Airing of Grievances: NIL/Portal

[XUBison]

Welcome to the Twilight zone. It seems inevitable that the topics of NIL and the transfer portal will be an ongoing conversation for the foreseeable future, but as they are seeping into almost every other thread, it’s time to give the conversation its own home. Perhaps now we can limit the Transfer Portal thread to the excitement and anguish of roster comings and goings, and maybe even satisfy some posters’ crack addictions. Shame-shame-shame can also now be cast here on backbenchers like me, while the “Final 2%” thread can be left to focus on the important people working to fund the war machine. Feel free to bitch, moan, dismiss, assuage, or bypass altogether.

I’ll start by whining about the most recent drift in the “Transfer Portal” thread; On the topic of making players university employees, collective bargaining, and revenue sharing. I’m curious how people see this happening. I am skeptical, especially of the latter two. This would be immensely complex. I mean, it is when you have one employer and one group of employees, but there are so many layers here: NCAA, conferences, schools, not to mention the unique media deals with each. Would employee-players bargain with their respective programs, the conferences,the NCAA? If the universities themselves, then wouldn’t each school have its own set of rules? If the conferences, are programs like UK going to share revenue with programs like Vanderbilt? If the NCAA, Are the Big 10 and SEC going to share with the Big East or ACC?

There are lots of conceivable problems no matter how you cut it, and I think there’s no way any of this happens without sweeping legislation. I can’t imagine a scenario where each team forms its own union, so this will have to happen under a broader context. I also can’t see all 350 D-1 programs coming under a single CBA, so would there then be tiers? Then there’s the issue of unions composed of 18-22 yr-old college kids. Can they form a strong union, or will they buckle like a Baltimore bridge? “hey kid, you’ve reached your dream of playing D-1 basketball (you’re even fully compensated for it), but we need you to hold your ground now, because we’re going on strike!” Or, more laughable yet, the college kids get locked out— by college administrators!

[Xville]

Frankly, I don’t know how it would work. I don’t know all the laws that will need to change to make it possible.

What I do know is that the current system isn’t sustainable, and something is going to have to change. Going to be hard to put some of the genie back in the bottle, so the only way to do that is thru legislation.

[94GRAD]

I for one am happy about NIL. I no longer have to worry about the basketball players expecting free food and drinks now that they make more than I do!

[SM#24]

I for one am happy about NIL. I no longer have to worry about the basketball players expecting free food and drinks now that they make more than I do!

We can now get them to buy for us.

[Strange Brew]

I for one am happy about NIL. I no longer have to worry about the basketball players expecting free food and drinks now that they make more than I do!

Wait. Just hold up. Are the Club players still allowed to beg for free food/drinks? :)

[WCWIII]

NIL/Portal is spiraling out of control. I'm giving it a few more years to see if it settles down, but this whole new wild wild west is on a path to remove following and supporting Xavier basketball as one of my life's great pleasures.

I certainly didn't mind student athletes being able to earn some $$ like other students or for a mid-major star to transfer and get a chance to transfer and spend a year or two in a top tier program.

Professional G-Leaguers make $50K-ish ... seems about the right level if there is to be a cap. $500K or more? Why are they worth $500K? That's not just the athlete's NIL ... it's the "NIL of us fans" and the "NIL of the university" and us fans don't get anything, and the university struggles as potential big donors are sinking the big cash into a disappearing hole of a player's pocket, agent's pockets, and player's families' pockets. And with big money, there is now the huge hole of those who exploit gambling, corruption, and crime. Throw this into different laws for different states. This is all ruining the sport, undermining the fan bases, and thus its making it all a less valuable product. It's currently a financial charade, a ponzi-scheme to exploit what us fans really want which is NOT to have our beloved university run and sponsor a full-fledged professional sports team.

Great that Fed-Ex supports its hometown of Memphis. But should I stop using Fed-Ex ($25M to Memphis) if I don't like the Memphis Tigers? Imagine if P&G gave such a transformative bump to only one of UC or XU collective. Or if it gave to both ... why should the whole country pay higher prices for shampoo to support Cincinnati basketball?

I'm not for extra regulation, but the NCAA and the universities need to reclaim what's spiraling out of control. It's hard to come up with concrete suggestions ... here are a couple
Cap the collective - stop this turning into unrestricted free agency and pay to play
The Big East or leagues could prohibit players transferring intraleague - maybe they'd have to sit for a year

Will Zach be the last ever recruited high school player to play his whole career at Xavier and join the 1000 point club?

[xubrew]

NIL/Portal is spiraling out of control. I'm giving it a few more years to see if it settles down, but this whole new wild wild west is on a path to remove following and supporting Xavier basketball as one of my life's great pleasures.

I certainly didn't mind student athletes being able to earn some $$ like other students or for a mid-major star to transfer and get a chance to transfer and spend a year or two in a top tier program.

Professional G-Leaguers make $50K-ish ... seems about the right level if there is to be a cap. $500K or more? Why are they worth $500K? That's not just the athlete's NIL ... it's the "NIL of us fans" and the "NIL of the university" and us fans don't get anything, and the university struggles as potential big donors are sinking the big cash into a disappearing hole of a player's pocket, agent's pockets, and player's families' pockets. And with big money, there is now the huge hole of those who exploit gambling, corruption, and crime. Throw this into different laws for different states. This is all ruining the sport, undermining the fan bases, and thus its making it all a less valuable product. It's currently a financial charade, a ponzi-scheme to exploit what us fans really want which is NOT to have our beloved university run and sponsor a full-fledged professional sports team.

Great that Fed-Ex supports its hometown of Memphis. But should I stop using Fed-Ex ($25M to Memphis) if I don't like the Memphis Tigers? Imagine if P&G gave such a transformative bump to only one of UC or XU collective. Or if it gave to both ... why should the whole country pay higher prices for shampoo to support Cincinnati basketball?

I'm not for extra regulation, but the NCAA and the universities need to reclaim what's spiraling out of control. It's hard to come up with concrete suggestions ... here are a couple
Cap the collective - stop this turning into unrestricted free agency and pay to play
The Big East or leagues could prohibit players transferring intraleague - maybe they'd have to sit for a year

Will Zach be the last ever recruited high school player to play his whole career at Xavier and join the 1000 point club?

Everything that is happening, literally all of it, is because of the courts. If the NCAA tried to implement either one of these, then someone would sue and they would probably win.

The problem is while the old system didn't allow for this kind of craziness and made it feel as though college football and basketball were more tangible than pro sports to a lot of people, it was also illegal.

I wonder what's coming next? Will someone sue on the grounds that they are only allowed to play four seasons?? Will they try and claim that violates anti-trust laws?? And if that does end up in the courts, do they have a case??

[Xville]

Everything that is happening, literally all of it, is because of the courts. If the NCAA tried to implement either one of these, then someone would sue and they would probably win.

The problem is while the old system didn't allow for this kind of craziness and made it feel as though college football and basketball were more tangible than pro sports to a lot of people, it was also illegal.

I wonder what's coming next? Will someone sue on the grounds that they are only allowed to play four seasons?? Will they try and claim that violates anti-trust laws?? And if that does end up in the courts, do they have a case??

That's already happened....kind of. https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/chris-ledlum-jordan-dingle-suing-ncaa-for-extra-year-of-eligibility-at-st-john-s/ar-AA1nJUd4

[MHettel]

That's already happened....kind of. https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/chris-ledlum-jordan-dingle-suing-ncaa-for-extra-year-of-eligibility-at-st-john-s/ar-AA1nJUd4

yeah, but not really. They are suing for a single additonal year of eligibility becasue they came from the IVY League which cancelled it's 2021 season all togetgher due to Covid. So they are saying they never got their "fifth year" This is VERY specific.

I think the broader question is why cant someone just keep playing in college indefinitely? Whatever reasoning can be used fro clear up some of the other issues could be used to justify letting players play more than 4 years. Why is that restricted?

[xubrew]

yeah, but not really. They are suing for a single additonal year of eligibility becasue they came from the IVY League which cancelled it's 2021 season all togetgher due to Covid. So they are saying they never got their "fifth year" This is VERY specific.

I think the broader question is why cant someone just keep playing in college indefinitely? Whatever reasoning can be used fro clear up some of the other issues could be used to justify letting players play more than 4 years. Why is that restricted?

I'm placing the over/under at 2027 before something like this makes its way into the courts. I'm also taking the under.

[Xville]

As I have said....this is where this will inevitably go..revenue sharing, Employees/independent contractors. Collectives will always be there I think, but their " influence" will be minimal compared to now imo.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/uab-becomes-1st-division-i-football-team-to-join-players-association/ar-AA1nSeg8

[xubrew]

So for those that don't know, I believe there are more changes yet to come. The House Case, in which the plaintiffs are suing the NCAA for over $4 BILLION in damages for being in violation of anti-trust laws and denying them their right to fair market value, is a case the NCAA is not likely to win if it actually goes to trial. I believe they will attempt to negotiate a settlment this summer. Part of that settlement will likely be that schools be allowed to pay athletes directly.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40053021/college-sports-leaders-deep-talks-settle-nil-antitrust-case-vs-ncaa

From the article...


"I can't guarantee this, but I think [the defendants'] lawyers have told them they're in all likelihood going to lose," Kessler said. "If they lose, the damages are going to be gigantic. Further, they've been told that it's much better for them to be active participants in settling and deciding their future lives and fate than it is to let the court impose it on them."

I am virtually certain this is correct. The NCAA's own lawyers have told them they will lose. So, rather than pay out the entire $4 billion in damages, what kind of settlement is the NCAA looking at?? I really don't know. But, once again, we may see huge changes after the summer meetings. Once again, college sports may look a lot different than they do now in just a few months.

The NCAA has asked for congress to give them some help and declare them to be given some exemptions from anti-trust law. So far, I don't believe anyone in congress has even bothered to return their calls, much less move forward with such a law that would protect them. Why would they?? Maybe there is a reason why they would, but I can't think of one. When you ask the NCAA why they think congress should get involved, their answer usually sounds something like "Well, we need them to!"

Oh! Okay, then!

I've now personally started to consider what a total nuclear option would look like. What if we just blow the whole thing up?? What if the NCAA and all the members say, 'Yunno what? We're done! We're starting completely over with something else now!' RIP NCAA. 1906-2024. It was a good run. A new governing body with new rules and new guidelines for membership can start fresh. That's one way to stop getting sued, I guess. Just stop existing.

[MHettel]

So for those that don't know, I believe there are more changes yet to come. The House Case, in which the plaintiffs are suing the NCAA for over $4 BILLION in damages for being in violation of anti-trust laws and denying them their right to fair market value, is a case the NCAA is not likely to win if it actually goes to trial. I believe they will attempt to negotiate a settlment this summer. Part of that settlement will likely be that schools be allowed to pay athletes directly.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40053021/college-sports-leaders-deep-talks-settle-nil-antitrust-case-vs-ncaa

From the article...



I am virtually certain this is correct. The NCAA's own lawyers have told them they will lose. So, rather than pay out the entire $4 billion in damages, what kind of settlement is the NCAA looking at?? I really don't know. But, once again, we may see huge changes after the summer meetings. Once again, college sports may look a lot different than they do now in just a few months.

The NCAA has asked for congress to give them some help and declare them to be given some exemptions from anti-trust law. So far, I don't believe anyone in congress has even bothered to return their calls, much less move forward with such a law that would protect them. Why would they?? Maybe there is a reason why they would, but I can't think of one. When you ask the NCAA why they think congress should get involved, their answer usually sounds something like "Well, we need them to!"

Oh! Okay, then!

I've now personally started to consider what a total nuclear option would look like. What if we just blow the whole thing up?? What if the NCAA and all the members say, 'Yunno what? We're done! We're starting completely over with something else now!' RIP NCAA. 1906-2024. It was a good run. A new governing body with new rules and new guidelines for membership can start fresh. That's one way to stop getting sued, I guess. Just stop existing.

So the NCAA will just "wind down" as an entity, or the membership will just leave? i dont think they can avoid being sued in EITHER scenario. Thee full amount of money may not be there to cover the damages, but they will be sued regardless.

A proposal I've heard is that schools may be able to OPT to pay players and the amount will be capped. Im sure there will be far fewer Football teams if that gets enacted. Im sure some BBall teams will shutter as well. Football is a loser at a lot of schools already. Add incremental costs for the player salaries and it doesnt pencil out at all. Of course you could choose NOT to pay the players and assure yourself of a losing season until the end of time.

the big programs will pay everyone the maximum amount allowed. Some of the wanna be programs will pay some amounts to some players. The ones that dont pay will die off.

[xubrew]

So the NCAA will just "wind down" as an entity, or the membership will just leave? i dont think they can avoid being sued in EITHER scenario. Thee full amount of money may not be there to cover the damages, but they will be sued regardless.

A proposal I've heard is that schools may be able to OPT to pay players and the amount will be capped. Im sure there will be far fewer Football teams if that gets enacted. Im sure some BBall teams will shutter as well. Football is a loser at a lot of schools already. Add incremental costs for the player salaries and it doesnt pencil out at all. Of course you could choose NOT to pay the players and assure yourself of a losing season until the end of time.

the big programs will pay everyone the maximum amount allowed. Some of the wanna be programs will pay some amounts to some players. The ones that dont pay will die off.

I'm pretty sure something like that would need to be collectively bargained. I mean, that doesn't mean the NCAA wouldn't initially do it anyway. The've been in violation of ant-trust laws for a century, so of course they'd do something that continues to be in violation of it, but if that's not collectively bargained and the players aren't represented, then the first time that gets taken to court they'd lose that too. At one point in time (I think in the early 1990s) the NCAA tried to put a salary cap in place for coaches, and lost.

[UCGRAD4X]

So, right now the money the players are getting is not from the schools. Former players want money from the schools because they were not allowed to get money from an outside source. The result of this all is that the schools will be expected to come up with boatloads of money.

Where will the money come from?

(Hint: where does the government come up with money when they are forced to PAY out?)

[xubrew]

So, right now the money the players are getting is not from the schools. Former players want money from the schools because they were not allowed to get money from an outside source. The result of this all is that the schools will be expected to come up with boatloads of money.

Where will the money come from?

(Hint: where does the government come up with money when they are forced to PAY out?)

Pretty much. The better way of phrasing it is that the NCAA rules that prevented them from making money off their own NIL's were in violation of anti-trust laws. They were injured financially because of the NCAA's rules, and as a result of that injury they are collectively entitled to $4 billion from those who injured them.

EDIT: $4 billion bucks sounds a little over the top to me, but the NCAA's own lawyers believe that while it might not be that much, it will be a lot and it COULD be that much. Everyone seems to agree that the NCAA cannot win this case if it goes to trial, and if the end result of this is that they owe $4 billion, the NCAA won't be here anymore. It will collapse, or go bankrupt, or whatever it is that happens when an organization has to fold.

[waggy]

They could have just went and got a job. Collegiate sports are elective. All things are elective.

[xubrew]

They could have just went and got a job. Collegiate sports are elective. All things are elective.

Yeah, in case you haven't noticed that hasn't been working out so well as a legitimate legal defense for the NCAA over the last few years.

[MHettel]

I dont understand why the scholarship agreement is not a binding contract.

"You get to play the sport. And you get a free education (with obvious monetary value). And you have to follow our rules, one of which is that you cant receive money from outside sources".

Nobody put a gun to their head. Why didnt they just walk away from this agreement and just take the money instead? Well, maybe because the platform provided by the NCAA was a necessary part in having a 3rd party that was interested in giving you the money.

You cant get NIL unless you are playing. So the terms of the agreement are the terms of the agreement. Take it or leave it.

[waggy]

Yeah, in case you haven't noticed that hasn't been working out so well as a legitimate legal defense for the NCAA over the last few years.

That’s because our society is addicted to righting some imagined wrong and just bullshit in general. There’s not much room for logic and reason.

[Xville]

That’s because our society is addicted to righting some imagined wrong and just bullshit in general. There’s not much room for logic and reason.

Are you trying to argue that anything the NCAA has done over the last however many years is both logical and reasonable? Because that would be an interesting argument to say the least.

[xubrew]

I dont understand why the scholarship agreement is not a binding contract.

"You get to play the sport. And you get a free education (with obvious monetary value). And you have to follow our rules, one of which is that you cant receive money from outside sources".

Nobody put a gun to their head. Why didnt they just walk away from this agreement and just take the money instead? Well, maybe because the platform provided by the NCAA was a necessary part in having a 3rd party that was interested in giving you the money.

You cant get NIL unless you are playing. So the terms of the agreement are the terms of the agreement. Take it or leave it.

The bold part is the issue. Every school agreeing to have this as a rule is a rather blatant violation of anti-trust laws. It is the legal definition of price fixing. If a school were to decide on it's own that this is what they want to offer, then that's fine. If a school would like to offer something other than this but the rules prohibit them from doing so, then that's not fine. That's illegal. That's why the NCAA has been getting pile-driven by the courts for the past several years.

Would the players have gotten more had it not been for these rules?? If the answer is yes, which it clearly is, then the rules violate anti-trust laws.

[waggy]

Are you trying to argue that anything the NCAA has done over the last however many years is both logical and reasonable? Because that would be an interesting argument to say the least.

I guess you have ncaa derangement syndrome too. Whatever.

I’m not very knowledgeable about how the ncaa dispersed its revenue, but I’ve been of the impression that it largely went back to the conferences which in turn supported students on the whole.

If an athlete is marketable, ie nil, then go get your money. Problem is very few really are. And even fewer are separate from a school affiliation.

[Xville]

I guess you have ncaa derangement syndrome too. Whatever.

I’m not very knowledgeable about how the ncaa dispersed its revenue, but I’ve been of the impression that it largely went back to the conferences which in turn supported students on the whole.

If an athlete is marketable, ie nil, then go get your money. Problem is very few really are. And even fewer are separate from a school affiliation.

Interesting perspective, and pretty much the attitude that the NCAA had that caused all this mess. All they had to do was take the ridiculous amount of money they/conferences/schools make, and give some to the players that were making them all said money. They also could have changed some of their really stupid rules like not being able to work, not being able to accept meals and some travel etc. Some common sense would have gone a long way.

Anyone with a brain knew where this was going, the legal system is set up in a way that the NCAA was never going to win if they were challenged. I'm just surprised it took this long.

[xubrew]

I guess you have ncaa derangement syndrome too. Whatever.

I’m not very knowledgeable about how the ncaa dispersed its revenue, but I’ve been of the impression that it largely went back to the conferences which in turn supported students on the whole.

If an athlete is marketable, ie nil, then go get your money. Problem is very few really are. And even fewer are separate from a school affiliation.

That's basically correct. There is a ton of money in college sports, but the NCAA itself, as in the league office, makes a very small percentage of it. They have one cash cow, and most of that money goes back to the schools and conferences. The rest is spent on championships for all the other sports in all 3 of the divisions.

The legal issue the NCAA is facing are the courts are saying it's their rules that are injuring the plaintiffs, so therefore they are responsible for the financial damages.

Many at the NCAA have said what's been said here. Players don't have to play if they don't want to. That hasn't worked. They've also said that it's the schools who actually make the rules and get the money while the NCAA just acts as a commissioner of sorts, and they're right. But, the courts' response to this seems to be "Well...tough shit. Take it up with the schools, then! It's YOU that's on the hook."

I've been sort of following this rather closely, but I'm not a lawyer. I understand this on an elementary level and not an expert level. But, something I do understand is that the NCAA's lawyers probably understand this on an expert level, and they have advised the NCAA that they cannot win the House Case. If they are forced to pay $4 billion, I don't know exactly what that means or how that plays out, but I'm thinking that if that happens then there's a very good chance the NCAA will exist anymore.

[UCGRAD4X]

Pretty much. The better way of phrasing it is that the NCAA rules that prevented them from making money off their own NIL's were in violation of anti-trust laws. They were injured financially because of the NCAA's rules, and as a result of that injury they are collectively entitled to $4 billion from those who injured them.

EDIT: $4 billion bucks sounds a little over the top to me, but the NCAA's own lawyers believe that while it might not be that much, it will be a lot and it COULD be that much. Everyone seems to agree that the NCAA cannot win this case if it goes to trial, and if the end result of this is that they owe $4 billion, the NCAA won't be here anymore. It will collapse, or go bankrupt, or whatever it is that happens when an organization has to fold.

Sorry. Not my point. Most of it was rhetorical.

The NCAA has no money - like the gov't has no money. As of now the NIL is from sources outside of the University. Anything additional expenses incurred on the school beyond that will be paid by fans/students in the form of some higher cost of participation or reduced product and therefore worth of the product. I would not count on the benefactors to contribute a whole lot more than they are now, especially at a school like X.

[paulxu]

If an athlete enters the portal, and goes to seek NIL$ from a bunch of schools, is he allowed to/does he often have, an agent who gets a cut?

[94GRAD]

Sorry. Not my point. Most of it was rhetorical.

The NCAA has no money - like the gov't has no money. As of now the NIL is from sources outside of the University. Anything additional expenses incurred on the school beyond that will be paid by fans/students in the form of some higher cost of participation or reduced product and therefore worth of the product. I would not count on the benefactors to contribute a whole lot more than they are now, especially at a school like X.

Maybe I'm mixing this up with something I read, but isn't the NCAA a not-for-profit organization as opposed to a non-profit org? Doesn't the NCAA have money in reserves and/or investments? Like I said, I might be mixing this up with something else.

[MHettel]

The bold part is the issue. Every school agreeing to have this as a rule is a rather blatant violation of anti-trust laws. It is the legal definition of price fixing. If a school were to decide on it's own that this is what they want to offer, then that's fine. If a school would like to offer something other than this but the rules prohibit them from doing so, then that's not fine. That's illegal. That's why the NCAA has been getting pile-driven by the courts for the past several years.

Would the players have gotten more had it not been for these rules?? If the answer is yes, which it clearly is, then the rules violate anti-trust laws.

When I was referring to "our rules" I meant the NCAA rules. So not each school banding together to have the same rules (price fixing), but rather the rules of the governing body.

[MHettel]

Interesting perspective, and pretty much the attitude that the NCAA had that caused all this mess. All they had to do was take the ridiculous amount of money they/conferences/schools make, and give some to the players that were making them all said money.

Do you have kids in college yet? Let me know when that first tuition bill hits. Room, Board, Books, Food.

Its basically the price of a very nice brand new BMW. EVERY YEAR.

[xubrew]

When I was referring to "our rules" I meant the NCAA rules. So not each school banding together to have the same rules (price fixing), but rather the rules of the governing body.

Do you HONESTLY not understand how the NCAA was violating anti-trust laws??

The players weren't playing for the NCAA league office. They were playing for the schools. There were rules limiting what each individual school could offer. Had it not been for those rules, which were not collectively bargained, the players would have gotten more. THAT IS ILLEGAL!!!!! That's why the NCAA is totally up shit creek. ALL the changes that have happened in the last two to three years have happened because of the courts. It's not that the NCAA just decided on their own to do it. It's that the courts, including the SCOTUS said that the NCAA was breaking the law and basically forced them to stop.

As far as the current House Case is concerned, the NCAA's own lawyers have now told them "You were in violation of anti-trust laws. We cannot win this case for you." So, we will likely see even more changes by the end of this summer because of it.

[Xville]

Do you have kids in college yet? Let me know when that first tuition bill hits. Room, Board, Books, Food.

Its basically the price of a very nice brand new BMW. EVERY YEAR.

Yeah I have kids in private school. I'm aware of what college costs. Has zero to do with what I said and that's a very tired argument. It was an argument back in the 50s when the NCAA and its members' schools were not making the kind of money they are now.

[MHettel]

Yeah I have kids in private school. I'm aware of what college costs. Has zero to do with what I said and that's a very tired argument. It was an argument back in the 50s when the NCAA and its members' schools were not making the kind of money they are now.

So the 70-80K that the scholarship is worth doesnt meet the definition of "give some to the players"?

[xubrew]

So the 70-80K that the scholarship is worth doesnt meet the definition of "give some to the players"?

It's not about giving "SOME" to the players. It's about not denying them what their fair market value is.

Say all the schools gave a million dollars to each of the players on top of their full scholarships, but had a rule that said they weren't allowed to receive any more than that. Well, if it could be proven in court that the players WOULD receive more than that if that rule didn't exist, and that the players did not collectively bargain for that rule, then the NCAA would still be in violation of anti-trust laws.

It isn't that they were being exploited. It's that they weren't receiving their free market value.

[Xville]

So the 70-80K that the scholarship is worth doesnt meet the definition of "give some to the players"?

Compared to what they are worth it to the ncaa and its members' institutions? No.

[MHettel]

It's not about giving "SOME" to the players. It's about not denying them what their fair market value is.

Say all the schools gave a million dollars to each of the players on top of their full scholarships, but had a rule that said they weren't allowed to receive any more than that. Well, if it could be proven in court that the players WOULD receive more than that if that rule didn't exist, and that the players did not collectively bargain for that rule, then the NCAA would still be in violation of anti-trust laws.

It isn't that they were being exploited. It's that they weren't receiving their free market value.

If a swimmer on the swim team receives a scholarship despite the fact that their fair market value is zero, have they also been denied their fair market value?

[Final4]

It's not about giving "SOME" to the players. It's about not denying them what their fair market value is.

The players have no intrinsic value. If there was a team with Nunge, Freemantle, Boum, Kunkle, Macura (you pick the five) that had no affiliations playing against a similarly staffed team, again with no affiliations, would you go to watch them play? Would you PAY to watch them play? Their value is only derived from the name on the front of the jersey. Now, having said that, clearly once they don the jersey they do add value to the equation. But how do you determine the value; what’s fair? I suspect that Jerome Hunter has gained significantly more by the name on the front of his jersey than Xavier has realized by having Hunter’s name on the back of theirs.

[94GRAD]

If a swimmer on the swim team receives a scholarship despite the fact that their fair market value is zero, have they also been denied their fair market value?

How do you know their market value was zero? They weren't allowed to market themselves in the past. That's the whole point. They weren't even allowed to be paid to give swim lessons under the old system!

[MHettel]

Ill take this further. Assume for a moment that All football teams and basketball teams generate more revenue than it costs to run those sports. So they have a "net profit" so to speak. (and we will come back to this premise).

And now assume (its not a stretch) that nearly every other collegiate sport operates at a new loss.

Essentially, the net loss of one group is covered by the net profit of the other group.

But all the members of each group are not equal. As a GROUP the Football teams operate at a profit, but individually you have a mix of teams that make a truckload of money and those that LOSE a bunch of money. There is "revenue sharing" that occurs through the mechanism of the conferences by sharing TV and postseason related revenues and a mostly flat basis.

Apply the same logic to Basketball and its fair to say that Villanova and UConn have carried the load for the Big East over the last 10 years and a team like DePaul has done basically nothing. And yet we split the money.

And football and basketball split the money with Golf and Tennis and Volleyball.

Taken as a whole, the NCAA is governing ALL Sports in the same manner as a conference governs its teams. Without this model, college sports would consist of only Football and Basketball. Just like the Big East would be 3 or 4 teams....maybe.

The players are part of something bigger. The team. And they are also part of something bigger than that... a collective of teams in a conference. And something bigger than that...part of a conference that participates in a sport. And something bigger than THAT...a sport among a group of sports....all governed by the NCAA. And at the end of the day, there is no money left over. All the mouths get fed in a sense because the programs exists (giving the student athletes a chance to play their sports), and many (most) of the students receive compensation in the form of scholarships and other related education expenses paid for.

If you want to break it, and start funneling all the football money to the football and basketball players, then say goodbye to the track and field team.

[xubrew]

The players have no intrinsic value. If there was a team with Nunge, Freemantle, Boum, Kunkle, Macura (you pick the five) that had no affiliations playing against a similarly staffed team, again with no affiliations, would you go to watch them play? Would you PAY to watch them play? Their value is only derived from the name on the front of the jersey. Now, having said that, clearly once they don the jersey they do add value to the equation. But how do you determine the value; what’s fair? I suspect that Jerome Hunter has gained significantly more by the name on the front of his jersey than Xavier has realized by having Hunter’s name on the back of theirs.

This is an easy one. What's considered "fair" in a legal sense is whatever a school or sponsor is willing to pay them in order to play there. What's considered "not fair" in a legal sense are rules that limit or restrict what that amount may be.

[MHettel]

How do you know their market value was zero? They weren't allowed to market themselves in the past. That's the whole point. They weren't even allowed to be paid to give swim lessons under the old system!

Fair enough. Lets calculate what they could have made giving swim lessons. And subtract it from the 275K scholarship they received. its not EVEN zero.

[MHettel]

This is an easy one. What's considered "fair" in a legal sense is whatever a school or sponsor is willing to pay them in order to play there. What's considered "not fair" in a legal sense are rules that limit or restrict what that amount may be.

you already said you arent a lawyer. Stop trying to put your opinion out there and frame by using words like "in a legal sense"

[xubrew]

Fair enough. Lets calculate what they could have made giving swim lessons. And subtract it from the 275K scholarship they received. its not EVEN zero.

So why have any rules in place that restrict it?

Swimming is not a headcount sport. Very few of them are on full scholarship anyway. But, that's not really important in regards to the issue at hand. The NCAA can't go into court and defend itself in the House Case by saying "Well, D3 swimmers have a market value of zero!! So, we're good, right??" That would be beyond stupid!!

Geez....I hope they're not dumb enough to actually try that. They may be.

[xubrew]

you already said you arent a lawyer. Stop trying to put your opinion out there and frame by using words like "in a legal sense"

This is rather elementary, though. That's also not an opinion. If it's wrong, then a lawyer will correct it. I know there are plenty on here.

[noteggs]

Wild West just got wilder.

Those who have transferred to other teams are still getting calls and have been offered more money.

https://x.com/john_fanta/status/1786099387073978847?s=42&t=U5TyKr_wshJKowj_nNzfHg

[MHettel]

Wild West just got wilder.

Those who have transferred to other teams are still getting calls and have been offered more money.

https://x.com/john_fanta/status/1786099387073978847?s=42&t=U5TyKr_wshJKowj_nNzfHg

will some enterprising young man eventually decide to just hire an auctioneer and create the ultimate sellers market? Just make the schools outbid each other in an open market. Maybe thats the "legal" definition of Market Value

[bjf123]

Can they rescind their commitment to the new school? Wouldn’t this be tampering in any pro sport?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xubrew]

Wild West just got wilder.

Those who have transferred to other teams are still getting calls and have been offered more money.

https://x.com/john_fanta/status/1786099387073978847?s=42&t=U5TyKr_wshJKowj_nNzfHg


Can they rescind their commitment to the new school? Wouldn’t this be tampering in any pro sport?



Financial aid agreements are not binding and they never have been. Players have been signing them and then reneging for the at least the last 20 years and probably longer. Granted, in the days prior to NIL no one's stated reason for reneging was that they wanted more NIL money, but this is not a new thing. NLIs for incoming freshmen and juco transfers are binding. Financial aid agreements in and of themselves are not.

And, not to be over-technical about this, but no one has "already transferred." I know what he meant, but verbally committing and/or signing a financial aid agreement does not constitute completing the transfer process. All the players are still presently enrolled at the schools that they played for this past season. Until they take themselves out of the portal, or matriculate at a new school, they're fair game. This isn't a new development. The coaches have known this since the portal was first implemented.

[noteggs]

Financial aid agreements are not binding and they never have been. Players have been signing them and then reneging for the at least the last 20 years and probably longer. Granted, in the days prior to NIL no one's stated reason for reneging was that they wanted more NIL money, but this is not a new thing. NLIs for incoming freshmen and juco transfers are binding. Financial aid agreements in and of themselves are not.

And, not to be over-technical about this, but no one has "already transferred." I know what he meant, but verbally committing and/or signing a financial aid agreement does not constitute completing the transfer process. All the players are still presently enrolled at the schools that they played for this past season. Until they take themselves out of the portal, or matriculate at a new school, they're fair game. This isn't a new development. The coaches have known this since the portal was first implemented.

I heard Sean couldn’t talk about them until they signed. All five now signed. So where does fit in? The financial aid agreement. Thanks

[xubrew]

I heard Sean couldn’t talk about them until they signed. All five now signed. So where does fit in? The financial aid agreement. Thanks

Correct. Financial aid agreements are binding for the school but not the player. So if what Fanta is saying is true (and I do believe that it is) then he can say who the players are.

What kind of got me (and I’m not even sure why) is that this is not a new thing. Coaches have always continued to recruit players who signed financial aid agreements long before NIL. It just struck me as a tablespoon full of butter. A ton of fat and empty calories. It’s a dog-bites-man statement. And, no one has actually transferred yet. If they had; then it would be a major violation. But, they haven’t, and it’s within the rules.

[94GRAD]

Rumors of a 2.7 billion dollar settlement

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40071715/ncaa-pay-more-27b-settle-nil-antitrust-suit-sources-say

[xubrew]

Rumors of a 2.7 billion dollar settlement

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40071715/ncaa-pay-more-27b-settle-nil-antitrust-suit-sources-say

There is a fair amount of stuff in this article...


Sources told ESPN this week that parties have proposed the NCAA's national office -- rather than its individual member schools or conferences -- would pay for the settlement of past damages over a period of 10 years. The NCAA payments would be paid to former college athletes who say they were illegally prevented from making money by selling the rights to their name, image and likeness

I really didn't think the NCAA's National Office had $2.7 billion. But...okay.


The settlement would come with a corresponding commitment from conferences and schools to share revenue with athletes moving forward, per sources. The settlement would establish a framework for power conferences to share revenue with their athletes in the future. Sources have told ESPN that schools are anticipating a ceiling of nearly $20 million per year for athlete revenue share moving forward.

Basic legal question...

In order for there to be a "ceiling" of $20 million per year (or any other amount), then don't the current and future players have to be represented in that agreement?? SAAC, or some other orgranization that represents the student-athletes would have to be involved in agreeing to that. Otherwise, it lays the groundwork for future anti-trust lawsuits if the players ever feel they can/should get more.

Now, to re-quote something...


The settlement would come with a corresponding commitment from conferences and schools to share revenue with athletes moving forward, per sources. The settlement would establish a framework for power conferences to share revenue with their athletes in the future

Schools and conferences would share their revenue with the players. This is important. The more revenue a school and conference has, the more the players at those schools are going to get. The SEC and Big Ten have far more revenue to share than, say, the Sun Belt and MAC. So, players in the SEC and Big Ten will get more under this model. Potentially A LOT more!! Am I wrong in thinking that? This will almost assuredly make competitive balance within college sports a lot less balanced. It will also mean that more players who have opportunities to transfer into bigger money conferences will do so at a much higher rate than what they are now, and it's happening quite a bit right now as it is.


College sports leaders have been asking Congress to write a new federal law for several years that would, among other things, protect them from future litigation.

I'm WAAAAY past the point of thinking that Congress will ever write any such laws. If that were going to happen, then it would have already happened. I think the NCAA should stop holding out hope that they will be given some sort of exception to antitrust laws. In fact, I think it's kind of insane. I agree with what Einstein said about insanity.



I am not entirely certain how this will play out, but I do believe that the NCAA will look to settle this over the summer. Part of the settlement will be the revenue sharing that is listed above. Schools and conferences can pay players directly from their revenue sharing, and conferences with more money can pay more money. I think that happens by the end of the summer. Over the last few years we've seen a lot of high caliber players find homes at non-major programs, and it's been great to watch. I think that's over. The Big Ten and SEC will operate on a level that's above everyone else, the ACC and Big 12 will operate on a level that's above everyone else other than the Big Ten and SEC, and then everyone else will struggle to even keep up.

And, my "Airing of Grievances" are the same grievances I've had for about fifteen years now. I feel this could have been avoided had the NCAA and leaders within college sports not been so stupid and agreed to share some revenue with the players before now. But, they didn't. They didn't want to give up that control. Well, as a result, they've now lost a lot more control than they otherwise would have. This didn't have to play out the way that it has played out.

[paulxu]

If there is a $20 million cap/year/school, why are you worried about the big schools paying more than the mid-majors?
And if that has to be shared by the football teams, it seems schools like ours could compete with what they have left over for basketball.

(maybe I don't understand the parameters of the settlement proposed)

[xubrew]

If there is a $20 million cap/year/school, why are you worried about the big schools paying more than the mid-majors?
And if that has to be shared by the football teams, it seems schools like ours could compete with what they have left over for basketball.

(maybe I don't understand the parameters of the settlement proposed)

Good question.

My thinking is that the plaintiffs won't accept the $20 million dollar cap, and even if they do it won't be long before the NCAA is back in court again for having a cap that was not collectively bargained with the players being represented. The first time a player is told "well, we can't pay you more because of the $20 million dollar cap limit" it will land right back into the courts. If that term can be collectively bargained, then I'd feel much better about it. But, Texas A&M just paid Jimbo Fisher $75 million to NOT coach their team. If I'm representing the players, I'm asking for a lot more than just $20 million as part of the settlement, or just askin for no cap at all that isn't collectively bargained.

I can't help but think that the NCAA's leaders don't seem to have even a basic understanding of antitrust law and why they're in so much trouble for being in violation of it.

[xubrew]

Remember three years ago when the Supreme Court totally blew up the NCAA after the Alston Case?? And Brett Kavanaugh wrote that scathing concurring opinion that all but said that more lawsuits are likely to come because what the NCAA was doing was completely illegal?? He also said that the NCAA needed to collectively bargain with the players.

So, that's my concern. They're throwing a cap out there that hasn't been collectively bargained and are basically ignoring the Supreme Court. That strikes me as not a smart move.

[MHettel]

Remember three years ago when the Supreme Court totally blew up the NCAA after the Alston Case?? And Brett Kavanaugh wrote that scathing concurring opinion that all but said that more lawsuits are likely to come because what the NCAA was doing was completely illegal?? He also said that the NCAA needed to collectively bargain with the players.

So, that's my concern. They're throwing a cap out there that hasn't been collectively bargained and are basically ignoring the Supreme Court. That strikes me as not a smart move.

Would you PLEASE stop saying “collective bargaining”.

That applies when a union exists. There is no union.

[xubrew]

Would you PLEASE stop saying “collective bargaining”.

That applies when a union exists. There is no union.

That's actually my entire point.

I'm saying it because that's what the Supreme Court said three years ago. The NCAA would be well served to not ignore what they said. They cannot make a rule like that unless it is collectively bargained. Since there is no union or representation, then there can be no cap. That cannot be a part of the settlement. If it is, it will be back in court again very soon, and the NCAA will lose again.

[MHettel]

That's actually my entire point.

I'm saying it because that's what the Supreme Court said three years ago. The NCAA would be well served to not ignore what they said. They cannot make a rule like that unless it is collectively bargained. Since there is no union or representation, then there can be no cap. That cannot be a part of the settlement. If it is, it will be back in court again very soon, and the NCAA will lose again.

No, you are missing the point. they CAN do it. Because there is no union. If that results in the formation of a union, then they will reach a new agreement through collective bargaining.

The scenario you are describing just doesnt make sense. If there were a union, then OF COURSE they couldnt unilaterally impose a cap. But there ISNT, so they CAN.

[xubrew]

No, you are missing the point. they CAN do it. Because there is no union. If that results in the formation of a union, then they will reach a new agreement through collective bargaining.

The scenario you are describing just doesnt make sense. If there were a union, then OF COURSE they couldnt unilaterally impose a cap. But there ISNT, so they CAN.

Okay, perhaps I’m missing something. I’m trying to understand this and I’m open to the possibility that I am missing something.

The NCAA has tried this before. Why was this considered to be blatantly illegal? There are coaches associations, but no unions. So what am I missing? And why are actual lawyers saying the NCAA cannot implement a cap like this?? And after the Alston Case ruling why did a Supreme Court Justice say to the NCAA that they needed to collectively bargain with the players?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2012/12/19/why-a-salary-cap-on-ncaa-coaches-is-illegal/?sh=3f23580555e5

[bobbiemcgee]

https://nil-ncaa.com/ a bit confusing and incomplete.

[MHettel]

https://nil-ncaa.com/ a bit confusing and incomplete.

Boy, that had potential but nothing at all for the Big East. Could have been very usefull. Still maybe some utility when it comes to estimating the basketball NIL of the power 5.

[xubrew]

Article is a few days old. It makes mention of quite a few things, including how they can’t set any sort of a cap without collectively bargaining with the players. I guess it’s missing point…

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/what-will-happen-in-house-v-ncaa-answering-key-questions-as-college-athletics-faces-monumental-change/amp/

[MHettel]

Article is a few days old. It makes mention of quite a few things, including how they can’t set any sort of a cap without collectively bargaining with the players. I guess it’s missing point…

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/what-will-happen-in-house-v-ncaa-answering-key-questions-as-college-athletics-faces-monumental-change/amp/

Wow, a quote from the founder of Athletes.org. There’s no motive involved, right?

That’s not even reporting. That’s just a dude with a stake in the outcome that is taking an opportunity out to shape the outcome with his views.

[xubrew]

Wow, a quote from the founder of Athletes.org. There’s no motive involved, right?

That’s not even reporting. That’s just a dude with a stake in the outcome that is taking an opportunity out to shape the outcome with his views.

So you think he's wrong? You don't think the NCAA setting a cap would be a huge mistake? You don't think that would result in any future litigation? They're currently being sued for $4 billion due to being in violation of antitrust laws. Wouldn't it be in their best interest to not do anything in the future that continues to violate antitrust laws?

Should the SCOTUS be ignored??

https://time.com/6074583/ncaa-supreme-court-ruling/

Should this quote from the concurring opinion be ignored??


Of course, those difficult questions could be resolved in
ways other than litigation. Legislation would be one option.
Or colleges and student athletes could potentially engage in
collective bargaining (or seek some other negotiated agreement) to provide student athletes a fairer share of the revenues that they generate for their colleges, akin to how professional football and basketball players have negotiated
for a share of league revenues. Cf. Brown v. Pro Football,
Inc., 518 U. S. 231, 235–237 (1996); Wood v. National Basketball Assn., 809 F. 2d 954, 958–963 (CA2 1987) (R. Winter, J.). Regardless of how those issues ultimately would be
resolved, however, the NCAA’s current compensation regime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws.

Based on how the litigation has been going, do you think the NCAA should continue to ignore antitrust laws and just try and settle this in the courts?? Should the NCAA just look at the whole thing as a mere unconcerning matter of the Supreme Court simply missing the point??

[MHettel]

So you think he's wrong? You don't think the NCAA setting a cap would be a huge mistake? You don't think that would result in any future litigation? They're currently being sued for $4 billion due to being in violation of antitrust laws. Wouldn't it be in their best interest to not do anything in the future that continues to violate antitrust laws?

Should the SCOTUS be ignored??

https://time.com/6074583/ncaa-supreme-court-ruling/

Should this quote from the concurring opinion be ignored??



Based on how the litigation has been going, do you think the NCAA should continue to ignore antitrust laws and just try and settle this in the courts?? Should the NCAA just look at the whole thing as a mere unconcerning matter of the Supreme Court simply missing the point??

You’re the one that seems to be the self appointed expert on this and you said they can’t implement a cap unless it’s collective bargained. And that is wrong.

They can implement a cap if they want. It could lead to the formation of a union. In which case the entire agreement between the employees (players) and the employers (schools, conferences, NCAA) would be called the collective bargaining agreement.

This whole back and forth comes down to one basic thing that you don’t understand or just flat ignore.

They CAN implement a cap.

Would they? Should they? Will they? Fuck I don’t know.

But they can. And you are saying they can’t. If you had said they “wont”, then you actually have a chance of being correct. But you continue to dig in and insist that they cant.

[xubrew]

You’re the one that seems to be the self appointed expert on this and you said they can’t implement a cap unless it’s collective bargained. And that is wrong.

They can implement a cap if they want. It could lead to the formation of a union. In which case the entire agreement between the employees (players) and the employers (schools, conferences, NCAA) would be called the collective bargaining agreement.

This whole back and forth comes down to one basic thing that you don’t understand or just flat ignore.

They CAN implement a cap.

Would they? Should they? Will they? Fuck I don’t know.

But they can. And you are saying they can’t. If you had said they “wont”, then you actually have a chance of being correct. But you continue to dig in and insist that they cant.

I've made it pretty clear why I think that's the case.

I suppose the NCAA can come out and say there will be a cap. They may actually try to do it. But if they do then they will continue to get sued and the cap will go away as soon as it gets into the courts. When they tried to implement a cap for coaches, they were sued, and they lost and were unable to do it. It didn't lead to the formation of any coaches union. They were just told that doing so was a violation of antitrust laws and that it wasn't allowed. I would imagine the same thing would happen again. In fact I don't see any other end result.

You say they can implement a cap, but then are not understanding or just flat out ignoring what happened when they tried to do that for coaches, or what the Supreme Court ruled in the Alston Case, or what Kavanaugh said in his concurring opinion. To me, this seems pretty on the nose. Any cap that isn't collectively bargained will be ruled by virtually any court to be a violation of antitrust laws, and the Alston Case ruling and concurring opinion are already out there for future litigation. This is from the article above, and it explains why I have the opinion that I do.


Kavanaugh makes things even clearer. “The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels,” he writes in the concurring opinion. “But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.”

That's pretty on the nose.

But, I guess you're right. The NCAA CAN implement a cap on NIL and how much players can receive directly from the schools. But if they do, the end result of it is rather easy to foresee.

[xubrew]

So the House Case settlement has been accepted. I kind of take issue with how they've decided to use NCAA Tournament units to determine how much each school/conference's share of the settlement payments they'll have to make, but...whatever.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ncaa-and-student-athletes-settle-major-8275539/

The other concern that i have is that they are trying to put a cap on what players can earn without bargaining for one, and they're hoping congress will give them an antitrust exception which would protect them from future litigation.

What are the chances that congress actually gives them an exemption?? I'd say that it's greater than zero, but most lawyers that I'm friends with say there is virtually no chance of this ever happening. No other industry has an exemption like the one they're asking for.

Selfishly, I think it would be a lot easier if congress just gave it to them. They want to set on the players without bargaining for one, and they want congress to give them an antitrust exception that would allow them to do this. But, I don't see that happening. Does ANYONE think they'll actually get it?? I'm not asking whether or not you WANT this to happen, but whether or not you think it actually WILL.

The NCAA has been in perpetual litigation for the last ten years, and they've gotten their asses handed to them the whole time. Ever since the O'Bannon Case, they've continued to dig in and say they had no rights to NIL (and lost), and say that they weren't employees and that schools can't pay them directly (and lost twice), and even after all that they're now trying to set a cap without bargaining for one. Won't they lose AGAIN!!??

How about the NCAA at least gets a few things straight with what are now the employees. I think this can all be agreed to...

-A limit on the number of seasons a player can play (four or five. I don't really care which).

-That a player must be in good academic standing in order to be eligible to compete. Maybe keep the same academic eligiblity rules that are in place now, but if not then at least agree on what they should be.

-That a player must actually be a student at the school in order to compete (kind of the same thing as the one above).

-Roster limits

-Transfer Rules, to at least say they cannot transfer in the middle of a season and play for another school that same year. Maybe expand this to go back to the one-time transfer exception rule, but in doing so continuing to have the portal in place and not bringing back permission to contact.

I mean...Congress just MIGHT say no!! It is one of two possible outcomes. Perhaps it is the most likely outcome. And, what's to stop players from continuing to take this into court? What's to stop them from suing when they've been declared ineligible? What's to stop another lawsuit saying that the number of seasons they can play shouldn't be limited? What's to stop them from suing and saying they never agreed to the cap??

Again, what are the LEGAL answers to those questions?? And, isn't the reason the NCAA is where it is now is because they weren't asking themselves that very thing?? What is the LEGAL rationale for making/having the rules that we do?? Their legal defense for the last ten years seems to have been nothing more than "Well, that's just how we wanted it!!" And, as best I can tell, that's their entire legal rationale for wanting an antitrust exemption from congress. I don't think it'll work.

[MHettel]

So the House Case settlement has been accepted. I kind of take issue with how they've decided to use NCAA Tournament units to determine how much each school/conference's share of the settlement payments they'll have to make, but...whatever.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ncaa-and-student-athletes-settle-major-8275539/

The other concern that i have is that they are trying to put a cap on what players can earn without bargaining for one, and they're hoping congress will give them an antitrust exception which would protect them from future litigation.

What are the chances that congress actually gives them an exemption?? I'd say that it's greater than zero, but most lawyers that I'm friends with say there is virtually no chance of this ever happening. No other industry has an exemption like the one they're asking for.

Selfishly, I think it would be a lot easier if congress just gave it to them. They want to set on the players without bargaining for one, and they want congress to give them an antitrust exception that would allow them to do this. But, I don't see that happening. Does ANYONE think they'll actually get it?? I'm not asking whether or not you WANT this to happen, but whether or not you think it actually WILL.

The NCAA has been in perpetual litigation for the last ten years, and they've gotten their asses handed to them the whole time. Ever since the O'Bannon Case, they've continued to dig in and say they had no rights to NIL (and lost), and say that they weren't employees and that schools can't pay them directly (and lost twice), and even after all that they're now trying to set a cap without bargaining for one. Won't they lose AGAIN!!??

How about the NCAA at least gets a few things straight with what are now the employees. I think this can all be agreed to...

-A limit on the number of seasons a player can play (four or five. I don't really care which).

-That a player must be in good academic standing in order to be eligible to compete. Maybe keep the same academic eligiblity rules that are in place now, but if not then at least agree on what they should be.

-That a player must actually be a student at the school in order to compete (kind of the same thing as the one above).

-Roster limits

-Transfer Rules, to at least say they cannot transfer in the middle of a season and play for another school that same year. Maybe expand this to go back to the one-time transfer exception rule, but in doing so continuing to have the portal in place and not bringing back permission to contact.

I mean...Congress just MIGHT say no!! It is one of two possible outcomes. Perhaps it is the most likely outcome. And, what's to stop players from continuing to take this into court? What's to stop them from suing when they've been declared ineligible? What's to stop another lawsuit saying that the number of seasons they can play shouldn't be limited? What's to stop them from suing and saying they never agreed to the cap??

Again, what are the LEGAL answers to those questions?? And, isn't the reason the NCAA is where it is now is because they weren't asking themselves that very thing?? What is the LEGAL rationale for making/having the rules that we do?? Their legal defense for the last ten years seems to have been nothing more than "Well, that's just how we wanted it!!" And, as best I can tell, that's their entire legal rationale for wanting an antitrust exemption from congress. I don't think it'll work.

Its a fucking screw job. Most of this "back pay" is going to end up going to football players. Why would they use basketball units for that? In fact, why use ANY unit that isnt just the number of fucking people you need to back pay.

"The amount we need to pay each kid is X. There are XYZ number of total kids. the NCAA is chipping is X Billion. Thats XYZ per kid from the NCAA. Schools, you know how many people you need to pay that went to your school....now figure it out"

No surprise though. The FB schools obviously would favor this approach. And they had ALOT of votes.

[xubrew]

Its a fucking screw job. Most of this "back pay" is going to end up going to football players. Why would they use basketball units for that? In fact, why use ANY unit that isnt just the number of fucking people you need to back pay.

"The amount we need to pay each kid is X. There are XYZ number of total kids. the NCAA is chipping is X Billion. Thats XYZ per kid from the NCAA. Schools, you know how many people you need to pay that went to your school....now figure it out"

No surprise though. The FB schools obviously would favor this approach. And they had ALOT of votes.

They had all of them.

[xukeith]

I am learning a lot from these posts guys. Thanks.

What was so awful about having transfer rules in NCAA sports?
Are there not eligibilty rules the NCAA can stand by?

Are there a number of hours an athlete can practice and still collect a full paycheck?
Is everything determined by the NIL free market?

I read somewhere Val and the BE are barking because of this payout or something to the football schools.

Anyone care to shed some light on that for me?

[XUGRAD80]

I am learning a lot from these posts guys. Thanks.

What was so awful about having transfer rules in NCAA sports?
Are there not eligibilty rules the NCAA can stand by?

Are there a number of hours an athlete can practice and still collect a full paycheck?
Is everything determined by the NIL free market?

I read somewhere Val and the BE are barking because of this payout or something to the football schools.

Anyone care to shed some light on that for me?

Basically it comes down to this…….

All of this NIL stuff started because the NCAA was using the name, image, and likeness of FOOTBALL players to generate money for the organization. Some players and former players didn’t like that they weren’t getting a cut of that money and sued the NCAA. The courts agreed that they should be getting a cut. Now some former players have sued saying that they are owed money for the years that the NCAA was collecting money off of their N-I-L. The NCAA knows that they are going to lose that lawsuit too and has agreed to an out of court settlement that goes over a billion dollars. The NCAA doesn’t have that much money and wants its member schools to make up the difference. ALL of its member schools, not just the schools in the power football conferences. However the D2, D3, lower level D1 schools, and non-football schools are all crying foul. They believe they are being asked to pay proportionally more than the real football powers that really caused the problems and benefited most from the old system. They don’t see how that is fair. (Neither do I)

I predict that those entities will end up suing the NCAA too, in an effort to get their share of the settlement payout to be eliminated or at least reduced. I also predict that they will be ultimately successful and that the NCAA will eventually declare bankruptcy.

[muskiefan82]

I predict that those entities will end up suing the NCAA too, in an effort to get their share of the settlement payout to be eliminated or at least reduced. I also predict that they will be ultimately successful and that the NCAA will eventually declare bankruptcy.

I think I might be okay if that happened

[xukeith]

I think I might be okay if that happened

So if NCAA declares bankruptcy then what are the pros vs cons of that bankruptcy happening?


Then what might be a likely scenario?

[xubrew]

I am learning a lot from these posts guys. Thanks.

What was so awful about having transfer rules in NCAA sports?
Are there not eligibilty rules the NCAA can stand by?

Are there a number of hours an athlete can practice and still collect a full paycheck?
Is everything determined by the NIL free market?

I read somewhere Val and the BE are barking because of this payout or something to the football schools.

Anyone care to shed some light on that for me?

I'll try and keep this concise...

So up until 2015 all student-athletes in all three divisions basically signed a document as part of their eligibility that they could not profit from their name, image, and likeness while being a student athlete, and that the NCAA had the rights to that "in perpetuity." Then we started coming out with these video games, and then we had the O'Bannon Case. To me, that's when the first cracks in the dam were made. He sued, the courts ruled in his favor (as I think they should have), and that's what created the first legal precedence of the NCAA not being able to control someone else's NIL. But...they initially continued to do so anyway, and this of course created more litigation, and we've had constant litigation ever since, and the NCAA has seemingly come out on the losing end every single time.

When you ask what was so "awful" about having transfer rules in NCAA sports? I'm not sure what context you're talking about. I personally didn't think the rules were all that awful in and of themselves, but I absolutely think it worked against the NCAA when it came to litigation. They tried to claim that these weren't employees, but "student-athletes." And the ultimate rebuttal to this was "Well, if that's the case, then what other students are prevented from transferring freely? You' say they're students, yet you deny them the rights that other students have!" The NCAA had no answer, and I guess listened to their lawyers, and have been walking back the transfer rules ever since (there are other reasons as well, but this is perhaps the biggest one) to the point to where now there really aren't any rules anymore.

Are there eligiblity rules that the NCAA can stand by?? I really don't know. That is a GREAT question! Could the current eligibility rules be in violation of antitrust laws? If a player is declared to be ineligible and can't "work" because of it, and sues because they themselves were never represented when it came to negotiating these rules, then what would the courts say?? I hope the NCAA is asking themselves this question!! But, I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt that they are. They are far more reactive than proactive, and sometimes they're even far too slow to be reactive in time.

Is everything determined by the NIL free market or the free market in general? As I understand the basics of antitrust law, that is the law. It has to be. Any sort of limits or caps must be collectively bargained, and the players (or someone representing their interests) must be involved. This has never happened. And, from a legal standpoint, that's why the NCAA is now having to pay out close to $2.8 billion in damages.

[xubrew]

I'm not smart enough to know how to paste this image, but I do distinctly remember one of the NCAA's most ridiculous moments in the courtroom. They were basically trying to argue that this was not Tim Tebow, and that they were not using his name, image, or likeness for the video game. It wasn't this EXACT image, but the image that was being used looked even more like him than this one did.

I mean....


https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2010/04/TEBOW.jpg

[paulxu]

https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2010/04/TEBOW.jpg

[xubrew]

thank you!

[MHettel]

I'll try and keep this concise...

They tried to claim that these weren't employees, but "student-athletes." And the ultimate rebuttal to this was "Well, if that's the case, then what other students are prevented from transferring freely? You' say they're students, yet you deny them the rights that other students have!"



This is the asinine part. They never said that a Student Athlete couldn't transfer freely, like a "regular" student. They could transfer if they wanted, but would have to sit out a year. "Regular students" that dont play sports would also not be playing a sport the year after transferring.

I dont know why they couldnt peel this apart. 1) All student can transfer, period. Whether you are a "regular" student or a "student athlete." 2) for student athletes, if you transfer you sit out a year. IT IS IRRELEVANT for "regular student."

You arent actually treating them differently. To the extent that they are the "same" (both are students), they receive the same treatment (ability to transfer). To the extent they are different (one student is an athlete and the other is not) there are additional conditional requirements.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

[D-West & PO-Z]

This is the asinine part. They never said that a Student Athlete couldn't transfer freely, like a "regular" student. They could transfer if they wanted, but would have to sit out a year. "Regular students" that dont play sports would also not be playing a sport the year after transferring.

I dont know why they couldnt peel this apart. 1) All student can transfer, period. Whether you are a "regular" student or a "student athlete." 2) for student athletes, if you transfer you sit out a year. IT IS IRRELEVANT for "regular student."

You arent actually treating them differently. To the extent that they are the "same" (both are students), they receive the same treatment (ability to transfer). To the extent they are different (one student is an athlete and the other is not) there are additional conditional requirements.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

Yeah except it didn't apply to all athletes in all college sports. Most D1 athletes were allowed to transfer without having to sit a year. It was only mens and womens basketball, football, baseball, and men's ice hockey which the rule applied to.

Now why would that be?

[blueblood]

You arent actually treating them differently. To the extent that they are the "same" (both are students), they receive the same treatment (ability to transfer). To the extent they are different (one student is an athlete and the other is not) there are additional conditional requirements.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

Different athletes were treated differently. Until recently I thought the one year of sitting out only applied to "major sports" (i.e. basketball and football) athletes and that "minor sports" athletes were eligible to transfer and play right away without sitting out.

Of course the reason for that is one set of athletes had significant economic value to the university and NCAA . . . and the other athletes they didn't care because the economic value was insignificant.

[xubrew]

This is the asinine part. They never said that a Student Athlete couldn't transfer freely, like a "regular" student. They could transfer if they wanted, but would have to sit out a year. "Regular students" that dont play sports would also not be playing a sport the year after transferring.

I dont know why they couldnt peel this apart. 1) All student can transfer, period. Whether you are a "regular" student or a "student athlete." 2) for student athletes, if you transfer you sit out a year. IT IS IRRELEVANT for "regular student."

You arent actually treating them differently. To the extent that they are the "same" (both are students), they receive the same treatment (ability to transfer). To the extent they are different (one student is an athlete and the other is not) there are additional conditional requirements.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

Understand that what I'm about to say is what I understand the legal assessment/advice to be and not my own personal take...

Once the NLRB ruled that student-athletes fit the legal definition of an employee, which I think was they take direction, and they perform work that benefits those they are taking direction from, the transfer rules at the time were considered to be (another) potential violation of antitrust law because it unfairly limited their ability to work. Remember that initially the whole permission to contact was still in place.

Now, I think the other piece to this is they just got sick of dealing with it. It sounds like I'm joking, but I really do believe that one of the reasons we have the portal today is because compliance officers just got sick of all the paperwork and tedium that came with permission to contact. So, they just chucked it all and said anyone can go into the portal and once they're in there any school that wants to can contact them. Done and done. But, the other part to that is that there was a potential legal issue with preventing players from transferring to where they wanted to and playing where they wanted to, and they just decided they didn't want to litigate that. So...they junked it all.

[xubrew]

To more concisely sum it up...

The NCAA's position was that college sports were a part of the overall educational experience. These aren't employees! They're students! And all this coaching and competition is educational!

The opposition said "Well, then why do you have these transfer rules? If this is all educational, then why can't they transfer freely like they can in all other educational ventures?"

And as more and more litigation played out, the courts decided players were entitled to their own NIL, and the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws, and the players were/are employees, and the players who had been denied access to the free market are now entitled to $2.8 in damages. And who knows if/when all this litigation going to stop?? And what will college sports look like when it finally does??

[paulxu]

I bet if I looked up "clusterfr$ck" in the dictionary, this would be the number 1 example.

[xubrew]

I bet if I looked up "clusterfr$ck" in the dictionary, this would be the number 1 example.

Probably so.

I wonder how different things would have been had the NCAA not been so set on dying on this hill at the time of the O'Bannon Case. I remember at about that time the proposal of a $5000 stipend for all D1 student-athletes. Schools would have had the option of paying that out on top of the scholarship if they chose to. It wasn't just voted down, it was ATOM-BOMBED down!!

But...what if it hadn't been??

What if the NCAA and its D1 members said "You know what? We'll green light the cost of living stipend (which they ventually did, but only because of the P5), and we'll greenlight a stipend of up to $5000 a year in addition to the scholarship, and we'll allow for players to make up to an additional $5000 a year off their NIL. And, we will work this out with SAAC and their leaders and finalize it."

Would the NCAA have ended up losing so much control had they done that? Would the fustercluck be anywhere near as big as it has ultimately become (and is still getting bigger)?? I was in favor of it because I thought it was fair, but if I'm being honest the biggest reason I was in favor of it was because you could see how this was all going to fall apart. Once the perpetual litigation started, it was all over. The NCAA didn't want this. If it was up to them none of htis would have been implemented. It was the courts that forced it all. Maybe if they'd have been willing to implement the stipends and NILs ten years ago at the time of the O'Bannon Case, none of this would have landed in the courts at all. Maybe college sports would still feel the way they did in 2012. But, they didn't, and it sure as hell doesn't feel the same.

...and that is ultimately my biggest grievance to air. It didn't have to be this way.

[Xville]

I’m of the opinion that if you gave them a stipend, at some point that wouldn’t have been enough either. This is where we were always going to end up. It was inevitable due to the money that has and is flowing thru college sports. I do think tv revenues at some point are either going to plateau or decrease, except for the nfl. I think it’s a bubble that’s going to burst at some point.

[xudash]

Probably so.

I wonder how different things would have been had the NCAA not been so set on dying on this hill at the time of the O'Bannon Case. I remember at about that time the proposal of a $5000 stipend for all D1 student-athletes. Schools would have had the option of paying that out on top of the scholarship if they chose to. It wasn't just voted down, it was ATOM-BOMBED down!!

But...what if it hadn't been??

What if the NCAA and its D1 members said "You know what? We'll green light the cost of living stipend (which they ventually did, but only because of the P5), and we'll greenlight a stipend of up to $5000 a year in addition to the scholarship, and we'll allow for players to make up to an additional $5000 a year off their NIL. And, we will work this out with SAAC and their leaders and finalize it."

Would the NCAA have ended up losing so much control had they done that? Would the fustercluck be anywhere near as big as it has ultimately become (and is still getting bigger)?? I was in favor of it because I thought it was fair, but if I'm being honest the biggest reason I was in favor of it was because you could see how this was all going to fall apart. Once the perpetual litigation started, it was all over. The NCAA didn't want this. If it was up to them none of htis would have been implemented. It was the courts that forced it all. Maybe if they'd have been willing to implement the stipends and NILs ten years ago at the time of the O'Bannon Case, none of this would have landed in the courts at all. Maybe college sports would still feel the way they did in 2012. But, they didn't, and it sure as hell doesn't feel the same.

...and that is ultimately my biggest grievance to air. It didn't have to be this way.

IMHO, the answer to both questions is "YES!" The amount of money involved would almost certainly send attorneys and agents back to the well in search of more money for the athletes (and them).

This is a fascinating mess, but it doesn't mean that Xavier cannot or will not find a way through it. I will say the notion of basing damage amounts on NCAAT Units is laughable, but he who holds most, if not all the power laughs last.

[xubrew]

I’m of the opinion that if you gave them a stipend, at some point that wouldn’t have been enough either. This is where we were always going to end up. It was inevitable due to the money that has and is flowing thru college sports. I do think tv revenues at some point are either going to plateau or decrease, except for the nfl. I think it’s a bubble that’s going to burst at some point.

You may be right. In fact, you probably are. A stipend and NIL earnings may have bought them some time, but it would have probably eventually come to what it came to.

So...what now??

I'm of the opinion that they need to go back to the Alston Case, look at the Supreme Court's Decision, look at what Brett Kavenaugh said, and take their advice/direction. Meet with the D1 SAAC Roster, agree on some of the rules in regards to eligibility, roster size, season limits, academic eligibility, and...oh yes...HOW THE PLAYERS WILL BE PAID, and come to an agreement! They've GOT to protect themselves from future litigation, and until they do this I think they will keep getting taken to court. The House Case is not the end.

So, what will probably actually happen is that htey'll have their summer meetings, and in those meetings discuss how they are optimistic about getting an antitrust exemption from Congress. They will be banking 100% on this and will make no plans whatsoever for any sort or safeguards if it doesn't happen, and pretty soon they'll be back in court again for another multi-billion dollar lawsuit and will be just as vulnerable as they are now because they'll still be in violation of antitrust laws.

[MHettel]

What are they gonna do with the marching Band? Or the Cheerleaders? Seriously? What can you point to about a football player that also doesnt apply to a flute player (insert joke here).

[xubrew]

What are they gonna do with the marching Band? Or the Cheerleaders? Seriously? What can you point to about a football player that also doesnt apply to a flute player (insert joke here).

Well, those aren’t NCAA sports and aren’t under any sort of NCAA governance at all, so why do anything? Cheerleaders have always been allowed to work on campus as student workers and even have jobs in the athletic department, and a lot of schools pay their bands to play at football and basketball games. For years that was a major contention from the players. Why does the band get paid and not us?

[Xville]

Well, those aren’t NCAA sports and aren’t under any sort of NCAA governance at all, so why do anything? Cheerleaders have always been allowed to work on campus as student workers and even have jobs in the athletic department, and a lot of schools pay their bands to play at football and basketball games. For years that was a major contention from the players. Why does the band get paid and not us?

Hmm is that the case at all schools? Could be completely wrong here but I thought that at Kentucky for instance the cheerleaders are on scholarship. Is that not thru the ncaa?

[paulxu]

Hmm is that the case at all schools? Could be completely wrong here but I thought that at Kentucky for instance the cheerleaders are on scholarship. Is that not thru the ncaa?

That's why the SEC is the #1 conference, and gets all the best cheerleaders. :lol:

[X-band '01]

Well, those aren’t NCAA sports and aren’t under any sort of NCAA governance at all, so why do anything? Cheerleaders have always been allowed to work on campus as student workers and even have jobs in the athletic department, and a lot of schools pay their bands to play at football and basketball games. For years that was a major contention from the players. Why does the band get paid and not us?

I played purely for the love of the game.

[Xville]

That's why the SEC is the #1 conference, and gets all the best cheerleaders. :lol:

The best looking girl cheerleaders that’s for sure… other than maybe Oregon where every girl looks like an instagram model.

[xubrew]

Hmm is that the case at all schools? Could be completely wrong here but I thought that at Kentucky for instance the cheerleaders are on scholarship. Is that not thru the ncaa?

The cheerleaders at a lot of schools are on scholarships, but they are not under the umbrella of the NCAA. USA Cheer is one of the governing bodies for competitive cheerleading. I think there is another one as well, but I don’t know what it’s called. They have their own rules and do their own thing and USA Cheer does not have any rules against them getting paid. I don’t think they even have any eligibility rules at all other than being enrolled at a school.

Rugby and boxing aren’t NCAA sports either. But there are schools that have both teams and while most don’t offer scholarships in those sports, a few do.

[Xville]

The cheerleaders at a lot of schools are on scholarships, but they are not under the umbrella of the NCAA. USA Cheer is one of the governing bodies for competitive cheerleading. I think there is another one as well, but I don’t know what it’s called. They have their own rules and do their own thing and USA Cheer does not have any rules against them getting paid. I don’t think they even have any eligibility rules at all other than being enrolled at a school.

Rugby and boxing aren’t NCAA sports either. But there are schools that have both teams and while most don’t offer scholarships in those sports, a few do.

Gotcha thanks!

[webxu]

The best looking girl cheerleaders that’s for sure… other than maybe Oregon where every girl looks like an instagram model.

I think UCLA and USC may have something to say on this debate.. i am happy to dive into the data for the sake of research for us on the topic. :lol:

[Xville]

I think UCLA and USC may have something to say on this debate.. i am happy to dive into the data for the sake of research for us on the topic. :lol:

Some fine points there...one thing that the Big ten has certainly improved the quality of their cheerleaders with these additions...a little bit better than what the middle of ohio and michigan spits out lol.

[xubrew]

I played purely for the love of the game.

You just go above and beyond!!!

The last two schools I've been at have paid their bands to play during the games. I mean, they don't get paid a ton, but they at least got something. And of course the players knew this, and I could always kinda see it from their point of view in the pre NIL/COL days. 'The BAND gets paid!! And we don't!!??'

[XUGRAD80]

You just go above and beyond!!!

The last two schools I've been at have paid their bands to play during the games. I mean, they don't get paid a ton, but they at least got something. And of course the players knew this, and I could always kinda see it from their point of view in the pre NIL/COL days. 'The BAND gets paid!! And we don't!!??'

At my high school the Band Director figured that the Friday nights were there for a band concert and couldn’t figure out what was happening before and after the concert.

[Xville]

Average Forward, Coleman Hawkins, reportedly wants 2 million a year. The dude averaged 12 and 6 at Illinois. I will say though his 3pt % shot up dramatically this past year so of course that's valuable. It just shocks me people really want to pay that kind of money for a guy who would have either gone 2nd round or not drafted in a historically bad draft year.

[xubrew]

Average Forward, Coleman Hawkins, reportedly wants 2 million a year. The dude averaged 12 and 6 at Illinois. I will say though his 3pt % shot up dramatically this past year so of course that's valuable. It just shocks me people really want to pay that kind of money for a guy who would have either gone 2nd round or not drafted in a historically bad draft year.

He wants it. That doesn't mean he'll get it.

I believe there are two major recurring incidents that need to be addressed when it comes to NIL, and they are kind of both related.

-Players being made to believe they will receive a certain amount of money and then not receiving it

-Players who do receive money, but then back out of whatever work or commitment they were supposed to do in order to receive it.

There is no accountability on either side. Nothing is binding. If a school says they'll get a player a certain amount of cash and then doesn't deliver, what is the player supposed to do about it?? And, the NCAA's opinion on all this is to say "NIL is just that. It's got nothing to do with us. That's on them." And, I don't think they are ENTIRELY wrong, but I also feel that the equitable thing to do is to try and at least provide some advice or guidance, or at the very least have some sort of discussion about it.

[JTG]

He wants it. That doesn't mean he'll get it.

I believe there are two major recurring incidents that need to be addressed when it comes to NIL, and they are kind of both related.

-Players being made to believe they will receive a certain amount of money and then not receiving it

-Players who do receive money, but then back out of whatever work or commitment they were supposed to do in order to receive it.

There is no accountability on either side. Nothing is binding. If a school says they'll get a player a certain amount of cash and then doesn't deliver, what is the player supposed to do about it?? And, the NCAA's opinion on all this is to say "NIL is just that. It's got nothing to do with us. That's on them." And, I don't think they are ENTIRELY wrong, but I also feel that the equitable thing to do is to try and at least provide some advice or guidance, or at the very least have some sort of discussion about it.

The NCAA is not entirely wrong, they're not At All Wrong. These greedy kids weren't satisfied with free education, free clothing, free medical , free food, and travel all over the continent. They wanted this wild west system, so Welcome to the real world boys and girls

[Blue Blooded-05]

I think UCLA and USC may have something to say on this debate.. i am happy to dive into the data for the sake of research for us on the topic. :lol:

Hahaha I remember when we played UCLA in the E8 and their cheerleaders were wearing those jersey dresses. They don’t grow em like that in Norwood.

[D-West & PO-Z]

The NCAA is not entirely wrong, they're not At All Wrong. These greedy kids weren't satisfied with free education, free clothing, free medical , free food, and travel all over the continent. They wanted this wild west system, so Welcome to the real world boys and girls

Not even the NCAA thinks they weren't at all wrong, lmao.

[Xuperman]

I have to agree 100% with this. I don’t begrudge the players some freedom or compensation, but the result is a product I care much less about. Some reasonable restraints need to be found, or I’ll just stop caring.

Yep, the gung ho Pro NIL posters here....at the beginning.... are seeing how wrong they were. (One guy in particular).

This only happened because the the Universities were raking in millions on the backs of their poor FREE scholarship athletes.....with some more than obvious corruption on the side.

It's not a perfect idea, but how about returning back to free education to play a kids game. VERY finely audited profits from said games go to Athletic Department expenses/facility upkeep and maintenance staff. All the rest goes to the needs of the remaining student body.

College sports are going to be unrecognizable before any reform like that....the stinking Lawyers wouldn't stand for it anyway.

[Xville]

The funny part about this is regarding the Coleman Hawkins amount I was talking about. So far this year, the guy has barely been above replacement level, and just recently he whined to the media that people were being mean to him. Poor baby.

I don’t think anyone has been wrong about nil. Kids should have always been getting paid, whether you believe that or not, from a legal standpoint it’s 100% true. IMO a lot of people made a lot of money off kids that never saw a dime except the ones that were being paid under the table. Had the ncaa not been as pompous as some posters here, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Blame them, they are the problem. They honestly believed no one was going to end up suing them. none of this would have happened had they not been so blind. Again, Blame the ncaa, not college athletes like O’Bannon. All they had to say was yes, go ahead and make some money off your name, image and likeness. And oh Heres a portion of the revenue that we have been making off things like video games while giving you nothing. But now they were greedy bastards. They could have built an infrastructure with guard rails, instead they buried their heads in the sand and things are worse off because then everything became wide open.

[Xavier]

I really don’t think the NIL is the main issue with college sports being different. In fact CBB is as enjoyable as it’s ever been (for me). The longer talented players stay to play in college the better the product becomes. Much better the best of the non NBA talent stays here to play than go to Europe early. At least IMO.

I think sitting out a year to transfer would fix a lot of the turnover rosters. That’s really where the majority of the issues come from. You can still get paid while sitting out a year but certainly makes you think twice about leaving. For the fans that can’t stand the turnover, this helps. I think you’d find quickly that that’s the main issue, you wouldn’t really care about NIL if the roster stayed the same for most part.

[Xville]

I really don’t think the NIL is the main issue with college sports being different. In fact CBB is as enjoyable as it’s ever been (for me). The longer talented players stay to play in college the better the product becomes. Much better the best of the non NBA talent stays here to play than go to Europe early. At least IMO.

I think sitting out a year to transfer would fix a lot of the turnover rosters. That’s really where the majority of the issues come from. You can still get paid while sitting out a year but certainly makes you think twice about leaving. For the fans that can’t stand the turnover, this helps. I think you’d find quickly that that’s the main issue, you wouldn’t really care about NIL if the roster stayed the same for most part.

Yeah I agree. The portal is really what needs to be fixed, or at least regulated a bit.

[xubrew]

Yeah I agree. The portal is really what needs to be fixed, or at least regulated a bit.

You’re not wrong. But here’s the problem. They lost this lawsuit and were basically forced to eliminate all transfer rules and restrictions. I don’t know how they can implement any new ones without the courts declaring it to be illegal….

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39345168/dept-justice-joins-states-suit-ncaa-transfer-rules

[MHettel]

You’re not wrong. But here’s the problem. They lost this lawsuit and were basically forced to eliminate all transfer rules and restrictions. I don’t know how they can implement any new ones without the courts declaring it to be illegal….

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39345168/dept-justice-joins-states-suit-ncaa-transfer-rules

Nobody is doubting the reality of the situation.

But some of us were able to accurately predict what would occur, while others just stuck their heads in the sand and denied the inevitable. I’d like to rehash those discussions.

Not only has this played out as I expected, it’s actually been FASTER than I could have imagined.

Who was it that took the position that “ yeah, things will pretty much be the same”?

[Xville]

Nobody is doubting the reality of the situation.

But some of us were able to accurately predict what would occur, while others just stuck their heads in the sand and denied the inevitable. I’d like to rehash those discussions.

Not only has this played out as I expected, it’s actually been FASTER than I could have imagined.

Who was it that took the position that “ yeah, things will pretty much be the same”?

You also said that the traditional powers would just use nil to win all the games and the have nots would be completely left behind. That hasn’t played out the way you said it would. If anything, there is more competitive balance.

The thing that has changed is that now most teams are now playing players instead of a certain number. The competitive edge that teams like Duke, Kansas, North Carolina and the rest of the blue bloods is mostly gone. Ya think the number one recruit in the country would have ever gone to byu or the #2,3 guys would have ended up at Rutgers of all places?

Yeah there some bad to this, but there is a lot of good as well. And from all indications with you posting just as much as before, it hasn’t changed your habits of digesting college basketball

[Xuperman]

You’re not wrong. But here’s the problem. They lost this lawsuit and were basically forced to eliminate all transfer rules and restrictions. I don’t know how they can implement any new ones without the courts declaring it to be illegal….

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39345168/dept-justice-joins-states-suit-ncaa-transfer-rules

Agents and contracts.

[MHettel]

You also said that the traditional powers would just use nil to win all the games and the have nots would be completely left behind. That hasn’t played out the way you said it would. If anything, there is more competitive balance.

The thing that has changed is that now most teams are now playing players instead of a certain number. The competitive edge that teams like Duke, Kansas, North Carolina and the rest of the blue bloods is mostly gone. Ya think the number one recruit in the country would have ever gone to byu or the #2,3 guys would have ended up at Rutgers of all places?

Yeah there some bad to this, but there is a lot of good as well. And from all indications with you posting just as much as before, it hasn’t changed your habits of digesting college basketball

You’re always game for an argument. Notice I didnt say debate.

Money has become the trump card in college sports. All due to NIL and Portal. And all was foreseeable and is manifesting.

Suggesting that each passing year there hasn’t been an increasing concentration of talent accumulated by an ever shrinking pool of teams with elite resources is just choosing to look away.

I said it would happens. It’s happening. You look right at it and decide you don’t see it.

Ok, I guess.

[Xavier]

You said the blue bloods would dominate. (As if they hadn’t all along? lol) Then FAU went to final four and SDST went to NC. You said blue bloods would kill successful mid majors. Then FAU didn’t lose anyone to NIL transfer portal after going to the final four. Whoops. I asked before, to no answer, how often pre NIL did final four have two mid major programs in it. Guessing quite a bit? Honestly don’t know the answer.

NC State hadn’t been to the final four in over 40 years. No chance a team like that can get to a F4 in the NIL era……wait. But that’s rare. Purdue hasn’t been in 44 years. How can they compete with blue bloods in this era? Welp. My guess is NC State, Purdue, FAU, and SDST are just spending more than everyone.

Yeah but blue bloods will dominate the top recruits, just as they did before. Traditional blue bloods Rutgers and BYU are snagging top recruits like they always have.

[xubrew]

Nobody is doubting the reality of the situation.

But some of us were able to accurately predict what would occur, while others just stuck their heads in the sand and denied the inevitable. I’d like to rehash those discussions.

Not only has this played out as I expected, it’s actually been FASTER than I could have imagined.

Who was it that took the position that “ yeah, things will pretty much be the same”?

Yes, some of us did predict that the NCAA would lose complete control if their amateurism rules and transfer rules ever landed in the courts, and that was exactly what would happen if they weren’t willing to make any concessions or changes. I don’t recall you ever making that prediction. In fact I recall you taking the position that the NCAA shouldn’t make any concessions at all. What exactly did you predict? When did you ever state that the courts would basically take all of the NCAA’s power and control away if they kept refusing to make any changes to their amateurism and transfer rules?? Some of us did predict that, but I’m pretty sure you weren’t one of them. I recall you saying the NCAA shouldn’t make any changes at all even as they kept getting sued and kept losing. And yes, it all predictably fell apart very quickly, and it probably isn’t finished falling apart yet.

[MHettel]

Yes, some of us did predict that the NCAA would lose complete control if their amateurism rules and transfer rules ever landed in the courts, and that was exactly what would happen if they weren’t willing to make any concessions or changes. I don’t recall you ever making that prediction. In fact I recall you taking the position that the NCAA shouldn’t make any concessions at all. What exactly did you predict? When did you ever state that the courts would basically take all of the NCAA’s power and control away if they kept refusing to make any changes to their amateurism and transfer rules?? Some of us did predict that, but I’m pretty sure you weren’t one of them. I recall you saying the NCAA shouldn’t make any changes at all even as they kept getting sued and kept losing. And yes, it all predictably fell apart very quickly, and it probably isn’t finished falling apart yet.

I didn’t predict anything on the legal side of things. You’re the self appointed know it all when it comes to the legal issues.

I Simply accepted the reality that the NIL and portal were imminent, and THEN I articulated the immense changes that would wash over the game as a result. And I was dead on.

[xubrew]

I didn’t predict anything on the legal side of things. You’re the self appointed know it all when it comes to the legal issues.

I Simply accepted the reality that the NIL and portal were imminent, and THEN I articulated the immense changes that would wash over the game as a result. And I was dead on.

How is this even relevant to the conversation??

You responded to what was an explanation of a legal dilemma of how the NCAA really can’t regulate the portal after the courts ruled that they can’t have transfer restrictions with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Nothing that’s happening is surprising to me or any different than I thought it would be, so I don’t know why you’re trying to point out how you successfully predicted all this.

[xubrew]

You said the blue bloods would dominate. (As if they hadn’t all along? lol) Then FAU went to final four and SDST went to NC. You said blue bloods would kill successful mid majors. Then FAU didn’t lose anyone to NIL transfer portal after going to the final four. Whoops. I asked before, to no answer, how often pre NIL did final four have two mid major programs in it. Guessing quite a bit? Honestly don’t know the answer.

NC State hadn’t been to the final four in over 40 years. No chance a team like that can get to a F4 in the NIL era……wait. But that’s rare. Purdue hasn’t been in 44 years. How can they compete with blue bloods in this era? Welp. My guess is NC State, Purdue, FAU, and SDST are just spending more than everyone.

Yeah but blue bloods will dominate the top recruits, just as they did before. Traditional blue bloods Rutgers and BYU are snagging top recruits like they always have.

Last year’s Final Four consisted of two teams that had not been in over 40 years and a third team who had never been before.

The Final Four the year before that consisted of three teams who were there for the first time ever, two of which were not from power conferences.

Just like he says he predicted!!! And then felt compelled to randomly point out in response to a post about how the NCAA has a legal dilemma when it comes to trying to regulate the portal.

[Xville]

You’re always game for an argument. Notice I didnt say debate.

Money has become the trump card in college sports. All due to NIL and Portal. And all was foreseeable and is manifesting.

Suggesting that each passing year there hasn’t been an increasing concentration of talent accumulated by an ever shrinking pool of teams with elite resources is just choosing to look away.

I said it would happens. It’s happening. You look right at it and decide you don’t see it.

Ok, I guess.

Suggesting that with each passing year there has been an increasing concentration of talent accumulated by an ever shrinking pool of teams is ignoring what has occurred. Those traditional powers of Rutgers and byu just keep stockpiling talent. I hate how drake is using all those nil resources to become one of the best stories in college basketball in a long time. I could give example after example but xavier has already mentioned a few and I think everyone else knows examples as well.

And, if you do believe the opposite that all the money is going to a smaller and smaller pool, and they are going to dominate college bb and leave everyone else behind than what exactly has changed? That’s literally the way it’s always been.

Has anyone ever told you what a pompous ass you are? I mean ffs you have come on here regarding this subject numerous times and congratulated yourself about how right you think you were. Who does that?

[xubrew]

Suggesting that with each passing year there has been an increasing concentration of talent accumulated by an ever shrinking pool of teams is ignoring what has occurred. Those traditional powers of Rutgers and byu just keep stockpiling talent. I hate how drake is using all those nil resources to become one of the best stories in college basketball in a long time. I could give example after example but xavier has already mentioned a few and I think everyone else knows examples as well.

And, if you do believe the opposite that all the money is going to a smaller and smaller pool, and they are going to dominate college bb and leave everyone else behind than what exactly has changed? That’s literally the way it’s always been.

Has anyone ever told you what a pompous ass you are? I mean ffs you have come on here regarding this subject numerous times and congratulated yourself about how right you think you were. Who does that?

He’s Wallace Shawn in The Princess Bride. The evil genius that thought he knew everything but actually knew nothing.

[Xavier]

He just contradicts himself all the time and then says he’s right. Couple years ago I had him constantly running in circles as he realized he was always going against his prior argument. Was enjoyable but didn’t think it was good for the board so decided to ease up on him and give him a break.

This time he was too easy as he ignores the amount of teams reaching final 4 have never been or hadn’t in decades. Something you have to ignore when you argue the pool of teams that can compete is shrinking?

[xubrew]

He just contradicts himself all the time and then says he’s right. Couple years ago I had him constantly running in circles as he realized he was always going against his prior argument. Was enjoyable but didn’t think it was good for the board so decided to ease up on him and give him a break.

This time he was too easy as he ignores the amount of teams reaching final 4 have never been or hadn’t in decades. Something you have to ignore when you argue the pool of teams that can compete is shrinking?

Yeah that is a rather inconvenient fact when trying to argue the position he's trying to argue. He's right when he says that NIL money and opportunities drives where the top players go, but I don't recall ANYONE ever saying that would not be the case. I don't just mean anyone on this board. I mean anyone period. It's not like anyone needed Nostradamus to tell them that. It's like declaring that the temperature in June will be higher and once that happens people won't be able to build snowmen, and then taking a victory lap when it inevitably plays out. And the thing is, in the last two years there have been a lot of examples of high level players ending up at non-power programs, and teams going on deep tournament runs for the first time in four decades (or even longer).

[94GRAD]

He’s Wallace Shawn in The Princess Bride. The evil genius that thought he knew everything but actually knew nothing.

Inconceivable!

[xubrew]

Inconceivable!

That's the mental image and voice I see and hear in my head when I'm reading his posts.

[94GRAD]

That's the mental image and voice I see and hear in my head when I'm reading his posts.

I wonder if he's ever been in a land war in Asia

[murray87]

Not sure if this has been posted already:

https://www.fox19.com/2024/12/19/ohio-lawmakers-approve-nil-changes-that-allow-universities-pay-student-athletes/

[D-West & PO-Z]

You’re always game for an argument. Notice I didnt say debate.

Money has become the trump card in college sports. All due to NIL and Portal. And all was foreseeable and is manifesting.

Suggesting that each passing year there hasn’t been an increasing concentration of talent accumulated by an ever shrinking pool of teams with elite resources is just choosing to look away.

I said it would happens. It’s happening. You look right at it and decide you don’t see it.

Ok, I guess.

Laughably flat out wrong again and just choosing to scream you are right. Classic Hett.

College football has more parity than ever. As mentioned, the #2 and #3 NBA prospects for this year's draft are at Rutgers and there is another top guy at Kansas State.

[X-band '01]

Inconceivable!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[94GRAD]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Public reps since the man is keeping me down!

[xudash]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Lest we forget: … a dizzying intellect.

[A Fan]

To more concisely sum it up...

The NCAA's position was that college sports were a part of the overall educational experience. These aren't employees! They're students! And all this coaching and competition is educational!

The opposition said "Well, then why do you have these transfer rules? If this is all educational, then why can't they transfer freely like they can in all other educational ventures?"

And as more and more litigation played out, the courts decided players were entitled to their own NIL, and the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws, and the players were/are employees, and the players who had been denied access to the free market are now entitled to $2.8 in damages. And who knows if/when all this litigation going to stop?? And what will college sports look like when it finally does??



While many believe the House v. NCAA settlement will stabilize college athletics, it cannot stop the tsunami of challenges facing the system:
1. Antitrust Challenges: Players can contest the revenue-sharing caps on antitrust grounds, arguing they unfairly suppress compensation.
2. Unstoppable NIL Payments: Without federal legislation, NIL collectives will continue funneling large payments to select athletes, even as players receive a share of school revenues.
3. Unregulated Transfers: Schools cannot regulate athletes transferring every year in pursuit of bigger NIL deals, creating chaos in roster management and competitive balance.
4. Title IX Litigation: Revenue-sharing payments will likely spark Title IX lawsuits from women’s programs, citing disproportionate compensation compared to male athletes in revenue-generating sports.
5. Employee Status Fallout: If the NLRB grants student-athletes employee status, it will create an unsustainable two-tiered system of compensation, potentially rendering revenue sharing obsolete.

The instability in college athletics is far from over—it is just beginning. And in the end, you can’t impose lasting control over a system driven by money, competition, and legal challenges without sweeping, enforceable reform. Unfortunately, no politician has the desire to tackle such reform, recognizing that any action risks being seen as a restraint of trade.

[MHettel]

While many believe the House v. NCAA settlement will stabilize college athletics, it cannot stop the tsunami of challenges facing the system:
1. Antitrust Challenges: Players can contest the revenue-sharing caps on antitrust grounds, arguing they unfairly suppress compensation.
2. Unstoppable NIL Payments: Without federal legislation, NIL collectives will continue funneling large payments to select athletes, even as players receive a share of school revenues.
3. Unregulated Transfers: Schools cannot regulate athletes transferring every year in pursuit of bigger NIL deals, creating chaos in roster management and competitive balance.
4. Title IX Litigation: Revenue-sharing payments will likely spark Title IX lawsuits from women’s programs, citing disproportionate compensation compared to male athletes in revenue-generating sports.
5. Employee Status Fallout: If the NLRB grants student-athletes employee status, it will create an unsustainable two-tiered system of compensation, potentially rendering revenue sharing obsolete.

The instability in college athletics is far from over—it is just beginning. And in the end, you can’t impose lasting control over a system driven by money, competition, and legal challenges without sweeping, enforceable reform. Unfortunately, no politician has the desire to tackle such reform, recognizing that any action risks being seen as a restraint of trade.

Sweet! So chaos.

[JTG]

While many believe the House v. NCAA settlement will stabilize college athletics, it cannot stop the tsunami of challenges facing the system:
1. Antitrust Challenges: Players can contest the revenue-sharing caps on antitrust grounds, arguing they unfairly suppress compensation.
2. Unstoppable NIL Payments: Without federal legislation, NIL collectives will continue funneling large payments to select athletes, even as players receive a share of school revenues.
3. Unregulated Transfers: Schools cannot regulate athletes transferring every year in pursuit of bigger NIL deals, creating chaos in roster management and competitive balance.
4. Title IX Litigation: Revenue-sharing payments will likely spark Title IX lawsuits from women’s programs, citing disproportionate compensation compared to male athletes in revenue-generating sports.
5. Employee Status Fallout: If the NLRB grants student-athletes employee status, it will create an unsustainable two-tiered system of compensation, potentially rendering revenue sharing obsolete.

The instability in college athletics is far from over—it is just beginning. And in the end, you can’t impose lasting control over a system driven by money, competition, and legal challenges without sweeping, enforceable reform. Unfortunately, no politician has the desire to tackle such reform, recognizing that any action risks being seen as a restraint of trade.

How does college sports get to operate with no rules at all, when all of the professional sports have rules and guidelines and salary caps? Lots of idiot judges and sleazy attorneys is how.

[A Fan]

How does college sports get to operate with no rules at all, when all of the professional sports have rules and guidelines and salary caps? Lots of idiot judges and sleazy attorneys is how.


To answer your question,
Baseball: Major League Baseball (MLB) enjoys a unique antitrust exemption, established by the Supreme Court in 1922 (Federal Baseball Club v. National League), and upheld in later rulings. This exemption, which Congress has never fully revoked, essentially allows MLB to operate as a legal monopoly in ways other sports leagues cannot. It shields the league from antitrust challenges regarding things like franchise relocation, media rights, and the minor league system. This legal protection creates a framework where MLB can regulate player movement, draft systems, and revenue-sharing agreements without facing the same level of antitrust scrutiny that other industries would.

Football: The NFL, on the other hand, relies on unionization to create stability and manage challenges. The players’ union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), collectively bargains on behalf of all players. This means that issues like revenue sharing, salary caps, free agency rules, and even NIL-like endorsements are negotiated and agreed upon through a formalized labor agreement. The existence of a union gives the league an important legal shield: under U.S. labor law, collective bargaining agreements are exempt from antitrust scrutiny. This allows the NFL to impose rules that might otherwise be challenged as anti-competitive, like the draft or franchise tag system.

College sports lack either of these protections.
1. No Antitrust Exemption: Unlike MLB, the NCAA does not have an antitrust exemption. As a result, its rules—especially those regarding compensation—are vulnerable to legal challenges under federal antitrust law, as we’ve seen in cases like O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA. This leaves the NCAA constantly defending its regulations in court, with little ability to create legally durable guardrails.
2. No Unionization: College athletes aren’t currently unionized (though efforts are underway in some places), so there’s no collective bargaining agreement to serve as a framework for rules about NIL, revenue sharing, or transfers. If the NLRB eventually grants athletes employee status, unionization could change that dynamic—but it would also fundamentally alter the structure of college athletics by forcing schools to treat athletes as employees subject to labor law.

As earlier stated, The NCAA exists in a much more precarious legal and structural position. It has no overarching legal exemption or labor agreement to stabilize the system, which is why it’s struggling to adapt to the modern realities of NIL, revenue sharing, and player movement. This lack of protection leaves it far more exposed to lawsuits, and regulatory challenges.
Thus chaos will reign until unionization since there is no political will for an antitrust exemption.

[bleedXblue]

How are non revenue generating sports going to survive in the NCAA?

I see a school like X looking at volleyball, soccer, baseball etc and eventually eliminating them. They can use the cash/budget to support programs and resources that attract the best basketball players.

Its inevitable, right?

[Xuperman]

How are non revenue generating sports going to survive in the NCAA?

I see a school like X looking at volleyball, soccer, baseball etc and eventually eliminating them. They can use the cash/budget to support programs and resources that attract the best basketball players.

Its inevitable, right?

One of the big time NIL supporters here will certainly be able to answer that for you.

[Xville]

To answer your question,
Baseball: Major League Baseball (MLB) enjoys a unique antitrust exemption, established by the Supreme Court in 1922 (Federal Baseball Club v. National League), and upheld in later rulings. This exemption, which Congress has never fully revoked, essentially allows MLB to operate as a legal monopoly in ways other sports leagues cannot. It shields the league from antitrust challenges regarding things like franchise relocation, media rights, and the minor league system. This legal protection creates a framework where MLB can regulate player movement, draft systems, and revenue-sharing agreements without facing the same level of antitrust scrutiny that other industries would.

Football: The NFL, on the other hand, relies on unionization to create stability and manage challenges. The players’ union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), collectively bargains on behalf of all players. This means that issues like revenue sharing, salary caps, free agency rules, and even NIL-like endorsements are negotiated and agreed upon through a formalized labor agreement. The existence of a union gives the league an important legal shield: under U.S. labor law, collective bargaining agreements are exempt from antitrust scrutiny. This allows the NFL to impose rules that might otherwise be challenged as anti-competitive, like the draft or franchise tag system.

College sports lack either of these protections.
1. No Antitrust Exemption: Unlike MLB, the NCAA does not have an antitrust exemption. As a result, its rules—especially those regarding compensation—are vulnerable to legal challenges under federal antitrust law, as we’ve seen in cases like O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA. This leaves the NCAA constantly defending its regulations in court, with little ability to create legally durable guardrails.
2. No Unionization: College athletes aren’t currently unionized (though efforts are underway in some places), so there’s no collective bargaining agreement to serve as a framework for rules about NIL, revenue sharing, or transfers. If the NLRB eventually grants athletes employee status, unionization could change that dynamic—but it would also fundamentally alter the structure of college athletics by forcing schools to treat athletes as employees subject to labor law.

As earlier stated, The NCAA exists in a much more precarious legal and structural position. It has no overarching legal exemption or labor agreement to stabilize the system, which is why it’s struggling to adapt to the modern realities of NIL, revenue sharing, and player movement. This lack of protection leaves it far more exposed to lawsuits, and regulatory challenges.
Thus chaos will reign until unionization since there is no political will for an antitrust exemption.

Thank you this is great information and I appreciate all the insights. So as far as the easiest path forward to try and put guardrails up at least a bit, would you say that a collective bargaining agreement with the student athlete becoming employees would be the way to go?

Is there ever any chance of that happening? I guess my question is what would motivate the student athlete to do that if they are now getting everything they want?

After thinking thru it, it sounds like Congress and the NCAA getting an antitrust exemption would be the only way to go? Is that right?

[bleedXblue]

One of the big time NIL supporters here will certainly be able to answer that for you.

I'm sure that a shift of sorts is inevitable..........

Big donors to the traditional Xavier alumni programs will take part of that and send it over to the NIL funds.........how much is anyone's guess.

Im sure X needs the $$$ for all sorts of things but basketball is critical to almost everything that X does.

[Xuperman]

Is it possible that at some point, the 2 big college sports have teams "representing" the University with no academic requirement attached to the players?

[Final4]

To answer your question,
Baseball: Major League Baseball (MLB) enjoys a unique antitrust exemption, established by the Supreme Court in 1922 (Federal Baseball Club v. National League), and upheld in later rulings. This exemption, which Congress has never fully revoked, essentially allows MLB to operate as a legal monopoly in ways other sports leagues cannot. It shields the league from antitrust challenges regarding things like franchise relocation, media rights, and the minor league system. This legal protection creates a framework where MLB can regulate player movement, draft systems, and revenue-sharing agreements without facing the same level of antitrust scrutiny that other industries would.

Football: The NFL, on the other hand, relies on unionization to create stability and manage challenges. The players’ union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), collectively bargains on behalf of all players. This means that issues like revenue sharing, salary caps, free agency rules, and even NIL-like endorsements are negotiated and agreed upon through a formalized labor agreement. The existence of a union gives the league an important legal shield: under U.S. labor law, collective bargaining agreements are exempt from antitrust scrutiny. This allows the NFL to impose rules that might otherwise be challenged as anti-competitive, like the draft or franchise tag system.

College sports lack either of these protections.
1. No Antitrust Exemption: Unlike MLB, the NCAA does not have an antitrust exemption. As a result, its rules—especially those regarding compensation—are vulnerable to legal challenges under federal antitrust law, as we’ve seen in cases like O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA. This leaves the NCAA constantly defending its regulations in court, with little ability to create legally durable guardrails.
2. No Unionization: College athletes aren’t currently unionized (though efforts are underway in some places), so there’s no collective bargaining agreement to serve as a framework for rules about NIL, revenue sharing, or transfers. If the NLRB eventually grants athletes employee status, unionization could change that dynamic—but it would also fundamentally alter the structure of college athletics by forcing schools to treat athletes as employees subject to labor law.

As earlier stated, The NCAA exists in a much more precarious legal and structural position. It has no overarching legal exemption or labor agreement to stabilize the system, which is why it’s struggling to adapt to the modern realities of NIL, revenue sharing, and player movement. This lack of protection leaves it far more exposed to lawsuits, and regulatory challenges.
Thus chaos will reign until unionization since there is no political will for an antitrust exemption.

Let me ask a question. Clearly there is some component I'm missing that makes this scenario untenable. I belong to a country club. My membership is voluntary. As a member I must comply with certain rules. I have to wear a collared shirt when I play golf. I can't wear a baseball style cap in the clubhouse. My wife can't wear a string bikini at the pool (thank God that rule is in place).........and on and on.

Why can't Xavier and Butler and Georgetown and ND and UK etc voluntarily join a "club" and in doing so agree to comply with the rules that "club" has established? The "club" has rules regarding eligibility, transfers, compliance, player compensation, etc. If a athlete chooses to attend one of the member schools they do so knowing full well what the rules entail. How and why and by whom would this scenario be challenged?

[MHettel]

Let me ask a question. Clearly there is some component I'm missing that makes this scenario untenable. I belong to a country club. My membership is voluntary. As a member I must comply with certain rules. I have to wear a collared shirt when I play golf. I can't wear a baseball style cap in the clubhouse. My wife can't wear a string bikini at the pool (thank God that rule is in place).........and on and on.

Why can't Xavier and Butler and Georgetown and ND and UK etc voluntarily join a "club" and in doing so agree to comply with the rules that "club" has established? The "club" has rules regarding eligibility, transfers, compliance, player compensation, etc. If a athlete chooses to attend one of the member schools they do so knowing full well what the rules entail. How and why and by whom would this scenario be challenged?

Maybe that would work. By why would any player choose to go to one of those schools when they can choose a different school that lacks the restrictions?

[A Fan]

Let me ask a question. Clearly there is some component I'm missing that makes this scenario untenable. I belong to a country club. My membership is voluntary. As a member I must comply with certain rules. I have to wear a collared shirt when I play golf. I can't wear a baseball style cap in the clubhouse. My wife can't wear a string bikini at the pool (thank God that rule is in place).........and on and on.

Why can't Xavier and Butler and Georgetown and ND and UK etc voluntarily join a "club" and in doing so agree to comply with the rules that "club" has established? The "club" has rules regarding eligibility, transfers, compliance, player compensation, etc. If an athlete chooses to attend one of the member schools they do so knowing full well what the rules entail. How and why and by whom would this scenario be challenged?

The key difference between your “country club” analogy and college athletics lies in the restrictions on economic freedoms and the application of antitrust law. A country club doesn’t regulate how much money its members can make, nor does it prevent them from joining other clubs. In contrast, a college athletics “club” that restricts NIL opportunities or limits transfers directly interferes with the free flow of goods and services (in this case, the athletes’ labor and earning potential) and therefore risks violating antitrust laws.

The NCAA is essentially a “club” without an antitrust exemption. While it may try to create scenarios to remain relevant, without such an exemption, no system of restrictions on athlete compensation or mobility will ultimately hold up under legal scrutiny. If athletes are classified as employees and unionize, they could collectively negotiate rules with schools or conferences, avoiding antitrust violations. However, unionization comes with significant challenges, including the introduction of work rules—limiting the number of games, practice times, playing time, and other conditions of employment.

This is why, while many view the current “chaos model” as frustrating, others believe it may be the best solution available absent an antitrust exemption.

[JTG]

Is it possible that at some point, the 2 big college sports have teams "representing" the University with no academic requirement attached to the players?

You mean like Kansas or UK?

[A Fan]

You mean like Kansas or UK?

Some see a future where a coach like Sean Miller essentially operates a men’s basketball franchise under the Xavier banner. In this model, Miller could assemble a team, pay the players directly, secure free use of facilities like Cintas Center, and cover tuition for those players who want to pursue academics. Revenue would come from ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorships, and media rights, with the team representing Xavier in name only, rather than as an integrated part of the academic institution.

Leagues could easily form around this model, with schools essentially licensing their brand to independent franchises. This would remove academic requirements for players, allowing teams to focus solely on athletics while preserving the university affiliation for marketing purposes. It’s not far-fetched—professional-style leagues tied to universities could emerge as a logical evolution of the current system, especially as NIL and athlete compensation reshape the landscape.

[Xville]

Some see a future where a coach like Sean Miller essentially operates a men’s basketball franchise under the Xavier banner. In this model, Miller could assemble a team, pay the players directly, secure free use of facilities like Cintas Center, and cover tuition for those players who want to pursue academics. Revenue would come from ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorships, and media rights, with the team representing Xavier in name only, rather than as an integrated part of the academic institution.

Leagues could easily form around this model, with schools essentially licensing their brand to independent franchises. This would remove academic requirements for players, allowing teams to focus solely on athletics while preserving the university affiliation for marketing purposes. It’s not far-fetched—professional-style leagues tied to universities could emerge as a logical evolution of the current system, especially as NIL and athlete compensation reshape the landscape.

Yeah I have heard that idea and honestly if things don’t change in regards to nil/portal etc I’d be all for it. I think it’s the only logistical way of most schools being able to keep the non-revenue sports. Unless certain things change from a legislative standpoint.

[xubrew]

I hate what this is all becoming. My ultimate grievance is that the NCAA and its members could have been way more proactive a lot sooner and we wouldn’t have the mess that we have now. My next grievance is that so many of the same stupid people who neglected to act are still the ones who are making decisions now, and they’ll continue to make bad ones.

Eligibility is next on the chopping block.