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.

(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.

Your post here is filled with "coulds" and "may nots" but the headers says "will not", as if it is a sure thing they would be kicked out of the NCAA, and that's not what is being said.

You have done much better, this is a nothingburger as we all know there could or might be big ramifications of the governors signs the bill.

FWIW, I don't think he signs it. I think the governor, even though he is a liberal who agrees with the legislature about this, knows it will hurt California schools.

If anything, the PAC adds schools and moves on, not PAC schools going elsewhere.

(09-27-2019 07:39 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  If anything, the PAC adds schools and moves on, not PAC schools going elsewhere.

If the PAC loses the California schools (it won't because for starters, the governor isn't going to sign this bill), the PAC would cease to be a Power conference any more.

with the margin it had, couldn't the legislature override the veto? I mean it was unanimous.

(09-27-2019 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 07:39 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  If anything, the PAC adds schools and moves on, not PAC schools going elsewhere.

If the PAC loses the California schools (it won't because for starters, the governor isn't going to sign this bill), the PAC would cease to be a Power conference any more.

I agree, just saying that the PAC would add and move on. Kinda like how the Big East(rebranded to AAC) added and moved on.

The only way California schools are going to get removed from the NCAA is if SCOTUS rules that college athletes are ruled to be professional athletes simply by accepting scholarships. Of course such ruiling would also be applied nationally affecting everyone else.

(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.

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.

(09-27-2019 09:04 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 07:39 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  If anything, the PAC adds schools and moves on, not PAC schools going elsewhere.

If the PAC loses the California schools (it won't because for starters, the governor isn't going to sign this bill), the PAC would cease to be a Power conference any more.

I agree, just saying that the PAC would add and move on. Kinda like how the Big East(rebranded to AAC) added and moved on.

Fair enough.

The NCAA claims that the California bill is unconstitutional because it prohibits the NCAA from punishing CA schools for not abiding by the NCAA's rules. This is an attempt to regulate interstate commerce, but according to the Constitution only the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

As much as I hate what the commerce clause has become, I think this is a correct interpretation of the law.

The question is - will the NCAA actually take CA to court on this? I think (not sure) that they wouldn't have to - any NCAA university outside California that has to play a California school that benefits from this law would probably have standing to sue.

Time to kick the CA schools out of the NCAA. Time for a PAC 8–Big 12 merger!

The only other option is for the PAC 8 to pinch their noses and accept Boise St and BYU into the fold.

(09-27-2019 10:53 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The NCAA claims that the California bill is unconstitutional because it prohibits the NCAA from punishing CA schools for not abiding by the NCAA's rules. This is an attempt to regulate interstate commerce, but according to the Constitution only the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

As much as I hate what the commerce clause has become, I think this is a correct interpretation of the law.

The question is - will the NCAA actually take CA to court on this? I think (not sure) that they wouldn't have to - any NCAA university outside California that has to play a California school that benefits from this law would probably have standing to sue.

This is going to pass because the Governor has no reason to take a stand on this bill and sign it or veto it. By not signing within 30 days, it will automatically be approved. A veto would be overridden and that has not happened to a California Governor since 1979.

Ed O'Bannon's landmark case in 2014 is the foundation for the California bill. In that case, the court found that the NCAA bylaws operated as an unreasonable restraint of trade, in violation of antitrust law. The NCAA is going to lose on this and they know it.

The world is changing. This law and others that will follow it are going to force the NCAA to change. You can see this wave coming. If NCAA President Mark Emmert wants to protect his $2.9 million in annual compensation, he will find a way to make this work. The days of Avery Brundage are over.

Hmm. Seems like the perfect catalyst to allow power programs to take their ball away from the NCAA and to form their own Power Athletic Association. The power programs can point to the California law as the culprit, break away from the NCAA and none of the power programs look like the 'bad guy.'

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.

(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.

(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.

I disagree. The NCAA is a voluntary organization. If the California schools do not abide by the rules set forth, they will be separated. USC and Stanford might be able to argue in court that the law regulates interstate commerce and get around it. UCLA and Cal along with SDSU, Fresno, and San Jose State are California government entities and they can be regulated under state law.

#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?

There is no financial model to make a PAC 12 only a viable option. The other schools will opt for the NCAA membership.

#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?

If all the states you mentioned were to act in this manner, you are looking at losing University of Illinios and UMass. You might lose Syracuse, BC, and Northwestern but they are also private and could also claim this is an unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce. I don't see the NCAA going to the mat for those schools.

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.


That said, I think there will be some middle ground accord that the California legislature will codify into law and the NCAA will be slightly altered but still in a rocognizable form.

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.

This also affects the WAC, MWC, Big Sky, WCC, and Big West.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(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.

SB206 does take money away.

Quote:the bill was amended by the Assembly to restrict a student-athlete from entering into shoe and apparel contracts that conflict with current university agreements

Source:https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/california-assembly-passes-sb-206-next-stop-governor-newsoms-desk/

Only the proposed NY bill has language in which the schools are to provide student-athletes a proposed 15% share of the annual ticket revenue generated from each school’s sporting events.

Stop grasping at straws and making things up...AGAIN.