NCAA derides California bill to allow athletes income for image/name (SB 206)

[BLNY]

States rights!

NCAA will scream commerce clause in the courts and probably gets fast tracked to the Supreme Court. And my guess is the decision wouldn't be split along liberal/conservative lines.

It's one thing to say colleges can't pay players to play, but not being able to profit from one's own likeness is pretty crazy when you think about it.

The fact a player can't accept as little as a soft drink from an agent without risk of breaking rules while the NCAA and the schools raking in billions off these kids pisses me off. Yes, scholarships come in to play here, and that could be construed as a return for services, but these athletes generate enormous revenue for schools. There's no legitimate reason these athletes shouldn't be able to have an endorsement deal while they're in school. Many will likely use it to support extended families.

 

[David Dennison]

Potential #1 picks in college football and basketball suspended in the same day.

 

[KevFu]

The fact a player can't accept as little as a soft drink from an agent without risk of breaking rules.

I think soft drinks fall under the "Bagels" rule.

There will still be only so many spots at the KUs, UNCs, Dukes of the world, the players arent gonna disappear, the shcools arent gonna disappear, the NCAA tournament is not gonna disappear.

Sure, it just lets the big schools horde talent when they can line up donors to offer endorsement contracts equal to a scholarship, so now everyone wants to walk on at the BCS schools and instead of those 75 schools having 975 of the top basketball players, and the other schools targeting the rest, they can have 1500 of the top players and the other schools get worse.

Take a look at non-BCS tournament bids over the last 15 years. In 2006-07, there were THIRTEEN per season. Now there's FOUR. It's bad enough NOW. You basically have Gonzaga and then the A-10/MWC at-larges face each other in the First Four or 7/10 games so a max of two can make the Second Round, which means you're limiting the NCAA payout units to the non-BCS schools, and 101 of 132 NCAA bonus units got to BCS schools. This is how the cartel works.

We need to be limiting the power of the BCS cartel, not expanding it.

 

[David Dennison]

I think soft drinks fall under the "Bagels" rule.



Sure, it just lets the big schools horde talent when they can line up donors to offer endorsement contracts equal to a scholarship, so now everyone wants to walk on at the BCS schools and instead of those 75 schools having 975 of the top basketball players, and the other schools targeting the rest, they can have 1500 of the top players and the other schools get worse.

Take a look at non-BCS tournament bids over the last 15 years. In 2006-07, there were THIRTEEN per season. Now there's FOUR. It's bad enough NOW. You basically have Gonzaga and then the A-10/MWC at-larges face each other in the First Four or 7/10 games so a max of two can make the Second Round, which means you're limiting the NCAA payout units to the non-BCS schools, and 101 of 132 NCAA bonus units got to BCS schools. This is how the cartel works.

We need to be limiting the power of the BCS cartel, not expanding it.

So we can't let player profit off their own likeness...to ensure that Alabama A&M has a fair shake at getting into the NCAA tournament? And we need to protect the system that has already created this consolidation?

Your argument is that we shouldn't pay players to protect a slightly larger cartel from becoming a slightly smaller cartel. And who decided that we needed 300+ schools competing for 18-22 year olds? What other league on this Earth has 300+ teams competing, it just waters down the talent.

And like I said, the schools aren't going away, the athletes aren't going away, why can't these lesser schools operate in D-II, D-III or NAIA?

 

[KingArthursCourt]

There's no coherent argument for athletes being the only students at a university who are not allowed to monetize their abilities, likenesses, free time, and so on. The "but they get a scholarship!" argument is worthless, because there are tons of other students who get scholarships (even full rides) and nothing prevents them from working (both for the school or otherwise) to supplement their income/lifestyle. Not to mention there are so many more avenues to do this now because of the internet and social media. Any student can earn income from a YouTube or Twitch channel or become an Instagram influencer - why should this avenue be barred to student-athletes?

What this is really about is a fundamental belief, shared by both the NCAA and most of its supporters, that student-athletes should be poor. This is really reflected in the scorn they've repeatedly shown in the past towards any student-athlete who came from a background of means and was able to live a more lavish lifestyle than what the NCAA's plantation masters have deemed acceptable; Matt Leinart and Johnny Manziel being two good examples.

 

[KevFu]

So we can't let player profit off their own likeness...to ensure that Alabama A&M has a fair shake at getting into the NCAA tournament? And we need to protect the system that has already created this consolidation?

Your argument is that we shouldn't pay players to protect a slightly larger cartel from becoming a slightly smaller cartel. And who decided that we needed 300+ schools competing for 18-22 year olds? What other league on this Earth has 300+ teams competing, it just waters down the talent.

And like I said, the schools aren't going away, the athletes aren't going away, why can't these lesser schools operate in D-II, D-III or NAIA?

You absolutely can let players profit off their likeness. You simply have to find a way to do it that doesn't let it become a part of recruitment.

Look, I'm not arguing that the NCAA isn't EXTREMELY MESSED UP with tons of problems. But what you guys simply do not understand is that "solutions" for highly visible 'tip of the iceberg' situations have HORRIFIC CONSEQUENCES for 85% of the organization.

The differences between Division I, Division II and Division III are about OPPORTUNITIES: Number of sports offered, number of educational opportunities available via sports. It's not about "Who has the money."

Would you be okay with the NHL changing from "regular season points" to "who pays the highest entry fees" to be in the Stanley Cup playoffs? That's what you're trying to do to college sports. That's dumb.

 

[KevFu]

What this is really about is a fundamental belief, shared by both the NCAA and most of its supporters, that student-athletes should be poor. This is really reflected in the scorn they've repeatedly shown in the past towards any student-athlete who came from a background of means and was able to live a more lavish lifestyle than what the NCAA's plantation masters have deemed acceptable; Matt Leinart and Johnny Manziel being two good examples.

That is absurd. It has nothing to do with "the athletes should be poor." Your theory is easily blown up by a simple history lesson:

Q1. When did the NCAA adopt rules on amateurism for the purpose of "Outlawing Ringers" on college sports teams?
A1: Virtually immediately. It was the second thing on the table back in 1906. Most the current rules stem from 1946.

Q2. When did the MONEY come into the NCAA?
A1. After the NCAA lost Oklahoma vs the NCAA in front of the Supreme Court in 1984, giving TV rights to the members instead of the league. In 1952, the total amount of TV money in college sports was less than $1.2 million and evenly shared among all schools. It is now roughly $2.7 billion ($2.651 billion of it going to the BCS, which is only 22% of Division I).


You're looking at everything totally backwards. The rules aren't in place to control the ATHLETES. The rules are in place to control the SCHOOLS with their recruiting practices. Most the posters from outside the USA say "Why is college sports what it is in the US? Shouldn't colleges be about EDUCATION and not SPORTS?" in these threads. The NCAA rulebook is designed to try and make it about education (aka - every school can only offer the SAME THING to an recruit: room, board and books).

What makes it about SPORTS and not education is simply the TV RIGHTS and MONEY. That's why the Ohio State kid tweeted that he came to OSU to play football, not to play school. Schools cheat because of the money at stake. The Ivy League doesn't have recruiting scandals because kids pick the Ivy League for their education.


I'm 100% all for paying the athletes for their contributions to athletic departments. The NCAA should take the TV contract for March Madness and instead of dividing it up by "Games Played in the NCAA Tournament" divide it among all the Division I athletes.

Find a way to compensate athletes for there role in a way that doesn't destroy what Division I athletics should be, and everyone: ADs, commissioners, players, students, fans - would all be on board. The problem is that the average college sports fan has NO CLUE what college sports actually is outside Top 25 football and Top 25 Men's Basketball, and making a solution for all 181,512 athletes in all 89 sports is quite difficult.

 

[David Dennison]

You absolutely can let players profit off their likeness. You simply have to find a way to do it that doesn't let it become a part of recruitment.

Look, I'm not arguing that the NCAA isn't EXTREMELY MESSED UP with tons of problems. But what you guys simply do not understand is that "solutions" for highly visible 'tip of the iceberg' situations have HORRIFIC CONSEQUENCES for 85% of the organization.

The differences between Division I, Division II and Division III are about OPPORTUNITIES: Number of sports offered, number of educational opportunities available via sports. It's not about "Who has the money."

Would you be okay with the NHL changing from "regular season points" to "who pays the highest entry fees" to be in the Stanley Cup playoffs? That's what you're trying to do to college sports. That's dumb.

So change the rules. If there are gonna be seismic changes to D-I, you can definitely change the D-II/III/NAIA rules as well. Let those schools offer sports related scholarships or whatever needs to be done.

 

[Brodie]

My wife was a D-1 athlete. She wasn't allowed to accept a bagel from the university if it came pre-smeared with cream cheese because that constituted a meal.

There is no defense for the NCAA other than "waah waah change is bad". If small potatoes football programs like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan don't like that Texas and USC can out compete them, they are free to drop to D3. I'm a socialist and here I am having to explain capitalism to the capitalists.

 

[KevFu]

My wife was a D-1 athlete. She wasn't allowed to accept a bagel from the university if it came pre-smeared with cream cheese because that constituted a meal.

There is no defense for the NCAA other than "waah waah change is bad". If small potatoes football programs like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan don't like that Texas and USC can out compete them, they are free to drop to D3. I'm a socialist and here I am having to explain capitalism to the capitalists.

Your wife has been out of college a while. Bagels are no longer a violation.
The "small potatoes" football programs you list are in the TOP THIRD of all-division I athletic departments.

Change is good, provided it's change for the better. I could write volumes on this, but quite simply:

Everyone has to be able to offer the exact same thing to recruits, otherwise it is going to totally destroy college sports (the quality of which ARE inferior to pro sports and everyone knows it. People like college sports because of allegiances to their school, the traditions and pageantry of college sports, the wild stuff that happens in college sports).

Now, RAISING what schools can give athletes to compensate them better, totally fine. The problem is it needs to be manageable for MOST of division I otherwise you're going to destroy everything but the pep bands from what I listed above.

The good news is that a scenario in which the BCS conferences simply ditch everyone else for a "Super Division I" or 250+ schools drop down a level is probably never going to happen. But that's not the worst-case scenario.

The worse-case scenario is one in which the criteria for being D-I doesn't change, but the amount you can give student-athletes becomes bidding war for recruits.

Socialism as a policy doesn't work because of basic human greed: Those with the resources will exploit what they can exploit for profit. Politically, it's been an economic policy to basically enslave the masses by those within the state. But capitalism without restraints doesn't work either. It descends into exploitation of the masses as well. Not really a topic for this board, but as it pertains to sports conversation:

- The amount given to athletes in college needs to be the same to ensure fair recruiting practices and not destroy the competitiveness of college sports.

- The amount given to athletes needs to be higher than it is now to compensation for the fact that athletics brings in money and the kids are restricted.

- The amount of the increase needs to be reasonable so that while a bunch of schools who can't afford it drop down, there's still 200 or so schools in Division I.

- Parity should be encouraged, not discouraged.

- Everyone's solutions to the "problems" of the NCAA remain totally backward and make things far worse than better. You don't stop excessive scumbag behavior by giving the scumbags free reign to be scummy. That's just not smart.

 

[joelef]

Professional style facilities, coaches paid millions, multi million dollar sponsorships .... Sounds like a pure "play for the love of the game" amateur sport to me

 

[David Dennison]

https://www.latimes.com/sports/stor...athletics?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Internal NCAA report reveals worries over athlete pay, lawsuits amid amateurism debate

Last spring, an NCAA working group gathered at a Dallas-area hotel to discuss a strategic vision for the billion-dollar organization.
Each attendee received a 44-page report marked “Privileged and Confidential — Not for Distribution” filled with anonymous feedback from top college athletics officials. The document, obtained by The Times through a public records request, provides a rare look into the unfiltered thoughts of 52 university presidents and chancellors, athletic directors, conference commissioners, NCAA staffers and others on key issues facing the organization.
There are concerns about media coverage of the NCAA, plaudits for initiatives to improve the health and academic success of athletes, worry about the influence of money, frustration with the organization’s thick rule book and widespread apprehension regarding the future of amateurism, lawsuits and whether athletes should be able to make money off their name, image and likeness.
“The general public does not view the NCAA in a positive light. There was a huge communication plan to fix this, but then the scandals ruined that,” one person said in response to a question about an opportunity the organization should leverage.
...

The report, completed in the months before name, image and likeness became a topic of national discussion, shows the diverging views on whether the NCAA should change. NCAA President Mark Emmert and 13 focus groups were among those who provided input.
Should the NCAA double down on fundamental principles like amateurism? Or revamp the concept in response to changing times?
“Using the word ‘amateurism’ is a loser long term,” one respondent said. “We are the only ones left who use it. It’s a lack of credibility issue. We are using the word … because we have to with these lawsuits.”

Behind a paywall although the incognito tab seems to be working again.

 

[LadyStanley]

Paywall. Interesting

 

[North Cole]

If you’re one of the top couple % of players who are going pro, then the scholarship value is reduced or negligible. If you’re in the 90%+ of student athletes that won’t make a living at pro then the scholarship has tremendous value.

If we should be outraged at anything over the current system it shouldn’t be that player’s aren’t paid. It’s that the schools should be doing more to make sure that the 90%+ have a full opportunity to get a quality education from their scholarship.

There are lots of reasons to dislike the current NCAA system. I personally hate how most of the solutions are to make it more business-like to pay the student athletes, while presumably absolving the schools of their educational mission. The real reform should be focused on making sure the schools are providing a quality education to even the most fringe student athlete on scholarship.

Some changes I would recommend:
- Student athletes shouldn’t be pressured into enrolling in “easier” degree programs to remain eligible so they have more time free to focus on sports and training schedules. If a student wants to pursue a more difficult degree program the athletic department should be mandated to accommodate that.

- Scholarships shouldn’t be revocable unless there’s an egregious transgression by the student athlete. I.e. the scholarship shouldn’t be revocable based on the athletic performance of the student so long as they’re following the academic and sports schedule requirements.

- If a student athlete somehow runs out their 4-5 year scholarship without a degree the school is mandated to cover them with a scholarship until graduation.

- I’m all for some form of cost of living stipends for student athletes. It should be applied equally to all, or proportioned in such a way equivalent to the time investment involved in the particular sport vs being a student. Not the popularity or importance of an individual student athlete.

The solutions are more business like because that is the logical step from the status quo, since the status quo is a full on business model - you cant go backwards. Almost impossible to mandate schools to not pressure their kids into taking easier programs. If the kid is good enough to be a star, he will take an easier programs to spend more time in the hopes of going pro. If the kid isnt good enough the college will make the sports program hard enough to force them into an easier program or they lose their scholarship by being kicked off the team. You cant mandate how they structure the participation requirements in their program. That's the school's lever to force kids into easier courses.

As long as the schools have the ability to make money hand over first, they will choose to function as a business instead of an education first organization. As long as the schools and NCAAs goals are aligned they will lobby any type of scholarship reform into the dirt. The NCAA parasite is large enough to throw infinite money and lobbying power at any issue, and the schools are fine because the ones with power who make the money and want to continue to do so. Helps that everyone seems to want to die on the hill for their alma mater, so when the rich schools churn out graduates who get into office or become wealthy, they know these people will give them support to hold up the status quo. It's all a big clown show.

 

[LadyStanley]

Colorado joins California, passes bill allowing college athletes to profit off name, likeness

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill on Friday, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023 — the same date a similar law will begin in California.


Colorado joins the party

 

[LadyStanley]

Paywall.

Ah, consultants getting paid.

 

[LadyStanley]

NCAA takes biggest step yet toward allowing college athletes to be compensated for name, image and likeness

Formal NCAA legislation permitting college athletes to pursue endorsement opportunities is expected to pass in January.


Finally, NCAA will allow athletes to make money from endorsements

On Wednesday, the NCAA officially changed its stance on athletes making money off their names, a day many knew was inevitable, but always felt impossible.


How much would Zion, Trevor Lawrence and other college stars make with new NCAA rules?

As with most initiatives, questions remain. Yahoo Sports spoke to athletic officials, agents and marketing experts to find out how things will change.

Perhaps $500k-1m. Not chump change.


Why NCAA changes won't only benefit top-tier schools like Alabama

Wednesday's ruling will change college sports for sure, but perhaps not like people think it will. It might just level the playing field for smaller schools.


More opportunities.

 

[KevFu]

That last link is dumb.

It says a football recruit who wants the money more than a winning team will pick Boise State over Alabama. Big fish, small pond argument.

But it ignores things like "the larger the school, the most boosters they have" aka, the more money the boosters can pay.

And it ignores the fact that Boise State is in like the 25th percentile of Division I (at worst)

 

[LadyStanley]

@KevFu but the majority of such $$s will be coming from sponsors, no? Not boosters. (Or are you considering merchandise sales as major component?)

So, some may get some bucks, regardless of where they play. But the more popular players in well known conferences may get more?

 

[KevFu]

@KevFu but the majority of such $$s will be coming from sponsors, no? Not boosters. (Or are you considering merchandise sales as major component?)

So, some may get some bucks, regardless of where they play. But the more popular players in well known conferences may get more?

By "Sponsors" you mean businesses... who owns the businesses? Alumni, aka boosters.

FedEx offered a $500 million sponsorship deal for the Big 12... if the conference added the University of Memphis. FedEx is in Memphis and all their decision makers are fans of/went to Memphis.

The idea that boosters won't offer deals thru their companies to steer recruits to their favorite teams is naive.

 

[LadyStanley]

NCAA delays vote on name, image and likeness rules after Department of Justice conversation

It's unclear when the NCAA's Division I Council will return to vote on the two proposals.

NCAA delayed vote after meeting with DOJ AAG. Concern is anti trust.

California law goes into effect in July.

 

[LadyStanley]

NCAA v. Alston: Supreme Court not impressed with old arguments, but how will it rule?

Rather than evolve, the NCAA has clung to the status quo. Now it is arguing its case to the Supreme Court — and the court doesn't sound like it's buying the NC...


NCAA arguing against NIL in US SCOTUS

 

[PCSPounder]

On one hand, it’s not always wise to judge where SCOTUS is going to rule based on how justices grill lawyers. There’s always been some strain of surprise questions from justices for good reasons. But that’s not the best basis on which to place a bet.

Hence the other hand.

Either “justice” will scrap the system, or the players will. SCOTUS can’t really mandate otherwise.

 

[joelef]

If the NCAA wants to keep amateurism then make coaches completely volunteer , elimante Athelteic departments and replace them with student run clubs , eliminate scholrships and make them "recruit" among the student body and mandate all athletic facilities open to ALL students. There trying to have there have there cake and it too.

 

[BOS358]

If the NCAA wants to keep amateurism then make coaches completely volunteer , elimante Athelteic departments and replace them with student run clubs , eliminate scholrships and make them "recruit" among the student body and mandate all athletic facilities open to ALL students. There trying to have there have there cake and it too.

Do you realize that high schools don't even fit your definition of "amateurism?" My alma mater has a club hockey team along with their varsity team. The coach gets paid. Are those ACHA players professionals?