It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL (/thread-23046.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL (/thread-23046.html)
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - JohnR34231 - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 12:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-29-2022, 11:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(04-29-2022, 10:21 AM)ca245 Wrote: So this is how it's going to be like: NIL agents running the show?
"Better NIL or I leave"
Pretty hard for CBS to sell March Madness as "amateur athletes just here for an education, isn't this neat," when they are really professionals, but not recognized as such by the NCAA, while our intelligence is insulted that the schools aren't paying them, but kind of are in a way.
Oh, FFS, CBS lifted that fig leaf eons ago. NIL is the last nail in the coffin, but before that you had boosters paying for fake jobs, “tutors” doing the work for athletes, fake classes, athletes who were found to be functionally illiterate, one-and-dones, etc. Newsflash, nobody really cared; revealed preference showed that fans attendance and television consumption increased throughout the period.
I think the combination of NIL and the transfer portal has been brutal for my personal interest in collegiate athletics, but the numbers suggest that I am in the minority. But also, this has been brewing for as long as I’ve been a fan. At every point, individuals (coaches, players, etc.) and organizations (the NCAA and the schools) have made choices to maximize revenue over amateurism, academics, etc. I can’t really blame them, presented with similar options, I’m not sure I would have turned down “more” of everything. But the sum total of the composite actions is why we can’t really have nice things, like a truly amateur collegiate athletics that cared about the students more than it cared about TV.
Maybe it’s time to adopt a local D3 school and root for kids who really do it for the love of the game.
BC
I don't know about the other stuff, but I tutor at the Florida State athletic department as a retirement gig, and I can assure you the university goes to great lengths to ensure tutors are not giving unauthorized help to the student athletes.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 04-30-2022
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Carolina_academic-athletic_scandal
I imagine that after the UNC scandal that a number of other schools hurriedly put controls in place to make sure it didn’t happen (or, at least, that it couldn’t be a systemic issue). I doubt UNC was the only one.
BC
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - JohnR34231 - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 12:10 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Carolina_academic-athletic_scandal
I imagine that after the UNC scandal that a number of other schools hurriedly put controls in place to make sure it didn’t happen (or, at least, that it couldn’t be a systemic issue). I doubt UNC was the only one.
BC
FSU got nailed badly in a 2007 violation (a tutor wrote a paper for a student) and it's been a big issue ever since.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 05-02-2022
So here we have a player who hasn't even entered the transfer portal, with teams reportedly bidding on him.
https://www.rollbamaroll.com/2022/5/2/23053020/alabama-football-usc-trojans-alleged-tampering-biletnikoff-winner-jordan-addison-nfl-draft
Gotta love how the NCAA's zero tolerance policy for recruits being paid to attend schools is working out for it.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - needle - 05-02-2022
Thanks for the link, Outsider. Here's the money graf:
Quote:Being that only 18% of five stars who don’t go to Alabama end up as first round picks, there are quite a few busts out there. It doesn’t take too many seven figure ego fueled “investments” going south before boosters stop giving money so freely to high schoolers. It’s only logical that the “smart” money will instead flow to the more proven Gibbs and Addisons of the world.
I suspect coaches at decent Group of Five programs know well how this happens. Now the non-blueblood Power 5 programs are squealing about the system, and they command enough attention that just maybe something might be done to try to curb what's going on.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 05-02-2022
(05-02-2022, 10:00 AM)needle Wrote: Thanks for the link, Outsider. Here's the money graf:
Quote:Being that only 18% of five stars who don’t go to Alabama end up as first round picks, there are quite a few busts out there. It doesn’t take too many seven figure ego fueled “investments” going south before boosters stop giving money so freely to high schoolers. It’s only logical that the “smart” money will instead flow to the more proven Gibbs and Addisons of the world.
I suspect coaches at decent Group of Five programs know well how this happens. Now the non-blueblood Power 5 programs are squealing about the system, and they command enough attention that just maybe something might be done to try to curb what's going on.
This is my position. Make it a free for all. Big boosters will get tired of losing a bunch of money on prospects who don't perform, and some kind of equilibrium will suss itself out in this unhinged market.
Here's where schools like Stanford need to raise absolute hell with the NCAA:
- Allowing immediate transfers without restriction has to stop.
- Have a 3.0 GPA, you can transfer and be eligible to play at your next destination right away.
- Otherwise, you have to sit out a year.
Allowing athletes to be paid as much as they can earn in the pros puts schools that don't arrange for athletes to be paid a lot, at a massive disadvantage. While Stanford might be losing its 5th years and 4th year Seniors who have graduated early because they want to get on with earning money, USC will be paying upperclassmen to play.
This is so preposterously absurd. Stanford will be forced to play less experienced, weaker players against more experienced and more physically developed players because USC is making sure they are paid and Stanford isn't.
Y'all claim athletes should be paid by the schools. I get it, but the ONLY way to get any control of the system is for the schools to be the ones doing the paying, and outlawing NIL deals, or at least mandating money athletes earn be put in a trust fund that they can access after they leave school. Because the NCAA can set standards (limits) on compensation and if athletes sign their scholarship deals, nobody can say they were exploited without being paid.
I knew the University of Scandal & Corruption would push the envelope on this madness and it doesn't surprise me AT ALL that USC is tampering with a player who isn't in the transfer portal. Just nauseating.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Spiny_Norman - 05-02-2022
(05-02-2022, 10:00 AM)needle Wrote: just maybe something might be done to try to curb what's going on.
Who or what entity might step in? The Supreme Court effectively told the NCAA to keep their hands off of NIL matters. "In a 9–0 unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision that NCAA restrictions on 'education-related benefits' for college athletes violated antitrust law."
Without action from Congress to grant them an anti-trust exemption, what role can the NCAA play?
The only other governing bodies in college sports are the conferences. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if they might also be constrained by the Supreme Court ruling. But good luck trying to get all of the conferences to agree on anything anyway.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Farm93 - 05-02-2022
(05-02-2022, 10:34 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:This ship has sailed.(05-02-2022, 10:00 AM)needle Wrote: just maybe something might be done to try to curb what's going on.
Who or what entity might step in? The Supreme Court effectively told the NCAA to keep their hands off of NIL matters. "In a 9–0 unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision that NCAA restrictions on 'education-related benefits' for college athletes violated antitrust law."
Without action from Congress to grant them an anti-trust exemption, what role can the NCAA play?
The only other governing bodies in college sports are the conferences. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if they might also be constrained by the Supreme Court ruling. But good luck trying to get all of the conferences to agree on anything anyway.
Free market forces will dominate. Lots of businesses spend big money on promotional efforts, so there will be a lot more money going to these quasi-professional athletes soon.
Going forward
HS players in popular sports will demand big NIL deals.
Wealthy boosters will find enough funds to entice recruits to their alma mater.
Some of those deals will fall apart for any number of reasons and there will be players, coaches, schools and alums in civil courts.
If members of a society or corporations think giving millions to 17 year-olds is a good use of their resources, then I don't see why SCOTUS or Congress should or would try alter the situation.
FWIW - I pity anyone from a congressional district in Texas, Alabama, Florida, LSU, Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, Kentucky or Kansas that would propose or support government regulation efforts to try to stop this new reality. I am pretty confident the citizens of those states will see themselves as likely winners in the new system as their flagship public schools are likely to win bidding battles for 16 year-olds.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - needle - 05-02-2022
The NCAA could change transfer rules, as Outsider Fan suggested. They could possibly put some form of restrictions on football roster composition (no more than x % upperclassmen). They could also (try) to restrict how many players a program can have transfer in during a given time period.
Those are ideas off the top of my head. Would they all stand up in court? I have no idea.
But if there enough programs like Pitt complaining about the new system, absolutely the NCAA could end up doing something.
If the NCAA really tries to do something that makes a difference, then the ball would be in the court of those win-at-all costs schools, who could form their own league outside of the NCAA.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Phogge - 05-02-2022
(04-30-2022, 12:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote:Well, there aren't that many D3 schools in California. There is UC Santa Cruz who operates a volleyball program that schedules against all divisions. They do have club sports (my son played hockey). Perhaps the best nickname in sports. Go Slugs!(04-29-2022, 11:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(04-29-2022, 10:21 AM)ca245 Wrote: So this is how it's going to be like: NIL agents running the show?
"Better NIL or I leave"
Pretty hard for CBS to sell March Madness as "amateur athletes just here for an education, isn't this neat," when they are really professionals, but not recognized as such by the NCAA, while our intelligence is insulted that the schools aren't paying them, but kind of are in a way.
Oh, FFS, CBS lifted that fig leaf eons ago. NIL is the last nail in the coffin, but before that you had boosters paying for fake jobs, “tutors” doing the work for athletes, fake classes, athletes who were found to be functionally illiterate, one-and-dones, etc. Newsflash, nobody really cared; revealed preference showed that fans attendance and television consumption increased throughout the period.
I think the combination of NIL and the transfer portal has been brutal for my personal interest in collegiate athletics, but the numbers suggest that I am in the minority. But also, this has been brewing for as long as I’ve been a fan. At every point, individuals (coaches, players, etc.) and organizations (the NCAA and the schools) have made choices to maximize revenue over amateurism, academics, etc. I can’t really blame them, presented with similar options, I’m not sure I would have turned down “more” of everything. But the sum total of the composite actions is why we can’t really have nice things, like a truly amateur collegiate athletics that cared about the students more than it cared about TV.
Maybe it’s time to adopt a local D3 school and root for kids who really do it for the love of the game.
BC
The other D3 is Mills, which isn't going to be Mills for long and was a women's school (until the Fall).
I will root for the Whittier Nixons because they are underdogs by definition.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - 82lsju - 05-02-2022
(05-02-2022, 02:51 PM)Phogge Wrote: Well, there aren't that many D3 schools in California. There is UC Santa Cruz who operates a volleyball program that schedules against all divisions. They do have club sports (my son played hockey). Perhaps the best nickname in sports. Go Slugs!
The other D3 is Mills, which isn't going to be Mills for long and was a women's school (until the Fall).
I will root for the Whittier Nixons because they are underdogs by definition.
not local but there is always Cal Tech....
Quote:Caltech fields 20 NCAA Division III varsity sports and is a founding member of the Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SCIAC).
https://www.admissions.caltech.edu/explore/student-life/clubs-activities#:~:text=Caltech%20fields%2020%20NCAA%20Division,on%20the%20field%20of%20play.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - DC 86 - 05-02-2022
(05-02-2022, 02:51 PM)Phogge Wrote:(04-30-2022, 12:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Maybe it’s time to adopt a local D3 school and root for kids who really do it for the love of the game.Well, there aren't that many D3 schools in California. There is UC Santa Cruz who operates a volleyball program that schedules against all divisions. They do have club sports (my son played hockey). Perhaps the best nickname in sports. Go Slugs!
BC
The other D3 is Mills, which isn't going to be Mills for long and was a women's school (until the Fall).
I will root for the Whittier Nixons because they are underdogs by definition.
Well, there's CalTech (not local, but in California at least) but that doesn't really work since they are a quasi rival of Stanford's.
Edit: I see Eric and I posted at the same time with similar thoughts.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Phogge - 05-02-2022
Cal Tech gave up football but there is always Redlands.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - lex24 - 05-02-2022
(05-02-2022, 10:24 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(05-02-2022, 10:00 AM)needle Wrote: Thanks for the link, Outsider. Here's the money graf:
Quote:Being that only 18% of five stars who don’t go to Alabama end up as first round picks, there are quite a few busts out there. It doesn’t take too many seven figure ego fueled “investments” going south before boosters stop giving money so freely to high schoolers. It’s only logical that the “smart” money will instead flow to the more proven Gibbs and Addisons of the world.
I suspect coaches at decent Group of Five programs know well how this happens. Now the non-blueblood Power 5 programs are squealing about the system, and they command enough attention that just maybe something might be done to try to curb what's going on.
This is my position. Make it a free for all. Big boosters will get tired of losing a bunch of money on prospects who don't perform, and some kind of equilibrium will suss itself out in this unhinged market.
Here's where schools like Stanford need to raise absolute hell with the NCAA:
- Allowing immediate transfers without restriction has to stop.
- Have a 3.0 GPA, you can transfer and be eligible to play at your next destination right away.
- Otherwise, you have to sit out a year.
Allowing athletes to be paid as much as they can earn in the pros puts schools that don't arrange for athletes to be paid a lot, at a massive disadvantage. While Stanford might be losing its 5th years and 4th year Seniors who have graduated early because they want to get on with earning money, USC will be paying upperclassmen to play.
This is so preposterously absurd. Stanford will be forced to play less experienced, weaker players against more experienced and more physically developed players because USC is making sure they are paid and Stanford isn't.
Y'all claim athletes should be paid by the schools. I get it, but the ONLY way to get any control of the system is for the schools to be the ones doing the paying, and outlawing NIL deals, or at least mandating money athletes earn be put in a trust fund that they can access after they leave school. Because the NCAA can set standards (limits) on compensation and if athletes sign their scholarship deals, nobody can say they were exploited without being paid.
I knew the University of Scandal & Corruption would push the envelope on this madness and it doesn't surprise me AT ALL that USC is tampering with a player who isn't in the transfer portal. Just nauseating.
There is simply no way schools can pay players as “employees”. Way too many issues - practical and legal. Not gonna happen.
And upon what do you base your statement that the NCAA can set “standards (limits) on compensation?” Sounds like an anti- trust violation to me. Absent a CBA. And that isn’t going to happen either.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - DC 86 - 05-02-2022
(05-02-2022, 08:06 PM)lex24 Wrote: And upon what do you base your statement that the NCAA can set “standards (limits) on compensation?” Sounds like an anti- trust violation to me. Absent a CBA. And that isn’t going to happen either.
Exactly. A lot of posts along the lines of "the NCAA should do this" or that. If they could, the would. They can't, unless they desire another strongly worded, unanimous Supreme Court decision against them.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 05-02-2022
The actual USSC ruling was that the NCAA could not prohibit member schools from providing education-related benefits. It did not make any mention of NIL; however, it also refused to take up a 9th circuit ruling giving Ed O’Bannon a right to his NIL.
While the Supreme Cpurt ruling set the NCAA up for being slapped down if it tried to regulate NIL deals, it did not prohibit the NCAA from placing some restrictions, so far as I know. It is entirely possible that if the NCAA put some limits on how NIL money worked (for example, placing the money in a fund), I’m not sure that the Supreme Court would automatically rule that the NCAA was in violation of anti-trust laws.
We are in a bit of a Wild West time right now as everyone tries to figure out how things will settle out. I could see it being allowable for the NCAA to place some limits (eg, you can’t be offered an NIL offer as an inducement to enroll in a particular school).
BC
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - DC 86 - 05-02-2022
(05-02-2022, 08:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The actual USSC ruling was that the NCAA could not prohibit member schools from providing education-related benefits. It did not make any mention of NIL; however, it also refused to take up a 9th circuit ruling giving Ed O’Bannon a right to his NIL.
While the Supreme Cpurt ruling set the NCAA up for being slapped down if it tried to regulate NIL deals, it did not prohibit the NCAA from placing some restrictions, so far as I know. It is entirely possible that if the NCAA put some limits on how NIL money worked (for example, placing the money in a fund), I’m not sure that the Supreme Court would automatically rule that the NCAA was in violation of anti-trust laws.
We are in a bit of a Wild West time right now as everyone tries to figure out how things will settle out. I could see it being allowable for the NCAA to place some limits (eg, you can’t be offered an NIL offer as an inducement to enroll in a particular school).
BC
You're right, and I'm speculating, but going back to O'Bannon the Supreme Court hasn't shown any desire to impose limits or endorse the NCAA's authority in this area. Another factor is that the Power-Power 5 schools are the ones that benefit from an uncapped environment that they will dominate, and their leverage is leaving the NCAA and forming their own super league of sorts, which makes it even more unlikely for the NCAA to pass rules intended to level the playing field and help out the G5 and less aggressive P5 schools that are being left behind.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Goose - 05-02-2022
I think the Supreme Court is relying in the idea that if the NCAA needs some regulatory powers that it does not now have, Congress is perfectly free to give them such powers. Unless and until that happens, the NCAA and/or the conferences cannot restrain trade. Period. Any regulation that prevents an athlete from being paid to do something cannot come from the NCAA. It can come from an individual school, because they can control their own admission standards. The schools cannot collude together and agree on such regulations however.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 05-02-2022
That may be right, but people are inferring a lot from a narrow ruling (albeit one that was unanimous), a strongly worded concurring opinion, and the fact that the Court didn’t grant cert to the O’Bannon decision, even though the O’Bannon case was particularly egregious (his image was basically featured in a video game for which he was prohibited from benefiting, even after he graduated).
I will note that direct payment to athletes is still against NCAA rules, even though the broadest interpretation would find that as a monopoly(technically in this case a monopsony), the NCAA is engaged in restraint of trade, but to my knowledge, no one has yet tried to challenge it. I agree that the best outcome would be thoughtful legislation that balances the competing interests and provides some clarity but I don’t know that anyone knows what that looks like, and I’m not holding my breath for a legislative solution.
BC
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Phogge - 05-03-2022
Is the USGA Amateur Championship still amateur? In other words does the hotshot Stanford freshman (sorry, can’t think of her name) get excluded if she accepts NIL?