CA Governer signs CA-SB206 - LOL at the NCAA

[LKN]

I'd like someone to actually provide a logical explanation for why they are opposed to this. I had an academic scholarship to go to college and I chose to study engineering (ended up with a computer engineering degree). I had a job doing some software work while I was a student. Why should I be able to do that, but a student athlete not be able to do that?

I get it - I can see arguments against directly paying the kids... but this? What in the world is the problem with kids being able to work off the court and earn money however they want?

[JellosJigglin]

This governor is playing up to the clicks. His top priority should be the homeless crisis and the thousands of tons of opioids/fentanyl flooding across the border. Taking on the NCAA and doing interviews with Lebron really shouldn't be on the agenda right now. Clown show we got going on here in CA.

Yes, because there's no way he could ever do more than one thing at once.

And LOL at trying to blame current CA policy for the failed war on drugs that has been going on for decades.

There was (is?) a bill for retailers to sell CBD drinks that's been wrapped up and sitting on his desk for months. All he has to do is sign it. You're not in CA so you don't have a clue. This governor is a bum. This is a sports forum so I get why it's being discussed here. This isn't something I expect elected leaders to waste their time on when people are in pain, dying, being deported, entire cities living on the streets. I wouldn't expect the teenagers and 20-somethings on this board to care. Yay for athletes.

[Lalouie]

More like RIP the PAC12, granted this has pretty much been the case for the last 5 years.

You think they are going to move all the Bowl games out of CA also? LOL

In any case Florida is working on a similar bill right now as well. If/when that passes it's over. NCAA absolutely can not lose CA and Florida.

all the important bowl games are a stones throw from sec-land anyway.

and btw, didn't the ed o'bannon case address this???

[LKN]

This governor is playing up to the clicks. His top priority should be the homeless crisis and the thousands of tons of opioids/fentanyl flooding across the border. Taking on the NCAA and doing interviews with Lebron really shouldn't be on the agenda right now. Clown show we got going on here in CA.

Yes, because there's no way he could ever do more than one thing at once.

And LOL at trying to blame current CA policy for the failed war on drugs that has been going on for decades.

There was (is?) a bill for retailers to sell CBD drinks that's been wrapped up and sitting on his desk for months. All he has to do is sign it. You're not in CA so you don't have a clue. This governor is a bum. This is a sports forum so I get why it's being discussed here. This isn't something I expect elected leaders to waste their time on when people are in pain, dying, being deported, entire cities living on the streets. I wouldn't expect the teenagers and 20-somethings on this board to care. Yay for athletes.

I wish I was still a 20 something.... sigh.

CBD should be legal - no argument from me there... not like that's going to solve the opoid crisis (which will take federal action)

In any case I don't have an opinion on the CA governor other than he's right to sign this bill.

[clyde21]

Yes, because there's no way he could ever do more than one thing at once.

And LOL at trying to blame current CA policy for the failed war on drugs that has been going on for decades.

There was (is?) a bill for retailers to sell CBD drinks that's been wrapped up and sitting on his desk for months. All he has to do is sign it. You're not in CA so you don't have a clue. This governor is a bum. This is a sports forum so I get why it's being discussed here. This isn't something I expect elected leaders to waste their time on when people are in pain, dying, being deported, entire cities living on the streets. I wouldn't expect the teenagers and 20-somethings on this board to care. Yay for athletes.

I wish I was still a 20 something.... sigh.

CBD should be legal - no argument from me there... not like that's going to solve the opoid crisis (which will take federal action)

lol opioid crisis...the govt is complicit in the opioid crisis

meanwhile they're mobilizing against vape and juul pods while opioids and murdering tens of thousands a year

[Infinite Llamas]

Ed O’Bannon was a pioneer of this movement for years. This news might bring a smile to his face.

[cornchip]

I'd like someone to actually provide a logical explanation for why they are opposed to this. I had an academic scholarship to go to college and I chose to study engineering (ended up with a computer engineering degree). I had a job doing some software work while I was a student. Why should I be able to do that, but a student athlete not be able to do that?

I get it - I can see arguments against directly paying the kids... but this? What in the world is the problem with kids being able to work off the court and earn money however they want?

I think the main issue is that if you take away much of the NCAA's regulatory presence and turn college sports into a truly free market system then you get just that.

And that may create a gap between the major revenue generating schools and sports and non-revenue generating schools and sports that's just too large to overcome.

Why continue to have sports that generate no profit? Why have sports when you don't have the endowments or booster activity to pay highly talented players to compete? The NCAA provided some oversight with this but if they're out the picture then you allow corporations, agents, and boosters to set many of the ground rules on compensation.

That's great if you're Zion Williamson or Trevor Lawrence or an olympic caliber athlete at Oregon...but they're going to get well compensated anyway eventually. It's catastrophic for 90% of the other athletes who don't generate any profit who may see their sports get cut and be mired in student debt if they want to go to college.

[JellosJigglin]

Yes, because there's no way he could ever do more than one thing at once.

And LOL at trying to blame current CA policy for the failed war on drugs that has been going on for decades.

There was (is?) a bill for retailers to sell CBD drinks that's been wrapped up and sitting on his desk for months. All he has to do is sign it. You're not in CA so you don't have a clue. This governor is a bum. This is a sports forum so I get why it's being discussed here. This isn't something I expect elected leaders to waste their time on when people are in pain, dying, being deported, entire cities living on the streets. I wouldn't expect the teenagers and 20-somethings on this board to care. Yay for athletes.

I wish I was still a 20 something.... sigh.

CBD should be legal - no argument from me there... not like that's going to solve the opoid crisis (which will take federal action)

In any case I don't have an opinion on the CA governor other than he's right to sign this bill.

The opioid crisis has gotten worse since the growth of fentanyl that's been coming mostly from China. But CA is a border state so it's an issue that can quickly get out of hand through the southern border. And it's not just opioids. The coast guard recently caught a narco submarine a few weeks ago off the pacific coast with 12,000 pounds of coke on it worth $165M. For every one they catch how many actually get through?

My issue isn't with SB206, it's that the governor seems to be more concerned with bills that give him the most publicity rather than the ones that actually benefit the most people.

[ejftw]

There was (is?) a bill for retailers to sell CBD drinks that's been wrapped up and sitting on his desk for months. All he has to do is sign it. You're not in CA so you don't have a clue. This governor is a bum. This is a sports forum so I get why it's being discussed here. This isn't something I expect elected leaders to waste their time on when people are in pain, dying, being deported, entire cities living on the streets. I wouldn't expect the teenagers and 20-somethings on this board to care. Yay for athletes.

I wish I was still a 20 something.... sigh.

CBD should be legal - no argument from me there... not like that's going to solve the opoid crisis (which will take federal action)

In any case I don't have an opinion on the CA governor other than he's right to sign this bill.

The opioid crisis has gotten worse since the growth of fentanyl that's been coming mostly from China. But CA is a border state so it's an issue that can quickly get out of hand through the southern border. And it's not just opioids. The coast guard recently caught a narco submarine a few weeks ago off the pacific coast with 12,000 pounds of coke on it worth $165M. For every one they catch how many actually get through?

My issue isn't with SB206, it's that the governor seems to be more concerned with bills that give him the most publicity rather than the ones that actually benefit the most people.

Which isn't a surprise if you followed the campaign.

[Duke4life831]

I'm not going to get into the California politics talk because that is opening up a whole can of worms that doesn't belong on this board.

This bill itself, I don't see how anyone can be against it, hell I don't get how the NCAA can be against it since it's not even them being the ones paying the players. California is way too big of a market for the NCAA to lose. And you know damn well more states will be following with their own versions of this as well.

The NCAA can either change and adapt, or they can die a slow death. I know california schools aren't killing it right now in football, but you can bet that once USC and UCLA can add being able to make money off your likeness to their recruiting pitches. Get ready for super stacked classes to those schools.

[clyde21]

I'd like someone to actually provide a logical explanation for why they are opposed to this. I had an academic scholarship to go to college and I chose to study engineering (ended up with a computer engineering degree). I had a job doing some software work while I was a student. Why should I be able to do that, but a student athlete not be able to do that?

I get it - I can see arguments against directly paying the kids... but this? What in the world is the problem with kids being able to work off the court and earn money however they want?

there isn't a single legitimate argument, people arguing against this are either corporate cronies or just reek of jealousy, maybe a combination of both.

[Pan Jia Yuan]

This is a revolution and it's good that it's taking place, it's also very American. Amazing how long colleges were allowed to rob their star players at gun-point. To think that a multi-billion industry rests on kids who have no voice at all? Kids that are generating the value of large Wall Street hedge funds but are getting treated like paperboys? It is obvious that commercialized sports can coexist with academic integrity, the entire issue was always a question of power, not reason or balance. Most college sports won't even be affected by this at all and will remain "amateur". Good on you, Cali.

[dhsilv2]

And which one of those 25 schools outside of the Pac-12 are relevant?

Um, all of them since they’re all in California and this legislation applies to them. This seems obvious lol.

The question is if they are relevant to CFB and CBB nationally, and the answer to that is probably none.

USC Football, Stanford Football, UCLA Basketball and maybe UCLA and CAL Football are the only college sports in California that really matter to the NCAA and Conferences. I'd bet those first 4 programs bring in like 75% of the money for NCAA sports in California, and probably a similar amount to the PAC12.

Is the NCAA going to care if they lose out on USC Men's Volleyball? Eh, probably not.

Losing one of the largest TV markets in the world is a major deal. It's not just about the program's value in and of themselves but not having a single foot hold into the local tv markets without a local team.

[macNcheese3]

Woah. Big move. Not completely surprised but surprised it happened so quick.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Why continue to have sports that generate no profit? Why have sports when you don't have the endowments or booster activity to pay highly talented players to compete?

But, these have been the relevant questions for decades now. Athletics should have a direct part in the mission of the school and should be responsibly funded (yes, at a loss, but almost surely less so than today) if they are to be justified at all. Continue to have sports if and only if it supports the school's mission and the betterment of the student-athletes. This will not generate revenue, and you'll struggle mightily to compete with schools that can afford not only the best coaches and facilities but now also the best athletes, but that's the present situation for all but a handful of schools anyway. Those select few schools that can print money because their alumni/region love their football or basketball team can go right ahead and do so. Let's save the other institutions (and, usually, the state governments funding them in large part) from chasing dollars and glory they'll never attain by removing that last sliver of hope that they too can be Penn State or Alabama.

Perhaps the funneling of money into just the most marketable of schools will even increase the size of that pond, the market bearing a few more institutions to join the ranks of the elite. Take Oregon, which has been mentioned here multiple times. For all its forays into the big business of elite college sport, it is not a revenue-positive athletic department. It and a few others like it may actually fare better with further concentration of the top athletes and dollars -- as the have-nots are forced to quit flailing at relevance, we'll see some more winners and a lot fewer losers.

My thoughts are scattered here, but what I see ultimately shaking out is a retreat from the business of heavily marketed athletics for most schools, and perhaps even a hard bifurcation between those schools that can persist in it and those that do not, along the lines of the current NCAA divisions. It may be messy but I see all of this as a win for students, student-athletes, schools, and sport.

[MrCheerios]

This bill itself, I don't see how anyone can be against it, hell I don't get how the NCAA can be against it since it's not even them being the ones paying the players. California is way too big of a market for the NCAA to lose. And you know damn well more states will be following with their own versions of this as well.

I haven't actually heard an argument against it, but perhaps they might be concerned about the competitive balance after this becomes the norm. Students could be drawn to schools with bigger marketing opportunities rather than the schools or programs themselves. Some schools just would not be able to compete if students were allowed to make money even if the schools themselves were not directly paying the athletes. You know the major sports apparel companies like Nike or Reebok would have preferences for where the top players are.

I don't care about competitive balance though. I think it's BS that student athletes can't make money on their own. They pay the coaches millions of dollars directly, but students are banned from having compensation in any form. What a bunch of baloney.

[RCM88x]

Um, all of them since they’re all in California and this legislation applies to them. This seems obvious lol.

The question is if they are relevant to CFB and CBB nationally, and the answer to that is probably none.

USC Football, Stanford Football, UCLA Basketball and maybe UCLA and CAL Football are the only college sports in California that really matter to the NCAA and Conferences. I'd bet those first 4 programs bring in like 75% of the money for NCAA sports in California, and probably a similar amount to the PAC12.

Is the NCAA going to care if they lose out on USC Men's Volleyball? Eh, probably not.

Losing one of the largest TV markets in the world is a major deal. It's not just about the program's value in and of themselves but not having a single foot hold into the local tv markets without a local team.

I mean it is, but LA isn't really a big college sports town unless USC is doing well, they're far-far less meaningful to the NCAA than they are to the NBA or NFL. Not like the whole city will stop watching if there are no California teams in big games, I mean there really hasn't been in the last decade and the viewership for CFB and CBB has been fine.

[Duke4life831]

This bill itself, I don't see how anyone can be against it, hell I don't get how the NCAA can be against it since it's not even them being the ones paying the players. California is way too big of a market for the NCAA to lose. And you know damn well more states will be following with their own versions of this as well.

I haven't actually heard an argument against it, but perhaps they might be concerned about the competitive balance after this becomes the norm. Students could be drawn to schools with bigger marketing opportunities rather than the schools or programs themselves. Some schools just would not be able to compete if students were allowed to make money even if the schools themselves were not directly paying the athletes. You know the major sports apparel companies like Nike or Reebok would have preferences for where the top players are.

I don't care about competitive balance though. I think it's BS that student athletes can't make money on their own. They pay the coaches millions of dollars directly, but students are banned from having compensation in any form. What a bunch of baloney.

I get that competitive balance would be their argument, but I don't buy it at all though. There is a massive competitive balance between Duke and Saint Marry's. Whether it be the dorms that the athletes live in (all the big programs now have super nice dorms where the athletes stay), quality of travel (Duke flies private and stays at the nicest hotels), quality of training facilities (the power house schools have training facilities that rival pro teams), quality of coaches (tiny schools cant afford elite coaches). And a really big one, air time. Every single Duke and UK game are televised. That is a massive recruiting pitch for these schools. Most schools cant say that.

There already is a massive competitive balance between the elite schools and the non elites. Hell in football you can make the argument that it would actually bring more competitive balance with the way the SEC has been dominating with recruiting as of late. Now schools like USC has a chance to land the top guys and keep them (the top ranked QB recruit just recommitted from USC and committed to Alabama).

So ya competitive balance is out of the window already.

[Wigginstime]

From the article “The bill prohibits the NCAA from barring a university from competition if its athletes are compensated for the use of their name, image or likeness beginning in 2023.”

The NCAA is a voluntary organization who sets their own rules. California has no jurisdiction over them. This will be fought over in court, but California doesn't get to make the NCAA's rules.

CA can't make NCAA rules but isn't the NCAA under an obligation to adhere to CA rules when operating in CA?

Legal precedence favors the NCAA. Corporations and institutions are legally allowed to set rules and standards that exceed local law as long as the don't violate any civil rights of said employees.

This has already been challenged with marijuana where NCAA players who attended schools in states where marijuana has been legalized received suspensions for violating the NCAA drug rules which prohibit marijuana. Legal precedence is on the NCAA sides. They have the right to ban every player who receives payment from playing. If the school refuses to accept this, the NCAA has the right to sanction the school.

All the California law does is ensure the student won't loose their scholarship.

[NBAFan93]

This bill itself, I don't see how anyone can be against it, hell I don't get how the NCAA can be against it since it's not even them being the ones paying the players. California is way too big of a market for the NCAA to lose. And you know damn well more states will be following with their own versions of this as well.

I haven't actually heard an argument against it, but perhaps they might be concerned about the competitive balance after this becomes the norm. Students could be drawn to schools with bigger marketing opportunities rather than the schools or programs themselves. Some schools just would not be able to compete if students were allowed to make money even if the schools themselves were not directly paying the athletes. You know the major sports apparel companies like Nike or Reebok would have preferences for where the top players are.

I don't care about competitive balance though. I think it's BS that student athletes can't make money on their own. They pay the coaches millions of dollars directly, but students are banned from having compensation in any form. What a bunch of baloney.

Yeah - long term it could hurt schools in “small markets”. Cause in the event of a free for all w/ unlimited endorsements, agents will push their clients to places that can offer the biggest deals.

And what is interesting is here is a big market state (one that coincidentally hasn’t been excelling in college athletics in proportion to its market size in recent years) leading the way. Hmmm.

How is somewhere like Syracuse or Purdue going to compete w/ UCLA when it comes to endorsement deals?