(09-12-2019 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

A state can definitely enjoin an organization from outside of its state. The NCAA has members in California impacting many more student-athletes along with a whole slew of economic and administrative ties to the state. Heck, all it practically takes is for a single business dealing between the NCAA and a person in the state of California and you can establish nexus for an injunction. It's no different than other laws that California has passed that have effectively forced organizations to change their actions nationally, such as the auto emissions laws and the new data privacy law that will come into effect in January.

When push comes to shove, there aren't many nationwide entities that are going to simply stop doing business in California. We're talking about a state that would have the 5th largest economy in the world if it was its own country (with a higher GDP than even the United Kingdom and India). Let's not fool ourselves on this board - the NCAA isn't pulling out of California, just as car companies didn't pull out of California due to the emissions laws and every business that has a website (which is essentially every business everywhere) isn't going to pull out of California due to its new data privacy law. Instead, everyone adjusted to California law as opposed to the other way around. The only color that matters at the end of the day is green (not red or blue), and California has more green than anyone (which is why it has the power to effectively enact national change at the state level).

(09-12-2019 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that play a role in the early 1990s struggles by the NFL players to gain free agency? The players were caught in a bind, because they kept signing labor contracts with the free agency restrictions and it appeared to be a Catch-22 for them. But, they finally wiggled out of that by "de-certifying" the union. Once the union dissolved itself, then that exposed the NFL to anti-trust in continuing to enforce restrictions on free agency, because it was no longer part of a bargained contract with a union. That basically broke the logjam and led to the implementation of real free agency for NFL players.

(09-12-2019 10:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

A state can definitely enjoin an organization from outside of its state. The NCAA has members in California impacting many more student-athletes along with a whole slew of economic and administrative ties to the state. Heck, all it practically takes is for a single business dealing between the NCAA and a person in the state of California and you can establish nexus for an injunction. It's no different than other laws that California has passed that have effectively forced organizations to change their actions nationally, such as the auto emissions laws and the new data privacy law that will come into effect in January.

I'm not sure we disagree, and I think the problem is i worded my claim poorly, so let me try again - and maybe you'll say I'm still mistaken, LOL:

What I was trying to say is, while California *can* stop the NCAA from forcing California schools to enforce its anti-pay regulations, it *cannot* stop the NCAA from "punishing" California schools that do so. That is, California can absolutely tell UCLA that it cannot abide by NCAA regulations that violate the new law. But, the NCAA can still threaten to kick UCLA out of the NCAA, and California cannot stop *that*.

And I think the California law tries to do that. Here is the provision I am talking about, copied from the link to the bill someone posted:

"(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness."

Again, not a lawyer, but to me, this clause is saying "when UCLA complies with our law and starts paying players in defiance of NCAA regulations, the NCAA may not prevent UCLA from playing Oklahoma or Nebraska or Texas in athletic competitions". And to me, California doesn't have the power to do that. If the NCAA tells Oklahoma "do not schedule any games with UCLA as they are no longer NCAA members", California has no unilateral power to stop that. It can't force the NCAA or institutions not in California to consort with or compete with California schools. Now, maybe a Federal court could, but California cannot.

Am I wrong?

Now, as you say, as a practical matter, because California is so big and rich and powerful, it is very unlikely that the NCAA would kick all those California schools out. The NCAA would be losing a big chunk of its revenues. So what is likely to happen is that something would be negotiated, or maybe as in auto-emissions, the California standard becomes the de-facto national standard. But i was just commenting on that clause of the law above which IMO overreaches California authority.

(09-12-2019 10:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that play a role in the early 1990s struggles by the NFL players to gain free agency? The players were caught in a bind, because they kept signing labor contracts with the free agency restrictions and it appeared to be a Catch-22 for them. But, they finally wiggled out of that by "de-certifying" the union. Once the union dissolved itself, then that exposed the NFL to anti-trust in continuing to enforce restrictions on free agency, because it was no longer part of a bargained contract with a union. That basically broke the logjam and led to the implementation of real free agency for NFL players.

Yes, the key is a collective action by the owners can be defended as long as it was collectively bargained by the employees. When there is a collective action by the owners but it wasn't part of a collectively bargained union agreement, then the owners' collective actions are a per se antitrust violation (meaning that it's antitrust violation on its face).

Also key is that all that a collusion case needs is two entities to come to an agreement. In the NFL example that you cited, all that you need is for 2 NFL clubs to agree to enforce free agency restrictions. You don't need all 32 clubs to be involved. Similarly, all it takes is for 2 schools to have an agreement to bring up a collusion case in the college context (e.g. USC and UCLA agree to not enroll players that have endorsement deals). It doesn't need to be an entire conference or the whole NCAA.

San Jose State can't afford to pay their players. There is only 4 schools in California that is rich enough to afford them which all 4 are PAC 12 schools. This bill would hurt all the other schools who do not make that much.

(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"

NCAA hasn't faired well when they place a "cap" on earnings.
Just ask them what happened with basketball assistant coaches.
They lost in the courts and when they knew they were going to lose their appeal, they settled.

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

NCAA is the nation's third-biggest spender in congressional lobbying from sport.
They spent $52M in outside legal fees in FY2018, which was a 50% over 2015. If they fight in California, and the three other states which seem ready for pass legislation (Washington, Tennessee, and Colorado), that's even more money to attorneys and less in scholarship money. They'll further sully their image problem.

(09-12-2019 10:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  San Jose State can't afford to pay their players. There is only 4 schools in California that is rich enough to afford them which all 4 are PAC 12 schools. This bill would hurt all the other schools who do not make that much.

Nobody is telling schools to pay players. While San Jose State cannot afford to pay them, there are thousands of business who can and this is what SB206 permits.

(09-12-2019 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

A state can definitely enjoin an organization from outside of its state. The NCAA has members in California impacting many more student-athletes along with a whole slew of economic and administrative ties to the state. Heck, all it practically takes is for a single business dealing between the NCAA and a person in the state of California and you can establish nexus for an injunction. It's no different than other laws that California has passed that have effectively forced organizations to change their actions nationally, such as the auto emissions laws and the new data privacy law that will come into effect in January.

I'm not sure we disagree, and I think the problem is i worded my claim poorly, so let me try again - and maybe you'll say I'm still mistaken, LOL:

What I was trying to say is, while California *can* stop the NCAA from forcing California schools to enforce its anti-pay regulations, it *cannot* stop the NCAA from "punishing" California schools that do so. That is, California can absolutely tell UCLA that it cannot abide by NCAA regulations that violate the new law. But, the NCAA can still threaten to kick UCLA out of the NCAA, and California cannot stop *that*.

And I think the California law tries to do that. Here is the provision I am talking about, copied from the link to the bill someone posted:

"(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness."

Again, not a lawyer, but to me, this clause is saying "when UCLA complies with our law and starts paying players in defiance of NCAA regulations, the NCAA may not prevent UCLA from playing Oklahoma or Nebraska or Texas in athletic competitions". And to me, California doesn't have the power to do that. If the NCAA tells Oklahoma "do not schedule any games with UCLA as they are no longer NCAA members", California has no unilateral power to stop that. It can't force the NCAA or institutions not in California to consort with or compete with California schools.

Am I wrong?

Now, as you say, as a practical matter, because California is so big and rich and powerful, it is very unlikely that the NCAA would kick all those California schools out. The NCAA would be losing a big chunk of its revenues. So what is likely to happen is that something would be negotiated, or maybe as in auto-emissions, the California standard becomes the de-facto national standard. But i was just commenting on that clause of the law above which IMO overreaches California authority.

OK - I see the argument there. This is where the inevitable lawsuit comes in.

On the one hand, an organization generally has the freedom to transact with (or not to transact with) whoever it wants. That would point to the NCAA being able to kick out the California schools if it really wanted to do so as a general matter.

On the other hand, when an organization has monopoly power, the general rule doesn't necessarily apply. The NCAA would very likely to be considered to have monopoly power in the realm of national intercollegiate sports competitions, so there is a much different level of scrutiny with their actions. If the NCAA is literally and figuratively the "only game in town" (and it essentially is with respect to pretty much everything in college sports), then it doesn't necessarily have carte blanche freedom to determine its membership. Antitrust laws are in place to protect other entities from the NCAA from using its monopoly power to shut down competition and restrain trade.

The other complexity is that the California schools are in a position where they need to comply with the new state law. If a court finds a law to be valid in its substance (which is an entirely separate question), then they're going to have a wary eye on an organization effectively punishing members for complying with that law, especially if that organization has monopoly power. This goes without saying, but courts generally have a huge policy interest in ensuring that people comply with the law.

So, the potential legal question is whether an organization with monopoly power is able to remove members on the basis of such members complying with a state law that contradicts with such organization's policies.

My 10,000-foot view guess is that it hinges on the fact that the NCAA has monopoly power. If there were dozens of intercollegiate organizations that were similarly situated, then the NCAA could argue that kicking out the California schools wouldn't cause undue harm since they had other competitive associations to join. However, that's simply not the reality: getting kicked out of the NCAA is the equivalent of getting kicked out of college sports altogether due to the monopoly power involved, so antitrust laws come into play and I just don't think the courts will take kindly to punitive actions taken by a monopoly organization against members that are complying with a state law.

(09-12-2019 11:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

A state can definitely enjoin an organization from outside of its state. The NCAA has members in California impacting many more student-athletes along with a whole slew of economic and administrative ties to the state. Heck, all it practically takes is for a single business dealing between the NCAA and a person in the state of California and you can establish nexus for an injunction. It's no different than other laws that California has passed that have effectively forced organizations to change their actions nationally, such as the auto emissions laws and the new data privacy law that will come into effect in January.

I'm not sure we disagree, and I think the problem is i worded my claim poorly, so let me try again - and maybe you'll say I'm still mistaken, LOL:

What I was trying to say is, while California *can* stop the NCAA from forcing California schools to enforce its anti-pay regulations, it *cannot* stop the NCAA from "punishing" California schools that do so. That is, California can absolutely tell UCLA that it cannot abide by NCAA regulations that violate the new law. But, the NCAA can still threaten to kick UCLA out of the NCAA, and California cannot stop *that*.

And I think the California law tries to do that. Here is the provision I am talking about, copied from the link to the bill someone posted:

"(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness."

Again, not a lawyer, but to me, this clause is saying "when UCLA complies with our law and starts paying players in defiance of NCAA regulations, the NCAA may not prevent UCLA from playing Oklahoma or Nebraska or Texas in athletic competitions". And to me, California doesn't have the power to do that. If the NCAA tells Oklahoma "do not schedule any games with UCLA as they are no longer NCAA members", California has no unilateral power to stop that. It can't force the NCAA or institutions not in California to consort with or compete with California schools.

Am I wrong?

Now, as you say, as a practical matter, because California is so big and rich and powerful, it is very unlikely that the NCAA would kick all those California schools out. The NCAA would be losing a big chunk of its revenues. So what is likely to happen is that something would be negotiated, or maybe as in auto-emissions, the California standard becomes the de-facto national standard. But i was just commenting on that clause of the law above which IMO overreaches California authority.

OK - I see the argument there. This is where the inevitable lawsuit comes in.

On the one hand, an organization generally has the freedom to transact with (or not to transact with) whoever it wants. That would point to the NCAA being able to kick out the California schools if it really wanted to do so as a general matter.

On the other hand, when an organization has monopoly power, the general rule doesn't necessarily apply. The NCAA would very likely to be considered to have monopoly power in the realm of national intercollegiate sports competitions, so there is a much different level of scrutiny with their actions. If the NCAA is literally and figuratively the "only game in town" (and it essentially is with respect to pretty much everything in college sports), then it doesn't necessarily have carte blanche freedom to determine its membership. Antitrust laws are in place to protect other entities from the NCAA from using its monopoly power to shut down competition and restrain trade.

The other complexity is that the California schools are in a position where they need to comply with the new state law. If a court finds a law to be valid in its substance (which is an entirely separate question), then they're going to have a wary eye on an organization effectively punishing members for complying with that law, especially if that organization has monopoly power. This goes without saying, but courts generally have a huge policy interest in ensuring that people comply with the law.

So, the potential legal question is whether an organization with monopoly power is able to remove members on the basis of such members complying with a state law that contradicts with such organization's policies.

My 10,000-foot view guess is that it hinges on the fact that the NCAA has monopoly power. If there were dozens of intercollegiate organizations that were similarly situated, then the NCAA could argue that kicking out the California schools wouldn't cause undue harm since they had other competitive associations to join. However, that's simply not the reality: getting kicked out of the NCAA is the equivalent of getting kicked out of college sports altogether due to the monopoly power involved, so antitrust laws come into play and I just don't think the courts will take kindly to punitive actions taken by a monopoly organization against members that are complying with a state law.

That sounds right. Dell can make it difficult for companies that don't partner with Dell to make and sell replacement power cords for Dell laptops, because Dell doesn't have a monopoly on laptops. In the 1970s, IBM couldn't get away with making it difficult for non-partner companies to sell IBM PC peripherals because IBM, at the time, had monopoly power in PCs.

(09-12-2019 11:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

A state can definitely enjoin an organization from outside of its state. The NCAA has members in California impacting many more student-athletes along with a whole slew of economic and administrative ties to the state. Heck, all it practically takes is for a single business dealing between the NCAA and a person in the state of California and you can establish nexus for an injunction. It's no different than other laws that California has passed that have effectively forced organizations to change their actions nationally, such as the auto emissions laws and the new data privacy law that will come into effect in January.

I'm not sure we disagree, and I think the problem is i worded my claim poorly, so let me try again - and maybe you'll say I'm still mistaken, LOL:

What I was trying to say is, while California *can* stop the NCAA from forcing California schools to enforce its anti-pay regulations, it *cannot* stop the NCAA from "punishing" California schools that do so. That is, California can absolutely tell UCLA that it cannot abide by NCAA regulations that violate the new law. But, the NCAA can still threaten to kick UCLA out of the NCAA, and California cannot stop *that*.

And I think the California law tries to do that. Here is the provision I am talking about, copied from the link to the bill someone posted:

"(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness."

Again, not a lawyer, but to me, this clause is saying "when UCLA complies with our law and starts paying players in defiance of NCAA regulations, the NCAA may not prevent UCLA from playing Oklahoma or Nebraska or Texas in athletic competitions". And to me, California doesn't have the power to do that. If the NCAA tells Oklahoma "do not schedule any games with UCLA as they are no longer NCAA members", California has no unilateral power to stop that. It can't force the NCAA or institutions not in California to consort with or compete with California schools.

Am I wrong?

Now, as you say, as a practical matter, because California is so big and rich and powerful, it is very unlikely that the NCAA would kick all those California schools out. The NCAA would be losing a big chunk of its revenues. So what is likely to happen is that something would be negotiated, or maybe as in auto-emissions, the California standard becomes the de-facto national standard. But i was just commenting on that clause of the law above which IMO overreaches California authority.

OK - I see the argument there. This is where the inevitable lawsuit comes in.

On the one hand, an organization generally has the freedom to transact with (or not to transact with) whoever it wants. That would point to the NCAA being able to kick out the California schools if it really wanted to do so as a general matter.

On the other hand, when an organization has monopoly power, the general rule doesn't necessarily apply. The NCAA would very likely to be considered to have monopoly power in the realm of national intercollegiate sports competitions, so there is a much different level of scrutiny with their actions. If the NCAA is literally and figuratively the "only game in town" (and it essentially is with respect to pretty much everything in college sports), then it doesn't necessarily have carte blanche freedom to determine its membership. Antitrust laws are in place to protect other entities from the NCAA from using its monopoly power to shut down competition and restrain trade.

The other complexity is that the California schools are in a position where they need to comply with the new state law. If a court finds a law to be valid in its substance (which is an entirely separate question), then they're going to have a wary eye on an organization effectively punishing members for complying with that law, especially if that organization has monopoly power. This goes without saying, but courts generally have a huge policy interest in ensuring that people comply with the law.

So, the potential legal question is whether an organization with monopoly power is able to remove members on the basis of such members complying with a state law that contradicts with such organization's policies.

My 10,000-foot view guess is that it hinges on the fact that the NCAA has monopoly power. If there were dozens of intercollegiate organizations that were similarly situated, then the NCAA could argue that kicking out the California schools wouldn't cause undue harm since they had other competitive associations to join. However, that's simply not the reality: getting kicked out of the NCAA is the equivalent of getting kicked out of college sports altogether due to the monopoly power involved, so antitrust laws come into play and I just don't think the courts will take kindly to punitive actions taken by a monopoly organization against members that are complying with a state law.

OK, I understand. But that kind of speaks to my point - California's law *itself* cannot force the NCAA to permit Oklahoma to play UCLA. California would have to file a federal lawsuit, and try to get a federal court to do that for it.

If the federal courts decline to get involved, then the part of the law saying that the NCAA can't keep California schools from participating in NCAA intercollegiate athletics is words on paper that it cannot enforce. That's what I meant when I said that the quoted clause went beyond California's authority.

That's different from e.g. the clauses in the law that tell UCLA that it must allow its athletes to earn money in certain ways even if forbidden by NCAA regulations. California can directly enforce that without needing to plead for federal help.

So is California trying to make it so that their NCAA member schools are forced to leave the NCAA when said organization declares one of their players ineligible for making a profit?

(09-12-2019 02:24 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  So is California trying to make it so that their NCAA member schools are forced to leave the NCAA when said organization declares one of their players ineligible for making a profit?

In theory, yes.

In practicality, I don't believe that it's going to get to that point. A federal bill stating the same thing is being sponsored by a Republican congressman from your home state of North Carolina.

The NCAA will probably whine, scream and moan until the last possible second, but I truly believe that we're at a tipping point where the other states and possibly the federal government are going to follow suit to the point where the NCAA has no choice at all. Even if that didn't happen, the NCAA simply isn't going to exit the state of California. People need to stop pretending that's even a possibility any more than the threat of car companies exiting the state of California after they passed their emissions standards. The car companies adjusted because leaving California makes absolutely no economic sense whatsoever for a national business. Green is the only color that matters.

Regardless, this isn't a "Crazy Californians!" bill that some of the politicized posters want to believe. This structure has broad bipartisan support across many regions. The NCAA is on the wrong side of history on this one.

Would this means D1 and D2 merge to accommodate for schools to be able to afford their players? I suspect D2 California public schools have to pay their players as well. There are cases that D2 players are top notch players that go to the pros, and go to the all-star games. This might become a 1A and 1 AA for all sports.

(09-12-2019 03:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would this means D1 and D2 merge to accommodate for schools to be able to afford their players? I suspect D2 California public schools have to pay their players as well. There are cases that D2 players are top notch players that go to the pros, and go to the all-star games. This might become a 1A and 1 AA for all sports.

Schools are not allowed to pay their players under this bill. That is not what it says.

This bill is about allowing income from a player's own likeness (most likely endorsement income) from third parties *other* than the school. The Toyota of Berkeley car dealership can pay a Cal player an endorsement fee. However, Cal itself still cannot pay that Cal player directly.

The federal government along with several other states have the same type of bill on the table.

Once again, this is about third party endorsement income, NOT about schools paying players.

(09-12-2019 03:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would this means D1 and D2 merge to accommodate for schools to be able to afford their players? I suspect D2 California public schools have to pay their players as well. There are cases that D2 players are top notch players that go to the pros, and go to the all-star games. This might become a 1A and 1 AA for all sports.

This bill isn't about UC/CSU schools paying players. It's about players being allowed to make money, from outside contracts, off their name, likeness, and image within the constraints outlined in the law, without losing their scholarship. It's a very different concept than "schools will be allowed to give players money beyond scholarships". That would make the players professional employees of the school, something they wouldn't want. It's even stated in the law that players cannot earn money from official team activities.

USC, Stanford, and USD would be unaffected by this law, but would more than likely allow their players to sign outside contracts for the use of their name, likeness, and image.

I am getting that woman's idea for black athletes to boycott the white schools, attend the HBCUs, and formed their own league were the players get paid.

I am sorry. but players already get paid with scholarships and a cost of living increase. How much more will these spoiled brats want?

(09-12-2019 03:23 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I am getting that woman's idea for black athletes to boycott the white schools, attend the HBCUs, and formed their own league were the players get paid.

I am sorry. but players already get paid with scholarships and a cost of living increase. How much more will these spoiled brats want?

Oh, I see. People that want to maximize their earnings on the free market or, in practical reality, simply want to earn some pocket change for college, are "spoiled brats".

Let me give you an actual real life example that I saw this summer. My elementary school kids are on a neighborhood swim team. The head coaches happened to be twins that were back for the summer from college. Twin A goes to a Power Five school but isn't on the swim team there. Twin B is on the swim team at an Ivy League school. Note that Ivy League athletes do NOT receive scholarships. Since Twin B was a Division I athlete (despite not getting a single dime from the school), that person could not be paid for coaching our kids (which would have been barely minimum wage pocket change considering the hours that were put in). Twin A, though, could be paid as a non-athlete despite having the exact same coaching duties as Twin B.

Once again, Twin B does NOT receive an athletic scholarship, yet is still restricted from receiving any income from coaching elementary school kids during the summer in that sport. That person is hardly a "spoiled brat" and instead volunteered tons of hours to coach our kids even though other people got paid for the same job. That situation that I described and saw with my own eyes is patently ridiculous (and frankly isn't even addressed by the bill here).

Depressing wages and taking away individual rights to your own likeness in the name of faux amateurism while those "spoiled brats" fuel hundreds of millions of dollars of TV contracts, ticket sales and donations for their respective schools is the height of hypocrisy.

The only "spoiled brats" that I see are college sports fans themselves that worry more about Alabama getting another recruiting advantage as opposed to basic fundamental liberty and economic rights that EVERY other college student has.

so in 2023 the top recruiting classes will be
1.USC
2.Stanford
3.UCLA
4.Cal
5.Fresno
6.San Diego St.
7.SJSU
8.UC Davis
9.Cal Poly
10.Alabama

(09-12-2019 03:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Oh, I see. People that want to maximize their earnings on the free market or, in practical reality, simply want to earn some pocket change for college, are "spoiled brats".

Yes, some of them are sort of like brats. No one is forcing them to take a scholarship.

The NCAA rules about making money exist so you don't have athletes selling abstract crayon drawings to wealthy boosters for $5000 or working $100 an hour as an elevator operator in a one-story building. If you don't like that, don't take an athletic scholarship. It's really not that much different than people working on graduate assistantships agreeing to not have any other work.

I do sympathize that elite high school and college athletes don't have any way to make money until they're old enough for the draft but that is not the responsibility of the NCAA to create a minor league for a tiny percentage of student athletes. Anyone who doesn't like that, take it up with the NBA and NFL or for any other minor leagues that won't take guys right out of high school.

(09-12-2019 03:58 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  so in 2023 the top recruiting classes will be
1.USC
2.Stanford
3.UCLA
4.Cal
5.Fresno
6.San Diego St.
7.SJSU
8.UC Davis
9.Cal Poly
10.Alabama

Probably starting in 2020, to cash in before graduating. That's how the AP poll will look as well - Clemson and Bama are done.