NCAA Ban California Schools From Competing??

Good, kick them out! Bye Stanford!!

They should just drop it. Tons of college athletes will be hurt just so a few basketball and football players at Cal and Stanford can make a quick buck. If they're good enough to get in a video game or some ads, they're going to go pro anyways. They won't be making any money if the NCAA drops California though. No one is going to buy California Football 2020. On the flip side, California is populous enough that it could hold a state championship that would be competitive with the NCAA championship for most sports.

NCAA is trying so hard to keep all the money. They’re gonna lose this one.

Good for California, now if only 10 or 20 more states join them

Wolf's Bane wrote:

They should just drop it. Tons of college athletes will be hurt just so a few basketball and football players at Cal and Stanford can make a quick buck. If they're good enough to get in a video game or some ads, they're going to go pro anyways. They won't be making any money if the NCAA drops California though. No one is going to buy California Football 2020. On the flip side, California is populous enough that it could hold a state championship that would be competitive with the NCAA championship for most sports.

You really don't have any idea about the issue, do you?

Can anybody summarize or provide a link to a summary of the proposed law?

Just thinking about fairness, it seems fair to have athletes not compensated for their name and image on the school website, brochures given out on campus, programs. It seems unfair to me for athletes to be unpaid for a tv ad benefiting the NCAA, or a video game sold for profit.

If all football and basketball players get paid then bye bye non revenue sports. They are going to have to get money from somewhere.

Reality’ wrote:

If all football and basketball players get paid then bye bye non-revenue sports. They are going to have to get money from somewhere.

LetsRun will cheer that for sure. Socialism is a disease, right?

It's funny how many on this board pretend to be free-market capitalist purists but then turn around and want special protection from foreign-born athletes receiving scholarships in NCAA track, and back a sport that depends on handouts from revenue-producing sports for its existence

The obvious problem with letting college athletes profit from their likeness is that the politicians are imagining that an honest marketplace would establish the value of these posters, autographs, etc. They are imagining that this would allow players a cut of their legitimate value as a sports figure, value that is currently being exploited.

But in the real NCAA landscape, it would take about 10 seconds before boosters realized that they could use this as a mechanism to pay players, and about 11 seconds for them to turn this into a recruiting bonanza.

Hey, recruit, come to UCLA and our boosters will establish a market price of $50,000 for your autograph, even if its actual value is $2.

This would be impossible to regulate. It would be open season.

Brian Boswell was the most-hated college football player in the nation in 1986, and the crowds streaming into the game at CU were buying loads of "Ban the Bos" T-shirts that were being sold at the gate.

One look at the tag, though, and you saw it read "Boswell Industries."

Space Ghost wrote:

The obvious problem with letting college athletes profit from their likeness is that the politicians are imagining that an honest marketplace would establish the value of these posters, autographs, etc. They are imagining that this would allow players a cut of their legitimate value as a sports figure, value that is currently being exploited.

But in the real NCAA landscape, it would take about 10 seconds before boosters realized that they could use this as a mechanism to pay players, and about 11 seconds for them to turn this into a recruiting bonanza.

Hey, recruit, come to UCLA and our boosters will establish a market price of $50,000 for your autograph, even if its actual value is $2.

This would be impossible to regulate. It would be open season.

And ..... So what. Free market, we should allow paying players. Only reason we have this broken system is because NCAA and Colleges want to horde the money.

Space Ghost wrote:

The obvious problem with letting college athletes profit from their likeness is that the politicians are imagining that an honest marketplace would establish the value of these posters, autographs, etc. They are imagining that this would allow players a cut of their legitimate value as a sports figure, value that is currently being exploited.

But in the real NCAA landscape, it would take about 10 seconds before boosters realized that they could use this as a mechanism to pay players, and about 11 seconds for them to turn this into a recruiting bonanza.

Hey, recruit, come to UCLA and our boosters will establish a market price of $50,000 for your autograph, even if its actual value is $2.

This would be impossible to regulate. It would be open season.

Why would that be a bad thing?

CU runner in the 80s wrote:

Brian Boswell was the most-hated college football player in the nation in 1986, and the crowds streaming into the game at CU were buying loads of "Ban the Bos" T-shirts that were being sold at the gate.

One look at the tag, though, and you saw it read "Boswell Industries."

Would have been more successful had the T-shirts read "Bosworth Industries".

Space Ghost wrote:

The obvious problem with letting college athletes profit from their likeness is that the politicians are imagining that an honest marketplace would establish the value of these posters, autographs, etc. They are imagining that this would allow players a cut of their legitimate value as a sports figure, value that is currently being exploited.

But in the real NCAA landscape, it would take about 10 seconds before boosters realized that they could use this as a mechanism to pay players, and about 11 seconds for them to turn this into a recruiting bonanza.

Hey, recruit, come to UCLA and our boosters will establish a market price of $50,000 for your autograph, even if its actual value is $2.

This would be impossible to regulate. It would be open season.

Why does anyone need to regulate college players endorsements? No one regulates pros. Lebron can accept whatever he wants to autograph something and that doesn't destroy the NBA. Who cares if Money is used to influence recruits. It already is.

What's unfair is the NCAA makes billions off these players and there are coaches and administrators making a million plus each year. Yet many of the athletes who are bringing in the revenue are struggling to make ends meet.

I have an idea. The NCAA should tell Alabama they can only pay Saban 100K a year because anything more violates his status of coaching amateur athletes. That would never happen it would be ridiculous, yet paying the players he coaches who bring in the money and put their bodies on the line should be against the rules. Also prevent them from generating their own income which the market supports. Their is no logical response except to wave some ridiculous flag of amateurism.

The NCAA’s move shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Regardless of the merits of the rule, an entire system of schools can’t deem themselves immune to those rules and expect to maintain their membership.

The biggest problem with paying players is that in reality only a handful of schools could even afford it. Even DIII schools will subsidize their athletics program as it generates interest among alumni and communities. That’s top of mind marketing you can’t buy.

DIII athletes don’t even get athletic scholarships, and yet the rules (size of the court/field, game rules, recruiting limits, practice limits, etc) are exactly the same for the highest profile DI program. Sewanee and Alabama follow the EXACT same rules. So what’s the problem? Millions of people want to watch Alabama play. That’s it. That is the ONLY difference. Do Alabama players spend a lot more time with off the field study of the game? You bet. But if Sewanee players wanted to be better, they would do the same.

So who is making the real money? The coaches and schools? No. ESPN makes the real money. What’s Kirk Herbstreit’s salary? Does anyone care? Talk about making money off amateur college players. ESPN is exhibit A, but no one complains, because without them WE can’t just watch the damn game.

Hardloper wrote:

Good for California, now if only 10 or 20 more states join them

Would only take the SEC states and Texas for the NCAA to fold like a house on this.

The athletes who are actually making the university money are the ones who are getting thousands upon thousands of dollars taken off their tuition and living expenses. Is that not enough? I'm a college athlete on scholarship and over the four years at uni I will have "made" 70k from just running cross and track. This doesn't even come close to how much these football and basketball players are getting. Their payment is a free education which is invaluable. On top of the free education, which also means they don't have loans that will accumulate interest, they get thousands of dollars in shoes and clothes as well as tutors and any other resource they could possibly need all for free.

I could be missing a huge piece of this but it seems to me that people are just being greedy.

Momentum has been growing for some time to pay football and basketball players. I think the day is almost here where they will start getting generous stipends at the powerhouse schools.

As for non-revenue sports, this just means that pictures of models pretending to be athletes instead of athletes on promotional materials in California. Not real good for the athlete, I thought it was cool to that there was a small picture of me on the track and field brochure when I was in college, I still have a few copies in a box in my basement.

I do view the idea that student's can't market themselves and make money for themselves using the fact that they are an athlete as a huge problem. For example that UCF football player that lost his eligibility as well as the Texas A&M runner that did as well just by making YouTube videos. They should be able to do that but having the university pay them even more than what they already get for scholarship doesn't make sense.