NIL has changed me as a college sports fan...and it ain't for the better

[All4SU]

Why not have it operated by the universities? You cannot go back to the old times. NIL is here to stay. Even if the NBA sponsored an 18-22 year old league, kids would still pick the college game for exposure.

The only thing the colleges could do is make BBall a non revenue sport. So no $ from tickets and no TV. That will never happen. Really at this point the choices are A. keep things as is, keep the academic farce, slowly have BBall become a niche sport or B. sponsor a non academic BBall league where the sport actually improves. I don't see any other options. I prefer choice B.

Duos Cultores Scientia Coronat
et Vade Aureum

 

[Bayside44]

Among the many things that annoy me regarding NIL, the biggest is this:

Prior to NIL, there were two arguments that were made to support paying players. 1) if someone puts a player's name on a jersey and sells it, that person makes all the $$$ and the player makes none. I think we can all agree that is a very valid point in favor of compensating the athlete for his/her name.

2) The colleges make a ton of money from TV revenue and other areas, so the players should get a cut of that. Another valid argument. The counter valid argument would be that the player is already getting free tuition, room and board, and other perks that non-athletes don't get. In addition, some of the revenue is plowed back into facilities for the athletes. So, there are reasonable arguments to be had on both sides.

All of that goes out the window based upon how NIL has actually been set up. The players now get paid for their name, image, and likeness. They also get paid simply for playing and there is no way to sugar-coat that.

HOWEVER, the $$$ doesn't come from the colleges who are not allowed to pay the players directly. The $$$ comes from big donors and collectives that are funded by donations from smaller donors and fans.

So the athletes get paid, the college gets to keep all of its $$$ from TV etc, and the alums and fans foot the bill for the whole scheme. What a great deal...for the players and colleges.

Per usual, aced it.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Duos Cultores Scientia Coronat
et Vade Aureum

That is cute. If you want schools to actually be schools again then they have to give up college sports as we know it. What school is going to voluntarily do that? No more athletic scholarships, no TV money, no attendance money, no March Madness.

DI BBall and FBS FB are not going away. SU isn't dropping down to DII BBall and FCS FB. So we can either keep things as is, which is bad for the schools, bad for the sport, and bad for the fans. Or we can have for profit sports actually be for profit leagues separate from the academic side. That option is 1000x better.

Because of NIL what other options are there? Amateurism is dead. So either go all in on professional leagues, or keep the charade up and ruin the sports.

 

[Cusefan0307]

That is cute. If you want schools to actually be schools again then they have to give up college sports as we know it. What school is going to voluntarily do that? No more athletic scholarships, no TV money, no attendance money, no March Madness.

DI BBall and FBS FB are not going away. SU isn't dropping down to DII BBall and FCS FB. So we can either keep things as is, which is bad for the schools, bad for the sport, and bad for the fans. Or we can have for profit sports actually be for profit leagues separate from the academic side. That option is 1000x better.

Because of NIL what other options are there? Amateurism is dead. So either go all in on professional leagues, or keep the charade up and ruin the sports.

Schools are still schools. Kids are still learning. They are still doing research. That hasn’t changed because of NIL.

 

[Hoo's That]

To reiterate:

One of the big complaints had previously been that the schools made big $$$ on the backs of the players, so the players should get a cut of that from the school. Schools cannot use those big bucks to pay the players so they are keeping all their revenue for themselves while the burden falls to business and collectives. Not sure how I could be more clear on that.

Joe fan doesn't HAVE to shell out a dime, but he is being asked to. I certainly have been.

The schools are using those "big bucks" to fund the non-revenue sports. Is that what you mean by "keeping all their revenue for themselves"? This is something John Thompson argued some years ago. He resented that the money the basketball team made was being used to fund the other sports at Georgetown.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Schools are still schools. Kids are still learning. They are still doing research. That hasn’t changed because of NIL.

Really? You think a kid that is there only a few months is taking education seriously? That the schools aren't making concessions to keep the kids eligible? That with all this NIL money kids are paying more attention in class? Seems naive to me. Even before the freedom of movement and before NIL the student in student athlete was a farce.

The high level athletes are there to become better high level athletes. Not to become an accountant or a teacher. The schools exist to provide education. So why keep the charade going?

Let's keep the academic side pure and remove big time BBall and Football (maybe baseball too). Let's all go Ivy and eliminate athletic scholarships. Let's remove the TV money from NCAA sports. That will bring about purity. Then we will have students who play sports, instead of athletes who play students.

But schools do not want to give up big time sports. So either you sponsor the 18-22 non academic leagues, or keep things as is. IMO no one wins keeping things as is. The quality of the sport will be worse. That along with the yearly player movement will make fans less interested. So if those are your two realistic choices, why chose the later?

I get the "colleges shouldn't be minor leagues or involved in big time sports that isn't their purpose" argument. But at this point the only solution is to completely give it up. So why would a big time athletic program agree to give up big time sports? Because of the school's mission statement? That isn't enough. If you aren't willing to give it up, you need to make the best of the situation.

IMO making the best of the situation is a non academic 18-22 year old league sponsored by the schools. That is the best of both worlds. Big time sports have no place in academia. So why keep trying to merge the two when you can simply separate the two? You make your academics better and you increase the quality of your sports.

And by this I am only referring to FB, BBall, and Baseball. The other sports can stay as is. Those athletes are in schools for an education, not sports.

The European sporting club model isn't just about making money. There is an altruistic side of it as well. Also many help educate their athletes. So IMO a college sporting club model would fit into the mission of colleges. In that case they would not be a minor league (especially if only 18-22) but a center of athlete training, promoting the importance of sport, and making a better society.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Really? You think a kid that is there only a few months is taking education seriously? That the schools aren't making concessions to keep the kids eligible? That with all this NIL money kids are paying more attention in class? Seems naive to me. Even before the freedom of movement and before NIL the student in student athlete was a farce.

The high level athletes are there to become better high level athletes. Not to become an accountant or a teacher. The schools exist to provide education. So why keep the charade going?

Let's keep the academic side pure and remove big time BBall and Football (maybe baseball too). Let's all go Ivy and eliminate athletic scholarships. Let's remove the TV money from NCAA sports. That will bring about purity. Then we will have students who play sports, instead of athletes who play students.

But schools do not want to give up big time sports. So either you sponsor the 18-22 non academic leagues, or keep things as is. IMO no one wins keeping things as is. The quality of the sport will be worse. That along with the yearly player movement will make fans less interested. So if those are your two realistic choices, why chose the later?

I get the "colleges shouldn't be minor leagues or involved in big time sports that isn't their purpose" argument. But at this point the only solution is to completely give it up. So why would a big time athletic program agree to give up big time sports? Because of the school's mission statement? That isn't enough. If you aren't willing to give it up, you need to make the best of the situation.

IMO making the best of the situation is a non academic 18-22 year old league sponsored by the schools. That is the best of both worlds. Big time sports have no place in academia. So why keep trying to merge the two when you can simply separate the two? You make your academics better and you increase the quality of your sports.

And by this I am only referring to FB, BBall, and Baseball. The other sports can stay as is. Those athletes are in schools for an education, not sports.

The European sporting club model isn't just about making money. There is an altruistic side of it as well. Also many help educate their athletes. So IMO a college sporting club model would fit into the mission of colleges. In that case they would not be a minor league (especially if only 18-22) but a center of athlete training, promoting the importance of sport, and making a better society.

What you want is never going to happen.

 

[RoysRunts]

As Milton Friedman replied to Phil Donahue : "Who's not greedy"

 

[All4SU]

That is cute. If you want schools to actually be schools again then they have to give up college sports as we know it. What school is going to voluntarily do that? No more athletic scholarships, no TV money, no attendance money, no March Madness.

DI BBall and FBS FB are not going away. SU isn't dropping down to DII BBall and FCS FB. So we can either keep things as is, which is bad for the schools, bad for the sport, and bad for the fans. Or we can have for profit sports actually be for profit leagues separate from the academic side. That option is 1000x better.

Because of NIL what other options are there? Amateurism is dead. So either go all in on professional leagues, or keep the charade up and ruin the sports.

I’m sure much of what you say is true, HRE. And this is not intended to be argumentative or combative. But I’ve been saying this stuff for 30 years. And the response from others has always been the same… “Well, you can’t change how things are.” I’m not convinced you can’t. I don’t have all the answers, but I can tell you that 30 years ago I could see that some of this was coming, and those same people did nothing.

And while we are at it, these aren’t just schools we are talking about. Most of these schools are state schools. Is the state responsible for running sports teams. I sure don’t think so.

And that doesn’t begin to address my number one complaint, which is - and has always been - why are we working so hard to tell kids that an education is worthless?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I’m sure much of what you say is true, HRE. And this is not intended to be argumentative or combative. But I’ve been saying this stuff for 30 years. And the response from others has always been the same… “Well, you can’t change how things are.” I’m not convinced you can’t. I don’t have all the answers, but I can tell you that 30 years ago I could see that some of this was coming, and those same people did nothing.

And while we are at it, these aren’t just schools we are talking about. Most of these schools are state schools. Is the state responsible for running sports teams. I sure don’t think so.

And that doesn’t begin to address my number one complaint, which is - and has always been - why are we working so hard to tell kids that an education is worthless?

Like I said in my other post, college sports should be about students who play sports and not athletes who "play" students. But TV $ has ruined that. NIL $ has added to the problem. Free transfers have made it a farce.

If schools came together and decided to give up the money, we can go back to the way things were. But there is no incentive for schools to do so. So if we cannot go back, what is the best way forward? The status quo certainly is not.

Even the Ivy is technically not safe. Some kids will take the money now from NIL when the education long term is worth so much more. Also, if one day at the Yale Club while having cigars and brandy a bunch of alumni agree to buy a BBall team, they could. It would be harder to find kids who can get in, but it can be done. For instance looking at the academic all Americans and finding the ones who can get into Yale. Or stealing players from schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Vandy.

There has already been talk of a break away pay for play division. Schools have commented on this. It isn't far fetched. That really seems like the only solution at this point.

That all being said the transfer rules will still cause issues. I am happy that a team of mercenaries won the soccer title this year, but it is not good for the sport.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Like I said in my other post, college sports should be about students who play sports and not athletes who "play" students. But TV $ has ruined that. NIL $ has added to the problem. Free transfers have made it a farce.

If schools came together and decided to give up the money, we can go back to the way things were. But there is no incentive for schools to do so. So if we cannot go back, what is the best way forward? The status quo certainly is not.

Even the Ivy is technically not safe. Some kids will take the money now from NIL when the education long term is worth so much more. Also, if one day at the Yale Club while having cigars and brandy a bunch of alumni agree to buy a BBall team, they could. It would be harder to find kids who can get in, but it can be done. For instance looking at the academic all Americans and finding the ones who can get into Yale. Or stealing players from schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Vandy.

There has already been talk of a break away pay for play division. Schools have commented on this. It isn't far fetched. That really seems like the only solution at this point.

That all being said the transfer rules will still cause issues. I am happy that a team of mercenaries won the soccer title this year, but it is not good for the sport.

Sports enhances schools enrollment. It benefits the academic side.

 

[AZOrange]

I disagree. I love this. I’m a fan of the team. The players are less important. Mix it up and get back in contention in 365 days

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I disagree. I love this. I’m a fan of the team. The players are less important. Mix it up and get back in contention in 365 days

It is hard to have a good team with the roster completely changing every year. You have to hope they gel by March. It is why college BBall has been heading down hill the last dozen or so years. How has it worked out for Kentucky? If kids stayed in school 3 years like they used to, the overall quality of the game would be so much better.

 

[Eric15]

The schools are using those "big bucks" to fund the non-revenue sports. Is that what you mean by "keeping all their revenue for themselves"? This is something John Thompson argued some years ago. He resented that the money the basketball team made was being used to fund the other sports at Georgetown.

AC Slater complained about the same thing re: the football team at Bayside High.

 

[Hoo's That]

Really? You think a kid that is there only a few months is taking education seriously? That the schools aren't making concessions to keep the kids eligible? That with all this NIL money kids are paying more attention in class? Seems naive to me. Even before the freedom of movement and before NIL the student in student athlete was a farce.

The high level athletes are there to become better high level athletes. Not to become an accountant or a teacher. The schools exist to provide education. So why keep the charade going?

Let's keep the academic side pure and remove big time BBall and Football (maybe baseball too). Let's all go Ivy and eliminate athletic scholarships. Let's remove the TV money from NCAA sports. That will bring about purity. Then we will have students who play sports, instead of athletes who play students.

But schools do not want to give up big time sports. So either you sponsor the 18-22 non academic leagues, or keep things as is. IMO no one wins keeping things as is. The quality of the sport will be worse. That along with the yearly player movement will make fans less interested. So if those are your two realistic choices, why chose the later?

I get the "colleges shouldn't be minor leagues or involved in big time sports that isn't their purpose" argument. But at this point the only solution is to completely give it up. So why would a big time athletic program agree to give up big time sports? Because of the school's mission statement? That isn't enough. If you aren't willing to give it up, you need to make the best of the situation.

IMO making the best of the situation is a non academic 18-22 year old league sponsored by the schools. That is the best of both worlds. Big time sports have no place in academia. So why keep trying to merge the two when you can simply separate the two? You make your academics better and you increase the quality of your sports.

And by this I am only referring to FB, BBall, and Baseball. The other sports can stay as is. Those athletes are in schools for an education, not sports.

The European sporting club model isn't just about making money. There is an altruistic side of it as well. Also many help educate their athletes. So IMO a college sporting club model would fit into the mission of colleges. In that case they would not be a minor league (especially if only 18-22) but a center of athlete training, promoting the importance of sport, and making a better society.

The TV money pays for the non-revs and non-rev coaches' salaries. The revenue sports coaches' salaries outstrip the TV money.

 

[shandeezy7]

It is hard to have a good team with the roster completely changing every year. You have to hope they gel by March. It is why college BBall has been heading down hill the last dozen or so years. How has it worked out for Kentucky? If kids stayed in school 3 years like they used to, the overall quality of the game would be so much better.

Yeah the quality of play in college basketball is atrocious for the most part these days.

 

[AlaskaSU]

I’m all for it. Have been for years. As long as it’s not operated by universities.

Universities could lease their stadiums to the local farm team.

 

[tbonezone]

A professional league is probably way better than what we have now. Kids will have contracts so they can't leave at will. They also will be less likely to bounce for being a 2nd round NBA draft pick. Even if they are drafted, they can still play for you like Euro kids do.

Less player movement and more kids not going straight to the NBA will bring about a higher quality product. Let's stop the academic farce and have an 18-22 year old league where no schooling is required. Otherwise IMO the sport will die.

or (novel concept) let the kids who are playing merely for money go pro and let universities field teams composed of actual scholarship athletes compete with other universities. you know. like what's worked well for the past century. nobody's putting a gun to your head to play college basketball. in fact it's a dream of many many high schools athletes to do so. and get a free degree.
i'll chance watching a slightly less quality product if i know the kids are there for the right reasons and not pulling down 6 figures to audition for the NBA.

 

[djcon57]

or (novel concept) let the kids who are playing merely for money go pro and let universities field teams composed of actual scholarship athletes compete with other universities. you know. like what's worked well for the past century. nobody's putting a gun to your head to play college basketball. in fact it's a dream of many many high schools athletes to do so. and get a free degree.
i'll chance watching a slightly less quality product if i know the kids are there for the right reasons and not pulling down 6 figures to audition for the NBA.

it’s your dream, Dad. Go watch d2, you‘ll get all the thrills your looking for.

 

[tbonezone]

it’s your dream, Dad. Go watch d2, you‘ll get all the thrills your looking for.

i can walk to the local high school . you dudes can watch the pros.

 

[Eric15]

or (novel concept) let the kids who are playing merely for money go pro and let universities field teams composed of actual scholarship athletes compete with other universities. you know. like what's worked well for the past century. nobody's putting a gun to your head to play college basketball. in fact it's a dream of many many high schools athletes to do so. and get a free degree.
i'll chance watching a slightly less quality product if i know the kids are there for the right reasons and not pulling down 6 figures to audition for the NBA.

What about coaches making astronomical amounts of money and universities getting rich off lucrative television contracts? Do you still want those things to stay?

"Nobody is putting a gun to your head saying you have to coach college basketball. Or take money from CBS."

 

[tbonezone]

college coaching is a profession. paid. collegiate athletics are supposed to be amateur . unpaid. see the difference ? the university revenues pay expenses and help to provide scholarships for those without the resources to attend college.
if you want to talk about restricting coaches from taking sneaker payouts i'm listening.

 

[Eric15]

college coaching is a profession. paid. collegiate athletics are supposed to be amateur . unpaid. see the difference ? the university revenues pay expenses and help to provide scholarships for those without the resources to attend college.

So why not just pay the coaches what you would pay a tenured professor or administrator, say 150-200k per year? The idea that the free market is supposed to apply to athletic departments and coaches but not players (all of whom are legal adults) was never the original intent of intercollegiate athletics in the early 20th century.

 

[SouthernCuse]

AC Slater complained about the same thing re: the football team at Bayside High.

hey, i didn't know i would have to know serious history on this board.

 

[pfister1]

college coaching is a profession. paid. collegiate athletics are supposed to be amateur . unpaid. see the difference ? the university revenues pay expenses and help to provide scholarships for those without the resources to attend college.
if you want to talk about restricting coaches from taking sneaker payouts i'm listening.

I assume that the University could do that if it wanted to. I think they can prevent their employee from using the work environment as a platform to make side money. But I suspect there is a decent argument that any endorsement the coach is making is being done on his non-work free time. Unless, of course, he was endorsing Florsheim, Cole-Hahn or Hush Puppies.