Big-10, SEC developing plan to share revenue with players

[Jerry]

You knew it had to come to this, and it's probably a good thing. It would hopefully impose some order on the Wild West scene that NIL has become while bringing benefits to players and officially acknowledging the sport's new reality. We're never going back to the Good Old Days:

SEC, Big Ten developing plan to share revenue with players in potential landmark change to college athletics

The model being discussed by college sports' top conferences could go a long way toward settling outstanding lawsuits

www.cbssports.com

 

[psu00]

You knew it had to come to this, and it's probably a good thing. It would hopefully impose some order on the Wild West scene that NIL has become while bringing benefits to players and officially acknowledging the sport's new reality. We're never going back to the Good Old Days:

SEC, Big Ten developing plan to share revenue with players in potential landmark change to college athletics

The model being discussed by college sports' top conferences could go a long way toward settling outstanding lawsuits

www.cbssports.com

Is this as a replacement to NIL or in addition to NIL? If it’s in addition, it doesn’t really change the mess of current college athletics (especially football).

 

[Jerry]

Is this as a replacement to NIL or in addition to NIL? If it’s in addition, it doesn’t really change the mess of current college athletics (especially football).

That's a good question. The revenue-sharing concept is still only in the stage of study and discussion, but apparently, according to the CBS report that I linked and a related ESPN item (linked below) with more detail, it's being looked at very seriously indeed.

As I read it, the plan would incorporate and absorb NIL as part of a much broader system where schools would be authorized to "share" as much $20 million a year with players. Schools could opt to "share" less than the total authorized amount but not more.

Here's the relevant paragraph from the ESPN report:

>>Sources indicated the top-end revenue share number per school -- once it's determined -- would be in the neighborhood of $20 million annually, although that's yet to be settled. Whatever number is set by the settlement, individual schools will be able to opt in to share revenue up to that number with their student athletes at their discretion. (They could choose to share less, but not more.)<<

Sources: NCAA in talks to settle NIL antitrust case

The leaders of college sports are involved in "deep discussions" to reach a legal settlement that would likely lay out the framework for sharing revenue with athletes in a future NCAA business model, sources told ESPN.

www.espn.com

 

[LandoComando]

Is this as a replacement to NIL or in addition to NIL? If it’s in addition, it doesn’t really change the mess of current college athletics (especially football).

They can't kill NIL. Can only be an addition.

Any court case to kill or limit NIL will ultimately favor the players. Door is open and sadly can't be closed

 

[christoph]

It’s just more money for anyone playing sports in college. I’m sure nil is separate.

 

[Jerry]

They can't kill NIL. Can only be an addition.

Any court case to kill or limit NIL will ultimately favor the players. Door is open and sadly can't be closed

Right, the plan does not envision "killing" NIL but rather, as per my post above, incorporating it into a new "model" where as part of the aforementioned $20 million per year, schools themselves purchase NIL rights and sideline the current booster-led NIL financers.

But this idea raises a lot of questions and is a long way from being implemented. However, the discussions surrounding it are now serious and I think will end in an arrangement to complete the ongoing transition of college football from an "amateur" sport to something else entirely.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Right, the plan does not envision "killing" NIL but rather, as per my post above, incorporating it into a new "model" where as part of the aforementioned $20 million per year, schools themselves purchase NIL rights and sideline the current booster-led NIL financers.

But this idea raises a lot of questions and is a long way from being implemented. However, the discussions surrounding it are now serious and I think will end in an arrangement to complete the ongoing transition of college football from an "amateur" sport to something else entirely.

And unfortunately, I think the decision is most likely going to be the end of collegiate athletics as we know it, particularly when it comes to Olympic sports.

 

[LandoComando]

Right, the plan does not envision "killing" NIL but rather, as per my post above, incorporating it into a new "model" where as part of the aforementioned $20 million per year, schools themselves purchase NIL rights and sideline the current booster-led NIL financers.

But this idea raises a lot of questions and is a long way from being implemented. However, the discussions surrounding it are now serious and I think will end in an arrangement to complete the ongoing transition of college football from an "amateur" sport to something else entirely.

It's just making the change official. College football has been a pro sports league for basically 30 years...players are just finally getting their share.

 

[Jerry]

It's just making the change official. College football has been a pro sports league for basically 30 years...players are just finally getting their share.

I suppose one way to look at it is as the end of the hypocrisy surrounding the sport for well over 30 years. Players pretending to be students...colleges pretending to treat them as such...the joke majors and joke graduation rates.

There were only a few big-time football powers that took the "student" side of the equation seriously. Penn State was one. Notre Dame. Stanford. A few others. Almost none in the South.

So finally it all evolved into the brave new world of opt-outs, portals, and NIL. And now the logical end point which is to just pay the kids and be done with it. I mean, with these huge television contracts and all the rest, it's not like the schools can't afford it.

 

[ryoder1]

I heard from a friend who heard a podcast that the NCAA is planning to roll out a formal compensation structure to players. Maybe that would replace NIL. This revenue sharing is on top of outright paying the players. Wow, have times changed.

 

[ryoder1]

I suppose one way to look at it is as the end of the hypocrisy surrounding the sport for well over 30 years. Players pretending to be students...colleges pretending to treat them as such...the joke majors and joke graduation rates.

There were only a few big-time football powers that took the "student" side of the equation seriously. Penn State was one. Notre Dame. Stanford. A few others. Almost none in the South.

So finally it all evolved into the brave new world of opt-outs, portals, and NIL. And now the logical end point which is to just pay the kids and be done with it. I mean, with these huge television contracts and all the rest, it's not like the schools can't afford it.

Joe's grand experiment was a great vision and he made it a reality. That is all gone but I think if he was alive he would be okay with where are headed. He would understand that the grand experiment had its day but we have moved past that. If you don't evolve you're dead.

 

[LandoComando]

I heard from a friend who heard a podcast that the NCAA is planning to roll out a formal compensation structure to players. Maybe that would replace NIL. This revenue sharing is on top of outright paying the players. Wow, have times changed.

Can't replace it but hopefully it limits NIL

 

[lazydave841]

This is very likely how the haves box out the have nots using the leverage of the TV contracts.

 

[PSUSignore]

Is this as a replacement to NIL or in addition to NIL? If it’s in addition, it doesn’t really change the mess of current college athletics (especially football).

This is the right train of thought. Legally I don't think they can stop NIL. However what they call NIL now isn't really NIL either, it's pay for play/signing bribery and is NIL in name only, I have no issues with legit NIL like players using their name/likeness to get endorsement dollars, a cut of merch sales with their name, etc. If a revenue share somehow replaces that portion of the NIL masquerade then the revenue sharing will be a great thing for the sport. Problem is, I don't think they can put a stop of the fake NIL faucet officially without legal challenges, which they probably lose. After all, "NIL' as executed now is already against the rules but everyone is just doing it anyway so I don't have a clue how you stop it without going all the way to making players employees and putting collective bargaining contracts in place that can actually be enforced since the enforcement arm of the NCAA is complete useless.

 

[ryoder1]

This is the right train of thought. Legally I don't think they can stop NIL. However what they call NIL now isn't really NIL either, it's pay for play/signing bribery and is NIL in name only, I have no issues with legit NIL like players using their name/likeness to get endorsement dollars, a cut of merch sales with their name, etc. If a revenue share somehow replaces that portion of the NIL masquerade then the revenue sharing will be a great thing for the sport. Problem is, I don't think they can put a stop of the fake NIL faucet officially without legal challenges, which they probably lose. After all, "NIL' as executed now is already against the rules but everyone is just doing it anyway so I don't have a clue how you stop it without going all the way to making players employees and putting collective bargaining contracts in place that can actually be enforced since the enforcement arm of the NCAA is complete useless.

I think they will just formally start paying them. Weird thing though is is why are you paying a 3rd stringer? But I guess you are going to have to pay everyone something.

 

[Jerry]

I think they will just formally start paying them. Weird thing though is is why are you paying a 3rd stringer? But I guess you are going to have to pay everyone something.

The $20 million figure being bandied about sounds roughly like the equivalent of a salary cap where schools would be authorized to "share revenue" in that total amount (but not more) with the players. So presumably the best players would get more money but most everyone would get something.

In return, according to Bowl Season Director Nick Carparelli as quoted in Richie's opt-out thread, "student-athletes" (gag) will likely be "required to play in 12 regular-season games, the bowl game, and the CFP as part of their compensation, not unlike how the rest of the real world works." End Quote.

Obviously there would be provisions for exceptions related to injuries and other circumstances, but even with that, I'm thinking the legal enforcement of such a play-for-pay arrangement might prove tricky indeed.

 

[ryoder1]

The $20 million figure being bandied about sounds roughly like the equivalent of a salary cap where schools would be authorized to "share revenue" in that total amount (but not more) with the players. So presumably the best players would get more money but most everyone would get something.

In return, according to Bowl Season Director Nick Carparelli as quoted in Richie's opt-out thread, "student-athletes" (gag) will likely be "required to play in 12 regular-season games, the bowl game, and the CFP as part of their compensation, not unlike how the rest of the real world works." End Quote.

Obviously there would be provisions for exceptions related to injuries and other circumstances, but even with that, I'm thinking the legal enforcement of such a play-for-pay arrangement might prove tricky indeed.

Do you think it evolves where the "only" comp they get is revenue sharing? Or will they get a salary on top? NIL will stay but just be what its name says and not the pay for play it is now.

Will all schools in the B10 have $20 million to share with players? I just want it to be a level playing field and not a situation where OSU can outspend everyone 2 to 1 and hoard the best players.

 

[PSUSignore]

I think they will just formally start paying them. Weird thing though is is why are you paying a 3rd stringer? But I guess you are going to have to pay everyone something.

They are paying players not to play at this point, to stay under the scholarship limits. The whole thing is a farce... asking fans to pay a player when the program makes millions in revenue.

 

[ryoder1]

They are paying players not to play at this point, to stay under the scholarship limits. The whole thing is a farce... asking fans to pay a player when the program makes millions in revenue.

I agree with you there. All this TV revenue. All these huge, inflated salaries to coaches yet they want the average Joe to give them a grand to pay some player who by the way may not do much of anything to help the team win.

 

[Jerry]

Do you think it evolves where the "only" comp they get is revenue sharing? Or will they get a salary on top? NIL will stay but just be what its name says and not the pay for play it is now.

Will all schools in the B10 have $20 million to share with players? I just want it to be a level playing field and not a situation where OSU can outspend everyone 2 to 1 and hoard the best players.

Based on the news items of the last few days, I'm inclined to agree with lazydave's assessment above: this seems a formula for the rich getting richer and the haves getting havier at the expense of the have-nots.

The reports talk about schools having a "sharing" ceiling of $20 million, but some could opt for less than that. Problem is, if you go south of the ceiling, you put yourself at an immediate competitive disadvantage.

No matter how you cut all this, we're standing on the brink of a landmark and forever change in the landscape of college football.

 

[LandoComando]

The $20 million figure being bandied about sounds roughly like the equivalent of a salary cap where schools would be authorized to "share revenue" in that total amount (but not more) with the players. So presumably the best players would get more money but most everyone would get something.

In return, according to Bowl Season Director Nick Carparelli as quoted in Richie's opt-out thread, "student-athletes" (gag) will likely be "required to play in 12 regular-season games, the bowl game, and the CFP as part of their compensation, not unlike how the rest of the real world works." End Quote.

Obviously there would be provisions for exceptions related to injuries and other circumstances, but even with that, I'm thinking the legal enforcement of such a play-for-pay arrangement might prove tricky indeed.

Bowl games will be dropped

 

[ryoder1]

Based on the news items of the last few days, I'm inclined to agree with lazydave's assessment above: this seems a formula for the rich getting richer and the haves getting havier at the expense of the have-nots.

The reports talk about schools having a "sharing" ceiling of $20 million, but some could opt for less than that. Problem is, if you go south of the ceiling, you put yourself at an immediate competitive disadvantage.

No matter how you cut all this, we're standing on the brink of a landmark and forever change in the landscape of college football.

If there is at least a ceiling that is a good step. I agree that I doubt the Vanderbilts and Wake Forests are going to spend $20 million but we probably will to try to keep up with OSU, Oregon, USC, etc.

 

[rrdd2021]

There were only a few big-time football powers that took the "student" side of the equation seriously. Penn State was one. Notre Dame. Stanford. A few others. Almost none in the South.

My nephew went to ND and knew a couple of their football players quite well about 20 years ago. . Now while they were decent-OK students, they were treated differently and had huge advantages that the regular students didn't experience........ there was no way they were going to flunk out. And it happens at all schools

 

[rrdd2021]

Bowl games will be dropped

A bunch of them anyways. I watched both the OSU and PSU Bowl games last year and with the opt outs, you could tell that both teams were not thrilled to be there

 

[Jerry]

My nephew went to ND and knew a couple of their football players quite well about 20 years ago. . Now while they were decent-OK students, they were treated differently and had huge advantages that the regular students didn't experience........ there was no way they were going to flunk out. And it happens at all schools

Right, but everything is relative. One of my best friends back in the day went to Penn State and told me that despite Joe's grand experiment, his football players still got a status and advantages that ordinary schmuck students were never given.

Yet in the end, with regard to their football programs and players, both Penn State and Notre Dame at least tried to maintain a degree of academic integrity and seriousness that the football factories at other universities never even bothered to attempt. That's important...or at least it once was.

 

[Obliviax]

 

[Jerry]

View embedded media

Whoa...the train is speeding down the track...