California is doing this because a lot of their students are leaving the state to other schools outside of California. This is a bribe to get the best players from Alabama and Clemson to transfer to one of the schools in the state. These bills are not in the best interests of the student athletes. It just hurts the players and the sports more.

(09-18-2019 11:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  California is doing this because a lot of their students are leaving the state to other schools outside of California. This is a bribe to get the best players from Alabama and Clemson to transfer to one of the schools in the state. These bills are not in the best interests of the student athletes. It just hurts the players and the sports more.

The South Carolina bill would give athletes $2,500/year directly. That's what small population states will do.

NCAA has failed to be proactive for a century. Time's up.

The States have no jurisdiction over the NCAA. They can pass all the laws they want, but if the NCAA does not allow it, the Schools can not do it if they want to remain in the NCAA.

(09-13-2019 10:21 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 10:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The NCAA can fight tooth and nail on this in the courts, but when TV networks and corporate sponsors start dropping you, that's when even the most stubborn organizations change.

A lack of college football content from California hardly seems an existential threat to ABC, ESPN, and the other networks.

Somewhat separately: I wonder what fans of Fresno State, San Diego State, and San Jose State are thinking. I can't imagine this would great for them. Is the next Trent Dilfer really going to sign a letter of intent with Fresno State when a UCLA recruiter is telling him how bigger his profile would be if he played in Los Angeles? This really could create an even more uneven playing field.

Although, it could swing the other way too. Why play in Starkville, Lexington, or Columbia when you could build a better profile if you played for a decent team in Houston, Philadelphia or Orlando?

(09-18-2019 01:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  The States have no jurisdiction over the NCAA. They can pass all the laws they want, but if the NCAA does not allow it, the Schools can not do it if they want to remain in the NCAA.

Is the membership going to kick out the schools from California, Tennessee, Washington, South Carolina, Colorado and New York if all have a January 1, 2023, effective date?

Doubt it.

(09-18-2019 01:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  The States have no jurisdiction over the NCAA. They can pass all the laws they want, but if the NCAA does not allow it, the Schools can not do it if they want to remain in the NCAA.

The NCAA has no jurisdiction over state governments. It can have all the amateurism rules it wants but if enough states withdraw their schools from the NCAA it will implode.

(09-22-2019 08:32 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 01:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  The States have no jurisdiction over the NCAA. They can pass all the laws they want, but if the NCAA does not allow it, the Schools can not do it if they want to remain in the NCAA.

The NCAA has no jurisdiction over the states. It can have all the amateurism rules it wants but if the states withdraw their schools from the NCAA it will implode.

States have no rights over private schools. Good luck to California trying to forced USC, Stanford, Saint Mary's, California Baptist, Azusa Pacific, CalTech and other private schools to forced them to pay their players and this crap.

California Schools Could Be Banned From Championship Games


Since it is passed. I could see that no California schools be in Bowl games, basketball tournaments and so forth. This would be bad news for those schools period.

(09-25-2019 03:11 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  California Schools Could Be Banned From Championship Games


Since it is passed. I could see that no California schools be in Bowl games, basketball tournaments and so forth. This would be bad news for those schools period.

Still over three years from taking effect.

(09-18-2019 01:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  The States have no jurisdiction over the NCAA. They can pass all the laws they want, but if the NCAA does not allow it, the Schools can not do it if they want to remain in the NCAA.

I think you have that backwards....

Illinois now with a NIL bill: HB 3898

Earlier this year, the bills sponsor, Rep. Thaddeus Jones, tried to get certain athletes at Illinois public universities classified as official employees and paid a minimum salary of $25k apiece. (HB 0329) I believe he's ahead of his time on that front and, not surprisingly, that bill went nowhere. I think he'll have better luck with this one.

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.

(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.

lol, you may be right!

I'm waiting on Nebraska. Longtime State Senator Ernie Chambers has been strangely quiet. He tried for years and years to get Husker footballers paid and I can't imagine he'd be opposed to this.

Can't wait to see Alabama, Ohio State et al. soiling their pants because they can no longer recruit star athletes who will all flock to the NIL schools.

(09-27-2019 05:01 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Can't wait to see Alabama, Ohio State et al. soiling their pants because they can no longer recruit star athletes who will all flock to the NIL schools.

There's still going to be power in the big brands (and those with big budgets). Regardless of NLI rules or not, they will still get the majority of the top talent.

(09-13-2019 10:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 10:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 08:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 06:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As I noted in my real life personal example, not all athletes receive scholarships (and in fact none of them receive athletic scholarships at the Division III level), yet they’re still subject to same compensation restrictions simply for being a student-athlete.

Regardless, we can go around in circles all day on this, but the people on this forum objecting to this California law and similar proposed laws are really and truly a tiny minority of society. There’s a ton of bipartisan political will behind this effort (unlike the direct payment of players by universities, which got intertwined with the more volatile involvement of labor unions). The NCAA needs to adjust or die - there’s no putting the proverbial genie back in the bottle at this point.

I think this is different simply because we have already seen numerous cheating scandals that indicate that alumni and boosters don’t operate in the same economic system as the Olympic model exists. The reality is this is an open avenue to pay players any amount for most anything under the guise of “name and likeness”. It’s worth noting that abuse of this system would look almost exactly the same as what was happening in the 1980’s at SMU. That SMU conduct resulted in the only death penalty ever levied against a D1 school. Seems fairly unlikely the NCAA will just opt to go along with an Olympic model that can be so easily abused—especially since the NCAA just achieved a hard won court victory that actually says their amateur model, with minor modifications, is legal and reasonable.

California can do what they like and the NCAA can’t prevent them from doing so. However, unlike the Oklahoma vs NCAA case, the NCAA has already prevailed in court defending the reasoning of the amateur model against the pay model. Given the NCAA’s recent court win, I don’t think the California schools are going to be able to blatantly break NCAA rules on pay for play and still compete for national championships.

That court ruling was dealing with the employee vs. amateur status of student-athletes while playing their sport, though. This is very different - we're talking about individuals being able to capitalize on their likenesses with other enterprises that aren't under NCAA control. It's a totally different realm.

The main argument that I keep seeing against this law is essentially that boosters will abuse it. That is absolutely a valid concern. However, as I've stated earlier, that concern does not prevail over the personal and economic liberty of individual students under the law. The NCAA has a valid interest in ensuring with compliance with the Olympic model, but that shouldn't (and this California law is stating that it doesn't) mean an outright prohibition.

I REALLY think too many people are missing the winds of change here. There are too many old school college sports fans here that aren't looking at the big picture. This is NOT a California issue. This is becoming a bipartisan national issue and it's coming down the pike everywhere.

Maybe even more importantly that I haven't really discussed up to this point, the third parties have a lot of money wrapped up with the NCAA, particularly the TV networks and corporate sponsors, are absolutely 100% *not* going to be fine with shutting out all of the schools from the largest and wealthiest state in the country for a single second. It doesn't make sense economically and they're going to get a *ton* of political and public pressure to suspend their ties with the NCAA if the NCAA is dumb enough to actually carry through with not allowing California schools compete in their championships. The NCAA can fight tooth and nail on this in the courts, but when TV networks and corporate sponsors start dropping you, that's when even the most stubborn organizations change.

The NCAA needs to adjust or die. This issue isn't getting reversed when other states and the federal government itself wants the same thing. California is just the start.

That may be true. But the vast majority of those folks your referring to were the same folks adamantly fighting against playing players. They are the same people that are very unhappy with whats happening in the transfer market. What do think the transfer market will look like when you add what will essentially be a veiled version of pay for play---with third parties picking up the tab? Its going to be free agency. Worse yet---the boosters will be running it---not the schools.

My point is that no organization is slower to evolve than the powers that run college football. After fighting something very similar in court---and winning a decision that largely supports the current amateur model---I dont see the NCAA throwing in the towel. Keep in mind---the Big 10 and Notre Dame---both entities that are far more important to college sports than any California school---have strongly opposed anything other than the current amateur model.

Knowing the way college sports changes very slowly---I dont see the NCAA just giving in. At the very least---expect a court battle---which I suspect the NCAA will probably win. That said----I do agree that public pressure to give more to the players will continue to grow. I think the answer is more likely to be found in some sort of revenue sharing deal that runs through NCAA that would compensate the players evenly across the board (similar to the IE Sports deal). That would keep the playing field level and keep control of the process contained within the sport---rather than unleashing a wild west compensation free agency driven by boosters and alums who accountable to nobody.

Oh, I know that the NCAA is going to fight. They'll fight this to the bitter end (even though I believe that they'd be better off if they actually tried to involve themselves in the discussion as opposed to putting its head in the sand). I'm just saying that this is distinct from the player compensation issue in the past because the NCAA isn't no longer fighting a group of players that want to unionize, but rather the State of California and potentially the federal government and other states.

Also, the third parties certainly haven't fought against players getting compensated (whether directly or indirectly). NCAA core sponsors Google, Intel and Uber hire scores and scores of interns from California universities every year. They know full well the cognitive dissonance that a computer science student on a scholarship at Stanford is actively encouraged to take as many high paying internships as he/she can find, yet an athlete on scholarship at Stanford is restricted from all of that. Heck, much of Silicon Valley was pretty much built on college students specifically that wanted to make a lot of money. The TV networks just want an entertaining product - whether players get paid is irrelevant. All of those third parties might might have been neutral on player compensation up to this point, but if/when the NCAA fighting player compensation starts negatively impacting the bottom line and public perception of those third parties, then they'll start throwing their weight around.

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?

(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.

(09-27-2019 05:52 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 05:01 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Can't wait to see Alabama, Ohio State et al. soiling their pants because they can no longer recruit star athletes who will all flock to the NIL schools.

There's still going to be power in the big brands (and those with big budgets). Regardless of NLI rules or not, they will still get the majority of the top talent.

Follow the money ... the top players will. Branding rises and falls, nothing is cast in stone.

There is nothing for the NCAA to fight. They will have to decide whether to expel the NIL schools or adapt to accommodate them.

(09-28-2019 07:59 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  There is nothing for the NCAA to fight. They will have to decide whether to expel the NIL schools or adapt to accommodate them.

I say expell those California schools to tell lawmakers that it is not right to forced the NCAA to break their own rules which is agreed to by all the public and private schools at all levels. The players today are nothing but spoil brats and cry babies.