The Realities of The NIL Era...

[Firebirdparts]

"Real" NIL is not really restrictable, no matter what happens. It's not going away, not ever. Collective bargaining, making the students employees, salary caps, would still not restrict it in any way.

 

[Vol_in_NC_1999]

Education? nobody gives a crap about an "education" anymore. Especially when you might make half a mil playing football, and social justice warrior degrees are worthless in the corporate world. And that is without ever going to the big show. But enough to set most kids up well for life if they handle it well. Buy a house, a mechanic shop, etc and make bank after their eligibility is done.

Artificial intelligence is only going to exacerbate that gap. This is minor league pro sports now. FULL STOP. The whole college thing is to give it a nice fan base tie in (read money supply).

Exactly my thoughts. This is minor league ball and associated colleges/universities are only marketing labels to generate revenue. Unless the NCAA re-organizes and and has an effective "commissioner", the powers-that-be will be the conferences, not the NCAA.

 

[WaywardVol]

The money for the collective is going to come from boosters. It just is. Most of it at least. Have you seen the deal Utah has done? That is an alarming trend.

So, if these are employees, then make them employees and we can collectively bargain. As it stands, boosters funneling money to collectives should be an easy thing to shoot down under amateurism rules.

 

[Good Ol' Charlie Brown]

I hate it all. Already get 50k+ scholarships full ride and some are as dumb as rocks.
The fact kids have agents is just like... wow. Sports are ruined.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I hate it all. Already get 50k+ scholarships full ride and some are as dumb as rocks.
The fact kids have agents is just like... wow. Sports are ruined.

So was Peyton Manning JUST worth the scholarship to UT then he MAGICALLY improved to be worth an $11M signing bonus in the NFL six months later?

Obviously his market value as an athlete was much more than his scholarship as is the market value of many college athletes today.

Continually acting like college football is "just a bunch of students who happen to also play football" in an era of a billion dollar college football industry is ridiculous.

 

[deezvols]

Why do you think it's OK for you to control how much money other people make?

5 years to play isn’t about controlling the money they make…

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

5 years to play isn’t about controlling the money they make…

Sure it is. They can make good money playing college athletics but may not be good enough to play in the NFL or NBA or MLB.

When you arbitrarily stop them from playing after 5 years, you cut off their income from NIL. Why shouldn't they play as long as they wish at the college level if they stay enrolled?

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

"Real" NIL is not really restrictable, no matter what happens. It's not going away, not ever. Collective bargaining, making the students employees, salary caps, would still not restrict it in any way.

Alot of people say that but it's not accurate. If Congress were to legislate an antitrust exemption for college sports, the schools could require that the players agree that NIL rights belong to the schools as a condition of participation. The only reason they can't do that now is because the NCAA (which is made up of all the schools) has been ruled to essentially be a monopoly in violation of antitrust. If college sports gets an antitrust exemption, they could do that. As I stated above, the only way an ATE should be passed is if it's conditioned on 50% of the revenue being set aside to benefit the players, in the form of pay, insurance, pensions, etc. If they qualified for such an antitrust safe harbor (by diverting half the revenue to the players), they can make most any rule or restriction they used to.

 

[NCFisher]

Alot of people say that but it's not accurate. If Congress were to legislate an antitrust exemption for college sports, the schools could require that the players agree that NIL rights belong to the schools as a condition of participation. The only reason they can't do that now is because the NCAA (which is made up of all the schools) has been ruled to essentially be a monopoly in violation of antitrust. If college sports gets an antitrust exemption, they could do that. As I stated above, the only way an ATE should be passed is if it's conditioned on 50% of the revenue being set aside to benefit the players, in the form of pay, insurance, pensions, etc. If they qualified for such an antitrust safe harbor (by diverting half the revenue to the players), they can make most any rule or restriction they used to.

But SCOTUS isn't just going to bless it because Congress passes a law, and it absolutely would end up at SCOTUS again.
The court has a dual role to interpret law and ensure law does not violate individual rights.

 

[deezvols]

Sure it is. They can make good money playing college athletics but may not be good enough to play in the NFL or NBA or MLB.

When you arbitrarily stop them from playing after 5 years, you cut off their income from NIL. Why shouldn't they play as long as they wish at the college level if they stay enrolled?

So…. 4 years of undergrad, 2 years for Masters and 4-5 more for a PhD and we’ll just let people play college ball for 6-11 years? My sarcasm meter may be broken today… someone help me out

 

[EZE]

The NCAA needs to stand up and do something. Is there a way this can get controlled without the kids becoming employees?

Until Kiffin goes 'Full Michigan', LSU is going to be a handful. Of course, all the money LSU is spending on football does track with being 50th in the US in literacy.

The pendulum always swings too far. And when it corrects, it likely will swing too far the other way.

The question to me is if college football eventually loses its credibility.

 

[EZE]

So…. 4 years of undergrad, 2 years for Masters and 4-5 more for a PhD and we’ll just let people play college ball for 6-11 years? My sarcasm meter may be broken today… someone help me out

I’m with you. But sadly, I can see someone like Pavia making this challenge.

 

[Delmar]

I’m with you. But sadly, I can see someone like Pavia making this challenge.

Paging Dr. Pavia…..

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

So…. 4 years of undergrad, 2 years for Masters and 4-5 more for a PhD and we’ll just let people play college ball for 6-11 years? My sarcasm meter may be broken today… someone help me out

Grad students are already okay. How many people do you know who got a Masters in 5 years? It's not the common route, depending on the field and certainly professional degrees take as long as 7-8 years.

The "5 years" is arbitrary and you know it and likely not legally enforceable if the NCAA gets sued about it.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

But SCOTUS isn't just going to bless it because Congress passes a law, and it absolutely would end up at SCOTUS again.
The court has a dual role to interpret law and ensure law does not violate individual rights.

Yeah, but SCOTUS's previous ruling in the Alston case was that it violated antitrust, which is a statute written by Congress. There isn't a constitutional issue involved. The power to regulate interstate economic issues is the heart of Congress's commerce power. SCOTUS point blank told the NCAA it needed to talk to Congress to get what it wanted:

"The NCAA is free to argue that, “because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,” it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is “properly addressed to Congress.” National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U. S., at 689. Nor has Congress been insensitive to such requests. It has modified the antitrust laws for certain industries in the past, and it may do so again in the future. See, e.g., 7 U. S. C. §§291–292 (agricultural cooperatives); 15 U. S. C. §§1011–1013 (insurance); 15 U. S. C. §§1801–1804 (newspaper joint operating agreements). But until Congress says otherwise, the only law it has asked us to enforce is the Sherman Act, and that law is predicated on one assumption alone—“competition is the best method of allocating resources” in the Nation’s economy. National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U. S., at 695."

 

[deezvols]

Grad students are already okay. How many people do you know who got a Masters in 5 years? It's not the common route, depending on the field and certainly professional degrees take as long as 7-8 years.

The "5 years" is arbitrary and you know it and likely not legally enforceable if the NCAA gets sued about it.

But it’s not sustainable. Under this idea, people could just go back and get another degree until they retire from college athletics at 40.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The prevailing opinion of the Supreme Court when they decided Alston was that the only reason they didn't completely end the "student athlete" distinction was because it wasn't legally appealed to their Court.

It's just a matter of someone pressing the issue through the courts. The Joey A case may be the one that destroys eligibility requirements. That would be quite the legacy for Joey A and UT.

Because student status is different than slavery?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

I strongly doubt that requirement is enforceable either.

It is one of the few parts of the old NCAA rules that is still enforceable.

The current problem is that they are trying to say that non NCAA junior college counts as NCAA eligibility.

There are obvious legal problems with that. The Pavia case opened the door..
He's going after another year. That also opens the door for Joey to get two more if he wants them.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

It is one of the few parts of the old NCAA rules that is still enforceable.

The current problem is that they are trying to say that non NCAA junior college counts as NCAA eligibility.

There are obvious legal problems with that. The Pavia case opened the door..
He's going after another year. That also opens the door for Joey to get two more if he wants them.

A monopoly is a monopoly, they don't make enforceable rules. The conferences might could get away with it, unless all of them made that rule, and then it's monopolistic collusion.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

But it’s not sustainable. Under this idea, people could just go back and get another degree until they retire from college athletics at 40.

The entire college system NOW is unsustainable per the Supreme Court. The NCAA can't govern the sport because the entire "student athlete" business model is in violation of Antitrust Law.

That's why they lose almost every case. They legally cannot enforce any rules, including the "5 year eligibility" rule of it's challenged.

That's the entire point. ALL of the NCAA rules like NIL and transfer rules are simply "made up" to "make the business work profitably." They actually argued in court that "that's the way we've always done it and people like it."

That's not sustainable.

 

[Hairy Vols]

The NCAA needs to stand up and do something. Is there a way this can get controlled without the kids becoming employees?

Until Kiffin goes 'Full Michigan', LSU is going to be a handful. Of course, all the money LSU is spending on football does track with being 50th in the US in literacy.

This is the NCAA's fault.

It is every Americans right to make as much money as they want off of their own name and likeness. Players deserve to garner and gain as much money as possible.

 

[deezvols]

The entire college system NOW is unsustainable per the Supreme Court. The NCAA can't govern the sport because the entire "student athlete" business model is in violation of Antitrust Law.

That's why they lose almost every case. They legally cannot enforce any rules, including the "5 year eligibility" rule of it's challenged.

That's the entire point. ALL of the NCAA rules like NIL and transfer rules are simply "made up" to "make the business work profitably." They actually argued in court that "that's the way we've always done it and people like it."

That's not sustainable.

Well D2 is about to have a vote on 5 years to play 5 and D1 is likely using them as a barometer for implementing the same system.

Letting players stay in college for 30 years shouldn’t happen.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Well D2 is about to have a vote on 5 years to play 5 and D1 is likely using them as a barometer for implementing the same system.

Letting players stay in college for 30 years shouldn’t happen.

As we've seen, A LOT that "shouldn't happen" is obviously not legally enforceable by the NCAA.

While D2 is nice football sometimes, the scale of money involved isn't near D1 and this is about divvying up the billions D1 brings in and NOT about what "should happen because of tradition."

The people who opened this can of worms were the schools who sued to make more money via controlling their own media rights. They brought the big money in...... and money did what money does.