蜜柚直播

For a change, it wasn鈥檛 about the FBI. It was about an issue that could be more impactful in the long run, one that could sprout many different consequences and one that the Pac-12 sits directly in the crosshairs of: the new California law allowing college athletes to profit off their name, image and likeness.

Down the line, Pac-12 coaches on both the men鈥檚 and women鈥檚 side expressed careful support for athletes鈥� rights and so, to some extent, did Scott.

鈥淚f young people want to earn money from their name, image, and likeness and get paid to play, they should have that opportunity,鈥� Scott said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 called pro sports.

鈥淐ollege sports is different. You go to get an education. It鈥檚 amateur, they鈥檙e students. Those are the defining characteristics, and we鈥檇 like to see those lines not get blurred and the interest in college sports become diminished.鈥�

That鈥檚 the essence of a long-held argument for the NCAA鈥檚 amateurism model, of course. But Scott, several coaches and players also touched on potential unintended consequences of the law, if it were adopted by other states or instead worked into NCAA guidelines prior to the California law going into effect in 2023.

Among them:

1. Nonrevenue sports could suffer if outside money is diverted from athletic departments to star football and basketball players.

Scott said outside sponsorship dollars could be potentially divided in a 鈥渮ero-sum鈥� game between schools and their top athletes.

For example, a business that gives the athletic department $50,000 for sponsorship rights might instead be tempted to give it only $40,000 and hand the other $10,000 directly to a star quarterback or point guard.

鈥淲e don鈥檛 think that there are new resources that are necessarily going to be available for compensating student-athletes for鈥� name, image and likeness, Scott said. 鈥淚t鈥檒l come from money that鈥檚 already going to our campuses in my view. It鈥檒l come from donors or local companies that want to support their local program.

鈥淪o there will be less resources, I believe, that our campuses will have, and they鈥檒l have to make some adjustments. From conversations I鈥檝e had, I think there is a good likelihood that鈥檒l come out of the hide of other programs 鈥� men鈥檚 Olympic sports programs and women鈥檚 programs.鈥�

This possibility hits new UCLA basketball coach Mick Cronin on a personal level.

鈥淒oug Martin, the golf coach at Cincinnati, is one of my close friends. You wouldn鈥檛 want to see his team go by the wayside because money is going to men鈥檚 basketball,鈥� Cronin said. 鈥淚 think we should find a way to make it all work for everybody鈥檚 benefit, and that would be for Olympic sports as well. You don鈥檛 want it to hurt them.鈥�

But while apparel companies could be especially motivated to divert money to star athletes when they renegotiate deals with schools 鈥� UA currently gets about $3.8 million from Nike, including $500,000 in cash 鈥� Navigate Research CEO A.J. Maestas says he doesn鈥檛 think the impact would be that drastic.

Not counting the potential impact when long-term apparel deals get renegotiated, Maestas said he estimated a school would lose only a tiny percentage of its average revenue in a budget of $100 million (UA鈥檚 budget is about $91 million) if sponsors give some money directly to players, partly because it wouldn鈥檛 necessarily be a zero-sum game.

Maestas said sponsorships average about 8% of a budget and, based on his experience in pro models, athletes average about 2-3% of that figure.

鈥淪o at worst it would have a 1% (overall) impact,鈥� Maestas said. 鈥淚t would cannibalize sponsorships, but it鈥檚 not all that drastic. It鈥檚 not dollar-for-dollar.鈥�

2. Sponsor money going directly to athletes would not be subject to Title IX regulations, which college programs must follow in directing resources between men and women.

Basically, it would behave like money does in the rest of the sports world. Scott noted that only one woman, tennis star Serena Williams, cracked a recent Forbes list of the 100 top-paid pro athletes.

鈥淔or those that follow women鈥檚 sports and gender equity, they realize that women don鈥檛 come anywhere close to getting the same opportunities that men have in our country,鈥� Scott said. 鈥淲hile we certainly have a few high-profile women鈥檚 student-athletes that might benefit, there鈥檚 no doubt in my mind that 99 percent, plus or minus, will go to men, not to women, and whatever resources are spent this way will be taken from athletics departments.

鈥淭hat runs a significant risk of taking away opportunities for women, as well as men in the Olympic movement.鈥�

Basically, under the new law, sponsors could give name, image and likeness money to whomever they wanted. Maybe that could include Oregon basketball star Sabrina Ionescu, but more often it might be to male athletes.

Asked about the California law, Ionescu said she hadn鈥檛 thought much about it but hoped the result would be in 鈥渢he best interest of the student-athletes,鈥� while Oregon coach Kelly Graves and UCLA coach Cori Close also tiptoed around the issue.

鈥淚t鈥檚 such a delicate line, right?鈥� Close said. 鈥淵ou want players to have opportunities and you never want to limit opportunities, but you also don鈥檛 want unintended consequences to maybe trickle down to how it could affect women鈥檚 opportunities and how it could play out in recruiting circles.

鈥淎nd is this good intention to try to reward image and likeness really going to play out to reward that, or will there be some other things that are taken away that are unintended? And I think that鈥檚 sort of my caution.鈥�

3. It could blow open recruiting (again).

The NCAA might have trouble regulating sponsorship money that is not commercially motivated 鈥� that is, money that a sponsor gives to a player because it wants to help the program, regardless of whether doing so brings the business any return on investment.

Or, in other words, cash for recruiting purposes.

鈥淥ne of (the California law鈥檚) several flaws is that it doesn鈥檛 contemplate that there鈥檚 competitive recruiting between schools,鈥� Scott said. 鈥淭hat money, if it鈥檚 allowed, will be used to attract student-athletes to go to school X over school Y, and it鈥檒l be dressed up as an NIL payment for an appearance, an autograph.鈥�

Maestas says that could be particularly common with a car dealer or other local businessman who is also a booster. If he or she opts to give money to a player to make an appearance or pose for an ad, it could be difficult to determine if they are doing it to help their business 鈥� or help a coach.

鈥淭hat鈥檚 the hard part to regulate,鈥� Maestas said. 鈥淗ow do you identify what is commercially motivated versus just a bribe to attend a school? Is your endorsement deal pending your attendance?

鈥淥f course the NCAA is going to try to crack down on it. But if you open the floodgates, I would see more money going to athletes for performance and recruiting than I would for actual commercial endorsements, on average.鈥�

In a fierce recruiting world that already attracted the FBI鈥檚 attention at 蜜柚直播 and several other high-profile programs over the past two years, that鈥檚 where even more clouds could settle in.

鈥淲e鈥檝e actually been in a little bit of a gray area with recruiting issues with the rules in place to begin with, right?鈥� Utah coach Larry Krystkowiak said. 鈥淭o me it could open a whole can of worms. I鈥檝e read various people鈥檚 ideas, but really I鈥檓 just kind of in a position that you can鈥檛 win. I just want what鈥檚 best for our student-athletes. If we can find some common ground, I think that鈥檚 great.鈥�

But can they? The NCAA effectively has three years to figure something out before the California law goes into effect, unless other states鈥� efforts become laws even sooner.

The race is on.

鈥淐ertainly, I think a lot of smart people need to get in a room and try to get everybody on the same page,鈥� Stanford men鈥檚 basketball coach Jerod Haase said.

鈥淲e really need to think not only about the obvious things, about the specifics, what happens initially, but really try and think through what all the consequences will be.鈥�