upside? Why does there have to be an upside? One of the arguments NIL and free transferring is that normal students can profit from their image and transfer to other schools. So why can't the same argument be used here?
Personally I think they should be allowed to bet on sports other than what they participate in. I don't see downside to that.
It isn't that there's an upside, but there's tons of downside. It only takes a couple cases of members of different sports teams at a university sharing insider info to one another coming out and the schools and NCAA have a real **** storm on their hands.
I think if viewed from the eyes of schools and ADs with the reality that college sports are not really this runaway train of revenue growth. Big 10 and SEC got huge deals for TV. Big 12 got a nice deal.
But here's what also is happening:
- ACC is in zero growth for a decade
- PAC is finding that there isn't much appetite left for inventory that there once was
- Attendance and TV ratings don't suggest growth
- We are just at the start of the demographic that started the biggest decline in football participation becoming household media purchase decision-makers
- Right or wrong, schools are likely worried about how pay for play and ease of transfers turning players into one year free agents is going to impact popularity of sports
I think schools and ADs see some signs of cracks in college sports' broad popularity and future growth. I think they are rightly sensitive about anything that would be damaging at this point. Combine some of these concerns above with the fact that they are likely facing significant diversions of donations from their athletic departments to NIL, and I think they are going to be cautious about anything potentially negative.