I think you're reading far too much in this. The bill needs to reconcile with the state senate bill. This one added that athlete can't sign endorsement deals with, say, a shoe company if the school already has a deal with a different one.
The balance of power in collegiate athletics will not swing that much more toward California, in 2023, than it already does.
I suspect there may be some short term recruiting gains for mid tier CA schools like Fresno, a bunch of the UC's, USD, and etc. And the biggest effect will probably show up in the sports that aren't so big like water polo, swimming, tennis, etc. But it feels like the big time college athletes are only in college as a stopping point to the pro's anyway, and they'll probably still be going to the big name schools for their respective sports.
Any step against the NCAA no matter how small is important. Even if this just lets the player sign helmets to sell or get paid for autographs, it's an important step forward. Reading the NCAA's reaction is just so juicy. "Please postpone, so we can modernize our image and likeness rules for the 21st century", lol. They've have almost 20 years in the 21st century to modernize it.
I don't think the shoe thing is that big of a deal. Recruits will just start picking schools that have the deals they like. Or schools will get smart and start making deals with multiple companies.
I'm definitely on board with things like allowing athletes to have agents and lawyers. I'm probably even fine with endorsement deals and the like. But pro sports have the draft, which forces equality between teams, because it takes several years before exceptional players can force their way to their preferred destination. College sports have nothing.
I guess it doesn't really change much though. As a mid tier team you're either trying to convince a good recruit that they will look better to pro recruits being the star of an ok team than just another player on a championship team, or you're convincing them the same logic applies to endorsement deals.
I'm just hoping if/when players start getting paid directly it comes with somekind of cap system instead of just letting rich teams buy up anyone and everyone that could possibly be good.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I'm definitely on board with things like allowing athletes to have agents and lawyers. I'm probably even fine with endorsement deals and the like. But pro sports have the draft, which forces equality between teams, because it takes several years before exceptional players can force their way to their preferred destination. College sports have nothing.
I guess it doesn't really change much though. As a mid tier team you're either trying to convince a good recruit that they will look better to pro recruits being the star of an ok team than just another player on a championship team, or you're convincing them the same logic applies to endorsement deals.
I'm just hoping if/when players start getting paid directly it comes with somekind of cap system instead of just letting rich teams buy up anyone and everyone that could possibly be good.
That already happens in college sports so I don't know why the players getting paid will change anything.
I know which two football teams are going to be in the finals and I'm pretty confident I can give the top ten for basketball in the wrong order and I only vaguely follow tge sports.
I knew going to Florida, my dream school, where I wanted to go, the passion for it and if I could support my team, support my college, support my University, that's what it's all about."
"But now, we're changing it from 'Us' from 'We' from 'My University' from being an alumni where I care, which makes college football and college sports special, to then 'Okay it's not about us. It's not about we, it's just about me.'"
"And, yes, I know we live in a selfish culture where it's all about us but we're just adding and piling it onto that. Where it changes, what's special about college football. We turn it into the NFL, where who has the most money, that's where you go.
This week, California’s state legislature became the first one in the United States to pass a controversial proposal allowing college athletes to profit from their fame by earning endorsement money.
Two S.C. Democrats want South Carolina’s Legislature to become the second.
S.C. Sen. Marlon Kimpson, D-Charleston, and Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg, told The State Thursday they plan to file a bill similar to California’s SB 206 proposal when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.
I knew going to Florida, my dream school, where I wanted to go, the passion for it and if I could support my team, support my college, support my University, that's what it's all about."
"But now, we're changing it from 'Us' from 'We' from 'My University' from being an alumni where I care, which makes college football and college sports special, to then 'Okay it's not about us. It's not about we, it's just about me.'"
"And, yes, I know we live in a selfish culture where it's all about us but we're just adding and piling it onto that. Where it changes, what's special about college football. We turn it into the NFL, where who has the most money, that's where you go.
Fuck you so much, Timmy.
This reads a lot like the whole "I'm passionate about games" thing the game industry has got going on, and feels just as exploitative.
If they really want to go back to running college sports like the old collegiate sports I would be okay with not paying the players. But when you make a billion dollar business out of selling these kids work then you better damn well pay them for it.
Ugh, what a dickhead Tebow is. That clip smacks of the same shit Taylor Swift conveniently does when she wants to pump album sales by adopting this holier than thou attitude about digital music sales.
Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll made a statement regarding the California Fair Pay to Play Act, a new law that allows NCAA student-athletes in the state of California to get compensated for their name and likeness, which is in direct opposition to the NCAA’s rules on amateurism.
Carroll, the former head coach at USC, joined Chris Peterson of the University of Washington and Mike Leach at Washington State University in supporting the NCAA’s long standing rules on amateurism, which don’t allow student-athletes to be paid, instead viewing full scholarships as adequate compensation.
“I don’t know the real depth to [the new law],” Carroll said. “I’ve never been the guy that feels players needed to be paid to play. I’ve felt like their scholarship and all the advantages that the guys got was always a pretty darn good deal. To me that sounds like it’s an adult situation trying to make sense of a kid’s experience, and so they’ve justified it.”
Are coaches somehow obligated to have these horrible positions?
Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll made a statement regarding the California Fair Pay to Play Act, a new law that allows NCAA student-athletes in the state of California to get compensated for their name and likeness, which is in direct opposition to the NCAA’s rules on amateurism.
Carroll, the former head coach at USC, joined Chris Peterson of the University of Washington and Mike Leach at Washington State University in supporting the NCAA’s long standing rules on amateurism, which don’t allow student-athletes to be paid, instead viewing full scholarships as adequate compensation.
“I don’t know the real depth to [the new law],” Carroll said. “I’ve never been the guy that feels players needed to be paid to play. I’ve felt like their scholarship and all the advantages that the guys got was always a pretty darn good deal. To me that sounds like it’s an adult situation trying to make sense of a kid’s experience, and so they’ve justified it.”
Are coaches somehow obligated to have these horrible positions?
If the athletes have to be amateurs, why not the coaches? Or the people that run the leagues?
This is the actual point that I think the NCAA should be forced to fall back on. Sure, the players can be amateurs, but, then EVERYONE needs to be. Managers, league organizers, etc etc. The universities can own the teams and sell the tickets, but literally everyone else from the top to the bottom needs to be a volunteer. Its just a big old student club to raise money.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+10
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
I would be perfectly happy with a system where a coach's salary is indexed to, say, 120% of whatever the lowest-paid adjunct prof at the university takes home.
If the athletes have to be amateurs, why not the coaches? Or the people that run the leagues?
Because the schools don't have fresh waves of coaches or league running leeches coming in every year to replace the ones that have graduated or have been too broken by the game to continue doing their part.
Carroll dashed from the NCAA after USC got caught paying players so take his opinions with a mine full of salt.
I was going to say...that's real fucking rich coming from Carroll; he got to bail out while leaving every 'amateur' player on the football team in the lurch. (Also stop calling them kids Pete)
California Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the state’s Fair Pay to Play Act into law today. That bill, which passed the state senate with overwhelming support earlier this month, forbids the state’s public colleges and universities from revoking the eligibility or scholarships of athletes who sign endorsement deals, hire agents, or otherwise make money off of the use of their names and likenesses.
This is a big moment in the longstanding fight to break up the NCAA’s amateurism scam—particularly if the bill’s passage inspires other states to follow suit. LeBron James is pumped!
I disagree that the schools will try to fight this in the courts - for one, it doesn't change anything for them, and actually benefits them.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the state’s Fair Pay to Play Act into law today. That bill, which passed the state senate with overwhelming support earlier this month, forbids the state’s public colleges and universities from revoking the eligibility or scholarships of athletes who sign endorsement deals, hire agents, or otherwise make money off of the use of their names and likenesses.
This is a big moment in the longstanding fight to break up the NCAA’s amateurism scam—particularly if the bill’s passage inspires other states to follow suit. LeBron James is pumped!
I disagree that the schools will try to fight this in the courts - for one, it doesn't change anything for them, and actually benefits them.
If the NCAA rolls over, sure. But if they go to the colleges and say "can't comply with our amateurism guidelines? Then I guess your athletics department can no longer compete within the NCAA" you'll start seeing these schools fight for the $$ they were getting when their teams made it to March Madness or a bowl game.
Also, how would they even fight it? That seems squarely within state authority.
Try to get it repealed/weakened. But the thing is, there's no reason for the schools to join up with the NCAA to do so, especially given the protections in the law for them. (Playing along with the NCAA prior to passage is a different story.)
California Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the state’s Fair Pay to Play Act into law today. That bill, which passed the state senate with overwhelming support earlier this month, forbids the state’s public colleges and universities from revoking the eligibility or scholarships of athletes who sign endorsement deals, hire agents, or otherwise make money off of the use of their names and likenesses.
This is a big moment in the longstanding fight to break up the NCAA’s amateurism scam—particularly if the bill’s passage inspires other states to follow suit. LeBron James is pumped!
I disagree that the schools will try to fight this in the courts - for one, it doesn't change anything for them, and actually benefits them.
If the NCAA rolls over, sure. But if they go to the colleges and say "can't comply with our amateurism guidelines? Then I guess your athletics department can no longer compete within the NCAA" you'll start seeing these schools fight for the $$ they were getting when their teams made it to March Madness or a bowl game.
To which the school replies "Okay, see you in court. You do know we manufacture lawyers, right?" The law says that come 2023, the NCAA is, in the state of California, prohibited from making that ruling.
Edit: It's literally black letter law in the bill (now law):
(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the state’s Fair Pay to Play Act into law today. That bill, which passed the state senate with overwhelming support earlier this month, forbids the state’s public colleges and universities from revoking the eligibility or scholarships of athletes who sign endorsement deals, hire agents, or otherwise make money off of the use of their names and likenesses.
This is a big moment in the longstanding fight to break up the NCAA’s amateurism scam—particularly if the bill’s passage inspires other states to follow suit. LeBron James is pumped!
I disagree that the schools will try to fight this in the courts - for one, it doesn't change anything for them, and actually benefits them.
If the NCAA rolls over, sure. But if they go to the colleges and say "can't comply with our amateurism guidelines? Then I guess your athletics department can no longer compete within the NCAA" you'll start seeing these schools fight for the $$ they were getting when their teams made it to March Madness or a bowl game.
To which the school replies "Okay, see you in court. You do know we manufacture lawyers, right?" The law says that come 2023, the NCAA is, in the state of California, prohibited from making that ruling.
Edit: It's literally black letter law in the bill (now law):
(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.
How would California have jurisdiction if the NCAA completely uproots themself from the state?
I'm not talking about banning the schools from bowl games, I mean the NCAA ceasing all presence in the state of California. I'm sure even liberal judges would look askew at the idea that a state has the right to legislate on the actions of entities that exist in its entirely beyond the borders of their state.
EDIT: Of course, being California the possibility of them actually doing that so close to zero you'd need an electron microscope to see it, but if I was the NCAA wanting to get the CA colleges to fight against this, I'd threaten that.
EDIT 2: Does it say anything about payout/royalties for games and tv deals? I could also see threatening to not let schools earn a cent (beyond their own ticket sales and branding) from any of the NCAA'S current advertising deals on any of the games they play.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the state’s Fair Pay to Play Act into law today. That bill, which passed the state senate with overwhelming support earlier this month, forbids the state’s public colleges and universities from revoking the eligibility or scholarships of athletes who sign endorsement deals, hire agents, or otherwise make money off of the use of their names and likenesses.
This is a big moment in the longstanding fight to break up the NCAA’s amateurism scam—particularly if the bill’s passage inspires other states to follow suit. LeBron James is pumped!
I disagree that the schools will try to fight this in the courts - for one, it doesn't change anything for them, and actually benefits them.
If the NCAA rolls over, sure. But if they go to the colleges and say "can't comply with our amateurism guidelines? Then I guess your athletics department can no longer compete within the NCAA" you'll start seeing these schools fight for the $$ they were getting when their teams made it to March Madness or a bowl game.
To which the school replies "Okay, see you in court. You do know we manufacture lawyers, right?" The law says that come 2023, the NCAA is, in the state of California, prohibited from making that ruling.
Edit: It's literally black letter law in the bill (now law):
(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.
How would California have jurisdiction if the NCAA completely uproots themself from the state?
I'm not talking about banning the schools from bowl games, I mean the NCAA ceasing all presence in the state of California. I'm sure even liberal judges would look askew at the idea that a state has the right to legislate on the actions of entities that exist in its entirely beyond the borders of their state.
EDIT: Of course, being California the possibility of them actually doing that are slim to none, but if I was the NCAA wanting to get the CA colleges to fight against this, I'd threaten that.
EDIT 2: Does it say anything about payout/royalties for games and tv deals? I could also see threatening to not let schools earn a cent (beyond their own ticket sales) from any of the NCAA'S current deals on any of the games they play.
To do that, the NCAA would have to:
* Boot every California university from the NCAA.
* End all business with every vendor incorporated in California. Given that they make their money on TV deals, this could be very problematic.
* Basically make sure that they are not doing any business in one of the largest economies in the world.
You're right that courts consider whether an entity is actually present in a state - but the thing is, they have a test for that, called the doctrine of minimum contacts. Basically, if an entity does a certain amount of business within a state (and this is a rather low bar to clear), then the entity is considered by the courts to be doing business in that state - and thus subject to that state's laws. For the NCAA to make that argument, they would have to fundamentally excise themselves from the California economy - something that would be very hard, if not outright impossible. That's why any threat to do so would be very hollow indeed.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the state’s Fair Pay to Play Act into law today. That bill, which passed the state senate with overwhelming support earlier this month, forbids the state’s public colleges and universities from revoking the eligibility or scholarships of athletes who sign endorsement deals, hire agents, or otherwise make money off of the use of their names and likenesses.
This is a big moment in the longstanding fight to break up the NCAA’s amateurism scam—particularly if the bill’s passage inspires other states to follow suit. LeBron James is pumped!
I disagree that the schools will try to fight this in the courts - for one, it doesn't change anything for them, and actually benefits them.
If the NCAA rolls over, sure. But if they go to the colleges and say "can't comply with our amateurism guidelines? Then I guess your athletics department can no longer compete within the NCAA" you'll start seeing these schools fight for the $$ they were getting when their teams made it to March Madness or a bowl game.
To which the school replies "Okay, see you in court. You do know we manufacture lawyers, right?" The law says that come 2023, the NCAA is, in the state of California, prohibited from making that ruling.
Edit: It's literally black letter law in the bill (now law):
(3) An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, shall not prevent a postsecondary educational institution from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness.
How would California have jurisdiction if the NCAA completely uproots themself from the state?
I'm not talking about banning the schools from bowl games, I mean the NCAA ceasing all presence in the state of California. I'm sure even liberal judges would look askew at the idea that a state has the right to legislate on the actions of entities that exist in its entirely beyond the borders of their state.
EDIT: Of course, being California the possibility of them actually doing that are slim to none, but if I was the NCAA wanting to get the CA colleges to fight against this, I'd threaten that.
EDIT 2: Does it say anything about payout/royalties for games and tv deals? I could also see threatening to not let schools earn a cent (beyond their own ticket sales) from any of the NCAA'S current deals on any of the games they play.
To do that, the NCAA would have to:
* Boot every California university from the NCAA.
* End all business with every vendor incorporated in California. Given that they make their money on TV deals, this could be very problematic.
* Basically make sure that they are not doing any business in one of the largest economies in the world.
You're right that courts consider whether an entity is actually present in a state - but the thing is, they have a test for that, called the doctrine of minimum contacts. Basically, if an entity does a certain amount of business within a state (and this is a rather low bar to clear), then the entity is considered by the courts to be doing business in that state - and thus subject to that state's laws. For the NCAA to make that argument, they would have to fundamentally excise themselves from the California economy - something that would be very hard, if not outright impossible. That's why any threat to do so would be very hollow indeed.
Yeah, it took me about a minute to realize how stupid that idea was, but that was a minute too long to change it and expect you not to see it and admonish how stupid it is.
Basically, the point I was trying to make is that if Plan A (California can't do this, because something something Commerce Clause) fails, and trying to repeal via statewide vote won't go anywhere, Plan B will probably be to rules lawyer a way to hit CA colleges in the pocketbook or prospects pool so they would want to have it overturned.
Which, even if so, basically means that it's not up to the NCAA to kick them out, but up to the state colleges to leave the NCAA themselves, I think?
IANAL, but it looks like it says that Nevada laws in that affected how the NCAA functions in it's disciplinary hearings violated the Commerce Clause, because the only way for the NCAA to comply in a way that promotes it's stated mission of "a fair and level playing field" between its members (whom they are contracted with) would be to change how it conducts it's hearings in ALL cases in all states, which a) could set their own laws that could be incompatible with Nevada's and b) Nevada would be essentially be dictating how the NCAA conducts business outside of Nevada.
It also violated the Contract Clause, because following it without applying it in other states would violate the NCAA's contractual obligation for "fair and level playing field" among it's members, because it would mean Nevada had different rules in regards to disciplinary hearings compared to everyone else.
That's probably what they are hoping for with California's law; "If we have to allow it in California, our obligations to fairness between our members, protected by the Contract Clause, means we have to allow it everywhere, and other states could potentially have laws that forbid it/have different criteria incompatible with California's law, and are you, Your Honor, going to say California's laws trumps those of other states within their state?"
EDIT: the sticking point, it seems to me, is whether the NCAA can convince a judge that making sure all colleges either allow or disallow their athletes from earning money from deals/endorsements/etc is nessisary for the NCAA to enforce the "fair and level playing field" it promises to all of its members. If the judge agrees, CA's law is dead. If they disagree, we're probably see this in SCOTUS in a year or two.
Posts
I suspect there may be some short term recruiting gains for mid tier CA schools like Fresno, a bunch of the UC's, USD, and etc. And the biggest effect will probably show up in the sports that aren't so big like water polo, swimming, tennis, etc. But it feels like the big time college athletes are only in college as a stopping point to the pro's anyway, and they'll probably still be going to the big name schools for their respective sports.
I don't think the shoe thing is that big of a deal. Recruits will just start picking schools that have the deals they like. Or schools will get smart and start making deals with multiple companies.
I guess it doesn't really change much though. As a mid tier team you're either trying to convince a good recruit that they will look better to pro recruits being the star of an ok team than just another player on a championship team, or you're convincing them the same logic applies to endorsement deals.
I'm just hoping if/when players start getting paid directly it comes with somekind of cap system instead of just letting rich teams buy up anyone and everyone that could possibly be good.
That already happens in college sports so I don't know why the players getting paid will change anything.
I know which two football teams are going to be in the finals and I'm pretty confident I can give the top ten for basketball in the wrong order and I only vaguely follow tge sports.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Such bullshit.
This attitude will change in 5 years when then next generational center talent comes along and ohh what do you know the #1 pick.
Eh, this off topic for this thread; Pro Sports players get compensated and have a union. Things collage athlete's would love to have.
Fuck you so much, Timmy.
This reads a lot like the whole "I'm passionate about games" thing the game industry has got going on, and feels just as exploitative.
Is that why he switched to baseball?
Also, why wasn’t ESPN sticking to sports there?
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Because ESPN has too many partnerships with organisations that dislike athlete compensation.
Are coaches somehow obligated to have these horrible positions?
Given the system their salaries depend on?
Yes.
This is the actual point that I think the NCAA should be forced to fall back on. Sure, the players can be amateurs, but, then EVERYONE needs to be. Managers, league organizers, etc etc. The universities can own the teams and sell the tickets, but literally everyone else from the top to the bottom needs to be a volunteer. Its just a big old student club to raise money.
Because the schools don't have fresh waves of coaches or league running leeches coming in every year to replace the ones that have graduated or have been too broken by the game to continue doing their part.
I was going to say...that's real fucking rich coming from Carroll; he got to bail out while leaving every 'amateur' player on the football team in the lurch. (Also stop calling them kids Pete)
Because California Senate Bill 206 is no longer a bill.
It's California state law.
I disagree that the schools will try to fight this in the courts - for one, it doesn't change anything for them, and actually benefits them.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
If the NCAA rolls over, sure. But if they go to the colleges and say "can't comply with our amateurism guidelines? Then I guess your athletics department can no longer compete within the NCAA" you'll start seeing these schools fight for the $$ they were getting when their teams made it to March Madness or a bowl game.
Try to get it repealed/weakened. But the thing is, there's no reason for the schools to join up with the NCAA to do so, especially given the protections in the law for them. (Playing along with the NCAA prior to passage is a different story.)
AKA "please GOP judges strike this down" because employment regulation is again, well within state authority.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
To which the school replies "Okay, see you in court. You do know we manufacture lawyers, right?" The law says that come 2023, the NCAA is, in the state of California, prohibited from making that ruling.
Edit: It's literally black letter law in the bill (now law):
How would California have jurisdiction if the NCAA completely uproots themself from the state?
I'm not talking about banning the schools from bowl games, I mean the NCAA ceasing all presence in the state of California. I'm sure even liberal judges would look askew at the idea that a state has the right to legislate on the actions of entities that exist in its entirely beyond the borders of their state.
EDIT: Of course, being California the possibility of them actually doing that so close to zero you'd need an electron microscope to see it, but if I was the NCAA wanting to get the CA colleges to fight against this, I'd threaten that.
EDIT 2: Does it say anything about payout/royalties for games and tv deals? I could also see threatening to not let schools earn a cent (beyond their own ticket sales and branding) from any of the NCAA'S current advertising deals on any of the games they play.
To do that, the NCAA would have to:
* Boot every California university from the NCAA.
* End all business with every vendor incorporated in California. Given that they make their money on TV deals, this could be very problematic.
* Basically make sure that they are not doing any business in one of the largest economies in the world.
You're right that courts consider whether an entity is actually present in a state - but the thing is, they have a test for that, called the doctrine of minimum contacts. Basically, if an entity does a certain amount of business within a state (and this is a rather low bar to clear), then the entity is considered by the courts to be doing business in that state - and thus subject to that state's laws. For the NCAA to make that argument, they would have to fundamentally excise themselves from the California economy - something that would be very hard, if not outright impossible. That's why any threat to do so would be very hollow indeed.
This seems to be the ruling they'd expect to hold: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/795/1476/2596428/
Which, even if so, basically means that it's not up to the NCAA to kick them out, but up to the state colleges to leave the NCAA themselves, I think?
Yeah, it took me about a minute to realize how stupid that idea was, but that was a minute too long to change it and expect you not to see it and admonish how stupid it is.
Basically, the point I was trying to make is that if Plan A (California can't do this, because something something Commerce Clause) fails, and trying to repeal via statewide vote won't go anywhere, Plan B will probably be to rules lawyer a way to hit CA colleges in the pocketbook or prospects pool so they would want to have it overturned.
IANAL, but it looks like it says that Nevada laws in that affected how the NCAA functions in it's disciplinary hearings violated the Commerce Clause, because the only way for the NCAA to comply in a way that promotes it's stated mission of "a fair and level playing field" between its members (whom they are contracted with) would be to change how it conducts it's hearings in ALL cases in all states, which a) could set their own laws that could be incompatible with Nevada's and b) Nevada would be essentially be dictating how the NCAA conducts business outside of Nevada.
It also violated the Contract Clause, because following it without applying it in other states would violate the NCAA's contractual obligation for "fair and level playing field" among it's members, because it would mean Nevada had different rules in regards to disciplinary hearings compared to everyone else.
That's probably what they are hoping for with California's law; "If we have to allow it in California, our obligations to fairness between our members, protected by the Contract Clause, means we have to allow it everywhere, and other states could potentially have laws that forbid it/have different criteria incompatible with California's law, and are you, Your Honor, going to say California's laws trumps those of other states within their state?"
EDIT: the sticking point, it seems to me, is whether the NCAA can convince a judge that making sure all colleges either allow or disallow their athletes from earning money from deals/endorsements/etc is nessisary for the NCAA to enforce the "fair and level playing field" it promises to all of its members. If the judge agrees, CA's law is dead. If they disagree, we're probably see this in SCOTUS in a year or two.