The article is from Jon Wilner of the Mercury News is about how market forces will have an affect on the future of the Pac12 specifically. But much of what he discusses (especially the latter half of the article) could likely apply to any FBS conference.


With its economic model under siege, the NCAA’s Board of Governors on Tuesday gave general approval for NIL compensation.

The move was significant symbolically in that the NCAA backed down from its entrenched opposition, but the development solved nothing from a practical standpoint:

Each division within college sports must create rules that best serve its purpose and fit within the “collegiate model.”

The state-level legislation is designed to detonate the collegiate model, setting up a potential court fight over the rules of engagement with pay-for-play.

Within Division I, we could eventually see a series of bifurcations:

Different economic models for schools that play football and those that don’t.

Different economic models for FBS and FCS programs.

Different economic models for Power Five and Group of Five schools.

And within the Power Five, different rules for the elites — for the 20 or 30 schools that have the resources and the tradition and the football culture to join an exclusive club.

“Are the students getting paid? And are they getting paid across the board, or just the schools that can afford it,” said the media executive.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/30/t...hotline-nl

This is going to be a mess.

(10-31-2019 06:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  This is going to be a mess.

Already is. Time to blow it up

(10-31-2019 06:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  This is going to be a mess.

Yup. Thats been my point all along. Nobody passing these laws understands the unintended consequences of the legislation they are passing.

(10-31-2019 07:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 06:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  This is going to be a mess.

Yup. Thats been my point all along. Nobody passing these laws understands the unintended consequences of the legislation they are passing.

These laws were necessary because the NCAA would not change. The NCAA waits until change is forced on them. They could see the California law coming and all they did was fight it. When a guy like Coach K is stating that the NCAA is "a decade or two" late on this issue and that, "We need to stay current with what's happening," you should know that you have to change.

Now they have to deal with these laws. It will be a headache, a headache that they could have avoided with some foresight. But they will get it done. College football will survive. The NCAA will change because they want to survive. They want to keep their jobs.

(10-31-2019 08:07 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 07:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 06:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  This is going to be a mess.

Yup. Thats been my point all along. Nobody passing these laws understands the unintended consequences of the legislation they are passing.

These laws were necessary because the NCAA would not change. The NCAA waits until change is forced on them. They could see the California law coming and all they did was fight it. When a guy like Coach K is stating that the NCAA is "a decade or two" late on this issue and that, "We need to stay current with what's happening," you should know that you have to change.

Now they have to deal with these laws. It will be a headache, a headache that they could have avoided with some foresight. But they will get it done. College football will survive. The NCAA will change because they want to survive. They want to keep their jobs.

They didn’t change because they didn’t want a pro league. Now there will probably be a split among those that want to stay in some amateur configuration and the rest that go full on minor league pro sports. There is no way to do some sort of half azzed one foot in and one foot out Olympic version. College sports are not like the olympics. That model will never work. Basically this article says pay for play in one form or another is coming. I tend to agree. The NCAA is desperately trying to find some sort of middle ground—but it will fail. I just don’t think there is any way to keep that Jeanie under control once it’s released.

(10-31-2019 08:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 08:07 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 07:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 06:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  This is going to be a mess.

Yup. Thats been my point all along. Nobody passing these laws understands the unintended consequences of the legislation they are passing.

These laws were necessary because the NCAA would not change. The NCAA waits until change is forced on them. They could see the California law coming and all they did was fight it. When a guy like Coach K is stating that the NCAA is "a decade or two" late on this issue and that, "We need to stay current with what's happening," you should know that you have to change.

Now they have to deal with these laws. It will be a headache, a headache that they could have avoided with some foresight. But they will get it done. College football will survive. The NCAA will change because they want to survive. They want to keep their jobs.

They didn’t change because they didn’t want a pro league. Now there will probably be a split among those that want to stay in some amateur configuration and the rest that go full on minor league pro sports. There is no way to do some sort of half azzed one foot in and one foot out Olympic version. College sports are not like the olympics. That model will never work. Basically this article says pay for play in one form or another is coming. I tend to agree. The NCAA is desperately trying to find some sort of middle ground—but it will fail. I just don’t think there is any way to keep that Jeanie under control once it’s released.

That is a false choice. This is not either amateur or pro. A student-athlete receiving compensation for his/her image does not change the fact that he/she is still a student athlete. They still have to attend class. They still have to maintain a minimum GPA to be eligible for the actual games. They still have to abide by the basic NCAA rules.

People get concerned about the unintended consequences of the recent California law and other proposed laws, but what about the unintended or intended consequences of the NCCA rules? It is time for the NCAA to move into the 21st Century.

(10-31-2019 07:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 06:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  This is going to be a mess.

Yup. Thats been my point all along. Nobody passing these laws understands the unintended consequences of the legislation they are passing.

Here's an alternative idea: Maybe they are just as smart as you and I are and can clearly see your scenarios as a possible outcome. The difference is, whereas you view that as a nightmare, they are indifferent about that "mess"?

It's kind of like when SMU's 1987 "death penalty" is discussed, there's always someone who says "they just had no idea what kind of impact this would have on a program", as if anyone should care that a football program would spend 30 years digging itself out of that 'grave'? Like that's a National Tragedy or something?

No, we understand, we just don't think those outcomes are in the same moral category as the Twin Towers getting blown up, etc.

Funny thing is, I am generally much more of a traditionalist than you and many others who share this same fear of unleashing pay in college football. You guys wants to do some pretty major restructuring of the playoffs and money distribution, mostly along the lines of closing the various gaps between the G5 and P5. Me, I'm happy with the CFP but also would have no problem if they junked it, but in the other direction, by returning to the BCS, or just the old pre-1998 bowl-and-poll system.

But I also have zero problem with radical change that involves market forces. Truth is, the traditional structure of college football is based on exploiting athletes, in the sense of denying them money opportunities that would exist if not forcibly prevented, and as much as I love the college football I grew up with, I can't honestly stand in the way of that changing.

All this for 100 pampered brats.

We are now seeing talks for the Big Sky Conference to realign. Big Sky schools make less money than the PAC 12. What PAC 12 needs is to find schools within the footprint because Washington State for an example, is not in the same league as Washington in making money. Washington State could be in the same league as Boise State in resources.

(11-02-2019 08:30 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  We are now seeing talks for the Big Sky Conference to realign. Big Sky schools make less money than the PAC 12. What PAC 12 needs is to find schools within the footprint because Washington State for an example, is not in the same league as Washington in making money. Washington State could be in the same league as Boise State in resources.

Link to the “talks we are seeing”—?

Any article that theorizes about a split between the top 20+ and the rest of P5 is not worth paying much attention to.

(11-02-2019 07:53 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Any article that theorizes about a split between the top 20+ and the rest of P5 is not worth paying much attention to.

I feel the same about articles that say the P5 will split from the G5. The P5 likes the G5 right where it is. Connected in a subservient role.

(11-02-2019 08:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2019 07:53 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Any article that theorizes about a split between the top 20+ and the rest of P5 is not worth paying much attention to.

I feel the same about articles that say the P5 will split from the G5. The P5 likes the G5 right where it is. Connected in a subservient role.

No doubt. The P5 would have to be incredibly foolhardy/shortsighted to force a breakaway just to get...a second Fiesta Bowl slot and some extra NCAA tournament money that isn't going to help them? Sure doesn't seem worth it.

(10-31-2019 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The article is from Jon Wilner of the Mercury News is about how market forces will have an affect on the future of the Pac12 specifically. But much of what he discusses (especially the latter half of the article) could likely apply to any FBS conference.


With its economic model under siege, the NCAA’s Board of Governors on Tuesday gave general approval for NIL compensation.

The move was significant symbolically in that the NCAA backed down from its entrenched opposition, but the development solved nothing from a practical standpoint:

Each division within college sports must create rules that best serve its purpose and fit within the “collegiate model.”

The state-level legislation is designed to detonate the collegiate model, setting up a potential court fight over the rules of engagement with pay-for-play.

Within Division I, we could eventually see a series of bifurcations:

Different economic models for schools that play football and those that don’t.

Different economic models for FBS and FCS programs.

Different economic models for Power Five and Group of Five schools.

And within the Power Five, different rules for the elites — for the 20 or 30 schools that have the resources and the tradition and the football culture to join an exclusive club.

“Are the students getting paid? And are they getting paid across the board, or just the schools that can afford it,” said the media executive.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/30/t...hotline-nl

The author either doesn't understand that state NIL legislation has nothing at all to do with pay-for-play or he has failed to explain how NIL legislation could lead to pay-for-play.

To be clear, if NIL legislation does lead to pay-for-play, then it will be because the schools decide it would be easier to go that route.

(11-02-2019 10:28 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The article is from Jon Wilner of the Mercury News is about how market forces will have an affect on the future of the Pac12 specifically. But much of what he discusses (especially the latter half of the article) could likely apply to any FBS conference.


With its economic model under siege, the NCAA’s Board of Governors on Tuesday gave general approval for NIL compensation.

The move was significant symbolically in that the NCAA backed down from its entrenched opposition, but the development solved nothing from a practical standpoint:

Each division within college sports must create rules that best serve its purpose and fit within the “collegiate model.”

The state-level legislation is designed to detonate the collegiate model, setting up a potential court fight over the rules of engagement with pay-for-play.

Within Division I, we could eventually see a series of bifurcations:

Different economic models for schools that play football and those that don’t.

Different economic models for FBS and FCS programs.

Different economic models for Power Five and Group of Five schools.

And within the Power Five, different rules for the elites — for the 20 or 30 schools that have the resources and the tradition and the football culture to join an exclusive club.

“Are the students getting paid? And are they getting paid across the board, or just the schools that can afford it,” said the media executive.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/30/t...hotline-nl

The author either doesn't understand that state NIL legislation has nothing at all to do with pay-for-play or he has failed to explain how NIL legislation could lead to pay-for-play.

To be clear, if NIL legislation does lead to pay-for-play, then it will be because the schools decide it would be easier to go that route.

Correct. NIL will simply be abused to become pay for play by third parties. The schools will have little control over the product or the image/endorsement deals the players sign. The leagues will have no control over competitive balance.

If the schools want to regain control of their sports programs, they will have to eliminate 3rd party pay. Theycan to full on pay for play by the schools or they can go with the “scholarship only” amateur model. The Notre Dame AD said he expected a similar division of FBS between pay-for-play schools and amateur “scholarship only” schools if these compensation law suits and legislative proposals ended up drastically changing the landscape. In other words—-this not just coming from Wilner. Rather the writer is explaining the options that ADs see down the road if you play this game out to its logical conclusion. The NCAA has made some noise about preventing the NIL deals from mimicking pay for play—but I have no idea how you could do that and not violate these state laws.

(11-02-2019 08:30 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  We are now seeing talks for the Big Sky Conference to realign. Big Sky schools make less money than the PAC 12. What PAC 12 needs is to find schools within the footprint because Washington State for an example, is not in the same league as Washington in making money. Washington State could be in the same league as Boise State in resources.

Big sky schools are making less than PAC 12 schools ?
So they need to add lesser schools to the PAC below their bottom school WSU ?

If say your family had five people in it and you had a 8 piece bucket of chicken.
Would you go invite four random people from the nearby park?
Or would you try to buy a bigger box of chicken or extra sides oir something.
I think most people would get more food not add people .
Especially random strangers sometimes bums .