There is a choice every high school senior who plays sports should have to make, says NCAA president Mark Emmert.

They can choose to be a college athlete. Or they can choose to be a professional. There is no room for both or the waters turn murky and "for all intents and purposes, athletes become employees of the schools," Emmert said.

"This is just a new form of professionalism and a different way of converting students into employees," Emmert said. "(They may be) paid in a fashion different than a paycheck, but that doesn't make them not paid."

When California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill Monday allowing college athletes in the state to get paid for their name, image and likeness through endorsement deals, sponsorships, autograph signings and other similar income opportunities, it raised more questions than answers on how it all would play out. Not just in that state but nationwide.

In an exclusive 30-minute interview with IndyStar on Thursday, Emmert talked about the aftermath of the Fair Pay to Play Act and what it could mean for the Indianapolis-based NCAA.

What do you say to people who think it's OK to let college athletes receive compensation for their name, image and likeness?

"First, the bill that California passed is one that will allow in that state their student athletes to sell their name, image or likeness for endorsement deals — for shoe companies or car dealerships or the like. It would not be direct pay for play." But, Emmert said, he can see it "pretty fast" morphing into that model.

"The other big issue is we simply can’t have a national athletic association in charge of national tournaments and national championships if each state creates its own... law," he said. "You simply can’t do that. It doesn't make sense. It can't be done."

What worries you the most about the name, image, likeness push? What are people not seeing?

"The biggest worry is that when you have complete unfettered licensing agreements or unfettered endorsement deals, the model of college athletics is negligible at best and maybe doesn't even exist," he said. "Those deals would be arranged with support or engagement of school... so they do become professional employees of schools. That is what most member schools are concerned about, not that people are opposed to have an appropriate way to get some form of (compensation for athletes).

What have you heard from school presidents and athletic directors?

"I've been talking to lots of people, as you can imagine. We have 1,100 member schools and after talking to a full cross section of presidents, athletic directors, the vast majority of them all see and recognize this is an area where we need to continue to evolve our rules," he said. "We spent the past decade improving as students' needs changed and made great strides in that direction. Here is another opportunity to address another change going on in the lives of students. People aren’t putting their head in the sand, in fact the contrary."

The NCAA has a working group that's been toiling over the name, image, likeness debate. The organization's Board of Governors will meet at the end of the month in Atlanta. There, the board will receive a proposal on what that group thinks should come next for NCAA and its bylaws going forward with name, image and likeness rights for college athletes.

What might those evolved rules look like?

"That's what this group is working on. (After reporting to the board), it would take some months before they would finalize any of their rule changes, but there is broad-based support for the things the NCAA is already doing around name, image and likeness," Emmert said. 'If a student athlete writes a book or produces a song, the rules today say that’s (not allowed). We have been routinely allowing them to receive compensations that are unrelated to sport."

Would the NCAA ever go as far as the California law?

"The complete elimination of rules is not acceptable," he said. "You simply can’t have a successful athletic association when we don’t have any rules in place… and you can’t control the behavior of third party systems."

What is the most extreme impact on college sports that you see as possible under the California law?

"This is just a new form of professionalism and a different way of converting students into employees," Emmert said. "(They may be) paid in a fashion different than a paycheck, but that doesn't make them not paid."

Is it practical to think the NCAA can set a national policy?

"I do and it’s done that consistently for 100 years," he said. It actually makes more sense, he said, than trying to do it through 50 different legislatures."

What would you say to Lilly King? The two-time Olympic gold medalist from Indiana University noted that IU, the Big Ten and NCAA featured her in advertisements and announcements and she was never compensated. Those entities could promote her, she said, but she wasn't allowed to promote herself. She stayed to finish her education, but feels that she paid an unfair price.

"I don’t know her circumstances so I can’t really speak to any one individual's situation. I know that the past 10 years, we have continued improvement in support of student athletes in virtually every aspect," Emmert said. "This is another spectrum down that path — to find a way that they can take appropriate advantage of name, image and likeness but do that in a way that is consistent with values of college athletics."

If it got to the point where Adidas or Nike could make a phone call to work out deals with athletes on the side, how would NCAA regulate that?

"Under the California law, there would be complete elimination of all of those rules. It would also include the use of agents in that process and the agent could represent high school students," he said. "You bring another set of third parties in about what a student athlete is going to get from school A to school B? It really starts changing the dynamic of a student going to a university. For all intents and purposes, (the athletes) are employees."

If a national bill passes that allows this, would the NCAA even need to exist?

"The NCAA does a lot of things besides just deal with these kinds of issues, obviously. There are still 90 championships that need to be run, all the governance processes that need to be done, all the discussion around enforcement that needs to be managed by somebody," he said. "If you eliminated the NCAA, there would just be another organization formed doing the same thing with a different name."

U.S. Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio) is considering proposing a national bill similar to California’s. Is the NCAA actively trying to engage with people who are pushing for change?

"First of all, we are monitoring all the activity around the country, answering people's questions, providing any information at the state or congressional level. And where appropriate, we are talking about the concerns our schools have," he said. "The universities in California worked hard to oppose the California bill. They see it as something very inappropriate for college sports. They obviously lost that battle. At the same time, they wont' stop."

But have you reached out to Gonzalez about the national bill?

"No we haven't yet. He simply announced his intention and the bill hasn’t been written or dropped yet. They are heading out on a recess in a couple weeks," Emmert said. "We will talk to everybody and anybody that has a legislative interest."

Tom Izzo (coach of Michigan State) said he had his sports information director gather up stories from various reporters so he could read up on the name-image-likeness issue. He said: “I had nine articles and there were nine different opinions.” What do you say to Izzo?

"I read probably 50 articles and I've got 50 different opinions. One of the many beauties of college sports is it brings out passionate people. I'm never surprised by the fact people have differing opinions and they cling to them very strongly and sometimes vocalize their views in pretty strong language," he said. "This isn't easy. If it was, it would have been fixed a long time ago."

As the proposal is made Oct. 29, do you feel good about the NCAA's timing on the issue? Or do you wish you'd been quicker to move?

"You always want to be more proactive on any of these issues," he said. "Do I wish it had been started 10 years ago? Sure but the fact is we were not in a place where we could do it."

Tell us more about the choice you believe high school senior athletes should be forced to make?

"We really need to get to a place where it becomes clear to everyone, especially to young men and women who play sports and their families, there needs to be a clear choice," Emmert said. "If you want to be a professional athlete, there ought to be those opportunities. If you look at baseball, for example, a young man at 18 can go out and be a professional baseball player. He can say, 'I can go here or I can go to college and if I go to college I can live by those rules. And then everybody goes by those rules. If he goes to launch his life, he can say, 'I'm not going to get an education, I'm not going to go to campus, I'm not going to play in the College World Series. And that's a free choice they can make."

That's not an option for basketball (one year of college required) or football (three years of college required) players. What do you say to that?

"We've made that clear we think that’s wrong," Emmert said. "They ought to be able to make that clear choice. We need to continue to work with the professional sports leagues (to make that happen)."

Follow IndyStar sports reporter Dana Benbow on Twitter: @DanaBenbow. Reach her via e-mail: dbenbow@indystar.com.