Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
Author Message
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,775
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 84
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
Just for fun:

PAC 10 North: Wash, WSU, Ore, OSU, Boise St
PAC 10 South: Utah, BYU, Ariz, ASU, Colo

MWC West: Hawaii, UNLV, Nevada, Utah St, WYO
MWC Mountain: CSU, AFA, UNM, NMSU, UTEP

California Collegiate Athletic Association

Snoody Athletic Conference (SAC):
Cal
UCLA
Stanford
USC
UCSB
UCSD
UC Irvine
UC Riverside
UC Davis
Pepperdine
Pacific
San Francisco
San Diego
Loyola Marymount

Poor School Conference (PSC):
San Diego St
San Jose St
Fresno St
Sacramento St
Cal Poly
Cal St Northridge
Cal St Fullerton
Cal St Bakersfield
Long Beach St
Cal Baptist
(This post was last modified: 09-27-2019 02:59 PM by Fighting Muskie.)
09-27-2019 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,689
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 218
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #22
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
As has been pointed out - many states, RED, PURPLE and BLUE are considering similar legislation.

Do you think for a minute, that Alabama, seeing that USC/UCLA can now start allowing athletes to make money off their likeness, even in a West Coast centric association (remember, NFL doesn't care what conference you play in), would stand pat?
09-27-2019 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
msm96wolf Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,951
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 145
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #23
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
My understanding is the schools will not be kicked out of NCAA but the NCAA stated the schools could be banned from post season it would make the school ineligible from playing. So the answer is the player can get paid but the schools are excluded from any post season tournaments and playoffs.
09-27-2019 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,788
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 342
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #24
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-27-2019 12:16 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(09-27-2019 10:53 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA claims that the California bill is unconstitutional because it prohibits the NCAA from punishing CA schools for not abiding by the NCAA's rules. This is an attempt to regulate interstate commerce, but according to the Constitution only the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

As much as I hate what the commerce clause has become, I think this is a correct interpretation of the law.

The question is - will the NCAA actually take CA to court on this? I think (not sure) that they wouldn't have to - any NCAA university outside California that has to play a California school that benefits from this law would probably have standing to sue.

This is going to pass because the Governor has no reason to take a stand on this bill and sign it or veto it. By not signing within 30 days, it will automatically be approved. A veto would be overridden and that has not happened to a California Governor since 1979.

Ed O'Bannon's landmark case in 2014 is the foundation for the California bill. In that case, the court found that the NCAA bylaws operated as an unreasonable restraint of trade, in violation of antitrust law. The NCAA is going to lose on this and they know it.

The world is changing. This law and others that will follow it are going to force the NCAA to change. You can see this wave coming. If NCAA President Mark Emmert wants to protect his $2.9 million in annual compensation, he will find a way to make this work. The days of Avery Brundage are over.

This isn't exactly true. You're citing the district judge's ruling, which was partially overturned by the Court of Appeals.

From the Sports Illustrated article about the O'bannon case: "The Ninth Circuit.... reasoned that, by allowing colleges to offer student-athletes additional compensation up to the full cost of attendance, the NCAA cures the antitrust harm caused by its otherwise unlawful amateurism rules."

The Supreme Court denied the NCAA's appeal, so the 9th Circuit's ruling stands.

The NCAA will surely cite that precedent in the suit against CA's new law (if it passes).
09-27-2019 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,017
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 236
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #25
California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
I can just see the dissension coming on teams where a QB would get a nice check and the linemen get zero. Lookout blocks would occur.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
09-27-2019 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ohio Poly Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,318
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Ohio Poly
Location:
Post: #26
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
The Cali schools have nothing to lose and will voluntarily withdraw if the NCAA does not reform. With the NIL bill, the best athletes will go there and as more states follow suit the NCAA will be left with the table scraps. Universities are not required to be NCAA members by federal law or SCOTUS.
09-27-2019 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fishpro10987 Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #27
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
Count me as someone who will lose all interest in collegiate athletics if we see a pay for play system (with all the inequities that can offer). Some schools are quite advantaged now. It will become ridiculous if this becomes the norm.
09-27-2019 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wavefan12 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,965
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 70
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #28
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
The Cali D1 schools have a combined endowment well spent over $50 billion and the state has a GDP larger than than 95% of the countries in the world. I am sure the NCAA will win this fight. ?. Not to mention the public hates the NCAA worse than the NFL leadership.

This is all about the old NCAA leadership trying to hold into their jobs like an 80 year old politician saying whatever it takes. The NCAA has a lot of blood on their hands including the schools. See ya
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2019 01:32 AM by wavefan12.)
09-28-2019 01:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,174
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 188
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #29
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-28-2019 01:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  The Cali D1 schools have a combined endowment well spent over $50 billion and the state has a GDP larger than than 95% of the countries in the world. I am sure the NCAA will win this fight. ?. Not to mention the public hates the NCAA worse than the NFL leadership.

This is all about the old NCAA leadership trying to hold into their jobs like an 80 year old politician saying whatever it takes. The NCAA has a lot of blood on their hands including the schools. See ya



The problem some of the big name college players from the past were bad apples like Cam Newton, Aaron Gonzalas, Johnny Manziell, Jamies Winston, etc. The problem is that these power schools refuse to boot them from the team and swept crimes under the carpet. why reward players for bad behavier?
09-28-2019 02:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 30,169
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1335
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #30
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-27-2019 04:53 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The Cali schools have nothing to lose and will voluntarily withdraw if the NCAA does not reform. With the NIL bill, the best athletes will go there and as more states follow suit the NCAA will be left with the table scraps. Universities are not required to be NCAA members by federal law or SCOTUS.

It won’t matter anyway. If individual states are setting compensation policy then there is almost zero chance we will end up with any uniform nationwide rule regarding player compensation. Instead, it will be a patchwork of 50 different rules that change at each state line. Not only will compensation rules differ from conference to conference—these compensation rules will actually vary WITHIN conferences. I have plenty of gripes with the NCAA—but they do at least keep everyone competing within the same general framework of rules. If the NCAA loses this battle with California, what will emerge on the other side of that court decision will be dramatically different from college football as we know it. It would be chaos. A NCAA loss to California’s challenge would effectively end the NCAA and have a far more transformative impact on college sports than the Oklahoma vs NCAA case has. There would be no rules and no uniformity. It would be back to the Wild West early days of college sports.
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2019 03:06 AM by Attackcoog.)
09-28-2019 02:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,835
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 435
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #31
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-27-2019 10:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Not all courts rule the same way. Many states had their laws struck down. These bills could be struck down. The California Bill says all athletes could do this. Here are some problems.

1.1 athlete is a star who could sell his name and likeness, and the others could not.

2.This bill includes women's volleyball athletes and other sports that do not make money.

3.This could open the door for another bill that all the colleges and universities have to pay all of the athletes including sports that do not make money.

The issue is that these bills could hurt college sports as we know it. Just like the Title 9 Bill did hurt college football as a whole since it got expensive for schools. The consequences to this would come to a point like a school like Stanford or California drop athletics.
Owning your name and likeness and the ability to earn money off it is NOT the same thing as "a university must now pay me" .

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
09-28-2019 11:11 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,174
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 188
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #32
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-28-2019 11:11 AM)panama Wrote:  
(09-27-2019 10:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Not all courts rule the same way. Many states had their laws struck down. These bills could be struck down. The California Bill says all athletes could do this. Here are some problems.

1.1 athlete is a star who could sell his name and likeness, and the others could not.

2.This bill includes women's volleyball athletes and other sports that do not make money.

3.This could open the door for another bill that all the colleges and universities have to pay all of the athletes including sports that do not make money.

The issue is that these bills could hurt college sports as we know it. Just like the Title 9 Bill did hurt college football as a whole since it got expensive for schools. The consequences to this would come to a point like a school like Stanford or California drop athletics.
Owning your name and likeness and the ability to earn money off it is NOT the same thing as "a university must now pay me" .

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


And these are stupid laws. These players get scholarships and all that to get them through college. The courts are wrong when they ruled against the NCAA. Miami Ohio sold a lot of Ben Roethlisber's jerseys. The money the school made off of them goes to the Athletics department which some of it goes to non-revenue sports like the women's sports. We should ask that stupid female lawmaker who sponsor this bill if she wants this or drop Title 9 since this bill will surely kill Title 9 sports that do not make money.
09-28-2019 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,730
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 63
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #33
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-27-2019 04:09 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(09-27-2019 12:16 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  This is going to pass because the Governor has no reason to take a stand on this bill and sign it or veto it. By not signing within 30 days, it will automatically be approved. A veto would be overridden and that has not happened to a California Governor since 1979.

Ed O'Bannon's landmark case in 2014 is the foundation for the California bill. In that case, the court found that the NCAA bylaws operated as an unreasonable restraint of trade, in violation of antitrust law. The NCAA is going to lose on this and they know it.

The world is changing. This law and others that will follow it are going to force the NCAA to change. You can see this wave coming. If NCAA President Mark Emmert wants to protect his $2.9 million in annual compensation, he will find a way to make this work. The days of Avery Brundage are over.

This isn't exactly true. You're citing the district judge's ruling, which was partially overturned by the Court of Appeals.

From the Sports Illustrated article about the O'bannon case: "The Ninth Circuit.... reasoned that, by allowing colleges to offer student-athletes additional compensation up to the full cost of attendance, the NCAA cures the antitrust harm caused by its otherwise unlawful amateurism rules."

The Supreme Court denied the NCAA's appeal, so the 9th Circuit's ruling stands.

The NCAA will surely cite that precedent in the suit against CA's new law (if it passes).

Before the O'Bannon ruling, the courts had consistently ruled that the preservation of amateurism was a justification for the NCAA rules and restraints. The Ninth Circuit actually weakened the NCAA’s argument by stating that even if the NCAA’s concept of amateurism had been perfectly coherent and consistent, the NCAA cannot fully answer the court’s finding that the compensation rules have significant anticompetitive effects simply by pointing out that it has adhered to those rules for a long time. By not taking the case, the Supreme Court left the antitrust label on the NCAA.

By declining to hear the O’Bannon case, the Supreme Court has ensured an opening for other antitrust lawsuits to argue that it is illegal for the NCAA to limit athletes’ compensation, provided they can persuade the courts that striking down amateurism would not fundamentally alter the demand for college sports. In defending its amateurism regulations, the NCAA has consistently maintained that student-athletes are just that—students. The NCAA states that one of its main goals is the education of its student-athletes and that athletics are just a way to gain such an education. That sounds great, but this is 2019 and the NCAA is making millions off the back of these athletes.

Walter Byers, the first Executive Director of the NCAA, revealed in his book "that the NCAA developed the term "student-athlete" in order to insulate the colleges from having to provide long term disability payments to players injured while playing their sport (and making money for their university and the NCAA)." He added "that the federal government should require deregulation of a monopoly business operated by not-for-profit institutions contracting together to achieve maximum financial returns. Collegiate amateurism is not a moral issue; it is an economic camouflage for monopoly practice."

That is a from a guy who worked for the NCAA from 1951 to 1988 and helped build it into what it is today.
09-28-2019 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big Frog II Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,137
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 44
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #34
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
Would this make a football scholarship taxable income?
09-28-2019 07:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,835
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 435
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #35
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-28-2019 02:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 11:11 AM)panama Wrote:  
(09-27-2019 10:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Not all courts rule the same way. Many states had their laws struck down. These bills could be struck down. The California Bill says all athletes could do this. Here are some problems.

1.1 athlete is a star who could sell his name and likeness, and the others could not.

2.This bill includes women's volleyball athletes and other sports that do not make money.

3.This could open the door for another bill that all the colleges and universities have to pay all of the athletes including sports that do not make money.

The issue is that these bills could hurt college sports as we know it. Just like the Title 9 Bill did hurt college football as a whole since it got expensive for schools. The consequences to this would come to a point like a school like Stanford or California drop athletics.
Owning your name and likeness and the ability to earn money off it is NOT the same thing as "a university must now pay me" .

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


And these are stupid laws. These players get scholarships and all that to get them through college. The courts are wrong when they ruled against the NCAA. Miami Ohio sold a lot of Ben Roethlisber's jerseys. The money the school made off of them goes to the Athletics department which some of it goes to non-revenue sports like the women's sports. We should ask that stupid female lawmaker who sponsor this bill if she wants this or drop Title 9 since this bill will surely kill Title 9 sports that do not make money.
So...your opinion... awesome

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
09-28-2019 08:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,928
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 800
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #36
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-28-2019 02:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 11:11 AM)panama Wrote:  
(09-27-2019 10:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Not all courts rule the same way. Many states had their laws struck down. These bills could be struck down. The California Bill says all athletes could do this. Here are some problems.

1.1 athlete is a star who could sell his name and likeness, and the others could not.

2.This bill includes women's volleyball athletes and other sports that do not make money.

3.This could open the door for another bill that all the colleges and universities have to pay all of the athletes including sports that do not make money.

The issue is that these bills could hurt college sports as we know it. Just like the Title 9 Bill did hurt college football as a whole since it got expensive for schools. The consequences to this would come to a point like a school like Stanford or California drop athletics.
Owning your name and likeness and the ability to earn money off it is NOT the same thing as "a university must now pay me" .

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


And these are stupid laws. These players get scholarships and all that to get them through college. The courts are wrong when they ruled against the NCAA. Miami Ohio sold a lot of Ben Roethlisber's jerseys. The money the school made off of them goes to the Athletics department which some of it goes to non-revenue sports like the women's sports. We should ask that stupid female lawmaker who sponsor this bill if she wants this or drop Title 9 since this bill will surely kill Title 9 sports that do not make money.

Not sure why you think this. The school will still have to spend the required money on women's sports if it is spending money on men's sports, and it will be. The athletes who are making money off of selling their names and likenesses will be getting money separate from the school budget.
09-29-2019 12:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billings Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,278
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Wyo / Mont St.
Location: Billings, Montana
Post: #37
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-27-2019 12:50 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(09-27-2019 12:38 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  Setting aside that I think this bill is eminently fair, the California schools will never get booted.

#1, the NCAA isn't going to look at the world's 5th largest economy and say "we are no longer willing to do business with you." That's bonkers. Particularly because you are likely also forgoing business relationships with California based companies.

#2, IF (and again, huge theoretical if, not a realistic if) the NCAA decided to cut off it's nose to spite it's face and boot the California schools, why do you think schools in Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, etc. wouldn't choose to form a new association with the California schools? Is the University of Oregon going to choose to associate with the SEC and ACC over UCLA and Stanford?

#3 Beyond individual schools making these decisions to go with "Cal-CAA" over the NCAA, there are a lot of blue states out there who will follow California's lead, just like there are a lot of states that adopt California's environmental and consumer protection policies. Is there any doubt that if this was brought to the Massachusetts legislature, or the New York legislature, or the Illinois legislature, that the bill wouldn't pass? Particularly because there are a number of states where NCAA sports aren't particularly important and lobbying from, say, the AD at UMass isn't going to have much clout?

This bitching and moaning is saber-rattling and nothing more. California is the state with nationwide clout to get this ball rolling, and that's why the movers and shakers behind this bill started in California. Similar laws will pass in other states.

Even in places where this seems anathema- like Alabama- this will become either law or policy. If there are 20 states with colleges offering increased compensation to athletes, even if they aren't in the "NCAA" and are in some other organization, the best players are going to play there. And Alabama won't accept having a diminished product.

The article also mentions that there are already similar legislative efforts in South Carolina, New York, Colorado, and Washington.

If California does it and Colorado and Washington are considering, than Oregon isn't far behind. So, the PAC 12 is fine.

And, once you get into New York and the southeast (South Carolina), the ACC and SEC are likely fine too.

So, good luck, NCAA, with drawing that line in the sand.

Yep and if the PAC called the MWC and said screw it lets set up something new The NCAA loses the entire wet and yes the MWC would align with the PAC over the NCAA
09-29-2019 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,174
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 188
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #38
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-29-2019 12:54 PM)billings Wrote:  
(09-27-2019 12:50 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(09-27-2019 12:38 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  Setting aside that I think this bill is eminently fair, the California schools will never get booted.

#1, the NCAA isn't going to look at the world's 5th largest economy and say "we are no longer willing to do business with you." That's bonkers. Particularly because you are likely also forgoing business relationships with California based companies.

#2, IF (and again, huge theoretical if, not a realistic if) the NCAA decided to cut off it's nose to spite it's face and boot the California schools, why do you think schools in Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, etc. wouldn't choose to form a new association with the California schools? Is the University of Oregon going to choose to associate with the SEC and ACC over UCLA and Stanford?

#3 Beyond individual schools making these decisions to go with "Cal-CAA" over the NCAA, there are a lot of blue states out there who will follow California's lead, just like there are a lot of states that adopt California's environmental and consumer protection policies. Is there any doubt that if this was brought to the Massachusetts legislature, or the New York legislature, or the Illinois legislature, that the bill wouldn't pass? Particularly because there are a number of states where NCAA sports aren't particularly important and lobbying from, say, the AD at UMass isn't going to have much clout?

This bitching and moaning is saber-rattling and nothing more. California is the state with nationwide clout to get this ball rolling, and that's why the movers and shakers behind this bill started in California. Similar laws will pass in other states.

Even in places where this seems anathema- like Alabama- this will become either law or policy. If there are 20 states with colleges offering increased compensation to athletes, even if they aren't in the "NCAA" and are in some other organization, the best players are going to play there. And Alabama won't accept having a diminished product.

The article also mentions that there are already similar legislative efforts in South Carolina, New York, Colorado, and Washington.

If California does it and Colorado and Washington are considering, than Oregon isn't far behind. So, the PAC 12 is fine.

And, once you get into New York and the southeast (South Carolina), the ACC and SEC are likely fine too.

So, good luck, NCAA, with drawing that line in the sand.

Yep and if the PAC called the MWC and said screw it lets set up something new The NCAA loses the entire wet and yes the MWC would align with the PAC over the NCAA


Except for schools in red states like Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona.

You could see a new P5 conference with these schools.

Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Utah State, BYU, Boise State, and Wyoming.
If the PAC grabs Big Sky schools? Idaho, Idaho State, Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Northern Arizona will join the 7 schools that would not be part of the California schools. WAC would lose Dixie State, Utah Valley, Grand Canyon and UTRGV. If the PAC grabs RMAC, GNAC and all the D2 California schools? Westminster and the Alaska twins will join the 7 schools that broke away from the PAC schools. These lawmakers are destroying college sports without understanding that there are bad consequences to the schools. Take a look at Title 9? You are supposed to have equal numbers of women scholarships to men. There are no sports for women to matched the football. Only way to do it is to cut scholarships for football in half at the FBS levels.
09-29-2019 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,788
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 342
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #39
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
This is not a red-state blue-state thing.

Not every ideological split is along party lines.
09-29-2019 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billings Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,278
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Wyo / Mont St.
Location: Billings, Montana
Post: #40
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-27-2019 03:50 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  My understanding is the schools will not be kicked out of NCAA but the NCAA stated the schools could be banned from post season it would make the school ineligible from playing. So the answer is the player can get paid but the schools are excluded from any post season tournaments and playoffs.

Upon which they will withdraw from the NCAA
09-29-2019 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.