Maroon&Gold

NCAA considering postseason ban for California schools if amateurism reform passes

Recommended Posts

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-files-appeal-alston-case

Quote

The NCAA and conferences opening appellate brief in the Alston antitrust case points to three specific, substantive errors made by the district court.

 

First, the O’Bannon decision upheld the NCAA’s financial aid and cost of attendance rules just four years ago. But the court allowed the plaintiffs in the Alston case to argue that these very same rules should be undone. This most recent trial was costly and unnecessary and, if the result is left unchallenged, opens the NCAA and its membership up to repetitive litigation regarding the same rules.

 

Second, the court’s Alston ruling contradicted precedent that has recognized the important distinction between professional athletes who are paid employees and student-athletes who are not. The court misapplied established antitrust analysis and eliminated the distinction between “pay for play” and the benefits provided to student-athletes.

Finally, the court established a permanent injunction that allows the court to micromanage the rule-making and policy decisions of our governing boards, schools and conferences.

 

The NCAA and conferences look forward to presenting their case before the federal appellate court so that our organizations can achieve clarity that we are allowed to govern, preserving the educational opportunities provided through college sports.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 1:37 PM, dfwabel said:

 

 

 

Going to get very interesting if this passes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Going to get very interesting if this passes

NCAA's Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group co-chaired by former WNBA, now Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman and Ohio State AD Gene Smith was supposed to deliver an update in August. If they did, it wasn't made public.  The working group, announced in May, has their full report due in October likely after SB206 is signed by Gov. Newsom. 

 

EDIT: CBSSports.com surveyed 100 NCAA Division 1 basketball coaches

Quote

Would you support an Olympic-style model that allows student-athletes to profit off of their name, image and likeness?

Yes: 77 percent

No: 23 percent

 

Quote
  • "I would support players having a chance to live in a more comfortable manner. I would like to see something that would help student-athletes at all levels of schools better their financial situation -- and if it's decided that model is the best, then I will support it. I just know student-athletes at every level of Division I sports are fighting to make the ends of each month meet."
  • "I'm for it because it's the right thing to do. And I think we'll get some version of it relatively soon."
  • "Why would we restrict someone from making money off of their likeness? If there is a market to make some extra money, student-athletes should be allowed to do it. For some, it could mean staying in school longer and completing their education. That's consistent with the NCAA's mission."
  • "The unspoken-about aspect of paying student-athletes is how Title IX comes into play. Allowing all student-athletes, regardless of sport/gender, to profit of their name/image/likeness is a way to infuse money into student-athletes' pockets without bankrupting athletic departments that aren't fiscally solvent. I envision this happening in the next 5-to-10 years as student-athletes continue to have a louder voice in the creation and changing of NCAA rules. The one big gray area I foresee is boosters who own businesses guaranteeing X-amount of dollars in advertising income to prospective recruits that they'll be given to attend specific schools."
  • "It would be nuts for me to be making the money I make and then turn around and tell you I don't think the players deserve more. And the Olympic model is the obvious way to do it. It's not perfect. It'll create some issues. But it would do more good than bad. It would make our sport better. So I'd vote for it."

 

Edited by dfwabel
added link with new quotes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dfwabel said:

NCAA's Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group co-chaired by former WNBA, now Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman and Ohio State AD Gene Smith was supposed to deliver an update in August. If they did, it wasn't made public.  The working group, announced in May, has their full report due in October likely after SB206 is signed by Gov. Newsom. 

 

EDIT: CBSSports.com surveyed 100 NCAA Division 1 basketball coaches

 

 

I'm pleasantly surprised that there are so many coaches who are reasonable on this. And that last quote is just *chef's kiss*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was released by an advocacy group for student-athletes this week

 

Also, some of the amendments to SB206 include protections to a school's current contracts for items like apparel contracts. 

Quote

Athlete would not be allowed to have deal that conflicts with a school contract, but a school contract would not be allowed to restrict athlete from using NIL for a commercial purpose when not engaged in official team activities

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note, the CA Assembly's session ends on Friday. 

 

Quote

Since the bill was amended by the Assembly to restrict a student-athlete from entering into shoe and apparel contracts that conflict with current university agreements, it must be returned to the California State Senate for an additional concurrence vote. In what is viewed as a formality, since the bill’s amendments do not impact the original bill’s basic premise of protecting California student-athletes right to personally market their name, image and likeness, it is anticipated that the State Senate will offer similar support to its original 31-5 vote when they consider the proposed legislation for a second time. The vote may take place as soon as later today, Tuesday, September 10th.

 

Assuming the Senate supports the bill in a similar fashion, He (Newsom) will have thirty (30) days to consider signing the legislation or to exercise his veto authority. He also has the option to ignore the legislation and take no action, which would allow the bill to become law. It is anticipated that Governor Newsom will be subject to strong efforts by the NCAA, California public and private universities and athletic conference leaders to veto the bill in its current form.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-assembly-passes-sb-206-next-69130/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCAA Board of Governors sent California Governor Gavin Newsom a letter regarding SB206

Quote

Governor Newsom:

The 1,100 schools that make up the NCAA have always, in everything we do, supported a level playing field for all student-athletes. This core belief extends to each member college and university in every state across the nation.

 

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.

 

Right now, nearly half a million student-athletes in all 50 states compete under the same rules. This bill would remove that essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports.

 

The NCAA continues to focus on the best interests of all student-athletes nationwide. NCAA member schools already are working on changing rules for all student-athletes to appropriately use their name, image and likeness in accordance with our values — but not pay them to play. The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university.

 

It isn’t possible to resolve the challenges of today’s college sports environment in this way — by one state taking unilateral action. With more than 1,100 schools and nearly 500,000 student-athletes across the nation, the rules and policies of college sports must be established through the Association’s collaborative governance system. A national model of collegiate sport requires mutually agreed upon rules.

 

We urge the state of California to reconsider this harmful and, we believe, unconstitutional bill and hope the state will be a constructive partner in our efforts to develop a fair name, image and likeness approach for all 50 states. 
 
Sincerely,
Members of the NCAA Board of Governors

 

SB206 author, State Sen. Nancy Skinner responded in an interview with USA Today

Quote

“Numerous legal scholars assert that SB 206 is constitutional and that an NCAA ban of California colleges from championship competition is a clear violation of federal anti-trust law. The NCAA has repeatedly lost anti-trust cases in courts ...  As a result, threats are their primary weapon." 

The USA Today story also has quotes from Dr. Michael Drake, President of The Ohio State University and Chair of the NCAA Board of Governors.  In reference to the NCAA working group with his AD, Gene Smith, Drake said:

Quote

“The working group is really looking earnestly at this issue ... and looking at workable solutions that allow the association to help maintain the things that have made college sports so special in this country … while reflecting the changes in the modern world that might not have been the case when some of our rules were set a decade or two decades or more ago."

 

“We’re looking forward to meaningful recommendations that we can at least begin to consider. I don’t expect them to be final recommendations, but the process is going on. ... I’m sure that some (rules) changes will be among those things proposed. And I’ll know better what the likely outcomes of those things are going to be after I see what’s proposed.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would have Tennessee join Washington with bills similar to California's in their state legislatures.

Edited by dfwabel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dfwabel said:

This would have Tennessee join Washington with bills similar to California's in their state legislatures.

They'll be more states proposing similar bills over the next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ltp74 said:

They'll be more states proposing similar bills over the next year.

 

It's going to be fun watching Dabo Swinney come out in favor of South Carolina's bill after claiming he would quit coaching college football if his athletes got paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, pmoehrin said:

 

It's going to be fun watching Dabo Swinney come out in favor of South Carolina's bill after claiming he would quit coaching college football if his athletes got paid.

He's not even 50 and I could actually see him walking in 2023 or 2024 when SB206 and other similar bills would take effect.  He'd have at least $36M off his current contract (before bonuses) in the bank on top of his previous earnings.

 

Last week's SI story on how Dabo's faith rules the Clemson (a public school) program, I can see him leaving for something faith-based,like FCA, and trying to connect it to football. 

 

While football is profitable for Dabo, there's much, much more money in Jesus. 

 

EDIT: Here comes South Carolina talking about similar legislation

Edited by dfwabel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.