Fair pay to play act just signed in to law in CA.



Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
17,462
Likes
20,110
I think they should have the right to, but it now likely makes it easier for boosters to pay players. Regardless of what direction it takes, this will not end well.
That seems to be the big one, but lets face it, bagman is real thing.

I would imagine the UConn women's bball team could make some decent change being pitchwomen for businesses like car dealerships and the like in this state.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
51,979
Likes
76,157
NCAA statement on Gov. Newsom signing SB 206

September 30, 2019 10:44am

As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes, but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA’s rules-making process.

Unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California.

We will consider next steps in California while our members move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education.

As more states consider their own specific legislation related to this topic, it is clear that a patchwork of different laws from different states will make unattainable the goal of providing a fair and level playing field for 1,100 campuses and nearly half a million student-athletes nationwide.
 

polycom

I heard a beep, who just joined?
Joined
Nov 14, 2014
Messages
6,474
Likes
8,582
Shocked that there are much more reasonable takes here than on the bb board.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
507
Likes
303
Athletes can earn money from their likeness.

Thoughts?
So could a UCLA booster pay a top athlete $100,000 for a picture of him in a UCLA Jersey. As long as he agrees to play football there? Could be the start to a big recruiting war between USC, UCLA and Stanford boosters.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
17,462
Likes
20,110
So could a UCLA booster pay a top athlete $100,000 for a picture of him in a UCLA Jersey. As long as he agrees to play football there? Could be the start to a big recruiting war between USC, UCLA and Stanford boosters.
Well nothing is happening yet. 2023 is the launch date, and there is a lot to fight for between now and then.

I suppose if the kid pays taxes on the 100k, there is nothing to see there.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
507
Likes
303
Well nothing is happening yet. 2023 is the launch date, and there is a lot to fight for between now and then.

I suppose if the kid pays taxes on the 100k, there is nothing to see there.
Wait till Nike says that will only pay players who play at Oregon.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
17,462
Likes
20,110
Wait till Nike says that will only pay players who play at Oregon.
Nike and Adidas been players no how right? Besides, they can't get them all. All of this seems like NCAA scare talking points.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
507
Likes
303
Nike and Adidas been players no how right? Besides, they can't get them all. All of this seems like NCAA scare talking points.
Phil Knight has already given almost a $Billion to Oregon. Just wait until it’s legal to spend another $50 million to get the top athletes to Eugene.
 

Exit 4

This space for rent
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
6,750
Likes
9,420
Just get on with it at this point. It will narrow the pool of competing teams and it will allow schools with super boosters (ie billionnaires) to basically build a program out of thin air. Literally buy a team.

I dont think you can stop it. Lets get it on and let the chips fall where they may. It might free up a lot of us from toiling with college sports or forcing us to pick a super team to follow in lieu of the little schools w/o boosters or media $$.

One other think to consider, kids that play well on schools w/o sponsorship money will transfer to schools with sponsorship money after one great season. The transfer portal will be nutz. Not only a talent auction - but a financial auction. Whatever, make it happen and enjoy the consequences.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,407
Likes
65,082
So could a UCLA booster pay a top athlete $100,000 for a picture of him in a UCLA Jersey. As long as he agrees to play football there? Could be the start to a big recruiting war between USC, UCLA and Stanford boosters.
if they have boosters willing to spend cash it doesnt translate to the field today
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
5,415
Likes
11,537
I posted this in the basketball board thread to:

I really think that most of the pearl clutching and belly aching about this is much ado about nothing.

If these rules come to pass (and that’s still a big if at this point) I think you’ll find your experience as a college sports fan will be mostly unchanged.

Meanwhile the quality of life for some athletes will be improved.

It’s a win-win.
 
Last edited:

phillionaire

esta noche somos montequilla
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
1,322
Likes
1,470
Just get on with it at this point. It will narrow the pool of competing teams and it will allow schools with super boosters (ie billionnaires) to basically build a program out of thin air. Literally buy a team.

I dont think you can stop it. Lets get it on and let the chips fall where they may. It might free up a lot of us from toiling with college sports or forcing us to pick a super team to follow in lieu of the little schools w/o boosters or media $$.

One other think to consider, kids that play well on schools w/o sponsorship money will transfer to schools with sponsorship money after one great season. The transfer portal will be nutz. Not only a talent auction - but a financial auction. Whatever, make it happen and enjoy the consequences.
College football already has a narrow pool of competing teams, this won't change anything except the players can finally make some money off their likenesses.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
2,766
Likes
3,571
Here are some numbers to think about:

Pay the 85 athletes on football scholarship $100k/yr each = $8.5 million.

Pay the 13 athletes on basketball scholarship $100k/yr each = $1.3 million.

Obviously, there would be a sliding pay scale, so top players could get $250k and lower tier players could get $25k

What about scholarship limits? No problem anymore. Pay walk-ons $100k/yr and they can pay their own way.

And, there doesn't seem to be any Title IX problems about equal pay.

The above numbers are not very big considering how large some athletic budgets are. Texas and Texas A&M are bringing in >$200 million per year, so finding an extra $10 million to pay the football and basketball players wouldn't be a problem.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
5,415
Likes
11,537
Wait till Nike says that will only pay players who play at Oregon.
You know there are only so many roster spots, right?

Nonetheless, if you have to resort to extreme hypotheticals to say this is bad, you’ve lost the argument.

I think this law is going to manifest itself much more along the lines of a Bama player doing a local commercial for a Tuscaloosa used car dealership or being paid to show up at some booster’s kid’s birthday party to sign autographs.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
5,415
Likes
11,537
Here are some numbers to think about:

Pay the 85 athletes on football scholarship $100k/yr each = $8.5 million.

Pay the 13 athletes on basketball scholarship $100k/yr each = $1.3 million.

Obviously, there would be a sliding pay scale, so top players could get $250k and lower tier players could get $25k

What about scholarship limits? No problem anymore. Pay walk-ons $100k/yr and they can pay their own way.

And, there doesn't seem to be any Title IX problems about equal pay.

The above numbers are not very big considering how large some athletic budgets are. Texas and Texas A&M are bringing in >$200 million per year, so finding an extra $10 million to pay the football and basketball players wouldn't be a problem.
Nothing about this bill being discussed in this thread involves the school paying athletes so I’m not really sure what point you’re getting at here
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
2,766
Likes
3,571
Nothing about this bill being discussed in this thread involves the school paying athletes so I’m not really sure what point you’re getting at here
Everyone is eligible to be paid. Why can't the school's boosters agree to market all of the players on the roster and pay them? The car dealer gets 10 athletes. The insurance agent gets 5 athletes,..... This is somewhat happening now, but now it will be legal!

The naive interpretation of the California bill is that only some will get paid if their likeness is used. The reality of the bill is that it opens up Pandora's box for paying all players.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
5,415
Likes
11,537
Everyone is eligible to be paid. Why can't the school's boosters agree to market all of the players on the roster and pay them? The car dealer gets 10 athletes. The insurance agent gets 5 athletes,..... This is somewhat happening now, but now it will be legal!

The naive interpretation of the California bill is that only some will get paid if their likeness is used. The reality of the bill is that it opens up Pandora's box for paying all players.
I don’t think it’ll be nearly the pandora’s box that you’re making it out to be.

A lot of chicken little-ing going on to argue against a bill that’s still 4 years from implemented (plus however long it takes to get through the courts).
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,239
Likes
5,019
Here are some numbers to think about:

Pay the 85 athletes on football scholarship $100k/yr each = $8.5 million.

Pay the 13 athletes on basketball scholarship $100k/yr each = $1.3 million.

Obviously, there would be a sliding pay scale, so top players could get $250k and lower tier players could get $25k

What about scholarship limits? No problem anymore. Pay walk-ons $100k/yr and they can pay their own way.

And, there doesn't seem to be any Title IX problems about equal pay.

The above numbers are not very big considering how large some athletic budgets are. Texas and Texas A&M are bringing in >$200 million per year, so finding an extra $10 million to pay the football and basketball players wouldn't be a problem.
Why would the players need to be academically engaged? Does the bill include a timeline to graduation? Just make it the minor leagues. If they want to play for 10 years, so be it.
 

Exit 4

This space for rent
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
6,750
Likes
9,420
College football already has a narrow pool of competing teams, this won't change anything except the players can finally make some money off their likenesses.
Two things will shake out:

1) P5/G5 bubble kids now tilt further to P5. Many bubble kids that choose a G5 program for playing time over competing offers from the P5 will now go with that P5 offer. Before the difference was playing time, now its playing time and money. Not all P5 schools will have the boosters/schemes to make this work, but many will after a few years. I would expect the depth at schools in the bottom of the P5 in particular to improve as playing for a loser like Rutgers and getting some cash will appeal to many vs playing time at App State.

2) G5 transfers literally cash in: Kids that shine with one or two good years at a G5 school will hit the transfer portal to not only step up the prestige, but now to collect a pay check. Boosters will have a field day cherry picking the G5's best. Anyone think Milton will still be at UCF under this system?

Modest Money: I think everyone might be over estimated the money. A lot of kids will pick one school over another for something as modest as a 10 to 30k cash subsidy. Yes, the cash wont come from the school, it will come from booster entity or individual. By example, UConn's $1MM lockers could have been used as 750k in lockers and a handful of modest one year subsidies to improve our odds in the transfer market this past off season.
 
Top