And if you don't like the CBA, you are not forced to work for that organization ...just like high school kids aren't forced to play for a school that is a member of the NCAA if they don't like NCAA rules.
Leave it to California
- Thread starter Cloneon
- Start date
And if you don't like the CBA, you are not forced to work for that organization ...just like high school kids aren't forced to play for a school that is a member of the NCAA if they don't like NCAA rules.
Less than 2% of college athletes make it to the pros. There is a limit to the number of minor league teams that the economy can sustain. Alternate professional sports leagues have not fared well in the US. I don't think we have to worry about there being a shortage of college athletes. As long as money is coming into ADs for scholarships, there will be plenty of kids who see benefit in a college degree and know they don't have the abilities to be a professional athlete.
Last edited:
Yep, minor leagues are terribly limited. There is no way you will be able to stand up minor league football teams that will put 60k butts in seats, or that will command billion dollar TV deals with all day coverage on ESPN. Not gonna happen.
I don't think that California has the leverage here. For starters, all that ever matters in these things is P5 football. The other 16+ schools need their NCAA membership more than paid players. And of the 4 big schools out there, I don't know that any of them have the power or prestige to get the NCAA to buckle without other states getting on board.
Cal is mediocre at everything and drowning in debt. Stanford is an Olympic sport powerhouse with poor fan support. USC is a football blue blood, but they are down right now and I'm sure the casual LA fans would just move on to the new NFL teams in town. UCLA has some distant hoops history. And they are all in the Pac 12, the most irrelevant P5 conference that is almost invisible on the national stage.
So I guess my point is cutting the big 4 from football and men's hoops wouldn't impact my interest in those sports one bit, and I've never given a damn about the smaller schools or the olympic sports. I don't think I'm in the minority of college sports fans on that view either.
College sports are "sucking up all of the funds" because people like college sports. I think you are missing one of the main reasons why college sports are popular. It isn't because of quality of the competition. It is because every year, several million people go to college. Many go to that same college for several years, and they "bond" with the college and all of its teams, not just a singular ball club, as the case is for minor league teams. Colleges "manufacture" their own fans in ways that minor league ball clubs could never do. And that's why corporate sponsors and TV networks love college sports.
So much this.
if i wanted to go to the most talented team around here, i'd go watch the local g-league team. But i don't because i have zero care for it. Hell, if i wanted to cheer for the best football team around here, for most of my life that would've been iowa. But i didnt go to iowa, i went to ISU, so ISU is my team.
For me, the primary opposition is that I believe it will open college sports up to significantly more corruption than there already is. In this case, more isn't better. Just because there is corruption now doesn't mean we should just open up things up to let more corruption in. These kinds of rules are generally in place because of badness that has happened in the past.
Some lesser reasons for me are:
2) I believe the NCAA is largely responsible for putting players in a the position to profit from their likeness. If this wasn't the case, the best athletes would be playing in the NAIA, where they can profit from their likeness. If a player is put into a position to profit because of NCAA/school resources, everyone who is working on that team should benefit, not just one person. I see all kinds of equity/Title IX issues arising from this.
3) I think college athletics should be about the school/team, not about an individual player. Allowing individual athletes to profit from their likeness is counter to this belief.
The CA law is on the right track but would need to be tweaked by the NCAA.
The model proposed by Andy Staples (previously of SI) is the best solution IMO:
https://www.si.com/college-basketba...m&utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_twitter_si
The key part from the Staples articles: Let the players have agents. This may sound radical, but officials in several conferences have kicked around this possibility for years. College baseball players already are allowed have them. (Though the NCAA calls them “advisors.”) Simply extend that courtesy to all athletes. Chances are the agents would mostly want to sign football and basketball players, since that’s where the bulk of the money is.
The most important reason why the schools should consider allowing agents is that it finally would give the schools some power over them. Charge them to apply to an NCAA agent registry. Give them a strict set of rules to follow. In my original column, I suggested letting them loan players money as long as the loans were done in a transparent manner and logged with the NCAA. If the schools aren’t comfortable with that, ban payments from agents to players. (The money is supposed to flow the other direction in that arrangement anyway.) No matter what rules the schools settle on for the agents, they could enforce them harshly and ensure compliance. Any agent who runs afoul would be kicked off the registry. Also, the schools could help the NCAA overcome its lack of subpoena power by requiring registered agents to submit to investigations if they want to remain on the registry. No player would risk his eligibility by dealing with an agent who wasn’t certified by the NCAA. Losing that certification would be professional suicide for an agent. That would offer a powerful incentive for the agent to follow the schools’ rules.
Although the Staples' article addresses loans, this model would also enable agents to broker NIL deals (with caps of say $25K or $50K) with firms who aren't program boosters (e.g. shoe/apparel companies). This process would enable athletes to remain non-employees and schools would avoid Title IX issues.
Who would have oversight over this? The NCAA, who has no legal or subpoena powers? That's what leads to much of the corruption now...some school/booster/coach/athlete cheats, but the NCAA has no authority to compel testimony. They just have to hope someone voluntarily rats out the cheaters.
The current shoe scandal is a different deal, because legal authorities are compelling testimony, and I believe the NCAA can use this testimony because it is public record to sanction coaches, athletes, and schools.
Last edited:
You apparently missed this part: Also, the schools could help the NCAA overcome its lack of subpoena power by requiring registered agents to submit to investigations if they want to remain on the registry.
The NCAA needs to outsource its investigative arm regardless, under the existing model and under a model where athletes can engage certified agents to broker NIL deals.
So apparently the actual California law says that a school cannot revoke a scholarship for athletes profiting from their likeness. It doesn't say the NCAA has to allow them to play. So this may screw over the California schools in the end. If the NCAA finds an athlete in violation and revoked their ability to play, the school cannot drop them from their scholarship.
I didn't miss that part. Investigations by who? Unless it is an entity with legal authority, how does it really change anything from the current situation?
And a lesser issue, that only addresses agents. What if the agent isn't involved in the corruption? It doesn't stipulate investigations of the athlete and firm paying the money. They could easily decide to go behind the agent's back or otherwise stretch/circumvent the rules without the agent's knowledge.
You need to separate violation of law from violation of NCAA/School rules. As stated, certified agents would agree to be subject to the investigative arm of the NCAA/Schools in addition to being subject to Federal/State statutes pertaining to agents.
Regarding the second paragraph, that has been happening for years going back into the 40s and 50s and there is nothing more the NCAA and the Feds can do to completely enforce compliance. What the Staples suggestion does is create an upfront NCAA approved process for athletes to make money off their NIL without athletes becoming employees and fend off legal, legislative and athlete challenges to the existing process (CA won't be only state). It also may help keep kids like LW from prematurely going pro.
I have separated violation of law from violation of NCAA/school rules. And that's precisely the problem. There are no meaningful penalties for the latter to deter scammers from entering this system. A person who would want to scam this system would likely be someone who doesn't care about any long-term relationship with the NCAA. They just want to come in, make their quick cash, and move on to the next scam. They don't really care if they get banned from further work with the NCAA. Unless they actually violate some Federal or State Law, these scammers walk away with whatever money they have been able to grab, and there is really no way to pursue them except through a messy civil court case.
And you are right. Corruption has been happening for years. But "right to profit from likeness" will just add another venue for it to happen. And really, there is no way to clean it up, apart from bringing the schools under the oversight of government agency, where the corruption rules are actually laws, that when violated, can be prosecuted in the courts.
It would massively tilt things towards the 'haves' in football. Yes, the 'haves' have an advantage now, but it is still an edge that can be beaten. It would become downright insurmountable if the top-level programs's boosters were able to just outright buy players as they would with this whole 'selling their likeness' business. You can probably count on the top echelon of college sports dwindling down to a top few, maybe 20, programs, a group of which ISU is sure to be left out of. The connection to the school may be there, but ISU for all intents and purposes would be out of the game. Would you have expected Iowa State's fanbase to fall off a cliff if we fell to the MAC or the MWC? Because that's the equivalent we'd be facing.
At the end of the day the players wouldnt be truly selling 'their likeness' anyway. They'd be selling a product worth substantially less if not for their affiliation with the university. You know it, and the boosters arranging to pay them millions for a product that would net dozens of dollars if they weren't an athlete would know it as well.
Probably going to get negative responses but... go ahead and pay them. However stop giving them scholarships and room/board. Turn the idea of a scholarship back into an academic thing and I am completely cool with paying athletes.
To all those constantly chirping about equity and people making money off of them. Companies make money off of people all the time. When you're making 30k equivilant plus stipend already allowed minimum in benefits in some FBS schools as an 18 year old I'd consider that ample payment.
Not against paying athletes. I am however against paying them in addition to free college and room and board. That's how you level this playing field and just let it be an employee environment.
NCAA should have just expanded stipends and eliminated transfer sitting rules and made this go away years ago. Just a short sighted organization. The whole video game license nonsense that started this is in the past.
Flame away.
To all those constantly chirping about equity and people making money off of them. Companies make money off of people all the time. When you're making 30k equivilant plus stipend already allowed minimum in benefits in some FBS schools as an 18 year old I'd consider that ample payment.
Not against paying athletes. I am however against paying them in addition to free college and room and board. That's how you level this playing field and just let it be an employee environment.
NCAA should have just expanded stipends and eliminated transfer sitting rules and made this go away years ago. Just a short sighted organization. The whole video game license nonsense that started this is in the past.
Flame away.
Another thing I think would likely happen if "profit from likeness" goes into effect is that the 501c3 status of the NCAA and the athletic departments, which is already under scrutiny, would come under more severe scrutiny.
I think it would be pretty easy to prove that the NCAA/AD facilities, resources, and exposure, in the vast majority of cases, help to create the image that would be profited from. Generally, the resources of a 501c3 can't be used to create monetary benefit (other than salary) for those inside of the organization. Apart from changes to the non-profit tax law or making the athletes employees, IMO, "profit from likeness" would pretty much make the case for a 501c3 revocation. Whether this is good or bad is another debate.
Furthermore, many ADs are not fully self-supported, but receive tax money from their schools to operate. Using tax dollars for facilities that help individuals within the organization receive monetary gain gets into more gray areas and probably violates laws in many jurisdictions.
I think it would be pretty easy to prove that the NCAA/AD facilities, resources, and exposure, in the vast majority of cases, help to create the image that would be profited from. Generally, the resources of a 501c3 can't be used to create monetary benefit (other than salary) for those inside of the organization. Apart from changes to the non-profit tax law or making the athletes employees, IMO, "profit from likeness" would pretty much make the case for a 501c3 revocation. Whether this is good or bad is another debate.
Furthermore, many ADs are not fully self-supported, but receive tax money from their schools to operate. Using tax dollars for facilities that help individuals within the organization receive monetary gain gets into more gray areas and probably violates laws in many jurisdictions.
Athletic departments would most likely lose nonprofit status, your donations would no longer be tax deductible and all players would be taxed on all their earnings. Governments at all levels would absolutely love this.
