Details of a new college athletics model taking shape (2 Viewers)

Just linking the first post but he has a whole thread of posts with good information.



“The 10-year settlement agreement could cost each power school as much as $300 million over the decade, or $30 million a year. That figure assumes a school meets what is believed to be: (1) a $17-22 million revenue distribution cap for athletes; (2) at least $2 million in withheld NCAA distribution for back damages; and (3) as much as $10 million in additional scholarship costs related to an expansion of sport-specific roster sizes — a concept previously unpublicized.”

Not gonna dive into reading all of it but good luck capping revenue sharing. 30mil/revenue sharing is a pretty big blow for schools not making 100mil in tv payouts which explains the big 12/PAC12 schools bailing suddenly

I didn't read the rest but I kinda like the idea of capping the rosters but being able to give scholarships to everyone on the roster. So if you're football and they cap the roster at 110 or 120 you will be able to give everyone a scholarship. Then at least you won't have to play this game that we are playing with the NIL scholarships.

It would be good for the haves but maybe not for the have nots.

as long as me and ole jimbo getta grease up in our leotards and watch Husker football i am in

Sounds like a real mess. Didn't see where to read more details, not sure I want to anyway.

NIL and what it has brought is a huge mess already. Basically no rules. But not sure how many schools can afford to foot the bill this new setup brings. Seems like something that is likely to not work. But the tides have been swaying towards something like this for a while it seems.

College football is dead

huskermack said:

College football is dead

Click to expand...

I felt the same way when the US gave women the right to vote.

Do not see that working

Hedley Lamarr said:

I felt the same way when the US gave women the right to vote.

Click to expand...

Herbie said:

Click to expand...

The real Herbie would agree with me you impasta

They'll figure out a go-forward strategy, but I'm speechless at the notion of former athletes suing for "damages" because their "window of opportunity" to cash in on this has expired. How in the F were they damaged during their college playing experience? The scholarships, NIL, athletic training table, medical care and other perks - including access to college "trim" - weren't enough?

F those greedy, gluttonous rat bastages.

Listened to the Cover 3 podcast where they were discussing this (Bud has a law background and is extremely knowledgeable on all of this). Basically this is a starting point, but a lot of this won't work out (plus Bud mentions it is an election year so there is likely little that will be accomplished in Congress). The NCAA is hoping that this will get them anti-trust status, but the problem is that the NCAA doesn't want the players to be employees or unionized. So, that has some contradictions with the anti-trust laws that the major sports models use.

Also, if they did allow players to unionize, it is very unlikely that they would basically agree to less than 30% of the total revenue. For reference, the NFL is 48%. Then, there would also be questions of how could a union work with players that are only around for 4 years (so would this eliminate the 4 year eligibility of college athletes?). What would happen if the players went on strike (if they only had 4 years of elligibility, would they lose a year, or would it be like COVID where everyone gets an extra year)? If they went on strike, could players "pass the picket line" and transfer down to smaller schools (assuming the P4 separates from the rest of CFB), play that year, and then when the strike is over, they could transfer back up.

This is just a giant mess and even if they make some progress, it will likely just keep getting challenged in court.

Skerz4Life50 said:

Listened to the Cover 3 podcast where they were discussing this (Bud has a law background and is extremely knowledgeable on all of this). Basically this is a starting point, but a lot of this won't work out (plus Bud mentions it is an election year so there is likely little that will be accomplished in Congress). The NCAA is hoping that this will get them anti-trust status, but the problem is that the NCAA doesn't want the players to be employees or unionized. So, that has some contradictions with the anti-trust laws that the major sports models use.

Also, if they did allow players to unionize, it is very unlikely that they would basically agree to less than 30% of the total revenue. For reference, the NFL is 48%. Then, there would also be questions of how could a union work with players that are only around for 4 years (so would this eliminate the 4 year eligibility of college athletes?). What would happen if the players went on strike (if they only had 4 years of elligibility, would they lose a year, or would it be like COVID where everyone gets an extra year)? If they went on strike, could players "pass the picket line" and transfer down to smaller schools (assuming the P4 separates from the rest of CFB), play that year, and then when the strike is over, they could transfer back up.

This is just a giant mess and even if they make some progress, it will likely just keep getting challenged in court.

Click to expand...

University administrators, congress, & the NCAA are all known for taking proactive, bold, decisive, forward-looking action to set up a smart long-term structure in spite of the noise & controversy in the current moment, so I'm sure this will all work out great.

LoudHogRider said:

They'll figure out a go-forward strategy, but I'm speechless at the notion of former athletes suing for "damages" because their "window of opportunity" to cash in on this has expired. How in the F were they damaged during their college playing experience? The scholarships, NIL, athletic training table, medical care and other perks - including access to college "trim" - weren't enough?

F those greedy, gluttonous rat bastages.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This all fucking sucks so many dicks. All these athletes act like they were enslaved by their university while at the same time having access to privileges that no rank and file tuition paying student on campus is afforded. Cry me a fucking river.

For the record, I'm fine with college athletes profiting on their Name, Image, or Likeness. True NIL. The kind where you do TV commercials, social media posts, and appearances for pay. Not the kind where a bunch of boosters get together, launder money and create six or seven figure salaries for 18 year old kids to play amateur college football.

Can someone explain to me what’s actually negative about NIL and the transfer portal and who the victims are?

BluesBucksNHuskers said:

Can someone explain to me what’s actually negative about NIL and the transfer portal and who the victims are?

Click to expand...

The victims are the college football fans and coaching staffs.

For fans, it's a change of 'wanting to play and win for your school' to more of a NFL type of style.

And for staffs, it's a new trend of trying to always re-recruit your good players to stay on the roster every year who now have more options to leave and probably get paid more.

BluesBucksNHuskers said:

Can someone explain to me what’s actually negative about NIL and the transfer portal and who the victims are?

Click to expand...

Pay to win. Wealthier programs have an unfair advantage. The opposite of why college sports is supposed to be fun.

I think this whole NIL thing has worked to our advantage with Rhule, who seems to be a grinder and high energy guy. If we had someone like Frost still at the helm we would be fucked.

But Rhule has been able to bring in guys well over the scholarship limit in order to create more competition and increase the talent level. It has sped up the rebuild process.

The big money schools were always gonna come out on top in all of this chaos, but with Rhule I think we’ve positioned ourselves right behind those schools.

Juro said:

The victims are the college football fans and coaching staffs.

For fans, it's a change of 'wanting to play and win for your school' to more of a NFL type of style.

And for staffs, it's a new trend of trying to always re-recruit your good players to stay on the roster every year who now have more options to leave and probably get paid more.

Click to expand...

Wanting to play and win for your school? That stopped the second the NFL started creating millionaires and it turned into a race to get the best players by proving to them you were their best shot of going to the NFL.

Staffs? Lets not forget that coaches get to pick which players are on their rosters. If they dont want to deal with re-recruiting players they can choose to recruit kids whos values and priorities won't be influenced by a school calling and offering $200,000. If they feel they need the players that will be influenced by that, the coach can then prioritize that and choose to either support a collective that will fundraise well enough to compete with the offers or celebrate that a kid was able to use his skills on the football field to go give him an awesome head start in life. The coaches certainly aren't victims in this, many of them are sure playing the victim card though and its laughable. Coaches that support players earning potential, recruit high integrity kids and genuinely look out for their best interest will win in the new system. The old system the coaches who turned a blind eye to paper bags of cash and told players what they wanted to hear won.l

There are no victims in this besides the fans that have it in their heads that "The way college football was 50 years ago is the best way and I want it to look more like that", which thats fine I suppose - but god what a miserable mindset. It's also choosing to ignore the fact that SMU, Auburn, USC, Tennessee, Ole Miss, etc. were all using an under the table NIL in the first place to get an edge.

BluesBucksNHuskers said:

There are no victims in this

Click to expand...

I think this is true to some degree.

HughJanus said:

Pay to win. Wealthier programs have an unfair advantage. The opposite of why college sports is supposed to be fun.

Click to expand...

It was already that way to some degree with the coaching staffs and facilities and under the table money but I think this makes it worse.