Jump to content
Jalapeno

California Fair Pay To Play Act SIGNED

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

Again I'm not sure how it matters even if other states adopt it.  Until the NCAA changes their own rules about it, if you play for a school under the NCAA umbrella you won't be allowed to get paid to play. Of course if enough States adopt it and enough schools leave the NCAA and form their own organization they could then do it, but then they'd lose their tv contracts, government support (at least temporarily until it can get re-established), and in place infrastructure.  That sounds risky.  I think the NCAA will adapt before any of that happens, they hold all the cards really.  

If a law forces the NCAA to “adapt” I would say it “matters”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Headbutt said:

I'm not a fan of the law, but I will defend it as not being a contract between a business and a university.  Sure, it allows Under Armor to pay an individual athlete but running that through the school is not part of the deal.  If it becomes a situation where a school has X dollars promised from a sponsor to offer recruits, then it becomes crooked.  If they're going to do this, it needs to be an agreement between an athlete and a business without any interference from the school.  Once that part is settled, the athlete and the school need to iron out how much he's going to pay the university for the use of the uniform and creation of his opportunity to achieve that contract.  I can't wait to see Florida suing their starting QB for a cut of his royalties. 

There are so many simple ways to work around this. For example instead of big boosters giving their annual gifts to the athletic department it goes into a private account.  Then the football coach tells the donors how much to pay this player and that player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to be in on internal meetings at Nike right now. Does Knight have the power to ensure Oregon players get all of the Nike funds (or 2×/5×/10× players at other schools)? Can Nike then give them limited commercial spots...like they already give them limited uniforms? Can you imagine being in a five star recruit's home and telling them come to Oregon and you will be in Nike's latest commercials during MNF?

All the while schools like UNM will be offering $500 to be in a Lotaburger ad. That only runs locally.

I see this as just another step in creating a bigger gap in the haves and have-more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how people assume that once players are able to profit off NIL that the marketing and promotions budgets of boosters and other interested parties will somehow exponentially balloon, so as to allow for players to reap untold millions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 307dude said:

I love how people assume that once players are able to profit off NIL that the marketing and promotions budgets of boosters and other interested parties will somehow exponentially balloon, so as to allow for players to reap untold millions. 

I don’t think they will increase. Just be diverted to the players. Which I guess isn’t all bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 307dude said:

I love how people assume that once players are able to profit off NIL that the marketing and promotions budgets of boosters and other interested parties will somehow exponentially balloon, so as to allow for players to reap untold millions. 

Thats the whole point. Most won't balloon. But you don't think there is a handful of Phil Knights... TBoonePickens.... Fred Smiths... That would open up their wallets in the millions? The collective of Alabama fans willing to send $20 to a trust fund set up a non-profit booster club org that is run by a board hand picked by the AD? Most schools won't have it...but for the ones that do....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SalinasSpartan said:

If a law forces the NCAA to “adapt” I would say it “matters”. 

There's a lot that would have to happen, and it would take years, but if enough states adopted something similar then maybe it would matter.  As it stands today, it matters none.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RSF said:

Well....maybe not T Boone Pickens.....

Lol... I knew not him for the purpose of 2023. The point was there is a history of at least a handful that love opening the checkbooks for their alma mater. And again....forget money. If oregon can say you will get in commercials...or even a shoe line. They control who gets it. Do you think the Nike commercial would have a Morant...or a Justin Herbert? That is a really powerful recruiting tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NCAA is very familiar with Commerce Clause challenges. It likely feels optimistic that one would work against the Act. In 1993, the NCAA secured a legal victory against a state statute on Commerce Clause grounds. In NCAA v. Miller, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Commerce Clause barred the State of Nevada from requiring the NCAA to provide “a Nevada institution, employee, student-athlete, or booster who is accused of a rules infraction with certain procedural due process protections during an enforcement proceeding in which sanctions may be imposed.” The statute was passed in the wake of the UNLV men’s basketball recruiting controversy.

The core problem with the state statute, noted Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, is that it in order to apply equal rules across the 50 states, the NCAA would be required to adopt the rules of Nevada for every state. “The practical requirement that the NCAA would have to use the Statute in enforcement proceedings in every state in the union,” Judge Fernandez reasoned, “runs afoul of the Commerce Clause.” Indeed, Nevada’s statute would “directly control commerce occurring wholly outside the boundaries of the state.”

 

Judge Fernandez also expressed concern that other states could adopt requirements that diverge from those in Nevada. The NCAA would then be forced to deal with “conflicting requirements” by state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boise brought up by Dan Wetzel as how mid majors can win.

https://sports.yahoo.com/after-jim-delanys-asinine-slippery-slope-remark-here-are-9-potential-impacts-of-payforplay-changes-235859965.html

Quote

The most valuable thing on the recruiting trail has been conference affiliation. Top players tend to sign with teams in the top leagues. Now? Perhaps not.

Are you better off being the starting quarterback at Boise State, where by definition you become the biggest star in a metro area that is approaching 1 million (let alone the entire state) or just another guy battling for a job at USC (where, in Los Angeles, no one will know your name)? How about Oregon State?

In the past, USC won all those recruiting battles. Even Oregon State won most of them. Now? Places such as Boise State, or even lower-level programs in major conferences such as Iowa State or Indiana or Wake Forest are not broke. Maybe they can’t win every bidding war against the Clemsons and Alabamas, but they might be able to win more now than in the past.

“I think a school such as Boise can do really well,” one athletic director said. “When everyone was offering the same package — a scholarship, room and board — then conference membership mattered. Now that they can, at times, offer more money, playing in the Mountain West rather than the Pac-12, it matters a lot less.”

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could win against the "2nd group" of players.  And in football, which is a big team sport that might actually matter. 

There's also some thought that this could cause boosters to "redirect" where their spending--instead of donating 2 million to the university, they might spend 1 mill on players, and the other one million to the university.  So this could (in theory) cause some schools to lose money too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was the school, I wouldn't use any likeness of any player in their promotions unless they request it, first.  If a student athlete wants to be promoted visually, let him/her request it.  The school can then negotiate payment or not. Practice videos, and news bits, however are a separate animal. I think the student athletes need to concede there.  Going to be hard to set the rules . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line, if the NCAA takes a big hit from this then I'm all for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was some wording in the law that states that companies under contract with the university could not also sign a contract with the player. That would eliminate companies like Nike from taking over as the university is likely more valuable to them long term than the player. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CPslograd said:

I read it and listened to it.

Again, I kind of think an athlete should get paid if his mug is on a billboard.

But athletes like Eddie O on their highhorse about it are a little tiring.  OK, so O'Bannon's NBA career didn't work out.  He still made lots of money.  And life is a journey, not a destination.  There is no reason he couldn't have utilized his fame from basketball to enhance his post basketball career.  He would have had every opportunity to do so.  McClain had a longer NBA career, but he wasn't a star.  Yet he parlayed that into a successful career as a commentator.  Did O'Bannon get screwed?  Sure, I can see how it wasn't fair that UCLA made money off of him.  But shit, life isn't fair, no one ever said it was.  We've all been screwed one time or another, focusing on that isn't helpful to him.  It's up to him to figure out what to do post career.  Let's say he got paid 300 grand for royalties, would that really matter in his life in 2019?  

Sam Keller too.  It's not our fault you are a bartender in Scottsdale.  Not that I am putting that occupation down, I did it for about 6 years, but some of these guys are ridiculous.  At least O'Bannon was a household name during their title years.  Sam Keller??  People barely know who he is.  

O'Bannon had a lot of opportunities I'm sure if he wanted to take them.  The networks that these athletes can build, has to be very helpful post playing career if they work them right and aren't dicks to people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WAC_FAN said:

They could win against the "2nd group" of players.  And in football, which is a big team sport that might actually matter. 

There's also some thought that this could cause boosters to "redirect" where their spending--instead of donating 2 million to the university, they might spend 1 mill on players, and the other one million to the university.  So this could (in theory) cause some schools to lose money too.

This is one reason why the schools are fighting it no doubt.  Boosters who truly care about the school though will still give to the schools because long term, that should be the best ROI for the money.  Facilities can be used for years, kids can blow out knees, go pro early, or transfer when they don't get their way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AD from Ohio State said this is a grass fire we can't put out. Well you know that's true when New Mexico is about to join the frey. Who else's state is doing this? I believe in order for this to work it will need to be heavily regulated with severe penalties for those that go around the rules. That way the Alabamas of the college football world will have to play semifair in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2019 at 4:51 AM, VandalPride97 said:

This fiasco is going to destroy college football.

It was fun while it lasted. 

I'll just move on to the Great Northwest and Freedom leagues (upstate New York) of the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would much rather have my dollars go to buying players for football and basketball rather than helping fund the soccer program. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×