Why should football and men's basketball be paying for everyone else though?
It's not their responsibility to sustain other sports. Schools need to fund it at a loss or find a way to make it profitable.
Big-10, SEC developing plan to share revenue with players
- Thread starter Jerry
- Start date
It's not their responsibility to sustain other sports. Schools need to fund it at a loss or find a way to make it profitable.
I kind of agree with you, Lando. However, football and basketball (maybe wrestling at PSU too) are the only sports that make money. So what should happen with the excess money? If it was up to me I would dedicate it to a scholarship fund for the general school population. Others would say keep it with the sport and the players and if every football and basketball player gets a free BMW then so be it. Others like the way it is: much of the excess football and basketball money support the "minor" sports.
Maybe we should just do away with all sports that aren't self-supporting. Why is it the university's mission to pay for kids to play big time sports for their enjoy? The university should educate kids with an eye toward future employment and overall societal progress. There should be low cost intramurals for kids to get exercise and enjoyment but why does the university have to pony up millions of $$$ for women's field hockey, fencing, swimming, etc. with travel, training, prime playing surfaces, etc. It doesn't make sense to me.
And having played one of those sports that aren't self-sustaining I fully understand the frustration. College football is just bringing in so much money that the kids deserve a share IMO. Look at Saquon for example--his value to Penn State lasted long after he was drafted by the Giants. RBs still want to come here and, yes, we've had great RBs before but these kids watched him dominate at Penn State.
Change the law...change the rules...and presto: it's all legal by definition.
To be clear, this is far from a done deal. There are many questions to resolve and whatever emerges from it could be (and probably will be) challenged in court.
Meanwhile, as I understand the "model" that the major conferences have agreed to in principle, NIL gets absorbed into the new revenue-sharing arrangement controlled and administered by the schools. The boosters are either entirely muscled out of the equation or very tightly controlled.
I mean, that's the whole point -- to get control of what is now the Wild West system that NIL has become. Otherwise, why bother creating a new model when you'll be left with the same problems or worse?
But to make it work, the schools and the NCAA need anti-trust exemptions to give them legal cover. That's where Congress may even get in the act.
Here's a helpful paragraph or two from an ESPN piece today:
>>Berman said the settlement includes a "mechanism" that he believes will make it easier for schools to rein in the marketplace for third-party NIL deals. He declined to provide any further details. Several athletic directors told ESPN this week that they were optimistic but uncertain about whether the settlement would give them enough legal room to regain control...
Asked whether he thought the settlement provided the tools the NCAA and its schools need to take back control of the market for college athletes and add stability to the new world for college sports, Whitman said: "We'll find out."<<
Note the operative verb-phrases: "Rein in the markeplace"..."regain control"..."take back control of the market." Those references are to NIL, among other issues.
Founding Father John Adams wrote “"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
The message is that we should strive to create opportunities for creative and - dare I say - impractical activities for others. For others.
The message is that we should strive to create opportunities for creative and - dare I say - impractical activities for others. For others.
You can't just enact a law that is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already shown a willingness to engage in this arena. Can you imaging the NFL telling players that they can't go out and sign endorsement deals?
The article I read said they could still make these deals but it would be the responsibility of the player to be able to show they provided value equal to what they were paid. No more pay to play from big money NIL donors.
Value in NIL is near impossible to calculate and actually be provable. As long as the income is reported, and taxes paid, this isn't going back in THAT box.
The % for schools is just a bit of separation. It'll allow for the separation from NCAA easier and more clearly.
Time to eliminate all intercollegiate sports. It is now n9thing but a money pit. Anyone who has had h8gh level management experience in business realizes how disconnected from good economics that athertic depaermen5s are with 6 figure administrative salaries every where you look.You knew it had to come to this, and it's probably a good thing. It would hopefully impose some order on the Wild West scene that NIL has become while bringing benefits to players and officially acknowledging the sport's new reality. We're never going back to the Good Old Days:
SEC, Big Ten developing plan to share revenue with players in potential landmark change to college athletics
The model being discussed by college sports' top conferences could go a long way toward settling outstanding lawsuitswww.cbssports.com
Granted, I'm being a little flip on that single line, but the rest of my detailed response that Lando conveniently edited out stands. NFL players are employees. College players are not...notwithstanding the NLRB's ruling earlier this year on the Dartmouth basketball team. That decision has not been applied across the board and was only the first shot in what will likely be a long legal battle.
Meanwhile, there are a number of legal arguments for schools being able to regulate, control, and administer NIL. Whether those arguments, if enacted into law and potentially buttressed by anti-trust exemptions, would withstand a legal challenge is another matter.
Keep in mind this unregulated Wild West NIL system is a recent invention. It didn't exist only a few years ago. And for many decades few people would have dreamed of it as some sort of basic constitutional right.
In fact, the record shows that courts have been known to have an elastic definition of constitutional rights, depending in part on the judge and venue. The basic point is that with this new model of systematized compensation, the schools are trying to impose their own order on NIL. It's hard to predict if they'll succeed or not.
It's not difficult to predict. NIL is going to continue. That doesn't mean we want it to. There's almost no chance of what you're hoping for of actually happening.
I understand why people don't like many things going on with college but the denial regarding it doesn't make sense. The sooner you and many others accept this is where we are the better.
The question is not whether NIL will continue but rather in what form and under whose control it will continue.
The major football-playing schools and the NCAA have now conceded the fundamental point that fairness requires players to be financially compensated for the tons of money their talents and work produce for the institutions they attend. The objective of this reported settlement is to impose order and rules on the new compensation system.
Here's how Notre Dame's president put it yesterday in a comment which tracks exactly with what I'm saying here:
>>To save the great American institution of college sports, Congress must pass legislation that will preempt the current patchwork of state laws; establish that our athletes are not employees, but students seeking college degrees; and provide protection from further anti-trust lawsuits that will allow colleges to make and enforce rules that will protect our student-athletes and help ensure competitive equity among our teams.<<
How will all this play out? Nobody, including you, can predict that right now.
By the way, I'm not in denial about anything nor is it a question of what people like or don't like. Personally, I'll watch the games regardless. But I do believe there needs to be a uniform system of rules, and therefore I hope the attempt by the schools to develop one succeeds.
Fair enough. And I could be wrong but I truly believe a lot of this is denial. There's no closing this door. It's wide open.
Are you okay with NFL players making money off their name outside of what the team pays them? If so, how is this different? If not, yikes.
The question we're discussing is not what I'm OK with but rather what this bombshell NCAA revenue-sharing settlement means for NIL in particular and college sports in general.
On that topic, I think we're both right: NIL will continue to exist but in what form and under whose control is not clear. In fact, very little is clear in the wake of the announced settlement.
I found a handy FAQ about the settlement on 247 Sports and here are some key excerpts on the subject of NIL:
>>Will There Still Be NIL?
Yes. But probably not to the degree we've seen in this chaos era of college athletics.
Players will still be allowed to utilize their NIL rights and make money by striking brand deals. It also would not be a surprise to see schools distribute the revenue by striking a contract that allows them to purchase exclusive use of a player's NIL rights.
Will Collectives Still Exist?
Yes, but this is where the idea of "NIL" – at least the pay-for-play version of NIL fans have come to know – becomes more complicated.
Collectives aren't going to go away. In some ways, their role may become even more important...
"Collectives aren't going to go away if there's a salary cap," The Collective Association President Russell White told CBS Sports. "Universities will continue to want to compete above and beyond (the base revenue shares)."
There is, however, a question of how NIL will be enforced in this new era.
I'd expect many schools to bring their collectives in-house, which should circumvent some of the, ahem, craziness we've seen in recent years...
But will the NCAA have more teeth in terms of enforcement given the new rules? Will another enforcement entity arise? We'll see. It seems like the NCAA would have more legal standing to do so after this settlement. But this is also a different sort of problem to solve. Previously, the NCAA was enforcing amateurism. This is monitoring a salary cap. Very different jobs.<<
Note that last paragraph about NCAA enforcement. That means potential authority to ride herd on NIL.
So the bottom line as best we can figure it with the reported facts on hand and key questions unanswered: NIL is not going away...but it is going to change and be reined in.
I am skeptical that this will help. The marketplace isn’t going to rein in payment to players. Players will get paid directly by the school and top players will get side payments from boosters, even if their NIL rights are signed over to the school. It gets rid of amateurism but doesn’t solve the problem.
I understand but I think this response you posted is delusional. NIL will still exist and it will still be "pay to play". Even if the programs gives someone 800k (making up a number) they're going to want additional NIL money and if Penn State can't do that someone else likely will. Monitoring the salary cap, see the NFL, has nothing to do with outside deals.
I don't see it being reined in at all but I sure hope I'm wrong.
It’s different because the NFL has a draft, contracts, and free agency rules that were negotiated.
The college model right now is unlimited free agency every year with no binding contract holding the players to anything. The highest bidder can theoretically lure every top player to just one team. That’s not possible in the NFL.
Right--in pro sports players never demand trades so they can go wherever they want.
Again, you're argument is that 18-22 guys can't control their likeness or profit off their ability. That's horrific.
Accept things have changed--it's your only option.
Pro sports still have contracts. Not everyone is free to roam every window. Wanting that part adjusted in some fashion isn't against 18-22 year olds. It's wanting some stability in utter chaos.
I don't think it's coming until a split occurs from NCAA though. Players eventually will have to buy their way out when some type of Collective Bargaining arrives.
I'm curious how recruiting business is going. More people paying than ever, same, less? It seems like a waste because you follow a guy and he's out after 1 season. Practice info is probably a better buy for what you get (and it's limited by coaching staffs).
Why are they associated with universities? They are professionals so do you let the universities have true student athletes (current intramural teams or 2 star guys) and all the paid professionals go to some kind of NFL development league? Not saying that is what I want but as a Penn State fan and fans of other schools you would eventually get used to a much lower level of football
It is like a whole industry had volunteers doing work now they all are going to get paid like high paid executives. How can you afford that? You really can't so more changes coming.
Again--we (Penn State) have always played in a developmental league for the NFL. You were fine with Penn State using the players to make money but now they're getting paid you're upset. It's illogical.
Players will still be wearing the Penn State uniform and playing at Penn State--that's all anyone cares TRULY cares about despite the narrative.
Then programs can try to give out money for more than 1 year but that's risky for both. For the team, if that player gets injured or busts then you're in trouble because unlike a salary cap there's no way around the cap. For the player, you risk selling yourself low.
Recruiting is a 24-7/365 business with your own players but players finally have to perform to stay. They'll be run off real quick.
I will still be a big fan paid or not but simply saying that formally paying players can change the future. What is the difference you ask? Money.
And most have always been getting paid. Now it's just legal.
Whether or not they get paid they're wearing Penn State uniforms. That's all that matters. Just like countless people taking abou the Big Ten Baseball Tournament that never watch college baseball because Penn State made a run. People always take pride in the success of the program they root for. Fan bases are established which is why all the comparisons to the minor leagues/UFL are moot.
Franklin's salary didn't ruin it in then players getting a fair share won't either
