This doesn't address the issue that caused the rule. An athlete could receive $50k for 100 autographed pics if they sign with school X, have a good game, etc. Schools would have no way to police that.

Athletes could still sign an agreement that they will abide by NCAA amateurism rules.

(06-01-2019 05:40 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  This doesn't address the issue that caused the rule. An athlete could receive $50k for 100 autographed pics if they sign with school X, have a good game, etc. Schools would have no way to police that.

Athletes could still sign an agreement that they will abide by NCAA amateurism rules.

If the Dan Wetzels of the world are any indication, changes like this allowing deep-pocketed boosters or slush funds to pay recruits is a feature, not a bug.

Mark Emmett is trying his best to ruin California members of the NCAA. Here is his latest threat.

(06-24-2019 10:32 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Mark Emmett is trying his best to ruin California members of the NCAA. Here is his latest threat.

I don't think I have enough popcorn for this. The California state government vs the NCAA. Is there a way for both of them to lose?

(06-24-2019 10:43 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:32 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Mark Emmett is trying his best to ruin California members of the NCAA. Here is his latest threat.

I don't think I have enough popcorn for this. The California state government vs the NCAA. Is there a way for both of them to lose?

(06-24-2019 10:32 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Mark Emmett is trying his best to ruin California members of the NCAA. Here is his latest threat.

It's just a bluff. IMO there is no realistic scenario in which any NCAA athletes in California would be barred from competing against NCAA athletes in other states if the bill becomes law. The PR would be absolutely terrible. Can you imagine? I mean, I can't think of a quicker way to bring about direct pay for play (revenue sharing) than for Emmert and the Cartel to crap all over athletes in Cali – the only place where those young men and women would be treated more like the human beings that they are rather than, as one Republican California state senator puts it, "chattel." The national debate would rage like it never has before. More and more people would question the appropriateness of gazillion dollar locker rooms, scoreboards that can be seen from Neptune and highly paid coaches, athletic department personnel etc. profiting off the backs of the laborers on revenue-generating teams while those laborers get nothing but scholarships and small COA stipends.

That said, I think the amendment Assemblymember Chu sought and got suggests that he and his committee may fold tomorrow. Kind of an "OK, but we've got our eyes on you" type deal. We'll see. Hearing is at 12:00 ET.

Now I think the governor signs this bill into law ?

There should be a fed law to go against the California's law. Athletes do get paid through scholarships.

Iam all for a student to make money off campus while enrolled at school, it just seems unreal not to allow this

(08-31-2019 06:19 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Now I think the governor signs this bill into law ?

Next up is the full Assembly. They'll probably vote on it sometime next week, possibly the week after. I believe the Assembly will pass it with ease...

Then it's back to the Senate for concurrence. (They'll approve the Assembly's amendments, no problem.)

Then it's on to the Gov. I don't know where the Governor stands on this but his approval probably won't be necessary. The bill had veto-proof support in the Senate and likely will in the Assembly as well.

For all intents and purposes, the bill is now as good as passed. Whoop!

(06-01-2019 05:40 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  This doesn't address the issue that caused the rule. An athlete could receive $50k for 100 autographed pics if they sign with school X, have a good game, etc. Schools would have no way to police that.

Missed this comment before... Analyses of this bill point to existing California law that prohibits the financial inducement of an athlete to attend a particular school, or to reward an athlete's participation.

(05-28-2019 11:53 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  California produced a bunch of idiotic politicians who do not know the differences between college amateurs to the pros who make money off the video games. College players=no money since they are amateurs and pro players=get paid for their likeness for the video games.

No, you don't know. They are pre-professionals, in a professional program, much like going to Med School or Law School, preparing for their primary money career. That is definitely the case for those kids going to the P5 schools, where an average team has 12 players on the roster who will be drafted, and 25 more who will roll through an NFL camp at least. Much higher at schools like Ohio State, Alabama, LSU, Penn State, lower at schools like Indiana, Vanderbilt and Kansas.

There are already agreements in most schools with students in other majors, that produce commercial products with the school, that they get some share of the proceeds. My son fell under that for a medical app his team at school worked on, which entitles him to a share of the royalties.

The big question is why should athletics be exempt? Frankly it shouldn't. Amateurism is nothing more than a legal maneuver to try and avoid certain commerce rules. The NCAA will lose this one, and you'll see athletics with a similar revenue share agreement that my son had with his school in Engineering and Business.

The California legislature is rather one sided, and does have a strong bias as a result, but it's not made up of stupid people.

(09-01-2019 04:35 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The California legislature is ...... ..... not made up of stupid people.

Are you sure? Their cities are turning into Sh*t holes.

(09-01-2019 04:35 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 11:53 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  California produced a bunch of idiotic politicians who do not know the differences between college amateurs to the pros who make money off the video games. College players=no money since they are amateurs and pro players=get paid for their likeness for the video games.

No, you don't know. They are pre-professionals, in a professional program, much like going to Med School or Law School, preparing for their primary money career. That is definitely the case for those kids going to the P5 schools, where an average team has 12 players on the roster who will be drafted, and 25 more who will roll through an NFL camp at least. Much higher at schools like Ohio State, Alabama, LSU, Penn State, lower at schools like Indiana, Vanderbilt and Kansas.

There are already agreements in most schools with students in other majors, that produce commercial products with the school, that they get some share of the proceeds. My son fell under that for a medical app his team at school worked on, which entitles him to a share of the royalties.

The big question is why should athletics be exempt? Frankly it shouldn't. Amateurism is nothing more than a legal maneuver to try and avoid certain commerce rules. The NCAA will lose this one, and you'll see athletics with a similar revenue share agreement that my son had with his school in Engineering and Business.

The California legislature is rather one sided, and does have a strong bias as a result, but it's not made up of stupid people.

So 10% of the roster gets drafted and a bunch of others try out and fail? Don't think that quite compares to medical or law school grads. Its a preposterous comparison, not that the basic point is preposterous.

I just don't think the colleges should be spending lots more money being farm teams for the major leagues. Outside the P5 they lose money on football. 10 years ago much, if not most, of the P5 was losing money. The Olympic sports have a lot more true "students."

And the reality is that the vast majority of P5 football and basketball athletes have virtually zero commercial value. Most is in a handful of stars. And yet they are all getting $150,000 in tuition/fees/room/board + a very big number in training.

But the players will still not be able to monetize their NIL if they want to compete in the NCAA...

This law is not even necessary. They have always been able to make money from NIL. The issue is that they will be deemed ineligible for the NCAA.

I still have major questions about what this bill would do. Would it, for example, only pertain to California schools, or would it apply to schools who wish to compete in California against those schools? Would a visiting team that doesn't comply with California law be subject to prosecution when they play at Pauley Pavilion? What would the penalties be against those schools for their non-compliance?

Right now, intercollegiate athletics is considered an amateur activity by the IRS, and therefore is exempt from taxation. If the IRS were to decide that California schools are no longer amateur, could they revoke that exemption? The IRS is following Congress on this matter - not individual state legislatures. If Congress doesn't act, what does that do to California?

The NCAA doesn't sponsor a national championship tournament in football, so there isn't any way for them to bar USC from a championship in that sport. But basketball is another story. Frankly, if only California schools were banned from the NCAAT, that tournament would survive very easily.

(08-31-2019 06:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There should be a fed law to go against the California's law. Athletes do get paid through scholarships.

NC Rep. Mark Walker (R) disagrees with you as he has a bill similar to SB 206 ready for committee in the House.


And if not California, then Washington will be first with such a bill with HB 1084.

The California bill will not take effect until 2023, so the goal is to actually get the NCAA moving via the Val Ackerman/Gene Smith working group, which was to give an update in August before their report is due in October, but failed to do so.

(06-01-2019 04:10 PM)Chappy Wrote:  So while the California schools would have to leave the NCAA, they would also gain a huge recruiting advantage. All the top players would want to play in.California where they could profit from their likeness. That alone would probably be enough to get the NCAA to cave.

The California schools would be out of business.

(06-24-2019 10:32 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Mark Emmett is trying his best to ruin California members of the NCAA. Here is his latest threat.

BS. The California legislature is doing that.

The legislature is giving a middle finger to the NCAA and its rules. Now you may think the NCAA deserves that and I can understand that feeling, but your post is pure emotion and total nonsense.