NIL Thread

[GMUgemini]

We aren't competing with them either way. We never competed with them before NIL, why would be able to now? It is well accepted fact that the big programs were paying players under the table. The only differences now are that it is more public and programs like ours that follow the rules to the nth degree can actually get in on the action as well. All regulating it is going to do is take money out of the pockets of the players and create even further compliance bureaucracy.

I don’t know. I just don’t think “boosters of big-time programs were bribing players to come to their school anyway so we should all be doing it” is necessarily a strong argument.

I think there is a big difference ethically between forcing a player to shut down their successful YouTube channel (or even preventing them from earning money at a summer job) and allowing boosters to collect donations simply as a means of going around the NCAA’s dubious amateur status and just paying athletes on the side.

I also grant that this is the world we live in and therefore if I’m going to continue to support the program I must accept the reality of it. But it is increasingly a barrier for me and my support, I’ll say that. And the more the courts strike down the rules, the more I am questioning my relationship to college athletics.

 

[gmubrian]

I don’t know. I just don’t think “boosters of big-time programs were bribing players to come to their school anyway so we should all be doing it” is necessarily a strong argument.

I think there is a big difference ethically between forcing a player to shut down their successful YouTube channel (or even preventing them from earning money at a summer job) and allowing boosters to collect donations simply as a means of going around the NCAA’s dubious amateur status and just paying athletes on the side.

I also grant that this is the world we live in and therefore if I’m going to continue to support the program I must accept the reality of it. But it is increasingly a barrier for me and my support, I’ll say that. And the more the courts strike down the rules, the more I am questioning my relationship to college athletics.

It wasn't an argument for it. It was pointing out that players of big time programs were getting paid (and putting them at potential) risk. It is nice that all players have the opportunity get paid now, not just the one's that go to schools with dubious rule following.

If you don't like the turnover of the rosters, I could understand that being a reason to not like it. But I don't get why the athletes getting paid or courts striking down illegal restrictions would cause someone to have an issue.

If people want to watch something where players aren't going to get paid, you are going to need to find a level where there is little to no value associated with that sport. You are probably talking at least below high school, but it might need to go lower than that in some areas.

 

[GMUgemini]

The athletes were getting compensated before in the form of scholarships so it’s not the “being paid” piece that bothers me, it’s specifically the idea of “collectives” as a legal construct to work around the NCAA’s amateur athletics designation that I have a problem with.

I was an employee of the university while I was in grad school. I received a full tuition waiver, was provided health insurance, and was compensated for teaching 3 classes per year while earning my advanced degree. This is a model the NCAA could take up while trying to preserve the fundamental nature of college athletics. The athletes won’t be paid millions of dollars, and yes there still will be inequality as bigger-monied universities will be able to offer bigger stipends, but I’d be fine with it, especially since those offers are made upfront and are usually publicly available and researchable by prospective students. You’d still have to put guardrails up around minimum and maximum allowable salaries because otherwise this will just be one other way that athletic departments will bleed to try to compete.

 

[GSII]

I'm back and forth on all of this. Certaintly with Gemini in that changing of rosters is gonna suck.

Regarding the paying of players, shouldn't the school also be paying them directly? The schools are the ones making the TV money, concesssions, merch etc from the performances of their new found employees. Shouldn't that money go to the employee's errr I mean student athletes? And what does TItle IX say about all this? Do all student athletes get equal pay? Do schools start cutting sports? What a mess.

In addition, is there a clear understanding about if they are deemed employees, how 4 years of eligibility plays into Labor Laws re age discrimination?

 

[hoopsjunkie75]

My OCD is getting itchy (and yes, no need for any witticism, I know there's a cream for that).

Can we change the title to "NIL Thread" and lose the year?

Thank you, goodnight!

 

[GMUgemini]

I'm back and forth on all of this. Certaintly with Gemini in that changing of rosters is gonna suck.

Regarding the paying of players, shouldn't the school also be paying them directly? The schools are the ones making the TV money, concesssions, merch etc from the performances of their new found employees. Shouldn't that money go to the employee's errr I mean student athletes? And what does TItle IX say about all this? Do all student athletes get equal pay? Do schools start cutting sports? What a mess.

In addition, is there a clear understanding about if they are deemed employees, how 4 years of eligibility plays into Labor Laws re age discrimination?

Well, if they are deemed student employees (in the example I provided above), you have to be a student to fill that role, so I’d assume they’d have to fo that route to avoid running into the eligibility issue.

The other alternative is to make them U23 academy teams affiliated with a pro franchise (either connected to the NBA or an overseas club), but then the NBA is going to run into a problem of the draft and player acquisition is they lease out colleges for player development in that way.

 

[GSII]

Like in soccer, I strongly believe schools should pay transfer fees to the school the player is leaving. The money should go into the collective to buy new players. But in soccer fees are paid down to the players youth club. So that would mean aau and hs coaches get some $$ too for developing player. Thats a shady road. Now im not so sure if strongly believe in this model.

 

[gmubrian]

The athletes were getting compensated before in the form of scholarships so it’s not the “being paid” piece that bothers me, it’s specifically the idea of “collectives” as a legal construct to work around the NCAA’s amateur athletics designation that I have a problem with.

I was an employee of the university while I was in grad school. I received a full tuition waiver, was provided health insurance, and was compensated for teaching 3 classes per year while earning my advanced degree. This is a model the NCAA could take up while trying to preserve the fundamental nature of college athletics. The athletes won’t be paid millions of dollars, and yes there still will be inequality as bigger-monied universities will be able to offer bigger stipends, but I’d be fine with it, especially since those offers are made upfront and are usually publicly available and researchable by prospective students. You’d still have to put guardrails up around minimum and maximum allowable salaries because otherwise this will just be one other way that athletic departments will bleed to try to compete.

I'm back and forth on all of this. Certaintly with Gemini in that changing of rosters is gonna suck.

Regarding the paying of players, shouldn't the school also be paying them directly? The schools are the ones making the TV money, concesssions, merch etc from the performances of their new found employees. Shouldn't that money go to the employee's errr I mean student athletes? And what does TItle IX say about all this? Do all student athletes get equal pay? Do schools start cutting sports? What a mess.

In addition, is there a clear understanding about if they are deemed employees, how 4 years of eligibility plays into Labor Laws re age discrimination?

You guys seem to be mixing concepts. First, I'll remind you that NIL isn't a program of the NCAA. It is a concept. The NCAA tried to prevent players for capitalizing on the value of their name, image and likeness. The courts have deemed the NCAA's actions illegal.

Whether the schools pay the players or not, has very little to do with NIL. NIL is the players capitalizing on their brand value. These are two separate things.

 

[gmubrian]

Now, my last post got me thinking. IF, the Universities/NCAA took steps to make the players employees, that could, potentially, give them an end run around the courts rulings on NIL. Employers are allowed to make certain restrictions on employees. I don’t know enough about that portion of the law to know if that would even be a viable tactic if they so desired to do that.

 

[Old Man]

Now, my last post got me thinking. IF, the Universities/NCAA took steps to make the players employees, that could, potentially, give them an end run around the courts rulings on NIL. Employers are allowed to make certain restrictions on employees. I don’t know enough about that portion of the law to know if that would even be a viable tactic if they so desired to do that.

If the athletes were made employees, would we have issues with discrimination, be it height, weight, male, female, age, etc.?

I do not like where this is headed, but the train has left the station.

 

[GMUgemini]

If the athletes were made employees, would we have issues with discrimination, be it height, weight, male, female, age, etc.?

I do not like where this is headed, but the train has left the station.

I don’t think so. But you will get into issues of title IX compliance between the men’s and women’s teams. And then you might get lawsuits from the sports not named basketball and football because they’re probably going to have to go on the chopping block to pay the athletes what they’re asking for.

 

[gmubrian]

If the athletes were made employees, would we have issues with discrimination, be it height, weight, male, female, age, etc.?

I do not like where this is headed, but the train has left the station.

I don’t think you would have those issues, yet, One issue you might run into at the lower levels would be minimum wage, depending on how they calculate the hours worked.

I am not arguing for making them employees or even suggesting it would/could happen. I was just throwing out a hypothetical. It is probably bad idea, but that makes it more likely given the NCAA’s track record…

 

[Jack Strop]

I don’t think so. But you will get into issues of title IX compliance between the men’s and women’s teams. And then you might get lawsuits from the sports not named basketball and football because they’re probably going to have to go on the chopping block to pay the athletes what they’re asking for.

...and don't forget employment at will. What athlete who is interested in an education at a particular school wants to face the prospect that he or she can be fired?

 

[CHRISTOPHER JAMES JOLLAY]

This thread is a horror show of naive people saying naive things.

 

[hoops10]

Wow, this whole issue is really hard to address. not being in on all the technical parts of NIL and how it works I'm thinking of some basic questions I have. So are students who play basketball still students or will they be employees? If this is about uncontrolled amounts of money offered to players, ( better players simply go to the schools who pay top dollar). Do they even go to class? Are they professionals? So in professional sports they maintain some sense of parity with drafting rights, free agency, trades in order to maintain interest in all their teams. After all who wants to go see teams that just don't want to allocate major funds to sports. Consequently, they have 2 star players who just can't compete. Sounds like this is a giant mess. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

[MasonSAE4]

Yeah the interesting thing with all this will be just how uncomfortable it makes teams who are closer to the top of the food chain. Right now, P5 will block any sort of reform to prevent situations like we have with Hall, but if even most of their teams lose a player or so and the riches get even more concentrated at the top it could get interesting.

 

[KAOriginal]

Yeah the interesting thing with all this will be just how uncomfortable it makes teams who are closer to the top of the food chain. Right now, P5 will block any sort of reform to prevent situations like we have with Hall, but if even most of their teams lose a player or so and the riches get even more concentrated at the top it could get interesting.

The easy transfer rules and NIL will allow the P5s to keep poaching good players from lower conferences and have the ability to send their "recruiting misses" out on an annual basis.

Just like football--TV deals, NCAA tournament takeover, etc---as long as you are in the select club, it still pays more to be the #15 school in a P5 than it does to be #1 in mid major or lower.

 

[Falco]

Two things can be true at once. NIL is what I believe is fair for the athletes, but it sucks for fans.

College basketball isn’t what it used to be, especially at the mid-major level, where teams weren’t as physically talented, but they had chemistry from playing together for four years.

 

[gmujim92]

Two things can be true at once. NIL is what I believe is fair for the athletes, but it sucks for fans.

College basketball isn’t what it used to be, especially at the mid-major level, where teams weren’t as physically talented, but they had chemistry from playing together for four years.

The reality is the reason big-time college football and basketball exist is because of fans who are passionate enough about their team — either as an alumnus or not — to support it with their money.

My NFL team can do things 24/7/365 to alienate me without giving it a second thought because they know I’m obsessed with the product and couldn’t imagine not watching pro football anymore.

A select number of college programs have the luxury of operating in the same way, knowing their fan bases will never abandon them. For the vast majority, however, simply shrugging and saying, “Sucks for the fans but oh well,” is not going to be a recipe for success.

Ironically, if enough of us throw up our hands and walk away, and there’s no more reason for Mason to spend what it does sponsoring Division I men’s basketball, know who gets hurt: the athletes for whom a free education could be a pathway to changing their life (and that of their family) for the better.

Beware killing the golden goose, I guess is what I’m saying.

 

[Yossarian]

I speak from an abundance of ignorance on this topic (as I do on most topics…), but it seems universities are getting their comeuppance for years of profit mongering. That said, a case could be made that a rising tide lifted all ships, as television revenues from popular sports subsidized other, less popular sports. Lots of students benefitted from scholarships subsidized by the popularity of a few students, and a semi-egalitarian balance was struck within universities’ athletic programs. Again… ignorance. Criticize freely.

What seems likely, looking at the NIL’s unintended consequences, is a scenario where the Duke’s, Kentucky’s, UNC’s, etc. poach talent more aggressively and become even more difficult to topple. Will mid-majors simply switch their focus to become cricket-playing power houses in a bid to dominate elsewhere? Not too difficult to imagine such a scenario. I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.