CA SB206 Signed

[northbeachsf]

Just a "what if"....... the NCAA says if you pay players you are no longer part of the NCAA and will not participate in NCAA activities including league games and Bowls. This is highly unfair to the vast majority of student athletes. I did hear that by a nationally recognized media member yesterday. While it is supposed to happen in 2023 I think it is a long way from happening, my guess it results in a compromise. Since student athletes are not allowed to work they will end up with a Perdiem or a allowance, if you will.

The NCAA could ban all 58 California Universities from competing in any NCAA sport. The problem is that California is the 5th largest economy in the world with a huge pool of HS talent and home to 4 schools from one of their major conferences. In addition, FL and NY are already drafting similar legislation as we speak. And you have to think that TX will be right behind them. Do you think states like FL and TX want to risk all their 5 star talent leaving the state for the west coast. Plus, CA has already hinted to the fact that if the NCAA does ban them, they will essentially start a new league with any other states willing to make the jump. With FL already in the mix, the NCAA should be crapping their pants right about now. Because if they lose CA and FL, they are essentially toast.

Fighting this is a losing battle, so the NCAA better figure out how to compromise on this pretty quick. Although it does not go into effect until 2023, schools like USC, Stanford, Cal, and UCLA along with all the other CA Universities will be saying to the next recruiting class in 2020: "come to our school and you will start getting paid when you are a junior."

[northbeachsf]

One more thing here. The Pac-12 knew this was happening for MONTHS. That statement today released by Larry Scott was embarrassing. Whether or not he agrees with the bill is not the point. He is directly in the center of something he cannot stop or change. The PAC-12 has been losing market share and money to the other 4 major conference for the past 10 years.

He should have stood up and pretended like he was all for this. He could have changed the landscape of the PAC-12 by saying that this was a long time coming and we expect our other schools to follow. We want to keep our kids on the west coast at the best schools and give them the best opportunity in life and In athletics. Could have secured a new TV deal and been the conference that “pushed for change”.

Brutal. Of all the idiotic things he has done, today takes the cake.

I think Scott sucks at his job and want him ousted, but this isn't a point against him. He's just a mouthpiece for the conference schools. He put out this statement because all 12 schools, including your Oregon Ducks, are against the bill.

Solid point. This is going to happen, so I believe the PAC-12 should have been the conference to support and push this change. It just seems like a blown opportunity already.

The bill is not perfect, as there are not many rules or guidelines. It will probably be the wild west in 2023.
However, it is not like the NCAA isn't a total mess already. How much worse can it get?

[northbeachsf]

Sounds like Pennsylvania is in now too and Alabama is considering.
This just about sums it up right here.
https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/117 ... 96417?s=12

[Alan]

One more thing here. The Pac-12 knew this was happening for MONTHS. That statement today released by Larry Scott was embarrassing. Whether or not he agrees with the bill is not the point. He is directly in the center of something he cannot stop or change. The PAC-12 has been losing market share and money to the other 4 major conference for the past 10 years.

He should have stood up and pretended like he was all for this. He could have changed the landscape of the PAC-12 by saying that this was a long time coming and we expect our other schools to follow. We want to keep our kids on the west coast at the best schools and give them the best opportunity in life and In athletics. Could have secured a new TV deal and been the conference that “pushed for change”.

Brutal. Of all the idiotic things he has done, today takes the cake.

I think Scott sucks at his job and want him ousted, but this isn't a point against him. He's just a mouthpiece for the conference schools. He put out this statement because all 12 schools, including your Oregon Ducks, are against the bill.

Solid point. This is going to happen, so I believe the PAC-12 should have been the conference to support and push this change. It just seems like a blown opportunity already.

The bill is not perfect, as there are not many rules or guidelines. It will probably be the wild west in 2023.
However, it is not like the NCAA isn't a total mess already. How much worse can it get?

I agree this is my problem with this, it will be the "Wild West". Lots of lawsuits coming, title nine, lower divisions, athletes, ...... I believe it is a long way from being a done deal in 2003. As far as NCAA having weight, I realize if state after state pass laws there is no recount and they have to scramble to maintain any control they may have..... but a few schools they have muscle still....... I think the have to scramble to maintain control.

[Merganzer]

Embedded Tweet

[buckmarkduck]

I don't think this is going to be as big as people think it will be. The top guys will make money, but a guy like Breeze, Breeland, Hanson, Redd ect won't be getting much out of this

[Duckattack7]

I don't think this is going to be as big as people think it will be. The top guys will make money, but a guy like Breeze, Breeland, Hanson, Redd ect won't be getting much out of this

I think I could potentially be good. Maybe it gives guys a reason to stay an extra year and prep for the NFL?

[Alan]

At the very least this will be interesting to follow, as of now Florida is racing to beat others to the party, California starts 2023, Florida wants it effective 2020. Other states will follow suit soon, is this the fall of the NCAA? Who will regulate? Aliotti says it opens the door for mass corruption and a rampant pay for play system, I can see it happening...... player going to the highest bidder, with no salary cap? This could go so many different ways, at this point I still see a compromise of some sort....... regulated

[maxduck]

Allowing an athlete to be compensated for his endorsement, image, or likeness will require an agent to negotiate value and terms of payment, including tax ramifications. We all know that sports agents are an honorable bunch so what could possibly go wrong? Also, if I'm a 5* QB a no income tax location like Washington is much more attractive than Oregon or California.

[lukeyrid13]

Realistically, this will only truly affect the top 20 or so schools. Even if you're an awesome WR at say Toledo, at most you'll get a few hundred bucks to do autographs at a local sports bar or something.

Only the top schools will have a handful of boosters willing to pay above market rate for sponsorships.

Outside of that, only maybe 1-2 guys will get national deals each year. A big personality like Tebow, Manziel, Baker Mayfield would likely benefit the most.

[GoDucksIn09]

This will create super teams by boosters with deep pockets. The top people are surely the ones to benefit the most. What is to stop a booster from paying 6 figures for the top athletes to all go to one school. The sad part in all of this is the non revenue sports that are taking a loss every year. This will effectively kill a lot of schools in non revenue sports. Only the blue bloods of the biggest sports will be able to survive. How many schools will have to eliminate some of the women sports because not making enough revenue. As it stands right now at a lot of schools football and some basketball pay for the rest of the sports a university has. That will change when this goes into effect.

[Phenom]

Really interesting that the people who are most in favor of open markets are the ones most opposed to this...

[StevensTechU]

This will create super teams by boosters with deep pockets. The top people are surely the ones to benefit the most. What is to stop a booster from paying 6 figures for the top athletes to all go to one school. The sad part in all of this is the non revenue sports that are taking a loss every year. This will effectively kill a lot of schools in non revenue sports. Only the blue bloods of the biggest sports will be able to survive. How many schools will have to eliminate some of the women sports because not making enough revenue. As it stands right now at a lot of schools football and some basketball pay for the rest of the sports a university has. That will change when this goes into effect.

Title IX doesn't go out the window with this. To continue to grant 85 scholarships to football players, they'll have to continue to provide 85 scholarships to female athletes. If anything, it would hurt non revenue men's sports.

[buckmarkduck]

Really interesting that the people who are most in favor of open markets are the ones most opposed to this...

My issue with this proposed rule, is it's not fair to 90% of the players. Pay them all, and pass this, then I'm okay with this. But right now, the only guys who will benefit are the ones who are already going to be millionaires.

[lukeyrid13]

^ IMO though, those are the only ones not properly compensated as is.

As of right now, they gut a full scholarship AND a monthly stipend ( I believe it's over $1,000). If you're a backup LB at Texas Tech that's more than fair IMO.