California Gives NCAA The Middle Finger

[pythagoras]

If the Cali schools stay they'll not be able to compete in championships the NCAA has already said that.

Then there is this. https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...aa-drop-california-if-bill-passes/3778683002/

Cali schools won't last alone nobody else will want to play a non NCAA school.

We have 4 years to argue about what will and won't happen as each side continues to champion for their side.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

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.....

Well to start it is a tip of the ice berg deal. Other states have started the same thing they just haven't had governors sign them into law yet. By the time 2023 comes most if not all states may be against the NCAA on it so it won't ever come down to just Cali and the NCAA. But I see what your saying. That said Cali has the most D1 schools I think of any state. Maybe Texas gives them a run for their $ on that but I think Cali has more. The NCAA couldn't afford to see the scales tipped that way that much for just them... It'd be chaos of epic proportions. To me this will get battled out in court if not the supreme court. But we'll see a resolution to it in an all or nothing way

 

[BVHawk95]

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.

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.

I don't believe that is what the original poster is saying. I can link the Reddit thread if you wanna read for yourselves, as there's some good discussion going on (yes, even on Reddit).

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/dbbtli/california_governor_will_sign_plan_to_let_ncaa/


Also, a conservative Supreme Court may want to restrict the Commerce Clause, but I'd argue respecting precedent is higher on their list, and it just so happens that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (of which the state of California is a part of) made a ruling in favor of the NCAA in a similar case back in 1992.

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Miller, 795 F. Supp. 1476 (D. Nev. 1992)

The TL;DR of the ruling was that since the NCAA is a voluntary, national organization that regulates all member schools across state lines equally, no state can make a law that requires the NCAA to treat their schools differently than all other schools (ie, having the opportunity to profit off of your likeness should you play for USC instead of Arizona).

 

[Fryowa]

Well to start it is a tip of the ice berg deal. Other states have started the same thing they just haven't had governors sign them into law yet. By the time 2023 comes most if not all states may be against the NCAA on it so it won't ever come down to just Cali and the NCAA. But I see what your saying. That said Cali has the most D1 schools I think of any state. Maybe Texas gives them a run for their $ on that but I think Cali has more. The NCAA couldn't afford to see the scales tipped that way that much for just them... It'd be chaos of epic proportions. To me this will get battled out in court if not the supreme court. But we'll see a resolution to it in an all or nothing way

Yeah I was just being sarcastic.

The NCAA claims to first and foremost be about the safety and well-being of college students above all, and not concerned with making money, but the instant some of their cash gets threatened they've got congresspeople on the phone.

 

[Fryowa]

I don't believe that is what the original poster is saying. I can link the Reddit thread if you wanna read for yourselves, as there's some good discussion going on (yes, even on Reddit).

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/dbbtli/california_governor_will_sign_plan_to_let_ncaa/


Also, a conservative Supreme Court may want to restrict the Commerce Clause, but I'd argue respecting precedent is higher on their list, and it just so happens that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (of which the state of California is a part of) made a ruling in favor of the NCAA in a similar case back in 1992.

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Miller, 795 F. Supp. 1476 (D. Nev. 1992)

The TL;DR of the ruling was that since the NCAA is a voluntary, national organization that regulates all member schools across state lines equally, no state can make a law that requires the NCAA to treat their schools differently than all other schools (ie, having the opportunity to profit off of your likeness should you play for USC instead of Arizona).

I get that, but the point is moot is what I'm saying.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the NCAA can't legally kick the California schools out.

You know what the remedy is the courts would give to the NCAA? They'd say, "Then kick the schools out of your organization that are breaking the rules."

No way in hell the NCAA will do that and lose ticket/merch/ad/tv revenue, which is what makes that argument moot.

 

[BVHawk95]

I get that, but the point is moot is what I'm saying.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the NCAA can't legally kick the California schools out.

You know what the remedy the courts would give to the NCAA? They'd say "Then kick the schools out of your organization that are breaking the rules." No way in hell the NCAA will do that and lose ticket/merch/ad/tv revenue, which is what makes that argument moot.

I agree with that sentiment, I was simply bringing up a point someone else raised that I thought was interesting.

I'd say the most likely result of this definitely would be CA schools breaking off from the NCAA, soon followed by many others and the downfall of it as we know it.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

I don't believe that is what the original poster is saying. I can link the Reddit thread if you wanna read for yourselves, as there's some good discussion going on (yes, even on Reddit).

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/dbbtli/california_governor_will_sign_plan_to_let_ncaa/


Also, a conservative Supreme Court may want to restrict the Commerce Clause, but I'd argue respecting precedent is higher on their list, and it just so happens that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (of which the state of California is a part of) made a ruling in favor of the NCAA in a similar case back in 1992.

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Miller, 795 F. Supp. 1476 (D. Nev. 1992)

The TL;DR of the ruling was that since the NCAA is a voluntary, national organization that regulates all member schools across state lines equally, no state can make a law that requires the NCAA to treat their schools differently than all other schools (ie, having the opportunity to profit off of your likeness should you play for USC instead of Arizona).

TBF the Supreme Court overturns the Ninth Circuit more than any other, and Clarence Thomas could not care any less about precedent. The Rehnquist court (Of which Thomas was a member) wanted to reign in the commerce clause, but couldn’t. Thomas’ wing has the majority now, it’s really just a matter of whether Gorsuch or Kavanaugh will swing the other way, and whether CJ Roberts cares enough to get this type of thing on the docket. All of that said, the case you’ve linked is from a District Court, not the Ninth Circuit.

 

[Fryowa]

I agree with that sentiment, I was simply bringing up a point someone else raised that I thought was interesting.

I'd say the most likely result of this definitely would be CA schools breaking off from the NCAA, soon followed by many others and the downfall of it as we know it.

I read that South Carolina and New York have bills on deck already, if the NCAA doesn't adjust it's business model in a hot minute it's going to find itself on the street corner begging for liquor money.

Even if I don't agree with everything I still feel the NCAA did this to itself and is just getting some karma.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

I agree with that sentiment, I was simply bringing up a point someone else raised that I thought was interesting.

I'd say the most likely result of this definitely would be CA schools breaking off from the NCAA, soon followed by many others and the downfall of it as we know it.

It never gets to that point, A. Because the NCAA will make no effort to seriously sanction them, they will simply sue the states that pass legislation, and B. The Federal government will never let any of this stand.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I get that, but the point is moot is what I'm saying.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the NCAA can't legally kick the California schools out.

You know what the remedy is the courts would give to the NCAA? They'd say, "Then kick the schools out of your organization that are breaking the rules."

No way in hell the NCAA will do that and lose ticket/merch/ad/tv revenue, which is what makes that argument moot.

Yup. No way they want their cake and eat it too. And they'll take a hit to try and keep the status quo but not that big of one.

 

[Fryowa]

It never gets to that point, A. Because the NCAA will make no effort to seriously sanction them, they will simply sue the states that pass legislation, and B. The Federal government will never let any of this stand.

Here's what I see most likely happening...

--The NCAA will silently protest this and business will continue as usual.

--Once more states start passing this kind of thing the NCAA will begrudgingly make changes its rules little by until they get to the point where they say athletes can't get directly paid by the colleges, and claim victory on their part.

In simplest terms, this is everyone saying to the NCAA that they aren't putting up with their shit anymore, and if you don't like it, pound sand. It's a Mexican standoff that Mark Emmert knows he's gonna lose, so there will be tons of hand wringing and face-saving.

 

[EstronHawkKing]

Remember The Boz and his t-shirt at the Orange Bowl in the mid/late 80's?

 

[westender]

Good points made by Mark Cuban:

Cuban is concerned that if a student athlete suddenly isn't good enough to play on the team, all a sudden, they lose their scholarship.

Another worry he has is different positions trying to negotiate more pay than others, for instance, a quarterback saying he deserves more than an offensive lineman. In turn, Cuban has a dire outlook if this progresses.

 

[westender]

One thing would be guaranteed is that we would see at least a 16 team expanded playoff to pay for all of this.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Good points made by Mark Cuban:

Cuban is concerned that if a student athlete suddenly isn't good enough to play on the team, all a sudden, they lose their scholarship.

Another worry he has is different positions trying to negotiate more pay than others, for instance, a quarterback saying he deserves more than an offensive lineman. In turn, Cuban has a dire outlook if this progresses.

The school isn't the one paying, it is in essence the boosters. Cuban doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[westender]

Paying players directly is a separate issue, but banning players from making money on endorsements, autographs, etc? F that.

But I agree this will be fun to watch just like Aaron Calvin.

The problem with this is you get your Ohio State car salesmen / tattoo artist millionaire to pay for stuff back door this way. Hey some dude wanted to pay me $X for a box full of autographed stuff or wanted to give me a nice new Mercedes.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Remember The Boz and his t-shirt at the Orange Bowl in the mid/late 80's?

Havent seen that in a LONG time.

I would ask Boz the following;

If your going to get dismissed from the team and embroil yourself in a twenty year feud with your legendary head coach over a goddamn t-shirt......could you at least get the shirt printer to set the columns properly for your slogan?

 

[Motigerhawk]

You guys understand this opens the door for more NCAA Football games, right?

I went out and bought a PS3 and bought NCAA 14 last summer. Best game out there.

 

[westender]

Maybe a booster would like a kid to do some autographs out in Vegas.

 

[ohhawk]

Pity those that might have to draft the Policies & Procedures manual should this mess come to be.