(09-30-2019 03:03 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 07:24 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 03:40 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 10:03 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If they want to see a negative impact on ratings---we already have the numbers.
Just look up the ratings for any semi-pro league. I'm not even addressing the new reality of the flood of transfers and effective free agency such a system would create. Like it or not---the California law would create free agency and a semi-pro league. Next up---why does a player need to be in enrolled in college to play for the school team?

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make in my previous posts. Frank is suggesting the TV networks will turn on the NCAA when the NCAA fighting player compensation starts negatively impacting their bottom lines. I think the TV networks are more likely to be concerned about passage of the California law negatively impacting their bottom lines.

This is the same kind of fear mongering that goes on in a sport whenever there is change. Those in control of all levels of sport claim that "the end is near" whenever there is a change that gives athletes more rights or powers. I remember when free agency was going to be the end of professional sports. Or allowing professional athletes in the Olympics would ruin the Olympics forever.

California Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley pointed out after the bill passed, that SB 206 will benefit all college players—not just the star athletes. "Forget shoe deals and video games, NCAA athletes can’t make a little money over the summer coaching youth sports, can’t promote their social media, can’t model athletic wear, can’t accept groceries or help with rent or equipment," he said. "When a line in the sand is enforced obsessively, excessively and to the point of absurdity, that’s usually a sign it doesn’t belong there."

What a dumb thing for Kiley to say. The solution to what he perceives as excessive regulation is to wholly eliminate regulation? It’s a good thing most public policy isn’t based on that all-or-nothing attitude.

The significance of the California and similar legislation isn’t that it will remove restrictions preventing average athletes from earning a little extra money over the summer coaching youth sports. The significance is that it will remove restrictions preventing the upper crust of elite athletes in big-money sports from receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from rich boosters, with no “line in the sand” whatsoever.

Moreover it isn’t fear-mongering to say that removing the latter restrictions will eventually result in team lineups and therefore team competitiveness being determined largely by unbridled market economics. The law’s explicit intent is to permit athletic talent to be monetized, hence the natural outcome will be for the top talent to gravitate to where the most money is. To argue otherwise is to argue that undammed water doesn’t flow downhill.

What’s harder to predict is the likely impact on fan interest in and support for college athletics. Some folks here think it will be a good thing. Let the richest get richer and stronger and monopolize championship competition. Their big fan bases will love it, the TV networks will rake in even more cash from games matching powerhouses, and no one ever need worry again about the rightful order of things in college sports being challenged by unworthy upstarts. And then there are those of us who think forcing an end to amateurism and the semi-level playing field it creates will alienate many fans, hurt the overall appeal and financial health of college sports, and in the long run be more damaging than beneficial to that average athlete Kiley and his ilk say they are so worried about.

We shall see.

More fear mongering. Kiley is not advocating to "wholly eliminate regulation." In his speech, he called for "action for the NCAA to treat student-athletes with greater respect. As its revenues have skyrocketed, the NCAA has denied student-athletes any share of the benefit — even prohibiting them from coaching youth sports over the summer. SB 206 does not professionalize college sports or introduce salaries; rather, it returns to student-athletes control over their own name, image, and likeness. Playing college sports should not have to mean surrendering this fundamental right."

The problem here is defining amateurism. The NCAA definition of amateurism should not be an economic concealment of a monopoly practice. Then it becomes an issue of economic exploitation. The impetus behind SB206 is to get the NCAA to change their rules. There is a middle ground and the NCAA needs to find it. They NCAA has three years to find it and the sooner, the better.

Only a handful of schools make a profit on all sports combined. UCLA and California both had issues with money. California dropped baseball which caused a backlash.