Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 154
  1. #1

    Default SB 206 NCAA Reform is Almost Here

    The NCAA is about to change for the better very soon. Thank you California.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tea, South Dakota
    Posts
    1,342
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Nothing good comes out of California.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New River, AZ
    Posts
    6,063

    Default

    Yes, and all schools in California would be ineligible to participate in any NCAA event. Good luck.
    Gopher football fan since 1924. DNA-wise.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,383

    Default

    Gavin Newsom is a straight out of central casting slime ball politician. I doubt he vetoes this which sets up a popcorn munching showdown between the NCAA and CA. The law prohibits schools or the NCAA from preventing athletes earning revenue from their name, image, likeness. The CA school athletic depts obviously need the NCAA more than the NCAA need the CA schools.

    It’s fascinating as any (further) widening of the competitive rift would certainly lead to an extremely tilted playing field and programs like MN will instantly become hopelessly noncompetitive in the revenue sports. It has to make one wonder if the FBS then eventually splits into an NFL-like ~30 team league and everyone else folds into a second tier league.

    Best case scenario to preserve college football as we know it is the NCAA bans CA schools from competing in their leagues, public pressure forces a mea culpa.

  5. #5

    Default

    Not good at all.

    Hopefully the governor vetoes it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,531
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Greed is what is going to destroy college sports. What - this is for the benefits of a few superstars? We are seeing that selfishness being displayed in Pro Football too. Ultimately greed will Pro and College Football's undoing.

    The thing is, now an NFL QB can earn $29M a year. To offset that, you have to sign 12 rookies and get rid of veterans. The final accounting will be when fans stop coming to games or watching it on TV.
    Welcome to Badger Road Kill Country!

  7. #7

    Default

    For those looking for context:

    California Assembly passes SB 206 that brings state to verge of rules showdown with NCAA

    The California State Assembly on Monday unanimously passed a bill that would allow college athletes to more easily make money off their own name, image and likeness, beginning Jan. 1, 2023.

    The 66-0 vote all but assures that the measure will go to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Because the bill was amended after it had passed the State Senate, it will have to return to that chamber for a concurrence vote. However, the Senate approved its version of the bill by a 31-5 margin, and the bill’s basic intent remains unchanged.

    If the legislation reaches Newsom’s desk, he will have 30 days to sign it or veto it. If he takes no action, the bill becomes law.

    Although an NCAA panel is studying potential changes in the association’s policies regarding athletes’ names, images and likenesses, this sets up the prospect of a conflict between the NCAA’s amateurism rules and the laws of a state that has more than 20 Division I schools, including four members of the Pac-12 Conference.

    https://usatodayhss.com/2019/califor...ir-pay-to-play

    Go Gophers!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    3,006
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Other states are hopping on board. The NCAA will have to accept it or die. They will soon have no choice.

  9. #9

    Default

    I'd like to see the NCAA allow players to benefit from their likeness but this isn't the way to go about it. It's easy to simplify this to "the NCAA just wants to hold back the players so they can make more money" but it's not that simple. If there were few restrictions, I'm sure shoe companies would sign players in high school and then funnel them their schools. I'm sure big sponsors would try to keep their players eligible if they get into trouble or have bad grades. I'm sure companies would go after talented and poor high school kids and lock them into horrible contracts because they don't know their value or because their family really needs the money and they'd take what they can get. Whatever system they come up with needs to have rules to prevent abuse and if the California law doesn't do that, it's going to cause a lot of trouble. If their intention is truly to help the student athletes they should take the time to research and set up limitations to protect them. As it stands now it seems like the student athletes would get very little out of this and the shoe companies will make tons of money off of it. Look at all of the corruption in colleges and college sports recently; that will only get worse if they don't have the right restrictions to prevent it.

    California is really overvaluing what they bring to the NCAA. Unless I'm missing something, no California team has been in the NCAA Football Playoffs ever. A California team only one a BCS National Championship once and that was vacated. If you go back before that, the last AP national championship a California team won was in 1972. In basketball, the last California team in a final 4 was in 2008 and the last to win was 1995. California is used to bullying companies around to follow their laws because they have such a large percentage of the population but unless many other states jump in I doubt the NCAA will cave in here. The NCAA can absolutely win and can do harm to California schools beyond just athletics. If California is unwilling to work with the NCAA, the NCAA should treat them the same way. Any athletics department that has costs they can't shed easily such as coaching contracts and debt on facilities is going to need money from the rest of the school or the state if they can't compete in the NCAA. Plus athletics is cheap or free marketing for colleges and most of that will be gone if they're not playing in the NCAA. If they let student athletes transfer and be immediately eligible they can do long-lasting damage too. Even if California backs down quickly, tons of players will have transferred, recruits will have backed out, and it will be impossible to pick up where they left off.

    I really hope the NCAA goes to war over California over this. They know this isn't a situation where the NCAA can amend their rules only in California to comply with the law. They've already done this with so many other things where they are able to force companies to do things but this isn't one of them. Hopefully the NCAA holds their feet to the fire and shows them that they can't just do whatever they want.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    SW Minneapolis
    Posts
    5,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pompous Elitist View Post
    It’s fascinating as any (further) widening of the competitive rift would certainly lead to an extremely tilted playing field and programs like MN will instantly become hopelessly noncompetitive in the revenue sports. It has to make one wonder if the FBS then eventually splits into an NFL-like ~30 team league and everyone else folds into a second tier league..
    The one thing MN has going for itself is that we are in a good media market. If it goes full commercial and NFL-style, they will want this market. Now, will the market exposure be able to beat out an established college football brand from a smaller media market? I don't know.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Beaver Lodge in Lake Gopher
    Posts
    5,008

    Default

    NCAA prez is the former President at U Dub(Washington).
    This will be interesting. The law of unintended consequences will play out.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,383

    Default

    CA is in an era of a supermajority populist binge. Whatever feels good or sounds good. All kinds of interesting stuff...

    Nationally the architects of the country limited the political influence of populism to some degree by limiting the direct input of the mob/unwashed masses in lawmaking- Supreme Court, two senate representatives from each state despite population, electoral college, etc.

    California doesn’t have such speed brakes and the law of unintended consequences apply. It isn’t the end of the world, but if and when the college game goes fully professional it will be too bad. It’s already way too commercialized and I’d like to see that dialed back. We’ll see if any other states follow suit with CA. Most of the academic elites, conference leaders, athletic department heads understand what a slippery slope this is and how the product would change and eventually be damaged, hence the CA schools have come out against it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5,148

    Default

    I think we had this discussion before, but I feel like NCAA is headed more toward an equivalent of minor league baseball. Once you spread out the money to all players (and perhaps non-revenue athletes), that's probably about the salaries that the players would make.
    Unfortunately once college athletes are pros, I think interest will drop and so will the money.

  14. #14

    Default

    This isn’t schools paying players.

    This is like if some car dealership wants to put up a billboard with a Stanford volleyball player’s face on it, and pay her $2000 for her image.


    I’m failing to see how this has any significant impact. I would like to see the NCAA study this and see if their rules can be amended to allow it.

    But I’m sure folks here can think of valid hypothetical scenarios that I’m not seeing at the moment. Would like to hear them.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    This isn’t schools paying players.

    This is like if some car dealership wants to put up a billboard with a Stanford volleyball player’s face on it, and pay her $2000 for her image.


    I’m failing to see how this has any significant impact. I would like to see the NCAA study this and see if their rules can be amended to allow it.

    But I’m sure folks here can think of valid hypothetical scenarios that I’m not seeing at the moment. Would like to hear them.
    A big reason why people are against that is because then boosters could simply pay recruits to come to their school which would widen the gap between the haves and have nots.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •