California lawmakers voted to let NCAA athletes get paid.

[HoustonWave]

Should that take place then the NCAA should retaliate by eliminating all athletic scholarships in California.
[/

Great idea. As I understand the California law, the California schools can’t do anything to keep their players from signing endorsement deals—so a loss of schollies and/or elimination from bowls and championship play will be totally out of their control. The California legislature has completely hamstrung their own universities—public and private.

[HoustonWave]

If this spreads throughout the country, it will be chaos in the collegiate ranks. No way the NCAA , schools, or anybody else can control the bidding war for athletes. There could be many interesting outcomes—would a 5 star recruit want to go to a football factory if he’s likely to only be the 4 th or 5 th best player on the team? Could hurt his endorsement deals. Under Title IX thinking, would a school’s endorsement deals have to be balanced between its men and women athletes? But how could a school engineer such a balance? Would the Nikes of the world have to give a school an equal number of dollars for its women’s programs as it has given to one of their men athletes in an endorsement deal? What a wicked web we weave.

[McWave]

The NCAA can lose the PAC 12, and it isn’t really losing a “P” conference. If the PAC 12 is removed from championship play, the other PAC 4, and some of the better G5 schools can readily fill any void that the PAC 12 might leave. Let the crazies in California play with each other.

I don't think the NCAA wants to lose the west coast media if the PAC 12 is out. I have to believe advertising in LA, SF, SD, etc. is fairly profitable. If the PAC 12 becomes the first pro-college league, then I guess P5 is the minor leagues.

[McWave]

The schools are not the ones paying the players. Also any existing sponsorship deal the school has takes precedent over what a student could bring in (they gave the sample of the school has an Adidas deal the kid cant bring Nike).

No one is quite sure what the ramifications of this bill will be.


Also the rural parts of California that want to leave. . . Are the parts that depend and make the greatest use of the social programs and tax dollars provided by SF/LA/SD. We would be perfectly happy to have them go form another state or country. It’s kind of like the South. The elected officials score cheap points (Bobby Jindal voting against expanded Medicare) to embarrass a democrat when it’s his constituents who desperately need these programs. It’s also the south that takes more federal $$$ than they provide from their tax base. But liberals are bad, reading is bad and college is bad (except for college football).

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.TIJZ ... 25&pid=1.7

Here's your moocher states. Moocher Rank: Louisiana #2 only behind Mississippi....

[DfromCT]

Why does LeBron James' opinion matter? Seriously, he never went to college, and is not an elected official. Does Tom Hanks, Clayton Kershaw or Wayne Gretzky have a say in the matter as well?

I mean, he's not ignorant of the subject, and he's a smart guy in general. He got recruited hard before being one of the last high school to pro players, and has played with/mentored countless rookies coming out of college since then. Obviously they're talking about this kind of stuff in the locker room. Ask any nba draft pick in the last 10 years who their favorite player is: 9/10 will say Lebron. He's the biggest name in the field that this directly impacts.

He's an NBA player. A very good one (but cannot compare to MJ). He never went to college. I don't give 2 cents about his opinion, and neither should the NCAA or any state. And I'm sorry, but there's 85 football players on a roster versus 13 on a basketball roster. Your math is a little off.

He may not be ignorant on the subject, but his opinion is absolutely meaningless. Just as much as Tom Cruise, or any other celebrity that thinks their status makes their opinion count. It doesn't.

[Aberzombie1892]

If this spreads throughout the country, it will be chaos in the collegiate ranks. No way the NCAA , schools, or anybody else can control the bidding war for athletes. There could be many interesting outcomes—would a 5 star recruit want to go to a football factory if he’s likely to only be the 4 th or 5 th best player on the team? Could hurt his endorsement deals. Under Title IX thinking, would a school’s endorsement deals have to be balanced between its men and women athletes? But how could a school engineer such a balance? Would the Nikes of the world have to give a school an equal number of dollars for its women’s programs as it has given to one of their men athletes in an endorsement deal? What a wicked web we weave.

The alternative to that question would be, "Why would a blue chip recruit want to go to a program that has a minuscule chance of having a game on ABC/CBS/Fox/ESPN main channels?"

Basically, why would that athlete go join a program where all of the home games for that program are on ESPN2, ESPN3 or ESPN+?

[Aberzombie1892]

The NCAA can lose the PAC 12, and it isn’t really losing a “P” conference. If the PAC 12 is removed from championship play, the other PAC 4, and some of the better G5 schools can readily fill any void that the PAC 12 might leave. Let the crazies in California play with each other.

I don't think the NCAA wants to lose the west coast media if the PAC 12 is out. I have to believe advertising in LA, SF, SD, etc. is fairly profitable. If the PAC 12 becomes the first pro-college league, then I guess P5 is the minor leagues.

I agree in regard to the NCAA - the NCAA does not want to lose the PAC12, and there are many reasons for this, including:
1. The prestige of the PAC12's membership (particularly the CA schools).
2. The loss of the PAC12 would imply that the NCAA does not have control of its own domain.
3. There are plenty of media markets out west along with large fanbases from PAC12 programs that would no longer fall under the NCAA footprint
4. The PAC12 has been doing extremely well in olympic sports.
5. The PAC12 would potentially cause a market to develop for alternatives to the PAC12, and, if a particular player in the market establishes a comprehensive plan and process, other P5s could leave the NCAA to join that player.
etc.

Remember, the P5s were indirectly threatening the leave the NCAA prior to the playoff being established, so the NCAA gave them what they wanted in order to avoid that.

[HoustonWave]

If this spreads throughout the country, it will be chaos in the collegiate ranks. No way the NCAA , schools, or anybody else can control the bidding war for athletes. There could be many interesting outcomes—would a 5 star recruit want to go to a football factory if he’s likely to only be the 4 th or 5 th best player on the team? Could hurt his endorsement deals. Under Title IX thinking, would a school’s endorsement deals have to be balanced between its men and women athletes? But how could a school engineer such a balance? Would the Nikes of the world have to give a school an equal number of dollars for its women’s programs as it has given to one of their men athletes in an endorsement deal? What a wicked web we weave.

The alternative to that question would be, "Why would a blue chip recruit want to go to a program that has a minuscule chance of having a game on ABC/CBS/Fox/ESPN main channels?"

Basically, why would that athlete go join a program where all of the home games for that program are on ESPN2, ESPN3 or ESPN+?

Plenty of G5 games and P5 parasite games are on the cable and satellite channels, as opposed to ESPN's streaming channels. And as many have pointed out on this board, in the years to come most college sports may be accessible only through various streaming channels. Ultimately, each school's fan base will determine how many eyes are watching their games. Being the 4th or 5th stud on any team is not going to get you any major endorsement deals, no matter what school it is. Even at a school like Tulane, a player could get some local endorsement money, especially if Tulane alums' businesses step up and fund such endorsements as part of their marketing budgets. Essentially how many endorsement opportunities each school can hang out in front of a recruit will come down to how much their alums and fans are willing to directly fund as endorsements--broadcast exposure won't impact the vast majority of blue chip recruits' endorsement opportunities. Bottom line is that it will be chaos in the recruiting world.

[Bicoastalwave]

Players getting paid is going to happen. The ncaa is already studying it. This just puts a gun to their head.


Seemingly this predominantly favors big cities with major companies and well followed programs. . . Along the lines of why nba players keep flocking to big markets. UCLA/USC, UMiami etc. This could be a big boon for Houston.

The mega powers will be fine as their brands are national (Norte Dame, Clemson, Alabama) and the players would get national endorsement deals.

[Bicoastalwave]

If this spreads throughout the country, it will be chaos in the collegiate ranks. No way the NCAA , schools, or anybody else can control the bidding war for athletes. There could be many interesting outcomes—would a 5 star recruit want to go to a football factory if he’s likely to only be the 4 th or 5 th best player on the team? Could hurt his endorsement deals. Under Title IX thinking, would a school’s endorsement deals have to be balanced between its men and women athletes? But how could a school engineer such a balance? Would the Nikes of the world have to give a school an equal number of dollars for its women’s programs as it has given to one of their men athletes in an endorsement deal? What a wicked web we weave.

The alternative to that question would be, "Why would a blue chip recruit want to go to a program that has a minuscule chance of having a game on ABC/CBS/Fox/ESPN main channels?"

Basically, why would that athlete go join a program where all of the home games for that program are on ESPN2, ESPN3 or ESPN+?

Plenty of G5 games and P5 parasite games are on the cable and satellite channels, as opposed to ESPN's streaming channels. And as many have pointed out on this board, in the years to come most college sports may be accessible only through various streaming channels. Ultimately, each school's fan base will determine how many eyes are watching their games. Being the 4th or 5th stud on any team is not going to get you any major endorsement deals, no matter what school it is. Even at a school like Tulane, a player could get some local endorsement money, especially if Tulane alums' businesses step up and fund such endorsements as part of their marketing budgets. Essentially how many endorsement opportunities each school can hang out in front of a recruit will come down to how much their alums and fans are willing to directly fund as endorsements--broadcast exposure won't impact the vast majority of blue chip recruits' endorsement opportunities. Bottom line is that it will be chaos in the recruiting world.

If someone from New Orleans or a Tulane alum (not in New Orleans) actually saw they could just pay a couple 5 star players to come here and win there is a chance that could happen. You’re now a GM/sports team owner.

[DfromCT]

As I read through the thread, I realize what a major cluster f&ck this would be to the NCAA and college sports as we know it. Yes, the players should be able to be compensated if, for example EA Sports uses their likeness in a video game. But opening it up to being spokespersons, or marketing for the local used car dealership (etc.) really ends up opening the opportunity for local businesses to start running programs.

If this happens, the landscape is going to change dramatically and the split between the haves and the have nots will widen dramatically. A team like Tulane with a miniscule fan base will be left in the dust. Even a modestly successful team with a bigger fan base (say ECU) would have a huge recruiting advantage.

And oh by the way, this is another example of me admitting I don't know it all.

[Bicoastalwave]

Nor do I know it all. No one knows what the effects of this will be (if signed by the governor). It would be interesting if the ncaa had a process where sponsors had to be approved by the ncaa and then they could pay students. Local boosters and dealerships etc will probably lead to mob like entities and shady characters getting involved. Or maybe it just becomes like super pacs for political ads. Who knows

[RobertM320]

Why can't it be done like some other sports? I think tennis and golf both have something where when amateurs play in a pro tournament, any earnings are escrowed until they're a pro, so as not to ruin their amateur status. I'm not sure at all how it works.

[HoustonWave]

Pandora’s Box is quickly opening. The Colorado legislature just announced that they will take up a similar bill in their next session—only they will trump California’s bill and allow direct school payments, not just endorsements. This will cause the big split between the haves and have nots—with most schools opting into the have not world. Perhaps the NCAA will create two such divisions. Even the football factories, who initially opt into the “Pay Division” may grow weary of it all. Ultimately the funding businesses may just start their own minor league professional world—won’t need collegiate sponsorship. The entire P5 system will be an early victim of all this—the OUs and UTs of the world aren’t going to keep carrying the Baylor’s and TCUs of the world if they are having to write big paychecks to athletes.

[golfnut69]

Pandora’s Box is quickly opening. The Colorado legislature just announced that they will take up a similar bill in their next session—only they will trump California’s bill and allow direct school payments, not just endorsements. This will cause the big split between the haves and have nots—with most schools opting into the have not world. Perhaps the NCAA will create two such divisions. Even the football factories, who initially opt into the “Pay Division” may grow weary of it all. Ultimately the funding businesses may just start their own minor league professional world—won’t need collegiate sponsorship. The entire P5 system will be an early victim of all this—the OUs and UTs of the world aren’t going to keep carrying the Baylor’s and TCUs of the world if they are having to write big paychecks to athletes.

Hell, if every school in Colorado dropped sports, would anyone notice ?..

[GreenLantern]

Tim Tebow's take:

[DfromCT]

Why can't it be done like some other sports? I think tennis and golf both have something where when amateurs play in a pro tournament, any earnings are escrowed until they're a pro, so as not to ruin their amateur status. I'm not sure at all how it works.

I always thought if you're an amateur and win $$ in a professional tournament, you don't get a penny. I've never heard that it's escrowed, but that is just been my understanding. Again, maybe things have changed and I'm wrong. I know when Phil Mickelson won the tour event in Arizona as a College Senior he never saw a penny of that prize money.

[RobertM320]

This comes from an article that's a couple of years old. You can win and get the money, UNTIL you're in college, then you can only accept up to what your expenses are.

According to NCAA guidelines, amateur tennis players can participate in professional tournaments but with some restrictions. Before becoming a collegiate athlete, tennis players can compete in professional competitions and win up to a maximum $10,000 in a year. After that point is reached, prize money can only equal the expenses the athlete paid to participate in the tournament. Once an athlete makes it to the collegiate level, however, they can only win prizes that are less than or equal to their expenses.

http://www.uatrav.com/sports/article_ba ... 4ca3d.html

[GreenLantern]

It's gonna happen. Govenor signs bill today:

California Governor Will Sign Plan to Let N.C.A.A. Athletes Be Paid

[golfnut69]

It's gonna happen. Govenor signs bill today:

California Governor Will Sign Plan to Let N.C.A.A. Athletes Be Paid

Did he also sign a bill that allows people to shit in the streets.....

[HoustonWave]

It's gonna happen. Govenor signs bill today:

California Governor Will Sign Plan to Let N.C.A.A. Athletes Be Paid

Did he also sign a bill that allows people to shit in the streets.....

They don’t need a bill for that, they are already doing it. They will need a bill to clean it up, which isn’t on the California legislative docket.

[ccap05]

Should that take place then the NCAA should retaliate by eliminating all athletic scholarships in California.

The NCAA doesn't provide athletic scholarships in California- for the most part it it is the individual universities that provide them.

If this system is actually implemented every decent athlete is going to head to where they can be paid for their talents. Other states will follow suit to stay competitive.

[Wave755]

Succinct article on what the Bill does and doesn't do: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/footba ... cid=msn360

[golfnut69]

The PAC-12's view
https://www.si.com/college-football/201 ... o-play-law

[GreenLantern]

California Senate Bill 206 will allow for college athletes to be paid for the use of their name, likeness and image.

There will almost certainly be unintended consequences from this bill. On the surface, it sounds abundantly fair. After all, if a student musician at Tulane can compose music and sell albums and charge for his appearances, why shouldn't football players be allowed to do the same? It only seems reasonable that student athletes should be able to sell autographs, pictures, and have promotional appearance fees down at the Benson dealership.

But there's this: What if Mr. Bigg Dix, a fat cat donor from Baton Rouge, offers Arch Manning $250,000 for his signed picture if he will enroll at LSU? Prospects could be offered $10,000 monthly to make guest appearances at businesses during football season.

It seems to me that the gap between haves and have-nots will widen. It's easy to imagine Tulane suffering and LSUgh prospering.