There was always going to be something like this coming. Not sure how much they will be able to fix but every school seems to be against the active recruiting of current athletes. Could see some change happening with that.
Pollard sounds off on NIL, changing landscape of college athletics in interview on Murphy & Andy
- Thread starter JStanz51
- Start date
There was always going to be something like this coming. Not sure how much they will be able to fix but every school seems to be against the active recruiting of current athletes. Could see some change happening with that.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,287
- 29,714
- 113
Exactly. The NCAA has very little authority to police this. They have no subpoena power, and NIL deals have no requirement be made public. Anything they come up with is going to be toothless
Yeah it’s going to require the schools coming to an agreement and giving the enforcement power to the NCAA. Going to be chaos for awhile still and will probably just move payments to more covert places.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,287
- 29,714
- 113
Agreed. Anything with teeth will just drive things back underground. I don't think it even matters if the schools gave them enforcement power. The NCAA would still have no power to investigate a financial deal between student and a private entity.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,287
- 29,714
- 113
At one time every athlete at Michigan had an astrology minor.
Which will probably lead to the NCAA getting sued again and lose once again.
Last edited:
In the end, it seems like there has to be 2 sport development paths based on recent court rulings.
One path has to provide athletes with an unrestricted opportunity to make money. Is that just NIL money? Or salary (pay-for-play) + NIL? Does it also mean athletes are employees? Does it mean athletes are unionized?
The second path would be similar to the current student-athlete model today. Where athletes would receive a scholarship plus chance to make small-change NIL deals.
I hope the NFL & NBA create a robust Path 1 option. But the licensing arrangements that ND's AD referenced may be more likely for a Path 1 option.
I have a tough time seeing Presidents wanting to be the Path 1 option under the Universities umbrella. I doubt Title IX is going away and they may not want medical liability issues if athletes are considered employees.
One path has to provide athletes with an unrestricted opportunity to make money. Is that just NIL money? Or salary (pay-for-play) + NIL? Does it also mean athletes are employees? Does it mean athletes are unionized?
The second path would be similar to the current student-athlete model today. Where athletes would receive a scholarship plus chance to make small-change NIL deals.
I hope the NFL & NBA create a robust Path 1 option. But the licensing arrangements that ND's AD referenced may be more likely for a Path 1 option.
I have a tough time seeing Presidents wanting to be the Path 1 option under the Universities umbrella. I doubt Title IX is going away and they may not want medical liability issues if athletes are considered employees.
Schools will fight tooth and nail to prevent athletes from being employees. My guess is that there will be some regulation for how schools/boosters can contact already enrolled students and probably shifting the agent middleman role over to the schools. However this is the Wild West right now so who the hell knows
Swarbrick with more separation talk:
www.on3.com
College sports has moved on from the beliefs of its Founding Fathers, beliefs that sustained the enterprise for more than a century. When the Fighting Irish athletic director, a pillar of the establishment if ever one existed, says, “Somebody tell me the positive value of amateurism,” you know the old order is dead.
“Did anybody ever argue the babysitter had a better experience if he or she didn’t get paid?” Jack Swarbrick continued.
College athletics has been a bastardized form of amateurism for decades. Someone decided a long time ago that bartering tuition, books, room and board for the ability to throw a back-shoulder fade passed amateur muster, a decision of convenience, if not principle.
The Olympic movement abandoned its insistence on amateurism a generation ago. The NCAA has been slower on the uptake.
“I don’t believe the NCAA can be reformed,” Swarbrick said. “I think it’s too broken.”
Swarbrick described the two models as the opposite ends of a spectrum. At one end, he sees universities licensing their names to a “franchise,” a choice no different for the athlete then the minor leagues. At the other, he sees players receiving academic credit for playing, a national policy for missing class – in general, a more 20th-century model.
“This isn’t some attempt at advocacy that one model’s better than the other,” Swarbrick said. “We’re just not prepared, all of us, to pursue the same one. We need to have the two options available. Let schools decide which way they want to go.”
If ‘we had to really break it to fix it’ – well, college sports is broken, but can it be fixed?
Now that the traditional model has collapsed, a bunch of stakeholders need to get together to decide what is next for college athletics.
College sports has moved on from the beliefs of its Founding Fathers, beliefs that sustained the enterprise for more than a century. When the Fighting Irish athletic director, a pillar of the establishment if ever one existed, says, “Somebody tell me the positive value of amateurism,” you know the old order is dead.
“Did anybody ever argue the babysitter had a better experience if he or she didn’t get paid?” Jack Swarbrick continued.
College athletics has been a bastardized form of amateurism for decades. Someone decided a long time ago that bartering tuition, books, room and board for the ability to throw a back-shoulder fade passed amateur muster, a decision of convenience, if not principle.
The Olympic movement abandoned its insistence on amateurism a generation ago. The NCAA has been slower on the uptake.
“I don’t believe the NCAA can be reformed,” Swarbrick said. “I think it’s too broken.”
Swarbrick described the two models as the opposite ends of a spectrum. At one end, he sees universities licensing their names to a “franchise,” a choice no different for the athlete then the minor leagues. At the other, he sees players receiving academic credit for playing, a national policy for missing class – in general, a more 20th-century model.
“This isn’t some attempt at advocacy that one model’s better than the other,” Swarbrick said. “We’re just not prepared, all of us, to pursue the same one. We need to have the two options available. Let schools decide which way they want to go.”
I really believe in the principle of NIL, the universities and coaches have been making a killing for years, and it's the players that are doing all the work. So, I have no problem with the players getting a cut of uniform sells, or being able to make some bucks signing autographs, and that was the way it was sold to everyone.
Help the poor player that is getting taken advantage of no problem.
But now this has turned into Play for Pay, without restrictions, the bag man under the table, is now the businessman, setting up a collective to funnel money to players and bring in the best in from the transfer portal. That is not what I signed up for, or support. We are already seeing it, a young player has a decent season, and then he starts getting contacted or starts looking to cash in. In the NFL they have a salary cap, and the worst teams draft in the top of the round, with the best at the bottom. We are creating a system with no salary cap, where the Alabama's, Ohio States and Texas's of the world can not only recruit the best players on a yearly basis, but then fill in the gaps after the season with players from lesser teams by throwing money their way.
This model will destroy sports at most schools that are not in the top 30 to 40.
Help the poor player that is getting taken advantage of no problem.
But now this has turned into Play for Pay, without restrictions, the bag man under the table, is now the businessman, setting up a collective to funnel money to players and bring in the best in from the transfer portal. That is not what I signed up for, or support. We are already seeing it, a young player has a decent season, and then he starts getting contacted or starts looking to cash in. In the NFL they have a salary cap, and the worst teams draft in the top of the round, with the best at the bottom. We are creating a system with no salary cap, where the Alabama's, Ohio States and Texas's of the world can not only recruit the best players on a yearly basis, but then fill in the gaps after the season with players from lesser teams by throwing money their way.
This model will destroy sports at most schools that are not in the top 30 to 40.
Last edited:
To bad they didn't ask Swarbrick which league he thinks ND will break to. I think we know.Swarbrick with more separation talk:
If ‘we had to really break it to fix it’ – well, college sports is broken, but can it be fixed?
Now that the traditional model has collapsed, a bunch of stakeholders need to get together to decide what is next for college athletics.
College sports has moved on from the beliefs of its Founding Fathers, beliefs that sustained the enterprise for more than a century. When the Fighting Irish athletic director, a pillar of the establishment if ever one existed, says, “Somebody tell me the positive value of amateurism,” you know the old order is dead.
“Did anybody ever argue the babysitter had a better experience if he or she didn’t get paid?” Jack Swarbrick continued.
College athletics has been a bastardized form of amateurism for decades. Someone decided a long time ago that bartering tuition, books, room and board for the ability to throw a back-shoulder fade passed amateur muster, a decision of convenience, if not principle.
The Olympic movement abandoned its insistence on amateurism a generation ago. The NCAA has been slower on the uptake.
“I don’t believe the NCAA can be reformed,” Swarbrick said. “I think it’s too broken.”
Swarbrick described the two models as the opposite ends of a spectrum. At one end, he sees universities licensing their names to a “franchise,” a choice no different for the athlete then the minor leagues. At the other, he sees players receiving academic credit for playing, a national policy for missing class – in general, a more 20th-century model.
“This isn’t some attempt at advocacy that one model’s better than the other,” Swarbrick said. “We’re just not prepared, all of us, to pursue the same one. We need to have the two options available. Let schools decide which way they want to go.”
I think the licensing of school brand to businesses that employ the players isn’t needed at the top. Is $150 million to $200 million a year not enough to pay players?
The licensing is needed at places that don’t have donor support- easier to get owners than it is donors. Had we used this decades ago regardless of NIL or paying players, even if it risks form over substance, we’re in a better spot.
