Unilateral move by a state without NCAA buy-in equals another nail in the coffin of west coast college football.
Urban and Fox Sports’ college kickoff show may want to move to Vegas.
I stated previously, the NCAA could implement a system where corporations could pay into a pool for players associated with the pool to evenly split the revenue. The payments would grant the corporations access to a specific number of players for a finite number of promotions per year. Multiple pools could be created, based on any number of variables (e.g., conference or division affiliation). For instance, Nike could pay $100M per year to the P5 pool, $20M to the G5 pool, $5M to FCS, etc.
This would address a few issues. First, the ilicit bagmen. What in California's law would prohibit a booster from paying a star player at USC a million dollars for a game worn sock? Nothing that I can see. Also there is the issue of Title IX. While many will argue that there is at best, a tenuous connection, someone will make a court case out of it. Let the NCAA create a trust fund for all this and split it evenly at the end of the year to all the member schools. Maybe not an ideal solution, but I think Homey's idea is a step in the right direction.
A 1099 form, perhaps?
I've said before the only way this approach would work is if all 50 states pass this law. Then the NCAA would really have a quandary on their hands because making every CFB program in the country ineligible to compete for championships would put them out of business in a heartbeat. So they'd have no choice but to play ball unless they want to close up shop for good.
If they can get paid more power to the kids, everyone else is getting paid.
"Everyone else" aren't amateurs.
I hear you though. If the student-athletes are pressured to take general study-type majors and the like, something needs to be done...
...what exactly, I'm not sure.
"Year for what?"
Amateur athletes in other sports have been getting paid endorsement money for decades. The NCAA even allows athletes who are professionals in one sport compete as an amateur in another sport. The NCAA has a good thing going on and doesn't want anybody to upset the apple cart. The NCAA has become as bad as FIFA and other like organizations. The NCAA can choose to change or choose to disband.
Wait, wait...the law prohibits SCHOOLS from removing a player's eligbility? So the NCAA can still deem a player ineligible?
I'm very confused about the specifics and implications of this.
I'd be lying if I said I completely understood them myself, because it is confusing, but all of that is truly certain right now is that there are going to be more legal battles between now and 2023 to determine how all this will be enforced. Based on what Gene Smith and others have said, my understanding right now is that the new law would prevent California schools from participating in NCAA competitions if NCAA rules don't change – but I'd be really surprised if it comes to that, especially since other states that also have major Division I universities are considering similar laws. I also don't think the NCAA is going to simply back down and change its policies, and they could argue that the California law is unenforceable or unconstitutional, but I think there's a very real possibility this does lead to national changes if the NCAA doesn't win in court. We might have a better idea of changes the NCAA could make once Gene's working group presents its report to the Board of Governors in October.
This California law moves to federal court, where the NCAA will argue that only Congress has authority to regulate via the commerce clause.
Comment removed for violating the site's commenting policy.
The NCAA doesn't determine who gets a scholarship, just whether they are eligible to play in a sport.
Buckeye in the desert of Washington state.
Right, so if a team does not actually play any players who get a disallowed benefit there would be no NCAA violation. Can't imagine how a state could require a school to play particular players. Also, even if "not prevented by the school," a student athlete couldn't cut their own deal for an image and likeness promotion wearing their uniform or any other school-associated images unless the school itself also agrees to be part of the ad, right? State can't make the school agree to participate in an ad campaign.
So athletes could be kind of limited to ad deals in non-school clothes, which would surely exist (for a select few), but teams who want to remain NCAA eligible would just have to not play them. And if so, not sure why they'd be required to maintain their scholarships.
"I don't want to be around average, why be around average!" -UFM
What a bunch of hosers.
If you die before you die, then you won't die when you die.
It’s California, not Canada! Take off, eh.
I’m always concerned about the unintended consequences of things. I’ll have to wait and see,
So does this mean donors/boosters from large football factories are going to be in a bidding war for endorsement deals offered to 5* recruits?
Sorry Clemson, Les Wexner is going to pay me $1M a year to wear Limited jeans and play QB for Ohio State.
This is exactly what will happen. It is the reason why we have the NCAA and there rule book on amateurism to begin with.
EA College football 21'?!!!
My other thought is do they cap earnings or make it a free market? So many details amd moving parts here.
Government making a rash decision without fully understanding how it will work?
Why, this must be the first time that's happened!
Never before in the history of man have lives less lived been more chronicled. - Dennis Miller
Gavin Newsom just looking for air time. He has no worldly idea what he's getting into.
Newsom really isn't getting into anything. He signed the bill into law, now everyone else has to figure things out.
He's getting exactly what he wants, publicity.
That is true, but the ramifications of the bill he signed will fall upon others...not him.
ramifications of the bill he signed will fall upon others
And that's what we call Government.....
Oh please, only facts were stated.
So if NCAA members wont play these schools (assuming they are no longer affiliated with NCAA once its in effect); how much is your image/likeness worth? USC vs Arizona Christian (NAIA) doesn't exactly move the needle. This would kill the PAC12 to lose Stanford, USC, UCLA from the conference.
Essentially some kids will want to get paid to play and go play at these schools but how much will they be making without the NCAA marketing machine and TV deals?
Great point. If they are not in the NCAA - who would ever watch them or care about them? I would assume ESPN and Fox would focus on NCAA which would turn the PAC-12 California schools into an "XFL" of sorts with limited interest at best.
At least we're not from Detroit...
Whenever did money not attract players. If you pay them they will come. The NCAA (though it wouldn’t happen at the onset) simply cannot be perceived as the less talented football organization. Think of the difference between FBS and FCS.
There are a lot of Cali schools that we don’t pay much attention to that players will flood to to get paid.
Say good bye to good football in rural areas. The NCAA is to fair football competition in the same manner the electoral college keeps population megacenters from determining Presidential elections.
The soldier is my son. The school I gone to didn’t teach much grammar.
Or, those schools remain members of the NCAA and they do not allow their players to be compensated, in violation of California law. If CA files charges against those schools, this thing starts moving through the legal system probably toward a Supreme Court decision. That may be the real motivation behind this.
"You beat cancer by how you live, why you live, & in the manner in which you live.
So, live. Live. Fight like hell. And when you get too tired to fight then lay down and rest and let somebody else fight for you. "
- Stuart Scott
Typical bureaucrats. Something that sounds good in theory must work in practice, right? The only thing this will do is concentrate power in college football to about 10 programs.
We better be one of them!
I think we already are. OSU is typically in the NC discussion most years. It's the rest of the B1G that needs to start pulling their weight.
How is that any different than how it is already?
I’m cool with it under one condition.
You get paid after you complete 4 years of school and graduate. You leave early, deals off and no money.
Who pays a contractor before the job is done?
100% agree. What gets lost is the compensation of the education. And I hate when the argument is made that they don’t value their education. Okay well that’s not my problem. You still got an education from a top university that costs more than $100k.
I would argue, the benefits scholarship athletes receive is at LEAST 100k.
I'm in the unpopular minority I guess & am ok with that.
Not against this on the face of it. Agree that something needs to be worked out to change the current model. Just don't see how this does anything but make matters much worse in the future.
Can pretty easily envision scenarios where future players refuse to play based on money.
Coaches having to defer to who has more monetary value in the market to placate recruiting needs.
It's already a CFP revolving carousel of what, 10 teams max? Will just amplify that to the 1/2 dozens schools that are able to be juggernauts.
And, as everything is, any form of caps/regulation will just be toe'd to the line, find ways around it, pushing further & further. Human nature to keep pushing boundaries.
Something has to indeed be done, just can't see how this does a damn thing to improve anything.
Just pay the kids min wage for their time in games and practicing but then make them pay for school like everyone else.
"Because I couldn't go for three."
The NCAA brought this on themselves. If schools had been barred from using college athletes' names and images for profit then rules barring the players themselves from doing so would most likely never have been an issue. But the NCAA for years has treated college football and basketball like professional sports for the benefit of member schools while holding the athletes to highly restrictive amateur rules which until recently they attempted to extent even beyond the athletes college playing career. I expect California will not be the last state to pass this type of legislation unless the NCAA moves to address the issue with rules changes.
I go back and forth on the issue of college athletes getting paid. My problem isnt so much with them earning the money (like how Tebows Jersey was the number one Jersey sold in CFB and pro career didn't exactly make him a billionaire). My problem is them having all this access to hundreds of thousands or millions even if it's just from selling likeness. I think a compromise can exist with athletes earning money that is to be held in a trust until they leave the sport.
Still think the easiest fix for the NCAA is to just boot any school in California that pays a kid out of their association. That would mean any school that does the pay thing can't compete in March Madness or in Bowl games.
And selfishly this would allow Ohio State to get out of the dreadful tie-in with the Rose Bowl.. :) PAC12 is awful and the sooner we aren't tied to it the better..
Until everyone realizes there is no fair way to do the pay thing it's never going to work. If you want to pay kids then you need to blow up conferences and reorganize into super conferences that can afford to pay and then weed out those who can't. It would be foolish to keep a Rutgers in the same conference with deep pockets like PSU, Michigan and Ohio State or Vanderbilt or the Miss Schools with Georgia, Bama etc..
Big Ten is not going to give up the huge payout it receives from the Rose Bowl.
Rose Bowl is fine. My point was being tied to the PAC12. The B10s best team not in the playoff shouldn't have to play some 3 loss team because of that tie-in. We got Washington last year and if it wasn't for the tie-in could have had Texas, Georgia or LSU..
That is true. But the tie-in for the Rose Bowl includes both the PAC 12 and the Big Ten...and the PAC 12 isn't giving up that money either. The powers that be in both conferences couldn't care less about the match-up for the game because it will sell out and the payout to both conferences is immense regardless of who is actually playing in the game.
NCAA just kicks out anyone who does the pay for play thing and the tie-in essentially goes with it. The NCAA can just use the playoff game as leverage if they need to.
It is going to get messy for sure. They have 4 years to figure things out.
If it's not going to be a playoff game, does having to play a pac12 team really matter? I think it's a good growth opportunity for next year (which is really the best thing you could hope for if not playing for a natty) because it allows us to a different style of play and (theoretically) get some experience for backups.
If the cali schools end up leaving the NCAA, the PAC probably isnt going to be a thing anymore.
You hit the crux of the matter...the huge payout.
“I’m so tired of flexing.”
At face value, this gives Cali schools a huge recruiting advantage.
Not if they can't be on TV and/or play for a national championship .
That's why I said "at face value".
..which counters the "recruiting advantage " , right?
More like it puts an asterisk on it. I think it's more likely that this policy goes nationwide than the NCAA axing Cali.
don't bet the mortgage on it. Too many variables to cover for this to go nationwide anytime soon.
I'd argue they already have a huge advantage (location, location, location) and still can't seem to put it all together lately.
Agreed. That's a byproduct of who they have running the programs. But a competent coach could easily sell this as a benefit that (currently) no one else has. While other schools can boast of great locations (Miami), no one else can get you paid above-board like this yet.
What I've never understood is how this is so controversial. These kids wreck their minds and bodies for our entertainment, all while the vast majority of them never come close to the NFL and a paycheck. As long as college football rakes in billions of dollars in profit, it is entirely unethical to withold the money from the people who make it.
If amaturism or "buying" recruits is a concern it's not that hard to put in regulations to prevent that. Like giving players a basic stipend and limiting how much they can be paid (i.e. Alabama can only pay players up to $10k a semester). Name and likeness is easy to solve also as you can just have the money go into a fund of sorts for after they graduate (or go towards the 10k limit a semester if the school is broke). Alabama, OSU, Georgia, Clemson all already have a stranglehold on top recruits, paying players isn't going to change that. And at the end of the day, players are already being paid so you might as well regulate it.
I know this is probably not a popular opinion but its a hill I'm willing to die on. We ask so much of these players, and they ask for so little in return. Pay the damn players.
“It is not death therefore that is burdensome, but the fear of death.”
The controversy is Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana etc can't pay at the same rate Ohio State can. Kansas and Kansas St can't pay at the same rate as Oklahoma etc etc etc etc.. you would crush athletics at smaller schools.
This doesn't allow schools to pay the players. It allows the players to sign endorsement deals to make money off of their own likeness.
Get paid at the same rate.... a Pepsi deal in Purdue isn't going to pay at the same rate ( or even exist) as it would at Ohio State... Pepsi is also not going to be interested in more than a kid or two at Purdue and you could have dozens of kids at an OSU or Bama getting paid.
Don't get how people in this country always tout a "free economy" and "charge/pay whatever the market will bear" but don't view athletes getting paid for their likeness as part of a free economy.
Why don't we take all the TV money that a school/conference gets to televise games and distribute that between the players performing?
It wouldn’t be Pepsi, it would be the Pepsi or Budweiser distributor in W. Lafayette acting as the Batman, I mean sponsor.
That's why I was talking about setting limits. I'm not talking about millions of dollars here, but enough where a school doesn't face NCAA violations when a player asks for help with his mother's utility bill...
“Billions in profit” A very VERY select few schools actually make any sort of an actual profit off their football teams. And even then it’s nowhere even close to a billion and then all that money goes to funding the other sports. Hell there are athletic departments that take student tuition to fund their teams. College football is not the money maker people think it is. These kids are recieving $100k or more in benefits via housing and education not to mention the access to coaching they otherwise wouldn’t have. I think they should be able to make money off THEIR name but there are some details and regulations that need to be set.
“Feeling cold is psychological” -Woody
Essentially the NCAA has 3 years to come up with a regulation plan, or everything is going to blow up.
And still not know what to do with said funds....
so stating the obvious and factual (thousands are leaving the state annually while hundreds of thousands more are homeless) that California is hurting itself economically violates the policy? Wow.
Mods are soft.
It doesn't mean any thing. This doesn't stop the NCAA from ruling a kid ineligible the moment they accept money. It's no different than pot being legal in some states but NFL players still getting suspended for smoking it. If you want compete in a organization you must still follow the rules of that organization.
The problem is that now that California passed this (overwhelmingly too), other states are going to do the same thing. You might be able to exclude California’s teams, but when 3-4 other states pass the same bill in the next couple years, excluding doesn’t become an option anymore
And on a side note...the NFL is actually considering allowing players to smoke marijuana and remove it from the list of banned substances.
Hope this doesn't turn into something like the NCAA video game thing. A few jackasses complain about not getting paid for it and then the whole thing goes away because of it.
Why are they "jackasses"? Would you be okay for someone to use your likeness to make billions of dollars but not give you a cut of the earnings?
If given a free education, a chance to make millions in pro ball and/or set up with job connections that others don't have access to; yeah they have gotten their share of the "earnings" . And usually only those with big names or potential are the ones that have their likenesses utilized and stand to gain from all of the above.
yeah they have gotten their share of the "earnings".
Why do I get the feeling that, if you were actually in the shoes of the big time players and one that had their likeness utilized, you would want the biggest "piece of the pie" as possible? I know that I would want all earnings due to me (and if you say you don't, I don't think you are being 100% honest with yourself).
What earnings are due? The university gives the athlete a chance to make a name for themselves. After 3-4 years they can capitalize on that opportunity.
Talking about earnings that a university made/would make from using the "likeness" of a player.
and just how to you equally distribute that money among all the athletic teams? "and IF you say you know --you aren't being honest" with everyone else . Cut the me too crap.
We are talking about an outside corporation paying a player to use his/her likeness in advertising or in a video game, etc. Not the university paying the player (unless the university uses the likeness of that player). Speilman filed a lawsuit to stop Ohio State from using players' likenesses for profit.
No idea what you are referring to with the "me too crap" but obviously you aren't able to conduct a cerebral conversation about a hot-button subject without getting emotional so we will let it go at that.
"Me too" referred to all the other athletes from lesser sports who would want some compensation as well. But mostly referred to the comment Newsom made in the NYTimes article that he essentially dared the NCAA to expel the schools in Cali who would decide to participate calling it being a "threat" he wasn't too worried about. Sorry you took the term personally. This would in effect be opening Pandora's Box and amateur athletics would never be the same.
I do agree on the Pandora's Box theory. The NCAA is broken because of inner corruption (IMO) but this isn't the way to fix it.
It might be billions of dollars overall, but considering how many people are involved in college athletics, I highly doubt anyone is getting seriously screwed out of money. Maybe a few grand? It's not like these kids are getting screwed out of millions. Furthermore, they get free education (not anyone's fault but their own if they don't take advantage of that) and are treated like royalty for the duration of their time at the university. So yeah, I'm not that sympathetic to this situation. To be quite honest, if I was a CFB player, I'd be thrilled to be put in a video game. That'd be cool as hell. I wouldn't give a shit if someone was making money off it. It just comes across as whiney, like everything's gotta be turned into a money making situation. I don't care if players are paid a flat amount across the board, but I don't want this to turn into some NFL contract negotiation crap. That would be a death knell for the sport. That was really my point.
Drake is chairman of the NCAA's Board of Governors? Who knew? The man is incompetent at his day job, so let’s cover him with prestige by giving him another... Drake ought to be concentrating on the OSU Medical Center and getting its many leadership issues resolved. But hey, we can hope that this tie next year he’ll be someone else’s problem.
Respect the worker, pay the worker. And if you don’t, expect consequences.
I’m ready to get this ball rolling. It certainly won’t be perfect to start, but the time is up for the NCAA and their recalcitrance on this issue.
This is definitely where I parked my car.
Something tells me Summer 2022 will be a crazy offseason.
When is NCAA football and basketball video games coming back now?
I know Gene Smith said he is already looking at not scheduling California teams because of this law.
And the day word of Newsom possibly signing this bill into law first leaked out (sometime last week)...Smith announced that Ohio State had added San Jose State to our football schedule in 2023. Wonder if he is going to void that contract now?
Let's see how this plays out. I hope this doesn't push college football in the direction of the NFL. Obviously on the surface this gives California a leg up recruiting...but as others have mentioned if a kid is banned for accepting money then his endorsement doesn't hold much weight anymore. Technically speaking I can pay any athlete in the country for his likenesses...its when he accepts the money that it gets to be a problem. So if you want to play and be part of the NCAA you can't accept money...same as today
Exactly the moment you accept money you are ruled ineligible by the NCAA makes this whole thing a waste of everyone's time and money....just like 99% of what the government does anyways.
If the payment model goes national, who's gonna uncover how much $$$ ESPN is giving the Alabama defense for using their images in their CFB promotional ads throughout the season, compared to say BYU's starting QB used in a Thursday Night Game promotion.. .?
You know Michigan fans are already throwing ideas into their bag of excuses as we sit here.
We can only hope we see the whole Michigan football team on a Chick-Fil-A commercial
Michigan may have to pedal Extenze, with Jimmy Johnson, during the midnight to 6am TV slot
Lawyers are going to make more money than the players.
a hard rock miner from Butte, Montana
As much as I dislike most things Californian, the NCAA brought this on themselves. Jimbo Fisher got a $70m or something like contract, but his football players can’t have their lunch paid for by someone...it’s so unashamedly asinine that the pin of a grenade was going to get pulled. Our favorite pastime just got nuked, I just hope what rises from ashes still resembles buckeye football.
The NCAA doesn't pay a coaches salary.
Why do the players need someone to pay for their lunch? Their scholarships include meal plans and training tables with all the fixins.
I know the NCAA doesn’t pay salaries, but they have been instrumental in creating a sham where coaches are grossly enriched and while the players that create that wealth are micro monitored to ensure that they are wholly dependent upon meal plans. Who does it hurt to pay players for their value? And, they ruin players lives if they get discounts for something as meaningless as tattoos.
Your view is dinosaurian, you need to let it die.
I understand the basic requirements of the law and how it might or will affect CA schools and the NCAA, but I have a couple of questions which I haven't seen addressed: 1) Can any school in CA opt out of this law or be grandfathered out of the law so they don't conflict with the NCAA laws/rules? 2) What happens to current or future Olympians from these schools or in the state? Would they still be considered "amateurs" and be able to compete in the Olympics?
Just keep going. Everybody gets better if they keep at it...
To your second point...the Olympics have been opened to professional athletes since the early 90s (?). Also, Even before that "amateur" athletes participating in the Olympics could sign endorsement deals with corporations and still be considered an amateur.
According to the CA state law, no, they are required by law to allow athletes on scholarship to take money. Now, thye aren't required by any law to play them and a scholarship is only guaranteed for a year, so they could tell perspective recruits that if they take money, they won't play and they won't be on scholarship the following year.
"Colleges reap billions from student athletes but block them from earning a single dollar. Thats a bankrupt model."
The NCAA gives out over 110,000 scholarships each year. IF you figure room, board, tuition, training, coaching, venue to play, medical coverage, etc, each scholarship probably averages close to $100k a year in annual benefit (have a friend whose boy goes to IMG and the full cost for 1 year at a HS program is over $80k). Even at half that, the NCAA institutions provide more than $5 billion dollars worth of scholarships annually.
You don’t get it. Life costs more. I was a d1 athlete. I still didn’t have money to even take out a date (meal plan didn’t cover her)...and because of NCAA rules, I wasn’t allowed to get even a part time job. What is your reason for keeping the athletes from earning what the free market would provide? Explain who would be hurt from a tailback being able to sock money into a 401k or start saving up for a car?
The only way your camp can justify itself is to put a cap on coaches salaries and bring them back down to earth. But they won’t, because winning makes lots of money... oh wait, it’s all about the money...then pay the freaking players that are making the money. You can’t have it both ways.
I was a college athlete as well. Paid my own dime to attend other than the academic scholarships I qualified for. Most college students can't afford to take out a date so its not unique to athletes and most students end their education with a fair amount of debt which athletes do not, so spare me the BS. You sound like the snowflake who complains about their $100k salary because the CEO makes millions. That CEO enhances the company which helps everyone below it.
Who does it hurt? It will eventually hurt just about everyone. some will capitalize short term, but I suspect it leads to widespread corruption and the NCAA will have no say in ending it. Any athlete today can choose not to go to college and capitalize as much as they'd like on their image. None do, why? Because the benefit provided by the universities and the NCAA is much greater than their image is worth without it. After college, they can capitalize on their image all they want and many do thanks to the notoriety they received while playing for the university.
Coaches salaries do nothing to harm the student athlete and actually enhances the experience for many because it keeps good coaches at the college level.
One last question, if its such a good thing for the student/athlete, are you in favor of allowing HS athletes to capitalize the same way?
You don’t get it. You are a bad merger of ideas. You promote CEOs making millions because of the value they bring, etc., and you compare me to a snowflake, which implies I have entitlement sentiments, etc. But, I’m the one promoting fair market capitalism and want to simply allow people to be paid what they are actually worth based on their free market demand, whereas you want to artificially suppress an entire group of people based on some archaic philosophy of amateurism which has been exposed as a hoax by the exorbitant merchandising complex (our school just tried to trademark the word THE).
And yes, if the market demand is there for a high schooler, let them get paid too. I don’t have a problem with that. The big question is why do you and others want to stop other people from making a living. What is it to you? Do they complain about your market worth?
Bottomline line, college athletics is a HUGE financial enterprise, let the athletes whose backs it is built upon reap it’s rewards. “Do not muzzle the ox.”
If playing by semi-pro ball was more valuable to you as a D1 athlete, why didn’t you give it a shot? B/c your educational benefits were of greater value to you than minor league/overseas whatever athletics? You chose the option that provided you with the greatest benefit.
Let me ask what everyone is thinking:
WILL THIS LEAD TO A NEW EA SPORTS "NCAA FOOTBALL GAME" OR NOT?
"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes
THE Ohio State University
This topic seems to have triggered some snowflakes.
Honestly, no one forces anyone to sacrifice their minds and bodies for the benefit of any university. Athletes work their tails off to earn the right to go to a university and continue to play. Some like football and basketball go for free. They do receive a great future that they may otherwise not have been able to afford. Less then 1% go pro.
So what if your at a MAC school what money do you get vs Ohio State. Why would Rondale Moore consider Purdue when there is no way he will get the money OSU pays. What about Alabi? He is a champion one week and doesn’t play the next... costs him money. Here is Wilson coming in off the bench. Not starting is costing him money as the starters make more then the bench players who may not earn anything. What does CJ Saunders make? He is a captain. Surely he should make more but he doesn’t start. Won’t that create an issue? Here is my thing, you want money? Go pro. You want to play in the NCAA, deal with the rules that allow for parody. California will tax them anyway , so your not getting squat. Your creating another revenue stream for an Bankrupt state.
Reality is: I make the company I work for a tremendous amount more than I earn in salary. Everyone earns less then they contribute. Athletes earn an education, its also a way to play the sport they love
Not even going down the rabbit hole of what do baseball players or wrestlers get? What about all the woman’s sports? No California is a bankruptcy leader. They are simply looking for another revenue stream. Cut the, to the curb or let the youngsters do pro. Or to Canada make their money.
There's a long history in sports of observers believing that the paying of athletes would lead to the end of all that is good and holy (look how controversial it was when the Olympics abandoned amateurism). Then they start getting paid and everyone wonders what all the fuss was about.
Personal opinion, but if an auto dealer wants to let Justin Fields drive their SUV for a year in exchange for making the occasional Instagram post about its state-of-the-art handling, then why should that be anybody's business?
The most "loud mouth, disrespect" poster on 11W.
The Olympics don't have near the same luster they used to and I don't think there is any comparison to an event that occurs every 4 years.
I like my likeness. If, of course, a million other people do also and pay me $1 each. I think it’s my fiery hair.
This could end college sports as we know it.
Which may be the goal of the law.
Success - it's what you do with what you've got. - Woody Hayes
So many people are saying "Comment removed for violating the site's commenting policy" today.
I wonder what's up with that?
Note, I am putting in this little /s so I don't get banned, like all my FaceBook friends seem to be doing all the time.
Apparently the mods didn’t like my description of Gov. Newsom’s cranial matter or lack thereof in regards to this issue.
Wouldn't the schools be able to get a cut of the money? They provided the opportunity/marketing for the athlete to showcase his talents.
Good point. Exploitation will surely occur.
California makes laws that don't need to be laws. I saw a couple months ago, a law that says you do not have to help a police officer in distress. Really? This has always been optional, no need for a law. This time they allow Collegiate Athletes to receive Endorsements. Really? They have always been able to do this. With or without the "law", the athlete getting paid for an endorsement is no longer an amateur, and hence not eligible to play college football. If California tries to superscede this, that's still ok, but none of the victories with the California "professional players" will count in the record books for the team.
"When you're part of a team, you stand up for your teammates. Your loyalty is to them. You protect them through good and bad, because they'd do the same for you." Yogi Berra
I wonder how this will impact local sponsorship dollars. If I pay XYZ University $100K annually to be an official car dealership, am I going to continue doing that or give that money to one of the kids on the team to come out to my business and promote his appearances so I can drive traffic?
University will restrict player from using his position, pictures of him in his college uniform or number when selling his likeness.
Gonna be a lot of 'ole blocks by an o lineman not getting paid the same as the running back or QB.
The government always knows what's best for you. Look how well they handle the homeless and crime in California. NCAA will address the problem two weeks before it's to go into effect and then ask for an extension.
I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box but I'm one of the most colorful.
I saw this quoted on the site about 6 weeks ago and think that it bears repeating here:
”I read the site to get away from politics.”
Prescient quote. Thank you.
There are plenty of pro teams and leagues already. A scholarship and degree are enough compensation.