SB 206 NCAA Reform is Almost Here

Donate To GopherHole
MnplsGopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not categorically against college athletes being able to make money. However, I do wonder about the potential for this change to impact a "team first" mentality. There are only going to be so many endorsement opportunities to go around. Will a coach worry about benching a familiar player with a nice side gig in order to go with an unfamiliar player without one?
 

dpodoll68 said:
They could most definitely do that. "College" football (you couldn't even really call it that, you'd have to come up with a new name) would then go the route of college baseball, or worse, and hardly anyone would watch or care. The money would dry up and no one, including the schools, would be generating any meaningful revenue. But at least the players would be able to get paid peanuts from the tiny pot of revenue generated.
Click to expand...


MnplsGopher said:
This is one idea and route that could be taken.


I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are very fearful that going this route will turn a lot of fans and viewers off, and will cause attendance and ratings to plummet.
Click to expand...

Well yeah of course. Where is my incentive to watch a pro league with worse talent when the NFL exists? College ball in the current "amateur" model has a lot of benefits that drive people to watch that I think you lose if you make it more "professionalized"
 
Last edited:


Ski U Master said:
Well yeah of course. Where is my incentive to watch a pro league with worse talent when the NFL exists? College ball in the current "amateur" model has a lot of benefits that drive people to watch that I think you lose if you make it more "professionalized"
Click to expand...

Sounds like a valid viewpoint to me.

Strictly speaking for myself, I only have time to watch one college football game per week, if that. I watch the Gophers, because that is the school I have the strongest ties to, and the team I follow. So it's tough for me to imagine lots of people across the country tuning in to watch Gopher football games, without any ties to the school and/or being fans of the program. But it probably does happen, I would guess moreso if the team is ranked or if it is a historic rivalry game like the Axe. If the game is on ESPN/2 instead of BTN, that probably helps as well.

Similarly, it's tough for me to imagine folks who watch every Gopher game now, and have for a while, stopping cold turkey because of players getting paid in a different structure than a scholarship. But I guess it would happen. Just a question of how many, but definitely more than zero.
 

It is very ironic that that this change comes out of California. College athletics is by it's very nature extremely socialist. This is changing that. People like to say that the students are being robbed of the money they are due and going to fat cat colleges. The truth is that there are a few number of athletes that could make a lot of money either through their likeness or through paying the players. That money in actuality goes to the vast majority of the other athletes who do not "make money" for their institutions.

So California thinks these valuable few should keep what they are due. The question that nobody every seems to be able to answer is where then will the money come from for all the non-revenue athletes? Or even the scholarship players on revenue sports teams that simply didn't pan out? They will simply go away. And that is sad.
 


Word said:
What if the car dealership in Minnesota pays it's player $2,000 but the dealership in Columbus pays a player $200,000?

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.
 

WoodburyTim said:
It is very ironic that that this change comes out of California. College athletics is by it's very nature extremely socialist. This is changing that. People like to say that the students are being robbed of the money they are due and going to fat cat colleges. The truth is that there are a few number of athletes that could make a lot of money either through their likeness or through paying the players. That money in actuality goes to the vast majority of the other athletes who do not "make money" for their institutions.

So California thinks these valuable few should keep what they are due. The question that nobody every seems to be able to answer is where then will the money come from for all the non-revenue athletes? Or even the scholarship players on revenue sports teams that simply didn't pan out? They will simply go away. And that is sad.
Click to expand...

This isn't schools paying players, this is just athletes being able to make money from endorsements.
 

die hard gopher said:
This isn't schools paying players, this is just athletes being able to make money from endorsements.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know I was just looking more down the road because if the pay the players crowd doesn't think the current setup is fair, they aren't going to like seeing a selected group of college athletes earning large amounts of money while others get by on their scholarships.
 

WoodburyTim said:
It is very ironic that that this change comes out of California. College athletics is by it's very nature extremely socialist. This is changing that. People like to say that the students are being robbed of the money they are due and going to fat cat colleges. The truth is that there are a few number of athletes that could make a lot of money either through their likeness or through paying the players. That money in actuality goes to the vast majority of the other athletes who do not "make money" for their institutions.

So California thinks these valuable few should keep what they are due. The question that nobody every seems to be able to answer is where then will the money come from for all the non-revenue athletes? Or even the scholarship players on revenue sports teams that simply didn't pan out? They will simply go away. And that is sad.
Click to expand...

At the risk of repeating myself for the 800th time - people look at the situation and see all of the incoming revenue without seeing the concomitant expenses, as you state. Moreover, they make a faulty assumption that all, most, or even some schools are raking in money hand over fist, while students are putting their bodies on the line for slave labor. In reality, if there were all this money just waiting there for someone to grab it, someone would make a minor league that hires 18-year-olds to play football and pay them. No one does that, because the market isn't there, because it's a stupid idea. And yet, many people, apparently now including some governments, want to try to force the NCAA to change its model because of their absurd, faulty assumptions. In addition to the fact that paying 18-year-olds to play football is a stupid, unsustainable idea, the fact remains that the NCAA, as currently constructed, is by far the best option for 18-year-olds to play football. If it weren't, they wouldn't be striving so hard for scholarships, nor moreover hold up securing one to their friends and loved ones as the huge accomplishment that it is.
 



It seems some people have made a leap, and are having a discussion about a hypothetical complete overhaul of the compensation model for college athletes.

The OP legislation proposes to keep the scholarship model exactly how it is. Simply, it says any college athlete is free to receive additional side compensation from usage of their NIL, if such money/opportunity exists for that particular athlete during their eligibility. That is all.


Some have brought up the significant concerns about “fake” endorsements from boosters, as well as the idea that the endorsement dollar amounts in some larger markets or in markets with elite programs will dwarf the endorsements available to comparable athletes in other locations. Those would need to be studied by the NCAA and see if there is some compromise or way to do it “fairly” (which is subjective).
 

MnplsGopher said:
It seems some people have made a leap, and are having a discussion about a hypothetical complete overhaul of the compensation model for college athletes.

The OP legislation proposes to keep the scholarship model exactly how it is. Simply, it says any college athlete is free to receive additional side compensation from usage of their NIL, if such money/opportunity exists for that particular athlete during their eligibility. That is all.


Some have brought up the significant concerns about “fake” endorsements from boosters, as well as the idea that the endorsement dollar amounts in some larger markets or in markets with elite programs will dwarf the endorsements available to comparable athletes in other locations. Those would need to be studied by the NCAA and see if there is some compromise or way to do it “fairly” (which is subjective).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is a parsing between a "fake" and "real" endorsement deal. There is only we advertise with your likeness, we pay you this, and you sign here.
 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/california-college-athletes-endorsements-bill

The legislation has garnered national attention, with athletes such as NBA stars LeBron James and Draymond Green praising the potential for California to give college athletes a share of the windfall they help create for their universities and the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. The Senate gave final approval to Senate Bill 206 by Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) in a 39-0 vote. The Assembly passed the bill 73-0 on Monday.

But the NCAA has forcefully pushed back against the bill, saying it has the potential to kill amateur athletics if it becomes law. The NCAA sent Newsom a letter Wednesday calling the legislation “unconstitutional” and “harmful.”

“If the bill becomes law and California’s 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme, it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics and, because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions,” the letter said.

NCAA President Mark Emmert and 21 other members of the organization’s board of governors signed the letter. Emmert sent a letter to state legislators in June that warned of dire consequences if the bill passed.

Skinner dismissed the NCAA’s warnings as empty threats and said Wednesday that legal scholars have concluded her bill is in fact constitutional.

“The NCAA has repeatedly lost anti-trust cases in courts throughout the nation,” Skinner said. “As a result, threats are their primary weapon.”
Click to expand...
 

Skinner dismissed the NCAA’s warnings as empty threats and said Wednesday that legal scholars have concluded her bill is in fact constitutional.

“The NCAA has repeatedly lost anti-trust cases in courts throughout the nation,” Skinner said. “As a result, threats are their primary weapon.”
Click to expand...

All the recent court decisions support the concept of amateurism, all the way back to the Supreme Court decision in the 80s.

The changes that have been made to the NCAA model relate only to the cost of attendance and education. They specifically support the concept of amateurism and a level playing field as critical to the college football product. This is literally stated in every decision that’s come down - Skinner is blowing smoke to the masses hoping to turn public opinion.
 



Not related to football but to give you guys an idea of the avalanche of bad legislation coming out under the supermajority Skinner is the same legislator that sponsored this beauty. We are in a stupid new world in CA, which is saying something.


It is will soon be illegal in California for both public and charter schools to suspend disruptive students from kindergarten through eighth grade

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed into law Senate Bill 419, which permanently prohibits willful defiance suspensions in grades four and five. It also bans such suspensions in grades six through eight for five years.

The law goes into effect July 1, 2020.

Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, who wrote the new law, said it would “keep kids in school where they belong and where teachers and counselors can help them thrive.”

“SB 419 puts the needs of kids first,” she said.

California students missed more than 150,000 days of school because of suspensions for unruly behavior in the 2016-17 academic year, according to a California Senate analysis of SB 419.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article234912107.html#storylink=cpy
 

Pompous Elitist said:
All the recent court decisions support the concept of amateurism, all the way back to the Supreme Court decision in the 80s.

The changes that have been made to the NCAA model relate only to the cost of attendance and education. They specifically support the concept of amateurism and a level playing field as critical to the college football product. This is literally stated in every decision that’s come down - Skinner is blowing smoke to the masses hoping to turn public opinion.
Click to expand...

If Rashod Bateman was offered $500 by a local mom&pop store in his hometown of Tifton, GA to use his image in an advertisement, would he still be an amateur?

If Tyler Johnson was offered $100k by Walser Auto here in town to do a series of billboards and commercials, would he still be an amateur?

Both would continue to receive the same scholarships that they do now.


Where is the line, in your opinion?
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
You don't feel at all weird determining what other people should be making?
Click to expand...
I'm all for the free market. Should the outcome of this increase my season ticket costs, I'll determine if I want to renew.
Do you believe there is a hard line somewhere in all of this? If I recall correctly, Kevin Garnett may have been 19 in high school. Would you be okay if McDonald's would have thrown 50k his way for endorsements? On a local level, what if Raising Canes in Apple Valley offered 9th grade Tyus Jones $500 to show up on a Saturday afternoon.
I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm interested in your thoughts, knowing you are an attorney.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:


MnplsGopher said:
If Rashod Bateman was offered $500 by a local mom&pop store in his hometown of Tifton, GA to use his image in an advertisement, would he still be an amateur?

If Tyler Johnson was offered $100k by Walser Auto here in town to do a series of billboards and commercials, would he still be an amateur?

Both would continue to receive the same scholarships that they do now.


Where is the line, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Can you think of any ways this could be abused?

Regarding the free market issue the product is amateur sports. The athletes aren’t being compelled to accept the terms of the scholarship and NCAA eligibility. They are free to take their talents to the minor professional leagues that mostly don’t exist because people won’t pay for that product. And on and on.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Can you think of any ways this could be abused?

Regarding the free market issue the product is amateur sports. The athletes aren’t being compelled to accept the terms of the scholarship and NCAA eligibility. They are free to take their talents to the minor professional leagues that mostly don’t exist because people won’t pay for that product. And on and on.
Click to expand...

I predict it would be abused, absolutely. That is a valid concern. The chief concern, probably.

To me, it's not a question of if it would ever be abused, but rather how often and what magnitude. Really I would guess a lot of NCAA rules are abused, bent, even broken on occasion. The pressure to win at all costs, drives some amount of questionable behavior.


Agree that amateurism is a key factor in the product. No one can for certain quantify what amount of the value that concept alone brings, but certainly more than zero. We won't know unless it goes away, and that could kill the golden goose entirely. Everyone is too afraid of that, to allow it to really happen, I think. Well, maybe ... I guess no one knows for sure.

But anyway, that's what my questions were trying to get at. At what point is "amateur" abused? What point bent? What point broken?


What if the NCAA decided to allow it, but mandated a hard cap of no more than $5k per year for any athlete, during their eligibility?

And also included language that the money must come from "bona fide endorsements, resulting in public advertisements". No funny stuff, no "private" deals (ie some booster pays a recruit a bunch of cash for some little private "ad" that costs nothing to "publish" nowhere)
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You don't feel at all weird determining what other people should be making?
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't. Not in this case.

Not if it means exacerbating the current gap between the have and have nots, creating an unfair advantage for some schools that the NCAA wants to avoid, possibly making it harder for the gophers to compete and possibly the destruction college game that we all love so much. No, I don't feel weird at all hoping that college athletes don't get paid.
 
Last edited:

die hard gopher said:
Nope, I don't. Not in this case.

Not if it means exacerbating the current gap between the have and have nots, creating an unfair advantage for some schools that the NCAA wants to avoid, possibly making it harder for the gophers to compete and possibly the destruction college game that we all love so much. No, I don't feel weird at all hoping that college athletes don't get paid.
Click to expand...

So justice is less important to you than your entertainment. I get it.

So you take a guy like Tommy Frazier. Can you imagine the amount of money he brought into the Nebraska football team? He didn't have any pro career and I have no idea where he is now. I believe he came from a poor background and he is not allowed to monetize his skillset because you think it would make it more difficult for the Gophers to beat Oklahoma.

I love college football and I understand the implications, but there are more important things to me.
 

CWCWCW said:
I'm all for the free market. Should the outcome of this increase my season ticket costs, I'll determine if I want to renew.
Do you believe there is a hard line somewhere in all of this? If I recall correctly, Kevin Garnett may have been 19 in high school. Would you be okay if McDonald's would have thrown 50k his way for endorsements? On a local level, what if Raising Canes in Apple Valley offered 9th grade Tyus Jones $500 to show up on a Saturday afternoon.
I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm interested in your thoughts, knowing you are an attorney.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would probably not draw a line at all. If a kid is a great musician, actor, etc., they are allowed to have endorsements. If someone wants to pay you money to endorse a product or whatever, you should be allowed to accept that money. HS and college athletics is really the ONLY circumstance I can think of where you cannot cash in on that opportunity.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
So justice is less important to you than your entertainment. I get it.

So you take a guy like Tommy Frazier. Can you imagine the amount of money he brought into the Nebraska football team? He didn't have any pro career and I have no idea where he is now. I believe he came from a poor background and he is not allowed to monetize his skillset because you think it would make it more difficult for the Gophers to beat Oklahoma.

I love college football and I understand the implications, but there are more important things to me.
Click to expand...

No, I don't consider students of a University not being paid, aside from their scholarship, some sort of grave injustice. They are students, not employees and my opinion would stay the same no matter how much schools would make off of of them, which gets re-invested back into the program anyways. No one is forcing them to play NCAA ball. If they want to make money off their name, go to some other league. If you feel like you have play in the NCAA to make it to the NFL or NBA then you'll have to decide what is more important to you, making money off your name now or waiting a bit before you become a professional.

If the NCAA and member institutions believes it is in their best interest as an organization to restrict student athlete compensation then they should absolutely be free to do so.
 
Last edited:

Bob_Loblaw said:
So justice is less important to you than your entertainment. I get it.

So you take a guy like Tommy Frazier. Can you imagine the amount of money he brought into the Nebraska football team? He didn't have any pro career and I have no idea where he is now. I believe he came from a poor background and he is not allowed to monetize his skillset because you think it would make it more difficult for the Gophers to beat Oklahoma.

I love college football and I understand the implications, but there are more important things to me.
Click to expand...

Maybe I’m not clear but do you also support directly paying players?

If we’re worried about prospects after school...do we then enable schools to ignore eligibility restrictions? Keep players for 10 years, take NFL cast offs, etc? Why not? Can schools restrict their student acceptance? Is that a violation of the free market?

There are all kinds of restrictions on players, eligibility, in addition to the promotion of the flavor of product and competition.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
I would probably not draw a line at all. If a kid is a great musician, actor, etc., they are allowed to have endorsements. If someone wants to pay you money to endorse a product or whatever, you should be allowed to accept that money. HS and college athletics is really the ONLY circumstance I can think of where you cannot cash in on that opportunity.
Click to expand...

Musicians, actors, etc. are not in competitive events. Fans want some form of actual competitiveness in sports. The NFL is hugely popular largely because it built in ongoing competition/parity enhancing rules like draft order, salary cap, etc. The NCAA, while not doing as good a job as the NFL, has also built in competition enhancing rules like the different divisions D1s-2-3, quasi-amateurism at D1 and D2, scholarship limits, D3 scholarship bans, etc. NCAA D1 football is hugely popular largely because of the structure set by the NCAA.

It's not about the free market. The NCAA participates in the free market. Participating as an athlete in NCAA football under its rules is 100% voluntary. The NCAA, with its amateurism rules, has kicked ass on every other football playing organization for young men aged 18-22. The NAIA tries but is losing ground (with similar but more loose amateurism rules). No one is stopping other pro, semi-pro and development leagues from forming and competing for the same players - but time has shown it's more about the individual school's brand and the NCAA structure, than it is about individual athletes.

It's not about justice. For the uber talented athletes, NCAA football is a celebrity-level low paying internship (free ride scholarships) that could result in tens of millions of future dollars if successful. For mid-level scholarship players, its notoriety that couldn't be found anywhere else plus a free ride, etc.. For walk-ons, its everything else student athletes love about athletics.

In the end, if the legislation passes in wacky CA and it spreads elsewhere, I could see the NCAA creating a fourth (really 5th?) football division for schools that allow outside endorsement money. I can't see any of the Big Ten schools willing to go down that road with the possible exceptions of Ohio State and maybe Nebraska. As big as Michigan's athletics are, it's a high academic school and I don't think they'd go there. Amateurism is not dead. It's healthy has hell in D3.
 
Last edited:

Is a solution to say that you can take endorsements and still play, but you lose your scholarship? In other words, if you can make enough in endorsements to cover your $30-100K tuition/room/board etc. knock yourself out. You would then have to limit the # of walk-ons to prevent abuse by the Alabama's of the world.
 

howeda7 said:
Is a solution to say that you can take endorsements and still play, but you lose your scholarship? In other words, if you can make enough in endorsements to cover your $30-100K tuition/room/board etc. knock yourself out. You would then have to limit the # of walk-ons to prevent abuse by the Alabama's of the world.
Click to expand...

Compromises similar to this are the most likely outcome, I think.

They will figure out something that will satisfy the Calif. lawmakers, but uphold the concept of "amateurism" as best possible.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Maybe I’m not clear but do you also support directly paying players?

If we’re worried about prospects after school...do we then enable schools to ignore eligibility restrictions? Keep players for 10 years, take NFL cast offs, etc? Why not? Can schools restrict their student acceptance? Is that a violation of the free market?

There are all kinds of restrictions on players, eligibility, in addition to the promotion of the flavor of product and competition.
Click to expand...

I don't support tax payer dollars going to pay student athletes. If it's a private school or they pay them through boosters, they should be allowed to pay them.

As far as eligibility concerns, that depends upon the league in my opinion.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom