Unlike Emmert, Baker appears to be open to the NCAA rolling over quickly on NIL and direct player compensation.

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Can’t back anything up, so you just keep repeating yourself. Brilliant

Do you think the Alston decision which essentially caused the NCAA to allow NIL only affected D1 schools? It didn't. It ushered in NIL for all NCAA schools.

If the NCAA loses a "players are employees" lawsuit will it only apply to D1 schools that make money?

If not, will all NCAA schools have to treat players as employees?

 

[volfanbill]

Do you think the Alston decision which essentially caused the NCAA to allow NIL only affected D1 schools? It didn't. It ushered in NIL for all NCAA schools.

If the NCAA loses a "players are employees" lawsuit will it only apply to D1 schools that make money?

If not, will all NCAA schools have to treat players as employees?

lol you can’t keep up huh?

 

[Orange.]

Mark Emmert is the main reason for all of the craziness. He kept his head in the sand for years and years as everyone saw what was slowly headed towards college sports . This complete chaos could’ve been avoided w/ just a little forward thinking from Emmert .

Emmert was running a corrupt organization involved in deliberately turning a blind eye to favorites, for example Saban's gigantic bag game and parking lot full of Chargers from day 1 at Bama, while targeting others, especially rivals to his pets. The last thing in the world Emmert wanted was for teams other than the illicit NCAA pets to be put on a level playing field by virtue of NIL.

Emmert's entire tenure involved running a cheat-with-impunity club. I can't believe someone wants to hold that corrupt cheat up as an example of integrity.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

lol you can’t keep up huh?

Childish. Answer the questions.

Baker, by suggesting that schools compensate athletes directly for playing sports, is basically inviting the courts, who already have cases before them to declare athletes are employees.

Do you believe the courts are going to make a list of which schools should treat players as employees or do you believe they'll see them all as the same?

It's not a hard question. It's a real question. You might want to be an adult and answer it.

 

[volfanbill]

Childish. Answer the questions.

Baker, by suggesting that schools compensate athletes directly for playing sports, is basically inviting the courts, who already have cases before them to declare athletes are employees.

Do you believe the courts are going to make a list of which schools should treat players as employees or do you believe they'll see them all as the same?

It's not a hard question. It's a real question. You might want to be an adult and answer it.

I have answered the question. Numerous times. Good grief how slow are you?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I have answered the question. Numerous times. Good grief how slow are you?

You haven't. You said things will stay just like they are. That's not true. If players ARE employees it won't be optional and all schools MUST pay them.

Smaller schools won't be able to do this. There's no way they can stand that kind of increase in payroll.

What's your answer to that?

 

[volfanbill]

You haven't. You said things will stay just like they are. That's not true. If players ARE employees it won't be optional and all schools MUST pay them.

Smaller schools won't be able to do this. There's no way they can stand that kind of increase in payroll.

What's your answer to that?

Which is what will happen. The small schools are already making it happen. You’re just stating “small schools won’t be able to do this” even though they literally already have the plans implemented. Which I’ve already told you. But just keep assuming it can’t be done

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Which is what will happen. The small schools are already making it happen. You’re just stating “small schools won’t be able to do this” even though they literally already have the plans implemented. Which I’ve already told you. But just keep assuming it can’t be done

There's a difference between arranging small NIL to athletes vs actually payroll or 1099 employing them.

Keep dreaming that salaries will equal NIL. They won't. They will be negotiated instead of just "offered" by the school or by a proxy collective.

There's a big difference between what NIL brings vs collective bargaining. It will be bad for big earners (though the truly elite will just make it up with NIL deals) but it will surely raise the pay for the lower echelon athletes.

 

[volfanbill]

There's a difference between arranging small NIL to athletes vs actually payroll or 1099 employing them.

Keep dreaming that salaries will equal NIL. They won't. They will be negotiated instead of just "offered" by the school or by a proxy collective.

There's a big difference between what NIL brings vs collective bargaining. It will be bad for big earners (though the truly elite will just make it up with NIL deals) but it will surely raise the pay for the lower echelon athletes.

No there’s not. They are paying them what the school can do. ETSU isn’t expected to be on Tennessee’s level, and Carson Newman isn’t expected to be on ETSU’s level. FCS athletes understand that. DII athletes understand that.

JUST LIKE IT’S ALWAYS BEEN. I’m done here. you are refusing to grasp basic knowledge.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

No there’s not. They are paying them what the school can do. ETSU isn’t expected to be on Tennessee’s level, and Carson Newman isn’t expected to be on ETSU’s level. FCS athletes understand that. DII athletes understand that.

JUST LIKE IT’S ALWAYS BEEN. I’m done here. you are refusing to grasp basic knowledge.

It's economics. As the players organize, they gain the upper hand in negotiation.

The schools, without an Antitrust Exemption, cannot collude to set a "salary cap" for the teams. The market will determine what the players can get. If ETSU WANTS athletics, they'll pay what their market can bear, not "what is their level."

Will they still field teams if they underpay? Sure. Will those teams be laughable because the talent goes where they can get paid? Likely.

 

[volfanbill]

It's economics. As the players organize, they gain the upper hand in negotiation.

The schools, without an Antitrust Exemption, cannot collude to set a "salary cap" for the teams. The market will determine what the players can get. If ETSU WANTS athletics, they'll pay what their market can bear, not "what is their level."

Will they still field teams if they underpay? Sure. Will those teams be laughable because the talent goes where they can get paid? Likely.

You act like the “smaller” schools can’t even pay their electric bill. The market will determine their worth. And ETSU already figured out the market value, and is implementing procedures to get there. Sorry you can’t accept that. I’m out

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You act like the “smaller” schools can’t even pay their electric bill. The market will determine their worth. And ETSU already figured out the market value, and is implementing procedures to get there. Sorry you can’t accept that. I’m out

I can accept that but the players haven't been organized to negotiate as a group.

Individuals trying to get their own NIL deal is one thing, but players organizing like UAB and likely more schools is a nightmare for schools.

With Baker's direct compensation plan being an invitation to the courts to declare players as employees of the schools, there's no reason at all for them not to organize and drive up wages and protect their interests as employees. It's exactly what most, if not all, pro athletes do.

And pro salaries are off the charts even with Antitrust Exemptions.

 

[volfanbill]

I can accept that but the players haven't been organized to negotiate as a group.

Individuals trying to get their own NIL deal is one thing, but players like UAB and likely more schools.

With Baker's direct compensation plan being an invitation to the courts to declare players as employees of the schools, there's no reason at all for them not to organize and drive up wages and protect their interests as employees. It's exactly what most, if not all, pro athletes do.

And pro salaries are off the charts even with Antitrust Exemptions.

Pro salaries are off the charts because of the money they bring in. It’s why the wnba salaries aren’t close to off the chart. And that’s how college athletics will work. Caitlin Clark didn’t turn down the Indiana Fever. And players that can only manage to get to ETSU will accept that

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Pro salaries are off the charts because of the money they bring in. It’s why the wnba salaries aren’t close to off the chart. And that’s how college athletics will work. Caitlin Clark didn’t turn down the Indiana Fever. And players that can only manage to get to ETSU will accept that

I wish I believed that players will take whatever a school offers but the portal says guys that are pretty sure they'll never see the big leagues are obviously maximizing their money in college.

I don't see why that trend toward athletes looking for higher compensation in college should slow down when they organize and have more negotiating power, but hey...... believe as you wish.

 

[Delmar]

I agree. My prediction is: some schools are going to look at the cost of employing athletes and decide the upside to the college community isn't with the expense.

That's the bad part of this. If it can somehow be arranged that "Yes, Carson-Newman is a college. Yes, they have athletes and teams. No, those teams aren't pro teams and shouldn't be paid." I just think it's very difficult legally to submit that one college athlete is an employee and another college athlete isn't.

By quickening the pace of these changes, Baker is just tossing small schools to the wind. Will they be lumped as employers of their athletes? Where's the cutoff line? Who is drawing that line?

Schools that are pinched financially anyway can't afford to start paying athletes then get sued by previous athletes because they didn't pay them.

It's going to get ugly.

It’s inevitable that some schools will get out of the sports business. Won’t be able to afford to pay players.

 

[Delmar]

I know. It's ridiculous. People said NIL wouldn't be a big issue and it's in high schools now, if not middle school.

Just wait. Schools cannot afford to pay players. If players are declared employees by the courts, schools cannot just decide "we're not going to pay them." Just wait.

They can certainly decide not to field teams.

 

[volfanbill]

I wish I believed that players will take whatever a school offers but the portal says guys that are pretty sure they'll never see the big leagues are obviously maximizing their money in college.

I don't see why that trend toward athletes looking for higher compensation in college should slow down when they organize and have more negotiating power, but hey...... believe as you wish.

The portal goes up and down. I’m sorry you can’t believe simple facts. Best of luck to you

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

They can certainly decide not to field teams.

Exactly. And that's the sad part of this for most players. I think this is fueling some of the "mercenary" behavior by players in the portal.

This is a limited window of opportunity for most players. This is all the compensation for their hard work in athletics they'll ever see. Sure, some dream they'll make the bigs but most never will or will flame out on a practice squad.

It'll be even worse when guys who knew they'd never reach the league can't even get a scholly to a D2 school, play with pride, represent the school well, AND get an education because the school can't afford to pay them but the court says they have to if they field a team.

Those are the athletes that this is sad for. The major money making programs should leave college, develop a pro league, and let college athletics go back to being student oriented, not money oriented.

That's never going to happen but college was always supposed to be about an academic and social experience for students, not a money making job.

 

[volfanbill]

Imagine if a school like, say ETSU pulled transfers from Power 5 schools. That would be wild.


Oh wait, it happened already. That’s crazy. Don’t they know ETSU can’t even pay to keep the lights on?

 

[LouderVol]

Exactly how is Tennessee Tech or ETSU or UTC supposed to survive with no money to compensate athletes? They can't, but what is the difference between UT and ETSU? So why should one school pay athletes and another not? That's the next lawsuit Baker is inviting. That's likely why Dilfer suggested UAB athletes organize, so Tuscaloosa can't just leave them hanging with zero compensation while the elephant gets all the money.

Of course, the TN brand, power T, etc will always have support but the losers are athletes at smaller schools who don't have, as the original article suggested aTm is planning, 15-30 million in "new expenses" to add to the budget.

The money schools need to form a pro league or they'll destroy college athletics for most college athletes.

as any employee these players are going to learn that its a business. the current model won't survive. it can't and it shouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

the current model is pure socialism. the money makers wealth being redistributed down to others. Now the money makers get to actually earn their worth, instead of it being unfairly given to others.

college sports will continue in intramurals. heck, several UT sports teams that aren't funded by the school have won national titles, so its not like the competition will go away. Rugby, mens soccer, paintball. those all exist without a lick of school funding. probably dozens of others. That model will be coming to more sports and all universities. that is the amateurism you want, you will get it. the new "pro" league will separate off from funding the rest. but the rest of college sports will still exist, just in a true amateur situation.

No scholarships, no tutors, no recruiting, no TV or outside viewership, little to no coaching. the players will choose what school they actually want to go to for academics, and then if that school has their sport, they can truly volunteer, no pun intended, their time to participate. but they won't be making college choice based on the sport. amateurism is coming back. the self-denying professionalism is dying out as it finally has to admit what it really was.

 

[LouderVol]

I agree. My prediction is: some schools are going to look at the cost of employing athletes and decide the upside to the college community isn't with the expense.

That's the bad part of this. If it can somehow be arranged that "Yes, Carson-Newman is a college. Yes, they have athletes and teams. No, those teams aren't pro teams and shouldn't be paid." I just think it's very difficult legally to submit that one college athlete is an employee and another college athlete isn't.

By quickening the pace of these changes, Baker is just tossing small schools to the wind. Will they be lumped as employers of their athletes? Where's the cutoff line? Who is drawing that line?

Schools that are pinched financially anyway can't afford to start paying athletes then get sued by previous athletes because they didn't pay them.

It's going to get ugly.

no it isn't. intramurals will never be considered employees. the schools will just not fund or provide the organization for a team they can't afford. but they will allow them to exist, and use their branding. it exists now, it will grow.

 

[Orange.]