students wanted me to stay, as they felt I was a good teacher, but financially it wasn't worth it. The teaching profession, loses a lot of great teachers to other industries due to finances.
Yes, a musician with a degree can teach at a public school. A great musician without a degree, cannot teach at a public school. He can open his own business as a teacher at home, but so can a former football player (though very unlikely to succeed). The odds are about the same as being a professional football player.

[BearDownMU]

Problem with the first part of that is once you finish college football and aren't talented enough to play professionally on some level...you're career in that field is done. A musician can always TEACH music. An althlete even in high schools has to teach some subject area along with coaching duties (teaching kids football for example). Musicians can make money writing songs, jingles, lyrics, masterpieces, be backup artists, musicians assistants....it goes on and on. Athletes are pretty much players or coaches once they leave college. If not players, then they have to have a second skillset to go with their coaching unless they get college level jobs or higher...which ain't that available.

Not entirely true. Many, many private schools (this may be unique to the South where I live, but I doubt it) coach without a teaching requirement. Also, with the development of elite leagues, travel sports, individual performance facilities and private instruction, there are plenty of dollars to be made in any of those arenas, either working for an established facility or program, or starting your own. I still to this day make money travel coaching for baseball and if I really wanted to do it full time, I could charge $100 an hour doing private instruction for pitching and stay pretty darn busy. I bet you I could line up more clients than a piano teacher.

So I'm not buying the premise that if you don't go pro, there are any less opportunities in the sports field any more or less abundant than, say for example, an art history major.

[BearDownMU]

Bear, you need to get a degree to teach. You cannot teach without a BA or BS and 1 year of post grad to get the teaching credential. Just being a great football player will not allow you to teach in your specialty (football in this case)., If you do not get a degree, no matter how great an athlete you are, you cannot move into the teaching prgrams. Yes, I use to teach high school, but it does not pay well. So, I moved on. My students wanted me to stay, as they felt I was a good teacher, but financially it wasn't worth it. The teaching profession, loses a lot of great teachers to other industries due to finances.
Yes, a musician with a degree can teach at a public school. A great musician without a degree, cannot teach at a public school. He can open his own business as a teacher at home, but so can a former football player (though very unlikely to succeed). The odds are about the same as being a professional football player.

This is grossly false.

[BearDownMU]

What schools offer a degree in athletics. Sure there are degrees in Physical Education, but if you cannot pass the classes you will not be allowed to play, and you should not. Why? Because you are NOT meeting the goals of the university.

You're kind of making my point. None do. What I'm saying is, there is a social construct that places, for some reason, mental gifts into a different category than physical gifts. and I'm challenging that idea as being silly. It's the difference between being blessed as smart or being blessed as fast or strong. To think that one if more valuable than the other, to me, is ridiculous. But, I'm all about challenging societal views that are inequitable solely because someone along the way thought being naturally smarter was more valuable than naturally athletic. The point is, both provide value. And I think that if colleges were really trying to serve the "goals of the university" it should be to provide advance educational opportunities (that people buy in an open marketplace) to pursue a VAST arrays of fields. the idea that physical areas don't meet the standard, somehow, to me, is stupid.

[lucchesicourt]

Bear, great athletes cannot work at a public institution without a degree. Colleges usually require a masters degree and some like my school pretty much require Phds. Dan Hawkins has a masters degree as do most coaches. No, Masters degree- no coaching.

Just being a great athlete will not getting you into the field of coaching.

[Bisonoline]

Bear, great athletes cannot work at a public institution without a degree. Colleges usually require a masters degree and some like my school pretty much require Phds. Dan Hawkins has a masters degree as do most coaches. No, Masters degree- no coaching.

Just being a great athlete will not getting you into the field of coaching.

You are wrong. In the state of wisconsin there are high school coaches who dont teach and aren't even on the faculty.
This has been going on since the 1980s.
And no you dont need a masters to coach at the college level.

[BearDownMU]

Bear, great athletes cannot work at a public institution without a degree. Colleges usually require a masters degree and some like my school pretty much require Phds. Dan Hawkins has a masters degree as do most coaches. No, Masters degree- no coaching.

Just being a great athlete will not getting you into the field of coaching.

This is also grossly false. Ph.D. to coach in college? I bet that's less than 1% of the total NCAA coaches roster.

[lucchesicourt]

I said a Masters to coach in college. Though there are Phds.

[lucchesicourt]

Now, I do believe there should be athletes who can be recruited to play for schools, but if they get drafted, the NFL or whatever group employs them, should supply the costs of having to pay any fees associated with this athlete. But, I argue, if a player

cannot meet the minimum requirements to pass classes, then he should NOT be called a student/athlete. He should be called an athlete. As student implies, he is meeting academic goals- those are the goals of a university per definition. if you want

to change the goals of a university go ahead. So, I guess you are trying to say is you don't need to be academically qualified if you can play sports at a university. I knew a guy from Hogan High in Vallejo named Jim Upchurch who easily could have

played in the NFL, but was academically not qualified at ASU. So, he never played pro ball. He was the type of person you are describing. So, what you are saying in order for an exceptionally athlete the opportunity to play ball, he shoulod be allowed

to play regardless of the academic goals of the university.

But, I doubt the NCAA would sanction the school. Which would defeat your argument of allowing such people to play at a university.

[bonarae]

Meanwhile...

The threat looks real...

http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i=20190911102157904179908&ref=hea&tm=&src=

[Bisonoline]

]I said a Masters to coach in college. [/B] Though there are Phds.

You are still wrong.

[DFW HOYA]

If California schools do not play by the rules of the membership, their membership in the NCAA should be revoked.

Call up the NAIA or start your own group, but either way you can't have schools that don't follow the membership rules. If the legislature voted 72-0 that California schools got 10 points for any touchdown, would that be acceptable, too?

[WestCoastAggie]

I agree with my home state. These kids should have the ability to hire an agent or receive royalties from the school.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Student athletes are getting a free education. Tuition, room/board, books, COA.

I agree with the NCAA on this one. Follow the rules or leave.

Most student athletes will never play professionally. Free education is the tradeoff for playing.

[JSUSoutherner]

Well, it happened.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27735933/california-defies-ncaa-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-law-fair-pay-play-act

[Professor Chaos]

Well, it happened.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27735933/california-defies-ncaa-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-law-fair-pay-play-act
I lol at Lebron talking about how this will "change the lives of countless athletes who deserve it". I think it will change the lives of countless athletes but it'll be moreso athletes in non-revenue sports that schools will start cutting since I'd expect their contributions to take big hits because of laws like this. Yes, your All-American QB at USC will make his market value but your All-American women's field hockey player will have to play intramurals if she wants to stay enrolled there.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that but don't make this out to be something it isn't. It's about college athletes earning their market value. However, I think there's going to be many more athletes with their lives changed on the flip side of that coin who find out that their market value is a net loss for their university.

[unknown-swac]

Student athletes are getting a free education. Tuition, room/board, books, COA.

I agree with the NCAA on this one. Follow the rules or leave.

Most student athletes will never play professionally. Free education is the tradeoff for playing.

Except not all college athletes get a free education. Not even close. And even if they did, it still pales in comparison to the millions that these schools make off of the kids names but they aren't allowed to profit a dime from it. I'm glad California passed the bill honestly. And let's be real, they may be the first but they certainly won't be the last. South Carolina is already looking into doing the exact same thing. And others will follow suit. They're not going to have a choice when kids start flocking to the USC's instead of the Alabama's.

[walliver]

Except not all college athletes get a free education. Not even close. And even if they did, it still pales in comparison to the millions that these schools make off of the kids names but they aren't allowed to profit a dime from it. I'm glad California passed the bill honestly. And let's be real, they may be the first but they certainly won't be the last. South Carolina is already looking into doing the exact same thing. And others will follow suit. They're not going to have a choice when kids start flocking to the USC's instead of the Alabama's.

South Carolina is not really looking into it. Two representatives made a proposal that is going nowhere. If the Univ of South Carolina, Clemson, and the Citadel oppose it, it is dead in the water.

The college athletes not getting a full ride free education aren't getting any endorsement deals or any money, even in future California.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Feds aren't going to eliminate Title IX. Very few female athletes will get endorsement money. Somehow the State of California is sure to pass laws to remedy this.

[Bisonoline]

South Carolina is not really looking into it. Two representatives made a proposal that is going nowhere. If the Univ of South Carolina, Clemson, and the Citadel oppose it, it is dead in the water.

The college athletes not getting a full ride free education aren't getting any endorsement deals or any money, even in future California.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Feds aren't going to eliminate Title IX. Very few female athletes will get endorsement money. Somehow the State of California is sure to pass laws to remedy this.

So Title 9 will demand that x amount of women get endorsements. If not endorsements they will demand a cut of the males money to make it equal.
Where have we seen this before?????

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The only certain thing about this bill is that a lot of lawyers are going to get rich.

[JSUSoutherner]

I lol at Lebron talking about how this will "change the lives of countless athletes who deserve it". I think it will change the lives of countless athletes but it'll be moreso athletes in non-revenue sports that schools will start cutting since I'd expect their contributions to take big hits because of laws like this. Yes, your All-American QB at USC will make his market value but your All-American women's field hockey player will have to play intramurals if she wants to stay enrolled there.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that but don't make this out to be something it isn't. It's about college athletes earning their market value. However, I think there's going to be many more athletes with their lives changed on the flip side of that coin who find out that their market value is a net loss for their university.

I think is funny LeBron is championing this bill when he never went to college at all.

But when his kids get to college they'll be set now.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think is funny LeBron is championing this bill when he never went to college at all.

It will change the lives of countless athletes because a lot of colleges will stop sponsoring scholarship sports.

[Professor Chaos]

I think is funny LeBron is championing this bill when he never went to college at all.
Yeah, he's quite the martyr. He can sleep soundly knowing that those kids can start collecting their skills based paychecks a year or 4 before they get to the NBA/NFL because, let's be honest, the vast majority of the cash will be going to the athletes who are going to make plenty of it in the pros also.

[walliver]

A lot of people forget that one half of the football programs in D-I are FCS. Most of them lose money, and sponsorship opportunities are mostly going to be limited to local pizza joints and small businesses. Only a few programs such as the schools in the Dakotas and Montana will have viable state-wide sponsorship options.
One half of the remaining schools are in the Group of 5 which have the same issues in this matter as do FCS schools.
Even at P5 level only a few players will do really well and they are the ones who will get rich in the NFL/NBA. The only players who lives will be really improved are those athlete's whose professional careers never take off due to college injuries.
Allowing sponsorships/endorsements will also provide a financial incentive for graduate transfers.

I wonder what the PAC-12 would do. The non-California schools probably don't want to play along with this, but if they kick out the four California schools they lose a big chunk of their TV market and revenue and it would devastate their TV network. On the other hand, if they all allow money to be made, the PAC-12 loses all national relevance and interest.

[JSUSoutherner]

A lot of people forget that one half of the football programs in D-I are FCS. Most of them lose money, and sponsorship opportunities are mostly going to be limited to local pizza joints and small businesses. Only a few programs such as the schools in the Dakotas and Montana will have viable state-wide sponsorship options.
One half of the remaining schools are in the Group of 5 which have the same issues in this matter as do FCS schools.
Even at P5 level only a few players will do really well and they are the ones who will get rich in the NFL/NBA. The only players who lives will be really improved are those athlete's whose professional careers never take off due to college injuries.
Allowing sponsorships/endorsements will also provide a financial incentive for graduate transfers.

I wonder what the PAC-12 would do. The non-California schools probably don't want to play along with this, but if they kick out the four California schools they lose a big chunk of their TV market and revenue and it would devastate their TV network. On the other hand, if they all allow money to be made, the PAC-12 loses all national relevance and interest.

See I was wondering this as well. Clenz and I were talking this morning about this and I brought up Zion Williamson as an example because I can't name a single player in the Pac-12 right now who are the same status of what Christian McCaffrey or Jared Goff were.

Those are the caliber players that are going to see any real benefit from this. Everyone else just gets screwed over one way or another.

[Professor Chaos]

A lot of people forget that one half of the football programs in D-I are FCS. Most of them lose money, and sponsorship opportunities are mostly going to be limited to local pizza joints and small businesses. Only a few programs such as the schools in the Dakotas and Montana will have viable state-wide sponsorship options.
One half of the remaining schools are in the Group of 5 which have the same issues in this matter as do FCS schools.
Even at P5 level only a few players will do really well and they are the ones who will get rich in the NFL/NBA. The only players who lives will be really improved are those athlete's whose professional careers never take off due to college injuries.
Allowing sponsorships/endorsements will also provide a financial incentive for graduate transfers.

I wonder what the PAC-12 would do. The non-California schools probably don't want to play along with this, but if they kick out the four California schools they lose a big chunk of their TV market and revenue and it would devastate their TV network. On the other hand, if they all allow money to be made, the PAC-12 loses all national relevance and interest.
Agree, that's why I don't think this is nearly as big of a deal as some people do. I've heard things like "This will destroy college football" from some. I'm in favor of it just because it puts less responsibility on the NCAA to enforce rules they don't have the ability to enforce. I hope more states/conferences follow suit of California. Will it lead to more grad transfers? Maybe a bit but it's not going to turn FCS schools into P5 feeders anymore than they are today.

[uni88]

See I was wondering this as well. Clenz and I were talking this morning about this and I brought up Zion Williamson as an example because I can't name a single player in the Pac-12 right now who are the same status of what Christian McCaffrey or Jared Goff were.

Those are the caliber players that are going to see any real benefit from this. Everyone else just gets screwed over one way or another.

Justin Herbert

2020 NFL Draft, Justin Herbert vs. Tua Tagovailoa: Who has better accuracy, arm strength, and scrambling ability? (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/justin-herbert-vs-tua-tagovailoa-who-has-better-accuracy-arm-strength-and-scrambling-ability/)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Agree, that's why I don't think this is nearly as big of a deal as some people do. I've heard things like "This will destroy college football" from some. I'm in favor of it just because it puts less responsibility on the NCAA to enforce rules they don't have the ability to enforce. I hope more states/conferences follow suit of California. Will it lead to more grad transfers? Maybe a bit but it's not going to turn FCS schools into P5 feeders anymore than they are today.

My reading of this act is that it is a mortal lock to be challenged in court and there could be a multitude of outcomes. It's not like there's any rush, either, to see this through: the act purposely was worded so that it doesn't take effect until 2023. Again: lawyers are the only real winners in this.

[lucchesicourt]

Ca schools will either go non schollie or will discontinnuie sports altogether. The Governor made sure of it. CA athletes will go to schools elsewhere, and the UC System will become a second class institution instead of a top public university sytem. We have an idiot for a governor. This is the downfall of college sports in California.

[JSUSoutherner]

Justin Herbert

2020 NFL Draft, Justin Herbert vs. Tua Tagovailoa: Who has better accuracy, arm strength, and scrambling ability? (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/justin-herbert-vs-tua-tagovailoa-who-has-better-accuracy-arm-strength-and-scrambling-ability/)

Plays for Oregon.

I should have specified California though instead of Pac-12 as a whole.

[lucchesicourt]

The college athletes will no longer get athletic schollies as the schools will be forced to close their athletic programs. Nio endorsements, no schollie, and if they want to they can go elsewhere to play. CA cannot compete in the NCAA tornaments, right. So, what are the athletes going to play for. Ca teams will be forced to play only CA teams. Who will want toplay a team from CA?. I see this as the death of CA sports. Why would Alums contribute money to the school system without being able to particpate in a championship atmosphere? This is good for the other 49 states. All the 5,4, 3 stars athletes will leave CA, and the 1 and 2 star athletes will have no where to play.

[lucchesicourt]

There will be no full ride scholarships anymore as the schools drop sports altogether. But, I guess they can still try to get endorsements without the school. But, not playinbg makes it hard to get endorsements, and it makes sure academically unqualified students never get into a college.

[lucchesicourt]

No, they would not benefit from this law. I expect all UC's to end up dropping sports as they will lose alum contributions because of no opportunity to play for a chamionship[

[Seawolf97]

It wont be long before states like Texas, Florida , Michigan etc climb on board. They want their schools to benefit also . In the end I hope most college sports fade away . The NCAA is not able to stop it and the FCS schools are going to drop most sports and I'm sure some of the weaker FBS schools will drop football . In the end it only hurts the lesser talented players at any school and limits many from even going to school now.

- - - Updated - - -

It wont be long before states like Texas, Florida , Michigan etc climb on board. They want their schools to benefit also . In the end I hope most college sports fade away . The NCAA is not able to stop it and the FCS schools are going to drop most sports and I'm sure some of the weaker FBS schools will drop football . In the end it only hurts the lesser talented players at any school and limits many from even going to school now.

- - - Updated - - -

It wont be long before states like Texas, Florida , Michigan etc climb on board. They want their schools to benefit also . In the end I hope most college sports fade away . The NCAA is not able to stop it and the FCS schools are going to drop most sports and I'm sure some of the weaker FBS schools will drop football . In the end it only hurts the lesser talented players at any school and limits many from even going to school now.

[uni88]

Plays for Oregon.

I should have specified California though instead of Pac-12 as a whole.

I don't know remember their names (which supports your point) but USC might have the best receiving corp in the country. It's probably between them and Bama.

[taper]

So Title 9 will demand that x amount of women get endorsements. If not endorsements they will demand a cut of the males money to make it equal.
Where have we seen this before?????

Title IX as it is written now should have absolutely no effect on this.

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Private endorsements are not controlled by the education institution. The 3 prong implementation of Title IX is similarly unaffected.

[Derby City Duke]

Title IX as it is written now should have absolutely no effect on this.

Private endorsements are not controlled by the education institution. The 3 prong implementation of Title IX is similarly unaffected.

While I agree with you, I don't put it past a lawyer to latch on to the 'be denied the benefits of' clause and twist the intent of Title IX legislation...

[DFW HOYA]

It wont be long before states like Texas, Florida , Michigan etc climb on board. They want their schools to benefit also . In the end I hope most college sports fade away . The NCAA is not able to stop it and the FCS schools are going to drop most sports and I'm sure some of the weaker FBS schools will drop football . In the end it only hurts the lesser talented players at any school and limits many from even going to school now.


Texas and California don't do anything together.

[I Bleed Purple]

This thread has not disappointed.

Been very amusing.

[bonarae]

It wont be long before states like Texas, Florida , Michigan etc climb on board. They want their schools to benefit also . In the end I hope most college sports fade away . The NCAA is not able to stop it and the FCS schools are going to drop most sports and I'm sure some of the weaker FBS schools will drop football . In the end it only hurts the lesser talented players at any school and limits many from even going to school now.

Fade away? Which systems would replace them? Club-style system as being implemented in Europe? It won't work in the US. Semi-pro model? Won't work either.

The Ivies have thrived throughout the decades but have cut corners in some sports, especially in football. I hope that if California schools' memberships are revoked by the NCAA, we will go to playoff participation.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Except not all college athletes get a free education. Not even close. And even if they did, it still pales in comparison to the millions that these schools make off of the kids names but they aren't allowed to profit a dime from it. I'm glad California passed the bill honestly. And let's be real, they may be the first but they certainly won't be the last. South Carolina is already looking into doing the exact same thing. And others will follow suit. They're not going to have a choice when kids start flocking to the USC's instead of the Alabama's.


Most college athletes will never play pro. This law in CA will not benefit most of their student athletes, if fact probably less than 1%.

Any D1 athlete that has a full ride to any school will never play pro...ever. The tradeoff for playing at the highest level collegiately is a free education. That is not enough? Kid plays at Alabama but will never go pro but good enough to start. Gets a full ride and earns a degree. Now they move on to the real world and get a job. Alabama gave him a free education to play. Great tradeoff IMO. Less than 1% will ever sniff the pros.

I doubt many states will jump on this bandwagon.

Maybe the P5s will break away and do their own thing and this can be part of their "athletic experience" but until then I agree with the NCAA.

[Yote 53]

If you are on this board you are, obviously, a hard core college football fan. So how many of you look at what is happening with this new law and are completely turned off by it? I am. I'm not really interested in watching some semi-pro system where the cards are completely stacked towards a handful of teams, worse than what is happening today. For those talking about how this will only effect the P5, most P5 schools would suffer under this system. You think a school like Iowa State is going to have the marketing cache to attract recruits? Purdue? Wake Forest? How about a school like Penn State, who is a blue blood program, what are the marketing possibilities in the vast metro area of Happy Valley? Marketing opportunities are based on population, population = money. Follow the money. Large school, large alumni base, located in high population area. UCLA, USC = winners. Nebraska, Clemson = losers. Minnesota = winners. There will be a shift in the balance of power.

To go back to my original question, how many of you hardcore football fans are interested in this? If half of you answer you aren't interested and your viewing of college football will be reduced, then they just killed the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

[McNeese75]

Another STUPID idea being put in place by the idiot in charge of CA

[Professor Chaos]

If you are on this board you are, obviously, a hard core college football fan. So how many of you look at what is happening with this new law and are completely turned off by it? I am. I'm not really interested in watching some semi-pro system where the cards are completely stacked towards a handful of teams, worse than what is happening today. For those talking about how this will only effect the P5, most P5 schools would suffer under this system. You think a school like Iowa State is going to have the marketing cache to attract recruits? Purdue? Wake Forest? How about a school like Penn State, who is a blue blood program, what are the marketing possibilities in the vast metro area of Happy Valley? Marketing opportunities are based on population, population = money. Follow the money. Large school, large alumni base, located in high population area. UCLA, USC = winners. Nebraska, Clemson = losers. Minnesota = winners. There will be a shift in the balance of power.

To go back to my original question, how many of you hardcore football fans are interested in this? If half of you answer you aren't interested and your viewing of college football will be reduced, then they just killed the goose that is laying the golden eggs.
I think you're waaaaay overestimating the impact this would have if adopted nationwide. Penn State has a top 10 athletic budget in the country at $150M+... they had nearly $35M in booster contributions to their athletic department in 2018. You really think they wouldn't have plenty of big money supporters who would be more than happy to seek endorsements from a high profile Penn State football player???

It really doesn't change anything at all for me in terms of how I follow college football. I don't think (if adopted nationwide) this shifts the balance of power hardly at all. The haves will still be the haves and the have nots will still be the have nots. This stuff happens plenty already at P5 football and men's basketball programs and the NCAA can't do jack to enforce their mythical amateurism rules at most of them. IMO they should quit wasting time and energy on it and just deregulate it.

[Bisonator]

How will they keep a booster from giving a top recruit $100k for an ad for "Hanks Used Cars" just to get him to USC? I know they couldn't stop them from giving Reggie Bush money under the current system but at least they try. This is just gonna be a free for all and will separate the haves from have nots even more.

[WileECoyote06]

This right here..^^^
The NCAA is simply a money making machine that enriches itself on the work of "student-athletes".. Sure, they get a free education. But, just like any person working in any field, if you are elite at what you do you should get paid. AND especially if the people you work for are making millions on your likeness, you should get paid. Period.

I repeat from earlier this summer. Included Daytripper's quote.

- - - Updated - - -


Originally Posted by WileECoyote06 https://www.anygivensaturday.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?p=2777128#post2777128)
In my opinion, California is taking a step in the right direction. Athletes should be allowed to use their likeness/image to gain endorsements; just like other influencers, youtubers, e-sports athletes, etc.

The NCAA has some nerve. Just five (and ten) years ago they were making money off EA college sports games. hypocrites.



This right here..^^^
The NCAA is simply a money making machine that enriches itself on the work of "student-athletes".. Sure, they get a free education. But, just like any person working in any field, if you are elite at what you do you should get paid. AND especially if the people you work for are making millions on your likeness, you should get paid. Period.

I repeat from earlier this summer. Included Daytripper's quote.

[Professor Chaos]

How will they keep a booster from giving a top recruit $100k for an ad for "Hanks Used Cars" just to get him to USC? I know they couldn't stop them from giving Reggie Bush money under the current system but at least they try. This is just gonna be a free for all and will separate the haves from have nots even more.
They wouldn't stop that booster.

It's probably because I'm not a fan of any particular P5 program but I doubt my school or any FCS school's spot in the pecking order is going to change. P5s will still get the pick of the litter but they can only take so many guys. NDSU will still get the guys with a chip on their shoulders who are a couple inches too short to play at Minnesota.

[OldKat95]

Don't forget, this law in particular has nothing to do with the schools paying their athletes. This is totally geared to third-party compensation. And one of the best ways it benefits athletes from lower divisions who do not have the big-money endorsements to consider is that they would be able to market themselves, provide a service, and keep the compensation. So for example, the punter at SHSU could offer kicking lessons, promoting himself as a college kicker, and earn some extra money. The stud pitcher on the softball team can provide lessons for a fee. All of these are good things.

[BearDownMU]

How will they keep a booster from giving a top recruit $100k for an ad for "Hanks Used Cars" just to get him to USC? I know they couldn't stop them from giving Reggie Bush money under the current system but at least they try. This is just gonna be a free for all and will separate the haves from have nots even more.

Short answer: Because boosters aren't allowed to interact with prospects. And it's a major violation if they do. And offering improper benefits is an even bigger one.

Long answer: They will deal with it the same way they deal with work now. NCAA student-athletes are not allowed to hold jobs during the season. they are allowed to work outside of season, but the jobs must be monitored and approved by the NCAA and the school Athletic Department. This is no different, just a different kind of job. And the contact rules for boosters to talk to or interact with prospects prior to them signing letters of intent has also been in place forever.

When I was a Div I athlete, we weren't allowed to have any job at all. The reason we were told is exactly what you were saying. Why wouldn't some booster just give kids a bullcrap job, pay them a ton of money, and them not have to work. When the NCAA changed the rule to allow students to have jobs that were monitored, everyone freaked out and used these same arguments. They said, "Oh great, now that kids are allowed to work, boosters are just going to pay them for doing nothing and promise jobs to get the best athletes." Guess what never happened?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Rarely does saying "to fix the corruption, lets' just let people spend unlimited money without oversight or law enforcement" work

[uni88]

If you are on this board you are, obviously, a hard core college football fan. So how many of you look at what is happening with this new law and are completely turned off by it? I am. I'm not really interested in watching some semi-pro system where the cards are completely stacked towards a handful of teams, worse than what is happening today. For those talking about how this will only effect the P5, most P5 schools would suffer under this system. You think a school like Iowa State is going to have the marketing cache to attract recruits? Purdue? Wake Forest? How about a school like Penn State, who is a blue blood program, what are the marketing possibilities in the vast metro area of Happy Valley? Marketing opportunities are based on population, population = money. Follow the money. Large school, large alumni base, located in high population area. UCLA, USC = winners. Nebraska, Clemson = losers. Minnesota = winners. There will be a shift in the balance of power.

To go back to my original question, how many of you hardcore football fans are interested in this? If half of you answer you aren't interested and your viewing of college football will be reduced, then they just killed the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

Minnesota = Winner & Penn State = Loser?

Yes, MSP has more people than Happy Valley but Penn State has a following throughout the state of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania has Philly and Pittsburgh and more than twice as many people as Minnesota.

[IBleedYellow]

Way too many people are having over-reactions here.

This is a good thing, IMO. It's not like the schools are paying the students directly, which I think I would be against. Also, no matter what anyone says, the NCAA isn't stopping the current "haves" in the P5 from paying players. So it'll be more formal now, if anything.

[Sader87]

Not an expert on this, but doesn't this seem more of an issue in basketball than football ?

[CHIP72]

I would take it a step farther and completely bar California teams from the NCAA. What's the point of having NCAA rules if each individual state can decide what the NCAA rules will be for their state.

And no one points a gun at anyone and forces them to be a student athlete. Don't like the rules? Don't go on scholarship. There's plenty of reasons to not like the NCAA, but it's not their fault that elite high school football and basketball players don't have a developmental league to earn money until they're old enough for the draft.

1) Do you really think the three years out of high school rule the NFL has with regard to draft eligible players doesn't benefit the major college programs? When Herschel Walker signed with the USFL in 1983 after his junior year at Georgia, the NFL cried foul (because the NFL draft rules at the time only allowed players who were four years out of high school to be eligible) but the University of Georgia cried foul louder. If the NFL changed its rules so that any post-high school player was eligible for the NFL draft, it would have a bigger negative on major college football than it would on the NFL IMO.

2) The NBA has developed the G League in recent years, which could functionally operate as an alternative minor league to college basketball (and to some degree is already doing so).

[unknown3]

You can forget about banning schools. Florida, New York, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and many others im sure either already have filed the same bill or are about to. NCAA gonna ban half the country? That's not even close to being an option. They will be forced to adapt, they have no choice. This time a month from now i'd bet nearly every state in the south has a similar bill.

[Yote 53]

It's the same reason NBA ballers would rather play in New York or LA than OKC or Portland. Marketability and exposure to larger population centers.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

I just don't get this.

The NBA is allowing high school grads to enter in the near future? Wouldn't that eliminate this issue? If you want to go pro and earn money for you likeness/talents (tangible/intangible) go for it. Otherwise you know the college rules?

If the NFL could find a way to have a legitimate developmental system then high school grads would have a chance to earn money without attending college.

I feel like the NCAA is not the problem here. The problem is these kids don't get to succeed or fail out of high school like the rest of us. If they don't want to go to college they shouldn't have to. An 18 year old should absolutely be eligible for the NFL draft. It's up to the NFL teams if they want to draft and develop a kid at that age on potential. They do it in baseball and basketball. If they're not good enough then pick another career or shut up, go to college and get better. Then maybe they'll have some chips worth cashing in.

[Yote 53]

Was attempting to respond to why in the new NCAA world if players being able to market themselves how Minneapolis could become a better place to be than Happy Valley.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Was attempting to respond to why in the new NCAA world if players being able to market themselves how Minneapolis could become a better place to be than Happy Valley.

There are PSU people all over the place in the state. The state is literally the market.

[Bisonoline]

Short answer: Because boosters aren't allowed to interact with prospects. And it's a major violation if they do. And offering improper benefits is an even bigger one.

Long answer: They will deal with it the same way they deal with work now. NCAA student-athletes are not allowed to hold jobs during the season. they are allowed to work outside of season, but the jobs must be monitored and approved by the NCAA and the school Athletic Department. This is no different, just a different kind of job. And the contact rules for boosters to talk to or interact with prospects prior to them signing letters of intent has also been in place forever.

When I was a Div I athlete, we weren't allowed to have any job at all. The reason we were told is exactly what you were saying. Why wouldn't some booster just give kids a bullcrap job, pay them a ton of money, and them not have to work. When the NCAA changed the rule to allow students to have jobs that were monitored, everyone freaked out and used these same arguments. They said, "Oh great, now that kids are allowed to work, boosters are just going to pay them for doing nothing and promise jobs to get the best athletes." Guess what never happened?

They just never got caught. Except for----the Okie QB who ended up at SHSU. He supposedly worked at a car dealership. Rhett Bomar was his name.

[BearDownMU]

They just never got caught. Except for----the Okie QB who ended up at SHSU. He supposedly worked at a car dealership. Rhett Bomar was his name.

That's the beauty. Don't have to worry about catching them anymore.

[ElCid]

You can forget about banning schools. Florida, New York, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and many others im sure either already have filed the same bill or are about to. NCAA gonna ban half the country? That's not even close to being an option. They will be forced to adapt, they have no choice. This time a month from now i'd bet nearly every state in the south has a similar bill.

As already mentioned, the one in SC was simply spoken about by one or two state reps and had ZERO chance to get voted on, let alone pass. South Carolinians are not like the whackadoodles in California. This entire issue is stupid and nothing more than a made up issue by some who wish to profit by it.

[FUGameBreaker]

As already mentioned, the one in SC was simply spoken about by one or two state reps and had ZERO chance to get voted on, let alone pass. South Carolinians are not like the whackadoodles in California. This entire issue is stupid and nothing more than a made up issue by some who wish to profit by it.



https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/breakingbad/images/1/16/1997_Cadillac_DeVille.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20180308220019

[ST_Lawson]

Just seems like another "rich get richer" situation.
The schools that have enough following to have some of their players really benefit from this are the ones that are already at the top.
The top FBS schools will get the best players because they know they'll have a higher profile and get more sponsorships there.

Even at the FCS level...if this was legal nationwide, I'd have to imagine you would have seen something like this: https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=19614676011
but sponsored by Sheels and promoted across North Dakota and northern Minnesota.

But at a school like Western...unless we happen to have a really good player from near Quincy, IL (where our "local" media is)...nobody is going to be working out sponsorships with any of our players.

[FUGameBreaker]

How about all players lose scholarship money in exchange of making about $12 per hour like all their other peers in school that have to take jobs to help pay for school and things, they can clock in and clock out anytime they are doing football related activities, see how they like that

[BearDownMU]

How about all players lose scholarship money in exchange of making about $12 per hour like all their other peers in school that have to take jobs to help pay for school and things, they can clock in and clock out anytime they are doing football related activities, see how they like that

Why is that the standard? They have "peers" that are on full academic scholarship that ain't "working" their way through college. And those people on academic scholarship can go and generate any income/revenue they want and not endanger their scholarship. Why do those people's intellectual/mental gifts allow them to operate at a different standard that someone with outstanding physical gifts that got them their scholarship?

[ysubigred]

Go to the 8:10 mark and listen to Coach Bo's take on this! He blasts this Cali decision.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcEAyn9nfgA&feature=youtu.be

[unknown-swac]

As already mentioned, the one in SC was simply spoken about by one or two state reps and had ZERO chance to get voted on, let alone pass. South Carolinians are not like the whackadoodles in California. This entire issue is stupid and nothing more than a made up issue by some who wish to profit by it.

I don't think any one would prefer south Carolina over California to live lol. Half the country is already flung this exact same thing. South Carolina will have no choice either. Clemson and USC gonna sit out? No chance.

[FUGameBreaker]

I don't think any one would prefer south Carolina over California to live lol. Half the country is already flung this exact same thing. South Carolina will have no choice either. Clemson and USC gonna sit out? No chance.



Count me as one that has absolutely ZERO desire to live in California, ZERO

- - - Updated - - -


Go to the 8:10 mark and listen to Coach Bo's take on this! He blasts this Cali decision.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcEAyn9nfgA&feature=youtu.be



Pretty good take

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Was thinking about this today - are there a lot of places where the state legislatures might not be so interested in this for competitive reasons? For example, take Pennsylvania. Penn State basically has a monopoly on the best football players in the state already. Do Penn State folks really want to start bidding wars when they're already basically winning? California has a bunch of large, state-wide institutions so there already is competition for recruits, and sports agents are drooling all over themselves to be able to market themselves to 18 year olds with dreams of the NFL. But Penn State's landscape is completely different.

To me, this seems like an idea that will fall apart eventually, once all the ramifications are made clear. People like the concept of athletes getting some money for, say, music they produce on the side, but when the reality of this hits the fan, competitively and practically, I suspect people will run away from this pretty fast.

[ElCid]

I don't think any one would prefer south Carolina over California to live lol. Half the country is already flung this exact same thing. South Carolina will have no choice either. Clemson and USC gonna sit out? No chance.

Wow, really? It's not even close and I have lived in both states. Cal may be ok to visit, but live there? Too funny.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

I don't think any one would prefer south Carolina over California to live lol. Half the country is already flung this exact same thing. South Carolina will have no choice either. Clemson and USC gonna sit out? No chance.

I'd MUCH rather live in South Carolina than California. Cali and Texas are easily the two states you'd have to pay me over $200k a year to consider moving to.

[Baltimore Hen]

To be honest, this really only affects D-1 basketball.
The NCAA has no National Championship at FBS level football. It will be interesting to see how the CFP addresses this.
FCS and other sports don't really have a market for athlete endorsements.


I don't think that is correct. If this passes, I would imagine that all California schools would be ineligible for competition. NCAA rules say that an athlete is ineligible for a sport if they accept money for that sport. A football player in California who signs endorsement contracts would then be ineligible to participate in ANY NCAA sanctioned event. Either the NCAA would have to change the rules of competition to accommodate California (which they will not) or EVERY other state in the country would have to follow California's lead and force the NCAA's hand.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I don't think that is correct. If this passes, I would imagine that all California schools would be ineligible for competition. NCAA rules say that an athlete is ineligible for a sport if they accept money for that sport. A football player in California who signs endorsement contracts would then be ineligible to participate in ANY NCAA sanctioned event. Either the NCAA would have to change the rules of competition to accommodate California (which they will not) or EVERY other state in the country would have to follow California's lead and force the NCAA's hand.

The Supreme Court will have an interesting case on their hands. The text of the law prohibits the NCAA from doing their business and enforcing their own rules.

[walliver]

The courts may well decide that UC-Berkeley and UCLA have to follow the law.
Forcing USC and Stanford to due so may be a completely different issue.
California courts will likely all stand behind the law, but federal courts are a completely different issue.

I hate getting courts involved in football. There was a period a few years ago where South Carolina courts seemed to get involved in the high school football playoffs every year. Teams had to practice not knowing when where or if they would be playing again. On the courts always seemed to side with the home team.

[Bisonoline]

The courts may well decide that UC-Berkeley and UCLA have to follow the law.
Forcing USC and Stanford to due so may be a completely different issue.
California courts will likely all stand behind the law, but federal courts are a completely different issue.

I hate getting courts involved in football. There was a period a few years ago where South Carolina courts seemed to get involved in the high school football playoffs every year. Teams had to practice not knowing when where or if they would be playing again. On the courts always seemed to side with the home team.


One must remember that the ncaa is an entity un to itself but serves at the pleasure of the member schools which created them. So the ncaa has no legal standing.

[Yote 53]

One must remember that the ncaa is an entity un to itself but serves at the pleasure of the member schools which created them. So the ncaa has no legal standing.

NCAA membership is also voluntary. A school doesn't like NCAA rules they can join the NAIA if they so choose.

[CappinHard]

Thumper and I discuss the California law in the first part of this week's podcast: https://anchor.fm/jackrabbit-illstrtd/episodes/CANT-WAIT-e5pgl3

[lucchesicourt]

You only get a full academic schollie if you worked for it before you attended college. An academic schollie is NOT acquired by not working. However, an athletic schollie can be. By playing a game you love to play. That to me isn't really working. I played basketball everyday from 5th grade through college. And, I never considered it work. Learning requires a lot of hard work. Sure it is mental work, but this is still work.

[taper]

One must remember that the ncaa is an entity un to itself but serves at the pleasure of the member schools which created them. So the ncaa has no legal standing.

You're right that the NCAA is bound the decisions of its member schools. You're wrong in thinking that a small minority can dictate to the rest. If the membership votes to allow paid athletes, it will happen. Currently the membership has voted to ban paid athletes, and nothing the state of California does can change that. It remains to be seen whether the NCAA will strictly enforce its bylaws or allow CA members to slide.

[Bisonoline]

You only get a full academic schollie if you worked for it before you attended college. An academic schollie is NOT acquired by not working. However, an athletic schollie can be. By playing a game you love to play. That to me isn't really working. I played basketball everyday from 5th grade through college. And, I never considered it work. Learning requires a lot of hard work. Sure it is mental work, but this is still work.

In correct. I know quite a few people who attended school on an academic schollie and didnt work at it.

[unknown3]

You're right that the NCAA is bound the decisions of its member schools. You're wrong in thinking that a small minority can dictate to the rest. If the membership votes to allow paid athletes, it will happen. Currently the membership has voted to ban paid athletes, and nothing the state of California does can change that. It remains to be seen whether the NCAA will strictly enforce its bylaws or allow CA members to slide.

Except it's not going to be a small minority. There are already 15+ states that are looking to pass the same law. The NCAA going to ban all FBS colleges in California, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, North Carolina, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, Washington and Maryland? ALL of these states are looking to pass the same bill. That alone encompasses USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, FSU, Florida, Miami, Ohio State, Penn State, Clemson, South Carolina, UNC, Kentucky, Syracuse, Washington and Maryland. If you really believe the NCAA would ban all those schools then you don't understand business. Most likely they won't even ban California alone.