Do you believe Drake May was offered $5 million?

[andrew]

Why would the first part lead to the second part? The people throwing all this money at football likely don't care about swimming or volleyball, so they wouldn't force change if those sports suffer. The non-revenue players could try to gather but it won't do anything unless the football players join in and what reason do they have to do that?

Tile IX and public pressure. The football players have lots of leverage, but it's not infinite. I think it will come to a point where they will agree to a CBA that funds everyone while leaving them the big winners rather than push the issue and risk a court ruling or law that ends up with the revenue being distributed more equally across sports.

 

[gtleviathan]

The power of pussy could help football players get involved.

Title IX basically codifies this into law.

 

[andrew]

A collegiate player-run CBA that tried to limit NIL would die in court just the same way the previous NCAA cabal did. You can't compel everyone to join it and then also compel them to forgo NIL, it's plainly anticompetitive and unconstitutional. NIL is the law of the land.

The previous NCAA cabal died because it was unilaterally imposed. If you have a CBA, you can get an antitrust exemption. That is exactly what the NFL and NBA do. Their practices are plainly anticompetitive, but that is not an issue as long as the CBA is in place.

And there's no reason the CBA can't contain mutually agreed upon limits on NIL, or rules about schools being involved in NIL, or a multitude of other ways to regulate NIL to maintain competitive balance in exchange for an increased share of revenue for players.

In fact, as I quoted above, Justice Kavanaugh specifically suggested that schools form a CBA with the players and move towards a model like that of other professional sports.

 

[LegendaryGT]

The previous NCAA cabal died because it was unilaterally imposed. If you have a CBA, you can get an antitrust exemption. That is exactly what the NFL and NBA do. Their practices are plainly anticompetitive, but that is not an issue as long as the CBA is in place.

And there's no reason the CBA can't contain mutually agreed upon limits on NIL, or rules about schools being involved in NIL, or a multitude of other ways to regulate NIL to maintain competitive balance in exchange for an increased share of revenue for players.

In fact, as I quoted above, Justice Kavanaugh specifically suggested that schools form a CBA with the players and move towards a model like that of other professional sports.

There absolutely is a reason you can't do it, and that's why nobody does it. A CBA regulating salaries is binding both the people paying and receiving salaries. You can't bind everyone in the world, nor can you bind a person's ability to enter into contracts with the rest of the world. The only way to do this would be for the CBA itself to buy the rights to the players NIL, and if you start to compel that sale either the CBA needs to come up with billions of its own or restrict the value of the NIL. There aren't any groups in the country that get to do this, except utilities and the US military. For everyone else it's called a monopsony, which is just as illegal as a monopoly. A CBA that tries this will absolutely die in court.

 

[andrew]

There absolutely is a reason you can't do it, and that's why nobody does it. A CBA regulating salaries is binding both the people paying and receiving salaries. You can't bind everyone in the world, nor can you bind a person's ability to enter into contracts with the rest of the world. The only way to do this would be for the CBA itself to buy the rights to the players NIL, and if you start to compel that sale either the CBA needs to come up with billions of its own or restrict the value of the NIL. There aren't any groups in the country that get to do this, except utilities and the US military. For everyone else it's called a monopsony, which is just as illegal as a monopoly. A CBA that tries this will absolutely die in court.

The NFL CBA regulates NIL for its players. For example, NFL players are only allowed to appear in advertisements for alcohol companies if that alcohol company also signs a sponsorship deal with their team. Before 2019 they weren't allowed to appear in advertisements for alcohol companies at all.

 

[LegendaryGT]

The NFL CBA regulates NIL for its players. For example, NFL players are only allowed to appear in advertisements for alcohol companies if that alcohol company also signs a sponsorship deal with their team. Before 2019 they weren't allowed to appear in advertisements for alcohol companies at all.

That's not nearly what we are talking about. That's a case when both parties have an interest in the association and the decision of one will harm the other. A CFB CBA would certainly regulate that, but if a player signs a shoe deal, they won't be able to regulate the amount of the deal, just like the NFL CBA doesn't.

 

[andrew]

That's not nearly what we are talking about. That's a case when both parties have an interest in the association and the decision of one will harm the other. A CFB CBA would certainly regulate that, but if a player signs a shoe deal, they won't be able to regulate the amount of the deal, just like the NFL CBA doesn't.

I'd say it's very close to what we're talking about. The current situation is not that CFB players are making a ton of money off of shoe deals. It's that boosters associated with the schools are paying players to come play for specific schools in an effort to shift the competitive balance on the field. That is definitely a case where both parties have an interest.

I don't think the CFB situation is broken because players are truly making money off of their likeness. I think the situation is broken because players are effectively being paid salaries under the (extremely thin) guise of NIL deals, with no cap, no restrictions on transferring, etc., and it's much better for the sport to have a regulated system for salaries like other pro sports do.

I've got no issue at all with players signing legitimate NIL deals for a ton of money. And I've got no issue with players getting paid for their play on the field -- in fact, I think they should be. But the pay for play should be regulated via a CBA like it is for all other professional sports rather than the free-for-all we have right now with extreme payroll imbalances and free transfers and general shadiness.

 

[GTCrew4b]

Title IX basically codifies this into law.

Ehhh only from the schools perspective. I could see a Title IX amendment that forces NIL money to be split. It would be very new age feminist. But college athlete women are doing fine selling swimsuit pics and eventually porn thanks to NIL.

 

[ramblinwise1]

Why would the first part lead to the second part? The people throwing all this money at football likely don't care about swimming or volleyball, so they wouldn't force change if those sports suffer. The non-revenue players could try to gather but it won't do anything unless the football players join in and what reason do they have to do that?

Title 9

 

[madRazor]

Ehhh only from the schools perspective. I could see a Title IX amendment that forces NIL money to be split. It would be very new age feminist. But college athlete women are doing fine selling swimsuit pics and eventually porn thanks to NIL.

Sources please

 

[LegendaryGT]

I'd say it's very close to what we're talking about. The current situation is not that CFB players are making a ton of money off of shoe deals. It's that boosters associated with the schools are paying players to come play for specific schools in an effort to shift the competitive balance on the field. That is definitely a case where both parties have an interest.

I don't think the CFB situation is broken because players are truly making money off of their likeness. I think the situation is broken because players are effectively being paid salaries under the (extremely thin) guise of NIL deals, with no cap, no restrictions on transferring, etc., and it's much better for the sport to have a regulated system for salaries like other pro sports do.

I've got no issue at all with players signing legitimate NIL deals for a ton of money. And I've got no issue with players getting paid for their play on the field -- in fact, I think they should be. But the pay for play should be regulated via a CBA like it is for all other professional sports rather than the free-for-all we have right now with extreme payroll imbalances and free transfers and general shadiness.

There's two different conversations here we are having trouble keeping separate. One is whether there is a legal mechanism to affect the change, the other is whether there's a moral basis for seeking the change.

Your best argument for a legal basis is definitely "this is actually just hidden salary". That's a case you could reasonably make. I am not really sure on the particulars of this 5 million dollar deal or any others, but time will certainly tell.

The moral basis, however, is just not there. There is no good reason in the context of CFB to care about anything like "the good of the sport". In the NFL, if the viewership declines because the teams aren't competitive, the sport actually disappears. Fielding sports teams is not a very natural thing for cities to do, and they need to be compelled by financial interests, usually. For the NFL, if anyone wants to play in it, they have an interest in keeping it competitive, so it makes sense to cap salaries and have drafts and etc.

For CFB, as I have already pointed out, that is not the case. Colleges have been fielding sports teams when it makes no financial sense for a hundred years. It actually makes less financial sense right now for most teams than it ever has. If the market for the sport dries up and everyone goes bankrupt, colleges are going to keep fielding teams anyways. The sport isn't going anywhere. The "good" of CFB is not connected to its overall financial health or monetary worth. You can't make the case that restrictions in the amounts or types of player, coach, or school earnings are "good", except by an appeal to how enjoyable it is to watch. And saying to ourselves, "I would enjoy this more if the people doing it were paid less and had fewer opportunities" is a losing argument every time.

 

[The Champ]

The NFL QB with a $50M contract is not 2 years into his college career.

Not sure why that matters. They are paying him to play/perform for 1 year. He can

The thing is NFL player salaries aren't determined by a free market like college NIL deals currently are. The CBA dictates how much each money players get each year. So given that each NFL team must pay players $208 million a year, we know that teams feel QBs are worth 25% of that, which comes out to $50M.

But we don't know how much teams would pay star QBs if they were allowed to pay players as much or as little as they'd like. Could be a lot more than that or a lot less than that.

In baseball, which is uncapped, Aaron Judge is up to $40 million/year. Given that QB is a more important position in a more wealthy sport, I'd put my money on more, at least in the current environment.

Agree. Mahomes would make a lot more in a true free market; same with a Lebron James in his prime. To that end, end of the bench players would make much less.

 

[andrew]

There's two different conversations here we are having trouble keeping separate. One is whether there is a legal mechanism to affect the change, the other is whether there's a moral basis for seeking the change.

Your best argument for a legal basis is definitely "this is actually just hidden salary". That's a case you could reasonably make. I am not really sure on the particulars of this 5 million dollar deal or any others, but time will certainly tell.

The moral basis, however, is just not there. There is no good reason in the context of CFB to care about anything like "the good of the sport". In the NFL, if the viewership declines because the teams aren't competitive, the sport actually disappears. Fielding sports teams is not a very natural thing for cities to do, and they need to be compelled by financial interests, usually. For the NFL, if anyone wants to play in it, they have an interest in keeping it competitive, so it makes sense to cap salaries and have drafts and etc.

For CFB, as I have already pointed out, that is not the case. Colleges have been fielding sports teams when it makes no financial sense for a hundred years. It actually makes less financial sense right now for most teams than it ever has. If the market for the sport dries up and everyone goes bankrupt, colleges are going to keep fielding teams anyways. The sport isn't going anywhere. The "good" of CFB is not connected to its overall financial health or monetary worth. You can't make the case that restrictions in the amounts or types of player, coach, or school earnings are "good", except by an appeal to how enjoyable it is to watch. And saying to ourselves, "I would enjoy this more if the people doing it were paid less and had fewer opportunities" is a losing argument every time.

Yeah, I'm not trying to make a moral argument. I'll leave that to all the people yelling that players should just be happy with what they have because it's "enough" without regard for whether it has any chance of surviving a court. I'm more interested in what can be legally done, because that's a much better indication of what will happen.

And personally, I'm interested in what can legally be done to preserve the sport in a form I enjoy and want to continue to pour my life into. That form is probably closer to what we have now (dozens of games on TV per week with professionl production values, merch available everywhere, very high level of play on the field) than what we had 100 years ago. And, of course, that form makes a lot of people a lot of money, so it's one everyone involved will be motivated to pursue.

I think the best way to do that, and most likely what will happen, is to move CFB closer to the pro sports model where salary is regulated via CBA and NIL deals are truly about NIL, with regulations prohibiting the pay-for-play NIL deals we're seeing now. And I believe there is strong legal precedent to do that.

 

[gtleviathan]

Ehhh only from the schools perspective. I could see a Title IX amendment that forces NIL money to be split. It would be very new age feminist. But college athlete women are doing fine selling swimsuit pics and eventually porn thanks to NIL.

I was kinda being snarky with the comment but it really is fascinating to think through the implications.

I don't see how the NIL money could be forced to be split unless it's considered like a salary. (Which opens a whole other bag of worms.) But even if that's not the case, it does seem like a zero sum game between fundraising for athletic departments and fundraising for NIL collectives. You'd think as players get bigger bags, the funds behind the opulent student-athlete facilities/perks will dry up. When that funding crunch occurs, there will be massive pressure to keep the revenue sports' facilities/perks near the same level and short-change the non-revenue sports even further. If Title IX prevents that, you could see multi-million dollar athletes training in 1980's-era facilities alongside the women's field hockey team. Crazy.

 

[greenmachine]

if you leave it in the current free for all system, the haves are going to continually out pace the have-nots, until it's no longer fun for the have-nots any more, at which point the have-nots break away to form their own system, of which tech will be apart of.

 

[greenmachine]

if schools are forced to share revenue with players, should players on non-revenue sports be forced to chip in to cover the cost they cause the school?

 

[GaTech'06]

if schools are forced to share revenue with players, should players on non-revenue sports be forced to chip in to cover the cost they cause the school?

Pay to play

 

[boozinbuzz]

Here's my most likely prediction for the future at this time, subject to change on any whim:

Disney is forced to cut lose ESPN b/c its bleeding money. ESPN in turn is basically the pocket book for most of the NCAA outside of the Big 10. ESPN can no longer meet its obligations to these conferences and is forced to restructure things which basically means the conferences are forced to start over. There is still decent value in the factories football product so they form their own league similar to what they are doing now but the TV company that agrees to carry them will demand some type of CBA system to keep games competitive for good ratings (SEC CG ratings were terrible this year).

I am not sure what the rest of college football will do but I suspect it will fall back to more of an amateur model of mostly scholarships and a small living stipend. Any player that isn't in the factory system yet will jump as quickly as he can to get the payday available there.

 

[GT98]

It forces the distinction between amateur and pro. If you want a feeder team where the athletes are paid, you go there. If you want an education, you go to college. NBA drafts after 1 year. MLB out of high school. I think the NFL expanding practice squads to accommodate younger players is much easier transition than cfb imploding and birthing its own semi pro league.

Zero comparison for the NBA or MLB to the NFL fresh out of HS. Rare that the player for the NBA was ready. They physicality of the NFL is quite different. No 18 year old is going to survived getting bashed by a 23-27 year old that is physically more mature in his athletic prime.

Why would the NFL incur this cost of training a kid for a few years when colleges do this for free?

There is nothing about the current Div. 1 (FBS if you will) of collegiate athletics in football or basketball that is amateur athletics.

 

[GT98]

if you leave it in the current free for all system, the haves are going to continually out pace the have-nots, until it's no longer fun for the have-nots any more, at which point the have-nots break away to form their own system, of which tech will be apart of.

I've maintained this for a while now.

The gulf between those at the top and everyone else has never been wider. I wonder at what point (or what will be the tipping point) for the have-nots (90% of college football) to realize the futility of competing against the teams at the top that have athletic budgets, resources, alumni support, etc that is a multiple of what they have.