(10-02-2019 10:36 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 09:35 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If they turn it into a minor league sport, with salaries and free agency, then they'll lose the fans. College football will become just like the NBA G-League, or AAA baseball. And it'll have similar fan support. I don't think that's what anyone wants.

I see this argument a lot, but I just don't buy that very many fans will make that distinction or care. Heck, I already see college football and basketball as minor league sports except with a much stronger emotional connection. To argue that they are anything other than that *today* (especially at the Power 5 level) is being quite naive. There's a vocal old school segment that might superficially believe that the sky is falling, but I've found in all of my years that the most hollow threat of all threats in the entire universe is a sports fan claiming that he/she will not watch his/her favorite team because of [insert reason]. As soon as they start winning, all of those supposed dealbreaker principles go by the wayside.

I *do* think that fans care that the name of their alma mater is on the jersey (e.g. there's a big difference between the emotional connection to the Ohio State Buckeyes versus the Columbus Clippers), but I honestly don't believe whether players get compensated make any more difference than the fact that all of the coaches (who are generally the highest paid public employees in virtually every state), professors, administrators, the non-athlete students that clean up the stadiums/facilities and tutor athletes, and literally every single other person associated with the athletic program receives some sort of compensation.

It doesn't compute in my brain that we can have this massive college sports industrial complex financed by billions of dollars of TV revenue, donations, and sponsorships and we can then sit here and claim that the actual athletes that fuel all of that getting compensated would suddenly be a bridge too far. I'd buy it more if head coaches were paid at the same rate as normal professor (as opposed to 50 professors) and schools decided to return all of the money from ESPN/Fox/CBS/NBC and Nike/Adidas/Under Armour. Otherwise, it's really nonsensical. Millennials and Generation Z certainly don't care (and if anything, are the ones that are the most flabbergasted that their athletic peers aren't being paid with all of the money being thrown around with college sports).

To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, we're all rooting for laundry. I'm certainly not going to be bothered if Illinois starts winning more football and basketball games because it can start drawing more 5-star recruits because our state is looking to pass a law that matches the California law to allow for third party athlete compensation. Heck, this might be the best way for schools like ours to actually have some type of competitive advantage over Michigan and Ohio State. If we're just competing on tradition and branding, we lose pretty much every time. If we can start competing based on compensation, we can actually start winning some of those recruiting battles. The status quo actually entrenches the power of the elite programs, whereas a more open free market actually allows schools that don't have the decades of branding and tradition to compete better in the marketplace because the color of green is rational and unbiased.

I make the distinction, and I care. I watch college sports, not minor league sports. Once they start paying players I'm out. It's not a hollow threat. I quit the NFL when the Oilers left. I quit MLB when the money-changers forced the Astros out of the NL. Maybe I am the anomaly. Maybe not. But I will cease to care when this happens.

I don't think you are anomaly. Baseball used to be my favorite sport. Then they had the 3rd strike, the one that skipped the World Series. My team, the Reds had the 2nd best record in baseball in 81(?-after the As) when they did the split seasons and didn't make the playoffs. The Reds were leading their division in '94 when the World Series got cancelled. I barely follow baseball now.

If it becomes a minor league as many have proposed, I have no interest. There's a line. Getting full cost of attendance like other scholarhip students get was totally appropriate. But at some point it just becomes a minor league.

(10-02-2019 12:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 12:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It needs to be explicit that these kids are neither employees of the school nor the third party. They are independent contractors (and will receive a federal 1099 reporting their earnings). The last thing schools need is to be told by a court they owe worker’s compensation or unemployment benefits.

The whole thing is going to be an administrative nightmare. The NCAA can’t have kids in different states playing under different compensation laws.

Any smart business (whether it's a third party or the school) would want to characterize them as independent contractors.

However, the tricky thing there (and I know this very well through my job as a corporate attorney that deals with lots of employee/contractor situations) is that companies can't just magically label people as independent contractors and then hold them to the same obligations as employees. It's an "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck" type of analysis. If you treat someone like an employee, then the law is going to look at that person as an employee regardless of whether you label them as an independent contractor. This is where schools are already walking a fine line with athletes - if athletes have to be at specific places (such as practice) at specific times with specific duties but then suffer adverse economic consequences (such as losing a scholarship) if they're not there, then they *look* like an employee under the law and the school may have to owe them employee-level compensation and benefits.

Similarly, an athlete that does a quick photo shoot or Instagram post for an endorsement could probably be a 1099. In contrast, an athlete that comes to a workplace at a specific time and place every week with a specific set of duties is going to have more scrutiny regarding the line between an employee and an independent contractor.

That is already an issue for colleges. Some are pushing the "athletes are employees" idea.

(10-02-2019 12:56 PM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.

Very good take in my opinion. There is going to be a plethora of un-intended consequences once they go down this route.

Here's the thing: the argument that there could be unintended consequences could very much be true. We can't predict how this will turn out... but that's sort of the entire point.

Free markets are messy. Free speech is messy. Democracies are messy. *Freedom* is messy, whether you're talking about global markets and government entities or your own home when your children go from little kids to teenagers to adults. Freedom means that there will be mistakes and outcomes that you didn't predict and can't control. Yet, virtually all of us believe that freedom is better than totalitarianism. At the end of the day, we'd rather have individual choices than be unilaterally told by some overarching figure (whether it's the government or the NCAA) what's supposedly "best" for us. I'd rather have a rocky road to a goal that's my own than a smooth road to an outcome that has been predetermined for me.

It brings up the age old question: do the ends justify the means? History has way too many instances that show when people get too focused on getting a specific outcome, they start trampling on the opportunities and freedom of others in the process. That's really what the NCAA and colleges have done here with athletes for far too long. They may have legitimately thought and believed in a good outcome (e.g. amateur athletics, an equal playing field, etc.), but the way to get there in today's college sports industrial complex with billions of dollars flowing through to everyone but the athletes has stretched any sense of logic at this point.

(10-02-2019 10:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 09:35 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If they turn it into a minor league sport, with salaries and free agency, then they'll lose the fans. College football will become just like the NBA G-League, or AAA baseball. And it'll have similar fan support. I don't think that's what anyone wants.

I see this argument a lot, but I just don't buy that very many fans will make that distinction or care. Heck, I already see college football and basketball as minor league sports except with a much stronger emotional connection. To argue that they are anything other than that *today* (especially at the Power 5 level) is being quite naive. There's a vocal old school segment that might superficially believe that the sky is falling, but I've found in all of my years that the most hollow threat of all threats in the entire universe is a sports fan claiming that he/she will not watch his/her favorite team because of [insert reason]. As soon as they start winning, all of those supposed dealbreaker principles go by the wayside.

I *do* think that fans care that the name of their alma mater is on the jersey (e.g. there's a big difference between the emotional connection to the Ohio State Buckeyes versus the Columbus Clippers), but I honestly don't believe whether players get compensated make any more difference than the fact that all of the coaches (who are generally the highest paid public employees in virtually every state), professors, administrators, the non-athlete students that clean up the stadiums/facilities and tutor athletes, and literally every single other person associated with the athletic program receives some sort of compensation.

It doesn't compute in my brain that we can have this massive college sports industrial complex financed by billions of dollars of TV revenue, donations, and sponsorships and we can then sit here and claim that the actual athletes that fuel all of that getting compensated would suddenly be a bridge too far. I'd buy it more if head coaches were paid at the same rate as normal professor (as opposed to 50 professors) and schools decided to return all of the money from ESPN/Fox/CBS/NBC and Nike/Adidas/Under Armour. Otherwise, it's really nonsensical. Millennials and Generation Z certainly don't care (and if anything, are the ones that are the most flabbergasted that their athletic peers aren't being paid with all of the money being thrown around with college sports).

To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, we're all rooting for laundry. I'm certainly not going to be bothered if Illinois starts winning more football and basketball games because it can start drawing more 5-star recruits because our state is looking to pass a law that matches the California law to allow for third party athlete compensation. Heck, this might be the best way for schools like ours to actually have some type of competitive advantage over Michigan and Ohio State. If we're just competing on tradition and branding, we lose pretty much every time. If we can start competing based on compensation, we can actually start winning some of those recruiting battles. The status quo actually entrenches the power of the elite programs, whereas a more open free market actually allows schools that don't have the decades of branding and tradition to compete better in the marketplace because the color of green is rational and unbiased.

I have been turned off watching P5 schools lately. They have the money, the power and unfair advantage over other schools. The monopoly is at the P5 than the whole NCAA. The NCAA is basically powerless to the P5 schools as is. We would have seen more death penalties against P5 schools like Penn. State, Baylor, USC, Oklahoma's men's basketball, Ohio State, Florida State, Miami Florida, UNC etc.

(10-02-2019 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 12:56 PM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.

Very good take in my opinion. There is going to be a plethora of un-intended consequences once they go down this route.

Here's the thing: the argument that there could be unintended consequences could very much be true. We can't predict how this will turn out... but that's sort of the entire point.

Free markets are messy. Free speech is messy. Democracies are messy. *Freedom* is messy, whether you're talking about global markets and government entities or your own home when your children go from little kids to teenagers to adults. Freedom means that there will be mistakes and outcomes that you didn't predict and can't control. Yet, virtually all of us believe that freedom is better than totalitarianism. At the end of the day, we'd rather have individual choices than be unilaterally told by some overarching figure (whether it's the government or the NCAA) what's supposedly "best" for us. I'd rather have a rocky road to a goal that's my own than a smooth road to an outcome that has been predetermined for me.

It brings up the age old question: do the ends justify the means? History has way too many instances that show when people get too focused on getting a specific outcome, they start trampling on the opportunities and freedom of others in the process. That's really what the NCAA and colleges have done here with athletes for far too long. They may have legitimately thought and believed in a good outcome (e.g. amateur athletics, an equal playing field, etc.), but the way to get there in today's college sports industrial complex with billions of dollars flowing through to everyone but the athletes has stretched any sense of logic at this point.

And I am incredibly idealistic in this response, but I personally believe we cannot allow any "solution" to the present problem potentially become more "messy", as you put it, because it does relate to kids under the educational umbrella. Kids, and students, should not be treated as guinea pigs as a hopeful means to an end in hopes that this "new" solution "fixes" many of the wrongs that are present, and have been created, in college sports.

I fully agree that where college athletics has come to today is full of corruption and that we can provide more to the student-athletes not because it is what should happen, but because we can. That form, however, should be treated with incredibly delicate hands because the governments (state, national, NCAA, etc.) only have one opportunity to get this right. If they fail with the implementation here, they could potentially set back the ability to right the problem years, if not decades. I think the biggest issue with the bill is that it effectively puts a shot clock on all parties to get something done; after that point, it's anyone's guess as to what will happen.

(10-02-2019 08:23 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 09:36 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The end of college sports as we know it.

It's not pay for play and actually nothing will change. Bama will still be Bama and Rolex will still be Toledo.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

A distinction without a difference.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2017...ube-videos

A big difference. This isn't schools paying players. It's IS kids controlling their own ability to make money.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-02-2019 10:36 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 09:35 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If they turn it into a minor league sport, with salaries and free agency, then they'll lose the fans. College football will become just like the NBA G-League, or AAA baseball. And it'll have similar fan support. I don't think that's what anyone wants.

I see this argument a lot, but I just don't buy that very many fans will make that distinction or care. Heck, I already see college football and basketball as minor league sports except with a much stronger emotional connection. To argue that they are anything other than that *today* (especially at the Power 5 level) is being quite naive. There's a vocal old school segment that might superficially believe that the sky is falling, but I've found in all of my years that the most hollow threat of all threats in the entire universe is a sports fan claiming that he/she will not watch his/her favorite team because of [insert reason]. As soon as they start winning, all of those supposed dealbreaker principles go by the wayside.

I *do* think that fans care that the name of their alma mater is on the jersey (e.g. there's a big difference between the emotional connection to the Ohio State Buckeyes versus the Columbus Clippers), but I honestly don't believe whether players get compensated make any more difference than the fact that all of the coaches (who are generally the highest paid public employees in virtually every state), professors, administrators, the non-athlete students that clean up the stadiums/facilities and tutor athletes, and literally every single other person associated with the athletic program receives some sort of compensation.

It doesn't compute in my brain that we can have this massive college sports industrial complex financed by billions of dollars of TV revenue, donations, and sponsorships and we can then sit here and claim that the actual athletes that fuel all of that getting compensated would suddenly be a bridge too far. I'd buy it more if head coaches were paid at the same rate as normal professor (as opposed to 50 professors) and schools decided to return all of the money from ESPN/Fox/CBS/NBC and Nike/Adidas/Under Armour. Otherwise, it's really nonsensical. Millennials and Generation Z certainly don't care (and if anything, are the ones that are the most flabbergasted that their athletic peers aren't being paid with all of the money being thrown around with college sports).

To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, we're all rooting for laundry. I'm certainly not going to be bothered if Illinois starts winning more football and basketball games because it can start drawing more 5-star recruits because our state is looking to pass a law that matches the California law to allow for third party athlete compensation. Heck, this might be the best way for schools like ours to actually have some type of competitive advantage over Michigan and Ohio State. If we're just competing on tradition and branding, we lose pretty much every time. If we can start competing based on compensation, we can actually start winning some of those recruiting battles. The status quo actually entrenches the power of the elite programs, whereas a more open free market actually allows schools that don't have the decades of branding and tradition to compete better in the marketplace because the color of green is rational and unbiased.

I make the distinction, and I care. I watch college sports, not minor league sports. Once they start paying players I'm out. It's not a hollow threat. I quit the NFL when the Oilers left. I quit MLB when the money-changers forced the Astros out of the NL. Maybe I am the anomaly. Maybe not. But I will cease to care when this happens.

Well bye..

I have no issue with some poor kid making a couple of bucks off their name, image and skills football or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-02-2019 02:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I have been turned off watching P5 schools lately. They have the money, the power and unfair advantage over other schools. The monopoly is at the P5 than the whole NCAA. The NCAA is basically powerless to the P5 schools as is. We would have seen more death penalties against P5 schools like Penn. State, Baylor, USC, Oklahoma's men's basketball, Ohio State, Florida State, Miami Florida, UNC etc.

Well, you are a distinct minority, because interest in college football largely IS, and always has been, interest in P5 football. The reason college football is a major sport that draws huge fan attendance and media interest is because of the P5, even more specifically, the real elite brands like Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State, etc.

Maybe the world would be a better place if the great majority of people were more interested in games between Eastern Waukegan Tech and Great Lakes Upper Peninsula rather than Penn State vs Michigan, but that's not the world we live in.

(10-02-2019 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 02:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I have been turned off watching P5 schools lately. They have the money, the power and unfair advantage over other schools. The monopoly is at the P5 than the whole NCAA. The NCAA is basically powerless to the P5 schools as is. We would have seen more death penalties against P5 schools like Penn. State, Baylor, USC, Oklahoma's men's basketball, Ohio State, Florida State, Miami Florida, UNC etc.

Well, you are a distinct minority, because interest in college football largely IS, and always has been, interest in P5 football. The reason college football is a major sport that draws huge fan attendance and media interest is because of the P5, even more specifically, the real elite brands like Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State, etc.

Maybe the world would be a better place if the great majority of people were more interested in games between Eastern Waukegan Tech and Great Lakes Upper Peninsula rather than Penn State vs Michigan, but that's not the world we live in.

What about the schools that were deemed part of the Power schools but are now in G5, FCS or D2 now? West Texas A&M and UTEP would have fit into the old SWC with New Mexico. All 3 where part of a power conference in the Border.

Rice, SMU and Houston got shafted and Tulane can't get back in. Many of these schools are just as large, but could have been a lot of P5 following. Many G5 schools do get more fans than the lower end of P5 schools.

On the original question, yes, it will be a train wreck, because rather than pull the bandage of cleanly, establish a system of for-profit football and basketaball programs with a franchise affiliation with their University generating a guaranteed affiliation fee and a fixed profit share, they will back into pay for play in a series of grudging concessions making the minimum change that they hope is consistent with the most recent legal ruling and legislative changes, and end up with a horrible mish mash of a system concocted of a pile of work-arounds, make-dos and exceptions of shaky legality and even shakier workability.

(10-02-2019 08:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 02:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I have been turned off watching P5 schools lately. They have the money, the power and unfair advantage over other schools. The monopoly is at the P5 than the whole NCAA. The NCAA is basically powerless to the P5 schools as is. We would have seen more death penalties against P5 schools like Penn. State, Baylor, USC, Oklahoma's men's basketball, Ohio State, Florida State, Miami Florida, UNC etc.

Well, you are a distinct minority, because interest in college football largely IS, and always has been, interest in P5 football. The reason college football is a major sport that draws huge fan attendance and media interest is because of the P5, even more specifically, the real elite brands like Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State, etc.

Maybe the world would be a better place if the great majority of people were more interested in games between Eastern Waukegan Tech and Great Lakes Upper Peninsula rather than Penn State vs Michigan, but that's not the world we live in.

What about the schools that were deemed part of the Power schools but are now in G5, FCS or D2 now? West Texas A&M and UTEP would have fit into the old SWC with New Mexico. All 3 where part of a power conference in the Border.

Rice, SMU and Houston got shafted and Tulane can't get back in. Many of these schools are just as large, but could have been a lot of P5 following. Many G5 schools do get more fans than the lower end of P5 schools.

What about them? Nobody cares.

(10-02-2019 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:23 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 09:36 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The end of college sports as we know it.

It's not pay for play and actually nothing will change. Bama will still be Bama and Rolex will still be Toledo.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

A distinction without a difference.

I think it's a huge difference. Under the legislation being drafted, schools aren't paying players, so it isn't forcing anyone to drop sports.

Third parties will be paying for commercials and such, but only to certain players, likely limited to stars in football and basketball.

So yeah, that's way different than pay to play.

No kid right out of high school has any endorsement value to corporate America. These "endorsement" deals will be nothing more than veiled pay for play---its just a third party picking up the tab. I also think people are being a little naive that the same boosters who WILL be paying this pay for play tab will continue to send the same donation dollars to the school that they do today. So, there will probably be at least some indirect cost to the school in the form of reduced donation revenue.

(10-02-2019 09:34 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I predict we will see federal legislation that will preempt these state laws and will have some compromise that keeps the NCAA happy and throws athletes a small bone. California's law will never take effect.

While I think this is very possible---I'm leaning toward a scenario that plays out like the FCOA crisis a few years ago. I think the NCAA and the FBS schools will rush out some sort of new compensatory benefits for the athletes. Maybe the NCAA allows a "misc spending money" line item to be added to the FCOA or perhaps the NCAA creates some sort of "name and likeness" revenue sharing deal for the players. I could then see the NCAA working with key federal legislators to insure that whatever the NCAA working group comes up with is mirrored in the proposed federal legislation. Lol...of course, good luck getting anything passed in Washington this year.

(10-02-2019 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:23 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 09:36 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The end of college sports as we know it.

It's not pay for play and actually nothing will change. Bama will still be Bama and Rolex will still be Toledo.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

A distinction without a difference.

I think it's a huge difference. Under the legislation being drafted, schools aren't paying players, so it isn't forcing anyone to drop sports.

Third parties will be paying for commercials and such, but only to certain players, likely limited to stars in football and basketball.

So yeah, that's way different than pay to play.

No kid right out of high school has any endorsement value to corporate America. These "endorsement" deals will be nothing more than veiled pay for play---its just a third party picking up the tab. I also think people are being a little naive that the same boosters who WILL be paying this pay for play tab will continue to send the same donation dollars to the school that they do today. So, there will probably be at least some indirect cost to the school in the form of reduced donation revenue.

Disagree with that

(10-02-2019 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:17 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I don't believe there is an easy cookie-cutter solution on how to "fix" the current tides of collegiate sports, mostly because the NCAA has ignored for years the changing landscape that it has become. I view this bill, and states' willingness (on both sides) to push it through, as a match to a powder keig - in hopes that it will somehow burn the existing hypocritical system down (without any real solution on how to reform on a macro-level).

At the bare minimum, this bill's DNA will be simply to change how the money is being funneled to the elite athletes in football and men's basketball. Instead of shoe companies doing backdoor deals, or wealthy boosters laundering money, it will now be legal for athletes to receive compensation - and let's be honest: an overwhelming majority of that pot will be going to football and men's basketball players. I don't know what the response would then be from Title IX supporters, when women's teams aren't getting the same cut of the pie from sponsors (look at what the USWNT faces annually).

To the extreme, this could be the end of the NCAA as we know it. With California, and other states, following the same legislation (but perhaps with different expectations and/or wording), we could see the rise of regional governance bodies for collegiate sports (which would definitely negatively affect the national competition of collegiate sport).

While the prior model absolutely did not work perfectly before, there at least was the idea that a governing body (NCAA) could hammer teams that blatantly broke the rules with illegal recruiting and compensating players. With this new legislation, there is absolutely nothing to stop boosters from two competing schools paying top dollar for a sponsorship fee from their respective businesses to go to "their" school (which is fine for a free market, but then college sports [well, really, football and men's basketball] has effectively turned into free agency).

In summary, I have no idea what will happen, but I am definitely worried that the ramifications of such a bill were not fully thought out, and that the NCAA will not be able to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Here's how I see it: the California bill is doing the *schools* a favor. (To be sure, it might not be doing the NCAA as a governing entity a favor.) The Olympic model (which is essentially what the California bill provides for here) is a way for schools to avoid Title IX issues while relieving the growing pressure public pressure regarding athlete compensation for the football and basketball players that earn revenue for those schools.

The USWNT dispute is about direct compensation from US Soccer, which is more akin to if schools were to directly compensate players that is NOT allowed under the California bill. In contrast, Alex Morgan and other USWNT players have been free to obtain their own endorsement deals at market value, so there hasn't been any limitation on that front. Similarly, any direct compensation from schools to athletes (such as unionization efforts) would absolutely result in Title IX issues where all athletes (regardless of the sport) would need to be paid equally. The Olympic model eliminates that type of concern because Nike/Adidas/any other third party can choose to pay whoever they want at whatever rate that they want without having a Title IX issue.

Is the California bill a perfect solution? No. Could there be abuses of the new system? Yes. However, to use the old adage, don't let perfection be the enemy of good. The current system features abuses, the huge influence of donors, the entrenchment of the most powerful athletic programs, and every single other problem that the opponents of the California bill claims that will occur... and they're happening *today* and it's happening under the table. I'm a large believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant. All of these "bad" things are happening now and they're occurring under-the-table. The way to level the playing field is to actually get it all on the table so everyone knows what they're actually dealing with here.

And once again, the schools are NOT paying for this compensation of athletes directly at all. No sports need to be cut and no Title IX issues need to be addressed under the California bill. As others have alluded to above, this is a VERY big difference in the eyes of the law and in terms of school financial situations.

Separately, I don't believe that we're going to see any regionalization of rules and governing bodies under the new paradigm. This effort is going coast-to-coast with bipartisan support across all demographics and regions. When push comes to shove, the state of Alabama isn't going to let California and Florida schools have any type of legal advantage over them. This will ultimately be a national effort at the end of the day (which, in a backhanded way, is good news for the NCAA in the sense that it would still have a purpose as a national governing body).

Lets be honest, the "olympic model" in college athletics would be a complete farce. The NFL has 10 times the viewership of college football and its star athletes are far bigger celebrities. Yet, even in the NFL, only a handful of NFL athletes per team get endorsement deals. At the college level, that number would be only a fraction of the NFL figures if the endorsements had to make real world economic sense for the business entity.

Another factor that makes endoresement deals with college players economically unlikely----risk. There is always a risk factor that the athlete might do something that reflects negatively on the company he is endorsing. There is a moderate, but significant, degree of "risk" that a 28 year old NFL player might do something embarrassing. The "he might do something stupid" risk is exponentially higher for a 19 year old college player barely out of high school.

And then there is the unspoken truth---its virtually impossible that any high school recruit---thats never played a college football game or even played on television at all---has one dollar of legitimate endorsement value. So I think anyone with any common sense can agree that the vast majority of high school recruits getting an endorsement deals under such a system would be completely nonsensical from a legitimate economic point of view.

Thats why I see the olympic model as simply SMU style third party booster pay-for-play cheating thats been legalized. I think its just a bad idea all around. In my opinion, there is surely a less disruptive way to bring the players some sort of compensation without essentially putting boosters in charge of recruiting and roster personnel.

(10-02-2019 11:54 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:23 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:31 AM)panama Wrote:  It's not pay for play and actually nothing will change. Bama will still be Bama and Rolex will still be Toledo.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

A distinction without a difference.

I think it's a huge difference. Under the legislation being drafted, schools aren't paying players, so it isn't forcing anyone to drop sports.

Third parties will be paying for commercials and such, but only to certain players, likely limited to stars in football and basketball.

So yeah, that's way different than pay to play.

No kid right out of high school has any endorsement value to corporate America. These "endorsement" deals will be nothing more than veiled pay for play---its just a third party picking up the tab. I also think people are being a little naive that the same boosters who WILL be paying this pay for play tab will continue to send the same donation dollars to the school that they do today. So, there will probably be at least some indirect cost to the school in the form of reduced donation revenue.

Disagree with that

lol...Ok---so maybe I oversold the point. Still, if the olympic model was in effect, Zion and a few other guys MIGHT have some economically legitimate endorsement value. However, if the olympic model was in effect---do you really believe that ONLY Zion and a couple of other guys would get "endorsement" deals? I think we both know there would be a ton of guys getting them---most of whom had zero legitimate economic endorsement value.

(10-03-2019 12:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:54 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:23 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  A distinction without a difference.

I think it's a huge difference. Under the legislation being drafted, schools aren't paying players, so it isn't forcing anyone to drop sports.

Third parties will be paying for commercials and such, but only to certain players, likely limited to stars in football and basketball.

So yeah, that's way different than pay to play.

No kid right out of high school has any endorsement value to corporate America. These "endorsement" deals will be nothing more than veiled pay for play---its just a third party picking up the tab. I also think people are being a little naive that the same boosters who WILL be paying this pay for play tab will continue to send the same donation dollars to the school that they do today. So, there will probably be at least some indirect cost to the school in the form of reduced donation revenue.

Disagree with that

lol...Ok---so maybe I oversold the point. Still, if the olympic model was in effect, Zion and a few other guys MIGHT have some economically legitimate endorsement value. However, if the olympic model was in effect---do you really believe that ONLY Zion and a couple of other guys would get "endorsement" deals? I think we both know there would be a ton of guys getting them---most of whom had zero legitimate economic endorsement value.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too concerned about it. In the OP, Fighting Muskie asked:

"Won’t this just set off a giant arms race in which the schools with the richest alums and donors annually buy their alma maters the finest recruits money can buy?"

and

"What’s to keep corporate sponsors from raiding rosters to stock their favorite programs?"

Well, in California's case, there's an existing law that prohibits anyone from paying an athlete or a member of an athlete's family any thing of value in exchange for that athlete's agreement to attend any one particular school. That law was repeatedly referenced in analyses of the California bill.

I don't know, but I imagine that other states have similar laws on the books. I personally disagree with it; I think that if some dumb*** booster wants to pay a recruit a trillion bucks then, hey, that exchange should be allowed. Realistically, though, I'd imagine that the end result of all this will be something that at least affords the NCAA some protection against the financial inducement of recruits and transfers. Does that mean it still won't happen to some degree? No, no it doesn't. But current laws and NCAA rules also don't entirely prevent it. So what's the diff?

To me, the bottom line is that college athletes ought to be able to make money in any legal way they wish without losing eligibility. Surely most all can agree that the same should be allowed for athletes already enrolled?

(10-02-2019 11:54 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 08:23 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:31 AM)panama Wrote:  It's not pay for play and actually nothing will change. Bama will still be Bama and Rolex will still be Toledo.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

A distinction without a difference.

I think it's a huge difference. Under the legislation being drafted, schools aren't paying players, so it isn't forcing anyone to drop sports.

Third parties will be paying for commercials and such, but only to certain players, likely limited to stars in football and basketball.

So yeah, that's way different than pay to play.

No kid right out of high school has any endorsement value to corporate America. These "endorsement" deals will be nothing more than veiled pay for play---its just a third party picking up the tab. I also think people are being a little naive that the same boosters who WILL be paying this pay for play tab will continue to send the same donation dollars to the school that they do today. So, there will probably be at least some indirect cost to the school in the form of reduced donation revenue.

Disagree with that

How many of those followers are bots or fake accounts?

(10-02-2019 11:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 09:34 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I predict we will see federal legislation that will preempt these state laws and will have some compromise that keeps the NCAA happy and throws athletes a small bone. California's law will never take effect.

While I think this is very possible---I'm leaning toward a scenario that plays out like the FCOA crisis a few years ago. I think the NCAA and the FBS schools will rush out some sort of new compensatory benefits for the athletes. Maybe the NCAA allows a "misc spending money" line item to be added to the FCOA or perhaps the NCAA creates some sort of "name and likeness" revenue sharing deal for the players. I could then see the NCAA working with key federal legislators to insure that whatever the NCAA working group comes up with is mirrored in the proposed federal legislation. Lol...of course, good luck getting anything passed in Washington this year.

There will be a proposal, perhaps several, to pay a stipend to players.

I have no idea where the funding will come from or what rules will apply or whether it will be available outside of the "headcount" sports of FB and Men's BBall ... but however much it is and wherever it comes from, calling it a "stipend" makes it sound like it's not a wage or salary.

(10-03-2019 01:37 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  How many of those followers are bots or fake accounts?

I don't know, DavidSt. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?