With a bill sitting on the desk of California Gov. Gavin Newsom that would allow college athletes in the state to more easily make money from their name, image and likeness, the positioning on both sides of the issue is becoming increasingly intense.

If Newsom signs the bill, it would be set to take effect Jan. 1, 2023. But college sports recruiting and scheduling takes place years in advance. So, the prospect of California schools having a less restrictive set of athlete-compensation rules than other NCAA schools would create an almost immediate series of questions for the association, which is awaiting proposals from a special working group that was appointed in May to examine the issue of athlete name, image and likeness.

The working group is scheduled to make a final report to the NCAA Board of Governors at meetings Oct. 27 and 28 in Atlanta.

Ohio State athletics director Gene Smith, who is co-chairing the working group, told USA TODAY Sports this week that if Newsom signs the bill, the uncertainty surrounding a potential difference between California law and NCAA rules would prompt him – for now -- not to schedule games against California schools for dates after Jan. 1, 2023, because he does not see how they could remain NCAA members unless differences between the law and the NCAA’s rules can be resolved.

Meanwhile, in an appearance on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show With Trevor Noah,” Newsom, a Democrat, heavily criticized the current state of college sports, although he stopped short of saying he will sign the bill.

And state Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), the bill's author, said in an interview Thursday: “There is simple fix for (the NCAA’s member schools). They can do the right thing and provide the right to name, image and likeness to all student-athletes.”

Of course, nothing within the NCAA’s vast membership is simple. Because of the association's legislative process, it could take until late 2020 or 2021 before any rules changes are made.

“If the California law goes into effect in ’23,” Smith said Tuesday, “and let’s say the NCAA legislation, how ever it emerges, doesn’t quite meet what California wants it to be and they continue to hold that law, who’s going to play (California schools)? We’re certainly not. They won’t be members of the NCAA. I think that’s going to be the problem."

Smith said that if Newsom signs the bill, schools in California are "going to have a model where they can almost pay for play – not quite – but I think they’re going to be challenged to maintain their membership in the association because, as an association, we have the authority as a group to make our own rules and regulations, and they will be outside those rules and regulations. So, I’m not quite sure how they will stay in the association."

During a follow-up interview Wednesday, Smith addressed a question about whether the NCAA’s schools would take a position on California schools’ membership that would result in the association essentially walking away from the California economic market.

“I’m a single vote in that,” he said. “My guess is our membership would say yes because one of our principles is fair play, and even in the working group that I’m on, we’re focused on trying to make sure we deal with this in a fair-play way – as best as we can have a level playing field. We know it’s unlevel in a lot of ways, but this could make it unbelievably unlevel.

“So, my position would be, yes, and actually I would really be interested in how the Pac-12 (Conference) will handle those schools who are not in California that are members of the Pac-12. And how those schools will compete against those schools in California who have an unfair advantage because they’ll be able to offer student-athletes benefits that the other schools will not be able to offer. So, yeah, my position would be we walk. …

“What’s fortunate is we have till 2023, and I’m hopeful that once our working group completes its work and the association goes through next year, we can get to a point where we mitigate this. But if it stands as it is, and other states create similar legislation, then we’ve got a big issue. We really do.”

The Pac-12 office declined to comment.

Skinner said forecasts of California laws leading to difficult consequences for the state are not new.

“We have lots of experience with threats from entrenched interests. Lots," she said. "We’ve had corporations up and down our state say that they’re going to leave us either because we adopted strong anti-pollution laws or because we have adopted laws regarding gender pay equity. You know, most of them didn’t leave. We’re the fifth-largest economy in the world. We withstand those threats. We will again. It’s what we do. We lead and we lead with our values – and the public is on our side on this one. The public and the athletes are on our side. And other states will follow. And if the NCAA was smart, they’d follow us.”

In the wake of the California legislature sending its bill to Newsom by margins of 72-0 in the Assembly and 39-0 in the Senate, lawmakers in South Carolina and New York have either introduced, or announced their intention to introduce, bills similar to California’s. That was with legislative efforts already having occurred or been announced in Congress and in the states of Washington and Colorado.

Those two states also are home to Pac-12 schools, but there are more conferences that have schools in California and elsewhere.

The gravity of the moment apparently is not lost on Newsom, whose comments came Tuesday in response to a question and comment from host Trevor Noah in which Noah said that while some favor the bill and fully back its intent, others argue that “the amateur-ness of the game is what makes it beautiful.”

“Coaches make millions and millions of dollars,” Newsom began. “Advertisers make millions and millions of dollars on the likeness of these athletes that give up, in some cases, their bodies and their health for their sports. I guess that’s one version of a romanticized system. That’s the current system.

“And, you know, in one respect there’s a racial component. Close to 90% of these coaches are white and the majority of Division I basketball players are black. The plurality of Division I football players are black.

“And with all due respect, this notion of student-athlete – give me a break. These guys are full time, expected full-time to sacrifice themselves for athletics.

“But when they’re done, the next crew comes in and it’s just this cycle – and, at the end of the day, it perpetuates a cycle of inequality and a lack of equity. And I think as it relates to the issues of sports, it’s time to rebalance things.

“So, I’m taking a good look at this legislation. I have the next few days to make a decision. But I recognize the consequence of this decision because we could substantially change the NCAA as we know it. But I think this question needs to be called.”