[2006alum]

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/...troys-ncaa
Sherman pretty much summarizes my view on the issue.

I'm normally a big fan of Sherman's but his arguments are pretty specious in that piece. Nothing the CA bill will do will take away revenue for schools from bowl games and the NCAA from March Madness. All this does is invite lots of opportunities for corruption and distraction where the monetary benefits will go to a vanishingly small number of athletes that play a few higher-profile sports.

I find it especially interesting that Hayley Hodson testified in support of the legislation and argued that most student-athletes only have a small window to capitalize since they won't be lucrative post-graduation. If anything, she would seem to be the poster child against this legislation, insofar as:

1. She took a leave of absence from the team to address post-concussion symptoms and mental health issues, and wrote about how she felt her teammates weren't very understanding. But had she signed endorsement deals (which are usually predicated on staying on the roster, making appearances, etc.), she would have been under even more pressure to stay in the game, and probably at further cost to her mental health. And imagine if the players collectively signed an endorsement deal (since any individual WVB player may be worth less than having the whole team) - wouldn't that make them likely to put even more pressure on her to ignore her health because they were out the money? 
2. Hodson later sued Stanford and the NCAA, alleging that they pressured her to return to the sport too soon after her concussions and that they had a duty of care to protect her well-being. So let's zoom forward to 2023. Can Stanford and the NCAA step in if Brand X is pressuring her to return to the court, and say no, we have a duty of care, no dice? Could Brand X arrange a "donation" in exchange for Stanford waiving its objection to her return? Or, alternatively, could Stanford be sued for tortious interference if it tells her she can't, won't or shouldn't play, and it comes at the expense of the terms of Brand X's endorsement deal? 
3. Moreover, would Brand X pressuring Hodson to return to the court mean that Stanford and the NCAA would no longer have separate duties of care to their players, because now the player's return timetable is a "business decision" that isn't unilaterally under the control of a school or the NCAA? 

All of these issues are resolved in pro sports by having a CBA between the players (and their union) and the leagues. But those are straight-up employer-employee relationships where both sides can bargain at arm's length. There will be no such arrangements among, and the conditions are not possible for, universities and their student-athletes, which means all of this just creates a whole bunch of new gray areas and a whole new set of perverse incentives.

OTOH, the sooner college football leaves college campuses, probably the better. It's an increasingly bad look for schools like Stanford to be educating young minds during the week and then supervising bashing them in - with serious long-term mental health repercussions - on Saturdays...

[2006alum]

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/...troys-ncaa
Sherman pretty much summarizes my view on the issue.

I'm normally a big fan of Sherman's but his arguments are pretty specious in that piece. Nothing the CA bill will do will take away revenue for schools from bowl games and the NCAA from March Madness. All this does is invite lots of opportunities for corruption and distraction where the monetary benefits will go to a vanishingly small number of athletes that play a few higher-profile sports.

I find it especially interesting that Hayley Hodson testified in support of the legislation and argued that most student-athletes only have a small window to capitalize since they won't be lucrative post-graduation. If anything, she would seem to be the poster child against this legislation, insofar as:

1. She took a leave of absence from the team to address post-concussion symptoms and mental health issues, and wrote about how she felt her teammates weren't very understanding. But had she signed endorsement deals (which are usually predicated on staying on the roster, making appearances, etc.), she would have been under even more pressure to stay in the game, and probably at further cost to her mental health. And imagine if the players collectively signed an endorsement deal (since any individual WVB player may be worth less than having the whole team) - wouldn't that make them likely to put even more pressure on her to ignore her health because they were out the money? 
2. Hodson later sued Stanford and the NCAA, alleging that they pressured her to return to the sport too soon after her concussions and that they had a duty of care to protect her well-being. So let's zoom forward to 2023. Can Stanford and the NCAA step in if Brand X is pressuring her to return to the court, and say no, we have a duty of care, no dice? Could Brand X arrange a "donation" in exchange for Stanford waiving its objection to her return? Or, alternatively, could Stanford be sued for tortious interference if it tells her she can't, won't or shouldn't play, and it comes at the expense of the terms of Brand X's endorsement deal? 
3. Moreover, would Brand X pressuring Hodson to return to the court mean that Stanford and the NCAA would no longer have separate duties of care to their players, because now the player's return timetable is a "business decision" that isn't unilaterally under the control of a school or the NCAA? 

All of these issues are resolved in pro sports by having a CBA between the players (and their union) and the leagues. But those are straight-up employer-employee relationships where both sides can bargain at arm's length. There will be no such arrangements among, and the conditions are not possible for, universities and their student-athletes, which means all of this just creates a whole bunch of new gray areas and a whole new set of perverse incentives.

OTOH, the sooner college football leaves college campuses, probably the better. It's an increasingly bad look for schools like Stanford to be educating young minds during the week and then supervising bashing them in - with serious long-term mental health repercussions - on Saturdays...