California Bill Allowing Players to Profit from their Likeness is on the Governor's Desk

The California state senate unanimously passed a bill that will allow students to be compensated for use of their names, images or likenesses. The bill would not allow schools to directly pay athletes, but would permit students to receive compensation from outside sources — for example, from a video game company or for signing autographs or memorabilia. The bill is now sitting on Gov. Newsom's desk and has 30 days to be either signed or veto'd.

The NCAA sent a letter to the legislature stating "If the bill becomes law and California's 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme, it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics and, because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions."

If passed, it doesn't take effect until Jan. 1st, 2023.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.


Non starter in terms of NCAA eligibility, but Kali always does Kali....

Disclosure: posting this comment without having read the article attached to the link

Do we really think that the money grubbing NCAA would ban all FIFTY-EIGHT California schools? How much revenue would be lost for the organization? Someone please set my thinking straight if I am way off base on this.

Have you met the NCAA? If they do go forth with this, on both sides, the Cali schools would just form their own conferences. Heck, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Fresno, etc all in the same conference? It'd be light Friday night lights with more money.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

My point exactly, which is why I am so confused the NCAA is threatening to ban every school in CA. It seems like theyre finally in a sitaution where they cannot win (or so I hope to God they cant)

But they believe they are infallible. That's why they do 90% of the stuff they do.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Well, according to their response (

California Senate Bill 206 would upend that balance. If the bill becomes law and California's 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme, it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics and, because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions. These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions.

Outspoken team cake advocate. Hates terrapins. Resident Macho Man Gif Poster. Distant cousin to Dork Magic. Frequently misspells words.

Yes, which is the basis of my question. As Nerf said above, all the CA schools could just walk out the door laughing hysertically while giving the NCAA the bird and form their own organization. Meanwhile, the NCAA loses all that money. At the end of the day, we all know the bottom line is all they care about

Ehhhh, there was a reddit thread a while back on how many schools would need to leave for the NCAA to give to pressure.

I think this is a bad move from CA. If they do go through, they need to remove themselves from NCAA competition and furthermore, you would assume that means they are out of the PAC 12. This means they lose a ton of revenue from Basketball and Football but they lose a lot of exposure. Teams won't play them if they aren't counting to bowl eligibility. Could they get some short term TV time for the stunt? Sure. But there is already a complain from PAC 12 territory that the east coast just doesn't care for the later games.

CA desperately needs to get more states on board or they could set all their programs back quite a bit.

Outspoken team cake advocate. Hates terrapins. Resident Macho Man Gif Poster. Distant cousin to Dork Magic. Frequently misspells words.

This sounds like the implication I was missing in my assumptions. I'd be very curious to see the dollar amounts on just how much the NCAA would need to lose to budge on anything. Appreciate the insight (even if it kills my pie in the sky hopes lol)

I think the best option that is out there right now is either:
A) CA gets other states to do the same.
B) CA convinces the PAC 12 to stand in solidarity with them.

I think CA will ultimately have this vetoed but man, they really put themselves out there on this one.

Outspoken team cake advocate. Hates terrapins. Resident Macho Man Gif Poster. Distant cousin to Dork Magic. Frequently misspells words.


I think one of two things happen if this passes. First, the more likely, the NCAA threatens but eventually caves and similar bills pass through other states and competitive balance is restored to more or less what it currently is. Two, the NCAA doesn't back down and kicks all California schools out and it is the beginning of the end of the NCAA.

Agree on both accounts and I would be totally fine either way

Wholeheartedly agree. I am still expecting the NCAA to weasel its way out of this somehow, but for now I am taking great pleasure in imagining them squirm while they are in this situation

If the NCAA backs down, every women's volleyball team will sue, because nobody is going to pay for their autographs. Hell 20 people at most showed up at Tech bookstore to pay for Greg Stroman's autograph. Now of course Alabama and Ohio State will suddenly have people willing to pay 50 grand for Tua's and Fields's autograph, but the point stands. VT will be sued 5 minutes after this gets approved, and the NCAA would fold under that scenario.

I'm pretty sure that the pay is coming from outside sources. Not the school saying, ok we will pay football players x and volleyball y. Rather, EA Sports will say, ok we will pay all Football players x for being used in the game and all basketball players y. Maybe they pay Tua more to be on the cover. I don't think this was, you have to pay your athletes, just you can limit them from making money off their names or likenesses.

What's stopping some entrepreneur from making a limited edition cereal of some QB/RB/Point Guard and selling boxes for $1000? I think that's what DC was getting after.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Maybe I'm missing the point as to why the women's volleyball team would sue VT then. VT wouldn't be the one paying them in this scenario and they wouldn't be limiting them from going out and trying to earn money off their likeness if Virginia passes a similar bill. Maybe they sue VT for the right to do that, but VT can only do what is allowed under Virginia law.

But if this passes look for similar bills in North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, etc ASAP. You won't have some state representative running for re-election say, well Alabama is on the down because all of the top recruits go to USC to get paid.

Title IX would be involved. If the school "allows" some to get paid but others aren't on a level playing field...well, there's the imbalance for Title IX.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

You would have to violate title IX. It's not a violation of title IX to allow outside agents access to all players from profiting on likeness. The schools, in themselves, are treating everyone equally. It would be a violation if the schools, in themselves, started some of their own favoritism (for example, if a school allowed only football players attend some agent event but not the female volleyball team).

🦃 🦃 🦃

They aren't violating it because they would truly be allowing everyone to make money. It would be more free market deciding who gets paid and how much, not the schools.

That's exactly what this is saying. The universities can't pay players, but it can't stop them from going out and getting some sweet benjamins as a spokes person for a car dealer or setting up a table and signing autographs.

I really hope VT doesn't have to recruit based on the number of endorsements the athletic dept can get them. The Burg is too isolated for that.

Tweedy can run like a dadgum antelope or whatever. I like to use scalded dog. Do antelopes lumber? Cheetah, OK. He runs like a cheetah. He's fast. - Bud Foster

Exactly! If you think VT can't compete with the Bama and OSUs now, just wait until this becomes reality. Do u really think all the marketing money will be legit? Johnnys car lot will be paying $20 mil for Five Star Player X to advertise their 1988 Corolla worth $200. I just wish it were that simple. Players should be allowed to make money on the side (image, or whatever) but I've been around long enough to know this will be a recruiting ploy for the boosters with the most money.

This is already happening and been well documented, would just make it public, taxable, and allowing the kids going about it legit to actually get paid.


every women's volleyball team will sue, because nobody is going to pay for their autographs.

On what basis do would they have an ability to sue? The fact that their agent didn't get them as much money as the agent for the star QB of USC?

Also, not sure why any school would be sued. The school is simply not banning athletes from profiting from their likeness (as per required by NCAA guidelines in order to be an NCAA member).

You are right, in a sense, that if schools started violated Title IX, then they would be sued. I don't think schools would just start violating title IX because athletes can start seeking compensation from non-school sources.

🦃 🦃 🦃

The fact that nobody would pay Ryan Willis for his autograph if he didn't play football for VT. Look at the interest, TV deals, and attendance for the NBA G league.. dreadful... and those guys were alpha stars in college. any money made from this for signing autographs at Shellor motor park would be directly because these players play for VT and that exposure.

If players didn't have inherent value, you wouldn't need NCAA laws restricting their ability to be paid.

If Devon Hunter opted to go play for a semi pro league in Va somewhere, would you buy season tickets?

That's irrelevant. If someone wants to pay for his autograph now, then he has value. Its not up to you to decide how other people spend their money. No one is making you buy his autograph

Right, so if his autograph has value now, it's because he plays for VT and not the norfolk river dogs- whom nobody cares about. to pretend these athletes would demand any endorsements without a major college association is fantasy world. Like I said- look at the G league or minor league baseball.. endorsements? lol. You know Devon Hunter because he plays for VT. I would guess that 95% of Tim Settle's NFL jersey orders are from VT fans. The school association brings the value. That is why the womens soccer team would be pissed.

Your argument is that the brand has value solely on its own, and not because of the labor that has built it.

Would you say that Wal-Mart has a high market cap solely because of the brand and executive leadership, and not because of the 1.4 million employees that work there?

VT's brand has value because of its players, sure. And Lane was sold out when both Michael Vick and Grant Noel QB's the team. It was sold out when Lee Suggs and Trevon McMillian ran the ball. VT will sell roughly the same amount of tickets next year when Reggie Floyd, Quillen, and Willis move on. If the 50 one and done college stars that declare for the NBA draft and don't get drafted had any value without Kansas on their jersey, the G league would have more than 4 people in the stands. Do you think Alabama's brand will suffer when Tua moves on? You think IPTAY will decline when Lawrence goes pro?

If Tua and Trevor Lawrence quit playing mid-season because they weren't being paid their fair market value, the short-term value of Alabama and Clemson would decline, yes.

If the entire roster quit playing until they were allowed to earn money from their likeness, at whatever the market would bear, the value of Bama and Clemson would take a massive hit.

LOL... alabama's games the second half of this year will be sold out regardless of whether Tua plays or not. Stop kidding yourself. You think fans will boycott the Auburn game because Tua quit? lol

There is more to Bama's value than home game attendance. If Tua quits, they have a lower chance of making the playoff, which would absolutely hurt their value

Also, watch your tone. I'm trying to debate you respectfully but this is why people shut you out.

Not making the playoff this season has no real impact at all on the value of Alabama football. Without Tua for 6 games 1. they would probrably be in the mix for the playoff ANYWAY, and 2. at worst they will sell all of their allotment to a NY6 bowl and get a boat load from the SEC regardless. BTW, their fans will still buy thousands of cotton bowl t shirts and travel to the game. Everyone wanted to pay Johnny Manziel and thought it was a felony that Leonard Fornette and JaDaveon Clowney couldn't go pro immediately. Well aTm, LSU, and USC will make more money this year than they every did with Manziel or those other guys. The value is the school's brand. Would you pay Mook Reynolds for his autograph if you saw him at Bull and Bones on Friday?

The 5th most valuable pro fanchise in the world (according to a google search) is the Knicks. They've missed the playoffs 14 of the last 18 years...

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

And they pay their players fair market value

It seems like you're more pissed than the women's soccer team that Devon has value and you don't.

I'm not pissed at anything. I'm simply stating the reality that the norfolk squirrells wouldn't sell 50 season tickets with a team full of UVA and VT recruits that decided to go pro instead of playing for the schools. That's reality.

Not trying to be a jerk, but what is the point you are trying to make? I've read this thread a few times and can't figure it out..

The players need the schools cache, brand, marketing to actually have "value".. see G league, every failed minor league football, etc. If these were just great athletes with no school, you wouldn't pay 5 cents for their autograph.

And the schools need the better players. Thats why we spent more resources on Devyn Ford than Caleb Steward. And the fans would too, if they were allowed above the table

There's more to players' value than autograph prices.

In general terms, the organization has no value without labor to make it work.

If schools could pay over and above scholarships to players, don't you agree there would have been a bidding war for his services?

Your Hunter argument assumes he has no value that VT does not give him, but his recruitment would suggest otherwise.

By this logic, you DVR Erick Green's games in Turkey and buy the canadian football package to tune into Derrick Hopkins, etc. Hunter may have "value" but it's not anything significant without a major college brand associated with it. like I said pro Greg Stroman- a 3 year college starter- had maybe 15-20 people willing to pay for his autograph- steps from the VT campus.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting, but it seems to me you're conflating circumstance with liable action. Just because one person has value, doesn't mean that an action was performed to give that value. I'm not sure what liable activity VT would have made in the scenario you presented. VT actively promotes all of their sports (and would need to do so equally under Title IX).

🦃 🦃 🦃

I agree that program supporters will give the Tua and Fields of the world $1,000 for an autograph if they think it helps their team.

I wonder what percentage of this $1,000 would have been a donation to school in the current system. If fans are already moving 100% of what they are comfortable contributing to the industry of college sports, will this just be a reshuffling of where this money goes?

If I were a program that depends on massive revenue from donations to pay for waterparks at the team facility, I would be concerned that those $$s will be funneled directly to the top players in the new system.

It would definitely change the arms race of college football. But a system where clemson needs to drop 50 mil on a laser tag building, but can't buy Trevor Lawrence a plate of spaghetti is fucked.

I think it is good for the players; it allows them to make the decision on how some of the money involved in college football is spent.

What if you hate laser tag but love extra meatballs with spaghetti.

I do think that many players will lose the extra comforts they have been granted access to as the money goes directly to the biggest names.

I think thats more of the issue where yes the real stars would get PAID but the averages over the whole team wouldnt be very much.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

Who the hell hates laser tag?

Outspoken team cake advocate. Hates terrapins. Resident Macho Man Gif Poster. Distant cousin to Dork Magic. Frequently misspells words.

I guess the gold plated full meal plan, per diem on the road, team sponsored meals on the road, and a 4K monthly stipend aren't enough to get Lawrence his spaghetti? tough life indeed.

It would definitely change the arms race of college football. But a system where clemson needs to drop 50 mil on a laser tag building, but can't buy Trevor Lawrence a plate of spaghetti is fucked.

I'm pretty sure Clemson feeds Trevor Lawrence all the spaghetti he wants in the current system.

All the spaghet.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

He sure looks different in pads.

Let's Go


I'm going to the store to buy extra popcorn so that I can sit back comfortably and enjoy the show that's about to unfold

Pay for play. I'm all for this, and hope we get in before the market completely pivots and we lag behind it.

Bring on the disruption.


Agreed. Get a bill to Ralph asap. These changes are inevitable and the quicker VA can get on board, the faster we could potentially exploit said recruiting advantage. At worst, don't be the 48th state to pass this and fall even farther behind.
Won't get my hopes up as VA always seems to be completely stuck in the mud when it comes to anything innovative

It would be the ACC Network all over again. Completely to long to get this done, and we could have pivoted even more by just cutting ESPN out, and just being our own digital entity.

Look it's a risk and most people can't see exponentially, they see linearly. Gameday helped us pivot to greater pastures. Something like this will help us do it again.


Kiss college football goodbye then. Universities won't be able to sustain professional teams.

Coaches just won't get paid a King's ransom anymore.


Then good coaches wont stay in college long

"I am probably too rational to be here"

There in lies the thing...there won't be college football.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Bill doesn't go in to effect until 2023, NCAA is going to change policy before it happens. Other states have discussed similar bills

Isn't the NCAA already profiting off of these amateur athletes names and likenesses? Emmert is making what, $3 Mil a year with yearly raises of $500k? They are going to fight it tooth and nail to keep that lifestyle going. I have no problem with the college athletes making money from their likenesses. I don't think they should be paid a salary to play the college game though.

Edit: The NCAA are also pissed that top high school bball players are skipping college entirely and going overseas. They are losing their monopolistic grasp of these kids likenesses and I think everyone is better for it.

People want to bring up how much executives make all the time without acknowledging what that person actually does. His market value is 3 million/year. He runs an incredibly large organization with billion dollar revenue. If he fails at his job, thousands would lose their jobs. If he doesnt constantly introduce improvements that dont also mess up other things, then he'll get removed. During his tenure, revenues have grown every year and no debt has carried over. That's a sign he's doing things well.

If you decided to cap his salary, I'm sure he could get it somewhere else. If you tried to find someone qualified to run the NCAA with a capped salary at a million, you run the risk of that person not being competent enough to do what is currently being done. Again, thousands of jobs are at stake here.

What I'm taking from this response is that you're cool with the system the way it is and shouldn't be changed. I brought him up because he is the leader of a monopolistic association that makes $1.1 billion in revenue off of kids that aren't allowed to use their own likenesses to make a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. I'm not for pay to play but, I'm 100% for college athletes using their own name and likeness to make money. The salaries for NCAA commissioners is pretty remarkable considering how it is made. Thousands of "jobs" are indeed at stake.

Thousands of student athletes could be making money from their own name. I will never agree that that shouldn't be allowed.

I want these kids to have better lives in the long term. I've seen money tear kids' lives/families apart. We've seen the NFL statistics where ~80% of players are bankrupt within 2 years of leaving the league. We've seen Adrian Peterson get taken advantage of and lose 100 mil because someone took advantage of him. Now take that NFL player and make him a 17/18 year old kid; I dont see how we ensure his life becomes better by giving him money.

If you want to talk in practical terms, he's going to need an accountant, a money manager, a PR person. He's going to need to stay healthy. He's going to need to produce. That's a shit ton of pressure and also a whole lot of costs. Add all that on top of a college kid's already pressure filled life and youre going to see some of these kids fall apart.

To me, an ACTUAL education is the only thing that really has a chance to make these kids lives better in the long term. To me a better idea would be to use money to ensure that these kids have the education they want when they leave the school they play for. Something like:

1) Meal plans should be included in the scholarship while they are playing sports.

2) Scholarships should be guaranteed. So if they get injured and cant play anymore or if they decide to just walk away from the game, they still get their tuition, room/board, meal plan paid for.

3) Athletic Scholarships should allow for deferred educational credits equivalent to 2 years of full-time school. They could take core classes and "gap" classes (gap class being a class that shores up gaps in knowledge. If it's basic math/reading, then they should be able to take those classes to get them to a point where they can actually be college level education wise) while they use their eligibility. This would allow them to have use up their eligibility years to be most of the way to a degree and then can use the extra credits to get a degree they actually want.

I dont have all the answers obviously. I just think introducing money to the college game (moreso than it is now at least) is going to make things way more difficult than they are now. The NCAA is a business and is supposed to make money. The executives have a big responsibility and should be rewarded for that executing that responsibility effectively. NCAA should also do more to ensure that these kids leave with actual educations that are worth more than the paper theyre printed on.

I'm in 100% agreement in everything you just mentioned. I still don't understand why you are against them being able to use their likenesses and someone else can. I'm not saying they should get paid a salary for playing the game. I'm saying if they want to use their own given name their is nothing that should stop that.

I see the Rock in the background with a shit eating grin for some reason...

I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction:
“I served in the United States Navy"


One thing I'm fairly confident of is this will be good for schools proximate to major metros.

Maybe, maybe not. Having the VT point guard endorse and NRV dealership might mean something. Having a Villanova PG endorse a dealership when the other dealerships have Nick Foles and Ben Simmons, might mean less. More opportunities but more competition for those endorsements.

I disagree. I think there is more valuable in a Josh Jackson Passport infiniti ad in the DMV, than a Ryan Willis ad for Berglund infiniti.

Sure Ovi, John wall, and Josh Norman will get theirs, but there is so much more money in the DMV and other metros. Im not sure how much more stuff Ovi can promote around here.

Tweedy can run like a dadgum antelope or whatever. I like to use scalded dog. Do antelopes lumber? Cheetah, OK. He runs like a cheetah. He's fast. - Bud Foster

Right. It's not about the impact the ad's about the amount of money being paid for the ad. Metro pays more than rural.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

And rich boosters pay the most of all.

Luckily, VT is building a presence in the D.C. area.

Am I the only one that read this and thought it was awful?

The minute outside sources can pay athletes every school with a large donor base will become that much better. We will have zero chance to compete for national titles if this happens. Any 4 star or above will have a list of sponsorship opportunities and $$ included along with their scholarship offer.

A kid like Grimsley would likely be forced to pick whoever had the best "outside" compensation package to take care of his family.

Scholarship limits and position depth will always limit how many stars the top schools can take no matter what.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

This is already how it works, this bill just moves it above board.

I'm sure there's plenty of it, but I have to assume making it legal will cause an explosion.

@Fireman - true, but I would think this still increases the talent on the backend of the rosters which leads to less for everyone else. The money aspect may even prevent as many from transferring out of the big schools (though I'd assume if they aren't contributors the "opportunities" would dry up).

The money is already being spent. This will transfer it directly to the players instead of to the college to spend on behalf of the players.

In the current system, when player X's time with the program ends, the amenities stay with the university.
In the future system, when player X's time with the program ends, the cash payments do not stay with the university.

Could this be good for players, bad for excessive spending programs?

A kid like Grimsley would likely be forced to pick whoever had the best "outside" compensation package to take care of his family.

"Forced" to go to a school that has the potential to make more money? In the case of a player like Grimsley , I think that would be a no brainer and would be good for him and his family.

Do you think high profile players aren't already influenced by a school's donor base? The playing field is already unlevel. This would just make the discrepancies more public.

This is all fair, I should have worded it better. It definitely would be in his best interest financially and I was coming from a fan perspective.

I used the word forced because the money would dictate his choice rather than finding the best fit with a team and coaching staff. Though maybe that would be less important in this situation anyway.

We will have zero chance to compete for national titles if this happens

We have zero chance to compete for a national title currently, TBH.

Hokies United l Ut Prosim

This is the gateway to a salary cap! Which would even the playing field!


I hope that was supposed to be sarcastic. The system is currently set at about zero. Which is close as there is to a cap in college athletics. You really think Wake Forest would have the same cap as USCw?

Well it's supposed to be zero but do you really believe that? The SEC and their bag men get away with it, it's not a even playing field.

If there was actual money in play I think some things would change.


King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I'm not making any judgments either way, but in 20 years there won't be any remnant of 'amateur' in college athletics

I am all for student athletes being able to profit off of their likeness through endorsements, autographed memorabilia and sponsored content etc., but does this make it so that rich boosters can just freely gift players money to go to their school? That is the one aspect of this that makes me uncomfortable.

And that is the elephant in the room. It will be legal for a Texas oil magnate to decide that if they players at Texas A&M will come wash his car fleet one weekend, he will give them each $10k every time they do it. It will no longer be an illegal benefit but a perk of being a recognized athlete at Texas A&M. Now how many college age kids are going to want to go to Texas A&M now?

I just used A&M as example.

Yes; just like some do now. This just makes it reportable income for the player and eliminates any of the laundering aspects for the giver.

If the NCAA is smart, they'll okay it and create a bureaucratic framework for the players doing it, e.g., the player has to create a LLC to carry it out, file copies of tax returns...

Legally, a blanket "no" would put the NCAA precariously close to restricting otherwise lawful interstate commerce, where they have had issues come up before.

And the schools will be quick to remind donors that financial support thru the school is tax deductible.

edit: In court, the O'Bannon results affirmed a couple things...the NCAA is NOT above anti-trust law...but the NCAA can require amateur status of its athletes. How they define that gets tricky in a hurry. Currently, NCAA athletes CAN sell their likeness, just not in the context of the sport they play.

I just wonder what sort of leverage this would give Oregon and Maryland. You can go to VT where your endorsements consist of radio ads for the Shelor Motor Mile and Facebook ads for Tots or you can go to Maryland where you have a shot at a UA endorsement.

I doubt this does little to level the playing field in CFB, but it very well could change who some of the big boys are.

More likely, those companies will be looking to get the big stars under contract no matter what school they go to.

Because if they don't, some other clothing manufacturer will get the endorsements from the other schools.

Would be better to just pay players a fixed salary.

This is a backdoor way for boosters to straight up give highly-rated players unlimited cash.

California owes an explanation of how this doesn't screw up college sports more than it helps. But, you know, they are claiming the moral high ground without fully addressing the moral issues.

Or what if the NCAA paid the players, based on their star rating?

What are the moral issues? And don't say competitive balance

I don't know, just for starters, paying people to participate in amateur competition? For another, some people on the team getting paid (probably lots), while others aren't getting anything?

Just let the athletes who want to go straight to professional sports do it. But don't funnel even more money to student athletes under the table.

Student athletes are compensated in room/board/education/venue/training/conditioning/publicity/stipends. I'm OK with increasing the stipends, but if they need more than that, maybe they should just be going straight for the pros. If they're not ready for the pros, then maybe there's value in participating college athletics.

In the city. City of Compton.

How much value does a player have in an endorsement if the team brand doesn't go with it? I wouldn't think it would be huge money. Most people wouldn't know who Dax Hollifield is if he wasnt wearing a jersey or something recognizable.

Also what happens to the locker room when Johny Football secures thousands of dollars in endorsements when the 2nd team left guard is pulling pennies out of the sofa. I really think the stipends are the best way to go, but I to think there is room to increase them.

"I am probably too rational to be here"

I agree with almost everything dcwilson40 said on this topic . He is right on point about this In IMHO

Coastal 1

Didn't take long. South Carolina is now introducing a bill to pay college athletes.

From the article

Their proposal would allow the state's biggest colleges to pay $5,000-a-year stipends to athletes in profitable sports like football and basketball. It also would give collegiate athletes — who can receive free tuition and housing, but not pay — an opportunity to earn money from sponsorships and autograph sales for the first time.

So unlike the California bill, school would pay only profitable sports.

To me, this would be more like what dc was talking about above, opening up to Title IX issues.

Regardless of your opinion on these, I think we can all agree that this must have the NCAA scrambling and anything that upsets Mark Emmert makes me happy.

This is the big momentum builder I was talking about above for the NCAA to have things crumble. SC has two big things going for it:
1) Last year's National Champions.
2) Schools that belong to multiple P5 conferences.

CA had the issue where they weren't very good and just the PAC 12 had to deal with the fall out. This would force a good Clemson team and UofSC out of NCAA compliance so the ACC and SEC would have to deal with handling their ineligibilities. This gives some major traction.

Outspoken team cake advocate. Hates terrapins. Resident Macho Man Gif Poster. Distant cousin to Dork Magic. Frequently misspells words.

I like the stipend idea.

I don't so much like the autographs/sponsorship idea. Like with most legislation, there is someone with a lot of money in a backroom somewhere thinking about how much more money they can make if this legislation passes, even as they pretend "it's all about the kids".

The less money the schools and NCAA control the better. The stipend idea is a no go for title 9

I like the stipend idea. I think that scholarship athletes should also include meal plans so that all basic necessities are covered.

I really dont like the image/likeness thing unless all payments are paid directly through the NCAA. It seems like an area thats ripe for corruption.

What happens if the sport is not profitable though and what constitutes revenues/expenses considered when deciding what is profit?

California's Bill is a push. They will pass it to push the NCAA to do something. They are setting a long term date to allow the NCAA to come to the table or for other States to follow.

I have very close sauces on this particular topic:
IF the NCAA bans California schools it will kill the Pac12 which means Washington, Oregon, Utah, Arizona will all come for blood. That's one push forcing other States to do something.
IF for example the NCAA says that CA schools are in the NCAA but stand apart from rest and forbid regularly scheduled games then CA backs that school to sue. A school has already been selected which is felt to be most suitable. That's another push.
IF the NCAA punishes a player for receiving income for their likeness then the State will back both the player and the school to sue. This is also planned for. Another push.

There are some other nuances to this that I can't let go as well, but lets just say that as obvious as it seems to everyone involved

As powerful as it is the NCAA is only a non-profit so it cannot simply compel anyone to do as they say, nor can they stop following the law. Just as they can't punish schools for fans tweeting recruits. Just as they can't compel everyone who has bought a ticket to be viewed as a booster. It's a house of lies built by powerful people.

All that being said, ultimately they will face Mount Everest at the Supreme Court. Not only is it currently leaning conservative but Justice Roberts represented the NCAA several times in the past. He is very well entrenched in the machine.

My personal feelings, while lawful and well intended this opens too many doors that will erode the ability for schools to economically maintain sports teams. I do think players deserve MUCH more than what they are getting but I go back to my metaphor of the Art Gallery and the new Artist. When I look at the value of what is being put in the university should rightfully receive the vast bulk of the returns on all profits made in collegiate sports. New recruits have zero value coming in, only the promise of value and the risk is 100% absorbed by the university. In a pure market economy, universities are due that money.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see develop.

New recruits don't have 0 value coming in, otherwise schools wouldn't spend millions courting them and boosters spending thousands under the table. That's inherent value, not promised value.

No. It's zero value.

Universities invest in risk and diversify that risk by recruiting multiple players for the same position every year. Until a recruit is on campus and starts training they start at zero. They hold a promise of potential value but it's a 100% at risk investment.

Once they finish university and move to pro ball they have inherent value because they have at that point been trained and vetted, which is why they get signing bonuses and guaranteed money deals.

Does this bill simply move that money line down to HS? Dunno but universities won't be able to financially take the risk on teams that become more at risk.

So the boosters paying them under the table since the 80s were just wasting their money because recruits are actually valueless? How embarrassing they wasted their money and you werent there to tell them

Not sure why you're getting upset.

Illegal payments don't constitute value. Not sure where you learned that but it's not how it works.

Lets start at when a recruit signs his letter and sends it to school committing to playing there. What value do both sides at that Day 1 bring to the table?

Physical Assets: Stadium, Locker Rooms, weight room, Dorms, Dining Halls, Indoor Fields, outdoor training fields, therapy rooms, film rooms, storage, equipment rooms. Not to mention the land those things are on.
Personnel: Coaching Staffs worth tens of millions in value. Medical staff. Training staff. Support staff.
Administration: An AD and athletic department organizing and managing huge budgets.
Soft Assets: equipment, food, medical supplies, training supplies, etc
Media: tv rights deals, radio, the media promotion kit, Internet and social media
Apparel: uniform and clothing deal
Education: paid tuition while on scholarship
Promotion and Marketing: televised, internet and radio time to market and advertise your skills to leverage when getting a job
(list not exhaustive)

Nothing.... They bring nothing to the table except the promise that they can create additional value IF successful. (the IF is the risk as most do not become star players so that risk factor is further reducing any value a recruit may hold)

But hey, I'll give you the few thousand to maybe 50k that a recruit could illegally get from a booster. Lets calculate that value against the total value the university holds, and lets round that down to a Billion dollars to make it easy. At 50k that's a 0.00005% of value.

Yeah they're bringing a lot to the table.

What? Illegal payments are value. If I buy drugs, they have value regardless of legal status. Paying money for something is the definition of value.

You're conflating the "value" of commodities to "value" in a business deal. These are not the same thing.

But hey, let's make a deal. You and I start a business, any business, with a few hundred thousand investment. You fund everything. All the startup costs, the office costs, equipment, salaries (including mine for 4 years), insurance, marketing, travel, housing, etc. Everything. And I will bring you the promise that I will increase the value of our new company. Just a promise, but I'm a fairly successful business man. Finally, on top of everything, if the company fails you assume all of the financial liabilities.

Now. How much equity are you willing to give me? how about 50/50? heck I'll go 60/40?

you in?

You can close your eyes and pretend a black market doesnt currently exist for players. But it does.

lol. what? I already recognized players getting illegal payments. See that 0.00005% up there two comments above? yep, there it is. Bask in its infinitesimal glory.

you're either ignoring how value is calculated in business or not understanding it. However, if you think I am wrong, prove it. Show me the math.

Also, when do we start our new business? I'm good for my salary to be paid monthly instead of weekly, but I expect 6 figures yearly minimum. Also I live in Asia so if this business is in USA you better increase the travel budget.

Using numbers like university endowments to somehow factor into this conversation is so far off the mark I'm not sure you understand what this bill is proposing. The university isn't paying anything additional.

Using numbers like university endowments to somehow factor into this conversation is so far off the mark I'm not sure you understand what this bill is proposing.

It's not though.

You're just not considering why a players likeness has value. Besides booster corruption to snag recruits prior to school, during school it will only really benefit superstar players or players that are out there making money on a side-hustle like a vlog. The average college player will make very little off their likeness.

But why does that player's likeness have value to get endorsement deals etc? They're a superstar. Great, everyone agrees and it makes sense they earn money from their likeness. But other than sweat equity (which I agree is grueling and needs to be provided for more) the player is putting in extremely little into the making of their "brand" to profit off their likeness. The majority of value built into the marketable price of their likeness comes from the university. Everything I listed above, because without the venue, team, coaches, training, tv deals, etc invested by and provided to players via the University's at risk investment that player's likeness is not worth much. No high schooler is pulling in millions, let alone 100s of thousands off their likeness.

The reason players are able to get these deals at the professional level is because they have built there value through college football. But they built it off of the investment of the university. So at the end of college the player gets to go on and sign those crazy NFL contracts with upfronts and guaranteed money, endorsements etc.

But if players and States, continue to erode the financial income of universities, as this bill does then either the university will simply not be able to sustain the financial risk OR they will begin to expect an ROI. For the investment they put in with measures like this and more, Universities would be smart to expect payouts from pro contracts and endorsement deals. And why shouldn't they?

People want to talk about how players have the right to this income in our market economy but no one ever wants to talk where the value is coming from. Simply put, it's from the University. And when anyone makes an investment in a market economy you expect a Return on that investment. That's how value is calculated in real business and Universities are not stupid. Who here thinks 18 - 19 year old and their families are savvy enough to deal with that? They aren't. That's why when they go pro they get agents.

So either the bar gets lowered to HS or Universities start going after an ROI. Perhaps not off this alone but once their investment becomes too risky with additional Bills supporting players making incomes, such as unionizing or being recognized as employees etc.

This sounds more like developmental soccer.

Ajax signs a 12 year old soccer player and then uses their resources (i.e. facilities, coaches, trainers, housing, nutritionist, contracted matches, cash payments, etc.) to enhance the ability and value of the player.

Ajax hopes that Sergiño Dest increases in value enough to garner a transfer fee greater than their investment in him.

Correct. This is the ROI model. They don't have collegiate amateur sports in UK or Europe and so because they are not stupid they figured out how to create an Return on the amount of investment they are putting into young talent.

The arguments are sound, he's absolutely right, these kids have zero value on their own.

Who has more value right now. Bryan Breese or Clemson?

Not to pick on the kid, but Breese comes in as the #1 recruit in the country, hypothetically he never sees the field, does Bryan Breese have value? No

It's exactly as Fernley said, a fraction of a percent of players are going to benefit from this in a significant way.

Tua has value, but does his brother? Both Alabama Crimson tide quarterbacks...

Either way. I can see arguments on both sides, but honestly, the only important question that needs to be answered....

...does this mean NCAA Football 2020 will be available on PlayStation in time for Christmas?

This would only affect a sliver of the players or the payment amounts will be small. People act like every business in Tuscaloosa can afford to pay every player on the team $50k to do some advertising. They could, once. Business still have consider what they get in return for their payment and I don't think you will see them handing out checks to every kid with a scholarship offer. I could see the more popular players on each team around the country getting $3k-$5k to do some local spots, but few players are going to get rich off of their likeness. Imagine if a business had given Ryan Willis $15k this summer to do some commercials. They might be getting a negative return on that advertising by now.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

Hmm... Sorry, but you're not thinking corrupt enough.

If I was a big bucks booster, I would simply setup a bit coin (or other type) patronage scheme that paid fluctuating rates depending on on-field performance per use of their likeness on something meaningless, such as a "company" website. The players that performed well would be compensated more from coin mining that hell could pay for itself if located in right place with cheap electricity. As players earn more playing time and perform more they earn more for their likeness on the meaningless website. Better performance, better payout. The value of those coins being paid out in cash at end of their career, while coins are retained by me the donor in expectation they will only increase in value after I pay out to players allowing me to not only recoop my costs but actually make me money in the long term. Yields to players could easily enter into 100s of thousands.

And that's just one way.... Could also do something like what the Arizona booster did for Rodriguez which essentially was futures on commodities.

Haha... There's actually a lot of ways to make this get out of hand quickly.

And all you need to do is "pay" them for their likeness.

Yes, but you would need a T Boone Pickens type at all of these universities. Maybe I am blind to the amounts of dark money involved in college athletics, but giving each scholarship player $100k/yr means $8.5MM a year. I know that is not back breaking when talking the top 1% , but I don't think too many folks are going to go handing out that kind of cash without a financial return. I don't know much about the likeness market, but the NFL guys have no restrictions and, outside of royalties from Madden2k##, I don't see everyone on an NFL roster getting a check for their likeness.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

Exactly the point is that some programs have boosters with pockets that deep, but most don't. So you're opening the door for a severely tilted playing field. And yes the field is already unbalanced but there's good reason not change the rules to make it even more unbalanced.

At least it won't be tax deductible.

But you're right. It's already not balanced and this can only serve to make it more so.

The point is you wouldn't have to spend 100k per player. That's the payout at the end of a significantly less investment. But yes you need a big bucks booster to start it but every blue blood program has multiple of those.

the main point though, is that it is easy to set up schemes that would create quite significant rewards to players beyond what was mentioned above.

This is an angle I had never really explored. it almost makes the universities a bit like a pyramid scheme in that they take on the risk and if you become successful they will take the profits as well for a long time until you make it far enough up the pyramid (ie turn pro). The education is essentially the base pay that you get even if you don't succeed, but how could bonuses be awarded for the above average performers? Payment for their likeness seems like the only fair market way. The business paying the player would eat some risk if they make deals/pay recruits and the player flames out, but the player's brand is also tied to the school (they are famous in GA because they play for UGA), so should the school get a cut? They could do ads or appearance and just not wear school colors or mention the school in order to keep some separation, but I would think use of any form of the school's brand would cost the player/advertiser.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

Not following the pyramid concept, but I do have a model that works this way.

The art gallery and the artist

The art gallery invests in everything to provide the opportunity for an artist. The artist only brings the promise of doing well. They need to select (recruit) new artists constantly whom have little to no brand or value themselves. If they select artists well the brand of the gallery and the artists that display there raise dramatically. If they select poorly bad artists will diminish the gallery's reputation. For the risk of displaying the artists work the gallery hedges and takes the vast majority of the income from the sale of pieces displayed in the gallery, and the artist gets the reputation and brand. After a gallery show an artist who does well will go on (go pro) and have leverage to command larger sale prices and keeping more and more of their sales. Those artists may get direct commissions from larger galleries that come with guarantees and money upfront. They could get private commissions that are pure profit. All born off the at risk investment of the original art gallery.

It's a fair deal.

I could also see this entire effort get slam dunked by Title IX enforcement. It would stand that this benefits and provides more substantial support to students in revenue making sports. We have a some phenomenal teams on campus but football with a way below average year would still make way more money. Men's basketball is likely to make way more money signing autographs than Women's basketball. Just seems like a super easy ground to contest from.

Outspoken team cake advocate. Hates terrapins. Resident Macho Man Gif Poster. Distant cousin to Dork Magic. Frequently misspells words.

Its only a Title IX issue if the money is funneled through the school. If the outside market (read boosters) is paying the cash directly to the athletes, then its market value and Title IX has no jurisdiction.

It's a Title IX violation if it shows any type of discrimination or denial of equal opportunity. Do you think any school spends as much promoting and advertising their women's swimming team as much as they do their football team?

This then means that even with equal autographing sessions, the swim team hasn't been treated equally. I know this sounds insane but it's how Title IX can function.

But SC's proposal is even easier to have this slammed by Title IX. Read this if you get a second but I'll emphasize the important bit. (

Their proposal would allow the state's biggest colleges to pay $5,000-a-year stipends to athletes in profitable sports like football and basketball. It also would give collegiate athletes — who can receive tuition and housing for their efforts, but not pay — an opportunity to earn money from sponsorships and autograph sales for the first time.

$5,000 stipend to athletes in "profitable" sports. Sponsorship and autograph sales. Who do you think benefits the most from these? Is it the teams playing in the 60,000+ stadium or the people watching college golf? The way this proposal is written up, it almost looks like it is begging for a lawsuit so they don't have to pay students but can say "oh well, we tried."

Outspoken team cake advocate. Hates terrapins. Resident Macho Man Gif Poster. Distant cousin to Dork Magic. Frequently misspells words.

I envision a large chunk of money coming from local businesses using the athletes in advertisements to local markets. This would be completely separate from the universities. If Bob's used car lot approached Ryan Willis and says I'll give you $2k to read this advertisement on the radio instead of the captain of the women's swim team, how would VT be liable for that?

I agree that if the school gets involved and does not provide equal opportunity, then Title IX could become a problem and it appears that the SC proposal would essentially guarantee that the university would be involved (and discriminate because of the requirement for "profitable" sports.)

However, if the schools can stay out of it or provide equal opportunity (e.g. a list of athletes from all sports available to do endorsements) I think they can avoid any Title IX complications.

apparently you're friends with Xavier Becerra.

🦃 🦃 🦃

Not him, and not friends. But someone close to him and family.

The NCAA will compromise in some fashion. There's some gravity in place here. It won't be the wild west...but athletes will have some liberties that were prohibited in the past. This won't be the end of college sports. The California legislation doesn't want that - they're posturing to force the NCAA to make a few changes that have been long overdue. Sounds like North Carolina's legislative house has tossed this around, and now South Carolina is doing the same. Makes sense that states with several significant programs take action. We could work on this in Delaware...but no one would care about what the Blue Hens do.


They don't want it but it is essentially a game of chicken. who flinches first.

Does Reggie Bush get his Heisman back?

"I am probably too rational to be here"

How about this scenario:

Players may receive compensation for their likeness/autographs, but NCAA schools are required to receive a set percentage of those payments. The percentage is a set value agreed upon by the member institutions. Every school gets the same percentage.

Under that scenario, both the player and the institution receive compensation for the "likeness" of the player which is a result of both the players talent and everything that the school has provided. The name on the front of the jersey and the name on the back of the jersey get paid.

This forces the money to be reported by the schools and the athletes for tax purposes, but is also a way to monitor the potential of boosters rigging the system. The boosters that are currently funneling money to recruits under the table aren't going to be as willing to do so out in the open, especially when taxes are involved.

What it will also do is force the schools to work on developing the relationships with the people that will pay for endorsements and the machinery to get those endorsements secured and properly processed. This will benefit the players as they would have the universities working on their behalf to secure the endorsements, instead of trying to do it by themselves or without bringing in shady outside "agents".

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

The player owns his/her likeness; the University owns its name, its programs, and its branding; the NCAA runs the framework for competing; and they are ALL entitled to market themselves.

Everyone is going to get a share of Ryan Willis selling his likeness in the context of playing NCAA football for the Virginia Tech Hokies...and it will probably be a set fraction based some market average that the schools and the NCAA currently receive...or perhaps something like the full cost of attendance calculation. They can also require that player contacts and contracts go through the school. And it's really going to get fun because the state and federal taxing authorities are entitled to see ALL of it.

It'll be interesting to see the IRS's take on all of this - not just on the "salary", but on scholarships and other "benefits" as the athletes would no longer operate under the presumption of amateur status. Also what would be the implications on the tax exempt status of collegiate athletic foundations?

Will the IRS determine the free use of athletic facilities, free coaching, free nutrition and strength training, free tutoring, etc. - which aren't available to the general student population - are compensation and thus taxed as such?

Will players no longer be eligible for Pell grant money?

I think people think this is just simply "the players are bringing in money, so they deserve to get paid for it". But the full consequences for the athletes particularly, but also the institutions, may create far more headaches than they will solve.

these are good points.

Could you imagine NCAA college athletes being taxed for their stipend and room and board? The 99.9% of collegiate athletes that wouldn't make a dime off of their likeness would be pissed to have to pay taxes.

If this goes the way it's currently looking (i.e., players allowed to profit off their likeness), Congress will have to set up some tax laws that covers collegiate athletes. One could imagine that a law could be established that a collegiate athlete would have to declare themselves amateur or not and be taxed accordingly. Amateur athletes would probably be restricted in the amount they make on their likeness.

🦃 🦃 🦃

The federal government has no stake in whether or not they are "amateur" athletes. You either earn money or you don't.

The NCAA can prohibit members from allowing players to sell their likeness, and they will likely lose their membership because states are going to allow it and the states control the major members of the NCAA.

The NCAA lost in court when they thought that only they could sell the players' likeness. You can't sell something you don't own. However, the players face EXACTLY the same dilemma if they market themselves in the context of the sport they play and school they play for.

I think the NCAA/members can see the writing on the wall and will set up a framework where everyone gets a piece of the pie. And in the end, it may even reduce the amount of under the table dealing that occurs now.

The federal government absolutely has a stake in whether they're amateur athletes.

Athletic scholarships and other benefits such as stipends, books, meals, etc. aren't taxed and the athletic foundations are considered tax-exempt 501c3's because of the amateur athletic mission, i.e. an educational activity which is also a charitable activity..

Athletes aren't members of the NCAA, the schools are. The NCAA is a 501(c)(3) based on its educational mission...the word amateur is not in its mission statement nor is promoting amateur athletics the mission of any of its members.

From the NCAA, Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

The source of the money and the expectations associated with it drive the tax question. Students don't pay income tax on stipends no matter whatever else they do to find enough money to get by. When students on stipends do other jobs to make ends meet, they pay taxes on those wages.

edit: you are probably right about the athletic foundation aspect. the focus of my comments relates to the athletes themselves, the schools, and the NCAA.

Students don't pay income tax on stipends no matter whatever else they do

Depends on what the stipend is for. If 100% for educational purposes (i.e., books and classes), not taxable. If for anything else, it is taxable. It's also a pain in the ass to get the IRS off your back for stipends if you didn't originally show they were for educational purposes when filing (at least in my experience).

🦃 🦃 🦃

yup. they threatened to audit me for that when I was in grad school. the school told them they were idiots

I am not sure what you're responding to, but my point is about taxation, and delineation of who should get taxed and who shouldn't. I'm using "amateur" and "professional" as terms to delineate who should be taxed.

🦃 🦃 🦃

This would be a way to create two groups. If a player is good enough to make a big chunk of change off their likeness, then go ahead, but the first dollar you make voids your amatuer status and you are now a contracted employee and have to pay taxes for all income (scholarships, room, board, travel, etc) or you could decline all of those benefits and pay your own way for everything and live off the income you have earned from your likeness. A player would still have to attend school to be compliant with the NCAA's requirements for participation, but would be on their own dime and free to earn off their own brand. Or the player could decline all offers to benefit from their likeness and receive all of the benefits of their scholarship without paying taxes. If you can make $250,000 off your own brand (Zion Williamson would have been a millionaire before leaving college), go for it, if you are unlikely to get more benefits, stay on scholly.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

Thanks, I understand your point better. Mine is that I don't think IRS needs to change anything; this isn't a new concept and they already have it covered.

edit: in reply to CMM above

I see a lot of comments mentioning that players are already paid illegally by boosters, therefore, the NCAA or government should go ahead and legalize it. I've never understood this argument. It's like saying people speed all the time so it should be legal. Did you know that 40% of U.S. murders went unsolved last year? Does that mean that we should make that legal too? Laws and rules will always be broken. That doesn't mean they are not good laws/rules. Might mean the problem is not with the law/rule but the enforcement.

Because the punishment that boosters and schools face is limp wrist slaps compared to an athlete losing their only real chance to make it a career because they participated in a system that the schools themselves refuse to be serious about putting a stop to.

Aside from the questionable at best moral standing of the NCAA as an organization. The schools created the NCAA and control it, and it punishes everyone but the schools the hardest.

If a school had to give back all the money from TV contracts in which an illegible player appeared then I might be more ok with it.

If that isnt in the cards then fuck it, why should anyone be punished for the black market thats as old as the sport is.

Speed limit used to be 55. Then cars got safer and faster....then it was 65. Then cars are safer and it's 70 on some highways. Rules gotta change as the game changes.


Speed limit was set for fuel consumption reduction.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Also, if a player can be taxed for their likeness each game they play, they have to pay state taxes in each state they play in. Thats what pro athletes have to do.

Pain is Temporary, Chicks Dig Scars
Glory is Forever, Let's Go Hokies!!


You think if this becomes the law of the land each school isnt going to be all over that shit? Who wants to be the coach who has to stand up and say their starting RB or even their Punter is out to start the season because the tax man came calling.

That isnt how you keep a job that pays you millions a year as HC for very long.

OK, so that is my point. This is another added expense and headache. If this is income for the players then the university is gonna also provide free tax service to their athletes?
When does it end.....

Pain is Temporary, Chicks Dig Scars
Glory is Forever, Let's Go Hokies!!

Itll end when there arent 10's of millions in revenue per year to be made for the school to keep the musical chairs of money flowing. Schools have been addicted to the self fulfilling nature of big time college sports for a century at this point, there is so much inertia built up that unless a school is truly on the verge of bankruptcy most go to incredible lengths to keep things going.

I doubt paying for TurboTax and having some admin mark them off on a checklist is the tipping point.

Besides im generally pretty unsympathetic to schools, coaches, and AD's, so what if they have to go another step in keeping players eligible and in the clear from the tax man? Thats their main source of income and job security right there.

What part of VT's compliance history inspires your confidence?

I mean in the end if every school has to sort this shit out one day I expect VT to be solidly middle of the road, and also benefit from frankly not being high enough profile or acting out to put a target on our back. Combined with the hopefully obvious stance of no school is helped by actually cooperating with the NCAA.

In my experience shit always goes downhill but gets clogged midway down. Those at top have serious protection financially and politically. The shit then flows to middle and that's a mountain of shit to deal with. This is where the most impact will happen because they have less protection and less resources to deal with it. Then finally a small amount of shit will hit the lower levels but with much less impact.

I think with NCAA infractions it can really go both ways. Missouri is certainly in profile close to VT, but they were idiots who went out of their way to 'help' the investigation and got themselves a bowl ban for their trouble for a rogue tutor.

Ole Miss raised their profile with boosters who got sloppy chasing recruits and that higher profile they built is what put a target on their back. Calling peoples bluff to email is probably not something Whit or Fuente would be dumb enough to do.

But yeah then youve got the UNC's of the world who just have the money and power to wait out and bluff the NCAA.

If the NCAA doesn't make those players ineligible, then by proxy every player will be allowed to do this. Interesting to see what will happen

Yesterday I was sitting at Ballast Point (Daleville) enjoying the heck out of a (last*) fresh Manta Ray IPA. The speakers they were playing "It's the end of the world as we know it".

Hearing this news about the California law reminded me of that. I can't help but think that this move, which seems logical on the surface, will lead to the devastation of college sports as we know it.

College football -> minor league (paid) football -> not interesting to me.

Revenue stream goes away -> school athletes suffer, as we as universities (and therefore all students).


* Ballast Point is closing it's beer room in Daleville, even though it has been very popular. Yesterday was the last day.


Why should people donate money to professional athletic teams? We're already donating the venues. Maybe just buy tickets and clothing related to the teams we identify with.

We've been heading more and more in that direction for years.

I donate now, but if things continue to go the professional route, I have to wonder about the "tax free" status of paid college sports. It's morphing into something else.

I think you are missing that the colleges still have the ability to pull on the heartstrings of that alumni connection. Which I would suggest is often deeper than even the most long standing pro team fandom. And they dont even really need to do it that large a group.

Its also a clear fact that most NCAA donor/compensation rules arent for the majority of us. They are for the whales. When 1 couple can drop 15mil to fund the Merryman work a few years back, it sorta doesnt matter what the rest of us do, yes Tech would like our money, but the work would still get done.

Its why some schools can get by with just those few mega donors, if thats good or bad its nor for me to say I think. But so long as they can successfully make the appeal of still supporting the Maroon and Orange to a smaller group of high dollar people then the machine keeps running. Tech fell behind not just in raw numbers liek with the Drive for 25, but in maximizing the contributions of the high level luxury box donors, and in growing people into that class.

Im also in favor of cutting out the middleman, or at least the risk to players, and the ridiculous performative nature of things like $100 handshakes and all. Thats not actually looking to compensate players for their labor its a chance to show off status and make the player feel in debt for risking their life for our entertainment.

There is currently a disparity between the handful of schools that have a blank checkbook and the rest of us. This situation could easily make that 1000x worse so that smaller schools have zero chance to be competitive. If a school can't compete, fans won't come. The suggestion of parity is what helps small schools fill the stadium.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. Whales aren't going to contribute if the stadium is empty.

I also think you arent looking at some of the built in issues that boosters would have to face if this comes true.

Scholarship limits are still a thing, and kid's also still have ego's and might not want to share a class with 2-3 other high ranked prospects at the same position, etc

Plus blowing 1mil on a blue chip QB at the expense of the rest of a class is a great way to have them bust and set a school back, spreading the love around to build a foundation with multiple pretty good players vs a few great and some mediocre guys is always a good move!

Scholarship limits are still a thing, and kid's also still have ego's and might not want to share a class with 2-3 other high ranked prospects at the same position, etc

sure, scholarship limits are a thing. But Clemson fans generating $60k a year for a kid to come be third string cornerback will win out over $932 to be starting corner at VT every time. Also saves wear and tear on the body for the next level.

Plus blowing 1mil on a blue chip QB at the expense of the rest of a class is a great way to have them bust and set a school back, spreading the love around to build a foundation with multiple pretty good players vs a few great and some mediocre guys is always a good move!

So you think the boosters are going to self govern and spread their t-shirt and car dealership money around?

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

If the day comes when schools pay athletes, would they then be able to 'fire' them for under performance?

I believe that's when a scholarship is pulled

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

If they pay players directly they become employees. Scholarships will no longer be relevant.

Usually if a scholarship is pulled today, it's for misbehavior, not under performance. If schools begin to pay athletes and they become employees, I would think they could be fired mid-season for under performance. Just like the NFL or a salesperson.

I honestly don't think we would see people randomly cut mid season for performance that often honestly. And as a separate issue from obviously things like making a change in playing time. And in the potential future where players are paid a salary, in the absence of any scholarship, from the schools as their total compensation package.

1. It would be incredibly easy to negatively recruit for other schools.

2. It could absolutely lose a coach the locker room

3. At the end of the day chances are you still need warm bodies on the roster and in season those arent exactly coming in the door, and the player might improve in a few weeks.