SB 206 NCAA Reform is Almost Here

Donate To GopherHole
upnorthkid said:
On point 2, well that’s not free market at all. And that’s the argument you’re trying to make
Click to expand...

"Free market" is by the far the least important aspect of this discussion, to me.

The NFL's salary cap is also not "free market". But I support it 100%.
 

MnplsGopher said:
"Free market" is by the far the least important aspect of this discussion, to me.

The NFL's salary cap is also not "free market". But I support it 100%.
Click to expand...

So they can make money on their likeness, but only some? That to me is an asinine reason to overhaul the rules. As you asked earlier, where do you draw the line then?
 

upnorthkid said:
So they can make money on their likeness, but only some? That to me is an asinine reason to overhaul the rules. As you asked earlier, where do you draw the line then?
Click to expand...

Some is more than zero, isn't it? If you were a college athlete, would you rather have zero, or would you "begrudgingly" accept $10k into a trust fund that you could draw from once your eligibility was complete? I'm guessing the latter.

They have a couple years to figure something out. They will. (They being the NCAA)
 

MnplsGopher said:
Some is more than zero, isn't it? If you were a college athlete, would you rather have zero, or would you "begrudgingly" accept $10k into a trust fund that you could draw from once your eligibility was complete? I'm guessing the latter.

They have a couple years to figure something out. They will. (They being the NCAA)
Click to expand...

I agree on that the player would love to have more. So why not argue for that they can sign for a dollar amount up front, rather than get "endorsements" which are limited to a certain dollar amount? Or just simply increase the scholarship allotment to, let's say 10% above the cost of tuition/room/board etc? I just am trying to understand your logic in approach.
 

upnorthkid said:
I agree on that the player would love to have more. So why not argue for that they can sign for a dollar amount up front, rather than get "endorsements" which are limited to a certain dollar amount? Or just simply increase the scholarship allotment to, let's say 10% above the cost of tuition/room/board etc? I just am trying to understand your logic in approach.
Click to expand...

At least in what you have framed here, the huge difference is it coming from the schools directly or not.

If it comes from the schools, then the schools have to figure out how to pay for it, and it would be subject to Title IX. When it comes from people external to the school, looking to work with individual athletes on an individual basis, though, then those concerns go away.

The NCAA could say something like: each endorsement may not exceed $25k total, and an athlete may not receive more than two endorsements per year. Or something like that.
 


The law AFAIK denies the ability of the NCAA to regulate name image likeness deals so there is no way they could enforce some sort of limit or trust fund unless that is what the law spells out (which it doesn’t to my knowledge).

The devil is always in the details and once the shackles of NCAA oversight come off nobody can predict what’s going to happen other than very smart individuals will find ways to take advantage.

If the schools, the conferences lose this fight time will tell what the fallout will be but fallout is certain. It was a good run. MN has about 4-5 years to make a Rose Bowl.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
The law AFAIK denies the ability of the NCAA to regulate name image likeness deals so there is no way they could enforce some sort of limit or trust fund unless that is what the law spells out (which it doesn’t to my knowledge).

The devil is always in the details and once the shackles of NCAA oversight come off nobody can predict what’s going to happen other than very smart individuals will find ways to take advantage.

If the schools, the conferences lose this fight time will tell what the fallout will be but fallout is certain. It was a good run. MN has about 4-5 years to make a Rose Bowl.
Click to expand...

The law gives the NCAA a couple years to propose changes to its rules. That is the first tangible thing that will come of this law.


Let's see what happens. But I say, if the NCAA can propose something reasonable, where everyone can win something, why can't the laws be amended to accommodate that? Seems reasonable to me.
 

I don’t think people are looking at this the right way.

I think the NCAA will not go along with this AT ALL because it’s member schools do not want to effectively convert their revenue sports to professional sports.

Therefore, this will only apply to the California schools and those who follow with similar legislation.
 

Goldmember said:
I don’t think people are looking at this the right way.

I think the NCAA will not go along with this AT ALL because it’s member schools do not want to effectively convert their revenue sports to professional sports.

Therefore, this will only apply to the California schools and those who follow with similar legislation.
Click to expand...

California, Minnesota, North and south Carolina, NY, Texas, Michigan, Louisiana, Florida and Texas have all considered adopting similar legislation.
 



MnplsGopher said:
The law gives the NCAA a couple years to propose changes to its rules. That is the first tangible thing that will come of this law.


Let's see what happens. But I say, if the NCAA can propose something reasonable, where everyone can win something, why can't the laws be amended to accommodate that? Seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

You can’t argue for free market NIL deals then restrict an individual’s right to earn compensation to some arbitrary level. That doesn’t make sense to me.

The concern we have is a) turning college athletics into professional entities damaging interest in the product and b) further slanting the competitive landscape where schools like MN essentially become what G5 schools are now. We can only make educated guesses where this leads.

Further arguments about salaries, being considered as employees are surely soon to follow.
 


No matter how many times it's repeated, I guess some people still won't get it.

This is NOT about the schools paying players instead of giving them scholarships.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
You can’t argue for free market NIL deals then restrict an individual’s right to earn compensation to some arbitrary level. That doesn’t make sense to me.

The concern we have is a) turning college athletics into professional entities damaging interest in the product and b) further slanting the competitive landscape where schools like MN essentially become what G5 schools are now. We can only make educated guesses where this leads.

Further arguments about salaries, being considered as employees are surely soon to follow.
Click to expand...

2nd paragraph is spot on. Those are absolutely valid concerns, that need to be addressed in the NCAA's work on this. They need to be, and I'm sure will be, pillars of the mission statement of whatever team the NCAA forms to study the issue.

1st paragraph, that's fine ... then just drop the silly "free market" part of it. That's not important to me. Some is more than zero. Some is progress.

3rd paragraph, that's a slippery slope, which will be used extensively by people who want to fight this. I don't have anything to say to it, other than it is a slippery slope and not relevant to this specific discussion.
 



I still think a potential way around this is to say that a player receiving endorsement $ can be on the team, but cannot be on scholarship. So you're making $100K on endorsements, great, but you'll have to use $30K of that to pay your own tuition. If you're only getting $10k in endorsements, it won't be worth it.
 

howeda7 said:
I still think a potential way around this is to say that a player receiving endorsement $ can be on the team, but cannot be on scholarship. So you're making $100K on endorsements, great, but you'll have to use $30K of that to pay your own tuition. If you're only getting $10k in endorsements, it won't be worth it.
Click to expand...

I don't like that option, personally, because it pushes the discussion closer to the idea of paying players vs scholarships.

Every play is an amateur, and therefore every player deserves a scholarship. Some (or a few) players are stars, and local businesses want to purchase the rights to their NIL's. I think players should be able to make that transaction and have rights to the money once their eligibility is up.


But I'm sure the NCAA will study all possible options.
 

die hard gopher said:
California, Minnesota, North and south Carolina, NY, Texas, Michigan, Louisiana, Florida and Texas have all considered adopting similar legislation.
Click to expand...

States “consider” legislation for practically everything all of the time. There is no zero chance this passes in every state.

In the meantime, California schools have effectively been voted out of the NCAA by their state’s government (against their will).

Everyone is assuming that the NCAA and its member schools will just defer to the state of California. The likelier scenario seems to be that California schools will need to form their own collegiate athletic organization.
 

A little premature here. The endorsement opportunities are not going to be as plentiful as you think. local endorsement will not bring a lot more than lunch money. They get free education, what more do people want. One can go on and on about the revenue the entire university gets from athletics that benefits all students in part.
 

A couple of things about the CA legislation:

1. It only applies to the PAC-12 schools (the only 4 schools that receive over $10 million in media rights)
2. Players cannot sign contracts that counteract school contracts (players at a Nike school can't sign a contract with Adidas).
 

In would assume the Zions of the world would want to sign with California teams. Wonder what the Dukes of the world think of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Goldmember said:
States “consider” legislation for practically everything all of the time. There is no zero chance this passes in every state.

In the meantime, California schools have effectively been voted out of the NCAA by their state’s government (against their will).

Everyone is assuming that the NCAA and its member schools will just defer to the state of California. The likelier scenario seems to be that California schools will need to form their own collegiate athletic organization.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to pass in every state.
But if it passes in enough states, with enough powerful colleges in them, you can bet the NCAA will have no choice but to break, or very likely lose in court as they did in 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Oklahoma
 

discochris said:
It doesn't have to pass in every state.
But if it passes in enough states, with enough powerful colleges in them, you can bet the NCAA will have no choice but to break, or very likely lose in court as they did in 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Oklahoma
Click to expand...

The NCAA works on behalf of its member schools. People are talking about this as though they are out there on an island imposing their will on everyone. That’s not how it works. They just do what their member schools collectively want them to do. I suspect this one will be easy for them. The 4 CA schools will be out of the NCAA soon, and likely out of the Pac12.
 
Last edited:

Except in the example I gave, they were actively working against the best interest of their member schools by restraining trade in terms of TV contracts. And tried to fight them in court. And lost in the highest court in the land which eventually resulted in a massive windfall for the schools and conferences.
 

I don't know, I think this passing can really help schools located in big cities. The money changing hands will be less under the table. I think it leads on some level to parity over traditional powerhouses. Plus, selfishly, it paves the way to college sports video games again.
 
Last edited:

discochris said:
Except in the example I gave, they were actively working against the best interest of their member schools by restraining trade in terms of TV contracts. And tried to fight them in court. And lost in the highest court in the land which eventually resulted in a massive windfall for the schools and conferences.
Click to expand...

The two cases couldn’t be more different.

But the key difference is that “Pay for NIL” is NOT something the member schools are wanting to pursue. AT ALL. Even the California schools.
 

Goldmember said:
The two cases couldn’t be more different.

But the key difference is that “Pay for NIL” is NOT something the member schools are wanting to pursue. AT ALL. Even the California schools.
Click to expand...

Too bad for the universities. No sympathy.
 

gopherjay said:
A little premature here. The endorsement opportunities are not going to be as plentiful as you think. local endorsement will not bring a lot more than lunch money. They get free education, what more do people want. One can go on and on about the revenue the entire university gets from athletics that benefits all students in part.
Click to expand...

You’re assumption is these have to be legitimate sponsorships. There is nothing in the text of the law to require this or a mechanism to prove it or even to compel a student or their agent to divulge what kind of deals they are receiving as I hardly think that is public record. A don’t ask don’t tell for our modern age.
 

discochris said:
Except in the example I gave, they were actively working against the best interest of their member schools by restraining trade in terms of TV contracts. And tried to fight them in court. And lost in the highest court in the land which eventually resulted in a massive windfall for the schools and conferences.
Click to expand...


And...here we are. Maybe they were right all along hmmm?
 


Dan Patrick had the governor of California on to talk about it.

The question was asked of won't thing cause issues with car dealers, etc., providing an uneven landscape.
Gov basically thought we already have some of that.

Made me think this is similar to the argument to legalize drugs.
If we legalize it, it would hurt those who are most abusing the current system.
So those currently cheating would gain less than others who are not.
 

I mean, if it’s that easy to cheat why isn’t everyone doing it? I would guess there are examples out there but I don’t think it is as close to widespread as “everyone knows“. If it were that easy to assemble a supergroup like turncoat James taking his talents to....then T Boone, Phil Knight, or any other number of high rollers have ways to make things happen.

Funny, if anyone knows about lining pockets with envelopes of cash it’s Gov Newsom.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom