California And The NCAA

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Thanks, Mtn, Devil. That was very not helpful.

It's an extremely similar argument. That's my point. Very paternalistic.

[Stray Gator]

The challenge I have in particular is football, where we know these kids are putting their life and mental abilities at risk for no future consideration. I can see an argument for other sports like Basketball, Tennis, Swimming, etc where even with injuries you can still lead a full and productive life. It's football that has really changed my opinion on kids getting paid.

What we have right now is not much more than a step up from the Gladiator days of ancient Rome (just less blood and death). Are we not entertained?

Three points that I believe merit consideration by fans who favor the California legislation on the ground that football players deserve to be paid because of the personal sacrifices they make for the game and the risk of injury they incur from playing.

First, each major college football team has 85 scholarship players. How many of those players can reasonably expect to receive significant compensation if the California legislation is implemented nationwide? Remember that this law does not mandate payment for all players, but merely authorizes individual players to accept payment for the use of their name and likeness. We can only speculate, of course, but I would anticipate that less than one-fourth of the players on most teams will find a significant monetary demand for their endorsement or autograph. At the elite programs, where bountiful funds can be channeled through booster organizations to athletes, there would be a much larger percentage of players receiving payments in various amounts. But at the majority of colleges, I seriously doubt that players outside the skill positions would attract any payments -- and even those would likely be modest, except in the case of a superstar. So I think we can anticipate that only a relatively small fraction of the players would actually realize any benefits from this legislation, even though each player's participation in the game entails roughly equal sacrifices and risks of injury.

Second, even for those players at the glamour positions who attract lucrative endorsements, the continuation of benefits is not assured. What happens to that endorsement income if the star quarterback has a slump and gets benched, or the All-American running back suffers a career-ending injury, or the Biletnikoff Award candidate wide receiver tests positive for a banned substance and gets suspended for the rest of the season? Smart businesses and booster organizations will make sure that their contracts cover such contingencies and leave them an escape from liability for further payments.

Finally, the subject of injury risk poses another, darker prospect: Bounties. What's to prevent a business or booster organization from letting it be known in the locker room that any defender who knocks the opposing team's star offensive players out of the game will receive a handsome endorsement bonus? We know of occasional instances where that's been done surreptitiously by defensive coaches, but injecting limitless monetary incentives into the equation could magnify the opportunities for abuse.

To reiterate, I'm no fan of the NCAA, particularly with respect to the arbitrary way it applies and enforces the rules. And I sympathize with the position that the disparity between the profits that college coaches or administrators enjoy and the benefits that players receive is disproportionate to their relative contributions. And I readily acknowledge that attempts to maintain a level playing field sometimes fall short, either due to deliberate circumvention of the rules by violators or failure on the part of the enforcement authorities. But speaking only for myself, I prefer those relatively tolerable imperfections in the present system to what I fear will be a much more severe set of problems -- and ultimately a much less enjoyable experience for fans of college sports like us -- if the California legislation is implemented universally.

[Steven43]

It's an extremely similar argument. That's my point. Very paternalistic.

Not true at all. Apples and oranges.

[PackMan97]

Do you really believe this?? Honestly?

When in Rome, do as the Romans. 2,000 years ago the Gladiator fights were the height of entertainment, a lot like football is now. Given recent advances in medical knowledge about head and brain injures (namely the long term damage concussions can cause and CTE) I have to think in another 100 years we'll look back and see football as a rather barbaric sport that isn't played any longer.

So there is some hyperbole there of course. However, my desire to watch and consume football has been greatly reduced since I've realized all of the risk these players are taking on solely for my entertainment and adoration. I'm just not comfortable with it any longer. In particular asking college students to do it without monetary compensation (although the money in the NFL often makes the problem worse as players don't quit when they've had their bell rung and end up getting one injury too many).

I have no doubt that CA bill will bring many changes to college football. Many of which will not be healthy for the sport. I guess I'm willing to roll the dice and see what happens over things staying as they are.

[RPS]

Not true at all. Apples and oranges.

[dukelifer]

When in Rome, do as the Romans. 2,000 years ago the Gladiator fights were the height of entertainment, a lot like football is now. Given recent advances in medical knowledge about head and brain injures (namely the long term damage concussions can cause and CTE) I have to think in another 100 years we'll look back and see football as a rather barbaric sport that isn't played any longer.

So there is some hyperbole there of course. However, my desire to watch and consume football has been greatly reduced since I've realized all of the risk these players are taking on solely for my entertainment and adoration. I'm just not comfortable with it any longer. In particular asking college students to do it without monetary compensation (although the money in the NFL often makes the problem worse as players don't quit when they've had their bell rung and end up getting one injury too many).

I have no doubt that CA bill will bring many changes to college football. Many of which will not be healthy for the sport. I guess I'm willing to roll the dice and see what happens over things staying as they are.

In 100 years, we may be heading to a dystopian society where football may be viewed as too tame. Seriously, football will slowly die off, as Mom's stop letting their kids play in middle and high school due to the long term risks to health. That is happening more and more.

[PackMan97]

In 100 years, we may be heading to a dystopian society where football may be viewed as too tame.

Bring on the Thunderdome!

[RPS]

Seriously, football will slowly die off, as Mom's stop letting their kids play in middle and high school due to the long term risks to health. That is happening more and more.

"This year, the number of high school kids playing football nationally has dropped to a 26-year low. In Illinois, the number of high school students participating in football dropped from 51,334 in 2007 to 38,336 last year."

Participation in high school football is declining. I’m surprised it’s not happening faster (Chicago Tribune, September 5, 2019)
High School Football Participation Is On A Decade-Long Decline (Forbes)

[Steven43]

Very nice. And also not relevant. Are you sure you and Mtn. Devil are not one and the same? I have my suspicions.

[SlapTheFloor]

Three points that I believe merit consideration by fans who favor the California legislation on the ground that football players deserve to be paid because of the personal sacrifices they make for the game and the risk of injury they incur from playing.

First, each major college football team has 85 scholarship players. How many of those players can reasonably expect to receive significant compensation if the California legislation is implemented nationwide? Remember that this law does not mandate payment for all players, but merely authorizes individual players to accept payment for the use of their name and likeness. We can only speculate, of course, but I would anticipate that less than one-fourth of the players on most teams will find a significant monetary demand for their endorsement or autograph. At the elite programs, where bountiful funds can be channeled through booster organizations to athletes, there would be a much larger percentage of players receiving payments in various amounts. But at the majority of colleges, I seriously doubt that players outside the skill positions would attract any payments -- and even those would likely be modest, except in the case of a superstar. So I think we can anticipate that only a relatively small fraction of the players would actually realize any benefits from this legislation, even though each player's participation in the game entails roughly equal sacrifices and risks of injury.

That's an odd definition of "fairness." You're saying payment in athletics should be based on sacrifice and risk of injury. Is there any occupation where that is true? All that I'm aware of give at least some weight to ability.

Second, even for those players at the glamour positions who attract lucrative endorsements, the continuation of benefits is not assured. What happens to that endorsement income if the star quarterback has a slump and gets benched, or the All-American running back suffers a career-ending injury, or the Biletnikoff Award candidate wide receiver tests positive for a banned substance and gets suspended for the rest of the season? Smart businesses and booster organizations will make sure that their contracts cover such contingencies and leave them an escape from liability for further payments.

Ok. Are you saying that's a bad thing? Most companies do the same thing. It's called performance bonuses.

Finally, the subject of injury risk poses another, darker prospect: Bounties. What's to prevent a business or booster organization from letting it be known in the locker room that any defender who knocks the opposing team's star offensive players out of the game will receive a handsome endorsement bonus? We know of occasional instances where that's been done surreptitiously by defensive coaches, but injecting limitless monetary incentives into the equation could magnify the opportunities for abuse.

That's a bit of a stretch. At the very least, it would open the business or booster organization up to a huge lawsuit from the targeted athlete.

To reiterate, I'm no fan of the NCAA, particularly with respect to the arbitrary way it applies and enforces the rules. And I sympathize with the position that the disparity between the profits that college coaches or administrators enjoy and the benefits that players receive is disproportionate to their relative contributions. And I readily acknowledge that attempts to maintain a level playing field sometimes fall short, either due to deliberate circumvention of the rules by violators or failure on the part of the enforcement authorities. But speaking only for myself, I prefer those relatively tolerable imperfections in the present system to what I fear will be a much more severe set of problems -- and ultimately a much less enjoyable experience for fans of college sports like us -- if the California legislation is implemented universally.

The whole world is a meritocracy. Even now, within college athletics, you can be kicked off the team for poor performance. Football players have had their scholarships revoked for injuries received *on* the field. Your idea of a pure form of the sport exists only in the imagination.

[Steven43]

My desire to watch and consume football has been greatly reduced since I've realized all of the risk these players are taking on solely for my entertainment and adoration. I'm just not comfortable with it any longer.

I doubt your entertainment has anything whatsoever to do with why even one person plays football.

Anyway, young men play football for any number of reasons: 1) they like the sport 2) they like the compensation (admittance to school, scholarships, complete room and board including the best food available on campus, all variety of healthcare services, etc.) 3) adoration from the vast majority of the student body as well as the general public 4) ego boost and feelings of self-worth 5) character-building 6) lifelong connection to a school and its athletic program 7) free athletic gear for life 8) ticket preference for life (alums get the best seats) 9) get in great shape by working out daily as well as receiving personally-tailored workouts with professional trainers 10) girls 11) free meals and special treatment from any number of restaurant owners as an alum 12) inside track to getting a coaching job as an alum 13) inside track to any number of business deals with local businesses as an alum 14) any or all of the above plus many things I didn’t list.

Yeah, now that I think about it this does sound truly awful (not to mention horribly paternalistic, Mtn. Devil). I don’t know how the schools are able to convince anyone to do it.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Very nice. And also not relevant. Are you sure you and Mtn. Devil are not one and the same? I have my suspicions.

You vastly overrate how much I care about these arguments.

This is precisely why I didn't want this thread to devolve into yet another discussion of amateurism versus paying the players.

I'm not interested in hearing everyone's opinions on this for a 75th time. I am interested in how this California law might or might not change college basketball moving forward.

Look, there are people who believe that college basketball can still revert to the roots that made it great and that many of us love. When "student athletes" meant something, and schools put their most talented collegiates head to head in sports. Athletes were happy to have free tuition, and stayed four years and all waa well.

Then there are other people who see college sports as a plantation like system that makes huge buckets of money off of unpaid (or underpaid to a factor or 10 to 100 times) labor, where the coaches and schools pile up money on the talents and recognizance of 18-22 year old kids.

Ok, we get it. Now, what does anyone think of this law - the legality of it, the feasibility of it, and the impact on the NCAA, college basketball, and Duke in particular?

[PackMan97]

I doubt your entertainment has anything whatsoever to do with why even one person plays football.

Our entertainment is the only reason football exists outside of rec leagues. Who do you think pays for everything? TV Dollars, Tickets, Boost Club memberships, Clothing, shoe sales and other advertising have nothing to do with it? Big time sports can't exist without the customers and advertising to support it.

[vfefrenzy]

How many of those players can reasonably expect to receive significant compensation if the California legislation is implemented nationwide?

So you seriously believe it's better that everyone get nothing than some people get something? Sorry, QB, the long snapper isn't going to make bank, so you shouldn't get to either.

[Stray Gator]

That's an odd definition of "fairness." You're saying payment in athletics should be based on sacrifice and risk of injury. Is there any occupation where that is true? All that I'm aware of give at least some weight to ability.

I've said no such thing. I'm merely responding to another poster who stated a belief that football players should be paid because of their sacrifices and risks of injury. My point is simply this: If you believe that football players should as a matter of fairness be paid based on the fact that they make greater sacrifices and incur greater risks than other college athletes, how do you rationalize the "fairness" of legislation that will result in only a small fraction of those players receiving any monetary compensation, when they all make roughly the same sacrifices and accept the same risks?

. Are you saying that's a bad thing? Most companies do the same thing. It's called performance bonuses.

Not exactly. A performance bonus would be equivalent to giving a player some additional endorsement compensation based on scoring the most touchdowns, or setting a record for three-point shots, or winning the individual conference golf championship, etc. Once paid, in either context, the reward is irrevocable. I'm talking about a situation in which the local dealership agrees to pays a 5-star quarterback recruit X thousand dollars per month as an ongoing inducement to play for Pigskin Polytech and endorse the business. Then the recruit gets injured in preseason practice, and receives nothing from the "endorsement agreement."

That's a bit of a stretch. At the very least, it would open the business or booster organization up to a huge lawsuit from the targeted athlete.

It's not a stretch to believe that such "bounties" are offered -- we know it's occurred in the past, even without large amounts of money as an incentive. And any lawsuit would, in my opinion, be a real longshot roll of the dice, given the difficulties of proof.

The whole world is a meritocracy. Even now, within college athletics, you can be kicked off the team for poor performance. Football players have had their scholarships revoked for injuries received *on* the field. Your idea of a pure form of the sport exists only in the imagination.

I don't know what more I can say to dispel the notion that I believe college athletics is "pure." Nor can I imagine what else I can say to emphasize the point that I believe the California law would produce a much worse -- and more unfair -- situation. In any event, it appears that the California law will be implemented there and will soon be adopted in other jurisdictions, so like it or not, we're probably going find out whether my apprehensions are well-founded or imaginary.

[Stray Gator]

So you seriously believe it's better that everyone get nothing than some people get something? Sorry, QB, the long snapper isn't going to make bank, so you shouldn't get to either.

I believe it's best -- and most "fair" -- when every college player receives the same benefits. They already receive considerably more than "nothing." If you want to pay them, then I would prefer a system that requires them all to be paid the same.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

You vastly overrate how much I care about these arguments. And yet, you're on this thread a lot...

This is precisely why I didn't want this thread to devolve into yet another discussion of amateurism versus paying the players. It is unreasonable to expect anything else. OF COURSE this is a bigger part of the PTP amateurism argument.

I'm not interested in hearing everyone's opinions on this for a 75th time. I am interested in how this California law might or might not change college basketball moving forward. There are many good predictions on here, seems like you don't want to believe any of them.

Look, there are people who believe that college basketball can still revert to the roots that made it great and that many of us love. When "student athletes" meant something, and schools put their most talented collegiates head to head in sports. Athletes were happy to have free tuition, and stayed four years and all waa well. You just made the other side of the argument...

Then there are other people who see college sports as a plantation like system that makes huge buckets of money off of unpaid (or underpaid to a factor or 10 to 100 times) labor, where the coaches and schools pile up money on the talents and recognizance of 18-22 year old kids. For a plantation, there sure are a helluva lot of athletes who are dedicating their entire lives to get on it.

Ok, we get it. Now, what does anyone think of this law - the legality of it, the feasibility of it, and the impact on the NCAA, college basketball, and Duke in particular?

Well you can't reasonably answer this question by isolating Duke and basketball. That's now how this works. That said, here goes: this is the first step in expediting Coach K's retirement, as well as Cut's, IMO...and it's the beginning of the end of Duke relevance. Not immediately...but the dominos are going to fall.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well you can't reasonably answer this question by isolating Duke and basketball. That's now how this works. That said, here goes: this is the first step in expediting Coach K's retirement, as well as Cut's, IMO...and it's the beginning of the end of Duke relevance. Not immediately...but the dominos are going to fall.

Yes, I intentionally laid out both sides the argument. You got me. Congrats.

And yes, I post on this thread because I do care about it, but not enough to create elaborate alter egos many years ago for the purposes of patting myself on the back, which was the insinuation I was responding directly to.

This conversation has gone directly down the toilet. I am bowing out until when/if anyone cares to discuss the actual issues at hand rather than rehashing paying players for the umpteenth time.

Enjoy eating your own tail everyone. I swear, the 2020 Presidential race thread is less vitriolic than whatever is going on here.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Yes, I intentionally laid out both sides the argument. You got me. Congrats.

And yes, I post on this thread because I do care about it, but not enough to create elaborate alter egos many years ago for the purposes of patting myself on the back, which was the insinuation I was responding directly to.

This conversation has gone directly down the toilet. I am bowing out until when/if anyone cares to discuss the actual issues at hand rather than rehashing paying players for the umpteenth time.

Enjoy eating your own tail everyone. I swear, the 2020 Presidential race thread is less vitriolic than whatever is going on here.

This thread is far from anything like the vitriol in politics right now. Far from it. And it is the biggest story, potentially the biggest sea change, EVER, in college athletics. It will be, and should be, a major topic on this and every other forum dedicated to college sports. It almost sounds as if you want to position yourself as "too good for the fray" - even after being in the middle of it. I noticed you didn't want to address the pertinence to K, Cut and Duke's relevance slipping away.

[Chicago 1995]

I don't know what more I can say to dispel the notion that I believe college athletics is "pure." Nor can I imagine what else I can say to emphasize the point that I believe the California law would produce a much worse -- and more unfair -- situation. In any event, it appears that the California law will be implemented there and will soon be adopted in other jurisdictions, so like it or not, we're probably going find out whether my apprehensions are well-founded or imaginary.

I guess the counter I've been trying to make, Stray, is that the points you pose are proof that the world will be much worse with name and likeness rights being granted to athletes are either (1) already a sizable problem is college athletics that have been for some time; or (2) are concerns that are unrealistic or so remote that they, in my opinion, shouldn't move the needle as to name and likeness rights -- or players being compensated. While I'm on the other side of the issue from you, I do have concerns. What does this do to private donations to athletic departments, generated by a football team, but funding a softball team? How active will schools be in regulating or vetting sponsorship deals, or will private advisers -- gasp agents! -- do that?

The world now is going to change at a breakneck speed and no one is prepared for what might come. Who's fault is that?

The NCAA. That things would come to this head has been evident for a long time. Ed O'Bannon filed suit 10 years ago. 10! What have Emmert and his acolytes like Jim Delaney and Gene Smith and John Swofford done? They've made easily debunked, bad faith arguments to try to avoid any change at all, and to protect a system to which they've brought limited value and reaped incredible reward. That we're now worried about what this might do to the Stanford crew team or Duke's cross country athletes isn't the fault of the legislators taking action. It isn't the fault of the athletes like Zion or Johnny Manziel or Tim Tebow who stood as examples of athletes who should have benefited from their name and likeness rights while in college. It's the fault of the NCAA and its member institutions for sticking their heads in the sand.