NIL & Portal Fix
- Thread starter UNCMSinLS
- Start date
- Replies: 17
- Views: 276
- Sports
CFordUNC
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,572
Now that the new revenue share model is forthcoming, I think that multi-year contracts with compensation structured around both performance-based (on the field) and merit-based (off the field, such as progress toward degree or community service, etc.) incentives, would go a long way toward fixing *some* of the chaos. But ultimately I think that collective bargaining will be what is truly necessary to fix the insanity, and that's probably not going to happen until/unless the Universities are ready to accept and acknowledge that their athletes are employees and their athletics departments aren't 501(c)3's.
It's all such a mess right now and my enthusiasm for college sports have never been lower nor my apathy higher. I still want my alma mater to do well, of course. I'd watch us compete in backgammon if UNC jerseys are involved. But overall it's hard to muster much give a damn.
It's all such a mess right now and my enthusiasm for college sports have never been lower nor my apathy higher. I still want my alma mater to do well, of course. I'd watch us compete in backgammon if UNC jerseys are involved. But overall it's hard to muster much give a damn.
heelinhell
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,559
It will never happen, but since all this crap has started I have argued for prestigious academic universities in the south to join the Ivy league and form the Southern Ivy League :
UNC
dook**
UVA
weak forest
Georgia Tech
Vanderbilt
Rice
Georgetown
The 8 Ivy League teams in the north form one division and the 8 Ivy League teams in the south form the other division
16 teams comprised of "real" college students competing for the love of the game... both intra-conference and nationally in an array of DI sports !
Last edited:
1. Do we even remotely expect the athletes to be active students going forward? I think we've quickly escalated beyond that fiction.
2. If we don't expect them to be students, I would expect the arrangements between school and program to be de facto licensing arrangements, in which the athletes are paid by the program and the program pays a licensing fee to the school.
3. Over time, most colleges and most programs will question - and subsequently abandon - the value of those licensing arrangements.
15 years from now, I predict that high-revenue college sports is a fond memory of the past.
2. If we don't expect them to be students, I would expect the arrangements between school and program to be de facto licensing arrangements, in which the athletes are paid by the program and the program pays a licensing fee to the school.
3. Over time, most colleges and most programs will question - and subsequently abandon - the value of those licensing arrangements.
15 years from now, I predict that high-revenue college sports is a fond memory of the past.
BluHevn
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,857
BluHevn
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,857
This is what needs to happen. Treat it just like the pros with contracts, collective bargaining and buyouts.
heelinhell
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,559
No because it will not happen ? I agree
No because you think it is a bad idea ? Give me your thinking that it is a bad idea and we can have an amicable debate and exchange of ideas
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,134
Here's one thought, albeit a little complicated. Colleges must collect and report all forms of NIL compensation to all athletes. There's no limit on what any single athlete can receive, but the median compensation to all other scholarship athletes on the respective team must be no less than 50% of the amount received by the highest-paid athlete on the team. Thus, if Ohio State wants to pay its QB $5MM per year, that's fine, but the median compensation for the other 104 scholarship football players must be at least $2.5MM per player.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 7,224
Every contract is a restraint of trade. Antitrust laws require that the restraint be unreasonable. Lawtig's proposal isn't exactly price fixing and so would be evaluated, in my view, as to its reasonableness. I should say that my view of antitrust law is more permissive on this point than other posters. I'm positive that my view is consistent with court precedent; Calheel points out that it isn't necessarily consistent with the trend, which would suggest that my view might soon be expressly incorrect. Anyway, just wanted to give a caveat as to possible bias in response.
I don't know how lawtig's proposal would work specifically, as there would be a lot of administrative issues to address. From an antitrust perspective, it would be critical that the policy not reduce total compensation to the athletes as a group. If it does, then it's surely unreasonable and thus illegal. The NCAA would say, "it will actually raise players' compensation, because teams will reach out for stars and that will pull up the salaries of others." Anyone challenging the regulation would say that the main effect will be to squash the stars' salaries.
For basketball, I could see the NCAA's point. But for football, there's a numbers problem. If you want to to raise your QB $3M to $4M, you'll have to raise the average of the rest of the team by 500K, which spread across 80 players = $40M. $41M to give a $1M raise isn't going to happen. So basically, there would be no real threat of QBs getting high salaries because it would be so expensive, and so player compensation at the bottom wouldn't budge, and more or less no player will be able to get even $1M. That strikes me as unreasonable.
In fact, I suspect lawtig didn't really think the math through. Probably because he has, you know, a job and other things to do, but anyway: the percentages would have to be much lower. Otherwise it will be analogous to the 145% tariffs -- huge overkill that can't possibly work. All told, I don't think this is a promising idea, antitrust legal or not.
billybobblockhead
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 61
Agree with this part of your post 1 million percent. It's just hard to give a damn right now.
If we're still doing college with these kids, there has to be something academic in there in all of this money/portal process. In good standing academically or something of the like. Joe Blow regular student has to bust his rear end working to scrape enough cash to get through school, struggles a bit, and gets declared academically ineligible then has to show that he can cut it academically to get back in. Joe Blow athlete makes millions and transfers 3 times and no one gives a crap about how he/she is progressing academically. There's a lot not right there....
Not just other posters. It is more permissive than Judge Claudia Wilkins, who has effectively become the default NCAA commissioner over the past couple of years.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 7,224
Well, I was commenting on a hypothetical proposal that is unlikely ever to come before her, so I was giving my view.
ZenMode
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,974
Unlike a college graduate, who has decades to establish a career in their profession of choice, student athletes have 4 years to do all they can to make it to the pros. If they want to change schools every year to put themselves in the best position to do that, why would we want to limit their ability to do that?
Conversely, if someone is able to make money in college, while being unlikely to go pro, why restrict their ability to do that?
Again....they have a total of 4 years (occasionally 5) to maximize their college athletics.
Last edited:
Now?
- Messages
- 1,079
Business of sport followed closely by whatever requirements St. Donald of Mar-a-Lago chooses to attach to federal funding. ETA: When I started at UNC-CH, the tuition and fees were $211 a semester. That's equivalent to $1666 in 2025. I believe tuition and fees for in-state students is about $4,500 per semester now. This is what happens with a Republican controlled legislature that thinks state-support for higher education is a waste of money.
Last edited: