[Goose]

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.

Yes, SEC fans (and other fans) buy things with player's names on them. The degree to which the player's name matters is pretty small IMHO. If you are selling insurance I doubt it is a factor that an athlete endorses your agent. Some of this will settle out. Manufactures of apparel and such may have a "real" reason and the ability to realize some benefit. 

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.

You don't need a whole universe, only enough. To the extent there was some "rationality" in the "bad old days", you seem to ignore the whale in the room that it was illegal to deliver such benefits and to do so risked severe punishment to all involved. At the very least, you didn't make such "gifts" for "goodwill" and "marketing" purposes! Remove those prohibitions and it is a whole new world, as we are seeing. Also, in the "bad old days" the "contract" probably wasn't written, as it was not enforceable anyway. In the model you propose the contract will have the full force of law. Further, unless some source of regulation (that you don't propose) on these contracts exists, you will have 18 year olds signing contracts that are not necessarily designed to be "fair". That may be fine, but it certainly isn't a risk-free situation. Look at student loans as an example. I think it is obvious that the opportunities for abuse of all kinds exists, including but not limited to paying athletes to attend a certain school.

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.

Please! "No choice is required", "advance life on all fronts", "no downside"? What most 18 year olds need to discover IMHO is that in life choices ARE required and that essentially no course of action has no downsides. If it appears there are none, you haven't looked closely enough! While I don't disagree with the idea that allowing a student-athlete to sign contracts with "sponsor groups" and "pro franchises" can have significant upsides, the idea it has no downsides is hard to imagine. In almost all contracts it is an exchange of benefits. It may be a net positive, but it isn't free of all costs. Those costs need to be critically evaluated.
As I understand it, in you proposed system, colleges are not providing financial support to athletes? If they are still doing so, it is pretty IMHO obvious that there can be conflicts of interest between the colleges and other contracts the student athlete signs, especially if there are no limits on what the contract the student signs with others. OTOH, if the student has to pay for their own education, there may be many (most?) players who can't generate enough revenue via contracts to allow them to attend. Either approach IMHO appears to have significant problems.

[Goose]

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.

Yes, SEC fans (and other fans) buy things with player's names on them. The degree to which the player's name matters is pretty small IMHO. If you are selling insurance I doubt it is a factor that an athlete endorses your agent. Some of this will settle out. Manufactures of apparel and such may have a "real" reason and the ability to realize some benefit. 

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.

You don't need a whole universe, only enough. To the extent there was some "rationality" in the "bad old days", you seem to ignore the whale in the room that it was illegal to deliver such benefits and to do so risked severe punishment to all involved. At the very least, you didn't make such "gifts" for "goodwill" and "marketing" purposes! Remove those prohibitions and it is a whole new world, as we are seeing. Also, in the "bad old days" the "contract" probably wasn't written, as it was not enforceable anyway. In the model you propose the contract will have the full force of law. Further, unless some source of regulation (that you don't propose) on these contracts exists, you will have 18 year olds signing contracts that are not necessarily designed to be "fair". That may be fine, but it certainly isn't a risk-free situation. Look at student loans as an example. I think it is obvious that the opportunities for abuse of all kinds exists, including but not limited to paying athletes to attend a certain school.

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.

Please! "No choice is required", "advance life on all fronts", "no downside"? What most 18 year olds need to discover IMHO is that in life choices ARE required and that essentially no course of action has no downsides. If it appears there are none, you haven't looked closely enough! While I don't disagree with the idea that allowing a student-athlete to sign contracts with "sponsor groups" and "pro franchises" can have significant upsides, the idea it has no downsides is hard to imagine. In almost all contracts it is an exchange of benefits. It may be a net positive, but it isn't free of all costs. Those costs need to be critically evaluated.
As I understand it, in you proposed system, colleges are not providing financial support to athletes? If they are still doing so, it is pretty IMHO obvious that there can be conflicts of interest between the colleges and other contracts the student athlete signs, especially if there are no limits on what the contract the student signs with others. OTOH, if the student has to pay for their own education, there may be many (most?) players who can't generate enough revenue via contracts to allow them to attend. Either approach IMHO appears to have significant problems.

[teejers1]

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. 

Isn't this what is happening now (and has been happening for a while) with European soccer?  The pro franchises find kids with potential and get them in their system/academies.  If that's what you're advocating, GR, I'm with you.

That is a system separate from colleges and universities.  Indeed, that is a primary goal of many in the U.S. seeking to make America more competitive with ROW in international soccer.

[teejers1]

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. 

Isn't this what is happening now (and has been happening for a while) with European soccer?  The pro franchises find kids with potential and get them in their system/academies.  If that's what you're advocating, GR, I'm with you.

That is a system separate from colleges and universities.  Indeed, that is a primary goal of many in the U.S. seeking to make America more competitive with ROW in international soccer.

[OutsiderFan]

The idea that boosters won't pay millions of dollars to land coveted high school recruits is so preposterous I can't even believe anyone would post such a thing.

Boosters raise most of the money to pay the bulk of coach salaries. And coaches are hired in large measure to recruit those coveted high school athletes. If they have the ability, why would boosters not cut to the chase and pay recruits directly?

NIL may be the "legal" vehicle by which athletes are compensated, but there is nothing that says any NIL deal has to be a smart business decision in terms of a business ROI.  There are going to be legit endorsement deals that don't go beyond the market value of an endorsement deal. But there are absolutely going to be athletes who are compensated well above typical market rate in deals that have no intention of being business ROI positive, because they are really about paying an athlete to join a certain team, and there is a market for the talent.

The NCAA will still say schools aren't allowed to pay players to attend their program, but there is nothing in place that can prevent that from happening, so it will.

[OutsiderFan]

The idea that boosters won't pay millions of dollars to land coveted high school recruits is so preposterous I can't even believe anyone would post such a thing.

Boosters raise most of the money to pay the bulk of coach salaries. And coaches are hired in large measure to recruit those coveted high school athletes. If they have the ability, why would boosters not cut to the chase and pay recruits directly?

NIL may be the "legal" vehicle by which athletes are compensated, but there is nothing that says any NIL deal has to be a smart business decision in terms of a business ROI.  There are going to be legit endorsement deals that don't go beyond the market value of an endorsement deal. But there are absolutely going to be athletes who are compensated well above typical market rate in deals that have no intention of being business ROI positive, because they are really about paying an athlete to join a certain team, and there is a market for the talent.

The NCAA will still say schools aren't allowed to pay players to attend their program, but there is nothing in place that can prevent that from happening, so it will.

[Genuine Realist]

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. 

Isn't this what is happening now (and has been happening for a while) with European soccer?  The pro franchises find kids with potential and get them in their system/academies.  If that's what you're advocating, GR, I'm with you.

That is a system separate from colleges and universities.  Indeed, that is a primary goal of many in the U.S. seeking to make America more competitive with ROW in international soccer.

I think it's a terrible system, similar to the baseball minor leagues and G League. You might have added Canadian hockey to the futbol list.

Why put a good athlete with a brain in his head on that kind of either/or choice? College athletics are enriched by the participation of good athletes, and of course the athlete himself benefits by exposure to a life outside an athletic ghetto. There is no downside.

Why this clinging to notions of amateurism that have been abandoned in every other field of athletics? And that made little sense after 1960, when a professional athletic career became a viable life option?

---

The idea that boosters won't pay millions of dollars to land coveted high school recruits is so preposterous I can't even believe anyone would post such a thing.

Boosters raise most of the money to pay the bulk of coach salaries. And coaches are hired in large measure to recruit those coveted high school athletes. If they have the ability, why would boosters not cut to the chase and pay recruits directly?

NIL may be the "legal" vehicle by which athletes are compensated, but there is nothing that says any NIL deal has to be a smart business decision in terms of a business ROI.  There are going to be legit endorsement deals that don't go beyond the market value of an endorsement deal. But there are absolutely going to be athletes who are compensated well above typical market rate in deals that have no intention of being business ROI positive, because they are really about paying an athlete to join a certain team, and there is a market for the talent.

The NCAA will still say schools aren't allowed to pay players to attend their program, but there is nothing in place that can prevent that from happening, so it will.

Well, that's one way to dispose of an argument.

No, boosters will not pay millions of dollars. They never have. 

Agents and third parties pay much more substantial premiums, of course, but they are investing in the kid's athletic potential. At present, the NCAA lumps them together, as improper payments. But it is apples and oranges. 

What I'd like to see are third parties, particularly pro franchises, invest directly in the athletic career. That's much different than simple boosterism, and likely to be far more remunerative, which is precisely why it levels the playing field.

[Genuine Realist]

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. 

Isn't this what is happening now (and has been happening for a while) with European soccer?  The pro franchises find kids with potential and get them in their system/academies.  If that's what you're advocating, GR, I'm with you.

That is a system separate from colleges and universities.  Indeed, that is a primary goal of many in the U.S. seeking to make America more competitive with ROW in international soccer.

I think it's a terrible system, similar to the baseball minor leagues and G League. You might have added Canadian hockey to the futbol list.

Why put a good athlete with a brain in his head on that kind of either/or choice? College athletics are enriched by the participation of good athletes, and of course the athlete himself benefits by exposure to a life outside an athletic ghetto. There is no downside.

Why this clinging to notions of amateurism that have been abandoned in every other field of athletics? And that made little sense after 1960, when a professional athletic career became a viable life option?

---

The idea that boosters won't pay millions of dollars to land coveted high school recruits is so preposterous I can't even believe anyone would post such a thing.

Boosters raise most of the money to pay the bulk of coach salaries. And coaches are hired in large measure to recruit those coveted high school athletes. If they have the ability, why would boosters not cut to the chase and pay recruits directly?

NIL may be the "legal" vehicle by which athletes are compensated, but there is nothing that says any NIL deal has to be a smart business decision in terms of a business ROI.  There are going to be legit endorsement deals that don't go beyond the market value of an endorsement deal. But there are absolutely going to be athletes who are compensated well above typical market rate in deals that have no intention of being business ROI positive, because they are really about paying an athlete to join a certain team, and there is a market for the talent.

The NCAA will still say schools aren't allowed to pay players to attend their program, but there is nothing in place that can prevent that from happening, so it will.

Well, that's one way to dispose of an argument.

No, boosters will not pay millions of dollars. They never have. 

Agents and third parties pay much more substantial premiums, of course, but they are investing in the kid's athletic potential. At present, the NCAA lumps them together, as improper payments. But it is apples and oranges. 

What I'd like to see are third parties, particularly pro franchises, invest directly in the athletic career. That's much different than simple boosterism, and likely to be far more remunerative, which is precisely why it levels the playing field.

[OutsiderFan]

The NHL is the model I'd like to see major league teams follow.

Make all teams draft players when they are 18.

If players want to go to school they can go on scholarship. When they are ready to play professionally, they sign a professional contract with the team holding their rights.

This is all pipe dream stuff. The NFL is not changing anything about its draft model because nobody has any leverage on it to do anything different than it does. At least the G League and Overtime Elite offer an alternative to college for would be NBA players.

[OutsiderFan]

The NHL is the model I'd like to see major league teams follow.

Make all teams draft players when they are 18.

If players want to go to school they can go on scholarship. When they are ready to play professionally, they sign a professional contract with the team holding their rights.

This is all pipe dream stuff. The NFL is not changing anything about its draft model because nobody has any leverage on it to do anything different than it does. At least the G League and Overtime Elite offer an alternative to college for would be NBA players.

[Genuine Realist]

The NHL is the model I'd like to see major league teams follow.

Make all teams draft players when they are 18.

If players want to go to school they can go on scholarship. When they are ready to play professionally, they sign a professional contract with the team holding their rights.

This is all pipe dream stuff. The NFL is not changing anything about its draft model because nobody has any leverage on it to do anything different than it does. At least the G League and Overtime Elite offer an alternative to college for would be NBA players.

I like the NHL and MLB models as well. Everyone is included.

But why the life choice? Why the separate tracks? Why can't the draftee sign with the club AND accept a scholarship? Develop his game at the same time he grows in the ways people (hopefully) do in college?

I have yet to hear a good answer to that, mostly because there isn't one.

'Because that's the way we've always done it' is not a good answer.

[Genuine Realist]

The NHL is the model I'd like to see major league teams follow.

Make all teams draft players when they are 18.

If players want to go to school they can go on scholarship. When they are ready to play professionally, they sign a professional contract with the team holding their rights.

This is all pipe dream stuff. The NFL is not changing anything about its draft model because nobody has any leverage on it to do anything different than it does. At least the G League and Overtime Elite offer an alternative to college for would be NBA players.

I like the NHL and MLB models as well. Everyone is included.

But why the life choice? Why the separate tracks? Why can't the draftee sign with the club AND accept a scholarship? Develop his game at the same time he grows in the ways people (hopefully) do in college?

I have yet to hear a good answer to that, mostly because there isn't one.

'Because that's the way we've always done it' is not a good answer.

[UltimateCard]

ZZia Cooke — a junior guard and leading scorer for the University of South Carolina's women's basketball team, which won the tournament in March — was named one of the highest paid college basketball players in the Final Four, according to Bloomberg

[url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-03-31/female-ncaa-athletes-brand-deals-after-march-madness-may-smash-the-pay-gap][/url]. 
Pleasantly surprised that WBB players are ahead of MBB in NIL (for now). 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zia-cooke-u...G79GIL9kkM

[UltimateCard]

ZZia Cooke — a junior guard and leading scorer for the University of South Carolina's women's basketball team, which won the tournament in March — was named one of the highest paid college basketball players in the Final Four, according to Bloomberg

[url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-03-31/female-ncaa-athletes-brand-deals-after-march-madness-may-smash-the-pay-gap][/url]. 
Pleasantly surprised that WBB players are ahead of MBB in NIL (for now). 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zia-cooke-u...G79GIL9kkM

[Genuine Realist]

ZZia Cooke — a junior guard and leading scorer for the University of South Carolina's women's basketball team, which won the tournament in March — was named one of the highest paid college basketball players in the Final Four, according to Bloomberg

[url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-03-31/female-ncaa-athletes-brand-deals-after-march-madness-may-smash-the-pay-gap][/url]. 
Pleasantly surprised that WBB players are ahead of MBB in NIL (for now). 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zia-cooke-u...G79GIL9kkM

I think the guys are still fixated on the NBA, the numbers of which dwarf NIL deals.

But they'll catch up.

[Genuine Realist]

ZZia Cooke — a junior guard and leading scorer for the University of South Carolina's women's basketball team, which won the tournament in March — was named one of the highest paid college basketball players in the Final Four, according to Bloomberg

[url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-03-31/female-ncaa-athletes-brand-deals-after-march-madness-may-smash-the-pay-gap][/url]. 
Pleasantly surprised that WBB players are ahead of MBB in NIL (for now). 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zia-cooke-u...G79GIL9kkM

I think the guys are still fixated on the NBA, the numbers of which dwarf NIL deals.

But they'll catch up.

[M T]

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.

Yeah right.  I mean in the real world, you've got the police & the FBI & all other sorts of forces trying to keep a level playing field.  With millions of dollars being dangled in front of those 18-year olds,  just go laissez-faire.    Why would an athlete worry about violating the rules of an organization that only deals with the students. There will be no cheating by coaches, parents, boosters, NIL sponsors, gamblers, gambling organizations, athletes.  It's just money, not academics.

Unfortunately, you may be too right when you say they find out something about themselves and the world.  But with plenty of downside.

[M T]

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.

Yeah right.  I mean in the real world, you've got the police & the FBI & all other sorts of forces trying to keep a level playing field.  With millions of dollars being dangled in front of those 18-year olds,  just go laissez-faire.    Why would an athlete worry about violating the rules of an organization that only deals with the students. There will be no cheating by coaches, parents, boosters, NIL sponsors, gamblers, gambling organizations, athletes.  It's just money, not academics.

Unfortunately, you may be too right when you say they find out something about themselves and the world.  But with plenty of downside.

[Genuine Realist]

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.

Yeah right.  I mean in the real world, you've got the police & the FBI & all other sorts of forces trying to keep a level playing field.  With millions of dollars being dangled in front of those 18-year olds,  just go laissez-faire.    Why would an athlete worry about violating the rules of an organization that only deals with the students. There will be no cheating by coaches, parents, boosters, NIL sponsors, gamblers, gambling organizations, athletes.  It's just money, not academics.

Unfortunately, you may be too right when you say they find out something about themselves and the world.  But with plenty of downside.

The reason for all the shenanigans is that the rules are just ludicrous.

Think Prohibition.

[Genuine Realist]

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.

Yeah right.  I mean in the real world, you've got the police & the FBI & all other sorts of forces trying to keep a level playing field.  With millions of dollars being dangled in front of those 18-year olds,  just go laissez-faire.    Why would an athlete worry about violating the rules of an organization that only deals with the students. There will be no cheating by coaches, parents, boosters, NIL sponsors, gamblers, gambling organizations, athletes.  It's just money, not academics.

Unfortunately, you may be too right when you say they find out something about themselves and the world.  But with plenty of downside.

The reason for all the shenanigans is that the rules are just ludicrous.

Think Prohibition.

[Spiny_Norman]

The reason for all the shenanigans is that the rules are just ludicrous.

Rules? There really are not any at least with regard to NIL. Nick Saban, Dabo Swinney, Lincoln Riley, and other coaches all think that the current state of college football is not sustainable. 

https://apnews.com/article/college-footb...545549596e

[Spiny_Norman]

The reason for all the shenanigans is that the rules are just ludicrous.

Rules? There really are not any at least with regard to NIL. Nick Saban, Dabo Swinney, Lincoln Riley, and other coaches all think that the current state of college football is not sustainable. 

https://apnews.com/article/college-footb...545549596e

[Phogge]

The university is for the students. Let them decide about being financially compensated.

The NCAA just doesn't have the bench to go after a hundred plus schools whose alumni will give cash to athletes. So the only way to battle the abuse is to make college athletics a truly professional arena. Even an FCS school like ND State or James Madison will have "boosters" with buckets of cash to stuff into players pockets.

I doubt Stanford continues to play D1 football and hoops if all the cash restraints are removed. The farther I get from buying tickets the more I don't care.

[Phogge]

The university is for the students. Let them decide about being financially compensated.

The NCAA just doesn't have the bench to go after a hundred plus schools whose alumni will give cash to athletes. So the only way to battle the abuse is to make college athletics a truly professional arena. Even an FCS school like ND State or James Madison will have "boosters" with buckets of cash to stuff into players pockets.

I doubt Stanford continues to play D1 football and hoops if all the cash restraints are removed. The farther I get from buying tickets the more I don't care.

[OutsiderFan]

Saban says many of the things in that AP story that I have on this board:

- It's unregulated free agency now
- There are no contracts
- The schools should guarantee players a certain amount of compensation

The only thing new for me in that story was actually really interesting. That is Lane Kiffin saying there could be disagreements between boosters and coaches about who should be paid, err, I mean recruited. A bunch of ego-driven masters of the universe with gobs of money might actually think they are smarter than the coaches they hire and fire at drops of hats? No. Way.

I think Kiffin is telling on himself with that one, meaning he's already had such an experience.

[OutsiderFan]

Saban says many of the things in that AP story that I have on this board:

- It's unregulated free agency now
- There are no contracts
- The schools should guarantee players a certain amount of compensation

The only thing new for me in that story was actually really interesting. That is Lane Kiffin saying there could be disagreements between boosters and coaches about who should be paid, err, I mean recruited. A bunch of ego-driven masters of the universe with gobs of money might actually think they are smarter than the coaches they hire and fire at drops of hats? No. Way.

I think Kiffin is telling on himself with that one, meaning he's already had such an experience.

[cardcrimson]

The university is for the students. Let them decide about being financially compensated.

The NCAA just doesn't have the bench to go after a hundred plus schools whose alumni will give cash to athletes. So the only way to battle the abuse is to make college athletics a truly professional arena. Even an FCS school like ND State or James Madison will have "boosters" with buckets of cash to stuff into players pockets.

I doubt Stanford continues to play D1 football and hoops if all the cash restraints are removed. The farther I get from buying tickets the more I don't care.

As the dad of an aspiring college athlete in a non-revenue sport, I hope the house of cards doesn't collapse until after 2028 or 29. . . .

[cardcrimson]

The university is for the students. Let them decide about being financially compensated.

The NCAA just doesn't have the bench to go after a hundred plus schools whose alumni will give cash to athletes. So the only way to battle the abuse is to make college athletics a truly professional arena. Even an FCS school like ND State or James Madison will have "boosters" with buckets of cash to stuff into players pockets.

I doubt Stanford continues to play D1 football and hoops if all the cash restraints are removed. The farther I get from buying tickets the more I don't care.

As the dad of an aspiring college athlete in a non-revenue sport, I hope the house of cards doesn't collapse until after 2028 or 29. . . .

[Genuine Realist]

Saban says many of the things in that AP story that I have on this board:

- It's unregulated free agency now
- There are no contracts
- The schools should guarantee players a certain amount of compensation

The only thing new for me in that story was actually really interesting. That is Lane Kiffin saying there could be disagreements between boosters and coaches about who should be paid, err, I mean recruited. A bunch of ego-driven masters of the universe with gobs of money might actually think they are smarter than the coaches they hire and fire at drops of hats? No. Way.

I think Kiffin is telling on himself with that one, meaning he's already had such an experience.

I couldn't agree more about the unsustainability of the current system.

So you forget all about money, other than barring schools themselves from paying players. (That'll never happen anyway.)

You restrict the NCAA to issues of academic integrity. 

Everything falls into place.

[Genuine Realist]

Saban says many of the things in that AP story that I have on this board:

- It's unregulated free agency now
- There are no contracts
- The schools should guarantee players a certain amount of compensation

The only thing new for me in that story was actually really interesting. That is Lane Kiffin saying there could be disagreements between boosters and coaches about who should be paid, err, I mean recruited. A bunch of ego-driven masters of the universe with gobs of money might actually think they are smarter than the coaches they hire and fire at drops of hats? No. Way.

I think Kiffin is telling on himself with that one, meaning he's already had such an experience.

I couldn't agree more about the unsustainability of the current system.

So you forget all about money, other than barring schools themselves from paying players. (That'll never happen anyway.)

You restrict the NCAA to issues of academic integrity. 

Everything falls into place.

[Spiny_Norman]

So you forget all about money, other than barring schools themselves from paying players. (That'll never happen anyway.)


You restrict the NCAA to issues of academic integrity. 



Everything falls into place.

Is that different from the current state? The NCAA has little authority over anything financial. It maintains the system of recruiting and academic eligibility and administers championships except for FBS football. Everything else is pretty much the Wild West. There is no administrative authority by any governing body over NIL. I think that is what the coaches are looking for, some kind of NIL authority or guardrails. But the Supreme Court decision has scared the NCAA from stepping in. Conferences too.

[Spiny_Norman]

So you forget all about money, other than barring schools themselves from paying players. (That'll never happen anyway.)


You restrict the NCAA to issues of academic integrity. 



Everything falls into place.

Is that different from the current state? The NCAA has little authority over anything financial. It maintains the system of recruiting and academic eligibility and administers championships except for FBS football. Everything else is pretty much the Wild West. There is no administrative authority by any governing body over NIL. I think that is what the coaches are looking for, some kind of NIL authority or guardrails. But the Supreme Court decision has scared the NCAA from stepping in. Conferences too.

[M T]

Genuine Realist's reality, in my opinion, is a genuine fantasy. Under such a system, there will be a small oligarchy in the betting sports.  Heck, don't most pro leagues for team sports have salary caps for a reason?  (But I don't know how, say, the MLB league deals with the pro-equivalent of NIL payed by third parties.)  With a laissez-faire system as I understand GR to idealize, I could even imagine dark days of rampant throwing of games for money (not by the high-money stars, but by the also-paid that are their opponents.)     Boosters/bettors won't necessarily only pay players on the teams they boost/bet on.  It might be easy to hide as NIL.

As for the wider world of sports, I worry for their loss but I can't predict it.  After all, Division III has athletes that compete for reasons other than pay.

[M T]

Genuine Realist's reality, in my opinion, is a genuine fantasy. Under such a system, there will be a small oligarchy in the betting sports.  Heck, don't most pro leagues for team sports have salary caps for a reason?  (But I don't know how, say, the MLB league deals with the pro-equivalent of NIL payed by third parties.)  With a laissez-faire system as I understand GR to idealize, I could even imagine dark days of rampant throwing of games for money (not by the high-money stars, but by the also-paid that are their opponents.)     Boosters/bettors won't necessarily only pay players on the teams they boost/bet on.  It might be easy to hide as NIL.

As for the wider world of sports, I worry for their loss but I can't predict it.  After all, Division III has athletes that compete for reasons other than pay.

[OutsiderFan]

https://theathletic.com/3256808/2022/04/...ed_article

This site needs a barfing emoji.

[OutsiderFan]

https://theathletic.com/3256808/2022/04/...ed_article

This site needs a barfing emoji.

[martyup]

https://theathletic.com/3256808/2022/04/...ed_article

This site needs a barfing emoji.

[martyup]

https://theathletic.com/3256808/2022/04/...ed_article

This site needs a barfing emoji.

[SamuelMcF]

Any of these guys wanna throw $500k at my startup instead?

[SamuelMcF]

Any of these guys wanna throw $500k at my startup instead?