The CardBoard
Outside Topic California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The CARDboard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . (/showthread.php?tid=18117)



California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - cardcrimson - 09-11-2019

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/story/_/id/27593438/ncaa-asks-california-deny-fair-pay-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.


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - BobK - 09-11-2019

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


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - cardcrimson - 09-11-2019

(09-11-2019, 01:15 PM)BobK Wrote:  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!


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - 76lsjumb - 09-11-2019

(09-11-2019, 01:20 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  
(09-11-2019, 01:15 PM)BobK Wrote:  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...


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - M T - 09-11-2019

(09-11-2019, 11:37 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  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.


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - 81alum - 09-11-2019

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.


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - BobK - 09-11-2019

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


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - 2006alum - 09-11-2019

(09-11-2019, 04:46 PM)81alum Wrote:  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 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...


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - cardcrimson - 09-11-2019

(09-11-2019, 05:34 PM)BobK Wrote:  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.


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - BobK - 09-12-2019

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


RE: California's Fair Pay to Play Act. . . . - Mick - 09-12-2019

(09-11-2019, 06:42 PM)2006alum Wrote:  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.