CA Governer signs CA-SB206 - LOL at the NCAA

[ConSarnit]

I support this 100% but it’s still bull****. Just let the schools pay the players. All you’re doing here middle-manning between the schools and the players.

“Hey, I want to come to USC.”

“Ok, we we can get you a 500k deal with McDonalds”

“Where do I sign?”

I’m assuming they’ll try to “regulate” it and make it seem like the players need to find sponsorship on their own without schools help to maintain the appearance of fairness, but we all know how that will play out.

Just skip this garbage and let the schools pay. It’s just a workaround to the real solution. It maintains the “student-athlete” appearance.

[Sactowndog]

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.

Except if you lose California men’s Volleyball and men’s Water Polo those sports cease to exist as NCAA sports. It would certainly be interesting what happens with those sports.

[IAMZOOTED2]

It's about damn time people put a stop to the NCAA's ability to milk the top prospects who can and should be making money. Also pretty pathetic the way the NCAA replied trying to claim the bill is unconstitutional, as if they care about anything other than $$$. You can vote and join the military at 18 years old and yet somehow getting a shoe deal is unconstitutional? Lmao. Hope the other states follow suit soon.

People will look back at this down the line and wonder why it took so long for this to happen, but better late than never.

reckon this forces those borderline players who might have otherwise gotten free rides to school into taking loans? Since scholarship loot will likely be reduced as a result?

[cornchip]

And to add....my proposal on what this will eventually look like:

Freshmen/Undergraduate transfers: No compensation allowed. Current NCAA rules remain in place. They have no equity in the school and have performed no service. In addition, this restricts unfair recruiting practices.

Sophomores/Juniors not on track to graduate: Capped or Limited compensation. This is to be determined by conference. Can range from sponsorships to a percentage of revenue from ticket sales. Additionally, they're able to be provided agents.

Juniors on track to graduate/Seniors/Graduate transfers: Unlimited or uncapped compensation. No restrictions should apply to this group. They've provided a full service to the school and have generally completed there academic requirements. They can hire any agent they choose. This includes those drafted by pro sports leagues but want to rejoin their college teams. I would go as far to say they can be paid by their professional teams but can stay in college to develop and graduate.

[Tim Lehrbach]

All of what you said could very well bear out. But the conundrum here is that 85 or 15 or 25 scholarships are still 85, 15, or 25 scholarships. And if schools decide to cut ties with athletics, that's still less young people that attend these universities for (relatively) free. Even worse, that's less young people that attend these universities that would not have had the chance to attend if not for athletics.

I'm certainly no fan of the NCAA and its practices but an argument it beats you over the head with is that some form "x number of athletes will get college degrees". And it's a compelling one. There have been studies to suggest that a few number of professionals can have an outsized impact on communities. I don't think lessening the number of these opportunities helps. The irony of this is that it may hurt the potential student-athletes it was designed to help.

To your point about some elites rising, that's a very valid one. But someone has to take the losses. Under you scenario...yes Oregon might rise. But how will even a well-run athletic department like Clemson ever compete with a UNC? They may just give it up...sure. But more likely, they will try to compete by upgrading facilities, benefits, etc. to unprecedented levels. This could lead to higher tuition at a time where tuition is already out of control or worse, with no oversight, them cutting other sports.

And it gets worse from the "elites". If a San Jose State had a big booster or a massive corporate sponsor and UTEP had nothing of the sort and is struggling to get by (I'm just throwing these schools out there), is UTEP going to field a football team that has no attendance revenue because no one wants to see their team get stomped out. Is that necessarily fair that a college team's value is based off how rich its constituents are? Are fans who are not financially well expected to indirectly pay athletes too in order to field a competitive team? Is that good for communities?

I'm with you, but I started my reply by asking, aren't these questions already live, and haven't they been the very concerns plaguing college sports (in addition to the exploitation of the elite athletes)? The race to the top has always been a fool's game for all but the perpetual haves, and I think Boise State and FIU and their ilk need to opt out, whether or not athletes start tapping into the revenue streams.

As for that happening, I admitted my thoughts are scattered, but what I'm hoping is that this accelerates the movement towards a college sports landscape left the way it was always supposed to be -- except for those semi-pro elite programs that will continue to compete for the glory and dollars. I'm suggesting that finally, once and for all, pricing everybody else out of the market for the top athletes will be good for the other member institutions, including their athletic departments and the student-athletes they are meant to serve. Scholarships and student housing will remain expensive, but perhaps they begin to look a little more affordable when other expenses like perpetual debt service on super-facilities and marquee coaching and AD hires are peeled away, no longer justifiable when a school must admit at last that it has no business competing with Alabama in football or Duke in basketball and never did. And, actually, won't the arms race for the best facilities and hottest coaches necessarily be cooled if the Ohio States and USCs have to start putting a lot more of the money into the athletes themselves? Obviously it's hard to know the exact effects, but this would seem to me to have enormous potential for downstream benefit in savings.

Everything I'm saying is wildly speculative, but I'm optimistic about the potential that college sports can settle into something of a tiered system where Texas A&M et al. concentrate more of the overall spending on college sports in the athletes who prop up their legacies and earn the television ratings, while the likes of UTEP and SJSU, released from the pressures to invest in their programs at their present (wildly irresponsible) levels, can sustain their programs more modestly without sacrificing many or any sports or scholarships. In fact, it's possible that disinvestment in football in particular would lead to an expansion of scholarship opportunities -- and in far more healthy sports than football. It would stem the tide of rising deficits at the majority of NCAA member institutions, which is a train that's headed for derailment whether top athletes take a chunk of the pie or not.

But, again, I'm just looking hopefully ahead. There are a lot of questions to be answered, for sure.

[pr0wler]

It's about damn time people put a stop to the NCAA's ability to milk the top prospects who can and should be making money. Also pretty pathetic the way the NCAA replied trying to claim the bill is unconstitutional, as if they care about anything other than $$$. You can vote and join the military at 18 years old and yet somehow getting a shoe deal is unconstitutional? Lmao. Hope the other states follow suit soon.

People will look back at this down the line and wonder why it took so long for this to happen, but better late than never.

Right? I guess that's the consequence of what happens when the capitalistic mafia, er I mean the government, has the power in this case.

[Capn'O]

But the integrity of amateur sports!!!







Kidding. This is awesome.

[Anticon]

So does this actually allow the players to independently make money based on being an athlete, or just that schools have to compensate them if they do?

Because if it’s just the first, then it’s not nearly enough.

College coaches can make as much money as they want off the court, but an all-American can’t even run a basketball camp for profit in the offseason? That’s the real obscenity.

[dhsilv2]

So does this actually allow the players to independently make money based on being an athlete, or just that schools have to compensate them if they do?

Because if it’s just the first, then it’s not nearly enough.

College coaches can make as much money as they want off the court, but an all-American can’t even run a basketball camp for profit in the offseason? That’s the real obscenity.

It means the can profit of beign an athlete, not that the schools will compensate them. So they can setup an instagram account to sell products, push nike, gatoraid, push the local car dealership (I don't think people realize how much money there will be even in smaller markets for that), etc.

[Clyde Frazier]

I support this 100% but it’s still bull****. Just let the schools pay the players. All you’re doing here middle-manning between the schools and the players.

“Hey, I want to come to USC.”

“Ok, we we can get you a 500k deal with McDonalds”

“Where do I sign?”

I’m assuming they’ll try to “regulate” it and make it seem like the players need to find sponsorship on their own without schools help to maintain the appearance of fairness, but we all know how that will play out.

Just skip this garbage and let the schools pay. It’s just a workaround to the real solution. It maintains the “student-athlete” appearance.

Nah, I'd much rather this get passed. You create a free market for players to actually be compensated for what endorsers think they're worth. For example, the spurs do commercials for HEB, a local grocery store chain. Much easier to let the starting 5 on Iowa State do the same than regulate pay for every student athlete.

[Basileus777]

The NCAA organization itself makes its money off of basketball, not football. The revenue from football mostly goes to the schools and conferences while the NCAA makes its revenue through basketball tournaments. If New York, California, and North Carolina pass laws like this they are ****. Without those markets, teams, and locations TV rights and sponsorship values for March Madness will drop hugely. Threaten that revenue and they will fold.

[Anticon]

So does this actually allow the players to independently make money based on being an athlete, or just that schools have to compensate them if they do?

Because if it’s just the first, then it’s not nearly enough.

College coaches can make as much money as they want off the court, but an all-American can’t even run a basketball camp for profit in the offseason? That’s the real obscenity.

It means the can profit of beign an athlete, not that the schools will compensate them. So they can setup an instagram account to sell products, push nike, gatoraid, push the local car dealership (I don't think people realize how much money there will be even in smaller markets for that), etc.

OK so that’s huge deal. When anybody can make cash in Instagram this be a big thing.

[dhsilv2]

Btw I think a LOT of you are missing how much money there is in this for the NON money sport's players.

You think some ripped 19 year old male soccer player can't get money from a Gym Shark or some supplement company to imply they use their products to get fit and GASP get a scholarship to a D1 school? Hot super fit track, soccer, volleyball, etc girls can't get deals to push products? There are countless social media influences making real money....no not ungodly rich 7+ figure money, but meaningful and impactful amounts. This opens that market to thousands of division one athletes. Maybe it's just enough cash to not need extras from mom and dad. Maybe it pays for a car while in school. Maybe it means they don't need a summer job. Or maybe it's meaningful cash and they can make a career out of coaching/training/social media followers. Or maybe they get jobs in marketing based on their knowledge from being a part of it in college and making 800 bucks a month?

This is a real and meaningful game changer for a lot more than just the basketball and football stars who are likely to profit the most out of this.

[MagicMamba88]

Read on Twitter

[cornchip]

I'm with you, but I started my reply by asking, aren't these questions already live, and haven't they been the very concerns plaguing college sports (in addition to the exploitation of the elite athletes)? The race to the top has always been a fool's game for all but the perpetual haves, and I think Boise State and FIU and their ilk need to opt out, whether or not athletes start tapping into the revenue streams.

As for that happening, I admitted my thoughts are scattered, but what I'm hoping is that this accelerates the movement towards a college sports landscape left the way it was always supposed to be -- except for those semi-pro elite programs that will continue to compete for the glory and dollars. I'm suggesting that finally, once and for all, pricing everybody else out of the market for the top athletes will be good for the other member institutions, including their athletic departments and the student-athletes they are meant to serve. Scholarships and student housing will remain expensive, but perhaps they begin to look a little more affordable when other expenses like perpetual debt service on super-facilities and marquee coaching and AD hires are peeled away, no longer justifiable when a school must admit at last that it has no business competing with Alabama in football or Duke in basketball and never did. And, actually, won't the arms race for the best facilities and hottest coaches necessarily be cooled if the Ohio States and USCs have to start putting a lot more of the money into the athletes themselves? Obviously it's hard to know the exact effects, but this would seem to me to have enormous potential for downstream benefit in savings.

Everything I'm saying is wildly speculative, but I'm optimistic about the potential that college sports can settle into something of a tiered system where Texas A&M et al. concentrate more of the overall spending on college sports in the athletes who prop up their legacies and earn the television ratings, while the likes of UTEP and SJSU, released from the pressures to invest in their programs at their present (wildly irresponsible) levels, can sustain their programs more modestly without sacrificing many or any sports or scholarships. In fact, it's possible that disinvestment in football in particular would lead to an expansion of scholarship opportunities -- and in far more healthy sports than football. It would stem the tide of rising deficits at the majority of NCAA member institutions, which is a train that's headed for derailment whether top athletes take a chunk of the pie or not.

But, again, I'm just looking hopefully ahead. There are a lot of questions to be answered, for sure.

Ahh gotcha. Very good points and I can definitely see the merit from that perspective. I guess I just don't see universities being that responsible.

It's all very speculative however. I'm just afraid that this could lead to something catastrophic if left unchecked.

[ragesincemdxvi]

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.

Are you really buying into this California homelessness crisis bs? Also the majority of fentanyl comes from China not "the border"

[clyde21]

But the integrity of amateur sports!!!







Kidding. This is awesome.

while they charge thousands for seats, negotiate large TV deals, get endorsed and advertisements by tobacco and alcohol companies...but THIS is what's keeping the 'integrity' of college sports

it a damn parody at this point

[LKN]

So does this actually allow the players to independently make money based on being an athlete, or just that schools have to compensate them if they do?

Because if it’s just the first, then it’s not nearly enough.

College coaches can make as much money as they want off the court, but an all-American can’t even run a basketball camp for profit in the offseason? That’s the real obscenity.

It means the can profit of beign an athlete, not that the schools will compensate them. So they can setup an instagram account to sell products, push nike, gatoraid, push the local car dealership (I don't think people realize how much money there will be even in smaller markets for that), etc.

Schools like Alabama, Michigan, etc have plenty of boosters that will find all kinds of work for football players. Basically it will bring all that under the table stuff above board.

I agree on the local ads - I think kids could actually make a lot of money doing that. "Come meet the offensive line at Car dealership X".

[chrisab123]

There goes any advantage Kentucky had.

[dhsilv2]

There goes any advantage Kentucky had.

"Any"? They still have one of if not the best facilities for basketball players. They still play at Rupp Arena. They're still one of if not the most marketable schools out there. I'd add in, if any state will follow to stay competitive with california, it's Kentucky. kentucky fans don't take college basketball lightly.