[cardcrimson]

A bill that would allow student athletes to accept endorsement money passed the CA Assembly 73-0 and is headed to the state Senate, then on to Newsome if it passes. The NCAA is hoping to derail the high speed train:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...y-play-act

Thoughts on how the bill would impact college sports in general and Stanford Athletics in particular? Personally, I like amateurism in college sports and think a scholarship valued in the neighborhood of $200k should suffice. That said, jersey sales and 'likeness" usage should account for something.

If the flood gates open, I think Stanford would probably be okay, as alums have tons of money and all teams would probably benefit, even the non-revenue sports. For football on a national level, the big money from rabid boosters in the SEC would certainly tilt an already unlevel playing field towards the Southeast. Small teams/schools would get killed. Regardless of what happens, one would think the rules should be same across all 50 states; will be interesting to watch it play out.

[cardcrimson]

A bill that would allow student athletes to accept endorsement money passed the CA Assembly 73-0 and is headed to the state Senate, then on to Newsome if it passes. The NCAA is hoping to derail the high speed train:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...y-play-act

Thoughts on how the bill would impact college sports in general and Stanford Athletics in particular? Personally, I like amateurism in college sports and think a scholarship valued in the neighborhood of $200k should suffice. That said, jersey sales and 'likeness" usage should account for something.

If the flood gates open, I think Stanford would probably be okay, as alums have tons of money and all teams would probably benefit, even the non-revenue sports. For football on a national level, the big money from rabid boosters in the SEC would certainly tilt an already unlevel playing field towards the Southeast. Small teams/schools would get killed. Regardless of what happens, one would think the rules should be same across all 50 states; will be interesting to watch it play out.

[BobK]

Former Stanford WVB player was on the today show endorsing this today. She has testified before the California legislation several times

Other states will certainly follow.

This bill is designed to start 2023

[BobK]

Former Stanford WVB player was on the today show endorsing this today. She has testified before the California legislation several times

Other states will certainly follow.

This bill is designed to start 2023

[cardcrimson]

Former Stanford WVB player was on the today show endorsing this today. She has testified before the California legislation several times

Other states will certainly follow.

This bill is designed to start 2023

Can it start by signing day this December? We need linemen!

[cardcrimson]

Former Stanford WVB player was on the today show endorsing this today. She has testified before the California legislation several times

Other states will certainly follow.

This bill is designed to start 2023

Can it start by signing day this December? We need linemen!

[76lsjumb]

Former Stanford WVB player was on the today show endorsing this today. She has testified before the California legislation several times

Other states will certainly follow.

This bill is designed to start 2023

Can it start by signing day this December? We need linemen!

No one buys linemen jerseys...

[76lsjumb]

Former Stanford WVB player was on the today show endorsing this today. She has testified before the California legislation several times

Other states will certainly follow.

This bill is designed to start 2023

Can it start by signing day this December? We need linemen!

No one buys linemen jerseys...

[M T]

Thoughts on how the bill would impact college sports in general and Stanford Athletics in particular?

Quite possibly, Stanford's streak of winning NCAA championships would hit a brick wall. Stanford might find itself with a lot of athletes on scholarship but no other pro teams to play.

[M T]

Thoughts on how the bill would impact college sports in general and Stanford Athletics in particular?

Quite possibly, Stanford's streak of winning NCAA championships would hit a brick wall. Stanford might find itself with a lot of athletes on scholarship but no other pro teams to play.

[81alum]

I find the idea repulsive and the logic behind it specious. Athletes already get gigantic financial advantages over non athletes at most schools. Figuring out how to pay them further will make that situation much worse. If they are going to be paid, they should be in a minor league, not in an institution of higher education. Of course, that is probably also true even without the change as far as the revenue sports are concerned. As I've said here before, I endorse the baseball model, since it gives players the choice of turning pro or going to college--but not doing both at the same time.

The comparisons with musicians and actors etc. who make money professionally while attending college, are not appropriate--unless we are giving them full ride scholarships to come to university to practice their crafts at Stanford.

At many institutions, this will turn into another source of corruption and become a way to funnel money from boosters to players via retail purchases. It will create inequality between the players. And it nukes whatever remnants are left of the amateur ideal.

If Stanford players start cashing in on big endorsements while they are students, I will rapidly lose interest in their sports. I hope that doesn't happen. Perhaps Newsom will veto this. If he doesn't, perhaps the NCAA will stick to its guns and ostracize California. That will be terrible in many ways, but preferable to destroying amateur athletics. More likely it gets signed and the NCAA finds some mealy compromise that chips a little further at the remnants of amateurism.

[81alum]

I find the idea repulsive and the logic behind it specious. Athletes already get gigantic financial advantages over non athletes at most schools. Figuring out how to pay them further will make that situation much worse. If they are going to be paid, they should be in a minor league, not in an institution of higher education. Of course, that is probably also true even without the change as far as the revenue sports are concerned. As I've said here before, I endorse the baseball model, since it gives players the choice of turning pro or going to college--but not doing both at the same time.

The comparisons with musicians and actors etc. who make money professionally while attending college, are not appropriate--unless we are giving them full ride scholarships to come to university to practice their crafts at Stanford.

At many institutions, this will turn into another source of corruption and become a way to funnel money from boosters to players via retail purchases. It will create inequality between the players. And it nukes whatever remnants are left of the amateur ideal.

If Stanford players start cashing in on big endorsements while they are students, I will rapidly lose interest in their sports. I hope that doesn't happen. Perhaps Newsom will veto this. If he doesn't, perhaps the NCAA will stick to its guns and ostracize California. That will be terrible in many ways, but preferable to destroying amateur athletics. More likely it gets signed and the NCAA finds some mealy compromise that chips a little further at the remnants of amateurism.

[BobK]

You refer to athletes with $200K scholarship money or at Stanford $300K but of course only 6
Sports are full scholarships and the others are partial. And its pretty rare an athlete in a partial sport has a full scholarship.

So Katie Ledecky comes to Stanford extremely famous but no endorsements possible because she competes for a college team. After two years she ends her Stanford athletic career for the endorsements. Which Could be in the millions
Rare yes.

So the Colorado kicker and pro skier who can be a kicker for Colorado if he accepts endorsements money for his pro career and this his pro career

Remember John Elway in 1981 played pro baseball all equal.

More soon

[BobK]

You refer to athletes with $200K scholarship money or at Stanford $300K but of course only 6
Sports are full scholarships and the others are partial. And its pretty rare an athlete in a partial sport has a full scholarship.

So Katie Ledecky comes to Stanford extremely famous but no endorsements possible because she competes for a college team. After two years she ends her Stanford athletic career for the endorsements. Which Could be in the millions
Rare yes.

So the Colorado kicker and pro skier who can be a kicker for Colorado if he accepts endorsements money for his pro career and this his pro career

Remember John Elway in 1981 played pro baseball all equal.

More soon

[2006alum]

I find the idea repulsive and the logic behind it specious. Athletes already get gigantic financial advantages over non athletes at most schools. Figuring out how to pay them further will make that situation much worse. If they are going to be paid, they should be in a minor league, not in an institution of higher education. Of course, that is probably also true even without the change as far as the revenue sports are concerned. As I've said here before, I endorse the baseball model, since it gives players the choice of turning pro or going to college--but not doing both at the same time.

The comparisons with musicians and actors etc. who make money professionally while attending college, are not appropriate--unless we are giving them full ride scholarships to come to university to practice their crafts at Stanford.

At many institutions, this will turn into another source of corruption and become a way to funnel money from boosters to players via retail purchases. It will create inequality between the players. And it nukes whatever remnants are left of the amateur ideal.

If Stanford players start cashing in on big endorsements while they are students, I will rapidly lose interest in their sports. I hope that doesn't happen. Perhaps Newsom will veto this. If he doesn't, perhaps the NCAA will stick to its guns and ostracize California. That will be terrible in many ways, but preferable to destroying amateur athletics. More likely it gets signed and the NCAA finds some mealy compromise that chips a little further at the remnants of amateurism.

It's possible 81 and I feel the same way because we both are the biggest fans of a non-revenue sport (WBB), but I totally share 81's views. To me, the simplest solution would be to let any athlete go pro at any time, no age restrictions, no college attendance requirements. That should obviate any and all complaints about players being deprived of gainful employment. If they think they can make more on the open market than from a free Stanford degree, go right ahead.

I'll say that I've found over the last two seasons that my interest in both college football and men's basketball has been declining surprisingly rapidly, for different reasons (CTE and mental health issues for football, pay-to-play scandals for basketball), and Stanford's relatively poor performance at both hasn't slowed my growing disinterest. Perhaps if this bill gets signed, the chickens will come home to roost even faster. As far as I'm concerned, college campuses are way too oriented around sports, and they're actually a brobdingnagian money-suck for all but a dozen or so institutions, so there's not even that justification. I think everything will resolve itself when conferences have to negotiate post-cord-cutting media rights deals and realize there's about to be way, way less money to go around, but in the mean time, this bill will probably just marginally hasten the descent. So I guess my view is, a bad idea with a silver lining...

[2006alum]

I find the idea repulsive and the logic behind it specious. Athletes already get gigantic financial advantages over non athletes at most schools. Figuring out how to pay them further will make that situation much worse. If they are going to be paid, they should be in a minor league, not in an institution of higher education. Of course, that is probably also true even without the change as far as the revenue sports are concerned. As I've said here before, I endorse the baseball model, since it gives players the choice of turning pro or going to college--but not doing both at the same time.

The comparisons with musicians and actors etc. who make money professionally while attending college, are not appropriate--unless we are giving them full ride scholarships to come to university to practice their crafts at Stanford.

At many institutions, this will turn into another source of corruption and become a way to funnel money from boosters to players via retail purchases. It will create inequality between the players. And it nukes whatever remnants are left of the amateur ideal.

If Stanford players start cashing in on big endorsements while they are students, I will rapidly lose interest in their sports. I hope that doesn't happen. Perhaps Newsom will veto this. If he doesn't, perhaps the NCAA will stick to its guns and ostracize California. That will be terrible in many ways, but preferable to destroying amateur athletics. More likely it gets signed and the NCAA finds some mealy compromise that chips a little further at the remnants of amateurism.

It's possible 81 and I feel the same way because we both are the biggest fans of a non-revenue sport (WBB), but I totally share 81's views. To me, the simplest solution would be to let any athlete go pro at any time, no age restrictions, no college attendance requirements. That should obviate any and all complaints about players being deprived of gainful employment. If they think they can make more on the open market than from a free Stanford degree, go right ahead.

I'll say that I've found over the last two seasons that my interest in both college football and men's basketball has been declining surprisingly rapidly, for different reasons (CTE and mental health issues for football, pay-to-play scandals for basketball), and Stanford's relatively poor performance at both hasn't slowed my growing disinterest. Perhaps if this bill gets signed, the chickens will come home to roost even faster. As far as I'm concerned, college campuses are way too oriented around sports, and they're actually a brobdingnagian money-suck for all but a dozen or so institutions, so there's not even that justification. I think everything will resolve itself when conferences have to negotiate post-cord-cutting media rights deals and realize there's about to be way, way less money to go around, but in the mean time, this bill will probably just marginally hasten the descent. So I guess my view is, a bad idea with a silver lining...

[cardcrimson]

You refer to athletes with $200K scholarship money or at Stanford $300K but of course only 6
Sports are full scholarships and the others are partial. And its pretty rare an athlete in a partial sport has a full scholarship.

So Katie Ledecky comes to Stanford extremely famous but no endorsements possible because she competes for a college team. After two years she ends her Stanford athletic career for the endorsements. Which Could be in the millions
Rare yes.

So the Colorado kicker and pro skier who can be a kicker for Colorado if he accepts endorsements money for his pro career and this his pro career

Remember John Elway in 1981 played pro baseball all equal.

More soon

Never quite understood why Elway could have the highest paying summer gig of any kid in my class and still play football, when, a decade or so later, Bloom couldn't get paid to ski then kick for Colorado.

[cardcrimson]

You refer to athletes with $200K scholarship money or at Stanford $300K but of course only 6
Sports are full scholarships and the others are partial. And its pretty rare an athlete in a partial sport has a full scholarship.

So Katie Ledecky comes to Stanford extremely famous but no endorsements possible because she competes for a college team. After two years she ends her Stanford athletic career for the endorsements. Which Could be in the millions
Rare yes.

So the Colorado kicker and pro skier who can be a kicker for Colorado if he accepts endorsements money for his pro career and this his pro career

Remember John Elway in 1981 played pro baseball all equal.

More soon

Never quite understood why Elway could have the highest paying summer gig of any kid in my class and still play football, when, a decade or so later, Bloom couldn't get paid to ski then kick for Colorado.

[BobK]

Bloom could and did, but he couldn't get endorsments for his pro job. That was the issue.

[BobK]

Bloom could and did, but he couldn't get endorsments for his pro job. That was the issue.

[Mick]

I'll say that I've found over the last two seasons that my interest in both college football and men's basketball has been declining surprisingly rapidly, for different reasons (CTE and mental health issues for football, pay-to-play scandals for basketball), and Stanford's relatively poor performance at both hasn't slowed my growing disinterest. Perhaps if this bill gets signed, the chickens will come home to roost even faster. As far as I'm concerned, college campuses are way too oriented around sports, and they're actually a of immense proportions money-suck for all but a dozen or so institutions, so there's not even that justification. I think everything will resolve itself when conferences have to negotiate post-cord-cutting media rights deals and realize there's about to be way, way less money to go around, but in the mean time, this bill will probably just marginally hasten the descent. So I guess my view is, a bad idea with a silver lining...

My interest has declined markedly over the years. I like to watch Stanford, but I really don't care to watch any other team. Pro football and pro basketball are immensely more entertaining. I don't find my alma mater's basketball team, D1 though it is, to be watchable at all. Kind of painful, really.

[Mick]

I'll say that I've found over the last two seasons that my interest in both college football and men's basketball has been declining surprisingly rapidly, for different reasons (CTE and mental health issues for football, pay-to-play scandals for basketball), and Stanford's relatively poor performance at both hasn't slowed my growing disinterest. Perhaps if this bill gets signed, the chickens will come home to roost even faster. As far as I'm concerned, college campuses are way too oriented around sports, and they're actually a of immense proportions money-suck for all but a dozen or so institutions, so there's not even that justification. I think everything will resolve itself when conferences have to negotiate post-cord-cutting media rights deals and realize there's about to be way, way less money to go around, but in the mean time, this bill will probably just marginally hasten the descent. So I guess my view is, a bad idea with a silver lining...

My interest has declined markedly over the years. I like to watch Stanford, but I really don't care to watch any other team. Pro football and pro basketball are immensely more entertaining. I don't find my alma mater's basketball team, D1 though it is, to be watchable at all. Kind of painful, really.

[cardcrimson]

Newsome signed it. Katy bar the door. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Newsome signed it. Katy bar the door. . . .

[OutsiderFan]

Love it. Now let's see how the NCAA back pedals. North Carolina has a similar bill that isn't getting as much attention.

Hope it gets singed before the NCAA hoops tournament in March, so Duke and UNC can't participate. LOL.

[OutsiderFan]

Love it. Now let's see how the NCAA back pedals. North Carolina has a similar bill that isn't getting as much attention.

Hope it gets singed before the NCAA hoops tournament in March, so Duke and UNC can't participate. LOL.

[Phogge]

Good. Retroactive to 1964? LOL.

[Phogge]

Good. Retroactive to 1964? LOL.

[cardcrimson]

Press release from the AD:

"The Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Muir's comment on SB 206. "Today, Governor Gavin Newsome signed into law California's SB 206, the Fair Pay to Play Act. With this historic legislation, the playing fields of college athletics will change drastically over the coming years. In keeping with our proud dedication to our student athletes and to honor our rich tradition of athletic excellence, Stanford will be adding a new department within the athletic department to help our athletic programs navigate this new landscape. I'm pleased to announce The William J. Le Petomane Director of Athletic Endorsements who will be charged to lead this effort." Further information can be found at gostanford.com."

[cardcrimson]

Press release from the AD:

"The Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Muir's comment on SB 206. "Today, Governor Gavin Newsome signed into law California's SB 206, the Fair Pay to Play Act. With this historic legislation, the playing fields of college athletics will change drastically over the coming years. In keeping with our proud dedication to our student athletes and to honor our rich tradition of athletic excellence, Stanford will be adding a new department within the athletic department to help our athletic programs navigate this new landscape. I'm pleased to announce The William J. Le Petomane Director of Athletic Endorsements who will be charged to lead this effort." Further information can be found at gostanford.com."

[Phogge]

I'm promoting some naming rights at State. The Johnny Mathis High Jumping Pit and The Annette Benning Green Room/Makeup Tray will be starters. Have you guys named the spot on the soccer field where Duffy's ball landed yet?

[Phogge]

I'm promoting some naming rights at State. The Johnny Mathis High Jumping Pit and The Annette Benning Green Room/Makeup Tray will be starters. Have you guys named the spot on the soccer field where Duffy's ball landed yet?

[Tycho124]

Keep in mind that unless the University participates, the athletes can only license thier likeness with no connection to the university.  Trevor Laurence in his Clemson uniform or a Clemson T-Shirt is one thing....Trevor wearing a Nike T-Shirt is another thing all together.  The question is if the University will allow themselves to be part of this and if so do they grant usage or strike a separate deal with the sponsor for use of University insignia?  Willingness to be part of this could sway an athlete to play for a "sponsor friendly" school.

[Tycho124]

Keep in mind that unless the University participates, the athletes can only license thier likeness with no connection to the university.  Trevor Laurence in his Clemson uniform or a Clemson T-Shirt is one thing....Trevor wearing a Nike T-Shirt is another thing all together.  The question is if the University will allow themselves to be part of this and if so do they grant usage or strike a separate deal with the sponsor for use of University insignia?  Willingness to be part of this could sway an athlete to play for a "sponsor friendly" school.

[CowboyIndian]

How many institutions of "higher learning" around this country have boosters with car dealerships, department stores, whatever where a "student-athlete" can come and sign autographs for whatever the booster wishes to pay him? This isn't just a slippery slope, it's a Montgomery Burns trap door. I hate it!

[CowboyIndian]

How many institutions of "higher learning" around this country have boosters with car dealerships, department stores, whatever where a "student-athlete" can come and sign autographs for whatever the booster wishes to pay him? This isn't just a slippery slope, it's a Montgomery Burns trap door. I hate it!

[RedShift]

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

[RedShift]

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

[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...