Transfer Portal Post-NIL

[AuH2O]

That already exists, though. The striation between Power 5 vs Group of 5 is massive. That division isn't new, but the position of schools may change.

The degrees of striation are probably currently at their lowest point ever in CFB. Reductions in scholarship, getting everybody on TV, and having enough money where facilities were good enough everywhere have made it far more possible for any school with the right coach to win. It was one thing when an extra $30 million per year got dumped into making great facilities a little bit greater. Now those extra dollars' marginal utility goes absolutely through the roof.

I don't like to tangle up the "is NIL and pay for play right or wrong?" argument with the "will NIL/pay for play ruin college football" debate because they are two separate arguments.

 

[CyTwister]

I think allowing players to make money of their NIL is probably the right thing to do.
I'm not one of those people pissing themselves about exploitation or anything.

Or at least if people are going to be freaking out about players being exploited they need to have the balls to name specifically who has really been getting rich off the kids - the coaches. So unless you are will to say Matt Campbell is exploiting kids at Iowa State, I don't really respect that opinion. Being a college football player is still a choice, and for a lot of people it's a pretty good deal. And people like to throw out the exploitation accusation as if there's some old white man with a monocle at the "NCAA and these schools" making tens of millions off these kids, when it's overwhelmingly the coaches cashing in.

But in the end I just don't think running an industry that is highly dependent on people while putting severe limits to their ability to cash in on their own value is right.

And I think a result of that is eventually going to greatly diminish the popularity of college football. I don't like it, but I think that's the way it's going to be.

So I don't think destroying college football is the right thing to do. I think it is probably the end result of doing the right thing. But who knows, this is just a guess by a dummy on the internet.

Very well put. I agree with 95% of what you said here and it’s well thought out!

I do think it’s possible to believe that Matt Campbell is a good guy and positive influence on both his players and fans while also holding that he’s benefiting in a huge way financially from players being denied pay. There’s plenty of industries and instances in which “good people” benefit from exploitation.

Where I think the conversation truly gets uncomfortable is when you consider that players not being paid has directly or indirectly benefitted others…new jobs have been created in the athletic department which didn’t exist 40 years ago, local businesses financially benefit from increased traffic every Fall, new construction projects employ local labor, and Olympic sports have larger budgets.

 

[ISUTex]

So, who is going to pony up to keep top ISU players in Ames? Casey's?

 

[CyTwister]

Well said.
Massive salaries for coaches? Fine.
Facilities arms races? No worries.
No parity with only the same few teams dominating recruiting and having a legitimate shot at a title? That's great!

Players can make money from their NIL?
YOU'RE RUINING COLLEGE SPORTS!!!!

Don’t forget ESPN, Fox and corporations giving schools millions of dollars to broadcast their “amateur student-athletes”.

 

[ISUTex]

The scenario might happen on occasion, but Gary is greatly exaggerating how often it will happen. SEC schools would have to run off a bunch of their players for this to happen.

They already do this. They over recruit and cull the ones who aren't developing to their liking. It's only going to get worse.

 

[cyclone1209]

So, who is going to pony up to keep top ISU players in Ames? Casey's?

If I wanted to watch a league where players get the most amount of money they can and it's all about the players and not the rivalries, I would watch the NFL.

College football going to lose a lot of fans as this continues to slide downhill.

 

[KnappShack]

But that's the point. It'll be easier to poach non-high ranked kids who turned out to be good from schools like ISU

As a former player I wonder how this feels to you.

Let's say you come to Knapp State. You kill it. Outstanding season and we even get a little press on ESPN+

Alabama comes calling. NIL numbers that are eye opening.

How easy is it for a player to make the jump? Is it naive to think education and relationships come into play at all?

We have a 6 star culture at Knapp State. Our academics are solid. Worth it to make the jump? Money talks and everything else walks?

 

[AuH2O]

Very well put. I agree with 95% of what you said here and it’s well thought out!

I do think it’s possible to believe that Matt Campbell is a good guy and positive influence on both his players and fans while also holding that he’s benefiting in a huge way financially from players being denied pay. There’s plenty of industries and instances in which “good people” benefit from exploitation.

Where I think the conversation truly gets uncomfortable is when you consider that players not being paid has directly or indirectly benefitted others…new jobs have been created in the athletic department which didn’t exist 40 years ago, local businesses financially benefit from increased traffic every Fall, new construction projects employ local labor, and Olympic sports have larger budgets.

I don't think Matt Campbell is exploiting players, because everyone knows the deal and has a choice coming in. I think you hit it on the head - college football has created a ton of jobs, so people are assuming that means there are all these people getting rich off these kids. Overwhelmingly it's that with the added complexity and dollars at stake there are a ton more people working in these industries. The Presidents don't make any/much more because frankly even with the explosion in college athletics it remains in the noise of the overall university revenues. ADs to some extent make a lot more, but their staffs and the complexity of their jobs have grown exponentially. A handful of conference commissioners? I guess. But between ADs and commissioners you aren't talking about all that much money. Almost all the "wealth" in college sports has gone to the coaches. They are overwhelmingly the individuals getting rich from the explosion of college sports.

And I'm OK with any argument except throwing out the exploitation charge while simultaneously holding up coaches, the individuals getting rich, as good guys in all this. This is the same dumb Jay Bilas argument. "Universities" are getting rich off these kids, but these coaches are great and should make tons of money. I'm so tired of hearing people claim he's some smart guy when he makes this clueless argument over and over again, as if there is some boardroom of executives at university athletic departments making millions a year or something. At Duke that's a one-man executive board getting rich, and that's Coach K.

 

[SCNCY]

I think the NCAA needs to make a rule that prohibits colleges and universities from paying players except for tuition, room and board. Also, maybe prohibit schools from assisting athletes with their NIL. Additionally, I am not sure if the idea of the AD using their own funds to pay players would throw in to question the AD's non-profit status.

 

[KnappShack]

I think the NCAA needs to make a rule that prohibits colleges and universities from paying players except for tuition, room and board. Also, maybe prohibit schools from assisting athletes with their NIL. Additionally, I am not sure if the idea of the AD using their own funds to pay players would throw in to question the AD's non-profit status.

The NIL could be a little sticky.

Not sure I want a player representing Porn Hub or something. Does the AD need a quasi HR department now?

Maybe it would've been easier to actually put players on the school payroll.

If I'm Campbell doesn't this all start to look like the NFL? If it looks like the NFL then why not go get paid in the NFL

 

[CyTwister]

I think the NCAA needs to make a rule that prohibits colleges and universities from paying players except for tuition, room and board. Also, maybe prohibit schools from assisting athletes with their NIL. Additionally, I am not sure if the idea of the AD using their own funds to pay players would throw in to question the AD's non-profit status.

I’m going to ignore the first part because that rule was already in place for awhile. The second part about schools not being able to help coordinate NIL sounds great in theory, but difficult to enforce in practice.

There’s no way paying players would throw into question non-profit status when we’re talking about public universities where plenty of D1 coaches are making $2,000,000 or more to coach a sport. It’s been a for-profit industry for a long time now but you’re not going to see it get taxed like a private sector corporation any time soon because it’s not in the private sector.

 

[Mr Janny]

I think the NCAA needs to make a rule that prohibits colleges and universities from paying players except for tuition, room and board. Also, maybe prohibit schools from assisting athletes with their NIL. Additionally, I am not sure if the idea of the AD using their own funds to pay players would throw in to question the AD's non-profit status.

The Supreme Court just ruled 9-0 that limiting scholarships to just tuition, room and board violates anti trust law, and that they are able to offer other education related benefits like laptops.

If you are looking at any solution that has the NCAA adding restrictions, you're going to be waiting a long time for it. The NCAA doesn't want to lose in court again. And the SCOTUS effectively dared them to try it.

 

[Tri4Cy]

They can have a crapton of walk-ons though receiving enough money that they don't really care about the scholarship.

True. But you have to consider diminishing returns. What is that guy worth who never plays a down in a game for you? Also, if you take 100k to go be a walk-on at Bama and never see the field, what are your prospects of making it to the next level?

Do you take no money in college but be a featured player that potentially gets you drafted or at least a seat on a practice squad or do you get paid up front, get buried in the depth chart, and likely never get noticed?

 

[jbhtexas]

So you think college players right now should say they aren't going to get paid because it MIGHT destroy college football in 30 years?

NIL is a legal matter and there's not a damn thing the schools can do about it without colluding illegally or falling behind. So no one WANTS to destroy college football, but if there is such a risk, the only ones that can stop it are the players themselves. And are they going to say, "no I think I'll bypass my opportunity to make some money off my own image while Lane Kiffin can accumulate multi-generational wealth to be a failure. I want to ensure the health of college football in the decades to come."

This is a strawman in regards to the point I was making. If you support NIL, but you think that NIL will destroy college football, and you want college football to survive, then your position is illogical. Whether NIL is legal or illegal is of no relevance on this particular point.

 

[RealisticCy]

I think people are missing this to a point. These teams can't have 200 players on the roster and they are already getting the top recruits.

The ability to reach out and poach these developmental kids really sucks from a recruiting standpoint. Hell, you could hypothetically have the Bama's of the world just selectively recruit the top HS kids then "buy" the remaining holes in the roster through NIL.

If your team is losing 23-30 kids a year though I'm guessing it's not an NIL problem...

They can have a crapton of walk-ons though receiving enough money that they don't really care about the scholarship.

Scholarship limits and recruiting rules are imposed by the NCAA, which may not be relevant in 5 years or even in charge of anything football related.

If the SEC expands to 24 and decides to run their own championship, nothing to stop them from making their own "rules" and letting teams have as many scholarship players that they can afford.

 

[AuH2O]

This is a strawman in regards to the point I was making. If you support NIL, but you think that NIL will destroy college football, and you want college football to survive, then your position is illogical. Whether NIL is legal or illegal is of no relevance here.

It's not illogical at all. I think players should be able to make money of their NIL. I think there's a good risk that eventually this greatly damages college football. But it's not up to the current players to figure out how to keep them cashing in on NIL now from destroying college football in 10, 20 or 30 years. It's not their problem to solve.

Maybe a better way to state my position is I think certainly legally and probably morally it is right to eliminate most or all limitations on players' ability to make money off NIL, and I think it is a MAJOR challenge to figure out how to prevent this from wrecking college football. Hopefully the schools can figure this out, but my guess is that they will not. The insistence by ADs and others to try to cling to amateurism when the writing was on the wall rather than be proactive suggests they will continue to be in reaction mode. Similar to realignment rather than get together, take a step back and figure out a system that will keep broad, national interest high, they are down to poaching each other, secret backroom deals, and whoring themselves out with moves that risk driving millions of fans away from the sport.

 

[AuH2O]

Scholarship limits and recruiting rules are imposed by the NCAA, which may not be relevant in 5 years or even in charge of anything football related.

If the SEC expands to 24 and decides to run their own championship, nothing to stop them from making their own "rules" and letting teams have as many scholarship players that they can afford.

I would love for the SEC to do this only for the reason that they will be sealing their own fate. A 24 regional circle jerk league will fail.

It's kind of like these G-league or the other league paying big bucks to HS players to come into the league. People thinking that is going to somehow be sustainable is crazy. So they're dumping money right now to attract a few players, but ultimately the only way ANY sports entity becomes successful is if millions and millions of people are willing to invest their time and money to consume the product. No one is going to give a **** about some minor league basketball system with HS players for one year and G-league level guys, where there is no team loyalty established over decades, if not generations. And very few outside the SE are going to care about some 24 team college football league. Look at ratings. As much as these conferences don't want to admit it, there is a lot of synergy between the conferences. If you divvy up the current power teams into 2 or 3 independent leagues they are going to all be eventually taking a major financial hit.

 

[SCNCY]

The Supreme Court just ruled 9-0 that limiting scholarships to just tuition, room and board violates anti trust law, and that they are able to offer other education related benefits like laptops.

If you are looking at any solution that has the NCAA adding restrictions, you're going to be waiting a long time for it. The NCAA doesn't want to lose in court again. And the SCOTUS effectively dared them to try it.

But wasn't the problem the fact that athletes couldn't make money based on their athletic achievements from those outside the AD? The problem was that the AD made money from a players NIL, and restricted those same players from seeking their own endorsements and making money themselves. All I am saying is that AD's continue to do what they did in the past, but just restrict schools from shelling out money outside of tuition, room and board to prevent a free agent style market. If players want additional money outside of Tuition, room and board, they need to seek it themselves.

 

[AuH2O]

True. But you have to consider diminishing returns. What is that guy worth who never plays a down in a game for you? Also, if you take 100k to go be a walk-on at Bama and never see the field, what are your prospects of making it to the next level?

Do you take no money in college but be a featured player that potentially gets you drafted or at least a seat on a practice squad or do you get paid up front, get buried in the depth chart, and likely never get noticed?

When the scholarship limits were much higher guys were going to the bigger schools for essentially financial parity. So yes, when faced with a significant financial disparity most guys are going to go to the big-time schools. Most figure they are not going to sit on the bench forever, and at worst if they do they make some decent cash essentially being a paid practice squad guy.

 

[AuH2O]

True. But you have to consider diminishing returns. What is that guy worth who never plays a down in a game for you? Also, if you take 100k to go be a walk-on at Bama and never see the field, what are your prospects of making it to the next level?

Do you take no money in college but be a featured player that potentially gets you drafted or at least a seat on a practice squad or do you get paid up front, get buried in the depth chart, and likely never get noticed?

When the scholarship limits were much higher guys were going to the bigger schools for essentially financial parity. So yes, when faced with a significant financial disparity most guys are going to go to the big-time schools. Most figure they are not going to sit on the bench forever, and at worst if they do they make some decent cash essentially being a paid practice squad guy.