NCAA reorg imminent

[Jim Malone]

Why do the adults in charge seem to always screw the student-athletes in the care?

The conferences and divisions used to be correctly based up territorial location with few exceptions as to east, mid-country and west.

Television money screwed the pooch.

The networks that started it are on the balls of their arses.

The cable companies that upped the ante killing network sports are on the balls of their arses.

The streaming companies are just getting started.
Try finding a Yankee game on Friday night.

It would serve professional sports right if the student athletes make their NIL money, get paid their share of revenue money from the sport and become a career corporate employee, open up a business or coach the sport they love.

[Farfromgeneva]

Why do the adults in charge seem to always screw the student-athletes in the care?

The conferences and divisions used to be correctly based up territorial location with few exceptions as to east, mid-country and west.

Television money screwed the pooch.

The networks that started it are on the balls of their arses.

The cable companies that upped the ante killing network sports are on the balls of their arses.

The streaming companies are just getting started.
Try finding a Yankee game on Friday night.

It would serve professional sports right if the student athletes make their NIL money, get paid their share of revenue money from the sport and become a career corporate employee, open up a business or coach the sport they love.

Northwestern will get their collective bargaining eventually and that’ll open up a whole area no one here is really considering yet.

Not all business models need to die just because margins are being attacked but a post modern variation on the model. Interesting discussion on a Bill Simmons podcast recently. Discusses cable mergers and sports business around 50 min mark or maybe 55 min.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t ... 0627162340

[Essexfenwick]

Why do the adults in charge seem to always screw the student-athletes in the care?

The conferences and divisions used to be correctly based up territorial location with few exceptions as to east, mid-country and west.

Television money screwed the pooch.

The networks that started it are on the balls of their arses.

The cable companies that upped the ante killing network sports are on the balls of their arses.

The streaming companies are just getting started.
Try finding a Yankee game on Friday night.

It would serve professional sports right if the student athletes make their NIL money, get paid their share of revenue money from the sport and become a career corporate employee, open up a business or coach the sport they love.

Northwestern will get their collective bargaining eventually and that’ll open up a whole area no one here is really considering yet.

Not all business models need to die just because margins are being attacked but a post modern variation on the model. Interesting discussion on a Bill Simmons podcast recently. Discusses cable mergers and sports business around 50 min mark or maybe 55 min.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t ... 0627162340

Yes the players will get some of the huge B1G / SEC tv windfall. That’s when the secondary conferences will have it hard to compete.

[Farfromgeneva]

A windfall implies profitability. Of this exercise were fully expenses properly there wouldn’t be a single profitable program in the country.

It’s not a windfall, it’s cash flow for debt service as they build the Tower of Babel that eventually leads to their destruction.

[wgdsr]

Why do the adults in charge seem to always screw the student-athletes in the care?

The conferences and divisions used to be correctly based up territorial location with few exceptions as to east, mid-country and west.

Television money screwed the pooch.

The networks that started it are on the balls of their arses.

The cable companies that upped the ante killing network sports are on the balls of their arses.

The streaming companies are just getting started.
Try finding a Yankee game on Friday night.

It would serve professional sports right if the student athletes make their NIL money, get paid their share of revenue money from the sport and become a career corporate employee, open up a business or coach the sport they love.

Northwestern will get their collective bargaining eventually and that’ll open up a whole area no one here is really considering yet.

Not all business models need to die just because margins are being attacked but a post modern variation on the model. Interesting discussion on a Bill Simmons podcast recently. Discusses cable mergers and sports business around 50 min mark or maybe 55 min.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t ... 0627162340

Yes the players will get some of the huge B1G / SEC tv windfall. That’s when the secondary conferences will have it hard to compete.

so, it's not the last $20 million difference between conferences that makes it difficult to compete, but the next $20 million difference. got it.

[HooDat]

Yes the players will get some of the huge B1G / SEC tv windfall. That’s when the secondary conferences will have it hard to compete.

so, it's not the last $20 million difference between conferences that makes it difficult to compete, but the next $20 million difference. got it.

which all leads to the question: Compete at WHAT exactly?

Seems like everyone now just takes it as a given that college football (and basketball for that matter) is nothing more than a money game. And yet D3 sports exist. and FCS football exists. The Ivy League exists....

The "Premier League" format can't come soon enough for me.

Let's skip the ugliness that is about to go down, and get straight to the reinstatement of the old small regional conferences that have an overlay for football that provides for the top 1 or 2 teams from each conference to compete with the other big boys for the big dollars in their "student athlete" semi-pro league... Let the rest of D1 sports continue as they have, and let the other schools off the hook for football where they can field a team for the same type of reasons all the other non-revenue sports exist and get some sanity back into college sports....

[MDlaxfan76]

On the lacrosse front, I recently learned that I've been a bit naive about what's already happening in lax with Nil. Apparently at least some programs are already adopting a pay for level of play for all players. AA status, higher, regular player middle, benchwarmer still some; funded by donors...this is in addition to financial need support and 12.6 athletic aid support.

And it has nothing to do with the player's own endorsements, coaching, Instagram, whatever under NIL.

Unregulated, with no public transparency.

I hadn't thought this was happening, that it was outside the rules...but here we are, apparently.

Arms race from here. ugh.

I was in favor of no longer penalizing a college kid for coaching in the summer stuff or doing an Instagram feed, etc; dumb restrictions IMO...but programs competing for how much they can raise to pay for play...yuck.

[pcowlax]

Wow. Don’t want to mock MDlax but welcome to the real world on this. NIL has NOTHING to do with players being able to make money from endorsements, or selling autographs, or coaching or anything that involves them being able to keep money that they set out to make by working a job or selling a service. Schools, through the collectives, pay kids to come to the schools. They are not paid to do a job or make appearances, they are paid to come to the school and play. And the better you are and the better you perform, the higher your asking price. Once the player has gotten the money and come to the school, THEN there is some window dressing made up about them endorsing a product or something. But make no mistake, it is not about keeping money they make because the money comes first, the “job” comes second. Of course what happens in lax is trivial compared to football and basketball but it still happens, and it is simply paying players to come to a school, and it is fully legal, as anyone with their head not 15 feet into the sand saw coming despite the nonsense sob stories about players just wanting to be able to afford food. It has nothing to do with need (heh) or scholarships or instasnapface. It is now legal, through collectives, for schools to pay for players. And boy are they.

[MDlaxfan76]

Wow. Don’t want to mock MDlax but welcome to the real world on this. NIL has NOTHING to do with players being able to make money from endorsements, or selling autographs, or coaching or anything that involves them being able to keep money that they set out to make by working a job or selling a service. Schools, through the collectives, pay kids to come to the schools. They are not paid to do a job or make appearances, they are paid to come to the school and play. And the better you are and the better you perform, the higher your asking price. Once the player has gotten the money and come to the school, THEN there is some window dressing made up about them endorsing a product or something. But make no mistake, it is not about keeping money they make because the money comes first, the “job” comes second. Of course what happens in lax is trivial compared to football and basketball but it still happens, and it is simply paying players to come to a school, and it is fully legal, as anyone with their head not 15 feet into the sand saw coming despite the nonsense sob stories about players just wanting to be able to afford food. It has nothing to do with need (heh) or scholarships or instasnapface. It is now legal, through collectives, for schools to pay for players. And boy are they.

I'll take the mocking, that's why I said I learned I'd been naive.

I wouldn't have been surprised at all to hear this was happening with the money sports. And I think there's a reasonable rationale for it, if transparently...and I think collective bargaining would be appropriate in that situation.

But sure, that it's already this way in lacrosse is pretty darn disgusting, IMO, and if this expands as it sounds it will do, it's going to choke colleges out of supporting as many sports, fewer athletes playing ball overall. $ being donated to player pay pools will no longer go to program support, coaches, travel, etc...except the few programs with mega donors...

So, I guess it's just shut up about 12.6...?

I supported a change in the rules, as the prior rule set was really, really stupid. My son was suspended from being able to practice for two weeks because of a supposed violation, unpaid, of mentioning to coaches of other sports at his school that his team and he had been using a hydration product...he'd interned at the company the prior summer...the violation was the mention that he played at sport at the same school as the coaches; compliance at his school flagged it to the NCAA...cleared once the paperwork wheels turned...but so stupid...kid coaching during the summer couldn't even use his own name, much less picture to recruit customers....stupid.

But what we're talking about definitely was NOT the supposed intention of NIL.

And the lack of transparency invites tremendous abuse.

[mdk01]

Wow. Don’t want to mock MDlax but welcome to the real world on this. NIL has NOTHING to do with players being able to make money from endorsements, or selling autographs, or coaching or anything that involves them being able to keep money that they set out to make by working a job or selling a service. Schools, through the collectives, pay kids to come to the schools. They are not paid to do a job or make appearances, they are paid to come to the school and play. And the better you are and the better you perform, the higher your asking price. Once the player has gotten the money and come to the school, THEN there is some window dressing made up about them endorsing a product or something. But make no mistake, it is not about keeping money they make because the money comes first, the “job” comes second. Of course what happens in lax is trivial compared to football and basketball but it still happens, and it is simply paying players to come to a school, and it is fully legal, as anyone with their head not 15 feet into the sand saw coming despite the nonsense sob stories about players just wanting to be able to afford food. It has nothing to do with need (heh) or scholarships or instasnapface. It is now legal, through collectives, for schools to pay for players. And boy are they.

I'll take the mocking, that's why I said I learned I'd been naive.

I wouldn't have been surprised at all to hear this was happening with the money sports. And I think there's a reasonable rationale for it, if transparently...and I think collective bargaining would be appropriate in that situation.

But sure, that it's already this way in lacrosse is pretty darn disgusting, IMO, and if this expands as it sounds it will do, it's going to choke colleges out of supporting as many sports, fewer athletes playing ball overall. $ being donated to player pay pools will no longer go to program support, coaches, travel, etc...except the few programs with mega donors...

So, I guess it's just shut up about 12.6...?

I supported a change in the rules, as the prior rule set was really, really stupid. My son was suspended from being able to practice for two weeks because of a supposed violation, unpaid, of mentioning to coaches of other sports at his school that his team and he had been using a hydration product...he'd interned at the company the prior summer...the violation was the mention that he played at sport at the same school as the coaches; compliance at his school flagged it to the NCAA...cleared once the paperwork wheels turned...but so stupid...kid coaching during the summer couldn't even use his own name, much less picture to recruit customers....stupid.

But what we're talking about definitely was NOT the supposed intention of NIL.

And the lack of transparency invites tremendous abuse.

My how things have changed. My senior year Coke went up to Hanover to shoot a winter commercial. All students riding in a sleigh and such. Open interviews at the Nugget. As you walked in where they were handing out applications, before you got one they asked "Do you play a sport?". Answer yes and they said "Sorry"

[a fan]

Wow. Don’t want to mock MDlax but welcome to the real world on this. NIL has NOTHING to do with players being able to make money from endorsements, or selling autographs, or coaching or anything that involves them being able to keep money that they set out to make by working a job or selling a service. Schools, through the collectives, pay kids to come to the schools. They are not paid to do a job or make appearances, they are paid to come to the school and play. And the better you are and the better you perform, the higher your asking price. Once the player has gotten the money and come to the school, THEN there is some window dressing made up about them endorsing a product or something. But make no mistake, it is not about keeping money they make because the money comes first, the “job” comes second. Of course what happens in lax is trivial compared to football and basketball but it still happens, and it is simply paying players to come to a school, and it is fully legal, as anyone with their head not 15 feet into the sand saw coming despite the nonsense sob stories about players just wanting to be able to afford food. It has nothing to do with need (heh) or scholarships or instasnapface. It is now legal, through collectives, for schools to pay for players. And boy are they.

I'll take the mocking, that's why I said I learned I'd been naive.

I wouldn't have been surprised at all to hear this was happening with the money sports. And I think there's a reasonable rationale for it, if transparently...and I think collective bargaining would be appropriate in that situation.

But sure, that it's already this way in lacrosse is pretty darn disgusting, IMO, and if this expands as it sounds it will do, it's going to choke colleges out of supporting as many sports, fewer athletes playing ball overall. $ being donated to player pay pools will no longer go to program support, coaches, travel, etc...except the few programs with mega donors...

So, I guess it's just shut up about 12.6...?

I supported a change in the rules, as the prior rule set was really, really stupid. My son was suspended from being able to practice for two weeks because of a supposed violation, unpaid, of mentioning to coaches of other sports at his school that his team and he had been using a hydration product...he'd interned at the company the prior summer...the violation was the mention that he played at sport at the same school as the coaches; compliance at his school flagged it to the NCAA...cleared once the paperwork wheels turned...but so stupid...kid coaching during the summer couldn't even use his own name, much less picture to recruit customers....stupid.

But what we're talking about definitely was NOT the supposed intention of NIL.

And the lack of transparency invites tremendous abuse.

Abuse of what? This is America. Every other citizen can charge what the market will bear for their labor. Why can't these citizens do the same?

Show of hands: anyone here want to cap what they can earn?

Having read the SCOTUS decision, I fail to see how the NCAA can do anything in terms of limiting compensation-----which would include scholarships, obviously.

[Farfromgeneva]

Yep NCAA is the only ones who don’t know they’re dead yet. Just a question of who the organizing and collective negotiating entity is down the road.

[MDlaxfan76]

Wow. Don’t want to mock MDlax but welcome to the real world on this. NIL has NOTHING to do with players being able to make money from endorsements, or selling autographs, or coaching or anything that involves them being able to keep money that they set out to make by working a job or selling a service. Schools, through the collectives, pay kids to come to the schools. They are not paid to do a job or make appearances, they are paid to come to the school and play. And the better you are and the better you perform, the higher your asking price. Once the player has gotten the money and come to the school, THEN there is some window dressing made up about them endorsing a product or something. But make no mistake, it is not about keeping money they make because the money comes first, the “job” comes second. Of course what happens in lax is trivial compared to football and basketball but it still happens, and it is simply paying players to come to a school, and it is fully legal, as anyone with their head not 15 feet into the sand saw coming despite the nonsense sob stories about players just wanting to be able to afford food. It has nothing to do with need (heh) or scholarships or instasnapface. It is now legal, through collectives, for schools to pay for players. And boy are they.

I'll take the mocking, that's why I said I learned I'd been naive.

I wouldn't have been surprised at all to hear this was happening with the money sports. And I think there's a reasonable rationale for it, if transparently...and I think collective bargaining would be appropriate in that situation.

But sure, that it's already this way in lacrosse is pretty darn disgusting, IMO, and if this expands as it sounds it will do, it's going to choke colleges out of supporting as many sports, fewer athletes playing ball overall. $ being donated to player pay pools will no longer go to program support, coaches, travel, etc...except the few programs with mega donors...

So, I guess it's just shut up about 12.6...?

I supported a change in the rules, as the prior rule set was really, really stupid. My son was suspended from being able to practice for two weeks because of a supposed violation, unpaid, of mentioning to coaches of other sports at his school that his team and he had been using a hydration product...he'd interned at the company the prior summer...the violation was the mention that he played at sport at the same school as the coaches; compliance at his school flagged it to the NCAA...cleared once the paperwork wheels turned...but so stupid...kid coaching during the summer couldn't even use his own name, much less picture to recruit customers....stupid.

But what we're talking about definitely was NOT the supposed intention of NIL.

And the lack of transparency invites tremendous abuse.

Abuse of what? This is America. Every other citizen can charge what the market will bear for their labor. Why can't these citizens do the same?

Show of hands: anyone here want to cap what they can earn?

Having read the SCOTUS decision, I fail to see how the NCAA can do anything in terms of limiting compensation-----which would include scholarships, obviously.

Let me be more clear as maybe I wasn't.

I'm fine with NIL enabling individual players to earn based on their personal image, identity, their work on behalf of a company or directly from a consumer paying them for a service. Earn away based on the value of your individual identity and time and effort on behalf of the paying customer. Get paid on every shirt sold, every click on the instagram, the commercial you appear in, the camp you coach. Make as much as you can.

I'm not fine with the notion of NIL being a capitulation to all of the big time, non-transparent abuses that the NCAA struggled against to maintain some semblance of amateurism and parity. Boosters buying players under the table.

But what we're also talking about is an end run around the (12.6 for lacrosse) athletic scholarship number limitation that is intended to provide some parity between schools. IF that's what is going to be allowed, then do away with the 12.6 fiction and admit that pay to play is now the rules and let the arms race be in the open. Because that's the reality of what I'm hearing is happening, just not transparently.

That opens up a discussion of what the implications will be for non-revenue sports across the board...my own view is that it will concentrate top competitive sports programs only to those schools capable of affording them at much higher cost and this will also mean fewer programs overall, a big shrinking of sports played and # of athletes involved across the college spectrum. I could be wrong, but that's my concern.

And it will have Title IX implications...are these NIL pools equally funding the women's programs athletes???

IF that's the call to release all bounds, then I'm in favor of collective bargaining of the athletes and all such being transparent.

[a fan]

I'm not fine with the notion of NIL being a capitulation to all of the big time, non-transparent abuses that the NCAA struggled against to maintain some semblance of amateurism and parity. Boosters buying players under the table.

You're not asking for amateurism. You're asking for the players to be amateurs, and everyone else involved is professional.

If, for example, the University of Alabama is amateur? Great. Pay the coach a modest salary. Make the staff minimal. Give the TV rights and IP for free. Start there.

Then when everyone else is making these amateur wages you think is important, then you can cut what the players get. How much does the SEC commissioner get, for heaven's sake?

Until then? Any notion of amateurism is laughable, sorry. Everyone else gets free market wages---whatever they can get-----except the players.

But what we're also talking about is an end run around the (12.6 for lacrosse) athletic scholarship number limitation that is intended to provide some parity between schools. IF that's what is going to be allowed, then do away with the 12.6 fiction and admit that pay to play is now the rules and let the arms race be in the open. Because that's the reality of what I'm hearing is happening, just not transparently.

These schools have bad lawyers. The SCOTUS just told them they can't restrict compensation. You can give out as many scholarships as you want.....if the NCAA tries to hit your team? Sue. Now the NCAA will have to go back to court, and explain why they ignored the Court's unanimous order. Good luck to the NCAA with that.

That opens up a discussion of what the implications will be for non-revenue sports across the board...my own view is that it will concentrate top competitive sports programs only to those schools capable of affording them at much higher cost and this will also mean fewer programs overall, a big shrinking of sports played and # of athletes involved across the college spectrum. I could be wrong, but that's my concern.

You're likely right. And who's fault is this? Who thought that having coaches make more than a modest salary in an amateur sport was either fair, or a good idea? Grown men and women who are supposed to be TEACHING kids lost their way. What lesson have they taught everyone?

[wgdsr]

I'm not fine with the notion of NIL being a capitulation to all of the big time, non-transparent abuses that the NCAA struggled against to maintain some semblance of amateurism and parity. Boosters buying players under the table.

You're not asking for amateurism. You're asking for the players to be amateurs, and everyone else involved is professional.

If, for example, the University of Alabama is amateur? Great. Pay the coach a modest salary. Make the staff minimal. Give the TV rights and IP for free. Start there.

Then when everyone else is making these amateur wages you think is important, then you can cut what the players get. How much does the SEC commissioner get, for heaven's sake?

Until then? Any notion of amateurism is laughable, sorry. Everyone else gets free market wages---whatever they can get-----except the players.

But what we're also talking about is an end run around the (12.6 for lacrosse) athletic scholarship number limitation that is intended to provide some parity between schools. IF that's what is going to be allowed, then do away with the 12.6 fiction and admit that pay to play is now the rules and let the arms race be in the open. Because that's the reality of what I'm hearing is happening, just not transparently.

These schools have bad lawyers. The SCOTUS just told them they can't restrict compensation. You can give out as many scholarships as you want.....if the NCAA tries to hit your team? Sue. Now the NCAA will have to go back to court, and explain why they ignored the Court's unanimous order. Good luck to the NCAA with that.

That opens up a discussion of what the implications will be for non-revenue sports across the board...my own view is that it will concentrate top competitive sports programs only to those schools capable of affording them at much higher cost and this will also mean fewer programs overall, a big shrinking of sports played and # of athletes involved across the college spectrum. I could be wrong, but that's my concern.

You're likely right. And who's fault is this? Who thought that having coaches make more than a modest salary in an amateur sport was either fair, or a good idea? Grown men and women who are supposed to be TEACHING kids lost their way. What lesson have they taught everyone?

10? years ago i was in on the amateurism, don't cheat. saw anything else as threats to other sports, namely because of lacrosse.
then as o'bannon unfolded, it sounded more ridiculous by the day. don't know what i was thinking. hope the football and hoops players and others bleed universities and boosters dry.

athletes will find places to play. the whole complex, trickled all the way down to youth club sports and everything in between has gotten so toxic and against what the majority of sports was supposed to be about, it can all burn.

[a fan]

10? years ago i was in on the amateurism, don't cheat. saw anything else as threats to other sports, namely because of lacrosse.
then as o'bannon unfolded, it sounded more ridiculous by the day. don't know what i was thinking. hope the football and hoops players and others bleed universities and boosters dry.

athletes will find places to play. the whole complex, trickled all the way down to youth club sports and everything in between has gotten so toxic and against what the majority of sports was supposed to be about, it can all burn.

I changed my position when BBall coaches were getting multi-million dollar deals from Nike. That's when all the tuition inflation started, too.



My nephew quit lacrosse because the environment s*cked. They were treating the program like every kid was going to SU on a full ride.

No more fun for fun's sake. No more "play every position" before you hit high school.

I always remember Jim Brown saying how much he LOVED lacrosse practice...and I did, too. I think those days are gone.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not fine with the notion of NIL being a capitulation to all of the big time, non-transparent abuses that the NCAA struggled against to maintain some semblance of amateurism and parity. Boosters buying players under the table.

You're not asking for amateurism. You're asking for the players to be amateurs, and everyone else involved is professional.

No, in the part that you cut, I expressly supported the athletes being able to fully and without limitation monetize their individual efforts. That's not the same as them being amateurs. Please read that again.

IF there's going to be full on pay for play organized and endorsed by the schools, then I AM asking for full transparency and I'm advocating for collective bargaining. And I'm expressing concern about what will happen with non-revenue sports.

If, for example, the University of Alabama is amateur? Great. Pay the coach a modest salary. Make the staff minimal. Give the TV rights and IP for free. Start there.

Then when everyone else is making these amateur wages you think is important, then you can cut what the players get. How much does the SEC commissioner get, for heaven's sake?

Until then? Any notion of amateurism is laughable, sorry. Everyone else gets free market wages---whatever they can get-----except the players.

Again, read what I wrote, which is expressly not how you are characterizing what I said. Make that argument with someone else, please.

But what we're also talking about is an end run around the (12.6 for lacrosse) athletic scholarship number limitation that is intended to provide some parity between schools. IF that's what is going to be allowed, then do away with the 12.6 fiction and admit that pay to play is now the rules and let the arms race be in the open. Because that's the reality of what I'm hearing is happening, just not transparently.

These schools have bad lawyers. The SCOTUS just told them they can't restrict compensation. You can give out as many scholarships as you want.....if the NCAA tries to hit your team? Sue. Now the NCAA will have to go back to court, and explain why they ignored the Court's unanimous order. Good luck to the NCAA with that.

Yup, it's a cluster-F...my point is that NIL didn't achieve the objective of letting the players earn but keeping the schools and their boosters out of pay to play. Instead, there's a non-transparent end run around any collective sense of creating even playing fields. And that's going to have big implications for the number of sports and the number of athletes schools are able to support in a competitive fashion. I think we were resigned to that reality in the big money revenue sports in which the athletes do contribute heavily to the revenue generation, but not to what full on across the board pay to play means for the non-revenue athletes. Thanks SCOTUS...how about Title IX ?

That opens up a discussion of what the implications will be for non-revenue sports across the board...my own view is that it will concentrate top competitive sports programs only to those schools capable of affording them at much higher cost and this will also mean fewer programs overall, a big shrinking of sports played and # of athletes involved across the college spectrum. I could be wrong, but that's my concern.

You're likely right. And who's fault is this? Who thought that having coaches make more than a modest salary in an amateur sport was either fair, or a good idea? Grown men and women who are supposed to be TEACHING kids lost their way. What lesson have they taught everyone?

Indeed, but I'd focus particularly on that phenomenon in the revenue sports because that's where the excesses and incentives are to be excessive. I don't think we see those sorts of excesses, really, in the non-revenue sports...for the most part, coaches who are truly excellent make less than what their tangible and intangible skill sets might well have produced in business, medicine, law, etc...I gripe about our sport having too many coaches who are there because they were a star player and can't really succeed elsewhere, have low EQ, etc...but the ones who are really good tend to be guys and gals who would be successful in any endeavor. I'm ok with having those folks be able to build a career given that's who I'd want being responsible for the education of my and your kids.

[wgdsr]

10? years ago i was in on the amateurism, don't cheat. saw anything else as threats to other sports, namely because of lacrosse.
then as o'bannon unfolded, it sounded more ridiculous by the day. don't know what i was thinking. hope the football and hoops players and others bleed universities and boosters dry.

athletes will find places to play. the whole complex, trickled all the way down to youth club sports and everything in between has gotten so toxic and against what the majority of sports was supposed to be about, it can all burn.

I changed my position when BBall coaches were getting multi-million dollar deals from Nike. That's when all the tuition inflation started, too.

My nephew quit lacrosse because the environment s*cked. They were treating the program like every kid was going to SU on a full ride.

No more fun for fun's sake. No more "play every position" before you hit high school.

I always remember Jim Brown saying how much he LOVED lacrosse practice...and I did, too. I think those days are gone.

they are not gone. they are harder to find. and there will be roadkill in the meantime.

there will be a lot of people yelling at clouds, nc$$ admins and people that remember the ole' days kicking and screaming and pushing against the revenue share and that sticky supply/demand thing. scotus or no scotus. it's a big pot of money now, after all.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not fine with the notion of NIL being a capitulation to all of the big time, non-transparent abuses that the NCAA struggled against to maintain some semblance of amateurism and parity. Boosters buying players under the table.

You're not asking for amateurism. You're asking for the players to be amateurs, and everyone else involved is professional.

If, for example, the University of Alabama is amateur? Great. Pay the coach a modest salary. Make the staff minimal. Give the TV rights and IP for free. Start there.

Then when everyone else is making these amateur wages you think is important, then you can cut what the players get. How much does the SEC commissioner get, for heaven's sake?

Until then? Any notion of amateurism is laughable, sorry. Everyone else gets free market wages---whatever they can get-----except the players.

But what we're also talking about is an end run around the (12.6 for lacrosse) athletic scholarship number limitation that is intended to provide some parity between schools. IF that's what is going to be allowed, then do away with the 12.6 fiction and admit that pay to play is now the rules and let the arms race be in the open. Because that's the reality of what I'm hearing is happening, just not transparently.

These schools have bad lawyers. The SCOTUS just told them they can't restrict compensation. You can give out as many scholarships as you want.....if the NCAA tries to hit your team? Sue. Now the NCAA will have to go back to court, and explain why they ignored the Court's unanimous order. Good luck to the NCAA with that.

That opens up a discussion of what the implications will be for non-revenue sports across the board...my own view is that it will concentrate top competitive sports programs only to those schools capable of affording them at much higher cost and this will also mean fewer programs overall, a big shrinking of sports played and # of athletes involved across the college spectrum. I could be wrong, but that's my concern.

You're likely right. And who's fault is this? Who thought that having coaches make more than a modest salary in an amateur sport was either fair, or a good idea? Grown men and women who are supposed to be TEACHING kids lost their way. What lesson have they taught everyone?

10? years ago i was in on the amateurism, don't cheat. saw anything else as threats to other sports, namely because of lacrosse.
then as o'bannon unfolded, it sounded more ridiculous by the day. don't know what i was thinking. hope the football and hoops players and others bleed universities and boosters dry.

athletes will find places to play. the whole complex, trickled all the way down to youth club sports and everything in between has gotten so toxic and against what the majority of sports was supposed to be about, it can all burn.

well, that's an understandable, frustrated sentiment.

But let me offer a bit of a counter which you might still find appealing about why this still matters.

I was listening to a podcast about online/offline behaviors in the current generation and what is feared about the next in this ever-on, addictively online new social media world. Apparently, this generation of online college kids is not coming out of their dorm rooms to make new friends...they're maintaining whatever relationships they had with HS friends via online, but not making new in-person friends. It's easier, seemingly safer, to just stay in...and online, the behaviors are much more toxic than when in real world in-person situation...comparisons aren't with carefully curated images of others nor is there the inhibition about being a jerk to someone, bullying, when online that there is in-person. The next generation has this problem coming even worse, apparently. Huge online hours, highly addictive, damaging.

Graduates are arriving to the workplace without basic social skills. Citizens are without social skills.

Sports remain one of the avenues for meeting others, learning teamwork, dealing constructively with adversity...tremendously important for social development. In-person verbal and non-verbal communication, reading and sending, real-world.

So, not sure we really want it 'all to burn', especially for those athletes that are non-revenue participants.

[Farfromgeneva]

Wow. Don’t want to mock MDlax but welcome to the real world on this. NIL has NOTHING to do with players being able to make money from endorsements, or selling autographs, or coaching or anything that involves them being able to keep money that they set out to make by working a job or selling a service. Schools, through the collectives, pay kids to come to the schools. They are not paid to do a job or make appearances, they are paid to come to the school and play. And the better you are and the better you perform, the higher your asking price. Once the player has gotten the money and come to the school, THEN there is some window dressing made up about them endorsing a product or something. But make no mistake, it is not about keeping money they make because the money comes first, the “job” comes second. Of course what happens in lax is trivial compared to football and basketball but it still happens, and it is simply paying players to come to a school, and it is fully legal, as anyone with their head not 15 feet into the sand saw coming despite the nonsense sob stories about players just wanting to be able to afford food. It has nothing to do with need (heh) or scholarships or instasnapface. It is now legal, through collectives, for schools to pay for players. And boy are they.

I'll take the mocking, that's why I said I learned I'd been naive.

I wouldn't have been surprised at all to hear this was happening with the money sports. And I think there's a reasonable rationale for it, if transparently...and I think collective bargaining would be appropriate in that situation.

But sure, that it's already this way in lacrosse is pretty darn disgusting, IMO, and if this expands as it sounds it will do, it's going to choke colleges out of supporting as many sports, fewer athletes playing ball overall. $ being donated to player pay pools will no longer go to program support, coaches, travel, etc...except the few programs with mega donors...

So, I guess it's just shut up about 12.6...?

I supported a change in the rules, as the prior rule set was really, really stupid. My son was suspended from being able to practice for two weeks because of a supposed violation, unpaid, of mentioning to coaches of other sports at his school that his team and he had been using a hydration product...he'd interned at the company the prior summer...the violation was the mention that he played at sport at the same school as the coaches; compliance at his school flagged it to the NCAA...cleared once the paperwork wheels turned...but so stupid...kid coaching during the summer couldn't even use his own name, much less picture to recruit customers....stupid.

But what we're talking about definitely was NOT the supposed intention of NIL.

And the lack of transparency invites tremendous abuse.

Abuse of what? This is America. Every other citizen can charge what the market will bear for their labor. Why can't these citizens do the same?

Show of hands: anyone here want to cap what they can earn?

Having read the SCOTUS decision, I fail to see how the NCAA can do anything in terms of limiting compensation-----which would include scholarships, obviously.

Let me be more clear as maybe I wasn't.

I'm fine with NIL enabling individual players to earn based on their personal image, identity, their work on behalf of a company or directly from a consumer paying them for a service. Earn away based on the value of your individual identity and time and effort on behalf of the paying customer. Get paid on every shirt sold, every click on the instagram, the commercial you appear in, the camp you coach. Make as much as you can.

I'm not fine with the notion of NIL being a capitulation to all of the big time, non-transparent abuses that the NCAA struggled against to maintain some semblance of amateurism and parity. Boosters buying players under the table.

But what we're also talking about is an end run around the (12.6 for lacrosse) athletic scholarship number limitation that is intended to provide some parity between schools. IF that's what is going to be allowed, then do away with the 12.6 fiction and admit that pay to play is now the rules and let the arms race be in the open. Because that's the reality of what I'm hearing is happening, just not transparently.

That opens up a discussion of what the implications will be for non-revenue sports across the board...my own view is that it will concentrate top competitive sports programs only to those schools capable of affording them at much higher cost and this will also mean fewer programs overall, a big shrinking of sports played and # of athletes involved across the college spectrum. I could be wrong, but that's my concern.

And it will have Title IX implications...are these NIL pools equally funding the women's programs athletes???

IF that's the call to release all bounds, then I'm in favor of collective bargaining of the athletes and all such being transparent.

That’s definitely the natural conclusion to the situation (race to the bottom, price only) and NIL opened the door for the evisceration of amateurism of course it was kicked through.

I asked multiple times about Title IX and a few folks dismissed it as a job issue. I’m not so curtains