NCAA Could Place Championship Ban on All California Teams if Bill to Pay Players Passes

Show All Comments

macdaddybuckeyesupreme's picture

The NCAA is a corrupt organization who needs to be torn down, set on fire, and the ashes to be pissed on

Successful people do what they have to, whether they feel like it or not

HS
JimmyVanP's picture

but that would smell horrible 

"I feel ready for whatever awaits me on the other side. I don’t fear adversity. I don’t fear the spotlight. I don’t fear success. And I don’t fear failure." - Braxton Miller

HS
AZBUCKFAN's picture

Funny; that's my opinion of the California Legislature.

HS
jcaseyii's picture

I think the NCAA is being nice only threatening a team that may be in the playoffS when all California teams will be paying.

HS
GunnerBuck's picture

Good. Hopefully they pass it (I can't believe I just said that about a CA law) and other states start following the lead. What if Ohio, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, pass the same law? The NCAA isnt going to bad them. I'd almost guarantee that. 

"Come on, you sons of b!tches! Do you want to live forever?" -- Dan Daly, WWI

HS
BuckeyeBulldog's picture

Personally I have no love lost on California nowadays, but this is absolutely an overstepping of boundaries. What actual power does the NCAA have to ban universities from playing in a championship over state legislature?
In today's CFB landscape no CA team is really on the level of making the playoffs so it is probably a big bluff on the NCAA's part to put a blanket ban that would include a couple historic powers. But what if Bama, SC or Ohio had similar legislation in the works? I doubt the NCAA would actually ban any of their top money makers.

Tldr the NCAA is as corrupt as it gets and only cares about its bottom line being as big as it can be, player rights and amateurism be damned.

HS
bbb's picture

What's wrong with California?

HS
Wargor's picture

Politics.  Best left at that at 11W.

HS
colo_buckeye's picture

High taxes, toll bridges, traffic, air quality, road quality, housing prices (rentals included here), grocery prices, homeless population, trash.  Just for starters.

God > Family > Buckeyes football

HS
macdaddybuckeyesupreme's picture

Dont forget the needles and poop

Successful people do what they have to, whether they feel like it or not

HS
CC's picture

There's an app for that :)

HS
NorCal Buckeye's picture

Hmm, I thought Ohio was the one famous for having the orange traffic cones blooming in the spring.

The roads here are actually in fantastic shape. Not only do they not have to deal with the winter freezes, they actually repave them as needed - interstates, city roads, neighborhoods. My first trip back to Ohio I was shocked how much I forgot how bad the roads are.

Prices are higher, but so is income.

HS
colo_buckeye's picture

The roads here are actually in fantastic shape

I drive 80 every day from near the 580 north out of town, it is anything but fantastic.  

they actually repave them as needed

Pretty sure they missed a couple cycles of as needed.  But that $6 (everytime) to cross a bridge helps pay for the repairs.

 But, its all good NCB, I just travel in make as much of that Cali green as I can and go live where I want! You can have it full time  : )

God > Family > Buckeyes football

HS
NorCal Buckeye's picture

I'm guessing you mean 80 at Emeryville on the east side of the Bay Bridge. Ha, it shoukdnt matter there since you're rarely going over 40mph there anyways. :-{)}

While They can't shut down that major junction to take the surface from a 7 to a "10", they sure do a fantastic job keeping 80 in good shape when you're not in congested urban areas.

I would take the 3rd lane all the way to the right going over Donner Pass (where the semis run with chains in the winter) over driving on CLE or New Orleans roads any day.

HS
SilverState's picture

What actual power does the NCAA have to ban universities from playing in a championship over state legislature?

Technically the NCAA wouldn't be overstepping state legislature - they'd just be continuing to enforce their rule that amateur players accepting money are disqualified, no?

"Year for what?"

HS
WorthyBuck's picture

Yes.  The NCAA regulates the collegiate competitions and has amateur rules.  Not an overstep by the NCAA, they would just be performing their most fundamental charge/purpose of ensuring amateur status and fairness for their competitions. 

I believe that teams/conferences willingly and consensually join the NCAA.  There is no requirement that they participate.  Its by consent/agreement.  

HS
Dstacify's picture

What other options do the Division I teams have in terms of what organizational banner they play under? Join the NAIA instead? Yeah that'd be a great solution to the problem. They're willing participants in the NCAA because they have no other realistic options. The NCAA by far has the most resources.

11 Strong.

HS
WorthyBuck's picture

Whether its the NCAA or other entity, there needs to exist a governing body to ensure fairness of play.  To accomplish that there are rules that need to be enforced.  If a school chooses to not play by the established rules, then they are excluded.  

What if the Michigan legislature passed a law saying that scholarship athletes must be paid?  

Everyone needs to play by the same rules.  

HS
Dstacify's picture

Except the NCAA has already shown they'll turn a blind eye to certain programs committing violations (cough, cough, Clemson, Bama.....cough, cough). Somehow I think the NCAA would be absolutely horrified if Alabama chose to pass a state law like this because that would mean having to sentence their current flagship program (and biggest cash cow) to a lifelong ban from competing for championships. The NCAA makes up the rules as they go along all the time with the way they regulate these college programs, that's far from a secret.

11 Strong.

HS
Dstacify's picture

The NCAA is an overly petty organization and this straight up proves it. This is also a dangerous hill for them to choose to die on. If other states follow CA's lead and choose to pass the same bill they're going to have to shut down college athletics entirely as no college programs will be eligible to play for championships by NCAA ruling.

11 Strong.

HS
WorthyBuck's picture

Isn’t it the legislatures killing college athletics in that scenario, not the NCAA?  

People really want college sports to become unregulated professional minor leagues?  

Cutting off nose to spite face comes to mind.  

HS
Dstacify's picture

Considering how incompetent and inconsistent the NCAA is at punishing programs for committing pay-to-play violations when that practice happens at almost all elite blue blood programs nowadays the state legislature might actually be doing them a favor here. Not to mention this nonsense of punishing smaller programs like Missouri for less egregious violations just to make an example out of them and make yourselves appear useful needs to go away altogether. The NCAA is too cowardly to ever risk dropping sanctions on programs like Alabama or Clemson so they go for the smaller fish instead and allowing college players to get paid at the very least takes away their ability to do that going forward.

11 Strong.

HS
WorthyBuck's picture

I disagree with just about everything you have said and your general, obvious disdain the of NCAA.

there needs to be a regulating board for college athletics that sets the rules.  Attacking the NCAA for other minor decisions is not the same question of whether they can or should as a general matter exclude teams that intentionally break the existing rules that all other teams play by.

I am not saying the NCAA has a great track record on some issues or even that players should not be payed, but of course the NCAA would say that teams that pay players would be banned under the current rules.  But it is clear that the California legislature is picking a fight with the NCAA for their own purposes and agenda.  

Any governing body charged with regulating and ensuring an even playing field would react the same way in response to a blatant attempt to systematically break the rules.  It may be a way to attack the NCAA, but I submit that the change needs to come from the schools and conferences, not the California legislature.  

HS
Dstacify's picture

The NCAA hasn't just made mistakes. They're downright corrupt just like the NFL, FIFA, and numerous other professional sports organizations are corrupt. You think they care about even playing fields? If that were the case they'd have the cajones to drop the hammer on schools like Alabama for paying players. They won't however because damaging an elite flagship program like Alabama damages their bottom line (which is all they care about). Programs like Ole Miss and Missouri do NOT matter as much to them however so they'll gladly bury those schools in sanctions. That's about as far from an even playing field as you can get. There's a hierarchy in the NCAA just like there's a hierarchy in the NBA and NFL where the big market teams receive so much favoritism while the small market teams have competitive disadvantages on almost every level. When teams like UCF start competing with the big dogs in CFB the NCAA finds that suspicious often times. That's usually where the seeds of NCAA investigation start in CFB. With the smaller programs that defy the odds.

11 Strong.

HS
Rocket Man's picture

If one state pays, or one  university pays, then that state or school will have a huge advantage.

Even if I loved a school, if another school offered me a chance to make a lot of money legally and the school I loved did not, then I'd be swayed quite heavily.  Especially (if as I was back in the day) I didn't have much money to begin with.

So pay for play has to be an all or nothing thing.

Varys: I've always hated the bells. They ring for horror, a dead king, a city under siege. 
Tyrion: A wedding. 
Varys: Exactly.

HS
WorthyBuck's picture

Exactly.  This goes against the entire purpose of a governing body for college athletics.  

California schools should not be eligible for any NcAA competition if they pay players.

Maybe the Ohio legislature should pass a law that says  Ohio State must have 150 football players on scholarship at all times.  

HS
LCT's picture

Best take in the thread (Ohio legislature...). The California assembly, which is filled with kooks, weirdos, psychos, Communists etc, doesn't get to write The Rules.

Lifetime vs. UM: L 8-1, C 7-0, T 4-0

HS
AZBUCKFAN's picture

BINGO! The NCAA should totally ban all California teams from ALL NCAA competition since they would be paying players. That, alone, would be a huge RECRUITING violation at any other school. The lure of playing at a CA school would definitely leave a very uneven playing field for schools from other states, especially in recruiting. I actually think college players should get paid for the usage of their images, names, etc. but unless or until that is universal policy at ALL NCAA institutions, this should not be allowed.

HS
Hovenaut's picture

Just commented on this in the Skull Session...so no Rose Bowl (use of other locations)?

Got M...igan gossip? Bang it here.

HS
StarkCountyBoy's picture

This will be fascinating to watch.

California schools may ignore the law and deny student-athletes to be paid because it breaks the NCAA’s rules. Remember, NCAA is a voluntary association and all members agree to abide by the ruling body’s rules. In this scenario, students would sue the California universities. 

Result 1: University wins and the law becomes unenforceable and eventually repealed.

Result 2: Students win. NCAA now has a mess on their hands. It wouldn’t take long for California schools to have a HUGE swing in their favor. After all, who wouldn’t go there to get paid AND be eligible for championships? OH, AL, GA, FL, SC, TX, etc., would pass similar laws very quickly. You think SEC, OSU, etc., wouldn’t respond immediately? And that’s just the football side. What about KS, NC, KY and all those basketball blue bloods? 

Result 3: While the California situation plays out in the courts over a number of years, other states (SEC, OSU, etc.) pass similar laws. At some point critical mass is reached whereby NCAA can only ban them all from post-season participation if it wants to hasten its own demise.

The NCAA and its member institutions aren’t dumb. They see where this is all headed. My guess is that an olympics type compensation model will be adopted within the next 3-5 years.

"There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body."

HS
stuckupnorth's picture

California and there policy makers are deranged. That said if you choose as an institution to participate with the ncaa, then you are subject to their rules. I’m not sure what is so hard to understand anymore. Where I work is the same way. People want to riot and sabotage the company over everything. LEAVE. It is their buisness they can run it how they want. The ncaa can run its self how it wants. If schools do not like it don’t play. If there are no other options than sorry about your luck. The same where I work. We have some of the best jobs in the world. However people want to fight every single thing. Yet no one leaves. My house my rules , ncaa house there rules, Japan’s house Japan’s rules, corporation x is corporate x rules

HS
Scarlet_Lutefisk's picture

You have riots at work? 

That's metal.

HS
Wargor's picture

Headbangers in leather...sparks fly in the dead of the night!

HS
stuckupnorth's picture

Want to riot. Not real riots. Close

HS
45has2's picture

RIOT! Tonight it's a gas, tomorrow you're homeless.  -I. Pop

Censores irrumasti.

HS
stuckupnorth's picture

Dead Kennedy’s had a similar line . Tomorrow your homeless tonight’s a blast.

HS
CALPOPPY's picture

California and there policy makers are deranged. That said if you choose as an institution to participate with the ncaa, then you are subject to their rules.

They can legitimately argue that schools that get funding from the state would have to follow this rule. Not sure if the Stanfords of the world would be compelled, but the state can make this tied to receiving state funding.

Memento mori

HS
westy81585's picture

Your scenario assumes the schools have somewhere else to go.  They do not.

And if an organization runs their business corruptly, as it looks pretty plain the NCAA is, then they are breaking the law.  Especially when you get tax payer dollars involved via public universities .... the only reason the NCAA hasn't exploded in government investigation yet is because no politician is stupid or brave enough to confront something as popular as football.  As soon as one of them finds a way to frame it as an attack that doesn't touch "football"...then the NCAA is in big trouble.  And they are ineptly run enough that they're giving a lot of options to those that would do the attacking.  

Don't forget that the NCAA only exists because of government intervention when the powers that be of the 1900's weren't managing the situation.  Teddy Roosevelt himself stepped in and the resulting changes lead directly to the NCAA.  

HS
hnyg8modonwelfare's picture

“Nonetheless, when contrasted with current NCAA rules, as drafted the bill threatens to alter materially the principles of intercollegiate athletics and create local differences that would make it impossible to host fair national championships. As a result, it likely would have a negative impact on the exact student-athletes it intends to assist." -SEC shill Mark Emmert

Haha.  I wonder if he said this with a straight face.  As if the NCAA regularly hosts a fair national championship in football.

That said, I personally approve the California bill.  I like the idea of student athletes being allowed compensation of their own likeness.  It's constitutional, it's fair, and it's not the programs paying them directly.

What I don't like is turning a blind eye to pay-for-play and fraudulent grades which is the current state of the NCAA.  Maybe Emmert should focus on enforcing rules currently imposed if he's so worried about fair national championships.

I just hope someone doesn't try to pass direct compensation by the programs.  That's not how college works, and that argument can only be made for a minuscule fraction of college athletes who go on to make millions in the pros anyway.

Thank you Urban Meyer and Gene Smith

HS
cecsix's picture

The NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP or hosting college football's national championship. 

HS
johnblairgobucks's picture

Sean Miller should have taken the UCLA job, it seems.

HS
Wargor's picture

1.  The NCAA is a joke.  That should never be forgotten.

2.  If CA passes this law, the NCAA as it is currently theoretically set up should enforce a ban on California schools.  

3.  If and when it is seen that California schools are getting an advantage other states will follow suit and the NCAA will be forced to change its rules.  

3A. Other states may follow their lead even before California gets an advantage.  If California starts siphoning off top talent I can see it having a leveling effect on other teams and I can't see the Alabamas, Ohio States, or Clemsons of the world putting up with the risk of more parity.  

HS
StarkCountyBoy's picture

A lot of folks hate the NCAA. I get it. But what do you propose to replace it with? Collegiate athletics has to be governed. By who?

I am no shrill for the NCAA. They get it wrong a lot. A LOT. I believe there needs to be a reform movement within the NCAA, driven by its member institutions. 

But as long as there are boosters, bagmen and amoral coaches, SOMEBODY has to try and keep the playing field level. I am all ears if you have a better solution.

"There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body."

HS
elitesmithie's picture

Larry Scott has already tried to ban Pac12 schools from football and basketball championships the last 5 or so years. 

HS
CALPOPPY's picture

LOL. That’s pretty funny. +1

Realize it was a joke, but wanted to add that while that’s definitely the case in Div 1A, in other sports and in other divisions, the California schools have done well across a lot of sports. This would effect a lot of power schools across many sports. (And there’s only 3 4 California schools in PAC12).

This will be interesting to watch.

Memento mori

HS
Bucks2K18's picture

There's 4 Cali teams in the Pac-12: USC, UCLA, UCal Berkeley, and Stanford

That's a Buckeye touchdown!

HS
CALPOPPY's picture

Yep. Fixed.

Memento mori

HS
Art Harrell's picture

Some will always think..all rules and regulations...don't apply to them...you just pick and chose rules and regulations you like...Go Bucks

HS
IBLEEDSCARLETANDGRAY's picture

The NCAA does that it will lead to all players being paid, the complete opposite of what the NCAA wants. Piss off enough people and they become your enemy.

"You're the patron saint of the totally effed" - Hot Tub Time Machine

HS
cecsix's picture

Paying players is a pandora's box that will lead to the end of not only football, but college athletics as we know it. Not all schools are like OSU where football pays for all the other sports.  Most football programs barely break even by themselves.  Where is all this money going to come from to pay every scholarship athlete on a campus?  Public institutions can't JUST pay male football and basketball players, they'd get sued into oblivion. And a school of any size can't generate enough funds to pay all athletes equally.  Not even Ohio State.  

HS
Wargor's picture

Well, this appears to sidestep that part of the issue by letting the players benefit from the sale of their likeness.  So the school isn't paying them, Nike is.  Not that that isn't its own Pandora's box, but I think it would sidestep title IX.

HS
cecsix's picture

Good luck regulating that. How are you going to prevent a booster from paying a recruit for his “likeness” to go to the favored school.

HS
Wargor's picture

I did use the term, "pandora's box".

HS
Rico411's picture

This will have a huge effect on recruiting when a player can go to Cali and get paid to play but the rest of the country they are not ....the NCAA would have to ban them from championship play duenti the unfair advantage they would have in recruiting players .

" we play to win the game "

HS
BuckeyeGoneNuts's picture

There is a ton of misinformation here about the NCAA, how it operates, what it does and so forth.

For what it's worth, I think the NCAA is a terribly run organization that's all over the place in how rules are enforced and investigated and so forth.  That said, people need to understand that the NCAA isn't some entity that can just set it's own rules.  They are accountable to all the member schools, and they can only have rules in place if the member schools agree to them.

The bottom line is that if CA passes the law, all schools in CA should (and would) be banned from participating in NCAA sanctioned activities -- not just football or basketball either, all of them, all sports.   Like it or not, the NCAA is charged (by the member schools) with keeping a system in place for amateur athletics in colleges.  Having one set of schools play by different rules than the rest is not logically feasible, so the CA schools would have to drop out of the NCAA --- or all the other schools would have to agree to some new NCAA rules that would put everyone on even footing again.  

This whole "let them get paid, it's soooooo unfair they don't get paid" stuff drives me nuts.  The NCAA can set whatever rules the member organizations want, if you don't want to abide by those rules, you don't have to -- don't participate in their sports activities.    Don't like the NCAA rules?  Feel free to make your own better organization with better rules, there are no restrictions to prevent you from doing so.  Do whatever you want, but trying to force the NCAA (ie, the member schools) to change their rules to suit your desires makes no sense.  If they want to maintain amateur sports (however they want to define that), they can do that, and you are free to start your own competing organization if you like.

HS
CALPOPPY's picture

Do whatever you want, but trying to force the NCAA (ie, the member schools) to change their rules to suit your desires makes no sense.  If they want to maintain amateur sports (however they want to define that), they can do that, and you are free to start your own competing organization if you like.

Despite your feelings on whether they should be doing this, it appears that the California legislature is attempting to force a change within in the NCAA. So, they don’t need to create a new organization if they can effect change on the current one. They did the same with smoking laws (banning smoking in public places...which other states adopted within a decade). It’s just what they do. Maybe they’ll succeed and maybe they will fail. But they will try to change the status quo, and don’t think they’ll need to create something completely new.

Yes, it’s throwing their weight around...but they are an 800 lb gorilla with the population and number of NCAA schools.

Memento mori

HS
Crowd Threatening Bauserbombs's picture

Right but the difference with smoking ban laws is that with pay for play amateurs they are making rules that conflict with another entity that regulates the ones in their state.  Perhaps California, in all their infinite wisdom, doesn’t know what’s best for amateur athletics nationwide?  I guess their schools will find out. 

HS
CALPOPPY's picture

I know it’s not the same as smoking laws. I guess that I see them passing a law which they believe that other states will then follow.

No other state had to create laws banning smoking, but they did. California provided an example and other states followed. That’s why I brought up the smoking ban. 

But agree that it might backfire on them, and not even sure if I think it’s a good idea. Just giving my opinion on why I think they’re doing it.

Memento mori

HS
oprettyricky's picture

Just gonna go ahead and say it to lighten the mood...it won't really affect any of their NCAA football or basketball teams from a national championship standpoint lol 

(since they are almost never there anymore for those who didn't catch my drift)

HS
Bucks2K18's picture

Elsewhere I read that it's not just at a national championship level, it's also at a conference championship level. The NCAA could put a postseason ban on all California teams.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-considers-postsea...

That's a Buckeye touchdown!

HS
CC's picture

I don't understand why it would be just post-season.  In theory the rules apply all season no?

HS
bd2999's picture

Sounds pretty stupid to me.

HS
ANOTHERMICHIGANLOSS's picture

As a school, when you signed up with the NCAA, you signed up for the NCAA rules.  Schools are not forced to be a member of the NCAA.  Just because the law may get through, it doesn't mean that the schools will go that direction.  They need the NCAA as much as the NCAA needs them.  Good luck getting TV contracts and exposure packaging USC, UCLA, CAL, Stanford, and all of the smaller schools who don't compete nationally with the schools that are all part of the NCAA.  The law doesn't force schools to allow players to be paid (at least not to my knowledge), just allows them to if they so choose.  Until basically the top half of FBS schools decide to pull out of the NCAA and start their own organization, the NCAA still holds the cards.  So even if this law passes, I highly doubt anything major actually happens within the individual schools.

HS
CALPOPPY's picture

Just because the law may get through, it doesn't mean that the schools will go that direction. 

Obviously, it will depend on how the law is written. As I said in a comment above, it would be possible to tie in state funding to paying athletes, much like Title IX enforcement is tied to federal funding.

Not saying whether I agree with this tactic, just saying that it might be possible for the state can force the hand of at least the state universities. And yes, they might be screwing over the universities.

Memento mori

HS
ANOTHERMICHIGANLOSS's picture

Yeah it depends on how the law is enforced.  If it is just a law that allows the players to earn the money, then I doubt the schools do anything.  If it is indeed tied to state funding, then they will basically force the schools to bow out of the NCAA which would be a disaster.

HS
BrewstersMillions's picture

John Bacon wrote a book in 2012 called Fourth and Long. First, highly recommended. It highlights the 2012 season for PSU (First year post-Sandusky), OSU (Meyer's first year), NU (Fitz on the rise) and Michigan (Hoke coming off successful 2011). In the preface, he predicts football would go to a playoff for no other reason than them not collecting a penny off of the BCS system as the money went to the bowls. He compared that to March Madness, which generates a billion dollars for the NCAA.

To think this nonsense has anything to do with anything other than protecting free labor is short-sighted at best. I hope this passes, I hope it empowers other states to do it, and I hope the NCAA collapses under its own weight. Or at the very least has to sit by idle and impotent as every major conference tells it to screw off.

Also-for you NCAA Football fans...this is a path to that game returning.

Proudly dispensing unbridled arrogance since 1983.

HS
cmented36's picture

Free labor? Football players, get a stipend each month, free housing, free food, free clothes & gear, free professional level training, free medical services, free tutoring, free school (40k+ value for in state, 120k+ value out of state). Not to mention many, if they focus in school, can graduate in 3 years due to summer semesters, take grade school and in 5 years on campus come out with a masters. Sorry I don't feel bad for them at all. They are the people undervaluing what they already receive. This would be like me bitching that I don't make nearly as much off a $100K project as my company does. 

Not profiting off of their likeness is the ONLY way to keep a competitive playing field at all. or everybody would go to the biggest schools with the biggest followings because they're going to be the schools ad companies run to. 

HS
BrewstersMillions's picture

That's a fine analogy to you and your company's projects but let's not pretend all things are equal. 100K on a project isn't exactly much of a parallel to the BILLIONS of dollars College football generates. It's a massive discrepancy.

All of those things you mentioned are benefits, and while nice isn't the same thing as getting paid for your effort. Please name me a job you'd take that provided you room and board and health care but didn't give you more than a few bucks on the first and fifteenth. Urban Meyer's contract was LOADED with incentives and perks and oh, by the way, a 6-7 figure salary. somehow it's different because the kids get tuition covered by a school and program that couldn't care less if they graduated? And Meyer (and every other coach) isn't taking the same amount of risk a player is. A player's career can be over before it starts with no safety net and we're ok with it because why? 

I also get the vibe that you are drawing a line from "getting paid for your likeness" and a university cutting the player a check. I don't follow that line of thinking so I may very well be missing something.

Proudly dispensing unbridled arrogance since 1983.

HS
cmented36's picture

Getting paid for your likeness creates a competition gap even larger than what already exists between larger and small schools. Advertisers will always pay more for larger schools. The reason there's a draft for the NFL is to try to create competitive teams across the league, same for why there are NCAA rules for amateurism and what not. The ONLY way to fairly compensate players more would be to have a maximum amount allowable per player from the schools themselves. 

Alright you don't like my project analogy... McDonalds is a billion dollar company, if I go work there I should make a few hundred thousand a year in your line of thinking?... and get to eat all I want, free clothes & shoes, free tuition and housing

Truth is they're already being compensated big time, and the vast far and away majority of players DON'T go pro because they aren't good enough. Tell me honestly what necessities do players not get for free? The'yre still NOT professionals so why act like they should be getting paid/compensated in the same way. Whenever compensation is brought up everybody focuses on the stars, what about the guys that sit the bench for 5+ years? I'd be fine if they even increase the stipend but to act like on average they're not being overly compensated is short sighted. 

I would honestly give my left nut to go get a free masters degree from OSU, free tutoring, have free food, nutritionists, not have to worry if I'll have enough money for groceries, utilities, or rent, because I can just go to campus, and free housing and clothes, I'd get Marotti as a personal trainer, and last but not least I'd get to play in the shoe during my 5 years on campus and come out debt free. I could not play a snap and I come out probably well over $200k+ up on the average student trying to pay their way through. 

Idk maybe I'm just looking at it from a perspective of "the average football player", there's 85 players on scholarship at a time. Lets call it 24 starting spots 22 O/D + kicker/punter, that's 61 players or 71% of the team that aren't typically making much of impact on Saturdays, even if you count rotational players and get up to 34 players per program (60%) that "earn the billions of dollars that college football generates" you're still above 60% of players making little to no impact. If you calculate 130 FBS teams x lets say an even 50 players that don't typically do shit on Saturdays you get 6,500 players that could basically not show up on Saturday and college football would still roll on. Why pay the guard/center/tackle of the bench the same as the RB? Compensation cuts both ways. Are you saying we should compensate the players that don't contribute on Saturdays (therefore don't contribute anything to the earnings of college football) ever the same way we pay the stars? 

If they're going to pay college players why aren't the high school players in California getting paid too? They're good at football and generate money for their athletic programs... The further you drill this down the dumber and dumber the argument is.... Little Jimmy draws a crowd for the biddy league he should be compensated because the concession stand makes more when he's playing... 

And I'm done, no use arguing over this stuff because similar to politics, you're likely never to change anybody's mind. 

HS
jpfbucks01's picture

If I was the rest of the Pac 12 I would be livid with this.

It is hard enough to convince Cali kids to leave the state and go to Oregon, Washington or Arizona without then throwing compensation on top of it

Arizona St, Arizona, the Ducks, Beavers, WSU and UW would all be at a massive disadvantage if this was allowed to stand.

Not saying I am against paying players, but I am against 1 subset of teams having an unequal advantage, This is not much different than if some state passed a rule that their teams could have 20 basketball scholarships while the rest of the NCAA stayed at 13.

It would so dramatically change the landscape as to make all other schools non-competitive

HS
Deano's picture

It I would be interested to see a lawyers take on this.  At first assumption I think this law is actually useless.  The reason not to compensate players now is NCAA rules, not the absence of a state law allowing it.  If the NCAA doesn’t cave, I don’t see this as anything new.  Universities can choose to stay in the NCAA or leave and compensate their players.  With or without a law.  (I may be missing a key detail).

How long could a California only college sports league survive?  Long enough for other schools to want to join?

HS
Crowd Threatening Bauserbombs's picture

Based upon the interest in the PAC 12 network it would last about 37 seconds.

HS
AZBUCKFAN's picture

"How long could a California only college sports league survive?  Long enough for other schools to want to join?"

Remember the old Southwest Conference? It died out, especially after Arkansas left, and it was nothing but Texas schools. After it folded, the schools ended up in the BIG-12, WAC, or on their own.

HS
stxbuck's picture

So will Fresno State, SDSU, San Jose State, UC-Davis,etc,etc. be forced to pay the same as USC,UCLA, and Stanford? For all the concern and hype about 'branding" amongst millenials, you would think they are smart enough to realize the difference is football "brands"-and the inherent value thereof-as things currently stand.........................

HS
I_Run_The_Dave's picture

Allowing players to be paid based upon their likeness, etc, and requiring it are two very different things.

If it were a requirement to pay them under the law, then being a member of an institution that prohibits it would become illegal, which means that NCAA schools in California would be legally required to withdraw from the NCAA.

But it isn't.  It's saying that they are allowed to, which means that NCAA bylaws still apply.  This means that players that legally acquire compensation are still ineligible.  So if those member schools allow those players to play, they are violating NCAA bylaws and are subject to penalties.

FWIW, selling personal possessions and using this to negotiate discounts on tattoos is not illegal in the state of Ohio.  But it still got Tressel fired and several players suspended as well as a season of vacated wins.  And yet we still have Ohio schools in the NCAA.

Your signature will be publicly displayed at the end of your comments.

HS
cmented36's picture

Allowing players to be paid for their likeness WILL create an unfair competitive advantage beyond school traditions and etc. You'll basically narrow down the championship field to the same 2-4 schools every single year because they are big, good football schools with massive followings that will allow the players to be better compensated. 

Honestly the only competitively fair way to pay the players is the schools to pay them while the NCAA sets a maximum amount across all institutions. Which is basically what they have now... they just aren't happy with the stipend amount. 

I'm all for increasing the stipend amount maybe even to a small salary, but the argument that the athletes aren't getting compensated is untruthful. Sure it's a lot smaller than what the institution makes, but I'm pretty sure that's ANY business model. McDonalds workers don't make anything compared to the corporation either... 

I know I'd go play football for 4-5 years to come out of college debt free while getting pampered with all the other benefits. 

HS
LCT's picture

You defenders of California here, what happens in some future that includes pay for players if California's assembly decides players in California should make double or triple players everywhere else should? That's an obvious future step.

Why play football at Ohio State for $200k when you can play football at USC for $600k?

Lifetime vs. UM: L 8-1, C 7-0, T 4-0

HS
CALPOPPY's picture

You defenders of California here, what happens in some future that includes pay for players if California's assembly decides players in California should make double or triple players everywhere else should? That's an obvious future step.

It’s difficult to sincerely respond to you when every statement you make is misinformed, full of hyperbole, and purposefully bombastic. But based upon my previous experiences, I don’t expect anything different. Your comments and questions don’t seem sincere, so why should someone sincerely respond to your comments and questions.

Memento mori

HS
LCT's picture

It's a legitimate question. Expand your thinking and that will become clear. From there, take it or leave it -- it's (still) a free country.

Lifetime vs. UM: L 8-1, C 7-0, T 4-0

HS
LCT's picture

Sorry, that was unintentionally too dismissive.

If CA can impose pay for play on the NCAA why couldn't CA similarly establish a raisable minimum wage equivalent for college football players?

Is that hyperbole/bombast?

Lifetime vs. UM: L 8-1, C 7-0, T 4-0

HS
buck62's picture

I think it's reasonable to assume that CA won't stop at step 1. 

HS
LCT's picture

Agreed. CA never stops at step 1. For example, 10 or so years ago it was in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants which was crazy enough, now it's government health care for illegal immigrants.

I realize this tows a fine line 'round here but the point is illustrative & germane to what's being discussed (CA never stops at step 1). California's on the cutting edge of just about everything, for better or worse.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/12/18653901/california-expand-health-care-una...

Lifetime vs. UM: L 8-1, C 7-0, T 4-0

HS
LCT's picture

*Vox link above for anyone inclined to call me misinformed or dishonest. I may be a mischief maker once in a while but I'm not those. I abhor Fake News & its purveyors.

Lifetime vs. UM: L 8-1, C 7-0, T 4-0

HS
stxbuck's picture

Would agree that this course of action regarding pay for play plays into California political stereotyping, whether or not said stereotypes reflect your own political leanings?

HS
LCT's picture

Me? Absolutely. If any state would do this it's California. Possibly Illinois or New York but they don't really care about college sports.

Lifetime vs. UM: L 8-1, C 7-0, T 4-0

HS
stxbuck's picture

I was asking poppy, had a pretty good inkling of your take on the issue!

HS
logamaniac's picture

well if this were to happen, we wouldn't have any stories about Urban coaching at USC since he wouldn't be able to have the opportunity to win titles

HS
NorCal Buckeye's picture

Urban will be the first to win the California Supreme League Championship (presented by Google).

HS
MaineStrength's picture

IMO the bill the pass.  It has to get through 5 different votes and is through 2 with a total score of 36-4. .  The likely impact of California passing this bill would be the NCAA going into a lawsuit that they lose and then a cascade of identical bills across the country then it's open season for the money cannons.

Strength equipment is expensive & guarantees you nothing. A strong will is free & will give you everything you need.

HS
buck62's picture

From what I've read, the NCAA rules prohibiting D1 athletes from making money off of their likeness seems too broad even if you agree with the concept (which I don't). Even with the NCAA removing the name and image requirement from the Student Athlete Statement, the rules still seem too draconian: 

"You are not eligible in any sport if, after you become a student-athlete, you accept any pay for promoting a commercial product or service or allow your name or picture to be used for promoting a commercial product or service.  [Bylaws 12.5.2.1 and 12.5.2.2] "

So a D1 student athlete can't make money modeling, for example, even if the modeling gig has nothing to do with sports or athletic clothing. A Wichita State student athlete was advised not to model for a sports wear company but it appears that she couldn't have modeled for any company. Maybe it's too difficult for the NCAA to determine if a student athlete is making money off of her likeness because she's attractive or because she's an athlete so they just ban it all.

HS
Fatpants's picture

California isn’t starting it’s own league. 

The NCAA isn’t going to ban all California teams from competition. 

This is California trying to force the NCAA’s hand and make them change. 

PG <3 PG

HS
NorCal Buckeye's picture

Just you wait. You think watching the PAC after midnight on ESPN is cool, the California Supreme League on Apple TV is going to be lit.

HS