Welcome to College Football 2024!

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

lol you are probably still in college or High school.

Hardly. I'm well into Medicare and expecting a new hip this year.

This is the most conservative Supreme Court we've had in a long time. They ruled 9-0 that the NCAA couldn't restrict scholarship/academic compensation. Justice Kavanaugh essentially told the NCAA that the players are employees and would be ruled as such if it came to the Supreme Court.

The NLRB recently ruled Dartmouth bball players could unionize, as employees, and they did. USC players are seeking the same recognition and likely winning.

This is inevitably leading to the NCAA losing a "players are employees" lawsuit.

Will it ruin college sports? Yes. Are college sports more important than the rule of law? Not even close.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Generally speaking, being rewarded has always been a big incentive to work harder. Iows, ain't nobody going to be giving kids money very long if they don't work hard and produce.

Alot of people ease off when they get ahold of some money, especially those that didn't do much to earn it to start with. These high school kids haven't accomplished anything really and are getting paid mostly on potential. It's going to be an interesting sociological experiment, like defunding the police and legalized hard drugs.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Hardly. I'm well into Medicare and expecting a new hip this year.

This is the most conservative Supreme Court we've had in a long time. They ruled 9-0 that the NCAA couldn't restrict scholarship/academic compensation. Justice Kavanaugh essentially told the NCAA that the players are employees and would be ruled as such if it came to the Supreme Court.

The NLRB recently ruled Dartmouth bball players could unionize, as employees, and they did. USC players are seeking the same recognition and likely winning.

This is inevitably leading to the NCAA losing a "players are employees" lawsuit.

Will it ruin college sports? Yes. Are college sports more important than the rule of law? Not even close.

We've had this discussion before, and you are right UNLESS Congress passes a full or partial/conditional antitrust exemption.

 

[GAVol]

Alot of people ease off when they get ahold of some money, especially those that didn't do much to earn it to start with. These high school kids haven't accomplished anything really and are getting paid mostly on potential. It's going to be an interesting sociological experiment, like defunding the police and legalized hard drugs.

It will definitely be interesting to see how this all plays out after 2-3 years when there’s a little more idea of what the ROI for NIL really is and if anybody even cares.

 

[VolinMichigan]

Alot of people ease off when they get ahold of some money, especially those that didn't do much to earn it to start with. These high school kids haven't accomplished anything really and are getting paid mostly on potential. It's going to be an interesting sociological experiment, like defunding the police and legalized hard drugs.

I mean, some of these kids have worked hard and sacrificed a lot of the things that we may have experienced in high school or considered a normal part of going to high school. They aren’t just handed a check for a million as soon as they move into the dorms. These are contracts with obligations on both sides.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

It will definitely be interesting to see how this all plays out after 2-3 years when there’s a little more idea of what the ROI for NIL really is and if anybody even cares.

I think if things remain as they are the value of high school kids will end up dropping significantly and the $ will mostly go to more proven commodities like transfers. It will probably be extremely rare for a kid to play for one school his whole career.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I mean, some of these kids have worked hard and sacrificed a lot of the things that we may have experienced in high school or considered a normal part of going to high school. They aren’t just handed a check for a million as soon as they move into the dorms. These are contracts with obligations on both sides.

I don't think there is enough that is really known about these deals to say what they are. Certainly many are having access to money they never dreamed of at age 18, I think alot of kids are probably being taken advantage of too. Again, it's going to be an interesting sociological experiment. These days we often have to actually fly the plane into the mountain to realize it was a bad idea. I am learning to enjoy it, since there is nothing I can do to stop it anyway.

 

[OrangeVolMan]

Everybody made money off of college football except the players.

They are going to school free, eating free, living free, getting tutoring free, etc. They were fine.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

We've had this discussion before, and you are right UNLESS Congress passes a full or partial/conditional antitrust exemption.

Right. Depending on Congress, which is notoriously ineffective, for an Antitrust Exemption is a helluva thing to hope for.

Even with an Antitrust Exemption, it's unlikely IMO that Congress can somehow legally pass legislation that "college athletes are all amateurs" even when it's obvious schools are paying some of them professional level compensation via NIL.

The Antitrust Exemptions in place for the pro sports DO provide some protection and allow regulation but those being regulated in return can use collective bargaining via unions because they are employees.

Players as employees in college is the end of lots of sports because schools can't afford that payroll. It's terrible but it's definitely coming.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

They are going to school free, eating free, living free, getting tutoring free, etc. They were fine.

They absolutely were not free.
They worked extremely hard year round for it.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Right. Depending on Congress, which is notoriously ineffective, for an Antitrust Exemption is a helluva thing to hope for.

Even with an Antitrust Exemption, it's unlikely IMO that Congress can somehow legally pass legislation that "college athletes are all amateurs" even when it's obvious schools are paying some of them professional level compensation via NIL.

The Antitrust Exemptions in place for the pro sports DO provide some protection and allow regulation but those being regulated in return can use collective bargaining via unions because they are employees.

Players as employees in college is the end of lots of sports because schools can't afford that payroll. It's terrible but it's definitely coming.

Totally agree with your first paragraph. After that again, After that, Congress can do what it wants here, there is not a Constitutional restriction. If they wanted to say, college students are amateurs they could 1000% do it, since the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts are Congress's own laws. As a practical political reality though, some sort of conditional/partial exemption whereby revenue sharing with the players is mandatory would the most likely compromise to pass. I think some sort of revenue sharing is a fait accompli politically, I do NOT think employment status necessarily is, and there is going to be ALOT of bipartisan support for whatever saves women's collegiate athletics (that lose alot of money) and that may be what leads to a deal where neither side gets everything they want.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Totally agree with your first paragraph. After that again, After that, Congress can do what it wants here, there is not a Constitutional restriction. If they wanted to say, college students are amateurs they could 1000% do it, since the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts are Congress's own laws. As a practical political reality though, some sort of conditional/partial exemption whereby revenue sharing with the players is mandatory would the most likely compromise to pass. I think some sort of revenue sharing is a fait accompli politically, I do NOT think employment status necessarily is, and there is going to be ALOT of bipartisan support for whatever saves women's collegiate athletics (that lose alot of money) and that may be what leads to a deal where neither side gets everything they want.

My faith in Congress to pass something to fix this mess isn't very strong.

I just think it's extremely contradictory to have revenue sharing without employee status.

Forcing a business to share revenue with non-stockholders or non-employees is just bizarre. What's the justification? "They help you earn the money via their labor." That sounds a lot like an employer - employee relationship.

I'm definitely not an attorney and I've seen some ridiculous things come out of DC, so you may be right.

 

[kell7517]

But you do care. If he was getting nothing but a scholarship, do you think he would have come to UT? NIL is just the next evolution of the college game and it’s not going anywhere. Either get on board or exit to the left.

Actually I don’t. Watched before they were getting NIL. So that stumps your ignorant take on it. But you don’t seem to understand the point anyways.

 

[kell7517]

Absolutely not! That's like saying that Patrick Mahomes should pay the Chiefs to play because he gets State Farm Endorsement money.

Non starter.

That is about the dumbest take out there. You think Mahomes’ house was given to him, his car or any other luxuries he has? He paid for them. So if a player is getting paid NIL. Then he or she can pay for their education.

 

[kell7517]

They absolutely were not free.
They worked extremely hard year round for it.

Did they use the University’s facilities? Did they use the University’s trainers, coaches. Teachers for tuition. Did they pay for them?

 

[greenbacknative]

I know, right? All 18yo freshmen at UT are rolling in new cars that are well north of $100k.

Jealous, much?

Show us your ride from when you were 18.

I had a 63 Volkswagen beetle that needed a push to start .... that's why I always had a buddy with me...

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

My faith in Congress to pass something to fix this mess isn't very strong.

I just think it's extremely contradictory to have revenue sharing without employee status.

Forcing a business to share revenue with non-stockholders or non-employees is just bizarre. What's the justification? "They help you earn the money via their labor." That sounds a lot like an employer - employee relationship.

I'm definitely not an attorney and I've seen some ridiculous things come out of DC, so you may be right.

As we've discussed before it happens in other contexts were the parties are in a mutually beneficial relationship but all of the entrapments and implications of employment status are not ideal, a common example being real estate agents in many states and their broker. I share your skepticism about Congress's competence (just not their legal authority in this situation) but the wildly different economic circumstances of the college sports and the political desire to save all of them may make the employment solution unfeasible because really it would only make sense for football and maybe men's basketball, none of the rest of the sports would be solvent for a month.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

That is about the dumbest take out there. You think Mahomes’ house was given to him, his car or any other luxuries he has? He paid for them. So if a player is getting paid NIL. Then he or she can pay for their education.

They CAN pay for their education and they CAN be paid less NIL.

Do you think UT and other schools are just willy-nilly handing out scholarships and NIL money? They consider who to offer scholarships and how much to offer in NIL to make the offer competitive with other schools.

Players have options. The school makes offers and shows off the facilities, the stadium, the campus, etc to recruits to make them want to come.

NIL is part of that now but it doesn't forgo the scholarship.

So yes, they COULD pay for their education but the school wants them, it's a competitive market for elite players, so they offer the scholarship AND the NIL.

This isn't a difficult concept. It's a competition for a small group of elite athletes. If you want them, you offer them a scholarship. If you REALLY want them you offer them a scholarship and NIL deal. If you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want them, you offer the scholarship and a very large NIL deal.

Why is this hard for you to grasp?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

As we've discussed before it happens in other contexts were the parties are in a mutually beneficial relationship but all of the entrapments and implications of employment status are not ideal, a common example being real estate agents in many states and their broker. I share your skepticism about Congress's competence (just not their legal authority in this situation) but the wildly different economic circumstances of the college sports and the political desire to save all of them may make the employment solution unfeasible because really it would only make sense for football and maybe men's basketball, none of the rest of the sports would be solvent for a month.

I just wonder how the "compensated but not an employee" concept can stand a legal challenge by the other athletes.

Suggesting "it's all about how much money they help the school make" seems really weak. So, a tennis player for the team who works hard in matches, practices hard, represents the school well, etc is "not worth paying by the school" but a football player is? I'm not an attorney nor judge but yikes, that's a long, long way from where collegiate sports belongs in my mind.

 

[kell7517]

They CAN pay for their education and they CAN be paid less NIL.

Do you think UT and other schools are just willy-nilly handing out scholarships and NIL money? They consider who to offer scholarships and how much to offer in NIL to make the offer competitive with other schools.

Players have options. The school makes offers and shows off the facilities, the stadium, the campus, etc to recruits to make them want to come.

NIL is part of that now but it doesn't forgo the scholarship.

So yes, they COULD pay for their education but the school wants them, it's a competitive market for elite players, so they offer the scholarship AND the NIL.

This isn't a difficult concept. It's a competition for a small group of elite athletes. If you want them, you offer them a scholarship. If you REALLY want them you offer them a scholarship and NIL deal. If you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want them, you offer the scholarship and a very large NIL deal.

Why is this hard for you to grasp?

Apparently you can’t grasp it. Because the University doesn’t offer NIL. And I know how it works. Don’t need you to try and make yourself look smart on my account. And the beginning of this discussion was the players are finally getting paid when others are saying they wasn’t. But yet you veer off onto some other tangent. For no reason or maybe to stroke your all-knowing ego. Not sure.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Apparently you can’t grasp it. Because the University doesn’t offer NIL. And I know how it works. Don’t need you to try and make yourself look smart on my account. And the beginning of this discussion was the players are finally getting paid when others are saying they wasn’t. But yet you veer off onto some other tangent. For no reason or maybe to stroke your all-knowing ego. Not sure.

Oh sure, the school has nothing to do with NIL officially. Even if I bought how that "works" (like the school had no idea the boosters paid players,) it doesn't change the market.

UT COULD make athletes getting big NIL deals walk on but Bama wouldn't and would negative recruit us with "Are you going to let them treat you like that?"

It's competitive. People get paid lots of money AND get scholarships because it's very competitive.

You can tilt against windmills all day but the reason money flows AND scholarships are offered is obvious.

 

[Visiting Dawg]

Did they use the University’s facilities? Did they use the University’s trainers, coaches. Teachers for tuition. Did they pay for them?

I hate this argument. The facilities and all the other things you seem to consider as perks have absolutely nothing to do with an individual kid that signs to play big time football. The facilities that are built to attract recruits are there as an investment in the program in order to attract the kids that will bring in more money. The training staff, player cafeterias and nutrition plans are there to turn these freaks of nature into super humans to win more games and make more money. The tutors and academic assistance are there to keep the kids eligible in order to win more games and make more money for the programs.

Bottom line is these kids have all historically been on a one yr contract and have to perform to a certain level in order to have their contract renewed. They bust their buts in order to return and continue their dream and they aren't given anything. They earn their keep as well as earn enough to build facilities, pay coaching staffs millions of dollars and fund hundreds of schollies for kids in non revenue producing sports. I'd say they are entitled to a slice of the revenue pie as well since they are the main ingredients.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I just wonder how the "compensated but not an employee" concept can stand a legal challenge by the other athletes.

Suggesting "it's all about how much money they help the school make" seems really weak. So, a tennis player for the team who works hard in matches, practices hard, represents the school well, etc is "not worth paying by the school" but a football player is? I'm not an attorney nor judge but yikes, that's a long, long way from where collegiate sports belongs in my mind.

The "legal challenge" aspect dies with the exemption. You can't challenge someone for violating a law they have been exempted from. There will ultimately be a compromise, it will result in athletes receiving money from the schools, but how that ends up looking in the end is far from certain and is not likely to make either "side" entirely happy.

 

[Hairy Vols]

As I’ve said before. The players made money and had extra benefits. It’s called a full scholarship, free medical care and nutrition program. Free tuition and so on.

That's called pennies to millions. That is nothing compared to what the schools are making off their skill set. They deserve and now are getting much more.

 

[Hairy Vols]

Here you go most intelligent one. The guys who make more are of more value? Because the qb, wr and rb aren’t any good if the OL isn’t doing their jobs. So an OL “value” should be just as high. No? Also it’s called a team. So why shouldn’t all players be paid the same? With scholarships, they are. And they “all” are representing the name on the front of the jersey, not the back. Can go on but I would
Think you see my point by now. If not, bless your heart,is all I can say.

the QB, RB, and WR sell more jerseys. They bring more national attention... which all things point towards... you gussed it. More money, lol.