(09-29-2019 02:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 12:54 PM)billings Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 12:50 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 12:38 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  Setting aside that I think this bill is eminently fair, the California schools will never get booted.

#1, the NCAA isn't going to look at the world's 5th largest economy and say "we are no longer willing to do business with you." That's bonkers. Particularly because you are likely also forgoing business relationships with California based companies.

#2, IF (and again, huge theoretical if, not a realistic if) the NCAA decided to cut off it's nose to spite it's face and boot the California schools, why do you think schools in Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, etc. wouldn't choose to form a new association with the California schools? Is the University of Oregon going to choose to associate with the SEC and ACC over UCLA and Stanford?

#3 Beyond individual schools making these decisions to go with "Cal-CAA" over the NCAA, there are a lot of blue states out there who will follow California's lead, just like there are a lot of states that adopt California's environmental and consumer protection policies. Is there any doubt that if this was brought to the Massachusetts legislature, or the New York legislature, or the Illinois legislature, that the bill wouldn't pass? Particularly because there are a number of states where NCAA sports aren't particularly important and lobbying from, say, the AD at UMass isn't going to have much clout?

This bitching and moaning is saber-rattling and nothing more. California is the state with nationwide clout to get this ball rolling, and that's why the movers and shakers behind this bill started in California. Similar laws will pass in other states.

Even in places where this seems anathema- like Alabama- this will become either law or policy. If there are 20 states with colleges offering increased compensation to athletes, even if they aren't in the "NCAA" and are in some other organization, the best players are going to play there. And Alabama won't accept having a diminished product.

The article also mentions that there are already similar legislative efforts in South Carolina, New York, Colorado, and Washington.

If California does it and Colorado and Washington are considering, than Oregon isn't far behind. So, the PAC 12 is fine.

And, once you get into New York and the southeast (South Carolina), the ACC and SEC are likely fine too.

So, good luck, NCAA, with drawing that line in the sand.

Yep and if the PAC called the MWC and said screw it lets set up something new The NCAA loses the entire wet and yes the MWC would align with the PAC over the NCAA

Except for schools in red states like Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona.

You could see a new P5 conference with these schools.

Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Utah State, BYU, Boise State, and Wyoming.
If the PAC grabs Big Sky schools? Idaho, Idaho State, Montana, Montana State, Weber State and Northern Arizona will join the 7 schools that would not be part of the California schools. WAC would lose Dixie State, Utah Valley, Grand Canyon and UTRGV. If the PAC grabs RMAC, GNAC and all the D2 California schools? Westminster and the Alaska twins will join the 7 schools that broke away from the PAC schools. These lawmakers are destroying college sports without understanding that there are bad consequences to the schools. Take a look at Title 9? You are supposed to have equal numbers of women scholarships to men. There are no sports for women to matched the football. Only way to do it is to cut scholarships for football in half at the FBS levels.

uhh no. It is more then athletics. Wyo, Utah etc would jump right in with Washington, Cali, Oregon, etc. They hate the NCAA. BIG money destroyed college pPorts long ago and the effects are finally being felt

When the CA schools separate from the NCAA, the Div. I, II, III, FBS/FCS system will be dropped there. As most of the best players follow the new gold rush, the mid-level schools like SDSU, San Jose, Fresno, etc. will become major SEC-type franchises and the California league will become the official minor league of the NFL. Several divisions will be created to allow for a playoff/champion. This will begin in the current recruiting cycle as graduating seniors will be able to take advantage of the NIL law in their upperclass years.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ssion=true

Newsom signed the bill. Full speed ahead.

(09-29-2019 12:54 PM)billings Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 12:50 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 12:38 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  Setting aside that I think this bill is eminently fair, the California schools will never get booted.

#1, the NCAA isn't going to look at the world's 5th largest economy and say "we are no longer willing to do business with you." That's bonkers. Particularly because you are likely also forgoing business relationships with California based companies.

#2, IF (and again, huge theoretical if, not a realistic if) the NCAA decided to cut off it's nose to spite it's face and boot the California schools, why do you think schools in Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, etc. wouldn't choose to form a new association with the California schools? Is the University of Oregon going to choose to associate with the SEC and ACC over UCLA and Stanford?

#3 Beyond individual schools making these decisions to go with "Cal-CAA" over the NCAA, there are a lot of blue states out there who will follow California's lead, just like there are a lot of states that adopt California's environmental and consumer protection policies. Is there any doubt that if this was brought to the Massachusetts legislature, or the New York legislature, or the Illinois legislature, that the bill wouldn't pass? Particularly because there are a number of states where NCAA sports aren't particularly important and lobbying from, say, the AD at UMass isn't going to have much clout?

This bitching and moaning is saber-rattling and nothing more. California is the state with nationwide clout to get this ball rolling, and that's why the movers and shakers behind this bill started in California. Similar laws will pass in other states.

Even in places where this seems anathema- like Alabama- this will become either law or policy. If there are 20 states with colleges offering increased compensation to athletes, even if they aren't in the "NCAA" and are in some other organization, the best players are going to play there. And Alabama won't accept having a diminished product.

The article also mentions that there are already similar legislative efforts in South Carolina, New York, Colorado, and Washington.

If California does it and Colorado and Washington are considering, than Oregon isn't far behind. So, the PAC 12 is fine.

And, once you get into New York and the southeast (South Carolina), the ACC and SEC are likely fine too.

So, good luck, NCAA, with drawing that line in the sand.

Yep and if the PAC called the MWC and said screw it lets set up something new The NCAA loses the entire wet and yes the MWC would align with the PAC over the NCAA

As would the Big West, and likely the Big Sky Probably WAVC and WCC

Here's a nugget from the new bill that might swing some who are opposed to this to actually support this:

(09-30-2019 09:27 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ssion=true

Newsom signed the bill. Full speed ahead.

I was wrong, as I thought he wouldn't.

Things will get interesting now.

Florida is the newest legislature to join in. And the lead sponsor is a Republican:

https://twitter.com/DanMurphyESPN/status...2356207617

Looks like DavidSt is going to need to start his own political party if he wants to do anything done.

(09-30-2019 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:27 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ssion=true

Newsom signed the bill. Full speed ahead.

I was wrong, as I thought he wouldn't.

Things will get interesting now.

Yup. Several years ago Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick and Big10 commissioner Jim Delany were both quoted saying something to the effect that they believed in the amateur model and would play D3 football before they would support paying players. It will be interesting to see how Notre Dame and the Big10 react to the new California law.

(09-30-2019 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:27 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ssion=true

Newsom signed the bill. Full speed ahead.

I was wrong, as I thought he wouldn't.

Things will get interesting now.

Yup. Several years ago Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick and Big10 commissioner Jim Delany were both quoted saying something to the effect that they believed in the amateur model and would play D3 football before they would support paying players. It will be interesting to see how Notre Dame and the Big10 react to the new California law.

One thing about it is the 2023 activation date. That allows time for negotiations or second thoughts by both the NCAA and California - and interested parties like ND and the B1g - before the rubber hits the actual road.

(09-30-2019 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:27 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ssion=true

Newsom signed the bill. Full speed ahead.

I was wrong, as I thought he wouldn't.

Things will get interesting now.

Yup. Several years ago Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick and Big10 commissioner Jim Delany were both quoted saying something to the effect that they believed in the amateur model and would play D3 football before they would support paying players. It will be interesting to see how Notre Dame and the Big10 react to the new California law.

Swarbrick and Delany are 110%, absolute, hypocritical liars on this particular issue (and I'm a Big Ten guy that believes that Jim Delany is the most forward thinking conference commissioner of this generation). They have had to tow the party line about an absolute ban on athlete compensation because any crack at all from those two people in particular would essentially open up to flood gates to players getting paid.

However, when push comes to shove, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan and all of the other Big Ten schools (yes, including elite privates like Northwestern) will pay to play at the top level of college athletics (whatever form it looks like). I have ZERO doubt about that at all whatsoever (and that's how it should be in a free market society). These schools haven't made hundreds of millions of dollars of investments and will forego hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue with even more value in institutional branding in order to start playing small liberal arts colleges in Division III. It's all public posturing and I hope no one falls for that lying, hypocritical crap.

(09-30-2019 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:27 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ssion=true

Newsom signed the bill. Full speed ahead.

I was wrong, as I thought he wouldn't.

Things will get interesting now.

Yup. Several years ago Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick and Big10 commissioner Jim Delany were both quoted saying something to the effect that they believed in the amateur model and would play D3 football before they would support paying players. It will be interesting to see how Notre Dame and the Big10 react to the new California law.

One thing about it is the 2023 activation date. That allows time for negotiations or second thoughts by both the NCAA and California - and interested parties like ND and the B1g - before the rubber hits the actual road.

The comments from Gene Smith and his president, Dr.Drake last week indicate to me that Smith's working group was blindsided by SB 206 and the Board still wants to fight for the status quo.

(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.

(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.

Meh

This is your opinion. I don't share your optimism about the Big 10 either.

This is either going to be a sweeping change, OR it's going to be a hodgepodge of crap.

(09-30-2019 08:33 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  When the CA schools separate from the NCAA, the Div. I, II, III, FBS/FCS system will be dropped there. As most of the best players follow the new gold rush, the mid-level schools like SDSU, San Jose, Fresno, etc. will become major SEC-type franchises and the California league will become the official minor league of the NFL. Several divisions will be created to allow for a playoff/champion. This will begin in the current recruiting cycle as graduating seniors will be able to take advantage of the NIL law in their upperclass years.

Thanks Nostradamus

(09-28-2019 02:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 04:53 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The Cali schools have nothing to lose and will voluntarily withdraw if the NCAA does not reform. With the NIL bill, the best athletes will go there and as more states follow suit the NCAA will be left with the table scraps. Universities are not required to be NCAA members by federal law or SCOTUS.

It won’t matter anyway. If individual states are setting compensation policy then there is almost zero chance we will end up with any uniform nationwide rule regarding player compensation. Instead, it will be a patchwork of 50 different rules that change at each state line. Not only will compensation rules differ from conference to conference—these compensation rules will actually vary WITHIN conferences. I have plenty of gripes with the NCAA—but they do at least keep everyone competing within the same general framework of rules. If the NCAA loses this battle with California, what will emerge on the other side of that court decision will be dramatically different from college football as we know it. It would be chaos. A NCAA loss to California’s challenge would effectively end the NCAA and have a far more transformative impact on college sports than the Oklahoma vs NCAA case has. There would be no rules and no uniformity. It would be back to the Wild West early days of college sports.

^^^this

Either it's a sweeping change of dominoes falling, or it's a checker board of crap

I think it's hard to decipher what each state will do

A classic cause for Federal debate and possibly a law, to bring order out of chaos. But both parties are too busy bashing each other to spare time to solve real problems. :-{

(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.

The NCAA will whine and cry now, but they will adjust in the next couple of years. They'll enact some version of NIL compensation for athletes in exchange for states dropping their own legislation.

(09-30-2019 11:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:27 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ssion=true

Newsom signed the bill. Full speed ahead.

I was wrong, as I thought he wouldn't.

Things will get interesting now.

Yup. Several years ago Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick and Big10 commissioner Jim Delany were both quoted saying something to the effect that they believed in the amateur model and would play D3 football before they would support paying players. It will be interesting to see how Notre Dame and the Big10 react to the new California law.

Swarbrick and Delany are 110%, absolute, hypocritical liars on this particular issue (and I'm a Big Ten guy that believes that Jim Delany is the most forward thinking conference commissioner of this generation). They have had to tow the party line about an absolute ban on athlete compensation because any crack at all from those two people in particular would essentially open up to flood gates to players getting paid.

However, when push comes to shove, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan and all of the other Big Ten schools (yes, including elite privates like Northwestern) will pay to play at the top level of college athletics (whatever form it looks like). I have ZERO doubt about that at all whatsoever (and that's how it should be in a free market society). These schools haven't made hundreds of millions of dollars of investments and will forego hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue with even more value in institutional branding in order to start playing small liberal arts colleges in Division III. It's all public posturing and I hope no one falls for that lying, hypocritical crap.

Yep the idea they'd actually follow thru on those empty threats is laughable. They'll keep posturing that they would right up until every avenue to stop this is exhausted, and then just go along with it and never admit to how much of hypocrites they were being on the subject.

(09-27-2019 01:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  You guys forget that the schools make money off the likeness of their best players like Tim Tebow. Some of that money fund the non-revenue sports mainly women sports. This law takes away money the schools make to fund these programs.

The schools don't really make money on licenses - they make money on donations, tickets sales, and TV contracts.

At most schools the players go on season posters and show up on social media a bit, but that's about the extent of it and otherwise they might as well be anonymous.

(09-29-2019 03:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This is not a red-state blue-state thing.

Not every ideological split is along party lines.

I think SC has a bill ready to go for January already. The momentum is definitely against the NCAA.