SI: With NCAA Embroiled in Chaos, Notre Dame’s Swarbrick Calls Division I Breakup ‘Inevitable’

[short ornery norwegian]

NIL isn’t able to be relguated at the lower of the two “new” levels whether they want to or not.

they literally won’t be playing under two sets of rules at least in terms of NiL

the point is that the schools who don't want to go all-in for the NIL game will choose to compete at a different level because they can't or won't get involved in the NIL 'arms race.'

so, if you have this split into two levels, the 'traditional' level will adopt its own rules and guidelines.
they would play under self-imposed regulations or restrictions. Like the Ivy League agreeing to the 'no scholarship' rule.

hey, maybe none of this happens. Maybe Congress actually gets involved and passes national NIL regulations (that will pass muster with the Supreme Court). What happens with future TV rights deals will also have a major impact.

But, I agree with the ND AD on this - I see major D1 college programs heading in two different directions, and NIL is a major factor.

 

[cheeseheadgophfan]

“It’s the NBA,” another coach told me, “without the NBA salary cap.”

This caught my attention....isn't this a possible solution? Put a NIL cap in place? This allows players to make money off their name, image and likeness but it puts all universities on the same page. If professional sports teams can use a salary cap, what would prevent the NCAA (other than incompetence) from doing so????

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

“It’s the NBA,” another coach told me, “without the NBA salary cap.”

This caught my attention....isn't this a possible solution? Put a NIL cap in place? This allows players to make money off their name, image and likeness but it puts all universities on the same page. If professional sports teams can use a salary cap, what would prevent the NCAA (other than incompetence) from doing so????

The Supreme Court? The reason that the salary caps are legal is that they are part of collectively bargained union contracts.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

NIL isn’t able to be relguated at the lower of the two “new” levels whether they want to or not.

they literally won’t be playing under two sets of rules at least in terms of NiL

Swarbrick, to me, was talking about a separate entity of schools that license their name to business entities that are essentially running professional franchises, paying players and so on.

My cheap seats take is we are potentially on the road to another possibility: reclassification of student athletes as employees, the costs of which would collapse many programs and alter the landscape without the surviving schools necessarily having to dissociate themselves from the team. Maybe the licensing idea is a way to help preserve non-revenue college athletics while allowing the big boys to run wild competing for players.

Then again, I have not had coffee this morning.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Swarbrick, to me, was talking about a separate entity of schools that license their name to business entities that are essentially running professional franchises, paying players and so on.

My cheap seats take is we are potentially on the road to another possibility: reclassification of student athletes as employees, the costs of which would collapse many programs and alter the landscape without the surviving schools necessarily having to dissociate themselves from the team. Maybe the licensing idea is a way to help preserve non-revenue college athletics while allowing the big boys to run wild competing for players.

Then again, I have not had coffee this morning.

I don't see how it wouldn't be possible for a school and/or conference to simply drop down to DIII and bypass the entire mess of it, if that is what they want their choice to be, as opposed to simply throwing their hands up and abolishing their athletic department entirely.

Does DIII currently "allow" NIL? I'm not sure any (sub)division is in a legal position to "allow" it or not. But I feel like, at least for DIII, they should be legally in the right to disallow players from accepting any aid of any kind outside of need-based financial aid from their school.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I don't see how it wouldn't be possible for a school and/or conference to simply drop down to DIII and bypass the entire mess of it, if that is what they want their choice to be, as opposed to simply throwing their hands up and abolishing their athletic department entirely.

Does DIII currently "allow" NIL? I'm not sure any (sub)division is in a legal position to "allow" it or not. But I feel like, at least for DIII, they should be legally in the right to disallow players from accepting any aid of any kind outside of need-based financial aid from their school.

I don’t think that’s possible, but I’m not an NIL expert. Here is a synopsis of the rapid collapse which includes a mention of all divisions. Then again, each state or school can currently make up their own rule AFAIK. It’s a bit of a mess.

Timeline: How we got here​

Sept. 30, 2019: California passes legislationintroduced by Sen. Nancy Skinner that will, starting in 2023, prohibit schools from punishing athletes who accept endorsement money while in college. The NCAA called the legislation an "existential threat" to college amateur sports when it was introduced months earlier.

Oct. 29, 2019: The NCAA's board of governors agrees unanimously that it is time to modernize its name, image and likeness rules. The board directs all three NCAA divisions to make rules by January 2021 that allow athletes to make endorsement money while maintaining "the collegiate model."

April 29, 2020: A working group appointed by the NCAA lays out its suggestions for how Division I should change its rules, including details about the opportunities and restrictions for future athlete deals. The Division I Council formally submitted these proposed changes in November 2020 with plans to put them to a vote in January 2021.

June 12, 2020: Florida passes its state law with a scheduled effective date of July 1, 2021, that significantly decreases the time to create a uniform national solution.

July 22, 2020: Emmert, the NCAA president, repeats a request for congressional help in creating a federal NIL law while appearing at a Senate hearing in Washington, D.C. Several senators urged Emmert and the NCAA to broaden the scope of their reform efforts if they wanted help from Capitol Hill.

Aug. 2, 2020: A group of Pac-12 football players threatens to boycott the season while sharing a list of demands that included giving players a share of athletic department revenue. A similar group of national stars formed a week later and stated its intent to form a college football players' association in the future.

Sept. 24, 2020: Reps. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio, and Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., introduce a federal bill that would allow for NIL deals with some restrictions in hopes of keeping endorsements from disrupting the recruiting process.

Dec. 10, 2020: Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., introduces federal legislation that would allow for some NIL deals and also create an antitrust exemption that would protect the NCAA from some types of future lawsuits.

Dec. 16, 2020: The Supreme Court agreed to hear the NCAA's appeal of a federal judge's ruling in the Alston v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit. While not directly related to NIL rules, the Supreme Court's decision in this case could impact how much control the NCAA has in defining amateurism in the future.

Dec. 17, 2020: Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduce legislation calling for a wide-reaching overhaul of NCAA rules and college sports governance.

Jan. 11, 2021: The NCAA's Division 1 Council decides to indefinitely delay its vote on name, image and likeness rules, citing concerns prompted by a letter from the Department of Justice related to the possible antitrust implications of changing its rules. Emmert, the NCAA president, said he was "frustrated and disappointed" by the delay.


Feb. 4, 2021: Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., introduce federal legislation that would create a completely unrestricted market for college athlete endorsement deals.

March 31, 2021: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Alston v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit.

April 1, 2021: NCAA president Mark Emmert met with three men's basketball players trying to raise awareness -- using the hashtag #NotNCAAProperty -- for what they see as unfair treatment of college athletes. The players asked the NCAA to adopt a temporary blanket waiver that would allow all athletes to make money from endorsement deals next school year while more permanent decisions take shape.

June 18, 2021: Six conference heads (including the ACC, SEC and Pac-12 leaders) propose a new plan that would make individual schools responsible for creating their own NIL policies. The new proposal surfaced after a pair of Senate hearings in June made it clear that a federal law was not imminent.

June 21, 2020: The Supreme Court rules against the NCAA in its appeal, issuing an opinion that dealt a significant blow to the organization's argument that it should receive special antitrust treatment because of its academic mission. The justice's ruling made it clear that NCAA restrictions -- including on NIL activity -- could face serious legal challenges in the future.

June 30, 2021: The NCAA's Board of Directors adopts a temporary rule change that opens the door for NIL activity, instructing schools to set their own policy for what should be allowed with minimal guidelines

July 1, 2021: The first batch of state laws, and the NCAA's new rules, go into effect. Athletes start signing endorsements deals minutes after the clock strikes midnight.

Legislation​

The NCAA has asked Congress for help in creating a federal NIL law. While several federal options have been proposed, it's becoming increasingly likely that state laws will start to go into effect before a nationwide change is made. There are 28 states with NIL laws already in place and multiple others that are actively pursuing legislation.

Everything you need to know about the NCAA's NIL debate

With the athletes, the NCAA, legislators and the courts all still involved, expect more twists and turns in the name, image and likeness debate. Check back here for all the latest news.

www.espn.com

 

[4four4]

It's time to start MJ-FB and MJ-BB so we can end this madness.

 

[Some guy]

Swarbrick, to me, was talking about a separate entity of schools that license their name to business entities that are essentially running professional franchises, paying players and so on.

My cheap seats take is we are potentially on the road to another possibility: reclassification of student athletes as employees, the costs of which would collapse many programs and alter the landscape without the surviving schools necessarily having to dissociate themselves from the team. Maybe the licensing idea is a way to help preserve non-revenue college athletics while allowing the big boys to run wild competing for players.

Then again, I have not had coffee this morning.

The problem with that is it will cost a lot of money to do an also be in compliance with title IX

 

[Gophers1992]

“It’s the NBA,” another coach told me, “without the NBA salary cap.”

This caught my attention....isn't this a possible solution? Put a NIL cap in place? This allows players to make money off their name, image and likeness but it puts all universities on the same page. If professional sports teams can use a salary cap, what would prevent the NCAA (other than incompetence) from doing so????

A cap on NIL would be more akin to a cap on what pro athletes earn in endorsements, which does not exist.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

again, the only way to really bring some control and sanity to the situation would be through national legislation - which would still have to be able to withstand any potential court challenges.

The alternative would be for a conference to follow the Ivy League model and adopt self-imposed restrictions with all schools in the conference agreeing to abide by the same rules.

The Ivy League chooses to be a non-scholarship conference, and players understand that when they agree to play at an Ivy League school.

Likewise, a conference could adopt its own self-imposed NIL limits, assuming that all member schools agree to abide by the agreement, and players who agree to attend one of those schools would need to understand that up front.

Now, to be sure, there is no chance of that happening at any P5 conference, and probably not at a G5 conference.

But I could see something of that sort at the FCS level.

 

[Gophers_4life]

The problem with that is it will cost a lot of money to do an also be in compliance with title IX

I don't think Title IX would have anything to do with a school licensing its brand out to a pro sports team.

So long as they (the school) provided equal opportunities for female students to participate in athletics, in recreational, intramural, and club teams, then the "varsity" teams could be whichever professional teams it licenses the school brand out to.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I don’t think that’s possible, but I’m not an NIL expert. Here is a synopsis of the rapid collapse which includes a mention of all divisions. Then again, each state or school can currently make up their own rule AFAIK. It’s a bit of a mess.

Timeline: How we got here​

Sept. 30, 2019: California passes legislationintroduced by Sen. Nancy Skinner that will, starting in 2023, prohibit schools from punishing athletes who accept endorsement money while in college. The NCAA called the legislation an "existential threat" to college amateur sports when it was introduced months earlier.

Oct. 29, 2019: The NCAA's board of governors agrees unanimously that it is time to modernize its name, image and likeness rules. The board directs all three NCAA divisions to make rules by January 2021 that allow athletes to make endorsement money while maintaining "the collegiate model."

April 29, 2020: A working group appointed by the NCAA lays out its suggestions for how Division I should change its rules, including details about the opportunities and restrictions for future athlete deals. The Division I Council formally submitted these proposed changes in November 2020 with plans to put them to a vote in January 2021.

June 12, 2020: Florida passes its state law with a scheduled effective date of July 1, 2021, that significantly decreases the time to create a uniform national solution.

July 22, 2020: Emmert, the NCAA president, repeats a request for congressional help in creating a federal NIL law while appearing at a Senate hearing in Washington, D.C. Several senators urged Emmert and the NCAA to broaden the scope of their reform efforts if they wanted help from Capitol Hill.

Aug. 2, 2020: A group of Pac-12 football players threatens to boycott the season while sharing a list of demands that included giving players a share of athletic department revenue. A similar group of national stars formed a week later and stated its intent to form a college football players' association in the future.

Sept. 24, 2020: Reps. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio, and Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., introduce a federal bill that would allow for NIL deals with some restrictions in hopes of keeping endorsements from disrupting the recruiting process.

Dec. 10, 2020: Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., introduces federal legislation that would allow for some NIL deals and also create an antitrust exemption that would protect the NCAA from some types of future lawsuits.

Dec. 16, 2020: The Supreme Court agreed to hear the NCAA's appeal of a federal judge's ruling in the Alston v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit. While not directly related to NIL rules, the Supreme Court's decision in this case could impact how much control the NCAA has in defining amateurism in the future.

Dec. 17, 2020: Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduce legislation calling for a wide-reaching overhaul of NCAA rules and college sports governance.

Jan. 11, 2021: The NCAA's Division 1 Council decides to indefinitely delay its vote on name, image and likeness rules, citing concerns prompted by a letter from the Department of Justice related to the possible antitrust implications of changing its rules. Emmert, the NCAA president, said he was "frustrated and disappointed" by the delay.


Feb. 4, 2021: Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., introduce federal legislation that would create a completely unrestricted market for college athlete endorsement deals.

March 31, 2021: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Alston v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit.

April 1, 2021: NCAA president Mark Emmert met with three men's basketball players trying to raise awareness -- using the hashtag #NotNCAAProperty -- for what they see as unfair treatment of college athletes. The players asked the NCAA to adopt a temporary blanket waiver that would allow all athletes to make money from endorsement deals next school year while more permanent decisions take shape.

June 18, 2021: Six conference heads (including the ACC, SEC and Pac-12 leaders) propose a new plan that would make individual schools responsible for creating their own NIL policies. The new proposal surfaced after a pair of Senate hearings in June made it clear that a federal law was not imminent.

June 21, 2020: The Supreme Court rules against the NCAA in its appeal, issuing an opinion that dealt a significant blow to the organization's argument that it should receive special antitrust treatment because of its academic mission. The justice's ruling made it clear that NCAA restrictions -- including on NIL activity -- could face serious legal challenges in the future.

June 30, 2021: The NCAA's Board of Directors adopts a temporary rule change that opens the door for NIL activity, instructing schools to set their own policy for what should be allowed with minimal guidelines

July 1, 2021: The first batch of state laws, and the NCAA's new rules, go into effect. Athletes start signing endorsements deals minutes after the clock strikes midnight.

Legislation​

The NCAA has asked Congress for help in creating a federal NIL law. While several federal options have been proposed, it's becoming increasingly likely that state laws will start to go into effect before a nationwide change is made. There are 28 states with NIL laws already in place and multiple others that are actively pursuing legislation.

Everything you need to know about the NCAA's NIL debate

With the athletes, the NCAA, legislators and the courts all still involved, expect more twists and turns in the name, image and likeness debate. Check back here for all the latest news.

www.espn.com

Here's where I think my mind is headed on college NIL, and I wonder if the courts would go along with me. Stay with me for a second, see if you agree (at all or partially).


No one would dare tell an NFL or NBA player that they can't sell their own NIL to some company that wants to use it in advertising and/or on a product. Think Shaq on a Wheaties box, or whatever.

Of course.


BUT ........ those are real deals. They're bona fide. They produce tangible, observable outcomes.


These NIL "deals" in college, are fake. Fake as hell. They don't actually do anything. They're being used and absued as nothing more than a legal mechanism to give players money. The players -- I'm wild guessing here, but I suspect it is largely true -- don't have to actually do jack s__t for the money, beyond just being the athlete they're already being.

And most importantly: nothing tangible is actually produced out of the deal. The deal provider probably doesn't want anything to be produced! They're not actually looking to promote anything. They just want to give the player money.



That's the massive difference, for my mind. In the pro's, NIL deals are a supplement to the large incomes the players already receive from their teams. It's a bonus. And the companies providing the deals, actually benefit out of them (well, at least they think they do, could spend a whole other thread on if advertising actually works).

In college, they're being used de facto as a mechanism to provide primary income.



Will the courts recognize this, and agree that limitations can be placed, when it's clearly the latter?

Or is the law blind to this?

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

again, the only way to really bring some control and sanity to the situation would be through national legislation - which would still have to be able to withstand any potential court challenges.

The alternative would be for a conference to follow the Ivy League model and adopt self-imposed restrictions with all schools in the conference agreeing to abide by the same rules.

The Ivy League chooses to be a non-scholarship conference, and players understand that when they agree to play at an Ivy League school.

Likewise, a conference could adopt its own self-imposed NIL limits, assuming that all member schools agree to abide by the agreement, and players who agree to attend one of those schools would need to understand that up front.

Now, to be sure, there is no chance of that happening at any P5 conference, and probably not at a G5 conference.

But I could see something of that sort at the FCS level.

Ivy League model is non scholarship ... for athletics ... but at most of those schools athletes are getting a scholarship based on need (unless you're doing really well already).

If you want adopt the Ivy League model the way it actually works, you just end up giving out even MORE scholarships, just under a different name

 

[Allshade]

“It’s the NBA,” another coach told me, “without the NBA salary cap.”

This caught my attention....isn't this a possible solution? Put a NIL cap in place? This allows players to make money off their name, image and likeness but it puts all universities on the same page. If professional sports teams can use a salary cap, what would prevent the NCAA (other than incompetence) from doing so????

I think what your missing here is the following: NIL has nothing to do with schools or the NCAA. It's a private agreement between an entity and an athlete. The NCAA has no authority or right to impose a cap. Neither does the school. If the school were paying the NIL money that would probably change the story.

 

[Allshade]

I don't see how it wouldn't be possible for a school and/or conference to simply drop down to DIII and bypass the entire mess of it, if that is what they want their choice to be, as opposed to simply throwing their hands up and abolishing their athletic department entirely.

Does DIII currently "allow" NIL? I'm not sure any (sub)division is in a legal position to "allow" it or not. But I feel like, at least for DIII, they should be legally in the right to disallow players from accepting any aid of any kind outside of need-based financial aid from their school.

It's not "aid". It's a business transaction and schools can't interfere.

 

[Allshade]

Here's where I think my mind is headed on college NIL, and I wonder if the courts would go along with me. Stay with me for a second, see if you agree (at all or partially).


No one would dare tell an NFL or NBA player that they can't sell their own NIL to some company that wants to use it in advertising and/or on a product. Think Shaq on a Wheaties box, or whatever.

Of course.


BUT ........ those are real deals. They're bona fide. They produce tangible, observable outcomes.


These NIL "deals" in college, are fake. Fake as hell. They don't actually do anything. They're being used and absued as nothing more than a legal mechanism to give players money. The players -- I'm wild guessing here, but I suspect it is largely true -- don't have to actually do jack s__t for the money, beyond just being the athlete they're already being.

And most importantly: nothing tangible is actually produced out of the deal. The deal provider probably doesn't want anything to be produced! They're not actually looking to promote anything. They just want to give the player money.



That's the massive difference, for my mind. In the pro's, NIL deals are a supplement to the large incomes the players already receive from their teams. It's a bonus. And the companies providing the deals, actually benefit out of them (well, at least they think they do, could spend a whole other thread on if advertising actually works).

In college, they're being used de facto as a mechanism to provide primary income.



Will the courts recognize this, and agree that limitations can be placed, when it's clearly the latter?

Or is the law blind to this?

I think you are on to something for sure. The deals are fake and a subterfuge it appears,, although we can't be sure without examining the contract. This is where some sort of lawsuit should be brought. By whom and against whom is the big question. Perhaps one school vs. another school for cheating, If that provides legal standing to sue.

 

[Gophers1992]

Here's where I think my mind is headed on college NIL, and I wonder if the courts would go along with me. Stay with me for a second, see if you agree (at all or partially).


No one would dare tell an NFL or NBA player that they can't sell their own NIL to some company that wants to use it in advertising and/or on a product. Think Shaq on a Wheaties box, or whatever.

Of course.


BUT ........ those are real deals. They're bona fide. They produce tangible, observable outcomes.


These NIL "deals" in college, are fake. Fake as hell. They don't actually do anything. They're being used and absued as nothing more than a legal mechanism to give players money. The players -- I'm wild guessing here, but I suspect it is largely true -- don't have to actually do jack s__t for the money, beyond just being the athlete they're already being.

And most importantly: nothing tangible is actually produced out of the deal. The deal provider probably doesn't want anything to be produced! They're not actually looking to promote anything. They just want to give the player money.



That's the massive difference, for my mind. In the pro's, NIL deals are a supplement to the large incomes the players already receive from their teams. It's a bonus. And the companies providing the deals, actually benefit out of them (well, at least they think they do, could spend a whole other thread on if advertising actually works).

In college, they're being used de facto as a mechanism to provide primary income.



Will the courts recognize this, and agree that limitations can be placed, when it's clearly the latter?

Or is the law blind to this?

If you read your post really closely you will realize that you can't just determine in your mind what you think the law should be, just because you don't like the way capitalism is impacting a sport you like.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Athletic Directors are like .... NFL GMs. It's hard to know what kind of person they are / where they're coming from.

They're not necessarily wrong and some of these guys are really hard workers... but there are a lot of guys out there playing the role of fundraiser or face of the program or ... just guys out there spinning shit and getting in front of the cameras who are busy stating the obvious or just what they rando heard ... others are busy just rah rah for their team with no regard to reality.

It's really hard to know what these guys know.

I've no idea about where Jack Swarbrick is on that scale, just ... I duno.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Here's where I think my mind is headed on college NIL, and I wonder if the courts would go along with me. Stay with me for a second, see if you agree (at all or partially).


No one would dare tell an NFL or NBA player that they can't sell their own NIL to some company that wants to use it in advertising and/or on a product. Think Shaq on a Wheaties box, or whatever.

Of course.


BUT ........ those are real deals. They're bona fide. They produce tangible, observable outcomes.


These NIL "deals" in college, are fake. Fake as hell. They don't actually do anything. They're being used and absued as nothing more than a legal mechanism to give players money. The players -- I'm wild guessing here, but I suspect it is largely true -- don't have to actually do jack s__t for the money, beyond just being the athlete they're already being.

And most importantly: nothing tangible is actually produced out of the deal. The deal provider probably doesn't want anything to be produced! They're not actually looking to promote anything. They just want to give the player money.



That's the massive difference, for my mind. In the pro's, NIL deals are a supplement to the large incomes the players already receive from their teams. It's a bonus. And the companies providing the deals, actually benefit out of them (well, at least they think they do, could spend a whole other thread on if advertising actually works).

In college, they're being used de facto as a mechanism to provide primary income.



Will the courts recognize this, and agree that limitations can be placed, when it's clearly the latter?

Or is the law blind to this?

I hear you. This is going to largely be a sham. That said, I’m not sure how any entity can police transactions between willing participants as long as it it is within the confines of the law. Legislators frame bribes as campaign donations, etc etc. Not prosecuted, generally, unless someone crosses an invisible line and even then a slap on the wrist may occur.

Who are we we to say what someone finds valuable? Maybe an appearance at a birthday party or a phone call is worth 100K. People spend money all all kinds of specious things for various reasons. BMWs, for example, are pedestrian vehicles. Nothing special, except the badge. However, that badge says “I have enough disposable income to spend a lot of money on an ordinary vehicle” that by all objective analysis and rights should be half the price. The image of affluence and success is important to some people. A donor paying 100k to a player to show up to his grandkids Bday for half an hour has a defensible argument I think. This is going to be a ****show. Will try to enjoy the spectacle.

 

[fmlizard]

The day they set up "Oregon Ducks Football, Inc." (as an example in the article) separate and distinct from any educational mission or standard of the university is the day the NFL is challenged for the first time since the 1960s.

What's to stop eligibility at 4 years at that point? It could be holy war as to who has the strongest allegiances, college or the NFL. College just might win out, especially if it's more nationally inclusive.

The one point I haven't heard anyone else make is that the "College Football Super League" could end-around the NFL and destroy it by building a pay enterprise and then ending eligibility limits.

Then again, today's college players don't seem too loyal to any particular school.

 

[Word]

The day they set up "Oregon Ducks Football, Inc." (as an example in the article) separate and distinct from any educational mission or standard of the university is the day the NFL is challenged for the first time since the 1960s.

What's to stop eligibility at 4 years at that point? It could be holy war as to who has the strongest allegiances, college or the NFL. College just might win out, especially if it's more nationally inclusive.

The one point I haven't heard anyone else make is that the "College Football Super League" could end-around the NFL and destroy it by building a pay enterprise and then ending eligibility limits.

Then again, today's college players don't seem too loyal to any particular school.

In this model you're assuming they don't have to go to college, correct? So basically just a pro team wearing school colors and playing at a college stadium?

 

[fmlizard]

In this model you're assuming they don't have to go to college, correct? So basically just a pro team wearing school colors and playing at a college stadium?

Yes. As they say, it's all about the Brand.

 

[Some guy]

Ivy League model is non scholarship ... for athletics ... but at most of those schools athletes are getting a scholarship based on need (unless you're doing really well already).

If you want adopt the Ivy League model the way it actually works, you just end up giving out even MORE scholarships, just under a different name

And even if it splits in two. The top league will poach from the bottom league anyways. Kind of like they already do

 

[Gophers_4life]

The day they set up "Oregon Ducks Football, Inc." (as an example in the article) separate and distinct from any educational mission or standard of the university is the day the NFL is challenged for the first time since the 1960s.

What's to stop eligibility at 4 years at that point? It could be holy war as to who has the strongest allegiances, college or the NFL. College just might win out, especially if it's more nationally inclusive.

The one point I haven't heard anyone else make is that the "College Football Super League" could end-around the NFL and destroy it by building a pay enterprise and then ending eligibility limits.

Then again, today's college players don't seem too loyal to any particular school.

Interesting idea. I had not thought of it like that, or taken it that far.

Indeed. Why not just pay the best Bama players millions of dollars ... to stay. Indefinitely.


It would be like if Triple-A MiLB teams had larger stadiums than their corresponding MLB teams, had higher attendances, and offered the top players more money ... to stay "down".

 

[Some guy]

Interesting idea. I had not thought of it like that, or taken it that far.

Indeed. Why not just pay the best Bama players millions of dollars ... to stay. Indefinitely.


It would be like if Triple-A MiLB teams had larger stadiums than their corresponding MLB teams, had higher attendances, and offered the top players more money ... to stay "down".

I mean that’s kind of how it used to be and the nfl beat them out. Not to say the nfl would automatically win this time around

 

[Gophers_4life]

I hear you. This is going to largely be a sham. That said, I’m not sure how any entity can police transactions between willing participants as long as it it is within the confines of the law. Legislators frame bribes as campaign donations, etc etc. Not prosecuted, generally, unless someone crosses an invisible line and even then a slap on the wrist may occur.

Who are we we to say what someone finds valuable? Maybe an appearance at a birthday party or a phone call is worth 100K. People spend money all all kinds of specious things for various reasons. BMWs, for example, are pedestrian vehicles. Nothing special, except the badge. However, that badge says “I have enough disposable income to spend a lot of money on an ordinary vehicle” that by all objective analysis and rights should be half the price. The image of affluence and success is important to some people. A donor paying 100k to a player to show up to his grandkids Bday for half an hour has a defensible argument I think. This is going to be a ****show. Will try to enjoy the spectacle.

It seems to me that your general sentiment with this post is still something like "what can the courts do? Not much."

OK. But if that is true, then how is it legally possible for the NCAA to forbid its members from paying student-athletes directly? What is the difference, there? Seems very arbitrary, if there is any at all.


Maybe I am too optimisitc, but I still feel like the right judge could be convinced that NIL as primary income, and especially where nothing tangible is being (even attempting to be!) produced from the deal, is essentially the same thing as paying players and therefore the NCAA (or conferences) have the right to regulate it.


Also -- and this is a completely different thing and argument -- but how are NFL salary caps legal, then? That's a restraint on free market for salaries.

 

[Gophers_4life]

It's not "aid". It's a business transaction and schools can't interfere.

Why doesn't the same reasoning apply if, for example, a full-scholarship athlete went over to Wells Fargo to apply for a private Student Loan?

The NCAA would require that that be reported in the overall financial aid, and students are not allowed to receive total aid more than the FCOA number reported to the DoEd.

(I think ..... could easily be wrong, though)

 

[Ope3]

It seems to me that your general sentiment with this post is still something like "what can the courts do? Not much."

OK. But if that is true, then how is it legally possible for the NCAA to forbid its members from paying student-athletes directly? What is the difference, there? Seems very arbitrary, if there is any at all.


Maybe I am too optimisitc, but I still feel like the right judge could be convinced that NIL as primary income, and especially where nothing tangible is being (even attempting to be!) produced from the deal, is essentially the same thing as paying players and therefore the NCAA (or conferences) have the right to regulate it.


Also -- and this is a completely different thing and argument -- but how are NFL salary caps legal, then? That's a restraint on free market for salaries.

Because it's part of a collective bargaining agreement between the Owners and the NFLPA Union.

 

[Word]

I hear you. This is going to largely be a sham. That said, I’m not sure how any entity can police transactions between willing participants as long as it it is within the confines of the law. Legislators frame bribes as campaign donations, etc etc. Not prosecuted, generally, unless someone crosses an invisible line and even then a slap on the wrist may occur.

Who are we we to say what someone finds valuable? Maybe an appearance at a birthday party or a phone call is worth 100K. People spend money all all kinds of specious things for various reasons. BMWs, for example, are pedestrian vehicles. Nothing special, except the badge. However, that badge says “I have enough disposable income to spend a lot of money on an ordinary vehicle” that by all objective analysis and rights should be half the price. The image of affluence and success is important to some people. A donor paying 100k to a player to show up to his grandkids Bday for half an hour has a defensible argument I think. This is going to be a ****show. Will try to enjoy the spectacle.

You're more of a Mercedes guy?

 

[Gophers_4life]

Because it's part of a collective bargaining agreement between the Owners and the NFLPA Union.

So then perhaps if the P5 football players had a union, and agreed that there should be some kind of "NIL cap" per team/player, then that could be legal.