His 156.1 Passing Efficiency Rating and 20-9 touchdown-interception ratio are both good. In the seven games he’s started and finished, Slovis has four wins, three losses. His wins came against Stanford, Arizona, Colorado and Arizona State. When he started, USC lost to BYU, Notre Dame and Oregon. All in all, he’s played well for a rookie.
Star Wide Receivers
#USC WR Michael Pittman Jr. recently accepted his Senior Bowl invitation.
His game against Utah (10 catches, 232 yards, and 1 TD) is a microcosm of what he is as a prospect. pic.twitter.com/ZJ3Szk173s
With all the praise given to Slovis, it’s important to remember that USC’s wide receivers are the stars of the show. In the Pac-12 conference, USC’s top-three wide outs are each top-ten in receptions, receiving yards and receiving touchdowns.
Michael Pittman Jr.
71 (No. 1) receptions
938 (No. 1) receiving yards
8 (No. 3) receiving touchdowns
Tyler Vaughns
62 (No. 3) receptions
752 (No. 4) receiving yards
5 (No. 8) receiving touchdowns
Amon-Ra St. Brown
55 (No. 5) receptions
666 (No. 7) receiving yards
5 (No. 8) receiving touchdowns
USC’s Defense
On defense, they’re holding teams to 28.1 points-per-game and 418 yards-per-game. That’s not ideal, considering they’re only averaging 30.5 points-per-game. But, it highlights why they are 6-and-4 and not 8-2.
Why Cal Football will win
Injuries to USC
Unfortunately, USC’s recent health hasn’t been good. Running backs Stephen Carr, Merkese Stepp and Vavae Malepeai were all out. Hopefully Carr and Malepeai can play against Cal. But if not, USC plays without three, key running backs.
More importantly, USC’s Brett Neilon left last week’s game with a calf strain. That calf strain sidelines him for multiple weeks, while Justin Dedich takes over. Adding to that is the health of Kedon Slovis. Again, during the same game against WSU, Slovis dealt with cramps that briefly sidelined him. While he sat out two series, they had to use an IV pump.
After starting out the game 15 of 17 for 297 yards and 4 touchdowns (on the first four drives), USC slumped. They only scored three points the rest of the game. Following the four touchdowns, their drives ended:
5 punts
One fumble
One interception
One turnover on downs
One field goal
If USC isn’t in better health, Cal football takes the W.
While not elite anymore, the Cal football defense is still good. They rank 30th in DFEI, according to footballoutsiders. Their .38 DFEI best USC’s .25 DFEI. Additionally, the strength of Cal’s defense directly challenges the strength of USC’s offense. Cal’s secondary is their best feature, while USC’s talent is in their receiving corps. They’ll have their work cut out for them guarding Michael Pittman Jr., but if anyone can do it, Cal can.
Back when the Cal football program was winning and ranked, Garbers was their guy. Before his Week 5 injury, Garbers led Cal to four straight wins. In five games (one partial), Garbers showcased a 148.1 Passing Efficiency Rating, alongside an 8-2 touchdown-to-interception ratio. After years of poor play, Cal actually had an offense. Following his injury, they lost four straight games.
But now, finally throwing without limitations, Chase Garbers is good to go. Even if Justin Wilcox won’t name him as the starter yet, he should be. Garbers played well enough at the start of the season to earn the job. Moreover, Garbers brings a running dimension. Oh, and let’s not forget that Garbers led Cal football to a victory last season against USC.
California is currently the hotbed for the pay-for-play debate in college sports. This is due to the Fair Pay to PlayAct that is currently before the California state legislature. Two California state senators have taken action against the injustices that plague the current college sports system. Those senators are Nancy Skinner and Steven Bradford. Senators Skinner and Bradford introduced the Fair Pay to Play Act in hopes of creating a more equitable system for college athletes and particular NCAA athletes in California. The bill seeks to give those college athletes the ability to profit from the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). The athletes would also be able to sign with agents. The Fair Pay to Play Act has the potential to completely change the landscape of college athletics and the NCAA.
The Current Landscape of College Athletics
Currently, college athletes are not permitted to profit from their NIL for athletically related activities. Despite the NCAA’s best efforts to steer everyone away from this fact, college sports are a billion-dollar industry. Everyone gets rich except the players. Conferences and college sports officials garner billion-dollar television broadcasting deals. Coaches, athletic directors, and conference commissioners negotiate million-dollar salaries. Meanwhile, the athletes are limited to a cost-of-attendance scholarship and are prohibited from profiting from their name, image, and likeness. If an athlete seeks to make such a profit, the athlete will be deemed ineligible for competition by the NCAA. How is this fair? The answer is that it is not fair. The Fair Pay to Play Act seeks to remedy that injustice.
On Monday, the California State Assembly unanimously passed the bill 72-0. The bill will now go back to the State Senate for another vote. The bill was amended after it was originally passed in the State Senate. If the bill is passed again in the State Senate, it will go to Governor Gavin Newsome’s desk.
Governor Newsome should sign the bill into law because the Fair Pay to Play Act has the ability to create a more equitable system for college athletes in California. If signed into law, the bill will greatly benefit all college athletes attending school in California. However, the bill could have a profound effect on black college athletes; particularly those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Fair Pay to Play Act could create an entirely new revenue stream for such athletes by allowing them to acquire a better quality of life not dependent on making it in professional sports.
The Make-up of the Labor Force that Drives the Billion-Dollar Industry
The two sports that generate the bulk of the revenue in college athletics are Division I Football and Division I Men’s basketball. An overwhelming majority of the athletes participating in those sports are African American. In 2018, roughly 48 percent of Division I football players were African American. In 2018, roughly 56 percent of Division I Men’s basketball players were African-American. Even in Division I Women’s basketball, 47 percent of the participants were African-American. Many of these players come from disadvantaged backgrounds and some live in poverty.
Roughly 86 percent of African-American college athletes come from families that live below the poverty line. Generally, many college athletes live at or below the federal poverty line. The National College Players Association conducted a study that compared the room and board portion of each school’s full athletic scholarship to the 2011 federal poverty line. The study found that 85 percent of on-campus athletes and 86 percent of off-campus athletes lived below the federal poverty line. It is true that college athletes are now given cost-of-attendance stipends. However, in many cases, the cost-of-attendance stipend is not enough for athletes to take care of themselves and their families.
The Cost-of-Attendance Stipend is Simply not Enough
In January 2015, the Power 5 conferences voted to allow college athletes to receive cost-of-attendance stipends. Each school calculates the amount of their cost-of-attendance stipend by considering variables like transportation, tuition and fees, books, and personal expenses. Many college athletes use these stipends to support themselves and their families. For example, Deion Hair-Griffin played receiver for North Texas. He received approximately $3,136 as his cost-of-attendance stipend, which he used to help his mother. His mother sacrificed her food and struggled to pay bills so that her son could play football. Once Deion received the stipend he was able to alleviate some of his mother’s financial stress.
Similarly, Van Smith who played football at Clemson used part of his $388 monthly stipend to cover part of his younger brother’s high school football expenses. Myles Gaskins, who played football for the University of Washington, argued that the stipends are still not enough. Gaskins pointed out that the stipend amount would lead athletes to live below the poverty line due to the high rent cost in Seattle. The stipends have been beneficial to college athletes. However, it is still not enough. This is especially true for college athletes who come from poverty. The implementation of the Fair Pay to Play Act and cost-of-attendance stipends will vastly improve the lives of impoverished college athletes in California.
While the Benefit may not be the Same for all Athletes, all Athletes Stand to Benefit
Opponents of the Fair Pay to Play Act argue that the outcome of the bill will not be successful because it will not benefit all athletes. They argue that the bill will only prove beneficial to the highly sought after elite athletes. However, it is very likely that lower-profile athletes will benefit from this bill as well. Simply having the opportunity to garner an endorsement deal is a benefit. This benefit can go a long way for athletes who come from poverty. Let’s consider the perspective of two former college athletes on the issue of how beneficial the Fair Pay to Play Act will be to college athletes.
Former College Athletes Perspective on the Fair Pay to Play Act
Greg Camarillo is a former Stanford University football player who supports the bill. Mr. Camarillo stated that he is not sure that the bill would have benefited him because he was not a high profile athlete in college. However, he acknowledged the possibility of local businesses giving lower-profile athletes endorsement deals. Mr. Camarillo stated that in his view endorsements are the most realistic way for college athletes to receive payment because most schools cannot afford to pay athletes. He also stated that colleges should not have the power to take away college athletes’ ability to profit from their name, image, and likeness.
Travis Johnson is a California native and former Florida State football player. He believes that finding a way to pay college athletes is long overdue. Mr. Johnson recalled instances where athletes did not have enough money to buy groceries or to travel home for the holidays. He acknowledged that an extra $1,000 per month would go a long way. Mr. Johnson suggested that when a company is interested in endorsing the star linebacker, the company offer some type of deal to each player on the line. That way, even the lower-profile players will have an opportunity to benefit from the Fair Pay to Play Act.This bill could lead to the creation of such a system.
With the Fair Pay to Play Act, College Athletes will not Feel so Pressured to Turn Pro and Degree Completion will Likely Increase
Many college athletes leave school early for the pros because they are desperate to change their social-economic status. While some may wish to remain in college, they feel that they cannot afford to. The Fair Pay to Play Act has the ability to alleviate that stress by creating an avenue for college athletes to garner extra income. Furthermore, the Fair Pay to Play Act will provide financial opportunities for athletes who do not make it to the pros.
Approximately 4 percent of college basketball players were selected in the 2018 NBA draft and approximately 4 percent of college football were selected in the 2018 NFL draft. This means that only a small fraction of college athletes are given the opportunity to receive the true value of their athletic worth. Due to the NCAA’s rules, most college athletes miss their opportunity to take advantage of their skills when they are the most marketable. This simply is not right. The Fair Pay to Play Act can change this by giving all college athletes the ability to profit from their athletic abilities during their prime years in college.
Opening the door for college athletes to sign endorsement deals, receive compensation from jersey sales and signed memorabilia, and to receive guidance from an agent while in college would dramatically improve the lives of college athletes, especially those who come from poverty. It would essentially create an avenue where college athletes can use their athleticism to build wealth while pursuing their education. Thus, equipping impoverished college athletes with the two most pertinent things needed to get out poverty – money, and education. Therefore, the Fair Pay to Play Act should be signed into law if and when it reaches Governor Newsome’s desk.
The NCAA has once again shown its true objective. That objective is ensuring that college athletes do not receive any financial benefit that is not NCAA approved. On June 24th, it was reported that NCAA president Mark Emmert sent a letter to the California State Assembly. The letter informed the California State Legislature that the NCAA may ban California colleges from participating in NCAA championships if The Fair Pay to Play Act is passed. The Act aims to allow college athletes to profit from the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL).
That is right, the NCAA seeks to punish California schools if the state passes a law that would benefit college athletes. The bill was proposed by California state senators Nancy Skinner and Steven Bradford in February. Last month, the California State Senate passed the bill. It is very likely that the bill will continue to pass through the California Sate Legislature and become law. This high probability led the NCAA to send that letter in an attempt to impede the bill’s progress.
Yes!!! The California State Senate has spoken! It has just passed my legislation, #SB206, which will allow California college athletes to earn income from endorsement deals, with bipartisan support on 31-4 vote.https://t.co/CzLKufFJSD
What Happens if the Bill Becomes Law in California?
If the bill is signed into law, it will not go into effect until 2023. At that time, college athletes in California would be allowed to garner endorsement deals and sign with agents. The schools would not be paying the athletes. The athletes would get paid from outside sources. Therefore, the bill does not pose any Title IX implications. It also will have no effect on non-revenue producing sports. However, the NCAA wants the bill’s progress postponed until their working group has had a chance to address the matter.
The NCAA Creates Working Group to Address Issues Related to College Athletes’ NIL
On May 14th, the NCAA announced that it created a working group to address issues regarding college athletes’ ability to profit from the commercial use of their NIL. The NCAA created this working group in response to several bills, similar to the one in California, being introduced at both the state and federal levels. A bill was introduced in Washington state that aims to allow college athletes in Washington to profit from the commercial use of their NIL. At the federal level, Congressman Mark Walker of North Carolina introduced the Student-Athlete Equity Act. The Act purports to amend the tax code so that amateur sports organizations such as the NCAA can no longer strip athletes of their right to profit from their name, image, and likeness.
In an effort to get ahead of the issues raised in these bills, the NCAA created the working group. Many were skeptical of the actual goals of the working group. Many questioned whether the NCAA would actually amend the rules in a favorable manner for college athletes. The letter the NCAA sent to the California State Legislature has painted a bleak picture for any hope that the NCAA will make rule changes that benefit college athletes in a meaningful way. After all, the NCAA recently announced that it may tighten up on college athletes’ ability to transfer.
Last summer, the NCAA passed a new transfer rule that served as a major benefit to many college athletes by allowing them to be immediately eligible upon transfer. After complaints about college athletes newfound freedom, the NCAA announced that it may be issuing tighter guidelines for schools to consider in determining an athlete’s immediate eligibility. The NCAA’s announcement regarding the transfer rule does not leave much hope for the efforts of the working group. However, what the working group will actually do remains to be seen. In the meantime, California should call the NCAA’s bluff and move forward with the progression of the bill. After all, how likely is it that the NCAA will carry out its threat?
Will the NCAA Make Good on its Threat?
California is home to some of college sports premier programs. Stanford, University of California Los Angeles, and the University of Southern California all have renowned sports programs. These schools are also members of the Power 5 Conference, the Pac 12. The Pac-12 Conference would be directly affected if the NCAA makes good on its threat. However, the Pac-12 seems to support the efforts of the NCAA’s working group. The Unafraid Show reached out the Pac-12 Conference for comments regarding The Fair Pay to Play Act and Mark Emmert’s letter.
The Pac-12 responded with a letter that the conference’s commissioner Larry Scott sent to the chairman of the California State Legislature Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media Committee on June 14, 2019. The Pac-12’s letter was sent to the California State Legislature prior to the report of NCAA president Mark Emmert’s letter. In the Pac-12’s letter, Mr. Scott requested that the committee hold the bill until the NCAA’s working group finalizes its work this fall. The letter stated Pac-12 athletic director Rick George of the University of Colorado, Boulder joined the committee. Mr. Scott also stressed the Pac-12’s commitment to protecting and supporting the welfare of student-athletes. The Pac-12 Conference did not comment on Mark Emmert’s letter.
It is Time for Change in College Athletics
Although the Pac-12 would prefer the California State Legislature postpone the bill, the California State Legislature should do just the opposite. The California State Legislature should call the NCAA’s bluff. California is home to some of college sports premier programs. Does it really make sense that the NCAA would prohibit all of California’s colleges from competing in championships? The NCAA has too much to lose. The organization has its broadcasting deal with CBS Sports and Turner a division of Time Warner to consider. Would the NCAA really risk losing money on that deal by not making the California colleges’ games available? The answer is no. The NCAA did not become a billion dollar non-profit organization by missing opportunities to maximize their profit margin. After all, if the NCAA did not punish UNC for creating sham courses why would the NCAA punish California for passing a law that benefits college athletes? Therefore, California should call the NCAA’s bluff and continue to fight for what is right.
California should set an example by passing The Fair Pay to Play Act. It is very likely that other states would follow suit for competitive reasons if nothing else.
Hahaha I love it. Anytime these kids start making money from their own “Name and likeness” it’s an issue. This will open up so many avenues to allow players to profit and take money from the corrupt NCAA. Other states will have to follow suit for competitive reasons. https://t.co/hoLDaLRnuE
The NCAA has shown time and again that their aim is to prohibit the financial benefits of college athletes as much as possible in the name of amateurism. Amateurism is a sham. That has been proven by the exorbitant coaching contracts that are signed year after year. The NCAA will only authorize changes in college athletics when forced to. They only created the working group after several state and federal bills were introduced and gaining traction. California should call the NCAA’s bluff and continue to push the bill through. At the very least, California could force the working group to amend the rules so that college athletes can finally profit from the commercial use of their own face and name.
