NCAA proposing new rules to allow schools to pay athletes directly

[turbovol]

I believe Kiffin and Ole Miss almost got sued or are being sued because they basically tried to get rid of a student by assigning him to a different position. They tried to run him off, which is what coaches have done for years.

Scholarships are yearly. There ARE expectations and you CAN be dismissed and players are for not meeting team expectations and following team rules. Though it seldom happens because coaches tend, as above, to make it clear the player needs to leave, scholarships can simply not be renewed. That is a worse case scenario because it looks bad in recruiting if it gets out.

When the athletes become employees, they'll unionize immediately. They may unionize even before they are declared employees and they'll have a grievance/discipline appeal process like you probably have at work now. They'll engage in collective bargaining like pros for minimum salaries and such.

The worst of this is what could happen to the other sports AND the end of recruiting. Pro sports need a draft and league salary caps and have them to keep parity in the league. Without it, pro college sports will be dominated by large markets. I always liked the recruiting surprises.

Non revenue sports are in trouble if schools have to pay all the athletes. There's no way around that.

And why would schools agree to players unionizing? How would a state school react to that? Most private U.S. businesses/industries violently oppose efforts by their employees to unionize--see recent battles at Starbucks and Amazon. Are schools going to keep paying to educate their employees if they're obligated to pay them as employees? I wouldn't. You're adding another huge expenditure on top of the huge expenditure of annual cash payments.

 

[turbovol]

You're definitely getting why the employee thing is a disaster for college sports. Please don't think I support it. I just see it as inevitable from all the stuff I've read after Alston.

Colleges will, as I've said, need to decide if they want to be in that business. They already ARE in a huge sports business. The SEC signed a billion+ deal with ESPN. It's hard to sign a huge media deal like that and not claim you're in the sports business.

UT will get something like $50million a year for the media rights to an amateur football team? That's crazy. It's impossible for that kind of business to argue "we're just a simple group of student athletes who like to play ball." C'mon.

Yes, everybody looks at the first part of the college football business--the huge rights payments and the revenue the sport generates for the athletic department. But they ignore the second part--that a massive chunk of that revenue goes to support/finance 15-18 other sports that bring in no money and never will. So, yes, it's a big business but not in any way a conventional business, because conventional businesses don't give a big chunk of their earnings every year to charitable enterprises---i.e., non-revenue sports. This is precisely why many/most major athletic departments are said to lose money! I would think that would be a major argument in favor of keeping amatuerism in college sports.

 

[Flipdaddy]

Yeah!!! The NCAA wants involved!!!

 

[butchna]

Do you really think the world would care about a player's brand if that player was not a well-known player playing football / basketball for a major university? They profit off the publicity that is provided from being associated with the university and appearing every Saturday playing football on TV.

If they want to push an individual brand unrelated to football and not use the football platform to promote it - I have no problem with that. Let them. But that is not what I see happening.

It doesn’t matter what the “world cares”…it’s value assessed. Without movies and resulting Academy Awards, Tom Hanks isn’t a multi-millionaire. But that’s the compensation for being a STAR. Chicken and egg arguments never end well for the studios but up until recently had been cloaked with the bogus student-athlete amateur bs…in a multi-billion dollar entertainment monster. Networks aren’t ponying up for staid administration and rules enforcers. Coaches been reaping for what they deliver and now the product has been empowered by the highest court. What’s a “platform” if you don’t care what’s on it?

 

[butchna]

The proposal is around the concept of the University paying the athletes for their brand while they are at the school. That would imply to me that it is no longer an individual thing for each player to go out there and sell their own brand or if they do the brand they sell would not be connected to the university.

In reality the players are using their connection to the school to sell their brand. In the real business world, a person would pay for that.

This proposal is the NCAA trying to get NIL under control.

Orange referenced the mythological Trojan Horse and he’s dead on! NCAA wants to dispense what THEY believe is the value of said brand and you can trust only that they’ll skim that and dispense relative pennies on the dollar. Tell me, do NFL or NBA players make more money from official league products or their own deals? Is Lebron a billionaire if the NBA had handled his endorsements? Rhetorical…don’t trouble yourself sputtering an answer.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

And why would schools agree to players unionizing? How would a state school react to that? Most private U.S. businesses/industries violently oppose efforts by their employees to unionize--see recent battles at Starbucks and Amazon. Are schools going to keep paying to educate their employees if they're obligated to pay them as employees? I wouldn't. You're adding another huge expenditure on top of the huge expenditure of annual cash payments.

If the players are declared employees, they vote to unionize because the schools can't stop them. Because they've seen it work for the NFL and NBA players VERY successfully, it's a certainty.

And no, the "student" part disappears quickly also and the players are paid "athletes" only. Scholarships disappear. Housing disappears.

The "student-athlete" model will be completely dead once the courts tell the schools the players are employees. It destroys the college part of college football.

 

[volfan102455]

If you want to decree that student-athletes are "employees" and paid as such, then it's time, as others have suggested, to ditch the college part of college football altogether. Forget classes and degrees. Regular workers and pro athletes aren't obligated to work AND go to class. Just split college football off into its own pro entity--no college. We'll be the Tennessee Volunteers--a pro team--as opposed to the University of Tennessee Volunteers. But who would own, then, the Tennessee Volunteers? And how would a university--without football---be able to support any other sports at all? It probably wouldn't--and so that's not going to happen. Why should today's student-athetes get to have it both ways--a scholarship worth $250K and a free college degree AND you get rich, too? Damn. It should be the end of the athletic scholarship, no? My feeling is that if the courts want to make college players pro athletes, then they should also mandate that schools can drop all scholarships and academic requirements for football players. Why should the school offer scholarships AND pay "employees"?

The power T, the Tennessee orange color, the Tennessee logo, etc. are trademarks and thus Brands owned by the University of Tennessee. They would have to be paid for and you can bet those would not be cheap for a business to purchase or lease. One only has to look at the price difference in stores between merchandise that carries the official logos and colors compared to those that don't. You can purchase a "not quite the Tennessee orange" shirt but close enough much cheaper than the one that is true "Tennessee Orange".

At the major universities, like Tennessee - you know the ones that make the money for the media, facilities, administration offices, equipment is generally owned by the University.

The SEC logos and such are also Brands of the SEC.

Removing the "college" aspect and the current conference aspect would take a huge investment if the intent is to just lift and shift. The other approach is to start new, which then means the companies have to build their brand and encourage those that donate to the universities to come along for the ride. Because of the investment all colleges that play these sports would not exist - only those that can turn a profit will exist. That will not be as many as what you all think. More than likely most of the Division 2 and 3 and non P5 schools are history.

A ruling to give a student athlete a level of compensation similar to other students who may have part time jobs within the university system to assist with their needs while in school is one thing - earmarking them as "professional athletes" is a totally different thing. I actually worked within the university system while I attended. I was NOT considered an employee but the work /compensation was connected to my financial need as a student to attend school. It offset my school and personal needs while I attended. It was also connected to my success while in school as I had to carry / complete a certain number of credits per quarter / semester.

And the concept of allowing any student to create their own and unique brand outside of the connection to the university is different from a student exploiting the university brand to build their brand, or the university using the success of that student-athlete to sell merchandise connected directly to that student. Using a jersey analogy. A Tennessee jersey with a specific number on it with no reference to any player that has worn that jersey should not result with dollars to a player that has in the past or is currently using that number but put a name on it and that is different.

 

[thebane5]

Fine, then let the student also pay for their education out of that money.

I had to work while I attended school to PAY for my education.

Agree, agree, agree. I don't understand why an athlete receiving NIL still gets a free education. I love me some VOLS, but there are a lot of students out there paying their own way, or even forgoing college due to lack of funds, all while athletes receiving NIL are getting scholarships on top of the NIL.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Agree, agree, agree. I don't understand why an athlete receiving NIL still gets a free education. I love me some VOLS, but there are a lot of students out there paying their own way, or even forgoing college due to lack of funds, all while athletes receiving NIL are getting scholarships on top of the NIL.

Because their value to the school is as an athlete is worth the education + NIL. The market sets the wages.

If we DIDN'T offer the scholarship + whatever NIL Nico gets, he would take his skills elsewhere. That's how the market works for workers.

The NIL "bidding" for athletes only proves the schools are running what is essentially a pro sports business and the scholarship ISN'T covering the value of the services the players bring to the university.

 

[Sarms58]

If they put together a committee to work this out I hope they reach out to Jeremy Pruitt - he has a great deal of experience.

 

[thebane5]

Because their value to the school is as an athlete is worth the education + NIL. The market sets the wages.

If we DIDN'T offer the scholarship + whatever NIL Nico gets, he would take his skills elsewhere. That's how the market works for workers.

The NIL "bidding" for athletes only proves the schools are running what is essentially a pro sports business and the scholarship ISN'T covering the value of the services the players bring to the university.

Why would Nico take his skills elsewhere? Did you think I was suggesting that only the VOLS eliminate scholarships for those that receive NIL? Nope, it should be across the board. Think about it, what was the original reason to grant student athletes scholarships? That reason no longer exists for those getting NIL.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Why would Nico take his skills elsewhere? Did you think I was suggesting that only the VOLS eliminate scholarships for those that receive NIL? Nope, it should be across the board. Think about it, what was the original reason to grant student athletes scholarships? That reason no longer exists for those getting NIL.

They'll just have to raise the NIL. It's a bidding war for services and Nico's talent means he can make money now to play. That money INCLUDES the scholarship value + NIL.

You can get mad and say, "if you get NIL, you don't get a scholarship" and that's fine but prepare to lose talent to schools who tell the same athlete, "we've got NIL for you and this scholarship."

It's just like hiring workers: salary + benefits = compensation.

Maybe you can't offer as much money but you've got great benefits or maybe you can offer a big paycheck but your benefits are shaky.

Either way, Nico like all athletes now, was looking for compensation that adds up to what his services are worth. Neither JUST a scholarship nor JUST NIL is likely to get him to UT.

 

[jvol1]

I agree with the idea of spinning the sport off into its own business, but I completely disagree with letting them license the school naming rights. If they're going to be operated as professional teams with no college connection, they have no business being connected to schools. It'd be beyond farcical. Who cares about which school-branded purchased team of professional players can beat another's? Nothing to do with the schools. So get it out.

Better idea - spin these little pro-am teams off, take their TV money with them, and let the schools get back to having actual student-athletes.

Okay, but university affiliation would allow schools to make some money for use of the name and the stadiums, as opposed to none, and maybe keep the flavor of the sport a little.

 

[thebane5]

They'll just have to raise the NIL. It's a bidding war for services and Nico's talent means he can make money now to play. That money INCLUDES the scholarship value + NIL.

You can get mad and say, "if you get NIL, you don't get a scholarship" and that's fine but prepare to lose talent to schools who tell the same athlete, "we've got NIL for you and this scholarship."

It's just like hiring workers: salary + benefits = compensation.

Maybe you can't offer as much money but you've got great benefits or maybe you can offer a big paycheck but your benefits are shaky.

Either way, Nico like all athletes now, was looking for compensation that adds up to what his services are worth. Neither JUST a scholarship nor JUST NIL is likely to get him to UT.

Apparently no one in here can read or understand. What's so hard about the concept that no school is allowed to offer a scholarship to an athlete getting NIL?? It's simple, that completely removes the argument of losing out to another school that offers NIL + scholarship. Ok, everyone understand now?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Apparently no one in here can read or understand. What's so hard about the concept that no school is allowed to offer a scholarship to an athlete getting NIL?? It's simple, that completely removes the argument of losing out to another school that offers NIL + scholarship. Ok, everyone understand now?

What part of: it doesn't matter you'll still have to cover the cost of their education with the NIL are you missing?

It's not about the scholarship, it's about the worth of the athlete's talent. You're going to have to pony up the money for good skilled players EITHER as NIL or scholarship money.

If you don't compensate the players, they won't come to play for you. The NCAA ISN'T creating more restrictions on what schools can offer because they've seen, we've all seen, that boosters will just slip an envelope covering that tuition, board, books, etc to the players if you restrict benefits.

Besides, with the Alston Supreme Court decision which dealt SPECIFICALLY with the NCAA restricting educational benefits, the NCAA lost 9-0 with the court saying restricting scholarship benefits for athletes was not legal.

 

[The Original Fade]

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh teed this up for the players in the NIL decision.
NCAA is going to lose on compensation vs amateurism.
The writing is on the wall.

It will simply be up to the NCAA and the big money programs, to figure out how they want to structure the system for wages/salary while athletes keep their amateur status.
The NCAA has 100% incentive to figure this out so it can continue to exist at the will of the Top 50 programs.
Otherwise it will be defanged and only overseeing the have-nots of the college athletics world.

It will divide the haves vs the have-nots in ways we can only begin to fathom. Talk about a recruiting advantage

 

[volfan102455]

What part of: it doesn't matter you'll still have to cover the cost of their education with the NIL are you missing?

It's not about the scholarship, it's about the worth of the athlete's talent. You're going to have to pony up the money for good skilled players EITHER as NIL or scholarship money.

If you don't compensate the players, they won't come to play for you. The NCAA ISN'T creating more restrictions on what schools can offer because they've seen, we've all seen, that boosters will just slip an envelope covering that tuition, board, books, etc to the players if you restrict benefits.

Besides, with the Alston Supreme Court decision which dealt SPECIFICALLY with the NCAA restricting educational benefits, the NCAA lost 9-0 with the court saying restricting scholarship benefits for athletes was not legal.

The key word for the court case is "educational benefits".

The Alston Supreme Court ruling was very specific to the "student" part of the "student-athlete" designation. I took the ruling as one which says a "student-athlete" should be treated the same as any other student in terms of what financial aid can cover. The non-athlete students are sometimes compensated for the situations included depending upon the program / scholarship / financial aid etc. they have. The financial aid a student can receive today will factor in housing, room and board and other typical costs associated with their education. And depending upon need the grants may actually cover that. My understanding is that the original case was a situation where an athlete was not being compensated while non-athletes were being compensated.

The case dealt with the NCAA’s restrictions on providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships, which the NCAA maintained was to prevent the appearance that the student athletes were being paid to play or treated as professional athletes.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The key word for the court case is "educational benefits".

The Alston Supreme Court ruling was very specific to the "student" part of the "student-athlete" designation. I took the ruling as one which says a "student-athlete" should be treated the same as any other student in terms of what financial aid can cover. The non-athlete students are sometimes compensated for the situations included depending upon the program / scholarship / financial aid etc. they have. The financial aid a student can receive today will factor in housing, room and board and other typical costs associated with their education. And depending upon need the grants may actually cover that. My understanding is that the original case was a situation where an athlete was not being compensated while non-athletes were being compensated.

The case dealt with the NCAA’s restrictions on providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships, which the NCAA maintained was to prevent the appearance that the student athletes were being paid to play or treated as professional athletes.

Exactly. And in the 9-0 opinion, Justice Gorsuch proceeded to tell the NCAA that the student-athlete model was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. NOT A SINGLE JUSTICE FILED A BRIEF TO DISAGREE WITH HIS MAJORITY COURT OPINION.

Basically, the Supreme Court told the NCAA that the players ARE employees and legally will be ruled to be employees and the amateur student-athlete model is dead in the water.

You may dislike Harvard all you wish but they have a decent law school. Here is what their review said of Justice Kavanaugh's addition to the Gorsuch opinion. And again, not a single justice filed an opinion disagreeing in any way.

"Although the Supreme Court did not have occasion to review the NCAA’s rules regarding compensation unrelated to education, its decision laid the groundwork for the dismantling of those rules in future proceedings. Prior to Alston, the Supreme Court had not definitively stated whether the NCAA’s compensation rules were subject to the rule of reason test under the Sherman Act; now that the Court has clarified that they are, the remaining restrictions on compensation cannot pass scrutiny. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence already raised serious concerns about the legality of the remaining rules by arguing that the NCAA cannot justify restricting compensation “by calling it product definition." But neither Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence nor the majority opinion analyzed a separate doctrinal hurdle for the NCAA: multimarket balancing. The NCAA’s justification for its remaining rules — that they enhance collegiate athletics by distinguishing them from professional sports — impermissibly balances harm in the labor-side market against benefits in the consumer-side market, benefits that do not accrue to the parties harmed by the challenged restraints (the student athletes). The NCAA’s sole justification for its remaining rules is therefore not a valid procompetitive justification and accordingly does not satisfy the second prong of the rule of reason test. Alston’s subjecting the NCAA’s compensation rules to the rule of reason test, combined with the established impermissibility of multimarket balancing, therefore opens the door to further changes in the future of United States amateur athletics."

NCAA v. Alston - Harvard Law Review

In January of 2021, as the coronavirus pandemic reached its peak in the United States, Alabama Crimson Tide football coach Nick Saban won his...

harvardlawreview.org

 

[lukeneyland]

You mean like pro athletes can't just jump teams or decide to quit without losing benefits?

So you mean contracts that treat the players as pro employees?

Yes

 

[DeerPark12]

Truckers work for private businesses. They work. The University of Tennessee is not a private business, and students spend most of their days studying, not "working." They are obligated to do go to class--and pass their classes. It's not optional. As mentioned, there's never been a market value for student-athletes because they've always been considered---and I would say rightly so, yea?---STUDENTS--even if one wants to argue that they "work" part-time after school, playing a sport. Students equal amateurs. Of course, they've always been rewarded for their part-time work, yes, with a full 4-year scholarship worth a helluva lot of money. So they are not "working" for nothing--and it's the scholly that has been key to retaining the amateurism in college sports.

If you want to decree that student-athletes are "employees" and paid as such, then it's time, as others have suggested, to ditch the college part of college football altogether. Forget classes and degrees. Regular workers and pro athletes aren't obligated to work AND go to class. Just split college football off into its own pro entity--no college. We'll be the Tennessee Volunteers--a pro team--as opposed to the University of Tennessee Volunteers. But who would own, then, the Tennessee Volunteers? And how would a university--without football---be able to support any other sports at all? It probably wouldn't--and so that's not going to happen. Why should today's student-athetes get to have it both ways--a scholarship worth $250K and a free college degree AND you get rich, too? Damn. It should be the end of the athletic scholarship, no? My feeling is that if the courts want to make college players pro athletes, then they should also mandate that schools can drop all scholarships and academic requirements for football players. Why should the school offer scholarships AND pay "employees"?

I don’t know a single student athlete that has ever spent more time on their studies than they did on their sport. They didn’t do it in the 70s, didn’t do it in the 80s, didn’t do it in the 90s, and certainly do not do it now. Even in non-revenue sports, student athletes spend more than half their day on sports, between practice, lifting, treatment, mandatory team meals, film sessions, it all adds up. You’re correct they only practice for two hours a day, but they spend more time on their sport outside of practice than they do in practice. The NCAA only limits what you can do from an on field practice and meeting standpoint. Nobody does the minimum.

 

[volfan102455]

The ruling did NOT dictate that they were to become employees. That ruling only addressed the decision to be made. Kavanaugh went off the deep end in trying to explain / justify the rationale of ruling the way he did.

I personally think the university should give these athletes a compensation summary view of what they are being provided. Estimated costs per year to attend UT-Knoxville:

- In state residents: 32K
- Out of state residents: 51K

That is for the education part. This doesn't include the following:

- Television exposure the athletes receive
- Weight room and physical training
- Training by qualified coaches in their sport
- Personal training around how to handle the publicity (interviews, media sessions and stuff)
- Tutoring for the educational part
Etc.

It adds up.

Now if the player is not interested in the education and just sees this as a mean to getting to the next level, they probably don't care about the education part. But the part that speaks to assisting them at the next level is worth $$$'s as well.

If they want to be an employee, let them pay for all.

 

[volfan102455]

I don’t know a single student athlete that has ever spent more time on their studies than they did on their sport. They didn’t do it in the 70s, didn’t do it in the 80s, didn’t do it in the 90s, and certainly do not do it now. Even in non-revenue sports, student athletes spend more than half their day on sports, between practice, lifting, treatment, mandatory team meals, film sessions, it all adds up. You’re correct they only practice for two hours a day, but they spend more time on their sport outside of practice than they do in practice. The NCAA only limits what you can do from an on field practice and meeting standpoint. Nobody does the minimum.

The same is true of many non-athletes. I don't think there is much difference in the ratio, its just the activities that a student chooses and the grades they are willing to accept.

One thing I have tried to explain to those who ask me what to expect with college is that every professor will give assignments like that is the only class you have. Unless you are super smart, you could be the best student in high school and average in college unless you plan to just study all the time. So you either have no life and concentrate for 4 years with a payoff after you graduate, or you find the balance knowing you are not going to graduate at the top of your class.

In general, the education system at the high school level, could do a better job at preparing students for the transition to college. It is and can be brutal.

 

[midtnvol2]

Oh Boy. Huge ramifications.

This will cause sports to be cut within programs.

Now University employees requiring full benefits

WAGE laws since they are no longer amateur Athletes

Oh boy, I could go on but being administered by school with no cap, for all those unhappy with NIL, this is full out pro sports

Wonder if ticket costs will go up, LOL

What will go up is tuition for regular students. This will cause large amounts of cash to go to athletics, and create short falls in the rest of the university which will cause tuition to go up drastically. I have been fearing this the entire time. A college education is crazy expensive now and it’s going to get worse!

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The ruling did NOT dictate that they were to become employees. That ruling only addressed the decision to be made. Kavanaugh went off the deep end in trying to explain / justify the rationale of ruling the way he did.

I personally think the university should give these athletes a compensation summary view of what they are being provided. Estimated costs per year to attend UT-Knoxville:

- In state residents: 32K
- Out of state residents: 51K

That is for the education part. This doesn't include the following:

- Television exposure the athletes receive
- Weight room and physical training
- Training by qualified coaches in their sport
- Personal training around how to handle the publicity (interviews, media sessions and stuff)
- Tutoring for the educational part
Etc.

It adds up.

Now if the player is not interested in the education and just sees this as a mean to getting to the next level, they probably don't care about the education part. But the part that speaks to assisting them at the next level is worth $$$'s as well.

If they want to be an employee, let them pay for all.

If Gorsuch or Kavanaugh went off the deep end, the other justices were WELCOME and ENCOURAGED to disagree with that opinion or amend it with their thoughts and disagreements. That's how the Supreme Court works. Often justices "agree in part" or "disagree in part" and file separate opinions.

As the Harvard Law Review suggested, the Supreme Court without any disagreement, opened the door by ruling college football IS subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act and that their argument that "it's for the public good that we are an amateur organization" harms the athletes.

I'm just telling you the NCAA is parked on the train tracks and the legal train is coming. The Supreme Court sounded the train whistle with Alston and the NCAA is looking for some way to push the car off the tracks with this new proposal.

Going "halfsies" with NIL isn't going to satisfy the problem the Harvard Law Review lays out: the NCAA can't claim "but we have to be amateur because that's what the people want" when that amateur status involves not compensating players at their market value.

For instance, Peyton Manning received (above the table) a scholarship to UT and had great career. In 1998 let's say that scholarship was worth $1M. A few months later, he signed with the Colts and received a $11+M signing bonus + $7+M / yr salary. Did Peyton improve that much in a few months or was he under compensated at UT?

 

[SpookyAction]

If the players are declared employees, they vote to unionize because the schools can't stop them. Because they've seen it work for the NFL and NBA players VERY successfully, it's a certainty.

And no, the "student" part disappears quickly also and the players are paid "athletes" only. Scholarships disappear. Housing disappears.

The "student-athlete" model will be completely dead once the courts tell the schools the players are employees. It destroys the college part of college football.

All of this is really beyond the scope of whether we like it or agree to it.
It is happening and the only things to hash out is what the system is going to look like and what obligations the schools will continue to have toward the players, and vice versa.
This is going to be messy. Schools that do the best jobs of simplifying this for their players will have advantages.

I think the smart move for the NCAA is to negotiate a solution allowing student athletes to be employees and obligated to be students as well.

I can't think of a legal impediment to doing it. I worked for my school system for 3 years with the agreement I had to be taking classes to get a new certification and complete the certification process by the end of the 3rd year.

If the schools and NCAA can't work this out, the athletes will be legally declared employees sooner rather than later, and will then have all of the leverage in the short run, without NCAA or Conference guidelines. They could unionize. They could possibly sit out seasons to receive better compensation.

It is in the interest of the NCAA to make this happen now or it could lose oversight of the money-making sports if they spinoff in their own direction. A tiered system is probably inevitable.

It will make wages taxable, which will change things because state tax rates will become a factor for players choosing colleges. I guess it already is a factor with NIL, I just hadn't thought much about it before.

Scholarships are not taxable, and would continue to be lucrative compensation.