Oh...ouch. Brutal. Have you been in your basement practicing how to properly drop a mic? Damn.

I never take it too seriously when people get emotional on a message board or comment section online.

And adding a dose of maturity. Thanks for that.

Can we assume all the pro-California NCAA legislation posters are in favor of all the other legislation California has passed, and will pass, forcing universities and other employers to do certain things?

I must say I do not look forward to the day when Mario Cristobal can walk into Trevor Lawrence's house and say "I'm offering you a scholarship and this is Phil Night and he is offering you a $10 million promotional deal with Nike. $5 million of that will be paid immediately if you sign this offer sheet before we leave the house. The rest will be paid on a per year basis. But remember, even though you will have $5 million right away and be paid millions each year, you still need to take and pass philosophy 101, math 101, sociology 101, and etc. and maintain a full class load the whole time. Also, even though nobody will know who the hell they are, our offensive lineman all have promotional deals worth millions with Nike so you will have the best protection of all NCAA QBs...."

Or, right after Ohio beats Ohio State in basketball, Les Wexner calls up Ben Roderick and says, "Ben, buddy, after you transfer to THE you'll get a $2 million per year promotional deal with Bath and Body Works. Doesn't matter if that makes any sense at all. And, you and your family will be set for life whether you make the NBA or not. That little Ohio U. can't do that for you."

I think the best-case example really is the Olympics. I don't believe that the USOC is paying athletes to represent this United States, right? I do believe that there is a monetary bonus for medals, though. However, did Michael Phelps getting millions and millions in endorsements while still an Olympic athlete change the sport considerably? He was definitely making much more than other swimmers, allowing him better trainers and equipment. But, that didn't change my interest in the sport. If Simone Biles gets a greater endorsement deal during her Olympic run, that won't change how I feel about her as an athlete or about her competition.

I think it was Jeremy Bloom, a receiver for Colorado and also a world-class mogul skier (and I think a model as well). He wasn't able to receive his money from skiing endorsements (and maybe modeling as well) because they would void his collegiate eligibility for football. That seems pretty ridiculous to me.

This bill allows us to continue to believe that the NCAA is on the up-and-up, as their hands stay clean. Then, maybe it is going to bring out in the open some of the shadier dealings that have been happening and make them legal. I'm not naive enough to think that Nike has kept their nose and money out of college players in the past. Now, it won't be so secretive. Personally, I'm okay with that. I don't imagine it will ruin the sport.

I think that's why the hybrid model -- which mirrors the Olympics -- is a best case scenario for the NCAA and something they should be supportive of.

Generally speaking, one of the biggest components that goes into determining employment responsibility in most states, is control exerted over the individual. The more control an organization has over the individual -- including control over schedule, time, earning potential, even attire -- the more likely they are to be considered an employee.

Exerting less control by allowing athletes to make money from other parties based on their talents would -- I suspect -- bolster the argument that these are not employees of the Universities.

It seems like a really strong hedge for the NCAA/Universities to support this. I'm really sort of confused by how adamantly opposed they are.

Good points. I get it. But, I fall back to my point that nothing is stopping Ben Roderick from playing basketball and earning money somewhere else besides the NCAA right now. Nor any high schooler playing hockey, soccer, baseball, basketball, tennis, etc. The NCAA has made its total compensation package known (free tuition and room/board and etc.) and people are free to take it or go be a pro somewhere else like Bryce Harper or Christian Pulisic or Coco Gauff and others do all the time.

In the end I think college athletes will be paid a stipend and get to sign advertising/sponsorship deals. And that will actually do long term damage to non P5 programs (via lost recruiting battles, increase in transfers, decrease in product on the field, and resulting loss of fan/donor interest, etc.) and eventually that will result in less interest in P5 programs as well.

Correct in many ways...except football. High school grads do not have the possibility to go pro in the NFL right after high school. They have to wait three years. There are a number of players who likely do not make it to the NFL because they cannot qualify for college academically and after three years, they are unable to make it in the league. Obviously, this law does not affect those individuals, but I think that we need to view football through a different lens than the other sports (once basketball drops the one-and-done policy).

In the past I've promoted the US Canoe and Kayak team - helping them find sponsors and funding. The way it worked in the past (been 12 years now). They were based in Charlotte because we built the Outdoor Center here as part of their training. They would work out here, in the mountains and in Ga on Lake Lanier.

The USOC allocates funds to each of the governing bodies (track, gymnastics, USACK, etc.) based on how that team did in the last Olympics and Worlds. The more medals your organization wins, the more money you get - obviously more for golds. So naturally the major, and larger sports rule the cash register.

The organizations pick who gets to train and where. based on past results and potential. For USACK the facility is provided, but the athletes cover most costs for living (one Olympian was living in is car in the front yard of his teammate who was recently married - had access to the bathroom and kitchen).

Additional funds can be provided by sponsors - but money directed to the organization is used as the organization sees fit. In one case, Cadillac provided a new Escalade to each governing body - for transportation or to sell / raffle off for funding. The USACK Director kept it for himself (there are assholes everywhere - he was later replaced). Individual athletes CAN be sponsored by corporations or garner other funding (Lowe's (a NC company) stepped forward and paid a couple of the better kayakers).

This works for every sport. Michael Phelps had access to US Swim, but supplemented that with his own private training - turning pro in swimming with an endorsement from Speedo when he was still in high school. His money to use as he saw fit. It made him ineligible at Michigan for swimming, though he he may (MAY) have been able to compete in water polo as colleges now allow athletes to be pro (in his case accept money for endorsement in a sport) in one sport and still compete as amateurs in other sports.

So do people think non-P5 athletic programs like Ohio/MAC would survive at D1 level with stipends to players, more open transfer rules, and endorsement $ for players? As you can tell I am filled with doubt.

Endorsement deals can get tricky.

If you look at cc-cat's post on the Olympics,Micheal Phelps got an endorsement deal from Speedo.
That made him a "professional",so he couldn't swim for Michigan.

There are a lot of potential landmines with any compensation model.

Well, it made him a professional by the NCAAs standards. The NCAA can just change the standard.

I mean, it's pretty much arbitrary that both the NCAA and Olympics are for amateur athletes and Phelps was eligible for one but not the other, right?

As I mentioned earlier, from a labor law standpoint the NCAA is much better off if these athletes make income elsewhere. The less control they exert over them the better, if the objective is to ensure they're never classified as employees.

That's fair and definitely accurate. Worth noting though that the Olympics made that shift because the landscape of global athletics changed so drastically that insisting on strict amateurism made it such that the best athletes in the world were ineligible.

The NCAA could probably learn something from that.