+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Big12bbs (/forum-260.html)
+---- Forum: Big 12 Team Talk (/forum-783.html)
+----- Forum: The Gregory A. Ruehlmann Sr. Memorial Cincinnati Board (/forum-404.html)
+----- Thread: California legislation (/thread-883947.html)
California legislation - cmhcat - 09-30-2019 12:44 PM
Will we be forced to give up the W's to UCLA the last two years after all California schools are kicked out of the NCAA?
RE: California legislation - Z-Fly - 09-30-2019 12:48 PM
They are all terrible anymore anyways.
RE: California legislation - Def Berkkat - 09-30-2019 01:51 PM
Can we just give up California? I'd rather do that.
RE: California legislation - Romell Shorter - 09-30-2019 01:55 PM
A question for rath or another law type, but how can a state regulate a contract voluntarily agreed upon by two parties?
I think athletes should have more "rights" but I do not know how to quantify or monetize it.
RE: California legislation - BearcatMan - 09-30-2019 02:05 PM
(09-30-2019 01:55 PM)Romell Shorter Wrote: A question for rath or another law type, but how can a state regulate a contract voluntarily agreed upon by two parties?
I think athletes should have more "rights" but I do not know how to quantify or monetize it.
They're regulating the Colleges whom the State controls if I'm reading it correctly, which is well within their rights to do as the legislative bodies of the State in question.
RE: California legislation - chatcat - 09-30-2019 02:31 PM
What's next, high school athletes getting paid, Olympic athletes. oh wait some already do. Little League and on and on.
RE: California legislation - CliftonAve - 09-30-2019 02:44 PM
Good read on the subject from Sports Illustrated' s Legal Analyst.
https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/30/fair-pay-to-play-act-law-ncaa-california-pac-12
RE: California legislation - Bearcatbdub - 09-30-2019 03:29 PM
It’s not legislating that schools are allowed to “pay” student athletes. It’s allowing student athletes to sign endorsement deals. Which if I am being perfectly capitalistic- I don’t have a problem with that. Let the free market decide what it wants to pay a kid to be the face of its business or product.
Ends up being kind of a non issue for the school imo as they don’t have to pay any tom dick joe or harry that rides the pine. But would seem to “fairly” compensate the individuals that are worthy of the buzz.
Looks like the fine print reads that it can’t breach any contractual obligations are already in place by the school- i.e Zion can’t sign a deal with Addidas if Duke has a deal with Nike...
Does that mean that Jarron can’t sign a deal with GoldStar if Skyline is the official chili of the Bearcats?
Only time will tell...
RE: California legislation - robertfoshizzle - 09-30-2019 03:55 PM
Yeah, I have no problem with kids being able to make money off their likeness. Screw the NCAA.
RE: California legislation - UCGrad1992 - 09-30-2019 04:14 PM
From CliftonAve's link above...
Quote:The Act is a game changer in college sports. It makes it illegal for California colleges to deny their student athletes opportunities to gain compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses. Stated more concisely, the Act guarantees college athletes a right to profit from their identities. The Act also authorizes college athletes to hire agents and other representatives to assist them in negotiating and securing commercial opportunities.
This will be the first domino from which the other states will soon follow. If I'm a top player being recruited by a Kalifornia P12 school and all else is equal, why would I not want to commit to a university where I know I can make supplemental income? Potentially high income in some cases I'd suspect. The article did say that the act won't take effect until 2023 so we'll see what happens over the next several years.
RE: California legislation - colohank - 09-30-2019 05:55 PM
(09-30-2019 04:14 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote: From CliftonAve's link above...
Quote:The Act is a game changer in college sports. It makes it illegal for California colleges to deny their student athletes opportunities to gain compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses. Stated more concisely, the Act guarantees college athletes a right to profit from their identities. The Act also authorizes college athletes to hire agents and other representatives to assist them in negotiating and securing commercial opportunities.
This will be the first domino from which the other states will soon follow. If I'm a top player being recruited by a Kalifornia P12 school and all else is equal, why would I not want to commit to a university where I know I can make supplemental income? Potentially high income in some cases I'd suspect. The article did say that the act won't take effect until 2023 so we'll see what happens over the next several years.
Very few of the kids playing college sports will have the mojo to make a buck off their likenesses. It takes not only athletic skill, but good looks, personality, a loyal following, a whole lot of self-awareness, at least a bit of life experience, and the ability to market oneself to garner an endorsement deal. Who's going to be induced to buy a car, or a brand of beer, or razor blades, or barbecue sauce, or insurance, or a smart phone, or energy drink because some nineteen-year-old flash-in-the-pan college kid recommends it?
Sports apparel may provide some opportunities, but it seems the coaches already have a corner on that market.
RE: California legislation - Romell Shorter - 09-30-2019 06:38 PM
(09-30-2019 05:55 PM)colohank Wrote:(09-30-2019 04:14 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote: From CliftonAve's link above...
Quote:The Act is a game changer in college sports. It makes it illegal for California colleges to deny their student athletes opportunities to gain compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses. Stated more concisely, the Act guarantees college athletes a right to profit from their identities. The Act also authorizes college athletes to hire agents and other representatives to assist them in negotiating and securing commercial opportunities.
This will be the first domino from which the other states will soon follow. If I'm a top player being recruited by a Kalifornia P12 school and all else is equal, why would I not want to commit to a university where I know I can make supplemental income? Potentially high income in some cases I'd suspect. The article did say that the act won't take effect until 2023 so we'll see what happens over the next several years.
Very few of the kids playing college sports will have the mojo to make a buck off their likenesses. It takes not only athletic skill, but good looks, personality, a loyal following, a whole lot of self-awareness, at least a bit of life experience, and the ability to market oneself to garner an endorsement deal. Who's going to be induced to buy a car, or a brand of beer, or razor blades, or barbecue sauce, or insurance, or a smart phone, or energy drink because some nineteen-year-old flash-in-the-pan college kid recommends it?
Sports apparel may provide some opportunities, but it seems the coaches already have a corner on that market.
I imagine Snoop Dogg will sponsor a dozen Trojans every year.
RE: California legislation - Bruce Monnin - 09-30-2019 07:03 PM
(09-30-2019 03:55 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote: Yeah, I have no problem with kids being able to make money off their likeness. Screw the NCAA.
Suddenly every Ohio State football players will have a six digit endorsement deal with a Columbus car dealership or tattoo parlor. Where will the money come from? The world may never know.
RE: California legislation - cmhcat - 09-30-2019 07:16 PM
As imperfect as the NCAA is it is one of the only threads holding this charade of college sports together.[/font]
RE: California legislation - BearcatJerry - 09-30-2019 07:17 PM
Once again, the "Death Penalty" SMU went through is revealed as completely arbitrary. Not only were the other SWC teams doing all the same things, but forty years later what SMU did will not only be completely legal, but downright celebrated as the spigots flow for endorsement deals.
SMU just had the bad luck of getting caught in the 1980's and being a private and church-related school. They will likely never recover from that deal.
RE: California legislation - eroc - 09-30-2019 08:04 PM
(09-30-2019 05:55 PM)colohank Wrote:(09-30-2019 04:14 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote: From CliftonAve's link above...
Quote:The Act is a game changer in college sports. It makes it illegal for California colleges to deny their student athletes opportunities to gain compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses. Stated more concisely, the Act guarantees college athletes a right to profit from their identities. The Act also authorizes college athletes to hire agents and other representatives to assist them in negotiating and securing commercial opportunities.
This will be the first domino from which the other states will soon follow. If I'm a top player being recruited by a Kalifornia P12 school and all else is equal, why would I not want to commit to a university where I know I can make supplemental income? Potentially high income in some cases I'd suspect. The article did say that the act won't take effect until 2023 so we'll see what happens over the next several years.
Very few of the kids playing college sports will have the mojo to make a buck off their likenesses. It takes not only athletic skill, but good looks, personality, a loyal following, a whole lot of self-awareness, at least a bit of life experience, and the ability to market oneself to garner an endorsement deal. Who's going to be induced to buy a car, or a brand of beer, or razor blades, or barbecue sauce, or insurance, or a smart phone, or energy drink because some nineteen-year-old flash-in-the-pan college kid recommends it?
Sports apparel may provide some opportunities, but it seems the coaches already have a corner on that market.
Are you aware of this thing called instagram?
RE: California legislation - dubcat14 - 09-30-2019 08:21 PM
(09-30-2019 03:55 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote: Yeah, I have no problem with kids being able to make money off their likeness. Screw the NCAA.
I felt that way at first but now I'm not so sure.. These recruits we're currently taking from the MSU's and UK's of the world; they may not always be there if the SEC or Big 10 schools decide to throw some cash at these recruits we're in on and UC won't be able to match the funds due to our tighter budgets.
It's my belief that if boosters can begin playing athletes, it will further separate the haves from the have-nots.
RE: California legislation - eroc - 09-30-2019 08:51 PM
(09-30-2019 08:21 PM)dubcat14 Wrote:(09-30-2019 03:55 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote: Yeah, I have no problem with kids being able to make money off their likeness. Screw the NCAA.
I felt that way at first but now I'm not so sure.. These recruits we're currently taking from the MSU's and UK's of the world; they may not always be there if the SEC or Big 10 schools decide to throw some cash at these recruits we're in on and UC won't be able to match the funds due to our tighter budgets.
It's my belief that if boosters can begin playing athletes, it will further separate the haves from the have-nots.
i don't think the schools are allowed to directly pay athletes. Second, there is a limit to how much money is out there. Sure you hear about some larger sums out there but they tend to be one off type payments. I posted earlier about instagram jokingly but in reality being an instagram influencer is probably the most direct way that a lot of non-elite athletes (think Zion) will make their money. i can also see shoe and apparel companies having WAY more influence now that this becomes all above board. i believe the schools are protected in the sense that student-athletes are unable to engage in sponsorships/endorsements that conflict with those maintained by the institution. That said, i can see a lot of sneaker company affiliated aau teams directing prospects to specific institutions (ergo, nike routing bball players to Oregon and Duke, etc) with the promise of endorsement money. Even that has limits though. Not every prep school prospect ends up being Zion.
RE: California legislation - converrl - 10-01-2019 04:48 AM
Another domino falls and the P5 scoops up even more talent with this. Wait until the Universities who sign these athletes want their logos in these endorsements...then they get a cut of the deal either directly or under the table...
In fact, I can see this funneling $$ to these AD's indirectly "as is" imagine a college team with a dozen blue chips, all of which have endorsement deals...you don't think there will be an impact on AD profits from that? I beg to differ.
Not to mention that the potential for the institution to get a "cut" will be there as well.....I can see the discussion now: "We get a percentage of this or we cut you...understand?"--"I understand".
This leaves everyone outside the P5 further in the dirt.
RE: California legislation - rath v2.0 - 10-01-2019 06:21 AM
Despite some pearl clutching case precedent has already been out there on this for a while. May not be as big of a sea change as some initially believe. This is the direction it’s been heading for a while.
I remembered they formed a committee but not sure there were findings yet...... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/26747489/ncaa-explores-compensation-names-likeness%3fplatform=amp
More states will pass feel good legislation post haste and the NCAA will craft a new policy to apply.