SB 206 NCAA Reform is Almost Here

I just think this a terrible idea. Of course what you expect coming out of California? I would hope the NCAA would make the Cal. Teams ineligible for any tournament, sponsored bowl game, etc. And maybe(in the future) not allow competition between Cal. teams and everyone else outside the State. Kind of like the Minnesota Athletic Union makes hockey teams ineligible if they compete with Shattuck. Plus can you imagine the team turmoil if say “big Dan” gets a $10,000 endorsement and Olson doesn’t get any? Or. If Shannon Brooks gets one but Smith nothing? A real coaching headache.
What is the Minnesota Athletic Union? There's no such thing. The MSHSL doesn't prohibit teams from playing Shattuck, but Shattuck is trying to develop NHL players and play 55 games a year. Shattuck used to schedule a couple high school teams as recently as 2013-14, and they could again, but it's not really their model.

The NCAA doesn't get to tell California how they run their schools. I'm honestly shocked that the major football programs didn't flip the bird to the NCAA years ago and leave. I have to think they were close on the aforementioned TV rights deal in the 1980's. It's not like the NCAA sanctions a playoff in FBS like they do with March Madness. What purpose do they serve for major conference football.
 
Sorry but it is my understanding that Minnesota high school hockey teams can’t even play in tournaments that Shattuck is entered. If they compete then they are ruled ineligible to participate in association sponsored meets. I am sure if I am incorrect GH will let me know.
 
Disclaimer - I have not read the whole thread, so someone may have already made this point. (if so I apologize)

So, if I understand this, the idea is that players would be able to market themselves - get a cut of jersey sales, poster sales, endorsements, etc. Sounds OK in theory.

But in practice, the money is going to go to just a handful of star players. Taking the Gophers for example, Johnson, Bateman, Smith, Morgan, Winfield would be in position to benefit. Maybe Faalele on the OL because of his notoriety. But the vast majority of players are not going to see squat. Even some of the starters wouldn't benefit. I'm guessing there would not be a big market for Kiondre Thomas jerseys or posters.

So, that creates a situation where some members of the team are pulling in this extra money, and other players are not seeing a dime. That has the potential to create some hard feelings - maybe even mess with team chemistry depending on how the guys making the extra money handle it. Not saying it would be a problem specifically for the Gophers - but on another team, if the star QB is raking in the dough, driving a new car and sporting lots of bling, while other guys are struggling to get by, it wouldn't take much to become a problem. I could see that being an issue for some teams, and a headache for coaches.

just my thoughts. FWIW.
 
Other way around. High School teams are not eligible to play in a tournament that Shattuck is in because it is a different level of Hockey. No Tier One tournament would invite an Edina or Roseau or any other high school team. Has nothing to do with their MSHSL eligibility. SSM played Benilde and STA as recently as five years ago.
 
if the star QB is raking in the dough, driving a new car and sporting lots of bling, while other guys are struggling to get by, it wouldn't take much to become a problem. I could see that being an issue for some teams, and a headache for coaches.

just my thoughts. FWIW.
This happens now and has for decades at big time programs. You are choosing to ignore it. Check out some of the cars that the big time stars at SEC schools are driving.
It's not exactly a secret.
 
It don't think it has anything to do with Title IX since it wouldn't be the schools paying them, just allowing them to make their own money.
I'm not a lawyer but I think it would be a problem.

The wording of the law is "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." (emphasis mine)

College athletics are an activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If this doesn't get repealed by the time it starts and the NCAA allows it, money for using athletes' likenesses would be a benefit of that activity at least in California. If males disproportionately get those benefits, females are being denied the benefits of an activity receiving Federal financial assistance on the basis of sex.

I'm not sure who they'd go after though. Going after the schools is impractical because the laws don't directly mention schools so they could claim that while someone violated the law, it wasn't them. Going after the companies who give athletes the money would make more sense although I'm sure some will make claims that their payments to athletes are a marketing expense and they've done research showing that their target audience would react better to male athletes than female athletes. The NCAA could also be a target but they would just claim they had nothing to do with it and opposed it. I can almost guarantee it will go to court and who wins depends on who is involved and politics.
 

Pompous Elitist

Active member
Once the genie is out of the bottle the boosters that currently donate hundreds of thousands or millions for facilities will be able to finance a yearly spiraling arms race for the top recruits. It could be a legitimate sponsorship deal or it could be for something as simple as an appearance at a grandson’s birthday party. There’s really no way to control it unless a compliance bureaucracy is created to monitor...like the NCAA.

Without salary caps and/or the luxury tax players will be swayed by whatever money boosters can throw their way. Some schools obviously have more people waiting in the wings to throw money at players than others. It could be quite an interesting situation. Traditional recruiting out the door, wining and dining boosters to arrange deals is in. Players bicker about deals, complain about not getting this, or that, get promised a deal at school XYZ and are into the transfer portal. California passes a law disallowing NCAA rules on transfers and the 1 year rule, setting off a yearly Wild West free agency.

Disgusted fans, or fans of “have not” teams without a chance to compete for conference or division championships decide to watch a higher level of play in their NFL teams instead.
 

die hard gopher

Active member
I'm not a lawyer but I think it would be a problem.

The wording of the law is "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." (emphasis mine)

College athletics are an activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If this doesn't get repealed by the time it starts and the NCAA allows it, money for using athletes' likenesses would be a benefit of that activity at least in California. If males disproportionately get those benefits, females are being denied the benefits of an activity receiving Federal financial assistance on the basis of sex.

I'm not sure who they'd go after though. Going after the schools is impractical because the laws don't directly mention schools so they could claim that while someone violated the law, it wasn't them. Going after the companies who give athletes the money would make more sense although I'm sure some will make claims that their payments to athletes are a marketing expense and they've done research showing that their target audience would react better to male athletes than female athletes. The NCAA could also be a target but they would just claim they had nothing to do with it and opposed it. I can almost guarantee it will go to court and who wins depends on who is involved and politics.
I think it would violate Title IX if women were not allowed to make money off their image but men were. But because both men and women will be able to make money off their image, it would not be a violation. And If female athletes don't get as much money or anything from endorsement deals, it wouldn't be the federally funded schools denying them those benefits.
 

Pompous Elitist

Active member
This happens now and has for decades at big time programs. You are choosing to ignore it. Check out some of the cars that the big time stars at SEC schools are driving.
It's not exactly a secret.
There is still crime occurring but we don’t fold up the cop shops, or the FBI. It’s a matter of degree - the unbalanced competition level could be much, much worse than it is.
 
There is still crime occurring but we don’t fold up the cop shops, or the FBI. It’s a matter of degree - the unbalanced competition level could be much, much worse than it is.
I understand, but I feel like there are some people who are being fairly naive to the realities of big time college football and basketball. And to be honest, at this point in time, the NCAA pretty much has no teeth to go after big revenue programs with really harsh sanctions, because of the TV contract money involved. See also, North Carolina hoops. I can't think of the last time they really came down hard on a P5 conference school.
 
I think it would violate Title IX if women were not allowed to make money off their image but men were. But because both men and women will be able to make money off their image, it would not be a violation. And If female athletes don't get as much money or anything from endorsement deals, it wouldn't be the federally funded schools denying them those benefits.
Correct. It would be the free market.
 
Something else interesting that I don't think has been brought up. The single most successful overall college athletic program in the country (for a very long time too), and one of the most prestigious schools in the country happens to be in California. Stanford. It's pretty much the crown jewel for an overall program. How's that going to look?
 

Pompous Elitist

Active member
I understand, but I feel like there are some people who are being fairly naive to the realities of big time college football and basketball. And to be honest, at this point in time, the NCAA pretty much has no teeth to go after big revenue programs with really harsh sanctions, because of the TV contract money involved. See also, North Carolina hoops. I can't think of the last time they really came down hard on a P5 conference school.
I don’t think anyone is naive to it. I think most people/fans want the NCAA to be more stringent not less. I think some people might be naive to what will happen to college revenue sports if this comes to pass. Should it come to pass the silver lining is perhaps, perhaps a salary cap structure, free agency could be instituted that would promote competition in what would be a second tier pro league. That scenario does open up the Title IX bugaboo, including arguments about unequal pay for equal efforts, etc that we’re seeing in the soccer world and really in our society right now. Lawsuits, grandstanding, etc. It doesn’t matter who brings in the money. You have to think like a utopian.
 

Pompous Elitist

Active member
Something else interesting that I don't think has been brought up. The single most successful overall college athletic program in the country (for a very long time too), and one of the most prestigious schools in the country happens to be in California. Stanford. It's pretty much the crown jewel for an overall program. How's that going to look?

Perhaps they will relocate to Texas :cool:
 

Pompous Elitist

Active member
Some of the potential unintended consequences seeping into their just minds. He does make a good point that the schools and conferences erred by not reining in the absurd spending and instead diverting the tv money back into scholarship, academics for their respective schools. It is gross, and a missed opportunity that may help spell the end of college athletics as we know it.


As NCAA Gets Dragged Toward Just Change, Not Every Aftereffect May Be Positive

...The NCAA has often argued that people watch the teams, not the athletes. It is disingenuous and self-serving, but it is not completely without merit. We do cheer for athletes largely because of the universities they represent. If Alabama and Auburn stopped fielding football teams tomorrow, and Birmingham got a minor-league team, do you think it would be as popular?

Wherever the California law leads, change feels inevitable. Nobody should feel bad for the schools. They put themselves in this position by trying to have it both ways—by acting like a business when it comes to producing revenue and claiming to be universities when it comes to compensating players. And it’s hard to watch coaches make close to eight figures while schools claim there is no money for players.

Morally, these changes feel right. But in practice … well, we’ll see. Maybe college sports are so embedded in society that we will roll with changes like these. Maybe we really do want the best players to be well-paid free agents. Maybe we don’t even need to imagine them as students playing for the schools they love. Maybe.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/30/fair-pay-to-play-act-ncaa-amateurism-future
 
Last edited:

MnplsGopher

Active member
Here's the thing: let's say the U of Minn had a world-renowned concert pianist going to school here, studying music and on a music scholarship.

Would anyone -- I mean, anyone -- give a crap if this person received additional income in the form of an endorsement deal with the MN Orchestra ??????


Answer: no, they would not.
 

MnplsGopher

Active member
That said, I do think it is critically important for the NCAA to get the language correct when they update their rules.

They will update them. I guarantee it. They have a couple years to get it right.


They need to look at two main things:
1) making sure the endorsement deals are bona-fide. It can't be a "fake" deal that is never really even trying to get publicity. In other words, trying to spend very little to actually publicize the deal, and just using the deal as a front to get the athlete money.
2) making sure that the bigger programs, with the richest boosters, don't have "too much" of an unfair advantage over the rest. Maybe you look at capping the amount yearly, or something like that.
 

MnplsGopher

Active member
Disclaimer - I have not read the whole thread, so someone may have already made this point. (if so I apologize)

So, if I understand this, the idea is that players would be able to market themselves - get a cut of jersey sales, poster sales, endorsements, etc. Sounds OK in theory.

But in practice, the money is going to go to just a handful of star players. Taking the Gophers for example, Johnson, Bateman, Smith, Morgan, Winfield would be in position to benefit. Maybe Faalele on the OL because of his notoriety. But the vast majority of players are not going to see squat. Even some of the starters wouldn't benefit. I'm guessing there would not be a big market for Kiondre Thomas jerseys or posters.

So, that creates a situation where some members of the team are pulling in this extra money, and other players are not seeing a dime. That has the potential to create some hard feelings - maybe even mess with team chemistry depending on how the guys making the extra money handle it. Not saying it would be a problem specifically for the Gophers - but on another team, if the star QB is raking in the dough, driving a new car and sporting lots of bling, while other guys are struggling to get by, it wouldn't take much to become a problem. I could see that being an issue for some teams, and a headache for coaches.

just my thoughts. FWIW.
It wouldn't be "getting a cut" in the sense that, players wouldn't be getting some amount of the deals that the school makes.

They would just be able to make their own, individual deals.


And yes, it would just be the stars. That's how endorsements usually work.


Too your last paragraph, maybe the way you think about that is something like: any endorsement or NIL deal money has to go into a trust fund or something while the player is eligible. Once they've finished their eligibility, they can have the money. Or another way to say that is, once they touch the money their eligibility is over.
 

MnplsGopher

Active member
For the legal minds here, if the California schools want to stay in the NCAA or NAIA under the current rules, could they require the student athletes to (voluntarily) sign a contract that stipulates that the student athlete won't accept any form of outside payment?

It would seem like an easy way around this.
I think a more reasonable approach would be that the athlete's may not access the money while they are still eligible to play in college. It has to grow in an account they own, but can't draw from. Once they're done, they can draw whatever they want from it.
 

upnorthkid

Active member
That said, I do think it is critically important for the NCAA to get the language correct when they update their rules.

They will update them. I guarantee it. They have a couple years to get it right.


They need to look at two main things:
1) making sure the endorsement deals are bona-fide. It can't be a "fake" deal that is never really even trying to get publicity. In other words, trying to spend very little to actually publicize the deal, and just using the deal as a front to get the athlete money.
2) making sure that the bigger programs, with the richest boosters, don't have "too much" of an unfair advantage over the rest. Maybe you look at capping the amount yearly, or something like that.
On point 2, well that’s not free market at all. And that’s the argument you’re trying to make
 

Latest profile posts

Top