A bill passed by the State Assembly would allow college athletes to make endorsement deals. It is expected to reach the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The bill, if passed won't go into effect for 3 years giving opponents more than enough time to iron out kinks, but the alleged big story is the fear of gambling in sports, but if that's such an issue in college it should be the very same issue in pro sports.
Heck, let them make some bucks. There's no legitimate reason college athletes should live lives of paupers.. The overwhelming majority of athletes never make it to the pros anyway. Every season we see plenty of big name college players wash out in training camps.. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/sports/college-athlete-pay-california.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

FWIW, when the talk of this was first proposed, the NCAA made it clear that any teams with a player(s) receiving these funds will not be eligible for postseason play...

(09-10-2019, 01:01 AM)grampahol Wrote: Heck, let them make some bucks. There's no legitimate reason college athletes should live lives of paupers.

Agreed, and it's the perfect solution to the argument about paying them a stipend.  If your play made you famous enough to cash in, then by all means, make that Taco Bell commercial.  We let you keep a percentage, and the rest goes back to the university to support the sports department, like the wresting program, women's volleyball, etc., which is fair, since the school's allowing you to play made you famous to begin with.  It's a win-win for everybody.  

(09-22-2019, 11:58 AM)Awful Llama Wrote: Agreed, and it's the perfect solution to the argument about paying them a stipend.  If your play made you famous enough to cash in, then by all means, make that Taco Bell commercial.  We let you keep a percentage, and the rest goes back to the university to support the sports department, like the wresting program, women's volleyball, etc., which is fair, since the school's allowing you to play made you famous to begin with.  It's a win-win for everybody.  

It's a terrible solution and will pretty much kill what little competitive balance there is in college athletics.

Players will flock to whichever school has the most wealthy boosters who will pay them thousands of dollars for an autograph.  Boosters will make offers to the good players of small schools to transfer,so even if the little guys get some good players that fly under the radar, they will get bought out from under them.  Top recruits will be bidding wars amongst the boosters.  

I don't agree with paying amateur athletes, but if you're going to compensate them, it needs to be a regulated amount done through the college's so noone gets a competitive advantage.

(10-01-2019, 12:39 PM)Whatever Wrote: It's a terrible solution and will pretty much kill what little competitive balance there is in college athletics.

Players will flock to whichever school has the most wealthy boosters who will pay them thousands of dollars for an autograph.  Boosters will make offers to the good players of small schools to transfer,so even if the little guys get some good players that fly under the radar, they will get bought out from under them.  Top recruits will be bidding wars amongst the boosters.  

I don't agree with paying amateur athletes, but if you're going to compensate them, it needs to be a regulated amount done through the college's so noone gets a competitive advantage.

Competitive balance? Can North Dakota State compete with Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, or Ohio State?

If a violinist with a music scholarship to UCLA can make money playing gigs, why can’t a gymnast make money from an endorsement?

This whole NCAA argument regarding competitive advantage is complete BS. What makes a team more competitive than a coach? Jumbo Fisher can leave Florida State for Texas A&M and does he need to sit out a year? No. But, if one of his players wanted to follow him they would have to sit out a year (if the university didn’t block the transfer.) Why? Competitive balance. What a crock of shit.

(10-12-2019, 11:42 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Competitive balance? Can North Dakota State compete with Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, or Ohio State?

If a violinist with a music scholarship to UCLA can make money playing gigs, why can’t a gymnast make money from an endorsement?

This whole NCAA argument regarding competitive advantage is complete BS. What makes a team more competitive than a coach?  Jumbo Fisher can leave Florida State for Texas A&M and does he need to sit out a year? No. But, if one of his players wanted to follow him they would have to sit out a year (if the university didn’t block the transfer.) Why? Competitive balance. What a crock of shit.

Upsets do happen.  Michigan lost to Appalachian St a few years back iirc.  Competitive balance is an issue, but the solution isn't to just completely destroy any semblance of it.  

A violinist isn't a competitive amateur athlete.  It's not even close to the same thing.

So you're perfectly fine with Nike saying every member of the Oregon Ducks football team gets a $200k/year endorsement deal with them so long as they stay on Oregon's football team?  It makes scholarship limits that kept places from recruiting kids just so they didn't play someplace else useless.  

What I seriously wonder is where all these "they should be paid to play" people were when Maurice Clarett challenged the NFL's eligibility requirements in an attempt to get paid for playing.