Nancy Skinner's NIL bill was signed into law by the governor of California—it turns out the delay was so he could sign it on LeBron's TV show, which is how all legislation should be approved. And now come the parade of incredibly dumb arguments. Darren Rovell won a fevered sprint to the summit of Mount Take:

I’m not arguing for or against college athlete endorsements, but this is what comes with it: 1. The end of the NCAA, 2. Fewer rules, more cheating, 3. Complete professionalization of college sports — players won’t be tied to academics, likely won’t need to go to class.

— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) October 1, 2019

What the what? Rovell thinks:

1. the guys in charge of the billion-dollar industry are going to throw their hands up and walk away because Jimmy Football can make some money endorsing colored pencils
2. there will be more cheating when boosters can give players money over the table, and
3. because Jimmy Football can make some money on colored pencils he doesn't have to get a degree.

None of that is going to happen.

[After THE JUMP: more bad arguments!]

The NCAA is already preparing to wave the white flag and continue on, as Rodger Sherman notes at the Ringer:

…the NCAA’s response to Newsom’s signing the bill was … discernibly more measured [than previous doom and gloom proclamations]. The association released a statement that said the new law had caused “confusion”—exactly what type of confusion is left unspecified—and expressed concern that “a patchwork of different laws” across multiple states could potentially make its goal “unattainable.” The statement also said that “improvement needs to happen on a national level” and suggested that the organization could reconsider its own NIL rules to come up with versions that are “realistic in modern society.” In a little less than a month, the NCAA’s stance on the bill has morphed from claiming imminent doom and gloom to conceding that a national law would make more sense than individual ones in all 50 states.

There will be a lawsuit the NCAA will lose, like it loses all its lawsuits. Once that formality is out of the way the NCAA will suck it up and try to set up a system where they're still in charge of the money, however they figure they can manage it. Class will still be required. Donors will split their money between the school—which still has the tickets and skyboxes—and the players/recruits.

In the meantime, many bad arguments will be offered. Most won't be as unhinged as Rovell, but they won't be much better. Here's why each of these arguments is bad.

"This will crush non-revenue sports"

For Power Five schools the results here, if any, will be a slowing of revenue increase already tens of millions of dollars ahead of the situation from a decade ago. Last year's Big Ten revenue distribution was 51 million dollars. A decade ago it was 19 million.

Non-revenue sports have increasingly been gold-plated as athletic departments find any way to spend the tons of cash that are coming in. From 2013 to 2018 non-revenue sport coaches saw their total compensation go up 43%. The worst case scenario for P5 non-revenue sports is that their coaches are slightly less rich and their equipment is not quite space-shuttle material.

Meanwhile, few teams outside of the P5 have significant donor bases that would be eroded by players getting money directly. EMU's football program brought in just under 200k in donations last year, about 2% of their 9 million dollar operating budget. And in cases like EMU donors are probably better off directly supporting the program instead of individual players. Non-revenue sports at places like EMU are only getting program donations and should not see meaningful changes.

"This won't be a level playing field"

This was addressed in a recent mailbag: the current environment is rapidly approaching the maximum possible recruit consolidation.

The current system is already making the playing field as tilted as possible. If anything, giving players back their NIL rights has the potential to diversify the destination for top recruits as teams with a lot of resources who have previously been hesitant to flout NCAA rules also pay players.

"This will result in the professionalization of college sports"

College sports already has the worst aspect of professionalization: commercial-kickoff-commercial. Nobody cared when the Olympics dropped their amateurism requirements and nobody will care when colleges do. People are willing to put up with increasingly awful stadium experiences because of their teams. They're willing to watch horrible garbage football for years on end.

The fact that Jimmy Football has some money isn't going to change their behavior one bit. There are already reasons, in droves, to quit paying attention to college sports. And it doesn't matter. To believe that amateurism is the load-bearing wall in NCAA sports is absurd.

"These kids aren't worth anything"

No, really. Professional bad-take-haver Doug Gottlieb:

It proves there is no real value in a college kids name and likeness. The power is in the brand of the school. Ratings for TV, values of schools to networks depend on the brand of the school. Not the athlete. https://t.co/IW2ESeWdLW

— Doug Gottlieb (@GottliebShow) September 30, 2019

Then there's no problem. Give them their worthless rights back and quit complaining.

"This will lose in court"

There's a strange thread of court fatalism running through some comments. Dan Wolken:

It’s worth noting, however, that the NCAA’s recent success at beating back challengers in federal court may mean that SB 206 never survives. The NCAA may be forced into its own plan, which may prove better than the one politicians drew up.

Seth Davis:

The first is that the NCAA will surely challenge this legislation in court, where it will make the case that it’s unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of an organization the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed as private (in the Jerry Tarkanian case) to make and enforce its own bylaws. Based on the NCAA’s track record, I like its chances to win that argument.

The NCAA's track record is dismal. Regents of OU: loss. Assistant coaches: loss. O'Bannon: loss. Alston: loss. It is true that the judge in the latter two cases proposed milquetoast remedies as she systematically obliterated the NCAA's arguments, but this isn't a situation where the court needs to impose a remedy. It merely has to let the law stand. And it seems like they will. The NCAA's bylaws are not laws; actual laws supercede bylaws. As Sherman put it:

…this organization has as much legal authority when it comes to rulemaking as a board game inventor. It’s illegal for an athlete to receive a huge payment from a booster in the same way it’s illegal for you to collect $1,000 in Monopoly money when passing go. Sure, the NCAA makes rules for how its member institutions should operate, and if you break those rules the NCAA could prevent your school from playing in a prestigious tournament or a bowl game. But it’s the government that actually makes and enacts laws.

"We can't cheat athletes out of their rights and that makes us sad" is not a legal strategy that will win.

"It's too complicated"

It's not complicated at all! We have an entire economy based around this that everyone else participates in! Is it too complicated for literally anyone else to go about their business and make some money?

The complicated thing is what's going on now, when there is an entire industry of people dedicated to monitoring and punishing normal economy activity:

a lot of not famous people are going to have their lives measurably improved because they can coach camps or have a youtube channel and make some money without having to worry about their scholarship

— mgoblog (@mgoblog) October 1, 2019

Deleting huge chunks of the NCAA rulebook is not making things more complicated.

"But then they will have money"

OK, you've got me there. Then they will have money.