NCAA Amatuerism - Likenesss

[johnson86-1]

Why are you so against college athletes being paid money? Would you be against an engineering student on scholarship getting a paid internship? How is it really any different? You’re automatically going to a worst case scenario. Based on what I’m seeing on Twitter, there will be regulations around this. It’s not going to be a free for all.

As for leaving things the same, that is not really an option. The student athletes are not getting a fair shake in the current arrangement. The athletes are the catalyst for a billion dollar industry that they don’t get to share profit in. That model was not sustainable and the ncaa knows this. The NCAA would have never agreed to this if they thought the status quo could be maintained.

I'm not against college athletes being paid money, but I do think this is going to funnel money away from the entities actually creating the value, which is the schools themselves. People mostly don't pay a **** ton of money to watch and support minor league sports. NCAA football and basketball isn't a multibillion dollar business because the athletes are good, it's a multibillion dollar business b/c people care about their schools. Without the schools' involvement, a much smaller number of athletes would be getting about what they get now (just in cash instead of scholarships and training and support) and would live about like other minor league athletes do.

I'm not really bothered by this. If it doesn't go to the athletes directly, a lot of it will still go to the athletes indirectly (through investments in facilities and other perks) and to coaches and other staff, so it's not like the universities will be missing out on too much if that money starts flowing to the athletes.

 

[Go Budaw]

Those are the only options. The law doesn't justu apply to the schools within the state. It applies to the NCAA also, as long as it is subject to California jurisdiction, which it will be as long as it has members in California and takes actions involving those members. If the NCAA tried to penalize a school for its student athletes being paid for their name or likeness, the NCAA would be guilty of unfair or deceptive trade practices and unfair competition under California law. There is no option for them to just decline to be subject to California law absent them removing themselves from the state's jurisdiction. I don't think a membership organization like the NCAA can claim they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state where some of their members reside and where they have NCAA sanctioned events.

OK. So maybe they could have kicked the California schools out. Why didn’t they?

And additionally, what’s to stop any state from making a rule that completely reverses NCAA policy as they see fit? Why can’t the MS legislature pass a law rendering it illegal for any organization operating within their state or containing members within the state from discriminating against individual schools or predetermined site locations based on the state flag? Why can’t Alabama ban any organization from operating in its state or containing members in its state if they don’t publicly recognize all of the Crimson Tide’s 158 football national titles?

If it was this easy for a (relatively) small state-level governing body to shape policy for a national organization of intercollegiate athletics, it would have happened numerous other times already for numerous other reasons. This isn’t a jurisdictional / enforcement capacity issue, this is a money issue. The NCAA wants to keep getting it, and that’s their #1 priority. Assigning the teams to competition levels, ensuring a level playing field within each level for recruiting and on-field competition, and setting and managing postseason / championship competition SHOULD be the only priorities for the NCAA, financial consequences be damned. But all that flew the coop long ago, and now they are just another organization that has been irreversibly corrupted by the almighty dollar. FIFA says hello.

 

[Seinfeld]

Not to come across like you aren’t entitled to your opinion, but a player should be able to earn endorsements from doing what? Using university scholarship money, university facilities, and university funded staffing in order to gain national exposure while playing in a university stadium on tv funded by a university/conference TV contract?

I have zero love lost for the NCAA, but the players use them for personal gain every bit as much as the universities and NCAA use the players. It’s not a one way street, and those worrying about endorsements deals are welcome to go try to get one without a college’s help. Best of luck with that

My frustration’s probably a moot point because this is obviously coming one way or another. I guess it just makes me angry because it feels like the beginning of a rapid downward spiral for college football. Hope I’m wrong, and it really does end up being much ado about nothing

 

[ronpolk]

Not to come across like you aren’t entitled to your opinion, but a player should be able to earn endorsements from doing what? Using university scholarship money, university facilities, and university funded staffing in order to gain national exposure while playing in a university stadium on tv funded by a university/conference TV contract?

I have zero love lost for the NCAA, but the players use them for personal gain every bit as much as the universities and NCAA use the players. It’s not a one way street, and those worrying about endorsements deals are welcome to go try to get one without a college’s help. Best of luck with that

My frustration’s probably a moot point because this is obviously coming one way or another. I guess it just makes me angry because it feels like the beginning of a rapid downward spiral for college football. Hope I’m wrong, and it really does end up being much ado about nothing

Should you not get a pay check since you use your employer’s building, internet connection, etc...? The tv money and facilities would not be so grand without the talent. If the talent didn’t matter, then juco would have tv money. If it’s the amateurism that you love then maybe you should get into lower level college football or high school. The truth is, you like the product/talent, which is what brings the money. Not the university stadium.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

Despite what you may intuitively believe, this is going to really hurt us in baseball. I could easily see more big money schools (eg Michigan, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Southern Cal, Texas, Texas A&M, etc.) throwing a few coins to pay for baseball talent upgrades, well in excess of what we’d be able to match.

 

[Go Budaw]

The choices may not have been binary, but there was no way the status quo would have worked in compliance with the law.

First, the players have to disclose their contracts to the school, so the school cannot just turn a blind a eye to it. Second, the schools cannot declare the players ineligible, as that would be considered enforcing a rule that prevents the students from earning money off endorsements. If the school just benched the offending players, then they would get sued under the statute and have to explain why they benched multiple starters for an entire season, or whatever.

So the players were going to play, and get paid. The schools could not take any steps to prevent that. That would have put the ball in the NCAA's court, and as I said they would have to ban all -- or at least most -- of the California schools from postseason play if not expel them altogether. And then there were other states to deal with.

That would then result in antitrust lawsuits, which the NCAA would lose. The NCAA has already lost two antitrust suits in California. The NCAA knew this was a fight it could not win.

It wouldn’t be the schools ruling the players ineligible. It would be the NCAA, and they wouldn’t even have to do that. They could just vacate the wins. They own the postseason competition selection and eligibility process 100%. And let the benched players sue. Coaches can bench players any time for any reason. Violation of team rules, or just “coach’s decision”. Walk-ons sit out games all the time. Bottom line, let the courts decide if either of those reasons constitutes the “school prohibiting the player from receiving benefits”, or let them decide if this law is even soundly based in any sort of legal precedent to begin with.

Point is, the one and only organization in charge of enforcing a level playing field for intercollegiate athletics should not be blatantly bending over backwards to do the exact opposite just because one state attempted to challenge their authority. But the die is cast now, and really there is no turning back. We should all hope that MSU is still semi-relevant in the revenue sports 30 years from now. Because honestly after today I’m not seeing it.

 

[johnson86-1]

Should you not get a pay check since you use your employer’s building, internet connection, etc...? The tv money and facilities would not be so grand without the talent. If the talent didn’t matter, then juco would have tv money. If it’s the amateurism that you love then maybe you should get into lower level college football or high school. The truth is, you like the product/talent, which is what brings the money. Not the university stadium.

Exactly. That's why the Jackson Braves and Biloxi Shuckers and Memphis Redbirds have such a die hard following and such good TV coverage. And why CBS pays billions of dollars to broadcast G League games. It sucks because every march I'm like, I wish there was talent in the NCAA tournament cause I feel like I should want to watch it, but hard to watch something like that when you've got G League games to watch.

 

[missouridawg]

hey 2020 recruit, you know your likeness will be worth 1.8 times more if you sign with Alabama instead of ______.

just seems like there's no way to have oversight on this at all....as if they give a rats *** if recruits are getting cash from a children's hospital or a church.

A lot of folks think that it's going to help shrink the gap in the haves vs the have-nots... and I'm like you, I think it's going to help grow the gap. The question to me is "Is it better to be the 13th player on MSU's roster or the 38th players on Bama's".... and I'm worried sick that being 38th on Bama's is going to be more financially beneficial than being 13th here. Hope I'm wrong, though.

 

[johnson86-1]

OK. So maybe they could have kicked the California schools out. Why didn’t they?

I haven't seen them give an explanation, but presumably it was some combination of (i) California is a big market, (ii) other states have similar legislation pending, (iii) the NCAA is already struggling to balance the interests of its members (if you recall there was a semi-threat that P5 schools would leave and form their own organization), and probably other less obvious factors.

And additionally, what’s to stop any state from making a rule that completely reverses NCAA policy as they see fit? Why can’t the MS legislature pass a law rendering it illegal for any organization operating within their state or containing members within the state from discriminating against individual schools or predetermined site locations based on the state flag?

That would probably raise some viable free speech related defenses for the NCAA, but probably more importantly, it would be much easier for the NCAA to cut Mississippi institutions loose than California ones.

Why can’t Alabama ban any organization from operating in its state or containing members in its state if they don’t publicly recognize all of the Crimson Tide’s 158 football national titles?

AGain, probably a compelled speech problem, but more practically, they'd lose the public perception battle.

If it was this easy for a (relatively) small state-level governing body to shape policy for a national organization of intercollegiate athletics, it would have happened numerous other times already for numerous other reasons.

California is not a relatively small state level governing body???? They are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, state markets for the NCAA? And have lots of NCAA membership institutions. There is a reason that a state like say New Hampshire wasn't the first to press this issue.

This isn’t a jurisdictional / enforcement capacity issue, this is a money issue. The NCAA wants to keep getting it, and that’s their #1 priority.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that California doesn't have jurisdiction and the ability to enforce their law. Both are true.

Assigning the teams to competition levels, ensuring a level playing field within each level for recruiting and on-field competition, and setting and managing postseason / championship competition SHOULD be the only priorities for the NCAA, financial consequences be damned. But all that flew the coop long ago, and now they are just another organization that has been irreversibly corrupted by the almighty dollar. FIFA says hello.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

and none of that University scholarship money, facilities, staffing, stadiums would be there if they did not have players to put on a game. They are not separate and exclusive money pools.

 

[muhstate]

I can't wait till recruits start appearing in liquor commercials

or when a recruit appears in an ad for Chick-fil-A.

 

[Go Budaw]

I haven't seen them give an explanation, but presumably it was some combination of (i) California is a big market, (ii) other states have similar legislation pending, (iii) the NCAA is already struggling to balance the interests of its members (if you recall there was a semi-threat that P5 schools would leave and form their own organization), and probably other less obvious factors.

That would probably raise some viable free speech related defenses for the NCAA, but probably more importantly, it would be much easier for the NCAA to cut Mississippi institutions loose than California ones.

AGain, probably a compelled speech problem, but more practically, they'd lose the public perception battle.

California is not a relatively small state level governing body???? They are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, state markets for the NCAA? And have lots of NCAA membership institutions. There is a reason that a state like say New Hampshire wasn't the first to press this issue.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that California doesn't have jurisdiction and the ability to enforce their law. Both are true.

Everything I am gathering from your responses is that we basically agree. California’s market size is forcing the NCAA into an uncomfortable position. I think that is the big factor here. As you said, they would have no problem (from a financial standpoint) cutting MS loose. This is a money thing above all else.

 

[jdbulldog]

Kentucky basketball recruiting will be easier than ever

 

[MedDawg]

Which is the precise reason the NCAA has been dragging its feet on the matter. Not because they’re lazy or wanting to hoard money from the poor, little college athlete that can’t afford ramen noodles(give me a break)

It’s because this is a Pandora’s box that will not be able to be controlled once it’s open, and it will just drive the wedge infinitely farther between the haves and the have nots. There’s a distinct reason that coaches like Coach K and other blue bloods have voiced their unwavering support of this ruling

Coach K would benefit more than anyone if the players were only getting 'legitimate' royalties from jersey sales, etc. However, when Syracuse buys a recruit out from under him he might not like it so much. Either way, he'll likely continue to get nearly any player he wants.

If somehow the NCAA is able to restrict the money to only come from legitimate royalties from national jersey sales, etc., Bama will continue to get the top players but Clemson would suffer. I wonder if Notre Dame would start getting better players than they are now?

I doubt the NCAA will be able to restrict the money, though. It will be like others have stated--boosters giving a recruit $50k for an autograph.

Oh well, let's put our alum money towards baseball and women's basketball recruits.

 

[johnson86-1]

Everything I am gathering from your responses is that we basically agree. California’s market size is forcing the NCAA into an uncomfortable position. I think that is the big factor here. As you said, they would have no problem (from a financial standpoint) cutting MS loose. This is a money thing above all else.

Except that it was not an option for the NCAA to just maintain the status quo. But certainly everything is a money issue above all else. Unless it's a sex issue above all else. Unless it's a sex and money thing equally and above all else.

 

[BingleCocktail]

Know this: We'll probably still find a way to be "a day late and a dollar short" whichever way it turns.

 

[The Situation]

Why are you so against college athletes being paid money?

I can’t speak for him, but I think the primary reason most are against it is because it takes away the tribalism. It takes away the idea that a player chose a certain school for something beyond money or whatever. It’s an us vs them sort of deal. We are all in this together, etc. the sort of thing that makes college sports different than pro.

I’m glad we are going the route of likeness, rather than schools playing players. With the right regulation, it could be a win for everyone.

 

[johnson86-1]

and none of that University scholarship money, facilities, staffing, stadiums would be there if they did not have players to put on a game. They are not separate and exclusive money pools.

For the most part, the players are interchangeable for the NCAA as a whole. It matters between the individual schools, but the quality of talent is less important to the NCAA's product as a whole. The talent matters, but for the most part, people are there for the name on the jersey. If they really cared about the talent, you'd have true amateur athletics, because nobody would be watching college instead of minor league sports, much less the highest level professional leagues.

 

[MedDawg]

Despite what you may intuitively believe, this is going to really hurt us in baseball. I could easily see more big money schools (eg Michigan, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Southern Cal, Texas, Texas A&M, etc.) throwing a few coins to pay for baseball talent upgrades, well in excess of what we’d be able to match.

We just spent $68 million on a baseball stadium with alum money. We care so much more about baseball, we'd benefit. Any major football or basketball schools will still put their money towards football or basketball.

We also would be better able to convince MSU signees/MLB draftees to come to State rather than go pro.

Remember that school endowments won't be giving this money to players. It's still going to be alums and fans. Vandy has a huge endowment and has a lot of rich alums, but I still don't think they will spend the money on players like State would. Look at their stadium, even after CWS Championships. This change would help us catch up to Vandy, because we would easily give more than full tuition to every player.

A&M, OM, LSU, and USC fans/alums would give $ for players, so A&M might improve the most from their current status.

 

[Dawgzilla]

Even if the NCAA kicked the California schools out, it was going to get sued for anti-trust violations again. They have already lost two straight anti-trust cases, in California, related to compensation of student athletes. They would lose again.

And, other states are working on passing similar legislation, so it would not just be California.

The NCAA saw the writing on the wall in the other two cases. Scholarship limits have been ruled illegal, and players are now given a stipend to cover the full cost of attendance at schools, as a compensation for the use of their likeness by the school and the NCAA.

In this day and age, the NCAA and the USGA are just about the only organizations that recognize amateur adult athletes as virtuous. (Most high school and younger leagues have amateurism rules, but its usually not much of an issue). The NCAA could have fought in court and gotten yet another black eye while costing some athletes their eligibility, or they could just go along with the change.

 

[Dawgzilla]

I wonder if the NCAA can enforce some type of reasonableness standard in this deal. It would be hard to enforce, but it could actually be easier to enforce than the current under the table payments.

The Student athletes would have to report every payment to their school, and to the IRS. So then the school could review the contracts, and question if paying a linemen $50,000 to show up at an autograph signing is within the industry norms. Or paying them $100,000 to smile and waive in a TV commercial. It wouldn't even be close to a perfect system, but certain agreements might just jump out as beyond the norm.

 

[bruiser.sixpack]

This is a time I wish I had gone to Law School. The opportunity to represent the Minor Sport Athletes and especially the Female Student Athletes is gonna be a payout of Epic Proportions.

 

[Todd4State]

I don’t know all of the restrictions on this issue yet but I do think it could potentially help us out in baseball. I’d like to know the exact dollar figures to have a better idea. But the slots past the third round are under a million dollars.

But for some local players especially in maybe the million dollar signing range the lure of MSU baseball plus an endorsement deal and the potential to increase draft stock could be enough to get us 1-2 more recruits a year which could have a big impact for us. Really depends on the money.

It also would make our recruits more challenging to sign for MLB which helps us because it means MLB would have to spend more to get one of our recruits.

I think this would help MSU, LSU, and Arkansas the most potentially. Maybe Ole Miss.

 

[L4Dawg]

Why are you so against college athletes being paid money? Would you be against an engineering student on scholarship getting a paid internship? How is it really any different? You’re automatically going to a worst case scenario. Based on what I’m seeing on Twitter, there will be regulations around this. It’s not going to be a free for all.

As for leaving things the same, that is not really an option. The student athletes are not getting a fair shake in the current arrangement. The athletes are the catalyst for a billion dollar industry that they don’t get to share profit in. That model was not sustainable and the ncaa knows this. The NCAA would have never agreed to this if they thought the status quo could be maintained.

They are already getting paid. A college education is expensive. This will destroy all but maybe 20-25 programs in the two major sports. It will in all likelihood reduce the opportunity for athletes in non-revenue sports in a big way. The money that goes to schools now to fund those will go to the athletes in the revenue sports, and only a few of them. Bye bye college sports, it was fun.

 

[L4Dawg]

This is a time I wish I had gone to Law School. The opportunity to represent the Minor Sport Athletes and especially the Female Student Athletes is gonna be a payout of Epic Proportions.

Nope. This has nothing to do with the schools. This is private deals between players and people willing to pay them directly. Title nine will have no impact at all. This will funnel donations away from athletic departments and into a very few athletes hands. The number of non-rev sports will be cut drastically. It won't happen overnight, but it will.

 

[Shamoan]

We need to go all-in on the baseball angle. That could level the playing field. Get lounge spots to sponsor players.

 

[Nunya.sixpack]

We need to go all-in on the baseball angle. That could level the playing field. Get lounge spots to sponsor players.

Seems like Nashville, Louisville, austin, baton rouge, etc are all target rich environments for that angle.

 

[bruiser.sixpack]

Nope. This has nothing to do with the schools. This is private deals between players and people willing to pay them directly. Title nine will have no impact at all. This will funnel donations away from athletic departments and into a very few athletes hands. The number of non-rev sports will be cut drastically. It won't happen overnight, but it will.

So you disagreed with my angle, and then stated my case for the athletes who play minor sports including females to be able to sue because fewer opportunities for college participation will eventually be the result of this?

Your Honor, I request to treat the defense’s witness as hostile? He can help my clients cause.

 

[thatsbaseball]

I would bet the first lawsuit filed will be gender or race based .

 

[ronpolk]

They are already getting paid. A college education is expensive. This will destroy all but maybe 20-25 programs in the two major sports. It will in all likelihood reduce the opportunity for athletes in non-revenue sports in a big way. The money that goes to schools now to fund those will go to the athletes in the revenue sports, and only a few of them. Bye bye college sports, it was fun.

It’s just my opinion that you’re probably overreacting. I think this is going to allow for schools to sell jerseys with a players name on it and that player be able to share in the profit. You really think people will stop donating to the bulldog club and instead give the money to athletes? What am I gonna hire a student athlete to do to profit of his/her likeness?

I agree college is expensive and a scholarship is certainly a benefit. However, a scholarship shouldn’t limit someone from earning money. Do we have rules in place to stop any other type of scholarship student from earning money off their name? Would you argue that a typical scholarship student shouldn’t be able to appear in an advertisement if someone wanted to pay them?

 

[johnson86-1]

Nope. This has nothing to do with the schools. This is private deals between players and people willing to pay them directly. Title nine will have no impact at all. This will funnel donations away from athletic departments and into a very few athletes hands. The number of non-rev sports will be cut drastically. It won't happen overnight, but it will.

It shouldn't have anything to do with Title IX, but it also shouldn't have anything to do with Title IX if donors wanted to pay for a wrestling program. I don't see why an activist judge wouldn't just say the school is responsible for sending a proportional amount of money to women's sports. It's more obviously ridiculous than the issue of supporting a wrestling program; but it's not actually any more ridiculous, so I'm not sure why it would turn out differently except for public opinion.

 

[Wizard.sixpack]

treasure it....that damn game is $150 now!!

 

[johnson86-1]

It’s just my opinion that you’re probably overreacting. I think this is going to allow for schools to sell jerseys with a players name on it and that player be able to share in the profit. You really think people will stop donating to the bulldog club and instead give the money to athletes? What am I gonna hire a student athlete to do to profit of his/her likeness?

I agree college is expensive and a scholarship is certainly a benefit. However, a scholarship shouldn’t limit someone from earning money. Do we have rules in place to stop any other type of scholarship student from earning money off their name? Would you argue that a typical scholarship student shouldn’t be able to appear in an advertisement if someone wanted to pay them?

You're really not paying attention or understanding how this will work.

People aren't going to hire student athletes to profit of his/her likeness anymore than people are giving money to bagmen to make a profit. And most of the money will probably not be made through advertisements. Advertisements cost additional money and for most businesses, are just as likely to antagonize people as they are to create goodwill.

This is probably not going to immediately drive college athletics off a cliff, but it is a sea change. P5 Football and Basketball is a massive business with economics that are greatly distorted by the "amateurism" rules. Now, there is a massive loop hole that virtually eliminates the distortions caused by the amateurism rules. But universities have locked themselves into long term commitments based on the existing system. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens.

 

[Go Budaw]

Exactly. That's why the Jackson Braves and Biloxi Shuckers and Memphis Redbirds have such a die hard following and such good TV coverage. And why CBS pays billions of dollars to broadcast G League games. It sucks because every march I'm like, I wish there was talent in the NCAA tournament cause I feel like I should want to watch it, but hard to watch something like that when you've got G League games to watch.

Haha. Very well played.

 

[ColoradoDawg]

These athletes were already getting paid and it was already skewed in favor of larger schools. Now it will be on a larger scale. One thing I would worry about is how this will affect the transfer portal. Say we get a really good freshman player who was only a 2 or 3 star guy. Why not transfer to Ohio State or USC the next year because of financial considerations. Markets like Starkville aren't going to be able to compete with larger markets. Having said all of this I think this is fairest thing to do for the individual players. When NCAA football generates billions in revenues and the player get completely cut out of it something is off. This is especially true considering how dangerous football and the fact that they risking serious injury every time they step on the field.

 

[Hankp22]

Seriously?

treasure it....that damn game is $150 now!!

I probably have most versions dating back to the original.

Make me an offer! I'm about to book my CWS trip now******

 

[Go Budaw]

For the most part, the players are interchangeable for the NCAA as a whole. It matters between the individual schools, but the quality of talent is less important to the NCAA's product as a whole. The talent matters, but for the most part, people are there for the name on the jersey. If they really cared about the talent, you'd have true amateur athletics, because nobody would be watching college instead of minor league sports, much less the highest level professional leagues.

Precisely. It’s like Jerry Seinfeld said in an old stand-up routine, we’re all just rooting for laundry at this point. We want our shirts and pants to run faster and jump higher than the other shirts and pants. It’s why we point and laugh when the high profile player wearing the other school’s shirt / pants gets into trouble, while we scramble and make excuses when the same thing happens to one of our own. We as fans largely do not care about the individual athlete at all. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice when there is a flashy talent or a feel good story with one of our players, but that isn’t what gets people to the stadium or to their TV set. Kind of funny when you think about it.

 

[johnson86-1]

I wonder if the NCAA can enforce some type of reasonableness standard in this deal. It would be hard to enforce, but it could actually be easier to enforce than the current under the table payments.

The Student athletes would have to report every payment to their school, and to the IRS. So then the school could review the contracts, and question if paying a linemen $50,000 to show up at an autograph signing is within the industry norms. Or paying them $100,000 to smile and waive in a TV commercial. It wouldn't even be close to a perfect system, but certain agreements might just jump out as beyond the norm.

Not under the California law. If there is a willing buyer and seller, who is the NCAA to judge how much an autograph is worth.

 

[SheltonChoked]

Those aren’t the only options. The NCAA could have simply maintained the current status quo. Rule any players receiving those benefits ineligible for some period. Rule wins in any games played by such players as being vacated or forfeited, and therefore not counting towards bowl eligibility, NCAA tournament selection, etc. The schools can then do what they want. Abide by the rules of the organization of which they are VOLUNTARILY a member, and sit those players who are known to be in violation of the the rules, or play them anyway and force the issue. In neither case are they actually prohibiting the player from taking the benefit, they are just not choosing to use those players in competition in a worst case. Therefore they are still in adherence to the state law as well as NCAA bylaws, so long as they don’t do anything like pulling the player’s scholarship or suspend the player.

Also, kicking the schools out of the NCAA would never happen. The issue would resolve itself one way or another from the NCAA following its normal bylaws. Either the schools would play ball, or there would likely be some court challenge in which case the court system would settle it. And also, the schools always have the option to just leave the NCAA on their own in order to adhere to state law. But (surprise!) the NCAA didn’t want USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Fresno State, SDSU, et al to leave their organization. I wonder why? This was nothing more than a game of chicken in which the NCAA never even got in the car and started the ignition, because they knew it wasn’t in their own financial self-interest, even if they prevailed. Point blank.

Your plan might have been an option if it was just California. (probably not since you just killed the PAC-12)

Now eliminate the Florida, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada and Pennsylvania Schools...

https://www.politico.com/states/flo...-hand-on-student-athlete-endorsements-1226080

 

[Go Budaw]

We just spent $68 million on a baseball stadium with alum money. We care so much more about baseball, we'd benefit. Any major football or basketball schools will still put their money towards football or basketball.

We also would be better able to convince MSU signees/MLB draftees to come to State rather than go pro.

Remember that school endowments won't be giving this money to players. It's still going to be alums and fans. Vandy has a huge endowment and has a lot of rich alums, but I still don't think they will spend the money on players like State would. Look at their stadium, even after CWS Championships. This change would help us catch up to Vandy, because we would easily give more than full tuition to every player.

A&M, OM, LSU, and USC fans/alums would give $ for players, so A&M might improve the most from their current status.

This isn’t accurate at all. Less than half the money was from BDC / Alumni, with the rest coming from bond issues. The original fundraising target for the BDC was only $20 million, at the original $45 million price tag. The final announced private amount was only $23 million out of the total $68 million price tag. I saw another article a while back which mentioned the school raising its municipal bond revenue target from $25 million to $30 million as costs started going up....and obviously that went up more as well. Any school in the SEC could come up with $20 million in private funds for a new baseball stadium. We aren’t special there. The school taking on that bond debt is somewhat exceptional, and that is what made it happen more than anything....but that’s not exactly a great comparison to paying recruits. The bonds were repaid essentially from advanced ticket sales....middle of the road fans off the street paying something to get something. Not at all comparable to the tycoons who can hand out 5 and 6 figure sums of money to prospective athletes...in many cases for nothing.