CA governor signs bill to allow athletes to profit from endorsements

[martinsm30]

Fundamental misunderstanding of what this law does. It does not "allow student athletes to make money from name, image, likeness". We live in a free country, no need to pass a law allowing you to do what you can already do. It simply says the NCAA cannot punish those who do it. Evidently, based on his tweet, dummy Newsom doesn't even understand the distinction.

Why is that important? Because the test will be - not can a kid make money off his image, a pretty easy answer - but rather, can a private club not have its own rules? I've not read any proposed bills from other states, but I think the NCAA has a good shot of beating the CA bill in court. Now, that may be Pyrrhic, winds of change, all of that. But I think they beat Newsom in court......

Can a state control the educational institution it funds? Can the NCAA enforce its rules?

The answer is yes to both. If this is true then California can pass its law and the NCAA can declare any athlete who accepts funds that violate the NCAA's rules to be declared ineligible.

There is no requirement for California schools to be members of the NCAA. The California schools can leave and start their own private institution along with the rest of the schools in the states who pass similar laws.

 

[CincinnatiWildcat]

I see a lot of people saying that colleges would just set up commercials and such with boosters. I was curious if anyone knows if this would be legal. Seems like if the Lakers said sign with me and we will give you a Hollywood movie on top of the contract you get they may get in some legal trouble. My problem with this whole ordeal is implementation. Now it seems as if the flood gates will just be wide open with nothing to restrict how many players or how much they get. hell even the NBA has a salary cap

 

[gossie21]

I see a lot of people saying that colleges would just set up commercials and such with boosters. I was curious if anyone knows if this would be legal. Seems like if the Lakers said sign with me and we will give you a Hollywood movie on top of the contract you get they may get in some legal trouble. My problem with this whole ordeal is implementation. Now it seems as if the flood gates will just be wide open with nothing to restrict how many players or how much they get. hell even the NBA has a salary cap

NBA teams are not allowed to participate in outside deals for players. I'm sure that's part of the CBA.

I would assume the NCAA will do what they can to separate the school's involvement in endorsements. But you are correct, the process, rules, and implementation of the pay-to-play model are important. The problem is that the NCAA has drug its feet for far too long. The patchwork of state laws are needed to force their hand.

 

[SkyPrince1]

That's a pitiful bogeyman. You can do better.

My point is i don't believe that there is a lucrative market even for most UK BB players.
So if a player like Nick Richards reports on his taxes that he earned 5 or 6 figures from endorsements likeness etc, I have to call bs.
You can can't deny that this has huge potential for fraud. Much more than the old "summer job"
I will admit that the earning potential of Chapman or Couch could have been crazy.

 

[Mojocat]

Wow. Where to begin. The NCAA cannot beat a state law in court. What would be their standing to challenge a state law?

Typical lawyerly response - full of sound and fury and indignation. heh. I found this - an example of the NCAA challenging a state law and winning - in about 7 seconds on Google. The bold part gets to this point - the italics part may be the most important....

NCAA v. Miller (1993)
In the wake of the Tarkanian case, the state of Nevada passed a law which attempted to force the NCAA to provide additional due process protections to institutions, coaches, and student-athletes in Nevada. The law also prevented the NCAA from retaliating against Nevada schools for the law.

The NCAA challenged the law based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, a corollary to the Commerce Clause, which prevents a state from passing laws which unduly burden interstate commerce. The NCAA won the case in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Nevada’s state law being deemed unconstitutional.

 

[ryanbruner]

 

[gossie21]

Typical lawyerly response - full of sound and fury and indignation. heh. I found this - an example of the NCAA challenging a state law and winning - in about 7 seconds on Google. The bold part gets to this point - the italics part may be the most important....

NCAA v. Miller (1993)
In the wake of the Tarkanian case, the state of Nevada passed a law which attempted to force the NCAA to provide additional due process protections to institutions, coaches, and student-athletes in Nevada. The law also prevented the NCAA from retaliating against Nevada schools for the law.

The NCAA challenged the law based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, a corollary to the Commerce Clause, which prevents a state from passing laws which unduly burden interstate commerce. The NCAA won the case in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Nevada’s state law being deemed unconstitutional.

Enlighten me then. What restrictions are imposed upon the NCAA by the California law?

The NCAA can retaliate if it chooses, no?

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

I think you are making a very poor assumption that the endorsement deal is about marketing their dealership. I don't think it's a stretch at all to assume a UCLA alum who owns a very successful business in LA would agree to use UCLA athletes for endorsements just to elevate the basketball or football program. Boosters aren't necessarily in it for economic benefit. They want to win. Just because the city of LA may be more enamored with professional sports doesn't mean UCLA and schools like them wouldn't have plenty of boosters to choose from who are willing to shell out large sums of cash if they thought they could suddenly have a championship team. It has nothing to do with which athlete gives them the largest star power for their commercials. It's about winning and now they have a means for competing with schools they have struggled against. I don't see anything unlikely about it.

Okay.

But why would UCLA have any more boosters than a place like Maryland, or Oklahoma, or Louisiana? I fail to see the potential urban advantage you initially described in this thread. If you're argument is that this gives everyone a chance to pay players, I agree, but making a claim that this somehow benefits urban schools on a greater level is a suspect argument. State schools often have higher enrollments than urban colleges do and have a greater spread over the entirety of a state.

Additionally, Obviously I don't have a problem with UCLA boosters (or anyone) giving endorsements to players for the purposes you described. I just don't think they're substantially more prepared (or willing) to do that than schools that already have their regional market cornered.

 

[UKnCincy]

Typical lawyerly response - full of sound and fury and indignation. heh. I found this - an example of the NCAA challenging a state law and winning - in about 7 seconds on Google. The bold part gets to this point - the italics part may be the most important....

NCAA v. Miller (1993)
In the wake of the Tarkanian case, the state of Nevada passed a law which attempted to force the NCAA to provide additional due process protections to institutions, coaches, and student-athletes in Nevada. The law also prevented the NCAA from retaliating against Nevada schools for the law.

The NCAA challenged the law based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, a corollary to the Commerce Clause, which prevents a state from passing laws which unduly burden interstate commerce. The NCAA won the case in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Nevada’s state law being deemed unconstitutional.

The law in question in Miller imposed requirements upon the NCAA itself. Further, these requirements made it such that it would be impossible for the NCAA to conduct enforcement proceedings, even if they changed their by-laws.

The California law makes no such demands of the NCAA. It’s restrictions are strictly limited to the schools operating within the state of California.

The California bill has been drafted in such a way as to side step the commerce clause and contracts clause issues that tripped up Nevada. The issues Nevada faced with Miller won’t be a problem for California.

 

[sjjones]

If major college sports turns into "pay-for-play," then what exactly is the point? Why would the teams even need to be affiliated with a university? Ultimately it may more closely resemble the G-League or MiLB. They will never be able to compete with the NFL and NBA, on multiple levels, and this will eventually be the end of major college football and basketball. And without the money that football and basketball bring in, the rest of the sports will suffer. What will be left at our colleges will more closely resemble current D2 and D3 athletics, and maybe that's a good thing?

 

[gossie21]

If major college sports turns into "pay-for-play," then what exactly is the point? Why would the teams even need to be affiliated with a university? Ultimately it may more closely resemble the G-League or MiLB. They will never be able to compete with the NFL and NBA, on multiple levels, and this will eventually be the end of major college football and basketball. And without the money that football and basketball bring in, the rest of the sports will suffer. What will be left at our colleges will more closely resemble current D2 and D3 athletics, and maybe that's a good thing?

Solid bogeyman there. Good effort.

 

[HoldMyBeer]

My point is i don't believe that there is a lucrative market even for most UK BB players.
So if a player like Nick Richards reports on his taxes that he earned 5 or 6 figures from endorsements likeness etc, I have to call bs.
You can can't deny that this has huge potential for fraud. Much more than the old "summer job"
I will admit that the earning potential of Chapman or Couch could have been crazy.

Not lucrative? Getting paid for Jersey sales, video games, autographs etc is EASILY 5 figures yearly for UK basketball players.

 

[sjjones]

Solid bogeyman there. Good effort.

Nice deflection, but what exactly did I say above that's impossible? I just don't understand the point of a professional team "attached" to a university. I would be far less interested in such a setup, and I am sure I'm not the only one. If I'm going to watch professional sports, then I'll watch NFL/NBA/MLB.

 

[SkyPrince1]

Not lucrative? Getting paid for Jersey sales, video games, autographs etc is EASILY 5 figures yearly for UK basketball players.

So no more free autographs ?
Will Cal have a say in that?
How exactly would jersey sales work?
Can't believe Nick would be entitled to a "Kentucky" #4 jersey sales.
He's far from the only player to wear the number.
Would a "Richards" UK jersey be officially licenced or have to be unaffiliated like Throwboy?
If official how would the player cut be negotiated?

 

[gossie21]

Nice deflection, but what exactly did I say above that's impossible? I just don't understand the point of a professional team "attached" to a university. I would be far less interested in such a setup, and I am sure I'm not the only one. If I'm going to watch professional sports, then I'll watch NFL/NBA/MLB.

 

[Canned Heat]

if the NCAA rewrites its amateur model, which IMO, is going to be the end result of all these laws being enacted, then it will have to address the flow of money. I would have to imagine that the first rule would be that the School cannot be the payer or provider of external benefits. For the NCAA to continue to exist, they cannot pay a Men's Basketball Player, because that would be a Title IV violation, if they didn't match the payments with female sports players.

So instead of booster money flowing into locker rooms, fancy dorms, etc., that money will flow to a few players on the major sports teams. I think, in its initial stages, money will be thrown around like crazy, creating bidding wars for players, but after a few years will smooth out. A business, run by a rabid fan, will go nuts at first, but the free market will bring all the payments back down and a soft cap will be created. A car dealership can only sale so many more cars after featuring a prominent sports player. But there will be a limit to what they will or can spend. Of course, a few exceptions will always exist (let's say a Billionaire wants to build up a local university). But again, a business is operated to make a profit, throwing money away to help your old College, will eventually level down.

The question is really how much of a University's sports budget is dependent on donations from wealthy companies/persons. And will the affect of the change of direction of money really destroy all non-major sports who may / may not benefit from those donations. Sponsorships with Universities, IMO, wouldn't be greatly affected. But maybe that's naive, but a few 'stars' getting extra money from sponsorship deals, IMO, would not destroy the current model.
https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-s...e-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html

 

[SkyPrince1]

Nice deflection, but what exactly did I say above that's impossible? I just don't understand the point of a professional team "attached" to a university. I would be far less interested in such a setup, and I am sure I'm not the only one. If I'm going to watch professional sports, then I'll watch NFL/NBA/MLB.

This is definitely not a move that's going to increase fan interest in college sports.
Just another wedge between player and fan.

 

[UK90]

Gotta be hard to keep yelling amateurism when coaches, university presidents and NCAA executives making millions.

And at the same time the same institutions claim economic necessity requires them to keep raising tuition and placing normal students under an even greater mountain of debt.

Hard to justify the way today's universities misallocate money. They'll claim poverty in one area at the same time that they're lavishly throwing around millions like it's nothing in another.

 

[sambowieshin]

The problem with your premise about "a Mercedes dealership in Los Angeles" is the fact that NOBODY in LA gives a crap about UCLA Basketball. Now USC Football may draw the attention of some in LA, but no where near what one of the Rams or even Chargers would.

LA is a Pro Sports town and not a very good one outside of the Lakers. So, I have no doubt that a UK Basketball or even a big time football player would be more attractive in the entire state of KY than ANY college player in CA.

The problem with your premise is the fact that people will begin to care when they start pulling in the Zions and Walls of the bball world. When those guys are suddenly playing in LA/Chicago/New York or the eastern seaboard schools (Puke/UNCheat/Villanova) and appearing side by side with NBA players on billboards and the sides of buses in those major markets...... you will wish like hell this had never happened. Do you really believe Joe Bob's Dodge Truck lot in Beaver Dam Ky is gonna be dropping the money that they will at the Beverly Hills Lexus dealership or a Times Square billboard?? You are waaaay underestimating the power of money and influence this will bring to the table for those major tv markets. ESPN will be eating this up and promoting for those schools as well in those media markets. Just imagine how much money the wealthy boosters of those programs will be willing to donate to the local used car dealership to get a kid paid for a commercial spot. Kentucky doesn't have enough collective money in the entire BBN to combat the east and west coast billionaires.

 

[Mojocat]

Enlighten me then. What restrictions are imposed upon the NCAA by the California law?

The NCAA can retaliate if it chooses, no?

The law in question in Miller imposed requirements upon the NCAA itself. Further, these requirements made it such that it would be impossible for the NCAA to conduct enforcement proceedings, even if they changed their by-laws.

The California law makes no such demands of the NCAA. It’s restrictions are strictly limited to the schools operating within the state of California.

The California bill has been drafted in such a way as to side step the commerce clause and contracts clause issues that tripped up Nevada. The issues Nevada faced with Miller won’t be a problem for California.

I don't mean to argue with either of you. I haven't read much about this, it's outside my area of practice - I'll gladly defer to either or both of you. As I said above, even if the NCAA can somehow prevail here, I suspect it will be short lived. Public sentiment on this topic has changed so drastically - it reminds me of the activists years ago that got one state after another to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and within a very short time it was all for nothing. I have read a couple of pieces online just today - including the "Legal Analyst for Sports Illustrated" - who thinks the Miller case is controlling here, and that the commerce clause is not off the table as a means of attack. Honestly, off the cuff, I have no idea if that's true. Surely, even if it's not true, the NCAA can find some means of challenging this. In the end, I don't think it will matter much.....

 

[SkyPrince1]

The problem with your premise is the fact that people will begin to care when they start pulling in the Zions and Walls of the bball world. When those guys are suddenly playing in LA/Chicago/New York or the eastern seaboard schools (Puke/UNCheat/Villanova) and appearing side by side with NBA players on billboards and the sides of buses in those major markets...... you will wish like hell this had never happened. Do you really believe Joe Bob's Dodge Truck lot in Beaver Dam Ky is gonna be dropping the money that they will at the Beverly Hills Lexus dealership?? You are waaaay underestimating the power of money and influence this will bring to the table for those major tv markets.

How many current pro athletes have an endorsement deal with any Auto dealership in Beverly Hills?
Market is not what you think it is.
Nobody who's anybody in NY, Chicago or LA give a rats ass about CBB until March. Especially given the sorry teams that reside in said cities.

 

[sambowieshin]

How many current pro athletes have an endorsement deal with any Auto dealership in Beverly Hills?
Market is not what you think it is.
Nobody who's anybody in NY, Chicago or LA give a rats ass about CBB until March. Especially given the sorry teams that reside in said cities.

They don't have to care and those schools are sorry because there is not good reason to go play there except if you are getting paid. You only have to open Pandora's box for the uber wealthy alumni of those east/west coast schools to be able to donate whatever they want to a business who then passes that money on to the athlete. No way to track that and no way to compel a private business to divulge info to the NCAA. A small, rural, poor ass state like Kentucky won't stand a chance in this $$$$$ arms race. Why do you think California passed it to begin with??? They may be liberal and kooky but they are not stupid. They know this will bring the recruits and the $$$$ their way. Those legislators don't give a ratz azz about these athletes.....It's all about the money. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[HoldMyBeer]

So no more free autographs ?
Will Cal have a say in that?
How exactly would jersey sales work?
Can't believe Nick would be entitled to a "Kentucky" #4 jersey sales.
He's far from the only player to wear the number.
Would a "Richards" UK jersey be officially licenced or have to be unaffiliated like Throwboy?
If official how would the player cut be negotiated?

The same way nba Jersey sales work. Also once this goes into play, there will no longer be BLANK #4 jerseys in them, it will LEGALLY/ OFFICIALLY say "Richards" or whatever player name.

 

[HoldMyBeer]

So no more free autographs ?
Will Cal have a say in that?
How exactly would jersey sales work?
Can't believe Nick would be entitled to a "Kentucky" #4 jersey sales.
He's far from the only player to wear the number.
Would a "Richards" UK jersey be officially licenced or have to be unaffiliated like Throwboy?
If official how would the player cut be negotiated?

As for FREE autographs, it would work the same way it differs for pros. If the player WANTS to give you or a kid a FREE signature he can, but good luck getting memorabilia that can potentially be resold signed for free.

 

[UKnCincy]

I don't mean to argue with either of you. I haven't read much about this, it's outside my area of practice - I'll gladly defer to either or both of you. As I said above, even if the NCAA can somehow prevail here, I suspect it will be short lived. Public sentiment on this topic has changed so drastically - it reminds me of the activists years ago that got one state after another to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and within a very short time it was all for nothing. I have read a couple of pieces online just today - including the "Legal Analyst for Sports Illustrated" - who thinks the Miller case is controlling here, and that the commerce clause is not off the table as a means of attack. Honestly, off the cuff, I have no idea if that's true. Surely, even if it's not true, the NCAA can find some means of challenging this. In the end, I don't think it will matter much.....

Michael McCann’s point about Miller was not that it controlled things here. It was simply that if the NCAA were to attempt a legal fight, that is the angle that they would likely take. That’s a big difference. McCann does not get into an analysis of the degree to which Miller is applicable to this bill.

He’s right in that a commerce clause argument is really the only line of attack for the NCAA. However, that does not change the fact that there are substantial and material differences between the California law and the Nevada due process law and that these differences afford California significant protection against both commerce clause and contracts clause challenges.

 

[gossie21]

I don't mean to argue with either of you. I haven't read much about this, it's outside my area of practice - I'll gladly defer to either or both of you. As I said above, even if the NCAA can somehow prevail here, I suspect it will be short lived. Public sentiment on this topic has changed so drastically - it reminds me of the activists years ago that got one state after another to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and within a very short time it was all for nothing. I have read a couple of pieces online just today - including the "Legal Analyst for Sports Illustrated" - who thinks the Miller case is controlling here, and that the commerce clause is not off the table as a means of attack. Honestly, off the cuff, I have no idea if that's true. Surely, even if it's not true, the NCAA can find some means of challenging this. In the end, I don't think it will matter much.....

I could be wrong here, but I don't think the commerce clause is implicated here. California was very smart (shocking I know) about how they went about this. The law only applies to California schools. It doesn't mandate NCAA inaction. The NCAA is fine to declare all California schools ineligible.

I think you're overall big picture analysis is spot on. So the fine details may not matter. Once a critical mass of states pass similar laws the NCAA will either need to get out in front and control the process, or find themselves replaced by some other governing body.

 

[HoldMyBeer]

Every state will pass similar law. Once this ball gets rolling any state that refuses has just handicapped their state collegiate sports programs. Imagine a 5 Star recruit signing to a school that won't allow him to get paid while his peers are living it up legally in the next state over.

 

[SkyPrince1]

They don't have to care and those schools are sorry because there is not good reason to go play there except if you are getting paid. You only have to open Pandora's box for the uber wealthy alumni of those east/west coast schools to be able to donate whatever they want to a business who then passes that money on to the athlete. No way to track that and no way to compel a private business to divulge info to the NCAA. A small, rural, poor ass state like Kentucky won't stand a chance in this $$$$$ arms race. Why do you think California passed it to begin with??? They may be liberal and kooky but they are not stupid. They know this will bring the recruits and the $$$$ their way. Those legislators don't give a ratz azz about these athletes.....It's all about the money. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you.

Don't buy it.
If rich rich alumni really cared they would have already thrown big money at a top coach.
You see how UCLA's last coaching search went and Mike Anderson at St John's tell you no one in NY cares about CBB.

 

[catben]

The problem with your premise is the fact that people will begin to care when they start pulling in the Zions and Walls of the bball world. When those guys are suddenly playing in LA/Chicago/New York or the eastern seaboard schools (Puke/UNCheat/Villanova) and appearing side by side with NBA players on billboards and the sides of buses in those major markets...... you will wish like hell this had never happened. Do you really believe Joe Bob's Dodge Truck lot in Beaver Dam Ky is gonna be dropping the money that they will at the Beverly Hills Lexus dealership or a Times Square billboard?? You are waaaay underestimating the power of money and influence this will bring to the table for those major tv markets. ESPN will be eating this up and promoting for those schools as well in those media markets. Just imagine how much money the wealthy boosters of those programs will be willing to donate to the local used car dealership to get a kid paid for a commercial spot. Kentucky doesn't have enough collective money in the entire BBN to combat the east and west coast billionaires.

In 3 years, their won't be any "Zion's or Wall's" because the NBA is getting rid of the One-and-Done. So what company or "Dealership" in LA or NY will give UCLA's or St Johns' leading scorer big time endorsement money? IMHO, not very many.

NCAA Basketball is really big to about 5 programs(UK, UNC, Duke, KU and IU). I just can't see it getting bigger in the large cities.

 

[SkyPrince1]

As for FREE autographs, it would work the same way it differs for pros. If the player WANTS to give you or a kid a FREE signature he can, but good luck getting memorabilia that can potentially be resold signed for free.

Well right now I'd say Cal organizes autograph sessions and I'd say participation is mandatory.
Don't see top coaches relinquishing control of things like that.
From his comments today, Cal doesn't seem to be a fan other than to say we will adapt and still be on top.
Don't see how any fan could be excited by the Cali bill and it's implications.
The casual fan will be heard in all of this and I don't think it will be good for some players who have overestimated their worth.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Okay.

But why would UCLA have any more boosters than a place like Maryland, or Oklahoma, or Louisiana? I fail to see the potential urban advantage you initially described in this thread. If you're argument is that this gives everyone a chance to pay players, I agree, but making a claim that this somehow benefits urban schools on a greater level is a suspect argument. State schools often have higher enrollments than urban colleges do and have a greater spread over the entirety of a state.

Additionally, Obviously I don't have a problem with UCLA boosters (or anyone) giving endorsements to players for the purposes you described. I just don't think they're substantially more prepared (or willing) to do that than schools that already have their regional market cornered.

They don't need more boosters. It's not about quantity, it's about quality. The wealth in Americas largest cities dwarf what we see here. All it takes is a few people who care and are willing to part with cash to have a championship team. For example, what is to prevent Phil Knight from paying huge amounts of money for a players likeness, autograph, etc., to lure them to Oregon? He could do more for Oregon than the collective BBN could do for us? It's just not a workable model without some very tight constraints. I'm not sure how you constrain it, but I'm hoping they find a way. I know you are fine if he does that, but as a fan, why would I have any interest in watching anymore?

 

[gossie21]

why would I have any interest in watching anymore?

Do you honestly sit in front of your TV and think, "My goodness that was a magnificent dunk by Anthony Davis, but what makes it even better is that he receives no financial compensation for his efforts!"?

That's weird.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Do you honestly sit in front of your TV and think, "My goodness that was a magnificent dunk by Anthony Davis, but what makes it even better is that he receives no financial compensation for his efforts!"?

That's weird.

That's a strange analogy based on my post. If Phil Knight is buying championship teams for Oregon, why would I watch college basketball anymore? I have better things to do with my time than watch a billionaire buy teams to win championships.

 

[BostonCat2001]

That's a strange analogy based on my post. If Phil Knight is buying championship teams for Oregon, why would I watch college basketball anymore? I have better things to do with my time than watch a billionaire buy teams to win championships.

lol...no you dont.

 

[HoldMyBeer]

Well right now I'd say Cal organizes autograph sessions and I'd say participation is mandatory.
Don't see top coaches relinquishing control of things like that.
From his comments today, Cal doesn't seem to be a fan other than to say we will adapt and still be on top.
Don't see how any fan could be excited by the Cali bill and it's implications.
The casual fan will be heard in all of this and I don't think it will be good for some players who have overestimated their worth.

Lol. Autograph sessions ARE NOT mandatory. Cal can't make anyone sign their name. Most fans I've talked to are happy about these rulings. If it upsets you so much you should stop watching sports now.. You won't.

 

[BIGBLUE402]

That's a strange analogy based on my post. If Phil Knight is buying championship teams for Oregon, why would I watch college basketball anymore? I have better things to do with my time than watch a billionaire buy teams to win championships.

Phil Knight isn’t going to do that because he’s about Nikes business first and him bringing all the best players to Oregon doesn’t help his business when he has many other Nike schools not receiving those five stars players.

If Phil wanted to help Oregon he be doing a hell lot more than he is now

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Phil Knight isn’t going to do that because he’s about Nikes business first and him bringing all the best players to Oregon doesn’t help his business when he has many other Nike schools not receiving those five stars players.

If Phil wanted to help Oregon he be doing a hell lot more than he is now

Well I think he has donated close to $800 million to the university over the years. Most of that went to academics but I think he paid to renovate their football stadium and some other athletic project. What more do you want him to do?

On top of that he has stepped down from Nike, so I'm not sure how much he is spending his time worrying about Nike issues.

Edit: Plus Knight was just an example. There are many more multi millionaires and billionaires that might be convinced they can buy a team for their school and win a championship.

 

[HoldMyBeer]

Well I think he has donated close to $800 million to the university over the years. Most of that went to academics but I think he paid to renovate their football stadium and some other athletic project. What more do you want him to do?

On top of that he has stepped down from Nike, so I'm not sure how much he is spending his time worrying about Nike issues.

Edit: Plus Knight was just an example. There are many more multi millionaires and billionaires that might be convinced they can buy a team for their school and win a championship.

Yes, and these same millionaires/ billionaire have been trying to do this for decades! This is nothing new.

 

[gossie21]

Well I think he has donated close to $800 million to the university over the years. Most of that went to academics but I think he paid to renovate their football stadium and some other athletic project. What more do you want him to do?

On top of that he has stepped down from Nike, so I'm not sure how much he is spending his time worrying about Nike issues.

Edit: Plus Knight was just an example. There are many more multi millionaires and billionaires that might be convinced they can buy a team for their school and win a championship.

I don't think this is going to change the competitive landscape as much as you do. Maybe it will, but at the end of the day it will be doing right by the players, and I have always believed that needs to happen.

This is just one of the bogeymen the NCAA throws out to try and keep all of the power and money to themselves.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Yes, and these same millionaires/ billionaire have been trying to do this for decades! This is nothing new.

Actually it is. Just because there is cheating currently going on doesn't mean this doesn't drastically change the game and the level of involvement by boosters.