Details of a new college athletics model taking shape

[BluesBucksNHuskers]

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

The SEC used Pay to Win for decades to get to the position they are in now.

 

[Baron Winnebago]

The only negative about NIL really has nothing to do with NIL it's just been along for the ride which is the absolute unregulated tampering with players on other teams, which doesn't really happen in the pros outside of player-to-player "tampering".

 

[BluesBucksNHuskers]

The only negative about NIL really has nothing to do with NIL it's just been along for the ride which is the absolute unregulated tampering with players on other teams, which doesn't really happen in the pros outside of player-to-player "tampering".

I agree with this, in a perfect world the NCAA wouldnt be a completely disfunctional, toothless organization who's dedicating their time managing how recruits take selfies on official visits and approving technology that high schools have been using for almost a decade now.

It really should be as easy as players forwarding texts and dms to the schools NCAA compliance officer and the NCAA keeping a database of "tampering messages" and connecting dots and then bringing the hammer down to make example out of the first few offenders when evidence exists.

 

[Skerz4Life50]

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

As far as victims of it currently, there probably aren’t really any. It is more just chaos. But with where this is headed, it will probably end up hurting smaller schools and, ironically, many players.

The smaller schools aren’t going to be able to keep up with the big schools (I realize they can’t already, but that gap will continue to expand). Lots of those schools need the large payouts from the larger schools to help fund their program, and if the haves eventually split from the have-nots, those payout games may also stop. That may result in smaller schools shutting down their programs and then lower level athletes losing the chance to play, thus losing potential aid for school, and maybe never having a real chance at higher education.

It could also end up hurting players when the new system all plays out because there will likely be a cap on roster sizes. Maybe that roster size will be a similar size to what it currently is, but if not and it is shrank, again that is cutting opportunities for players. That again takes away from various perks that even walk-on athletes receive. If the players end up unionizing, then you would also likely see the end of only having 4 years of eligibility. That would’ve benefited players like Frazier or Crouch whose talents didn’t really translate to the NFL, but that would also hurt other players as there would be less opportunity to play.

A Pandora’s box has been opened with NIL and no one has a clue how to close it or even contain it now. In theory, the idea of both NIL and free transfers sounds great, but it could really end up destroying CFB and really all college athletics. Obviously there will be something that emerges, but whether or not that is really anything like it “used” to be is anyone’s guess.

 

[BluesBucksNHuskers]

As far as victims of it currently, there probably aren’t really any. It is more just chaos. But with where this is headed, it will probably end up hurting smaller schools and, ironically, many players.

The smaller schools aren’t going to be able to keep up with the big schools (I realize they can’t already, but that gap will continue to expand). Lots of those schools need the large payouts from the larger schools to help fund their program, and if the haves eventually split from the have-nots, those payout games may also stop. That may result in smaller schools shutting down their programs and then lower level athletes losing the chance to play, thus losing potential aid for school, and maybe never having a real chance at higher education.

It could also end up hurting players when the new system all plays out because there will likely be a cap on roster sizes. Maybe that roster size will be a similar size to what it currently is, but if not and it is shrank, again that is cutting opportunities for players. That again takes away from various perks that even walk-on athletes receive. If the players end up unionizing, then you would also likely see the end of only having 4 years of eligibility. That would’ve benefited players like Frazier or Crouch whose talents didn’t really translate to the NFL, but that would also hurt other players as there would be less opportunity to play.

A Pandora’s box has been opened with NIL and no one has a clue how to close it or even contain it now. In theory, the idea of both NIL and free transfers sounds great, but it could really end up destroying CFB and really all college athletics. Obviously there will be something that emerges, but whether or not that is really anything like it “used” to be is anyone’s guess.

For what its worth, that revenue gap was already rearing its head before the transfer portal and NIL because of the facilities race. The schools in conferences with Major TV deals were already getting the top recruits because of ridiculous flashy facilities with barber shops and slides.

NIL just accelerated this gap because the smaller schools who had spent years fundraising for giant facility projects to keep up were left feeling like they were forced to take all that cash and start paying players the same amount that the people they were trying to catch up to were spending. SEC and Big10 schools had the luxury of saying "No biggie, we get 40M a year to cover the majority of our expenses and we won't have any issue fundraising enough for these facilities and NIL at the same time".

Before NIL changed the course, things were about to get really weird anyways because OU used a loophole to make "Athlete Specific Dorms" and if I remember right that was about to be the new crazy thing we'd see popping up.

 

[doublewing]

Paying players and allowing them to transfer are both rights that they should have but are also going to change the sport in ways that make it unrecognizable and likely less appealing.

I compare it to college basketball. It was the right thing to allow players to go to the NBA earlier but has also radically changed the sport. CBB in the 80's/early 90's was much different than it is today. There is little to no continuity in rosters and it's not as interesting to follow.

The CFB landscape is becoming a bit of a circus with the transfer portal and realignment. I was always about 90% CFB fan to 10% NFL but that has changed to 50/50 with NFL becoming more appealing to me. There is some sense of stability to it that makes it better to follow.

 

[CornHub]

I agree with this, in a perfect world the NCAA wouldnt be a completely disfunctional, toothless organization who's dedicating their time managing how recruits take selfies on official visits and approving technology that high schools have been using for almost a decade now.

It really should be as easy as players forwarding texts and dms to the schools NCAA compliance officer and the NCAA keeping a database of "tampering messages" and connecting dots and then bringing the hammer down to make example out of the first few offenders when evidence exists.

It's not. If Joe Shmoe owner of Joe's Fords in Alabama texts a kid, "I'll pay you $5 million if you come to Alabama next year", what punishment can you realistically dish out? If Deboer tells the NCAA, "I never had anything to do with that", how do you prove him wrong? Now maybe Deboer met with Joe at McDonald's down the street to go over the details the week before, but if there's no recorded conversation between Joe and the Alabama staff, how do you punish them for tampering?

 

[Juro]

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.

So you're saying at no point in history of CFB that players and teams ever wanted to play and win for their school since the second that NFL started creating millionaires? Because a lot of schools, especially the G5 and Division II, used to just want to win. Now? There is enough tampering at those schools that a lot of those programs get gutted of their good players because they cannot just keep up with the NIL big bucks.

Staffs? Because while Nebraska and several big conference schools have dedicated non-coaching staff filled to help out throughout the season that will do what they can to retain and motivate players to stay. But those smaller schools, once again, are losing out on the how the horizon has changed CFB. They are victims to this.

And I love this quote from you, "There are no victims in this besides the fans that have it in their heads..." Well, then those fans are victims then, which clearly is going against what you had originally said "there are no victims". Some of those fans are loyal and probably donors. Yes, the love of the school is going to give them to keep donating, but ultimately, would you want to keep donating to a program that has to now operate in a new CFB world that you're no longer interested in?

The fact of the matter is, the victims of CFB have had to adapt over the years. Why does Nebraska and several schools have bigger offices for scouting and recruiting? Because they were victims to falling behind the recruiting world. And there are going victims in these CFB changes that are going on now and some will adapt, and some will have to adapt at a lower budget.

And what's the difference between a fan that love the way CFB was 50 years ago versus a fan that absolutely believes there are no victims in todays CFB? Both have a single way of thinking and that is a miserable mindset.

 

[BluesBucksNHuskers]

It's not. If Joe Shmoe owner of Joe's Fords in Alabama texts a kid, "I'll pay you $5 million if you come to Alabama next year", what punishment can you realistically dish out? If Deboer tells the NCAA, "I never had anything to do with that", how do you prove him wrong? Now maybe Deboer met with Joe at McDonald's down the street to go over the details the week before, but if there's no recorded conversation between Joe and the Alabama staff, how do you punish them for tampering?

That’s a solid point. You would really have to limit it to contact from a representative of the university

 

[CornHub]

That’s a solid point. You would really have to limit it to contact from a representative of the university

Which would work, but you would need congressional approval and currently Congress isn't backing anything the NCAA wants to do.

 

[Baron Winnebago]

Which would work, but you would need congressional approval and currently Congress isn't backing anything the NCAA wants to do.

There's probably anti trust shit to sort out, but assuming it does get sorted out the best possible solution is to do what literally every other pro sports league does which is revenue share and sign employment contracts. And the player mobility shit works itself out with things like player/team options that are negotiated

 

[Fargo Husker]

There's probably anti trust shit to sort out, but assuming it does get sorted out the best possible solution is to do what literally every other pro sports league does which is revenue share and sign employment contracts. And the player mobility shit works itself out with things like player/team options that are negotiated

Yeah this whole process is all eventually headed towards some sort of CBA for the athletes.

 

[CornHub]

There's probably anti trust shit to sort out, but assuming it does get sorted out the best possible solution is to do what literally every other pro sports league does which is revenue share and sign employment contracts. And the player mobility shit works itself out with things like player/team options that are negotiated

Yeah this whole process is all eventually headed towards some sort of CBA for the athletes.

That's where the strangeness comes in with players going on strike. If players go on strike, do they get that year back in their eligibility?

 

[Baron Winnebago]

That's where the strangeness comes in with players going on strike. If players go on strike, do they get that year back in their eligibility?

I assume that's negotiated, but I am neither an employment attorney nor play one on tv

 

[Skerz4Life50]

Yeah this whole process is all eventually headed towards some sort of CBA for the athletes.

That's where the strangeness comes in with players going on strike. If players go on strike, do they get that year back in their eligibility?

If it goes to a CBA, it is very unlikely that they would keep "eligibility", or at least limit players to 4 years. It wouldn't make any sense to do so from the players' side, and in all honesty, it probably wouldn't make a ton of sense from the school's side either. Like the example I gave above, if you have Tommy Frasier or Eric Crouch, who both were terrible NFL prospects, why wouldn't you want them to stay in "college" for as long as they could. It would be a win-win for each side, but would only hurt other younger perspective players.

 

[Baron Winnebago]

If it goes to a CBA, it is very unlikely that they would keep "eligibility", or at least limit players to 4 years. It wouldn't make any sense to do so from the players' side, and in all honesty, it probably wouldn't make a ton of sense from the school's side either. Like the example I gave above, if you have Tommy Frasier or Eric Crouch, who both were terrible NFL prospects, why wouldn't you want them to stay in "college" for as long as they could. It would be a win-win for each side, but would only hurt other younger perspective players.

I'd be surprised if schools ever moved on eligiblity limits. Like I can see why players who are great in college with no NFL prospects would want to stay but it's a hard no I imagine from colleges so long as they want to do even the smallest bit of lip service to the old ways

 

[CornHub]

If it goes to a CBA, it is very unlikely that they would keep "eligibility", or at least limit players to 4 years. It wouldn't make any sense to do so from the players' side, and in all honesty, it probably wouldn't make a ton of sense from the school's side either. Like the example I gave above, if you have Tommy Frasier or Eric Crouch, who both were terrible NFL prospects, why wouldn't you want them to stay in "college" for as long as they could. It would be a win-win for each side, but would only hurt other younger perspective players.

That would really hurt college football, imo. All the sudden you have rosters bloated with old players that weren't good enough to make the NFL, but are better than incoming highschoolers. Now the kids that don't like their college options start looking at the UFL right out of highschool. Eventually you could see the excitement for college diminish as some of their business is taken by the UFL.

 

[Skerz4Life50]

I'd be surprised if schools ever moved on eligiblity limits. Like I can see why players who are great in college with no NFL prospects would want to stay but it's a hard no I imagine from colleges so long as they want to do even the smallest bit of lip service to the old ways

I agree that I don't think the schools would ultimately like that, but if the players unionize, I am guessing there are going to be discussions on it. I mean currently you can get redshirt years, medical redshirt, and a few other exemptions that somehow get players like 8-9 years of college football. There would have to be some type of discussions on this in the future regardless, and I am not sure that the players would want to limit themselves to only 4ish years. I am also guessing there will be some players who would like to not have to wait 2-3 years or whatever it is to leave and go to the NFL. That's why this whole thing is just a giant clusterfuck.

Even if the schools decided to recognize the players as employees to try to not have them unionize, I believe it would still break anti-trust laws to limit the amount of years they are able to play. In all reality, a CBA may be the only way that they could limit it, but then it would be back to whether or not the players would accept that. I think that is why at least a few of the guys on the Cover 3 podcast thought that eligibility may eventually go away.

 

[Baron Winnebago]

I agree that I don't think the schools would ultimately like that, but if the players unionize, I am guessing there are going to be discussions on it. I mean currently you can get redshirt years, medical redshirt, and a few other exemptions that somehow get players like 8-9 years of college football. There would have to be some type of discussions on this in the future regardless, and I am not sure that the players would want to limit themselves to only 4ish years. I am also guessing there will be some players who would like to not have to wait 2-3 years or whatever it is to leave and go to the NFL. That's why this whole thing is just a giant clusterfuck.

Even if the schools decided to recognize the players as employees to try to not have them unionize, I believe it would still break anti-trust laws to limit the amount of years they are able to play. In all reality, a CBA may be the only way that they could limit it, but then it would be back to whether or not the players would accept that. I think that is why at least a few of the guys on the Cover 3 podcast thought that eligibility may eventually go away.

If they work out an antitrust exemption, they can probably cap eligibility. It might not take the form of years but it might take the form of actively pursuing a degree. Like the NFL has gotten away with limiting eligiblity to players who are 3 years removed from college so some regulation that is technically anticompetitive is permissible.

 

[BluesBucksNHuskers]

So you're saying at no point in history of CFB that players and teams ever wanted to play and win for their school since the second that NFL started creating millionaires? Because a lot of schools, especially the G5 and Division II, used to just want to win. Now? There is enough tampering at those schools that a lot of those programs get gutted of their good players because they cannot just keep up with the NIL big bucks.

Staffs? Because while Nebraska and several big conference schools have dedicated non-coaching staff filled to help out throughout the season that will do what they can to retain and motivate players to stay. But those smaller schools, once again, are losing out on the how the horizon has changed CFB. They are victims to this.

And I love this quote from you, "There are no victims in this besides the fans that have it in their heads..." Well, then those fans are victims then, which clearly is going against what you had originally said "there are no victims". Some of those fans are loyal and probably donors. Yes, the love of the school is going to give them to keep donating, but ultimately, would you want to keep donating to a program that has to now operate in a new CFB world that you're no longer interested in?

The fact of the matter is, the victims of CFB have had to adapt over the years. Why does Nebraska and several schools have bigger offices for scouting and recruiting? Because they were victims to falling behind the recruiting world. And there are going victims in these CFB changes that are going on now and some will adapt, and some will have to adapt at a lower budget.

And what's the difference between a fan that love the way CFB was 50 years ago versus a fan that absolutely believes there are no victims in todays CFB? Both have a single way of thinking and that is a miserable mindset.

While I always appreciate a good straw man argument of course I'm not saying that there's no players that play for the love of their school. By in large the best recruiting strategy for best players is to paint a picture of that players path to the NFL though, not saying "Come here because you love Nebraska". Yes, the have's are getting players from the havenot's because of money - but the result of that is a kid getting paid for his value. Ultimately if that coach cares about the kid and the school can't provide him the value he's worth then that kids doing the right thing.

Now as far as the poor victims of the "fans that have it in their heads", to be clear that was tongue in cheek - they're not victims. They still have football to watch on Saturday, their team is still playing and has avenues to be competitive. They're really just being babies because they miss the delusional idea that "Kids played for the love of their school" and "It was more pure before players were being paid" even though in reality many schools were breaking rules and paying kids in different ways anyways.