It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL (/thread-23046.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL (/thread-23046.html)
It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 03-12-2022
https://theathletic.com/3178558/2022/03/11/five-star-recruit-in-class-of-2023-signs-agreement-with-collective-that-could-pay-him-more-than-8-million/
There is so much wrong with this and so many ways it can implode in so many different directions, it's hard for me to even comment on it. Perhaps someone else would like to articulate their thoughts on it?
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - 81alum - 03-12-2022
This is exactly what I expected, and is what I would call "structural corruption." I use that term to mean that this apparently is now legal and above board but that it nonetheless has the same effects on college sports as old fashioned corruption. Much as racism can become institutionalized, so can corruption, and it now has.
The mistake that the NIL proponents made was in focusing on the rights of athletes who were already at universities, with insufficient thought to the way that NIL deals would be used as recruiting inducements.
I suppose the laissez-faire types could just say let anything go--let boosters bid on recruits, offer them big NIL packages, and just so long as it is all in the open let the richer boosters win. That is in fact what is happening, as the link attests. But carried to its logical conclusion we will have a product that is an inferior version of professionalized sport. College sport taken in this direction will lose what charm and appeal it still has. Stories like this certainly clobber my enthusiasm.
As I have said since the NIL specter began to hang over us--either this NIL stuff changes or else Stanford will by driven out of Division I. This is an issue that makes concerns about who the coach happens to be pale in comparison. Frankly, the thing that everyone on this board loves--Stanford athletics at a high level of competition--is under serious threat.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - jonnyss - 03-12-2022
maybe, but do we have any indication that the schools where boosters are paying high nil are different schools than the ones that were getting these players already by under the table payments of 50k?
does it affect stanford any differently if the payments are 5 million vs 50k?
the most obvious difference to me is that now the players, coaches, and schools won't be penalized retroactively (and hypocritically) for what they were doing already - not that they will get different recruits.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - TreesAndBirds - 03-12-2022
Florida State player not participating in Spring football due to problems with his NIL deal…
https://brobible.com/sports/article/florida-state-jarvis-brownlee-nil-hold-out/
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - lex24 - 03-12-2022
So, what’s the solution. Personally, I think NIL should be compensated. Or you don’t promote individual players, you don’t sell Merchandise that identifies a player. And that is not going to happen.
(03-12-2022, 07:36 AM)81alum Wrote: This is exactly what I expected, and is what I would call "structural corruption." I use that term to mean that this apparently is now legal and above board but that it nonetheless has the same effects on college sports as old fashioned corruption. Much as racism can become institutionalized, so can corruption, and it now has.
The mistake that the NIL proponents made was in focusing on the rights of athletes who were already at universities, with insufficient thought to the way that NIL deals would be used as recruiting inducements.
I suppose the laissez-faire types could just say let anything go--let boosters bid on recruits, offer them big NIL packages, and just so long as it is all in the open let the richer boosters win. That is in fact what is happening, as the link attests. But carried to its logical conclusion we will have a product that is an inferior version of professionalized sport. College sport taken in this direction will lose what charm and appeal it still has. Stories like this certainly clobber my enthusiasm.
As I have said since the NIL specter began to hang over us--either this NIL stuff changes or else Stanford will by driven out of Division I. This is an issue that makes concerns about who the coach happens to be pale in comparison. Frankly, the thing that everyone on this board loves--Stanford athletics at a high level of competition--is under serious threat.
Well, you are right. If Stanford won’t play ball with NIL. But isn’t Cameron Brink doing quite well with her NIL?
The genie is out of the bottle. So, you adjust. Or perish. Maybe Stanford will choose the latter. But given the school and it’s boosters have essentially unlimited funds, NIL should not be a problem.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 03-12-2022
The solution has always been simple. Schools pay the players for their labor in a regulated system.
NIL has taken away the schools' claim that the "degree and coaching has so much value." I realize the Mandel story is just one case, and there won't be many like it, but if a High School recruit can ink a deal worth $8M, the player now has more compensation than the school can offer with a free education and training, and most players are never making $8M in the NFL. The schools used to have the leverage to get athletes going to class and buying into the team concept when nobody was getting paid, because playing time was earned in practice, etc. and that was how you got an opportunity to earn money after college. If players are getting paid to come to campus before they have done anything for the school team they join, the players have ALL the leverage. ALL.
At same time, it's comical how massive the hole NIL money puts in the argument schools made that they would go bankrupt if they had to pay players. The same money being laundered to buy players masquerading as legit for profit sponsorship deals, could be going to schools for them to directly pay players, in some regulated way with some kind of obligation to the schools for which they are going to work. It doesn't take a genius to realize the players are going to allocate their time and energy to who is paying them, more than they will their education, or even the teams they are playing on. They've already been paid. How many players are going to sit out bowl games or even regular season games when they feel they've earned enough already and have no obligation to continue playing for the school?
Even worse, with the transfer portal, you've effectively got free agency, where if a player has his feelings hurt at a school, he can go to the transfer portal and get paid to go to another school.
The FSU player story is just one of those "so many different directions" that I pointed out in my initial comments. Sure, he may play ball for the 'noles in '22, but the fact is he doesn't have to follow any rules the coaches put in place to play because is the coach really going to sit his best CB being paid big bucks by the NIL collective, when he can lose his job if his team doesn't win games? Hell no.
So the players can now do whatever they want because there is no accountability structure anywhere, and they are vulnerable to exploitation for same reason. All so schools didn't have to cut checks to players themselves. Again, I congratulate the schools and the NCAA for their monumental stupidity that I believe ultimately will end college sports unless some massive structural changes and reforms are made.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 03-12-2022
Paying athletes may be the right thing to do, but there is nothing “simple” about it. In fact, the intersection between labor law, title IX, the university mission, and the solvency of athletics departments is a morass of complexity and saying that the solution has always “been simple” betrays a certain simple mindedness of thinking.
I would challenge you to try to think of how a payment scheme to athletes would work.
BC
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 03-12-2022
(03-12-2022, 12:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Paying athletes may be the right thing to do, but there is nothing “simple” about it. In fact, the intersection between labor law, title IX, the university mission, and the solvency of athletics departments is a morass of complexity and saying that the solution has always “been simple” betrays a certain simple mindedness of thinking.
I would challenge you to try to think of how a payment scheme to athletes would work.
BC
I've posted this here before. All the schools had to do was give a little bit in terms of direct payments in revenue sports and the athletes would have been OK with the previous structure. They wouldn't have filed the lawsuits that ultimately created the current mess.
But given the current mess that has been created, you are 100% correct that it will not be simple to solve now.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Phogge - 03-12-2022
The HS recruit gets 8 million and goes down with an ACL in his first game. Some would say karma.
Another reason not to care anymore. LOL.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 03-12-2022
What is a revenue sport? Is it just football and basketball? If so, how do you solve the title IX issue? Now that each conference has a network, pretty much all NCAA sports generate some revenue. Do only FBS teams share revenue or do you let div IAA teams do so? And what about FBS teams like San Jose state who are barely solvent? Do you pay all athletes the same salary? Do you let individual stars negotiate their own contracts?
A sometimes poster here from TOS used to refer to the old fable of the mice belling the cat. The solution to all the mice’s problems was simple, put a bell on the cat, which is fine until they try to figure out how to put the bell on the cat.
I challenge you to bell this cat. How would you institute direct payments to athletes and do so so that it doesn’t a) run afoul of title ix, b) not run foul of labor laws, and c) not bankrupt athletics departments. I honestly can’t think of how one squares the circle. The best I can come up with is that the NCAA agrees to some revenue sharing into a fund for athletes that is negotiated with the athletes, and then the athletes run the fund and figure out a formula for disbursing the funds. Maybe it can be used to fund insurance after athletes leave a school, maybe it can be an educational foundation, maybe it came be used to fund a small “retirement” payout to athletes after they separate (though if you parse it across all athletes, I have to believe it wouldn’t amount to very much).
BC
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - cardcrimson - 03-12-2022
(03-12-2022, 12:45 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(03-12-2022, 12:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Paying athletes may be the right thing to do, but there is nothing “simple” about it. In fact, the intersection between labor law, title IX, the university mission, and the solvency of athletics departments is a morass of complexity and saying that the solution has always “been simple” betrays a certain simple mindedness of thinking.
I would challenge you to try to think of how a payment scheme to athletes would work.
BC
I've posted this here before. All the schools had to do was give a little bit in terms of direct payments in revenue sports and the athletes would have been OK with the previous structure. They wouldn't have filed the lawsuits that ultimately created the current mess.
But given the current mess that has been created, you are 100% correct that it will not be simple to solve now.
Do you really think so? Guess you've not heard the phrase "Give em and inch, and they'll take a mile." The athletes and their handlers wouldn't have stopped, and probably won't stop demanding more now, even with the NIL fortunes. . . .
Went to high school swim meet yesterday, just a joy to watch kids compete for fun and camaraderie. Some really fast kids, too.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 03-12-2022
And that, I think, would lead to college sports being a poor facsimile of a professional league.
One is willing to sacrifice a bit of quality in college sports. Except for the top players, they are going to be smaller, slower, less athletic, and less skilled than their professional counterparts. That might be forgiven if you think they are athletes not much different from you or I, who are going to classes and balancing their athletics with being a college kid, and who is playing for the joy or camaraderie. But we are very quickly losing that, leaving collegiate athletics as a minor league professional league for the NFL, NBA, or other sports. And it turns out that if I want all the drama of a professional league (including, now, a holdout over a salary dispute), I might as well watch the more skilled and athletic pros.
I think the golden goose here is getting slaughtered. Maybe that’s ok. There is more to life than getting worked up over what 18 year old kids are doing on a football field or basketball court, or whether my frustration at their play should lead to someone losing their job.
BC
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Spiny_Norman - 03-12-2022
(03-12-2022, 02:02 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think the golden goose here is getting slaughtered.
You might think that the economics of college football would be suffering. Attendance at college football games was down for the 7th consecutive year in 2021 (not counting 2020) and TV ratings are declining as well. However networks and streaming services may offer big increases to the conferences as they negotiate new media contracts in the next few years. Live sports seems to merit a premium price, even for a declining product.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-attendance-declines-for-seventh-straight-season-to-lowest-average-since-1981/
lex24 - lex24 - 03-12-2022
(03-12-2022, 12:14 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The solution has always been simple. Schools pay the players for their labor in a regulated system.
NIL has taken away the schools' claim that the "degree and coaching has so much value." I realize the Mandel story is just one case, and there won't be many like it, but if a High School recruit can ink a deal worth $8M, the player now has more compensation than the school can offer with a free education and training, and most players are never making $8M in the NFL. The schools used to have the leverage to get athletes going to class and buying into the team concept when nobody was getting paid, because playing time was earned in practice, etc. and that was how you got an opportunity to earn money after college. If players are getting paid to come to campus before they have done anything for the school team they join, the players have ALL the leverage. ALL.
At same time, it's comical how massive the hole NIL money puts in the argument schools made that they would go bankrupt if they had to pay players. The same money being laundered to buy players masquerading as legit for profit sponsorship deals, could be going to schools for them to directly pay players, in some regulated way with some kind of obligation to the schools for which they are going to work. It doesn't take a genius to realize the players are going to allocate their time and energy to who is paying them, more than they will their education, or even the teams they are playing on. They've already been paid. How many players are going to sit out bowl games or even regular season games when they feel they've earned enough already and have no obligation to continue playing for the school?
Even worse, with the transfer portal, you've effectively got free agency, where if a player has his feelings hurt at a school, he can go to the transfer portal and get paid to go to another school.
The FSU player story is just one of those "so many different directions" that I pointed out in my initial comments. Sure, he may play ball for the 'noles in '22, but the fact is he doesn't have to follow any rules the coaches put in place to play because is the coach really going to sit his best CB being paid big bucks by the NIL collective, when he can lose his job if his team doesn't win games? Hell no.
So the players can now do whatever they want because there is no accountability structure anywhere, and they are vulnerable to exploitation for same reason. All so schools didn't have to cut checks to players themselves. Again, I congratulate the schools and the NCAA for their monumental stupidity that I believe ultimately will end college sports unless some massive structural changes and reforms are made.
There is nothing simple about paying college athletes for their “labor”. First, there is the question of what sports. It can’t be just “revenue producing” sports. That would not past muster legally. Second, how do you structure “salaries” within the sport. As for regulated - by whom? You except Congress to set the parameters? Third, what about non- Div 1 schools and NAIA? Do they get paid? If not, why. They are engaged in the same “labor”. Fourth, what about other extracurricular activities. Does the University have to pay salaries to the actors etc that are putting on plays etc? How bout the Band. School orchestra or choir. Take your pick. Finally, where does the money come from?
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - TonyLima - 03-12-2022
(03-12-2022, 12:45 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(03-12-2022, 12:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Paying athletes may be the right thing to do, but there is nothing “simple” about it. In fact, the intersection between labor law, title IX, the university mission, and the solvency of athletics departments is a morass of complexity and saying that the solution has always “been simple” betrays a certain simple mindedness of thinking.
I would challenge you to try to think of how a payment scheme to athletes would work.
BC
I've posted this here before. All the schools had to do was give a little bit in terms of direct payments in revenue sports and the athletes would have been OK with the previous structure. They wouldn't have filed the lawsuits that ultimately created the current mess.
But given the current mess that has been created, you are 100% correct that it will not be simple to solve now.
Proposal for football. The NFL currently uses colleges as their minor league system. Change the rule so that college players can only be drafted after they have a college degree. Let the NFL do what baseball and basketball do.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - fullmetal - 03-12-2022
Basketball requires one year removed from high school graduation, and baseball has no requirements regarding age or education after high school iirc. What would be interesting is if, under the "graduation requirement," any college players would sit out a year to avoid injury a la Jadeveon Clowney once they've proved their value, so to speak. I don't think the NFL would institute this kind of rule -- they don't care a whit about the chaos of college football so long as they get their talent.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - TonyLima - 03-12-2022
(03-12-2022, 09:18 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Basketball requires one year removed from high school graduation, and baseball has no requirements regarding age or education after high school iirc. What would be interesting is if, under the "graduation requirement," any college players would sit out a year to avoid injury a la Jadeveon Clowney once they've proved their value, so to speak. I don't think the NFL would institute this kind of rule -- they don't care a whit about the chaos of college football so long as they get their talent.
Oh, I am absolutely certain that football would never adopt this. After all, they have a zero price minor-league system. Why would they want to change that?
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - PVTree - 03-13-2022
(03-12-2022, 09:18 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Basketball requires one year removed from high school graduation, and baseball has no requirements regarding age or education after high school iirc. What would be interesting is if, under the "graduation requirement," any college players would sit out a year to avoid injury a la Jadeveon Clowney once they've proved their value, so to speak. I don't think the NFL would institute this kind of rule -- they don't care a whit about the chaos of college football so long as they get their talent.
Unless it has recently changed, my understanding is that baseball players can go pro right after high school. If they choose to go to college, they have to wait 3 years to be draft-eligible.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BobK - 03-13-2022
Three years unless 21 before the draft after soph year.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - lex24 - 03-13-2022
(03-12-2022, 09:18 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Basketball requires one year removed from high school graduation, and baseball has no requirements regarding age or education after high school iirc. What would be interesting is if, under the "graduation requirement," any college players would sit out a year to avoid injury a la Jadeveon Clowney once they've proved their value, so to speak. I don't think the NFL would institute this kind of rule -- they don't care a whit about the chaos of college football so long as they get their talent.
True, but they most certainly will if there are major changes that impact the potential player pool.