The reality is that other than football, all those players could go pro and earn money if they had the talent to do so.

Bill passes California Assembly 72-0 with 7 abstentions.

Quote:"I just want to say, 'NCAA, don't threaten California. Don't threaten us'," Kamlager-Dove said. "Because we have formidable schools. We have formidable alumni. And we have formidable viewership. And we can leverage those things until 2023, when this bill takes effect. I'm sick of being leveraged by the NCAA on the backs of athletes who have the right to their own name and image."

Even Jim Patterson (R-Fresno), who expressed concern about the bill's potential impact on schools in smaller markets like Fresno State, said: "I hope the NCAA will come to its senses" in its handling of athletes' name, image and likeness.

Has to go back to the Senate for concurrence, which could happen as early as tomorrow. Since it passed with a prohibitive majority the first time and the thrust of the bill remains unchanged, that's a formality.

This is happening.

(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?

I swear, I had the exact same thought.

I like plain popcorn sprinkled with brewers yeast...
This is already fun to watch

I'm for this if we can get an NCAA football video game again.

Passed by state senate, on to Gov. Newsom

https://twitter.com/scottlay/status/1171928813963337728

Add Tennessee to the list of states that will consider similar legislation next year, along with Washington, Colorado and possibly others.

Quote:Brian Kelsey
@BrianKelsey

I was encouraged to see that CA’s State Assembly unanimously approved a bill to allow college athletes to be compensated for the use of their name, image, and likeness. @TNRepParkinson and I will be introducing legislation similar to the CA bill in the TN Legislature next year.

https://twitter.com/BrianKelsey/status/1...6595915778

Kelsey is the man who wrote this TN Senate Resolution which was adopted earlier this year.

(09-11-2019 07:16 PM)chester Wrote:  Add Tennessee to the list of states that will consider similar legislation next year, along with Washington, Colorado and possibly others.

Quote:Brian Kelsey
@BrianKelsey

I was encouraged to see that CA’s State Assembly unanimously approved a bill to allow college athletes to be compensated for the use of their name, image, and likeness. @TNRepParkinson and I will be introducing legislation similar to the CA bill in the TN Legislature next year.

https://twitter.com/BrianKelsey/status/1...6595915778

Kelsey is the man who wrote this TN Senate Resolution which was adopted earlier this year.

Just like Congressman Mark Walker has similar language ready in the House ready to go to Committee

https://walker.house.gov/media-center/pr...strictions

Once a change has popular will behind it, it is inevitable. If you are in the way of that change, you have two options: embrace it and try to exert influence over the process to make it good for everyone or watch as the other side gradually overwhelms you.

The NCAA can try to fight this at the state level using the Interstate Commerce Clause if they wish, but that will be an extensive and expensive legal battle - and a pointless one if the bill currently in the U.S. House makes it out of committee and takes flight, because the federal government does have the ability to regulate interstate commerce.

They are much, much better off trying to shape this into an advantageous arrangement for everyone than clinging to ideas that are increasingly viewed as outdated and unfair to college athletes.

(09-03-2019 08:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  The reality is that other than football, all those players could go pro and earn money if they had the talent to do so.

Brilliant point. Accept the bill is 95% about fball, sort of missed that in your analysis.

(06-01-2019 05:57 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(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.

Then so be it. I think part of the spirit of this law is to provide student athletes with the same financial freedom shared by every american and every non student athlete. Agents want to bribe them, who are we to care? Just as a computer science major can get a huge bonus for a summer internship. That’s the business between the individual and the company. Is this scenario ultimately good for college fball fans, maybe not, but you do not take away individual rights cause the masses lose entertainment value. That is unethical.

(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.

The NCAA should just allow it but with a cap. That seems like the most reasonable compromise. Otherwise you are correct, we will see a situation where like 5 schools are signing all of the 5 stars every season for 250k dollar "endorsement deals"

I expect the NCAA to fight this tooth and nail.

(09-12-2019 07:46 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(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.

The NCAA should just allow it but with a cap. That seems like the most reasonable compromise. Otherwise you are correct, we will see a situation where like 5 schools are signing all of the 5 stars every season for 250k dollar "endorsement deals"

I can’t see how a cap would be enforceable under the law - that would be a very clear antitrust violation as an association that is artificially capping compensation. The only way that the NCAA could do that is if they agree to negotiate that with the students that collectively bargain under a labor union, which is probably something the NCAA considers to be an even worse scenario.

I simply have *zero* sympathy for the NCAA on this matter. They have spent years and years just thinking that the player compensation issue would go away due to the blind nostalgia of old school fans.

The reality is that this is one of the few issues in society where you can actually see a bipartisan consensus and the NCAA needs to adjust or they’re going to get steamrolled. This isn’t a trend from “crazy Californians” - as others have noted, Tennessee is considering similar legislation and the federal bill is being brought up by a Southern Republican.

The left gets to argue that they’re protecting student rights and the beneficiaries of these measures are disproportionately lower income minority football and basketball players. The right gets to argue that they’re protecting a basic liberty interest (a person’s own likeness) and removing artificial restrictions on the free market... with the emotional bonus of sticking it to the college administrators in academia that they loathe.

Who the heck in the political world is actually going to side with academia on this issue? This is a fish in the barrel issue for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Even in California, it takes a pretty clear ironclad unarguable bulletproof political issue (e.g. “Let’s not let murderers drive school buses full of kids!”) for there to be a *unanimous* vote in the legislature.

This looks like a tipping point - the only people arguing against this are college administrators and a relative handful of old school nostalgic fans. The rest of the world is looking at the California bill and saying, “Well duh! Doesn’t everyone already have a right to capitalize on their own likeness?” By the time that this California law goes into effect, we’ll probably see every state and the federal government have a similar law in place.

The fact that it might be difficult for colleges on compliance issues when this is widespread might very well be true, but the onus is on the NCAA and its members to figure that out. Usurping basic liberty rights and free market principles so that NCAA compliance officers can have an easier job isn’t an argument that is going to work under the law. I have no patience for the NCAA and its members for acting like this is a sudden crisis when they have had decades to address this on their own and chose to stick their head in the sand instead. When they refused find a solution themselves by just ignoring it for so many years, they’re now going to get a solution forced on them.

TLDR: it’s instructive that the only thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that the NCAA sucks. The NCAA is going to lose here legally and politically.

(09-12-2019 08:41 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I expect the NCAA to fight this tooth and nail.

I expect the same. The NCAA has total control over universities, which was granted to them by the universities themselves. If the NCAA loses one of it's biggest control, it'll be the beginning of the end for them. And I'm totally here for it!

(05-31-2019 10:30 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not sure how that is going to work. The state can make it legal for players to earn money outside of the school (it was never illegal as far as I know--it was just against NCAA rules). But passing the bill still doesnt make it conform to NCAA rules. Its like California passing a bill that makes it legal for pro-teams in California that compete in football to get two first round draft picks each year. The NFL isnt going to just grant the 49ers an extra #1 draft pick.

I guess it would mean all the California schools would have to withdraw from the NCAA since their rules would violate California law?

That will be some realignment fun. Will the PAC-12 remain and raid or dissolve?

(09-12-2019 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:46 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(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.

The NCAA should just allow it but with a cap. That seems like the most reasonable compromise. Otherwise you are correct, we will see a situation where like 5 schools are signing all of the 5 stars every season for 250k dollar "endorsement deals"

I can’t see how a cap would be enforceable under the law - that would be a very clear antitrust violation as an association that is artificially capping compensation. The only way that the NCAA could do that is if they agree to negotiate that with the students that collectively bargain under a labor union, which is probably something the NCAA considers to be an even worse scenario.

I simply have *zero* sympathy for the NCAA on this matter. They have spent years and years just thinking that the player compensation issue would go away due to the blind nostalgia of old school fans.

The reality is that this is one of the few issues in society where you can actually see a bipartisan consensus and the NCAA needs to adjust or they’re going to get steamrolled. This isn’t a trend from “crazy Californians” - as others have noted, Tennessee is considering similar legislation and the federal bill is being brought up by a Southern Republican.

The left gets to argue that they’re protecting student rights and the beneficiaries of these measures are disproportionately lower income minority football and basketball players. The right gets to argue that they’re protecting a basic liberty interest (a person’s own likeness) and removing artificial restrictions on the free market... with the emotional bonus of sticking it to the college administrators in academia that they loathe.

Who the heck in the political world is actually going to side with academia on this issue? This is a fish in the barrel issue for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Even in California, it takes a pretty clear ironclad unarguable bulletproof political issue (e.g. “Let’s not let murderers drive school buses full of kids!”) for there to be a *unanimous* vote in the legislature.

This looks like a tipping point - the only people arguing against this are college administrators and a relative handful of old school nostalgic fans. The rest of the world is looking at the California bill and saying, “Well duh! Doesn’t everyone already have a right to capitalize on their own likeness?” By the time that this California law goes into effect, we’ll probably see every state and the federal government have a similar law in place.

The fact that it might be difficult for colleges on compliance issues when this is widespread might very well be true, but the onus is on the NCAA and its members to figure that out. Usurping basic liberty rights and free market principles so that NCAA compliance officers can have an easier job isn’t an argument that is going to work under the law. I have no patience for the NCAA and its members for acting like this is a sudden crisis when they have had decades to address this on their own and chose to stick their head in the sand instead. When they refused find a solution themselves by just ignoring it for so many years, they’re now going to get a solution forced on them.

TLDR: it’s instructive that the only thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that the NCAA sucks. The NCAA is going to lose here legally and politically.

Frank, why would the NCAA not be able to have a cap if the NBA, MLB, NHL, and NFL have them?

(09-03-2019 11:52 AM)MAcFroggy Wrote:  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.

It does change one thing: It orders California universities to not sanction a student athlete who chooses to monetize their NIL. As of now, a university like UCLA can tell a quarterback "if you sign a deal to monetize your likeness in violation of the NCAA regulations, then you are kicked off the team". This law says that they can't do that any more.

So in effect, the law forces a show-down by compelling California universities to violate the NCAA regulations on pay for play. The universities can't enforce them any more, and in practice, that is how in the first instance these NCAA regulations are enforced, by the member institutions.

The one part of the law that appears to me to be null-and-void is that it enjoins the NCAA from enforcing its regulations on California universities. California can't do that, because the NCAA is a nationwide organization not under its jurisdiction.

(09-12-2019 09:12 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:46 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(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.

The NCAA should just allow it but with a cap. That seems like the most reasonable compromise. Otherwise you are correct, we will see a situation where like 5 schools are signing all of the 5 stars every season for 250k dollar "endorsement deals"

I can’t see how a cap would be enforceable under the law - that would be a very clear antitrust violation as an association that is artificially capping compensation. The only way that the NCAA could do that is if they agree to negotiate that with the students that collectively bargain under a labor union, which is probably something the NCAA considers to be an even worse scenario.

I simply have *zero* sympathy for the NCAA on this matter. They have spent years and years just thinking that the player compensation issue would go away due to the blind nostalgia of old school fans.

The reality is that this is one of the few issues in society where you can actually see a bipartisan consensus and the NCAA needs to adjust or they’re going to get steamrolled. This isn’t a trend from “crazy Californians” - as others have noted, Tennessee is considering similar legislation and the federal bill is being brought up by a Southern Republican.

The left gets to argue that they’re protecting student rights and the beneficiaries of these measures are disproportionately lower income minority football and basketball players. The right gets to argue that they’re protecting a basic liberty interest (a person’s own likeness) and removing artificial restrictions on the free market... with the emotional bonus of sticking it to the college administrators in academia that they loathe.

Who the heck in the political world is actually going to side with academia on this issue? This is a fish in the barrel issue for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Even in California, it takes a pretty clear ironclad unarguable bulletproof political issue (e.g. “Let’s not let murderers drive school buses full of kids!”) for there to be a *unanimous* vote in the legislature.

This looks like a tipping point - the only people arguing against this are college administrators and a relative handful of old school nostalgic fans. The rest of the world is looking at the California bill and saying, “Well duh! Doesn’t everyone already have a right to capitalize on their own likeness?” By the time that this California law goes into effect, we’ll probably see every state and the federal government have a similar law in place.

The fact that it might be difficult for colleges on compliance issues when this is widespread might very well be true, but the onus is on the NCAA and its members to figure that out. Usurping basic liberty rights and free market principles so that NCAA compliance officers can have an easier job isn’t an argument that is going to work under the law. I have no patience for the NCAA and its members for acting like this is a sudden crisis when they have had decades to address this on their own and chose to stick their head in the sand instead. When they refused find a solution themselves by just ignoring it for so many years, they’re now going to get a solution forced on them.

TLDR: it’s instructive that the only thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that the NCAA sucks. The NCAA is going to lose here legally and politically.

Frank, why would the NCAA not be able to have a cap if the NBA, MLB, NHL, and NFL have them?

I am not a lawyer, but I would say that is because the NFL, NBA, etc. caps are negotiated with the player's unions. That is permitted under labor law, which in that case supersedes anti-trust law.

In this case, the cap would be unilaterally imposed on the players by the NCAA, and that would be the problem.

(09-12-2019 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:12 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:46 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(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.

The NCAA should just allow it but with a cap. That seems like the most reasonable compromise. Otherwise you are correct, we will see a situation where like 5 schools are signing all of the 5 stars every season for 250k dollar "endorsement deals"

I can’t see how a cap would be enforceable under the law - that would be a very clear antitrust violation as an association that is artificially capping compensation. The only way that the NCAA could do that is if they agree to negotiate that with the students that collectively bargain under a labor union, which is probably something the NCAA considers to be an even worse scenario.

I simply have *zero* sympathy for the NCAA on this matter. They have spent years and years just thinking that the player compensation issue would go away due to the blind nostalgia of old school fans.

The reality is that this is one of the few issues in society where you can actually see a bipartisan consensus and the NCAA needs to adjust or they’re going to get steamrolled. This isn’t a trend from “crazy Californians” - as others have noted, Tennessee is considering similar legislation and the federal bill is being brought up by a Southern Republican.

The left gets to argue that they’re protecting student rights and the beneficiaries of these measures are disproportionately lower income minority football and basketball players. The right gets to argue that they’re protecting a basic liberty interest (a person’s own likeness) and removing artificial restrictions on the free market... with the emotional bonus of sticking it to the college administrators in academia that they loathe.

Who the heck in the political world is actually going to side with academia on this issue? This is a fish in the barrel issue for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Even in California, it takes a pretty clear ironclad unarguable bulletproof political issue (e.g. “Let’s not let murderers drive school buses full of kids!”) for there to be a *unanimous* vote in the legislature.

This looks like a tipping point - the only people arguing against this are college administrators and a relative handful of old school nostalgic fans. The rest of the world is looking at the California bill and saying, “Well duh! Doesn’t everyone already have a right to capitalize on their own likeness?” By the time that this California law goes into effect, we’ll probably see every state and the federal government have a similar law in place.

The fact that it might be difficult for colleges on compliance issues when this is widespread might very well be true, but the onus is on the NCAA and its members to figure that out. Usurping basic liberty rights and free market principles so that NCAA compliance officers can have an easier job isn’t an argument that is going to work under the law. I have no patience for the NCAA and its members for acting like this is a sudden crisis when they have had decades to address this on their own and chose to stick their head in the sand instead. When they refused find a solution themselves by just ignoring it for so many years, they’re now going to get a solution forced on them.

TLDR: it’s instructive that the only thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that the NCAA sucks. The NCAA is going to lose here legally and politically.

Frank, why would the NCAA not be able to have a cap if the NBA, MLB, NHL, and NFL have them?

I am not a lawyer, but I would say that is because the NFL, NBA, etc. caps are negotiated with the player's unions. That is permitted under labor law, which in that case supersedes anti-trust law.

In this case, the cap would be unilaterally imposed on the players by the NCAA, and that would be the problem.

Yes, exactly right. If the students form a union and collectively bargain the restrictions with the NCAA, then that would be a permitted exclusion from antitrust law. The NCAA can't just unilaterally impose a cap on the players, though. The catch-22 for the NCAA is that allowing students to unionize would require an explicit acknowledgment that they are employees of the university (as you inherently can't unionize unless you're an employee), which opens up an entirely different set of issues.

I know that college administrators won't see it this way because they simply want the status quo to continue into perpetuity, but California is doing them a favor. The Olympic model allows the athletes that are underpaid from a free market perspective (generally football and men's basketball players) to earn additional income that the university itself doesn't need to pay directly while also complying with Title IX (as a direct payment from the university wouldn't allow for a football player to be paid differently than a field hockey player).