A radical idea that would increase parity

[VAVol85]

These aren't salaries. These are individual contracts.

The NFL, MLB, etc DO NOT ADDRESS the money players make from endorsements (other than morality/taste rules.)

You cannot justify regulating personal income.

I did not propose to regulate personal income. That would require an anti-trust exemption. I think it would be sufficient to limit the number of transfers that the top ten teams can sign.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Actually I think a lot of kids would be pretty cheesed off at having to spend "their money" on school expenses just to play ball. Never mind that they only have the money in the first place because of the school.

It just adds another level of "elite"to the mix.

Elite enough to get one of the few scholarships + NIL money or elite enough to get NIL money and no scholarship.

As an athlete, you are going to be ranked over and over and over again. If you get cheesed that Bama didn't offer you, there's probably a reason......

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I did not propose to regulate personal income. That would require an anti-trust exemption. I think it would be sufficient to limit the number of transfers that the top ten teams can sign.

Walk ons. If you're making enough money, tuition is not a worry. Encourage walk ons with big NIL deals and they aren't scholarship players.

 

[DeepSpringsVol]

Fictionally this is a neat idea. Non fictionally this is a terrible idea. So you arent just penalizing the teams that excel. Youre also punishing athletes that are on border line of division 1 offer. 85 scholarships times roughly 120 teams for example as I cant remember how many are in division 1 is... 10,200 kids get school paid for. Under your proposal by my math...
15+14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7
+6+5+4+3+2+1 is 120 kids who either have to walk on or play at lower level which of course trickle effects kids at lower levels getting booted. Also don't forget schools have Title IX requirements. On campus alot of the womens scholarships count by how many mens athletic scholarship are involved. I can promise you your superior teams if they have scholarship cuts drastically they will cut out a whole non revenue sport altogether to make up the difference.

I am sorry I the Have Nots could compete better with the Haves but this way is not the way to do that.

 

[sjt18]

Doesn't that just push the same old "envelopes under the table" back into existence?

If NIL caps are there, the top schools still have ways of getting money into the hands of a player and have for decades and decades.

I see a cap as punt, not a real solution.

Probably but the current system has pretty obvious flaws and especially in the short term. In the long term, NIL's supported by fan enthusiasm and consumption could possibly even level the field. If I lived in TN then I know that player NILs would influence my purchasing choices. At some point, opportunities to support NILs through on-line businesses will enable folks like me to help out.

However the short term could blow everything up. The rich could get so rich that no one can catch up.

Now would be a REALLY good time for a radical realignment. Something like 8 conferences of 10 or 12 teams each divided into 2 divisions. You could also go with 4 conferences of 16 teams. Teams can play cross division games but only games within the division should count toward a championship berth. UT could continue to play Bama each year but would not be penalized. The conference championships would amount to the first round of the CFB playoff. Eight CHAMPIONS would then play a randomly selected tournament for the national championship.

 

[sjt18]

Walk ons. If you're making enough money, tuition is not a worry. Encourage walk ons with big NIL deals and they aren't scholarship players.

LWSVol posted some rules concerning NIL. One of them says they cannot be contingent on attending a particular school. Again we're faced with the likelihood that such a rule would be broken pretty easily with "winks"... but there are some "safe guards" against that idea.

 

[DaddyChad]

Best thing that could happen is capping NILs for first year players at a school. It would reduce some of the nonsense of ppl paying so much for a high school kid. Have that cap increase with years at a program which would reduce transfers somewhat. Never happen but it would get the NIL money to be a lesser factor in someone choosing a school.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Probably but the current system has pretty obvious flaws and especially in the short term. In the long term, NIL's supported by fan enthusiasm and consumption could possibly even level the field. If I lived in TN then I know that player NILs would influence my purchasing choices. At some point, opportunities to support NILs through on-line businesses will enable folks like me to help out.

However the short term could blow everything up. The rich could get so rich that no one can catch up.

Now would be a REALLY good time for a radical realignment. Something like 8 conferences of 10 or 12 teams each divided into 2 divisions. You could also go with 4 conferences of 16 teams. Teams can play cross division games but only games within the division should count toward a championship berth. UT could continue to play Bama each year but would not be penalized. The conference championships would amount to the first round of the CFB playoff. Eight CHAMPIONS would then play a randomly selected tournament for the national championship.

What would really be a solution is to change the model to a professional league for most SEC and B1G teams and affiliate with the NFL.

Colleges that aren't affiliated could maintain the "amateur student athlete" model and those that are could do away with the ruse that they're playing "student athletes" and move on to the next era.

Schools on the pro side could cap, organize players, etc from NFL rules helping keep parity.

Schools on the amateur side could reorganize to keep the "student athlete" model going.

 

[VAVol85]

Walk ons. If you're making enough money, tuition is not a worry. Encourage walk ons with big NIL deals and they aren't scholarship players.

Following the pro sport model, college teams would have roster caps. So, letting stars walk-in with NIL deals would be okay, but they would still count against the roster cap.

With my proposal to limit transfers, the number of transfers on the roster would be limited based on the teams prior year record.

 

[ArmchairQB]

The NLRB shot down Northwestern a few years back when its football team wanted to be recognized as university employees and get the right to collectively bargain. NIL is just another check mark in the ledger of what everyone already knows. These football players are a product in a multibillion dollar industry, and they should get paid. As soon as that idea takes root, parity among P5 conferences will be a thing they suddenly want to hash out.

They get NIL rights because they're football players, and they can monetize that pretty much as a function of their own talent and whose uniform they put on. That's independent of talking about parity here, but the fact that they have value to monetize in the first place is an important part of the broader conversation. When we rip off the band aid and stop calling this some tradition that bears absolutely zero resemblance to whatever was happening a century ago or even a couple decades ago, we can start making some real changes. We're lucky to be where we are, to be honest, because the SEC is going to do what it needs to do to protect its product.

As to keeping up with 'Bama, though, just do better.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Too many teams warehouse talent. UGA, BAMA, Ohio St and a few others have 20-30 players every year setting on the bench that could start elsewhere. Many other teams in the Power 5 conferences have lesser numbers of good players riding the pine. Limit the number of scholarships to 20 and up to 5 portal transfers. Limit the maximum number scholarships to about 70-75. That might mean that some years you can sign fewer than 20 but that ok. Depth at some positions may be a problem from time to time but hey that's where coaching comes in. You may have to teach a linebacker to play TE for a while.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Following the pro sport model, college teams would have roster caps. So, letting stars walk-in with NIL deals would be okay, but they would still count against the roster cap.

With my proposal to limit transfers, the number of transfers on the roster would be limited based on the teams prior year record.

I can see this making the bidding war for recruits more intense because transfers are limited. I get that.

I don't see it creating parity because an elite team just outbids for the new recruits (walk on or transfer) and trims the roster accordingly.

You end up with the pro model of "cut day" when teams get down to roster numbers.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I want to knock Bama off their perch because we fought our way back to the top of the pile, not because some rules committee flattened the pile to make everyone the same height.

Play the game. Not the rulebook.

Go Vols!

 

[ArmchairQB]

You end up with the pro model of "cut day" when teams get down to roster numbers.

Cut day's an interesting thing to think about. By some miracle, NFL teams are supposed to make do with a 53 man roster and a practice squad. There's something in there to consider, as far as some teams being able to stockpile talent and how the NCAA max roster size affects that.

 

[GoVols64]

and should be easy to implement.

First....do away with the December signing date and return to the spring signing date.

Second.... after the FBS Championship game the 15 highest ranked teams would be limited in the number of recruits and transfers they could sign the next year based on their ranking. Number One would be limited to 15 fewer than what their limit would otherwise be. Number 2 limited to 14 fewers, number 3 limited to 13 fewer, number 4 limited to 12 fewer, number 5 limited to 11 fewer....etc., etc.

Teams ranked number 16 or less would have no reduction.

Probably the only teams that would be opposed to this would be the teams that have been able to stockpile high ranked players, three deep.

Why would we limit a kids options so other teams can have a better chance at parity? This is athletics, not socialism.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Cut day's an interesting thing to think about. By some miracle, NFL teams are supposed to make do with a 53 man roster and a practice squad. There's something in there to consider, as far as some teams being able to stockpile talent and how the NCAA max roster size affects that.

Pro teams have taxi/practice squads similar to college scout teams.

We'll know NIL has arrived when Bama has intermural flag football players with NIL deals.

 

[VOLnVANDYland]

and should be easy to implement.

First....do away with the December signing date and return to the spring signing date.

Second.... after the FBS Championship game the 15 highest ranked teams would be limited in the number of recruits and transfers they could sign the next year based on their ranking. Number One would be limited to 15 fewer than what their limit would otherwise be. Number 2 limited to 14 fewers, number 3 limited to 13 fewer, number 4 limited to 12 fewer, number 5 limited to 11 fewer....etc., etc.

Teams ranked number 16 or less would have no reduction.

Probably the only teams that would be opposed to this would be the teams that have been able to stockpile high ranked players, three deep.

College football doesn’t want more parity, they want more money.Every rule change that has occurred since the BCS days has benefited the top teams because that’s what brings in the most $$$. Let’s stop the sham and just call this the NFL minor league

 

[Raebo]

I think the 1 time transfer rule will help with parity. Look at how many decent players are transferring because they happen to be number 2 on their team.
I do wonder what the result would be if we lowered the number of scholarships to 70 or 75.
Expanding the number of teams in the CFP should also help.

 

[sjt18]

The NLRB shot down Northwestern a few years back when its football team wanted to be recognized as university employees and get the right to collectively bargain. NIL is just another check mark in the ledger of what everyone already knows. These football players are a product in a multibillion dollar industry, and they should get paid.

Simple answer. No. Your premise and conclusion have NOTHING to do with each other. Women's tennis makes no money. Should those athletes have to pay into the AD rather than getting a scholarship? Baseball players? Swimmers?

My son serves in the Air National Guard. He is a "product" in a multi-trillion dollar economy... he obviously "should" make a couple of hundred thousand per year... right? His educational benefits don't really count as compensation, right? His health care (he pays a small premium) doesn't count either, right? Your "should" is a moral judgment about an agreement between two other parties... in which you have no part.

What "should" have happened is that we should have preserved amateur athletics. A minor league for the NFL could have easily been formed for guys solely interested in making money. What SHOULD have happened is strict and aggressive enforcement of the rules.

 

[J C Higgins]

and should be easy to implement.

First....do away with the December signing date and return to the spring signing date.

Second.... after the FBS Championship game the 15 highest ranked teams would be limited in the number of recruits and transfers they could sign the next year based on their ranking. Number One would be limited to 15 fewer than what their limit would otherwise be. Number 2 limited to 14 fewers, number 3 limited to 13 fewer, number 4 limited to 12 fewer, number 5 limited to 11 fewer....etc., etc.

Teams ranked number 16 or less would have no reduction.

Probably the only teams that would be opposed to this would be the teams that have been able to stockpile high ranked players, three deep.

Some responses:

The object of the proposal is not to penalize the teams that have the best records but to increase parity, an idea professional sports endorsed long ago. They realize the long term success of their organizations and investments lies in parity. And I doubt there’s a “socialist” among a franchise holder of any professional sport.

The 15 team number is arbitrary. It could be the top 10 teams in which number one would have their allotment reduced by 10 rather than fifteen. Even in a fifteen team reduction system number ten would only have their allotment reduced by 5.

As for how the teams would be ranked the top 4 slots are pretty much automatically assigned because of the playoff system and for rankings below that level polls are almost never that discordant. A one or 2 position difference in rankings isn’t going to make that much difference in the number of reductions.

 

[Vol423]

and should be easy to implement.

First....do away with the December signing date and return to the spring signing date.

Second.... after the FBS Championship game the 15 highest ranked teams would be limited in the number of recruits and transfers they could sign the next year based on their ranking. Number One would be limited to 15 fewer than what their limit would otherwise be. Number 2 limited to 14 fewers, number 3 limited to 13 fewer, number 4 limited to 12 fewer, number 5 limited to 11 fewer....etc., etc.

Teams ranked number 16 or less would have no reduction.

Probably the only teams that would be opposed to this would be the teams that have been able to stockpile high ranked players, three deep.

It's laughable that you think there is a serious desire for parity in college football.

 

[JRich]

How about we just start with making the schedules harder?

 

[ArmchairQB]

Simple answer. No. Your premise and conclusion have NOTHING to do with each other. Women's tennis makes no money. Should those athletes have to pay into the AD rather than getting a scholarship? Baseball players? Swimmers?

My son serves in the Air National Guard. He is a "product" in a multi-trillion dollar economy... he obviously "should" make a couple of hundred thousand per year... right? His educational benefits don't really count as compensation, right? His health care (he pays a small premium) doesn't count either, right? Your "should" is a moral judgment about an agreement between two other parties... in which you have no part.

What "should" have happened is that we should have preserved amateur athletics. A minor league for the NFL could have easily been formed for guys solely interested in making money. What SHOULD have happened is strict and aggressive enforcement of the rules.

I respectfully disagree. My "should" about compensation is a moral judgment, and your "should" about preserving amateurism isn't one? The messed up bit here is that football and basketball players are locked out of having any say about the value of their contribution to an entertainment industry. They're the ones being excluded from having any part in that conversation. Northwestern was maybe the first to address that head on, and they won't be the last.

Truthfully, fair compensation for football players (and probably basketball players too while we're at it)... that's probably the biggest threat to Title IX and collegiate athletics in general that I can think of. It would absolutely wreck the whole model, and that's really unfortunate. But that doesn't change the nature of the beast here.

It stopped being amateurism when a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry grew up around it. It's unreasonable to exclude from compensation the people actually putting the product on the field, when literally everyone else - coaches, universities, conferences, tv networks - are making millions on it. If ESPN and the SEC were signing multi-year, 10-digit contracts over women's tennis, I would be saying the exact same thing about women's tennis. But football and basketball are the horses pulling this cart.

You can pick a bunch of college sports that are more purely amateur: say lacrosse. Track and field. Golf. But football and basketball are straight up generating wealth. There's no way around it. And we're telling 18-22 year olds that they get zero say in the distribution of that wealth, that they should get none of it, and that they're lucky to be going to college and be grateful, and don't mind us giving some of that to the softball team. And your coaches new house. We're heading in the direction of recognizing these as revenue sports whether anyone likes it or not.

 

[MontyPython]

 

[sjt18]

I respectfully disagree. My "should" about compensation is a moral judgment, and your "should" about preserving amateurism isn't one?

Maybe in a way. But the ideal of amateur athletics is not one that should be lost. I think it would be pretty easy to make a great case that it is "good" for individuals, communities, and societies in a way that pure egocentric materialism... is not. It conveys an ideal of doing something for a cause greater than one's own direct benefit. What "good" except a fleeting one for the selfish athlete do you propose can come out of effectively creating another professional league? Why even pretend that it is college athletics at that point?

The messed up bit here is that football and basketball players are locked out of having any say about the value of their contribution to an entertainment industry.

So you think my son has a say about the value of his contribution to the American economy? No. He was offered a deal that provides him a path. He gained a college degree that he might not have afforded otherwise. It set him on the path of becoming a pilot... and the possibility of making good money IN THE FUTURE. Get that? He sacrificed IMMEDIATE gratification for a chance to achieve a certain career goal.

They're the ones being excluded from having any part in that conversation. Northwestern was maybe the first to address that head on, and they won't be the last.

Not so. They can accept a deal or find a better one. At no point are they compelled to sign a LOI or prevented from playing their way into the NFL in Canada or some semi-pro league.

Next time you sit down at a nicer restaurant, look over the menu, place your order, and eat... you won't be offended if the waiter comes to you with a check with all the prices doubled, right? You'll reject that because you understand that when you make a deal and agree to terms... they have no RIGHT to change it afterward OR to force you to eat at their restaurant after jacking up the price.

Truthfully, fair compensation for football players (and probably basketball players too while we're at it)... that's probably the biggest threat to Title IX and collegiate athletics in general that I can think of. It would absolutely wreck the whole model, and that's really unfortunate. But that doesn't change the nature of the beast here.

Except that you are wrong about the nature of the beast.

It stopped being amateurism when a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry grew up around it.

No it didn't. That industry has financed all of those athletes and sports that otherwise could NEVER be justified. Many thousands of kids have gotten degrees paid for... by fans. AD's don't sit on big accounts. They use that money to build. The ultimate beneficiaries are athletes and fans.

It's unreasonable to exclude from compensation the people actually putting the product on the field, when literally everyone else - coaches, universities, conferences, tv networks - are making millions on it.

They've never been excluded... they've always been compensated. But even if you weren't wrong about that... you're still WRONG. My high school paid for all of its athletic programs and band activities with football. A school with about 400 kids would have 4000-6000 people attend every home game. By your logic, the football players should have been paid.

You really do not understand what amateur athletics is or its worth, do you?

If ESPN and the SEC were signing multi-year, 10-digit contracts over women's tennis, I would be saying the exact same thing about women's tennis. But football and basketball are the horses pulling this cart.

And you'd still be wrong. Organizations have a RIGHT to establish rules and offer opportunities for others to participate. Just because someone chooses to participate... does NOT mean they then have a right to dictate rules to those who started the organizations.

You can pick a bunch of college sports that are more purely amateur: say lacrosse. Track and field. Golf. But football and basketball are straight up generating wealth. There's no way around it. And we're telling 18-22 year olds that they get zero say in the distribution of that wealth, that they should get none of it, and that they're lucky to be going to college and be grateful, and don't mind us giving some of that to the softball team. And your coaches new house. We're heading in the direction of recognizing these as revenue sports whether anyone likes it or not.

Yes. They should get ZERO SAY in out revenues are distributed. They are not the leaders or organizers or owners. In that sense, they ARE contract labor. They were offered compensation for participation in a sport. They accepted the terms. Don't like the terms? Find a better gig. Start your own league.

The ridiculous union mentality you're applying here is WHOLLY illegitimate.