The driving force to the popularity of big-time college sports is not the athletes but the name on the jersey. For example, if one were to take the UT football roster this year and put them on a D-League team called the Austin Longhorns, there'd be far less interest in these players and their games.

fadskier said:

---

Karab said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Karab said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

Karab said:

---

Okay, Chicken Little.

All this does is force the NCAA to develop some rational rules so that players can make money off their likeness.

If they NCAA outright opposes this, it'll be the death of the NCAA.

So let's just enjoy the fact that we are finally going to get another NCAA Football game in the next few years.

---

The NCAA is far bigger than Nutfyuk Newsom and the State of California.

This is not the way you change things. Supreme Dictator Newsom doesn't believe in any other way.

Players should get some sort of stipend, depending on their background...I have no problem with that.

But they're not pro athletes either, demanding billions a year to take a fyucking knee either. At least not until they get talked into the NFL after their freshman year or later.

If the schools want to talk to the NCAA like adults and work out a compromise? Cool!

But if no, those schools are athletically ineligible for sanctioned events once the law is in effect.

---

You all seem to think this is isolated to California.

They are just the first. The tide is changing, and everyone who thinks it is a violation of ethics needs to be reminded that billion-dollar sports industries associated with academic schools is already an ethical corruption in itself.

Anyone on Baylor campus can profit from their likeness EXCEPT the student-athletes which is utterly non-sensical. Just because they attend a university should not prevent them from making money on the side.

Regardless of which side of the fence on the likeness issue you are, we all agree that schools directly paying players is wrong (which this law is not about). Yet we don't bat an eye at scholarships which are essentially a regulated form of that.

The NCAA, under the pressure of multiple states, is going to have to make a compromise here in order to preserve its authority as a regulating body. If it doesn't, several states will probably follow suit and essentially do away with the NCAA--thereby fracturing the uniform body and maybe even create an entirely new organization to replace it.

If Nike wants to do a commercial with Jalen Hurts in it and Jalen is the only one who is paid--who cares?

That's where the NCAA needs to step in and set some clearly defined rules and prevent schools from putting their hands where they shouldn't.

---

It's not the schools that will be the problem, per se. It going to be boosters, companies with ties to schools. It's going to put a HUGE divide between the Ohio St's, Bama's, Texas' etc and the rest of us. That divide is already there and widening. This will make it worse.

---

You mean the boosters that are already manipulating the system in the recruiting process by hiring people to influence kids in high school? All this might do is cut out the middle men or at least change the middle men to commercial businesses.

Corruption is always going to be there--it's the American way. This law is designed to allow people to make money from their likeness--which they were born with.

Again, this is where the NCAA needs to lean forward and be proactive in regulating the issue if it wants to survive. It's already failed to uphold the same standards for various other penalties and people are questioning its worth. It was designed to protect student athletes yet doesn't seem to advocate for students at all anymore.

---

So because corruption exists, we shouldn't do anything? If you don't think schools, business etc will pervert this into something, I believe your wrong.

---

No, what I'm suggesting is that nothing is being done right now with the corruption that exists.

All that can be done going forward is tackling the issue straight on, by regulating it, to stave off some of that corruption.

By eliminating the current middle-men industry surrounding recruits, the NCAA can actually at least codify and monitor some of this better with the likeness issue.

Or, it can stick its head in the sand.

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

Karab said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

This issue is boosters, large and small, lining up to make endorsement deals with recruits.

Colleges need to get back to being colleges. Most don't make money off of their athletic programs, but the highly compensated Athletic Administrators (at schools, conferences and the NCAA), highly compensated coaches, highly compensated sports personalities, and highly profitable networks make tons of money. These people literally cannot let go of the golden goose of college athletics.

---

Agreed.

It's why I hope the XFL (or something like it) succeeds. If collegiate sports disappeared and transitioned to semi-pro leagues, the world would be better off.

---

Disagree completely. Without the college attachment and amateur requirement, college football is just a second-tier pro sport and would be viewed and funded the same way minor league baseball, basketball and hockey are. It's the passion that comes from supporters of the individual schools that makes college sports a draw.

College sports are wonderful at all levels. But the Division I game has been corrupted and needs some cleaning. Give kids the option to go pro out of high school through well organized and funded developmental leagues and you clean up a lot of what's currently wrong with college athletics. Then it would be like baseball and hockey currently are, where the kids that are there are so because they want to be, not because they're being forced to by their chosen pro league's arbitrary age limits.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just drain the dirty water from the tub.

baylorrific said:

---

The driving force to the popularity of big-time college sports is not the athletes but the name on the jersey. For example, if one were to take the UT football roster this year and put them on a D-League team called the Austin Longhorns, there'd be far less interest in these players and their games.

---

Exactly.

I demand reparations!

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

This issue is boosters, large and small, lining up to make endorsement deals with recruits.

Colleges need to get back to being colleges. Most don't make money off of their athletic programs, but the highly compensated Athletic Administrators (at schools, conferences and the NCAA), highly compensated coaches, highly compensated sports personalities, and highly profitable networks make tons of money. These people literally cannot let go of the golden goose of college athletics.

---

Agreed.

It's why I hope the XFL (or something like it) succeeds. If collegiate sports disappeared and transitioned to semi-pro leagues, the world would be better off.

---

Disagree completely. Without the college attachment and amateur requirement, college football is just a second-tier pro sport and would be viewed and funded the same way minor league baseball, basketball and hockey are. It's the passion that comes from supporters of the individual schools that makes college sports a draw.

College sports are wonderful at all levels. But the Division I game has been corrupted and needs some cleaning. Give kids the option to go pro out of high school through well organized and funded developmental leagues and you clean up a lot of what's currently wrong with college athletics. Then it would be like baseball and hockey currently are, where the kids that are there are so because they want to be, not because they're being forced to by their chosen pro league's arbitrary age limits.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just drain the dirty water from the tub.

---

I'm, admittedly, a purist on this issue.

Sports should not have a place in academic institutions. Not at the university level, not at the high school level, or any school. It also should not be tied to governments (e.g. cities or states).

Sports should belong to local clubs. If you want to play a sport, you pay for your child to be in a developmental league/club. If you are an adult, you pay to participate just the same or get recruited/paid by professional clubs.

Karab said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

This issue is boosters, large and small, lining up to make endorsement deals with recruits.

Colleges need to get back to being colleges. Most don't make money off of their athletic programs, but the highly compensated Athletic Administrators (at schools, conferences and the NCAA), highly compensated coaches, highly compensated sports personalities, and highly profitable networks make tons of money. These people literally cannot let go of the golden goose of college athletics.

---

Agreed.

It's why I hope the XFL (or something like it) succeeds. If collegiate sports disappeared and transitioned to semi-pro leagues, the world would be better off.

---

Disagree completely. Without the college attachment and amateur requirement, college football is just a second-tier pro sport and would be viewed and funded the same way minor league baseball, basketball and hockey are. It's the passion that comes from supporters of the individual schools that makes college sports a draw.

College sports are wonderful at all levels. But the Division I game has been corrupted and needs some cleaning. Give kids the option to go pro out of high school through well organized and funded developmental leagues and you clean up a lot of what's currently wrong with college athletics. Then it would be like baseball and hockey currently are, where the kids that are there are so because they want to be, not because they're being forced to by their chosen pro league's arbitrary age limits.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just drain the dirty water from the tub.

---

I'm, admittedly, a purist on this issue.

Sports should not have a place in academic institutions. Not at the university level, not at the high school level, or any school. It also should not be tied to governments (e.g. cities or states).

Sports should belong to local clubs. If you want to play a sport, you pay for your child to be in a developmental league/club. If you are an adult, you pay to participate just the same or get recruited/paid by professional clubs.

---

As someone who's covered a lot of Division III athletics in the past, I can tell you that college athletics and purity aren't mutually exclusive. There is something really unique and cool about college athletics when they're done right. It's not the model that's the problem. It's the money and outside influences that have perverted it.

And just out of curiosity, are you European? Because the model you prefer has never been the norm in this country.

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

---

They choose to do that. If nothing else, let ESPN pay every player the same amount. Baylor is not making millions.

Karab said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

This issue is boosters, large and small, lining up to make endorsement deals with recruits.

Colleges need to get back to being colleges. Most don't make money off of their athletic programs, but the highly compensated Athletic Administrators (at schools, conferences and the NCAA), highly compensated coaches, highly compensated sports personalities, and highly profitable networks make tons of money. These people literally cannot let go of the golden goose of college athletics.

---

Agreed.

It's why I hope the XFL (or something like it) succeeds. If collegiate sports disappeared and transitioned to semi-pro leagues, the world would be better off.

---

Disagree completely. Without the college attachment and amateur requirement, college football is just a second-tier pro sport and would be viewed and funded the same way minor league baseball, basketball and hockey are. It's the passion that comes from supporters of the individual schools that makes college sports a draw.

College sports are wonderful at all levels. But the Division I game has been corrupted and needs some cleaning. Give kids the option to go pro out of high school through well organized and funded developmental leagues and you clean up a lot of what's currently wrong with college athletics. Then it would be like baseball and hockey currently are, where the kids that are there are so because they want to be, not because they're being forced to by their chosen pro league's arbitrary age limits.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just drain the dirty water from the tub.

---

I'm, admittedly, a purist on this issue.

Sports should not have a place in academic institutions. Not at the university level, not at the high school level, or any school. It also should not be tied to governments (e.g. cities or states).

Sports should belong to local clubs. If you want to play a sport, you pay for your child to be in a developmental league/club. If you are an adult, you pay to participate just the same or get recruited/paid by professional clubs.

---

While I agree with you, I'm not sure I'd call that the purist approach. Separationist?

btw, don't call it capitalist or there are snowflakes here that will *****.

Karab said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

This issue is boosters, large and small, lining up to make endorsement deals with recruits.

Colleges need to get back to being colleges. Most don't make money off of their athletic programs, but the highly compensated Athletic Administrators (at schools, conferences and the NCAA), highly compensated coaches, highly compensated sports personalities, and highly profitable networks make tons of money. These people literally cannot let go of the golden goose of college athletics.

---

Agreed.

It's why I hope the XFL (or something like it) succeeds. If collegiate sports disappeared and transitioned to semi-pro leagues, the world would be better off.

---

Disagree completely. Without the college attachment and amateur requirement, college football is just a second-tier pro sport and would be viewed and funded the same way minor league baseball, basketball and hockey are. It's the passion that comes from supporters of the individual schools that makes college sports a draw.

College sports are wonderful at all levels. But the Division I game has been corrupted and needs some cleaning. Give kids the option to go pro out of high school through well organized and funded developmental leagues and you clean up a lot of what's currently wrong with college athletics. Then it would be like baseball and hockey currently are, where the kids that are there are so because they want to be, not because they're being forced to by their chosen pro league's arbitrary age limits.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just drain the dirty water from the tub.

---

I'm, admittedly, a purist on this issue.

Sports should not have a place in academic institutions. Not at the university level, not at the high school level, or any school. It also should not be tied to governments (e.g. cities or states).

Sports should belong to local clubs. If you want to play a sport, you pay for your child to be in a developmental league/club. If you are an adult, you pay to participate just the same or get recruited/paid by professional clubs.

---

I agree, but we're way past that. In Texas, just look how much public school time and money is spent in athletics. I realize that voters vote and approve that stuff...budgets, etc but it is still alot of money.

If we're going to allow this in NCAA, why not allow it in high school, junior high and pee wee? Why have rules at all?

Do you guys really think Baylor will continue to play college football if this is allowed to happen?

I guess it will allow all of the Regents and big $$$ boosters who have kids a chance to play for Baylor!?!

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

This issue is boosters, large and small, lining up to make endorsement deals with recruits.

Colleges need to get back to being colleges. Most don't make money off of their athletic programs, but the highly compensated Athletic Administrators (at schools, conferences and the NCAA), highly compensated coaches, highly compensated sports personalities, and highly profitable networks make tons of money. These people literally cannot let go of the golden goose of college athletics.

---

Agreed.

It's why I hope the XFL (or something like it) succeeds. If collegiate sports disappeared and transitioned to semi-pro leagues, the world would be better off.

---

Disagree completely. Without the college attachment and amateur requirement, college football is just a second-tier pro sport and would be viewed and funded the same way minor league baseball, basketball and hockey are. It's the passion that comes from supporters of the individual schools that makes college sports a draw.

College sports are wonderful at all levels. But the Division I game has been corrupted and needs some cleaning. Give kids the option to go pro out of high school through well organized and funded developmental leagues and you clean up a lot of what's currently wrong with college athletics. Then it would be like baseball and hockey currently are, where the kids that are there are so because they want to be, not because they're being forced to by their chosen pro league's arbitrary age limits.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just drain the dirty water from the tub.

---

I'm, admittedly, a purist on this issue.

Sports should not have a place in academic institutions. Not at the university level, not at the high school level, or any school. It also should not be tied to governments (e.g. cities or states).

Sports should belong to local clubs. If you want to play a sport, you pay for your child to be in a developmental league/club. If you are an adult, you pay to participate just the same or get recruited/paid by professional clubs.

---

As someone who's covered a lot of Division III athletics in the past, I can tell you that college athletics and purity aren't mutually exclusive. There is something really unique and cool about college athletics when they're done right. It's not the model that's the problem. It's the money and outside influences that have perverted it.

---

Fair enough--and I understand your point. It's the reason I watch CFB--almost exclusively--other than March Madness or the NIT when Baylor is in it. Having lived around the world, I don't owe allegiance to an NFL team nor care for the pro level. I enjoy the tradition and "sake of the game" that still exists a bit at the collegiate level.

Still, I think the American approach to sports (not the same as 'athletics' per se) is completely inappropriate and overshadows the purpose of educational institutions.

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

---

They choose to do that. If nothing else, let ESPN pay every player the same amount. Baylor is not making millions.

---

No, but this isn't about Baylor. It's about what local businesses or boosters may feel like giving. Bama levels? Of course not. Washington State levels? Also no, not in sport-crazed Texas.

To be clear I think there's a lot of potential harm/ I'm not arguing I would prefer this pass and become the norm. I'm just saying it's also not the death knell of college sports.

and while we on this and I'm trying to back away from the edge. Reply is also contributing to the ruination of college football. How many times have we watched momentum being killed by a lengthy review? It prolongs the game. Just stop it. Let the refs make human errors and move on.

Oh, and too many commercials!

I would hope that if it happens there would be something like a trust developed and nothing was paid out unless the following were met:

1. The student/athlete actually graduates from the same university he played for.
2. The funds/payments are paid out over a specific time frame5 years, 10 years, etc.
3. The student/athlete stays clean. No criminal record, no drug convictions, etc. If convicted felon, payments go into a non-profit or back to the University.
4. No funds paid until the athlete has been out of the NFL for a minimum of 5 years or more.
5. If an athlete takes more than 4 years to graduate he must pay the University back for 100% of the hours in excess of 4 years.
6. If athlete has fathered children he must support those kids-child support.

bear2be2 said:

---

There is something really unique and cool about college athletics when they're done right. It's not the model that's the problem. It's the money and outside influences that have perverted it.

---

Bingo!

fadskier said:

---

Karab said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

This issue is boosters, large and small, lining up to make endorsement deals with recruits.

Colleges need to get back to being colleges. Most don't make money off of their athletic programs, but the highly compensated Athletic Administrators (at schools, conferences and the NCAA), highly compensated coaches, highly compensated sports personalities, and highly profitable networks make tons of money. These people literally cannot let go of the golden goose of college athletics.

---

Agreed.

It's why I hope the XFL (or something like it) succeeds. If collegiate sports disappeared and transitioned to semi-pro leagues, the world would be better off.

---

Disagree completely. Without the college attachment and amateur requirement, college football is just a second-tier pro sport and would be viewed and funded the same way minor league baseball, basketball and hockey are. It's the passion that comes from supporters of the individual schools that makes college sports a draw.

College sports are wonderful at all levels. But the Division I game has been corrupted and needs some cleaning. Give kids the option to go pro out of high school through well organized and funded developmental leagues and you clean up a lot of what's currently wrong with college athletics. Then it would be like baseball and hockey currently are, where the kids that are there are so because they want to be, not because they're being forced to by their chosen pro league's arbitrary age limits.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just drain the dirty water from the tub.

---

I'm, admittedly, a purist on this issue.

Sports should not have a place in academic institutions. Not at the university level, not at the high school level, or any school. It also should not be tied to governments (e.g. cities or states).

Sports should belong to local clubs. If you want to play a sport, you pay for your child to be in a developmental league/club. If you are an adult, you pay to participate just the same or get recruited/paid by professional clubs.

---

I agree, but we're way past that. In Texas, just look how much public school time and money is spent in athletics. I realize that voters vote and approve that stuff...budgets, etc but it is still alot of money.

If we're going to allow this in NCAA, why not allow it in high school, junior high and pee wee? Why have rules at all?

---

Socially, I think we are still bound by the idea that adulthood counts for something. Labor laws and all that. Harder to justify paying minors.

However, if you look at the e-sports arena where teenagers are making serious bank... things get a little sticky as far as age and professional sports. The difference is that those e-sports kids aren't being paid by schools or states, they are playing for themselves or as part of a club.

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

---

They choose to do that. If nothing else, let ESPN pay every player the same amount. Baylor is not making millions.

---

No, but this isn't about Baylor. It's about what local businesses or boosters may feel like giving. Bama levels? Of course not. Washington State levels? Also no, not in sport-crazed Texas.

To be clear I think there's a lot of potential harm/ I'm not arguing I would prefer this pass and become the norm. I'm just saying it's also not the death knell of college sports.

---

I think it's the "death knell" of college sports as we know it. But honestly, the amount of money that has been infused into college athletics began the downfall. It's an arms race...one thing that the SEC has going for it is close, regional rivalries where plenty of fans and bands from both sides show up. Although we have some of that, UT is already looking at upping their fee for visiting fans and bands. Pretty soon, it will be as boring as pro football.

My son went to an FCS school and may daughter attends a D2 school, football games are still "football games" at that level.

Karab said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

This issue is boosters, large and small, lining up to make endorsement deals with recruits.

Colleges need to get back to being colleges. Most don't make money off of their athletic programs, but the highly compensated Athletic Administrators (at schools, conferences and the NCAA), highly compensated coaches, highly compensated sports personalities, and highly profitable networks make tons of money. These people literally cannot let go of the golden goose of college athletics.

---

Agreed.

It's why I hope the XFL (or something like it) succeeds. If collegiate sports disappeared and transitioned to semi-pro leagues, the world would be better off.

---

Disagree completely. Without the college attachment and amateur requirement, college football is just a second-tier pro sport and would be viewed and funded the same way minor league baseball, basketball and hockey are. It's the passion that comes from supporters of the individual schools that makes college sports a draw.

College sports are wonderful at all levels. But the Division I game has been corrupted and needs some cleaning. Give kids the option to go pro out of high school through well organized and funded developmental leagues and you clean up a lot of what's currently wrong with college athletics. Then it would be like baseball and hockey currently are, where the kids that are there are so because they want to be, not because they're being forced to by their chosen pro league's arbitrary age limits.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just drain the dirty water from the tub.

---

I'm, admittedly, a purist on this issue.

Sports should not have a place in academic institutions. Not at the university level, not at the high school level, or any school. It also should not be tied to governments (e.g. cities or states).

Sports should belong to local clubs. If you want to play a sport, you pay for your child to be in a developmental league/club. If you are an adult, you pay to participate just the same or get recruited/paid by professional clubs.

---

As someone who's covered a lot of Division III athletics in the past, I can tell you that college athletics and purity aren't mutually exclusive. There is something really unique and cool about college athletics when they're done right. It's not the model that's the problem. It's the money and outside influences that have perverted it.

---

Fair enough--and I understand your point. It's the reason I watch CFB--almost exclusively--other than March Madness or the NIT when Baylor is in it. Having lived around the world, I don't owe allegiance to an NFL team nor care for the pro level. I enjoy the tradition and "sake of the game" that still exists a bit at the collegiate level.

Still, I think the American approach to sports (not the same as 'athletics' per se) is completely inappropriate and overshadows the purpose of educational institutions.

---

I'd argue that the American approach (when done right) aligns well with the mission and purpose of universities in that it provides unique educational opportunities for young people, most of whom take advantage of and benefit from those. But that's just philosophical difference.

bear2be2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Karab said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

Karab said:

---

Okay, Chicken Little.

All this does is force the NCAA to develop some rational rules so that players can make money off their likeness.

If they NCAA outright opposes this, it'll be the death of the NCAA.

So let's just enjoy the fact that we are finally going to get another NCAA Football game in the next few years.

---

The NCAA is far bigger than Nutfyuk Newsom and the State of California.

This is not the way you change things. Supreme Dictator Newsom doesn't believe in any other way.

Players should get some sort of stipend, depending on their background...I have no problem with that.

But they're not pro athletes either, demanding billions a year to take a fyucking knee either. At least not until they get talked into the NFL after their freshman year or later.

If the schools want to talk to the NCAA like adults and work out a compromise? Cool!

But if no, those schools are athletically ineligible for sanctioned events once the law is in effect.

---

You all seem to think this is isolated to California.

They are just the first. The tide is changing, and everyone who thinks it is a violation of ethics needs to be reminded that billion-dollar sports industries associated with academic schools is already an ethical corruption in itself.

Anyone on Baylor campus can profit from their likeness EXCEPT the student-athletes which is utterly non-sensical. Just because they attend a university should not prevent them from making money on the side.

Regardless of which side of the fence on the likeness issue you are, we all agree that schools directly paying players is wrong (which this law is not about). Yet we don't bat an eye at scholarships which are essentially a regulated form of that.

The NCAA, under the pressure of multiple states, is going to have to make a compromise here in order to preserve its authority as a regulating body. If it doesn't, several states will probably follow suit and essentially do away with the NCAA--thereby fracturing the uniform body and maybe even create an entirely new organization to replace it.

If Nike wants to do a commercial with Jalen Hurts in it and Jalen is the only one who is paid--who cares?

That's where the NCAA needs to step in and set some clearly defined rules and prevent schools from putting their hands where they shouldn't.

---

It's not the schools that will be the problem, per se. It going to be boosters, companies with ties to schools. It's going to put a HUGE divide between the Ohio St's, Bama's, Texas' etc and the rest of us. That divide is already there and widening. This will make it worse.

---

My brother and I had this discussion yesterday and he made a good point. Those schools already own recruiting nationally. As long as the scholarship limit remains in place (and it will), things won't change that much.

---

But in this scenario, who needs traditional scholarships? Imagine a 5* high school bad ass considering between UT, Alabama, Florida. Red McCombs enters the picture with a 1 million dollar offer to make the kid the face of his Automotive Group (provided he goes to UT). With a million in hand, kid doesn't need UT's scholarship and walks-on.

I agree that it is wrong to use the name and likeness of these kids for the benefit of someone other than the school but I cannot envision how this will not be abused, much less how it can be regulated.

fadskier said:

---

and while we on this and I'm trying to back away from the edge. Reply is also contributing to the ruination of college football. How many times have we watched momentum being killed by a lengthy review? It prolongs the game. Just stop it. Let the refs make human errors and move on.

Oh, and too many commercials!

---

Agreed on the commercials thing. And I blame the NCAA for not fighting the networks on that.

How has CFB become more commercial than the NFL? It's freaking weird.

As far as reviews, they should probably put some limits on the reviews. If you can't make a decision within a minute, the call needs to stand.

I personally loved the format of the AAF (which died prematurely).

1) In-picture commercials.
2) Sky-Judge intervenes during egregious issues, otherwise play.
3) Better clock rules.

GrowlTowel said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Karab said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

Karab said:

---

Okay, Chicken Little.

All this does is force the NCAA to develop some rational rules so that players can make money off their likeness.

If they NCAA outright opposes this, it'll be the death of the NCAA.

So let's just enjoy the fact that we are finally going to get another NCAA Football game in the next few years.

---

The NCAA is far bigger than Nutfyuk Newsom and the State of California.

This is not the way you change things. Supreme Dictator Newsom doesn't believe in any other way.

Players should get some sort of stipend, depending on their background...I have no problem with that.

But they're not pro athletes either, demanding billions a year to take a fyucking knee either. At least not until they get talked into the NFL after their freshman year or later.

If the schools want to talk to the NCAA like adults and work out a compromise? Cool!

But if no, those schools are athletically ineligible for sanctioned events once the law is in effect.

---

You all seem to think this is isolated to California.

They are just the first. The tide is changing, and everyone who thinks it is a violation of ethics needs to be reminded that billion-dollar sports industries associated with academic schools is already an ethical corruption in itself.

Anyone on Baylor campus can profit from their likeness EXCEPT the student-athletes which is utterly non-sensical. Just because they attend a university should not prevent them from making money on the side.

Regardless of which side of the fence on the likeness issue you are, we all agree that schools directly paying players is wrong (which this law is not about). Yet we don't bat an eye at scholarships which are essentially a regulated form of that.

The NCAA, under the pressure of multiple states, is going to have to make a compromise here in order to preserve its authority as a regulating body. If it doesn't, several states will probably follow suit and essentially do away with the NCAA--thereby fracturing the uniform body and maybe even create an entirely new organization to replace it.

If Nike wants to do a commercial with Jalen Hurts in it and Jalen is the only one who is paid--who cares?

That's where the NCAA needs to step in and set some clearly defined rules and prevent schools from putting their hands where they shouldn't.

---

It's not the schools that will be the problem, per se. It going to be boosters, companies with ties to schools. It's going to put a HUGE divide between the Ohio St's, Bama's, Texas' etc and the rest of us. That divide is already there and widening. This will make it worse.

---

My brother and I had this discussion yesterday and he made a good point. Those schools already own recruiting nationally. As long as the scholarship limit remains in place (and it will), things won't change that much.

---

But in this scenario, who needs traditional scholarships? Imagine a 5* high school bad ass considering between UT, Alabama, Florida. Red McCombs enters the picture with a 1 million dollar offer to make the kid the face of his Automotive Group (provided he goes to UT). With a million in hand, kid doesn't need UT's scholarship and walks-on.

I agree that it is wrong to use the name and likeness of these kids for the benefit of someone other than the school but I cannot envision how this will not be abused, much less how it can be regulated.

---

My point earlier. Schools with the biggest donors win. It because another facet of the arms race. Mayve division I football needs to split into three divisions...one for the Ohio States and Alabamas and UTs and another with more conservative fan bases...then FCS.

Quote:

---

If collegiate sports disappeared

---

I don't want collegiate sports to go away, just to be what they have never been but should be. Actual student athletes. People playing sports they love for the joy of it, not playing for an education or the chance to make a professional team. If people want to watch, that's great, but not necessary.

Cheating and money influence over college football started when the second game was played.

GrowlTowel said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Karab said:

---

BUGWBBear said:

---

Karab said:

---

Okay, Chicken Little.

All this does is force the NCAA to develop some rational rules so that players can make money off their likeness.

If they NCAA outright opposes this, it'll be the death of the NCAA.

So let's just enjoy the fact that we are finally going to get another NCAA Football game in the next few years.

---

The NCAA is far bigger than Nutfyuk Newsom and the State of California.

This is not the way you change things. Supreme Dictator Newsom doesn't believe in any other way.

Players should get some sort of stipend, depending on their background...I have no problem with that.

But they're not pro athletes either, demanding billions a year to take a fyucking knee either. At least not until they get talked into the NFL after their freshman year or later.

If the schools want to talk to the NCAA like adults and work out a compromise? Cool!

But if no, those schools are athletically ineligible for sanctioned events once the law is in effect.

---

You all seem to think this is isolated to California.

They are just the first. The tide is changing, and everyone who thinks it is a violation of ethics needs to be reminded that billion-dollar sports industries associated with academic schools is already an ethical corruption in itself.

Anyone on Baylor campus can profit from their likeness EXCEPT the student-athletes which is utterly non-sensical. Just because they attend a university should not prevent them from making money on the side.

Regardless of which side of the fence on the likeness issue you are, we all agree that schools directly paying players is wrong (which this law is not about). Yet we don't bat an eye at scholarships which are essentially a regulated form of that.

The NCAA, under the pressure of multiple states, is going to have to make a compromise here in order to preserve its authority as a regulating body. If it doesn't, several states will probably follow suit and essentially do away with the NCAA--thereby fracturing the uniform body and maybe even create an entirely new organization to replace it.

If Nike wants to do a commercial with Jalen Hurts in it and Jalen is the only one who is paid--who cares?

That's where the NCAA needs to step in and set some clearly defined rules and prevent schools from putting their hands where they shouldn't.

---

It's not the schools that will be the problem, per se. It going to be boosters, companies with ties to schools. It's going to put a HUGE divide between the Ohio St's, Bama's, Texas' etc and the rest of us. That divide is already there and widening. This will make it worse.

---

My brother and I had this discussion yesterday and he made a good point. Those schools already own recruiting nationally. As long as the scholarship limit remains in place (and it will), things won't change that much.

---

But in this scenario, who needs traditional scholarships? Imagine a 5* high school bad ass considering between UT, Alabama, Florida. Red McCombs enters the picture with a 1 million dollar offer to make the kid the face of his Automotive Group (provided he goes to UT). With a million in hand, kid doesn't need UT's scholarship and walks-on.
.

---

Roster limits then

my .02 cents?

Price mechanisms are good things. and the trend here went on to screw athletes too long. As profits increased, coaches salaries increased and the media made more money. The athletes? Their deal actually got worse.
I don't know any smart kids that want to play football not counting D2 or D3.
The practice of screening athletes from degree programs because of the football practice schedule is out of control. It's largely an abused way of minimizing the degree commitment by the school and everyone is doing it.

The likeness issue was sort of profit bubble. Only the participants that profited from the true amateurs are criticizing this and they have only themselves to blame.

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

---

They choose to do that. If nothing else, let ESPN pay every player the same amount. Baylor is not making millions.

---

No, but this isn't about Baylor. It's about what local businesses or boosters may feel like giving. Bama levels? Of course not. Washington State levels? Also no, not in sport-crazed Texas.

To be clear I think there's a lot of potential harm/ I'm not arguing I would prefer this pass and become the norm. I'm just saying it's also not the death knell of college sports.

---

My son went to an FCS school and may daughter attends a D2 school, football games are still "football games" at that level.

---

Ya, FCS football at places like U of Montana is still a heck of a lot of fun.

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

---

They choose to do that. If nothing else, let ESPN pay every player the same amount. Baylor is not making millions.

---

No, but this isn't about Baylor. It's about what local businesses or boosters may feel like giving. Bama levels? Of course not. Washington State levels? Also no, not in sport-crazed Texas.

To be clear I think there's a lot of potential harm/ I'm not arguing I would prefer this pass and become the norm. I'm just saying it's also not the death knell of college sports.

---

My son went to an FCS school and may daughter attends a D2 school, football games are still "football games" at that level.

---

Ya, FCS football at places like U of Montana is still a heck of a lot of fun.

---

Been to the Brawl of the Wild twice...incredible atmosphere

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Quote:

---

If collegiate sports disappeared

---

I don't want collegiate sports to go away, just to be what they have never been but should be. Actual student athletes. People playing sports they love for the joy of it, not playing for an education or the chance to make a professional team. If people want to watch, that's great, but not necessary.

Cheating and money influence over college football started when the second game was played.

---

Sounds like intramurals, which is how it all started out.

There has to be a viable semi-pro league outside of college. Without it, collegiate sports is the de facto semi-pro league. That's the big problem.

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

---

They choose to do that. If nothing else, let ESPN pay every player the same amount. Baylor is not making millions.

---

No, but this isn't about Baylor. It's about what local businesses or boosters may feel like giving. Bama levels? Of course not. Washington State levels? Also no, not in sport-crazed Texas.

To be clear I think there's a lot of potential harm/ I'm not arguing I would prefer this pass and become the norm. I'm just saying it's also not the death knell of college sports.

---

My son went to an FCS school and may daughter attends a D2 school, football games are still "football games" at that level.

---

Ya, FCS football at places like U of Montana is still a heck of a lot of fun.

---

Been to the Brawl of the Wild twice...incredible atmosphere

---

Hell yes. That may well be the apex of FCS football. And UM's stadium is awesome.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

So you want to keep a Socialism system in place? I figured the most capitalistic solution would go over big here.

---

That would be awesome. Where this collapses is when the punter, the backups, the female volleyball players and equestrian athletes demand their fair share.

You reap what you sow socialists

Will be fascinating to warch this get completely neutered and the QBs not get quite the money they expected as they share all their "wealth" and "likeness bread" with some random person running cross country.

Let's see what happens.

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

---

They choose to do that. If nothing else, let ESPN pay every player the same amount. Baylor is not making millions.

---

No, but this isn't about Baylor. It's about what local businesses or boosters may feel like giving. Bama levels? Of course not. Washington State levels? Also no, not in sport-crazed Texas.

To be clear I think there's a lot of potential harm/ I'm not arguing I would prefer this pass and become the norm. I'm just saying it's also not the death knell of college sports.

---

My son went to an FCS school and may daughter attends a D2 school, football games are still "football games" at that level.

---

Ya, FCS football at places like U of Montana is still a heck of a lot of fun.

---

Been to the Brawl of the Wild twice...incredible atmosphere

---

Hell yes. That may well be the apex of FCS football. And UM's stadium is awesome.

---

Both games were in Bozeman..we were/are Bobcats.

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

---

They choose to do that. If nothing else, let ESPN pay every player the same amount. Baylor is not making millions.

---

No, but this isn't about Baylor. It's about what local businesses or boosters may feel like giving. Bama levels? Of course not. Washington State levels? Also no, not in sport-crazed Texas.

To be clear I think there's a lot of potential harm/ I'm not arguing I would prefer this pass and become the norm. I'm just saying it's also not the death knell of college sports.

---

My son went to an FCS school and may daughter attends a D2 school, football games are still "football games" at that level.

---

Ya, FCS football at places like U of Montana is still a heck of a lot of fun.

---

Been to the Brawl of the Wild twice...incredible atmosphere

---

Hell yes. That may well be the apex of FCS football. And UM's stadium is awesome.

---

Both games were in Bozeman..we were/are Bobcats.

---

Well, still a pretty good stadium Views from Bobcat Stadium are great, and Bozeman is amazing. Would love to end up there someday (like so many others). Bobcats have had the better of the series as of late too.

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LTbear said:

---

longtimebear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

The OP is spot on. If the NCAA caves, it will most assuredly be the death of not just college football, but all of college athletics and sites like SE365. Most importantly, it will end educational opportunities for thousands and thousands of student-athletes.

You can talk all you want about how schools are making all this money off the backs of athletes (very few of those schools make any money at all), but the fact is that this law will not give those student-athletes access to that money. It will be different money; money that will create an unlevel playing field and that will be free from any system to control abuse.

---

The NCAA will have this liberal decision tied up in court for years to come.

---

As others have said, I don't see how this is liberal. I think people are reacting emotionally because it's coming from California. It's a pretty pro-capitalism/ anti-socialism move.

In any case, it opens a can of worms. Agreed with others who say this would be better than the schools paying players, in which case the arms race would rapidly dwindle the field of competitive teams. This just allows players to sign autographs, get into a local auto commercial, etc. For the majority of athletes, this will be a minor thing.

---

If I'm a wealthy Alabama or UT donor and own several car lots, is there a limit to what I can pay a student to use his likeness? Can a recruit be swayed to my university because I'm going to pay him $40,000 per commercial?

---

Don't you think Bama is probably doing something like that already? This just makes it above board. I'd expect a market to stabilize; how many athletes and how much money is someone gonna pay? Guess we'll see. I think there's been too much momentum in this direction to completely stop it. Everyone but the players themselves is making millions off them risking their bodies for our entertainment.

---

They choose to do that. If nothing else, let ESPN pay every player the same amount. Baylor is not making millions.

---

No, but this isn't about Baylor. It's about what local businesses or boosters may feel like giving. Bama levels? Of course not. Washington State levels? Also no, not in sport-crazed Texas.

To be clear I think there's a lot of potential harm/ I'm not arguing I would prefer this pass and become the norm. I'm just saying it's also not the death knell of college sports.

---

My son went to an FCS school and may daughter attends a D2 school, football games are still "football games" at that level.

---

Ya, FCS football at places like U of Montana is still a heck of a lot of fun.

---

Been to the Brawl of the Wild twice...incredible atmosphere

---

Hell yes. That may well be the apex of FCS football. And UM's stadium is awesome.

---

Both games were in Bozeman..we were/are Bobcats.

---

Well, still a pretty good stadium Views from Bobcat Stadium are great, and Bozeman is amazing. Would love to end up there someday (like so many others). Bobcats have had the better of the series as of late too.

---

If my wife would agree, I could easily live in Bozeman or Missoula. Bozeman is way expensive on housing...Missoula and it's suburbs are a bit better. I'd even like to rent an aprtment and live there a few years...then move back to Texas.

Heck, I'd even live in a mobile home in Montana...no twisters...at least not in that part.

So, I don't get it. Cali passes a law that says a college student (adult) can sell their likeness and get money. Was this ever illegal before? Pretty sure once you are an adult you can do this in every state in the good ol' USA.

NCAA is a voluntary Association. In order to be in it you have to follow their rules which may or may not be the same as the state or federal law. As long as the rules do not violate the law then the NCAA can enforce them as they see fit in their voluntary Association. Telling a kid they have to be an amateur meaning they cannot get paid for their performance or likeness in order to be in their Association is not illegal - it is a term of membership.

Looks like Cali's point was to make people talk about paying Student Athletes and force a fake sense of urgency into the issue. I guess they succeeded.

Regardless of which side you stand on the issue I am not sure why it even matters if a state (no matter which state) would have this law as it basically is a waste of time. The law already allows you to be paid for your likeness once you are an adult...