The NFL never had to deal with systems designed to circumvent their caps. Nobody ever set up collectives and other means to funnel money to the players. In college, those systems are in place already. They won’t go away simply because the schools also pay the kids directly, and try to implement a cap. If the fans want to spend more, they will. The cap doesn’t do any good.
I think the big difference is employees under contracts. No matter how much money Nike or any other company/ booster etc were to pay a player, the player can’t just change teams . Do colleges care enough to go that route or would they make more cash by just letting it go and have the free for all we are seeing now? Schools will choose profits over leveling the playing field. We’ve been watching exactly that for decades now. As long as we show up and they get paid, why would they change a thing?
The big difference is in the nfl, the players were fighting for change and more money. The players had leverage to get what they wanted. They refused to play until the nfl came to the table and discussed fair terms, but it was the athletes that wanted more. In college, the kids already won. They already got what they wanted. Why would they go back now and agree to terms that limit their movement and pay?
If they got half like nfl players? Maybe they would listen. The top 300-400 are getting paid but your average guy isn’t getting much if anything. It’ll be interesting to see how this shakes out for sure. Colleges have to love boosters paying the tab. Players probably don’t care where it comes from.
They’re almost too different to keep comparing them. Half of what? What the school earns? Just in the sport you play? What money gets counted? The athletic dept runs all sports, not just football so who gets what? Just tv money and ticket sales/concessions? Where does the booster money go? They aren’t going to keep putting that in the pile to draw from if the rule is that you just have to give them half your earnings. And then we’re right back in the same loop of circumventing that system. NFL doesn’t have boosters funding buildings and donating tons of money, so they don’t have to account for that. Some schools athletic programs don’t even make enough to give out their maximum amount of allowable schollys. So those kids get nothing, and aren’t allowed to get anything? It’s too much of a mess, too many sports, and too many variables to just say follow the nfl’s model.
Lots of good questions you have there and those will be asked. The last part is interesting for sure. If a team doesn’t turn a profit, maybe they don’t need to be on the same field as the ones that do. I’m just wondering if big changes are coming or if we just see more of the same. Fans generate all the money so I think they better remember that.
No. The contract is binding. The act of faxing in a piece of paper remains, but the piece of paper is tied to a legal instrument in lieu of faxing an entire contract. This would be similar to signing employment contracts. In most states a faxed copy of a signed contract is fine, but there are some states and countries where this is not allowed or recommended. If the LOI (a non-legally binding piece of paper) were replaced with a notarized letter of acceptance or a signed contract then the act of faxing in a piece of paper either includes a legally binding piece of paper pointing to a contract or the signed copy of the contract itself. The easiest solution would be a notarized letter since it would be a single piece of paper that could be faxed from just about any state or country. The contract itself would need to be finalized in accordance with state laws independently of signing day. Note that an LOI is a legally binding letter stating intent to sign, but what I am proposing is the addition of a contract that could be tied to the NIL.
The loi is binding and is a signed contract. We just don’t hold anyone accountable for signing it. Having it notarized would not make them any more accountable. Again, the notary isn’t doing anything except guaranteeing that the person signing is, in fact, the person signing. What is the Letter of Intent? Read this Before Signing a Sports Scholarship Offer - United Sports USA They aren’t employees of the school and they aren’t being paid by the school. There’s no reason for them to sign anything extra that puts more restrictions on them. You’re going to run into the same type crap you get with coaches. If nobody would give these coaches these stupid guaranteed contracts, then nobody would have them. But if you don’t give them one, someone else will, so you miss out. Try to force a kid to be tied to you for four years, another school says oh no, you don’t need to do that with us. Why go to the one that forces you to do something you don’t want to do? Or are you suggesting collusion between the schools to demand this across the board? That opens up a whole other can of worms, and will likely be shot down by the courts.
Absolutely. This is all a game within a game to make us all feel good about legalized bagmen and pay-for-play. NIL makes it sound nice, but we all know what is really going on. This whole thread is about the future of college football, and that future is all about putting a veneer of truth over the lies behind the system. All of this goes through the legal system.
What does your statement have to do with NIL? My statement is all about molding the existing legal instruments to include NIL. The LOI served its purpose in the pre-NIL era. College athletics as a business is still going to pretend it is about amateurism and some of the old mechanisms are going to continue in a new way. The easiest answer is to do away with fax machines and have national signing day be a bunch of videos of kids choosing a school in front of their new sports cars. Regardless of the way signing day changes it would be best if there were contracts in place to protect all the parties involved.
You’re the one who brought notaries into the conversation. I’m just saying having a notary stamp a contract doesn’t make it any more legally binding, it just guarantees who signed it. The kids have no real reason to want to sign anything that further limits their movement. The loi is already a contract that is supposed to protect both parties, it just doesn’t because only one party is held accountable. I don’t see why it being faxed, mailed, signed in person, or signed in front of a notary makes any difference. Are we disputing who put their signature on the paper? The school can’t make them sign anything to do with their nil deal, because they don’t handle their nil deals and aren’t even allowed to, at least not in Fl. Whoever is giving the deal can ask them to sign anything they want, but that doesn’t mean they have to. I still don’t know what any of that has to do with NSD, fax machines, and notaries. The NIL deals don’t have to be arranged prior to signing.
I think this question needs to be broken down. First, the majority of D1 football teams lose money. Further, an even smaller subset of schools will every play for a championship. The reality is that college football today (and for the last decades) was like 60 "have" teams (generous) and the rest "have nots." Does not make sense to me to be concerned about the future of have nots having naught. The real issue to me is how is a relatively fair playing field created so that leagues are competitive and this does not become a "winner take all" with Alabama playing the NY Yankees. While it is arguable that this occurs today that seems arguably a function of Saban as much as money. My guess is that some kind of salary cap must be instituted. The problem is that the NCAA is criminally inept so asking them to create, much less manage, such a structure seems ludicrous. Conferences seem the best bet but how to keep them from engaging in a race to the bottom or advantaging themselves? A league office for all "relevant" teams needs to be created, perhaps with NFL input. I foresee a bunch of public relations disasters: people not paying NIL deals, players getting in tax/criminal trouble, etc. Only after the house starts burning is real reform likely.
It really pisses me off that it's all about money. I think that it just ruins this sport. Players need to understand that they have a chance for free education, which is a great opportunity. Other young people pays lots of money for college, and even for stuff like https://studyhippo.com/essay-examples/romeo-and-juliet/ in order to get their homeworks and essays done. They just don't care about education..
Mini football players don’t give a damn about an education and they’re still going to be a lot of players that aren’t getting paid.
I liked what you posted but with one observation... The venues are NOT exclusively for the players, at least not the stadium, and we the fans are worth the upgrades to the stadium.. Lol. That is all.
When and if the power 5 split Hopefully you will have "semi pro / AAA ball" and then the other schools who can't or don't want to compete at that game will start a TRULY College Based Football league. A league that requires Football players to be looked at as students first and Football players second. If the Football player can't qualify for UF or any other school that is apart of this new league Based on the current schools admissions guidelines they can't play Football for that school....full stop. That's the team and league I want to support in the future ( A team of athletes that actually represent that schools student body ). I for one am willing to trade absolute performance for actual amateur College Football.
