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

[Cheeks]

The demise of Marquette basketball was widely predicted as they remained an independent.  They joined a league.  Their demise was predicted when they were in a mid-major league.  So on and so forth.  The Big East was doomed with no football.  I guess I have more faith in Marquette than you

Nice hyperbole and this was discussed at length a few weeks ago and knocked out of the park for you.  Your argument has also changed since then, because your original premise was flawed.

[Pakuni]

It's funny how some of you think the entire ball of wax is "generated" by the labor of players.  Interesting.  Completely false, but interesting.

1. Nobody here said this. Literally not one person.
2. Everyone else involved with the business of college sports gets paid for their work.

[Uncle Rico]

Nice hyperbole and this was discussed at length a few weeks ago and knocked out of the park for you.  Your argument has also changed since then, because your original premise was flawed.

I did hit a home run, thank you. 

[Cheeks]

People opposing this, it's about time to accept this is coming. This passed unanimously in California. It will pass in other states and it will do so with broad bipartisan support because there's no defense against it. And if the NCAA pulls off an interstate commerce defense, which seems flimsy at best, it will pass through the federal government. It's already been discussed as a primary topic for 2020.

In the Parrish/Norlander poll on CBS Sports, 77% of coaches support this. The people who are the public face of this sport know what's right and know what direction this is going.

Likeness earning for student athletes is coming. It's not a question of if, it's when. This is just the next obvious step in a process that started with O'Bannon and will, unquestionably, end with players being able to earn money from their likeness. Better to start accepting that obvious reality now.

77% of which coaches....revenue coaches?  LOL.  You also failed to mention the details of that poll which were discussed here last week.  The general public, as of earlier this year was still in the minority as posted yesterday.  Regardless, if policy was driven by polls there would be a lot of things going on that don't go on right now, at some point adults have to take charge.


Drip drip drip.  I agree, it's the next step and that will lead to the next one and the next one.  PROGRESS baby.  Enjoy college sports the next few years if this becomes the new deal, I'm just curious who you all are going to cheer for when this sets in because as the next step and next step and next steps happen, that will ultimately lead to full payment (that's your end goal) which will destroy college athletics fully, including opportunities for so many men and women not playing revenue sports.  But hey, who cares.  Awesome.  Take care of those 1%ers

[Uncle Rico]

77% of which coaches....revenue coaches?  LOL.  You also failed to mention the details of that poll which were discussed here last week.  The general public, as of earlier this year was still in the minority as posted yesterday.  Regardless, if policy was driven by polls there would be a lot of things going on that don't go on right now, at some point adults have to take charge.


Drip drip drip.  I agree, it's the next step and that will lead to the next one and the next one.  PROGRESS baby.  Enjoy college sports the next few years if this becomes the new deal, I'm just curious who you all are going to cheer for when this sets in because as the next step and next step and next steps happen, that will ultimately lead to full payment (that's your end goal) which will destroy college athletics fully, including opportunities for so many men and women not playing revenue sports.  But hey, who cares.  Awesome.  Take care of those 1%ers

Lol

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

In case anyone was wondering, here is the NCAA board of Governors, who all signed the letter...I bolded two, one of which should be of interest to everyone that posts here. The 2nd is from Ohio State University, the3rd largest public University in the US with DEEP pockets, and lo and behold, they signed the letter. The ONLY people that seemingly want this, are the players.

    Stevie Baker-Watson, DePauw University
    M. Grace Calhoun, University of Pennsylvania
    Ken Chenault, General Catalyst
    Mary Sue Coleman, Association of American Universities
    John DeGioia, Georgetown University
    Michael Drake, The Ohio State University
    Philip DiStefano, University of Colorado, Boulder
    Mark Emmert, NCAA
    Sue Henderson, New Jersey City University
    Grant Hill, CBS/Warner and The Atlanta Hawks
    Sandra Jordan, University of South Carolina Aiken
    Renu Khator, University of Houston
    Laura Liesman, Georgian Court University
    Ronald Machtley, Bryant University
    The Rev. James Maher, Niagara University
    Denis McDonough, Former White House Chief of Staff
    Tori Murden McClure, Spalding University
    Gary Olson, Daemen College
    Denise Trauth, Texas State University
    Satish Tripathi, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York
    David Wilson, Morgan State University
    Randy Woodson, North Carolina State University

I can't believe the Hausers got all of these people to sign the letter.

[Cheeks]

I think it's closer to professional sports than most people want to admit. This pure idea of a bunch of our fellow students playing for the love of their school went away awhile ago. It's a business now.

So our men's tennis team....that's a business even though they charge $0 for admission and are 100% a cost center?  Our women's track team...same scenario, etc.  Just want to make sure I have it fully understandable.  Yes, there is money being made, yes it is big money in totality, but not at the per school level.  Yes, many benefit from it, including non-revenue sports. 

[Cheeks]

The trouble with this law as I see it is that it will promote more inequality. Only the very top players will be making money on this. The average player might get some money here or there, but it is not going to benefit them very much. Even in pro sports the dollars mostly go to players who do not need it. How, many Packers besides Rogers do you see in commercials?

I view it differently.  As someone who for a living pays professional athletes to be in commercials among other things, there is a limit on who can afford the price tag and have the marketing budget to pay for these things.

Instead, I see scenarios where boosters and their companies pay for athletes to show up at events (time away from school) and they get paid a "fee".  Who is setting that fee?  Or they will put them in their print or digital ads (who is setting the talent fees for this)?  The amount of massive abuse that is going to go on is going to be great.  Will the NCAA or the colleges be required to turn in all receipts / invoices on this?  Tax documents?  Will these businesses be paying above the table, below the table?  It's one thing to have a rich booster pay money to someone, now we're saying it goes on the books of a company....maybe. 

Just wait until the current starting guard has a deal, but Johnny Mafia's car dealership give 5X that amount to a recruit coming to the same school....ah the team comraderie that will generate....going to be awesome. 

So well thought out....amazingly well thought out.   

[brewcity77]

Previously there was no value/income that could be had by making that case. Now you could be talking 100's of thousands of dollars lost per year, simply because you went to school for 4 year.

Regarding the "window"? How many other professions exclude you from the profession when you become more skilled and better at your job? This one is different in its very nature when compared to any other profession.

They won't be university employees. If they are more skilled and better, they can go earn money professionally. And if they want to continue earning money off their likenesses, no one will prevent them from doing that.

[UWW2MU]

Student athletes can work, stop saying they cannot.  Lots of things student athletes got to do that you didn't....was that fair to the others?  Was that ethical?

I didn't realize this!  I always thought they couldn't have any job.   

Here's a fun list of other ways they can earn money:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/10-ways-college-athletes-can-get-paid-and-remain-eligible-for-their-sport/

[cheebs09]

So our men's tennis team....that's a business even though they charge $0 for admission and are 100% a cost center?  Our women's track team...same scenario, etc.  Just want to make sure I have it fully understandable.  Yes, there is money being made, yes it is big money in totality, but not at the per school level.  Yes, many benefit from it, including non-revenue sports.

I was mostly talking about basketball and football.

However, I'd say the others do. I mean tennis has 5/11 men's players from outside the US and the women have 7/8. The below article seems businesslike to me. It's not as lucrative as basketball or football, but I don't view it as the pure as snow amateurism to give the kids an opportunity to play for their school that people want to think.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12561534

[Cheeks]

+1

This is going to lead to the end of collegiate sports the same way free agency destroyed baseball, as hilltopper noted. I miss baseball, even though it ended a couple years before I was born. Too bad Cubs fans never got to see their team win a World Series.

It was a horrible analogy when Mu82 brought it up a few months ago and it remains so now.  Pro sports has limited destinations....it also has a salary cap or luxury tax that restrains free agency to a large degree.  Free agency also is tied to contracts.   

That is not the case in college sports.  No contracts, players leave at most every 4 years, sometimes sooner.  Many more teams.  No salary cap, no restraint like pro sports has.

Terrible analogy 

[brewcity77]

The point is Chicken Little reactions like yours rarely proceed a falling sky. It didn't end the Olympics either.

And if there are ramifications that make it more difficult to compete than the already uneven playing field that exists, or non-revenue sports aren't as well funded, that doesn't change that this is obviously, blatantly the right thing to do and the unanimous votes of the California legislature reinforce that.

Didn't you say something about the adults having a say? Well, they did. This is happening. Deal with it.

[Stretchdeltsig]

California schools will be in illegible.  The state is beyond democratic liberal.

[brewcity77]

California schools will be in illegible.  The state is beyond democratic liberal.

A quick Google shows at least 15 Republicans voted for this and zero voted against it. This issue is beyond bipartisan.

[The Sultan]

California schools will be in illegible.  The state is beyond democratic liberal.

Interesting that freeing someone from regulations and allowing them to test the marketplace is being cast as a "liberal" issue.

[Pakuni]

California schools will be in illegible.  The state is beyond democratic liberal.

The sponsor of the federal version of this law is a GOP congressman from North Carolina.

[forgetful]

Perhaps, but if you're a washout at the next level, why would anyone pay money for you to use as an endorsement to play at Marquette?

Because they are still better than the players in the NCAA, and you want your team to win, so you pay them to play and win.

They won't be university employees. If they are more skilled and better, they can go earn money professionally. And if they want to continue earning money off their likenesses, no one will prevent them from doing that.

It doesn't matter if they were University employees, that is immaterial. What is material is that their income potential is tied to being an NCAA basketball player.

Upon graduating, many of the stars are dominant, but not good enough to play in the NBA. If they could make more income off NCAA related endorsements, why should they be excluded from this market because of age/experience?

Right now, no one is preventing college players from playing professionally and profiting off their likeness. Yet people still say the NCAA needs to pay them. It seems people like to apply an argument differently depending on if it supports their case or not.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Interesting that freeing someone from regulations and allowing them to test the marketplace is being cast as a "liberal" issue.

And I wouldn't call Gavin Newsom a far left progressive. He is family friends with the Getty's. 

The NCAA is a monopoly in the purest sense of the word. There is a grey undermarket with the media and apparel companies who only want to sustain the status quo. The fact is, with the history in other instances, the NCAA would be far better off by opening up to the free markets (MLB, Olympics, all pro sports, etc.). But no, resist is their stand pat answer (sound familiar Catholic Church?).

If the NCAA really wanted to change, they would have accepted the Rice commission recommendations, hired a full staff of investigators so that a few don't profit under the table, don't form cartels by conference where ESPN controls costs while providing a few profits.

What was the cost of adding investigators versus paying student athletes? So, the result, legislatures are acting while the NCAA is resisting.  A true monopolistic response.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

California schools will be in illegible.  The state is beyond democratic liberal.

Depends.  Will their school names be handwritten or typed?

[Cheeks]

The sponsor of the federal version of this law is a GOP congressman from North Carolina.

The sponsor of the first voter ID laws were African American Democrats.....not sure what your point is....and let me see, could a few schools in North Carolina take massive advantage of this joke of a scheme?  Yup.  The rich will get richer.

[Dr. Blackheart]

The sponsor of the first voter ID laws were African American Democrats.....not sure what your point is....and let me see, could a few schools in North Carolina take massive advantage of this joke of a scheme?  Yup.  The rich will get richer.

Those "few" schools already do, and they are already very plantation  wealthy skating through faux investigation after faux investigation. Change is coming!

[Cheeks]

And I wouldn't call Gavin Newsom a far left progressive. He is family friends with the Getty's. 

Uhm.....ok.  When even the Washington Post, Politico, Huff Po call him a far left liberal I don't know how you can claim otherwise. 

[Cheeks]

Those "few" schools already do, and they are already very plantation  wealthy skating through faux investigation after faux investigation. Change is coming!

So the reward for them is to allow them to do it even more and penalize the schools that are playing by the rules.

Outstanding logic.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Uhm.....ok.  When even the Washington Post, Politico, Huff Po call him a far left liberal I don't know how you can claim otherwise.

Source?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article201651204.html