https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-30/college-athlete-endorsement-deals-ncaa-california-law


I would like to hear thoughts. I've always been of the opinion if you make students "business partners" that means you are justified in screwing them which will make things worse. I don't see any college athlete being able to make it worthwhile except some very fortunate few (who would probably make ultimately the same a few years later).

What you got?

Edit: if they get paid, do they still get scholarships?

Well, this isn't actually pay to play. This reverses an incredibly dumb NCAA rule that doesn't allow students to make money off their own name & likeness.

Its fundamentally unfair, because any other student on campus would be able to make money off their own name & likeness if they choose. For example, starting a YouTube channel, endorsing businesses, etc.

This is also the rule that makes the SFA office check with compliance if we want to raise money for Bain's family for example.

I am 100% in favor of removing this NCAA rule. A decent number of our SFA athletes aren't gonna get rich, but they would be able to get paid to do commercials for local businesses, etc. And they'd probably make decent spending money doing it.

Currently SFA uses them in Q&A sessions that double as ads for places like Brookshire brothers, so why shouldn't they be able to cut a local TV or radio add for Butcher Boys if they so choose?

I think your framing of the bill makes it sound reasonable, but I think any time you mention the ability to be compensated, you are talking about an economy of one scale or another.

Feel free to skip this rabbit hole:

1)If students can get compensated for their likeness etc., does that mean they can now have agents, business advisors, investors involved or do they have to handle all likeness revenue independently?

2)I'm sure colleges will make them sign certain restrictions on usage, but if colleges/conferences are making TV money, do the students now have the right to ask for their cut based on their likeness being used for profit? Since this law asserts that they have material rights, is it enough for them to organize into a players' association?

3)It may not yet be "pay to play" based off of ticket shares or college revenue, but it seems to me that if there is a legal precedent that NCAA players can be financially compensated and remain eligible then it is a negotiation on "how much?"

4)
I fully understand the frustration of feeling like you are on the wrong side of all the money. The NCAA holds the power to keep you out of eligibility if you violate money rules. However, SFA is currently paying millions in scholarships to fill NCAA requirements and many more millions on gear/staff/marketing/facilities.

As small as a what some consider this, this keeps an equality at some level between the worst Tennis scholarship player and Kevon Harris or Trae Self. They both essentially get $50K+ of benefits spread out over 4 years (I'm sure there's discrepancies and differences between scholarship players). There is a protection built into protecting the students with the assurance (or at least major help with) a degree at the end of the day. For many student athletes, this is a far bigger system than just accountable money. Many of these players would not get an education without the support.

(More rabbit hole coming...)

The current NCAA/collegiate system is not set up for a revenue share. (Yes, I've gone down the rabbit hole to full pay potential). It is not like the farm leagues or club divisions of professional sports as much as we like to compare the two. A shift to revenue sharing would dramatically shift the focus of money to the larger schools in a much more dramatic way than there is now. I think the Southland would get left out.

That discussion is for another day, but back to the pay for likeness issue. I don't think there ultimately is going to be a benefit for Kevon hocking his autographed picture for $5 after games. Yes, it might get him a couple more bucks now, but it will separate players by perceived monetary value. Also, I believe it will be a justification for schools not to invest in players if they believe they have the ability to support themselves.

Maybe I'm an old-fashioned stick in the mud, but I think this whole deal is about money going to big time (institutional) scammers while giving pennies to the players in the name of progress. I believe everyone except a few will be impoverished and I believe it will quickly spell the end of the college game.

Would love to hear the glass half full version.

I think your point about TV money is probably spot on. That's not something I've considered, but you might sign a contract that says I give up my TV rights for football to UT for 4 years in exchange for a scholarship for example.

What this has grown out of is not SFA size schools, but UT sized schools who've made millions, pay themselves millions and then hold up the kids from being able to earn anything more than a scholarship.

If UT was returning 100 million to the Uni each year from the athletic department for scholarships for regular students, I think you'd see much less push to pay players.

Instead, schools like UT have record revenues and record expenses. It's reached a level of insanity where the big schools are going to cause an incredible shift at all levels.

I'm on board with letting athletes do their own endorsements, etc. The bigger change of turning college sports into NFL teams? I'm less excited about, but it is what it is.

Honestly, 95% of this problem would be solved if the top 40 football schools created an NFL type college league.

Then the rest of us could get back to watching college athletics, with athletes doing a few local endorsements, with a stipend & maybe some amount of earned compensation.

Things are gonna change quick on this front.

Looks like an answer on the TV front:

It looks like since the law doesn't go into effect until 2023 that they are hoping that the NCAA makes their own changes that will nullify the law. I agree that there could be some reform, but I don't see how the NCAA is going to make anything but very subtle changes unless they are going to overhaul the whole system.

Florida is trying to pass it to take effect next year.

I'd be fine with killing the NCAA & starting over. But I think in the future P5 will have one governing board & we'll all have another.

This is going to happen and it will impact all programs. Florida is also working on a similar bill and I would expect other states to follow suit. The NCAA will have no option but to adopt this or some form of it. Assuming Florida passes it then I would expect Texas and other states will as well to compete for talent.

When recruiting you will now need to line up sponsors for your recruits and that will be part of the package to get them to your school. I would expect the school to have someone that works on this as part of their full time time job as you will want a concerted effort so that you can be competitive with other schools.

So basically we need Southside bank, Tipton Ford, the Fredonia and other local sponsors to sign endorsement deals with big recruits to get them to come to Nac or they may go to another school for a better deal. Also, will impact the transfer market as someone at an SFA without an enforcement deal that becomes great may leave for a school where they can get a good endorsement deal.

Yeah, I actually believe that if there is an overhaul, the NCAA will separate football and basketball into a P5 Championship tier and all other D1 schools into essentially a secondary tier. I think it will mean that SFA will never compete against top D1 competition except in non-football/basketball sports. We won't have access to win a national championship in basketball except at the new secondary mid major tournament.

Essentially, I believe there will be a separation into another division like 1-AA used to be. The new Div 1 will be the top 60-75 schools. It will allow for the radical imbalance of money to proceed while setting up a new architecture to cash in on a model that keeps like size schools together. Mid majors have been threatening the big schools for years now in all but the top levels of football, and I think the P5 schools will use this opportunity to correct for the infringement. No more true Cinderella teams.

I see them doing this for football especially if they end up with only 4 Power conferences as many predict the Big12 to break up. The P5 don't want teams outside of the P5 in the playoffs now. I figure they will have 4 Powers conferences and the 4 winners go to the playoffs. The smaller D1s will either get their own playoff or they will just keep playing bowl games with some kind of ranking like the old days.

I think basketball will stay the same. Too many reasons to keep the small potential Cinderella teams in the tournament. They bring excitement to the tourney and interest in the early rounds. In reality they don't normally present any real threat to the highly ranked teams. Also, some big basketball schools are out of the power conferences. Imagine Gonzaga not being allowed to play for the national championship. They would have to move conferences.

A big tournament with everyone in over a few weekends brings in big interest from people all over the country. If you broke it up into 2 smaller number of team tournaments, I would have little interest in either tournament. why watch early rounds of the power tournament? You watch the early rounds now to see an upset. If SFA football is not in the FCS playoffs do you want to watch the FCS tournament? I watch some games even if SFA is not in only because I have immediate family at other FCS schools and I might watch part of one of their games. I went to a SAM/North Dakota State game championship game in Frisco with my parents but until then I had no idea where the FCS championship was being held or who was in it.

Having Dayton for 4 small schools and 4 on the bubble schools to get in has allowed more power schools into the tournament. I think at some point they will expand it to all 16 seeds having a play in game. It was just one game originally and now it is 2 so it only makes since that at some point it will be 4 play in games for the 16. That would push more teams down allowing for more mediocre power schools to get in. They may even expend the bubble team play in games.

nacluth said:

---

Yeah, I actually believe that if there is an overhaul, the NCAA will separate football and basketball into a P5 Championship tier and all other D1 schools into essentially a secondary tier. I think it will mean that SFA will never compete against top D1 competition except in non-football/basketball sports. We won't have access to win a national championship in basketball except at the new secondary mid major tournament.

Essentially, I believe there will be a separation into another division like 1-AA used to be. The new Div 1 will be the top 60-75 schools. It will allow for the radical imbalance of money to proceed while setting up a new architecture to cash in on a model that keeps like size schools together. Mid majors have been threatening the big schools for years now in all but the top levels of football, and I think the P5 schools will use this opportunity to correct for the infringement. No more true Cinderella teams.

---

I agree with you on the football front. There will be some type of division of Power 5 schools and the rest of D1A AND D1AA (FCS)

Regarding basketball, I don't see that happening anytime soon. The reason, you would have to split off the non-football teams like Villanova, Georgetown, Creighton, Butler etc etc etc. The fallout for that would be substantial. I do see a world where universities have more flexibility in playing a mix of Division 1 and "some" non Division 1 sports as long as they add up to a "sum total" that would qualify a university as Division 1. It has been proposed, unsuccessfully years ago. Don't think it has momentum now but it could build.

Axeman, Bigjack

Thanks for your take. I agree that it is almost inconceivable that things would change so dramatically for basketball as they could for football. My take is that if you open up the money game more than some highly restricted concession to fair pay, the entire system will be reconstructed around a new money system.

I think there is potential to double the current multi-billion dollar business that college football and basketball is now if you open it up essentially to corporations, agents, and big time donors/foundations. I also think that all that money could be more easily had without the need to placate smaller schools. Villanova, Butler, Rutgers and other small schools in big conferences will be gone.

If there could be a top tier sports league with 50 teams as opposed to 300, it will be done, and the other 250 will do their best to emulate the big boys.

I'll fully admit that I am extremely cynical about the future of the NCAA. I believe that they have tried to profit richly off of all student athletes. I think they try to maximize the money while retaining maximum control. I also believe that if they think they will have to fight states over the money, they will drastically reorganize in such a way as to maximize the money flow in and keep the largest share of it. In no scenario do I see student athletes (except the most popular) ever capitalizing financially off of their collegiate play. I think the system is set up to divest athletes of their money and the potential for more money to enter the game means more money exclusively for the system.

I know I'm in the minority, but I think it's a travesty if a Michigan basketball player can get a new car, clothes, and stuff for his family under fair use, and Oddyst Walker has the right to sell autographs and appear in local commercials. The discrepancies are huge now. I think they are going to become astronomical. It will be two different systems.