# The SDMB NCAA thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Tags:** basketball-nba\ **Created:** [September 14, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958 "2016-09-14T19:39:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2021, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/181 "2021-04-07T13:57:13Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > That means giving out event tickets free to students, no selling the broadcast rights to the games, no profiting off the images of the athletes, no licensing or endorsement deals with sporting goods companies, no logos on the team uniforms… And you can’t pay your head coach any more than you do a professor. Hell, your head coach has to _be_ a professor teaching classes while he coaches. If you want to laud your “student athletes” then at least as many of them must graduate as graduate from the university as a whole (as a percent of matriculation). If you don’t meet that standard your team loses any tournament/bowl eligibility until they do. You would end up back in the halcyon days when only students and alumni really followed their team, and the pure student athlete fought for the pride of the alma mater. For some reason I don’t think that’s exactly what the NCAA has in mind, however… ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2021, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/182 "2021-04-07T15:03:21Z")
I thought this was a really good post summing up the Court arguments. The only thing I mildly disagree with is that this is a “complicated issue.” It’s not to me. The schools are engaging in un-American monopolistic economic practices and they must stop. And it won’t be complicated to stop doing them, either. We don’t have to figure out what the backup tackle is gonna make or how much we have to give women’s sports; just remove the restrictions against earnings and the fucking schools will figure this out on their own _just like every other business entity in the country does._ \*\*Title IX complicates things a little but only a little. Just keep providing those opportunities. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2021, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/183 "2021-04-07T16:47:04Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > The only thing I mildly disagree with is that this is a “complicated issue.” It’s not to me. The schools are engaging in un-American monopolistic economic practices and they must stop. I tend to agree with you that the general principles aren’t that complicated. At least, not for me. But there are some complicated legal issues related to the case as it currently stands, partly because how the “rule of reason” works in anti-trust cases, and partly because of the way that the lower court rulings were worded. A key question here is whether the Supreme Court is going to get into the business of regulating what types of compensation athletes can receive, and how much, or whether they’re going to make a more sweeping ruling. there are legal scholars who argue that courts should not be in the business of acting as _de facto_ regulators, setting specific dollar amounts or specific types of compensation, but that’s sort of what the lower courts tried to do here. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2021, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/184 "2021-04-09T00:49:35Z")
The SC might end up not having a big say in this issue if states keep passing their own NIL legislations. New Mexico passed its bill this week and my own Maryland legislature sent a bill to Larry Hogan today for his signature. He may as well sign it, too, because the Senate easily has the votes to override a veto. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2021, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/185 "2021-04-09T00:58:03Z")
Right, and as more states pass such legislation, it’s likely to snowball, because colleges in those states will have a significant competitive advantage in recruiting players, compared to colleges in states that don’t pass NIL laws. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2021, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/186 "2021-04-14T22:18:06Z")
Meanwhile, the NCAA has made (reportedly - it may not be “officially” announced until 4/15) a move that will benefit top-level athletes: the one year sit-out rule for football and basketball (and baseball, and men’s ice hockey) for undergraduate transfers has been removed, and football players who transfer by July 1 will be able to play next season for their new schools. This was supposed to be voted on at January’s NCAA Convention, but was pulled at the last minute along with the NIL proposals. This shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise, considering the number of football and men’s basketball players that have entered the transfer portal recently. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2021, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/187 "2021-04-21T16:38:54Z")
Alabama passed its NIL legislation this week. Much like the federal government lagging behind the states in marijuana legislation, it’s time for the NCAA to wave the white flag. The walls are crumbling around it. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2021, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/188 "2021-04-23T13:04:59Z")
Citing the need to remain competitive – while decrying the actual fairness of it all – the Texas senate is now moving towards NIL legislation. That’s 10 percent of all D1 football schools right there. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2021, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/189 "2021-04-23T20:09:41Z")
I assume you mean FBS instead of Division I (which is FBS and FCS combined). Aren’t you forgetting something - the 225 Division I schools that play men’s basketball but not FBS football? Then again, Alabama, Florida, and Texas combine for 47 Division I schools, which is about 13%. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/190 "2021-04-24T12:54:17Z")
Add CA as well. I believe they’ve passed NIL legislation even though it doesn’t take effect this year. I would guess they’ll amend it to move it up given the moves by: Colorado Florida Idaho Michigan Nebraska New Jersey And pending moves by: Alabama Arkansas Georgia Iowa Kansas Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico Oregon and now Texas. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/191 "2021-04-24T15:07:04Z")
Assuming all of those states pass NIL legislation, and California changes its version to start this July, that’s states with 141 Division I schools. Only 37 more are needed to get a majority of the 355 schools. The larger remaining states: New York (22 NCAA Division I schools) North Carolina (18) Pennsylvania (14) Virginia (14) Illinois (13) Ohio (13) South Carolina (12) Tennessee (12) ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/192 "2021-04-24T16:29:40Z")
So I played with some numbers. Here’s the Power5 conferences: | | Total | Current | Pending | Remain | % w/NIL | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Big 12 Conference | 10 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 70% | | Southeastern Conference | 14 | 1 | 8 | 5 | 64% | | Pac-12 Conference | 12 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 58% | | Big Ten Conference | 14 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 36% | | Atlantic Coast Conference | 15 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 20% | The % column assumes all pending states will pass the legislation. So for each conference to get to 100% NIL coverage (Some of these will overlap - i.e. South Carolina): **ACC** Indiana Kentucky Massachusetts New York North Carolina Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia **Big 10** Illinois Indiana Maryland Minnesota Ohio Pennsylvania Wisconsin **Big 12** Oklahoma West Virginia **PAC-12** Arizona Utah Washington **SEC** Kentucky Missouri South Carolina Tennessee The ACC probably has the toughest row to hoe, with the Big 10 not far behind. I would expect Clemson is probably already pushing hard in SC. Ditto Duke, UNC, and NCState in NC (which is the state with the most P5 schools left out in the cold with 4). Be interesting to see if the Ohio Legislature lets UM maintain that kind of advantage over tOSU. I have the sheet saved and can post more if anybody is interested. All basic school information pulled from here: [List of NCAA Division I institutions - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_institutions) ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2021, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/193 "2021-04-26T23:56:41Z")
Representatives Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio (a Republican, and a former Ohio State and NFL football player) and Emanuel Cleaver of Colorado (a Democrat) have introduced the “Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act,” which is pretty much the same as all of the state NIL laws. The quick version of the bill: A university, and “an athletic association, conference, or other organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics or that administers intercollegiate athletics,” may not prohibit a student athlete from participating in intercollegiate athletics, or prohibit the athlete from receiving a scholarship, because the athlete enters into an endorsement contract or an agency contract, except that the school may prohibit endorsing: (A) A tobacco company or brand, including any vaping device or e-cigarette or related product (B) Any alcohol company or brand (C) Any seller or dispensary of a controlled substance, including marijuana (D) Any adult entertainment business (E) Any casino or entities that sponsor or promote gambling activities Also, the school itself cannot pay for use of the athlete’s name/image/likeness. I am a little surprised the NCAA released a press release that supports the bill. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/194 "2021-04-27T13:17:08Z")
I’m not crazy about that proposed bill. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/195 "2021-04-27T13:33:20Z")
I think that proposed bill is kinda crazy. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/196 "2021-04-27T13:41:30Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > I’m not crazy about that proposed bill. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I think that proposed bill is kinda crazy. What’s missing from it? Or should I be asking, what should be removed from it? ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/197 "2021-04-27T15:14:05Z")
Too many unnecessary limitations, most importantly that it prohibits schools from paying directly for NIL activities. That’s a useless complication. We have university boards who can decide whether or not it is beneficial to the school. Incidentally there was an interesting Twitter debate yesterday where opponents of athletes’ commercial liberties raised the fear of a women’s volleyball team marketing themselves to Hustler magazine. “You just couldn’t have that!” ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/198 "2021-04-27T16:11:02Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Too many unnecessary limitations, most importantly that it prohibits schools from paying directly for NIL activities. That’s a useless complication. We have university boards who can decide whether or not it is beneficial to the school. Whether or not it’s “benificial to the school” is irrelevant. Any money given by the school to an athlete for their name, image, and likeness is pay-for-play in every remote definition of the term. Which states have NIL laws that do not specifically prohibit the schools from licensing their athletes’ names/images/likenesses? Hint: not Florida: _“To preserve the integrity, quality, character, and amateur nature of intercollegiate athletics and to maintain a clear separation between amateur intercollegiate athletics and professional sports, such compensation may not be provided in exchange for athletic performance or attendance at a particular institution and may only be provided by a third party unaffiliated with the intercollegiate athlete’s postsecondary educational institution.”_ Hint 2: not Alabama, either: _“Compensation for the use of a student athlete’s name, image, or likeness may be provided only by a third party not owned or operating under the authority of the student athlete’s postsecondary educational institution.”_ I think that, when the smoke clears, there’s a compromise,. and the NCAA splits Division I into I-A and I-AA for all sports; in I-A, athletes can (but don’t have to) be compensated, and in I-AA (and II and III), they cannot, except for scholarships. > [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Incidentally there was an interesting Twitter debate yesterday where opponents of athletes’ commercial liberties raised the fear of a women’s volleyball team marketing themselves to Hustler magazine. “You just couldn’t have that!” Technically, can’t they do that now, as long as they’re not paid for it and there’s no real reference to the school or the team? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/199 "2021-04-28T05:37:41Z")
Here’s some news: > **[NCAA extends contract of President Mark Emmert through 2025](https://apnews.com/article/basketball-business-womens-college-basketball-college-basketball-mark-emmert-0d5812acb506d94101838ec751381a57)** > > The NCAA Board of Governors voted Tuesday to give President Mark Emmert a two-year contract extension through 2025... ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2021, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/201 "2021-04-29T13:50:31Z")
I agree with you that the states’ legislations are also too restrictive but I think once the camel gets its nose under the tent a little more that all of the restrictions will eventually crumble. Schools should be able to act in their competitive and economic best interests, as long as they don’t violate anti-trust standards. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958.md?page=11)