California Gives NCAA The Middle Finger

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

The market might shift, but it will even out.

You’re right. Absolute top level talent at the skills positions are going to the top five or ten programs anyway. This might incentivize really good but not great athletes with a lot of potential to choose to play in smaller markets. That’s basically what happens at Iowa now, anyway, just replace potential income with NFL prospects.

 

[hwk23]

If they can do this in California, it will require the NCAA to allow it nationally. Car dealers in Alabama and Georgia better get their checkbooks out. Thank God T. Boone is dead or Oklahoma State would be an unstoppable force.

Yep, easier to cheat now. Booster contributes to car dealer, dealer advertises player's picture, and dealer pays player. This could be promised to recruits.

 

[EstronHawkKing]

Come visit beautiful California, we have the best sun sets

 

[hwk23]

Yeah but Phil Knight isn't.

Heck, Oregon could be unstoppable. Knight will put every recruits picture on a Nike box and pay every recruit x, whatever the going rate for a 5 star.

 

[okeefe4prez]

You’re right. Absolute top level talent at the skills positions are going to the top five or ten programs anyway. This might incentivize really good but not great athletes with a lot of potential to choose to play in smaller markets. That’s basically what happens at Iowa now, anyway, just replace potential income with NFL prospects.

It's all going to depend on what the big programs can deliver. If Ohio State and Michigan can deliver a guy $200k of autographs and merch sales per year and Iowa/MSU/Sconny can only deliver $20k, that second level of programs will enter a new dark age because OSU will be able to stockpile well over 100 guys just like they did before the scholarship caps came into effect and guys like Stanzi, Stross, Daniels, Hitchens, etc. will never get out of Ohio or Michigan. OSU and Michigan can just bring guys in as walk ons and charge them tuition and even after paying tuition, they'll come out ahead.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

It's all going to depend on what the big programs can deliver. If Ohio State and Michigan can deliver a guy $200k of autographs and merch sales per year and Iowa/MSU/Sconny can only deliver $20k, that second level of programs will enter a new dark age because OSU will be able to stockpile well over 100 guys just like they did before the scholarship caps came into effect and guys like Stanzi, Stross, Daniels, Hitchens, etc. will never get out of Ohio or Michigan. OSU and Michigan can just bring guys in as walk ons and charge them tuition and even after paying tuition, they'll come out ahead.

I guess we will have to see how far the universities are allowed to go. I have not read the bill, but I find it highly suspect that the universities will be compensating players for the use of their likeness. I don’t think any direct compensation will happen once the feds have their say. I think this will end up allowing players to accept money from third parties, but not from their universities. Regardless, this is going to get tied up in the courts so quickly that there probably won’t be any direct ramifications for at least a few years.

 

[BVHawk95]

What's the difference between an athlete having rich parents or being gifted enough at a sport to have an endorser pay them?

That's not what I'm arguing against, I'm saying that possibly the perception of unequal opportunity may not sit well with some who decide to challenge it. More of a devil's advocate, considering that, again, I'm all for better treatment and opportunities for student athletes.

Also, should the NCAA fight the law, they may have some ground to stand on, Constitutionally:

I don't think SCOTUS would rule in favor of California on this one.

The issue isn't whether athletes can be paid or not. The issue is "can a state pass a law directly regulating interstate commerce", and the answer to that is absolutely not. No state can regulate commerce that crosses state lines. That is entirely in the purview of the federal government.

I just don't see how the NCAA has an argument other than kicking those schools out

The argument is that the NCAA, being a national organization, is bound by federal law when it comes to matters of interstate commerce. As long as California schools continue to play schools from out of state, federal law applies, which allows the NCAA to place rules on what athletes can and can't do in regards to being eligible to play in the NCAA.

California can absolutely regulate in state commerce. But they can't regulate interstate commerce.

Found on r/CFB

 

[NorthKCHawk]

For all of you in favor of this bill, does this conversation bother you?

Coach Ferentz, I love Iowa and would love to come play for you, but Texas has stated that its boosters will give me a $1,000 per autograph if I walk on there. Can your booster's match that?

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

That's not what I'm arguing against, I'm saying that possibly the perception of unequal opportunity may not sit well with some who decide to challenge it. More of a devil's advocate, considering that, again, I'm all for better treatment and opportunities for student athletes.

Also, should the NCAA fight the law, they may have some ground to stand on, Constitutionally:



Found on r/CFB

One of the biggest modern questions in Con Law is the limitations of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I believe that a conservative majority, most of whom likely believe the Court’s reading has been far too broad, is much more likely to rule to reign in its applications, which would be contrary to that post.

 

[hawkeyes87]

It warms my heart to know that the state of California is in good enough shape that it's lawmakers can spend time on this!

But, what's to stop the NCAA from saying that if this passes they'll have to drop those Cali schools from membership, because there isn't enough member support to adopt this program nationally?

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

This is a difficult issue and one I go back and forth on. I think you have to limit whatever is allowed, but once you open this floodgate...corruption will ensue. If you really want to simplify this...you pay players a stipend...all players...and you keep the other crap from ruining the game and creating all the enforcement issues.

Here's a thought...why not stop the bullshit with these college coaches signing shoe contracts with Nike and other brands. That's brought corruption into NCAA basketball and it's bull. Coach K getting $7 Million a year because he chooses Nike is ridiculous. It's corrupt. Then Nike tries to steer players there. We all know the story. Stop this first.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I guess we will have to see how far the universities are allowed to go. I have not read the bill, but I find it highly suspect that the universities will be compensating players for the use of their likeness. I don’t think any direct compensation will happen once the feds have their say. I think this will end up allowing players to accept money from third parties, but not from their universities. Regardless, this is going to get tied up in the courts so quickly that there probably won’t be any direct ramifications for at least a few years.

I'm not talking direct comp at all. Iowa has a small fan base. So does Sparty. If these big programs have "autograph sessions" or "merchandise sales" or "preferred local endorsements," the "friends of the program" are going to be able to deliver many multiples in pecuniary incentives beyond what the "friends of Iowa" can deliver.

 

[Fryowa]

That's not what I'm arguing against, I'm saying that possibly the perception of unequal opportunity may not sit well with some who decide to challenge it. More of a devil's advocate, considering that, again, I'm all for better treatment and opportunities for student athletes.

Also, should the NCAA fight the law, they may have some ground to stand on, Constitutionally:

I don't think SCOTUS would rule in favor of California on this one.

The issue isn't whether athletes can be paid or not. The issue is "can a state pass a law directly regulating interstate commerce", and the answer to that is absolutely not. No state can regulate commerce that crosses state lines. That is entirely in the purview of the federal government.

I just don't see how the NCAA has an argument other than kicking those schools out

The argument is that the NCAA, being a national organization, is bound by federal law when it comes to matters of interstate commerce. As long as California schools continue to play schools from out of state, federal law applies, which allows the NCAA to place rules on what athletes can and can't do in regards to being eligible to play in the NCAA.

California can absolutely regulate in state commerce. But they can't regulate interstate commerce.

Found on r/CFB

The NCAA might be a "national organization," but so are Walmart and McDonalds, and they can't pass laws or write legislation. That argument from Reddit is incorrectly implying that the NCAA is some sort of governmental organization.

Can they kick schools out? Absolutely.

Will they and face billions of dollars in lawsuits and lost revenue? Not a chance in hell.

People are confusing what the NCAA could do with what the NCAA would do. They are not even remotely the same thing.

 

[Fryowa]

For all of you in favor of this bill, does this conversation bother you?

Coach Ferentz, I love Iowa and would love to come play for you, but Texas has stated that its boosters will give me a $1,000 per autograph if I walk on there. Can your booster's match that?

If you think the best recruits aren't getting money the way it is then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

What's the difference between an athlete having rich parents or being gifted enough at a sport to have an endorser pay them?

Nothing some folks are born on 3rd base. That just is what it is. As much as some wish they could politicize it to 'level' the playing field. It can't legitimately happen.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

The NCAA might be a "national organization," but so are Walmart and McDonalds, and they can't pass laws or write legislation. That argument from Reddit is incorrectly implying that the NCAA is some sort of governmental organization.

Can they kick schools out? Absolutely.

Will they and face billions of dollars in lawsuits and lost revenue? Not a chance in hell.

People are confusing what the NCAA could do with what the NCAA would do. They are not even remotely the same thing.

I assumed that poster was implying the NCAA would sue on Interstate Commerce grounds, but on reread the poster might just be an idiot.

 

[Fryowa]

We can debate this round and round and round, but the truth of the matter that no one can deny is that the NCAA 100% did this to itself. It's paying the piper.

Remember yanking Donald De La Haye's scholarship for having a YouTube channel? This is reaping what was sown for that kind of shit.

Would there be the outcry if the NCAA had acted reasonably in the first place?

 

[okeefe4prez]

I assumed that poster was implying the NCAA would sue on Interstate Commerce grounds, but on reread the poster might just be an idiot.

Just looked at it. I don't think the NCAA will win on commerce clause grounds. California is proposing a local regulation. That it will impact interstate commerce means nothing. Go buy paint or wood chips or something like that. Odds are it will have a California Prop 65 warning on it. Hell, they even have to put it on coffee now.

The NCAA's biggest fear is actually antitrust. For them to go to the mat and effectively say "we have the exclusive right to market a kid's likeness" will not be taken well. But, they are pretty stupid so maybe they would be dumb enough to defend on those grounds.

 

[Fryowa]

Also, let me ask everyone this...

Why would the NCAA give a F what California does???

Why?

The NCAA is a non-profit organization. Wouldn't it make sense for the NCAA to just kick the California schools out and go along it's merry way? I mean, the California students get their money they want, the NCAA gets to keep on keeping on with the other 49 states the way it is--everybody's happy.... Wouldn't the NCAA be glad that the California players and schools are happy, and that they're still governing the rest of the country's players?

For a non-profit that's not interested in making money and wants to put students needs and future well-being first, I just can't for the life of me find out why they feel threatened by this. I could see if they were a private company standing to lose a metric shit ton of money, but the NCAA??? Naaaaahhhhh.....

 

[Hawkfnntn]

This is a huge topic. College sports as we know it is about to change more drastically then the difference between black and white TVs and however many Ks there are in them now. It's so big that many of the very schools in Cali (and I assume other states as they get going) are going to fight against it as well. Because they don't want kicked out of the NCAA as it all sits now. What good are those stud recruits if you can't play for the banners. Poor Reggie Bush should sue for his Heisman back.

The NCAAs argument will be very interesting to me to see be made. I'm guessing it'll be something something something academics/education. Which couldn't have less to do with the topic frankly. The dominos of what'll happen will be very interesting because the gap between the blue bloods and everyone else will widen. News flash ISU you ain't making up any ground with this going through either.