SB 206 NCAA Reform is Almost Here

Donate To GopherHole
MnplsGopher said:
Compromises similar to this are the most likely outcome, I think.

They will figure out something that will satisfy the Calif. lawmakers, but uphold the concept of "amateurism" as best possible.
Click to expand...

You will have a limited # of athletes who will get 6 figure endorsements to play basketball at Kentucky/football at Alabama/OSU under this system. But that mostly already happens under the table anyway. Now instead of a part-time "job" at Jim-Bob's car dealership, they'll just openly pay him for doing ads.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Musicians, actors, etc. are not in competitive events. Fans want some form of actual competitiveness in sports. The NFL is hugely popular largely because it built in ongoing competition/parity enhancing rules like draft order, salary cap, etc. The NCAA, while not doing as good a job as the NFL, has also built in competition enhancing rules like the different divisions D1s-2-3, quasi-amateurism at D1 and D2, scholarship limits, D3 scholarship bans, etc. NCAA D1 football is hugely popular largely because of the structure set by the NCAA.

It's not about the free market. The NCAA participates in the free market. Participating as an athlete in NCAA football under its rules is 100% voluntary. The NCAA, with its amateurism rules, has kicked ass on every other football playing organization for young men aged 18-22. The NAIA tries but is losing ground (with similar but more loose amateurism rules). No one is stopping other pro, semi-pro and development leagues from forming and competing for the same players - but time has shown it's more about the individual school's brand and the NCAA structure, than it is about individual athletes.

It's not about justice. For the uber talented athletes, NCAA football is a celebrity-level low paying internship (free ride scholarships) that could result in tens of millions of future dollars if successful. For mid-level scholarship players, its notoriety that couldn't be found anywhere else plus a free ride, etc.. For walk-ons, its everything else student athletes love about athletics.

In the end, if the legislation passes in wacky CA and it spreads elsewhere, I could see the NCAA creating a fourth (really 5th?) football division for schools that allow outside endorsement money. I can't see any of the Big Ten schools willing to go down that road with the possible exceptions of Ohio State and maybe Nebraska. As big as Michigan's athletics are, it's a high academic school and I don't think they'd go there. Amateurism is not dead. It's healthy has hell in D3.
Click to expand...

I understand that paying them would have an impact on the competitive landscape, however, I don't think that should matter. The first paragraph of this merely an explanation as to how it would impact competition, I am saying that doesn't matter. The person having the individual freedom to monetize their marketability is more important than the competitive landscape of college football.

It is absolutely about the free market. I agree that the NCAA participates in the free market, but the players should be allowed to as well. If someone wanted to pay Terrell Pryor to sign his own name, he should be allowed to do it. Any restriction on that is a restriction on free trade. Participating in most things is voluntary, the voluntary participation in something is absolutely not a factor as to whether or not that thing implicates free trade.

It's definitely about justice. I realize that it's a good gig for them, but they are having people tell people that they should not be able to monetize themselves (right now) because we need to make sure Iowa State is on the same playing field as Texas. For mid-level scholarship players, it is likely a booster would be willing to give them some cash, so you're okay with stopping one person from giving money to another person for the sake of your entertainment.

Your entertainment trumps their ability to make money that they would otherwise receive from the free market.
 

Let me know if this is a stupid idea or if it's even possible (I'm full of stupid ideas)

Could they present an individual with an option: you can accept a scholarship like the status quo, or you can accept payment...but if you do the latter, you still have to be enrolled in school, which now you are responsible for paying and you are now earning income, therefore responsible for income tax? You'd could potentially get write-offs with education expenses & such, but you're responsible for whatever tax liability & maintaining enrollment financially?

I think the vast, vast majority of individuals would go the current route, but if an individual wants to bet big on himself, he could negotiate something with said school. I think most schools would want to offer the scholarship option, especially with football as there seems to be less "sure things" coming from HS to college than basketball (perhaps stats don't show this, just from my perspective). A player that accepts compensation is counted towards the scholarship number (Alabama can't have 85 scholarships & pay 10 guys; they can do one or the other).

Perhaps this is more complicated for everyone involved & schools wouldn't want any part of this.

I know I'm off my rocker, so go ahead & poke holes (or help tweak if there's something to the idea).
 
Last edited:

Bob_Loblaw said:
I understand that paying them would have an impact on the competitive landscape, however, I don't think that should matter. The first paragraph of this merely an explanation as to how it would impact competition, I am saying that doesn't matter. The person having the individual freedom to monetize their marketability is more important than the competitive landscape of college football.

It is absolutely about the free market. I agree that the NCAA participates in the free market, but the players should be allowed to as well. If someone wanted to pay Terrell Pryor to sign his own name, he should be allowed to do it. Any restriction on that is a restriction on free trade. Participating in most things is voluntary, the voluntary participation in something is absolutely not a factor as to whether or not that thing implicates free trade.

It's definitely about justice. I realize that it's a good gig for them, but they are having people tell people that they should not be able to monetize themselves (right now) because we need to make sure Iowa State is on the same playing field as Texas. For mid-level scholarship players, it is likely a booster would be willing to give them some cash, so you're okay with stopping one person from giving money to another person for the sake of your entertainment.

Your entertainment trumps their ability to make money that they would otherwise receive from the free market.
Click to expand...

You're referring to the free market as if it's not free now but it would be later under different rules. Consumers (fans) and players are making free market choices right now under the existing laws and rules.

Yes, my (and the masses) entertainment choices dictate what's popular and profitable and what's not. As a consumer, I make these choices in a free market. Competition is popular. The NCAA and its member schools have created a very popular product that players willingly participate in. That product happens to dictate player compensation like any other compensation contract in a free market. That product differentiates itself from the pro leagues through amateurism and it's been hugely successful.

If new legislation regulates how players are compensated, it changes the product and there's a new market. Differentiation from amateurism is lost. If competition and perceived fairness suffer, that new product might not be as popular to consumers freely making choices in a free market. Would that happen? Would fans still follow highly paid student athletes like they do now? I don't know. But these aren't free market issues. In fact, one could argue that it's the opposite; where the government is creating new regulations that restrict the business choices by private organizations (the NCAA).
 

When you are a full scholarship or even a half scholarship player hoping to get a full scholarship you are getting payed for playing Football or other sports.

If you look a the cost of sending your 18 year old to a 4 year school thats a lot of money. The more the prestigious the school the more it costs to put them
true. I looked up the AVERAGE cost for 2019 and it was 57,000. Of course private universities cost more as do Ivey League schools. Remember that the Average is
$ 57,000 but their are large differences greater than that in more prestigious state schools.

Even though endorsements sound fine I would expect that the top ranked Football or sports schools with high profile players would be getting a lot more for there endorsement's. This would also open the door for big downers to slip in and finagle there way into the picture. Does a student athlete then choose the University that he has to make money at during his 4 year stay? Is his primary goal to attend the school for an education that makes him/her viable in the work place long after they leave their school?
 
Last edited:


Panthadad2 said:
You're referring to the free market as if it's not free now but it would be later under different rules. Consumers (fans) and players are making free market choices right now under the existing laws and rules.

Yes, my (and the masses) entertainment choices dictate what's popular and profitable and what's not. As a consumer, I make these choices in a free market. Competition is popular. The NCAA and its member schools have created a very popular product that players willingly participate in. That product happens to dictate player compensation like any other compensation contract in a free market. That product differentiates itself from the pro leagues through amateurism and it's been hugely successful.

If new legislation regulates how players are compensated, it changes the product and there's a new market. Differentiation from amateurism is lost. If competition and perceived fairness suffer, that new product might not be as popular to consumers freely making choices in a free market. Would that happen? Would fans still follow highly paid student athletes like they do now? I don't know. But these aren't free market issues. In fact, one could argue that it's the opposite; where the government is creating new regulations that restrict the business choices by private organizations (the NCAA).
Click to expand...


It's not free now. It is a restraint on trade of players. They want money and people want to pay them money and an outside entity is dictating that they cannot be paid. That is, by definition, a restraint on trade. Now, there are restraints on trade that are completely reasonable - - we cannot sell cigarettes to 12 year olds, we cannot sell guns to felons, etc. However, your argument is that the reasonable restraint on this trade is to promote parity in college football.

Of course the fans dictate what is popular and profitable. That has absolutely no impact on whether or not the rules restrain the trade of the player. Your argument here is that your limiting the freedom of an adult to monetize their own likeness is somehow not a restraint on trade because it is profitable. Huh? No. Your argument here is NOT a free trade argument. You are saying it only makes money because it is heavily regulated. The free trade argument would be,t he market will dictate whether or not the players get paid - - if their getting paid no longer makes it profitable, they won't get paid for long. If it's still profitable while they are getting paid, they'll continue to get paid.

Your argument below is off topic (IMO). It has nothing to do with free trade. You are making an argument as to why you think paying the players would hurt college football. I can understand that argument and I think you are probably right on most of it. That said, I do not believe my entertainment is more important than someone's right to monetize their own marketability. I do not believe it is my place to limit anyone's freedom to make money unless there is a really strong reason (public safety).
 

GSUsTALON said:
When you are a full scholarship or even a half scholarship player hoping to get a full scholarship you are getting payed for playing Football or other sports.

If you look a the cost of sending your 18 year old to a 4 year school thats a lot of money. The more the prestigious the school the more it costs to put them
true. I looked up the AVERAGE cost for 2019 and it was 57,000. Of course private universities cost more as do Ivey League schools. Remember that the Average is
$ 57,000 but their are large differences greater than that in more prestigious state schools.

Even though endorsements sound fine I would expect that the top ranked Football or sports schools with high profile players would be getting a lot more for there endorsement's. This would also open the door for big downers to slip in and finagle there way into the picture. Does a student athlete then choose the University that he has to make money at during his 4 year stay? Is his primary goal to attend the school for an education that makes him/her viable in the work place long after they leave their school?
Click to expand...

No one is arguing that they aren't given something, I am arguing that it isn't my place to be the person who says they cannot get more. If someone wants to pay them more, more power to them.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
It's not free now. It is a restraint on trade of players. They want money and people want to pay them money and an outside entity is dictating that they cannot be paid. That is, by definition, a restraint on trade. Now, there are restraints on trade that are completely reasonable - - we cannot sell cigarettes to 12 year olds, we cannot sell guns to felons, etc. However, your argument is that the reasonable restraint on this trade is to promote parity in college football.

Of course the fans dictate what is popular and profitable. That has absolutely no impact on whether or not the rules restrain the trade of the player. Your argument here is that your limiting the freedom of an adult to monetize their own likeness is somehow not a restraint on trade because it is profitable. Huh? No. Your argument here is NOT a free trade argument. You are saying it only makes money because it is heavily regulated. The free trade argument would be,t he market will dictate whether or not the players get paid - - if their getting paid no longer makes it profitable, they won't get paid for long. If it's still profitable while they are getting paid, they'll continue to get paid.

Your argument below is off topic (IMO). It has nothing to do with free trade. You are making an argument as to why you think paying the players would hurt college football. I can understand that argument and I think you are probably right on most of it. That said, I do not believe my entertainment is more important than someone's right to monetize their own marketability. I do not believe it is my place to limit anyone's freedom to make money unless there is a really strong reason (public safety).
Click to expand...

I think the "free market" argument is a losing one for player compensation. However, you might be surprised, but I'm in agreement with you from an "equity" standpoint even though I have no idea the best way to handle it. The successful D1 football and basketball schools are making a shizzle ton of money right now, regardless of whether it's being distributed throughout the athletic department. The schools hide behind the NCAA...while the NCAA makes up its own inconsistent rules based on whatever schools have the upper hand at the moment (e.g. North Carolina basketball corruption gets a slap on the wrist).

The dam is going to break sooner or later on this player compensation issue. Endorsements might be the start of it. Because skill players get the glory and presumably most of the endorsements, the offensive lineman might then go after the skill players for some of that money, and so on. The old fable about greed killing the golden goose comes to mind. Which reminds me, until the late Gopher/Fresno game started last Saturday, the best game I watched all day was a streamed D3 game. Concordia Moorhead vs. UW La Crosse in overtime. Complete with a marching band halftime show. Multi-billion dollar TV contracts aren't always needed for an entertaining game.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
It's not free now. It is a restraint on trade of players. They want money and people want to pay them money and an outside entity is dictating that they cannot be paid. That is, by definition, a restraint on trade. Now, there are restraints on trade that are completely reasonable - - we cannot sell cigarettes to 12 year olds, we cannot sell guns to felons, etc. However, your argument is that the reasonable restraint on this trade is to promote parity in college football.

Of course the fans dictate what is popular and profitable. That has absolutely no impact on whether or not the rules restrain the trade of the player. Your argument here is that your limiting the freedom of an adult to monetize their own likeness is somehow not a restraint on trade because it is profitable. Huh? No. Your argument here is NOT a free trade argument. You are saying it only makes money because it is heavily regulated. The free trade argument would be,t he market will dictate whether or not the players get paid - - if their getting paid no longer makes it profitable, they won't get paid for long. If it's still profitable while they are getting paid, they'll continue to get paid.

Your argument below is off topic (IMO). It has nothing to do with free trade. You are making an argument as to why you think paying the players would hurt college football. I can understand that argument and I think you are probably right on most of it. That said, I do not believe my entertainment is more important than someone's right to monetize their own marketability. I do not believe it is my place to limit anyone's freedom to make money unless there is a really strong reason (public safety).
Click to expand...

I would go with the argument for restraint on paying more is that it is about a scholarship to attend a university and get an education, which was the original point. Instead you are mad at ESPN and the networks for exploiting highly talented individuals and giving the kickbacks to the schools rather than the players which occurred in a free market system where the players signed a contract to say I am in school for the scholarship money and will not take any other factors. I don't decide that.
The second part of it is, you're statement about players getting paid no longer making things profitable doesn't make sense. You think if T Boone Pickens could've paid the top 25 players Gundy 1million each he wouldn't have? Instead its going to open the coffers of the high roller people to whom money is no object to pay players. It will destroy the mid tier schools who don't have the bankroll and their profits will go in the crapper. The top flight schools won't care and the NCAA will either have to boot them or retier things or teams will fold. It will hurt an extremely large number of players if you allow the top flight to get paid through the nose because you believe in "free" trade (it isn't free trade when the ability to buy assets is controlled by 1% of the population and is more approaching a monopoly).
I don't disagree with you that the structure needs a massive overhaul and that this idea that the NCAA is doing the massively great service for athletes needs to go. But to say let's just let it become a free market doesn't make any sense because this isn't a free market friendly situation when you've allowed everyone to become present at a high level of investment prior to deciding to switch market strategy.
 
Last edited:



This is not NCAA reform, nor binding outside of California. Good luck in their efforts to destroy their state's schools' athletic programs. I welcome their efforts to downgrade all their universities to MIAC status. CIAC has a nice ring to it.
 

highwayman said:
This is not NCAA reform, nor binding outside of California. Good luck in their efforts to destroy their state's schools' athletic programs. I welcome their efforts to downgrade all their universities to MIAC status. CIAC has a nice ring to it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think other states eventually follow suit and adopt similar legislation if this passes. Hope not but I don't see the NCAA successfully playing hardball against California. That would probably work if we were talking about the state of Idaho or Maine, don't see it working against California.
 

Bob, you’re a lawyer. You know the antitrust laws don’t apply to the NCAA as has been reconfirmed in case after case. They are quite clear. Sure, a judge here or there might disagree but the higher courts have been pretty unified. CA has a losing hand, legally speaking.

Whether it’s “fair” or not is a whole other argument. I’m sure a sizable segment of the population would be for a 50k universal wage regardless of employment status because that is “fair”. The examples are endless.

One way the CA law could succeed in ending the NCAA I’d is a critical mass of states go along with similar legislation. I don’t know how many years the schools would be able to tolerate loss of tv income, etc while hoping for a breakthrough.

Regardless, I suppose we’ll see another round of lawsuits.
 

Couple other things I believe I have read about this:

- the schools in California didn't ask for this, and were fighting against it along with the NCAA (they are afraid of being prevented from participating in NCAA championships)

- even if the governor signs the bill, it gives the NCAA and schools 3 years to study the issue and work something out
 



Free Trade?

The student has most likely been under a socialistic framework as they lived at home. Why is it that a collage athlete should get a free ride at about $57,000?

I've got an idea. Since they are going for a higher education lets get rid of free ride athletic scholarships and make it academic scholarships and loans like most of us had to do.
 

GSUsTALON said:
Free Trade?

The student has most likely been under a socialistic framework as they lived at home. Why is it that a collage athlete should get a free ride at about $57,000?

I've got an idea. Since they are going for a higher education lets get rid of free ride athletic scholarships and make it academic scholarships and loans like most of us had to do.
Click to expand...

Obviously any school that did this would immediately be at a competitive disadvantage because the best players will follow the money. Just as it will go with NIL marketing deals.

There is no draft, contracts, restricted free agency currently but that’s another route the NCAA could go down if they want to level the playing field should the college game go pro. Whether the fans will have as great an interest is an open question. Maybe, maybe not.

I have a hunch many in favor of professionalizing college football are probably pro sports fans as well. I suspect many of us that love college sports are either neutral or disinterested in the pros and all the baggage that goes with that model.

Maybe there should be a poll.
 

This is one of those ideas that sounds good and noble until you start to cross examine it.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Obviously any school that did this would immediately be at a competitive disadvantage because the best players will follow the money. Just as it will go with NIL marketing deals.
Click to expand...

You hit the big idea.
 

NCAA players should not get paid. The NFL should open up the draft to 18 year olds and if a kid can make it let him. Why should a kid capitalize on a huge product that exists absolutely not because of him? This is college sports. Keep it that way. If the NFL wants a minor league they should let guys make 18K a year and ride on buses to play there. The NCAA has created a great product. Don't play there if you don't like the rules.
 
Last edited:

When thinking about what a scholarship's dollar value is, remember it isn't only the value of the tuition/housing/etc, it's also avoiding years of interest on student loans, and a lifetime of salary bumps over a high school grad. It's a tremendous value that I think is often boiled down to a number that doesn't reflect the total value.
 

Gross. California is f'ed up. Have fun getting booted from the NCAA...I hope.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 

Ski U Master said:
When thinking about what a scholarship's dollar value is, remember it isn't only the value of the tuition/housing/etc, it's also avoiding years of interest on student loans, and a lifetime of salary bumps over a high school grad. It's a tremendous value that I think is often boiled down to a number that doesn't reflect the total value.
Click to expand...

Correct. Particularly for the generation that's in school right now, their student loans will be with them for decades, at least. Power 5 athletes on full scholarship are young and naive and don't appreciate how big of a deal it is to walk out of college with $0 in student loans.
 

If the NCAA didn't change their model, someone else was going to change it for them, and they're not going to like how's it's changed. It appears that the California Legislature has gotten around to changing things.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Correct. Particularly for the generation that's in school right now, their student loans will be with them for decades, at least. Power 5 athletes on full scholarship are young and naive and don't appreciate how big of a deal it is to walk out of college with $0 in student loans.
Click to expand...

I think they should get paid, but the value of their scholarship and perks get subtracted—after taxes and FICA are also taken out. They’d have to take out a loan for the difference. That’s reality.

GopherRock said:
If the NCAA didn't change their model, someone else was going to change it for them, and they're not going to like how's it's changed. It appears that the California Legislature has gotten around to changing things.
Click to expand...

Ah, naïveté at its finest. The California Dope Festival won’t change anything, other than punishing their own University system. The NCAA and its member schools will just wave at them in the rearview mirror.
 
Last edited:

GopherRock said:
If the NCAA didn't change their model, someone else was going to change it for them, and they're not going to like how's it's changed. It appears that the California Legislature has gotten around to changing things.
Click to expand...

The law doesn’t change the NCAA, it puts the CA schools in a bind. They will be able to still have teams but won’t be eligible for the NCAA competitions, leagues, tournaments. Unless other states defect from the NCAA and form some other entity. Or, the NCAA fundamentally changes their model which I can’t see happening.

This is going to get interesting. It could start to negatively impact recruiting as soon as this year, and the CA schools aren’t exactly in peak form right now.
 


MnplsGopher said:
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?
Click to expand...

MN pro teams outside of the NFL (which has a salary cap that levels the financial playing field) are not really competitive with larger markets for free agents. Sure there are some outliers, but the T-Wolves and Twins do not typically beat out the big market teams for free agents. The NFL and NCAA have systems in place to counteract the built in advantage larger markets/schools with deeper pockets would have.
 

Attorneys and agents wondering how they can get in on the upcoming legal action. This should be interesting. (Shakes head slowly)
 

Sounds like Ohio, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Texas and Louisiana have all considered adopting similar legislation.

Unfortunately I have come to accept the fact that athletes will now be able to make money off their name across the country.

Welp, at least Minnesota has a huge metro area and tons of companies in the area that could offer endorsement deals compared to most other schools.
 

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.
 

dpodoll68 said:
At the risk of repeating myself for the 800th time - people look at the situation and see all of the incoming revenue without seeing the concomitant expenses, as you state. Moreover, they make a faulty assumption that all, most, or even some schools are raking in money hand over fist, while students are putting their bodies on the line for slave labor. In reality, if there were all this money just waiting there for someone to grab it, someone would make a minor league that hires 18-year-olds to play football and pay them. No one does that, because the market isn't there, because it's a stupid idea. And yet, many people, apparently now including some governments, want to try to force the NCAA to change its model because of their absurd, faulty assumptions. In addition to the fact that paying 18-year-olds to play football is a stupid, unsustainable idea, the fact remains that the NCAA, as currently constructed, is by far the best option for 18-year-olds to play football. If it weren't, they wouldn't be striving so hard for scholarships, nor moreover hold up securing one to their friends and loved ones as the huge accomplishment that it is.
Click to expand...

100%
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom