[Mick]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

I think it's a Max Aitken, a/k/a Lord Beaverbrook line...

Now We’re Just Haggling Over the Price – Quote Investigator

[Mick]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

I think it's a Max Aitken, a/k/a Lord Beaverbrook line...

Now We’re Just Haggling Over the Price – Quote Investigator

[Maple Leaf]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

I think it's a Max Aitken, a/k/a Lord Beaverbrook line...

Now We’re Just Haggling Over the Price – Quote Investigator

Sounds like it came from standard pre-nuptial/Neudering agreement.

[Maple Leaf]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

I think it's a Max Aitken, a/k/a Lord Beaverbrook line...

Now We’re Just Haggling Over the Price – Quote Investigator

Sounds like it came from standard pre-nuptial/Neudering agreement.

[teejers1]

 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

Let me go in order with the objections made:

1. College Athletics Should Be Governed By College Rules.  The rules are a century old, formulated when amateurism was the rule, when the Yale coach Tad Jones could tell his footballers with a straight face that playing Harvard was the most important thing they would ever do. Only the affluent went to college, and there were no pro leagues. Even then, they were bad rules - they did carnage to the development of tennis and golf, and were pointless. Avery Brundage made an international ass of himself insisting on them in the Olympics long after everyone else saw through them. But he is ancient history now, thanks be to God.

Bad then, worse now. Amateurism is gone everywhere EXCEPT the NCAA, and college attracts a lot of kids who are anything but affluent. There is no reason to perpetuate bad traditions just because they are traditions. Money is neutral. It doesn't matter who pays it, unless you create a completely artificial moral template, which is what the NCAA has done.

2. The Revenues Are Actually Generated By Institutional Loyalty, Not the Players. I couldn't agree more, which is why the schools should keep bowl and NCAA tournament money and not pay players. The school club model is a lot better for most athletes than employer/employee.

But we are not talking about that. We are talking about artificial constraints that prevent a young athlete from contracting with sponsors, including pro franchises. That has nothing to do with the collegiate program, any more than granddad's trust. The school has no business getting involved with it. Does it audit an engineering student's summer job? Or a band musician who takes paying gigs from the union? 

It does not because the relationships don't signify. Neither do the athletes with third party money.

3. Pro Money Would Only Be Available To The Stars. Indeed so, and so what? Pretty girls get asked out more often than plain ones. Athletes do the best with what they have. Your second-string point guard isn't going to get the attention that your star does. NIL money may make him more interested in Kentucky than Stanford, but no one's winning championships with him. So that water can seek its own level without doing much harm to competitive balance.

Besides, the same thing is going on now. It's the stars that get calls from agents and invites to NFL combines and NBA tryouts. The vast majority of athletes, like most human beings, accept these inevitable inequities. Pro contracts aren't going to change the personality dynamics.

4. Pro Money Comes With Strings, and Family Money Does Not. I hope whichever one of you wrote that rethinks it, because it sounds too much like decadent European nobility sneering at people who earn money. It's a questionable assertion at best.

Besides, right now athletes and ordinary students receive money tied to contractual obligations. An athletic scholarship commits the athlete to play a particular sport at a particular time. There are all sorts of government programs that come with contractual quid pro quos. The students seem to manage.

And family money doesn't come with strings? You obviously never met my mother.

5. Pro Franchises Will Do What's Best For The Franchise, Not The Student. Another questionable assertion - but even if so, shouldn't the athlete and his family make this decision? And not the school and the NCAA?

But it is questionable. The prosaic fact is that what's best for the athlete and what's best for the franchise usually coincide. Both want to produce the highest degree of athletic skill. Both also want an individual as mature and solidly grounded as possible - well, the athlete's family does, anyway. As to what an athlete's actual pro potential is, almost every late adolescent in the country overrates his (sic) own. It's the franchises that usually indicate a kid slow down. Right now, an athlete gets his advice from his know nothing friends, his often over ambitious family, and others who don't know what they're talking about. Giving these kids sound, solid professional evaluations can only help them.

Most of the objections to abandoning the amateur rule altogether are reflexive reactions to a proposal so novel - a refusal to leave the box, so to speak. But the various sports associations that govern Olympic participation had to get beyond that once upon a time, as did the tennis establishment. Open participation is the best thing that ever happened to tennis, and much the same thing can be said about the Olympics.

Drop all the hypocrisy and needless regulation, and you end up with a simpler, saner system of much greater benefit to all. Stanford might actually end up with some of these scholar athletes (e.g, Jabari Parker) who go elsewhere for economic reasons that, in the last analysis, shouldn't exist.

Because there is no regulation of compensating college athletes, we'll stumble along and might even end up somewhere in the ballpark you're advocating.  But that doesn't make it the correct thing to do from a policy standpoint.

I've never understood the arguments against this simple convention:  if you want to play college ball, play by those rules.  Then the object is to install rules that try and balance several factors, the most important being that these competitors are students first.  The second most important factor is that you want to have rules that will allow for the most participation schools can afford (because that INCREASES opportunity for your underprivileged kids to, you know, attend college), which also comply with Title IX.  And then there's some uniform "compensation" - a scholarship, a stipend, whatever.  But it's a balancing and rules need to be enforced, not abandoned.

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

[teejers1]

 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

Let me go in order with the objections made:

1. College Athletics Should Be Governed By College Rules.  The rules are a century old, formulated when amateurism was the rule, when the Yale coach Tad Jones could tell his footballers with a straight face that playing Harvard was the most important thing they would ever do. Only the affluent went to college, and there were no pro leagues. Even then, they were bad rules - they did carnage to the development of tennis and golf, and were pointless. Avery Brundage made an international ass of himself insisting on them in the Olympics long after everyone else saw through them. But he is ancient history now, thanks be to God.

Bad then, worse now. Amateurism is gone everywhere EXCEPT the NCAA, and college attracts a lot of kids who are anything but affluent. There is no reason to perpetuate bad traditions just because they are traditions. Money is neutral. It doesn't matter who pays it, unless you create a completely artificial moral template, which is what the NCAA has done.

2. The Revenues Are Actually Generated By Institutional Loyalty, Not the Players. I couldn't agree more, which is why the schools should keep bowl and NCAA tournament money and not pay players. The school club model is a lot better for most athletes than employer/employee.

But we are not talking about that. We are talking about artificial constraints that prevent a young athlete from contracting with sponsors, including pro franchises. That has nothing to do with the collegiate program, any more than granddad's trust. The school has no business getting involved with it. Does it audit an engineering student's summer job? Or a band musician who takes paying gigs from the union? 

It does not because the relationships don't signify. Neither do the athletes with third party money.

3. Pro Money Would Only Be Available To The Stars. Indeed so, and so what? Pretty girls get asked out more often than plain ones. Athletes do the best with what they have. Your second-string point guard isn't going to get the attention that your star does. NIL money may make him more interested in Kentucky than Stanford, but no one's winning championships with him. So that water can seek its own level without doing much harm to competitive balance.

Besides, the same thing is going on now. It's the stars that get calls from agents and invites to NFL combines and NBA tryouts. The vast majority of athletes, like most human beings, accept these inevitable inequities. Pro contracts aren't going to change the personality dynamics.

4. Pro Money Comes With Strings, and Family Money Does Not. I hope whichever one of you wrote that rethinks it, because it sounds too much like decadent European nobility sneering at people who earn money. It's a questionable assertion at best.

Besides, right now athletes and ordinary students receive money tied to contractual obligations. An athletic scholarship commits the athlete to play a particular sport at a particular time. There are all sorts of government programs that come with contractual quid pro quos. The students seem to manage.

And family money doesn't come with strings? You obviously never met my mother.

5. Pro Franchises Will Do What's Best For The Franchise, Not The Student. Another questionable assertion - but even if so, shouldn't the athlete and his family make this decision? And not the school and the NCAA?

But it is questionable. The prosaic fact is that what's best for the athlete and what's best for the franchise usually coincide. Both want to produce the highest degree of athletic skill. Both also want an individual as mature and solidly grounded as possible - well, the athlete's family does, anyway. As to what an athlete's actual pro potential is, almost every late adolescent in the country overrates his (sic) own. It's the franchises that usually indicate a kid slow down. Right now, an athlete gets his advice from his know nothing friends, his often over ambitious family, and others who don't know what they're talking about. Giving these kids sound, solid professional evaluations can only help them.

Most of the objections to abandoning the amateur rule altogether are reflexive reactions to a proposal so novel - a refusal to leave the box, so to speak. But the various sports associations that govern Olympic participation had to get beyond that once upon a time, as did the tennis establishment. Open participation is the best thing that ever happened to tennis, and much the same thing can be said about the Olympics.

Drop all the hypocrisy and needless regulation, and you end up with a simpler, saner system of much greater benefit to all. Stanford might actually end up with some of these scholar athletes (e.g, Jabari Parker) who go elsewhere for economic reasons that, in the last analysis, shouldn't exist.

Because there is no regulation of compensating college athletes, we'll stumble along and might even end up somewhere in the ballpark you're advocating.  But that doesn't make it the correct thing to do from a policy standpoint.

I've never understood the arguments against this simple convention:  if you want to play college ball, play by those rules.  Then the object is to install rules that try and balance several factors, the most important being that these competitors are students first.  The second most important factor is that you want to have rules that will allow for the most participation schools can afford (because that INCREASES opportunity for your underprivileged kids to, you know, attend college), which also comply with Title IX.  And then there's some uniform "compensation" - a scholarship, a stipend, whatever.  But it's a balancing and rules need to be enforced, not abandoned.

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

[DC 86]

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

In principle I completely agree with you, Teejers, but the creation of professional alternatives doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

As you mentioned, G-League Ignite (which pays $500,000 per season) and Overtime Elite exist - yet most one-and-dones still go to college for the marketing exposure. Zion Williamson scored a $75 million shoe contract based on his Duke superstardom. Shoe companies encourage (and pay under the table) promising players to go to college knowing that having every game televised and then being part of March Madness will make some players household names before they reach the NBA in a way that the G-League cannot. Some elite players will go to college for non-financial reasons but offering a professional alternative doesn't necessarily eliminate players choosing a year of college for non-academic/social reasons.

The bigger problem as you noted is that the NFL has no interest in creating a minor league since college football provides ready-made stars, and it's hard to imagine that a separate organization can entice elite players to forgo the exposure that they receive by playing for the biggest college football brands.

[DC 86]

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

In principle I completely agree with you, Teejers, but the creation of professional alternatives doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

As you mentioned, G-League Ignite (which pays $500,000 per season) and Overtime Elite exist - yet most one-and-dones still go to college for the marketing exposure. Zion Williamson scored a $75 million shoe contract based on his Duke superstardom. Shoe companies encourage (and pay under the table) promising players to go to college knowing that having every game televised and then being part of March Madness will make some players household names before they reach the NBA in a way that the G-League cannot. Some elite players will go to college for non-financial reasons but offering a professional alternative doesn't necessarily eliminate players choosing a year of college for non-academic/social reasons.

The bigger problem as you noted is that the NFL has no interest in creating a minor league since college football provides ready-made stars, and it's hard to imagine that a separate organization can entice elite players to forgo the exposure that they receive by playing for the biggest college football brands.

[Genuine Realist]

[quote="dabigv13" pid='350232' dateline='1649209034']
 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

Because there is no regulation of compensating college athletes, we'll stumble along and might even end up somewhere in the ballpark you're advocating.  But that doesn't make it the correct thing to do from a policy standpoint.

I've never understood the arguments against this simple convention:  if you want to play college ball, play by those rules.  Then the object is to install rules that try and balance several factors, the most important being that these competitors are students first.  The second most important factor is that you want to have rules that will allow for the most participation schools can afford (because that INCREASES opportunity for your underprivileged kids to, you know, attend college), which also comply with Title IX.  And then there's some uniform "compensation" - a scholarship, a stipend, whatever.  But it's a balancing and rules need to be enforced, not abandoned.

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

The argument is pretty simple. 

There is an entire universe of athletes from poor families, some desperately poor, that could benefit as much from the education, as well as the broadening and maturing aspect of college life as any other group of 18 year olds. Ray Handley, who used to be assigned to the Southwest in his assistant days at Stanford, once remarked about the code - that he'd hear that the lad had 'heavy responsibilities at home', the sign that he had his hand out, which almost always disqualified him from Stanford consideration. 

You might think that such a kid is interested only in late model sports cars. But the first use of pro money is often to get their mother or caregiver into decent housing.

There's not the slightest reason to put a kid like that into an artificial squeeze. There's absolutely no reason why the athlete, and the school, and the pro franchise or sponsor, can't all have their cake and eat it too.

As for 'college rules', not so long ago the same thing could have been written about Olympic participation. I've mentioned tennis - the entire calcified establishment was against open competition - Wimbledon did something daring when it opened the gates in 1968. But it worked, and wonderfully well. And for that matter, the NIL is going to blow all the current rules to hell. The rules weren't found under a burning bush. They are subject to change and amendment as times change - and they certainly have.

The schools have to insist on academic standards. That's the necessary function of the NCAA. Also, schools have to keep their hands clean. No ringers. But after that, how a student athlete manages his finances, who pays, who provides, is absolutely irrelevant.

[Genuine Realist]

[quote="dabigv13" pid='350232' dateline='1649209034']
 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

Because there is no regulation of compensating college athletes, we'll stumble along and might even end up somewhere in the ballpark you're advocating.  But that doesn't make it the correct thing to do from a policy standpoint.

I've never understood the arguments against this simple convention:  if you want to play college ball, play by those rules.  Then the object is to install rules that try and balance several factors, the most important being that these competitors are students first.  The second most important factor is that you want to have rules that will allow for the most participation schools can afford (because that INCREASES opportunity for your underprivileged kids to, you know, attend college), which also comply with Title IX.  And then there's some uniform "compensation" - a scholarship, a stipend, whatever.  But it's a balancing and rules need to be enforced, not abandoned.

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

The argument is pretty simple. 

There is an entire universe of athletes from poor families, some desperately poor, that could benefit as much from the education, as well as the broadening and maturing aspect of college life as any other group of 18 year olds. Ray Handley, who used to be assigned to the Southwest in his assistant days at Stanford, once remarked about the code - that he'd hear that the lad had 'heavy responsibilities at home', the sign that he had his hand out, which almost always disqualified him from Stanford consideration. 

You might think that such a kid is interested only in late model sports cars. But the first use of pro money is often to get their mother or caregiver into decent housing.

There's not the slightest reason to put a kid like that into an artificial squeeze. There's absolutely no reason why the athlete, and the school, and the pro franchise or sponsor, can't all have their cake and eat it too.

As for 'college rules', not so long ago the same thing could have been written about Olympic participation. I've mentioned tennis - the entire calcified establishment was against open competition - Wimbledon did something daring when it opened the gates in 1968. But it worked, and wonderfully well. And for that matter, the NIL is going to blow all the current rules to hell. The rules weren't found under a burning bush. They are subject to change and amendment as times change - and they certainly have.

The schools have to insist on academic standards. That's the necessary function of the NCAA. Also, schools have to keep their hands clean. No ringers. But after that, how a student athlete manages his finances, who pays, who provides, is absolutely irrelevant.

[martyup]

I say that Genuine Realist is well reasoned and overflowing with common sense.  Unfortunately common sense and good reasoning often fail to drive policy.

[martyup]

I say that Genuine Realist is well reasoned and overflowing with common sense.  Unfortunately common sense and good reasoning often fail to drive policy.

[teejers1]

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

In principle I completely agree with you, Teejers, but the creation of professional alternatives doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

As you mentioned, G-League Ignite (which pays $500,000 per season) and Overtime Elite exist - yet most one-and-dones still go to college for the marketing exposure. Zion Williamson scored a $75 million shoe contract based on his Duke superstardom. Shoe companies encourage (and pay under the table) promising players to go to college knowing that having every game televised and then being part of March Madness will make some players household names before they reach the NBA in a way that the G-League cannot. Some elite players will go to college for non-financial reasons but offering a professional alternative doesn't necessarily eliminate players choosing a year of college for non-academic/social reasons.

The bigger problem as you noted is that the NFL has no interest in creating a minor league since college football provides ready-made stars, and it's hard to imagine that a separate organization can entice elite players to forgo the exposure that they receive by playing for the biggest college football brands.

Your second paragraph, imo, undermines any notion that there is some moral imperative to paying these kids.  It is the college landscape that is providing the value that these kids can take advantage of . . . if they want to.  If the shoe company wants Zion to play in college for a year for "more exposure" prior to signing him to a deal for the pros, then he can do that with eyes wide open.  But for that year, he has to play by the college rules. 

As for GR's 'simple world,' it is far from that . . . unless you just don't care that much about an expansive reach of college athletics.  And btw, it's fine to have that position - just acknowledge the likelihood/certainty that allowing direct payment to players will ultimately end up constricting the number of participating D1 teams.   Pro teams aren't paying Joe Athlete - and then letting him decide where to play college.  Not a chance in hell.  Rather, the $$ comes from people who care enough to pony up.  And the people who care enough to pony up are those supporting "their" schools.  Thus, the rabid fan bases (or the schools with an obscenely wealthy sports fan - see Oklahoma State, Oregon and others) will ensure that their school's athletes are funded sufficiently to get the kids to play at their school.

The haves will become moreso; the quality of play stratified even further; and thus, you'll have dwindling TV interest in all but the 40 or so programs that have fan support willing to buy players.  The rest, if they survive at all, will become equivalent of today's DIII sports.  And it's okay to support such a un ultimate landscape; but last I checked, DIII sports were not providing scholarships for their players.  Ergo, you're going to be depriving a LOT of student-athletes the ability to attend college.  You may think the 40-team D1 model is fine.  Okay.  But again, that has consequences.

Like with everything else in an ordered society, this distills to how much do you take from the "haves" to support the "have nots."  My vote in this arena is "a lot."  And I'd include coaching salaries as part of that "take" as well.

[teejers1]

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

In principle I completely agree with you, Teejers, but the creation of professional alternatives doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

As you mentioned, G-League Ignite (which pays $500,000 per season) and Overtime Elite exist - yet most one-and-dones still go to college for the marketing exposure. Zion Williamson scored a $75 million shoe contract based on his Duke superstardom. Shoe companies encourage (and pay under the table) promising players to go to college knowing that having every game televised and then being part of March Madness will make some players household names before they reach the NBA in a way that the G-League cannot. Some elite players will go to college for non-financial reasons but offering a professional alternative doesn't necessarily eliminate players choosing a year of college for non-academic/social reasons.

The bigger problem as you noted is that the NFL has no interest in creating a minor league since college football provides ready-made stars, and it's hard to imagine that a separate organization can entice elite players to forgo the exposure that they receive by playing for the biggest college football brands.

Your second paragraph, imo, undermines any notion that there is some moral imperative to paying these kids.  It is the college landscape that is providing the value that these kids can take advantage of . . . if they want to.  If the shoe company wants Zion to play in college for a year for "more exposure" prior to signing him to a deal for the pros, then he can do that with eyes wide open.  But for that year, he has to play by the college rules. 

As for GR's 'simple world,' it is far from that . . . unless you just don't care that much about an expansive reach of college athletics.  And btw, it's fine to have that position - just acknowledge the likelihood/certainty that allowing direct payment to players will ultimately end up constricting the number of participating D1 teams.   Pro teams aren't paying Joe Athlete - and then letting him decide where to play college.  Not a chance in hell.  Rather, the $$ comes from people who care enough to pony up.  And the people who care enough to pony up are those supporting "their" schools.  Thus, the rabid fan bases (or the schools with an obscenely wealthy sports fan - see Oklahoma State, Oregon and others) will ensure that their school's athletes are funded sufficiently to get the kids to play at their school.

The haves will become moreso; the quality of play stratified even further; and thus, you'll have dwindling TV interest in all but the 40 or so programs that have fan support willing to buy players.  The rest, if they survive at all, will become equivalent of today's DIII sports.  And it's okay to support such a un ultimate landscape; but last I checked, DIII sports were not providing scholarships for their players.  Ergo, you're going to be depriving a LOT of student-athletes the ability to attend college.  You may think the 40-team D1 model is fine.  Okay.  But again, that has consequences.

Like with everything else in an ordered society, this distills to how much do you take from the "haves" to support the "have nots."  My vote in this arena is "a lot."  And I'd include coaching salaries as part of that "take" as well.

[Genuine Realist]

Your second paragraph, imo, undermines any notion that there is some moral imperative to paying these kids.  It is the college landscape that is providing the value that these kids can take advantage of . . . if they want to.  If the shoe company wants Zion to play in college for a year for "more exposure" prior to signing him to a deal for the pros, then he can do that with eyes wide open.  But for that year, he has to play by the college rules. 

As for GR's 'simple world,' it is far from that . . . unless you just don't care that much about an expansive reach of college athletics.  And btw, it's fine to have that position - just acknowledge the likelihood/certainty that allowing direct payment to players will ultimately end up constricting the number of participating D1 teams.   Pro teams aren't paying Joe Athlete - and then letting him decide where to play college.  Not a chance in hell.  Rather, the $$ comes from people who care enough to pony up.  And the people who care enough to pony up are those supporting "their" schools.  Thus, the rabid fan bases (or the schools with an obscenely wealthy sports fan - see Oklahoma State, Oregon and others) will ensure that their school's athletes are funded sufficiently to get the kids to play at their school.

The haves will become moreso; the quality of play stratified even further; and thus, you'll have dwindling TV interest in all but the 40 or so programs that have fan support willing to buy players.  The rest, if they survive at all, will become equivalent of today's DIII sports.  And it's okay to support such a un ultimate landscape; but last I checked, DIII sports were not providing scholarships for their players.  Ergo, you're going to be depriving a LOT of student-athletes the ability to attend college.  You may think the 40-team D1 model is fine.  Okay.  But again, that has consequences.

Like with everything else in an ordered society, this distills to how much do you take from the "haves" to support the "have nots."  My vote in this arena is "a lot."  And I'd include coaching salaries as part of that "take" as well.

My own thought is that the result of the end of amateurism will be an enormous leveling of the playing field of college athletics. Right now, the artificial system in place distorts the system in two ways. First, college athletics has become an audition, a proving ground, for a future professional career. Second, as noted, poor kids have to choose between assisting their family and continuing in school. As the first is the one that affects Stanford, I'll focus on that.

Forgive me from drawing from the Kentucky database. UK gets very few quality student-athletes (to put it mildly). But back in 2011, they did have one, Brandon Knight, a shoot first point guard from Florida. If the reports were true, he was also a pursuit-of-excellence student, with sky high SAT's, all the AP courses, the works, the type who could probably have walked through the front door at Stanford or any Ivy, quite apart from athletic talent. 

But he chose Kentucky. The reason was that he was also a Basketball Jones, interested in getting to the NBA ASAP. It worked for him - his one year was very good, he played in the championship game, and he was a lottery pick. But he will be back in school one of these days, and it will almost certainly be at a place more suited to his academic ambitions than UK.

The point is that if Knight already had his relationship in place with an NBA franchise, if he weren't auditioning for the NBA, he'd look at schools that matched him academically. Why not Stanford? Or Harvard? The same can be said for Jabari Parker, who gave Stanford a hard look and probably went elsewhere for the same audition reason. Having a deal in place doesn't limit kids or schools. It broadens the range. 

As to the suggestion that pro teams would steer kids to particular schools, two points. The first is scholarship limitations. A pro franchise may want every basketball player to go to Duke, and every football player to Alabama. But you can't. There are limitations.

More to the point, the pro franchise may have information that the student athlete badly needs. In my opinion,  after sixty years of observing this stuff, by miles the most important aspect of the athlete's choice is PT - playing time. It's when you get on the court or field that you develop. If a pro franchise tells a kid that he can go to Alabama if he wants, but he's never going to play behind Joe Superstar, that's information the kid should have (and Nick Saban is not likely to provide.) There's also the question of position in football. Saban is sweettalking someone about tight end, but the pro guys don't think he's got the eye hand coordination to be a good pro tight end, that his more natural position is linebacker (which Alabama doesn't need). I do believe the athlete deserves that insight.

You might also approach the issue with simple realism. Your pro franchise is going to advise, counsel, in a worst case, veto. But it's not the US Army. It's not going to insist a kid enroll in some school he just hates. We're talking about human beings here, all of whom are interested in producing a well-adjusted superior athlete with as much athletic success as possible. Remember the kid does not necessarily have to sign with a pro franchise. If he thinks he's being undervalued, or doesn't like the personalities, he enrolls in the school of his choice and re-enters the market when he's made his point. (I have a lot of thoughts about how the NBA and NFL would handle this market. But this is the NCAA. One thing for sure, I don't think law or society would permit an NBA to claim the rights to professional services into perpetuity. Before it drafts a kid, the franchise should be damn sure it can make a deal with him. This happens even now at the college NBA draft. If it can't, or the player believes he's being undervalued, he refuses the deal, plays where he likes and hopefully makes his point, and puts his name in when it has more credibility. This would be a big freewheeling world. Ten years ago, I wrote a blog post in which I wrote a dialog between an NBA GM and a fictional Stanford student athlete, modeled after Parker, typical of the give-and-take which might occur between real human beings. Note the GM does suggest a change in schools. Here it is.)

Finally, in terms of developing players, teaching fundamentals, there are a zillion and two coaches who do that superbly. Except for the rarest cases, that's going to be a matter of indifference. Plus the fact that the pro franchise could make its own specialists available. In this world, all the NCAA cares about is academic eligibility and school neutrality.  If a third party wants to provide outside coaching, fine. And of course you will coordinate this with the HC. Be real. 

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

[Genuine Realist]

Your second paragraph, imo, undermines any notion that there is some moral imperative to paying these kids.  It is the college landscape that is providing the value that these kids can take advantage of . . . if they want to.  If the shoe company wants Zion to play in college for a year for "more exposure" prior to signing him to a deal for the pros, then he can do that with eyes wide open.  But for that year, he has to play by the college rules. 

As for GR's 'simple world,' it is far from that . . . unless you just don't care that much about an expansive reach of college athletics.  And btw, it's fine to have that position - just acknowledge the likelihood/certainty that allowing direct payment to players will ultimately end up constricting the number of participating D1 teams.   Pro teams aren't paying Joe Athlete - and then letting him decide where to play college.  Not a chance in hell.  Rather, the $$ comes from people who care enough to pony up.  And the people who care enough to pony up are those supporting "their" schools.  Thus, the rabid fan bases (or the schools with an obscenely wealthy sports fan - see Oklahoma State, Oregon and others) will ensure that their school's athletes are funded sufficiently to get the kids to play at their school.

The haves will become moreso; the quality of play stratified even further; and thus, you'll have dwindling TV interest in all but the 40 or so programs that have fan support willing to buy players.  The rest, if they survive at all, will become equivalent of today's DIII sports.  And it's okay to support such a un ultimate landscape; but last I checked, DIII sports were not providing scholarships for their players.  Ergo, you're going to be depriving a LOT of student-athletes the ability to attend college.  You may think the 40-team D1 model is fine.  Okay.  But again, that has consequences.

Like with everything else in an ordered society, this distills to how much do you take from the "haves" to support the "have nots."  My vote in this arena is "a lot."  And I'd include coaching salaries as part of that "take" as well.

My own thought is that the result of the end of amateurism will be an enormous leveling of the playing field of college athletics. Right now, the artificial system in place distorts the system in two ways. First, college athletics has become an audition, a proving ground, for a future professional career. Second, as noted, poor kids have to choose between assisting their family and continuing in school. As the first is the one that affects Stanford, I'll focus on that.

Forgive me from drawing from the Kentucky database. UK gets very few quality student-athletes (to put it mildly). But back in 2011, they did have one, Brandon Knight, a shoot first point guard from Florida. If the reports were true, he was also a pursuit-of-excellence student, with sky high SAT's, all the AP courses, the works, the type who could probably have walked through the front door at Stanford or any Ivy, quite apart from athletic talent. 

But he chose Kentucky. The reason was that he was also a Basketball Jones, interested in getting to the NBA ASAP. It worked for him - his one year was very good, he played in the championship game, and he was a lottery pick. But he will be back in school one of these days, and it will almost certainly be at a place more suited to his academic ambitions than UK.

The point is that if Knight already had his relationship in place with an NBA franchise, if he weren't auditioning for the NBA, he'd look at schools that matched him academically. Why not Stanford? Or Harvard? The same can be said for Jabari Parker, who gave Stanford a hard look and probably went elsewhere for the same audition reason. Having a deal in place doesn't limit kids or schools. It broadens the range. 

As to the suggestion that pro teams would steer kids to particular schools, two points. The first is scholarship limitations. A pro franchise may want every basketball player to go to Duke, and every football player to Alabama. But you can't. There are limitations.

More to the point, the pro franchise may have information that the student athlete badly needs. In my opinion,  after sixty years of observing this stuff, by miles the most important aspect of the athlete's choice is PT - playing time. It's when you get on the court or field that you develop. If a pro franchise tells a kid that he can go to Alabama if he wants, but he's never going to play behind Joe Superstar, that's information the kid should have (and Nick Saban is not likely to provide.) There's also the question of position in football. Saban is sweettalking someone about tight end, but the pro guys don't think he's got the eye hand coordination to be a good pro tight end, that his more natural position is linebacker (which Alabama doesn't need). I do believe the athlete deserves that insight.

You might also approach the issue with simple realism. Your pro franchise is going to advise, counsel, in a worst case, veto. But it's not the US Army. It's not going to insist a kid enroll in some school he just hates. We're talking about human beings here, all of whom are interested in producing a well-adjusted superior athlete with as much athletic success as possible. Remember the kid does not necessarily have to sign with a pro franchise. If he thinks he's being undervalued, or doesn't like the personalities, he enrolls in the school of his choice and re-enters the market when he's made his point. (I have a lot of thoughts about how the NBA and NFL would handle this market. But this is the NCAA. One thing for sure, I don't think law or society would permit an NBA to claim the rights to professional services into perpetuity. Before it drafts a kid, the franchise should be damn sure it can make a deal with him. This happens even now at the college NBA draft. If it can't, or the player believes he's being undervalued, he refuses the deal, plays where he likes and hopefully makes his point, and puts his name in when it has more credibility. This would be a big freewheeling world. Ten years ago, I wrote a blog post in which I wrote a dialog between an NBA GM and a fictional Stanford student athlete, modeled after Parker, typical of the give-and-take which might occur between real human beings. Note the GM does suggest a change in schools. Here it is.)

Finally, in terms of developing players, teaching fundamentals, there are a zillion and two coaches who do that superbly. Except for the rarest cases, that's going to be a matter of indifference. Plus the fact that the pro franchise could make its own specialists available. In this world, all the NCAA cares about is academic eligibility and school neutrality.  If a third party wants to provide outside coaching, fine. And of course you will coordinate this with the HC. Be real. 

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

[teejers1]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

[teejers1]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

[Genuine Realist]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

 
Except that you can do both, and there's no reason to put an 18 year old kid on an either/or choice.

We'll save the Frost poem for a little later in life.

[Genuine Realist]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

 
Except that you can do both, and there's no reason to put an 18 year old kid on an either/or choice.

We'll save the Frost poem for a little later in life.

[teejers1]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

 
Except that you can do both, and there's no reason to put an 18 year old kid on an either/or choice.

We'll save the Frost poem for a little later in life.

They can do both in my preferred world - it's just that when they play college ball, they have to play by college rules.  And I think you're ignoring the likely long-term effect of paying players (i.e., more stratification ==> fewer teams garnering TV interest ==> more schools dropping scholarship sports ==> fewer kids getting opportunity to attend college).

[teejers1]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

 
Except that you can do both, and there's no reason to put an 18 year old kid on an either/or choice.

We'll save the Frost poem for a little later in life.

They can do both in my preferred world - it's just that when they play college ball, they have to play by college rules.  And I think you're ignoring the likely long-term effect of paying players (i.e., more stratification ==> fewer teams garnering TV interest ==> more schools dropping scholarship sports ==> fewer kids getting opportunity to attend college).

[Genuine Realist]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

 
Except that you can do both, and there's no reason to put an 18 year old kid on an either/or choice.

We'll save the Frost poem for a little later in life.

They can do both in my preferred world - it's just that when they play college ball, they have to play by college rules.  And I think you're ignoring the likely long-term effect of paying players (i.e., more stratification ==> fewer teams garnering TV interest ==> more schools dropping scholarship sports ==> fewer kids getting opportunity to attend college).

Final thought, since this has been beaten to death.

I too believe that college athletes should play by college rules. The question is whether those rules are good rules. I believe they are not (any more than the antiquated Olympic amateurism rules were good), and that they should be changed.

And I see not the slightest negative to the change, only benefits. That, too, was true of Olympic amateurism.

[Genuine Realist]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

 
Except that you can do both, and there's no reason to put an 18 year old kid on an either/or choice.

We'll save the Frost poem for a little later in life.

They can do both in my preferred world - it's just that when they play college ball, they have to play by college rules.  And I think you're ignoring the likely long-term effect of paying players (i.e., more stratification ==> fewer teams garnering TV interest ==> more schools dropping scholarship sports ==> fewer kids getting opportunity to attend college).

Final thought, since this has been beaten to death.

I too believe that college athletes should play by college rules. The question is whether those rules are good rules. I believe they are not (any more than the antiquated Olympic amateurism rules were good), and that they should be changed.

And I see not the slightest negative to the change, only benefits. That, too, was true of Olympic amateurism.

[Maple Leaf]

A California High School QB signed NIL contract for $8 Million for 4 years.  His name is Nico Lameleava, he will be attending Tennessee.  What happens if a college player with a NIL contract decides he/she is worth more $$$ and tells the marketing agency if their contract is not adjusted they will not play in the up coming league championship game, or the next SEC body bag game?   If the marketing agency says no, the player response is "Transfer Portal here I come"..........so who out bids who?   Add in the sports gambling folks and the Mafia what more big time college sports ask for?

[Maple Leaf]

A California High School QB signed NIL contract for $8 Million for 4 years.  His name is Nico Lameleava, he will be attending Tennessee.  What happens if a college player with a NIL contract decides he/she is worth more $$$ and tells the marketing agency if their contract is not adjusted they will not play in the up coming league championship game, or the next SEC body bag game?   If the marketing agency says no, the player response is "Transfer Portal here I come"..........so who out bids who?   Add in the sports gambling folks and the Mafia what more big time college sports ask for?

[M T]

Elementary school NIL contracts?
Contracts to (say) tall, athletic potential parents?

[M T]

Elementary school NIL contracts?
Contracts to (say) tall, athletic potential parents?

[OutsiderFan]

A California High School QB signed NIL contract for $8 Million for 4 years.  His name is Nico Lameleava, he will be attending Tennessee.  What happens if a college player with a NIL contract decides he/she is worth more $$$ and tells the marketing agency if their contract is not adjusted they will not play in the up coming league championship game, or the next SEC body bag game?   If the marketing agency says no, the player response is "Transfer Portal here I come"..........so who out bids who?   Add in the sports gambling folks and the Mafia what more big time college sports ask for?

This has already happened to a degree. Florida State starting CB sat out Spring Practice looking for a better NIL deal.
https://brobible.com/sports/article/flor...-hold-out/

This is one step away from the situation Maple Leaf imagines. Imagine Bryce Young telling Nick Saban he's transferring to LSU unless he gets a better NIL deal this Summer. There is nothing to keep this from happening. Literally every college athlete is a free agent now.

[OutsiderFan]

A California High School QB signed NIL contract for $8 Million for 4 years.  His name is Nico Lameleava, he will be attending Tennessee.  What happens if a college player with a NIL contract decides he/she is worth more $$$ and tells the marketing agency if their contract is not adjusted they will not play in the up coming league championship game, or the next SEC body bag game?   If the marketing agency says no, the player response is "Transfer Portal here I come"..........so who out bids who?   Add in the sports gambling folks and the Mafia what more big time college sports ask for?

This has already happened to a degree. Florida State starting CB sat out Spring Practice looking for a better NIL deal.
https://brobible.com/sports/article/flor...-hold-out/

This is one step away from the situation Maple Leaf imagines. Imagine Bryce Young telling Nick Saban he's transferring to LSU unless he gets a better NIL deal this Summer. There is nothing to keep this from happening. Literally every college athlete is a free agent now.

[Spiny_Norman]

Haley Jones was on a local radio show yesterday morning talking about her NIL experience. Scroll down this page to see the link for the replay of the Women’s Basketball Players Are Cashing In On Name, Image, And Likeness Deals story.

https://www.kpcc.org/show/airtalk/2022-0...ness-deals

[Spiny_Norman]

Haley Jones was on a local radio show yesterday morning talking about her NIL experience. Scroll down this page to see the link for the replay of the Women’s Basketball Players Are Cashing In On Name, Image, And Likeness Deals story.

https://www.kpcc.org/show/airtalk/2022-0...ness-deals

[Maple Leaf]

Elementary school NIL contracts?
Contracts to (say) tall, athletic potential parents?

Endless possibilities for NIL contracts, let see how about one for my English Black Labrador Retriever for starts, in lieu of cash he will settle for a Kirk's hamburger with cheese, hold the onions.

---

A California High School QB signed NIL contract for $8 Million for 4 years.  His name is Nico Lameleava, he will be attending Tennessee.  What happens if a college player with a NIL contract decides he/she is worth more $$$ and tells the marketing agency if their contract is not adjusted they will not play in the up coming league championship game, or the next SEC body bag game?   If the marketing agency says no, the player response is "Transfer Portal here I come"..........so who out bids who?   Add in the sports gambling folks and the Mafia what more big time college sports ask for?

This has already happened to a degree. Florida State starting CB sat out Spring Practice looking for a better NIL deal.
https://brobible.com/sports/article/flor...-hold-out/

This is one step away from the situation Maple Leaf imagines. Imagine Bryce Young telling Nick Saban he's transferring to LSU unless he gets a better NIL deal this Summer. There is nothing to keep this from happening. Literally every college athlete is a free agent now.

Any top rated QB like a Bryce Young will/should insist that the NIL insures a first round left tackle plus three or four all American left tackles sitting on the bench as backups are or will be on the roster when fall practice starts.

[Maple Leaf]

Elementary school NIL contracts?
Contracts to (say) tall, athletic potential parents?

Endless possibilities for NIL contracts, let see how about one for my English Black Labrador Retriever for starts, in lieu of cash he will settle for a Kirk's hamburger with cheese, hold the onions.

---

A California High School QB signed NIL contract for $8 Million for 4 years.  His name is Nico Lameleava, he will be attending Tennessee.  What happens if a college player with a NIL contract decides he/she is worth more $$$ and tells the marketing agency if their contract is not adjusted they will not play in the up coming league championship game, or the next SEC body bag game?   If the marketing agency says no, the player response is "Transfer Portal here I come"..........so who out bids who?   Add in the sports gambling folks and the Mafia what more big time college sports ask for?

This has already happened to a degree. Florida State starting CB sat out Spring Practice looking for a better NIL deal.
https://brobible.com/sports/article/flor...-hold-out/

This is one step away from the situation Maple Leaf imagines. Imagine Bryce Young telling Nick Saban he's transferring to LSU unless he gets a better NIL deal this Summer. There is nothing to keep this from happening. Literally every college athlete is a free agent now.

Any top rated QB like a Bryce Young will/should insist that the NIL insures a first round left tackle plus three or four all American left tackles sitting on the bench as backups are or will be on the roster when fall practice starts.

[Genuine Realist]

Elementary school NIL contracts?
Contracts to (say) tall, athletic potential parents?

Endless possibilities for NIL contracts, let see how about one for my English Black Labrador Retriever for starts, in lieu of cash he will settle for a Kirk's hamburger with cheese, hold the onions.

---

A California High School QB signed NIL contract for $8 Million for 4 years.  His name is Nico Lameleava, he will be attending Tennessee.  What happens if a college player with a NIL contract decides he/she is worth more $$$ and tells the marketing agency if their contract is not adjusted they will not play in the up coming league championship game, or the next SEC body bag game?   If the marketing agency says no, the player response is "Transfer Portal here I come"..........so who out bids who?   Add in the sports gambling folks and the Mafia what more big time college sports ask for?

This has already happened to a degree. Florida State starting CB sat out Spring Practice looking for a better NIL deal.
https://brobible.com/sports/article/flor...-hold-out/

This is one step away from the situation Maple Leaf imagines. Imagine Bryce Young telling Nick Saban he's transferring to LSU unless he gets a better NIL deal this Summer. There is nothing to keep this from happening. Literally every college athlete is a free agent now.

Any top rated QB like a Bryce Young will/should insist that the NIL insures a first round left tackle plus three or four all American left tackles sitting on the bench as backups are or will be on the roster when fall practice starts.

Before that parade of those horrible straw men really gets going, let's slow down a little. Take a deep breath and reset to zero.

1. That star qb might hold out for a better NIL before the championship game? Indeed he might. So might an NFL quarterback. Or an NBA star. Or an MLB starting pitcher. But they never seem to do that, do they? Put it down to basic human instinct, keeping promises - but also to a sense that to betray the fanbase in that fashion is to kill the goose that laid the golden egg - the devotion of the fanbase. But if you are going to speculate on an act of legalized extortion that has not occurred in more than a century, it is much LESS likely with an NIL performer than a professional athlete because . . . 

2.  . . .  unlike professional salaries, which rest on a dependable cash flow from ticket sales, media rights and the like, NIL revenue depends solely on the willingness of a group of fans to purchase memorabilia or endorsed products from an athlete who brought them good memories. That's it. The school keeps the ticket and media revenue, and it doesn't pay players. So a deal maker can only rely on the good will of that fan base.

Which is why my hunch about that eight-million-dollar contract for a 17 year old qb candidate is that it is so much press agent malarkey - a blue sky projection dressed up as a guarantee. You really think anyone is going to guarantee that much money to a player who may never set foot on the field for Tennessee, due to injury or losing out to a better player? The only way you can profit is by gross sales in excess of the guarantee, plus cost, and that is completely up in the air at this point in time. The negative about NIL is the same as the positive - it depends on the enthusiasm of the fanbase. That only takes you so far.

3. Reading the entire article about the FSU defensive back, it's apparent he's a very confused kid, maybe experiencing a break of some sort, whom I wish well. The NIL issue is basically a speculation.

I don't wish to minimize the seriousness of the challenge. Right now, the Kentucky fanbase, the BBN, as it is called, is rallying around Oscar Tshiebwe, the unanimous NCAA player of the year. There are rumors of a line of sportswear, and of course endorsements. Tshiebwe is a terrific college player, but something of an NBA tweener, protected as a second round draft choice. The NIL money might easily exceed the NBA prospects, meaning he's better off to complete his eligibility. It's also the case that the BBN, which has to be experienced to be believed. supports all Kentucky players. An incoming freshman probably can expect a cash flow. But we are talking about tens of thousands of dollars in that case, not pie-in-the-sky superstar numbers.

So Tshiebwe, the unanimous player of the year, profiting from his achievement, is somehow ugly? Why? Not hardly. Tshiebwe is another kid with a mess of dependent relatives, and more power to him, particularly since the NBA is iffy.

4. The real issue, as stated above, is competitive balance. I don't begrudge any kid, or anyone, money fairly earned. But there is no way a Stanford or even a Notre Dame, can compete with a school with an SEC fanbase (or even Michigan or tOSU). They're just too big. Unless something happens, you can forget about an Elway or Andrew Luck enrolling at Stanford. True, they won't do that well the first year - but start at Alabama, Georgia, Texas, or what not, and seven figure NIL deals are extremely plausible as upperclassmen. Who says no to that? The elite education won't run away - you can always enroll when your career is done. And you will enroll as a well to do man, maybe even financially secure.

The solution, laid out above, is for the NCAA to stand clear and let athletes' contract with pro franchises be compensated directly for their athletic potential. With all but a very few, pro money dwarfs NIL potential, so that the choice of school can be made on the basis of where an 18-year-old fits best. If Elway is already signed and bonused by the Denver Broncos, unless he is exceptionally avaricious, the NIL money will be largely immaterial.

In any case, the NCAA trying to prohibit an athlete from exploiting commercially what he owns is never going to happen. Candidly, it was these restrictions themselves that are ugly. The only way to go is forward.

[Genuine Realist]

Elementary school NIL contracts?
Contracts to (say) tall, athletic potential parents?

Endless possibilities for NIL contracts, let see how about one for my English Black Labrador Retriever for starts, in lieu of cash he will settle for a Kirk's hamburger with cheese, hold the onions.

---

A California High School QB signed NIL contract for $8 Million for 4 years.  His name is Nico Lameleava, he will be attending Tennessee.  What happens if a college player with a NIL contract decides he/she is worth more $$$ and tells the marketing agency if their contract is not adjusted they will not play in the up coming league championship game, or the next SEC body bag game?   If the marketing agency says no, the player response is "Transfer Portal here I come"..........so who out bids who?   Add in the sports gambling folks and the Mafia what more big time college sports ask for?

This has already happened to a degree. Florida State starting CB sat out Spring Practice looking for a better NIL deal.
https://brobible.com/sports/article/flor...-hold-out/

This is one step away from the situation Maple Leaf imagines. Imagine Bryce Young telling Nick Saban he's transferring to LSU unless he gets a better NIL deal this Summer. There is nothing to keep this from happening. Literally every college athlete is a free agent now.

Any top rated QB like a Bryce Young will/should insist that the NIL insures a first round left tackle plus three or four all American left tackles sitting on the bench as backups are or will be on the roster when fall practice starts.

Before that parade of those horrible straw men really gets going, let's slow down a little. Take a deep breath and reset to zero.

1. That star qb might hold out for a better NIL before the championship game? Indeed he might. So might an NFL quarterback. Or an NBA star. Or an MLB starting pitcher. But they never seem to do that, do they? Put it down to basic human instinct, keeping promises - but also to a sense that to betray the fanbase in that fashion is to kill the goose that laid the golden egg - the devotion of the fanbase. But if you are going to speculate on an act of legalized extortion that has not occurred in more than a century, it is much LESS likely with an NIL performer than a professional athlete because . . . 

2.  . . .  unlike professional salaries, which rest on a dependable cash flow from ticket sales, media rights and the like, NIL revenue depends solely on the willingness of a group of fans to purchase memorabilia or endorsed products from an athlete who brought them good memories. That's it. The school keeps the ticket and media revenue, and it doesn't pay players. So a deal maker can only rely on the good will of that fan base.

Which is why my hunch about that eight-million-dollar contract for a 17 year old qb candidate is that it is so much press agent malarkey - a blue sky projection dressed up as a guarantee. You really think anyone is going to guarantee that much money to a player who may never set foot on the field for Tennessee, due to injury or losing out to a better player? The only way you can profit is by gross sales in excess of the guarantee, plus cost, and that is completely up in the air at this point in time. The negative about NIL is the same as the positive - it depends on the enthusiasm of the fanbase. That only takes you so far.

3. Reading the entire article about the FSU defensive back, it's apparent he's a very confused kid, maybe experiencing a break of some sort, whom I wish well. The NIL issue is basically a speculation.

I don't wish to minimize the seriousness of the challenge. Right now, the Kentucky fanbase, the BBN, as it is called, is rallying around Oscar Tshiebwe, the unanimous NCAA player of the year. There are rumors of a line of sportswear, and of course endorsements. Tshiebwe is a terrific college player, but something of an NBA tweener, protected as a second round draft choice. The NIL money might easily exceed the NBA prospects, meaning he's better off to complete his eligibility. It's also the case that the BBN, which has to be experienced to be believed. supports all Kentucky players. An incoming freshman probably can expect a cash flow. But we are talking about tens of thousands of dollars in that case, not pie-in-the-sky superstar numbers.

So Tshiebwe, the unanimous player of the year, profiting from his achievement, is somehow ugly? Why? Not hardly. Tshiebwe is another kid with a mess of dependent relatives, and more power to him, particularly since the NBA is iffy.

4. The real issue, as stated above, is competitive balance. I don't begrudge any kid, or anyone, money fairly earned. But there is no way a Stanford or even a Notre Dame, can compete with a school with an SEC fanbase (or even Michigan or tOSU). They're just too big. Unless something happens, you can forget about an Elway or Andrew Luck enrolling at Stanford. True, they won't do that well the first year - but start at Alabama, Georgia, Texas, or what not, and seven figure NIL deals are extremely plausible as upperclassmen. Who says no to that? The elite education won't run away - you can always enroll when your career is done. And you will enroll as a well to do man, maybe even financially secure.

The solution, laid out above, is for the NCAA to stand clear and let athletes' contract with pro franchises be compensated directly for their athletic potential. With all but a very few, pro money dwarfs NIL potential, so that the choice of school can be made on the basis of where an 18-year-old fits best. If Elway is already signed and bonused by the Denver Broncos, unless he is exceptionally avaricious, the NIL money will be largely immaterial.

In any case, the NCAA trying to prohibit an athlete from exploiting commercially what he owns is never going to happen. Candidly, it was these restrictions themselves that are ugly. The only way to go is forward.

[Goose]

Before that parade of those horrible straw men really gets going, let's slow down a little. Take a deep breath and reset to zero.



1. That star qb might hold out for a better NIL before the championship game? Indeed he might. So might an NFL quarterback. Or an NBA star. Or an MLB starting pitcher. But they never seem to do that, do they? Put it down to basic human instinct, keeping promises - but also to a sense that to betray the fanbase in that fashion is to kill the goose that laid the golden egg - the devotion of the fanbase. But if you are going to speculate on an act of legalized extortion that has not occurred in more than a century, it is much LESS likely with an NIL performer than a professional athlete because . . . 



2.  . . .  unlike professional salaries, which rest on a dependable cash flow from ticket sales, media rights and the like, NIL revenue depends solely on the willingness of a group of fans to purchase memorabilia or endorsed products from an athlete who brought them good memories. That's it. The school keeps the ticket and media revenue, and it doesn't pay players. So a deal maker can only rely on the good will of that fan base.



Which is why my hunch about that eight-million-dollar contract for a 17 year old qb candidate is that it is so much press agent malarkey - a blue sky projection dressed up as a guarantee. You really think anyone is going to guarantee that much money to a player who may never set foot on the field for Tennessee, due to injury or losing out to a better player? The only way you can profit is by gross sales in excess of the guarantee, plus cost, and that is completely up in the air at this point in time. The negative about NIL is the same as the positive - it depends on the enthusiasm of the fanbase. That only takes you so far.



3. Reading the entire article about the FSU defensive back, it's apparent he's a very confused kid, maybe experiencing a break of some sort, whom I wish well. The NIL issue is basically a speculation.



I don't wish to minimize the seriousness of the challenge. Right now, the Kentucky fanbase, the BBN, as it is called, is rallying around Oscar Tshiebwe, the unanimous NCAA player of the year. There are rumors of a line of sportswear, and of course endorsements. Tshiebwe is a terrific college player, but something of an NBA tweener, protected as a second round draft choice. The NIL money might easily exceed the NBA prospects, meaning he's better off to complete his eligibility. It's also the case that the BBN, which has to be experienced to be believed. supports all Kentucky players. An incoming freshman probably can expect a cash flow. But we are talking about tens of thousands of dollars in that case, not pie-in-the-sky superstar numbers.

I think your analysis of what drives NIL is flawed. You are approaching it like a "rational" business would, looking for a return on money invested. Some NIL are undoubtedly that, but IMHO most are either based on a business that wants to make a big "splash" in the form of a large NIL payout, or alums bribing players to attend school X. Neither of these groups really care about how effective the player is in "selling" anything. It is all hype. As a result, the arguments about "fan base" are irrelevant. There is no loyalty to the fans, it is just a relationship between a player and an investor who has almost no leverage once the contract is signed. If no fan ever buys anything based on a players NIL, it doesn't matter. The contract is still valid and must be paid. The contract could be written with all kinds of "escape" clauses, but 1) players will probably be smart enough to not accept them, and 2) since actually selling product isn't the goal, no reason to do so. Do I think any rational individual would pay 8 million to any college player under any circumstances for a NIL contract? No, because I think the ROI will be negative. Do I think there are guys out there who will do that kind of thing? Yes, I do. Eventually, as things shake out and people get burned on these investments that kind of thing will become less common. But it won't go away.

[Goose]

Before that parade of those horrible straw men really gets going, let's slow down a little. Take a deep breath and reset to zero.



1. That star qb might hold out for a better NIL before the championship game? Indeed he might. So might an NFL quarterback. Or an NBA star. Or an MLB starting pitcher. But they never seem to do that, do they? Put it down to basic human instinct, keeping promises - but also to a sense that to betray the fanbase in that fashion is to kill the goose that laid the golden egg - the devotion of the fanbase. But if you are going to speculate on an act of legalized extortion that has not occurred in more than a century, it is much LESS likely with an NIL performer than a professional athlete because . . . 



2.  . . .  unlike professional salaries, which rest on a dependable cash flow from ticket sales, media rights and the like, NIL revenue depends solely on the willingness of a group of fans to purchase memorabilia or endorsed products from an athlete who brought them good memories. That's it. The school keeps the ticket and media revenue, and it doesn't pay players. So a deal maker can only rely on the good will of that fan base.



Which is why my hunch about that eight-million-dollar contract for a 17 year old qb candidate is that it is so much press agent malarkey - a blue sky projection dressed up as a guarantee. You really think anyone is going to guarantee that much money to a player who may never set foot on the field for Tennessee, due to injury or losing out to a better player? The only way you can profit is by gross sales in excess of the guarantee, plus cost, and that is completely up in the air at this point in time. The negative about NIL is the same as the positive - it depends on the enthusiasm of the fanbase. That only takes you so far.



3. Reading the entire article about the FSU defensive back, it's apparent he's a very confused kid, maybe experiencing a break of some sort, whom I wish well. The NIL issue is basically a speculation.



I don't wish to minimize the seriousness of the challenge. Right now, the Kentucky fanbase, the BBN, as it is called, is rallying around Oscar Tshiebwe, the unanimous NCAA player of the year. There are rumors of a line of sportswear, and of course endorsements. Tshiebwe is a terrific college player, but something of an NBA tweener, protected as a second round draft choice. The NIL money might easily exceed the NBA prospects, meaning he's better off to complete his eligibility. It's also the case that the BBN, which has to be experienced to be believed. supports all Kentucky players. An incoming freshman probably can expect a cash flow. But we are talking about tens of thousands of dollars in that case, not pie-in-the-sky superstar numbers.

I think your analysis of what drives NIL is flawed. You are approaching it like a "rational" business would, looking for a return on money invested. Some NIL are undoubtedly that, but IMHO most are either based on a business that wants to make a big "splash" in the form of a large NIL payout, or alums bribing players to attend school X. Neither of these groups really care about how effective the player is in "selling" anything. It is all hype. As a result, the arguments about "fan base" are irrelevant. There is no loyalty to the fans, it is just a relationship between a player and an investor who has almost no leverage once the contract is signed. If no fan ever buys anything based on a players NIL, it doesn't matter. The contract is still valid and must be paid. The contract could be written with all kinds of "escape" clauses, but 1) players will probably be smart enough to not accept them, and 2) since actually selling product isn't the goal, no reason to do so. Do I think any rational individual would pay 8 million to any college player under any circumstances for a NIL contract? No, because I think the ROI will be negative. Do I think there are guys out there who will do that kind of thing? Yes, I do. Eventually, as things shake out and people get burned on these investments that kind of thing will become less common. But it won't go away.

[Genuine Realist]

Before that parade of those horrible straw men really gets going, let's slow down a little. Take a deep breath and reset to zero.



1. That star qb might hold out for a better NIL before the championship game? Indeed he might. So might an NFL quarterback. Or an NBA star. Or an MLB starting pitcher. But they never seem to do that, do they? Put it down to basic human instinct, keeping promises - but also to a sense that to betray the fanbase in that fashion is to kill the goose that laid the golden egg - the devotion of the fanbase. But if you are going to speculate on an act of legalized extortion that has not occurred in more than a century, it is much LESS likely with an NIL performer than a professional athlete because . . . 



2.  . . .  unlike professional salaries, which rest on a dependable cash flow from ticket sales, media rights and the like, NIL revenue depends solely on the willingness of a group of fans to purchase memorabilia or endorsed products from an athlete who brought them good memories. That's it. The school keeps the ticket and media revenue, and it doesn't pay players. So a deal maker can only rely on the good will of that fan base.



Which is why my hunch about that eight-million-dollar contract for a 17 year old qb candidate is that it is so much press agent malarkey - a blue sky projection dressed up as a guarantee. You really think anyone is going to guarantee that much money to a player who may never set foot on the field for Tennessee, due to injury or losing out to a better player? The only way you can profit is by gross sales in excess of the guarantee, plus cost, and that is completely up in the air at this point in time. The negative about NIL is the same as the positive - it depends on the enthusiasm of the fanbase. That only takes you so far.



3. Reading the entire article about the FSU defensive back, it's apparent he's a very confused kid, maybe experiencing a break of some sort, whom I wish well. The NIL issue is basically a speculation.



I don't wish to minimize the seriousness of the challenge. Right now, the Kentucky fanbase, the BBN, as it is called, is rallying around Oscar Tshiebwe, the unanimous NCAA player of the year. There are rumors of a line of sportswear, and of course endorsements. Tshiebwe is a terrific college player, but something of an NBA tweener, protected as a second round draft choice. The NIL money might easily exceed the NBA prospects, meaning he's better off to complete his eligibility. It's also the case that the BBN, which has to be experienced to be believed. supports all Kentucky players. An incoming freshman probably can expect a cash flow. But we are talking about tens of thousands of dollars in that case, not pie-in-the-sky superstar numbers.

I think your analysis of what drives NIL is flawed. You are approaching it like a "rational" business would, looking for a return on money invested. Some NIL are undoubtedly that, but IMHO most are either based on a business that wants to make a big "splash" in the form of a large NIL payout, or alums bribing players to attend school X. Neither of these groups really care about how effective the player is in "selling" anything. It is all hype. As a result, the arguments about "fan base" are irrelevant. There is no loyalty to the fans, it is just a relationship between a player and an investor who has almost no leverage once the contract is signed. If no fan ever buys anything based on a players NIL, it doesn't matter. The contract is still valid and must be paid. The contract could be written with all kinds of "escape" clauses, but 1) players will probably be smart enough to not accept them, and 2) since actually selling product isn't the goal, no reason to do so. Do I think any rational individual would pay 8 million to any college player under any circumstances for a NIL contract? No, because I think the ROI will be negative. Do I think there are guys out there who will do that kind of thing? Yes, I do. Eventually, as things shake out and people get burned on these investments that kind of thing will become less common. But it won't go away.

I think most SEC fans buy memorabilia in sizable quantities, which is what generates the revenue. Think of autograph shows. Of course, the opportunity doesn't exist until there is something to remember, which is why the potential for an untried schlarship athlete is limited. 

And while there will be boosters, if you believe that there is a whole universe of individuals willing to advance 7 figure sums on untried 17 year olds, with no hope of return, I have to disagree. You will undoubtedly see premiums paid, and appearance fees - 'come to my son's birthday party' - but not to the point of your speculation. Even in the Bad Old Days, there was some rationality.

My point, however, was different. The answer to whatever difficulties you do perceive is not to go back to a system in which kids are cut off from legitimate commercial opportunities (and these are legitimate). It's to abandon amateurism altogether, so that pro franchises and sponsor groups can make direct investments in an athlete's professional potential. You restrict the NCAA to issues of academic probity, transfer rules, and the like. 

You create an environment in which an 18-year-old can advance his life on all fronts, where no choice is required, and where poor kids can actually do something for dependents while finding out something about themselves and the world, which is what ideally happens in college. There is no downside.

[Genuine Realist]

Before that parade of those horrible straw men really gets going, let's slow down a little. Take a deep breath and reset to zero.



1. That star qb might hold out for a better NIL before the championship game? Indeed he might. So might an NFL quarterback. Or an NBA star. Or an MLB starting pitcher. But they never seem to do that, do they? Put it down to basic human instinct, keeping promises - but also to a sense that to betray the fanbase in that fashion is to kill the goose that laid the golden egg - the devotion of the fanbase. But if you are going to speculate on an act of legalized extortion that has not occurred in more than a century, it is much LESS likely with an NIL performer than a professional athlete because . . . 



2.  . . .  unlike professional salaries, which rest on a dependable cash flow from ticket sales, media rights and the like, NIL revenue depends solely on the willingness of a group of fans to purchase memorabilia or endorsed products from an athlete who brought them good memories. That's it. The school keeps the ticket and media revenue, and it doesn't pay players. So a deal maker can only rely on the good will of that fan base.



Which is why my hunch about that eight-million-dollar contract for a 17 year old qb candidate is that it is so much press agent malarkey - a blue sky projection dressed up as a guarantee. You really think anyone is going to guarantee that much money to a player who may never set foot on the field for Tennessee, due to injury or losing out to a better player? The only way you can profit is by gross sales in excess of the guarantee, plus cost, and that is completely up in the air at this point in time. The negative about NIL is the same as the positive - it depends on the enthusiasm of the fanbase. That only takes you so far.



3. Reading the entire article about the FSU defensive back, it's apparent he's a very confused kid, maybe experiencing a break of some sort, whom I wish well. The NIL issue is basically a speculation.



I don't wish to minimize the seriousness of the challenge. Right now, the Kentucky fanbase, the BBN, as it is called, is rallying around Oscar Tshiebwe, the unanimous NCAA player of the year. There are rumors of a line of sportswear, and of course endorsements. Tshiebwe is a terrific college player, but something of an NBA tweener, protected as a second round draft choice. The NIL money might easily exceed the NBA prospects, meaning he's better off to complete his eligibility. It's also the case that the BBN, which has to be experienced to be believed. supports all Kentucky players. An incoming freshman probably can expect a cash flow. But we are talking about tens of thousands of dollars in that case, not pie-in-the-sky superstar numbers.

I think your analysis of what drives NIL is flawed. You are approaching it like a "rational" business would, looking for a return on money invested. Some NIL are undoubtedly that, but IMHO most are either based on a business that wants to make a big "splash" in the form of a large NIL payout, or alums bribing players to attend school X. Neither of these groups really care about how effective the player is in "selling" anything. It is all hype. As a result, the arguments about "fan base" are irrelevant. There is no loyalty to the fans, it is just a relationship between a player and an investor who has almost no leverage once the contract is signed. If no fan ever buys anything based on a players NIL, it doesn't matter. The contract is still valid and must be paid. The contract could be written with all kinds of "escape" clauses, but 1) players will probably be smart enough to not accept them, and 2) since actually selling product isn't the goal, no reason to do so. Do I think any rational individual would pay 8 million to any college player under any circumstances for a NIL contract? No, because I think the ROI will be negative. Do I think there are guys out there who will do that kind of thing? Yes, I do. Eventually, as things shake out and people get burned on these investments that kind of thing will become less common. But it won't go away.

I think most SEC fans buy memorabilia in sizable quantities, which is what generates the revenue. Think of autograph shows. Of course, the opportunity doesn't exist until there is something to remember, which is why the potential for an untried schlarship athlete is limited. 

And while there will be boosters, if you believe that there is a whole universe of individuals willing to advance 7 figure sums on untried 17 year olds, with no hope of return, I have to disagree. You will undoubtedly see premiums paid, and appearance fees - 'come to my son's birthday party' - but not to the point of your speculation. Even in the Bad Old Days, there was some rationality.

My point, however, was different. The answer to whatever difficulties you do perceive is not to go back to a system in which kids are cut off from legitimate commercial opportunities (and these are legitimate). It's to abandon amateurism altogether, so that pro franchises and sponsor groups can make direct investments in an athlete's professional potential. You restrict the NCAA to issues of academic probity, transfer rules, and the like. 

You create an environment in which an 18-year-old can advance his life on all fronts, where no choice is required, and where poor kids can actually do something for dependents while finding out something about themselves and the world, which is what ideally happens in college. There is no downside.