Schools To Directly Pay Players

[NU_Alum]

This isn't reinventing the wheel. I understand labor laws differ from state to state, but professional leagues have managed to deal with those and come to a system that works across the entirety of the league. I can't tell you the specifics of how/why they are able to do what they do, but I do know that it works. It isn't an opt-in/opt-out thing, it controls the way in which the league operates.

I think you can have big time CFB and keep other college sports alive, albeit probably not to the level they currently are. I wouldn't be surprised if non-revenue sports revert back to more geographic conference layout or even to more of a club sports model. Fiscally, it doesn't make sense to operate sports like bowling or golf at a $600-800k loss every year. I'm not sure how the spending breaks down, but the only reason those sports are able to exist in their current form is because football subsidizes it. I'm not saying those sports shouldn't exist, but they might need to change the way in which they operate in the coming age of college athletics.

Again, some of these issues I'm just not well schooled enough on to know for sure. Is there a difference between the NFL, a private organization requiring union membership to be drafted, and a public school requiring it to play football for them? I suspect so.

I agree with you on the rest of the sports going back to clubs, at least most of them. I think we'll be left with 3 or 4 varsity sports and the rest club. Many schools will completely cut football because they can't afford it. The University of Chicago foresaw this coming long ago and that's why they opted out of the B1G. I think plenty will follow suit this time around.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

Again, some of these issues I'm just not well schooled enough on to know for sure. Is there a difference between the NFL, a private organization requiring union membership to be drafted, and a public school requiring it to play football for them? I suspect so.

I agree with you on the rest of the sports going back to clubs, at least most of them. I think we'll be left with 3 or 4 varsity sports and the rest club. Many schools will completely cut football because they can't afford it. The University of Chicago foresaw this coming long ago and that's why they opted out of the B1G. I think plenty will follow suit this time around.

I think there is a chance some sports get left as varsity sports, but scale back how they operate. The extra cost of softball/baseball playing a B1G schedule (simply because of travel) is exorbitant. Scale things back to primarily playing regionally against other NCAA teams (not in conference) and then have a big championship at the end of the season where more travel comes into play. Can still be NCAA varsity, but just a scaled down version.

 

[NU_Alum]

I think there is a chance some sports get left as varsity sports, but scale back how they operate. The extra cost of softball/baseball playing a B1G schedule (simply because of travel) is exorbitant. Scale things back to primarily playing regionally against other NCAA teams (not in conference) and then have a big championship at the end of the season where more travel comes into play. Can still be NCAA varsity, but just a scaled down version.

But those players will be employees and I would think, subject to any CBA. Even if they aren't in the CBA, they're going to need their own. All varsity athletes are going to be deemed employees (at least all signs point that way). The cost to even have a men's baseball and women's softball team is going to be huge. Much bigger than any revenue they generate.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

But those players will be employees and I would think, subject to any CBA. Even if they aren't in the CBA, they're going to need their own. All varsity athletes are going to be deemed employees (at least all signs point that way). The cost to even have a men's baseball and women's softball team is going to be huge. Much bigger than any revenue they generate.

I think they will have to find some way to protect amateur athletics, whether that is through legal rulings or federal legislation. The vast majority of colleges are not generating large sums of money through college athletics, like we see with P5 football/basketball. A model needs to remain in place for DII, DIII, NAIA schools to still have sports as they exist today. Similarly, you should be able to keep those models at the DI level, especially for sports that lose money. I think CBAs and employee statuses will not be something that is done across the board. If it is, P5 schools will have to pretty much solely become football and basketball schools.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

But those players will be employees and I would think, subject to any CBA. Even if they aren't in the CBA, they're going to need their own. All varsity athletes are going to be deemed employees (at least all signs point that way). The cost to even have a men's baseball and women's softball team is going to be huge. Much bigger than any revenue they generate.

But baseball is a different market than football etc. Since pay need not be equal, and as pointed out title nine reqs it only comes down to opportunity, why would baseball players get anything more than their current stipend? Or volleyball to a degree and so on.
It would be better to look into your support pro teams and how they're handled. There may be some things there that bridges the gap of the haves/have nots.
I think it can be done retaining revenue losing teams, but having a blanket coverage would kill that.

 

[NU_Alum]

I think they will have to find some way to protect amateur athletics, whether that is through legal rulings or federal legislation. The vast majority of colleges are not generating large sums of money through college athletics, like we see with P5 football/basketball. A model needs to remain in place for DII, DIII, NAIA schools to still have sports as they exist today. Similarly, you should be able to keep those models at the DI level, especially for sports that lose money. I think CBAs and employee statuses will not be something that is done across the board. If it is, P5 schools will have to pretty much solely become football and basketball schools.

I agree on they "should" protect it, but I'm not sure that's entirely possible without major legislation.

I've said since the beginning, moving to an employee model is a disaster and is going to hurt WAY more kids than it helps. One major casualty is going to be the smaller sports and some schools getting out of D1 completely and moving to a smaller division.

 

[HuskerBred]

I agree on they "should" protect it, but I'm not sure that's entirely possible without major legislation.

I've said since the beginning, moving to an employee model is a disaster and is going to hurt WAY more kids than it helps. One major casualty is going to be the smaller sports and some schools getting out of D1 completely and moving to a smaller division.

Absolutely agree. I don’t think it’s possible to move forward under any other framework than an employer/employer model, a/k/a, a disaster for college sports. Again, without major legislation as you say, it may wipe out most sports offered in college and severely limit the number os “schools” participating.

 

[goodnterribles]

While we may not recognize it as the college football we grew up watching, when this is all said and done, college football will survive and thrive. If the sport can survive a sitting US president threatening to ban it unless they can figure out how to prevent players from dying, it can survive this.

 

[NU_Alum]

While we may not recognize it as the college football we grew up watching, when this is all said and done, college football will survive and thrive. If the sport can survive a sitting US president threatening to ban it unless they can figure out how to prevent players from dying, it can survive this.

I think you'll see a resurgence among the smaller schools. They'll go back to "original" CFB. More "everyday" type kids paying their own way/on some type of academic/other scholarship. No crazy practices schedules, hyper local conferences, etc...

Then you'll have 30-40 major programs playing nationally on tv.

 

[goodnterribles]

I think you'll see a resurgence among the smaller schools. They'll go back to "original" CFB. More "everyday" type kids paying their own way/on some type of academic/other scholarship. No crazy practices schedules, hyper local conferences, etc...

Then you'll have 30-40 major programs playing nationally on tv.

And college fb will go on. Or it could be a completely different version and it will go on. And most of us will still be watching regardless of what happens.

 

[Hville]

I would assume eventually this system will work as annual or multi-year contracts. That will lock the athlete in for at least the full year, meaning they will be guaranteed the full amount of their contract, unless there is something that voids said contract. Even in multi-year contract, you could have buyouts (like what we see in coaching contracts).

There will likely be some sort of reconciliation between NIL and this revenue sharing. NIL and pay-to-play are not mutual exclusive. You should be able to earn money from both. The question will be whether some of that booster money that is currently being funneled into NIL will be funneled through the schools instead to cover the "revenue sharing"? That could mean that some of these athletes are making might not go up, but instead would just be redistributed into different buckets.

I think there would have to be a clear separation between revenue distribution payments to athletes and NIL payments. In saying that if the colleges owned the coalitions such as 1890, they would be free to raise whatever donations they wanted without having to call that revenue. They could funnel it to whatever expense they wanted. This could be payments to players or funds to support non-revenue producing sports.

 

[Hville]

Absolutely agree. I don’t think it’s possible to move forward under any other framework than an employer/employer model, a/k/a, a disaster for college sports. Again, without major legislation as you say, it may wipe out most sports offered in college and severely limit the number os “schools” participating.

I think one key part of the legislation will have to deal with title IX Legislation and whether the schools can separate individual sports within their athletic departments. If the baseball team doesn’t generate revenue, do you have to make them employees? Or more likely the bowling team and woman’s rifle.

And if they can’t separate them, who will they compete against when most of the universities will start dropping these programs.

 

[NU_Alum]

I think one key part of the legislation will have to deal with title IX Legislation and whether the schools can separate individual sports within their athletic departments. If the baseball team doesn’t generate revenue, do you have to make them employees? Or more likely the bowling team and woman’s rifle.

And if they can’t separate them, who will they compete against when most of the universities will start dropping these programs.

Generating revenue has nothing to do with the test for employee status.

I'm glad you agree that most schools will drop the nonrevenue producing sports, pretty much every women's sport, and most men's as well. I thought you previously said that it wouldn't happen?

 

[JHudson]

 

[NU_Alum]

Like several of us have been saying, it's going to result in most schools going back to the club level in all sports, and many schools only keeping football/basketball as varsity sports.

This only helps a few individuals like stud QB's, while it hurts nearly every other varsity athlete.