I lost the locker room over NIL payments last year

[LSU-SIU]

Again, suggestions of collective bargaining from school officials seem to say they're coming around to the realization that the only future is what's working for successful pro leagues.

Collective bargaining almost assures the courts will declare players are employees and yes, that's an enormous red flag for the NCAA and schools for lots of reasons.

Still, that's the direction so there's no sense in me saying it isn't and more sense in trying to see how that structure works best.

That leads me back to looking at the pro sports organizations and how the successful ones operate. I suggest the schools that are large sports revenue schools (mostly P-4 schools) move sports away from the school legally, lease the facilities and logos and such, avoid Title IX issues by being pro leagues, not college leagues, and move on from there.

Collective bargaining almost assures the courts will declare players are employees and yes, that's an enormous red flag for the NCAA and schools for lots of reasons.

You have the cart before the horse, they have to be "employees" first. There is nothing for us to do. If the schools want to make "employees" of them, there is nothing generally stopping them other than State law depending on the State as far as funding.

So, why do you think they don't want them to be declare an "employee"? Hint, the lawsuits would just be starting and there goes their margins.

That leads me back to looking at the pro sports organizations and how the successful ones operate. I suggest the schools that are large sports revenue schools (mostly P-4 schools) move sports away from the school legally, lease the facilities and logos and such, avoid Title IX issues by being pro leagues, not college leagues, and move on from there.

Yeah, I mean if you are just licensing out the name, I see nothing wrong with that. I doubt anyone really cares at that point, but than again there goes the profit margins and depending on the State, the State might pull funding.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You have the cart before the horse, they have to be "employees" first. There is nothing for us to do. If the schools want to make "employees" of them, there is nothing generally stopping them other than State law depending on the State as far as funding.

So, why do you think they don't want them to be declare an "employee"? Hint, the lawsuits would just be starting.

I think schools see salary and benefits issues for athletes, the end of the requirement to attend classes (why should an athlete employed to play running back have to study something not connected to their employment,) and the end of athletes only having X years to play when they are still able and willing to play.

Those will be difficult legal issues unless Congress specifically legislates college athletics into a special category and gives an entity rights, without Antitrust scrutiny, to establish what would otherwise be unreasonable/illegal rules JUST for teams under that entity. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

And yes, more lawsuits are ahead no matter what but like the pro sports, they lessen once collective bargaining and other things are met and the courts feel Antitrust isn't being violated by those pro leagues.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I think schools see salary and benefits issues for athletes, the end of the requirement to attend classes (why should an athlete employed to play running back have to study something not connected to their employment,) and the end of athletes only having X years to play when they are still able and willing to play.

Those will be difficult legal issues unless Congress specifically legislates college athletics into a special category and gives an entity rights, without Antitrust scrutiny, to establish what would otherwise be unreasonable/illegal rules JUST for teams under that entity. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

And yes, more lawsuits are ahead no matter what but like the pro sports, they lessen once collective bargaining and other things are met and the courts feel Antitrust isn't being violated by those pro leagues.

I think schools see salary and benefits issues for athletes, the end of the requirement to attend classes (why should an athlete employed to play running back have to study something not connected to their employment,) and the end of athletes only having X years to play when they are still able and willing to play.

Nobody is going to do any of that.

And yes, more lawsuits are ahead no matter what but like the pro sports, they lessen once collective bargaining and other things are met and the courts feel Antitrust isn't being violated by those pro leagues.

The NFL, NBA, MLB, etc have either exceptions to the anti-trust act or partial exceptions, it has nothing to do with the courts.

No, more lawsuits would be coming if anyone did what you wanted to do, turn everyone into "employees". To be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. You are throwing around terms and mix matching context which makes little sense to me.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Nobody is going to do any of that.



The NFL, NBA, MLB, etc have either exceptions to the anti-trust act, it has nothing to do with the courts.

No, more lawsuits would be coming if anyone did what you wanted to do, turn everyone into "employees". To be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. You are throwing around terms and mix matching context which makes little sense to me.

Actually, there are apparently "implied" Antitrust Exemptions, for instance every new football or soccer or whatever league DOESN'T have specific, Congress legislated and given, Antitrust Exemptions. They aren't sued successfully because they follow certain (again, not an attorney so don't ask me exactly what is required) guidelines involving collective bargaining and such.

I think the revenue heavy schools should seek to form an organization similar to those leagues which don't have specific Antitrust Exemptions to avoid lawsuits and stay within the boundaries the courts seem to recognize for leagues.

And, like you, I'm a guy on a message board looking for answers to a very common topic on lots of messages boards. "How can college athletics have less lawsuits, more stable rosters, and present a better more successful entertainment product for everyone."

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Nobody is going to do any of that.



The NFL, NBA, MLB, etc have either exceptions to the anti-trust act or partial exceptions, it has nothing to do with the courts.

No, more lawsuits would be coming if anyone did what you wanted to do, turn everyone into "employees". To be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. You are throwing around terms and mix matching context which makes little sense to me.

The "Google name" appears to be "non statutory legal exemptions" for what lots of leagues use for collective bargaining in lieu of a specific exemption which it appears only MLB has. All leagues use an act which allows media deals but that's separate, apparently, from collective bargaining situations.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Actually, there are apparently "implied" Antitrust Exemptions, for instance every new football or soccer or whatever league DOESN'T have specific, Congress legislated and given, Antitrust Exemptions. They aren't sued successfully because they follow certain (again, not an attorney so don't ask me exactly what is required) guidelines involving collective bargaining and such.

I think the revenue heavy schools should seek to form an organization similar to those leagues which don't have specific Antitrust Exemptions to avoid lawsuits and stay within the boundaries the courts seem to recognize for leagues.

And, like you, I'm a guy on a message board looking for answers to a very common topic on lots of messages boards. "How can college athletics have less lawsuits, more stable rosters, and present a better more successful entertainment product for everyone."

You either have an exemption or you don't. The other sports leagues have no ability to restrict too much because there is no power i.e. money, as I said.... what you are trying to do makes little sense in context.

A team and or league don't need an exception, its only when their by laws restrict trade.

And, like you, I'm a guy on a message board looking for answers to a very common topic on lots of messages boards. "How can college athletics have less lawsuits, more stable rosters, and present a better more successful entertainment product for everyone."

And you have been told, Stop breaking the law.

 

[LSU-SIU]

The "Google name" appears to be "non statutory legal exemptions" for what lots of leagues use for collective bargaining in lieu of a specific exemption which it appears only MLB has. All leagues use an act which allows media deals but that's separate, apparently, from collective bargaining situations.

MLB has a partial exemption, college football just like soccer, it doesn't matter.... same goes for XFL... nobody cares they have no power. You are not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You either have an exemption or you don't. The other sports leagues have no ability to restrict too much because there is no power i.e. money, as I said.... what you are trying to do makes little sense in context.

A team and or league don't need an exception, its only when their by laws restrict trade.




And you have been told, Stop breaking the law.

You can see for yourself, it's not exactly true that you SPECIFICALLY have an exemption for your league. It appears only MLB has a specifically legislated Antitrust Exemption by Congress.

 

[LSU-SIU]

You can see for yourself, it's not exactly true that you SPECIFICALLY have an exemption for your league. It appears only MLB has a specifically legislated Antitrust Exemption by Congress.

Unless a group controls the "market" than any exception really isn't necessary as a generalization. I still have no idea what you are trying to accomplish, you are mix matching a whole bunch of stuff.

At this point, a number of schools could get together even without an exception, but even if they get an exception it hard to see how that helps in any real way. Legally as a generalization the schools could contract with the players minus #1 and depending how the school gets funding possibly State law. Either way, I don't see why it would matter.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Unless a group controls the "market" than any exception really isn't necessary as a generalization. I still have no idea what you are trying to accomplish, you are mix matching a whole bunch of stuff.

At this point, a number of schools could get together even without an exception, but even if they get an exception it hard to see how that helps in any real way. Legally as a generalization the schools could contract with the players minus #1 and depending how the school gets funding possibly State law. Either way, I don't see why it would matter.

Collective bargaining, contracts, unions, draft, etc make for fewer lawsuits. Pro leagues seldom get sued because they operate within whatever the courts have determined allows that "non statutory legal exemption" from Antitrust lawsuits.

Basically, your #1 "stop breaking the law" is less of an issue.

As you excellently laid out, most of the NCAA issues stem from breaking the law so my idea is: do what pro leagues do that don't get sued very often and get on with your entertainment business.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Collective bargaining, contracts, unions, draft, etc make for fewer lawsuits. Pro leagues seldom get sued because they operate within whatever the courts have determined allows that "non statutory legal exemption" from Antitrust lawsuits.

Basically, your #1 "stop breaking the law" is less of an issue.

As you excellently laid out, most of the NCAA issues stem from breaking the law so my idea is: do what pro leagues do that don't get sued very often and get on with your entertainment business.

They could and they would destroy their business model i.e. slave labor and they would get into about 10 times as many suits and everyone than would be an "employee" i.e. all sports.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

They could and they would destroy their business model i.e. slave labor and they would get into about 10 times as many suits and everyone than would be an "employee" i.e. all sports.

As you know, Alston has already told the NCAA their business model is essentially illegal. That's given. It cannot continue as it was and hasn't.

The question going forward is where do we go from here.

A Congressional specific to college Antitrust Exemption would be what allows the closest thing to "the old days" but that's unlikely and, to me, unfair to athletes.

Some kind of "hybrid exemption" specifically written for college athletics by Congress which makes them look like employees but legally not be employees and keeps eligibility for only X years and such could happen. Again, I'm doubtful Congress will do that.

That leaves inching toward a pro model, pro leagues, and pro "non statutory legal exemption" model used by most pro leagues.

 

[LSU-SIU]

As you know, Alston has already told the NCAA their business model is essentially illegal. That's given. It cannot continue as it was and hasn't.

The question going forward is where do we go from here.

A Congressional specific to college Antitrust Exemption would be what allows the closest thing to "the old days" but that's unlikely and, to me, unfair to athletes.

Some kind of "hybrid exemption" specifically written for college athletics by Congress which makes them look like employees but legally not be employees and keeps eligibility for only X years and such could happen. Again, I'm doubtful Congress will do that.

That leaves inching toward a pro model, pro leagues, and pro "non statutory legal exemption" model used by most pro leagues.

No it really doesn't, they would all be "employees", the only problem at the moment is any part of the ncaa by laws that stops schools from employing or contracting. Other than that, generally not seeing a problem legally with the way things work now.

As I have said, generally there is no problem other than that.

That leaves inching toward a pro model, pro leagues, and pro "non statutory legal exemption" model used by most pro leagues.

I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. The colleges are not asking for it, and I doubt many of them can or will go down that path. A select number might do it but it will completely destroy their profit margins and the lawsuits will really start to pick up.

A select number of colleges can already form a super league and they don't even need Congress, they just can't control the market.

 

[Firebirdparts]

Does anybody think it's repetitive in here?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Does anybody think it's repetitive in here?

He has something stuck in his head as a simple solution and it just isn't. The SEC could go full on NFL-lite right now and Congress wouldn't even need to be involved (exemption from Sherman Act). They could have a SEC draft, a SEC salary cap, a SEC restricted employment, unionization, contracts, etc. As long as the number of teams is in a smallish range as a generalization I have hard time imagining what the problem would be on that legal front. The issues would just be beginning though on other legal fronts and Congress can't help there, plus it would be destruction of their slave labor model. Removing the Sherman Act really doesn't fix anything, they could license out the name I guess but hard to imagine how the bigger schools don't lose a huge amounts of money there, nobody is going to pay $50-200m a year for licensing rights - there is no money in that.

From a legal stand point, I generally see nothing wrong with current setup, other than the NCAA should not be making rules stopping payments to players in any form or from any source. Generally speaking, if the NCAA sticks to the game on the field than legally their problems disappear.

 

[LouderVol]

Yes, a draft. I'm not talking about school or traditional college sports surviving, I'm talking about what works in pro sports to make them successful. Lots of leagues don't for competitive reasons.

It would be great if Congress would provide a specific age related Antitrust Exemption for college but I'm not holding my breath.

Yes, it should look EXACTLY like the NFL or actually closer to minor league baseball in some ways.

You're mistaking me for a diehard, traditional college football fan. I'm no longer that. I'm hopeful for a future of his good Saturdays with quality football and guys on the field who get their share just like the guys on Sunday.

I don't think a draft works at the high school to college transition.

too many "bad" schools. a draft works for the majors because that is the highest level. College is still about becoming a better player. losing the development before trying to make it to the next level becomes a real detriment.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I don't think a draft works at the high school to college transition.

too many "bad" schools. a draft works for the majors because that is the highest level. College is still about becoming a better player. losing the development before trying to make it to the next level becomes a real detriment.

Then, without caps, schools like TX that can afford to pay millions will dominate easily.

We've seen Nike take Oregon from nowhere to a top 10 team with money because Knight wants a Natty and doesn't care what it costs. Get a few oil billionaires onboard at TX or if Ellison (worth north of 200 billion) decides to throw big money at Michigan, recruiting becomes a joke.

Drafts exist because leagues thrive with parity. NIL has helped so far but Ohio State essentially bought huge amounts of talent and it showed in the CFP.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Then, without caps, schools like TX that can afford to pay millions will dominate easily.

We've seen Nike take Oregon from nowhere to a top 10 team with money because Knight wants a Natty and doesn't care what it costs. Get a few oil billionaires onboard at TX or if Ellison (worth north of 200 billion) decides to throw big money at Michigan, recruiting becomes a joke.

Drafts exist because leagues thrive with parity. NIL has helped so far but Ohio State essentially bought huge amounts of talent and it showed in the CFP.

But you can't cap third party payments which is where the money is coming from currently (in general), the only thing that can happen is removing the schools from facilitating those payments. The current way things are being ran is the most beneficial to the schools - slave labor.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

But you can't cap third party payments which is where the money is coming from currently (in general), the only thing that can happen is removing the schools from facilitating those payments.

So you don't believe NIL payments currently are just a sham and actually generated by the schools? Fine. I'm talking reality here. We both know they're school generated.

 

[LSU-SIU]

So you don't believe NIL payments currently are just a sham and actually generated by the schools? Fine. I'm talking reality here. We both know they're school generated.

I think legally the players or students generally shouldn't be dictated by NCAA policy how they receive money. To me that is not only a civil violation but a criminal one at scale. I have no idea if schools are involved in the actually money part but to me it seems clear they should be able to do it, if they wish. Its not really complex. No, I don't believe the University of Texas is paying players directly, but legally (generally) they should be able to.

If you have teams (limited) get together and form a Super League, I see nothing wrong with a cap even without an exception. But you will have the same problem, huge amounts of money will be coming from third parties, which is what is happening today. And the Super League will be competing with other leagues that might not have the same restrictions.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I think legally the players or students generally shouldn't be dictated by NCAA policy how they receive money. To me that is not only a civil violation but a criminal one at scale. I have no idea if schools are involved in the actually money part but to me it seems clear they should be able to do it, if they wish. Its not really complex. No, I don't believe the University of Texas is paying players directly, but legally (generally) they should be able to.

If you have teams (limited) get together and form a Super League, I see nothing wrong with a cap even without an exception. But you will have the same probably, huge amounts of money will be coming from third parties, which is what is happening today.

I suggested very early on in our discussion that only about 40 more or less needed to form a pro league. That concerns UT because we are an elite school in at least 3 sports, so we should be preparing for the future of our sports programs.

I've never advocated ALL of college sports should follow that path but the elite, high revenue programs. DEFINITELY only a small number of programs even at UT need to go pro.

As for NIL payments, it's a sham to allow players to get paid. Nothing more. It's definitely legal and shouldn't be restricted but a better solution for the future is paying those elite players as employees, as the business can sustain itself, as a portion of the media revenue, etc.

That's all. It's about the future being sustainable for the sports. LOTS of leagues fail to sustain themselves economically. I'd rather the good football continue on Saturday as a business which is ACTUALLY paying players in a sustainable fashion.

 

[LSU-SIU]

As for NIL payments, it's a sham to allow players to get paid. Nothing more. It's definitely legal and shouldn't be restricted but a better solution for the future is paying those elite players as employees, as the business can sustain itself, as a portion of the media revenue, etc.

The problem is you use words to describe things which in context I don't think most people would agree with you. The NIL is meaningless, why the States went in that directly I don't fully understand but they are getting paid and generally its just not anyone's business.

paying those elite players as employees, as the business can sustain itself, as a portion of the media revenue, etc.

Generally, the schools can do that absent some new law that deals with funding from the State. Basically, my take is you have a problem with the school's business model i.e. free slave labor. I generally kind of agree, the problem is - they're not going to want to go down that path as the lawsuits would just be getting started and a good portion of college sports would have to go away.

The schools can already do what you are proposing (generally).

The only problem I see legally is the NCAA being involved to stop payments to the players from whatever source, if the schools want to limit it individually themselves I don't see a problem there. Right now DOJ is allowing some of the restrictions on player transfers, seems fairly reasonable to a degree.

Its not up to me to tell University of Tennessee how to run their business as long as they are not in violation of law, if they want to make them "employees", I say go for it. Its not going to turn out good for them, imo.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The problem is you use words to describe things which in context I don't think most people would agree with you. The NIL is meaningless, why the States went in that directly I don't fully understand but they are getting paid and generally its just not anyone's business.



Generally, the schools can do that absent some new law that deals with funding from the State. Basically, my take is you have a problem with the school's business model i.e. free slave labor. I generally kind of agree, the problem is - they're not going to want to go down that path as the lawsuits would just be getting started and a good portion of college sports would have to go away.

The schools can already do what you are proposing (generally).

The only problem I see legally is the NCAA being involved to stop payments to the players from whatever source, if the schools want to limit it individually themselves I don't see a problem there. Right now DOJ is allowing some of the restrictions on player transfers, seems fairly reasonable to a degree.

Its not up to me to tell University of Tennessee how to run their business as long as they are not in violation of law, if they want to make them "employees", I say go for it. Its not going to turn out good for them, imo.

Schools went toward NIL because they were ALREADY paying players under the table in many cases and NIL made it less risky with the NCAA. It also freed the market to create big increases in what players got paid. Schools went toward NIL because it works to recruit talent.

Unfortunately, without contracts, you end up recruiting each player each semester and renegotiating their payment. That's inefficient for a business that, like all businesses, needs to be able to estimate coming expenses reasonably.

That's where employment solves the issue. Contracts, caps, bargaining, and some stability for the business end of things to function like a business, not a situation where you continually find you're playing "whack a mole" with your player's demands.

Again, VERY few sports programs, even at UT, need employee status for the players. Even fewer schools have ANY program that needs to go that route.

As for the NCAA itself, it's not going to be the future organization for the next evolution of ELITE college sports. The NCAA may continue to manage sports for the thousands of other athletes but, IMO, the elite sports programs will separate from the NCAA and eventually the schools themselves so the business can run more efficiently.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Schools went toward NIL because they were ALREADY paying players under the table in many cases and NIL made it less risky with the NCAA. It also freed the market to create big increases in what players got paid. Schools went toward NIL because it works to recruit talent.

Unfortunately, without contracts, you end up recruiting each player each semester and renegotiating their payment. That's inefficient for a business that, like all businesses, needs to be able to estimate coming expenses reasonably.

That's where employment solves the issue. Contracts, caps, bargaining, and some stability for the business end of things to function like a business, not a situation where you continually find you're playing "whack a mole" with your player's demands.

Again, VERY few sports programs, even at UT, need employee status for the players. Even fewer schools have ANY program that needs to go that route.

As for the NCAA itself, it's not going to be the future organization for the next evolution of ELITE college sports. The NCAA may continue to manage sports for the thousands of other athletes but, IMO, the elite sports programs will separate from the NCAA and eventually the schools themselves so the business can run more efficiently.

It was not the schools the went to the NIL, the States implemented law to force the colleges to stop. imo, and I said long ago, the best way to handle it was to use the indictment process with the State and criminally indict although that would be very political in nature.

That's where employment solves the issue. Contracts, caps, bargaining, and some stability for the business end of things to function like a business, not a situation where you continually find you're playing "whack a mole" with your player's demands.

It can solve some issues but it creates more issues in this context than it solves. (see prior posts) The reason you don't see the colleges being very vocal about any of it, is what you are suggesting would ruin the gravy train, really doesn't solve most of the issues you think it does and open them up further for liability.

Unfortunately, without contracts, you end up recruiting each player each semester and renegotiating their payment. That's inefficient for a business that, like all businesses, needs to be able to estimate coming expenses reasonably.

They can already do that. They will disagree with you for obvious reasons.

You are having a disagreement with the schools, I would generally agree with the schools - the money making business doesn't get any better than free labor. There is no business model that exists that can get more than what they are doing now, you can't beat free labor, what negative labor?

 

[LouderVol]

Then, without caps, schools like TX that can afford to pay millions will dominate easily.

We've seen Nike take Oregon from nowhere to a top 10 team with money because Knight wants a Natty and doesn't care what it costs. Get a few oil billionaires onboard at TX or if Ellison (worth north of 200 billion) decides to throw big money at Michigan, recruiting becomes a joke.

Drafts exist because leagues thrive with parity. NIL has helped so far but Ohio State essentially bought huge amounts of talent and it showed in the CFP.

what "huge" amount of talent did Ohio State bring in? they brought in some guys, but most of their money was spent on keeping their team. I think their transer class was 9 guys and only like 4 started, so I wouldn't call it huge.

One year, especially just the most recent, does not a trend make. especially when it comes to Ohio State here. they have always been a blue blood, them winning a National Title, is not a sign of change.

the transfer portal is going to keep things in some form of parity. even if Texas spent a billion dollars on their roster every year they wouldn't be able to play everyone, and not everyone would want to sit around and wait. its not like Texas spending more money means that UT has NO money. getting that starting job and playing to impress the NFL is still going to matter to these guys.

I also still believe the crazy money in CFB will dry up in a few years on its own. even if Texas had a billion dollars to spend one year, they won't always have a billion dollars to spend every year. especially if they aren't getting the results the money dries up.

your argument against Oregon shows that you were already accepting the blue bloods buying championships before NIL. yeah it was done behind closed doors, but it was still there.