Welcome to College Football 2024!

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You keep making this claim that college football will be gone in a few years? On what basis?

The problem is court enforced revenue sharing. After Alston v NCAA, which the NCAA lost 9-0, Justice Kavanaugh basically told the NCAA they'd lose every Antitrust Law case from here on out and they are losing.

If the NCAA is in violation of Antitrust Law, they can't enforce transfer rules, keep schools from using NIL essentially as a salary, etc. Basically, college ball becomes full on pro ball.

The next lawsuits will say "players are employees" of the schools , that is, paid pro athletes.

At that point, lots of schools can't afford sports.

 

[GoodTimeVol]

The problem is court enforced revenue sharing. After Alston v NCAA, which the NCAA lost 9-0, Justice Kavanaugh basically told the NCAA they'd lose every Antitrust Law case from here on out and they are losing.

If the NCAA is in violation of Antitrust Law, they can't enforce transfer rules, keep schools from using NIL essentially as a salary, etc. Basically, college ball becomes full on pro ball.

The next lawsuits will say "players are employees" of the schools , that is, paid pro athletes.

At that point, lots of schools can't afford sports.

Why would you want the NCAA to have the power to enforce transfer rules? Do you think they should enforce the same rule on coaches from having them jump from school to school based on a higher salary offer?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Why would you want the NCAA to have the power to enforce transfer rules? Do you think they should enforce the same rule on coaches from having them jump from school to school based on a higher salary offer?

I'm not saying the NCAA SHOULD have the power but if you have complete free agency to transfer and no control over NIL payments as essentially "pay to play" you have a situation where rich schools simply buy players away from poor schools.

We've seen this under the table, but above the table there's little, with the NCAA gutted, to keep schools from just making offers to major talent at other schools and snatching them.

The BIG issue is the courts. You may have seen Dartmouth basketball unionized. USCw (Southern Cal) is trying to do the same. They are arguing they are employees of the school, not student athletes.

If that idea takes root in the courts, UT even cannot afford to pay ALL the athletes and there's little to separate out a tennis player for the school from a basketball player from the school.

Smaller schools that have little revenue cannot pay anyone as a pro athlete and will be driven out of sports.

 

[GoodTimeVol]

I'm not saying the NCAA SHOULD have the power but if you have complete free agency to transfer and no control over NIL payments as essentially "pay to play" you have a situation where rich schools simply buy players away from poor schools.

We've seen this under the table, but above the table there's little, with the NCAA gutted, to keep schools from just making offers to major talent at other schools and snatching them.

The BIG issue is the courts. You may have seen Dartmouth basketball unionized. USCw (Southern Cal) is trying to do the same. They are arguing they are employees of the school, not student athletes.

If that idea takes root in the courts, UT even cannot afford to pay ALL the athletes and there's little to separate out a tennis player for the school from a basketball player from the school.

Smaller schools that have little revenue cannot pay anyone as a pro athlete and will be driven out of sports.

That’s a separate issue compared to NIL, schools have no obligation to have sports teams if players want to unionize then that is their right just like it’s the schools right to discontinue the sport… it’s on the players if they want to play moving forward

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

That’s a separate issue compared to NIL, schools have no obligation to have sports teams if players want to unionize then that is their right just like it’s the schools right to discontinue the sport… it’s on the players if they want to play moving forward

I'm not sure how it's "on the players" if the courts rule college players are employees. The players don't make the rules, the NCAA has and, increasingly, the courts are making the NCAA change those rules.

Why do you think it's on the players?

 

[GoodTimeVol]

I'm not sure how it's "on the players" if the courts rule college players are employees. The players don't make the rules, the NCAA has and, increasingly, the courts are making the NCAA change those rules.

Why do you think it's on the players?

Because by going the unionized route they could be making their own university discontinue the sport…so everyone loses so it’s on them

 

[Clad in Big Orange]

Why can’t they have both money and love for the school they play for? Why is it one or the other?

Nothing wrong with that! Hopefully we’ll see more of those type athletes going forward. It’s the Gerald Minceys of this era that make it seem like we are really fans of the uniform not the player wearing it. Again, I’m not bemoaning the changes just stating a fondness for days long past.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Because by going the unionized route they could be making their own university discontinue the sport…so everyone loses so it’s on them

That's an extremely interesting opinion.

When the STATES point out the NCAA is in violation of Antitrust Law, you're 100% with it.

When the STUDENTS point out the NCAA is in violation of Antitrust Law, it's their fault for pursuing that.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Nothing wrong with that! Hopefully we’ll see more of those type athletes going forward. It’s the Gerald Minceys of this era that make it seem like we are really fans of the uniform not the player wearing it. Again, I’m not bemoaning the changes just stating a fondness for days long past.

What you seem to have missed is what Justice Kavanaugh said in his opinion in Alston:

“Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.”

The NCAA business model of the unpaid student-athlete isn't legal. Kavanaugh wasn't mincing words. That's not the students, that's a Supreme Court Justice in a 9-0 decision, no dissenting opinions, essentially saying the players are employees and the NCAA needs to pay them.

Putting this "on the players" is incorrect. The NCAA is running a system which is in violation of Antitrust Law.

 

[OrangeBeachVol]

I'm not saying the NCAA SHOULD have the power but if you have complete free agency to transfer and no control over NIL payments as essentially "pay to play" you have a situation where rich schools simply buy players away from poor schools.

Smaller schools that have little revenue cannot pay anyone as a pro athlete and will be driven out of sports.

This is exactly the reasons Saban used when he testified before Congress yesterday concerning NIL needing some rules.

 

[Clad in Big Orange]

What you seem to have missed is what Justice Kavanaugh said in his opinion in Alston:

“Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.”

The NCAA business model of the unpaid student-athlete isn't legal. Kavanaugh wasn't mincing words. That's not the students, that's a Supreme Court Justice in a 9-0 decision, no dissenting opinions, essentially saying the players are employees and the NCAA needs to pay them.

Putting this "on the players" is incorrect. The NCAA is running a system which is in violation of Antitrust Law.

What you seem to keep missing is that I’m not putting anything on the players. I simply am thankful I was able to experience Vol football in the simpler era. I’m not taking a stance right/wrong either way. I regret I wandered into this argument where you have lumped me in with others that disagree with your stance.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

This is exactly the reasons Saban used when he testified before Congress yesterday concerning NIL needing some rules.

Sure, Saban wants it all shoved back under the table. In the open, there are far richer donors at schools who can dominate NIL as pay.

Those "dirty money" days aren't coming back, IMO, because as easy as it might be to buy players, it's not that hard to buy Congressmen either.

When that oil money starts flowing into DC from TX, who stands to benefit heavily from "pay to play," you'll see a compromise that looks a lot like minor league pro sports for big revenue schools.

Whether they can somehow carve small and non revenue rich schools out and let true student athletes compete in college is my concern.

Either way, though, UT will look more like pro ball than college ball in a few years.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

What you seem to keep missing is that I’m not putting anything on the players. I simply am thankful I was able to experience Vol football in the simpler era. I’m not taking a stance right/wrong either way. I regret I wandered into this argument where you have lumped me in with others that disagree with your stance.

It's not my stance. My name isn't Kavanaugh.

I've been lamenting this coming since Alston was decided.

It simply is what it is.

 

[OrangeBeachVol]

Sure, Saban wants it all shoved back under the table. In the open, there are far richer donors at schools who can dominate NIL as pay.

Those "dirty money" days aren't coming back, IMO, because as easy as it might be to buy players, it's not that hard to buy Congressmen either.

When that oil money starts flowing into DC from TX, who stands to benefit heavily from "pay to play," you'll see a compromise that looks a lot like minor league pro sports for big revenue schools.

Whether they can somehow carve small and non revenue rich schools out and let true student athletes compete in college is my concern.

Either way, though, UT will look more like pro ball than college ball in a few years.

Not defending AL but since I live in the state and have AL friends, the university has plenty of booster $ and nothing would change for them. I am sure they would be in the mix as one of the rich schools in this NIL scenario. FB NC's means everything to this Adm, fan base and donors and they will do whatever is necessary.

 

[GoodTimeVol]

That's an extremely interesting opinion.

When the STATES point out the NCAA is in violation of Antitrust Law, you're 100% with it.

When the STUDENTS point out the NCAA is in violation of Antitrust Law, it's their fault for pursuing that.

What happened with Dartmouth has nothing to do with the NCAA and everything to do with the university…they went to court against the university not the NCAA so I am failing to see your point

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Be that as it may, in the long run the Wild West is not sustainable. All these judges are not saying what is or isn't good policy, they are just saying the current set-up violates Anti-Trust. As we have discussed before though, Congress can change Anti-Trust. I heard Ross Dellenger on Dusty & Danny this morning. He was up on Capitol Hill yesterday for the hearing. He said basically everyone agrees revenue sharing would be part of any Congressional bill and that the momentum is in favor of that being done not through employment. Said it's 50/50 at best that it gets done this year. I am thinking it doesn't get done this year and there will be at least one more year of the Wild West, but eventually there will be a compromise on a conditional/partial exemption from Antitrust for college athletics which puts enforceable rules for competitive balance in place in exchange for revenue sharing. The driving force for ultimate compromise is going to be saving women's sports/the non-revenue sports.

Antitrust exemption for college sports? Very doubtful. There is virtually zero interest for that in Congress. Tuberville can't even get his bill out of committee. No one is going to even bring a bill to the floor in an election year.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

What happened with Dartmouth has nothing to do with the NCAA and everything to do with the university…they went to court against the university not the NCAA so I am failing to see your point

They went to court vs the University because they went via the NLRB which controls private businesses and Dartmouth is a private school. They also play in the Ivy League with no scholarships.

USCw is also a private school, also going through the NLRB, and also likely to win the right to unionize. The difference is USCw will also be in the B1G which is a major conference and a huge player in the NCAA.

How do you think this is going to work if SOME B1G schools are paying athletes as employees and others aren't? It's going to end up in court and the B1G and/or the NCAA will lose.

That's why it matters.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

What happened with Dartmouth has nothing to do with the NCAA and everything to do with the university…they went to court against the university not the NCAA so I am failing to see your point

You may read this whole article which explains it better than I can or scroll down to the "joint employer" section. It explains why this matters to all schools, not just USCw.

NCAA, Pac-12, USC trial begins with NLRB over athletes' employment status

An administrative law judge will begin proceedings Tuesday in a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaint against the NCAA, Pac-12 and USC.

www.usatoday.com

 

[GoodTimeVol]

They went to court vs the University because they went via the NLRB which controls private businesses and Dartmouth is a private school. They also play in the Ivy League with no scholarships.

USCw is also a private school, also going through the NLRB, and also likely to win the right to unionize. The difference is USCw will also be in the B1G which is a major conference and a huge player in the NCAA.

How do you think this is going to work if SOME B1G schools are paying athletes as employees and others aren't? It's going to end up in court and the B1G and/or the NCAA will lose.

That's why it matters.

You are trying to justify your argument by saying the universities are tied to the NCAA, but these individual cases have nothing to do with the NCAA. Again if players go this route the Universities can get rid of said sport, they have no legal justification to keep a sport around if they don’t feel like they can afford it.

Even If colleges can’t afford to pay athletes moving forward then those players and university are SOL, im sorry to say that but times are changing they either find a way to survive or close the program down. Unionization is a right for the players but doesn’t mean the players are going to get the outcome they wanted simple as that.

If the outcome you want is to keep every sports program available then those universities either need to implement a plan to provide compensation or they need to tell the student athletes that they will close the program if they go the unionization route. Nothing wrong with telling the truth lol so it is what it is…

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Not defending AL but since I live in the state and have AL friends, the university has plenty of booster $ and nothing would change for them. I am sure they would be in the mix as one of the rich schools in this NIL scenario. FB NC's means everything to this Adm, fan base and donors and they will do whatever is necessary.

Post-Saban, Bama will probably do the post-Bear wander in the wilderness for several years, at least I hope so. I don't predict much success nor a long career at Alabama for DeBoer.

Saban was the GOAT but even he said "things have changed in college football" and that contributed to him leaving. I think he saw the writing on the wall and he was a lousy pro coach.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

That’s a separate issue compared to NIL, schools have no obligation to have sports teams if players want to unionize then that is their right just like it’s the schools right to discontinue the sport… it’s on the players if they want to play moving forward

No school that makes millions from their football program is going to do something that opposed to their economic self interest.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You are trying to justify your argument by saying the universities are tied to the NCAA, but these individual cases have nothing to do with the NCAA. Again if players go this route the Universities can get rid of said sport, they have no legal justification to keep a sport around if they don’t feel like they can afford it.

Even If colleges can’t afford to pay athletes moving forward then those players and university are SOL, im sorry to say that but times are changing they either find a way to survive or close the program down. Unionization is a right for the players but doesn’t mean the players are going to get the outcome they wanted simple as that.

If the outcome you want is to keep every sports program available then those universities either need to implement a plan to provide compensation or they need to tell the student athletes that they will close the program if they go the unionization route. Nothing wrong with telling the truth lol so it is what it is…

Absolutely agree the schools don't have to field sports teams, but for smaller schools the athletic program remained more of an enrichment to the college experience and less of a multi-million dollar business like it is at UT.

I'm not happy for kids who could get a scholarship to ETSU or TN Tech or whatever and those schools might get lumped in as employers of athletes too. Those kids benefited from the scholarship, from the athletic experience, gave the school a competitive experience without being a cog in a huge money making school business.

It's the money the NCAA and the schools brought into the game which ruined it, not the players.

I'm not an attorney. I don't know how you say "this university runs an athletics business but that university doesn't." As I know business law, and I'm still not an attorney, a business doesn't have to make money to be a business and be required to pay its employees.

As for smaller schools "coming up with a way to compensate athletes," I think we can agree that isn't likely. Money is tight and the primary mission of schools is education, not athletics. When push comes to shove, schools should invest in education.

 

[Rifleman]

It's true that people always have complained about others, often younger generations. Sometimes those complaints are valid though and sometimes they aren't. The trick is knowing which and when. The Egyptian civilization did not last, so at some point concerns about decline/complacency were valid ones, and were ignored.

If only that upstart whippersnapper Alexander had been a little more respectful and less hell-bent on change! Ancient Egypt never would have fallen and we'd all be polytheists worshipping cool anthropomorphic beast deities right now just as Horus intended.

Though, we do kind of have our own Anubis here and an ongoing rivalry with Sobek:

 

[turbovol]

The problem is court enforced revenue sharing. After Alston v NCAA, which the NCAA lost 9-0, Justice Kavanaugh basically told the NCAA they'd lose every Antitrust Law case from here on out and they are losing.

If the NCAA is in violation of Antitrust Law, they can't enforce transfer rules, keep schools from using NIL essentially as a salary, etc. Basically, college ball becomes full on pro ball.

The next lawsuits will say "players are employees" of the schools , that is, paid pro athletes.

At that point, lots of schools can't afford sports.

Kavanaugh is an idiot. He claimed the NCAA's business model wouldn't fly at any other industry in America. That is completely stupid remark as colleges are educational institutions and not in any way a conventional private business. And yet judges seem to think that doesn't matter--which to me defies logic. The players are full-time students, not employees--and they're getting a free college education worth upwards of $250,000 over 4 years. So this notion that they are put upon is absurd. What's also absurd is the notion that all these people are getting rich on the backs of the players. Stupid. The vast majority of every major's football revenues is reinvested in the athletic department and finances all the non-revenue sports--15 or more of them. No conventional business invests money annually in ventures guaranteed to lose money--which is what non-rev sports. The whole sport has gone stupid and "woke"--and generally hate that term. By the logical of current legal decisions, high-schools will have to start paying their players, too, as many high schools make so money off of their football and basketball programs. And get NIL out of recruiting--it is corrupt and stupid and not what college is supposed to be about. One problem is that fans are crazy and can't relate to the educational side of college because they didn't go to college themselves.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Kavanaugh is an idiot. He claimed the NCAA's business model wouldn't fly at any other industry in America. That is completely stupid remark as colleges are educational institutions and not in any way a conventional private business. And yet judges seem to think that doesn't matter--which to me defies logic. The players are full-time students, not employees--and they're getting a free college education worth upwards of $250,000 over 4 years. So this notion that they are put upon is absurd. What's also absurd is the notion that all these people are getting rich on the backs of the players. Stupid. The vast majority of every major's football revenues is reinvested in the athletic department and finances all the non-revenue sports--15 or more of them. No conventional business invests money annually in ventures guaranteed to lose money--which is what non-rev sports. The whole sport has gone stupid and "woke"--and generally hate that term. By the logical of current legal decisions, high-schools will have to start paying their players, too, as many high schools make so money off of their football and basketball programs. And get NIL out of recruiting--it is corrupt and stupid and not what college is supposed to be about. One problem is that fans are crazy and can't relate to the educational side of college because they didn't go to college themselves.

Kavanaugh actually has a strong legal position. Illegal restraint of trade applies to all sectors. The schools make tens of millions on football every year, on the athletes backs. The SCOTUS thing is the polar opposite of "woke". It is pro business and pro capitalism.