What happens next after California’s governor signed a bill to pay NCAA players

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
Earlier on Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made history when he signed SB 206, dubbed the Fair Pay to Play Act, into law. Newsom signed the bill during an episode of The Shop with LeBron James, a vocal advocate of the legislation.

This law allows college athletes in California the ability to profit off of their name and likeness, something current NCAA bylaws do not allow them to do. Once the bill goes into effect in 2023, athletes at all 58 of California’s NCAA member institutions could hypothetically cut an ad for a local car dealership or be paid to host a party.

The NCAA, at least in public, has strongly opposed this bill, threatening to ban California schools from postseason competition, including the NCAA tournament.
 

Crusaders

Moderator
It's really though to say but I expect other states to follow. Cali schools will dominate the recruiting trails for any top athlete.
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member
I don’t understand the legislation. Couldn’t anyone already sign an endorsement deal to profit on their own image? It doesn’t circumvent ncaa eligibility criteria though, so what is preventing the ncaa from immediately declaring any player with an endorsement deal ineligible?
 

Orin Swift

Active member
I don’t understand the legislation. Couldn’t anyone already sign an endorsement deal to profit on their own image? It doesn’t circumvent ncaa eligibility criteria though, so what is preventing the ncaa from immediately declaring any player with an endorsement deal ineligible?
If I understand correctly, the act prevents the school from terminating a player's eligibility for accepting money. So for example USC can't take away eligibility from Player X for taking money. But the NCAA can disqualify USC from NCAA Tournament for playing Player X.
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member
If I understand correctly, the act prevents the school from terminating a player's eligibility for accepting money. So for example USC can't take away eligibility from Player X for taking money. But the NCAA can disqualify USC from NCAA Tournament for playing Player X.
Okay, so it calls the ncaa’s bluff and puts the school in the middle.
 

falguin

Well-known member
Players should not be paid by schools. Most college athletic programs do not make any money. But players should be able to sign endorsement deals.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
THe next step is that the NCAA will institute something very similar and that will override it.

I am not sure how I feel about it as it can give schools even a bigger advantage.
In theory, a place like Ohio state would have more leverage than even an Alabama if players look at possible endorsement opportunities within the local areas.
 

Summa

Active member
THe next step is that the NCAA will institute something very similar and that will override it.

I am not sure how I feel about it as it can give schools even a bigger advantage.
In theory, a place like Ohio state would have more leverage than even an Alabama if players look at possible endorsement opportunities within the local areas.
Yes, I do not think people supporting this have really thought this through. Mid-major programs would get hit hard. There would be no more Boise States or UCFs of college football.

It has the potential to ruin college football and I think California knows this, since it is run by lefties who have disdain for football. How would this play with athletes in sports other than football and men's basketball, especially women's sports. That aspect would not play well in California since male athletes in two sports would be the ones benefiting almost entirely. This will be worked out somehow but I think California has bigger problems to worry about other than college football.
 

Prop Joe

Well-known member
Yes, I do not think people supporting this have really thought this through. Mid-major programs would get hit hard. There would be no more Boise States or UCFs of college football.
The best recruits already go to the same small pool of schools every year. Nothing would change.
 

Crusaders

Moderator
I don’t get why it would hurt UCF anyway since they play in a major city. It may actually help programs in similar situations (UC, USF, San Diego State, Pitt, etc.)
 

Termite2

Well-known member
Historically; the bigger schools have always been able to pay their players more; it was only after the NCAA cracked down on the abuses and limited scholarships that that things changed from the rampant cheating.
If history is any example, there will be no shortage of boosters willing to pay for athletes to attend their favorite university.
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
Historically; the bigger schools have always been able to pay their players more; it was only after the NCAA cracked down on the abuses and limited scholarships that that things changed from the rampant cheating.
If history is any example, there will be no shortage of boosters willing to pay for athletes to attend their favorite university.
Yep, a single individual could bankroll enough kids to create a winner where once there was none.
 
.
Top