SB 206 NCAA Reform is Almost Here

Gopherguy0723

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
4,119
Reaction score
76
Points
48
The NCAA is about to change for the better very soon. Thank you California.
 

highwayman

Knows Less Than Coaching Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
6,378
Reaction score
200
Points
63
Yes, and all schools in California would be ineligible to participate in any NCAA event. Good luck.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
14,794
Reaction score
1,131
Points
113
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.
 

hungan1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
705
Points
113
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.
 

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
50,972
Reaction score
1,257
Points
113
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/california-assembly-passes-sb-206-fair-pay-to-play

Go Gophers!!
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
4,044
Reaction score
529
Points
113
Other states are hopping on board. The NCAA will have to accept it or die. They will soon have no choice.
 

GoGophersUMN

Active member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
810
Reaction score
85
Points
28
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.
 

Ski U Master

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,268
Reaction score
130
Points
63
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.
 

beavergopher

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
153
Points
63
NCAA prez is the former President at U Dub(Washington).
This will be interesting. The law of unintended consequences will play out.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
14,794
Reaction score
1,131
Points
113
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.
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,128
Reaction score
791
Points
113
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.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,187
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
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.
 

die hard gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
152
Points
63
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.
 

Dilemina

Displaced Gopher Fan
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
404
Reaction score
0
Points
16
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.
That's a huge gap already.
Callifornia has huge media markets with the Bay Area and LA. And more with 2 or more schools in each area they can for sure get players stars paid millions in endorsements. That's why superstars in NBA always goto the established teams there.

I don't think that the politicians are thinking at a much higher level than that. But I could be wrong.

Heck, the lobbyist for the the politicians are probably also boosters for the schools.

#Rant over

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,128
Reaction score
791
Points
113
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.
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
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,187
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
Those are valid points and concerns.

My response goes something like this, and you're free to say it isn't valid because it's not exactly talking about college teams: I think a free-agent star NFL or NBA player could make a lot more money from endorsements in LA or NYC than he could in Minneapolis. But, we still are able to get star players to come play here.

Hopefully it would be somewhat similar?
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
Those are valid points and concerns.

My response goes something like this, and you're free to say it isn't valid because it's not exactly talking about college teams: I think a free-agent star NFL or NBA player could make a lot more money from endorsements in LA or NYC than he could in Minneapolis. But, we still are able to get star players to come play here.

Hopefully it would be somewhat similar?
Um no we aren't... for the exact reason you stated...
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,187
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
Um no we aren't... for the exact reason you stated...
Barr chose to stay here instead of going to the Jets?

Cousins? -- OK maybe not the best example, ha!

AP?

Garnett?

Favre came from the Jets?
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
Barr chose to stay here instead of going to the Jets?

Cousins? -- OK maybe not the best example, ha!
The Twolves just struck out on every major star and always have. I'll give you cousins although I don't think other major market teams were offering him the money. Barr a free agent star? LOL.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,187
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
Barr is 4x Pro-bowl, starter his first five years in the league, for whatever that's worth?


So then, is it safe to say, that you guys would vote no (if you had a vote) on any college player being able to profit from their NIL during their college eligibility?

And the reason you want to vote that way, has mainly (solely?) to do with ensuring the most parity/equal playing field across the country between the P5 (P6 in bball) schools?
 

Ski U Master

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,268
Reaction score
130
Points
63
The more I think about the future, the more I think you need to remove all academic benefits and eligibility targets. No more scholarships, no more GPA eligibility requirements. Make the teams semi-pro sports clubs that are sponsored by the Universities and pay the players a market rate salary and allow them to accept endorsements (For the majority of CFB players on the roster, I think this will be a VERY small amount of money, maybe even less than the value of their scholarship today). If they choose to use that money for school then that's great, if not then that's their choice too.
 

die hard gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
152
Points
63
The size of the market doesn't really affect NFL free agency because the endorsement deals aren't as big but it absolutely affects NBA free agency where endorsements and shoe deals are much bigger.

Lebron and Kawhi leaving great situations to go to LA, KD and Kyrie to Brooklyn, Lebron and Bosh to Miami, Shaq and Dwight to the Lakers back in the day etc. Small market teams hardly ever get superstar or even star free agents in the NBA.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,187
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
The more I think about the future, the more I think you need to remove all academic benefits and eligibility targets. No more scholarships, no more GPA eligibility requirements. Make the teams semi-pro sports clubs that are sponsored by the Universities and pay the players a market rate salary and allow them to accept endorsements (For the majority of CFB players on the roster, I think this will be a VERY small amount of money, maybe even less than the value of their scholarship today). If they choose to use that money for school then that's great, if not then that's their choice too.
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.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
Barr is 4x Pro-bowl, starter his first five years in the league, for whatever that's worth?
Stars are known by even casual fans across the league. Barr is "arguably" a good defensive player, but a league star he is not.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,187
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
The size of the market doesn't really affect NFL free agency because the endorsement deals aren't as big but it absolutely affects NBA free agency where endorsements and shoe deals are much bigger.

Lebron and Kawhi leaving great situations to go to LA, KD and Kyrie to Brooklyn, Lebron and Bosh to Miami, Shaq and Dwight to the Lakers back in the day etc. Small market teams hardly ever get superstar or even star free agents in the NBA.
OK. Sounds like a valid point.

Just one thing however, Miami isn't really a big market?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,187
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
Stars are known by even casual fans across the league. Barr is "arguably" a good defensive player, but a league star he is not.
True. I get what you mean, in the sense of endorsements.
 

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
18,958
Reaction score
259
Points
83
The more I think about the future, the more I think you need to remove all academic benefits and eligibility targets. No more scholarships, no more GPA eligibility requirements. Make the teams semi-pro sports clubs that are sponsored by the Universities and pay the players a market rate salary and allow them to accept endorsements (For the majority of CFB players on the roster, I think this will be a VERY small amount of money, maybe even less than the value of their scholarship today). If they choose to use that money for school then that's great, if not then that's their choice too.
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.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
1
Points
36
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.
The College World Series is watched and marketed. I don't know what ESPN (I think?) pays for the broadcast rights.

A lot of baseball talent goes into the MLB farm system, so there is less talent on college teams. That is another factor. I don't think the NFL wants to build a farm system.
 
Top Bottom