Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
We will start local and move to the national and corporate reasons it will happen.

State: No government is quite as stressed as that of the states. With trade having been localized to county seats in the 70's, moving to their largest cities by the mid 80's and 90's to in the past 10 years being usurped by internet trade giants, the states have constantly had to adjust their portions of sales and income taxes to try keep infrastructure and state programs inclusive of all education levels funded.

They've had to adjust cuts in taxes to attract industry, cuts in state sales tax to attract giant retailers to help with low end jobs and provide citizens with affordable wares.

And they've done all of this in the midst of ballooning national debt and shrinking federal grant money.

So forced to look for efficiency in state budgets one of their largest line items had to be at the forefront of restructuring, education.

Have you noticed all of the building at your largest State Universities? It's not an accident but a prerequisite of budgetary moves. A lack in state and federal funding necessitates these schools grow enrollment for undergraduate work to fund research programs. I suspect the days of high out of state tuition is going to vanish as students nationally seek solid but cheaper undergraduate degrees.

Complicit with this will be the closing, re-tasking, and systemizing of smaller state schools. Some will become vocationally oriented in tech ways, some tasked with a singular function like the old "Normal" schools of old, and the rest will be under the State U system. There will be more adjunct and fewer tenured professors in non STEM fields and this pattern will emerge in most if not all states.

Nationally:
Demographics are front and center. The WWII generation is gone. Boomers are beginning their exit. X'er's are past their school years and Millennials are struggling to reconcile high educational debt with ROI and there are fewer of them and even less behind them to fill the classrooms of any college let alone Big State U. Exchange students are fairly limited to research graduate positions.

Add a massive black hole of national debt to the equation and downsizing and streamlining of all education, but particularly higher education, is inevitable.

This is why smaller schools needed to be ushered out of sports because almost all athletics below the P5 level are fully subsidized, with the G5 all subsidizing at least 25% or more forming the buffer and with all but a handful of them with no chance to make a move up from their current status.

Since the problem is national in scope and no congress person wants political liability it makes perfect sense politically for the SCOTUS to handle the dirty work, unpopular work, for DC and the states so NIL and STIPENDS are the catalyst for a massive and long overdue change. Semi pro status, and affording it, becomes the method of triage for schools that shall have a high public profile and those that will not. And make no mistake schools like Texas and Ohio State and North Carolina and Florida are going to privately care how many schools within their states are included in the new upper echelon and how many are culled. Texas and Florida to regain enhanced brand advantage and Ohio State and North Carolina to hold onto it. (Schools selected just for examples)

I expect to see some schools currently excluded, but the sole potential representative of their state, included. Duplicate schools, particularly privates, not. And I expect our third organization will have plans for this.

Corporate:
Networks will use the necessities of the moment to their advantage. They know that ultimately expanding the playoffs will not level a playing field that has advantages built into its demographics and culture. But professional sports don't have that issue because they hire and because they have a draft. College ball will not move to a draft immediately because the concept is too radical to them, it will take those with the most stipend money continuing a tilting of the talent pool before it will happen. Until then the networks will settle for a large condensing of upper tier schools as most G5 become an amateur scholarship only tier, and others drop sports altogether.

The mere shrinking of the number of schools to offer pay for play amid closures of small schools, the dropping of sports at many others, and scholarship only play at nearly half of what will be the former FBS will mean more players and more talented players for the pay for play tier. That alone will help competitiveness within that tier. At some point should we draft high school talent similarly to the NFL then we will have more parity. In either case it bodes well for networks as a new interest and fan association would be created in all markets. It also means more money with a smaller pool of high profile schools which will also like the association for exposure and enrollment competition.

How much of a culling is coming? I don't think we can know yet, but I can's see how schools which are already heavily subsidized can make the jump.

UConn, BYU, USF and UCF, San Diego St, and perhaps a Wyoming or Cincinnati make the jump. We'll see. Small Privates will have to have extremely deep pockets and the desire for exposure. The better funded really could go Ivy or form another Ivy like association.

Summation:
What's coming is not sports motivated. It will be financially motivated to reduce budget stress at the Federal and State levels. The only way sports figures into it will be from a brand identity angle for school exposure.

Networks will shape conferences / leagues and their playoffs to their advantage and revenue will be a tool through which to leverage the change.

It won't happen all at once but the initial change of pay for play will. The rest logically follows.

None of this is what I would want, what presidents or AD's would want, or what our conferences would want. They are coming because of National debt, reduced demand for higher ed both in numbers of potential applicants and among those unwilling to assimilate the debt necessary to do so. And our states have to cut funding somewhere and streamlining higher ed just makes sense.

There will be plenty of sky screaming and misapplied blame, but we simply have no choice.

Will this impact the CFP? Probably But big time college football will adapt and overcome and hopefully in a more competitive way than what we currently have. The quality had gone way down. There were simply too many drawing from too few and that's the only silver lining I see in this ominously dark cloud of fiscal reality in a world of diminishing resources beyond football. And why pay for play? Because it thins the herd drastically, Boomers are dying and donations are down and will keep going down because those following can't afford the cost so the market must.
06-30-2021 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(06-30-2021 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We will start local and move to the national and corporate reasons it will happen.

State: No government is quite as stressed as that of the states. With trade having been localized to county seats in the 70's, moving to their largest cities by the mid 80's and 90's to in the past 10 years being usurped by internet trade giants, the states have constantly had to adjust their portions of sales and income taxes to try keep infrastructure and state programs inclusive of all education levels funded.

They've had to adjust cuts in taxes to attract industry, cuts in state sales tax to attract giant retailers to help with low end jobs and provide citizens with affordable wares.

And they've done all of this in the midst of ballooning national debt and shrinking federal grant money.

So forced to look for efficiency in state budgets one of their largest line items had to be at the forefront of restructuring, education.

Have you noticed all of the building at your largest State Universities? It's not an accident but a prerequisite of budgetary moves. A lack in state and federal funding necessitates these schools grow enrollment for undergraduate work to fund research programs. I suspect the days of high out of state tuition is going to vanish as students nationally seek solid but cheaper undergraduate degrees.

Complicit with this will be the closing, re-tasking, and systemizing of smaller state schools. Some will become vocationally oriented in tech ways, some tasked with a singular function like the old "Normal" schools of old, and the rest will be under the State U system. There will be more adjunct and fewer tenured professors in non STEM fields and this pattern will emerge in most if not all states.

Nationally:
Demographics are front and center. The WWII generation is gone. Boomers are beginning their exit. X'er's are past their school years and Millennials are struggling to reconcile high educational debt with ROI and there are fewer of them and even less behind them to fill the classrooms of any college let alone Big State U. Exchange students are fairly limited to research graduate positions.

Add a massive black hole of national debt to the equation and downsizing and streamlining of all education, but particularly higher education, is inevitable.

This is why smaller schools needed to be ushered out of sports because almost all athletics below the P5 level are fully subsidized, with the G5 all subsidizing at least 25% or more forming the buffer and with all but a handful of them with no chance to make a move up from their current status.

Since the problem is national in scope and no congress person wants political liability it makes perfect sense politically for the SCOTUS to handle the dirty work, unpopular work, for DC and the states so NIL and STIPENDS are the catalyst for a massive and long overdue change. Semi pro status, and affording it, becomes the method of triage for schools that shall have a high public profile and those that will not. And make no mistake schools like Texas and Ohio State and North Carolina and Florida are going to privately care how many schools within their states are included in the new upper echelon and how many are culled. Texas and Florida to regain enhanced brand advantage and Ohio State and North Carolina to hold onto it. (Schools selected just for examples)

I expect to see some schools currently excluded, but the sole potential representative of their state, included. Duplicate schools, particularly privates, not. And I expect our third organization will have plans for this.

Corporate:
Networks will use the necessities of the moment to their advantage. They know that ultimately expanding the playoffs will not level a playing field that has advantages built into its demographics and culture. But professional sports don't have that issue because they hire and because they have a draft. College ball will not move to a draft immediately because the concept is too radical to them, it will take those with the most stipend money continuing a tilting of the talent pool before it will happen. Until then the networks will settle for a large condensing of upper tier schools as most G5 become an amateur scholarship only tier, and others drop sports altogether.

The mere shrinking of the number of schools to offer pay for play amid closures of small schools, the dropping of sports at many others, and scholarship only play at nearly half of what will be the former FBS will mean more players and more talented players for the pay for play tier. That alone will help competitiveness within that tier. At some point should we draft high school talent similarly to the NFL then we will have more parity. In either case it bodes well for networks as a new interest and fan association would be created in all markets. It also means more money with a smaller pool of high profile schools which will also like the association for exposure and enrollment competition.

How much of a culling is coming? I don't think we can know yet, but I can's see how schools which are already heavily subsidized can make the jump.

UConn, BYU, USF and UCF, San Diego St, and perhaps a Wyoming or Cincinnati make the jump. We'll see. Small Privates will have to have extremely deep pockets and the desire for exposure. The better funded really could go Ivy or form another Ivy like association.

Summation:
What's coming is not sports motivated. It will be financially motivated to reduce budget stress at the Federal and State levels. The only way sports figures into it will be from a brand identity angle for school exposure.

Networks will shape conferences / leagues and their playoffs to their advantage and revenue will be a tool through which to leverage the change.

It won't happen all at once but the initial change of pay for play will. The rest logically follows.

None of this is what I would want, what presidents or AD's would want, or what our conferences would want. They are coming because of National debt, reduced demand for higher ed both in numbers of potential applicants and among those unwilling to assimilate the debt necessary to do so. And our states have to cut funding somewhere and streamlining higher ed just makes sense.

There will be plenty of sky screaming and misapplied blame, but we simply have no choice.

Will this impact the CFP? Probably But big time college football will adapt and overcome and hopefully in a more competitive way than what we currently have. The quality had gone way down. There were simply too many drawing from too few and that's the only silver lining I see in this ominously dark cloud of fiscal reality in a world of diminishing resources beyond football. And why pay for play? Because it thins the herd drastically, Boomers are dying and donations are down and will keep going down because those following can't afford the cost so the market must.

Well stated. Only part I disagree with has nothing to do with sports.

I think that there may be a correction on adjuncts and online education. I am an adjunct professor and I have seen time and again the research that shows full-time professors get better student evaluations, etc. Now student evaluations are pretty much worthless 95 percent of the time, but as the university system shifts more and more to a consumer based approach where the students have the power, I wonder if we will see a return to full time faculty.

Add to this recent adjunct walk out days (I did not participate) and the call for higher pay for adjuncts, and the cost benefit analysis might shift again.

On the other hand, the shift might happen the other way too, and go away from a consumer based approach back to a more classical approach. As more students choose community college options or trade schools or vocational schools, I wonder if massive enrollments might become a thing of the past too.

If a school with say 60,000 cut back to say 40,000, they could probably cut out a great deal of administrative overrun. Don't replace retiring teachers in programs that you will be cutting, and soon your student to teacher ratio works out, your administrative costs dwindle, and you no longer have to continue to lower your academic standards to accept enough students to make ends meet.

On the other other hand, maybe we are really going to see massive 100,000+ enrollment schools become the norm, swallowing up those smaller schools as college becomes what high school was, and a masters becomes what college was.

In other words, maybe I don't know anything. But I'm guessing everyone here already knew that
06-30-2021 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(06-30-2021 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Will this impact the CFP? Probably But big time college football will adapt and overcome and hopefully in a more competitive way than what we currently have. The quality had gone way down. There were simply too many drawing from too few and that's the only silver lining I see in this ominously dark cloud of fiscal reality in a world of diminishing resources beyond football. And why pay for play? Because it thins the herd drastically, Boomers are dying and donations are down and will keep going down because those following can't afford the cost so the market must.

One of the reasons I believe the CFP will expand to 12 and maybe even beyond that in the years to come is because they'll need the money.

If all of this comes to pass then every revenue stream is important.

Speaking of corporate interests, I think we'll see increased sponsorships...naming rights for stadiums and whatnot, on a wide scale and not just one here or there. A lot of tradition will be sacrificed along the way.
06-30-2021 10:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
Corporations want to erase all traditions because they see them as obstacles to what they want you to cherish and desire. Traditions divide loyalties. Traditions are defended. And traditions are rallying points.

I caution you however that form follows function. The number in the expanded playoff will be dependent on the number of schools opting for a pay for play upper tier. You seem to always want more. It will be a proportional number yielding a natural playoff.


To Soobahk I say that the number and demand for adjunct professors will increase and with it their value to schools which will pay more for their services and perhaps offer health care and some form of 401k because they will all be transitioning away from pensions and tenure outside of a few STEM fields.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2021 11:07 PM by JRsec.)
06-30-2021 11:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #5
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
The NCAA knew something would be happening on this front more than a decade ago. They did basically nothing but sit around and wait for a lawsuit. Meanwhile, schools were spending multimillions more on coaching and AD salaries, facilities, promoting their brand, and getting cozy with all kinds of corporations. Star college athletes figuring out they are the workhorses and are not getting enough hay was bound to happen.

Judges and legislators can deliver the rulings and define rights, but I am doubtful anyone has figured out how to design, then implement, a whole new system that delivers the comprehensive format for access, reasonable equity, monitoring, etc.
Corporate meddling will be an understatement. How the money will be collected and disbursed is still theoretical.

I have no doubt, one day there will be some form of a player draft in high profile college sports. A prospective player may rank/order top preferences; however, there will eventually be systematic placement.

This movement will have wings. This is just the start, not the long-term pattern that will develop.

There will be schools that will opt out. Others will find they can't keep up.
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2021 01:54 PM by OdinFrigg.)
07-05-2021 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(07-05-2021 01:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The NCAA knew something would be happening on this front more than a decade ago. They did basically nothing but sit around and wait for a lawsuit. Meanwhile, schools were spending multimillions more on coaching and AD salaries, facilities, promoting their brand, and getting cozy with all kinds of corporations. Star college athletes figuring out they are the workhorses and are not getting enough hay was bound to happen.

Judges and legislators can deliver the rulings and define rights, but I am doubtful anyone has figured out how to design, then implement, a whole new system that delivers the comprehensive format for access, reasonable equity, monitoring, etc.
Corporate meddling will be an understatement. How the money will be collected and disbursed is still theoretical.

I have no doubt, one day there will be some form of a player draft in high profile college sports. A prospective player may rank/order top preferences; however, there will eventually be systematic placement.

This movement will have wings. This is just the start, not the long-term pattern that will develop.

There will be schools that will opt out. Others will find they can't keep up.

I don't think there can be a college draft, though it is an intriguing concept I admit. There would be too many Eli Manning types (refusing to play for San Diego), and trades for college players would be far too complicated unless there was a standard curriculum/acceptance of credits.

I know fewer and fewer athletes will actually care about such things, but school's academic reputation, the specific major's reputation, etc. are extremely important. AT the pro level, there really isn't much difference between being drafted by say the Jags and the Jets, though of course some players might have a preference for a bigger or smaller market, etc., but there is huge difference between say Texas and TCU.

If the draft worked in the same way as it did on the pro level, then teams with bad records (or in a lottery system) would get first pick. So say Kansas (0-9) gets the first pick. The next P5 team might be say Arizona (0-5), followed by South Carolina (2-8) (I left off the privates like Vandy and Syracuse intentionally).

Those are vastly different schools and unless I was guaranteed a pro career, I would want to know that my education was in my hands.

On the other hand is the coaching side. Do I start to tank to get the higher draft pick? Do schools keep coaches who tank expecting the first pick, or do they fire the coach anyway?
07-06-2021 09:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(07-06-2021 09:14 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-05-2021 01:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The NCAA knew something would be happening on this front more than a decade ago. They did basically nothing but sit around and wait for a lawsuit. Meanwhile, schools were spending multimillions more on coaching and AD salaries, facilities, promoting their brand, and getting cozy with all kinds of corporations. Star college athletes figuring out they are the workhorses and are not getting enough hay was bound to happen.

Judges and legislators can deliver the rulings and define rights, but I am doubtful anyone has figured out how to design, then implement, a whole new system that delivers the comprehensive format for access, reasonable equity, monitoring, etc.
Corporate meddling will be an understatement. How the money will be collected and disbursed is still theoretical.

I have no doubt, one day there will be some form of a player draft in high profile college sports. A prospective player may rank/order top preferences; however, there will eventually be systematic placement.

This movement will have wings. This is just the start, not the long-term pattern that will develop.

There will be schools that will opt out. Others will find they can't keep up.

I don't think there can be a college draft, though it is an intriguing concept I admit. There would be too many Eli Manning types (refusing to play for San Diego), and trades for college players would be far too complicated unless there was a standard curriculum/acceptance of credits.

I know fewer and fewer athletes will actually care about such things, but school's academic reputation, the specific major's reputation, etc. are extremely important. AT the pro level, there really isn't much difference between being drafted by say the Jags and the Jets, though of course some players might have a preference for a bigger or smaller market, etc., but there is huge difference between say Texas and TCU.

If the draft worked in the same way as it did on the pro level, then teams with bad records (or in a lottery system) would get first pick. So say Kansas (0-9) gets the first pick. The next P5 team might be say Arizona (0-5), followed by South Carolina (2-8) (I left off the privates like Vandy and Syracuse intentionally).

Those are vastly different schools and unless I was guaranteed a pro career, I would want to know that my education was in my hands.

On the other hand is the coaching side. Do I start to tank to get the higher draft pick? Do schools keep coaches who tank expecting the first pick, or do they fire the coach anyway?

A draft of college athletes would be predicated on forcing kids into a certain school. I see no precedent for that in American education.

Unless athletes are straight employees with no educational relationship and unless there's a union of some sort, I don't see anything like that ever happening.

Even then, we just loosened up the transfer rules to the point where they basically don't exist. The dichotomy is unsustainable. That and I doubt any of the kids would want to participate in that system. None of the athletes are going to challenge the current transfer paradigm from a legal standpoint.

Let's remember that NIL came about ultimately because athletes challenged the legality of the former system.
07-07-2021 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(07-07-2021 11:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 09:14 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-05-2021 01:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The NCAA knew something would be happening on this front more than a decade ago. They did basically nothing but sit around and wait for a lawsuit. Meanwhile, schools were spending multimillions more on coaching and AD salaries, facilities, promoting their brand, and getting cozy with all kinds of corporations. Star college athletes figuring out they are the workhorses and are not getting enough hay was bound to happen.

Judges and legislators can deliver the rulings and define rights, but I am doubtful anyone has figured out how to design, then implement, a whole new system that delivers the comprehensive format for access, reasonable equity, monitoring, etc.
Corporate meddling will be an understatement. How the money will be collected and disbursed is still theoretical.



I have no doubt, one day there will be some form of a player draft in high profile college sports. A prospective player may rank/order top preferences; however, there will eventually be systematic placement.

This movement will have wings. This is just the start, not the long-term pattern that will develop.

There will be schools that will opt out. Others will find they can't keep up.

I don't think there can be a college draft, though it is an intriguing concept I admit. There would be too many Eli Manning types (refusing to play for San Diego), and trades for college players would be far too complicated unless there was a standard curriculum/acceptance of credits.

I know fewer and fewer athletes will actually care about such things, but school's academic reputation, the specific major's reputation, etc. are extremely important. AT the pro level, there really isn't much difference between being drafted by say the Jags and the Jets, though of course some players might have a preference for a bigger or smaller market, etc., but there is huge difference between say Texas and TCU.

If the draft worked in the same way as it did on the pro level, then teams with bad records (or in a lottery system) would get first pick. So say Kansas (0-9) gets the first pick. The next P5 team might be say Arizona (0-5), followed by South Carolina (2-8) (I left off the privates like Vandy and Syracuse intentionally).

Those are vastly different schools and unless I was guaranteed a pro career, I would want to know that my education was in my hands.

On the other hand is the coaching side. Do I start to tank to get the higher draft pick? Do schools keep coaches who tank expecting the first pick, or do they fire the coach anyway?

A draft of college athletes would be predicated on forcing kids into a certain school. I see no precedent for that in American education.

Unless athletes are straight employees with no educational relationship and unless there's a union of some sort, I don't see anything like that ever happening.

Even then, we just loosened up the transfer rules to the point where they basically don't exist. The dichotomy is unsustainable. That and I doubt any of the kids would want to participate in that system. None of the athletes are going to challenge the current transfer paradigm from a legal standpoint.

Let's remember that NIL came about ultimately because athletes challenged the legality of the former system.

1. Such a draft already exists for MLB and did at one time for the NBA. I would think it would be handled more like college sorority rush. Visits happen in a time of open recruitment. The kid lists 3 to 5 preferences in an order and the schools do as well. When preferences line up #1 to #1 a draft is made. If your #1 doesn't match but your #2 does a draft is made.

And remember not only will schools and kids have input, but they can always opt to sit out and walk on.

2. Under pay for play they are all employees.

3. Transfer rules are negated by contract. Nobody gets to have it both ways.

4. NIL is nothing. Stipends change everything and are likely to be uncapped.
07-07-2021 12:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #9
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(07-07-2021 12:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 11:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 09:14 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-05-2021 01:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The NCAA knew something would be happening on this front more than a decade ago. They did basically nothing but sit around and wait for a lawsuit. Meanwhile, schools were spending multimillions more on coaching and AD salaries, facilities, promoting their brand, and getting cozy with all kinds of corporations. Star college athletes figuring out they are the workhorses and are not getting enough hay was bound to happen.

Judges and legislators can deliver the rulings and define rights, but I am doubtful anyone has figured out how to design, then implement, a whole new system that delivers the comprehensive format for access, reasonable equity, monitoring, etc.
Corporate meddling will be an understatement. How the money will be collected and disbursed is still theoretical.



I have no doubt, one day there will be some form of a player draft in high profile college sports. A prospective player may rank/order top preferences; however, there will eventually be systematic placement.

This movement will have wings. This is just the start, not the long-term pattern that will develop.

There will be schools that will opt out. Others will find they can't keep up.

I don't think there can be a college draft, though it is an intriguing concept I admit. There would be too many Eli Manning types (refusing to play for San Diego), and trades for college players would be far too complicated unless there was a standard curriculum/acceptance of credits.

I know fewer and fewer athletes will actually care about such things, but school's academic reputation, the specific major's reputation, etc. are extremely important. AT the pro level, there really isn't much difference between being drafted by say the Jags and the Jets, though of course some players might have a preference for a bigger or smaller market, etc., but there is huge difference between say Texas and TCU.

If the draft worked in the same way as it did on the pro level, then teams with bad records (or in a lottery system) would get first pick. So say Kansas (0-9) gets the first pick. The next P5 team might be say Arizona (0-5), followed by South Carolina (2-8) (I left off the privates like Vandy and Syracuse intentionally).

Those are vastly different schools and unless I was guaranteed a pro career, I would want to know that my education was in my hands.

On the other hand is the coaching side. Do I start to tank to get the higher draft pick? Do schools keep coaches who tank expecting the first pick, or do they fire the coach anyway?

A draft of college athletes would be predicated on forcing kids into a certain school. I see no precedent for that in American education.

Unless athletes are straight employees with no educational relationship and unless there's a union of some sort, I don't see anything like that ever happening.

Even then, we just loosened up the transfer rules to the point where they basically don't exist. The dichotomy is unsustainable. That and I doubt any of the kids would want to participate in that system. None of the athletes are going to challenge the current transfer paradigm from a legal standpoint.

Let's remember that NIL came about ultimately because athletes challenged the legality of the former system.

1. Such a draft already exists for MLB and did at one time for the NBA. I would think it would be handled more like college sorority rush. Visits happen in a time of open recruitment. The kid lists 3 to 5 preferences in an order and the schools do as well. When preferences line up #1 to #1 a draft is made. If your #1 doesn't match but your #2 does a draft is made.

And remember not only will schools and kids have input, but they can always opt to sit out and walk on.

2. Under pay for play they are all employees.

3. Transfer rules are negated by contract. Nobody gets to have it both ways.

4. NIL is nothing. Stipends change everything and are likely to be uncapped.

I was not suggesting a NFL methodology would happen. We all see now a star recruit who may have numerous scholarship offers from schools. He narrows down his choices to five schools. Few do, but he can certainly factor in a major if he so chooses. Hypothetically, if his top five preferences are 1. LSU, 2. Auburn, 3. Baylor, 4. South Carolina, and 5. FSU; but it ends up that none of those, by rank/order, have a "still remaining" scholarship (slot) available for him for the given year, no one is going to tell him he must go to NC State or Tennessee or wherever if he wants to play ball. There would be no draft system whereby the top player must go to Washington State, who would get the first pick for the year, and Alabama picks last.
If NIL targeting by corporate entities begins as prospects are still in high school but are within the recruiting time frame, it is not unimaginable a corporation, in conjunction with designated co-op college athletic departments, would have a prepared list
of schools for the prospect to consider for cutting a deal. While it is not a draft structure, it is an informal, sub-systematic way of narrowing the options.
If Calvin Klein, for example, decides to get in the NIL sponsorship game to have their underwear modeled by college athletes, they are not going to pick a 315 lb. lineman saturated with tattoos who wants to go to BYU.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2021 01:51 PM by OdinFrigg.)
07-07-2021 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(07-07-2021 12:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 11:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 09:14 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-05-2021 01:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The NCAA knew something would be happening on this front more than a decade ago. They did basically nothing but sit around and wait for a lawsuit. Meanwhile, schools were spending multimillions more on coaching and AD salaries, facilities, promoting their brand, and getting cozy with all kinds of corporations. Star college athletes figuring out they are the workhorses and are not getting enough hay was bound to happen.

Judges and legislators can deliver the rulings and define rights, but I am doubtful anyone has figured out how to design, then implement, a whole new system that delivers the comprehensive format for access, reasonable equity, monitoring, etc.
Corporate meddling will be an understatement. How the money will be collected and disbursed is still theoretical.



I have no doubt, one day there will be some form of a player draft in high profile college sports. A prospective player may rank/order top preferences; however, there will eventually be systematic placement.

This movement will have wings. This is just the start, not the long-term pattern that will develop.

There will be schools that will opt out. Others will find they can't keep up.

I don't think there can be a college draft, though it is an intriguing concept I admit. There would be too many Eli Manning types (refusing to play for San Diego), and trades for college players would be far too complicated unless there was a standard curriculum/acceptance of credits.

I know fewer and fewer athletes will actually care about such things, but school's academic reputation, the specific major's reputation, etc. are extremely important. AT the pro level, there really isn't much difference between being drafted by say the Jags and the Jets, though of course some players might have a preference for a bigger or smaller market, etc., but there is huge difference between say Texas and TCU.

If the draft worked in the same way as it did on the pro level, then teams with bad records (or in a lottery system) would get first pick. So say Kansas (0-9) gets the first pick. The next P5 team might be say Arizona (0-5), followed by South Carolina (2-8) (I left off the privates like Vandy and Syracuse intentionally).

Those are vastly different schools and unless I was guaranteed a pro career, I would want to know that my education was in my hands.

On the other hand is the coaching side. Do I start to tank to get the higher draft pick? Do schools keep coaches who tank expecting the first pick, or do they fire the coach anyway?

A draft of college athletes would be predicated on forcing kids into a certain school. I see no precedent for that in American education.

Unless athletes are straight employees with no educational relationship and unless there's a union of some sort, I don't see anything like that ever happening.

Even then, we just loosened up the transfer rules to the point where they basically don't exist. The dichotomy is unsustainable. That and I doubt any of the kids would want to participate in that system. None of the athletes are going to challenge the current transfer paradigm from a legal standpoint.

Let's remember that NIL came about ultimately because athletes challenged the legality of the former system.

1. Such a draft already exists for MLB and did at one time for the NBA. I would think it would be handled more like college sorority rush. Visits happen in a time of open recruitment. The kid lists 3 to 5 preferences in an order and the schools do as well. When preferences line up #1 to #1 a draft is made. If your #1 doesn't match but your #2 does a draft is made.

And remember not only will schools and kids have input, but they can always opt to sit out and walk on.

2. Under pay for play they are all employees.

3. Transfer rules are negated by contract. Nobody gets to have it both ways.

4. NIL is nothing. Stipends change everything and are likely to be uncapped.

If I'm a college athlete and I get to choose where I go along with maintaining the freedom of leaving any time if I'm unhappy then why would I sign a contract that would totally upend that?

Compare that with the draft/contract system that pro athletes have. It's incredibly restrictive and fairly unique to American pro sports at that. Part of the reason major pro sports here utilize that system is because it's a somewhat antiquated remnant of how they've always done business. They do it to create parity and maintain a closed system of competition. None of these athletes ever had the option to move about freely so it was never a precedent to maintain.

College kids all of a sudden have the freedom to move about at will. If I was one of them then I would never give that up.

The NIL money for some kids is going to be significant. For others, it will be pocket change, but then you've got boosters like the guy at Miami that will be creative and come up with ways to make sure everyone on the team gets paid.

If I'm a college athlete then I'm also not going to give up any NIL opportunities. The pros make tons of money in that sphere so even if I became an employee, I wouldn't want any system that jeopardized that revenue stream. One of the primary reasons I would look at it like that is because whatever stipend I might get otherwise won't be that significant. The schools can't afford millions of extra dollars to pay everyone a reasonable salary especially if that salary isn't accompanied by a degree.

If they become employees, however, then I think it's the death knell of any sort of reasonable system. For one, the the walk-on concept no longer applies. At that point, we're talking about volunteer work or an unpaid internship. They would be forfeiting any right to payment or even education because they can't compensate some athletes with scholarships and some as employees...which goes back to the notion of what the schools can afford. The bean counters are not going to pay more than they have to with diminishing returns. Sports will get cut, roster numbers will be reduced because employment means everyone is trying to make a profit now. They have no other real recourse in outlook.

There's too many conflicting priorities and legal standards.

Personally, I'm in favor of NIL. I think the worst that can happen is that some kids get too big for their britches and it affects team chemistry. I don't like that, but the teams can police themselves.

Further down the line, I do expect caps on stipends to be eliminated assuming the cap is instituted by a cartel which is essentially what the NCAA has been. It's too big...too much collusion to pass muster. If college sports are to continue then someone somewhere is going to have to be given regulatory power. If the athletes become employees then the educational component is totally out the window and numerous standards or conventions are all of a sudden inapplicable.

If a Federal body is given regulatory power or if a system is created that gives power to conferences to set their own rules with regard to stipends then I think that's the best we can hope for. I think that would likely be legal as the conferences are technically competing with each other for dollars and for players.
07-07-2021 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(07-07-2021 07:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 12:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 11:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 09:14 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-05-2021 01:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The NCAA knew something would be happening on this front more than a decade ago. They did basically nothing but sit around and wait for a lawsuit. Meanwhile, schools were spending multimillions more on coaching and AD salaries, facilities, promoting their brand, and getting cozy with all kinds of corporations. Star college athletes figuring out they are the workhorses and are not getting enough hay was bound to happen.

Judges and legislators can deliver the rulings and define rights, but I am doubtful anyone has figured out how to design, then implement, a whole new system that delivers the comprehensive format for access, reasonable equity, monitoring, etc.
Corporate meddling will be an understatement. How the money will be collected and disbursed is still theoretical.



I have no doubt, one day there will be some form of a player draft in high profile college sports. A prospective player may rank/order top preferences; however, there will eventually be systematic placement.

This movement will have wings. This is just the start, not the long-term pattern that will develop.

There will be schools that will opt out. Others will find they can't keep up.

I don't think there can be a college draft, though it is an intriguing concept I admit. There would be too many Eli Manning types (refusing to play for San Diego), and trades for college players would be far too complicated unless there was a standard curriculum/acceptance of credits.

I know fewer and fewer athletes will actually care about such things, but school's academic reputation, the specific major's reputation, etc. are extremely important. AT the pro level, there really isn't much difference between being drafted by say the Jags and the Jets, though of course some players might have a preference for a bigger or smaller market, etc., but there is huge difference between say Texas and TCU.

If the draft worked in the same way as it did on the pro level, then teams with bad records (or in a lottery system) would get first pick. So say Kansas (0-9) gets the first pick. The next P5 team might be say Arizona (0-5), followed by South Carolina (2-8) (I left off the privates like Vandy and Syracuse intentionally).

Those are vastly different schools and unless I was guaranteed a pro career, I would want to know that my education was in my hands.

On the other hand is the coaching side. Do I start to tank to get the higher draft pick? Do schools keep coaches who tank expecting the first pick, or do they fire the coach anyway?

A draft of college athletes would be predicated on forcing kids into a certain school. I see no precedent for that in American education.

Unless athletes are straight employees with no educational relationship and unless there's a union of some sort, I don't see anything like that ever happening.

Even then, we just loosened up the transfer rules to the point where they basically don't exist. The dichotomy is unsustainable. That and I doubt any of the kids would want to participate in that system. None of the athletes are going to challenge the current transfer paradigm from a legal standpoint.

Let's remember that NIL came about ultimately because athletes challenged the legality of the former system.

1. Such a draft already exists for MLB and did at one time for the NBA. I would think it would be handled more like college sorority rush. Visits happen in a time of open recruitment. The kid lists 3 to 5 preferences in an order and the schools do as well. When preferences line up #1 to #1 a draft is made. If your #1 doesn't match but your #2 does a draft is made.

And remember not only will schools and kids have input, but they can always opt to sit out and walk on.

2. Under pay for play they are all employees.

3. Transfer rules are negated by contract. Nobody gets to have it both ways.

4. NIL is nothing. Stipends change everything and are likely to be uncapped.

If I'm a college athlete and I get to choose where I go along with maintaining the freedom of leaving any time if I'm unhappy then why would I sign a contract that would totally upend that?

Compare that with the draft/contract system that pro athletes have. It's incredibly restrictive and fairly unique to American pro sports at that. Part of the reason major pro sports here utilize that system is because it's a somewhat antiquated remnant of how they've always done business. They do it to create parity and maintain a closed system of competition. None of these athletes ever had the option to move about freely so it was never a precedent to maintain.

College kids all of a sudden have the freedom to move about at will. If I was one of them then I would never give that up.

The NIL money for some kids is going to be significant. For others, it will be pocket change, but then you've got boosters like the guy at Miami that will be creative and come up with ways to make sure everyone on the team gets paid.

If I'm a college athlete then I'm also not going to give up any NIL opportunities. The pros make tons of money in that sphere so even if I became an employee, I wouldn't want any system that jeopardized that revenue stream. One of the primary reasons I would look at it like that is because whatever stipend I might get otherwise won't be that significant. The schools can't afford millions of extra dollars to pay everyone a reasonable salary especially if that salary isn't accompanied by a degree.

If they become employees, however, then I think it's the death knell of any sort of reasonable system. For one, the the walk-on concept no longer applies. At that point, we're talking about volunteer work or an unpaid internship. They would be forfeiting any right to payment or even education because they can't compensate some athletes with scholarships and some as employees...which goes back to the notion of what the schools can afford. The bean counters are not going to pay more than they have to with diminishing returns. Sports will get cut, roster numbers will be reduced because employment means everyone is trying to make a profit now. They have no other real recourse in outlook.

There's too many conflicting priorities and legal standards.

Personally, I'm in favor of NIL. I think the worst that can happen is that some kids get too big for their britches and it affects team chemistry. I don't like that, but the teams can police themselves.

Further down the line, I do expect caps on stipends to be eliminated assuming the cap is instituted by a cartel which is essentially what the NCAA has been. It's too big...too much collusion to pass muster. If college sports are to continue then someone somewhere is going to have to be given regulatory power. If the athletes become employees then the educational component is totally out the window and numerous standards or conventions are all of a sudden inapplicable.

If a Federal body is given regulatory power or if a system is created that gives power to conferences to set their own rules with regard to stipends then I think that's the best we can hope for. I think that would likely be legal as the conferences are technically competing with each other for dollars and for players.

Once you pay them they are employees.
Once they are employees they sign contracts.
Once they are under contract the transfer portal is moot, unless contracts are for 1 year intervals.
Stipends are pay. Without caps its an open market. And once NIL is paid they are not amateurs.

ATU you can't become a virgin again. Money changes everything, and permanently.
Be careful what you ask for because you may surely get it. Players paid will have responsibilities and may be dismissed and they give up choice when paid.
07-07-2021 08:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(07-07-2021 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 07:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 12:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 11:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 09:14 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I don't think there can be a college draft, though it is an intriguing concept I admit. There would be too many Eli Manning types (refusing to play for San Diego), and trades for college players would be far too complicated unless there was a standard curriculum/acceptance of credits.

I know fewer and fewer athletes will actually care about such things, but school's academic reputation, the specific major's reputation, etc. are extremely important. AT the pro level, there really isn't much difference between being drafted by say the Jags and the Jets, though of course some players might have a preference for a bigger or smaller market, etc., but there is huge difference between say Texas and TCU.

If the draft worked in the same way as it did on the pro level, then teams with bad records (or in a lottery system) would get first pick. So say Kansas (0-9) gets the first pick. The next P5 team might be say Arizona (0-5), followed by South Carolina (2-8) (I left off the privates like Vandy and Syracuse intentionally).

Those are vastly different schools and unless I was guaranteed a pro career, I would want to know that my education was in my hands.

On the other hand is the coaching side. Do I start to tank to get the higher draft pick? Do schools keep coaches who tank expecting the first pick, or do they fire the coach anyway?

A draft of college athletes would be predicated on forcing kids into a certain school. I see no precedent for that in American education.

Unless athletes are straight employees with no educational relationship and unless there's a union of some sort, I don't see anything like that ever happening.

Even then, we just loosened up the transfer rules to the point where they basically don't exist. The dichotomy is unsustainable. That and I doubt any of the kids would want to participate in that system. None of the athletes are going to challenge the current transfer paradigm from a legal standpoint.

Let's remember that NIL came about ultimately because athletes challenged the legality of the former system.

1. Such a draft already exists for MLB and did at one time for the NBA. I would think it would be handled more like college sorority rush. Visits happen in a time of open recruitment. The kid lists 3 to 5 preferences in an order and the schools do as well. When preferences line up #1 to #1 a draft is made. If your #1 doesn't match but your #2 does a draft is made.

And remember not only will schools and kids have input, but they can always opt to sit out and walk on.

2. Under pay for play they are all employees.

3. Transfer rules are negated by contract. Nobody gets to have it both ways.

4. NIL is nothing. Stipends change everything and are likely to be uncapped.

If I'm a college athlete and I get to choose where I go along with maintaining the freedom of leaving any time if I'm unhappy then why would I sign a contract that would totally upend that?

Compare that with the draft/contract system that pro athletes have. It's incredibly restrictive and fairly unique to American pro sports at that. Part of the reason major pro sports here utilize that system is because it's a somewhat antiquated remnant of how they've always done business. They do it to create parity and maintain a closed system of competition. None of these athletes ever had the option to move about freely so it was never a precedent to maintain.

College kids all of a sudden have the freedom to move about at will. If I was one of them then I would never give that up.

The NIL money for some kids is going to be significant. For others, it will be pocket change, but then you've got boosters like the guy at Miami that will be creative and come up with ways to make sure everyone on the team gets paid.

If I'm a college athlete then I'm also not going to give up any NIL opportunities. The pros make tons of money in that sphere so even if I became an employee, I wouldn't want any system that jeopardized that revenue stream. One of the primary reasons I would look at it like that is because whatever stipend I might get otherwise won't be that significant. The schools can't afford millions of extra dollars to pay everyone a reasonable salary especially if that salary isn't accompanied by a degree.

If they become employees, however, then I think it's the death knell of any sort of reasonable system. For one, the the walk-on concept no longer applies. At that point, we're talking about volunteer work or an unpaid internship. They would be forfeiting any right to payment or even education because they can't compensate some athletes with scholarships and some as employees...which goes back to the notion of what the schools can afford. The bean counters are not going to pay more than they have to with diminishing returns. Sports will get cut, roster numbers will be reduced because employment means everyone is trying to make a profit now. They have no other real recourse in outlook.

There's too many conflicting priorities and legal standards.

Personally, I'm in favor of NIL. I think the worst that can happen is that some kids get too big for their britches and it affects team chemistry. I don't like that, but the teams can police themselves.

Further down the line, I do expect caps on stipends to be eliminated assuming the cap is instituted by a cartel which is essentially what the NCAA has been. It's too big...too much collusion to pass muster. If college sports are to continue then someone somewhere is going to have to be given regulatory power. If the athletes become employees then the educational component is totally out the window and numerous standards or conventions are all of a sudden inapplicable.

If a Federal body is given regulatory power or if a system is created that gives power to conferences to set their own rules with regard to stipends then I think that's the best we can hope for. I think that would likely be legal as the conferences are technically competing with each other for dollars and for players.

Once you pay them they are employees.
Once they are employees they sign contracts.
Once they are under contract the transfer portal is moot, unless contracts are for 1 year intervals.
Stipends are pay. Without caps its an open market. And once NIL is paid they are not amateurs.

ATU you can't become a virgin again. Money changes everything, and permanently.
Be careful what you ask for because you may surely get it. Players paid will have responsibilities and may be dismissed and they give up choice when paid.

When the schools start paying them then they become employees, but NIL doesn't cross that bridge. They're obviously professionals in some sense, but they're not technically an employee of the school until the school writes a check.

With that said, the case on the stipends is important. We could see a ruling that removes caps without declaring them employees of the school. They're already receiving stipends and scholarships so from a common sense standpoint, they're obviously getting paid. Legally though, there's a question of whether the stipend is tied to the scholarship or whether it is declared a renumeration.

If caps are removed then it could be in keeping with the standard of what a scholarship amounts to...in other words, the scholarship is a universal standard, but it's a different dollar amount depending on the school. The stipends could fall into the same category IF everyone gets the same amount at a given school and IF you have to be a student in good standing to be eligible. In other words, there has to be an out for the school not to grant the stipend. You can't simply refuse to give an employee his paycheck, but you can set a standard that keeps a student from receiving a reward.

Now I agree with you that if the stipends are declared renumeration then all of this is moot, but there is a middle ground. If we're talking about paying players as employees then there's no longer a reason to make them go to class...economically or legally. After all, whether you're a coach or an HVAC guy, you're not required to attend class as a condition of your employment. They won't be able to do that to players either. The courts will have to consider that aspect even if people at large aren't really talking about it.

What I'm saying about the transfer portal as it's currently constructed is that the kids have a great deal of freedom. They have no reason to argue legally for a structure that hurts this freedom. I could be wrong, but whoever argues for no caps on stipends needs to be smart and not simply advocate that the students are employees because they will suffer in the long run under that premise.
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2021 06:18 PM by AllTideUp.)
07-08-2021 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(07-08-2021 03:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 07:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 12:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-07-2021 11:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A draft of college athletes would be predicated on forcing kids into a certain school. I see no precedent for that in American education.

Unless athletes are straight employees with no educational relationship and unless there's a union of some sort, I don't see anything like that ever happening.

Even then, we just loosened up the transfer rules to the point where they basically don't exist. The dichotomy is unsustainable. That and I doubt any of the kids would want to participate in that system. None of the athletes are going to challenge the current transfer paradigm from a legal standpoint.

Let's remember that NIL came about ultimately because athletes challenged the legality of the former system.

1. Such a draft already exists for MLB and did at one time for the NBA. I would think it would be handled more like college sorority rush. Visits happen in a time of open recruitment. The kid lists 3 to 5 preferences in an order and the schools do as well. When preferences line up #1 to #1 a draft is made. If your #1 doesn't match but your #2 does a draft is made.

And remember not only will schools and kids have input, but they can always opt to sit out and walk on.

2. Under pay for play they are all employees.

3. Transfer rules are negated by contract. Nobody gets to have it both ways.

4. NIL is nothing. Stipends change everything and are likely to be uncapped.

If I'm a college athlete and I get to choose where I go along with maintaining the freedom of leaving any time if I'm unhappy then why would I sign a contract that would totally upend that?

Compare that with the draft/contract system that pro athletes have. It's incredibly restrictive and fairly unique to American pro sports at that. Part of the reason major pro sports here utilize that system is because it's a somewhat antiquated remnant of how they've always done business. They do it to create parity and maintain a closed system of competition. None of these athletes ever had the option to move about freely so it was never a precedent to maintain.

College kids all of a sudden have the freedom to move about at will. If I was one of them then I would never give that up.

The NIL money for some kids is going to be significant. For others, it will be pocket change, but then you've got boosters like the guy at Miami that will be creative and come up with ways to make sure everyone on the team gets paid.

If I'm a college athlete then I'm also not going to give up any NIL opportunities. The pros make tons of money in that sphere so even if I became an employee, I wouldn't want any system that jeopardized that revenue stream. One of the primary reasons I would look at it like that is because whatever stipend I might get otherwise won't be that significant. The schools can't afford millions of extra dollars to pay everyone a reasonable salary especially if that salary isn't accompanied by a degree.

If they become employees, however, then I think it's the death knell of any sort of reasonable system. For one, the the walk-on concept no longer applies. At that point, we're talking about volunteer work or an unpaid internship. They would be forfeiting any right to payment or even education because they can't compensate some athletes with scholarships and some as employees...which goes back to the notion of what the schools can afford. The bean counters are not going to pay more than they have to with diminishing returns. Sports will get cut, roster numbers will be reduced because employment means everyone is trying to make a profit now. They have no other real recourse in outlook.

There's too many conflicting priorities and legal standards.

Personally, I'm in favor of NIL. I think the worst that can happen is that some kids get too big for their britches and it affects team chemistry. I don't like that, but the teams can police themselves.

Further down the line, I do expect caps on stipends to be eliminated assuming the cap is instituted by a cartel which is essentially what the NCAA has been. It's too big...too much collusion to pass muster. If college sports are to continue then someone somewhere is going to have to be given regulatory power. If the athletes become employees then the educational component is totally out the window and numerous standards or conventions are all of a sudden inapplicable.

If a Federal body is given regulatory power or if a system is created that gives power to conferences to set their own rules with regard to stipends then I think that's the best we can hope for. I think that would likely be legal as the conferences are technically competing with each other for dollars and for players.

Once you pay them they are employees.
Once they are employees they sign contracts.
Once they are under contract the transfer portal is moot, unless contracts are for 1 year intervals.
Stipends are pay. Without caps its an open market. And once NIL is paid they are not amateurs.

ATU you can't become a virgin again. Money changes everything, and permanently.
Be careful what you ask for because you may surely get it. Players paid will have responsibilities and may be dismissed and they give up choice when paid.

When the schools start paying them then they become employees, but NIL doesn't cross that bridge. They're obviously professionals in some sense, but they're not technically an employee of the school until the school writes a check.

With that said, the case on the stipends is important. We could see a ruling that removes caps without declaring them employees of the school. They're already receiving stipends and scholarships so from a common sense standpoint, they're obviously getting paid. Legally though, there's a question of whether the stipend is tied to the scholarship or whether it is declared a renumeration.

If caps are removed then it could be in keeping with the standard of what a scholarship amounts to...in other words, the scholarship is a universal standard, but it's a different dollar amount depending on the school. The stipends could fall into the same category IF everyone gets the same amount at a given school and IF you have to be a student in good standing to be eligible. In other words, there has to be an out for the school not to grant the stipend. You can't simply refuse to give an employee his paycheck, but you can set a standard that keeps a student from receiving a reward.

Now I agree with you that if the stipends are declared renumeration then all of this is moot, but there is a middle ground. If we're talking about paying players as employees then there's no longer a reason to make them go to class...economically or legally. After all, whether you're a coach or an HVAC guy, you're not required to attend class as a condition of your employment. They won't be able to do that to players either. The courts will have to consider that aspect even if people at large aren't really talking about it.

What I'm saying about the transfer portal as it's currently constructed is that the kids have a great deal of freedom. They have no reason to argue legally for a structure that hurts this freedom. I could be wrong, but whoever argues for no caps on stipends needs to be smart and not simply advocate that the students are employees because they will suffer in the long run under that premise.

I think you can be an employee and be required to go to school. In some school districts, for instance, unlicensed/certified teachers are hired conditional on their getting certified within x number of years.

As part of my employment I am required to participate in continuing education and attend a few mandatory workshops every few years.

Conditional employment is certainly valid.
07-12-2021 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 625
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Why It Is Virtually Inevitable That There Will Be Consolidation Within The Upper Tier
(07-07-2021 11:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 09:14 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-05-2021 01:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The NCAA knew something would be happening on this front more than a decade ago. They did basically nothing but sit around and wait for a lawsuit. Meanwhile, schools were spending multimillions more on coaching and AD salaries, facilities, promoting their brand, and getting cozy with all kinds of corporations. Star college athletes figuring out they are the workhorses and are not getting enough hay was bound to happen.

Judges and legislators can deliver the rulings and define rights, but I am doubtful anyone has figured out how to design, then implement, a whole new system that delivers the comprehensive format for access, reasonable equity, monitoring, etc.
Corporate meddling will be an understatement. How the money will be collected and disbursed is still theoretical.

I have no doubt, one day there will be some form of a player draft in high profile college sports. A prospective player may rank/order top preferences; however, there will eventually be systematic placement.

This movement will have wings. This is just the start, not the long-term pattern that will develop.

There will be schools that will opt out. Others will find they can't keep up.

I don't think there can be a college draft, though it is an intriguing concept I admit. There would be too many Eli Manning types (refusing to play for San Diego), and trades for college players would be far too complicated unless there was a standard curriculum/acceptance of credits.

I know fewer and fewer athletes will actually care about such things, but school's academic reputation, the specific major's reputation, etc. are extremely important. AT the pro level, there really isn't much difference between being drafted by say the Jags and the Jets, though of course some players might have a preference for a bigger or smaller market, etc., but there is huge difference between say Texas and TCU.

If the draft worked in the same way as it did on the pro level, then teams with bad records (or in a lottery system) would get first pick. So say Kansas (0-9) gets the first pick. The next P5 team might be say Arizona (0-5), followed by South Carolina (2-8) (I left off the privates like Vandy and Syracuse intentionally).

Those are vastly different schools and unless I was guaranteed a pro career, I would want to know that my education was in my hands.

On the other hand is the coaching side. Do I start to tank to get the higher draft pick? Do schools keep coaches who tank expecting the first pick, or do they fire the coach anyway?

A draft of college athletes would be predicated on forcing kids into a certain school. I see no precedent for that in American education.

Unless athletes are straight employees with no educational relationship and unless there's a union of some sort, I don't see anything like that ever happening.

Even then, we just loosened up the transfer rules to the point where they basically don't exist. The dichotomy is unsustainable. That and I doubt any of the kids would want to participate in that system. None of the athletes are going to challenge the current transfer paradigm from a legal standpoint.

Let's remember that NIL came about ultimately because athletes challenged the legality of the former system.

Not a lawyer, but I believe the courts would find a requirement that players be students a legal "tying restraint" and the requirement that they attend the particular schools that draft them an illegal one.

Might be better if the league itself employed the players. Fans might more readily accept that some of their schools' players may instead attend nearby schools or take online courses at a some other, far away school if it's done that way.
07-25-2021 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.