Replies: 26
| visibility 1361
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
My feeble attempt to solve CFB's downward spiral in the open portal and NIL era
1
May 22, 2024, 10:39 PM
|
|
**Background:** Most people agree that the student athlete should have access to profit off of their NIL and holding their playing time hostage as a means to prevent that is not ethical. Most fans also agree that preventing a player from being able to transfer to another school when it might be in their best interest - like any other student - is also probably too much a violation of their rights. However, most fans would probably also agree (correct in comments if I'm wrong) that getting free education, tutoring support for that education, weight room/training room access, and football development from a school and then bailing at a better offer or an upgrade in competition is unjust for the school. My proposal is an attempt at maintaining the first but remedying some of the issues with the second:
**TL;DR** **The Proposal:** What if when a player is recruited he can be offered 1 year or 4 year "scholarship" offers to the school. Included in this scholarship are the actual cost of attendance, housing, food, tutoring, and athletic development. These costs are all waived as long as the athlete is a student at the school and maintain eligibility (classwork, team rules, etc.). If, however, they decide to transfer while on a 4 year deal, they would owe the university the cost of all aspects of the scholarship.
**Extra Details:** If the player transfers to another school, that school can choose to pay for the owed scholarship and it would count against the new school's 85 man roster dating back to the academic year that the student was first on scholarship. It would then no longer count against the school from which the player transferred giving them an opening should they pursue a transfer themselves. The student would owe none of the costs back to the university should they leave at the end of the time or leave early to pursue a professional career (and give up amateur status). The university could not cut the player from their roster and push them into the portal if they still had time left on their "scholarship" as long as they maintained eligibility. A university could choose to waive the costs should a player decide to leave but not transfer to a school willing to take on the scholarship, but doing so would not reduce the scholarship count from previous years, only going forward.
**My thoughts:** My goal here is to essentially create a "buyout" for the players that protects both the player and the school from the rampant transferring. It would hopefully provide some stability and ensure that players are only transferring when it really makes sense. It should hopefully reduce tampering as a player can only transfer as long as the coaching staff has a spot back to when they first enrolled. This coordination with the coaching staff would require a lot more than a wink and a nudge with a booster.
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3260]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
Scholarships are typically for one year at a time now
May 22, 2024, 10:41 PM
|
|
With the portal, athletes can enter the transfer portal pretty much whenever they wish.
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
And part of my proposal is to change that***
May 22, 2024, 10:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3260]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
You can't. It violates at least one federal law
May 22, 2024, 11:04 PM
|
|
and at least one federal court injunction in an ongoing case.
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
What law would that be?
May 22, 2024, 11:16 PM
|
|
In my proposal, one can transfer if they would like to and can make NIL if they are marketable.
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3260]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
Re: What law would that be?
May 23, 2024, 10:20 AM
|
|
The 1880 Interstate Commerce Act and the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act, for starters.
The federal injunction in the Ohio vs NCAA case.
The federal injunction in the federal Tennessee/Virginia case.
The NCAA vs Alston SCOTUS decision.
There may be more.
It is illegal for the NCAA to attempt to control, regulate, it restrict NIL contracts, NIL money, or to limit or restrict transfers in any way.
The sole exception in is that transfers must be academically eligible.
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
I don't propose anything that would impact NIL
May 23, 2024, 10:32 AM
|
|
that would still be between the player and whomever offers them a deal. I also do not propose that a player not be able to transfer whenever they want to. What I am proposing is that scholarships (the payment they are already receiving for their play) has strings attached should they choose to walk away from their obligation.
If a player wants to walk away from football whether they transfer or not, they would owe nothing back. If a player wants to transfer to another school before completion of their agreed upon time, they would owe the money back. If they have enough NIL offers to pay it back, great, if they have enough interest from another school that they are willing to take on the burden of paying it back, then that's great also.
No regulation on transfers, no regulation on NIL, only changing how the scholarships are awarded and obligations therein.
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3260]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
No school nor the NCAA can interfere or restrict NIL
May 23, 2024, 10:53 AM
|
|
in any way. They can't limit transfers. They can't have any time, financial, or other penalty associated with either.
The NIL collectives can't limit where a player can go. They can't force their clients to play. Ergo, it's not pay for play.
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
I obviously don't have to convince you as this is merely a thought exercise
May 23, 2024, 11:35 AM
|
|
but what aspect of my proposal do you see as limiting NIL or transfers. I literally just explained how a player can transfer at any time and it has no mention of NIL.
There isn't a penalty on transferring, this plan would change the way scholarships are given out. It might could be argued that doing so is semantics and effectively the same thing, but at face value there are no restrictions on transferring.
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3260]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
Still illegal. The NCAA - not the schools -
May 23, 2024, 11:37 AM
[ in reply to I don't propose anything that would impact NIL ] |
|
Can limit transfers or NIL or attach any strings to it.
Please do some homework in the cases and injunctions I cited.
They make it clear that the ONLY legal way for the people that want "control" to get it is to make the athletes employees, let them unionize, and have a collective bargaining agreement and a salary cap.
Let's project that back a few years.
Let's say that was the case. Clemson runs short of money and needs to unload a couple of highly paid players to create salary cap room. So...the Tigers trade Trevor Lawrence and Travis Etienne to Stanford for a couple of untested freshmen and a 2nd round draft pick in two years.
Do you REALLY want that?
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4980]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: My feeble attempt to solve CFB's downward spiral in the open portal and NIL era
1
May 22, 2024, 11:08 PM
|
|
Does your plan come with an anti-trust exemption? This really isn’t about contract terms. An organization cannot place limitations on how much money an individual can make without an anti trust exemption which usually comes through collective bargaining.
Your plan may have worked in the 90s when TV revenues barely covered the cost of scholarships. Now the revenue is too great for individuals to agree capped revenue even if only a small percentage have a true NIL market value absent of the university they represent.
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
I don't think it would need an antitrust exemption at all
1
May 22, 2024, 11:13 PM
|
|
There are tons of examples where people agree to terms of a contract and one has to fulfill those obligations or there are obligations should one break the contract.
I can get school payed by my employer, but I have to agree to work for 3 years after getting a degree or pay back the tuition. I don't see how this example would be any different.
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4980]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: I don't think it would need an antitrust exemption at all
1
May 23, 2024, 12:07 AM
|
|
Correct, however if universities collectively agree even informally to any model that does not promote a free market it violates antitrust laws. If your company and every other company in the same industry agreed to only pay you in school tuition and lock you into 3 year contracts, collectively that limits open market trade. Without an antitrust exemption companies must operate independently to increase profits through quality products at a reasonable price. College sports is a big business that is held to the same standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
I see your point
May 23, 2024, 7:46 AM
|
|
And maybe it would get challenged as organizing in an way that violates antitrust laws, but I think it could also be argued that with options to transfer are still there. Sure it is limited if one signs a 4 year deal, if one believes they will be marketable enough to want to leave easy transferability on the table, they can definitely sign a one year deal and have no limitations.
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3260]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
No maybe to it.
May 23, 2024, 11:40 AM
|
|
It would be immediately get challenged, a restraining order would be out in place, and it couldn't be implemented.
That's what happened in the Tennessee vs NCAA and Ohio vs NCAA cases.
What you describe isn't as egregious as what the NCAA did for years, but it's still a little bit illegal. In other words, it's not legal.
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [264]
TigerPulse: 86%
14
|
Re: My feeble attempt to solve CFB's downward spiral in the open portal and NIL era
May 23, 2024, 7:55 AM
|
|
I say just give them an option. We either going to go back to way it was or do away with college football everywhere. That’s the easiest fix, just do away with the sport. The players are mostly in it for money nowadays and it’s ruining the sport.
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [199]
TigerPulse: 62%
12
|
Re: My feeble attempt to solve CFB's downward spiral in the open portal and NIL era
1
May 23, 2024, 8:33 AM
|
|
Why do people say “players” are in it for money. Blame Clemson(they are in it for money), blame conferences(they are in it for money) and blame tv (they are in it for money.)
Players are not the problem. Schools, conferences and tv did this. Not players
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3260]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1174]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
NFL. Copy/Paste***
May 23, 2024, 8:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
There is not nearly as much disparity in value of player in NFL as college
May 23, 2024, 8:58 AM
|
|
From the top to the bottom, the value of players in the NFL is significantly high. They also have significantly fewer players per team and overall than are in CFB. The average player in CFB is probably not worth more than the scholarship they receive so if players at the top start getting paid millions of dollars the players at the bottom will simply be without a roster spot.
I don't think the NFL model will work in CFB. I also personally don't want another NFL. I want players to come to Clemson for Clemson and not because the money was better.
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27026]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
After thinking about it, I'm not sure you have solved the problem.
1
May 23, 2024, 9:53 AM
|
|
Schools and players could set up a system whereby rules for scholarships and obligations if you accept a scholarship.
But, just like the NFL can't tell Trevor Lawrence how much money he can make outside of NFL (endorsements, etc.) how is a university going to regulate how much a booster, or just a rich fan of the university, pay a player?
I have a friend who has a grandson who played at Oregon. (He just graduated this month.) Phil Knight paid him either 10K or 20K (I don't remember the exact amount) for putting a Nike logo on his Facebook page.
How are you going to regulate that?
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
I don't think we need to regulate that... I think it's perfectly reasonable
May 23, 2024, 10:25 AM
|
|
for a player to market his NIL and make money off of it if he/she so chooses. The problem is what boosters are doing in the name of NIL is pay for play. This is destroying the amateurism of the sport, creating greater disparity between the top end and average players, and belittling the value of the all-inclusive scholarship they were already getting.
What we need is a solution that can more easily divorce NIL payments from pay or a roster spot. I doubt my solution would do it completely, but it might slow it down to bring back some semblance of what CFB is supposed to be about - choosing a school and sticking with it. And I hope and believe that can be possible while still having a kid sign autographs or be in a Dr. Pepper commercial.
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3260]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
NIL is perfectly reasonable, period.
May 23, 2024, 10:49 AM
|
|
It is illegal to regulate it or interfere with it. The NCAA's entire sports model is illegal.
"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate."
Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh Concurring opinion NCAA vs Alston The NCAA lost that case 9-0.
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27026]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
I suspect you are right.
May 23, 2024, 11:40 AM
|
|
That is why I think my solution, which will never be implemented, is the only solution that would pass the legal test.
Quincy Quarterback signs with Big Tech U. His scholarship counts as one of the 85 for either five years or his graduation from Big Tech U. No exceptions (except the death of the player). Big Tech U will think long and hard about signing Quincy to a scholarship if they think he's gonna split for greener pastures in a year or two, or the NFL in 3.
I see no other solution except to just make it a professional league, unionize the players, and negotiate all benefits and restrictions with the players.
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3260]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
College sports - especially football - are about winning.
May 23, 2024, 11:02 AM
[ in reply to I don't think we need to regulate that... I think it's perfectly reasonable ] |
|
That's how you solidify school spirit...and thereby sell merch.
That's how you get publicity for your brand.
That's how you put favs in the seats.
That's how you generate TV contracts.
In other words...money. it's always been about money, and finding ways to exploit the athletes so that they can't profit from their own labor. Now the courts are fixing that.
Claiming that it hasn't always been a out money denied the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27026]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
I think we agree.
May 23, 2024, 11:35 AM
[ in reply to I don't think we need to regulate that... I think it's perfectly reasonable ] |
|
But, I have no idea how you regulate what someone can pay a player once you allow them to be paid.
What regulation can you have to keep Phil Knight or Warren Buffet from "hiring" a player and paying him whatever he wants? Peyton Manning made far more money from outside sources than he ever made from the NFL. I suspect Aaron Rogers is making more from outside income than he is from the Jets.
You won't need NIL or collectives. If I want to pay a player, I don't need to send it to a collective. I can send it straight to the guy. I can buy a 500 dollar signed hat directly from him. I won't need to go through a collective.
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1601]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
The regulation I propose is on the way scholarships are handled
May 23, 2024, 11:39 AM
|
|
if Phil Knight wants to pay a kid a bunch of money, great, go for it. But if there isn't enough room on the roster for him, what would be the point?
|
|
|
|
Replies: 26
| visibility 1361
|
|
|