- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The NIL mess will end with an NFL type solution
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:24 am to TheDrunkenTigah
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:24 am to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Explain to me in simple terms what motivation the players, who currently hold all of the leverage, have to unionize and collectively bargain?
1. A bigger piece of the pie, with revenue sharing being capped at 20% of average P4 revenue under the House settlement.
2. Minimum pay, considering the vast majority of FBS players aren’t making millions. Minimum pay with salary caps would hurt the highest-paid players, but could benefit the majority.
3
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:28 am to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Explain to me in simple terms what motivation the players, who currently hold all of the leverage, have to unionize and collectively bargain?
At the moment, very little. They have great marketplace. They have the freedom to negotiate ever increasing revenues without the burden of being tied into an "employment" contract.
However, the question to be posed is can the business model, long term, survive? At some point you might start to run out of other people's money OR those people get tired of committing ever increasing amounts for diminishing returns on investment. If I pay $3M for the best HS QB to attend my favorite school, only to see him not play and transfer to a competitor after 1 year, I might become a little more conservative with my money.
You also have to ask is there a point in time where the colleges decided to get out of the football business altogether? If that happens, the market crashes. Minor league football won't make anywhere close to the same amount of money as major college football...just like minor league baseball or the NBA G-league. Plus, minor league football would (presumably) be controlled by the pro league...which would bring with it concrete rules/regulations.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:28 am to lostinbr
NFL players are under contract... perhaps the future of college fb will be hs players signing scholarship "contracts" which bind them for 2-3 years rather than simple one year commitments. Crazy to think that, but it may be the future!
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:31 am to penman
For those who don't seem to know, what does the NFL do to prohibit players from profiting from their name, image, or likeness?
I'll post and watch for your reply.
I'll post and watch for your reply.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:32 am to lostinbr
quote:
A bigger piece of the pie, with revenue sharing being capped at 20% of average P4 revenue under the House settlement.
There is no restriction on individuals currently. There’s no bigger piece of the pie than infinity. The most in demand players, who provide the marketability for the sport and will at best be in the system for three years, have no reason to come to the table. If any particular collective gets tired of overpaying, there are a dozen more lined up ready to find any given player’s true market value.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:33 am to ramchallenge
I think the only way is to put back the "sit out a year" for a transfer and have a way where the player must pay back a certain amount of NIL if they transfer.
Doesn't a high school player have to sit out a year if they transfer? Why can they regulate that, but not big ego college kids who are now transfering just for more money. It's becoming like a drug for these kids.
Doesn't a high school player have to sit out a year if they transfer? Why can they regulate that, but not big ego college kids who are now transfering just for more money. It's becoming like a drug for these kids.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:36 am to penman
The plan has always been to get the salaries up too high for the programs to afford. The networks and their partners will step in, implement a cap that they pay for and gain total control of the sport. It’ll be the NFL without owners, the teams will be connected to the schools in name only.
This post was edited on 12/6/24 at 11:39 am
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:38 am to lostinbr
quote:
1. A bigger piece of the pie, with revenue sharing being capped at 20% of average P4 revenue under the House settlement.
2. Minimum pay, considering the vast majority of FBS players aren’t making millions. Minimum pay with salary caps would hurt the highest-paid players, but could benefit the majority.
The problem is that the proposed revenue sharing applies to ALL athletes. Not just football players. That likely means football players will be paid less than market value because some of that money has to go to pay players in the other sports. You can bet the first school that tries to pay the football team a 70% share of the revenue and the women's soccer team only 2% will be hit with a Title IX discrimination lawsuit.
Plus, under the current system the "floor" for players is ever increasing. You saw that this year with LSU in the DT transfer market. Relatively mediocre DTs were (reportedly) getting really big offers simply as a result of supply and demand. That's not going to stop anytime soon.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:38 am to doubleb
Every time I say that SCOTUS isn’t the reason for NIL, somebody does this. 
There’s a reason I said “contrary to popular belief.”
Correct. The ruling did not actually address NIL. However, the ruling did open the door for future challenges as the article states. Specifically, it was Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion that blasted the NCAA’s entire business model that basically put the NCAA on notice.
But again, that ruling wasn’t what forced the NCAA to allow NIL. Neither was Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion.
The first wave of state NIL laws went into effect on July 1, 2021. Those laws prohibited state-funded universities from enforcing any NCAA rules that would prohibit NIL. As of July 1, 2021 any universities in those states would have been forced to choose between complying with state law or following NCAA rules.
The NCAA’s “interim” NIL policy was released on June 30, 2021. Literally the day before those state laws went into effect.
Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion made it clear that the NCAA was going to have a tough time fighting future lawsuits in court, but it didn’t force their hand. State laws forced their hand. Despite being repeated constantly, it’s simply not true that the SCOTUS ruling is what forced the NCAA to allow NIL.
There’s a reason I said “contrary to popular belief.”
quote:
The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously affirmed a ruling Monday that provides for an incremental increase in how college athletes can be compensated and also opens the door for future legal challenges that could deal a much more significant blow to the NCAA's current business model.
Correct. The ruling did not actually address NIL. However, the ruling did open the door for future challenges as the article states. Specifically, it was Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion that blasted the NCAA’s entire business model that basically put the NCAA on notice.
But again, that ruling wasn’t what forced the NCAA to allow NIL. Neither was Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion.
The first wave of state NIL laws went into effect on July 1, 2021. Those laws prohibited state-funded universities from enforcing any NCAA rules that would prohibit NIL. As of July 1, 2021 any universities in those states would have been forced to choose between complying with state law or following NCAA rules.
The NCAA’s “interim” NIL policy was released on June 30, 2021. Literally the day before those state laws went into effect.
Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion made it clear that the NCAA was going to have a tough time fighting future lawsuits in court, but it didn’t force their hand. State laws forced their hand. Despite being repeated constantly, it’s simply not true that the SCOTUS ruling is what forced the NCAA to allow NIL.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:45 am to Salty Spec
This is actually a better option though, if there would just be a set amount each player can get upfront, the under the table money wouldn’t be as substantial as NIL, therefore LSU could compete better.
This post was edited on 12/6/24 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:49 am to TigerDCC11
quote:
I think the only way is to put back the "sit out a year" for a transfer
Those issues have gone to the courts and been ruled to be an unlawful restraint on free trade. Last fall the NCAA tried to limit transfers to "one free" transfer. After that, a player had to sit out a year if he transferred again. That rule was IMMEDIATELY challenged...basically by boosters/coaches wanting 2x transfers to be ruled immediately eligible (See UNC WR, and West Virginia basketball players) amongst others. A federal court in West Virginia issued a TRO prohibiting enforcement of the rule (that's why every 2x basketball transfer who was sitting out suddenly became eligible in December of last year). The NCAA didn't pursue the case much further because they could see the writing on the wall that they were likely to lose.
It laid bare the demand of fans of college sports and lack of foresight. Coaches, fans, even AGs of states within whom teams had accepted 2x transfers wanted them to be immediately eligible. So they challenged the rule and won.
quote:
and have a way where the player must pay back a certain amount of NIL if they transfer.
While in practicality it is, NIL can't legal be tied to pay for play in the terms of an employment/service contract. Plus, .like high demand coaches, high demand players hold the leverage in the negotiations. The high demand player would turn down the NIL buyout in favor of an offer that didn't require one.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:50 am to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
There is no restriction on individuals currently. There’s no bigger piece of the pie than infinity. The most in demand players, who provide the marketability for the sport and will at best be in the system for three years, have no reason to come to the table.
You’re making my point for me.
There is an overall cap at 20% of average P5 revenue. There is no cap on individuals and there is no minimum. The combination of no individual cap and no minimum will be great for the top players, but will leave money on the table for players in the middle and at the bottom.
It’s why professional sports unions agree to things like maximum and minimum salaries in the first place. Both of those things are bad for the top players, but good for the majority of players (who all get to vote).
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:53 am to ramchallenge
This is the outcome the schools are trying to avoid, but it feels like it's inevitable.
The only way to enforce a contract is for the players to be employees, not students. The schools very much don't want that because of the costs and liabilities involved.
One interesting option might be for the players to be employees of the NCAA (or some other league-wide org) instead. Contracts would be defined and enforced through that body. But they still are tied to a particular program, get free school, maybe bonuses for going to class, etc.
The only way to enforce a contract is for the players to be employees, not students. The schools very much don't want that because of the costs and liabilities involved.
One interesting option might be for the players to be employees of the NCAA (or some other league-wide org) instead. Contracts would be defined and enforced through that body. But they still are tied to a particular program, get free school, maybe bonuses for going to class, etc.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:53 am to penman
Salary cap is what should happen but it cant now. The courts ruined college football when they said atheletes could capitalize on NIL. Everybody with a brain knew this would end up with boosters buying players. Then add the transfer rules and its going to be an out of control free agency , no salary cap circus every offseason. This is just the beginning.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:56 am to lostinbr
quote:
You’re making my point for me.
No, I’m not. You think the top players will be compelled to negotiate by pressure from the majority of players who aren’t making money. You can’t articulate what will compel them, because you can’t. They aren’t going to be in the system long enough to be convinced to care, and the college game cannot sustain itself without them. It’s fine if you disagree.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:58 am to Alt26
quote:
The problem is that the proposed revenue sharing applies to ALL athletes. Not just football players. That likely means football players will be paid less than market value because some of that money has to go to pay players in the other sports. You can bet the first school that tries to pay the football team a 70% share of the revenue and the women's soccer team only 2% will be hit with a Title IX discrimination lawsuit.
Yeah, to me this is by far the biggest question mark about the House settlement.
That being said, I think it’s worth noting that the direct settlement dollars are (pending final approval) being divvied up based on a calculated market value for each player. I don’t have the exact formula but my understanding is that it varies based on sport, number of TV appearances, etc.. so they are already sort of setting that precedent.
To me it seems either:
A) men’s and women’s sports would get equal money from revenue sharing,
B) the split would be based on revenue contribution, or
C) the split would be completely at the university’s discretion.
I would think B is most likely, but I suppose it remains to be seen.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:58 am to EvrybodysAllAmerican
Make football part of the university’s curriculum.
If football were classified as part of the curriculum, players might be considered students earning academic credit rather than employees. This could provide universities with a basis to argue that players are not entitled to compensation under employment laws.
If football were classified as part of the curriculum, players might be considered students earning academic credit rather than employees. This could provide universities with a basis to argue that players are not entitled to compensation under employment laws.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 11:59 am to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
No, I’m not. You think the top players will be compelled to negotiate by pressure from the majority of players who aren’t making money. You can’t articulate what will compel them, because you can’t. They aren’t going to be in the system long enough to be convinced to care, and the college game cannot sustain itself without them. It’s fine if you disagree.
The top players don’t have to be compelled to negotiate. Just the majority of players.
Posted on 12/6/24 at 12:10 pm to penman
quote:
Salary caps will exist for every team,
how will that work? isnt it by law the schools cant interfere with NIL deals?
I think the sport is fricked in the long run, its gonna be a 4, 5 team battle every yr
Posted on 12/6/24 at 12:14 pm to Alt26
Yeah, I get it.
However, why does a high schooler have to sit out a year if they transfer? If parents want to move, isn't it their right to do so?
Maybe if enough of these Highly paid players fall on their face, cause locker room problems, or just don't put in the effort anymore, this will put some brakes on this situation.
That's what I'm hoping for - unless it is a LSU player of course.
However, why does a high schooler have to sit out a year if they transfer? If parents want to move, isn't it their right to do so?
Maybe if enough of these Highly paid players fall on their face, cause locker room problems, or just don't put in the effort anymore, this will put some brakes on this situation.
That's what I'm hoping for - unless it is a LSU player of course.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News