Fair Play Act
 

I'm surprised there isn't more talk about this. Cali schools could no longer field teams under the NCAA's rules if this were to become law. Would the NCAA no longer allow California schools to participate? Would the Cal St legislature discontinue bowl games w/in its border in retaliation if that were to happen? If the NCAA were to allow Cal an exception, it would surely create an unfair advantage for teams out west. So would other states follow California's lead?

NCAA has commented before on similar suggested bills. Their position is that member schools must still follow NCAA guidelines. From their viewpoint, local laws can be more restrictive, but cannot undermine NCAA rules. I don't know that this has ever been tested in court.

I know. The NCAA is arrogant enough to claim no state can hold jurisdiction over them.

But if multiple states adopt these rules, those schools would have to leave the NCAA and form their own competing organization. And with star players having the opportunity to get paid earlier, how long could the NCAA schools exist having that kind of disadvantage?

I remember Glenn "Big Dog" Robinson got a court to ban Purdue from giving out masks of him at games during his collegiate days. The court said the university couldn't do it because Robinson hadn't given them permission to use his likeness.

I think eventually players will get paid. It will be interesting how that will change collegiate sports. Will all the 4 and 5 star players just end up at a few schools and maybe form a super conference? Will star QB get paId more than the linemen. What will happen to the non profit sports at the school? Will women’s teams get equal pay? Will some schools stop sports?
I know years ago after Wichita State lost most of it’s team in a plane crash. A commission decided having a football program was not financially worth it and decided then to stop the program.
It will be interesting to see what collegiate sports looks like in 20 years.

I think there will be a super division in football at least that separates themselves from the rest of college athletics. Or smaller colleges will choose to separate.

I think that allowing athletes to sell autographs or make money from jerseys may be feasible with controls (not letting a booster pay $50k for an autograph or shirt) but I think that paying the athletes is not as simple as people think.

While there is a lot of money involved in college sports, few of the major programs actually turn a profit from football. The big state schools all get millions of dollars from their states to cover losses in the programs.

I can see Nike or someone paying an athlete a 100,000 or whatever to use their likeness but on the condition they attend a certain school to maximize their exposure. They want to spend their money on a kid that will likely go to the final four. Not going to spend their money on a kid going to a weak basketball school.

Colleges don't need to pay players. They just need to stop preventing them from making money.

All they care is if they go to a Nike school. If they are talented enough, they are going to want to get into their good graces for when they hit the NBA. Because if Nike low balls them now, UnderArmour will swoosh, um, swoop in.

I agree, as long as there are controls.

Wichita State's football program actually carried on about a dozen years or so after that plane crash. The school gave future Tennessee coach Phil Fulmer his first full-time assistant coaching job but I digress. The program never recovered from the plane crash and with attendance down and poor records on the field TPTB decided to drop the program.

Why do you need controls? Who controls how much money the rest of us can make? Or from whom we can get that money from? If politicians can get private jet rides and judges country club memberships, I don't see why a college student should have his earning chances & potential restricted.

Because as much as think the NCAA has serious issues, I don't think the best players should go to the teams with the richest boosters.

Because?

I guess I am an old fart who like some competitive balance in what is supposed to be amateur sports. I still like the idea of the student athlete. I suppose we can just go to the "The Buckeyes, slightly affiliated with Ohio State University" and just have them be semi-pro teams.

I get that. I wish there would be something to keep it balanced. But I also feel there isn't any balance anyway.

As I've said up here before, the system sucks when a team can go unbeaten and have no shot to win the title from the get go, but Bama can finish 2nd in their half of the conference and be a shoe in. So NCAA football is already playing on an uneven field.

If my guess that a group of football schools will break off from the rest of the country and form a different league, that might actually even things a bit. Cause the stakes will be higher, only a few schools could actually play at that high stakes table. Which means there will be fewer places to land if preps want to play at the highest level. Playing time will be at a premium. Which should make the talent on each roster deeper. Fewer Clemson vs New Mexico State games.

It's going to suck for the places that don't have a Phil Knight or T.Bone Pickens to fund them and force a drop in prestige. But those schools can organize a true playoff that would generate interest and money. Let the others have the bowl games.

Either way, I don't like the fact a "student-athlete" can't cash in on his value if he has any. It is immoral to me.

Not arrogance...
 

The NCAA is not based in California, but Indianapolis. Indiana can claim sovereignty over them, no other state can. Black letter law.

Frankly, I'd welcome seeing California get blacklisted from the NCAA. Their preening social justice nonsense now pervades all the formerly politics free areas of life, and their penny ante attempts to blackmail other states into heeling to them is offensive, unconstitutional, and unintelligent...in my humble opinion.

I have heard this idea bandied about for a few decades, but I have a hard time seeing it come to be. These top level teams, and their alumni, are too used to a system where losing 2 games is a horrible year and a reason to change coaches.

If a dozen or two teams break off ans start playing among themselves, some of these teams are going to finish below .500 for the first time in decades. With the short fuse that many of the deep pocket alumni have, heads are going to roll. There are also non-scholastic benefits that being a member of some of these big conferences confer. This won't matter to the fan who really doesn't care about any scholastics, just wast people to bash into each other for his amusement, but the schools themselves would not want to give them up.

I don't think it will be only 20 teams breaking off. I think it will be 70-80, depending how radical they want to get. Some small schools like Wake Forest may decide they can't hang. Others may step in for the Power 5 teams that drop out. But like you said, they are going to want some cattle fodder in the mix to help feed the big heifers. And some schools will stay in whether they can compete or not because of pride. Loyalty to conference mates will also come into play. After all, this is more than just football involved.

But it is clear the needs and the resources in the bowl division has a wider gap than it has ever had. Paying players is going to ruin some programs because they can't possibly compete for the top notch talent. As soon as there is an agreement in place to allow players to receive money in salary or gift form that'll be a wrap for them.