Game of football will never be the same..

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,515
1,373
243
51
Boulder, CO
#61
But isn't the NCAA, an organization that was setup and is technically overseen by the schools already? I know they've gotten too big, and may need to branch out the different shorts, but why are they acting like the NCAA is just some random group that decided to take ownership of the athletic activities of colleges out of nowhere.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
They're not, they're saying football has outgrown the old model of how college athletics was run. Putting it under its' own umbrella will give them more ability to implement some uniformity.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
#62
I wonder if or when Title IX is going to throw a wrench in things?
I don't see how it could but maybe I'm missing something.

Isn't Title 9 all about gender based discrimination? You wondering if women will sue because they can't get access to the same athletic dollars (i.e., NIL money)? That's all separate from the school so how do they file complaint with the school over it unless the school is doing something to unequally support athletes getting NIL deals?
Maybe he means the idea of the cfp oversight the Ohio State guy talked about? Since he didn't quote though, I'm not sure.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
#63
I don't think it will throw a wrench into it, I think it will be the backbone to make the situation worse. When guys like Barry Switzer say they're going to set up funds to pay football, basketball and softball, then does the women's soccer team sue him? I'd bet dollars to donuts you're going to see that happen. Then you'll have lawsuits over why an o lineman at Texas gets $40-50K a year and the back up setter for the volleyball team get's a dry ham and cheese sandwich. There is no doubt this will happen.
disagree.

Under the new rules (lack of rules) the schools can't be held accountable for what Boosters do.
If Boosters want to only pay players with red hair, that's ok . .. same as if they want to pay by gender.
That's when a women's team can sue the NCAA for not doing anything because of title ix and it go to the supreme court. Who knows, maybe the court will come back with recommendations the NCAA schools and boosters have to follow. Or not. The NCAA hasn't shown much care for women's sports lately anyway.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 

CowboyHoopsPride

Territorial Marshal
Feb 18, 2009
6,380
3,054
1,743
#65
So go back to the way it was? That's not very insightful. We're not going back. And he actually thinks NIL isn't valuable for a high schooler? You don't think Cade Cunningham had any value in high school or until a year in college? If someone is willing to pay it, there is value there. Transfers are going to continue. The changes that will happen are probably a smaller window of time and changes to how scholarships are counted, the way Gundy has been complaining about for a few years. I hate it because my program isn't the blueblood that will win this arms race, but there is just no legal or really rational basis to prevent anyone from making money off their own name, image, and likeness in whatever amount someone is willing to pay.
I don't disagree but I don't think that's what DG is saying.

You have "the way it was" which at the surface level at least pretended to be about amateur athletics and you have the way it is now which is a wild wild west and is not sustainable for the vast majority of institutions, including us as you said. It can't go back and it can't go forward in it's current form so a reasonable dialogue needs to be had and the starting point isn't "everyone should get paid whatever, whenever."

HS kids choosing to graduate early, committing to powerhouse school they have no intention of ever playing for, taking a spot in the recruiting class and on the scholarship limitation, collecting their $1,000,000 deal, just to transfer a semester later back to their home state to be named the starter immediately is asinine. Great for him but for the sport and viability it cannot be continued long term. And he did all because in the state he left, HS kids cannot realize NIL money but in Ohio he could. That is ludicrous and needs to be addressed. Further to your point, I think Cade should have been able to go pro right out of high school and a year in college or the G league at pennies on the dollar for an NIL deal is even more unreasonable. Where does the line get drawn on when you can monetize and when you can't?

DG's suggestions are merely a starting point to discuss college athletics. Without it, its doomed to an even worse version of pro sports today which is nothing more than sports entertainment a la WWE wrestling.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,953
15,492
1,743
#66
I agree a full scholarship is beneficial, but also comes at a significant price ( of potential physical harm and a significant time sacrifice) and typically most football scholarship athletes Are not able to pursue the entire variety of academic options.

I agree tuition is expensive, but that’s another topic about how every state reduced spending on higher education after the 2008 recession.

Instate tuition has increased 400% since my time in Stillwater in the late 90s. Far exceeding inflation.
Health care and education, the 2 costs that always exceed inflation
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
7,269
4,881
1,743
34
Keller, Texas
#67
So the NCAA could fix it by claiming all athletes are employees and therefore 'sign away' their NIL rights to the university they choose while they are at school. The kids would have to pay taxes on their benefits and the NCAA could then allow for scholarships to include/offset those educational taxes/price of education. OR legislatures could then make a law making scholarships or what would become 'jobs' tax free or fully tax deductible. That would include healthcare, food and housing, books and education expenses up to a potential max amount per 'scholarship'
 
Dec 3, 2012
612
570
643
#68
I don't disagree but I don't think that's what DG is saying.

You have "the way it was" which at the surface level at least pretended to be about amateur athletics and you have the way it is now which is a wild wild west and is not sustainable for the vast majority of institutions, including us as you said. It can't go back and it can't go forward in it's current form so a reasonable dialogue needs to be had and the starting point isn't "everyone should get paid whatever, whenever."

HS kids choosing to graduate early, committing to powerhouse school they have no intention of ever playing for, taking a spot in the recruiting class and on the scholarship limitation, collecting their $1,000,000 deal, just to transfer a semester later back to their home state to be named the starter immediately is asinine. Great for him but for the sport and viability it cannot be continued long term. And he did all because in the state he left, HS kids cannot realize NIL money but in Ohio he could. That is ludicrous and needs to be addressed. Further to your point, I think Cade should have been able to go pro right out of high school and a year in college or the G league at pennies on the dollar for an NIL deal is even more unreasonable. Where does the line get drawn on when you can monetize and when you can't?

DG's suggestions are merely a starting point to discuss college athletics. Without it, its doomed to an even worse version of pro sports today which is nothing more than sports entertainment a la WWE wrestling.
I have felt for some time that a reasonable solution is to make scholarships act more like two-way contracts. Here’s what I mean by that:
You sign a three year scholarship with a school? You are free to transfer at will after your third year, but you face a penalty for transferring early (pay back scholarship? Sit out? Lose eligibility? I don’t know…). However, for those three years you are protected. The school can’t cut you or take away your scholarship without due cause (grades, misbehavior, etc.).

This makes the scholarship length a bargaining chip. Some kids will insist on only one-year scholarships, but at least the coach knows what he’s getting: a kid who will be looking around each year.
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,515
1,373
243
51
Boulder, CO
#69
I don't disagree but I don't think that's what DG is saying.

You have "the way it was" which at the surface level at least pretended to be about amateur athletics and you have the way it is now which is a wild wild west and is not sustainable for the vast majority of institutions, including us as you said. It can't go back and it can't go forward in it's current form so a reasonable dialogue needs to be had and the starting point isn't "everyone should get paid whatever, whenever."

HS kids choosing to graduate early, committing to powerhouse school they have no intention of ever playing for, taking a spot in the recruiting class and on the scholarship limitation, collecting their $1,000,000 deal, just to transfer a semester later back to their home state to be named the starter immediately is asinine. Great for him but for the sport and viability it cannot be continued long term. And he did all because in the state he left, HS kids cannot realize NIL money but in Ohio he could. That is ludicrous and needs to be addressed. Further to your point, I think Cade should have been able to go pro right out of high school and a year in college or the G league at pennies on the dollar for an NIL deal is even more unreasonable. Where does the line get drawn on when you can monetize and when you can't?

DG's suggestions are merely a starting point to discuss college athletics. Without it, its doomed to an even worse version of pro sports today which is nothing more than sports entertainment a la WWE wrestling.
Good post.

The discussion on the NBA removing the one and done rule started again over a year ago, and gained some traction due to G league salaries becoming so lucrative. I think you'll see the rule go away in the next five years and some of these kids will go straight to the NBA or G league and make good money.
 
Dec 3, 2012
612
570
643
#70
So the NCAA could fix it by claiming all athletes are employees and therefore 'sign away' their NIL rights to the university they choose while they are at school. The kids would have to pay taxes on their benefits and the NCAA could then allow for scholarships to include/offset those educational taxes/price of education. OR legislatures could then make a law making scholarships or what would become 'jobs' tax free or fully tax deductible. That would include healthcare, food and housing, books and education expenses up to a potential max amount per 'scholarship'
What makes this problematic is when all universities get together and put a cap on the amount any athlete can earn. Setting up an organization to police their institutions to make sure no one gets ab improper benefit. This is called collusion and is illegal.

If each school chooses for itself how to regulate NIL rights and how to set compensation levels, the courts would have no problems. But it doesn’t solve any of the challenges facing college athletics at the moment.
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,515
1,373
243
51
Boulder, CO
#71
Former Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops appeared on ‘The Rush’, a talk show hosted by Tyler McComas and Teddy Lehman and broadcast around the state of Oklahoma. During his appearance, Stoops made a point to say how bad the NCAA has done in enforcing laws for one problem, while they make hasty decisions regarding other cases that come across their desk.

“The bottom line, be careful what you wish for. It’s totally different than what we’ve been used to. My opinion, we need a new leadership group. The NCAA and the way it’s been has really failed overall. Who goes by rules anymore and how they enforce it just seems so ambiguous. Look at Oklahoma State and their basketball program and what happened to them, brutal and just so wrong and so late. And then other teams, nothing happens to them.

“I’m not pointing fingers at anyone, it happens in football too,” Stoops added. “I’ve been very disillusioned for a long, long time on the NCAA. Just through my football years and how they enforce things or don’t.”

“Maybe we need to have a new league of Power Five teams that have their own league, with their own whatever it be — commissioner, or governing board. You may have to put a salary cap on everybody and every team. Who knows? I don’t know. Again, I’m not living it like these other people are. But from afar, it looks like right now, nobody has control of anything. I don’t know if that’s ever good.”
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
7,269
4,881
1,743
34
Keller, Texas
#72
What makes this problematic is when all universities get together and put a cap on the amount any athlete can earn. Setting up an organization to police their institutions to make sure no one gets ab improper benefit. This is called collusion and is illegal.

If each school chooses for itself how to regulate NIL rights and how to set compensation levels, the courts would have no problems. But it doesn’t solve any of the challenges facing college athletics at the moment.
Unless it's done at the NCAA level and then allow the students to unionize and collectively bargain.
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,515
1,373
243
51
Boulder, CO
#73
What makes this problematic is when all universities get together and put a cap on the amount any athlete can earn. Setting up an organization to police their institutions to make sure no one gets ab improper benefit. This is called collusion and is illegal.

If each school chooses for itself how to regulate NIL rights and how to set compensation levels, the courts would have no problems. But it doesn’t solve any of the challenges facing college athletics at the moment.
They can cap what teams can pay in total, though, and it's not collusion.
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
7,269
4,881
1,743
34
Keller, Texas
#75
You are absolutely correct. Collective bargaining may be the solution
Problem with that is who would want to put up with a lockout in college sports. If a lockout was to occur would that put a pause on the athletes scholarship payments and force them to 'pay'? until they hit the field/floor/pool etc?
 
Dec 3, 2012
612
570
643
#77
Problem with that is who would want to put up with a lockout in college sports. If a lockout was to occur would that put a pause on the athletes scholarship payments and force them to 'pay'? until they hit the field/floor/pool etc?
You’re right. A collectively bargained salary cap solves some problems and causes others… I’m glad I’m not making the rules, because I don’t see an obvious answer.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the current leaders have any ideas either…
 
Apr 12, 2020
1,220
517
243
27
Stillwater
#78
What makes this problematic is when all universities get together and put a cap on the amount any athlete can earn. Setting up an organization to police their institutions to make sure no one gets ab improper benefit. This is called collusion and is illegal.

If each school chooses for itself how to regulate NIL rights and how to set compensation levels, the courts would have no problems. But it doesn’t solve any of the challenges facing college athletics at the moment.
They can cap what teams can pay in total, though, and it's not collusion.
No they can’t, not unless the players unionize and there’s a CBA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,515
1,373
243
51
Boulder, CO
#80
https://www.si.com/college/2022/05/03/task-force-to-big-money-boosters-nil-sanctions-could-be-coming

COTTSDALE Ariz.—College leaders are gearing up to issue a warning to hundreds of wealthy boosters who are using name, image and likeness (NIL) ventures to involve themselves in recruiting.
University administrators, part of a task force to review NIL, are finalizing additional guidelines that are expected to clarify that boosters and booster-led collectives are prohibited from involvement in recruiting, multiple sources tell Sports Illustrated. The guidelines will provide more guidance to member schools on what many administrators say are NIL-disguised “pay for play” deals orchestrated by donors to induce prospects, recruit players off other college teams and retain their own athletes.
The new directives will highlight existing NCAA bylaws that outlaw boosters from participating in recruiting, reminding member schools of guardrails that, while in place for years, have been bent and broken during the first 10 months of the NIL era, officials say. Under a long-held NCAA rule, boosters are a representative arm of an athletic department and are not supposed to associate with or persuade prospects.

Schools that do not control their donors’ spending could be found to have violated NCAA rules and will be sanctioned, according to the document. The NCAA enforcement staff have made inquiries only into a small handful of programs so far, but the guidelines could spark deeper investigations into improper inducements tied to NIL payments.