College Sports / Conference Realignment

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
Illini in Italy
BZuppke said:
So would the new regime in House replace NIL?

‘The settlement includes provisions that would cap how much each team could pay its athletes and restrict boosters from paying more to players as a recruiting incentive, which athletic directors and conference commissioners say is necessary to maintain competitive balance.’
Click to expand...
So the only difference between the pile of steaming fecal matter we have going forward post NIL, and the pre-NIL days is that instead of just getting paid under the table, the players will receive a salary (profit sharing) over the table, and boosters will pay them under the table just like the pre-NIL days to avoid the NCAA and university rules (aka cheating).
 
Last edited:
#27      
BZuppke
But NIL has no caps etc but what is described in the settlement does. So officially it would be an even playing field as opposed to today’s NIL. Am I reading this right?
 
#28      
BalloonsTheElephant
BZuppke said:
But NIL has no caps etc but what is described in the settlement does. So officially it would be an even playing field as opposed to today’s NIL. Am I reading this right?
Click to expand...
Any rules or caps will immediately be circumvented by everyone. Absolute free market is still the best bet. Unless there was some level of actual enforcement, we are just back to square one.
 
#29      
Dkayak
BalloonsTheElephant said:
Any rules or caps will immediately be circumvented by everyone. Absolute free market is still the best bet. Unless there was some level of actual enforcement, we are just back to square one.
Click to expand...
If caps can be enforced in the NFL, why can’t they be in the NCAA? Level the playing field for all the same reasons.
 
#31      
Battle89
Dkayak said:
If caps can be enforced in the NFL, why can’t they be in the NCAA? Level the playing field for all the same reasons.
Click to expand...
1. Collective bargaining exists in one and not the other.
2. NIL is separate from the 'salary' college players will get, is not limited, and is still ripe for abuse, um, 'free market fluctuations'.
3. The NFL is no paragon of rule-abiders, cheating happens there too, all the time.

1734453332271.png
 
#32      
RabidDawgClassic
BZuppke said:
But NIL has no caps etc but what is described in the settlement does. So officially it would be an even playing field as opposed to today’s NIL. Am I reading this right?
Click to expand...
The NFL can cap how much salary a team pays its players, but it can’t cap what any outside company is willing to pay individual players for their endorsements. Anyone who thinks NIL is going away is listening to fools.
 
#33      
ChiefGritty
RabidDawgClassic said:
The NFL can cap how much salary a team pays its players, but it can’t cap what any outside company is willing to pay individual players for their endorsements. Anyone who thinks NIL is going away is listening to fools.
Click to expand...
Exactly right, the collective bargaining agreements in the Big Four pro sports are effectively magic loopholes around labor and antitrust laws for those leagues, but they only bind the relationships between players and teams, they don't apply to any third parties.

In the college sports world, it's all third parties.

And this all begs another question, what exactly is preventing an NIL-type inducement in pro sports? If Billionaire X is a big Knicks fan, why not make Wemby an offer he can't refuse to choose the Knicks in free agency?

Or what if it's Billionaire X who has real estate investments in the arena district of a franchise in a smaller market?

All the ground is quicksand if enough money is involved.
 
#36      
Calvin
RabidDawgClassic said:
The NFL can cap how much salary a team pays its players, but it can’t cap what any outside company is willing to pay individual players for their endorsements. Anyone who thinks NIL is going away is listening to fools.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. And the article said "settlement", but it's really a proposed settlement at this point with a LOT that still needs to be worked out or resolved. I think ultimately there's enough money here that the interested parties might successfully lobby congress to keep elements of traditional football. The big market programs are the haves, and they will fight to keep it that way. The notion that some of these small schools should be treated the same as programs with huge fanbases and booster budgets seems crazy to me. There's also Title IX and more interest in women's sports. I'm expecting a wild ride before things settle down into a stable business model.
 
#37      
TentakilRex
Bucktown said:
CNBC Ranks value of college sports programs. Illinois #25 according to this.

Click to expand...
Conclusions:

1. Yeah more evidence why Clemson and FSU want to move conferences.
2. Duke is way higher than I though, then I remembered basketball.
3. Might to look at Texas Tech as future SEC recruit.
4. More proof of why UNC swung for the fences on Belichick
5. Is UNC and Virginia the ACC schools that the SEC and B1G want to fight over. TCU is above both in value. Pitt and Baylor is above Virginia.
6. Should gone for Missouri, Texas, etc instead of Maryland and Rutgers????
 
#38      
SoCal Illini
Who cares… it’s all going to blow up or implode within 10 years once the tv networks realize they overpaid and there’s less money going around than was hoped.

Maybe it won’t be catastrophic but the money flow has always just gone up, never down. As a result people are making decisions assuming that will continue to always be the case. I don’t think so.
 
Last edited:
#39      
Calvin
SoCal Illini said:
Who cares… it’s all going to blow up or implode within 10 years once the tv networks realize they overpaid and there’s less money going around than was hoped.

Maybe it won’t be catastrophic but the money flow has always just gone up, never down. As a result people are making decisions assuming that will continue to always be the case. I don’t think so.
Click to expand...

Have you seen what streamers are charging? The money is definitely there. A change in how the content is delivered isn't tanking revenue.

That said, I kind of agree with your second statement, but it seems like the big sports have been doing well my entire lifetime. People want their entertainment, and sports have an appeal that's not going away. Really hard to see how everything will shake out over the next few years, let alone the long term. I think the near-term problem, besides the obvious issues with the legal landscape, are the rapidly escalating payrolls. As was once said to me, our college is a 'not for profit' college. But we're not for losses, either.
 
#40      
Illini in Italy
Given the inexorable crawl towards the obliteration of the NCAA, what does that future look like? The next logical lawsuit will be to challenge the NCAA's limit on years of eligibility (which I've been forecasting now for a couple of years). People tend to forget that the NCAA is a member-run organization, and for decades the colleges and the universities themselves have prostituted themselves to the entertainment industry for incredibly large piles of cash. If the athletes and their shyster lawyers (Google "House attorneys seeking $525M for attorney's fees) are successful- if there is no NCAA . . . What will the future governing body look like? Or will major college sports devolve into as Gritty likes to refer to them as "NFL/NBA-Lite" and die off due to disinterest due to the fact that the product is not equal to the NFL or NBA?
 
#41      
spotter
I think there is always a risk of over saturation (See 2010s NASCAR), but football is an American addiction and with the legalization and ease of gambling, I think pro and college football is still on solid ground for the rest of my life (I'm 52).
 
#42      
SoCal Illini
Calvin said:
Have you seen what streamers are charging? The money is definitely there. A change in how the content is delivered isn't tanking revenue.

That said, I kind of agree with your second statement, but it seems like the big sports have been doing well my entire lifetime. People want their entertainment, and sports have an appeal that's not going away. Really hard to see how everything will shake out over the next few years, let alone the long term. I think the near-term problem, besides the obvious issues with the legal landscape, are the rapidly escalating payrolls. As was once said to me, our college is a 'not for profit' college. But we're not for losses, either.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right in that just the delivery method will change. Not based on any data, but I think the bigger issue is that overall interest will decline, so fewer eyeballs regardless of how its consumed. Beating a dead horse but what made college football particularly unique, and thus its appeal, is eroding. Seems like the casual football fans would rather watch the nfl to follow their fantasy teams.

I used to love watching games that weren’t ’prime time’. Like a 2-6 cal vs a 3-5 ucla, because of NorCal vs SoCal, I would know the players and how they progressed through their 4 or 5 years at one school, often recognizing them from their hs days…. things like that. That’s almost all gone and I have no interest in most games that don’t feature the illini.

Now get off my lawn
 
#43      
Bucktown
Illini in Italy said:
Given the inexorable crawl towards the obliteration of the NCAA, what does that future look like? The next logical lawsuit will be to challenge the NCAA's limit on years of eligibility (which I've been forecasting now for a couple of years). People tend to forget that the NCAA is a member-run organization, and for decades the colleges and the universities themselves have prostituted themselves to the entertainment industry for incredibly large piles of cash. If the athletes and their shyster lawyers (Google "House attorneys seeking $525M for attorney's fees) are successful- if there is no NCAA . . . What will the future governing body look like? Or will major college sports devolve into as Gritty likes to refer to them as "NFL/NBA-Lite" and die off due to disinterest due to the fact that the product is not equal to the NFL or NBA?
Click to expand...
I have really never understood how the NCAA is a monopoly for setting eligibility rules. I get the argument about equal protection because it has been wildly inconsistent in it rulings about waivers, but not monopoly.

Rhetorically, why is the NCAA different than any other member organization?
 
#44      
Mr. Tibbs
Bucktown said:
I have really never understood how the NCAA is a monopoly for setting eligibility rules. I get the argument about equal protection because it has been wildly inconsistent in it rulings about waivers, but not monopoly.

Rhetorically, why is the NCAA different than any other member organization?
Click to expand...
I'll try
with pro leagues , in any sport, when you buy in, you know from day one what the rules are. you in essence agree to those rules

the NCAA is simply a lot different than that. it has evolved over time and as a big school you have no option as smaller schools have with NCAA DIII or NAIA
over the years, they have been terrible at being objective and have often shown favoritism, especially in the basketball ranks to protect its cash cow, March Madness ( and fwiw, the name was unfairly stolen from the IHSA) .

They will not be around much longer, at least with regards to the P4, so I do not think we have to worry about them in 5 years. Few people in the Illini fandom will shed a tear.
 
#45      
Bucktown
Mr. Tibbs said:
I'll try
with pro leagues , in any sport, when you buy in, you know from day one what the rules are. you in essence agree to those rules

the NCAA is simply a lot different than that. it has evolved over time and as a big school you have no option as smaller schools have with NCAA DIII or NAIA
over the years, they have been terrible at being objective and have often shown favoritism, especially in the basketball ranks to protect its cash cow, March Madness ( and fwiw, the name was unfairly stolen from the IHSA) .

They will not be around much longer, at least with regards to the P4, so I do not think we have to worry about them in 5 years. Few people in the Illini fandom will shed a tear.
Click to expand...
I understand there has been poor execution of the mission to provide a fair and level playing field across schools with consistent eligibility standards, but seemingly now the entire mission is considered invalid.

Whether it is the NCAA or some other future organization an association, provided it is not discriminating against a protected class, should have the ability to set the rules of membership.

We also fret about the exceptions, but basically we are still talking about a few basic criteria right?

1) The athlete must be a student in good standing at a member institution (College/University)
2) The athlete has four years of eligibility
3) Formerly the other major rule was that the athlete must not be paid to play.

All of the arguments are about the definitions of terms like 'student', 'good standing', 'four' and 'paid'.
 
#47      
TheChief4Life
#48      
AZILL
TheChief4Life said:
puke GIF


I’d prefer someone who actually understands not only the current landscape, but also why the current landscape exists, rather than someone who longs for the “glory days”.
Click to expand...
As the prospective face of NCAA Sports NIL I can see the lure. I'd assume he'd have a nicely assembled group of support personnel that will deal with the nitty gritty stuff. The way NIL is operating right now 99% of the power belongs to the players. Having someone of Saban's stature representing the NCAA itself would carry a lot of weight and hopefully shift things to more of a 50/50 split.
 
#49      
TheChief4Life
AZILL said:
Having someone of Saban's stature representing the NCAA itself would carry a lot of weight and hopefully shift things to more of a 50/50 split.
Click to expand...
If that was the end, I’d be okay with it. But with the league being about 99.999999 to 0.000001 in favor of schools/coaches to players for the previous 4 decades, I’d prefer someone who wasn’t from that era.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back