https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/sport...ornia.html

I usually hate it when the NCAA meddles in a state's affairs, but in this case I hope they threaten to kick out of the NCAA any school that pays players.

Though I strongly suspect the real agenda here is to get this to a California federal court so another idiot like Claudia Wilken can decide what the rules of college sports will be. You just can't have one set of NCAA rules in one state and have different rules in another, so it'll probably end up in court.

I just can't wrap my brain around people who want lots of non-revenue-sport athletes to lose their scholarships so they can feel good that they're doing something about the so-called oppression of less than 0.1% of student athletes.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces...20200SB206

Here's the law in question. It is very specific to a players ability to enter a contract to use their name, likeness, and image outside of official team activities/team contract conflicts.

Really not much of an issue here - the California state law doesn't control NCAA policy. E.g., California can't pass a law saying that the NCAA can't punish or eject any California school that pays its players, because the NCAA is a national organization not under California jurisdiction.

In practical terms though, it could lead to a change of some kind in NCAA rules, because it would be impractical to ban California schools from NCAA participation. There's just too many big powerful schools there.

The government of California against the NCAA.

Can I ship both of them equal amounts of weapons and explosives and lawyers? Can this end in a 20 OT 0-0 tie? Can they both lose?

The players get paid with scholarships which some of it are coming out of tax payers. If any players get paid? Then, do not offer them scholarships. Let them pay their way like everybody else for an education.

(09-11-2019 03:49 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The players get paid with scholarships which some of it are coming out of tax payers. If any players get paid? Then, do not offer them scholarships. Let them pay their way like everybody else for an education.

Don't forget about the Sleep Pods:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKyG4nq2s4o

(09-11-2019 03:12 PM)VNova Wrote:  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces...20200SB206

Here's the law in question. It is very specific to a players ability to enter a contract to use their name, likeness, and image outside of official team activities/team contract conflicts.

Thank you for outlining what's actually being allowed here (essentially the Olympic model where amateur athletes can still collect endorsements) as opposed to the hysterical "OMFG! College players are getting paid! The HORROR! Kick California schools out of the NCAA!!!"

The Olympic model is completely sensible and the schools can avoid having to pay players directly themselves. I never understood the argument against it. (The typical complaint that I see is something along the lines of an Alabama booster that owns a car dealership can just sign up players to huge endorsement deals, to which my response would be that your own school needs better boosters that own businesses to take advantage of that model.) I certainly never understood how people that are otherwise free market capitalists that despise government intervention in "real life" suddenly become strident defenders of anti-capitalist rules and walking antitrust violations (if applied to any other industry) when it comes to the NCAA shutting down free enterprise on thousands of individuals and schools.

They do realize that paying players will wreck the whole system. Thousands of non/revenue athletes will lose their scholarships in the arms race to divert funding to the revenue sports. Only the richest schools with the wealthiest donors will sport competitive teams.

My other thought is will the NCAA be losing a whole lot if they have to boot the California schools? When was the last time any of them was relevant in a revenue sport?

Over/Under of how many threads regarding SB206 are we going to have?

1-NCAA Board of Governors sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a letter today. You can read it here

2- SB206's author, Sen. Nancy Skinner, had a reply to the letter, saying, "umerous legal scholars assert that SB 206 is constitutional and that an NCAA ban of California colleges from championship competition is a clear violation of federal anti-trust law. The NCAA has repeatedly lost anti-trust cases in courts ... As a result, threats are their primary weapon."

Ohio State President Michael Drake is also quoted in the USA Today article with quotes about the Ackerman/Gene Smith working group.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...284789001/

3- The bill won't become law until 2023.

(09-11-2019 04:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 03:12 PM)VNova Wrote:  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces...20200SB206

Here's the law in question. It is very specific to a players ability to enter a contract to use their name, likeness, and image outside of official team activities/team contract conflicts.

Thank you for outlining what's actually being allowed here (essentially the Olympic model where amateur athletes can still collect endorsements) as opposed to the hysterical "OMFG! College players are getting paid! The HORROR! Kick California schools out of the NCAA!!!"

The Olympic model is completely sensible and the schools can avoid having to pay players directly themselves. I never understood the argument against it. (The typical complaint that I see is something along the lines of an Alabama booster that owns a car dealership can just sign up players to huge endorsement deals, to which my response would be that your own school needs better boosters that own businesses to take advantage of that model.) I certainly never understood how people that are otherwise free market capitalists that despise government intervention in "real life" suddenly become strident defenders of anti-capitalist rules and walking antitrust violations (if applied to any other industry) when it comes to the NCAA shutting down free enterprise on thousands of individuals and schools.

It's less "Tuscaloosa car dealer offers Tua $10,000 to advertise his car dealership" and more "Tuscaloosa car dealer offers 17-year-old Tua $100 an hour for a full-time attendance-optional car detailing job, with a weekly bonus if he starts and wins, but only if he signs with Alabama." There'll be a lot of funny business going on if we go the route everyone's saying we should be going down. I don't know how many universities would be happy to be a part of that sort of thing.

On to the Governor's Desk
https://twitter.com/SteveBradford/status...0954270720

(09-11-2019 05:45 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 04:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 03:12 PM)VNova Wrote:  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces...20200SB206

Here's the law in question. It is very specific to a players ability to enter a contract to use their name, likeness, and image outside of official team activities/team contract conflicts.

Thank you for outlining what's actually being allowed here (essentially the Olympic model where amateur athletes can still collect endorsements) as opposed to the hysterical "OMFG! College players are getting paid! The HORROR! Kick California schools out of the NCAA!!!"

The Olympic model is completely sensible and the schools can avoid having to pay players directly themselves. I never understood the argument against it. (The typical complaint that I see is something along the lines of an Alabama booster that owns a car dealership can just sign up players to huge endorsement deals, to which my response would be that your own school needs better boosters that own businesses to take advantage of that model.) I certainly never understood how people that are otherwise free market capitalists that despise government intervention in "real life" suddenly become strident defenders of anti-capitalist rules and walking antitrust violations (if applied to any other industry) when it comes to the NCAA shutting down free enterprise on thousands of individuals and schools.

It's less "Tuscaloosa car dealer offers Tua $10,000 to advertise his car dealership" and more "Tuscaloosa car dealer offers 17-year-old Tua $100 an hour for a full-time attendance-optional car detailing job, with a weekly bonus if he starts and wins, but only if he signs with Alabama." There'll be a lot of funny business going on if we go the route everyone's saying we should be going down. I don't know how many universities would be happy to be a part of that sort of thing.

Well, sure - there will be compliance challenges. However, there are massive compliance challenges with the under the table street agent and shoe representative culture of today’s strict system, too.

If the NCAA actually wants to be reasonable, they’d state that the Olympic model is acceptable, but they still need to review and approve the compliance of every arrangement if an athlete wants to maintain his or her scholarship. Essentially, it needs to be a bona fide arrangement based on the person’s likeness as opposed to performance on the field (e.g. there can’t be performance incentives or negative non-performance penalties). Will it be easy? Probably not. However, “It’s really hard!” isn’t a strong legal argument for foreclosing students’ basic rights to their own likeness

I’m sure the NCAA will fight this tooth and nail to the bitter end because that has clearly been their M.O. on this issue, but I really think they’re going to lose on this one. Restricting outside compensation brings up so many potential restraint of trade issues (not to mention fundamental rights with respect to your own likeness) that this might be one of the few issues that would unify a split Supreme Court. You already see bipartisan support for athlete compensation in general, too.

The NCAA is going to have to adjust and they’re going to do it because its members will do it. I’m a Big Ten that has a ton of respect for Jim Delany, but his statement from a couple of years ago suggesting that their members would essentially go to Division III if athletes started getting paid was complete and utter B.S. Northwestern isn’t giving up its athletic money and branding, so it will play the new game just as Ohio State, Alabama and USC will play the new game.