Tennessee judge grants injunction against the NCAA (NIL related)

[FriendlySpartan]

Agree parity doesn't exist and has never existed when it comes to how many schools can consistently be top 10 teams. I don't feel most college sport fans are bothered by some teams being blue bloods and having more & better resources. But fans want to feel their team is on a level playing field with 80%+ of teams in P5/P4. It's OK if there are built in advantages for a few schools like Ohio State, Texas, A&M, Florida, etc. because then there is the whole David & Goliath thing. But if the divide becomes too big financially with a bigger pool of schools, then fans will lose interest. And moves by the Big10 and SEC to ask for 8 guaranteed Playoff spots reeks of entitlement vs. earning it on the field.

Also it feels like the Big10 and SEC are relegating the Big12 & ACC. And telling fans of Big12 & ACC schools we should feel great because our conferences will still get a total of 2-3 charity playoff bids. Really not much different than being G5 historically.

But whats the point of that level playing field from a reality perspective when outside the bowl game you play one P4 opponent a year?

Yeah the relegation stuff is BS mostly media driven which sucks because its just trying to become a self fulfilling prophecy

 

[chadly82]

NCAA should just go insolvent

 

[isucy86]

But whats the point of that level playing field from a reality perspective when outside the bowl game you play one P4 opponent a year?

Yeah the relegation stuff is BS mostly media driven which sucks because its just trying to become a self fulfilling prophecy

Well if ISU isn't on a level playing field with Big10 and SEC, why would I watch Big10 or SEC regular season games? A lot of the current ecosystem discussion is TOTALLY focused on the playoffs. But I'm a fan that loves the regular season. For 13 or 14 Saturdays in the fall, I watch college football from 11a-11p. I watch Big10, SEC, ACC and Pac12 games because those conferences are the Big12's peers, our equals. If some conferences are elevated and other relagated, my viewing habits will change.

Additionally, even though there are elite's today. From a recruiting standpoint, what each school can offer an athlete is equal- a full-ride scholarship. Sure schools have always been giving players money under the table, but at least I have the comfort of telling myself, my school is following the rules (wink, wink). Or my school is competitive by getting more out of fewer financial resources. I understand that Iowa State is automatically at a disadvantage vs. Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, etc. in large part because those schools have enrollments of 50k plus (vs. 30k for ISU). So it's a big advantage from a fundraising standpoint.

Once the playing field tilts to give the Hawks, Boilermakers, Badgers, Hoosiers, Huskers, Tigers, Rebels, Razorbacks, etc. structural financial advantage over ISU. When that happens, my interest level in college football will narrow to ISU's cohart schools- the Big12

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Well if ISU isn't on a level playing field with Big10 and SEC, why would I watch Big10 or SEC regular season games? A lot of the current ecosystem discussion is TOTALLY focused on the playoffs. But I'm a fan that loves the regular season. For 13 or 14 Saturdays in the fall, I watch college football from 11a-11p. I watch Big10, SEC, ACC and Pac12 games because those conferences are the Big12's peers, our equals. If some conferences are elevated and other relagated, my viewing habits will change.

Additionally, even though there are elite's today. From a recruiting standpoint, what each school can offer an athlete is equal- a full-ride scholarship. Sure schools have always been giving players money under the table, but at least I have the comfort of telling myself, my school is following the rules (wink, wink). Or my school is competitive by getting more out of fewer financial resources. I understand that Iowa State is automatically at a disadvantage vs. Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, etc. in large part because those schools have enrollments of 50k plus (vs. 30k for ISU). So it's a big advantage from a fundraising standpoint.

Once the playing field tilts to give the Hawks, Boilermakers, Badgers, Hoosiers, Huskers, Tigers, Rebels, Razorbacks, etc. structural financial advantage over ISU. When that happens, my interest level in college football will narrow to ISU's cohart schools- the Big12

Those schools though have always had structural financial advantages over ISU, the board complains constantly about the fan base being extremely passionate but cheap. Texas and OU have always had huge advantages and it didn’t really help Texas.

 

[isucy86]

Those schools though have always had structural financial advantages over ISU, the board complains constantly about the fan base being extremely passionate but cheap. Texas and OU have always had huge advantages and it didn’t really help Texas.

Agree with the highlighted and I addressed that in my prior post. I can live with OU, Texas, OSU, Michigan, Penn State, etc. having built in advantages because of 40 years tradition or large enrollments.

But I struggle if Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Mizzou, etc. have structural advantages just because of their conference affiliation. Sure Big10 teams have a financial advantage over Big12 schools today. But that advantage is maybe $30-$50M annually. At current levels ISU can compete against Iowa or Mizzou level Big10 & SEC schools.

But I feel like the Big10 and SEC are trying to tilt that advantage across the board for their member schools to be $100-150M annually over Big12 and ACC schools.

 

[Mr Janny]

Well if ISU isn't on a level playing field with Big10 and SEC, why would I watch Big10 or SEC regular season games? A lot of the current ecosystem discussion is TOTALLY focused on the playoffs. But I'm a fan that loves the regular season. For 13 or 14 Saturdays in the fall, I watch college football from 11a-11p. I watch Big10, SEC, ACC and Pac12 games because those conferences are the Big12's peers, our equals. If some conferences are elevated and other relagated, my viewing habits will change.

Additionally, even though there are elite's today. From a recruiting standpoint, what each school can offer an athlete is equal- a full-ride scholarship. Sure schools have always been giving players money under the table, but at least I have the comfort of telling myself, my school is following the rules (wink, wink). Or my school is competitive by getting more out of fewer financial resources. I understand that Iowa State is automatically at a disadvantage vs. Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, etc. in large part because those schools have enrollments of 50k plus (vs. 30k for ISU). So it's a big advantage from a fundraising standpoint.

Once the playing field tilts to give the Hawks, Boilermakers, Badgers, Hoosiers, Huskers, Tigers, Rebels, Razorbacks, etc. structural financial advantage over ISU. When that happens, my interest level in college football will narrow to ISU's cohart schools- the Big12

The bolded is the primary disconnect that some people seem to have. This is a violation of antitrust laws. It's blatantly anticompetitive. To allow this kind of limitation, the NCAA needs an exemption from Congress or a collectively bargained agreement with a players union.

 

[isucy86]

The bolded is the primary disconnect that some people seem to have. This is a violation of antitrust laws. It's blatantly anticompetitive. To allow this kind of limitation, the NCAA needs an exemption from Congress or a collectively bargained agreement with a players union.

Not sure the historical idea of a full-ride scholarship and what it comprises (tuition, room, board, etc) is anti-competitive. But I would agree it is limiting to the earning power of the athlete and in 2024 that is the focus of legal rulings against the NCAA. That's a big change vs. the NCAA's legal standing on scholarship limitations even 10 years ago.

But with trends on NIL and transfer portal, I think we are to the point where the only way to bring structure and transparency to the college based athletics model is to make athletes employees and create a Collective Bargaining mechanism like pro sports. Does that mean salary caps by sport, rookie (freshman) salary scales, medical benefits, etc?

 

[Mr Janny]

Not sure the historical idea of a full-ride scholarship and what it comprises (tuition, room, board, etc) is anti-competitive. But I would agree it is limiting to the earning power of the athlete and in 2024 that is the focus of legal rulings against the NCAA. That's a big change vs. the NCAA's legal standing on scholarship limitations even 10 years ago.

But with trends on NIL and transfer portal, I think we are to the point where the only way to bring structure and transparency to the college based athletics model is to make athletes employees and create a Collective Bargaining mechanism like pro sports. Does that mean salary caps by sport, rookie (freshman) salary scales, medical benefits, etc?

A collective bargaining agreement can't just be created in isolation. There has to be an entity (a players union) that the NCAA/conferences/schools would negotiate with.

And at this point, I'm not sure that one is coming. And even if it did, why would some of these higher profile players want to join it? Caleb Williams doesn't need a players union. It wouldn't do much for Caitlin Clark. If you're able to command a sizable NIL agreement, now, what's the incentive to join a union that likely is going to try to limit that?

 

[Mr Janny]

Not sure the historical idea of a full-ride scholarship and what it comprises (tuition, room, board, etc) is anti-competitive. But I would agree it is limiting to the earning power of the athlete and in 2024 that is the focus of legal rulings against the NCAA. That's a big change vs. the NCAA's legal standing on scholarship limitations even 10 years ago.

But with trends on NIL and transfer portal, I think we are to the point where the only way to bring structure and transparency to the college based athletics model is to make athletes employees and create a Collective Bargaining mechanism like pro sports. Does that mean salary caps by sport, rookie (freshman) salary scales, medical benefits, etc?

Regarding the comment on the anticompetitive nature of the system, our judicial system has laid it out there. It's not that a scholarship (tuition, room, and board) is anticompetitive in itself. It's the idea that schools have colluded to limit compensation to only that. Look at it like this: What if all of the major fast food chains got together, and agreed to only pay their staff minimum wage? Now the minimum wage isn't the same in every state, so the actual pay isn't exactly the same everywhere, but that doesn't matter. The act of limiting compensation is what's anticompetitive.

 

[Cyrealist]

Dude don’t you remember when hunter left for NIL and it meant the end of ISU basketball because they couldn’t compete in the NIL era? I mean that’s the reason you guys suck this year and will never get into the tourney again.

Oh wait your team is amazing, is gonna get a top seed and have a real final four shot. My bad I got confused when I thought NIL was the end of college sports.

There are always examples that defy apparent trends. Anyone can see we are entering a "Wild West" in college athletics where the NCAA and even college presidents have little control over athletic departments and all the associated issues like realignment, pay for players, transfers and eligibility. This will affect competitive balance and more importantly, the character of the major revenue sports.

 

[Cyrealist]

Regarding the comment on the anticompetitive nature of the system, our judicial system has laid it out there. It's not that a scholarship (tuition, room, and board) is anticompetitive in itself. It's the idea that schools have colluded to limit compensation to only that. Look at it like this: What if all of the major fast food chains got together, and agreed to only pay their staff minimum wage? Now the minimum wage isn't the same in every state, so the actual pay isn't exactly the same everywhere, but that doesn't matter. The act of limiting compensation is what's anticompetitive.

I don't think that's the correct model. What the NCAA was trying to do was limit participation to amateurs. It was beyond the mission of colleges and universities to be fielding professional sports teams. I suppose one could say they were a victim of their own success - the money involved became so large that denying the athletes monetary compensation could no longer be justified

 

[isucy86]

A collective bargaining agreement can't just be created in isolation. There has to be an entity (a players union) that the NCAA/conferences/schools would negotiate with.

And at this point, I'm not sure that one is coming. And even if it did, why would some of these higher profile players want to join it? Caleb Williams doesn't need a players union. It wouldn't do much for Caitlin Clark. If you're able to command a sizable NIL agreement, now, what's the incentive to join a union that likely is going to try to limit that?

Just like pro sports the CBA would cover employer supplied benefits. But NIL would still exist for the Caleb Williams and Caitlin Clarks of college sport.

The area where I have doubts about employee status and a CBA- can it address pay-for-play bagman or NIL money.

But pro sports make it work with salary cap. To my knowledge, the Chiefs aren't funneling hidden money to Patrick Mahomes. And professional sport NIL $ are based on an athletes marketability to businesses.

 

[isucy86]

I don't think that's the correct model. What the NCAA was trying to do was limit participation to amateurs. It was beyond the mission of colleges and universities to be fielding professional sports teams. I suppose one could say they were a victim of their own success - the money involved became so large that denying the athletes monetary compensation could no longer be justified

Agreed it colleges own fault they are where we are today.

My big question, is there a point where some college Presidents view the professionalism of college sports outside their core academic mission. And does the growing NIL funds detract from donations to university academic initiatives.

I would be curious to see ISU Foundation info on how much of a crossover there is between donors who give to athletics vs. University initiatives.

 

[Mr Janny]

Just like pro sports the CBA would cover employer supplied benefits. But NIL would still exist for the Caleb Williams and Caitlin Clarks of college sport.

The area where I have doubts about employee status and a CBA- can it address pay-for-play bagman or NIL money.

But pro sports make it work with salary cap. To my knowledge, the Chiefs aren't funneling hidden money to Patrick Mahomes. And professional sport NIL $ are based on an athletes marketability to businesses.

NFL teams aren't funneling money to players outside of their contract, but you can bet that the specific opportunity for endorsement at one team over another is a factor when it comes to attracting free agents.

Big brands/markets can offer more. Brock Purdy has more opportunities for endorsements in the Bay area media market vs the Jacksonville media market. And those opportunities probably pay better on average. Teams are absolutely advertising that fact, and using it as an enticement when they make pitches to free agents. In college we'd shudder, call that "pay for play" and act like it's a dirty word. In the rest of the world, that's just how it works.

The NCAA has existed in a bubble for so long that we've been conditioned to think that it won't be able to function without the special rules they've carved out for themselves. It's not true. Things are going to change, for sure, but the rest of the world seems to get by. College sports will too.

 

[Mr Janny]

I don't think that's the correct model. What the NCAA was trying to do was limit participation to amateurs. It was beyond the mission of colleges and universities to be fielding professional sports teams. I suppose one could say they were a victim of their own success - the money involved became so large that denying the athletes monetary compensation could no longer be justified

It doesn't matter what they were trying to do. What they are "actually" doing is artificially limiting compensation for their labor. They fought it for a long time, and honestly were able to resist changing for a lot longer than they should have, but the walls are closing in now.

 

[isucy86]

NFL teams aren't funneling money to players outside of their contract, but you can bet that the specific opportunity for endorsement at one team over another is a factor when it comes to attracting free agents.

Big brands/markets can offer more. Brock Purdy has more opportunities for endorsements in the Bay area media market vs the Jacksonville media market. And those opportunities probably pay better on average. Teams are absolutely advertising that fact, and using it as an enticement when they make pitches to free agents. In college we'd shudder, call that "pay for play" and act like it's a dirty word. In the rest of the world, that's just how it works.

The NCAA has existed in a bubble for so long that we've been conditioned to think that it won't be able to function without the special rules they've carved out for themselves. It's not true. Things are going to change, for sure, but the rest of the world seems to get by. College sports will too.

I agree 100%. But the big question for me is how many of the current 66-70 P5 schools part of the highest level of competition. I feel like the Big10 and SEC are trying break-off and create their own league of 40-50 schools. And the result is a school like Iowa will generate like $250M in annual revenue, while a school like Iowa State might make $150M.

I don't have an issue with athletes making money. But my concern is a Big12 school like ISU might be able to afford paying scholarship players $X, while Big10 and SEC schools will be able to pay their players $5X. And that's just employee salaries and not including NIL money. That might be a harsh take on the future, but that's the reason I feel the Big10 and SEC are trying to grab as much cash as possible at the exclusion of the Big12 and ACC.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I agree 100%. But the big question for me is how many of the current 66-70 P5 schools part of the highest level of competition. I feel like the Big10 and SEC are trying break-off and create their own league of 40-50 schools. And the result is a school like Iowa will generate like $250M in annual revenue, while a school like Iowa State might make $150M.

I don't have an issue with athletes making money. But my concern is a Big12 school like ISU might be able to afford paying scholarship players $X, while Big10 and SEC schools will be able to pay their players $5X. And that's just employee salaries and not including NIL money. That might be a harsh take on the future, but that's the reason I feel the Big10 and SEC are trying to grab as much cash as possible at the exclusion of the Big12 and ACC.

But how does that change ISU’s current position? This is kinda my point where you’re just saying the quiet part out loud but ISU isn’t competing with the SEC for players and you never really have been (neither has sparty for the record, Michigan is different).

Vanderbilt is 12 spots higher on the 247 recruiting rankings than ISU and they are the lowest ranked SEC team. This is before huge media deals or paying players in this future your thinking of. So what changes in your scenario that hasn’t always been the same? It’s just shining a brighter light on the lack of parity that has always existed in cfb

 

[Mr Janny]

But how does that change ISU’s current position? This is kinda my point where you’re just saying the quiet part out loud but ISU isn’t competing with the SEC for players and you never really have been (neither has sparty for the record, Michigan is different).

Vanderbilt is 12 spots higher on the 247 recruiting rankings than ISU and they are the lowest ranked SEC team. This is before huge media deals or paying players in this future your thinking of. So what changes in your scenario that hasn’t always been the same? It’s just shining a brighter light on the lack of parity that has always existed in cfb

From my observation, I think some people like the warm fuzzy they got when they could pretend that it was an even playing field, even though it never has been. I won't speak for @isucy86 , because I don't know his/her personal thoughts, but I think at least some fans would much prefer a return to plausible deniability and blissful ignorance, when it comes to college sports. And the cold reality of the ugly truths that are antitrust laws and anticompetitive practices is something they'd prefer not be a part of the picture. It's a harsh truth to accept that doing the right thing, for the rights of athletes, may adversely affect something that I love dearly, (Iowa State Athletics) but at the end of the day, what's right is right.

 

[Cyrealist]

From my observation, I think some people like the warm fuzzy they got when they could pretend that it was an even playing field, even though it never has been. I won't speak for @isucy86 , because I don't know his/her personal thoughts, but I think at least some fans would much prefer a return to plausible deniability and blissful ignorance, when it comes to college sports. And the cold reality of the ugly truths that are antitrust laws and anticompetitive practices is something they'd prefer not be a part of the picture. It's a harsh truth to accept that doing the right thing, for the rights of athletes, may adversely affect something that I love dearly, (Iowa State Athletics) but at the end of the day, what's right is right.

Congress should amend the law to give a blanket antitrust exemption to competitive sports leagues. The health of the leagues depend on the teams being able to cooperate to maintain competitive balance and maintain revenues. In the case of the NCAA, universities shouldn't be forced to field professional sports teams.

 

[Mr Janny]

Congress should amend the law to give a blanket antitrust exemption to competitive sports leagues. The health of the leagues depend on the teams being able to cooperate to maintain competitive balance and maintain revenues. In the case of the NCAA, universities shouldn't be forced to field professional sports teams.

You're definitely entitled to that opinion. I don't think the cat is going back in the bag, though.

Anytime you're in a position where you're arguing why your industry should be treated with special rules, it's an uphill battle, especially when granting those special rules comes at the expense of the rights of individuals.

Throw in the fact that college sports isn't exactly known for its competitive balance, with blue bloods dominating recruiting rankings and post season appearances, and that argument starts to ring a little hollow.

Not to mention, why are college athletics so special that they deserve antitrust exemption, where other industries don't? Why are they so essential, that they shouldn't have to play by the rules that other industries do?