Transfer Portal is a disaster

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Local economies free to embrace their teams will only advance success. North Dakota State and James Madison will flourish with their athletes able to hawk Sloppy Joe’s Slop Shop. You underestimate free enterprise because that dynamic has been missing at smaller programs vs European villages…where local teams thrive!

I've known and supported some fine soccer clubs in various places I've visited. It could be very strong in America but we're rather accustomed to supporting school teams more than club teams.

I don't know about you but the Knoxville Vols doesn't roll off my tongue like the UT Vols.

As for your assertion elsewhere that Dartmouth doesn't equal aTm, there's an NLRB case concerning USC also. Dartmouth just got there first. USC is a helluva lot closer to aTm in how they operate.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I absolutely don't want to regulate NIL money because it will be shown to be illegal. NIL is out of the discussion.

I'm saying that when players become employees, it will be extremely difficult to say a UT football team member IS an employee and a UT tennis team player ISN'T an employee.

If you pay one, you'll need to pay all the employees. This will be expensive and even schools like UT will look at athletics with a "bean counter" in the room.

Schools like Carson-Newman will be completely unable to afford to pay all athletes, possibly any athletes, and if the courts rule players are employees they will either violate the ruling or drop athletics. That is extremely sad for most athletes who aren't elite and, I think, sad for students who will miss out of attending school games.

Schools need to get out of the "sports business." The crux of the Supreme Court ruling was: why are you making so much money from these kids and not paying them. That's illegal.

The few big sports revenue schools and NCAA screwed this all this up for smaller, no sports revenue schools.

I don't think so.

At universities around the world, there are revenue-generating sports, and there are non-revenue-generating sports (plus a host of other extra-curricular activities, like band and cheerleaders and the rock collecting club). Non-academic clubs, teams and pastimes have become an integral element of "college life."

The whole reason we are in this current spot with NIL is because a few key sports generate millions, even hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. And the players, whose beings (expressed lately as Name, Image, Likeness) were an integral part of all this income generation, were not being compensated for their contributions. That was wrong.

That doesn't mean every band member or diving team athlete should be compensated. They're not generating any revenue. No one is paying to come see them (sorry PoTSB, and I could be wrong about you; maybe some people in Neyland ARE there specifically for you...beyond your parents).

There are exceptions. Olivia Dunne, a gymnast at LSU, has millions of social media followers (mostly teenage boys who dream of dating her, but still). Her NIL has inherent value in the market. She can--and should--be able to contract for compensation from those who use her NIL to make money.

And so it goes. If your existence as a student athlete (or cheerleader or rock club member) generates revenue in any way, you should have the legal ability to benefit financially. If it doesn't, you shouldn't expect a paycheck.

It's perfectly fine for Olivia Dunne to be compensated (not by the school, but by those who are making money from her, like TikTok and YouTube, or perhaps by an NIL Collective that wants to sell her signed photographs) while her relatively anonymous teammate is not.

Sorry chess club competitors.

Go Vols!

p.s. This is precisely the same response given to US Women's Soccer Team and WNBA players who demand to be paid as much as their male counterparts. Rhonda Rousey said it best:

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I don't think so.

There are revenue-generating sports, and there are non-revenue-generating sports (and other activities, like band and cheerleaders and the rock collecting club).

The whole reason we are in this current spot is because a few key sports generate millions, even hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. And the players, whose beings (expressed lately as Name, Image, Likeness) were an integral part of all this income generation, were not being compensated for their contributions. That was wrong.

That doesn't mean every band member or diving team athlete should be compensated. They're not generating any revenue. No one is paying to come see them.

There are exceptions. Olivia Dunne, a gymnast at LSU, has millions of social media followers (mostly teenage boys who dream of dating her, but still). Her NIL has inherent value in the market. She can--and should--be able to contract for compensation from those who use her NIL to make money.

And so it goes. If your existence as a student athlete (or cheerleader or rock club member) generates revenue in any way, you should have the legal ability to benefit financially as well. If it doesn't, you shouldn't expect a paycheck.

It's perfectly fine for Olivia Dunne to be compensated (not by the school, by those who are making money from her, like TikTok and YouTube, or an NIL Collective) while her relatively anonymous teammate is not.

Sorry chess club competitors.

Go Vols!

p.s. This is precisely the same response given to US Women's Soccer Team and WNBA players who demand to be paid as much as their male counterparts. Rhonda Rousey said it best:

View attachment 617962

Certainly, that's completely fair but in the Alston decision, the SCOTUS seems to take the opinion that the ENTIRE MODEL is broken for the NCAA.

They seem to suggest that you can't have a sports business that you're trying to run and INSIST that it's amateur just because that's how you want to characterize it. While they brought up all the revenue some schools make, they took the entire idea of a "student athlete" as suspicious.

I'm not sure the court can say: the work a gymnast puts in for the school is less valuable than the work a football player puts in for the school because of revenue.

Certainly, if they become PROFESSIONAL sports, that's true. A business pays the market value for labor and if it fails, it fails.

The fact that most colleges and most sports don't generate revenue and still exist (unlike pro teams and leagues which fold when the money runs out) tells you there's SOME value to the school in keeping them, ie., those players are providing a service to the school like an employee.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I'm not sure the court can say: the work a gymnast puts in for the school is less valuable than the work a football player puts in for the school because of revenue.

I think you're confusing "value to the school" with "monetary value."

Sure, the lacrosse team has value to the school. Specifically, to the students who want to play lacrosse. Keep in mind, college sports weren't invented by the universities: they were brought on campus by the students, and then (at first reluctantly) accepted by the schools in an effort to keep things safe and controlled.

So if the lacrosse players want to be appreciated in a way commensurate with their value to the university, they should expect not money, but trophies and applause at awards ceremonies. They generate pride for the university (if they win), so they get paid in "pride compensation."

Meanwhile, the students generating both pride AND big bucks, they should be eligible to receive their share of both.

Go Vols!

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I think you're confusing "value to the school" with "monetary value."

Sure, the lacrosse team has value to the school. Specifically, to the students who want to play lacrosse. Keep in mind, college sports weren't invented by the universities: they were brought on campus by the students, and then (at first reluctantly) accepted by the schools in an effort to keep things safe and controlled.

So if the lacrosse players want to be appreciated in a way commensurate with their value to the university, they should expect not money, but trophies and applause at awards ceremonies. They generate pride for the university (if they win), so they get paid in "pride compensation."

Meanwhile, the students generating both pride AND big bucks, they should be eligible to receive their share of both.

Go Vols!

That makes sense to me. I'm not sure the courts can sort that out WITHOUT considering the revenue athletes as professionals.

That's been the mistake. Using the passion and hard work of unpaid college athletes to make money, big money, finally made the courts say: Wait, you can't use these people in your business without compensating them.

Now the question is, can we expect the courts to say it's all about revenue whether you deserve pay or not but you're all still amateur athletes and not employees?

I don't see how it works unless the athletes are employees AND I don't see, given the Title requirements of schools, how they can get away with paying one and not paying another.

 

[butchna]

I've known and supported some fine soccer clubs in various places I've visited. It could be very strong in America but we're rather accustomed to supporting school teams more than club teams.

I don't know about you but the Knoxville Vols doesn't roll off my tongue like the UT Vols.

As for your assertion elsewhere that Dartmouth doesn't equal aTm, there's an NLRB case concerning USC also. Dartmouth just got there first. USC is a helluva lot closer to aTm in how they operate.

Awaiting with bated breath for the USC Trojans to vote to unionize and then educate themselves on the intricacies of LABOR disputes. Learn that it’s not about screaming at the FACTORY (i.e university) to give me money and they just automatically do it. Next step is…you stop working. Which either violates your NIL commercial agreements or your SCHOLARSHIP requirements. The higher the value of your “labor”, the more you lose when you cease. Think USC shuts down if the players aren’t attending kinesiology classes? The fallacy of entertainment industries threatening work stoppage vs the entertainment ASPECT of a functioning private university is when the writers and actors deny labor, they shut the priduction down…and what’s at stake is their LIFE’S WORK. The Trojan football team average player (if they even stay) is in a 3-5 year window. They shut down? The university is still operating with almost full capacity minus the roster. What’s more likely is the big bucks universities like USC and A&M give out a minimum amount per student athlete and allow them to add to it with NIL opportunities. Factory stays open regardless.

 

[chattavol420]

It continues to blow my mind that fans of programs like us are unable to recognize these. New are good for programs not already on top. The most outspoken critics are Kirby, Dabo, but most importantly… Sabin. When the coaches on top are yelling and crying and screaming about some new rule, how are you unable to recognize this rule will likely hurt them?

I’ve stated many times previously it bears repeating… The last decade of college football has seen the least competitive era in the history of the sport. A couple of programs essentially had a monopoly on all of the top recruits. Bama has literally filled recruiting classes with nothing but top 150 overall players. Rating said begun to drop in big rivalry, games and in playoff games. The viewing public was sick of watching Bama, Clemson, UGA, and Ohio State, being the only teams capable of winning a natty before the season even started.

The transfer portal along with immediate eligibility is an absolute godsend for programs like us. Programs that historically have been good and have tremendous resources, but are just a notch below Bama or UGA and total roster talent. Bama can no longer sign five star players out of high school and essentially hold them hostage for the next three years or so until they get an opportunity to play. Those kids are going to spend a single season and if they can’t see light at the end of the tunnel (I.e. making in the two deep on the depth chart) they are going to transfer. Bell‘s talent advantage has slowly dwindled over the last couple of years and almost certainly contributed significantly to sin decision to retire

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Awaiting with bated breath for the USC Trojans to vote to unionize and then educate themselves on the intricacies of LABOR disputes. Learn that it’s not about screaming at the FACTORY (i.e university) to give me money and they just automatically do it. Next step is…you stop working. Which either violates your NIL commercial agreements or your SCHOLARSHIP requirements. The higher the value of your “labor”, the more you lose when you cease. Think USC shuts down if the players aren’t attending kinesiology classes? The fallacy of entertainment industries threatening work stoppage vs the entertainment ASPECT of a functioning private university is when the writers and actors deny labor, they shut the priduction down…and what’s at stake is their LIFE’S WORK. The Trojan football team average player (if they even stay) is in a 3-5 year window. They shut down? The university is still operating with almost full capacity minus the roster. What’s more likely is the big bucks universities like USC and A&M give out a minimum amount per student athlete and allow them to add to it with NIL opportunities. Factory stays open regardless.

I get the dislike of unions. I never said it was good, only that it's coming. I don't believe all schools will unionize, immediately at least, but the high revenue schools will have players who look at the success pro players have had with their unions and probably push for it.

It's just part of the slide toward the players being considered employees. It's not at all good but we're seeing signs: the NCAA lawsuits everywhere, the SEC and B1G talking about how to move on, the players getting the NLRB onboard, the NCAA suggesting some schools SHOULD develop their own NILs to compensate players, etc.

I've hoped this would take a lot longer but things seem to be accelerating.

 

[butchna]

Certainly, that's completely fair but in the Alston decision, the SCOTUS seems to take the opinion that the ENTIRE MODEL is broken for the NCAA.

They seem to suggest that you can't have a sports business that you're trying to run and INSIST that it's amateur just because that's how you want to characterize it. While they brought up all the revenue some schools make, they took the entire idea of a "student athlete" as suspicious.

I'm not sure the court can say: the work a gymnast puts in for the school is less valuable than the work a football player puts in for the school because of revenue.

Certainly, if they become PROFESSIONAL sports, that's true. A business pays the market value for labor and if it fails, it fails.

The fact that most colleges and most sports don't generate revenue and still exist (unlike pro teams and leagues which fold when the money runs out) tells you there's SOME value to the school in keeping them, ie., those players are providing a service to the school like an employee.

Alston case was the result of EA Sports creating video games and marketing them with the NCAA as the beneficiary…and using athletes images and likenesses with no COMPENSATION. What was illustrated in the legal arguments was that athletes were forbidden to profit from their work product. Long way from that to NOTHING WORKS. Happy medium, the athletes now can generate and benefit from their brand while in their amateur stage and the universities benefit from providing the STAGE. They own their land, stadiums and provide the audience from their enrollment, alumni and established fanbase…THEIR brand! Model works.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Alston case was the result of EA Sports creating video games and marketing them with the NCAA as the beneficiary…and using athletes images and likenesses with no COMPENSATION. What was illustrated in the legal arguments was that athletes were forbidden to profit from their work product. Long way from that to NOTHING WORKS. Happy medium, the athletes now can generate and benefit from their brand while in their amateur stage and the universities benefit from providing the STAGE. They own their land, stadiums and provide the audience from their enrollment, alumni and established fanbase…THEIR brand! Model works.

The O'Bannon case was the EA case. Alston was about "educational benefits" that the NCAA denied athletes but allowed for other students. The ORIGINAL Alston case, I think, also sought to have players declared employees but they somehow (I'm not a lawyer) dropped part of the case somewhere in all the appeals.

The problem in the end will be when the SCOTUS rules about "players are employees" and I'm unsure about the timing of the many NCAA lawsuits.

Certainly having at least 2 states suing the NCAA is not a good thing for them. States have a big, big budget and plenty of lawyers already on staff. They can go to court for decades.

 

[butchna]

I get the dislike of unions. I never said it was good, only that it's coming. I don't believe all schools will unionize, immediately at least, but the high revenue schools will have players who look at the success pro players have had with their unions and probably push for it.

It's just part of the slide toward the players being considered employees. It's not at all good but we're seeing signs: the NCAA lawsuits everywhere, the SEC and B1G talking about how to move on, the players getting the NLRB onboard, the NCAA suggesting some schools SHOULD develop their own NILs to compensate players, etc.

I've hoped this would take a lot longer but things seem to be accelerating.

It’s not happening. Because these aren’t iron factory workers toiling under 60-80 hour work weeks for little pay. It’s not even 1920s-1990s professional sports leagues fighting for their share of a growing MONEY factory and taking care of their families. These are relatively short time kids who will either take advantage of their education opportunities (or not) or advance via their skill level to the professional stage. Picketing for MORE than what they can generate for themselves is a game of chicken which gets blinked for them.

 

[butchna]

The O'Bannon case was the EA case. Alston was about "educational benefits" that the NCAA denied athletes but allowed for other students. The ORIGINAL Alston case, I think, also sought to have players declared employees but they somehow (I'm not a lawyer) dropped part of the case somewhere in all the appeals.

The problem in the end will be when the SCOTUS rules about "players are employees" and I'm unsure about the timing of the many NCAA lawsuits.

Certainly having at least 2 states suing the NCAA is not a good thing for them. States have a big, big budget and plenty of lawyers already on staff. They can go to court for decades.

My mistake on the particulars. O’Bannon’s case started the ball rolling. End result is the Court can DECLARE students to be employees, but not even the employees of Animal House staved off unemployment long enough to shut a university down. They’re EMPLOYEES for 3-5 years max and I’ll pass on holding my breath that they’ll utilize young attention spans haggling and picketing for the common good. Thing about alpha athletes…not noted for seeing past the bridge of their own nose. And the few exceptions aren’t the MAJORITY needed to vote for a union.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

It’s not happening. Because these aren’t iron factory workers toiling under 60-80 hour work weeks for little pay. It’s not even 1920s-1990s professional sports leagues fighting for their share of a growing MONEY factory and taking care of their families. These are relatively short time kids who will either take advantage of their education opportunities (or not) or advance via their skill level to the professional stage. Picketing for MORE than what they can generate for themselves is a game of chicken which gets blinked for them.

If you'd asked most of us about 10 years ago if we ever thought the state of TN would sue the NCAA, we'd have laughed at you.

But here we are.

Also, I'm not convinced the next target of lawsuits won't be the NCAA eligibility rules. Why, if the players are employees, should their eligibility be limited?

It's a big mess. The NCAA should've been planning for these issues for decades.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

That makes sense to me. I'm not sure the courts can sort that out WITHOUT considering the revenue athletes as professionals.

That's been the mistake. Using the passion and hard work of unpaid college athletes to make money, big money, finally made the courts say: Wait, you can't use these people in your business without compensating them.

Now the question is, can we expect the courts to say it's all about revenue whether you deserve pay or not but you're all still amateur athletes and not employees?

I don't see how it works unless the athletes are employees AND I don't see, given the Title requirements of schools, how they can get away with paying one and not paying another.

The model I favor most, so far, is not the "university employee" approach.

I prefer this idea:

* Start with NIL collectives, which allow boosters (fans with deep pockets) to legally pay athletes in appreciation for their service to the university team. That doesn't change in this model.

* But since that doesn't get at gate receipts or media income gathered by the university, we need to add a "school slice." This isn't NIL, as we know it today. This is separate. This is the university saying that since it gathered $xxx last year from football, each football player will receive a share. It may be small, like one-tenth of one percent to each student, but something. Same for the basketball team: the sport generates revenue, so shares go out to the players. Same for the swim team, if people ever start paying to go to their meets or watch them on TV.

So a player in a non-revenue sport, like Olivia Dunne at LSU, still has the right to benefit financially from her being, her NIL. But she doesn't get any shares from the university because gymnastics doesn't generate revenue. Meanwhile, a football player benefits by receiving his share from the University's profits in the sport. And if he's a guy like Nico, he can receive both NIL income from Spyre (the boosters, basically) and a share of the school's profits.

I call this the "booty" model, because it works kinda like pirate crews often did. The pirates weren't normally employees of the captain, the head pirate. They were all independent, and could sign on for, or turn down, each cruise (kinda like players using the transfer portal). So their compensation was agreed in shares of the loot. Common seamen might get a quarter-share, while the officers got a full share and the captain got a double or triple share.

Add up all the crew by their share value, and you get a total number. Divide the loot by that number, and you know how much one share is worth. Then sell the loot, get cash, and pass it out when you get back to port.

The booty model would work just fine in college sports. Let the student athletes remain student athletes, not employees. But compensate them based on the revenue they and all their teammates and coaches generate.

An example: say UT grosses $200m in gate receipts, parking lots, and media contracts in 2025. And say $150m of that is poured back into facilities, scholarships, and paying for the non-revenue-generating sports, leaving $50m in profit. And say it has been pre-determined that the head coach receives 12 shares, his OC and DC each get 3 shares, and all other coaches are paid 1.5 shares. GAs, analysts, nutritionists, etc. all get a fifth of a share. Players (scholarship and non-scholarship alike) get a tenth of a share.

So let's add it up: 12 (HC) + 3 (OC) + 3 (DC) + 12 (the other 8 Asst Coaches) + 20 (the 100 GAs and analysts) +12.5 (125 players on roster) == 62.5 shares.

That means the $50m profit, divided by 62.5 shares, yields $800k per share.
-- Head Coach gets 12 shares times $800k per share = $9.6m
-- OC and DC get 3 * $800k = $2.4m
-- Other asst coaches get 1.5 * $800k = $1.2m each
-- GAs and analysts get 0.2 * $800k = $160k each
-- Players receive 0.1 * $800k = $80k each.

And each year the loot is divvied up that way.

That keeps the Colleges and Universities in the US out of the business of professional sports, but still allows them to share the profits of their media rights deals and gameday activities with ALL the people involved in putting a product in the stadium.

Go Vols!

 

[butchna]

If you'd asked most of us about 10 years ago if we ever thought the state of TN would sue the NCAA, we'd have laughed at you.

But here we are.

Also, I'm not convinced the next target of lawsuits won't be the NCAA eligibility rules. Why, if the players are employees, should their eligibility be limited?

It's a big mess. The NCAA should've been planning for these issues for decades.

Don’t see the correlation between a legal dispute against the NCAA and the forming of UNIONS. Jerry Tarkanian sued the NCAA decades ago and held serve pretty well.

I’m completely CONVINCED that the Supreme Court will never declare a student a lifetime employee…they all went to college!

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The model I favor most, so far, is not the "university employee" approach.

I prefer this idea:

* Start with NIL collectives, which allow boosters (fans with deep pockets) to legally pay athletes in appreciation for their service to the university team. That doesn't change in this model.

* But since that doesn't get at gate receipts or media income gathered by the university, we need to add a "school slice." This isn't NIL, as we know it today. This is separate. This is the university saying that since it gathered $xxx last year from football, each football player will receive a share. It may be small, like one-tenth of one percent to each student, but something. Same for the basketball team: the sport generates revenue, so shares go out to the players. Same for the swim team, if people ever start paying to go to their meets or watch them on TV.

So a player in a non-revenue sport, like Olivia Dunne at LSU, still has the right to benefit financially from her being, her NIL. But she doesn't get any shares from the university because gymnastics doesn't generate revenue. Meanwhile, a football player benefits by receiving his share from the University's profits in the sport. And if he's a guy like Nico, he can receive both NIL income from Spyre (the boosters, basically) and a share of the school's profits.

I call this the "booty" model, because it works kinda like pirate crews often did. The pirates weren't normally employees of the captain, the head pirate. They were all independent, and could sign on for, or turn down, each cruise. So their compensation was agreed in shares of the loot. Common seamen might get a quarter-share, while the officers got a full share and the captain got a double or triple share.

Add up all the crew by their share value, and you get a total number. Divide the loot by that number, and you know how much one share is worth. Then sell the loot, get cash, and pass it out when you get back to port.

The booty model would work just fine in college sports. Let the student athletes remain student athletes, not employees. But compensate them based on the revenue they and all their teammates and coaches generate.

An example: say UT grosses $200m in gate receipts, parking lots, and media contracts in 2025. And say $150m of that is poured back into facilities, scholarships, and paying for the non-revenue-generating sports, leaving $50m in profit. And say it has been pre-determined that the head coach receives 12 shares, his OC and DC each get 3 shares, and all other coaches are paid 1.5 shares. GAs, analysts, nutritionists, etc. all get a fifth of a share. Players (scholarship and non-scholarship alike) get a tenth of a share.

So let's add it up: 12 (HC) + 3 (OC) + 3 (DC) + 12 (the other 8 Asst Coaches) + 20 (the 100 GAs and analysts) +12.5 (125 players on roster) == 62.5 shares.

That means the $50m profit, divided by 62.5 shares, yields $800k per share.
-- Head Coach gets 12 shares times $800k per share = $9.6m
-- OC and DC get 3 * $800k = $2.4m
-- Other asst coaches get 1.5 * $800k = $1.2m each
-- GAs and analysts get 0.2 * $800k = $160k each
-- Players receive 0.1 * $800k = $80k each.

And each year the loot is divvied up that way.

That keeps the Colleges and Universities in the US out of the business of professional sports, but still allows them to share the profits of their media rights deals and gameday activities with ALL the people involved in putting a product in the stadium.

Go Vols!

First, +1 for "booty model" because every man is a 13yo boy to some extent.

I like it. Maths are hard but we have a great school of business and accounting.

I'm unsure if that would run afoul of the Title rules, not that I think it does, I'm just not a fan nor have I looked too far into all those rules.

I think you'll end up with players (and coaches also, perhaps) wanting "collective bargaining" to jostle for a bigger piece of the pie, but I think you're making a good, solid stab at being fair to everyone with the plan.

It strikes me a little as "shareholders" or "co-op members" and that seems a little odd but the whole situation is new and strange.

Given the disparity of the SEC and B1G in media revenue, the ACC and Big 16? would surely take a hit in recruiting.

I like it. I'm in. Well done. If nothing else, I just want to be able to recruit with "we've got great booty at UT."

 

[Delmar]

I get the dislike of unions. I never said it was good, only that it's coming. I don't believe all schools will unionize, immediately at least, but the high revenue schools will have players who look at the success pro players have had with their unions and probably push for it.

It's just part of the slide toward the players being considered employees. It's not at all good but we're seeing signs: the NCAA lawsuits everywhere, the SEC and B1G talking about how to move on, the players getting the NLRB onboard, the NCAA suggesting some schools SHOULD develop their own NILs to compensate players, etc.

I've hoped this would take a lot longer but things seem to be accelerating.

I think that is the most important point. Unions may be a stretch but the idea of employee/contracts is most certainly in play.

 

[Delmar]

The model I favor most, so far, is not the "university employee" approach.

I prefer this idea:

* Start with NIL collectives, which allow boosters (fans with deep pockets) to legally pay athletes in appreciation for their service to the university team. That doesn't change in this model.

* But since that doesn't get at gate receipts or media income gathered by the university, we need to add a "school slice." This isn't NIL, as we know it today. This is separate. This is the university saying that since it gathered $xxx last year from football, each football player will receive a share. It may be small, like one-tenth of one percent to each student, but something. Same for the basketball team: the sport generates revenue, so shares go out to the players. Same for the swim team, if people ever start paying to go to their meets or watch them on TV.

So a player in a non-revenue sport, like Olivia Dunne at LSU, still has the right to benefit financially from her being, her NIL. But she doesn't get any shares from the university because gymnastics doesn't generate revenue. Meanwhile, a football player benefits by receiving his share from the University's profits in the sport. And if he's a guy like Nico, he can receive both NIL income from Spyre (the boosters, basically) and a share of the school's profits.

I call this the "booty" model, because it works kinda like pirate crews often did. The pirates weren't normally employees of the captain, the head pirate. They were all independent, and could sign on for, or turn down, each cruise (kinda like players using the transfer portal). So their compensation was agreed in shares of the loot. Common seamen might get a quarter-share, while the officers got a full share and the captain got a double or triple share.

Add up all the crew by their share value, and you get a total number. Divide the loot by that number, and you know how much one share is worth. Then sell the loot, get cash, and pass it out when you get back to port.

The booty model would work just fine in college sports. Let the student athletes remain student athletes, not employees. But compensate them based on the revenue they and all their teammates and coaches generate.

An example: say UT grosses $200m in gate receipts, parking lots, and media contracts in 2025. And say $150m of that is poured back into facilities, scholarships, and paying for the non-revenue-generating sports, leaving $50m in profit. And say it has been pre-determined that the head coach receives 12 shares, his OC and DC each get 3 shares, and all other coaches are paid 1.5 shares. GAs, analysts, nutritionists, etc. all get a fifth of a share. Players (scholarship and non-scholarship alike) get a tenth of a share.

So let's add it up: 12 (HC) + 3 (OC) + 3 (DC) + 12 (the other 8 Asst Coaches) + 20 (the 100 GAs and analysts) +12.5 (125 players on roster) == 62.5 shares.

That means the $50m profit, divided by 62.5 shares, yields $800k per share.
-- Head Coach gets 12 shares times $800k per share = $9.6m
-- OC and DC get 3 * $800k = $2.4m
-- Other asst coaches get 1.5 * $800k = $1.2m each
-- GAs and analysts get 0.2 * $800k = $160k each
-- Players receive 0.1 * $800k = $80k each.

And each year the loot is divvied up that way.

That keeps the Colleges and Universities in the US out of the business of professional sports, but still allows them to share the profits of their media rights deals and gameday activities with ALL the people involved in putting a product in the stadium.

Go Vols!

Isn’t that what I said in a previous post? Profit sharing based on what your sport brings in? It’s still going to require some sort of player contract.

Also, I don’t see how any of this keeps the universities from looking more like pro sports.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I think that is the most important point. Unions may be a stretch but the idea of employee/contracts is most certainly in play.

I'm afraid so, but I don't see that as a positive thing for most schools. Most schools simply can't afford to pay anything to players.

How things are divided up and who needs to be in the "non contract NCAA 2.0" and the "contract NCAA 2.0" and who decides all that are the questions that will decide the fate of many athletic departments.

Creating the NCAA 2.0 is going to be a massive and complex job. It's got an immediate target on its back.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Isn’t that what I said in a previous post? Profit sharing based on what your sport brings in? It’s still going to require some sort of player contract.

Also, I don’t see how any of this keeps the universities from looking more like pro sports.

I don't know, I didn't read your previous post. All these NIL/Portal threads have become too much to keep up with 100%.

I don't know if it makes them look like pro sports or not. That's not the main point, at least not for me. It can "look like" whatever. As long as we find a way to retain the "student" in "student athlete," things are okay. I think.

And yes, there are ways to compensate them for the revenue they help generate and still keep the focus on why the universities exist (academics). The booty system I described above seems like it may square that circle.

That's what I'm hoping we come out of all this with.

Go Vols!

 

[Voltopia]

Also, I'm not convinced the next target of lawsuits won't be the NCAA eligibility rules. Why, if the players are employees, should their eligibility be limited?

This is a big point that I'm surprised people don't take more serously. Once the players are made employees -- that is, once they're no longer competing as a student but merely as an employee of the school -- then why would eligibility matter anymore? If they're just workers working for the school's professional sports team, and they're not participating in the educational process, who cares if they're there seven years? Or ten years?

There won't be "freshmen" anymore, just rookies. There won't be "seniors" anymore, because they're not matriculating at the school. In fact, all that college nonsense like "senior day" won't even need to take place anymore, because the team won't be students working toward degrees. And frankly, it'd seem pretty weird to even associate the two.

This isn't a have-your-cake-but thing. Placing limits on eligibility is the tool the NCAA used to control a lot of the enforcement, and people wanted that tool removed from their hands. Well, it's removed. People want the players to be treated like professionals, so be it, but you can't pick some of being a professionally employed person but reject other parts. That's the argument underpinning all these legal assaults on college athletics, and it's pretty much and all-or-nothing proposition. That argument may "fix" things some people don't like about college sports, but it won't stop there.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

This is a big point that I'm surprised people don't take more serously. Once the players are made employees -- that is, once they're no longer competing as a student but merely as an employee of the school -- then why would eligibility matter anymore? If they're just workers working for the school's professional sports team, and they're not participating in the educational process, who cares if they're there seven years? Or ten years?

There won't be "freshmen" anymore, just rookies. There won't be "seniors" anymore, because they're not matriculating at the school. In fact, all that college nonsense like "senior day" won't even need to take place anymore, because the team won't be students working toward degrees. And frankly, it'd seem pretty weird to even associate the two.

This isn't a have-your-cake-but thing. Placing limits on eligibility is the tool the NCAA used to control a lot of the enforcement, and people wanted that tool removed from their hands. Well, it's removed. People want the players to be treated like professionals, so be it, but you can't pick some of being a professionally employed person but reject other parts. That's the argument underpinning all these legal assaults on college athletics, and it's pretty much and all-or-nothing proposition. That argument may "fix" things some people don't like about college sports, but it won't stop there.

Well said and it creates a "didn't make in the NFL, okay, so I'll drop back down to college and work on a degree for a career" market.

You've done 3 years at a school, given the NFL combine a shot, gotten as far as you could, so you come back to be an employee at TN AND since the school is right there, work a deal for a little less money and finish your degree. It's not a loss for that mindset.

But it screws up the connection to the schools fundamentally, as you say. If you've watched any G League NBA games, you see a mix of guys who will never make big leagues and some young guys who are just too raw but getting there. It's a weird league to get excited about.

I fear the "college game" won't be very college connected because you could easily have grown, veteran players making young guys look very foolish.

Particularly in basketball, someone like LeBron isn't as incredible as he was in the NBA but imagine he and Bronny at USC and LeBron might persuade somebody like Gasol to do a year and just tear up March Madness for the sheer fun of it.

 

[Voltopia]

I fear the "college game" won't be very college connected because you could easily have grown, veteran players making young guys look very foolish.

A thousand preceent this. How many great players have we seen graduate from Tennessee but not get into the NFL? Or great basketball players who couldn't quite crack the NBA draft? Good but not-quite-good-enough? Well hell, why go into the "real world" for a lousy 9-5 job, if you're good enough to draw six figures and play another five or six years at Tennessee? Plus all the benefits of that kickass athletic center, the local stardom, the continued brand equity, sponsorships, etc? Come on back, Chris Lofton! We'll give you six figures and a killer open buffet bar.

Of course, there's a lot of obvious and disruptive downside in this, in terms of big name athletes taking what's left and leaving none for up-and-comers as you say, but in a pay-for-play world purely focused on the here and now, who would care?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

A thousand preceent this. How many great players have we seen graduate from Tennessee but not get into the NFL? Or great basketball players who couldn't quite crack the NBA draft? Good but not-quite-good-enough? Well hell, why go into the "real world" for a lousy 9-5 job, if you're good enough to draw six figures and play another five or six years at Tennessee? Plus all the benefits of that kickass athletic center, the local stardom, the continued brand equity, sponsorships, etc?

Of course, there's a lot of hidden downside in this, in terms of big name athletes taking what's left and leaving none for up-and-comers as you say, but in a pay-for-play world purely focused on value, who would care?

I can see some pushback to the school for taking the veterans but the objective is to field the best team possible. Proven, seasoned veterans who may have competed at the highest level vs a high school kid is going to often, not always but often give the edge to the veteran.

Most athletes will probably have had enough if they can't make the league but we see a lot of athletes go overseas when they can't play in the US. "College" would offer an option.

 

[Hairy Vols]

Perhaps you've missed the Alston vs NCAA decision. The SCOTUS strongly hinted that the NCAA is in violation of Antitrust Laws and that the "student athlete" business model was illegal. They didn't say D1 had a problem, they said the ENTIRE NCAA had a problem with how it does business.

The NCAA itself is suggesting some schools should start their own NIL, essentially saying "maybe some of you should pay players."

Yes, I hope they can sort out the divisions and not destroy D2 and D3, but the NCAA is the current umbrella organization for most athletics in America.

Either way, as we see the SEC and B1G meeting, the best path is for the big money schools is to get out of the NCAA and into pro sports.

Do you think colleges should own pro sports franchises? It's fine if you do, but I don't see how that fits with the mission of an educational institution.

The mission of education fell flat once they started to raise education prices by 20x inflation followed with unlimited loans to fresh 17 and 18 year olds.

Schools, like any other business, are in the business of profit.