Only thing I will say on any of this is whatever side of the fence you fall on, not a single one of us actually knows what's going to happen and the consequences (both good and bad) that come from it. So anyone insulting, attacking or demeaning someone on the opposite side for their opinion is wrong. All major changes like this have consequences that are unforeseen. Some end up being great while others not so much. This happened, so let's just see how it plays out.
And so it begins... NIL
- Thread starter Yellow Snow
- Start date
Well I've learned that our football program will just be composed of walk ons by August so this is our reality forever I guess.
Sounds like you're getting exactly what you wanted out of your money. Sounds like it was paid all above board, and he'll be paying taxes on that million, and we don't have to have people running around screwing kids over for 30k like what happened with Silvio DeSousa at Kansas. Sounds like the FBI won't have to get involved and these assistant coaches won't have to go to jail for some dumb stuff.
Again, bribes are illegal. You paying a dude a cool million to do something perfectly legally is not.
Is it a bribe for me to offer a good sales rep a higher salary to come work for me?
No different than making a better offer to a running back to come work (play) for my team.
I'm in favor of the athletes not getting paid like indentured servants. However, I AM worried about the impact to the college FB landscape and in particular to ISU.
My biggest concern wrt ISU is that they become the Pittsburgh Pirates. ISU doesnt' get the 5-stars up front, but when you find a diamond (e.g. Breece Hall, David Montgomery) and then after 1 good year they transfer to take a better offer at Texas with a $500k NIL deal from Longwhorn motors. So you are continually rebuilding and are condemned to above average at best, and if you make any mistakes at all you are in the cellar.
If the NCAA is smart (and they aren't) they would get a CBA going. Then you could set some rules to ensure competitive balance, like you can only transfer once, or have to stay at a school 2 years, or whatever.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
I agree, that would be the best case, but I think the window for that is gone. It takes corporation from the players to get a CBA implemented, and I can't see that happening. Some players would likely be on board, but what incentive do the top end players have to participate in any kind of process that would implement restrictions on them? The NCAA stalled and did next to nothing about this, even when it was clear where it was heading.
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court ruling had nothing to do with NIL. It removed the NCAAs ability to put restrictions on educational benefits. The opinion issued warned the NCAA that what they were doing was wrong and from that they knew they would lose an NIL lawsuit, but the NCAA was not forced to do anything with NIL right now. The law is the law, and the NCAA has been violating it for a long time and they know it. They just decided to rip the band-aid off now rather than wait until someone sued them.
Plus players have talked about forming a union before, and let's just say it's been met with some hostility.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
Agreed. The SCOTUS was looming large with their decision, but it didn't force the NCAA to do anything with NIL. That was all done by individual states who had their own NIL laws going into effect on July 1. Had the NCAA not folded on NIL, they would have put themselves in a precarious position, legally. It was their only move that wouldn't have resulted in an instant lawsuit.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
Absolutely. And that's another reason why a CBA has little chance of ever happening. There are plenty of people out there who support players making money, but would be very opposed to them unionizing. That would be a massive uphill battle.
Or, you make that signing day commitment an actual contract for 4 to 5 years; after that, you become a free agent for the NFL.
Agreed.
I'm just here to state (without passion) that imo the rich will simply get richer. As time passes that's not really earth shattering news. Everything about CFB has been pushing it to NFL lite for years. It seems to be the will of the people and I can accept my place in the minority.
If there is an argument that this is GOOD for ISU I'd like to hear it but I also recognize that fairness is fairness and the free market is the free market. If ISU football is destined to go the way of the neighborhood grocery stores that used to populate my city then that's what will happen.
Anybody else having problems getting the new podcast to download? I'm trying to just use the portal off of the web page but every time I hit the play button nothing happens. @ChrisMWilliams @JStanz51
Last edited:
But the difference is the NCAA and schools were still holding on that they could keep the current system going. I think it was a huge mistake by ADs at schools like ISU to not push for something like a CBA back when it appeared that the schools and NCAA still had some leverage. Then they could create some order, and balance. Now it's clear that the players have the leverage. Now a CBA is likely to be opposed by the really high profile guys that would probably stand to lose opportunities in a CBA, while the guys with little market value are probably going to benefit more.
This likely is going to really damage the schools without big donor bases in a major way, but these schools (ISU included) and their ADs are to blame. They could've gotten out in front of this and tried to negotiate something that would've been agreeable to a majority of schools and players. But they held on to their antiquated notion of amateurism in college sports, and now have to try to negotiate from the new normal, which feels like the wild west.
The only way that ISU doesn't take a huge hit here in the long run is to leverage our fanbase and see if there is a way to crowdsource funds in some way. Let's face it, our donor base absolutely sucks relative to most power conference schools. Our fanbase is better than most.
The most interesting thing to me will be how this plays out for guys that aren't stars, but are sort of the borderline 4 star type guys. I think the big time recruits will get some big deals and there will be bidding wars among the bluebloods. I'm curious to see how lucrative some donors make it for less prominent recruits. Will it be to the point where a large number of players could be enticed to "walk on" at a Texas, Oregon, etc. rather than taking a scholarship at a place like ISU?
I wonder about this as well! Think of the differences that already exist between the premier programs vs the middle-of-the-pack type programs. Then think of the differences that exist between those premier programs and a MAC type program! Wow...getting a kid on the playing field will always matter overall but would a "star" type player in the MAC be enticed to be a role-type player at a blue-blood for a few extra hundred dollars?
There are a lot of "if's" right now, and I agree that if ISU doesn't play it's cards right things could go very badly for us.
Miami had the guy who runs a bunch of gyms offer NIL payments of 500.00 a month, or 6,000 per year to every scholarship football player. I think that should be the immediate goal for somebody. Get Sukup or Jensen on the line and find out what they can do.
The first few years are going to be a cluster. Some kids will over-value themselves and make dumb decisions. The good news for us is that CMC has built a culture that has a solid foundation. If our players end up being able to profit off NIL, we should be able to withstand the initial madness. Thankfully we are peaking at the right time and can hopefully maintain momentum. This would have been a much more significant blow 6-7 years ago.
I think the teams that will be hurt the most are the ones whose athletes are on the fence about staying or transferring to a bigger school. Poaching players has always been a thing, but some schools will face an even greater disadvantage, especially if an athlete needs the money to help out their family. Even if the NFL isn't in your future, who wouldn't lean towards a fistful of cash when you options are similar? I think it calms down eventually once the pecking orders are in place.
My biggest takeaway is that recruiting just became a much tougher job. Using NIL numbers in recruiting is going to pay immediate dividends to the rich programs and will be an uphill climb for the rest.
In the end, there are still a limited number of roster spots available and everyone can't play for Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Oregon, etc. My hope is they'll have a money war for the top players and end up with entitled college kids who have money and are harder to keep in line.
I think the teams that will be hurt the most are the ones whose athletes are on the fence about staying or transferring to a bigger school. Poaching players has always been a thing, but some schools will face an even greater disadvantage, especially if an athlete needs the money to help out their family. Even if the NFL isn't in your future, who wouldn't lean towards a fistful of cash when you options are similar? I think it calms down eventually once the pecking orders are in place.
My biggest takeaway is that recruiting just became a much tougher job. Using NIL numbers in recruiting is going to pay immediate dividends to the rich programs and will be an uphill climb for the rest.
In the end, there are still a limited number of roster spots available and everyone can't play for Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Oregon, etc. My hope is they'll have a money war for the top players and end up with entitled college kids who have money and are harder to keep in line.
you realize coaches don't want 4 year contracts for players either right? Coaches want the players who didn't work out to have the ability to transfer out so they'll stop counting against their scholarship count (without them looking like asshats for pulling a schollie). Players want the ability to transfer if things aren't working out. Neither side wants 4 year contracts. Even people like you don't really want 4 year contracts, you just want certain players to not be able to go anywhere.
I think for the first couple of years, there's going to be ridiculous money going around which will probably trickle down to the entire roster. I think that dries up in football for a majority of players though, there are just too many players on each team for each player to get a meaningful amount of money each year.
What's more likely longterm is recruits get the equivalent of signing bonuses and then the stars get paid along with an assortment of big personality nonstars.
What's more likely longterm is recruits get the equivalent of signing bonuses and then the stars get paid along with an assortment of big personality nonstars.