[Genuine Realist]

I think it was Jack Swarbrick who said it in the article, but BC, you are right. There are going to be two models to pursue, pro, and not so pro.

The problem - and this is THE problem - the money only wants to pay for the most compelling games between the most compelling teams. So as much as a school might want to go the "tuition, room, and board route," the fact is Football isn't a cash cow then. In fact, it's a financial loser, which will make more schools want to pursue being pro.

We've all been aware the move to compensate the athletes generating the money was going to cut off funding from a lot of other sports, and women in particular would be hurt by this. NIL collectives make it a certainty. Because Ohio State boosters would rather pay an extra $1M to land the next hotshot football recruit than make sure that money is going to Field Hockey scholarships and coaching staff.

Of course, if boosters are paying for recruiting through the sham NIL prostitution rings, schools could be making money hand over fist, without needing to pay coaches as much or invest in facilities and recruiting staff as much, so more money might be available for Field Hockey.  Then again, the whole idea that athletes are going to be classified as employees at some point, potentially puts that funding at risk, as athletes earning the money ask for more at the expense of funding other sports. 

It all leads back to what I have been "pounding the table" on about this issue ever since it become a thing. The only way this mess is resolved is by having an athlete union or unions by sport, and agreeing to collective bargaining. Because the only way to legally suppress wages is with the consent of labor. Schools can't all agree to only offer a minimum compensation because then they would be sued for collusion. I realize it's extraordinary to ask 17-22 year olds to lead union organizing and CBA negotiations, but that's the situation. Directly paying athletes under CBA is the only way schools can maintain competitive balance that drives interest, control costs to fund other sports, and put NIL collectives tied to certain schools out of business. 

I still believe the athletes bringing in the money don't necessarily want to be paid like major leaguers, and would agree to let schools keep a lot of money to fund their other sports programs, provided they got enough in return. And I could see schools agreeing to pay a bit more for athletes who graduate, as part of any CBA frameworks, so they can create an incentive to maintain their education missions. Whatever shakes out, it's going to take several years before any framework that makes sense is arrived at, if one ever is.

Last week I ruffled feathers asserting boosters are never giving up their newfound power over recruiting. This week the NCAA released guidelines to "crackdown" on pay to play recruiting through NIL collectives, claiming it will punish schools that pay athletes. Boosters laughed and said they will see the NCAA in court because there is nothing legally tying their compensation to the school. Another reason classifying athletes as employees and paying them under CBA is only way for NCAA to have any power over the monster it created. Oh the irony.

Boosters' 'new found' power over recruiting? Short memory. You have forgotten the 50's and 60's, and decades prior. I once thought Hugh McElhenny was joking when he said he took a pay cut when he graduated Washington and joined the 49ers. He wasn't. He was dead serious. Despite that, college sports were competitive even then. 

Repeating, the colleges do and should own the game and tournament revenue. But the notion that they can or should have anything to do with the celebrity that comes with athletic success never made any sense. 

I'm not at all sure that NIL is as booster driven as claimed. The sheer size and intensity of the fan base at the basketball and football-crazy schools is more than enough to provide six figure, maybe seven figure, returns. An athlete who succeeds at these schools is going to do very well without the slightest input from boosters,

In short, NIL gives schools with large fan bases a basic advantage all by itself, without any bells or whistles. 

The only way out, and it isn't perfect, is to go forward. Abandon all of the useless restrictive rules on athletes pledging their pro potential to bona fide parties - and specifically professional franchises - MLB, NBA, and NFL, but also reputable agents and even fan-based syndicates. Up to a point, that's the great equalizer. 

'Up to a point' . . . because there's no completely equalizing. John Elway came to Stanford in 1979 considered one of the surest Voldemort Trophy winners in high school history. (Only profound coaching mismanagement prevented that.) If he'd had a contract with a pro team (on an option basis), so much the better. But what happens when an Alabama says, you can have that pro money, and a million a year besides? You can always go back to school, which is true. 

The world HAS changed, and demonizing boosters isn't going to alter that. The income potential rests on a much broader base. Allowing pro contacts would help a great deal, but it won't lead to complete equality. Still, it will lead to an interesting, varied landscape. Truth be told, there aren't that many mortal locks among high school athletes. No one would have handed the keys to the mint to Steph Curry as a high school senior. All that came later.

Finally, I wish the NCAA could be relegated simply to academic policing. But I am as opposed to schools buying players as I am to their meddling in business arrangements. To the extent that coaching and athletic staff become involved in income guarantees, arranging NIL contracts, and the like, I think they are buying layers - and there have to be regulations about that. A school recruits who it wants to recruit, offers the standard scholarship, and lets the open market take care of everything else. That's the way it should work.

[Genuine Realist]

I think it was Jack Swarbrick who said it in the article, but BC, you are right. There are going to be two models to pursue, pro, and not so pro.

The problem - and this is THE problem - the money only wants to pay for the most compelling games between the most compelling teams. So as much as a school might want to go the "tuition, room, and board route," the fact is Football isn't a cash cow then. In fact, it's a financial loser, which will make more schools want to pursue being pro.

We've all been aware the move to compensate the athletes generating the money was going to cut off funding from a lot of other sports, and women in particular would be hurt by this. NIL collectives make it a certainty. Because Ohio State boosters would rather pay an extra $1M to land the next hotshot football recruit than make sure that money is going to Field Hockey scholarships and coaching staff.

Of course, if boosters are paying for recruiting through the sham NIL prostitution rings, schools could be making money hand over fist, without needing to pay coaches as much or invest in facilities and recruiting staff as much, so more money might be available for Field Hockey.  Then again, the whole idea that athletes are going to be classified as employees at some point, potentially puts that funding at risk, as athletes earning the money ask for more at the expense of funding other sports. 

It all leads back to what I have been "pounding the table" on about this issue ever since it become a thing. The only way this mess is resolved is by having an athlete union or unions by sport, and agreeing to collective bargaining. Because the only way to legally suppress wages is with the consent of labor. Schools can't all agree to only offer a minimum compensation because then they would be sued for collusion. I realize it's extraordinary to ask 17-22 year olds to lead union organizing and CBA negotiations, but that's the situation. Directly paying athletes under CBA is the only way schools can maintain competitive balance that drives interest, control costs to fund other sports, and put NIL collectives tied to certain schools out of business. 

I still believe the athletes bringing in the money don't necessarily want to be paid like major leaguers, and would agree to let schools keep a lot of money to fund their other sports programs, provided they got enough in return. And I could see schools agreeing to pay a bit more for athletes who graduate, as part of any CBA frameworks, so they can create an incentive to maintain their education missions. Whatever shakes out, it's going to take several years before any framework that makes sense is arrived at, if one ever is.

Last week I ruffled feathers asserting boosters are never giving up their newfound power over recruiting. This week the NCAA released guidelines to "crackdown" on pay to play recruiting through NIL collectives, claiming it will punish schools that pay athletes. Boosters laughed and said they will see the NCAA in court because there is nothing legally tying their compensation to the school. Another reason classifying athletes as employees and paying them under CBA is only way for NCAA to have any power over the monster it created. Oh the irony.

Boosters' 'new found' power over recruiting? Short memory. You have forgotten the 50's and 60's, and decades prior. I once thought Hugh McElhenny was joking when he said he took a pay cut when he graduated Washington and joined the 49ers. He wasn't. He was dead serious. Despite that, college sports were competitive even then. 

Repeating, the colleges do and should own the game and tournament revenue. But the notion that they can or should have anything to do with the celebrity that comes with athletic success never made any sense. 

I'm not at all sure that NIL is as booster driven as claimed. The sheer size and intensity of the fan base at the basketball and football-crazy schools is more than enough to provide six figure, maybe seven figure, returns. An athlete who succeeds at these schools is going to do very well without the slightest input from boosters,

In short, NIL gives schools with large fan bases a basic advantage all by itself, without any bells or whistles. 

The only way out, and it isn't perfect, is to go forward. Abandon all of the useless restrictive rules on athletes pledging their pro potential to bona fide parties - and specifically professional franchises - MLB, NBA, and NFL, but also reputable agents and even fan-based syndicates. Up to a point, that's the great equalizer. 

'Up to a point' . . . because there's no completely equalizing. John Elway came to Stanford in 1979 considered one of the surest Voldemort Trophy winners in high school history. (Only profound coaching mismanagement prevented that.) If he'd had a contract with a pro team (on an option basis), so much the better. But what happens when an Alabama says, you can have that pro money, and a million a year besides? You can always go back to school, which is true. 

The world HAS changed, and demonizing boosters isn't going to alter that. The income potential rests on a much broader base. Allowing pro contacts would help a great deal, but it won't lead to complete equality. Still, it will lead to an interesting, varied landscape. Truth be told, there aren't that many mortal locks among high school athletes. No one would have handed the keys to the mint to Steph Curry as a high school senior. All that came later.

Finally, I wish the NCAA could be relegated simply to academic policing. But I am as opposed to schools buying players as I am to their meddling in business arrangements. To the extent that coaching and athletic staff become involved in income guarantees, arranging NIL contracts, and the like, I think they are buying layers - and there have to be regulations about that. A school recruits who it wants to recruit, offers the standard scholarship, and lets the open market take care of everything else. That's the way it should work.