California to pass bill called "fair pay to play act"...to compensate players

[Pakuni]

Salary caps are illegal unless they are embedded withing a collective bargained agreement with a union.

As the courts have ruled that NCAA athletes are not employees, would labor laws such as this be enforceable?

[StillAWarrior]

(does Alabama really need a $9 million weight room?)

I suppose it's a sign of the times that my immediate reaction to that was, "only $9 million?"  I'd have thought that Alabama's weight room cost 2-3 times that.


Edited to add:  That explains it.  Those are 2012 dollars.  I'd imagine that they'd spend at least $20 million today.  Hell, they've probably already had renovations of more than $9 million.

[The Sultan]

If and when this thing goes to court, to me it's an easy win for the NCAA. I'm not familiar with ANY court that can tell an organization what rules they can or can not have. Especially when the members of that organization all agree with them to become part of the organization. You pay your players?? Fine, but they are ineligible. You knew that was our rule when you joined our organization. Seems pretty easy and straightforward to me.

Of course a court can tell an organization what rules they cannot have if said rules violate the law.  This rule doesn't seemingly violate the law, which is why it is more a PR issue than a legal one IMO.

[MU82]

Free agency was never going to kill baseball. But it was correctly predicted to significantly change the sport. FA was followed up with a salary cap to preserve the competitive balance. The very same changes came to every other pro sport.

Regardless of your position on the possible changes coming from California, you must realize there will be a significant impact on college sports just as there was to baseball.

College basketball and football are not going away, but they will operate differently, for better or worse.

Many DID predict that free agency would kill baseball -- or at least damage it to the point where it would be doomed. Otherwise, though, I do agree with your post.

And I am OK with what happens re your last paragraph, just as I've been OK with what has happened in pro sports since free agency.

College sports evolve. About a half-century ago, some universities still weren't letting black athletes compete. Freshmen used to be ineligible. Football programs were allowed an almost unlimited number of recruits. Football and basketball players couldn't go pro until they graduated. Etc, etc, etc.

I mean, it wasn't really all that long ago that there were no women's programs. And there were plenty of doomsdayers who were saying that women being allowed to compete -- and, especially, women getting athletic scholarships -- would be the ruination of college sports.

So yes, there surely will be some changes if this law gets passed and withstands court challenges, but we'll all still have uniforms to root for.

[muguru]

As cheebs says, I think some are vastly overestimating the amount of money being talked about here. Cyganiak Planning isn't going to shift all the sponsorship money it gives Marquette to pay Dexter Akanno and Theo John to appear in a radio spot. They likely get more bang for their buck by sponsoring the program as a whole.

And the bloat I speak of is more like the administrative excess within athletic departments, huge increases in salaries (AD salaries up almost 32 percent over five years, according to one survey I found), excessive spending on facilities (does Alabama really need a $9 million weight room?), etc.

What you and many others are directly missing though, is on the surface this is "getting compensated" for a players likeness. However, what this WILL lead to 100% guaranteed, is paying players. You can say they are now, and sure maybe indirectly, but this will guarantee they are getting paid by the school(under the table), boosters, and whoever else. You think it's bad now, just wait..players will be picking their schools by how much someone is offering them, and we aren't talking just the top players here either.

Players already have an opportunity to get paid anyway...they can go to the G league or overseas and skip college. No one is Making them go to college.

[Its DJOver]

That's great in theory but it will not happen to the degree it will at state universities.  I'm assuming we are all on scoop because we love Marquette basketball.   To have recruiting in the hands of boosters rather than employees of the schools we care about absolutely destroys a level playing field (and much more than it is now, you are kidding yourself if you don't believe this).  You may be rooting for the downfall of MU basketball and not even know it. 

There needs to be rules in place for this to work and that would only create red tape to replace the red tape the NCAA is already dealing with.

I can just see it now; "I'll donate this money, but only if it's used specifically to recruit Jeenathon or anyone with a Greek sounding last name.  Unless it's thrown into what I'm assuming is the communal "get Zaire" pot which is okay to."

[Shooter McGavin]

It would be crazy to imagine schools like Duke and Notre Dame using their wealth and deep deep alumni pockets to become major players in big-time sports.

Right now they are using the money for better facilities and training for these players.  They are also getting them better exposure than other schools.  They are not, however, paying them more than their assistant coaches and professors.   

Many schools that already have advantages do so due to long term success on the court that it justifies it.   Making this advantage exponentially larger by uncontrollable boosters paying for players does not seem the correct move for the success of college athletics. 

[The Sultan]

What you and many others are directly missing though, is on the surface this is "getting compensated" for a players likeness. However, what this WILL lead to 100% guaranteed, is paying players. You can say they are now, and sure maybe indirectly, but this will guarantee they are getting paid by the school(under the table), boosters, and whoever else.

Nobody is missing this. We just don't believe your chicken little predictions.

[brewcity77]

I'm not familiar with ANY court that can tell an organization what rules they can or can not have. Especially when the members of that organization all agree with them to become part of the organization. You pay your players?? Fine, but they are ineligible. You knew that was our rule when you joined our organization. Seems pretty easy and straightforward to me.

Are you familiar with organizations that are allowed to make arbitrary rules to supersede state law? Because that's even less familiar.

[Pakuni]

Making this advantage exponentially larger by uncontrollable boosters paying for players does not seem the correct move for the success of college athletics.

Why is this the only alternative?

[Shooter McGavin]

As cheebs says, I think some are vastly overestimating the amount of money being talked about here. Cyganiak Planning isn't going to shift all the sponsorship money it gives Marquette to pay Dexter Akanno and Theo John to appear in a radio spot. They likely get more bang for their buck by sponsoring the program as a whole.

And the bloat I speak of is more like the administrative excess within athletic departments, huge increases in salaries (AD salaries up almost 32 percent over five years, according to one survey I found), excessive spending on facilities (does Alabama really need a $9 million weight room?), etc.

You just named two  project players and you are right.  But if you want a top 50 recruit you will have to pay good money for it and that likely relegates MU permanently to a lower tier than they are competing at now.

[Shooter McGavin]

Why is this the only alternative?

What is the other alternative if this law is passed?

[Pakuni]

You just named two  project players and you are right.  But if you want a top 50 recruit you will have to pay good money for it and that likely relegates MU permanently to a lower tier than they are competing at now.

Define "good money."

[Pakuni]

What is the other alternative of this law is passed?

I've suggested several in this thread.

[Uncle Rico]

What is the other alternative of this law is passed?

What defines success?  Since 2000, how many first time winners have there been of basketball or football championships?

[MU82]

Doomed! We're doomed!

[Shooter McGavin]

Define "good money."

That's the problem, you can't.  Because  there would be no regulations regarding amounts that could be paid in the free market pro style system you are advocating.   

[Shooter McGavin]

I've suggested several in this thread.

Sorry,  I'll have to go back and read your posts again.

I see three alternatives.

1) status quo

2) free market

3) free market with a cap on payments for likeness

If you have already expounded on number three then I apologize again for not seeing it.

[Its DJOver]

Top 25 recruit Brian Bowen cost 100K on the black market.  How much (if at all) would that increase if it was a "legal" auction?

[Galway Eagle]

Top 25 recruit Brian Bowen cost 100K on the black market.  How much (if at all) would that increase if it was a "legal" auction?

Things are usually more expensive black market

[Pakuni]

Speaking of billionaire boosters who'd buy players, T. Boone Pickens has died.
Bad news for Okie State.

[Nukem2]

Speaking of billionaire boosters who'd buy players, T. Boone Pickens has died.
Bad news for Okie State.

Probably provided for them in his estate.   

[dgies9156]

I'm late to the party on this but I have a couple of thoughts.

1) Nobody is saying an athlete can't use his likeness to endorse products or make money. They just can't play college sports if they do. What I have trouble with is the State of California regulating college athletics. It's not their job. I'll concede that the NCAA is a monopoly, but it is a legal monopoly. Just like major league baseball. Do we want the State of California regulating the strike zones?

2) That said, player compensation would be the death knell for Marquette Athletics as we know them. I see no way Marquette could compete in a free market for a five-star college basketball player against major public universities and P5 conferences. Same for Vanderbilt, Stanford, and even Villanova, Georgetown, St. john's and Depaul (not that they get any anyway). Just not going to happen.

3) As much as big-time college athletics has changed in the last decade or so, it's nothing compared to what's coming. The P5 football conferences have such an incredible money machine that I just don't see them as part of the same association as SEMO, Southern Illinois, Western Kentucky, Coastal Carolina, Cal-Santa Barbara etc. While it is nice to have an occasional UMBC knocking off Virginia, that's so rare an occurrence that it's a moot point. Ditto for a Loyola or Wichita State making the Final Four (where they get blown to kingdom come). Besides, what would you rather watch, Coastal Carolina playing Duke or Michigan playing North Carolina?

[muguru]

Are you familiar with organizations that are allowed to make arbitrary rules to supersede state law? Because that's even less familiar.

Their rules were in place well before this bill was even a dream. All the schools in California and everywhere else knew that. I'm having a hard time understanding what you aren't getting here. No one, not even the NCAA is telling California, that college athletes can't make $$ off their likenesses. They are entitled to do that if they so choose. However, what the NCAA is SAYING is if they choose to do that, they aren't eligible to play college athletics and/or participate in post season play. It's two separate issues really. One is state law, one is a rule the organization has that you belong to. The bill they are passing says absolutely NOTHING about that they MUST be allowed to remain eligible to play in college or participate in postseason.

By enforcing their own rule(that again, all the members agreed to as a condition of membership), they aren't telling them they can't pay their players. Heck, they aren't even telling them they can't break away from the NCAA and form their own California league if they so choose, and they certainly aren't making this enforceable only to the state of California. It would apply to any state that passes such a law.

I mean, there's a state law in Wisconsin that you can't drink until you're 21..But if when your daughter turns say 17, and you decide it's okay for her to have a drink or two at home when you or your wife are there with her, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

Our employers have to pay us for doing work for them, that's not only a State law, but a federal law..however, HOW our employer chooses to pay us(weekly, bi-weekly etc) is strictly up to them.

[Cheeks]

This is the first sentence of the NCAA's statement:

The 1,100 schools that make up the NCAA have always, in everything we do, supported a level playing field for all student-athletes.

This obviously is not true. The NCAA allows a very unlevel playing field in all its sports.
Some programs to have better practice facilities than others. Better modes of travel. Better coaching. Better academic assistance. Better training staffs. Better medical staffs. Better weight rooms. Better student/athlete housing.
I'd venture to guess that the kids playing hoops at Prairie View A&M and Chicago State don't feel they're on a level playing field with the kids over at Duke and Kentucky. And I'm not aware of anything the NCAA is doing to level that playing field.

This is total crap which is why it wasn't a lie let alone blatant, but I am glad you spelled it out.

Alabama is under the same rules as UCLA and Texas and Marquette.  Those are the rules they are talking of.  The NCAA has no jurisdiction, which is what I stated, to control the better weather at UCLA vs Minnesota.  Nor do they have the right to say the building you use for basketball must be built to the same spec as every other building across the nation. I hope to God you are not thinking that is possible or even makes common sense.  Yes, there will always be schools with more money, better buildings, prettier girls, more handsome guys, better weather.  That's not what the NCAA can or should level.

You know as well as anyone what they are talking about. The thick rule book applies to all of the schools, not just some of them. 

Their statement was not false, or a lie.