# California preparing to go to war with the NCAA?



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 30, 2019)

California to let college athletes sign endorsement deals

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Defying the NCAA, California opened the way Monday for college athletes to hire agents and make money from endorsement deals with sneaker companies, soft drink makers, car dealerships and other sponsors, just like the pros.

The first-in-the-nation law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and set to take effect in 2023, could upend amateur sports in the U.S. and trigger a legal challenge.


----------



## Kaldak (Sep 30, 2019)

It's California. Nobody should be surprised.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 30, 2019)

This is one of those age old debates, like Ginger or Mary Ann, Kate Upton or Margot Robbie, Sophie Turner or Emilia Clark...

Anyway, my $.02...

These athletes are already compensated by receiving an education (supposedly).  If you want to go to school, go to school.  If you want to be a pro, go pro.  As an ex., I know a girl that was offered a scholarship to play hockey at a Big 10 school.  However, she didn't really want to play hockey.  Her parents view was this: look, if they pay for all 4 years of your education, so we don't have to (big financial burden lifted), your job for the next 4 years will be to play hockey! 

As for CA, specifically, I'd like to see NCAA call their bluff and remove their schools from NCAA competition.  You'd see a lot of athletes leave CA schools, although some may transfer in as well.  Fact is that pay for athletes effects only a very, very small percentage of athletes.  What's more, this only allows for some endorsement deals, not actual salary.  So, for those few it may impact, the current system is really simply just a deferral of potential future salary they may earn once they go pro; college is their proving ground.

To me, a more logical approach to address the revenue generation "issue" that's being voiced, is to require NCAA schools to directly broaden the number of scholarships they offer as well as increasing the percentage of tuition and board based on the revenue generated.


----------



## Raptor (Sep 30, 2019)

I don't think schools should pay the athletes (doesn't seem that this law is pushing for that, anyways), but letting athletes profit off of their own likeness doesn't cost the schools anything as far as I know. I also think its kinda fucked that the NCAA is allowed to more or less control what they do regarding their own image, especially considering that the NCAA makes money off of them.



Blizzard said:


> To me, a more logical approach to address the revenue generation "issue" that's being voiced, is to require NCAA schools to directly broaden the number of scholarships they offer as well as increasing the percentage of tuition and board based on the revenue generated.


I'm not an expert by any means, so I could be way off the mark here, but my understanding is that most college athletics programs already operate at a loss (outside of a few big sports). So wouldn't that going with this route would just cause a lot of colleges to bow out of a lot of the less popular sports, ending up with a net loss of actual scholarships being given out?


----------



## Box (Sep 30, 2019)

sports-ball
pfft

I love a country where you can actively protest the government because you are being oppressed at the same time you are shopping for an agent and a tight advertising contract that lets the other kids in your science class know that you catch touchdown passes because you drink Gatorade...
...get it in you

High School kids should get a check too - or else I want a better explanation of what is being done with the money that I pay for tickets to watch 11th graders play shitty basketball

now - relax, and take a knee while your tutor finishes your homework


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 30, 2019)

I think this is fair. Guys should be able to own their likeness. The fact the NCAA makes money off a guys jersey and they see no amount of that money is fucked.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 1, 2019)

It might help deter the colleges from offering under-the-table incentives. It ought to come as a reward for academic performance on the part of the athlete...but that's not gonna happen.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 1, 2019)

There needs to be a much better balance. I know they're "amateur" but at the end of the day some of the NCAA sports are bigger in volume and revenue than the professional leagues. AFAIK unis can't even give their players food or a small stipend to live (at least officially; some of those football boys are definitely not skimping on protein or meals). For such a huge moneymaker that's pretty atrocious.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 1, 2019)

Fucking NCAA and colleges.  It's bullshit that I can't make a dime off anything with "devildoc" on it, but put it on a Duke jersey, Duke can make $75 on it; _and_ they retain the right to use my name.  But I can't.  I have always spoken out against that shit.

@SpitfireV , universities can provide student-athletes a meal plan.  The bigger schools (think top 20 football and bball) have enormous facilities and logistics with this.  But as far as I know any school/sport can do it.  Stipend is still a no-go.

I would love to see a bunch of universities give a big ol' "fuck you" and leave the NCAA and create their own organization.  It could work in bball and in sub-FBS/FCS football.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 1, 2019)

SpitfireV said:


> There needs to be a much better balance. I know they're "amateur" but at the end of the day some of the NCAA sports are bigger in volume and revenue than the professional leagues. AFAIK unis can't even give their players food or a small stipend to live (at least officially; some of those football boys are definitely not skimping on protein or meals). For such a huge moneymaker that's pretty atrocious.


Some (the very few this would actually apply to) are being awarded scholarships, and ultimately degrees, from universities for tuition and boarding costs that can often exceed $200K! Others may receive partial scholarships.  And several years ago, the NCAA began to allow meals to be covered as well. That's not enough?!


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 1, 2019)

Raptor said:


> I'm not an expert by any means, so I could be way off the mark here, but my understanding is that most college athletics programs already operate at a loss (outside of a few big sports).


You're right on.  The myth is that these programs are taking in huge dollars but they're not.  With the exception of a few big time football programs and a couple mens basketball programs, revenues don't cover the costs:
Does College Football Make Money? | LoveToKnow

The Biggest Misconceptions About The Finances Of College Sports

Where Does the Money Go?


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 1, 2019)

I work at a university, and my good friend is the former SID for football (she just left to take the same job at another school).  I get my gouge from her.  In big schools the revenue sports make money for the non-revenue sports.  99% of sports are money-losers.  Some schools have moved big money-losers to 'club sports' and just let it go; the downside being, you cannot offer scholarships if you do this.

Alabama virtually pays for its' entire athletic program with football.  Duke can almost do that with basketball and football combined, but not much.  East Middle North Dakota Polytech State will not make any money with any sports.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 1, 2019)

Right.  So, the myth is that the NCAA and the schools are getting fat on these athletes but that's not really the case at all.  Fact is, the athletes as a whole are very much the benefactors.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 1, 2019)

Blizzard said:


> Right.  So, the myth is that the NCAA and the schools are getting fat on these athletes but that's not really the case at all.  Fact is, the athletes as a whole are very much the benefactors.



Agreed that athletes as a whole are the benefactors.  We've all seen the NCAA commercial "99% of student-athletes will go pro in something other than sports" (or whatever); 99% of athletes give 4 years of sports, they get 4 years of school, they move on to be whatever they will be.  This whole issue involves 1% at the elite level.  That said, Duke definitely gets big $ over having used Zion Williamson's likeness and name, just as Alabama has with Tua what's-his-name.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Oct 1, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> This whole issue involves 1% at the elite level.



This times 1 billion.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 1, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> That said, Duke definitely gets big $ over having used Zion Williamson's likeness and name, just as Alabama has with Tua what's-his-name.


And at best, that only has a 4 year life of usefulness.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 1, 2019)

Blizzard said:


> And at best, that only has a 4 year life of usefulness.



It's no secret who I pull for and where I work.  Daniel Jones, the QB of the Giants?  We know him.  Most of the bball players that have left Duke to go to the NBA?  I have met all of them; some of them I know better than others.  I love where I work.  That said, I harbor no illusion that if these guys didn't play sports ball, Duke would drop them like a hot potato.  College athletics everywhere is very much a "what have you done for me lately?" endeavor.  And kids often get the shaft because of the NCAA-college power/lovefest, _especially _the 1% elite.


----------



## Raptor (Oct 1, 2019)

Blizzard said:


> Right.  So, the myth is that the NCAA and the schools are getting fat on these athletes but that's not really the case at all.  Fact is, the athletes as a whole are very much the benefactors.


But why should that keep outside companies from paying athletes for commercials, endorsements, etc.?


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 1, 2019)

So when is California going to start teaching more about capitalism and less about communism?


----------



## Box (Oct 1, 2019)

Conflict of interest maybe?

I have a big "meh" on this one - I say market yourself - if Reebok wants to pay a college student a million dollars to wear sneakers - so be it.
...but if the college benches them for a conflict of interest because the school already has a contract with Nike - so be it

Number likeness? 
I dont know the law but I know that they "share" that jersey.  If a company wants to pay Jordan the college student to endorse #23 TarHeel Jerseys, I am pretty sure that UNC is going to get a cut as well - since THEY are the ones that own the jersey. 
win - win - the college gets money for selling their likeness - the player gets a few bucks for making the number popular.  Until the NEXT student takes that number - because NOT everyone is going to get their college number retired. 
Besides with the current crop of democrats set to take over the white house - college is sure to change in the next few years.  Free college, free health care, free refills on your favorite large sugary drinks...
...the NCAAA is gonna need to team up with these athletes for some big dollar endorsements if they are going to be forced to start giving college away for free - and if the NCAA says you cant sell products while wearing your NCAA affiliated uniform - well, endorse Levi Strauss as an unnamed citizen
"_Hi folks - I play college sportsball - these blue jeans are awesome_"

Besides with all this new capitalist endorsement money from the evil corporate structure,  think of how much more tax revenue the state will be able to collect from these socialist college students.


----------



## LibraryLady (Oct 1, 2019)

BloodStripe said:


> So when is California going to start teaching more about capitalism and less about communism?


Isn't that what this is all about? Capitalism is the driver behind letting the athletes make money via endorsements.  

CA needs to get their message straight. Can't have capitalism in the marketplace and communism in politics. Just doesn't mesh right.

LL


----------



## Raptor (Oct 1, 2019)

Box said:


> Conflict of interest maybe?
> 
> I have a big "meh" on this one - I say market yourself - if Reebok wants to pay a college student a million dollars to wear sneakers - so be it.
> ...but if the college benches them for a conflict of interest because the school already has a contract with Nike - so be it


The article says the law doesn't allow athletes to sign with companies competing against the contractual partners of the schools.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 1, 2019)

LibraryLady said:


> Isn't that what this is all about? Capitalism is the driver behind letting the athletes make money via endorsements.
> 
> CA needs to get their message straight. Can't have capitalism in the marketplace and communism in politics. Just doesn't mesh right.
> 
> LL


Exactly.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 1, 2019)

Raptor said:


> But why should that keep outside companies from paying athletes for commercials, endorsements, etc.?


Th endorsement they accepted was the scholarship offer they received to attend the university at no cost.  The athletes are showcasing themselves with the hope of a future payout.

Listen, if an athlete is that shit hot, they'll get their due and then some after school.

This effects such an incredibly small number of athletes to the point the argument is really mute.


----------



## Raptor (Oct 1, 2019)

I understand that the athletes are getting benefits through scholarships, but if a company wants to pay them to be in an ad then the athlete themselves should be able to decide if they want to do it or not. Like I mentioned earlier, denying them the ability to make money off of their own image seems fucked to me. Every other college student could theoretically do it, as far as I know, so denying athletes that right seems really silly. And while the big contracts are definitely going to go to the 1%, I'd bet some businesses from around where smaller name athletes went to HS would be willing to put them in local ads, especially if its a rural area.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 1, 2019)

Raptor said:


> I understand that the athletes are getting benefits through scholarships, but if a company wants to pay them to be in an ad then the athlete themselves should be able to decide if they want to do it or not. Like I mentioned earlier, denying them the ability to make money off of their own image seems fucked to me. Every other college student could theoretically do it, as far as I know, so denying athletes that right seems really silly. And while the big contracts are definitely going to go to the 1%, I'd bet some businesses from around where smaller name athletes went to HS would be willing to put them in local ads, especially if its a rural area.


It's only fucked in that the NCAA and universities are using the revenue they receive to redistribute funds to provide scholarship opportunities and funding to other sports that may not be viable otherwise.  It could be viewed as a redistribution of wealth, as opposed to letting the individual keep it all (a concept,, as pointed out earlier by others, that ironically you'd think CA would embrace)

Rather than sponsor an individual, the companies merely sponsor a school or the NCAA.  I don't see a whole new influx of money coming in if athletes are allowed to accept endorsement deals.  It's just a shifting of funds.  That's the difference the way I see it.


----------



## Raptor (Oct 1, 2019)

I see what you're saying now. That could happen, but I could also see companies shifting marketing money from the pros to try and take even more advantage of how college fan bases tend to be more rabid than fan bases of pro teams (in my experience, at least). Also, like you mentioned, athletes are there rather short term. Most would probably only be getting contracts for one or two years rather than the full 4 or 5. Getting contracts with the schools would probably have better long term advantages, which would give companies incentives to keep doing it like they do now. However, I'll fully admit that I'm just taking a guess from what I know (admittedly little) about how large companies operate, so once again I could just be way off on my conclusion.


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 1, 2019)

There's lots of talk about jerseys and what not, but how about when UCF and the NCAA took away a football players eligibility because he had a youtube channel he made and revenue off of? 

How the YouTube kicker’s lawsuit challenges the NCAA

According to NCAA rules:



> A student-athlete may establish his or her own business, provided the student-athlete’s name, photograph, appearance, or athletics reputation are not used to promote the business.



I.E. if he made any money at all that somehow had his name or apperance in it, he'd lose his scholarship and eligibility.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 1, 2019)

That stuff is so petty and so much the exception to the exception that it's almost not worth noting.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 1, 2019)

Blizzard said:


> That stuff is so petty and so much the exception to the exception that it's almost not worth noting.



Did you know that if you are a scholarship player and I was an alumni or a booster and I lent you money to buy pizza you could have your scholarship revoked?  And the school put on probation?

All it is is about money control and power control. NCAA rules are bullshit.  The fact that scholarship players can't make money over his own name but your school can? There's something wrong in that. 

Now I do completely agree with the assertion that this is pretty, and while it's not widespread and so egregious that it's commonplace, the fact that we even have to have the discussion is absurd..


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 1, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Did you know that if you are a scholarship player and I was an alumni or a booster and I lent you money to buy pizza you could have your scholarship revoked?  And the school put on probation?
> 
> All it is is about money control and power control. NCAA rules are bullshit.  The fact that scholarship players can't make money over his own name but your school can? There's something wrong in that.
> 
> Now I do completely agree with the assertion that this is pretty, and while it's not widespread and so egregious that it's commonplace, the fact that we even have to have the discussion is absurd..


To that I agree.


----------



## AWP (Oct 1, 2019)

Remember that this really gathered steam over the NCAA football game. EA Sports used names and likenesses, so it wasn't just the college making a buck off their names.


----------



## DasBoot (Oct 2, 2019)

Blizzard said:


> Th endorsement they accepted was the scholarship offer they received to attend the university at no cost.  The athletes are showcasing themselves with the hope of a future payout.
> 
> Listen, if an athlete is that shit hot, they'll get their due and then some after school.
> 
> This effects such an incredibly small number of athletes to the point the argument is really mute.


If guys got paid off their jersey sales and received even a small amount of ticket sales it would help them be squared away for when they leave college. Look at the number of guys who have been injured in football who are fucked up for life. Maybe even lose a scholarship and never get that degree. They risked their body for a schools bottom line and get nothing in return. Letting guys profit off their own efforts seems like the easiest way of repaying them.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 2, 2019)

DasBoot said:


> If guys got paid off their jersey sales and received even a small amount of ticket sales it would help them be squared away for when they leave college. Look at the number of guys who have been injured in football who are fucked up for life. Maybe even lose a scholarship and never get that degree. They risked their body for a schools bottom line and get nothing in return. Letting guys profit off their own efforts seems like the easiest way of repaying them.


This is up to each individual school but every school that I'm aware of will honor the scholarship in the event of a career ending injury; they may still require involvement in the program in other ways.  Again, this a small fraction of the 1% that any of those would even apply to.

I understand that I (and the NCAA) will likely be on the losing side of this argument but it doesn't make it right.  As pointed out earlier, the school owns the jersey, so is the athlete going to split the revenue with the school? How much do they think they'll really make? There is a small handful that will make serious money; most won't.  And what does this mean in terms of scholarship dollars? If they can earn more through endorsements, then perhaps their scholarship allotment should be reduced or even eliminated if they earn over a certain amount.  Again, if you want to earn money/be the big dog, then go pro.  Otherwise your job is to be a student-athlete, with the emphasis on the first part.  

In many ways, the argument is no different than it is for many of us.  Most employers, unless self employed, make a lot more money off our efforts than we do in salary. Are we entitled to those "extra" earnings they make from our efforts? No, not really.


----------



## Raptor (Oct 2, 2019)

Blizzard said:


> Again, if you want to earn money/be the big dog, then go pro.


While this works for some sports, I know the NFL and NBA won't let you enter straight out of high school.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 2, 2019)

Raptor said:


> While this works for some sports, I know the NFL and NBA won't let you enter straight out of high school.


That's only because they want to see you prove yourself against other high caliber competition first.  Thus, the proving ground that is the NCAA.  Certainly there have been more than a few that left college early to enter the pro ranks   But again, we're talking about introducing a policy that effects so few as to be almost negligible.


----------



## Raptor (Oct 2, 2019)

I agree, and I'd argue that for football, its probably best to not send 18 year olds out against a bunch of NFL players. However, for the players this would affect, a lot of them can't simply go pro like you were suggesting. And as Boot mentioned, a career ending injury can happen anytime, so I can see why players would want to get money while they still can (even those already in the pros go with that mindset). Also, even if only a small percent of players would be affected, I don't see why they should be held back just because others won't be able to get the same deals.


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 2, 2019)

Blizzard said:


> This is up to each individual school but every school that I'm aware of will honor the scholarship in the event of a career ending injury; they may still require involvement in the program in other ways.  Again, this a small fraction of the 1% that any of those would even apply to.
> 
> I understand that I (and the NCAA) will likely be on the losing side of this argument but it doesn't make it right.  As pointed out earlier, the school owns the jersey, so is the athlete going to split the revenue with the school? How much do they think they'll really make? There is a small handful that will make serious money; most won't.  And what does this mean in terms of scholarship dollars? If they can earn more through endorsements, then perhaps their scholarship allotment should be reduced or even eliminated if they earn over a certain amount.  Again, if you want to earn money/be the big dog, then go pro.  Otherwise your job is to be a student-athlete, with the emphasis on the first part.
> 
> In many ways, the argument is no different than it is for many of us.  Most employers, unless self employed, make a lot more money off our efforts than we do in salary. Are we entitled to those "extra" earnings they make from our efforts? No, not really.



The school owns the Jersey, but the Jersey isn't worth money without the player that makes it valuable. The arguement isn't (currently) about saying students should get paid to play; it's about students being allowed to make money outside of their athletic requirements. 
The NCAA is a tax exempt organization that makes billions of dollars a year; I think losing a bit of money on some jerseys and allowing players the rights to their likeness as no affect on the "amateurism" of the sports, and a negligible affect on the NCAA's bottom line.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 2, 2019)

Cookie_ said:


> The school owns the Jersey, but the Jersey isn't worth money without the player that makes it valuable. The arguement isn't (currently) about saying students should get paid to play; it's about students being allowed to make money outside of their athletic requirements.
> The NCAA is a tax exempt organization that makes billions of dollars a year; I think losing a bit of money on some jerseys and allowing players the rights to their likeness as no affect on the "amateurism" of the sports, and a negligible affect on the NCAA's bottom line.


Why would they do that? That's not even how merchandising works for the pros; NFL, NBA, NHL.  Licensing occurs through the league, which splits revenues across all teams, although not necessarily proportionally.  In other words, Ezekiel Elliott isn't getting all the money from the sales of NFL jerseys with his name/number on it.  That revenue goes into a pool that is distributed among all athletes in the league.

The discussion is really about earning endorsement money.  Which I also think comes with it's potential set of unintended consequences.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 2, 2019)

Destroying amateurism as it stands is really a stupid fucking idea.  The NCAA scholarship model has taken hundreds of thousands of students providing them a path to become professionals.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 2, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Destroying amateurism as it stands is really a stupid fucking idea.  The NCAA scholarship model has taken hundreds of thousands of students providing them a path to become professionals.



It is not a binary assessment, the NCAA is also a douchebag organization with a lot of BS rules and petty conditions to retain scholarships.  The NCAA does some good, but also does a lot of damage.


----------



## DasBoot (Oct 2, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Destroying amateurism as it stands is really a stupid fucking idea.  The NCAA scholarship model has taken hundreds of thousands of students providing them a path to become professionals.


Why is it a “stupid fucking idea”? How is it negatively affecting athletes and the education system? Any sort of elaboration is nice.


----------



## AWP (Oct 2, 2019)

I think in the NBA you can't enter the draft until you're out of high school for at last a year. The NFL is...two years?


----------



## Raptor (Oct 2, 2019)

NFL is 3 years, so when you hear about a "Sophomore" entering the NFL, they're actually a Junior who redshirted one year.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 2, 2019)

I'm on the fence about paying student athletes. On the one hand, if they are a scholarship player, that's nearly $75k over four years at a state school they are receiving. But, what if they wanted to be a non-scholarship player and collect a weekly check from a booster?  There's no harm in betting on yourself to be great. That would free up another scholarship for another player who otherwise wouldn't be receiving one.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 2, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> It is not a binary assessment, the NCAA is also a douchebag organization with a lot of BS rules and petty conditions to retain scholarships.  The NCAA does some good, but also does a lot of damage.


The Scholarship model has been the second best thing for changing the socio-economic status since the GI Bill.  Full Scholarship Athletes don't need anything, seriously.  They get a stipend, full cost of attendance and meals.  I really don't care about them...but the soccer player on the 25% scholarship it sucks.  

We'll see how this goes, but destroying the model is a bad idea.  Because when that happens, the NCAA will move to a different model (get rid of the sliding scale) and only recruit athletes who can qualify academically.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 2, 2019)




----------



## Blizzard (Oct 3, 2019)

So, question for proponents, let's look at the next hypothetical for CA schools:

What if the NCAA boots all the CA from the association/bars them from competing with NCAA schools? 

This is a legit possibility if NCAA wants to dig in.  CA would have to create it's own league.  

If you're an athlete, not just the 1% in DI football or men's basketball but any other sport (DI, DII, or DIII, scholarship or not), do you stay at a CA school knowing the following:
 A) you're not likely to make any other endorsement money
B) knowing you can't compete against any other NCAA member schools
- or -
do you look for a transfer out of CA?

The next move in this game is huge with some potentially significant consequences.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 3, 2019)

At some point we have to stop pretending that  a football player at a top 25 AP poll school is a student athlete and admit to ourselves they are indentured sports servants.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> The Scholarship model has been the second best thing for changing the socio-economic status since the GI Bill.  Full Scholarship Athletes don't need anything, seriously.  They get a stipend, full cost of attendance and meals.  I really don't care about them...but the soccer player on the 25% scholarship it sucks.
> 
> We'll see how this goes, but destroying the model is a bad idea.  Because when that happens, the NCAA will move to a different model (get rid of the sliding scale) and only recruit athletes who can qualify academically.



I'm not a big fan of athletic scholarships, IF they do not qualify academically. We all know that there's school's out there, some of them top five football teams, who have players who come in who can't spell cat if you don't spot them 'C' and 'T'.

I'm all for helping people get an education and we know that 99% of the people who get athletic scholarships won't play professional sports.

That said, they are strong arm organization like the mafia. They have some truly shitty and stupid rules that are nonsensical and do nothing but hurt the individual and the school.  

As for all of this argument about likeness, I would like to see the NCAA step up to the plate and say schools can't use an individual's likeness. You may use their number, but you can't use their name on the back of any Jersey or make any profit from their name.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2019)

Blizzard said:


> So, question for proponents, let's look at the next hypothetical for CA schools:
> 
> What if the NCAA boots all the CA from the association/bars them from competing with NCAA schools?
> 
> ...



they have two choices, California schools can align with other school that might be fed up with the NCAA bullshit and create a separate entity, or athletes left to transfer to other schools.

let's face it, California schools aren't going to be in the top five in just about any revenue sport, let alone compete for a national championship. If I was an athlete I would transfer out.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 3, 2019)

California schools wanted nothing to do with this.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> California schools wanted nothing to do with this.



Do you have any links?  Being on the right coast, it's not huge news, so lacking the 'local impact.'

There can be a middle ground, and I know from the article the NCAA is working on that.  If they can hammer out some compromise, cool.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 3, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> California schools wanted nothing to do with this.


Why not?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 3, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Do you have any links?  Being on the right coast, it's not huge news, so lacking the 'local impact.'
> 
> There can be a middle ground, and I know from the article the NCAA is working on that.  If they can hammer out some compromise, cool.


California passes bill allowing athletes to be paid for name, image and likeness

Here you go.  Currently in an NCAA compliance course and we've been talking about this bill for three weeks.

The NCAA has a working group and ad-hoc committee trying to get legislation (within the NCAA) to establish athletes ability to do Name-Image-Likeness.  But the NCAA members will not pay-to-play. When you look at the benefits that athletes get at most major schools, even only partial scholarship folks: Career Mentors, Tutors, Meals, World Class training and recovery.  A degree and network that enables them to move forward.  

At ASU we've designed our program to effectively graduate athletes within 3 years allowing them to leave school early for a professional league or to start Graduate school while still on scholarship.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2019)

More schools are developing fast-track degrees for athletes who may go pro early.  Of all sports this is most impactful on baseball, but basketball isn't too far behind.  Baseball is the 'tweeners' this can really help: college sophomores or juniors who go in the draft but end up making $20K/year in the minors.  Most basketball and football players who leave early get a fat contract, and while some do finish their degree, there's no financial incentive to do it.

I think--I _know_--it can happen (permissive language to allow student-athletes to cash in on use of likeness/image).  But getting the NCAA to give up _any_ control is like pulling teeth from a chicken.  All universities/colleges that field NCAA teams need to have an intervention with the NCAA:  some of the rules are tyrannical and bullshit and make no sense; and many are there to protect the institution, not the individual.  There's a reason most university athletic departments have several full-time compliance personnel.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 3, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> More schools are developing fast-track degrees for athletes who may go pro early.  Of all sports this is most impactful on baseball, but basketball isn't too far behind.  Baseball is the 'tweeners' this can really help: college sophomores or juniors who go in the draft but end up making $20K/year in the minors.  Most basketball and football players who leave early get a fat contract, and while some do finish their degree, there's no financial incentive to do it.
> 
> I think--I _know_--it can happen (permissive language to allow student-athletes to cash in on use of likeness/image).  But getting the NCAA to give up _any_ control is like pulling teeth from a chicken.  All universities/colleges that field NCAA teams need to have an intervention with the NCAA:  some of the rules are tyrannical and bullshit and make no sense; and many are there to protect the institution, not the individual.  There's a reason most university athletic departments have several full-time compliance personnel.


There really isn't an intervention with the NCAA.  The NCAA is the schools themselves.  The policies are set by the committees which are populated by University Presidents and Athletic Directors which are are elected by the rest of the members.  It's not just some whilly nilly hammer of an organization.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> There really isn't an intervention with the NCAA.  The NCAA is the schools themselves.  The policies are set by the committees which are populated by University Presidents and Athletic Directors which are are elected by the rest of the members.  It's not just some whilly nilly hammer of an organization.



OK, that's nice in theory, but we all know that's not how it works.  It's like saying the elected officials represent the people.  It's what the textbooks say, but that's not really how it happens.  The policies are largely set up by the power brokers; there's a reason the college football playoffs are biased toward certain conferences.  There is a huge disconnect between what the NCAA is supposed to do, and what they do do.  The colleges are letting the lunatics run the asylum.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 3, 2019)

The CFP is a wholly independent and for profit organization separate from the NCAA.  Like the BCS, it is an invitational.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> The CFP is a wholly independent and for profit organization separate from the NCAA.  Like the BCS, it is an invitational.



But the people in charge are the same ones who run the NCAA....  OK then, use the NCAA bball tourney in March (trademarked March Madness).....

I know you think (or at least how I am reading it) the NCAA is some sort of all-protecting, benevolent organization who has everyone's best interests at heart.  I absolutely think _they _think they do, but they suffer cognitive dissonance because they do not.  Plenty of individual student-athletes and colleges who get the benefit of the doubt or unduly fucked as examples.

Granted I have a bias as having worked at a tutor for the athletic department at two universities, and with medical staff with one of them, so my opinion is mostly formed from what I have read and what I have seen.  Your mileage may vary and that's OK.

Edited to add, we may not come to agreement on this.  That's OK.  We can declare a _modus vivendi _and drive on.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 3, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> But the people in charge are the same ones who run the NCAA....  OK then, use the NCAA bball tourney in March (trademarked March Madness).....
> 
> I know you think (or at least how I am reading it) the NCAA is some sort of all-protecting, benevolent organization who has everyone's best interests at heart.  I absolutely think _they _think they do, but they suffer cognitive dissonance because they do not.  Plenty of individual student-athletes and colleges who get the benefit of the doubt or unduly fucked as examples.
> 
> Granted I have a bias as having worked at a tutor for the athletic department at two universities, and with medical staff with one of them, so my opinion is mostly formed from what I have read and what I have seen.  Your mileage may vary and that's OK.


I don't really understand what you mean by they're the same.  They're clearly not.  None of the people that run the CFP work for the NCAA in any capacity.  Staff Directory - College Football Playoff

Have many worked for the NCAA or various conferences? Sure. That's collegiate athletics. But they're not the same and they're run wholly separately. Now, is the selection committee biased? That is a separate discussion. 

I know what our systems are at ASU and what they were at VMI. There are the schools that are out there to win at all costs (SEC), and then there's research Universities. I don't know how Duke is set up. But the NCAA itself, the staff works to run the multitude of competitions. The purpose of scholarship athletics are two fold-marketing and giving folks the opportunity to gain a free or substantially reduced tuition bill through competing in Athletics. When you look at the benefits package of an NCAA Football or Basketball player, they're getting way more than the dollar value of their scholarship from the university. 

Also, the schools can really do what they want.  It is not their job to be the minor leagues for any professional league.  Again, scholarship athletics has been second only to the GI Bill for shifting the socio economic status of tens of thousands of student-athletes that never go pro.  The system has done way more good than the minuscule amounts of bad.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> I don't really understand what you mean by they're the same.  They're clearly not.  None of the people that run the CFP work for the NCAA in any capacity.  Staff Directory - College Football Playoff
> 
> Have many worked for the NCAA or various conferences? Sure. That's collegiate athletics. But they're not the same and they're run wholly separately. Now, is the selection committee biased? That is a separate discussion.
> 
> ...



Athletic scholarships aren't benevolence packages; they would not be awarded if the teams/schools didn't need the players, and if the player doesn't produce, the scholarship could be pulled.  It's about making money for the university (either through sports attendance, apparel, marketing, applications, whatever), and that's it.  Academics is a distant second.  It's quid-pro-quo, but there's a lot more quid than quo.  

Just because the system has done more good than bad does not mean you don't correct or overlook the bad; two wrongs don't make it right.  You say the schools can do what they want (and they do), but what about what the student-athletes want?  Why is the pat answer "you have a scholarship; don't look a gift horse in the mouth."  The NCAA ain't advocating for what's in the students' best interests.  No one is.  And the nature of this thread is about trying something that might change it, even just a little.

I would like to see NO one get athletic scholarships.  But that will never happen.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 3, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> ...I would like to see NO one get athletic scholarships.  But that will never happen.



I couldn't agree with you more. But, if that did occur -- I would surely look to the sky because there is a meteor en route to destroy us....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 3, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Athletic scholarships aren't benevolence packages; they would not be awarded if the teams/schools didn't need the players, and if the player doesn't produce, the scholarship could be pulled.  It's about making money for the university (either through sports attendance, apparel, marketing, applications, whatever), and that's it.  Academics is a distant second.  It's quid-pro-quo, but there's a lot more quid than quo.
> 
> Just because the system has done more good than bad does not mean you don't correct or overlook the bad; two wrongs don't make it right.  You say the schools can do what they want (and they do), but what about what the student-athletes want?  Why is the pat answer "you have a scholarship; don't look a gift horse in the mouth."  The NCAA ain't advocating for what's in the students' best interests.  No one is.  And the nature of this thread is about trying something that might change it, even just a little.
> 
> I would like to see NO one get athletic scholarships.  But that will never happen.


Just like every other student, it is incumbent upon the student-athlete to seize their education.  Scholarship athletes have so many more resources at their disposal that enables their ability to seize that education compared to the regular student.  When I went to VMI, we had guys on our football team in engineering, the program literally created English majors overnight.  And yet these guys are now out in the work force in engineering jobs being wholly successful.  Because they seized their education.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Just like every other student, it is incumbent upon the student-athlete to seize their education.  *Scholarship athletes have so many more resources at their disposal that enables their ability to seize that education compared to the regular student.*  When I went to VMI, we had guys on our football team in engineering, the program literally created English majors overnight.  And yet these guys are now out in the work force in engineering jobs being wholly successful.  Because they seized their education.



That very statement is part of the problem between the haves/have-not in higher education.  I say this where I work, where I see--and know--people who in one year will be making $20 million with a basketball.  There's a problem in that.


----------



## Box (Oct 3, 2019)

There are a few things that keep dancing around in my head - part of it is a byproduct of my rampant cynicism and some of it is genuine curiosity at the back side of collegiate athletic programs.

-I dont believe that the NCAA is going to give an inch if it costs them a cent - so any deal they make is going to cost SOMEBODY a few bucks
-Universities that have football programs that generate 10's of millions of dollars in revenue have lots of other programs that COST money that dont generate anywhere NEAR the money it costs to keep them going.
-Colleges that spend 10-20-30-50 million dollars on a football program are not going to "pay" athletes without raising someone else's tuition costs.

So, what are the unintended consequences?
-Do the Georgia Bulldogs shut down the Equestrian, Rugby, Hockey, and Ultimate Frisbee Teams because Jake, _Fromm-statefarm_ decided that if he don't get a bonus that he will transfer to Auburn?
-Am I going to have to sell my house and cars and take a job delivering pizzas to help pay off my kids student loan debt because someone like Rod Blankenship kicked enough field goals to drive up tuition costs?

Maybe the non-profit creating academic scholarships take a back seat to Athletic scholarships since only one of those two students is really worth investing in.
Who cares about physics if you have a 225 pound english major that runs a 4.5 in the forty?
Of course - we can fix ALL of that by just letting Bernie Sanders and the Squad take over the education system; imagine how great THAT would be:
Free Health Care
Free college
Free Refills on soft drinks at the stadium
whatever you want the gubmint will give you

I'm fascinated that the Peoples Republic of California is trying to force the NCAA and University system to give a little taste of capitalism to the students (that are learning how great socialism can be).  Some of the same institutions clamoring to give these hyper-male, toxic-masculinity athletes a huge paycheck are the same ones that would normally tell you that "_*violent ground acquisition games such as football are in fact a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war*_"
I really am confused at the irony of it all.

But maybe -
-just maybe - some of these huge profits offset some of the institutions other expenses.  Maybe the fact that some of these folks that are walking away with a 'free' quarter of a million dollar education because they are big and run fast are what allows the school to offer quarter million dollar scholarships to nerds like Sheldon Cooper and Leonard Hofstadter.   Maybe that 30 million dollar sportsball program is how they pay the professors that run the doctoral program in minority gender studies and underwater basket weaving.

I dont know the answer - I bought my degree from an affordable online college and paid for it with 30 years of military service.  I do know that the sports fan inside of my head died off years and years ago, so part of me just don't care about college OR pro sports.  My family loves the Georgia Bulldogs, so I pretend to watch.  In reality, I'm smoking some type of meat on the grill, sipping on some bourbon and pretending to care about whats happening.   I don't follow bowl games at all and cant even remember who won the Super-Ball and World Serious last year.

What I do have is a kid getting ready for college that doesn't play sports.
What I do follow is the rising cost of college tuition.
The possibility that my kids options for an higher education might be financially limited because of astronomical increases in tuition in the interest of a better sportsball program and it makes me worry that America is just one step closer to just not giving a shit about anything but free rides and good entertainment.

I'm not saying that I am even close to being correct - I am only describing the view from my foxhole.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2019)

@Box  you have some salient points; many of which I agree.  Do you know what norovirus is?  I have it, so I am leaving work to go home.  I will speak to some of your points later.  Bottom line: I don't know that it needs to be an either/or proposition.  I think schools, students and student-athletes, and the NCAA can do it right where everyone benefits.  Sports revenue usually offsets athletic expenses or goes into a a general fund, so academic scholarships don't (usually) come out of that pot.  But I think schools' ever-increasing tuition isn't tied to its athletics.  See: Ivy League (they don't do sports scholarships).  

Good post, and good thread.


----------



## Raptor (Oct 29, 2019)

Looks like the NCAA is gonna let athletes nationwide do it:
The Latest: NCAA to allow athletes to cash in on their fame


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 29, 2019)

Well that's one way to do it.


----------



## Kaldak (Oct 29, 2019)

Shit storm to commence in 1, 2, 3, .....


----------



## Kaldak (Oct 29, 2019)

Seriously, I wish I specialized in sports law right now.


----------



## Box (Oct 30, 2019)

Its a good time to be a player agent...


----------

