NCAA trying to come down on NIL and collectives

Sudden Impact

Who we are is what We do with what We have!
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
9,611
Likes
3,020
A lot of Posturing going on in the Ranks, but more importantly I would think that Some of these ADs are Posturing for Emmert's Job.
As soon as a replacement is named you will see a complete Reversal by some of these people regarding NIL.
A Politician tells a Person what they want to hear and then does what they want when they get in office.

Emmert's Replacement should be interesting.....
 
Likes: kcvols1
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
29,820
Likes
29,924
NOTE: I know the following is long, feel free to skip, I am talking to Orange Crush and giving him a response I've owed him for awhile.

It seems to me that you guys are going a bit further though. You are saying that a league of teams where guys voluntarily go play a game in exchange for tuition, room, board and living expenses, etc., totalling in many cases, in excess of $ 100,000 per year, not to mention social and networking perks, CANNOT be allowed to exist. But why can that league not exist where participation is voluntary? Should that league be punished because it's popular? The fact is it's popular because people have fanatical loyalty to the schools more so than the players, and the players choose to play in that school league to "exploit" the fanaticism people have to those schools and gain greater exposure and a better chance of being noticed by pro football teams. You see I would watch UT football if it was high school level talent. I really don't give a dang who the players are or how talented they are. I suspect there are quite a few people like me. The players take advantage of that attitude also, it's not a one way street.

I actually am not against college players getting paid though, especially for their name, image and likeness, but you are being extremely naive if you think alot of the payments being made right now are actually because company's see a value in the players name, image and likeness. Hell naw, most of these agreements, probably 99% don't have a chance in hell of turning a profit. The payments are being made to steer the players to a certain school (or keep them at a certain school) not because those "marketing" rights are really worth that much value wise. And when I say value, I'm talking about like if a shampoo company pays Tom Brady for his NIL rights to put him in their commercial, the shampoo company is banking on being able to sell enough shampoo as a result of Brady's endorsement (compared to without his endorsement) to offset the cash they are paying Brady and still make more money than they would have otherwise without Brady's endorsement. If the player's NIL is really that valuable, why is it necessary to have the "hooks" in the agreement (daily appearances signing autographs at Tuscaloosa businesses for example) to make it impossible to play for another school? Why should it matter what school they play for? (Note: as I said on like the first page of this thread Nico's deal should be grandfathered in because retroactive enforcement of these more express rules that just came out last week is complete crap, it's not fair to him, when the rules could have come out last year).

Back to the main issue though, let's say we get a semi pro league set up where these kids get drafted straight out of high school, play for 4-5 years, no school to worry about and are employees of the league, with benefits, etc., the whole 9 yards. What if there are kids who STILL want to just play football in exchange for a free education? Should they be allowed to do so? At what point should the ability of this voluntary education based/amateur league to exist be taken away? When the players become too good? When the education related league becomes too popular again? You see the players gain something by being associated with the school also, in fact if these two 18-23 year old leagues, one semi-pro/minor league, one education/ school based amateur league were allowed to exist side by side, I bet the education based league would still be more popular because of people like me, who are really rooting for the school of their state or that they went to. The University of Tennessee Vols will always be more popular than the Knoxville Argonauts or whatever.

I think the amateur-education based league should be allowed to exist and the association of schools should be allowed to enforce their amateur status. And there is no law against the development of a semi-pro league right now though. The NCAA isn't going out and trying to shut semi-pro leagues down. Truth is, the folks that want the semi pro approach are the ones doing that, they don't want to compete with the education-centric/amateur league, they want to take a short cut by taking over the education-centric/amateur league, effectively destroying it, and co-opt the popularity of the schools and their brand. That's not fair either. Rather, both leagues semi-pro and education-centric/amateur, should be allowed to exist and the education-centric/amateur league that exists should not be destroyed simply because the semi-pro people find it hard to compete with.
It's exploitative because it's the only options, corporately working to take any options away from the bottom level of labor that the organizations profit from. Face it. For a certain demographic of the world, the NCAA is the only avenue to a college degree and an opportunity to the NFL. It's the only place they can shop for that burger, or buy that sugar.

Imagine this:

All sugar production in a certain country is performed by group (x). All sugar producers coordinate to only pay (fill in the blank). The workers have no rights or hope of anything else, because they can't "vote with their feet". They'll be exploited wherever they go.

You're claiming that it's OK to exploit them and create an exploitive, controlled market that's rigged against the ones who are actually producing the wealth because--you know--they can choose not to work.

For the record, the above scenario is exactly what was going on in the Dominican sugar production industry, exploiting Haitian poverty. US Congress investigated and threatened to blacklist Dominican sugar if they didn't clean up their system, based on US Antitrust laws.

The NCAA has been taking in billions of dollars of broadcast rights and merchandise money for decades. It's all been distributed among the universities and everyone else but who is putting their time, efforts and bodies on the line. Any time the athletes or anyone else cries foul, the NCAA hides behind the fake "amateurism" argument as it divvies up the money to itself, signs coach contracts, cashes more checks, and threaten the sledge-hammer to anyone who rocks the boat or threatens to liberate the captive goose that's laying the golden eggs.

I mean. Geez, man. The NCAA is literally a representative association for all university presidents, artificially setting the pay scale for student athletes in a multi-billion $$$ industry to $0, taking ownership and limiting income from other means, while they cash the checks themselves, while disallowing any platform for the athletes to actually bargain for their rights.

It is unequivocally an exploitive, artificially suppressed market. Period.

But you like your cheap sugar. So you'll make excuses for the system.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
29,820
Likes
29,924
NOTE: I know the following is long, feel free to skip, I am talking to Orange Crush and giving him a response I've owed him for awhile.

It seems to me that you guys are going a bit further though. You are saying that a league of teams where guys voluntarily go play a game in exchange for tuition, room, board and living expenses, etc., totalling in many cases, in excess of $ 100,000 per year, not to mention social and networking perks, CANNOT be allowed to exist. But why can that league not exist where participation is voluntary? Should that league be punished because it's popular? The fact is it's popular because people have fanatical loyalty to the schools more so than the players, and the players choose to play in that school league to "exploit" the fanaticism people have to those schools and gain greater exposure and a better chance of being noticed by pro football teams. You see I would watch UT football if it was high school level talent. I really don't give a dang who the players are or how talented they are. I suspect there are quite a few people like me. The players take advantage of that attitude also, it's not a one way street.

I actually am not against college players getting paid though, especially for their name, image and likeness, but you are being extremely naive if you think alot of the payments being made right now are actually because company's see a value in the players name, image and likeness. Hell naw, most of these agreements, probably 99% don't have a chance in hell of turning a profit. The payments are being made to steer the players to a certain school (or keep them at a certain school) not because those "marketing" rights are really worth that much value wise. And when I say value, I'm talking about like if a shampoo company pays Tom Brady for his NIL rights to put him in their commercial, the shampoo company is banking on being able to sell enough shampoo as a result of Brady's endorsement (compared to without his endorsement) to offset the cash they are paying Brady and still make more money than they would have otherwise without Brady's endorsement. If the player's NIL is really that valuable, why is it necessary to have the "hooks" in the agreement (daily appearances signing autographs at Tuscaloosa businesses for example) to make it impossible to play for another school? Why should it matter what school they play for? (Note: as I said on like the first page of this thread Nico's deal should be grandfathered in because retroactive enforcement of these more express rules that just came out last week is complete crap, it's not fair to him, when the rules could have come out last year).

Back to the main issue though, let's say we get a semi pro league set up where these kids get drafted straight out of high school, play for 4-5 years, no school to worry about and are employees of the league, with benefits, etc., the whole 9 yards. What if there are kids who STILL want to just play football in exchange for a free education? Should they be allowed to do so? At what point should the ability of this voluntary education based/amateur league to exist be taken away? When the players become too good? When the education related league becomes too popular again? You see the players gain something by being associated with the school also, in fact if these two 18-23 year old leagues, one semi-pro/minor league, one education/ school based amateur league were allowed to exist side by side, I bet the education based league would still be more popular because of people like me, who are really rooting for the school of their state or that they went to. The University of Tennessee Vols will always be more popular than the Knoxville Argonauts or whatever.

I think the amateur-education based league should be allowed to exist and the association of schools should be allowed to enforce their amateur status. And there is no law against the development of a semi-pro league right now though. The NCAA isn't going out and trying to shut semi-pro leagues down. Truth is, the folks that want the semi pro approach are the ones doing that, they don't want to compete with the education-centric/amateur league, they want to take a short cut by taking over the education-centric/amateur league, effectively destroying it, and co-opt the popularity of the schools and their brand. That's not fair either. Rather, both leagues semi-pro and education-centric/amateur, should be allowed to exist and the education-centric/amateur league that exists should not be destroyed simply because the semi-pro people find it hard to compete with.
I'm going to try this again with another TLPDR for most...

You're claiming that an exploitative, artificially suppressed market should be able to exist because it gives *something* to the workers it exploits. But it doesn't change that there is an exploitative, suppressed market.

Imagine you have a singular talent and ability. You're an engineer. But *every* employer is under mandate within engineer-hiring association to limit your salary to $5/hr. You can't make more than that even though it's literally the engineers that produce the wealth for the companies and association.

You complain. They threaten to fire you. 1/3 of the companies recognize your skill and want to pay you a fair market value, but the association threatens to burn them down if they try.

They tell you, "Hey! We're giving you $5/hr! What are you complaining about?! And you have choices! You could go do it for free at a non-profit. Heh, heh, heh..."

Do you think that system is fair? Do you think the SCOTUS would/should allow it to continue.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
7,664
Likes
13,370
I'm going to try this again with another TLPDR for most...

You're claiming that an exploitative, artificially suppressed market should be able to exist because it gives *something* to the workers it exploits. But it doesn't change that there is an exploitative, suppressed market.

Imagine you have a singular talent and ability. You're an engineer. But *every* employer is under mandate within engineer-hiring association to limit your salary to $5/hr. You can't make more than that even though it's literally the engineers that produce the wealth for the companies and association.

You complain. They threaten to fire you. 1/3 of the companies recognize your skill and want to pay you a fair market value, but the association threatens to burn them down if they try.

They tell you, "Hey! We're giving you $5/hr! What are you complaining about?! And you have choices! You could go do it for free at a non-profit. Heh, heh, heh..."

Do you think that system is fair? Do you think the SCOTUS would/should allow it to continue.
It's exploitative because it's the only options, corporately working to take any options away from the bottom level of labor that the organizations profit from. Face it. For a certain demographic of the world, the NCAA is the only avenue to a college degree and an opportunity to the NFL. It's the only place they can shop for that burger, or buy that sugar.

Imagine this:

All sugar production in a certain country is performed by group (x). All sugar producers coordinate to only pay (fill in the blank). The workers have no rights or hope of anything else, because they can't "vote with their feet". They'll be exploited wherever they go.

You're claiming that it's OK to exploit them and create an exploitive, controlled market that's rigged against the ones who are actually producing the wealth because--you know--they can choose not to work.

For the record, the above scenario is exactly what was going on in the Dominican sugar production industry, exploiting Haitian poverty. US Congress investigated and threatened to blacklist Dominican sugar if they didn't clean up their system, based on US Antitrust laws.

The NCAA has been taking in billions of dollars of broadcast rights and merchandise money for decades. It's all been distributed among the universities and everyone else but who is putting their time, efforts and bodies on the line. Any time the athletes or anyone else cries foul, the NCAA hides behind the fake "amateurism" argument as it divvies up the money to itself, signs coach contracts, cashes more checks, and threaten the sledge-hammer to anyone who rocks the boat or threatens to liberate the captive goose that's laying the golden eggs.

I mean. Geez, man. The NCAA is literally a representative association for all university presidents, artificially setting the pay scale for student athletes in a multi-billion $$$ industry to $0, taking ownership and limiting income from other means, while they cash the checks themselves, while disallowing any platform for the athletes to actually bargain for their rights.

It is unequivocally an exploitive, artificially suppressed market. Period.

But you like your cheap sugar. So you'll make excuses for the system.
You're really starting to sound like that Monty Python scene. Let's just agree that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government and agree to disagree on the remainder because neither of us are changing our minds about anything else.
 
Likes: kcvols1
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
15,495
Likes
14,507
That is the rule. This year has been crazy, but I think it's pent-up demand (to transfer) being let out. Should be less crazy in future years.
Yeah I didn't realize it was already this way. That's good! I'm in favor of the one time transfer rule. I just think they need to tighten up that window when players can enter the portal. Players shouldn't be allowed to up and quit on their team mid season without penalty! That's bullsh_t.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
29,820
Likes
29,924
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
You've admitted that you are closed minded on this with no chance of a changed mind. Me, in the last year, as NIL and NCAA have forced me to truly question my beliefs on this, I've changed 180* from your current opinion to where I am now, willing to live out my (fairly) libertarian ideals and trust in a free market.

You may want to consider what happened between this post, where you at least feigned a desire for a genuinely serious discussion:


NOTE: I know the following is long, feel free to skip, I am talking to Orange Crush and giving him a response I've owed him for awhile.

It seems to me that you guys are going a bit further though. You are saying that a league of teams where guys voluntarily go play a game in exchange for tuition, room, board and living expenses, etc., totalling in many cases, in excess of $ 100,000 per year, not to mention social and networking perks, CANNOT be allowed to exist. But why can that league not exist where participation is voluntary? Should that league be punished because it's popular? The fact is it's popular because people have fanatical loyalty to the schools more so than the players, and the players choose to play in that school league to "exploit" the fanaticism people have to those schools and gain greater exposure and a better chance of being noticed by pro football teams. You see I would watch UT football if it was high school level talent. I really don't give a dang who the players are or how talented they are. I suspect there are quite a few people like me. The players take advantage of that attitude also, it's not a one way street.

I actually am not against college players getting paid though, especially for their name, image and likeness, but you are being extremely naive if you think alot of the payments being made right now are actually because company's see a value in the players name, image and likeness. Hell naw, most of these agreements, probably 99% don't have a chance in hell of turning a profit. The payments are being made to steer the players to a certain school (or keep them at a certain school) not because those "marketing" rights are really worth that much value wise. And when I say value, I'm talking about like if a shampoo company pays Tom Brady for his NIL rights to put him in their commercial, the shampoo company is banking on being able to sell enough shampoo as a result of Brady's endorsement (compared to without his endorsement) to offset the cash they are paying Brady and still make more money than they would have otherwise without Brady's endorsement. If the player's NIL is really that valuable, why is it necessary to have the "hooks" in the agreement (daily appearances signing autographs at Tuscaloosa businesses for example) to make it impossible to play for another school? Why should it matter what school they play for? (Note: as I said on like the first page of this thread Nico's deal should be grandfathered in because retroactive enforcement of these more express rules that just came out last week is complete crap, it's not fair to him, when the rules could have come out last year).

Back to the main issue though, let's say we get a semi pro league set up where these kids get drafted straight out of high school, play for 4-5 years, no school to worry about and are employees of the league, with benefits, etc., the whole 9 yards. What if there are kids who STILL want to just play football in exchange for a free education? Should they be allowed to do so? At what point should the ability of this voluntary education based/amateur league to exist be taken away? When the players become too good? When the education related league becomes too popular again? You see the players gain something by being associated with the school also, in fact if these two 18-23 year old leagues, one semi-pro/minor league, one education/ school based amateur league were allowed to exist side by side, I bet the education based league would still be more popular because of people like me, who are really rooting for the school of their state or that they went to. The University of Tennessee Vols will always be more popular than the Knoxville Argonauts or whatever.

I think the amateur-education based league should be allowed to exist and the association of schools should be allowed to enforce their amateur status. And there is no law against the development of a semi-pro league right now though. The NCAA isn't going out and trying to shut semi-pro leagues down. Truth is, the folks that want the semi pro approach are the ones doing that, they don't want to compete with the education-centric/amateur league, they want to take a short cut by taking over the education-centric/amateur league, effectively destroying it, and co-opt the popularity of the schools and their brand. That's not fair either. Rather, both leagues semi-pro and education-centric/amateur, should be allowed to exist and the education-centric/amateur league that exists should not be destroyed simply because the semi-pro people find it hard to compete with.
And these, where you were reduced to stiff-arming the subject in favor of discomforted red-herring jokes.

You're really starting to sound like that Monty Python scene. Let's just agree that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government and agree to disagree on the remainder because neither of us are changing our minds about anything else.
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
The picture of a pigeon and a chessboard come to mind.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
7,664
Likes
13,370
You've admitted that you are closed minded on this with no chance of a changed mind. Me, in the last year, as NIL and NCAA have forced me to truly question my beliefs on this, I've changed 180* from your current opinion to where I am now, willing to live out my (fairly) libertarian ideals and trust in a free market.

You may want to consider what happened between this post, where you at least feigned a desire for a genuinely serious discussion:






And these, where you were reduced to stiff-arming the subject in favor of discomforted red-herring jokes.





The picture of a pigeon and a chessboard come to mind.
You really need to lighten up some.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
29,820
Likes
29,924
You really need to lighten up some.
I'm light.

You just gave the impression that you wanted a discussion. If you'd merely wanted to quote Monty Python, I wouldn't feel as though there'd been a bait and switch.

"Blessed are the cheese-makers."

There. Now the discussion is much more appropriate to the thread title.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
7,664
Likes
13,370
I'm light.

You just gave the impression that you wanted a discussion. If you'd merely wanted to quote Monty Python, I wouldn't feel as though there'd been a bait and switch.

"Blessed are the cheese-makers."

There. Now the discussion is much more appropriate to the thread title.
You had asked me to explain my thinking earlier in this thread or the other one on the FF on the same topic. I did so at length in that super long post at like 3 AM last night before I went to bed. I already understood your position, and your responses to me today essentially reiterated what you'd already told me. I got it. We disagree. I didn't feel there was a lot to unpack there, so I made what I thought was a friendly jab in an effort to agree to disagree. Looks like a missed the mark.
 
Likes: kcvols1

Voltopia

9 wins and a bowl game.
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
3,829
Likes
8,426
Which is why the NCAA and Schools aren't careful they're going to wind up having new employees in the form of players now on their payroll.
It'll be that or cut sports from their school.
It could get messy
It will end with them being employees, and it will be a train wreck. So much of college athletics is built on the idea of amateurism, and of supporting up and coming young adults who are starting out in adult life. That has absolutely nothing to do with a group of paid employees who show up to do a job and nothing else. They're wholly dissimilar experiences and atmospheres.

The difference between reading about a student who's struggling to overcome a challenge, versus a paid employee who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, is massive. If a student drops a big pass, you might give them a pat on the helmet, a hug, an "atta'boy, keep your head in the game." If an employee drops a big pass, you'd probably be "what the hell is your problem, get out there and DO YOUR DAMN JOB." No mercy, no forgiveness, just expectation and demand. And yes, I know there's already pressure and demand on P5 college football players. I'm just saying there won't be ANY room for any mercy once they're being paid. Get gud or get cut.

But even more than that. School bands are there to support their fellow students competing in varsity sports, not to support a company-organized group of employees playing sports - so bands can go. School donations are to support the school and the varsity athletes who represent the school in college competition. No need to beg for donations anymore, because you're not supporting students anymore. I sure as hell wouldn't want to hear about it if I was at a game. Senior days are for actual students who are matriculating at the school. No more need for senior days. All of it can go away. It's not about school spirit, or pride in a place, or a region, or whatever all that nonsense was about. It's just money now, and nothing but money.

In fact, almost all of it can go. So cut it loose already. Get it out the door and get it over with. The Knoxville whatever they're called's versus the Lexington whatever they're called's. Sounds good. Sounds professional.
 
Likes: Delmar
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
29,820
Likes
29,924
You had asked me to explain my thinking earlier in this thread or the other one on the FF on the same topic. I did so at length in that super long post at like 3 AM last night before I went to bed. I already understood your position, and your responses to me today essentially reiterated what you'd already told me. I got it. We disagree. I didn't feel there was a lot to unpack there, so I made what I thought was a friendly jab in an effort to agree to disagree. Looks like a missed the mark.
I hadn't asked you anything. You claimed everyone was posturing. I gave the opinion that the attorney looks like he actually wants a fight. You moved the goalpost to argue a point I really didn't feel needed an argument, and ended up defending your reasons for siding with the NCAA over a free market (i.e. "Imagine what it'll do to our sport's team in the future!").

Listen, if you want to mock someone's responses, don't clutch your pearls when they mock your lack of response.
 

Sudden Impact

Who we are is what We do with what We have!
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
9,611
Likes
3,020
Does anybody believe that with NIL that there need to be a betters Evaluation System for players?
We have 3 or 4 Major Services that currently evaluate 25000 + players with little or any contact.
We often see diamonds in the rough Overlooked....
I am for NIL, but the process of evaluations stays the same with the Coaches and really doesn't look good for recruiting services.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
7,664
Likes
13,370
Orange Crush said:
Screenshot_20220515-130038-105.png

You didn't ask me to explain my thinking? Let's check the record:

Screenshot_20220515-125914-251.png

Hmm. It kind of looks like you did.

Anyway, I typed you a very extended response at post # 239 of this thread (page 10), which I will not screenshot because of it's length. I've been talking about this subject at length since page 1, if you still don't get it, you never will or you're not trying, so like I said, I agree that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government, otherwise we are going to have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Likes: butchna
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
1,411
Likes
2,471
For the die hards lamenting the loss of amateurism in college football, I am sympathetic, but ...

Do you think BAMA, UGA, Ohio State, and Clemson have been operating without giving players impermissible benefits or payouts in the playoff era they have dominated? or the new TAMU and TEX juggernauts?

Amateurism has been, at best, unevenly in existence for over a decade.

NIL is not dancing on the grave of amateurism that was alive and well. It was a zombie concept that is already gone at the elite level of college football. The mid-tier and below have to adapt to the new landscape.

UT is part of this group, I guess JPruitt was doing it his way. He was setting up a Bubba clone network to operate in this new reality. Too bad our state and university is not corrupt from top to bottom, so it could never work.

I don't think NIL makes players being employees inevitable. I can see NIL existing side by side with the scholarship system, but it doesn't have to. There is nothing inevitable about it either way.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Sudden Impact

VN Store




Top