Anchor Drop, October 1, 2019: Augenstein shoots a 65

Good morning.

Vanderbilt senior John Augenstein shot a 65 in the second round at the Nike Collegiate Invitational on Monday. Vanderbilt opens the final round today at 10:50 AM CT. The Commodores are currently in fifth place after two rounds.

Women’s golf shot one under par on the first day of the Windy City Collegiate Classic and currently sit in a tie for eighth.

New podcasts: Chris Lee recaps the Northern Illinois game with Mitch Light, and Max Herz drops a new edition of the Anchor Down podcast.

ICYMI: Vanderbilt’s October 12 game against UNLV is set for a 3 PM kickoff on the SEC Network.

Off the West End

Tennessee officially has a quarterback controversy on its hands. Jeremy Pruitt is refusing to name a starter for Saturday’s game against Georgia.

Well, it’s official: California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law yesterday a bill that would basically make it illegal for colleges in the state to follow NCAA rules regarding allowing student-athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness. (Ed. note: this is what the bill actually does. It was already legal for athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness; it was simply against NCAA rules.)

Regardless of this, I think the idea that this and similar bills kicking around in various state legislatures will not represent a sea change. For one thing, the new law may well get struck down in court. (Or possibly, a law in another state that’s not crafted as well. For instance, a bill in South Carolina would explicitly limit the rights to football and men’s basketball players, which is basically South Carolina saying that they don’t care about Title IX.)

I’ve always been cynical about this, because a while back the conversation shifted from “pay the players” to “allow the players to profit off their name, image, and likeness,” and I’ve always suspected that Title IX issues with the first led to the second being the preferred vehicle. But I also suspect that the NCAA, if it doesn’t want to risk losing in court (which it might, and there’s a decent chance that it would prevail, particularly since where it comes to private universities the California state legislature has basically told them how they interact with a private voluntary membership association, which seems... unconstitutional)... the NCAA might try to meet them in the middle and allow the rights, but impose limitations. At that point it becomes a question of whether the anti-NCAA ideologues are willing to accept any limitations. The easiest one to see would be limiting it to sponsorships that are reasonably connected to the universities’ educational mission — or, perhaps, a limitation on sponsorships from alcohol and gambling interests. What I can guarantee will not happen will be California schools playing by a different set of rules than everyone else.

(One potential avenue of attack on the law, by the way, is that it wouldn’t allow players to sign an endorsement deal with a company whose competitor has its own contract with the player’s school. I can see that being a violation of the Commerce Clause.)

Scoreboard

NFL: Steelers 27, Bengals 3.