California (the State) Screwing with the System Again

[Steven A]

Do these Bozos not realize how few football programs, let alone basketball, will reach this plateau. 

 

Oh, and let's not forget the impact on Title IX and non revenue sports that will be decimated.

 

The California legislature is working on another bill that could change college sports

WWW.MSN.COM

---

The NIL revolution began in California's state assembly. Now that group is considering an even larger change to the college athletics business model.

 

[Jon Joseph]

The UCLA Athletic Department is $60M in the red.

 

Direct pay for play? Mandated in a certain amount? Absurd. But what's new?

[Goutes18]

Does the CA legislature not know that the Trojans have had direct pay for play for decades?

[Goutes18]

I guess they want to try to help UCLA catch up!

[Charles Fischer]

What a great way to kill other sports...

[TexasDuck]

On 4/27/2022 at 7:49 PM, Goutes18 said:

Does the CA legislature not know that the Trojans have had direct pay for play for decades?

They say the same thing about "Uncle Phil."  I suppose it depends on whose ox is being gored. 

[Tandaian]

Do the players have to pay the University when their sport doesn't make money?  Football, Men's basketball and some women's basketball programs are the only programs that make money for universities.  You start splitting up those profits between 85-100 football players, 12-15 basketball players and you will have hundreds of other college athletes without a sport to play. 

 

Not saying the athletic departments are being the most efficient with their money, but most athletic departments don't make a profit.  You'd kill off just about every sport in college if football and basketball didn't pay for the rest of the sports.

[Jon Joseph]

On 4/27/2022 at 8:49 PM, Goutes18 said:

Does the CA legislature not know that the Trojans have had direct pay for play for decades?

As private schools, I believe Stanford and USC can go their own way?

[Jon Joseph]

On 4/28/2022 at 12:26 PM, Tandaian said:

Do the players have to pay the University when their sport doesn't make money?  Football, Men's basketball and some women's basketball programs are the only programs that make money for universities.  You start splitting up those profits between 85-100 football players, 12-15 basketball players and you will have hundreds of other college athletes without a sport to play. 

 

Not saying the athletic departments are being the most efficient with their money, but most athletic departments don't make a profit.  You'd kill off just about every sport in college if football and basketball didn't pay for the rest of the sports.

You are addressing economics.

 

I doubt that any person in the legislature who votes for this senseless piece of junk can add 2 and 2 and have the result = 4?

 

I certainly hope ADs and college/university leaders show up at hearings on this proposed legislation to voice exactly what you have pointed out.

 

THIS passes, kiss scholarship varsity sports good bye in CA and say hello to club sports. Ergo, kiss the Pac-12 goodbye as a P5 conference.

[Dukduponquak]

On 4/27/2022 at 8:28 PM, Jon Joseph said:

The UCLA Athletic Department is $60M in the red.

 

Direct pay for play? Mandated in a certain amount? Absurd. But what's new?

Absurdity is the new norm 

[Jon Joseph]

On 4/28/2022 at 12:26 PM, Tandaian said:

Do the players have to pay the University when their sport doesn't make money?  Football, Men's basketball and some women's basketball programs are the only programs that make money for universities.  You start splitting up those profits between 85-100 football players, 12-15 basketball players and you will have hundreds of other college athletes without a sport to play. 

 

Not saying the athletic departments are being the most efficient with their money, but most athletic departments don't make a profit.  You'd kill off just about every sport in college if football and basketball didn't pay for the rest of the sports.

THIS passes and there will be no 'players' except for those interested in after-school club sports.

[mrspenney]

Not just Stanford and USC, but USF, St. Mary's, Santa Clara, Loyola, Pepperdine, USD, Pacific and a lot more smaller schools.

[McDuck]

Absurd idea but let's not forget there is a huge gulf between introducing a bill and having it taken seriously, let alone actually passing.

[idontrollonshobbas]

I find it interesting how the motivated reasoning has changed on this.

 

I recall posters of a certain ilk on other sites a few short years ago suggesting that non-revenue generating squads are getting the shaft by citing how the men's teams had better facilities, etc.  

 

When one countered that they generated the funds, and in the case of football took the brunt of the brutal injuries, so that others had a chance at an athletic scholarship, that logic was dismissed as misogynistic or elitist.

 

Now this ilk has unleashed NIL and further wants profit-sharing for revenue generating athletes.  Wither the concern for other scholarship athletes.  I wonder if they would consider themselves misogynist and elitist now?

 

When one abandons reason, one is by definition unreasonable.

 

[Steven A]

I'm going to apologize in advance for the length to follow:

 

Jon Wilner peels back some of the layers of Senate Bill 1401, the “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act,”.  Gotta love the names that are given to these Bills to foster a narrative that has nothing to do with the actual application.

 

Football and men’s basketball players, the only athletes on “profitable teams/revenues exceed scholarship costs” could receive huge sums.

 

If it becomes law, the California schools would be at significant financial disadvantages plus, create massive Title IX complications and threaten the viability of Olympic sports.

 

Do we need Larry Scott to talk to the legislature?

 

This bill limits access to the cash to the athletes in the sports that generate the “profit”.

 

It seems backers of the bill includes a union and the National College Players Association (NCPA).  You may remember the NCPA, they of the doomed-at-the-start #WeAreUnited movement in the Pac-12 wherein they sought a 50/50 revenue split between the ATHLETE-students and the schools.

 

SB-1401 states, “Excessive athletic program expenditures on salaries, administration, and facilities are not necessary to field intercollegiate athletics and should be partially redirected to address racial and gender-based inequities endured by college athletes.”

 

Cover your ears while the rest of the Power 5 laughs their a’s off.  And how is paying only football and basketball players addressing “racial and gender-based inequities” when women will not benefit? 

 

The author of the bill obviously showed a lack of understanding that football and men’s basketball generate the revenue that is vital for the rest of the athletic departments sports that all lose money.

 

For instance, if a college had football revenue of $40M, half of that would have to be set aside for the players, minus the amount spent on scholarships.  If the scholarship money was $4M, then $16M would go into the players’ “pool”, instead of supporting the other sports.

 

That’s $185K for each of the 85 scholarship players, available at $25K per year and the balance upon earning a degree within 6 years.  Walk-ons aren’t addressed per se.  And who would want a walk-on if they are going to take money out of your pocket?

 

The upside, out-of-state transfers might drop as the players would be leaving that money behind if they transferred out of CA.  Or, would they could just leverage what they leave behind in their NIL deals at the new school.

 

And of course, at least until the lawyers got involved, payment to the players shall not  establish an employment relationship.  Why not? Because the bill says so.

 

How does this jive with Title IX one may ask.  Good question, because the Judiciary Committee declared that women’s sports would be unaffected...“The one thing this bill would not do is hurt Title IX,” 

However, Committee analysis of the bill states: “The formula proposed by this bill will almost certainly benefit male student athletes more than it will female athletes. These disparate impacts mean that the bill might force California institutions of higher learning to violate their Title IX obligations not to discriminate on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

 

Huh???  Stay tuned to see if the legislature has an answer prior to being taken to the Supreme Court on this issue.
 

[Jon Joseph]

On 4/28/2022 at 4:11 PM, Steven A said:

Do we need Larry Scott to talk to the legislature?

 

NO! Because if Larry testifies it's certain to pass!

[idontrollonshobbas]

On 4/28/2022 at 1:11 PM, Steven A said:

I'm going to apologize in advance for the length to follow:

 

Jon Wilner peels back some of the layers of Senate Bill 1401, the “College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act,”.  Gotta love the names that are given to these Bills to foster a narrative that has nothing to do with the actual application.

 

Football and men’s basketball players, the only athletes on “profitable teams/revenues exceed scholarship costs” could receive huge sums.

 

If it becomes law, the California schools would be at significant financial disadvantages plus, create massive Title IX complications and threaten the viability of Olympic sports.

 

Do we need Larry Scott to talk to the legislature?

 

This bill limits access to the cash to the athletes in the sports that generate the “profit”.

 

It seems backers of the bill includes a union and the National College Players Association (NCPA).  You may remember the NCPA, they of the doomed-at-the-start #WeAreUnited movement in the Pac-12 wherein they sought a 50/50 revenue split between the ATHLETE-students and the schools.

 

SB-1401 states, “Excessive athletic program expenditures on salaries, administration, and facilities are not necessary to field intercollegiate athletics and should be partially redirected to address racial and gender-based inequities endured by college athletes.”

 

Cover your ears while the rest of the Power 5 laughs their a’s off.  And how is paying only football and basketball players addressing “racial and gender-based inequities” when women will not benefit? 

 

The author of the bill obviously showed a lack of understanding that football and men’s basketball generate the revenue that is vital for the rest of the athletic departments sports that all lose money.

 

For instance, if a college had football revenue of $40M, half of that would have to be set aside for the players, minus the amount spent on scholarships.  If the scholarship money was $4M, then $16M would go into the players’ “pool”, instead of supporting the other sports.

 

That’s $185K for each of the 85 scholarship players, available at $25K per year and the balance upon earning a degree within 6 years.  Walk-ons aren’t addressed per se.  And who would want a walk-on if they are going to take money out of your pocket?

 

The upside, out-of-state transfers might drop as the players would be leaving that money behind if they transferred out of CA.  Or, would they could just leverage what they leave behind in their NIL deals at the new school.

 

And of course, at least until the lawyers got involved, payment to the players shall not  establish an employment relationship.  Why not? Because the bill says so.

 

How does this jive with Title IX one may ask.  Good question, because the Judiciary Committee declared that women’s sports would be unaffected...“The one thing this bill would not do is hurt Title IX,” 

However, Committee analysis of the bill states: “The formula proposed by this bill will almost certainly benefit male student athletes more than it will female athletes. These disparate impacts mean that the bill might force California institutions of higher learning to violate their Title IX obligations not to discriminate on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

 

Huh???  Stay tuned to see if the legislature has an answer prior to being taken to the Supreme Court on this issue.
 

Certainly better articulated than my post.....irrational ideologies inevitably turn inward on themselves.