(09-30-2019 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I dont think Cali will get kicked out of the NCAA. They simply wont be allowed to compete in the post season.

California has every right to prevent the NCAA from enforcing NCAA rules that conflict with state law in California. However, they have no right to make schools in every other state accept the same rule changes or to force those schools to deal with the massive mess that the olympic model would bring to the sport.

Basically, California would be saying to NCAA members---"Either change your rules to conform with our new law----or keep your amateur rule in place and allow California schools to enjoy a competitive advantage in recruiting."

That actually sounds like the State of California is the one behaving anti-competitively. The California legislature and governor were told what would happen if they chose this route. They did it anyway. Now they have 3 years to fix the law, repeal the law, or negotiate a compromise of some sort with the NCAA member schools.

It’s a legal fallacy to state that California schools won’t be kicked out of the NCAA and would “just” not be allowed to participate in the championships. What you’re stating is that the California schools will be totally foreclosed from any economic value of being in the NCAA (largely NCAA Tournament revenue), which is a constructive removal of NCAA membership. It would be like an employer telling an employee, “I’m not firing you, but I’m just going to stop paying you.” The law would state that the employer constructively fired that employee regardless of how it’s phrased. The same concept would apply to the NCAA and California here.

I’ve said many times that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. As others have already noted, the NCAA has along history of getting smacked down in the courts on that basis (most notably the Supreme Court case against the University of Oklahoma that blew open the TV rights fees and conference realignment that we have seen for the past 30 years).

I would say this even if I didn’t loathe the NCAA: they’re in real trouble here legally if they try to fight this. They need to figure out a solution outside of the courts if they want to survive.

(09-30-2019 07:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 06:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 05:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 05:37 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 05:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  There is big difference between paying a player versus allowing him/her to make money off their image. Everyone else is making money of the athletes likeness except the athlete.

If Bubba's Buicks in Tuscaloosa wants to pay the Alabama football team to do am autograph signing why should anyone care

And the only real regulation should be going rate for autograph signings.

Yep and the athletes should have to pay taxes on all their earnings

Oh yes - of course they should be paying taxes on it (at least to the extent their income is beyond the point where they need to owe taxes under the law). It’s earned income.

For those that are concerned about rampant abuse by the Bubba’s Buick dealers of the world, note that the fact that taxes are involved act as a natural check and balance on above-free market value transactions, too. If Bubba’s Buick dealership pays $500,000 for a 1-hour autograph session for an obscure offensive lineman and then writes that off as a business expense on its tax return, that’s likely going to get a ton of scrutiny from the IRS. Heck, even if the dealer *doesn’t* write that off on its tax return, it would be scrutinized by the IRS, too, since that starts looking like a gift in excess of the $15,000 tax-free limit and there needs to be taxes assessed on that amount. Even the biggest boosters that have their own businesses can’t shift irrational amounts of that nature through those *businesses* with that type of tax scrutiny. (Whether those boosters choose to do it under the table is a different matter, but that situation is no different than what occurs today and what has occurred for generations.)

Free markets and democracies are inherently messy, but I believe that those are still the best economic and political systems that we have. Totalitarianism and redistributive socialism are cleanly run by comparison with fixed and predictable outcomes, but it comes at the cost of economic and political freedom. The NCAA shouldn’t have the right to suppress a fundamental liberty interest (the right to one’s own likeness) and economic freedom (compensation in accordance with the free market) simply because someone is an athlete (and isn’t applied to any other student, even those on scholarship, in any other field) or they’re worried about overzealous boosters. The NCAA, to the extent that it has any purpose at all, should be figuring out how to deal with such freedom as opposed to closing it off entirely. As I’ve said elsewhere, the NCAA has stuck its head in the sand for far too long and refused to find a solution (outside of just an outright ban that likely violates antitrust laws), so it looks like a solution is finally going to be forced on them.

Many of these donors give hundreds of thousands----or even millions a year to these schools. A little reallocation of funds is all that will happen. The taxes are irrelevant as these are write offs. They will be run through donor business's as "marketing/advertising" expenses. The big money donors who sit in the big money boxes at schools already had their ticket costs deductibility erased. Did you suddenly see lots of open seats in the big cigar club seat sections? Of course not. "Taxes" arent going to bother these movers and shakers a bit. In fact--this rule will make them the MOST important people in the athletic department. They are about to become "recruting coordinator/manager of player personnel". They will be able to completely control an athletic department even more than they do now. The big athletic donors are going to love this. Done with the coach? Threaten the AD with the loss of his recruiting "image/likeness" money and the coach will be out. Nobody is going to hate this more than the coaches, AD's, and administrators.

Every single thing that you’ve stated may very well end up being true. My general response would be: (a) this happens now with boosters, TV networks and shoe companies like Nike, Adidas and Under Armour and (b) even people want to believe that it’s not happening now... so what if that’s true? The “cure” that I see being proposed by some people here, which is either just denying that the California law is going to be the reality of the future or attempting to impose some type of artificial redistribution of income to equalize compensation among players, is worse than any supposed “disease” of the influence of boosters. Protecting the liberty interest (one’s own likeness) and economic freedom of athletes should 100% prevail over the already well-compensated colleges and their coaches and ADs.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Bring those boosters out into the open instead of how we pretend that their influence isn’t controlling college sports today already.

California people: "we have people living in tent cities"
California legislators: "let's focus on exploited football players"

(09-30-2019 07:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I dont think Cali will get kicked out of the NCAA. They simply wont be allowed to compete in the post season.

California has every right to prevent the NCAA from enforcing NCAA rules that conflict with state law in California. However, they have no right to make schools in every other state accept the same rule changes or to force those schools to deal with the massive mess that the olympic model would bring to the sport.

Basically, California would be saying to NCAA members---"Either change your rules to conform with our new law----or keep your amateur rule in place and allow California schools to enjoy a competitive advantage in recruiting."

That actually sounds like the State of California is the one behaving anti-competitively. The California legislature and governor were told what would happen if they chose this route. They did it anyway. Now they have 3 years to fix the law, repeal the law, or negotiate a compromise of some sort with the NCAA member schools.

It’s a legal fallacy to state that California schools won’t be kicked out of the NCAA and would “just” not be allowed to participate in the championships. What you’re stating is that the California schools will be totally foreclosed from any economic value of being in the NCAA (largely NCAA Tournament revenue), which is a constructive removal of NCAA membership. It would be like an employer telling an employee, “I’m not firing you, but I’m just going to stop paying you.” The law would state that the employer constructively fired that employee regardless of how it’s phrased. The same concept would apply to the NCAA and California here.

I’ve said many times that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. As others have already noted, the NCAA has along history of getting smacked down in the courts on that basis (most notably the Supreme Court case against the University of Oklahoma that blew open the TV rights fees and conference realignment that we have seen for the past 30 years).

I would say this even if I didn’t loathe the NCAA: they’re in real trouble here legally if they try to fight this. They need to figure out a solution outside of the courts if they want to survive.

lol---you do indeed seem to hate the NCAA. Im not a big fan either---but I do think they are an asset with respect to certain aspects of college sports.

In reference to your employee/employer example above----This situation is a bit different than that as I see it. Its more like if the California legislature said Little League teams in California could pay players and recruit players from anywhere. California then cant require that Little League Baseball allow their paid team, which recruited the best players in that age group from the 50 states and 6 other nations, to play in the Little League World Series.

The courts have already upheld the NCAA amateur model and have made it clear that the league is well within its rights to enforce rules that deal with establishing a competitive balance within the sport. Given the recent basketball shoe scandal---it requires zero imagination or forethought to see how fraught with misuse and abuse the "olympic model" would be in college sports. I think California would have a hell of time proving that it isnt a violation of the NCAA handbook and that their ability to provide players with additional income wouldn't be a competitive recruiting advantage. The NCAA would be well within their rights to bar the California schools from the post season. In fact, given that third parties straight up paying players got SMU the death penalty---simply barring the California schools from the post season would seem like a proportional response to a clear and openly admitted violation of NCAA recruiting rules.

As Ive said before----Im actually ok with some sort of revenue sharing plan for the players. I think there is probably overwhelming public support for something like that. I just dont think the olympic model fits the college game. Whatever form revenue sharing takes needs to be a plan that pays all the players (be they star QB or second string kicker). It also needs to be a plan that maintains the same general competitive balance as the current NCAA amateur rules. Despite the big TV deals, these remain first and foremost institutions of higher learning---Even the athletics programs are still ideally supposed to be a getting an education. Hopefully, they will figure out a way to make it work.

(09-30-2019 08:06 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  California people: "we have people living in tent cities"
California legislators: "let's focus on exploited football players"

Ah, yes! The old, “Politicians are concentrating too much on passing a law that I don’t like when soooooo many other more important problems are out there!” argument. It’s an oldie but a goodie argument from all political stripes that works in all situations. (“Why are we passing [insert law here] when there’s [insert insanely complex global problem that hasn’t been solved for generations] going on?!)

That’s not to say that if anyone here can solve the nation’s homelessness problem, then that would be fantastic and I’m all ears. Of course, if we couldn’t pass any other laws until that was solved, then we probably wouldn’t pass any law of any type anywhere for the rest of my life.

(09-30-2019 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

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

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

I dont think Cali will get kicked out of the NCAA. They simply wont be allowed to compete in the post season.

California has every right to prevent the NCAA from enforcing NCAA rules that conflict with state law in California. However, they have no right to make schools in every other state accept the same rule changes or to force those schools to deal with the massive mess that the olympic model would bring to the sport.

Basically, California would be saying to NCAA members---"Either change your rules to conform with our new law----or keep your amateur rule in place and allow California schools to enjoy a competitive advantage in recruiting."

That actually sounds like the State of California is the one behaving anti-competitively. The California legislature and governor were told what would happen if they chose this route. They did it anyway. Now they have 3 years to fix the law, repeal the law, or negotiate a compromise of some sort with the NCAA member schools.

It’s a legal fallacy to state that California schools won’t be kicked out of the NCAA and would “just” not be allowed to participate in the championships. What you’re stating is that the California schools will be totally foreclosed from any economic value of being in the NCAA (largely NCAA Tournament revenue), which is a constructive removal of NCAA membership. It would be like an employer telling an employee, “I’m not firing you, but I’m just going to stop paying you.” The law would state that the employer constructively fired that employee regardless of how it’s phrased. The same concept would apply to the NCAA and California here.

I’ve said many times that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. As others have already noted, the NCAA has along history of getting smacked down in the courts on that basis (most notably the Supreme Court case against the University of Oklahoma that blew open the TV rights fees and conference realignment that we have seen for the past 30 years).

I would say this even if I didn’t loathe the NCAA: they’re in real trouble here legally if they try to fight this. They need to figure out a solution outside of the courts if they want to survive.

lol---you do indeed seem to hate the NCAA. Im not a big fan either---but I do think they are an asset with respect to certain aspects of college sports.

In reference to your employee/employer example above----This situation is a bit different than that as I see it. Its more like if the California legislature said Little League teams in California could pay players and recruit players from anywhere. California then cant require that Little League Baseball allow their paid team, which recruited the best players in that age group from the 50 states and 6 other nations, to play in the Little League World Series.

The courts have already upheld the NCAA amateur model and have made it clear that the league is well within its rights to enforce rules that deal with establishing a competitive balance within the sport. Given the recent basketball shoe scandal---it requires zero imagination or forethought to see how fraught with misuse and abuse the "olympic model" would be in college sports. I think California would have a hell of time proving that it isnt a violation of the NCAA handbook and that their ability to provide players with additional income wouldn't be a competitive recruiting advantage.

As Ive said before----Im actually ok with some sort of revenue sharing plan for the players. I think there is probably overwhelming public support for something like that. I just dont think the olympic model fits the college game. Whatever form revenue sharing takes needs to be a plan that pays all the players (be they star QB or second string kicker). It also needs to be a plan that maintains the same general competitive balance as the current NCAA amateur rules.

Heh - yeah, this particular issue gets my blood boiling about the NCAA. Nothing personal.

The NCAA is perfectly fine in terms of administering championship events: the NCAA Tournament is a legitimately great event. The NCAA is also ultimately a reflection of its members, so my critique is even beyond the NCAA and is aimed at everyone in power in college sports (including my own alma mater).

I’m perfectly fine with everyone in college sports - the NCAA, conferences, schools, coaches, etc. - maximizing their revenue. The free market should reign despite the fact that these are supposedly non-profit institutions. I just can’t stand the hypocrisy when they suddenly get all sanctimonious about player compensation and go through all of the old tropes of amateurism and purity. That argument would carry a little more weight if they returned all of the money that CBS, ESPN, Nike, Coca-Cola, etc. sent to them. Otherwise, I just see it as blatant hypocrisy. The NCAA is American version of the International Olympic Committee when it comes to that hypocrisy.

(09-30-2019 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I dont think Cali will get kicked out of the NCAA. They simply wont be allowed to compete in the post season.

California has every right to prevent the NCAA from enforcing NCAA rules that conflict with state law in California. However, they have no right to make schools in every other state accept the same rule changes or to force those schools to deal with the massive mess that the olympic model would bring to the sport.

Basically, California would be saying to NCAA members---"Either change your rules to conform with our new law----or keep your amateur rule in place and allow California schools to enjoy a competitive advantage in recruiting."

That actually sounds like the State of California is the one behaving anti-competitively. The California legislature and governor were told what would happen if they chose this route. They did it anyway. Now they have 3 years to fix the law, repeal the law, or negotiate a compromise of some sort with the NCAA member schools.

Going forward, the California State Collegiate Championships will be so much more entertaining than the NCAA-Leftovers Championships.

(09-30-2019 08:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

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

I dont think Cali will get kicked out of the NCAA. They simply wont be allowed to compete in the post season.

California has every right to prevent the NCAA from enforcing NCAA rules that conflict with state law in California. However, they have no right to make schools in every other state accept the same rule changes or to force those schools to deal with the massive mess that the olympic model would bring to the sport.

Basically, California would be saying to NCAA members---"Either change your rules to conform with our new law----or keep your amateur rule in place and allow California schools to enjoy a competitive advantage in recruiting."

That actually sounds like the State of California is the one behaving anti-competitively. The California legislature and governor were told what would happen if they chose this route. They did it anyway. Now they have 3 years to fix the law, repeal the law, or negotiate a compromise of some sort with the NCAA member schools.

It’s a legal fallacy to state that California schools won’t be kicked out of the NCAA and would “just” not be allowed to participate in the championships. What you’re stating is that the California schools will be totally foreclosed from any economic value of being in the NCAA (largely NCAA Tournament revenue), which is a constructive removal of NCAA membership. It would be like an employer telling an employee, “I’m not firing you, but I’m just going to stop paying you.” The law would state that the employer constructively fired that employee regardless of how it’s phrased. The same concept would apply to the NCAA and California here.

I’ve said many times that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. As others have already noted, the NCAA has along history of getting smacked down in the courts on that basis (most notably the Supreme Court case against the University of Oklahoma that blew open the TV rights fees and conference realignment that we have seen for the past 30 years).

I would say this even if I didn’t loathe the NCAA: they’re in real trouble here legally if they try to fight this. They need to figure out a solution outside of the courts if they want to survive.

lol---you do indeed seem to hate the NCAA. Im not a big fan either---but I do think they are an asset with respect to certain aspects of college sports.

In reference to your employee/employer example above----This situation is a bit different than that as I see it. Its more like if the California legislature said Little League teams in California could pay players and recruit players from anywhere. California then cant require that Little League Baseball allow their paid team, which recruited the best players in that age group from the 50 states and 6 other nations, to play in the Little League World Series.

The courts have already upheld the NCAA amateur model and have made it clear that the league is well within its rights to enforce rules that deal with establishing a competitive balance within the sport. Given the recent basketball shoe scandal---it requires zero imagination or forethought to see how fraught with misuse and abuse the "olympic model" would be in college sports. I think California would have a hell of time proving that it isnt a violation of the NCAA handbook and that their ability to provide players with additional income wouldn't be a competitive recruiting advantage.

As Ive said before----Im actually ok with some sort of revenue sharing plan for the players. I think there is probably overwhelming public support for something like that. I just dont think the olympic model fits the college game. Whatever form revenue sharing takes needs to be a plan that pays all the players (be they star QB or second string kicker). It also needs to be a plan that maintains the same general competitive balance as the current NCAA amateur rules.

Heh - yeah, this particular issue gets my blood boiling about the NCAA. Nothing personal.

The NCAA is perfectly fine in terms of administering championship events: the NCAA Tournament is a legitimately great event. The NCAA is also ultimately a reflection of its members, so my critique is even beyond the NCAA and is aimed at everyone in power in college sports (including my own alma mater).

I’m perfectly fine with everyone in college sports - the NCAA, conferences, schools, coaches, etc. - maximizing their revenue. The free market should reign despite the fact that these are supposedly non-profit institutions. I just can’t stand the hypocrisy when they suddenly get all sanctimonious about player compensation and go through all of the old tropes of amateurism and purity. That argument would carry a little more weight if they returned all of the money that CBS, ESPN, Nike, Coca-Cola, etc. sent to them. Otherwise, I just see it as blatant hypocrisy. The NCAA is American version of the International Olympic Committee when it comes to that hypocrisy.

I guess thats why Im actually ok with sort of player revenue sharing. I just prefer a model that shares it somewhat equitably and generally maintains institutional control of the revenue stream. However, Im not completely opposed to allowing individuals to reap rewards.

For instance, rather than the NCAA sending every player an equal check----the money could come to the school in a lump sum and the school's athletic department and coaches could decide how much each player is paid. Perhaps the NCAA itself could create a performance system and the players would be paid based on appearances and on field accomplishments. Maybe its a hybrid of the olympic model---BUT, players only get to keep 25% of any personal appearance fees (while the rest goes to the general NCAA Player Fund to be split equally among all players). There are literally thousand's of different revenue sharing options that fall short of just putting the boosters in charge of the asylum where every year some college version of the Yankee's try to buy a national championship.

(09-30-2019 09:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think Cali will get kicked out of the NCAA. They simply wont be allowed to compete in the post season.

California has every right to prevent the NCAA from enforcing NCAA rules that conflict with state law in California. However, they have no right to make schools in every other state accept the same rule changes or to force those schools to deal with the massive mess that the olympic model would bring to the sport.

Basically, California would be saying to NCAA members---"Either change your rules to conform with our new law----or keep your amateur rule in place and allow California schools to enjoy a competitive advantage in recruiting."

That actually sounds like the State of California is the one behaving anti-competitively. The California legislature and governor were told what would happen if they chose this route. They did it anyway. Now they have 3 years to fix the law, repeal the law, or negotiate a compromise of some sort with the NCAA member schools.

It’s a legal fallacy to state that California schools won’t be kicked out of the NCAA and would “just” not be allowed to participate in the championships. What you’re stating is that the California schools will be totally foreclosed from any economic value of being in the NCAA (largely NCAA Tournament revenue), which is a constructive removal of NCAA membership. It would be like an employer telling an employee, “I’m not firing you, but I’m just going to stop paying you.” The law would state that the employer constructively fired that employee regardless of how it’s phrased. The same concept would apply to the NCAA and California here.

I’ve said many times that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. As others have already noted, the NCAA has along history of getting smacked down in the courts on that basis (most notably the Supreme Court case against the University of Oklahoma that blew open the TV rights fees and conference realignment that we have seen for the past 30 years).

I would say this even if I didn’t loathe the NCAA: they’re in real trouble here legally if they try to fight this. They need to figure out a solution outside of the courts if they want to survive.

lol---you do indeed seem to hate the NCAA. Im not a big fan either---but I do think they are an asset with respect to certain aspects of college sports.

In reference to your employee/employer example above----This situation is a bit different than that as I see it. Its more like if the California legislature said Little League teams in California could pay players and recruit players from anywhere. California then cant require that Little League Baseball allow their paid team, which recruited the best players in that age group from the 50 states and 6 other nations, to play in the Little League World Series.

The courts have already upheld the NCAA amateur model and have made it clear that the league is well within its rights to enforce rules that deal with establishing a competitive balance within the sport. Given the recent basketball shoe scandal---it requires zero imagination or forethought to see how fraught with misuse and abuse the "olympic model" would be in college sports. I think California would have a hell of time proving that it isnt a violation of the NCAA handbook and that their ability to provide players with additional income wouldn't be a competitive recruiting advantage.

As Ive said before----Im actually ok with some sort of revenue sharing plan for the players. I think there is probably overwhelming public support for something like that. I just dont think the olympic model fits the college game. Whatever form revenue sharing takes needs to be a plan that pays all the players (be they star QB or second string kicker). It also needs to be a plan that maintains the same general competitive balance as the current NCAA amateur rules.

Heh - yeah, this particular issue gets my blood boiling about the NCAA. Nothing personal.

The NCAA is perfectly fine in terms of administering championship events: the NCAA Tournament is a legitimately great event. The NCAA is also ultimately a reflection of its members, so my critique is even beyond the NCAA and is aimed at everyone in power in college sports (including my own alma mater).

I’m perfectly fine with everyone in college sports - the NCAA, conferences, schools, coaches, etc. - maximizing their revenue. The free market should reign despite the fact that these are supposedly non-profit institutions. I just can’t stand the hypocrisy when they suddenly get all sanctimonious about player compensation and go through all of the old tropes of amateurism and purity. That argument would carry a little more weight if they returned all of the money that CBS, ESPN, Nike, Coca-Cola, etc. sent to them. Otherwise, I just see it as blatant hypocrisy. The NCAA is American version of the International Olympic Committee when it comes to that hypocrisy.

I guess thats why Im actually ok with sort of player revenue sharing. I just prefer a model that shares it somewhat equitably and generally maintains institutional control of the revenue stream. However, Im not completely opposed to allowing individuals to reap rewards.

For instance, rather than the NCAA sending every player an equal check----the money could come to the school in a lump sum and the school's athletic department and coaches could decide how much each player is paid. Perhaps the NCAA itself could create a performance system and the players would be paid based on appearances and on field accomplishments. Maybe its a hybrid of the olympic model---BUT, players only get to keep 25% of any personal appearance fees (while the rest goes to the general NCAA Player Fund to be split equally among all players). There are literally thousand's of different revenue sharing options that fall short of just putting the boosters in charge of the asylum where every year some college version of the Yankee's try to buy a national championship.

The rules have to change in D1 as well to allow schools to move up. Schools like Fresno Pacific won't be able to pay their players unless they could join D1 to get big paychecks from P5 schools. Like I said, starting to pay players and all that would include lower levels which the California bill said all athletes to all private and public schools at all levels. If Florida says that all athletes for all sports at all levels have to be paid? A lot of schools would wind up dropping all sports or close down. How can kids at South Carolina State get paid when the school have financial budget crisis?

(09-30-2019 09:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s a legal fallacy to state that California schools won’t be kicked out of the NCAA and would “just” not be allowed to participate in the championships. What you’re stating is that the California schools will be totally foreclosed from any economic value of being in the NCAA (largely NCAA Tournament revenue), which is a constructive removal of NCAA membership. It would be like an employer telling an employee, “I’m not firing you, but I’m just going to stop paying you.” The law would state that the employer constructively fired that employee regardless of how it’s phrased. The same concept would apply to the NCAA and California here.

I’ve said many times that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. As others have already noted, the NCAA has along history of getting smacked down in the courts on that basis (most notably the Supreme Court case against the University of Oklahoma that blew open the TV rights fees and conference realignment that we have seen for the past 30 years).

I would say this even if I didn’t loathe the NCAA: they’re in real trouble here legally if they try to fight this. They need to figure out a solution outside of the courts if they want to survive.

lol---you do indeed seem to hate the NCAA. Im not a big fan either---but I do think they are an asset with respect to certain aspects of college sports.

In reference to your employee/employer example above----This situation is a bit different than that as I see it. Its more like if the California legislature said Little League teams in California could pay players and recruit players from anywhere. California then cant require that Little League Baseball allow their paid team, which recruited the best players in that age group from the 50 states and 6 other nations, to play in the Little League World Series.

The courts have already upheld the NCAA amateur model and have made it clear that the league is well within its rights to enforce rules that deal with establishing a competitive balance within the sport. Given the recent basketball shoe scandal---it requires zero imagination or forethought to see how fraught with misuse and abuse the "olympic model" would be in college sports. I think California would have a hell of time proving that it isnt a violation of the NCAA handbook and that their ability to provide players with additional income wouldn't be a competitive recruiting advantage.

As Ive said before----Im actually ok with some sort of revenue sharing plan for the players. I think there is probably overwhelming public support for something like that. I just dont think the olympic model fits the college game. Whatever form revenue sharing takes needs to be a plan that pays all the players (be they star QB or second string kicker). It also needs to be a plan that maintains the same general competitive balance as the current NCAA amateur rules.

Heh - yeah, this particular issue gets my blood boiling about the NCAA. Nothing personal.

The NCAA is perfectly fine in terms of administering championship events: the NCAA Tournament is a legitimately great event. The NCAA is also ultimately a reflection of its members, so my critique is even beyond the NCAA and is aimed at everyone in power in college sports (including my own alma mater).

I’m perfectly fine with everyone in college sports - the NCAA, conferences, schools, coaches, etc. - maximizing their revenue. The free market should reign despite the fact that these are supposedly non-profit institutions. I just can’t stand the hypocrisy when they suddenly get all sanctimonious about player compensation and go through all of the old tropes of amateurism and purity. That argument would carry a little more weight if they returned all of the money that CBS, ESPN, Nike, Coca-Cola, etc. sent to them. Otherwise, I just see it as blatant hypocrisy. The NCAA is American version of the International Olympic Committee when it comes to that hypocrisy.

I guess thats why Im actually ok with sort of player revenue sharing. I just prefer a model that shares it somewhat equitably and generally maintains institutional control of the revenue stream. However, Im not completely opposed to allowing individuals to reap rewards.

For instance, rather than the NCAA sending every player an equal check----the money could come to the school in a lump sum and the school's athletic department and coaches could decide how much each player is paid. Perhaps the NCAA itself could create a performance system and the players would be paid based on appearances and on field accomplishments. Maybe its a hybrid of the olympic model---BUT, players only get to keep 25% of any personal appearance fees (while the rest goes to the general NCAA Player Fund to be split equally among all players). There are literally thousand's of different revenue sharing options that fall short of just putting the boosters in charge of the asylum where every year some college version of the Yankee's try to buy a national championship.

The rules have to change in D1 as well to allow schools to move up. Schools like Fresno Pacific won't be able to pay their players unless they could join D1 to get big paychecks from P5 schools. Like I said, starting to pay players and all that would include lower levels which the California bill said all athletes to all private and public schools at all levels. If Florida says that all athletes for all sports at all levels have to be paid? A lot of schools would wind up dropping all sports or close down. How can kids at South Carolina State get paid when the school have financial budget crisis?

DavidSt - You (and many others) keep referring to schools having to pay players. That is NOT what the California bill allows. Third parties can compensate players for endorsements or other activities that aren’t directly related to their performance on-the-field as an athlete, but not the schools themselves. Frankly, that could potentially act as an equalizer between the levels. A lot of people will focus on the elite programs and the Power 5 conferences here. However, this actually can level the playing field between Division III and the higher divisions. Some Division III schools have a LOT of wealthy alums that own companies (see MIT, University of Chicago, the NESCAC schools) where they can provide compensation to athletes that could mitigate or even negate the disadvantage of the prohibition of Division III athletic scholarships.

There’s this assumption that player compensation favors the elite programs, but the thing is that the current system is what really entrenches the power of elite programs. When all compensation is equal (as it is today), then the top players just pick the biggest brands based on reputation. The Olympic model provides an opportunity for the “lesser” programs to have a legitimate route to get those top players by rounding up their boosters to put together compelling endorsement offers. (Frankly, they’ve done this already indirectly through increased spending on facilities. See Oregon for a prime example.)

(09-30-2019 08:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:06 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  California people: "we have people living in tent cities"
California legislators: "let's focus on exploited football players"

Ah, yes! The old, “Politicians are concentrating too much on passing a law that I don’t like when soooooo many other more important problems are out there!” argument. It’s an oldie but a goodie argument from all political stripes that works in all situations. (“Why are we passing [insert law here] when there’s [insert insanely complex global problem that hasn’t been solved for generations] going on?!)

That’s not to say that if anyone here can solve the nation’s homelessness problem, then that would be fantastic and I’m all ears. Of course, if we couldn’t pass any other laws until that was solved, then we probably wouldn’t pass any law of any type anywhere for the rest of my life.

We have had a homeless problem out here for about 40 years. This didn't just happen overnight. In November of 2016, the voters in the City of Los Angeles approved a $1.2 billion dollar bond to build about 10,000 apartment units, with the goal of being done by 2022. They have almost blown through that money. That state is spending $2.4 billion on homelessness this year. That is not close to enough.

The demand for housing is far outstripping supply. Home prices are high and rentals are expensive, forcing some people out of their homes. A bad combination with no easy solution. But again, the homeless problem has been around for decades. So for a legislator, it is just like the traffic. You try to make improvements, but it just doesn't seem to improve.

SMU football returns to the rankings the same week this happens. Coincidence?

(09-30-2019 10:16 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:06 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  California people: "we have people living in tent cities"
California legislators: "let's focus on exploited football players"

Ah, yes! The old, “Politicians are concentrating too much on passing a law that I don’t like when soooooo many other more important problems are out there!” argument. It’s an oldie but a goodie argument from all political stripes that works in all situations. (“Why are we passing [insert law here] when there’s [insert insanely complex global problem that hasn’t been solved for generations] going on?!)

That’s not to say that if anyone here can solve the nation’s homelessness problem, then that would be fantastic and I’m all ears. Of course, if we couldn’t pass any other laws until that was solved, then we probably wouldn’t pass any law of any type anywhere for the rest of my life.

We have had a homeless problem out here for about 40 years. This didn't just happen overnight. In November of 2016, the voters in the City of Los Angeles approved a $1.2 billion dollar bond to build about 10,000 apartment units, with the goal of being done by 2022. They have almost blown through that money. That state is spending $2.4 billion on homelessness this year. That is not close to enough.

The demand for housing is far outstripping supply. Home prices are high and rentals are expensive, forcing some people out of their homes. A bad combination with no easy solution. But again, the homeless problem has been around for decades. So for a legislator, it is just like the traffic. You try to make improvements, but it just doesn't seem to improve.

I was homeless in California as a kid in 1980s. Rent and buying a house was expensive back then. They need to lower the rent and allthat down.

(09-30-2019 10:56 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  SMU football returns to the rankings the same week this happens. Coincidence?

lol, I like that!

Hey, October will mark the 90th anniversary of the publication of the Carnagie Foundation's (in)famous 350 page report on "American College Athletics," which was ignored by fans because they didn't care.

I skimmed it a couple of years ago and, as I recall, its authors, who were actual amateurism purists , eloquently and softly complained about paid coaches. They had somewhat harsher things to say about --

• active recruiting
• athletic scholarships
• open payrolls for athletes
  

All of those things were more or less commonplace back then. But some folks today think that there's some loooongstanding, "noble" tradition of amateurism in college athletics. SMU was nothing new... Only difference was, their payroll wasn't open.

Meh, personally I can't wait for a time when the NCAA's hypocrisy is over and done with.

(09-27-2019 11:47 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Which state will be the last to have a bill like California's?

I'm taking Texas, since their legislature won't be in session until 2021.

Well, this aged well, didn't it? I think Hawai'i will be the last one now to enact something like we're seeing everywhere else.

(10-03-2019 09:26 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 11:47 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Which state will be the last to have a bill like California's?

I'm taking Texas, since their legislature won't be in session until 2021.

Well, this aged well, didn't it? I think Hawai'i will be the last one now to enact something like we're seeing everywhere else.

Well, Texas could still be the last to enact one should Congress not intervene in the interim. Believe Nevada's legislature also won't be in session again till 2021.

Meantime, an Oklahoma legislator is considering a similar bill, an Arizona legislator is "more than likely" to introduce one and Ernie Chambers is, indeed, stepping up again for college athletes in Nebraska.

Florida will continue to lead the NCAA by the nose -

https://patch.com/florida/bradenton/flor...t-athletes

(09-30-2019 07:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I dont think Cali will get kicked out of the NCAA. They simply wont be allowed to compete in the post season.

California has every right to prevent the NCAA from enforcing NCAA rules that conflict with state law in California. However, they have no right to make schools in every other state accept the same rule changes or to force those schools to deal with the massive mess that the olympic model would bring to the sport.

Basically, California would be saying to NCAA members---"Either change your rules to conform with our new law----or keep your amateur rule in place and allow California schools to enjoy a competitive advantage in recruiting."

That actually sounds like the State of California is the one behaving anti-competitively. The California legislature and governor were told what would happen if they chose this route. They did it anyway. Now they have 3 years to fix the law, repeal the law, or negotiate a compromise of some sort with the NCAA member schools.

It’s a legal fallacy to state that California schools won’t be kicked out of the NCAA and would “just” not be allowed to participate in the championships. What you’re stating is that the California schools will be totally foreclosed from any economic value of being in the NCAA (largely NCAA Tournament revenue), which is a constructive removal of NCAA membership. It would be like an employer telling an employee, “I’m not firing you, but I’m just going to stop paying you.” The law would state that the employer constructively fired that employee regardless of how it’s phrased. The same concept would apply to the NCAA and California here.

I’ve said many times that the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. As others have already noted, the NCAA has along history of getting smacked down in the courts on that basis (most notably the Supreme Court case against the University of Oklahoma that blew open the TV rights fees and conference realignment that we have seen for the past 30 years).

I would say this even if I didn’t loathe the NCAA: they’re in real trouble here legally if they try to fight this. They need to figure out a solution outside of the courts if they want to survive.

If thats a valid argument---then the G5 have an excellent case against the CFP using the same logic. That said, I would say its more like an employer suspending an employee who is not in compliance with the previously agreed upon terms of employment. Its not like the California schools wont be able to sell tickets to games or collect their TV checks.

I do agree with you that heading this off at the pass before it gets too big probably makes more sense. There just seems to be too many legal fronts to fight at one time otherwise.

(10-31-2019 11:32 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Florida will continue to lead the NCAA by the nose -

https://patch.com/florida/bradenton/flor...t-athletes

Florida!

Yesterday, the Illinois House debated and then passed a NIL bill. One of the first speakers asked the bill's lead sponsor to explain the difference between his bill and what the NCAA "did" the day prior.

His response was (paraphrasing) "Our bill has substance and actually does something. The NCAA statement was a PR stunt that lacks substance."

Illinois!