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 - 2006alum - 05-06-2022
(05-06-2022, 06:10 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree that the NCAA blew it. The case they lost in the US Supreme Court involved indirect educational expenses (for example money for a computer or graduate school), and the NCAA acted as if granting it would result in the end of amateurism. O’Bannon v. NCAA wouldn’t have happened had the NCAA not ripped off O’Bannon’s likeness for a video game and prohibited him from getting a penny from it. You can imagine a different scenario where they say that NIL money goes into a fund that athletes can draw from post graduation, and agrees to a modest sum for educational expenses and these things never get to the Supreme Court.
Be that as it may, it is always dangerous to extrapolate from one ruling to another and we should not assume that because the Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA on a few narrow issues that it would automatically open the floodgates. Kavenough maybe (his concurrence suggested as much), but I am sure 5 justices could twist themselves into arguing that refusing to give an inch is restraint of trade but that refusing to let the boosters take a mile is not.
BC
This.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Spiny_Norman - 05-08-2022
NCAA expects to act soon to try to restrict booster involvement in NIL payments.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-to-soon-pass-name-image-and-likeness-rules-targeting-boosters-offering-inducements-to-athletes/
And here are some lawyers who think that action won't hold up in court.
[twitter]https://twitter.com/RodGilmore/status/1523456731279355904[/twitter]
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 05-09-2022
I know many here have been in denial on this topic, and really argued against this stuff happening. Some holding on to nostalgia and their own values, and some just refusing to believe these changes are coming because they seem so crazy. But they are coming. There is no stopping them.
https://www.on3.com/news/college-sports-is-broken-can-it-be-fixed-nil-ncaa-jack-swarbrick/
- Schools licensing their name to professional athletic departments that run autonomously
- College athletes being classified as employees
- Recruiting being a pay to play endeavor
Those are the biggest ones, but there are others, like the Power 5 being shrunk even further. So much good stuff in here in terms of truth finally being spoken. Sonny Dykes and David Shaw make appearances too.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - M T - 05-09-2022
And there are some here proselytizing their own view of the world, repeatedly posting the same viewpoint, over and over, again and again.
OutsiderFan, AFAIC, you can promote what you believe in. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making comments about the beliefs of others. Categorizing what others think will likely lead to their categorizing what you think.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 05-09-2022
If your view is that student-athletes are athletes first, who happen to be affiliated with a University, then by all means, they should share in the bounty they gerente for their universities and be paid the market rate for their labor.
On the other hand, if your view is that college student athletes are students first, who happen to support their collegiate tuition with their athletic endeavors, then it doesn’t necessarily follow that they should be paid.
I get that I am in a distinct minority here, and that reality kind of gives lie to the ideal. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of student athletes go onto careers outside of athletics.
Be careful what you wish for, OL, for you might just get it.
BC
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Goose - 05-10-2022
(05-09-2022, 10:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Be careful what you wish for, OL, for you might just get it.I think most of us dearly wish for an OL.
BC
More seriously, FWIW I don't think you are in the minority. I believe that most board members wish that student athletes were exactly that. Most of them also realize that even going back to the 60s it was never quite that simple. However, the ideal existed and at least in theory it was almost universally supported. That is clearly no longer the case, and this lack of an ideal, replacing it with simple business considerations, detracts greatly from my enjoyment college sports.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 05-10-2022
I think it was Jack Swarbrick who said it in the article, but BC, you are right. There are going to be two models to pursue, pro, and not so pro.
The problem - and this is THE problem - the money only wants to pay for the most compelling games between the most compelling teams. So as much as a school might want to go the "tuition, room, and board route," the fact is Football isn't a cash cow then. In fact, it's a financial loser, which will make more schools want to pursue being pro.
We've all been aware the move to compensate the athletes generating the money was going to cut off funding from a lot of other sports, and women in particular would be hurt by this. NIL collectives make it a certainty. Because Ohio State boosters would rather pay an extra $1M to land the next hotshot football recruit than make sure that money is going to Field Hockey scholarships and coaching staff.
Of course, if boosters are paying for recruiting through the sham NIL prostitution rings, schools could be making money hand over fist, without needing to pay coaches as much or invest in facilities and recruiting staff as much, so more money might be available for Field Hockey. Then again, the whole idea that athletes are going to be classified as employees at some point, potentially puts that funding at risk, as athletes earning the money ask for more at the expense of funding other sports.
It all leads back to what I have been "pounding the table" on about this issue ever since it become a thing. The only way this mess is resolved is by having an athlete union or unions by sport, and agreeing to collective bargaining. Because the only way to legally suppress wages is with the consent of labor. Schools can't all agree to only offer a minimum compensation because then they would be sued for collusion. I realize it's extraordinary to ask 17-22 year olds to lead union organizing and CBA negotiations, but that's the situation. Directly paying athletes under CBA is the only way schools can maintain competitive balance that drives interest, control costs to fund other sports, and put NIL collectives tied to certain schools out of business.
I still believe the athletes bringing in the money don't necessarily want to be paid like major leaguers, and would agree to let schools keep a lot of money to fund their other sports programs, provided they got enough in return. And I could see schools agreeing to pay a bit more for athletes who graduate, as part of any CBA frameworks, so they can create an incentive to maintain their education missions. Whatever shakes out, it's going to take several years before any framework that makes sense is arrived at, if one ever is.
Last week I ruffled feathers asserting boosters are never giving up their newfound power over recruiting. This week the NCAA released guidelines to "crackdown" on pay to play recruiting through NIL collectives, claiming it will punish schools that pay athletes. Boosters laughed and said they will see the NCAA in court because there is nothing legally tying their compensation to the school. Another reason classifying athletes as employees and paying them under CBA is only way for NCAA to have any power over the monster it created. Oh the irony.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Genuine Realist - 05-10-2022
(05-10-2022, 09:13 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I think it was Jack Swarbrick who said it in the article, but BC, you are right. There are going to be two models to pursue, pro, and not so pro.
The problem - and this is THE problem - the money only wants to pay for the most compelling games between the most compelling teams. So as much as a school might want to go the "tuition, room, and board route," the fact is Football isn't a cash cow then. In fact, it's a financial loser, which will make more schools want to pursue being pro.
We've all been aware the move to compensate the athletes generating the money was going to cut off funding from a lot of other sports, and women in particular would be hurt by this. NIL collectives make it a certainty. Because Ohio State boosters would rather pay an extra $1M to land the next hotshot football recruit than make sure that money is going to Field Hockey scholarships and coaching staff.
Of course, if boosters are paying for recruiting through the sham NIL prostitution rings, schools could be making money hand over fist, without needing to pay coaches as much or invest in facilities and recruiting staff as much, so more money might be available for Field Hockey. Then again, the whole idea that athletes are going to be classified as employees at some point, potentially puts that funding at risk, as athletes earning the money ask for more at the expense of funding other sports.
It all leads back to what I have been "pounding the table" on about this issue ever since it become a thing. The only way this mess is resolved is by having an athlete union or unions by sport, and agreeing to collective bargaining. Because the only way to legally suppress wages is with the consent of labor. Schools can't all agree to only offer a minimum compensation because then they would be sued for collusion. I realize it's extraordinary to ask 17-22 year olds to lead union organizing and CBA negotiations, but that's the situation. Directly paying athletes under CBA is the only way schools can maintain competitive balance that drives interest, control costs to fund other sports, and put NIL collectives tied to certain schools out of business.
I still believe the athletes bringing in the money don't necessarily want to be paid like major leaguers, and would agree to let schools keep a lot of money to fund their other sports programs, provided they got enough in return. And I could see schools agreeing to pay a bit more for athletes who graduate, as part of any CBA frameworks, so they can create an incentive to maintain their education missions. Whatever shakes out, it's going to take several years before any framework that makes sense is arrived at, if one ever is.
Last week I ruffled feathers asserting boosters are never giving up their newfound power over recruiting. This week the NCAA released guidelines to "crackdown" on pay to play recruiting through NIL collectives, claiming it will punish schools that pay athletes. Boosters laughed and said they will see the NCAA in court because there is nothing legally tying their compensation to the school. Another reason classifying athletes as employees and paying them under CBA is only way for NCAA to have any power over the monster it created. Oh the irony.
Boosters' 'new found' power over recruiting? Short memory. You have forgotten the 50's and 60's, and decades prior. I once thought Hugh McElhenny was joking when he said he took a pay cut when he graduated Washington and joined the 49ers. He wasn't. He was dead serious. Despite that, college sports were competitive even then.
Repeating, the colleges do and should own the game and tournament revenue. But the notion that they can or should have anything to do with the celebrity that comes with athletic success never made any sense.
I'm not at all sure that NIL is as booster driven as claimed. The sheer size and intensity of the fan base at the basketball and football-crazy schools is more than enough to provide six figure, maybe seven figure, returns. An athlete who succeeds at these schools is going to do very well without the slightest input from boosters,
In short, NIL gives schools with large fan bases a basic advantage all by itself, without any bells or whistles.
The only way out, and it isn't perfect, is to go forward. Abandon all of the useless restrictive rules on athletes pledging their pro potential to bona fide parties - and specifically professional franchises - MLB, NBA, and NFL, but also reputable agents and even fan-based syndicates. Up to a point, that's the great equalizer.
'Up to a point' . . . because there's no completely equalizing. John Elway came to Stanford in 1979 considered one of the surest Voldemort Trophy winners in high school history. (Only profound coaching mismanagement prevented that.) If he'd had a contract with a pro team (on an option basis), so much the better. But what happens when an Alabama says, you can have that pro money, and a million a year besides? You can always go back to school, which is true.
The world HAS changed, and demonizing boosters isn't going to alter that. The income potential rests on a much broader base. Allowing pro contacts would help a great deal, but it won't lead to complete equality. Still, it will lead to an interesting, varied landscape. Truth be told, there aren't that many mortal locks among high school athletes. No one would have handed the keys to the mint to Steph Curry as a high school senior. All that came later.
Finally, I wish the NCAA could be relegated simply to academic policing. But I am as opposed to schools buying players as I am to their meddling in business arrangements. To the extent that coaching and athletic staff become involved in income guarantees, arranging NIL contracts, and the like, I think they are buying layers - and there have to be regulations about that. A school recruits who it wants to recruit, offers the standard scholarship, and lets the open market take care of everything else. That's the way it should work.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Spiny_Norman - 05-10-2022
More litigation expected in response to the NCAA's attempt to restrict NIL payments from boosters - https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/kessler-welcomes-ncaa-nil-fight-1234674795/
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - dabigv13 - 05-10-2022
Won't root for a Stanford team that's all paid up. Won't buy tickets to the games and won't tune in.
If there is a pro/nonpro split, I hope they go the nonpro way.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - fullmetal - 05-10-2022
The athletic department could not manage a stable of sports where only one sport was the golden goose. Money causes perverse incentives.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 05-10-2022
I have less of an objection to your proposal than I do to many of the others, GR, but there is one thing I don’t get. Why would pro teams play ball, and pay athletes who might get injured or wind up as busts, when under the current system (the draft) they essentially get the players at below-market rates and have their entire collegiate careers to evaluate them. The only way you get this to happen is to declare the draft illegal.
The only sport I could see this working in is MLB, where teams already draft players out of high school. You could change the rule so that players have to sign with the team that drafts them and let the drafted players enroll in school instead of going to a club’s farm team, without a chance to declare for the draft again after their junior year. But I don’t see any scenario where the NFL allows high school players to sign contracts with teams and allows them to play in college. The system already extracts excess value out of recently drafted players (because they make a lot less than they would in a system without a draft).
BC
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Genuine Realist - 05-11-2022
(05-09-2022, 10:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If your view is that student-athletes are athletes first, who happen to be affiliated with a University, then by all means, they should share in the bounty they gerente for their universities and be paid the market rate for their labor.
On the other hand, if your view is that college student athletes are students first, who happen to support their collegiate tuition with their athletic endeavors, then it doesn’t necessarily follow that they should be paid.
I get that I am in a distinct minority here, and that reality kind of gives lie to the ideal. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of student athletes go onto careers outside of athletics.
Be careful what you wish for, OL, for you might just get it.
BC
I'm very much of the opinion that student athletes are students first, and not employees. Further, I think the club model that applies to baseball, and - in most of the world - futbol, hockey, and basketball, is a disaster of many late adolescents. It maroons them in an athletic channel that leads nowhere, if the athletic career doesn't work out, as most don't.
So schools should not pay athletes, because they aren't employees. But if they are students, the question naturally arises why the school has any interest in the economic circumstances of this one particular class of student. If a student blessed with musical talent publishes a song and gets ASCAP royalties (which has happened), no one cares. If a former child actor (e.g., Fred Savage) receives residuals, it's a matter of indifference.
So why are we concerned with this one unique category of student? The short answer, beyond the basic inquiry as to whether payment isn't disguised compensation from the school, is that there is not the slightest reason why we should be.
The 'ugliness' here is entirely artificial, a result of value judgments that we all got used to, which were probably valid back in the day when professional sports were not as remunerative as they are now, but have been outdated for at least 30 years.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Spiny_Norman - 05-11-2022
(05-11-2022, 12:49 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(05-09-2022, 10:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If your view is that student-athletes are athletes first, who happen to be affiliated with a University, then by all means, they should share in the bounty they gerente for their universities and be paid the market rate for their labor.
On the other hand, if your view is that college student athletes are students first, who happen to support their collegiate tuition with their athletic endeavors, then it doesn’t necessarily follow that they should be paid.
I get that I am in a distinct minority here, and that reality kind of gives lie to the ideal. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of student athletes go onto careers outside of athletics.
Be careful what you wish for, OL, for you might just get it.
BC
I'm very much of the opinion that student athletes are students first, and not employees. Further, I think the club model that applies to baseball, and - in most of the world - futbol, hockey, and basketball, is a disaster of many late adolescents. It maroons them in an athletic channel that leads nowhere, if the athletic career doesn't work out, as most don't.
So schools should not pay athletes, because they aren't employees. But if they are students, the question naturally arises why the school has any interest in the economic circumstances of this one particular class of student. If a student blessed with musical talent publishes a song and gets ASCAP royalties (which has happened), no one cares. If a former child actor (e.g., Fred Savage) receives residuals, it's a matter of indifference.
So why are we concerned with this one unique category of student? The short answer, beyond the basic inquiry as to whether payment isn't disguised compensation from the school, is that there is not the slightest reason why we should be.
The 'ugliness' here is entirely artificial, a result of value judgments that we all got used to, which were probably valid back in the day when professional sports were not as remunerative as they are now, but have been outdated for at least 30 years.
Regardless of what any of us think, it seems likely that the student-athlete-employee is coming.
https://www.on3.com/news/4-big-challenges-face-ncaa-and-its-eventual-new-leader-mark-emmert-replacement/
Quote:Talk with the smartest industry minds and they’ll tell you it’s coming. They don’t know when, they don’t know how. It may be through legislation, litigation or the unfair labor practice charges filed with the National Labor Relation Board. In any event, there is a high probability, if not an inevitability, that sometime in the next few years at least a subset of student-athletes will be deemed employees of their universities. This will serve as a monumental reset in the collegiate model. Some of the sharpest athletic directors already are modeling out what this dynamic would entail at their university.
. . . . When On3 this winter asked Casey Schwab, founder of NIL-focused Altius Sports Partners, to characterize the feelings of athletic directors about the likelihood of athletes being deemed employees, he said: "Pessimistic, reluctant acceptance. It’s not a positive feeling. It’s, ‘This is going to happen. We get it. This isn’t going to be good for the schools. It’s not going to be good for the athletes.’ ”
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 05-11-2022
(05-11-2022, 12:49 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(05-09-2022, 10:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If your view is that student-athletes are athletes first, who happen to be affiliated with a University, then by all means, they should share in the bounty they gerente for their universities and be paid the market rate for their labor.
On the other hand, if your view is that college student athletes are students first, who happen to support their collegiate tuition with their athletic endeavors, then it doesn’t necessarily follow that they should be paid.
I get that I am in a distinct minority here, and that reality kind of gives lie to the ideal. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of student athletes go onto careers outside of athletics.
Be careful what you wish for, OL, for you might just get it.
BC
I'm very much of the opinion that student athletes are students first, and not employees. Further, I think the club model that applies to baseball, and - in most of the world - futbol, hockey, and basketball, is a disaster of many late adolescents. It maroons them in an athletic channel that leads nowhere, if the athletic career doesn't work out, as most don't.
So schools should not pay athletes, because they aren't employees. But if they are students, the question naturally arises why the school has any interest in the economic circumstances of this one particular class of student. If a student blessed with musical talent publishes a song and gets ASCAP royalties (which has happened), no one cares. If a former child actor (e.g., Fred Savage) receives residuals, it's a matter of indifference.
So why are we concerned with this one unique category of student? The short answer, beyond the basic inquiry as to whether payment isn't disguised compensation from the school, is that there is not the slightest reason why we should be.
The 'ugliness' here is entirely artificial, a result of value judgments that we all got used to, which were probably valid back in the day when professional sports were not as remunerative as they are now, but have been outdated for at least 30 years.
GR, I think you are missing a very important point. Nobody cares where a Fred Savage goes to school and the school isn't making money based on him going there. Many, many care where a John Elway goes to school and the school can make a lot of money based on him going there. The reason why people care about the financial success of athletes is because that financial success is now tied to where a John Elway goes to school.
The NCAA doesn't want compensation amount to determine where an athlete goes to school, but it is now living in a world where the only way it can stop this from happening is to classify athletes as employees so they can unionize and collectively bargain away unregulated free agency.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - DC 86 - 05-11-2022
(05-11-2022, 12:49 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: So schools should not pay athletes, because they aren't employees. But if they are students, the question naturally arises why the school has any interest in the economic circumstances of this one particular class of student. If a student blessed with musical talent publishes a song and gets ASCAP royalties (which has happened), no one cares. If a former child actor (e.g., Fred Savage) receives residuals, it's a matter of indifference.
So why are we concerned with this one unique category of student? The short answer, beyond the basic inquiry as to whether payment isn't disguised compensation from the school, is that there is not the slightest reason why we should be.
If there was high stakes, high revenue intercollegiate competition between different universities' musicians and actors then suddenly there would no longer be indifference regarding their compensation.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - cardcrimson - 05-11-2022
(05-11-2022, 01:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(05-11-2022, 12:49 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(05-09-2022, 10:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If your view is that student-athletes are athletes first, who happen to be affiliated with a University, then by all means, they should share in the bounty they gerente for their universities and be paid the market rate for their labor.
On the other hand, if your view is that college student athletes are students first, who happen to support their collegiate tuition with their athletic endeavors, then it doesn’t necessarily follow that they should be paid.
I get that I am in a distinct minority here, and that reality kind of gives lie to the ideal. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of student athletes go onto careers outside of athletics.
Be careful what you wish for, OL, for you might just get it.
BC
I'm very much of the opinion that student athletes are students first, and not employees. Further, I think the club model that applies to baseball, and - in most of the world - futbol, hockey, and basketball, is a disaster of many late adolescents. It maroons them in an athletic channel that leads nowhere, if the athletic career doesn't work out, as most don't.
So schools should not pay athletes, because they aren't employees. But if they are students, the question naturally arises why the school has any interest in the economic circumstances of this one particular class of student. If a student blessed with musical talent publishes a song and gets ASCAP royalties (which has happened), no one cares. If a former child actor (e.g., Fred Savage) receives residuals, it's a matter of indifference.
So why are we concerned with this one unique category of student? The short answer, beyond the basic inquiry as to whether payment isn't disguised compensation from the school, is that there is not the slightest reason why we should be.
The 'ugliness' here is entirely artificial, a result of value judgments that we all got used to, which were probably valid back in the day when professional sports were not as remunerative as they are now, but have been outdated for at least 30 years.
GR, I think you are missing a very important point. Nobody cares where a Fred Savage goes to school and the school isn't making money based on him going there. Many, many care where a John Elway goes to school and the school can make a lot of money based on him going there. The reason why people care about the financial success of athletes is because that financial success is now tied to where a John Elway goes to school.
The NCAA doesn't want compensation amount to determine where an athlete goes to school, but it is now living in a world where the only way it can stop this from happening is to classify athletes as employees so they can unionize and collectively bargain away unregulated free agency.
Never did I expect to ever see Fred Savage in the same sentence as John Elway. Fred and John? Pfft. Danica McKellar on the other hand. . . .
On another note, do you have any idea of employment laws? God help the California schools if they are forced treat athletes as employees. The PAGA mills will have a field day; college sports will end in the Golden State and unionization won't help that at all.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Genuine Realist - 05-12-2022
(05-11-2022, 01:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:What difference does the fact that the sports are revenue positive (which is not how they began, btw) to the irrelevance of the school's interest in the personal finances of the student?(05-11-2022, 12:49 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(05-09-2022, 10:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If your view is that student-athletes are athletes first, who happen to be affiliated with a University, then by all means, they should share in the bounty they gerente for their universities and be paid the market rate for their labor.
On the other hand, if your view is that college student athletes are students first, who happen to support their collegiate tuition with their athletic endeavors, then it doesn’t necessarily follow that they should be paid.
I get that I am in a distinct minority here, and that reality kind of gives lie to the ideal. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of student athletes go onto careers outside of athletics.
Be careful what you wish for, OL, for you might just get it.
BC
I'm very much of the opinion that student athletes are students first, and not employees. Further, I think the club model that applies to baseball, and - in most of the world - futbol, hockey, and basketball, is a disaster of many late adolescents. It maroons them in an athletic channel that leads nowhere, if the athletic career doesn't work out, as most don't.
So schools should not pay athletes, because they aren't employees. But if they are students, the question naturally arises why the school has any interest in the economic circumstances of this one particular class of student. If a student blessed with musical talent publishes a song and gets ASCAP royalties (which has happened), no one cares. If a former child actor (e.g., Fred Savage) receives residuals, it's a matter of indifference.
So why are we concerned with this one unique category of student? The short answer, beyond the basic inquiry as to whether payment isn't disguised compensation from the school, is that there is not the slightest reason why we should be.
The 'ugliness' here is entirely artificial, a result of value judgments that we all got used to, which were probably valid back in the day when professional sports were not as remunerative as they are now, but have been outdated for at least 30 years.
GR, I think you are missing a very important point. Nobody cares where a Fred Savage goes to school and the school isn't making money based on him going there. Many, many care where a John Elway goes to school and the school can make a lot of money based on him going there. The reason why people care about the financial success of athletes is because that financial success is now tied to where a John Elway goes to school.
The NCAA doesn't want compensation amount to determine where an athlete goes to school, but it is now living in a world where the only way it can stop this from happening is to classify athletes as employees so they can unionize and collectively bargain away unregulated free agency.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Mick - 05-12-2022
(05-10-2022, 02:11 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Boosters' 'new found' power over recruiting? Short memory. You have forgotten the 50's and 60's, and decades prior. I once thought Hugh McElhenny was joking when he said he took a pay cut when he graduated Washington and joined the 49ers. He wasn't. He was dead serious. Despite that, college sports were competitive even then.
My granddad once told me that a player on Stanford's football team in the late 1930s/early 1940s had a child and the scholarship and "other" financial support made being in school a better financial decision than working on the outside.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 05-19-2022
Lol, Nick Saban complaining that Texas A&M “bought” all their players.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33942494/alabama-football-coach-nick-saban-says-texas-bought-every-player-questions-whether-current-nil-model-sustainable
Quote: The problem with NIL, Saban said Wednesday, is "coaches trying to create an advantage for themselves."
I mean, I can’t even…
BC