(10-01-2019 02:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:40 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 05:53 AM)otown Wrote:  This is very interesting. What happens if an athlete signs with Nike and part of the deal is to wear Nikes, but he is at an Adidas school. Can the athlete sue the university if they prohibit him from wearing Nike's during the game, thus preventing him from fulfilling his endorsement deal?
A similar situation happened at UCF with marcus jordan wanting to wear Jordan's for bball. It resulted in the school actually signing a new contract with Nike.

(10-01-2019 08:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:27 PM)chester Wrote:  Right on! And West Virginia will be in the mix:

ETA: So far, that's

Colorado
Florida
Illinois
New York
South Carolina
Tennessee
Washington
West Virginia

Any missed?

If all those states pass legislation, the battle is already over for the NCAA.

Add Pennsylvania and North Carolina to the list.

So, there are at least 24 Power 5 schools that would be directly affected by new state laws? Including 7 from the PAC 12, 9 from the ACC, 4 from the SEC, and 3 from the Big Ten:

USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Illinois, Northwestern, Syracuse, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Washington, Washington State, WVU, Penn State, and Pitt.

And, another 20 Group of 5 or independent schools that would be directly affected, with 5 from the MWC, 5 from the AAC, 5 from the CUSA, and a couple from the Sun Belt:

Fresno State, SDSU, SJSU, CSU, Air Force, UCF, USF, FIU, FAU, Army, Buffalo, Coastal Carolina, ECU, Appalachian State, Charlotte, Memphis, MTU, Marshall, Temple.

Yeah, it's change or be replaced for the NCAA.

Take out the military schools since they are different and are actually employees of the US Government already.

Can student-athletes at the military schools currently make money off their name, image, and likeness?

If so, I did not know that and I am surprised.

If not, keep them on the list...it will make a difference.

(10-01-2019 12:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  We could add Maryland to the list as well.

Now, these bills includes all of D1, D2 and D3 and NAIA. Colorado law would have athletes at Colorado Mines to get paid as well. California's law will only show that only a few players out of the 1000s will be able to sell their names and likeness. I think with EA sports deal should go to the NCAA for them to allocate to all NCAA schools from all levels. There are board games on college football that used names and likeness of players that were D1 like University of Chicago, M.I.T., Case, Western Reserve, Carnegie and others.



I have this game since the 1980s.





They stooped making them when EA Sports did as well. The newer ones have newer teams as well like Boise State. Both Montana and Idaho were included in the old ones just like the Ivy League schools.

If my memory serves correctly, EA Sports never really had any FCS schools in its lineup and definitely no names or likeness of FCS players. You had like 4 alternatives for an FCS opponent - FCS West, FCS South, FCS Midwest, FCS East...something like that.

I see no reason why the EA Sports money that is related to the use of players' names and likenesses should go to the NCAA...let alone that the NCAA would allocate that to all NCAA schools from all levels. That money should go to the players whose actual names and likenesses are used in the video game.

NCAA 08 definitely had FCS teams. I would always add Villanova and Georgetown to the Big East haha.

(10-01-2019 12:35 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Add Minnesota to the list of states seeking to join the NIL rush:

Another Republican sponsor here, too.

Like I've said, this is an issue that has bipartisan support across many regions and demographics. Basically, the only people fighting this are college administrators and old school fans on message boards. The rest of society sees this as completely logical.

(10-01-2019 03:04 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 02:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 11:40 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 05:53 AM)otown Wrote:  This is very interesting. What happens if an athlete signs with Nike and part of the deal is to wear Nikes, but he is at an Adidas school. Can the athlete sue the university if they prohibit him from wearing Nike's during the game, thus preventing him from fulfilling his endorsement deal?
A similar situation happened at UCF with marcus jordan wanting to wear Jordan's for bball. It resulted in the school actually signing a new contract with Nike.

(10-01-2019 08:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If all those states pass legislation, the battle is already over for the NCAA.

Add Pennsylvania and North Carolina to the list.

So, there are at least 24 Power 5 schools that would be directly affected by new state laws? Including 7 from the PAC 12, 9 from the ACC, 4 from the SEC, and 3 from the Big Ten:

USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Illinois, Northwestern, Syracuse, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Washington, Washington State, WVU, Penn State, and Pitt.

And, another 20 Group of 5 or independent schools that would be directly affected, with 5 from the MWC, 5 from the AAC, 5 from the CUSA, and a couple from the Sun Belt:

Fresno State, SDSU, SJSU, CSU, Air Force, UCF, USF, FIU, FAU, Army, Buffalo, Coastal Carolina, ECU, Appalachian State, Charlotte, Memphis, MTU, Marshall, Temple.

Yeah, it's change or be replaced for the NCAA.

Take out the military schools since they are different and are actually employees of the US Government already.

Can student-athletes at the military schools currently make money off their name, image, and likeness?

If so, I did not know that and I am surprised.

If not, keep them on the list...it will make a difference.

(10-01-2019 12:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  We could add Maryland to the list as well.

Now, these bills includes all of D1, D2 and D3 and NAIA. Colorado law would have athletes at Colorado Mines to get paid as well. California's law will only show that only a few players out of the 1000s will be able to sell their names and likeness. I think with EA sports deal should go to the NCAA for them to allocate to all NCAA schools from all levels. There are board games on college football that used names and likeness of players that were D1 like University of Chicago, M.I.T., Case, Western Reserve, Carnegie and others.



I have this game since the 1980s.





They stooped making them when EA Sports did as well. The newer ones have newer teams as well like Boise State. Both Montana and Idaho were included in the old ones just like the Ivy League schools.

If my memory serves correctly, EA Sports never really had any FCS schools in its lineup and definitely no names or likeness of FCS players. You had like 4 alternatives for an FCS opponent - FCS West, FCS South, FCS Midwest, FCS East...something like that.

I see no reason why the EA Sports money that is related to the use of players' names and likenesses should go to the NCAA...let alone that the NCAA would allocate that to all NCAA schools from all levels. That money should go to the players whose actual names and likenesses are used in the video game.

NCAA 08 definitely had FCS teams. I would always add Villanova and Georgetown to the Big East haha.

yeah I think you are right. Think when they moved from PS2 to PS3 maybe they had to drop them though....

I forgot that my game also have West Texas State, Wichita State, UTA, Tampa, CSU- Los Angeles, Wayne State Mich., Milwaukee. Detroit, Colorado Mines, Colorado College, Denver and others. Would schools could make money including D2, D3 and NAIA who had stats and records as a D1 school from the past? Those schools could use those funds for the likeness to go towards paying their players who could not benefit from those bills.

(10-01-2019 03:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:35 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Add Minnesota to the list of states seeking to join the NIL rush:

Another Republican sponsor here, too.

Like I've said, this is an issue that has bipartisan support across many regions and demographics. Basically, the only people fighting this are college administrators and old school fans on message boards. The rest of society sees this as completely logical.

In other words, the people that actually understand how this impacts the sport the best are against it. Again--its not binary. One can be for the players getting a piece of the revenue pie and still believe the olympic model is a terrible idea for college sports.

I do think the actions of these legislatures will mean the NCAA will have to address the issue this year. Hopefully, they can come up with a revenue sharing idea that does as good a job of protecting competitive balance as the current amateur model. Also, Im curious---does this issue fall under the P5 autonomous powers legislation? Going from memory---I dont think it does. If not---then the entire NCAA membership is going to have to get on the same page here.

(10-01-2019 05:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 03:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:35 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Add Minnesota to the list of states seeking to join the NIL rush:

Another Republican sponsor here, too.

Like I've said, this is an issue that has bipartisan support across many regions and demographics. Basically, the only people fighting this are college administrators and old school fans on message boards. The rest of society sees this as completely logical.

In other words, the people that actually understand how this impacts the sport the best are against it. Again--its not binary. One can be for the players getting a piece of the revenue pie and still believe the olympic model is a terrible idea for college sports.

I do think the actions of these legislatures will mean the NCAA will have to address the issue this year. Hopefully, they can come up with a revenue sharing idea that does as good a job of protecting competitive balance as the current amateur model. Also, Im curious---does this issue fall under the P5 autonomous powers legislation? Going from memory---I dont think it does. If not---then the entire NCAA membership is going to have to get on the same page here.

In other words the only people against this are those with a vested interest in the status quo. Who have shown over and over they do not have the Athletes or sports best interests at heart and only focus on $$$$

The kids are already getting paid for play.

Scholarships
free education
free room and board
FCOAs

The players do not need anymore money.

(10-01-2019 05:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In other words, the people that actually understand how this impacts the sport the best are against it. Again--its not binary. One can be for the players getting a piece of the revenue pie and still believe the olympic model is a terrible idea for college sports.

I do think the actions of these legislatures will mean the NCAA will have to address the issue this year. Hopefully, they can come up with a revenue sharing idea that does as good a job of protecting competitive balance as the current amateur model.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, because the same argument could have been made in favor of the NCAA's position on TV contracts in the early 1980s.

The state legislatures have made it clear that they want athletes to be able to *individually* economically exploit their likenesses. That's their priority, not "maintaining competitive balance", whatever that means, as there never has been competitive balance in college athletics.

Looks like Kentucky and Pennsylvania are doing the same thing where the athletes would be exploited by crooks.

This is going to be great to watch. The f-ing money grab will be epic. Too many people will pay too many other people too much money - then the system will set and regulate itself after that shakes out. Kids will take money then transfer, kids will take money and get hurt, kids will take money and get in trouble because they have the money to do it..... Then the boosters will be a little smarter with whom they decide to pay and just how much.


This is where the biggest hole is in this new game for the schools..... Corporations like Nike will buy entire teams - not just individual players. They may have a heirarchy pay scale within each team, but they will pay the whole team. No more buying coaches and schools, they will go right to the player directly. When that happens, that will be when the schools start getting uptight for real.

That is actually the best thing that can happen to them.... the Nike's of the world will be more apt to pay many different players of different sports to sell their gear. If it stays as an individual pay thing, nobody is paying the Golfers, nobody is paying swimmers, nobody is paying, women's softball players.... on an individual basis.

(10-01-2019 08:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The kids are already getting paid for play.

Scholarships
free education
free room and board
FCOAs

The players do not need anymore money.

Puh-lease.

Those are not things people value these days (until of course they get the bill afterwards). Getting "free stuff" doesn't pay bills - or more generically, it doesn't allow them to pay for fun.

Under current rules they cannot earn any money while being a student athlete. So these kids need their parents to send them spending money, and many don't have that luxury.

The NCAA model is very ridgid and in strictest terms, these kids should not do anything but be an athlete and go to classes - no extra curricular activities and therfore they shouldn't need money for anything.... we all know how stupid that really is, but that is the consequence and expectation of these dumb rules.

(10-01-2019 08:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 05:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In other words, the people that actually understand how this impacts the sport the best are against it. Again--its not binary. One can be for the players getting a piece of the revenue pie and still believe the olympic model is a terrible idea for college sports.

I do think the actions of these legislatures will mean the NCAA will have to address the issue this year. Hopefully, they can come up with a revenue sharing idea that does as good a job of protecting competitive balance as the current amateur model.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, because the same argument could have been made in favor of the NCAA's position on TV contracts in the early 1980s.

The state legislatures have made it clear that they want athletes to be able to *individually* economically exploit their likenesses. That's their priority, not "maintaining competitive balance", whatever that means, as there never has been competitive balance in college athletics.

Yes, that's the entire crux of the California bill - it's about *individual* names and likenesses.

If the NCAA and schools want to equalize compensation, then they can do that by collectively bargaining with the athletes. However, that would require the NCAA and schools to directly compensate those athletes and recognize them as employees.

In contrast, the NCAA and schools can't regulate third party payments to athletes without violating antitrust laws (just as what had occurred in the 1980s Supreme Court case regarding TV contracts that you referred to here).

So, either recognize athletes as employees to pay them directly (in which case you can have equal payments) or allow third parties to pay athletes where the schools don't have to recognize them as employees (in which case you inherently need to allow unequal payments). The schools can't have it both ways.

That's whole point of the free market: you're not supposed to be able to control the outcome (and if you're controlling the outcome, that means that you're violating antitrust laws except where there's a collective bargaining agreement with unionized employees).

(10-02-2019 10:52 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The kids are already getting paid for play.

Scholarships
free education
free room and board
FCOAs

The players do not need anymore money.

Puh-lease.

Those are not things people value these days (until of course they get the bill afterwards). Getting "free stuff" doesn't pay bills - or more generically, it doesn't allow them to pay for fun.

Under current rules they cannot earn any money while being a student athlete. So these kids need their parents to send them spending money, and many don't have that luxury.

The NCAA model is very ridgid and in strictest terms, these kids should not do anything but be an athlete and go to classes - no extra curricular activities and therfore they shouldn't need money for anything.... we all know how stupid that really is, but that is the consequence and expectation of these dumb rules.

Out of curiosity, since it is your opinion that scholarships are not valued these days, what would your thoughts be on schools taking away athletic scholarships (and the cost of room/board, academic resources, etc.) for student-athletes to now have to pay their own way (since they are able to be compensated (in value) elsewhere?

IMO, scholarships absolutely have a financial value associated with them - especially for many of the top-level schools that many student-athletes are able to utilize as a scholarship athlete. It is very likely that a majority students would still not be able to afford a full tuition (without a scholarship) even with compensation off of their likeness.

(09-27-2019 09:56 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 11:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  California Schools May Not Be Part Of The NCAA In 2023


They could be banned from all NCAA championships at all three levels, or they could be booted from the NCAA if the Bill passes. This Bill could actually forced a realignment in 2023. Other schools not in California may not schedule them beginning in 2023. Would the Big 12 start courting Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Washington, Oregon and BYU to the Big 12 and drop West Virginia? MWC could become the P5 to take in Oregon State, Washington State, SMU, Houston and Tulane. AAC could become a P6 to get the best of the rest.

The administrator quotes is Ohio State's Gene Smith.

The same Gene Smith who is co-chair of the NCAA's Name/Image/Likeness committee which is to report their recommendations to Emmert in October.

The same Gene Smith whose contract gives him bonuses not only for team national championships, but also for individual athletes as well as for academic performance. During the Alston trial, he supported his bonuses and giving nothing to the athletes.

The same Gene Smith who works for Dr. Michael Drake, who not only is The Ohio State University President, but also the chair of the NCAA Board of Governors. Dr. Drake spoke out about SB206 earlier in the week.

Smith is:
1-Repeating what Drake wants him to.
2-Protecting his grift as much as he can since he turns 64 in December.
3-Foreshadowing that his committee is clutching on to the status quo and ignoring what might be up to eight states.

Yesterday Gene Smith said something like, if disparate state laws pass then the NCAA will need federal help. Today ESPN is saying that Ohio Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, former Buckeye, will wait until after the NIL work group submits its study and then introduce a congressional bill that will deal with college athletes and endorsement money but with "guardrails" not included in Congressman Mark Walker's bill.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...e-athletes

(10-02-2019 11:29 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:52 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The kids are already getting paid for play.

Scholarships
free education
free room and board
FCOAs

The players do not need anymore money.

Puh-lease.

Those are not things people value these days (until of course they get the bill afterwards). Getting "free stuff" doesn't pay bills - or more generically, it doesn't allow them to pay for fun.

Under current rules they cannot earn any money while being a student athlete. So these kids need their parents to send them spending money, and many don't have that luxury.

The NCAA model is very ridgid and in strictest terms, these kids should not do anything but be an athlete and go to classes - no extra curricular activities and therfore they shouldn't need money for anything.... we all know how stupid that really is, but that is the consequence and expectation of these dumb rules.

Out of curiosity, since it is your opinion that scholarships are not valued these days, what would your thoughts be on schools taking away athletic scholarships (and the cost of room/board, academic resources, etc.) for student-athletes to now have to pay their own way (since they are able to be compensated (in value) elsewhere?

IMO, scholarships absolutely have a financial value associated with them - especially for many of the top-level schools that many student-athletes are able to utilize as a scholarship athlete. It is very likely that a majority students would still not be able to afford a full tuition (without a scholarship) even with compensation off of their likeness.

This is already what happens with many Division I athletes (not all of whom are on scholarship), most Division II athletes and all Division III athletes. Considering a scholarship as supposedly just compensation is a red herring argument because the vast majority of NCAA athletes actually don't receive any type of athletic scholarship, yet are still prevented from receiving compensation off of their names and likenesses. It's difficult for me to see how that's equitable. I believe a lot of people neglect this fact since so much of the focus on football and men's basketball players specifically.

(10-01-2019 08:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The kids are already getting paid for play.

Scholarships
free education
free room and board
FCOAs

The players do not need anymore money.

Then neither do the coaches, administrators and the schools themselves.

The players are the labor in this industry (which is what it is).

If the coaches, administrators and the schools would turn down more money from TV, boosters, etc... and return what they have received to date, then your "argument" might have some merit.

We have a number of schools earning more than $100 million per year in revenues for "amateur" sports....Lol.

We have a greater number earning between $50 and $100 million a year. Why do they "need" this much money but the players do not "need" any more than what they now get?

The myth of amateur college sports as far as football goes was "fake news" back in 1920. Basketball not long after that.

The players deserve to make some more money here...after all, they are the ones taking the hits, doing the work and playing the games which generate the cash.

(10-01-2019 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I forgot that my game also have West Texas State, Wichita State, UTA, Tampa, CSU- Los Angeles, Wayne State Mich., Milwaukee. Detroit, Colorado Mines, Colorado College, Denver and others. Would schools could make money including D2, D3 and NAIA who had stats and records as a D1 school from the past? Those schools could use those funds for the likeness to go towards paying their players who could not benefit from those bills.

What is going on here?

(10-01-2019 07:15 PM)billings Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 05:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 03:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:35 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Add Minnesota to the list of states seeking to join the NIL rush:

Another Republican sponsor here, too.

Like I've said, this is an issue that has bipartisan support across many regions and demographics. Basically, the only people fighting this are college administrators and old school fans on message boards. The rest of society sees this as completely logical.

In other words, the people that actually understand how this impacts the sport the best are against it. Again--its not binary. One can be for the players getting a piece of the revenue pie and still believe the olympic model is a terrible idea for college sports.

I do think the actions of these legislatures will mean the NCAA will have to address the issue this year. Hopefully, they can come up with a revenue sharing idea that does as good a job of protecting competitive balance as the current amateur model. Also, Im curious---does this issue fall under the P5 autonomous powers legislation? Going from memory---I dont think it does. If not---then the entire NCAA membership is going to have to get on the same page here.

In other words the only people against this are those with a vested interest in the status quo. Who have shown over and over they do not have the Athletes or sports best interests at heart and only focus on $$$$

Any successful league has a vested interest in the status quo. This is far from a slam dunk. The courts have stated on many occasions that the NCAA can engage in monopolistic conduct IF the purpose is to maintain a competitive balance within the league. Its also within the NCAA's right to determine if it wants to have a amateur league or a pro league. Its also within the rights of the universities that make up the NCAA to determine their own definition of amateurism.

The problem I see is the association between players and schools is voluntary. The kids dont have to play football and can attend the school by simply paying the required tuition. However, if they want to get a free ride by competing on an athletic team---there will be limitations on what they can do for outside revenue. Those rules are there to prevent SMU style cheating---which upsets the competitve balance of the kind of league the members of the NCAA are attempting to provide.

In other words, I wouldnt be surprised if every one of these state laws is struck down as unconstitutional. The NCAA is not violating anyones rights based on race, creed, sex, or religion. It is open to everyone. The limitations are designed for competetive balance. Participation is voluntary and the kids are compensated with an education.

Now, you can argue that the kids deserve a piece of the pie---and Im actually sympathetic to that argument. I actually like the NY State proposal thats being floated that the athletes must receive 15% of the athletics revenue from the school. That may not be the perfect mechanism, but I think some sort of revenue sharing--where contol of the money stays in the hands of the sport stake holders---would be less disruptive to the sport than the olympic model being pushed currently. The only advantage that the olympic model has is it doesn't directly cost the schools a cent (though I suspect it will ultimately have a significant indirect cost to the school)---but that doesnt mean its best for the sport.

(10-02-2019 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem I see is the association between players and schools is voluntary. The kids dont have to play football and can attend the school by simply paying the required tuition. However, if they want to get a free ride by competing on an athletic team---there will be limitations on what they can do for outside revenue. Those rules are there to prevent SMU style cheating---which upsets the competitve balance of the kind of league the members of the NCAA are attempting to provide.

In other words, I wouldnt be surprised if every one of these state laws is struck down as unconstitutional. The NCAA is not violating anyones rights based on race, creed, sex, or religion. It is open to everyone. The limitations are designed for competetive balance. Participation is voluntary and the kids are compensated with an education.

Now, you can argue that the kids deserve a piece of the pie---and Im actually sympathetic to that argument. I actually like the NY State proposal thats being floated that the athletes must receive 15% of the athletics revenue from the school. That may not be the perfect mechanism, but I think some sort of revenue sharing--where contol of the money stays in the hands of the sport stake holders---would be less disruptive to the sport than the olympic model being pushed currently. The only advantage that the olympic model has is it doesn't directly cost the schools a cent (though I suspect it will ultimately have a significant indirect cost to the school)---but that doesnt mean its best for the sport.

Receiving a scholarship is NOT the standard, though. Once again, this is a red herring. All non-scholarship NCAA athletes (whether Division I, II or III), which actually constitute the majority of college athletes, are also prevented from receiving compensation from their own names and likenesses. Everyone that keeps stating that a scholarship is fair compensation is forgetting that the prohibition still applies to the majority of athletes that don't receive any type of athletic scholarship at all.

Ultimately, if this ends up in the courts, this isn't a constitutional law question, but rather an antitrust law question. It's not about discrimination, but rather whether there can be collective cap on compensation that the athletes themselves didn't collectively bargain themselves. My high level opinion is that there can't unless the colleges recognize the athletes as their employees under a collective bargaining agreement (which opens up an entirely different set of issues for those colleges). You can have direct equal compensation for unionized employees or you can have indirect unequal compensation that comes from third parties... but you can't have indirect equal compensation that comes from third parties. That last scheme is basically as blatant of an antitrust violation as you can get.

Besides, if the NCAA really cared about "competitive balance", why doesn't it cap the salaries of coaches or the amount of spending on facilities? Why is it that the athletes only bear the brunt of any "competitive balance" restrictions while literally no one else does? (That's assuming any of that is even legal, which almost certainly isn't in the case of attempting to coaching salaries, as that would be a blatant antitrust violation as you can get, too.)

(10-02-2019 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 07:15 PM)billings Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 05:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 03:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:35 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Add Minnesota to the list of states seeking to join the NIL rush:

Another Republican sponsor here, too.

Like I've said, this is an issue that has bipartisan support across many regions and demographics. Basically, the only people fighting this are college administrators and old school fans on message boards. The rest of society sees this as completely logical.

In other words, the people that actually understand how this impacts the sport the best are against it. Again--its not binary. One can be for the players getting a piece of the revenue pie and still believe the olympic model is a terrible idea for college sports.

I do think the actions of these legislatures will mean the NCAA will have to address the issue this year. Hopefully, they can come up with a revenue sharing idea that does as good a job of protecting competitive balance as the current amateur model. Also, Im curious---does this issue fall under the P5 autonomous powers legislation? Going from memory---I dont think it does. If not---then the entire NCAA membership is going to have to get on the same page here.

In other words the only people against this are those with a vested interest in the status quo. Who have shown over and over they do not have the Athletes or sports best interests at heart and only focus on $$$$

Any successful league has a vested interest in the status quo. This is far from a slam dunk. The courts have stated on many occasions that the NCAA can engage in monopolistic conduct IF the purpose is to maintain a competitive balance within the league. Its also within the NCAA's right to determine if it wants to have a amateur league or a pro league. Its also within the rights of the universities that make up the NCAA to determine their own definition of amateurism.

The problem I see is the association between players and schools is voluntary. The kids dont have to play football and can attend the school by simply paying the required tuition. However, if they want to get a free ride by competing on an athletic team---there will be limitations on what they can do for outside revenue. Those rules are there to prevent SMU style cheating---which upsets the competitve balance of the kind of league the members of the NCAA are attempting to provide.

In other words, I wouldnt be surprised if every one of these state laws is struck down as unconstitutional. The NCAA is not violating anyones rights based on race, creed, sex, or religion. It is open to everyone. The limitations are designed for competetive balance. Participation is voluntary and the kids are compensated with an education.

Now, you can argue that the kids deserve a piece of the pie---and Im actually sympathetic to that argument. I actually like the NY State proposal thats being floated that the athletes must receive 15% of the athletics revenue from the school. That may not be the perfect mechanism, but I think some sort of revenue sharing--where contol of the money stays in the hands of the sport stake holders---would be less disruptive to the sport than the olympic model being pushed currently. The only advantage that the olympic model has is it doesn't directly cost the schools a cent (though I suspect it will ultimately have a significant indirect cost to the school)---but that doesnt mean its best for the sport.

Why should athletes in sports who don’t generate enough revenue to cover their expenses be given a share of revenue? If the softball team is a money pit then you’re just going to cut the softball team.