MN state rep Nolan West working to propose similar legislation to new California law

Donate To GopherHole
GophersInIowa said:
My concern is this will just create a bigger gap between the elite programs and everyone else. You're not going to have as many boosters who are willing to pay $1000 for an autograph at places like Minnesota, Iowa St, Boise St, and Syracuse. Do the Gophers land a guy like Bateman under this set up when he probably makes a lot more money at a place like Georgia?
Click to expand...

Since this is looking inevitable, my hope is that with the large metro area the U has and all the local companies, there will be plenty of endorsement opportunities for gopher players. Thats something they can sell to recruits.

We probably wouldn't be nearly as competitive with boosters directly paying recruits but maybe with endorsements, we have a shot.
 

GophersInIowa said:
My concern is this will just create a bigger gap between the elite programs and everyone else. You're not going to have as many boosters who are willing to pay $1000 for an autograph at places like Minnesota, Iowa St, Boise St, and Syracuse. Do the Gophers land a guy like Bateman under this set up when he probably makes a lot more money at a place like Georgia?
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm. Paying someone cash for an autograph is definitely a case study that the NCAA needs to flesh out.

I would have to say "NO" to that one.


Way too easy. "Hey Mr. Ballplayer, can you scribble your name on this piece of paper that I'm just going to throw away afterward, oh and here is $1000 for your troubles. Great game!". That falls outside the spirit of the new law, in my opinion!
 

die hard gopher said:
Since this is looking inevitable, my hope is that with the large metro area the U has and all the local companies, there will be plenty of endorsement opportunities for gopher players. Thats something they can sell to recruits.

We probably wouldn't be nearly as competitive with boosters directly paying recruits but maybe with endorsements, we have a shot.
Click to expand...

I’d say tough sell unless gophers get more popular because I’d go with the majority of the city has no idea who Bateman is, much less recognizes him. Too many pros to go around
 

die hard gopher said:
Since this is looking inevitable, my hope is that with the large metro area the U has and all the local companies, there will be plenty of endorsement opportunities for gopher players. Thats something they can sell to recruits.

We probably wouldn't be nearly as competitive with boosters directly paying recruits but maybe with endorsements, we have a shot.
Click to expand...

No there won't. Very few players would get anything meaningful.
 



MnplsGopher said:
Hmmmmmm. Paying someone cash for an autograph is definitely a case study that the NCAA needs to flesh out.

I would have to say "NO" to that one.


Way too easy. "Hey Mr. Ballplayer, can you scribble your name on this piece of paper that I'm just going to throw away afterward, oh and here is $1000 for your troubles. Great game!". That falls outside the spirit of the new law, in my opinion!
Click to expand...

Is it dawning on you now on how this is going to go? There is no stipulation that deals be market value or otherwise bonafide and I’m not sure of the compliance system necessary to regulate that. You let agents in the door...
 

So, the argument is that players generate revenue through their efforts, but they don't share in that revenue.

My personal opinion is that players are compensated through a full-ride scholarship which is equivalent in some cases to $50,000 or more a year. To be blunt, most P5 football and basketball players would probably not be receiving academic scholarships, or even going to college if they were not athletes. they are essentially being paid to play sports for the college that gave them a scholarship. And this is about football and basketball. top-level HS baseball and hockey players can go pro right out of HS.

Now, if you want to give players a larger stipend for living expenses/walking-around money, I'm OK with that.

but I see a lot of potential problems with allowing players to get money from endorsements, posters, jersey sales, etc. A handful of players on each team would benefit, but many players would not. And players from the marquee teams would benefit the most.

are people really OK with a system that could mean a player like Tua at 'Bama receiving (possibly) millions of dollars a year, while some of his teammates get nothing?

IMHO, either all the players benefit or none of them should benefit. I don't like a system that divides athletes into financial winners and losers.

And, it would impact recruiting. Imagine schools fighting over a recruit by lining up endorsement deals for them. 'sign with school X and get a shoe deal from Company Y.' sign with School XYZ and get a Video game deal from Company ABC.'

Bottom line - if you think it's unfair that the NCAA and its member schools haul in big bucks from TV deals, etc - then mandate that the athletes have to receive a certain percentage of all NCAA and School revenues - with the money going into a fund that is divided evenly among players. But keep the outside companies out of the deal.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Is it dawning on you now on how this is going to go? There is no stipulation that deals be market value or otherwise bonafide and I’m not sure of the compliance system necessary to regulate that. You let agents in the door...
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be so simple as you're making it out to be.

Again, the NCAA gets a crack to come up with the rules framework, before any green light switch is officially pushed.


They have to include something about bona fide in the language. Otherwise, it's barely anything more than simply walking up to a player and pushing a cash-stuffed envelope into his hand.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
So, the argument is that players generate revenue through their efforts, but they don't share in that revenue.

My personal opinion is that players are compensated through a full-ride scholarship which is equivalent in some cases to $50,000 or more a year. To be blunt, most P5 football and basketball players would probably not be receiving academic scholarships, or even going to college if they were not athletes. they are essentially being paid to play sports for the college that gave them a scholarship. And this is about football and basketball. top-level HS baseball and hockey players can go pro right out of HS.

Now, if you want to give players a larger stipend for living expenses/walking-around money, I'm OK with that.

but I see a lot of potential problems with allowing players to get money from endorsements, posters, jersey sales, etc. A handful of players on each team would benefit, but many players would not. And players from the marquee teams would benefit the most.

are people really OK with a system that could mean a player like Tua at 'Bama receiving (possibly) millions of dollars a year, while some of his teammates get nothing?

IMHO, either all the players benefit or none of them should benefit. I don't like a system that divides athletes into financial winners and losers.

And, it would impact recruiting. Imagine schools fighting over a recruit by lining up endorsement deals for them. 'sign with school X and get a shoe deal from Company Y.' sign with School XYZ and get a Video game deal from Company ABC.'

Bottom line - if you think it's unfair that the NCAA and its member schools haul in big bucks from TV deals, etc - then mandate that the athletes have to receive a certain percentage of all NCAA and School revenues - with the money going into a fund that is divided evenly among players. But keep the outside companies out of the deal.
Click to expand...

What do you say about the idea that the player can't withdraw or spend the money while he has eligibility remaining, but once he's done then he can?

That way, you don't lose out on the money, but it avoids some of the issues you bring up.
 



MnplsGopher said:
What do you say about the idea that the player can't withdraw or spend the money while he has eligibility remaining, but once he's done then he can?

That way, you don't lose out on the money, but it avoids some of the issues you bring up.
Click to expand...

except that he can still be getting millions that have him set for life once he's done with college, while his buddy still gets nothing. Just delaying the gratification doesn't make the gratification less (ie if I can sign for 500k out of HS or 100k, I'm going to the place that give me 500k because the NFL dream is not guaranteed)
 

MnplsGopher said:
Hmmmmmm. Paying someone cash for an autograph is definitely a case study that the NCAA needs to flesh out.

I would have to say "NO" to that one.


Way too easy. "Hey Mr. Ballplayer, can you scribble your name on this piece of paper that I'm just going to throw away afterward, oh and here is $1000 for your troubles. Great game!". That falls outside the spirit of the new law, in my opinion!
Click to expand...

How do you prevent that from happening? Or selling a jersey for $5K. Do you set a limit on it? How do you monitor that? Once you open up the can of worms, it's going to be a free for all. The rich will get richer.
 

MnplsGopher said:
It doesn't have to be so simple as you're making it out to be.

Again, the NCAA gets a crack to come up with the rules framework, before any green light switch is officially pushed.


They have to include something about bona fide in the language. Otherwise, it's barely anything more than simply walking up to a player and pushing a cash-stuffed envelope into his hand.
Click to expand...



I believe you’re on record that this is already commonplace. Besides, if for example Casa de Autos offers to pay a recruit 10k per year for promotional appearances/ad spots but Bret Favre Cadillac offers 50k per year I’m not sure how one would prove or assert it is above fair market value as market value is sort of a hazy concept. Maybe the player will make more appearances or the demographics of that market are different. Maybe the car lot argues they feel a player will drive more business into their high margin SUV business and is worth a higher contract.

I guess we’ll see how the nuts and bolts shake out in CA.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
[/B]

I believe you’re on record that this is already commonplace. Besides, if for example Casa de Autos offers to pay a recruit 10k per year for promotional appearances/ad spots but Bret Favre Cadillac offers 50k per year I’m not sure how one would prove or assert it is above fair market value as market value is sort of a hazy concept. Maybe the player will make more appearances or the demographics of that market are different. Maybe the car lot argues they feel a player will drive more business into their high margin SUV business and is worth a higher contract.

I guess we’ll see how the nuts and bolts shake out in CA.
Click to expand...

Maybe if we are going to call it college sports we could start with the athletes actually meeting the same admission standards as the other students.
 



GophersInIowa said:
My concern is this will just create a bigger gap between the elite programs and everyone else. You're not going to have as many boosters who are willing to pay $1000 for an autograph at places like Minnesota, Iowa St, Boise St, and Syracuse. Do the Gophers land a guy like Bateman under this set up when he probably makes a lot more money at a place like Georgia?
Click to expand...

My concern as well, but more so then what it will lead to. If the imbalance becomes too great then why would anyone watch or care about NCAA athletics? It could lead to there being only relatively few viable teams, or else a collapse of the whole system. Then where are these players going to go? The vast majority can't go pro out of high school. Any replacement league would not capture imaginations, any more than A level baseball or junior hockey.
 

MnplsGopher said:
His words were speaking to the idea of paying college athletes a salary, instead of a scholarship. Which is a completely, totally different discussion.
Click to expand...

Always gives me a headache at how low the bar is to become a state Rep in Minnesota. Here’s a guy who can’t manage to avoid conflating two totally separate issues. And he is advocating for a practice that is actually LESS likely to happen BECAUSE of the legislation he is working on. If college athletes get NIL Pay they will almost certainly never revive any additional “compensation” from their schools (who they will effectively be in competition with for revenue).
 

MnplsGopher said:
Well, yes, but in the OP, he certainly had a poor way of framing that.

His words were speaking to the idea of paying college athletes a salary, instead of a scholarship. Which is a completely, totally different discussion.
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. So athletes would get a salary and not a scholarship. Does that mean you don't have to uphold academic issues, going to class, workman's comp, lifetime disability payments should you get concussions etc.? In addition this proposal would make it very expensive program to run. Yes the big boys will succeed and the smaller schools will cease to compete.
 

ComoGopher said:
Maybe if we are going to call it college sports we could start with the athletes actually meeting the same admission standards as the other students.
Click to expand...

If one looks up historical ACT and GPA ranges at MN there is some low hanging fruit getting in. I don’t think it’s only athletes...but I’m willing for someone to prove me wrong.
 

Maybe this has already been discussed but what would stop a wealthy MPLS Gopher fan from signing a premier player to some sort of marketing contract? I haven’t read the Ca bill but it seems to open up more corruption.
 


Again - this all goes back to the argument that D1 College athletics (mainly football and hoops) generates a butt-load of money, but the athletes don't share in that wealth.

I still believe that the most fair way to deal with this is to say that a certain % of NCAA revenues and Conference revenues go into a pool, and all D1 football and basketball players receive an equal share. if you want, the money could go into a trust fund that the athletes can access after their eligibility is completed. Or give the players a choice - take your share up front, or let it go into a trust and earn interest.

if the NCAA was smart (?) - adopting a proposal like that might stave off the "endorsement" style plans being introduced in CA and elsewhere.

With the endorsement model, players benefit in a very unequal fashion. big money for the big stars, squat for the 2nd-string guys. But the 2nd-string guys spend just as much time in practice, and share in the risk. shoot, being a gunner on special teams might be riskier than being the Starting QB. So I just don't like a system where some players benefit and some don't. All or nothing.
 

GophersInIowa said:
How do you prevent that from happening? Or selling a jersey for $5K. Do you set a limit on it? How do you monitor that? Once you open up the can of worms, it's going to be a free for all. The rich will get richer.
Click to expand...

I want to make sure not to seem dismissive of your concern. It is a valid concern. It has to be discussed and considered.

So that said, my response goes something like this: if those types of things (easy, low effort cash gifts, essentially) are incorporated and forbidden by the new rules ... then what more can you really ask for?


There are rules, now, which are being bent and broken. We know these things are already going on.


That doesn't prove there should be no rules. Having a rules frameworks gives at least the opportunity to report when wrongdoing occurs and gives the NCAA a means to investigate and penalize the cheaters.


There will always be cheaters, unfortunately. But I don't see why that means we shouldn't have rules.
 

MnplsGopher said:
I want to make sure not to seem dismissive of your concern. It is a valid concern. It has to be discussed and considered.

So that said, my response goes something like this: if those types of things (easy, low effort cash gifts, essentially) are incorporated and forbidden by the new rules ... then what more can you really ask for?


There are rules, now, which are being bent and broken. We know these things are already going on.


That doesn't prove there should be no rules. Having a rules frameworks gives at least the opportunity to report when wrongdoing occurs and gives the NCAA a means to investigate and penalize the cheaters.


There will always be cheaters, unfortunately. But I don't see why that means we shouldn't have rules.
Click to expand...

What would they be able to make money on then? Appearing in a commercial?
 

GophersInIowa said:
What would they be able to make money on then? Appearing in a commercial?
Click to expand...

I can't give the exact answer to that, but it seems to me the spirit of the law (what the law writers in CA were thinking about) is for star players to be able to hire a publicity agent and then sign contracts for using their NILs.

So, advertising campaigns featuring their names, images, and likenesses. Maybe that just means still pictures/photo shoots? I'm not sure, to be honest.
 

MnplsGopher said:
I can't give the exact answer to that, but it seems to me the spirit of the law (what the law writers in CA were thinking about) is for star players to be able to hire a publicity agent and then sign contracts for using their NILs.

So, advertising campaigns featuring their names, images, and likenesses. Maybe that just means still pictures/photo shoots? I'm not sure, to be honest.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, players could hire an agent and make deals to promote their own image. I assume that would include posters, jerseys, and endorsements. so, when you go to a store and buy a Bateman jersey, Bateman gets a cut of the deal (theoretically). Which still gets back to my main gripe - the big money in college sports is from TV deals - for the NCAA and the Conferences. The CA law would not touch any of that money. So the NCAA still gets to rake in the TV money, and players are put in a situation where they are essentially competing against each other to sell their merchandise.

I still see all kinds of pitfalls. Like - Bateman has a big game with 3 TD catches. in the post-game interview, he reminds fans to buy the official Bateman jerseys and posters at "X" retail store. Coaches will love that..... Or star player X misses a meeting because he's shooting a new TV commercial.
 

Does that happen in the NFL? I doubt often, and they survive fine.

It’ll work.
 

Wouldn’t it make more sense for CA to allow athletes and their agents to negotiate with the schools for use of their NIL in terms of tv broadcasts, etc. The current text of the bill seems to preclude an athlete from entering into negotiations or contract that conflict with a team contract or official team activities.

For example, wouldn’t it be better for the starting level/star athletes if they could band together (unofficially), perhaps sharing agents at an agency like Sports Management International (SMI) and decide to hold out from playing on Saturday night or for the season unless they get a cut of tv revenue from the conference/school? TV is where the real pot of gold is. Surely there is a way for populist vote peddler Gov Newsome to make null and void any provision of ncaa or team rules that prevent an athlete from performing for “nothing”, as he says. LeBron, what are your deep thoughts.
 

PE, that might be some kind of legit grand vision ... but why are you having difficulty accepting this as a baby step?

If a magic genie could guarantee that the NIL route would not harm major college football in terms of fan/TV viewer popularity, you can’t really have any objection to the idea that a person owns the rights to their own image, correct??
 

Show me a star player who can do it without 10 other players. How can an offensive lineman sit watch a running back or any of the skill position make the big endorsements. Football is way too interdependent on 11 positions. I would hate to have to coach a team where their wasn't shared reward. Major resentment would be brewing, look out, unintended consequences.
 

Desertbobcat said:
Show me a star player who can do it without 10 other players. How can an offensive lineman sit watch a running back or any of the skill position make the big endorsements. Football is way too interdependent on 11 positions. I would hate to have to coach a team where their wasn't shared reward. Major resentment would be brewing, look out, unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

The Rams must be a horrible team, with Goff, Gurley, and Donald jogging all the lime-light, right?
 

Many valid points here one way or another. My view is that were going to have a huge can of worms open up. To me this will affect college sports more than the pros. One way or another or some how or another, many bidding wars as to what teams will come up with to satisfy the recruit.

I agree with the shared plan among the players. This will help deal with the busts, kids kicked out of school or whatever. You would get that check at the end of the school year pending good academic standing and a model citizen.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom