FC: CA to NCAA, "It's on." (link)
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
It made me laugh when I read Emmert said the then proposed California law would be "unconstitutional". I assume he was alluding to the NCAA constitution which Emmert seems to think supersedes actual laws.
Well it would be unconstitutional for NCAA membership.
There will be NCAA rules allowing NIL sooner rather than later. However, they'll still surely conflict with the wild wild west version of the law California has.
There will be NCAA rules allowing NIL sooner rather than later. However, they'll still surely conflict with the wild wild west version of the law California has.
I don't see how the NCAA doesn't have the upper hand in this. Universities IMHO have much more to lose than they'll gain if the NCAA has the cajones to boot the CA schools.
If the NCAA wants to survive and continue paying seven figure salaries to its suits, it needs to adapt to the California law (and others in the works) ASAP. If it starts kicking out schools located in states with such laws, it'll be the beginning of the end of the NCAA. Even schools located in states without such laws may say eff you to the NCAA and join the others. To me that's not a bad thing even if the entire collegiate model is turned upside down.
The California version of the law is chalk full of loopholes to legalize the bag man.
NCAA will need to craft their version with language to ensure that doesn't happen
NCAA will need to craft their version with language to ensure that doesn't happen
So this California Law takes effect in 2023. The current BIG and SEC tv contract expires in 2023. PAC-12 contract ends in 2024. They likely already have a plan in place for conferences, expansion, realignment, paying players, and Nailing shut the NCAA coffin.
I was thinking that there had to be a reason to wait so long to enact the law.
Apparently, California legislatures don't feel rules apply to them
Ironically, there are no California college football teams in the polls this week...
Probably a stretch, but it could have negative Commerce Clause implications.
That said, this strikes me as somewhat analogous to the piece by Melissa Korn in today's WSJ, where DOJ is basically saying "College Administrators, what do you mean you want to have group "ethics codes" that preclude your members from competing for early decisions applicants based on incentives and from competing for them after they've accepted somewhere else?" NCAA will have to play this carefully to avoid stepping in it.
Separately, I wonder whether the legislation precludes California state schools from playing out of state in states that preclude such payments. I suspect not. Mmmmmm, cake.
It seems to me that California can make whatever laws it wants and the NCAA can make whatever rules it wants. If California schools want to participate in NCAA sports they would have to abide by NCAA rules. No?
No, they won't have too..they simply will say, piss off California we no longer welcome your universities as members...go ahead...create your own league..haha. The member institutions would lose millions and all sports would suffer drastically.
and yeah, USC, Stanford, UCLA, and Cal could create their own league...HAHAHA
Not sure how it could be a group boycott if membership is voluntary and you aren't meeting the bylaws of membership?
Apparently, California legislatures don't feel rules apply to them
Ironically, there are no California college football teams in the polls this week...
#doesnotknowwhatironyreallymeans
In order for a State Law to be "Unconstitutional", it has to violate an individual's "civil rights". IOW, has to be in conflict with the Bill of Rights (any part of it).
Hard to see how this CA Law violates athletes Civil Rights???
I'm older than 14. Thus, I don't need to use hashtags...
This really becomes a battle of wills now. If the ncaa is going to stick to their guns they will need to push back hard- and now before other states copy California’s law.
The bottom line is the ncaa makes its money (over $1 billion IIRC) with March Madness. There are no California schools that significantly impact that tournament. The ncaa can ban them and make an example of them.
If the rest of the college presidents back the ncaa then the California schools are screwed. The other ncaa presidents will pressure their own state legislators not to pass similar laws which will hurt their universities.
The delay in the law taking effect until 2023 is key. If the law took immediate effect then the ncaa brings down the hammer and Cali loses. With the delay, the ncaa likely can’t punish California schools until 2023 (other than removing all Cali sites for ncaa tournaments or championships after 2022). This allows other states the momentum to pass similar laws so it’s not just Cali vs the NCAA and can overwhelm the ncaa before they can hand out any punishment.
The bottom line is the ncaa makes its money (over $1 billion IIRC) with March Madness. There are no California schools that significantly impact that tournament. The ncaa can ban them and make an example of them.
If the rest of the college presidents back the ncaa then the California schools are screwed. The other ncaa presidents will pressure their own state legislators not to pass similar laws which will hurt their universities.
The delay in the law taking effect until 2023 is key. If the law took immediate effect then the ncaa brings down the hammer and Cali loses. With the delay, the ncaa likely can’t punish California schools until 2023 (other than removing all Cali sites for ncaa tournaments or championships after 2022). This allows other states the momentum to pass similar laws so it’s not just Cali vs the NCAA and can overwhelm the ncaa before they can hand out any punishment.
I’d watch what I’m saying when the horse is fixing to leave the barn. Both N Car and S Car are looking at this already. If it spreads to Alabama, Georgia, Florida and Texas the NCAA will fold like a house of cards and bend over and spread their you know what. The NCAA suits care about their income and nothing else. Whatever preserves that is the tune they will ultimately dance to.
Well, say, if the NCAA did sanction, or imposed penalties on members who played games against nonmember institutions.
Uh, no. To the extent that there were a claim, it would likely revolve around some sort of dormant commerce clause argument, which at a high level precludes states from seeking to regulate interstate commerce. I suppose you could (and should) say that is just as much a civil right as those appearing in the BOR.
LOL at posters who think the NCAA has much leverage here.
Kind of like the US Buggywhip Association laughing at the newfangled automobiles on the roads back in 19 aught 8
Kind of like the US Buggywhip Association laughing at the newfangled automobiles on the roads back in 19 aught 8
With what money will they pay them? The conference money won’t be there if they’re not in it.
I still say this, in the end, benefits the top .5- 1% of athletes and screwed over the rest as their scholarships will disappear and be left with stipends that don’t cover squat.
Not to mention Title IX lawsuits out the whazoo that will bring down even more sports....
This is of course somewhat silly. If there were ever a set of colleges that were set up to outspend others w/r/t athletics, it is the California-based members of the Pac 12.
I'm no legal expert. But just my opinion/question ....
> Technically, would "membership" into the NCAA supercede State laws in the premise that belonging and competing in the NCAA is a "membership". Kind of along the lines of the NFL and State of CO in regards to legalization of marijuana and the Denver Broncos. The NFL is a membership organization, so it can tell it's members --IE. Denver Broncos -- that they have to abide by NFL drug policy rules regardless of whether or not their State has legalized marijuana. A Denver Broncos player who fails a drug test due to marijuana still faces league punishment.
?????
> Technically, would "membership" into the NCAA supercede State laws in the premise that belonging and competing in the NCAA is a "membership". Kind of along the lines of the NFL and State of CO in regards to legalization of marijuana and the Denver Broncos. The NFL is a membership organization, so it can tell it's members --IE. Denver Broncos -- that they have to abide by NFL drug policy rules regardless of whether or not their State has legalized marijuana. A Denver Broncos player who fails a drug test due to marijuana still faces league punishment.
?????
Essentially, certain college programs would become like St. Frances Academy (Baltimore)'s football team: A captive/vanity project for a tech guru who NFL owners won't let into the club.
About the only thing that will throw a wrench into the works is TIX.
They have a collective bargaining contact. That changes things. This isn’t unionized (yet).
The NCAA is indeed a membership organization and could likely restrict membership eligibility. But, they'd have a problem if they tried to preclude members from dealing with nonmembers.
As to the drug policy analogy, not really. That's a collectively bargained issue with the players, rather than among the owners.
Try reading and comprehending the law before spouting off about it.
With this law no money is going from any school, school budget, athletic department budget etc. within the university to any student athlete.
From the linked article,"...will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements — a move that could upend amateur sports in the U.S. and trigger a legal challenge.
Under the law, which takes effect in 2023, students at public and private universities in the state will be allowed to sign deals with sneaker companies, soft drink makers or other advertisers and profit from their names and likenesses, just like the pros."
This law takes no money from any smaller sport or women's sport - it only allows the student athletes to make money from 3rd parties as referenced above.
I would like the NCAA to go down like a cement overcoat to the bottom of the ocean. There are large outcomes from this that need to be studied ... Why is CA in front on this? What is the gain for the state of CA?
that’s cute that you actually think that...... there isn’t infinite money going around...what’s going to the colleges now will be funneled to the top athletes
