re: NIL Donor Fatigue

even if regulated, it'll become the old way of doing things under the table again, so the haves will out pay\outbid\out-recruit the have-nots. but something definitely needs to be done to calm it down some.

eta: maybe if regulated, any breaking of the rules automatically qualifies you for some serious punishment, could possibly help. but big $$ donors break the rules anyway with no consequence because its their way of life.

Chaos and absolute failure are the only things that will hasten the NCAA's demise. They are truly tits on a bull.

The Superconferences are going to have to govern college football. Yes, as much as some hate change, more change is coming.

The root cause is pay for play.

That's what's so disappointing about Tennessee having success with their lawsuit to make it acceptable to pay players to attend a school.

NIL on paper is fine. It's supposed to allow successful players to parlay their name/image/likeness into endorsement or advertising dollars.

But what happened in reality is many boosters created groups to pay recruits to attend their university. That was against NCAA rules on NIL, and THAT is what creates the problem. Reading the article, that's what turns off most of the donors.

The NCAA is losing that lawsuit, which means that pay to play is legal. It's a shame as if they had been allowed to enforce the pay to play rule, it would likely have solved most of the NIL issues and the money wouldn't be required from fans. Instead it would be able to work more as intended where businesses would pay athletes on college football teams who have a degree of fame (either locally or nationally depending on the business) to endorse products and make money based on their fame.

quote:

---

Instead it would be able to work more as intended where businesses would pay athletes on college football teams who have a degree of fame (either locally or nationally depending on the business) to endorse products and make money based on their fame.

---

This is why pay-for play can’t be completely banned. Local and regional companies obviously have to tie a players likeness to a university.
The idea is to make the relationships productive where the players have some sort of ownership and responsibility within their deals. This makes them a part of something bigger than themselves and keeps them out of the portal.

quote:

---

they couldn't afford food, but all the food in the $100M athletic facility is free.

---

its the equivalent of "free internet for all" and "free phones for all" which all know is not free and should be seen as a luxury that you earn. someone is paying for it. but in America, everyone has to have the same shite as the people with money. they were never hungry, they just couldn't go out and spend money on rims and hoes, so lets add on to what they're already getting for free so they can keep up with the jones'

those paying want a return on that NIL investment, when they don't get a return they will stop investing in the college athlete
it's quite simple!

quote:

---

Unrestricted transfers actually make it less advisable to buy players if inducements to attend a school are not allowed in the contract (including "appearance" requirement that effectively make it impossible to keep the contract if you change schools).

---

The problem is that, as per NCAA guidelines, a) the contract is not allowed to specify that the money is tied to the athlete playing for any particular school, and b) the money cannot come directly from the school. And even without the NCAA stipulating these things, the schools themselves would still abide by them because as soon as a player signs a document stating that they are receiving money to play for a particular school, it becomes very difficult to defend against the notion that they are therefore an employee of that school, and the schools are very very keen on that not being the case for a variety of money-related reasons.

Look at the NFL, since that seems to be the model towards which we are heading. The league is legally allowed to operate as a monopoly because the sport simply does not work as a product if the market for talent is free. Players don't have the option to transfer at will, they are under contract, and teams are not allowed to employ players outside the league's oversight. Salaries are capped to encourage league competitiveness overall. Imagine if the market for talent was free and teams could buy any player at any time for any amount. You'd have a handful of big-market teams that would outspend everyone else, and the remainder of the league would effectively become farm teams for them. The product as a whole would suffer.

The NCAA is supposed to be that governing body for college football, but it does not have the legal sanction to operate as a monopoly, and therefore it is now being struck down by the courts when it tries to govern pay-for-play. Some entity - and at this point it is unlikely to be the NCAA - needs to begin the process of setting itself, and the teams that it oversees, up using the same model as the NFL to govern the market for talent. Declaring the players to be employees of the universities is the first step down this path. The schools may not want this but it is going to happen, and once it does I believe the rest of the pieces will start to fall into place to bring some sanity back to the system.

And just by the by, I say all of this as someone who is not much of a fan of the NFL or pro sports generally. But if the courts are going to essentially declare amateur sports to be illegal, as they have done, then there really isn't any other option than to professionalize.

Screw communist universities and the minor league NFL system they are trying to run for profit that allow the inmates to run the asylum.

quote:

---

None of this gets fixed by having schools directly pay salaries.

---

Yes it does, if those salaries are attached to contracts that require the player to play for a particular school, and players have to honor them in order to play. I'm sure there are plenty of Texas oil tycoons who would be willing to pay big money to get the Cowboys a Super Bowl, but they can't because of the way the NFL governs the talent market. Even if they were willing to pay Patrick Mahomes eleventy million dollars outside of and above his salary to come play for Dallas, it wouldn't matter. He can only play where his contract says he can. That's what college football needs.

quote:

---

I'm sure there are plenty of Texas oil tycoons who would be willing to pay big money to get the Cowboys a Super Bowl, but they can't because of the way the NFL governs the talent market.

---

Simply not true.

There's no laws or NFL rules that prevent an oil tycoon in Texas from telling every free agent the Cowboys want that if they sign for the minimum with the cowboys, they also get a 30 million dollar a year endorsement contract with their oil company. The NFL has no restrictions on endorsement contracts.

It doesn't happen because they don't care enough about the cowboys to do that. NFL fandom doesn't work that way.

But those same guys would consider doing something similar for Texas or Texas A&M (depending on where they went to school). College boosters are odd that way.

Every college player effectively is a free agent every year. Even with salaries, they all come in as free agents. A draft is never going to work legally for college football, especially since many or most would be minors. I was still 17 when I started my freshman year at UGA due to my birthday dictating when I started school, and a draft would have to happen much earlier than that.