N/P: Breaking News: Gov. Gavin Newsom of California will sign a bill to let college athletes make endorsement deals

[1of10Charnatives]

7 minutes ago, Bartin said:

The NCAA has already publicly called the law unconstitutional so I’m fairly sure that is exactly what they plan to do. They’ve already used and won with the commerce clause in the past. Most notably when Nevada passed a law that the NCAA needed to be able to show more proof than they had in order to punish UNLV basketball back in the 90s.

What they will argue is that a state law can’t force a national member institution to treat some of its members differently than they treat the other members. The courts will very likely back them as they have previously. NY, SC and Florida are all also looking into passing laws but they are all slightly different which helps the NCAA because they can’t be expected to govern an organization that has 50 different sets of rules. Something is probably going to have to come from the federal level for this stick.

Also, I’m pretty sure the O’Bannon case firmly established that regulating student athletes is a business,

Good point about the OBannon thing. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on the rest. So does it look like the CA law is just grandstanding, or is it expected they will really try to fight the NCAA on it? Any idea?

Also not to side with the NCAA, but it does sound like the argument about forcing member institutions to be treated differently makes sense. As much as I think the NCAA exploits athletes, that would be a precedent that could have all sorts of weird unintended consequences elsewhere. Sounds more and more like you're right about having to make the change national, which kinda sucks since that makes it super hard.

[Bartin]

1 minute ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Good point about the OBannon thing. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on the rest. So does it look like the CA law is just grandstanding, or is it expected they will really try to fight the NCAA on it? Any idea?

Couldn’t tell you for sure, but my guess would be that they likely knew this had a slim chance of sticking but by passing it they could either force the NCAA to modernize or perhaps start a movement that eventually leads to something happening on the federal level.

[1of10Charnatives]

5 minutes ago, Bartin said:

Couldn’t tell you for sure, but my guess would be that they likely knew this had a slim chance of sticking but by passing it they could either force the NCAA to modernize or perhaps start a movement that eventually leads to something happening on the federal level.

Well sometimes that's the way you have to do it. Every journey begins with a single step and all that. But ummm, hear me out, what if we just got some pitchforks and went over to Mark Emmert's house, to discuss it with him, like civilized folk do.

[Wanderlai]

All the roaches can now operate in the light.

[1of10Charnatives]

3 minutes ago, Wanderlai said:

All the roaches can now operate in the light.

Well when you allow things to be done out in the open, it means that non roaches can also get involved, and since I personally believe these young men should be able to profit from their own efforts instead of just be exploited by others, I'd rather them have some options to deal with less roach like characters, instead of just shady operators in the shadows.

[Wanderlai]

21 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Well when you allow things to be done out in the open, it means that non roaches can also get involved, and since I personally believe these young men should be able to profit from their own efforts instead of just be exploited by others, I'd rather them have some options to deal with less roach like characters, instead of just shady operators in the shadows.

I’m talking about the ones that funnel money to the top guys already. Now they won’t need to hide their actions. Here is the thing though...it sounds like a good idea on paper but what are the unintended consequences? 

[1of10Charnatives]

3 minutes ago, Wanderlai said:

I’m talking about the ones that funnel money to the top guys already. Now they won’t need to hide their actions. Here is the thing though...it sounds like a good idea on paper but what are the unintended consequences? 

Only one way to find out, but yes, those do have a way of showing up.

[Bartin]

7 minutes ago, Wanderlai said:

I’m talking about the ones that funnel money to the top guys already. Now they won’t need to hide their actions. Here is the thing though...it sounds like a good idea on paper but what are the unintended consequences? 

Some kid signing his lifetime image rights away for like $10k then becoming a superstar and he can’t profit from it is a pretty big possibility.

Booster money going to the players instead the programs causing money short falls which lead to the elimination of many non-revenue sports is another.

[kungfoodude]

42 minutes ago, Bartin said:

Some kid signing his lifetime image rights away for like $10k then becoming a superstar and he can’t profit from it is a pretty big possibility.

Booster money going to the players instead the programs causing money short falls which lead to the elimination of many non-revenue sports is another.

I think the booster money scare is not valid. Boosters payments to players are under the table currently and completely separate from their contributions to the universities. They have loyalty to the universities, not the players. 

[Bartin]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

I think the booster money scare is not valid. Boosters payments to players are under the table currently and completely separate from their contributions to the universities. They have loyalty to the universities, not the players. 

Yes a good amount of booster money already goes to the players under the table but with it legal I think the percent of money a booster spends on players goes way up and thus the amount that goes to the school goes down. Instead of Bubba Longhorn giving $75k to the school and $25k to players he will now give $75k to players/recruits and $25k to the school.

[kungfoodude]

Just now, Bartin said:

Yes a good amount of booster money already goes to the players under the table but with it legal I think the percent of money a booster spends on players goes way up and thus the amount that goes to the school goes down. Instead of Bubba Longhorn giving $75k to the school and $25k to players he will now give $75k to players/recruits and $25k to the school.

Well that would benefit the school even if that were to happen. Furthermore, I don't think you will see that happen. A booster with that kind of cash is going to keep their giving up to the school to maintain what they want, which is access and the ability to have input.

[SBiii]

4 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Not bothering to dignify something that is nothing but an insult with a meaningful reply. Come up with an argument, not just a flat assertion something you disagree with is nonsense.

More drivel.

If the option of playing college sports is so incredibly unpalatable and unfair, don't do it.

[1of10Charnatives]

7 minutes ago, SBiii said:

More drivel.

If the option of playing college sports is so incredibly unpalatable and unfair, don't do it.

oh look, you continue to do little but toss out insults, so welcome to ignore. Bye bye, have a nice life. I'll engage in reasoned debate. I'm not gonna tolerate mindless insults. I've got better things to do with my time than tolerate that sort of nonsense.

[SBiii]

11 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

oh look, you continue to do little but toss out insults, so welcome to ignore. Bye bye, have a nice life. I'll engage in reasoned debate. I'm not gonna tolerate mindless insults. I've got better things to do with my time than tolerate that sort of nonsense.

Simply a statement of fact.  Equating playing football on scholarship at UCLA to "slavery" is a position only an insane person would take.

Again, if it's such a lousy deal --- don't do it.

Did you ever address the question of the NFL ref's participating in a conspiracy to intentionally expose Cam to harm in that Denver game?