Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

[blueandgoldblitz]

Ok, if this is posted somewhere else, please let me know and I'll just go there but what do you guys think of the Fair Pay to Play Act being signed in California? For those unfamiliar with the bill, here's a summary:

https://www.si.com/college-football/201 ... nia-pac-12

Since the Big Sky has 3 California schools in it, how do you think it affects the Big Sky and Bobcat Football? I'm not entirely sure but I hypothesize that players that were once borderline FBS players that get offers at the last second to play at Fresno State or something, are going to drop their MSU commitment and sign with the Cali school in order to cash in. I know that they aren't exactly big market schools but some money or the chance at some money is better than a guaranteed nothing at the Montana schools. Or if a kid has offers from Sac State and us, you would think he'd pick Sac State, no question...

To take it even further, will the big sky conference kick the California schools out in order to keep competitive balance? What do you guys think?

[wbtfg]

Ok, if this is posted somewhere else, please let me know and I'll just go there but what do you guys think of the Fair Pay to Play Act being signed in California? For those unfamiliar with the bill, here's a summary:

https://www.si.com/college-football/201 ... nia-pac-12

Since the Big Sky has 3 California schools in it, how do you think it affects the Big Sky and Bobcat Football? I'm not entirely sure but I hypothesize that players that were once borderline FBS players that get offers at the last second to play at Fresno State or something, are going to drop their MSU commitment and sign with the Cali school in order to cash in. I know that they aren't exactly big market schools but some money or the chance at some money is better than a guaranteed nothing at the Montana schools. Or if a kid has offers from Sac State and us, you would think he'd pick Sac State, no question...

To take it even further, will the big sky conference kick the California schools out in order to keep competitive balance? What do you guys think?

I'd say it's too early to tell. Does California law supersede NCAA regulations? Does this spur another division of college athletics?

[cats2506]

So a 3rd party (company) can pay a NCAA player for endorsements. Makes on hell of a recruiting advantage. I just don't see how it will be any different than what SMU and Miami were doing back in the day. I personally think that this will create a bigger difference between the haves and have nots. I can see companies lining up to endorse players if they attend a particular school, it will be a bidding war for top recruits.
The NCAA makes most of their money off of the basketball tournament. the colleges make a lot off of the football programs. In the case of the colleges they will probably still make about the same and a lot of that money goes to fund all of their athletic facilities not just football facilities.

[tdub]

IMO the first counter-suits are going to come from the schools themselves. Yes, the athletes images and likenesses are their own to benefit from. But is anyone going to be be able to show that so-and-so player is only benefiting from their own image, and not the schools? What percentage of the profits are the athletes going to give to the school since it was the school that gave them the platform to benefit? USC, UCLA, Stanford all have a century of image, branding, marketing, success that is giving the athletes the platform. But then the athletes can say that they should receive a percentage from the school because without the athletes there is not a positive school image and brand. I’m not on a side here, I just see that this could get very, very messy.

[AFCAT]

I think the law is a good thing, but I don’t believe a lot of athletes will benefit from it.

[BleedingBLue]

The NCAA, at this point, is going to be forced to change. There are several other states that have introduced similar bills and it is only a matter of time before the NCAA has to accept that this is happening, and make sure that the playing field is leveled for athletes benefiting from their likeness. The current bill passed by CA will Likely only affect the highest of star recruits, because Nike isn't going to sign some 3 star recruit who may or may not end up being good. And the schools will just stop using images of non "star" players on posters, advertisements etc. so they aren't forced to compensate more than a couple players for the images.

[cats2506]

The NCAA, at this point, is going to be forced to change. There are several other states that have introduced similar bills and it is only a matter of time before the NCAA has to accept that this is happening, and make sure that the playing field is leveled for athletes benefiting from their likeness. The current bill passed by CA will Likely only affect the highest of star recruits, because Nike isn't going to sign some 3 star recruit who may or may not end up being good. And the schools will just stop using images of non "star" players on posters, advertisements etc. so they aren't forced to compensate more than a couple players for the images.

in a place like USC I can see smaller companies paying less known players, car dealers for example.

[Montanabob]

The NCAA, at this point, is going to be forced to change. There are several other states that have introduced similar bills and it is only a matter of time before the NCAA has to accept that this is happening, and make sure that the playing field is leveled for athletes benefiting from their likeness. The current bill passed by CA will Likely only affect the highest of star recruits, because Nike isn't going to sign some 3 star recruit who may or may not end up being good. And the schools will just stop using images of non "star" players on posters, advertisements etc. so they aren't forced to compensate more than a couple players for the images.

in a place like USC I can see smaller companies paying less known players, car dealers for example.

I see Nike paying an entire team a stipend of $50000 for seniors, 40000 for juniors, 30000 for sophomore, 20000 for freshman. If not Nike, a rich alumni, or Gambler, who wants a national championship.

[CelticCat]

I really don't know what to make of this yet.

I will say this is the fault of the NCAA and the universities - they've let this thing turn into a money making business machine. Now that you've let it get to that point, yes you have to start looking at compensating the people who make it happen.

[Cledus]

Ok, if this is posted somewhere else, please let me know and I'll just go there but what do you guys think of the Fair Pay to Play Act being signed in California? For those unfamiliar with the bill, here's a summary:

https://www.si.com/college-football/201 ... nia-pac-12

Since the Big Sky has 3 California schools in it, how do you think it affects the Big Sky and Bobcat Football? I'm not entirely sure but I hypothesize that players that were once borderline FBS players that get offers at the last second to play at Fresno State or something, are going to drop their MSU commitment and sign with the Cali school in order to cash in. I know that they aren't exactly big market schools but some money or the chance at some money is better than a guaranteed nothing at the Montana schools. Or if a kid has offers from Sac State and us, you would think he'd pick Sac State, no question...

To take it even further, will the big sky conference kick the California schools out in order to keep competitive balance? What do you guys think?

I'd say it's too early to tell. Does California law supersede NCAA regulations? Does this spur another division of college athletics?

I thought the NCAA was just an administrative body formed by the member institutions; e.g. a nationwide athletic director. I don't think they have any kind of legal authority, their authority comes what people perceive and grant them. They're not deputized. I've never understood why schools let the NCAA smack them down. All it will take is a Florida, Texas, Alabama etc. to tell them to pound sand and the house of cards fall.

I feel like this pay thing is a domino that's going to topple and everyone else will follow suit in a race to not be known for being the last to adopt, sort of like gay marriage.

[91catAlum]

The NCAA, at this point, is going to be forced to change. There are several other states that have introduced similar bills and it is only a matter of time before the NCAA has to accept that this is happening, and make sure that the playing field is leveled for athletes benefiting from their likeness. The current bill passed by CA will Likely only affect the highest of star recruits, because Nike isn't going to sign some 3 star recruit who may or may not end up being good. And the schools will just stop using images of non "star" players on posters, advertisements etc. so they aren't forced to compensate more than a couple players for the images.

in a place like USC I can see smaller companies paying less known players, car dealers for example.

I see Nike paying an entire team a stipend of $50000 for seniors, 40000 for juniors, 30000 for sophomore, 20000 for freshman. If not Nike, a rich alumni, or Gambler, who wants a national championship.

And therein lies the problem. Once the dam breaks, that's exactly what will happen. The best athletes going to the highest bidder, with a little help from the transfer portal.

It's step 1 of destroying college sports.

[blueandgoldblitz]

The NCAA, at this point, is going to be forced to change. There are several other states that have introduced similar bills and it is only a matter of time before the NCAA has to accept that this is happening, and make sure that the playing field is leveled for athletes benefiting from their likeness. The current bill passed by CA will Likely only affect the highest of star recruits, because Nike isn't going to sign some 3 star recruit who may or may not end up being good. And the schools will just stop using images of non "star" players on posters, advertisements etc. so they aren't forced to compensate more than a couple players for the images.

in a place like USC I can see smaller companies paying less known players, car dealers for example.

I see Nike paying an entire team a stipend of $50000 for seniors, 40000 for juniors, 30000 for sophomore, 20000 for freshman. If not Nike, a rich alumni, or Gambler, who wants a national championship.

And therein lies the problem. Once the dam breaks, that's exactly what will happen. The best athletes going to the highest bidder, with a little help from the transfer portal.

It's step 1 of destroying college sports.

Agreed. It's free agency without a salary cap. All the best players are going to flock to 3-4 schools and that's going to be college football from here on out. I mean, that's how it already is, but the difference between the haves and have nots is going to be astronomical. And FCS schools are going to get scraps. I hope it doesn't come to that or whoever has the best FCS donor will benefit the most

[bobcat99]

It's just legalizing what's already going on.

[91catAlum]

It's just legalizing what's already going on.

Worst reason ever to legalize something. If that's the standard, what laws would we have anywhere in society?

[91catAlum]

The NCAA, at this point, is going to be forced to change. There are several other states that have introduced similar bills and it is only a matter of time before the NCAA has to accept that this is happening, and make sure that the playing field is leveled for athletes benefiting from their likeness. The current bill passed by CA will Likely only affect the highest of star recruits, because Nike isn't going to sign some 3 star recruit who may or may not end up being good. And the schools will just stop using images of non "star" players on posters, advertisements etc. so they aren't forced to compensate more than a couple players for the images.

in a place like USC I can see smaller companies paying less known players, car dealers for example.

I see Nike paying an entire team a stipend of $50000 for seniors, 40000 for juniors, 30000 for sophomore, 20000 for freshman. If not Nike, a rich alumni, or Gambler, who wants a national championship.

And therein lies the problem. Once the dam breaks, that's exactly what will happen. The best athletes going to the highest bidder, with a little help from the transfer portal.

It's step 1 of destroying college sports.

Agreed. It's free agency without a salary cap. All the best players are going to flock to 3-4 schools and that's going to be college football from here on out. I mean, that's how it already is, but the difference between the haves and have nots is going to be astronomical. And FCS schools are going to get scraps. I hope it doesn't come to that or whoever has the best FCS donor will benefit the most

Yep. Once the dam fully breaks and we're paying college athletes, imagine the team guys like Denny Washington could put together! Its early-80s SMU except perfectly legal.

[bobcatbob]

There are already five more States getting ready to do the same as California. This will have an enormous impact on competitive balance. It is going to be a real mess and I think it is coming fast.

[catatac]

It's just legalizing what's already going on.

Worst reason ever to legalize something. If that's the standard, what laws would we have anywhere in society?

Well this stance gets to a bit of a gray area because it depends on what the "something" is that's being legalized. For example, prohibition was a dumb idea because you're never going to stop people from drinking, so they changed the law. Same with cannabis, dumb law that it's illegal so that's changing. Not sure what to think if this one though, I need to read up on it more.

[91catAlum]

It's just legalizing what's already going on.

Worst reason ever to legalize something. If that's the standard, what laws would we have anywhere in society?

Well this stance gets to a bit of a gray area because it depends on what the "something" is that's being legalized. For example, prohibition was a dumb idea because you're never going to stop people from drinking, so they changed the law. Same with cannabis, dumb law that it's illegal so that's changing. Not sure what to think if this one though, I need to read up on it more.

There other reasons to legalize pot than just "people are gonna do it anyway".

We have speed limit laws and people speed anyway. We have a law against bike theft and people do it anyway. It's illegal to cheat on your taxes but people do it anyway. That's not a reason to remove those laws, or any laws. You should have a better reason than that.

Anyway, were off on a tangent now so I'll shut up.

[RickRund]

So will this give (ex) USC an advantage over (ex) Alabama, Clemson, etc...I

Been lots of discussion on Fox Business. Pretty much a 50-50 splits. The one agreement by most is the ncaa is corrupt.

Would this be a situation where the ncaa would be getting their fingers on more income?

[bobcat99]

It's just legalizing what's already going on.

Worst reason ever to legalize something. If that's the standard, what laws would we have anywhere in society?

I didn't give that as a reason, just pointing it out.

People keep on saying that the athletes getting paid will ruin the sport. THEY ALREADY GET PAID! Whether it's through a nice job, cars, family member getting a job/house, hell, Saban owns a couple dealerships. It hasn't ruined the sport yet.

Personally, I'm all for the student-athletes, who will ensure life long health problems, getting some compensation. I'm all for student-athletes, who contribute to millions of dollars earned by each school, getting some compensation. There have been studies that say schools with better football teams see increased enrollment. The coaches can get paid millions, but it'll kill the sport to pay the athletes themselves. Bogus.

And yes, I know, they get a scholarship. Woohoo. In the Power 5, athletes get told what they're allowed to major in, and what they're not. But paying them money will kill the sport. It's BS.