The schools are trying to keep a regulatory finger in the pie, which will be a considerable waste of resources. The schools have no right to a regulatory finger.
Well, I get it and it’s fair(er) to the athletes, but it will most likely destroy FSU men’s athletics at the top tier unless we get the next Nike or Under Armor guy as an alum.Due to the Taggert debacle, our AD and Booster Org are, for all practical purposes, broke. We MIGHT be able to hang on to the basketball program, but I doubt it unless the Boosters all shift away from football to support the smaller program.
UF will rule NCAA athletics in Florida at pretty much all levels for the foreseeable future. The alum base is larger and wealthier than any other school in the state.
I imagine this will happen in many states. The older, more established school (usually land grant) will take over and the rest of the schools will move to 2nd tier and fight for the scraps.
Or I’m completely wrong and life will go on as normal. Frankly, the stratification was happening anyway, this will just speed it along and reduce the number of teams that will be in the top tier.
I saw an informal study earlier today that looked at the top 300 recruits for the last five years. Of those 1500 high school studs, 56 went to non P5 schools. I don’t know how much more unbalanced things can get. Ten schools have accounted for the 24 playoff spots since the CFP began.
Somehow, despite tiny revenue streams, hundreds of schools happily field football programs.
While I’m as upset over the Taggert debacle as any alum, I don’t think it’s quite the death nail for FSU football. They’re still an ACC school with a national alumni base and a very deep talent pool in Florida to draw on. Even a slight turn around in fortune will get them off the ACC network and back on to ESPN. And the ACC definitely helps for basketball recruiting as well.
The ACC pays WAAAY less than the SEC and we’re surrounded by SEC schools all after that same talent pool. And we’re not off the ACC Network for most games because that’s the deal we signed up for. The bigger issue is that once athletes can get compensated, we won’t have the sponsor deals to offer that UF, UA, Auburn, and UGA will. Our deep national alumni base is decent for tv ratings, but nobody in Chicago or LA is going to get an FSU player to be the face of their auto dealership or restaurant. And outside of the immediate Tallahassee area, Florida gets really blue and orange, really fast. We have pockets here and there, but the bulk of the established money folks are UF alums.
Grim times for the schools. Beset by lawsuits, their rules upended by state legislatures and Congress giving them the brush off when they go begging for antitrust protection. They’re wasting valuable time and money fighting the inevitable.
I understand their position. I mean, if I was raking in billions for doing almost nothing, I’d hate to lose that gig too.
Marco Rubio understands their position too!
So much for state’s rights, eh? But he’s not the only one shilling for the NCAA:
Someone please go tell these guys that they’re on the wrong side of history; thanks.
ETA: What a shitty, shitty thing to do: make wage slaves of young athletes instead of allowing them to profit from their skills as much as the market will bear by codifying it into the law.
How is Rubio’s bill making them “wage slaves”?
Also, and pardon me for using “those two words” again, but if you want the schools to be on the “wrong side of history,” have them pay the men’s basketball team more than the women - or pay the football team anything at all while not paying any of the women, and then dust off the tired excuse, “The football (and men’s basketball) team makes us money!” Or do you want the NCAA championship every year to be between the two schools that don’t have this problem - The Citadel and VMI?
That Don Guy, to the extent I can parse your post, I think we’re not talking about the same thing.
I’m concerned with the NCAA not restricting the players in their ability to market themselves to entities other than a college or university.
You seem to want to talk about the schools paying some athletes more than others. Since that isn’t an issue in the recent court cases or in Marco Rubio’s misguided attempt to wrest control from the states or even anything that anyone is talking about doing, I don’t see why you brought it up.
Yes, this is a peeve of mine as well. Few are seriously arguing that schools be forced to pay their athletes. Many are arguing that the schools have no right to restrict an athlete’s commercial liberties and that’s where the debate should be centered.
[Snowboarder_Bo] That Don Guy , to the extent I can parse your post, I think we’re not talking about the same thing.
I’m concerned with the NCAA not restricting the players in their ability to market themselves to entities other than a college or university.
How is Rubio’s bill allowing the NCAA, or the schools, to restrict players’ marketing of themselves? I am confused as to how the bill still makes the players “wage slaves.”
I just want any bills to make sure that “third party interests” are not just de facto payments from the schools to the athletes that are using “third parties” to get around the rules. Tell me - if it isn’t the NCAA’s job to make sure this isn’t happening, then whose job is it?
Rubio’s bill asks Congress to allow the NCAA to regulate how the athletes are compensated, in essence what you want them to do to “keep schools from using third parties to get around the rules.” Well, what rules are you talking about? It’s my contention that schools, boosters and anyone else should be able to contract with any athlete they want in any manner that they want. The “rules” that you want are impossible to administer at best and a violation of economic liberties at worst.
Here is the proposed set of rules for Division II:
- Athletes can use their name to promote an “athletically-related work product” (e.g. their own shoe brand).
- Athletes can endorse any products or services, “subject to institutional policies,” and can be identified as athletes in the endorsements. (I am guessing that an “institutional policy” might be, “You can’t endorse a shoe other than the one for which the school has a contract.”)
- Athletes can model athletics apparel/equipment not associated with the school.
- Athletes can establish “monetized media platforms” and receive compensation for promoting products through these platforms.
- Athletes can be paid for autographs while not representing the school.
- Athletes can be paid for personal appearances, “subject to institutional policies.”
- Athletes can sell memorabilia, including uniforms worn and rings/trophies won. A school may “educate” its athletes on which items the school expects them to keep until they leave the school.
- Athletes can be involved in crowdfunding (e.g. GoFundMe) for athletes and family/friends “in extreme circumstances.” Something like “help me pay my tuition” or “help me pay for a laptop for classes” would not be allowed. (Note that this is the current rule, but the current rule requires that the school organize it.)
- Athletes can advertise private lessons for pay. They can use the school’s facilities if they would be otherwise available to non-athletes.
- Athletes can open their own camps/clinics. Again, they can use the school’s facilities if they would be otherwise available to non-athletes.
- A business hosting a fundraiser for the school will be allowed to advertise the presence of the school’s athletes.
- Athletes can license their name for use by third parties.
However: - Athletes cannot use their names to promote products banned by the NCAA, including sports wagering sites and banned substances.
- Athletes cannot miss classes to participate in name-usage activities.
- Schools can counsel athletes on name usage, but cannot arrange opportunities for such usage.
- Schools can allow athletes to use the school’s logos/names for commercial purposes. An athlete cannot use them without permission.
Note that “name” also includes “image” and “likeness.”
That’s a lousy set of rules, IMO. Totally restrictive and places all the control in the schools’ hands.
They don’t need any of these rules. They need the absence of rules restricting athletes’ commercial liberties.
Hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee didn’t go very well for the athletes yesterday. The Senate appears to be buying the load of bullshit that the schools are trying to peddle.
Basically, committee members were sympathetic to the schools’ argument that NIL rights needed to be regulated because 18-year-olds wouldn’t be able to manage these kinds of commercial negotiations (or handle the income).
Hopefully, Congress will be too busy on larger issues to act on this one between now and next July, when the first of the state legislations kick into effect and mess up the NCAA’s archaic compensation rules.
Lindsey Graham is championing the NCAA.
He’s disgusting.
Why not?
What the fuck? Who’s going to get killed in a shootout here? Why invoke that kind of imagery?
I think there are enough fair minded members of Congress to prevent any kind of antitrust gift given to the schools, especially in light of how public opinion has changed on this issue. But I’m old enough to have been disappointed a million times before by our national representatives.