Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
Author Message
Eldonabe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,352
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 167
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #61
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
So long NCAA - so long multi-billion dollar (tax exempt) revenues, so long Mark Emmert, and so long all you greedy mother f'ers.

The NCAA is going to get their arse handed to them if they don't follow along, because everyone will pull out and reform under a new management system - plain and simple.

Unfortunately this will be the end of widespread major college sports too (as far as Hoop and Futbol goes). The northeast (really the north in general) will survive Basketball, but Football is all but gone. Football too will go where the money is which is south and west (mostly).

I am OK with that, as much as I would love to see college football in the Northeast, I would love even more to break up the NCAA who is completely full of schidt. Residing over "amateur" athletics should not result in a multi-billion dollar organization and all of the political pork that comes from it.
(This post was last modified: 09-30-2019 12:55 PM by Eldonabe.)
09-30-2019 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rube Dali Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 604
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UST, BSU, Minn
Location: Maplewood, MN
Post: #62
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
Michael McCann, SI's Legal Expert, has a roadmap of what's ahead in all this. Worth the read(Except for those who are obstinately opposed to this).
09-30-2019 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1329
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #63
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 11:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 12:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 02:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 11:11 AM)panama Wrote:  
(09-27-2019 10:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Not all courts rule the same way. Many states had their laws struck down. These bills could be struck down. The California Bill says all athletes could do this. Here are some problems.

1.1 athlete is a star who could sell his name and likeness, and the others could not.

2.This bill includes women's volleyball athletes and other sports that do not make money.

3.This could open the door for another bill that all the colleges and universities have to pay all of the athletes including sports that do not make money.

The issue is that these bills could hurt college sports as we know it. Just like the Title 9 Bill did hurt college football as a whole since it got expensive for schools. The consequences to this would come to a point like a school like Stanford or California drop athletics.
Owning your name and likeness and the ability to earn money off it is NOT the same thing as "a university must now pay me" .

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


And these are stupid laws. These players get scholarships and all that to get them through college. The courts are wrong when they ruled against the NCAA. Miami Ohio sold a lot of Ben Roethlisber's jerseys. The money the school made off of them goes to the Athletics department which some of it goes to non-revenue sports like the women's sports. We should ask that stupid female lawmaker who sponsor this bill if she wants this or drop Title 9 since this bill will surely kill Title 9 sports that do not make money.

Not sure why you think this. The school will still have to spend the required money on women's sports if it is spending money on men's sports, and it will be. The athletes who are making money off of selling their names and likenesses will be getting money separate from the school budget.

EXACTLY!

The California bill is actually the ultimate compromise. It does NOT mean that there's direct athlete compensation from the schools, Title IX equality can be preserved, and the football and basketball players that have the highest value in the free market are able to be compensated outside of those universities. It's a critical distinction and is MUCH different than the unionization efforts of college athletes from a few years ago.

There are people that think that socialism with artificially mandated equality is "fair". I simply don't agree and we'll just go around in circles about that if that's the stance. (Of course, tt still boggles my mind to see some of the posters' views on political issues that complain about government intervention in the markets then conveniently turn socialist when it comes to anything that could be construed as player compensation. How ironic that the "People's Republic of California" has become the state that is the most committed to the free market with respect to college sports.)

The free market is what is actually fair: the top universities with the top athletes should all receive the best compensation. Change is happening and California is just the start - the NCAA needs to either adjust or die.

Its not much of a compromise when you look at how easy the law could be compromised and abused by boosters. The ultimate irony is the new California law would essentially legalize what SMU got the death penalty for (third party boosters paying players). Interestingly, this week, the SMU football team was ranked for the first time since the death penalty. That said, Big10 administrators dont seem to be backing down----from the SI article posted earlier in the thread---

The group is surely aware of concerns raised by influential figures about the Act. Last week, Ohio State president Michael Drake—the boss of working group co-chair Gene Smith—expressed in a radio interview that he worried the Act would unwisely morph college sports into professional sports. Smith himself has voiced unfavorable views about the Act. He recently told USA Today that if the Act goes into effect in 2023, neither Ohio State nor other colleges would schedule games against California colleges. Those colleges, in Smith’s view, would cease to be NCAA members since they would be unable to satisfy core elements of amateurism. If Smith feels that way, it seems unlikely that he would, as co-chair of the working group, advocate for a proposal that resembles the Act.

It seems to me the answer is simple. The players get a piece of image and likeness revenue. The revenue is placed in an NCAA fund that is then split among ALL active FBS players. I see no reason to place the money in a "trust" for later distribution. Let the players have the money while they are still in school. It can be distributed in equal monthly checks.
(This post was last modified: 09-30-2019 01:35 PM by Attackcoog.)
09-30-2019 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,938
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 271
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #64
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
Wow

Gonna suck for thousands of California student athletes who aren’t the handful of FB and MBB players who could score a deal if Cali schools get kicked out of the NCAA and and they all end up losing their rides because nobody is giving any deal to WBB players or CC runners or Waterpolo players
(This post was last modified: 09-30-2019 01:31 PM by 10thMountain.)
09-30-2019 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ohio Poly Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,296
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Ohio Poly
Location:
Post: #65
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 01:17 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Michael McCann, SI's Legal Expert, has a roadmap of what's ahead in all this. Worth the read(Except for those who are obstinately opposed to this).

Now consider the possibility that California schools, and the conferences that oversee them, decide they no longer need the NCAA and its controversial set of amateurism rules. If any state is capable of forming its own college sports league it would be California. California has the world’s fifth-largest economy, trailing only the United States, China, Japan and Germany. With 40 million people, California has a larger population than such countries as Canada, Poland, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The state also has a deep tradition in college sports.
09-30-2019 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,938
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 271
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #66
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
Yeah, a Cali version of the SWC with legalized cheating that has to be paid for by the state of California....what could possibly go wrong..
09-30-2019 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ArmoredUpKnight Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,168
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 156
I Root For: UCF Knights
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Post: #67
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
State of Florida is next

Currently crafting a Name, Image, and Likeness Bill



Quote:A source tells CBS Sports that a Florida representative is not only beginning to craft a similar bill, but is aiming for an enactment date prior to 2023.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...tests/amp/

It’s an arms race now.

With the state of Florida involved, if passes now it impacts SEC, ACC, American, and C-USA.
09-30-2019 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #68
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 01:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It seems to me the answer is simple. The players get a piece of image and likeness revenue. The revenue is placed in an NCAA fund that is then split among ALL active FBS players. I see no reason to place the money in a "trust" for later distribution. Let the players have the money while they are still in school. It can be distributed in equal monthly checks.

I see a couple problems with this. First, the California law applies to all universities, FBS, FCS, Division II, Division III, NAIA, etc. So there's no way the money can just be split among FBS players.

Second, the whole idea is that players *as individuals* be allowed to benefit from their image and likeness. It's their image and likeness, after all, so if a Oklahoma car dealership wants to hire Jalen Hurts to put his face on a billboard, there's no way he's going to be willing to do that if some offensive lineman at Tulsa or Oklahoma State or San Jose State gets a check because of that. He wants that money, and properly so.

For those reasons, your solution seems like a non-starter to me.
09-30-2019 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,551
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 600
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #69
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 01:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not much of a compromise when you look at how easy the law could be compromised and abused by boosters.

That argument is exaggerated. There could be rules to distinguish legitimate endorsements from sham endorsements. For example: Can't pay an athlete for an endorsement and then never use the player's NIL in advertising, just like you can't pay an athlete for a job that he or she never shows up for. Can't pay an athlete 10 times the reasonable value for an endorsement -- e.g., a Louisiana business can't pay an LSU quarterback 10 times what they pay Drew Brees for a similar endorsement. There is also a long track record of endorsement money paid to USA Olympic athletes that would be a good measure of whether the amount paid for an endorsement is within a legitimate range.

Don't be afraid of the free market.
09-30-2019 02:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #70
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 01:17 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Michael McCann, SI's Legal Expert, has a roadmap of what's ahead in all this. Worth the read(Except for those who are obstinately opposed to this).

Looks like California might be vulnerable to a Commerce Clause lawsuit, as per the case cited where Nevada tried to protect Jerry Tarkanian back in the 1990s and a federal judge disagreed. That case never went to the supreme court though so this one might.
09-30-2019 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff
*

Posts: 3,225
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 116
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #71
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bil
(09-30-2019 01:39 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 01:17 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Michael McCann, SI's Legal Expert, has a roadmap of what's ahead in all this. Worth the read(Except for those who are obstinately opposed to this).

[i]Now consider the possibility that California schools, and the conferences that oversee them...

Per the ESPN article on the Cali bill, the PAC 12 does not sound happy with this at all. Unless, you have all states on board, this puts a lot of stress on a conference. What do Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado do now?
09-30-2019 02:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ohio Poly Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,296
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Ohio Poly
Location:
Post: #72
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 02:09 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  State of Florida is next

Currently crafting a Name, Image, and Likeness Bill



Quote:A source tells CBS Sports that a Florida representative is not only beginning to craft a similar bill, but is aiming for an enactment date prior to 2023.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...tests/amp/

It’s an arms race now.

With the state of Florida involved, if passes now it impacts SEC, ACC, American, and C-USA.

Florida is understanding the recruiting effects will be immediate and significant.
09-30-2019 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #73
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 02:52 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Florida is understanding the recruiting effects will be immediate and significant.

Yes, even though it doesn't go in to effect until January 2023, this year's recruits, incoming Fall 2020, know that it will kick in during their Junior year, so it will matter to them right now.

As of this minute the California schools can offer recruits a massive benefit that nobody else can.
(This post was last modified: 09-30-2019 02:56 PM by quo vadis.)
09-30-2019 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,577
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 218
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #74
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 02:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 01:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not much of a compromise when you look at how easy the law could be compromised and abused by boosters.

That argument is exaggerated. There could be rules to distinguish legitimate endorsements from sham endorsements. For example: Can't pay an athlete for an endorsement and then never use the player's NIL in advertising, just like you can't pay an athlete for a job that he or she never shows up for. Can't pay an athlete 10 times the reasonable value for an endorsement -- e.g., a Louisiana business can't pay an LSU quarterback 10 times what they pay Drew Brees for a similar endorsement. There is also a long track record of endorsement money paid to USA Olympic athletes that would be a good measure of whether the amount paid for an endorsement is within a legitimate range.

Don't be afraid of the free market.

Correct - i work of Medical Doctors, and the practice has to deal with a number of restraints on dealings with related parties, etc.

Fair Market Value is the safe haven for us (IE if we are renting from a subset of partners, or others we have a business relationship with). As long as we are paying (or charging) market rates, we can avoid trouble.

The same could be applied to athletes. It is a little more specialized than say rents, which have a wide market for comparisons, but it can be done.
09-30-2019 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,151
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 93
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #75
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 02:34 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 01:39 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 01:17 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Michael McCann, SI's Legal Expert, has a roadmap of what's ahead in all this. Worth the read(Except for those who are obstinately opposed to this).

[i]Now consider the possibility that California schools, and the conferences that oversee them...

Per the ESPN article on the Cali bill, the PAC 12 does not sound happy with this at all. Unless, you have all states on board, this puts a lot of stress on a conference. What do Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado do now?

Just wait. The Powers will eventually turn their angst on the NCAA. They know that the NCAA is just a voluntary association. This is the perfect pretext to dump the NCAA in exchange for a true Power Association.

"Hey, Big Ten. We're creating this new association where our student-athletes are allowed to benefit from their image and likeness from outside sponsors. We're also going to require 12 Power opponents on the schedule. Should we hold your spot in the Rose Bowl? The SEC and ACC are both very interested if you're not."
09-30-2019 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,695
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 63
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #76
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 01:17 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Michael McCann, SI's Legal Expert, has a roadmap of what's ahead in all this. Worth the read(Except for those who are obstinately opposed to this).

Looks like California might be vulnerable to a Commerce Clause lawsuit, as per the case cited where Nevada tried to protect Jerry Tarkanian back in the 1990s and a federal judge disagreed. That case never went to the supreme court though so this one might.

When they were putting this bill together, they consulted with a number of legal experts to ensure that they were on safe ground. California believes that trade organizations like the NCAA are prohibited under U.S. antitrust law from excluding institutions merely for following a state law. They also believe that the NCAA cannot fine California schools for following a state law. The NCAA will not win an antitrust case. The NCAA will either change or die. Because of the money involved, they will change.
09-30-2019 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #77
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
Let the corruption and scandals begin. Lets say many rich boosters and owners throw money at all the top players from all the universities to go to UCLA even if it takes all the QBs from Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State and others to attend California schools where the PAC 12 winning all the titles in all the sports. This is not any difference when the NCAA got rocked by the shoe scandal in men's basketball that threw money around to get the best players out of high school to attend the top schools like Louisville. Is it not illegal Federally to do all this? The athletes are getting paid with scholarships with FCOAs and a place to live. Do the players need more?
09-30-2019 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #78
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 03:25 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 01:17 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Michael McCann, SI's Legal Expert, has a roadmap of what's ahead in all this. Worth the read(Except for those who are obstinately opposed to this).

Looks like California might be vulnerable to a Commerce Clause lawsuit, as per the case cited where Nevada tried to protect Jerry Tarkanian back in the 1990s and a federal judge disagreed. That case never went to the supreme court though so this one might.

When they were putting this bill together, they consulted with a number of legal experts to ensure that they were on safe ground. California believes that trade organizations like the NCAA are prohibited under U.S. antitrust law from excluding institutions merely for following a state law. They also believe that the NCAA cannot fine California schools for following a state law. The NCAA will not win an antitrust case. The NCAA will either change or die. Because of the money involved, they will change.


Wrong. The NCAA's agreement does not include laws that opens open wire fraud and all the crap which the California bill and the others will be. These bills will be a headache not to the NCAA, but to the athletes when they get charged Federally on wire fraud and money laundering. These bills open up the athletes to predators who will prey on them. These bills be overturned in higher courts because of laws on the books like wire fraud which you can't have both in every state.
09-30-2019 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff
*

Posts: 3,225
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 116
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #79
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 03:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 02:34 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 01:39 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 01:17 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Michael McCann, SI's Legal Expert, has a roadmap of what's ahead in all this. Worth the read(Except for those who are obstinately opposed to this).

[i]Now consider the possibility that California schools, and the conferences that oversee them...

Per the ESPN article on the Cali bill, the PAC 12 does not sound happy with this at all. Unless, you have all states on board, this puts a lot of stress on a conference. What do Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado do now?

Just wait. The Powers will eventually turn their angst on the NCAA. They know that the NCAA is just a voluntary association. This is the perfect pretext to dump the NCAA in exchange for a true Power Association.

"Hey, Big Ten. We're creating this new association where our student-athletes are allowed to benefit from their image and likeness from outside sponsors. We're also going to require 12 Power opponents on the schedule. Should we hold your spot in the Rose Bowl? The SEC and ACC are both very interested if you're not."

We aren't seeing this play out at a conference level though...in fact, it puts pressure on conferences. Either jump in the boat or kick out the dissentors
09-30-2019 04:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff
*

Posts: 3,225
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 116
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #80
RE: California Schools Will Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023 If Newsom Signs The Bill
(09-30-2019 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 02:52 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Florida is understanding the recruiting effects will be immediate and significant.

Yes, even though it doesn't go in to effect until January 2023, this year's recruits, incoming Fall 2020, know that it will kick in during their Junior year, so it will matter to them right now.

As of this minute the California schools can offer recruits a massive benefit that nobody else can.

Except they'll most likely be ineligible to play for championships
09-30-2019 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.