This describes what has happened to college football perfectly.

[hog88]

With multi-year contracts, what's to keep the kid from just cruising after getting paid? I assume you'd not expect kids to agree to "you have to stay with us 4 years, but we can cut you at any time" deals. That's not going to recruit well. I get it. You want the balance of power back to the schools: we'll tell you when you can transfer and we'll tell you when you got recruited over and need to leave.

Those days are gone. Schools are not treating the kids like property anymore.

I'd think the people running these collectives would be smart enough to not pay everything up front. And nothing would stop a player from jumping ship at anytime, they just couldn't sign another NIL deal if still under contract. Adults sign contracts every day, when (if) they go pro they will sign a contract so I don't know why this idea has you all hysterical.

Plus this wouldn't be applicable to players who sign NIL deals outside of a collective which are few.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I'd think the people running these collectives would be smart enough to not pay everything up front. And nothing would stop a player from jumping ship at anytime, they just couldn't sign another NIL deal if still under contract. Adults sign contracts every day, when (if) they go pro they will sign a contract so I don't know why this idea has you all hysterical.

Plus this wouldn't be applicable to players who sign NIL deals outside of a collective which are few.

I'm not sure "non compete" contracts for "non employees" is a workable situation. The collective STILL isn't connected to the school and cannot combine "you have to do this for the university" with their deals.

The NCAA is CONSIDERING letting schools give NIL deals but currently a player can sign a deal with anyone.

Ewers "skip high school" deal is still in effect and was with a TX based card company, I think, even though he signed with Ohio State. The deals CANNOT currently be connected to the schools.

 

[Voltopia]

I don't want them to change the transfer rules, I think the NCAA has finally got them right. All I'm proposing is to allow (not mandate) the collectives to offer multi-year deals and if the athlete agrees then they can't transfer and sign another NIL deal while still under contract. They can still transfer under the NCAA rules but couldn't shop their NIL for a better deal if under contract.

Meh, that's just a variation of the old transfer policy situation, where student athletes could choose to transfer whenever they wanted but had to sit out one year to become eligible at their new school. The "pro-capitalism free market you can't tell players what to do" crowd hated that, and they'll hate your proposed arrangement just as much. In their minds, there should be no ability to place conditions on anything the players want to do. Zero. And if you do want to place any conditions, you have to make them employees so that you can set employment terms. You gotta give 'em a contract -- but not a scholarship contract because that's pure evil. Short of making them employees, schools shouldn't be able to tell them diddly squat.

 

[LouderVol]

What other amateur program restricts members from their name etc....how about every other sport on any given college or university ? Swimming, baseball, softball, track and field, they are all just like college football

yeah, and that was deemed unConstitutional. 9-0. I was looking for something that hadn't been thrown out in our highest court.

 

[hog88]

I'm not sure "non compete" contracts for "non employees" is a workable situation. The collective STILL isn't connected to the school and cannot combine "you have to do this for the university" with their deals.

The NCAA is CONSIDERING letting schools give NIL deals but currently a player can sign a deal with anyone.

Ewers "skip high school" deal is still in effect and was with a TX based card company, I think, even though he signed with Ohio State. The deals CANNOT currently be connected to the schools.

Yes, I know that currently these deals cannot be connected to attendance or performance. That is what I am suggesting be changed and allow deals that do require attendance.

For probably 99% of student athletes their only NIL money comes from booster collectives so I don't think it's unreasonable for the people giving to these collectives to expect players to stay. What I'm proposing wouldn't be a requirement but a simple change in the rules allowing collectives to offer 2-3 year deals or until graduation. I'm not proposing anything be mandated and nothing would force the collectives to go beyond what is currently allowed. Still there would be nothing stopping an athlete from transferring if they signed one of these contracts, they just couldn't sign another NIL deal while still under that contract.

 

[TheDeeble]

To me, it's more of a problem with the transfer rules than anything else. I'm all for the players being able to make money, but these guys transferring multiple times without progressing toward a degree needs to stop.

Hopefully, some of this will clear up as the guys with the extra Covid year finish going through the system in the next year or so.

I'm thinking the same. The ease of transfer is causing half the chaos. Player NIL is causing the other half. The NCAA can't do anything about player NIL. But transfer rules could be adjusted to limit player movement some and that would probably be well within their rights still.

 

[hog88]

I'm thinking the same. The ease of transfer is causing half the chaos. Player NIL is causing the other half. The NCAA can't do anything about player NIL. But transfer rules could be adjusted to limit player movement some and that would probably be well within their rights still.

Sure instituting stricter transfer rules is within the NCAAs rights but is it right? IMO since most athletic scholarships are year to year after an athlete completes that year they have fulfilled their obligation and should be allowed to leave without penalty.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

yeah, and that was deemed unConstitutional. 9-0. I was looking for something that hadn't been thrown out in our highest court.

That’s just another arm of the government.

 

[LouderVol]

That’s just another arm of the government.

yeah, I saw that....addition to the conversation.

I wonder how some of these posters feel about people unionizing or just in general fighting for better wages. I wonder how often they go around telling other adults that they "already earn enough, and shouldn't ask for more". I bet they tell their kids all the time to take the lowest paying job they can fine, and just be happy with it. no matter how much they work, or produce, just be happy with what you are given.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Yes, I know that currently these deals cannot be connected to attendance or performance. That is what I am suggesting be changed and allow deals that do require attendance.

For probably 99% of student athletes their only NIL money comes from booster collectives so I don't think it's unreasonable for the people giving to these collectives to expect players to stay. What I'm proposing wouldn't be a requirement but a simple change in the rules allowing collectives to offer 2-3 year deals or until graduation. I'm not proposing anything be mandated and nothing would force the collectives to go beyond what is currently allowed. Still there would be nothing stopping an athlete from transferring if they signed one of these contracts, they just couldn't sign another NIL deal while still under that contract.

Once the NCAA changes to let NIL be given by the schools or controlled by the schools, they're giving up on the "they're student athletes, not employees" argument. If you're giving them NIL deals tied to playing specifically for your school, you're paying them to play....... you're employing them as players.

If you want to tie their money to playing for your school, it's obviously an employee relationship.

From there, the "student-athlete" model becomes the "pro athlete" and it's over for college sports.

 

[Kylo]

Two cartoons that capture the current zeitgeist of NIL, "Amateur athletes", coaches and administrators.

View attachment 601471
View attachment 601472

This is laughable at best. The problems of college football have zero to do with players FINALLY profitting off of their own face and name. This is nothing but talking the easy target. Heaven forbid the kids actually playing see a tiny portion of the dollars they bring in.

 

[hog88]

Once the NCAA changes to let NIL be given by the schools or controlled by the schools, they're giving up on the "they're student athletes, not employees" argument. If you're giving them NIL deals tied to playing specifically for your school, you're paying them to play....... you're employing them as players.

If you want to tie their money to playing for your school, it's obviously an employee relationship.

From there, the "student-athlete" model becomes the "pro athlete" and it's over for college sports.

I think giving the schools control over NIL is a terrible idea, it should be left to the booster collectives. Or individual deals.

Have you ever worked as a contractor? You're not an employee but have obligations you must fulfil under your contract so a collective contracting with an athlete to play for X wouldn't make the athlete an employee of the school.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I think giving the schools control over NIL is a terrible idea, it should be left to the booster collectives. Or individual deals.

Have you ever worked as a contractor? You're not an employee but have obligations you must fulfil under your contract so a collective contracting with an athlete to play for X wouldn't make the athlete an employee of the school.

Yes, as a contractor you CAN have other jobs and that person you signed with cannot usually (unless both agree) restrict your ability to work with someone else.

That's the rub. Players aren't going to sign with schools that want to "multi year" NIL them. If you're proposing the NCAA mandate that, that's obviously collusion to prevent players from earning more money.

 

[hog88]

Yes, as a contractor you CAN have other jobs and that person you signed with cannot usually (unless both agree) restrict your ability to work with someone else.

That's the rub. Players aren't going to sign with schools that want to "multi year" NIL them. If you're proposing the NCAA mandate that, that's obviously collusion to prevent players from earning more money.

At no time did I ever propose mandating multi-year deals, I specifically said no mandate just allow. It would be between the athlete and the collective to agree. Your star athletes would probably say no to such a deal but the option would be there. Heck it might even increase the potential earnings of the rank and file athletes, securing the services of a center for 3 seasons might incentivize the collective to offer more.

 

[GAVol]

yeah, I saw that....addition to the conversation.

I wonder how some of these posters feel about people unionizing or just in general fighting for better wages. I wonder how often they go around telling other adults that they "already earn enough, and shouldn't ask for more". I bet they tell their kids all the time to take the lowest paying job they can fine, and just be happy with it. no matter how much they work, or produce, just be happy with what you are given.

It's a classic case of how willing people are to be cavalier with someone else's time, health and money.

Just look at the 2nd pic in the OP. A moral compass? Really?

 

[turbovol]

You "preserve the college game by not paying players" people lost the war. It will never go back to be players having to own access to their NIL being removed and no they cannot "cap it."

Grown ass men on here still crying about athletes making money. Unless you have a Delorean powered by Ukraine uranium traveling at 77MPH you are SOL. Put your big boy pants on and move on.

Check with athletic directors and ask how they feel about taking $200+ million out of the budget to pay kids who are already getting full scholarships. Nothing changed in college sports except for the rise of the "give us free money" crowd.

 

[hog88]

Check with athletic directors and ask how they feel about taking $200+ million out of the budget to pay kids who are already getting full scholarships. Nothing changed in college sports except for the rise of the "give us free money" crowd.

Funny coming from a guy in the "give us free money crowd".

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

At no time did I ever propose mandating multi-year deals, I specifically said no mandate just allow. It would be between the athlete and the collective to agree. Your star athletes would probably say no to such a deal but the option would be there. Heck it might even increase the potential earnings of the rank and file athletes, securing the services of a center for 3 seasons might incentivize the collective to offer more.

I can see it being good for the schools but why would a "rank and file" guy want to tie themselves in at a school where they could get recruited over and be unable to transfer and play?

It's not a good deal if you're a marginal player because if you're jumped over, you are stuck with your NIL, can't sign elsewhere and transfer, so you won't get to play.

 

[hog88]

I can see it being good for the schools but why would a "rank and file" guy want to tie themselves in at a school where they could get recruited over and be unable to transfer and play?

It's not a good deal if you're a marginal player because if you're jumped over, you are stuck with your NIL, can't sign elsewhere and transfer, so you won't get to play.

Maybe because the rank and file athletes aren't getting much if anything right now. And if they don't want to sign a 2-3 year deal then they don't have to. I just don't get your opposition to allowing multi-year deals.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Maybe because the rank and file athletes aren't getting much if anything right now. And if they don't want to sign a 2-3 year deal then they don't have to. I just don't get your opposition to allowing multi-year deals.

What I see in it is an attempt to get the school back in power:

We'll sign you and give you a multi year NIL deal to keep you at our school.

If we recruit over you, tough crap.... just like before you can't easily transfer and we're not going to play you, but you'll still get paid the NIL.

The school ends up paying for athletes they don't use. The player doesn't get to play or transfer.

Unless your idea is: well if the school recruits over them, they can release the NIL and let them transfer.

Then you REALLY just want the schools to have all the power in transfers.

 

[hog88]

What I see in it is an attempt to get the school back in power:

We'll sign you and give you a multi year NIL deal to keep you at our school.

If we recruit over you, tough crap.... just like before you can't easily transfer and we're not going to play you, but you'll still get paid the NIL.

The school ends up paying for athletes they don't use. The player doesn't get to play or transfer.

Unless your idea is: well if the school recruits over them, they can release the NIL and let them transfer.

Then you REALLY just want the schools to have all the power in transfers.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

I said they need to keep the current transfer rules so an athlete could transfer if recruited over.
The school pays nothing because I said it needs to remain with the booster collectives and not be placed under the control of the school.
These athletes are adults and in the real world people get recruited over if they are not performing.
The school has no power over anyone. Any contract would be with the collective.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

I said they need to keep the current transfer rules so an athlete could transfer if recruited over.
The school pays nothing because I said it needs to remain with the booster collectives and not be placed under the control of the school.
These athletes are adults and in the real world people get recruited over if they are not performing.
The school has no power over anyone. Any contract would be with the collective.

I don't understand where the "multi year" does anything if the kid can just transfer and get another deal. What's the difference?

If the deal doesn't have some penalty if they transfer, how is it different? If the collective is going to try to tell them they CAN'T sign another deal even if they transfer, that's a hard no from everyone.

 

[LouderVol]

Check with athletic directors and ask how they feel about taking $200+ million out of the budget to pay kids who are already getting full scholarships. Nothing changed in college sports except for the rise of the "give us free money" crowd.

you expect schools to pay NFL levels of money?

A top Georgia/Bama school would probably pay something like:
I would expect it to be at most 10 guys making up to 5 million a year.
And then maybe 20 making up to 2 million a year. that would cover the starters.
you probably have another 20 making 1 million a year. those would be back ups or your top end recruits.
The other 35ish players are probably making less than 500k a year.
Thats at most $130 million, and thats for the tip top school playing the tip top players and rounding up and assuming every player makes pretty good money. most schools won't even be half that. heck NFL league minimum is half the smallest number I listed to make up the 130 million. most places are going to pay out less 30 million a year I would imagine. only the title chasers would make it close to 100 million.

 

[Gandalf]

you expect schools to pay NFL levels of money?

A top Georgia/Bama school would probably pay something like:
I would expect it to be at most 10 guys making up to 5 million a year.
And then maybe 20 making up to 2 million a year. that would cover the starters.
you probably have another 20 making 1 million a year. those would be back ups or your top end recruits.
The other 35ish players are probably making less than 500k a year.
Thats at most $130 million, and thats for the tip top school playing the tip top players and rounding up and assuming every player makes pretty good money. most schools won't even be half that. heck NFL league minimum is half the smallest number I listed to make up the 130 million. most places are going to pay out less 30 million a year I would imagine. only the title chasers would make it close to 100 million.

I think your numbers, even at a top program, are dreaming.

The reality is that football or basketball (at schools like UConn) make the money so that they can pay for all the other sports like women's lacrosse, that nobody watches but are still part of the athletic program. If football and basketball are actually run like a business, expect MASSIVE Title IX lawsuits incoming.

Also why, in agreement with @hog88 , the NIL must stay OUTSIDE of the school, even though closely coordinated. Otherwise, there are too many complications that are undesirable for both players and administrations.

 

[LouderVol]

I think your numbers, even at a top program, are dreaming.

The reality is that football or basketball (at schools like UConn) make the money so that they can pay for all the other sports like women's lacrosse, that nobody watches but are still part of the athletic program. If football and basketball are actually run like a business, expect MASSIVE Title IX lawsuits incoming.

Also why, in agreement with @hog88 , the NIL must stay OUTSIDE of the school, even though closely coordinated. Otherwise, there are too many complications that are undesirable for both players and administrations.

Oh I know the numbers are way high. I was just trying to illustrate the point that the OP was getting beyond ridiculous with his 200 million dollar claim.

Title IX doesn't apply to employees. If the school stops spending on male sports, there would be no requirement that they have to spend any on female sports. Title IX is one of the reasons why the old way of college football is dying/dead. its just straight up socialism and that doesn't tend to work out too well.