The good old days....

[MHettel]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33229931/schools-brokering-name-image-likeness-deals-adds-layer-college-conundrum

It wont take long until we dont recognize college sports anymore.

Why do we always have to fuck up everything?

[STL_XUfan]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33229931/schools-brokering-name-image-likeness-deals-adds-layer-college-conundrum

It wont take long until we dont recognize college sports anymore.

Why do we always have to fuck up everything?

A walk on got money to take care of his family, and this is a bad thing?

All of this will work itself out. At the of the day there are only 22 starting spots, and players want to play. They are not going to sit 5th on the depth chart at Bama rather than starting at Mizzou. So if BYU you wants to have boosters pay for walk ons, I really don't think that is going to shift the competitive balance all that much, and will open up real opportunities for those students.

[xukeith]

A walk on got money to take care of his family, and this is a bad thing?

All of this will work itself out. At the of the day there are only 22 starting spots, and players want to play. They are not going to sit 5th on the depth chart at Bama rather than starting at Mizzou. So if BYU you wants to have boosters pay for walk ons, I really don't think that is going to shift the competitive balance all that much, and will open up real opportunities for those students.

Players will go where they feel they and their family will get paid. Some schools' boosters will shell out a fortune for the best athletes.
It is different and it will get uglier on the recruiting trail.

[MHettel]

A walk on got money to take care of his family, and this is a bad thing?

All of this will work itself out. At the of the day there are only 22 starting spots, and players want to play. They are not going to sit 5th on the depth chart at Bama rather than starting at Mizzou. So if BYU you wants to have boosters pay for walk ons, I really don't think that is going to shift the competitive balance all that much, and will open up real opportunities for those students.

Question: How many National Championships do you think Xavier will win in the Next 20 years?


Follow up Question: If you were a Billionaire, how many National Championships do you think Xavier will win in the next 20 years?

[D-West & PO-Z]

.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Players will go where they feel they and their family will get paid. Some schools' boosters will shell out a fortune for the best athletes.
It is different and it will get uglier on the recruiting trail.


Question: How many National Championships do you think Xavier will win in the Next 20 years?


Follow up Question: If you were a Billionaire, how many National Championships do you think Xavier will win in the next 20 years?

So, nothing is different?

[STL_XUfan]

Question: How many National Championships do you think Xavier will win in the Next 20 years?


Follow up Question: If you were a Billionaire, how many National Championships do you think Xavier will win in the next 20 years?

The number is likely the same. However, in the name of science I am willing to participate in this experiment. If you could just wire me a billion dollars, I will hit the recruiting trail.

[xubrew]

So, nothing is different?

There are a few differences. I'd say the two conferences that have benefited the most and that seem to be recruiting at a noticeably much better level in football and basketball are the MEAC and the SWAC.

[paulxu]

I hope we get the Skyline deal.

[xu82]

The Bama QB making more than the Eagles QB is something I’m struggling to wrap my head around.

[Strange Brew]

A walk on got money to take care of his family, and this is a bad thing?

All of this will work itself out. At the of the day there are only 22 starting spots, and players want to play. They are not going to sit 5th on the depth chart at Bama rather than starting at Mizzou. So if BYU you wants to have boosters pay for walk ons, I really don't think that is going to shift the competitive balance all that much, and will open up real opportunities for those students.

Here I thought the scholarship and degree were compensation enough. Guess not anymore....

[GoMuskies]

The walk-on was essentially getting a scholarship. The practical effect is that the 85 scholarship limit no longer exists if there are donors willing to pony up for more.

[XUGRAD80]

The walk-on was essentially getting a scholarship. The practical effect is that the 85 scholarship limit no longer exists if there are donors willing to pony up for more.

Bingo…..which will allow certain schools to possibly gobble up every available top player.

Posters can say that players want to play, but they also want to get paid. I would hate to be the kid that has to decide if it’s best to go to a college for playing time as a freshman, or to get paid thousands and thousands of dollars in a NIL but have to sit on the bench for a year.

[MHettel]

I would hate to be the kid that has to decide if it’s best to go to a college for playing time as a freshman, or to get paid thousands and thousands of dollars in a NIL but have to sit on the bench for a year.

Yeah that would suck to be in that win/win situation. These guys have it ROUGH!

[SM#24]

Yes, the poor exploited scholarship student athlete.

[XUGRAD80]

Yes, the poor exploited scholarship student athlete.


That’s exactly what I was thinking…how sad.

[STL_XUfan]

Here I thought the scholarship and degree were compensation enough. Guess not anymore....
Except the player here wasn’t getting a scholarship…

I’m still not sure who is getting hurt here? Do we really think a player that couldn’t make the top 85 spots is going to be what makes a difference for a school? Or is it the booster over paying that we should feel sorry for?

[Xville]

To me, this is something that is really good that comes out of this. To one’s who say the nil will change college sports and widen the gap between the haves and have nots, whatever. It’s been like that since forever, now it’s just legal. It’s also why I don’t care if we go out and hire miller, pitino or Sampson. I’d actually prefer someone that knows what the hell they are doing.

[xu82]

Bingo…..which will allow certain schools to possibly gobble up every available top player.

Posters can say that players want to play, but they also want to get paid. I would hate to be the kid that has to decide if it’s best to go to a college for playing time as a freshman, or to get paid thousands and thousands of dollars in a NIL but have to sit on the bench for a year.


….or two, or three. It’s too soon to know what the unintended consequences will be here. My son works on big investment banking deals. Some times a company will pay hundreds of millions of dollars….for a company they don’t need at all. They just don’t want their competition to get it.

I have no idea where this is heading! Strap up, it could be a wild ride!

[XUGRAD80]

….or two, or three. It’s too soon to know what the unintended consequences will be here. My son works on big investment banking deals. Some times a company will pay hundreds of millions of dollars….for a company they don’t need at all. They just don’t want their competition to get it.


I wonder how many people here remember that the scholarship limit for football was once 105. They cut it to 93, and then 85, in the hopes that coaches would no longer stockpile players for the exact reason that you mention, and to free up money that could be used for Title IX. I can see why it would appeal to schools to have less money tied up in school paid scholarships, and more coming through outside sources.

I would hope that people realize that the players don’t really care who is paying for their schooling…..the school or boosters. In fact, if it’s a booster paying for the schooling that might well mean that the players might feel less inclined to listen to what the coaches are telling them to do. My fear that we could get to a point where the boosters basically pay for the teams, and the coaches are at the mercy for what the boosters want in regards to who plays and who doesn’t.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Except the player here wasn’t getting a scholarship…

I’m still not sure who is getting hurt here? Do we really think a player that couldn’t make the top 85 spots is going to be what makes a difference for a school? Or is it the booster over paying that we should feel sorry for?

Yeah, count me confused as well.

[D-West & PO-Z]

To me, this is something that is really good that comes out of this. To one’s who say the nil will change college sports and widen the gap between the haves and have nots, whatever. It’s been like that since forever, now it’s just legal. It’s also why I don’t care if we go out and hire miller, pitino or Sampson. I’d actually prefer someone that knows what the hell they are doing.

Yeah, I can't honestly believe anyone didn't already know about the enormous gap between the tops schools and everyone else.

Again, what has changed?

[D-West & PO-Z]

My fear that we could get to a point where the boosters basically pay for the teams

Welcome to the last 40 years of top tier major college football!

[D-West & PO-Z]

the players might feel less inclined to listen to what the coaches are telling them to do.


:rolleyes:

[XUGRAD80]

Welcome to the last 40 years of top tier major college football!

Ok, but ask yourself some questions….WHY do we even have inter-collegiate sports? Why did they start them up and what is the purpose of having them? And then, what is the best thing that could happen for college sports as a whole?

Isn’t some form of parity, some idea of a level playing field good for college sports? Or should it only be something that the upper crust of schools can enjoy?
The reason for scholarship limits is to keep a small number of schools from getting ALL of the talent. The NIL policy that they have adopted has the potential to make scholarship limits obsolete. It could give a virtual monopoly to just a few schools. The reasons for all of the NCAA rules regarding recruiting is to keep this from happening. So, since the NCAA has not been able to control it, we decide to just make all of the stuff that was illegal, now legal? Have we decided now that having boosters paying for kids to go to the school they want them to, is a good thing? Have we now decided that having agents steering kids to programs because of the money they can make on the side, is a good thing? If money is the root of all evil, have we just decided that if we can’t stop it, we should just join it? Is that where we are?

Y’all are certainly welcome to your own opinion, but I’ve always been much more of a college sports fan than a professional sports fan. I’ve always liked college football over pro football. I’ve always been wary of the players that are willing to sell their talents to the highest bidder with no consideration for locality to an organization (or school). So for me, I just see all of the potential problems that “free agency” in college sports will bring. Sure it will benefit SOME of the players…at least financially. But at what price to the games that we love? I sincerely believe that profession baseball is WORSE off today than it was before free agency. The players are certainly better off, but I don’t think that the game is. I don’t think that the average fans are. I certainly don’t like seeing the same teams playing for championships every year in pro baseball. I’m not a fan of it happening in college sports either. IMO they should be looking at ways to create much more parity in college sports, not looking for ways that make it less likely to happen. I think that in the long run that would be better for many more people than those few that are going to benefit from the NIL policy.

[xubrew]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33229931/schools-brokering-name-image-likeness-deals-adds-layer-college-conundrum

It wont take long until we dont recognize college sports anymore.

Why do we always have to fuck up everything?


Well, the NCAA couldn't just keep doing what it was doing after this...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2021/06/21/justice-brett-kavanaugh-rips-ncaa-in-shawne-alston-opinion/7771281002/

Maybe D3 and NAIA would be more up your alley. Seriously. They're both enjoyable, and they're far more free of the fuckary that you see at the major D1 level.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Ok, but ask yourself some questions….WHY do we even have inter-collegiate sports? Why did they start them up and what is the purpose of having them? And then, what is the best thing that could happen for college sports as a whole?

Isn’t some form of parity, some idea of a level playing field good for college sports? Or should it only be something that the upper crust of schools can enjoy?
The reason for scholarship limits is to keep a small number of schools from getting ALL of the talent. The NIL policy that they have adopted has the potential to make scholarship limits obsolete. It could give a virtual monopoly to just a few schools. The reasons for all of the NCAA rules regarding recruiting is to keep this from happening. So, since the NCAA has not been able to control it, we decide to just make all of the stuff that was illegal, now legal? Have we decided now that having boosters paying for kids to go to the school they want them to, is a good thing? Have we now decided that having agents steering kids to programs because of the money they can make on the side, is a good thing? If money is the root of all evil, have we just decided that if we can’t stop it, we should just join it? Is that where we are?

Y’all are certainly welcome to your own opinion, but I’ve always been much more of a college sports fan than a professional sports fan. I’ve always liked college football over pro football. I’ve always been wary of the players that are willing to sell their talents to the highest bidder with no consideration for locality to an organization (or school). So for me, I just see all of the potential problems that “free agency” in college sports will bring. Sure it will benefit SOME of the players…at least financially. But at what price to the games that we love? I sincerely believe that profession baseball is WORSE off today than it was before free agency. The players are certainly better off, but I don’t think that the game is. I don’t think that the average fans are. I certainly don’t like seeing the same teams playing for championships every year in pro baseball. I’m not a fan of it happening in college sports either. IMO they should be looking at ways to create much more parity in college sports, not looking for ways that make it less likely to happen. I think that in the long run that would be better for many more people than those few that are going to benefit from the NIL policy.

The NCAA propaganda machine has worked on you to a tee.

College sports don't exist for purity or for love of the game, they exist for money. Up until this point the money was for everyone but the athlete. Coaches, administrators, NCAA, etc. Now I am supposed to be upset because a player can get some of the very large pie by selling autographs or being a sponsor, all in the name of some made up ideal of what college sports is supposed to be about? No thanks.....

[xubrew]

The NCAA propaganda machine has worked on you to a tee.

College sports (at the NCAA D1 level) don't exist for purity or for love of the game, they exist for money. Up until this point the money was for everyone but the athlete. Coaches, administrators, NCAA, etc. Now I am supposed to be upset because a player can get some of the very large pie by selling autographs or being a sponsor, all in the name of some made up ideal of what college sports is supposed to be about? No thanks.....

I made one slight change to your post...

[GoMuskies]

For like 4 sports at the very top level of D1. Beyond that, it's pretty much high school sports+

[BigMoeMusketeer]

The Bama QB making more than the Eagles QB is something I’m struggling to wrap my head around.

The only difference between this situation in 2022 and the exact same scenario in 2012 is now he pays taxes on it.

[BigMoeMusketeer]

Welcome to the last 40 years of top tier major college football!

All the way YES.

[STL_XUfan]

For like 4 sports at the very top level of D1. Beyond that, it's pretty much high school sports+
Which in my mind is even a greater argument for NIL. Why should the NCAA be looking into a women's long jumper who is getting money as an instagram influencer or teaching lessons on the side.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I made one slight change to your post...

Good point. And probably any D1 sports not basketball and football as well, really. I think cross country/track/swimmers at D1 do it for the love and it isn't all about money for those sports.

Football and basketball though, not so much.

[MHettel]

College sports don't exist for purity or for love of the game, they exist for money. Up until this point the money was for everyone but the athlete. Coaches, administrators, NCAA, etc.

I think you are missing the very important point that college sports DID exist for purity and for love of the game. There has been a slow and steady transformation that has turned it into a commercial business. It didnt start out that way.

We have become so accustomed to accepting MONEY as a part of these sports that this MONUMENTAL shift that is underway is essentially going unnoticed.

What emerges at the end of this change will be unrecognizable. ANY resemblance of playing for "sport" will be gone.

[drudy23]

I think you are missing the very important point that college sports DID exist for purity and for love of the game. There has been a slow and steady transformation that has turned it into a commercial business. It didnt start out that way.

We have become so accustomed to accepting MONEY as a part of these sports that this MONUMENTAL shift that is underway is essentially going unnoticed.

What emerges at the end of this change will be unrecognizable. ANY resemblance of playing for "sport" will be gone.

And honestly this same pattern is starting to slowly infiltrate the high school game too.

[SM#24]

Ok, but ask yourself some questions….WHY do we even have inter-collegiate sports? Why did they start them up and what is the purpose of having them? And then, what is the best thing that could happen for college sports as a whole?

Isn’t some form of parity, some idea of a level playing field good for college sports? Or should it only be something that the upper crust of schools can enjoy?
The reason for scholarship limits is to keep a small number of schools from getting ALL of the talent. The NIL policy that they have adopted has the potential to make scholarship limits obsolete. It could give a virtual monopoly to just a few schools. The reasons for all of the NCAA rules regarding recruiting is to keep this from happening. So, since the NCAA has not been able to control it, we decide to just make all of the stuff that was illegal, now legal? Have we decided now that having boosters paying for kids to go to the school they want them to, is a good thing? Have we now decided that having agents steering kids to programs because of the money they can make on the side, is a good thing? If money is the root of all evil, have we just decided that if we can’t stop it, we should just join it? Is that where we are?

Y’all are certainly welcome to your own opinion, but I’ve always been much more of a college sports fan than a professional sports fan. I’ve always liked college football over pro football. I’ve always been wary of the players that are willing to sell their talents to the highest bidder with no consideration for locality to an organization (or school). So for me, I just see all of the potential problems that “free agency” in college sports will bring. Sure it will benefit SOME of the players…at least financially. But at what price to the games that we love? I sincerely believe that profession baseball is WORSE off today than it was before free agency. The players are certainly better off, but I don’t think that the game is. I don’t think that the average fans are. I certainly don’t like seeing the same teams playing for championships every year in pro baseball. I’m not a fan of it happening in college sports either. IMO they should be looking at ways to create much more parity in college sports, not looking for ways that make it less likely to happen. I think that in the long run that would be better for many more people than those few that are going to benefit from the NIL policy.


The NCAA propaganda machine has worked on you to a tee.

College sports don't exist for purity or for love of the game, they exist for money. Up until this point the money was for everyone but the athlete. Coaches, administrators, NCAA, etc. Now I am supposed to be upset because a player can get some of the very large pie by selling autographs or being a sponsor, all in the name of some made up ideal of what college sports is supposed to be about? No thanks.....

Here's the catch-22 of college sports. I agree with both of these posts (except the pro baseball comment).

[xubrew]

I think you are missing the very important point that college sports DID exist for purity and for love of the game. There has been a slow and steady transformation that has turned it into a commercial business. It didnt start out that way.

We have become so accustomed to accepting MONEY as a part of these sports that this MONUMENTAL shift that is underway is essentially going unnoticed.

What emerges at the end of this change will be unrecognizable. ANY resemblance of playing for "sport" will be gone.

Okay, exactly when was that??

In the 1870s when college football exploded in popularity the students and alumni loved it, and a lot of the presidents hated it and did nothing to regulate it. Many players were paid by the alumni, and many weren't even students. In the 1890s there was a game between Harvard and Yale where 3/4ths of the players on both teams had nothing to do with either of the schools.

In the 1920s the Carnegie study showed that 75 percent of all college players were getting paid.

The term "student-athlete" only came into existence because schools wanted to come up with a way to avoid paying workers comp claims to players who had suffered paralysis. It came into existence as a legal end-around. It was only later that it was twisted into the false ideal that it became.

Walter Byers, who was the president of the NCAA from 1951-1988 and was there when the NCAA Basketball Tournament became the massive event that it did, has said many times that college athletics had always been about money. Every rule and policy that they made was done with two things in mind...money and control.

So when I hear people speak of this mythical time when major college athletics existed for purity and love of the game...I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!! And, neither do they.

[bjf123]

The only difference between this situation in 2022 and the exact same scenario in 2012 is now he pays taxes on it.

Sums it up nicely! I wonder how many of these players getting NIL money understand income taxes? Let’s hope they’re smart enough to hire a financial advisor, though I’m sure some won’t and we’ll hear about the IRS going after them.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Here's the catch-22 of college sports. I agree with both of these posts (except the pro baseball comment).

Yeah and 15 different baseball teams have won the last 20 world series titles, so the baseball comment isn't even true.

[xubrew]

I think there are two very important things that everyone is missing...

1) One of the reasons the rules are changing is for legal reasons. The courts and state governments are forcing the issue. The latest Supreme Court ruling was basically a total smack down of the NCAA.

2) College athletics has NEVER been about ideals. MAYBE the Princeton v Rutgers game in 1869, and the two games that were played in 1870 between Rutgers and Columbia and Princeton. But pretty much after that it was unregulated, all about money, and extremely dishonest and corrupt. So this idea that college athletics was started with these pure ideals in mind is a hilariously inaccurate revision of the actual history.

[XUGRAD80]

The NCAA propaganda machine has worked on you to a tee.

College sports don't exist for purity or for love of the game, they exist for money. Up until this point the money was for everyone but the athlete. Coaches, administrators, NCAA, etc. Now I am supposed to be upset because a player can get some of the very large pie by selling autographs or being a sponsor, all in the name of some made up ideal of what college sports is supposed to be about? No thanks.....

You’ve no idea what you’re talking about. All you see is the very few people that are playing major college football and basketball. They are a very small minority of college athletes. In my case it’s not from listening to any propaganda, it’s from living it. I’m not saying that anyone should be upset because a college player can make some money on the side. I’m saying that don’t be surprised by the potential problems that come up in the future. But then, I’m guessing that you only care about college sports as a fan and what you can see on TV. While I certainly enjoy that as a fan myself, I do understand that there is a lot more to college sports than what is on TV.

[XUGRAD80]

I think there are two very important things that everyone is missing...

1) One of the reasons the rules are changing is for legal reasons. The courts and state governments are forcing the issue. The latest Supreme Court ruling was basically a total smack down of the NCAA.

2) College athletics has NEVER been about ideals. MAYBE the Princeton v Rutgers game in 1869, and the two games that were played in 1870 between Rutgers and Columbia and Princeton. But pretty much after that it was unregulated, all about money, and extremely dishonest and corrupt. So this idea that college athletics was started with these pure ideals in mind is a hilariously inaccurate revision of the actual history.


Yeah well then, 40 years later I’m still waiting to see one dime of the money that I’m supposedly due for 4 years of blood, sweat, and tears. I’d guess that 95% of the athletes at X now (and in the past) think that the LAST thing it’s about is money. That’s the thing that so many here fail to see….D1 football and basketball are the EXCEPTIONS to the rule. Not the norm. There are far more college athletes that will never make a dime, and don’t expect to, than there are ones that will profit from these new rules.

THE PROBLEM is NOT that some few athletes can now make some money while playing at the college level. THE PROBLEM, as it currently sits, is that there is virtually NO REGULATION to it. It’s the Wild Wild West and it’s going to bring out every sleezy character there is. Kids, programs, and coaches are going to get hurt, and there’s real chance that all of this money is going to challenge the integrity of the game. Does anyone really think that the people putting up the money (the boosters) are doing it out of the kindness of their heart? They are going to demand something in return. And the kids are going to be caught in the middle.

[Xville]

You’ve no idea what you’re talking about. All you see is the very few people that are playing major college football and basketball. They are a very small minority of college athletes. In my case it’s from listening to any propaganda, it’s from living it. I’m not saying that anyone should be upset because a college player can make some money on the side. I’m saying that don’t be surprised by the potential problems that come up in the future. But then, I’m guessing that you only care about college sports as a fan and what you can see on TV. While I certainly enjoy that as a fan myself, I do understand that there is a lot more to college sports than what is on TV.

What exactly is your point because everything that you have said in this thread has had to do with the sports that are on tv and revenue generating sports I.e football and basketball. So now you seem concerned about? I’m not even sure what you are concerned about. If anything nil should open up opportunities for the non revenue generating athletes that weren’t there before.

And for those that play the sport for the love of the game can continue to do so. Not sure how these rules change anything about that.

[Xville]

Yeah well then, 40 years later I’m still waiting to see one dime of the money that I’m supposedly due for 4 years of blood, sweat, and tears. I’d guess that 95% of the athletes at X now (and in the past) think that the LAST thing it’s about is money. That’s the thing that so many here fail to see….D1 football and basketball are the EXCEPTIONS to the rule. Not the norm. There are far more college athletes that will never make a dime, and don’t expect to, than there are ones that will profit from these new rules.

THE PROBLEM is NOT that some few athletes can now make some money while playing at the college level. THE PROBLEM, as it currently sits, is that there is virtually NO REGULATION to it. It’s the Wild Wild West and it’s going to bring out every sleezy character there is. Kids, programs, and coaches are going to get hurt, and there’s real chance that all of this money is going to challenge the integrity of the game. Does anyone really think that the people putting up the money (the boosters) are doing it out of the kindness of their heart? They are going to demand something in return. And the kids are going to be caught in the middle.

Your first paragraph and second paragraph have very little to do with each other.

[xubrew]

Yeah well then, 40 years later I’m still waiting to see one dime of the money that I’m supposedly due for 4 years of blood, sweat, and tears. I’d guess that 95% of the athletes at X now (and in the past) think that the LAST thing it’s about is money. That’s the thing that so many here fail to see….D1 football and basketball are the EXCEPTIONS to the rule. Not the norm. There are far more college athletes that will never make a dime, and don’t expect to, than there are ones that will profit from these new rules.

THE PROBLEM is NOT that some few athletes can now make some money while playing at the college level. THE PROBLEM, as it currently sits, is that there is virtually NO REGULATION to it. It’s the Wild Wild West and it’s going to bring out every sleezy character there is. Kids, programs, and coaches are going to get hurt, and there’s real chance that all of this money is going to challenge the integrity of the game. Does anyone really think that the people putting up the money (the boosters) are doing it out of the kindness of their heart? They are going to demand something in return. And the kids are going to be caught in the middle.

1) If 95% of college athletes don't think it's about money and don't really care about NIL opportunities, then what's the problem?? What is it that's bothering you about the new rules??

2) I don't know what sport you played, but I have a pretty good guess as to which two you did not play. I think it's great that you feel that way about your experience. I do not mean for that to be a backhanded comment. Many college athletes have a very rewarding experience and are passionate about the sports that they played. But having said THAT (and this is more or less what I was getting at) there aren't too many rules in the 400+ page D1 manual that are in there because of the sport you played. There are really two sports in particular that account for pretty much everything that's in there, and there is a reason ($$$$$) why that is.

[SM#24]

Yeah well then, 40 years later I’m still waiting to see one dime of the money that I’m supposedly due for 4 years of blood, sweat, and tears. I’d guess that 95% of the athletes at X now (and in the past) think that the LAST thing it’s about is money. That’s the thing that so many here fail to see….D1 football and basketball are the EXCEPTIONS to the rule. Not the norm. There are far more college athletes that will never make a dime, and don’t expect to, than there are ones that will profit from these new rules.

THE PROBLEM is NOT that some few athletes can now make some money while playing at the college level. THE PROBLEM, as it currently sits, is that there is virtually NO REGULATION to it. It’s the Wild Wild West and it’s going to bring out every sleezy character there is. Kids, programs, and coaches are going to get hurt, and there’s real chance that all of this money is going to challenge the integrity of the game. Does anyone really think that the people putting up the money (the boosters) are doing it out of the kindness of their heart? They are going to demand something in return. And the kids are going to be caught in the middle.
What kids ?
Don't you mean the adult athletes ?

[XUGRAD80]

A….the idea that all college sports has been about from the beginning is MONEY is ridiculous

B….the idea that any more than 1-2% college athletics are playing the game for money today, is ridiculous.

C….for those sports that are now going to see the largest number of NI!L athletes…D1 football and basketball at the HIGH level….I worry that with virtually no regulations in place that BAD money people are going to be attracted to it like moths to a flame. They are going to want something for the money they are investing. They are going to want to have a return on that investment. And I don’t think that an NCAA championship is what they have in mind when it comes to return on investment.

D….players can transfer and be eligible right away, and they can sign NIL agreements with outside sources with no one having any oversight on them…..what could possible go wrong?

E….the possibility of a school (Texas A&M anyone) having boosters raise millions of dollars to be used for NIL agreements in the interest of influencing recruits to come to that school, means that only the schools that can do that will be competitive. I’d like to see more than just a handful of schools actually compete for national championships in football and basketball.

F….as I’ve said before, I’d like to see more things put into place that are designed to increase parity, not the other way around.

G…i don’t see anyway that Xavier can compete with schools with huge alumni bases when it comes to NIL opportunities, therefore Xavier is going to fall into the group of have nots and will never be as good as they might have been. I don’t want to see that.

[xubrew]

A….the idea that all college sports has been about from the beginning is MONEY is ridiculous

B….the idea that any more than 1-2% college athletics are playing the game for money today, is ridiculous.

It's not so much that the players are playing for money as it is that 98-99% of the schools and conferences at the D1 level are fielding teams for money and making 98-99% of their decisions based on money. To think that's not the case is ridiculous. To think that was ever not the case at any point since the very beginning is also not correct.

[XUGRAD80]

It's not so much that the players are playing for money as it is that 98-99% of the schools and conferences at the D1 level are fielding teams for money and making 98-99% of their decisions based on money. To think that's not the case is ridiculous. To think that was ever not the case at any point since the very beginning is also not correct.

Well sure they make decisions based on money. They don’t have unlimited funds. So what’s wrong with that? That’s always been the case. But that doesn’t mean that they have sports teams just to MAKE MONEY for the schools. Does anyone really think that the cross country team at X is there as a moneymaker? Or the Swim team? The mens BB team makes money. But that money is used to support the teams that don’t. Are the BB coaches well paid? Yes they are. Rightfully so. Them doing their jobs well means more revenue for the program and enhances the whole athletic DEPARTMENT budget. If the schools desire is to provide opportunities to its students to participate in intercollegiate sports, it has to consider the costs involved to do that. But making money is not the reason they want o provide those opportunities, is it?

Now someone is going to claim that having well known teams leads to more students enrolling, and that true, it does. But is having a well known and successful football or basketball team really necessary to have a large and financially successful university? No, it’s not. There are A LOT of universities that are much larger than X that don’t have any successful and well known athletic teams.

[xubrew]

Well sure they make decisions based on money. They don’t have unlimited funds. So what’s wrong with that? That’s always been the case. But that doesn’t mean that they have sports teams just to MAKE MONEY for the schools. Does anyone really think that the cross country team at X is there as a moneymaker? Or the Swim team? The mens BB team makes money. But that money is used to support the teams that don’t. Are the BB coaches well paid? Yes they are. Rightfully so. Them doing their jobs well means more revenue for the program and enhances the whole athletic DEPARTMENT budget. If the schools desire is to provide opportunities to its students to participate in intercollegiate sports, it has to consider the costs involved to do that. But making money is not the reason they want o provide those opportunities, is it?

Now someone is going to claim that having well known teams leads to more students enrolling, and that true, it does. But is having a well known and successful football or basketball team really necessary to have a large and financially successful university? No, it’s not. There are A LOT of universities that are much larger than X that don’t have any successful and well known athletic teams.

I'm not the one that's saying anything is wrong. You are. And I'm not even sure what anymore. You say this will ruin college athletics, but then say that the vast majority of college athletes aren't impacted by it.

...and again, the NCAA didn't really have a choice. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about how the NIL rules will impact college sports, but it is unreasonable to ignore the fact that the Justice Department would have turned the NCAA into their own personal pinata had they kept the rules the way that they were before. That would have also not been good for college sports.

[D-West & PO-Z]

You’ve no idea what you’re talking about. All you see is the very few people that are playing major college football and basketball. They are a very small minority of college athletes. In my case it’s not from listening to any propaganda, it’s from living it. I’m not saying that anyone should be upset because a college player can make some money on the side. I’m saying that don’t be surprised by the potential problems that come up in the future. But then, I’m guessing that you only care about college sports as a fan and what you can see on TV. While I certainly enjoy that as a fan myself, I do understand that there is a lot more to college sports than what is on TV.

Correct, this discussion really only pertains to the top sports and top divisions. Of course no one is talking about college golf, cross country, field hockey, etc. This doesn't pertain to them. How are they negatively affected in any way? Sure they play for the love of the game and now they can make some money too if the are social media savvy etc.

What we are talking about here isn't them.

[D-West & PO-Z]

What exactly is your point because everything that you have said in this thread has had to do with the sports that are on tv and revenue generating sports I.e football and basketball. So now you seem concerned about? I’m not even sure what you are concerned about. If anything nil should open up opportunities for the non revenue generating athletes that weren’t there before.

And for those that play the sport for the love of the game can continue to do so. Not sure how these rules change anything about that.

Yes, didn't see this before my post, but exactly this.

[XUGRAD80]

Correct, this discussion really only pertains to the top sports and top divisions. Of course no one is talking about college golf, cross country, field hockey, etc. This doesn't pertain to them. How are they negatively affected in any way? Sure they play for the love of the game and now they can make some money too if the are social media savvy etc.

What we are talking about here isn't them.

Did you read the initial article? If not, you should. The article doesn’t just reference the top sports and the top divisions.

One reason I brought up non-revenue sports is because the effects will NOT be limited to just the big money programs and sports. The legal ramifications, and the opportunities for abuse, are much wider than that. YOU might only be thinking about how this will effect football and basketball, but the courts won’t see the distinction. The companies spending the money to fund these NILs are going to look at it as a business investment. They are going to want a return on that investment and are going want some say in what the responsibilities of the athletes getting the money are. This isn’t just a matter of putting a logo on the uniforms (although I’d guess that’s going to happen sooner than later). Schools brokering agreements between business and their student athletes is really blurring the lines between pay for play and not pay for play. If the courts decide that doing such things makes them employees, then lord help them. That’s going to be another whole mess and I don’t see how college sports will be able to afford all that would entail. Sure some schools will be able to absorb those costs, but not many. I can easily see cutbacks to programs and sports being eliminated because of the additional expense that would be evolved if the student athletes as a whole are suddenly considered employees of the universities. The author of the article points out that is a very real possibility too.

[XUGRAD80]

Here we go…..



https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/33245856/government-view-fbs-college-football-players-division-mens-women-basketball-players-school-employees-according-advocacy-group-complaint

[MHettel]

I said this years ago. The most elegant solution to all of this is the elimination of athletic scholarships entirely.

Let the players earn what they can, and foot the bill directly.

Simple. Should fix all of these problems.

[xubrew]

I said this years ago. The most elegant solution to all of this is the elimination of athletic scholarships entirely.

Let the players earn what they can, and foot the bill directly.

Simple. Should fix all of these problems.

Not really. The elimination of the athletic scholarship would also mean the end of the other types of financial aid students who are on a full or partial athletic scholarship could receive since...yunno...there would be no more athletic scholarships in the first place.

What you'd see is the immediate creation of the "full merit scholarship" or the "outstanding extra curricular scholarship" or any other scholarships that would be athletic scholarships but simply not be called that.

[XUGRAD80]

I said this years ago. The most elegant solution to all of this is the elimination of athletic scholarships entirely.

Let the players earn what they can, and foot the bill directly.

Simple. Should fix all of these problems.

Not sure that would work in regards to the participating students avoiding be considered “employees”. That is, if there was admission charged for the competitions.

[xubrew]

Not sure that would work in regards to the participating students avoiding be considered “employees”. That is, if there was admission charged for the competitions.

They will be considered to be employees if it ever gets into the courts. They fit the legal definition of what an employee is. The NLRB already ruled that student-athletes at Northwestern were/are employees and have a legal right to unionize if they so choose. That would be the case for every school. I honestly don't see how it wouldn't. Not saying it's good, bad, both, or neither. Just saying that it is.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/9/29/22700818/northwestern-nlrb-lawyer-memo-ollege-football-players-are-employees

[chico]

We know that Xavier's basketball team is a great marketing tool for prospective students, and has been a factor in increased enrollment. It would be interesting to see a cost/benefit analysis for a school to see if it would benefit it to go all out getting alumni to fund their "money making" sports - football and basketball - or put those alumni funds toward building powerhouse teams in Olympic sports.

It certainly would not be the case for the power conferences, but I would think for mid-majors like a MAC school it might be a benefit to build up the Olympic sports.