Used to be when they showed a player they would put what year classification he was and what he was majoring in. Now they list the former programs that he has played for...
Commentary: A Five-Point Plan to Fix Amateur Athletics
- Thread starter JessN
- Start date
From the Article:
NIL clearinghouse has rejected $90M in deals
The clearinghouse charged with analyzing NIL deals has rejected $90 million worth of those submitted.www.espn.com
"The most common reasons for a deal not to clear are (1) the deal is not for a valid business purpose as that term is defined by the settlement and NCAA bylaws, (2) the compensation is not at rates and terms commensurate with similarly situated student-athletes, and/or (3) the deal does not include direction activation of the student-athlete's NIL," a CSC spokesperson said in a statement to ESPN.
In its report, the CSC said it has made a final ruling on nearly 90 NIL deals per day over the last year.
The report follows months of contention with schools and their leadership over proper NIL deals.
Through a January memo sent to athletic directors, the CSC addressed "serious concerns" about some of the NIL deals that had been submitted, especially those that did not appear to have a valid business purpose, held a player's rights in the future and failed to match the standard of fair market value.
"Without prejudging any particular deal, the CSC has serious concerns about some of the deal terms being contemplated and the consequences of those deals for the parties involved," the CSC's memo said then.
At the time, the six-month mark of NIL Go's inception, deals worth $15 million had been rejected and deals worth $127 million had been approved, meaning the CSC has rejected nearly $75 million in NIL proposals and cleared more than $200 million in NIL deals over the last six months alone.
In recent months, schools have sought ways to pay players through revenue share rules -- outside the scope of the CSC -- and separate NIL deals. Kentucky, Ohio State, Utah and other major institutions have reorganized their athletic departments or created separate entities to facilitate school-related NIL opportunities.
The latter have faced the most scrutiny as schools search for loopholes to exceed the rev-share cap of $20.5 million. In May, the CSC won an arbitration case after denying millions of dollars in NIL deals that 18 Nebraska football players had arranged with Playfly Sports, a sponsorship and marketing firm that works with schools and athletes across the country.
Might be a year to just try espn unlimited and an antenna. Would only be $30 per month. You would get almost everything.
I prefer to keep my money in my pockets and out of disney's
To me the first question to be asked is how/why minor league professional sports should be tied to institutions of higher education. As ineffective as the NCAA is, there was a time not to long ago when APR and progress towards degree rules, among others, at least provided the semblance of "student/athletes" existing on college campuses. That is no longer the case. Therefore, I ask again, how/why should minor league professional sports be tied to institutions of higher education.
The proposals by the OP all make sense and would help but nothing in them address the educational mission of the institution. And it's fine and good to talk about those who otherwise would not pursue higher education being able to do so via athletics, but we are talking about a relative small population (mostly men's football and basketball players and perhaps women's basketball) as most of those in non-rev sports are students who play sports. But is educating such a small group worth what universities put themselves through to have this giant appendage that sucks all the air out of the room?
Let me dispel another myth - most studies I have seen find no or a very small relationship between athletic success and non-athletic giving to the university.
If these truly are student/athletes, why do they deserve to be paid? Or better, why do they deserve to be paid more than a physics student who works in a lab is paid? Yes, the athletic department makes millions and perhaps players deserve to share in that, but isn't that called "professional sports?" If so, I ask again, how/why should minor league professional sports be tied to a university.
The best solution I have ever heard was by former Chicago sportswriter Rick Telander in his 1989 book "The 100 Yard Lie." Among other proposals, Telander suggests college sports be run more or less like they are (i.e., athletes would be recruited from HS, they would have five years of eligibility, etc). However, when they are playing, they have no academic requirements to fulfill. They are simply athletes. But for each year of sports participation they receive one full years of tuition, room/board, books, etc. Some, like Derrick Henry, may never use that. Others, like a second string tackle who doesn't get drafted, might play four years then complete their college degree. Some might play a couple of years, realize life is passing them by, and take their two years of education and pay for two and move on.
But this would solve the issue no one wants to talk about, that being the fact that these are not student/athletes, but rather are minor league professional athletes who are being stuck in a university.
One last thing. Among the P4 conferences almost all the athletic programs, if not all, are self-supporting (i.e., they take no money from the university). Once you get below that level, that is not the case. There you have universities using student fees to prop up athletics, mostly football.
An anecdote. When I was an UG at Kentucky, a long time ago to be sure, every student had to pay a $25 "athletic fee." That was justified by us getting free tickets. However, on a campus with around 23,000 students and another 15,000 or so in the community college system as you might guess, not every student could get a ticket. A friend ran for SGA President and one of his platform planks was doing away with that. He was called into the President's office where he met with the President, AD, and a few others and was while I won't say he was threatened, he was threatened.
Following COVID when athletic programs were shutting down sports, I did a little digging and found the athletic budge for Bowling Green State University. The second biggest revenue source for the athletic department was student fees that, at that time, were close to $700/semester. And people scream about the cost of higher education when every student is being asked to pony up for a mediocre football team so a few fat cat alums can be happy.
The proposals by the OP all make sense and would help but nothing in them address the educational mission of the institution. And it's fine and good to talk about those who otherwise would not pursue higher education being able to do so via athletics, but we are talking about a relative small population (mostly men's football and basketball players and perhaps women's basketball) as most of those in non-rev sports are students who play sports. But is educating such a small group worth what universities put themselves through to have this giant appendage that sucks all the air out of the room?
Let me dispel another myth - most studies I have seen find no or a very small relationship between athletic success and non-athletic giving to the university.
If these truly are student/athletes, why do they deserve to be paid? Or better, why do they deserve to be paid more than a physics student who works in a lab is paid? Yes, the athletic department makes millions and perhaps players deserve to share in that, but isn't that called "professional sports?" If so, I ask again, how/why should minor league professional sports be tied to a university.
The best solution I have ever heard was by former Chicago sportswriter Rick Telander in his 1989 book "The 100 Yard Lie." Among other proposals, Telander suggests college sports be run more or less like they are (i.e., athletes would be recruited from HS, they would have five years of eligibility, etc). However, when they are playing, they have no academic requirements to fulfill. They are simply athletes. But for each year of sports participation they receive one full years of tuition, room/board, books, etc. Some, like Derrick Henry, may never use that. Others, like a second string tackle who doesn't get drafted, might play four years then complete their college degree. Some might play a couple of years, realize life is passing them by, and take their two years of education and pay for two and move on.
But this would solve the issue no one wants to talk about, that being the fact that these are not student/athletes, but rather are minor league professional athletes who are being stuck in a university.
One last thing. Among the P4 conferences almost all the athletic programs, if not all, are self-supporting (i.e., they take no money from the university). Once you get below that level, that is not the case. There you have universities using student fees to prop up athletics, mostly football.
An anecdote. When I was an UG at Kentucky, a long time ago to be sure, every student had to pay a $25 "athletic fee." That was justified by us getting free tickets. However, on a campus with around 23,000 students and another 15,000 or so in the community college system as you might guess, not every student could get a ticket. A friend ran for SGA President and one of his platform planks was doing away with that. He was called into the President's office where he met with the President, AD, and a few others and was while I won't say he was threatened, he was threatened.
Following COVID when athletic programs were shutting down sports, I did a little digging and found the athletic budge for Bowling Green State University. The second biggest revenue source for the athletic department was student fees that, at that time, were close to $700/semester. And people scream about the cost of higher education when every student is being asked to pony up for a mediocre football team so a few fat cat alums can be happy.
Great commentary Jess! I was in a luncheon this past December and in it was a former "Legit" agent. We were having side discussions and I asked him if there could be restrictions set on NIL. His answer was more complex, however, he basically said that without representation (Union), for the players, there was no way to limit their pay, such as the NFL rookie cap or similar. He admits that the system as it is, is untenable because it is without question buying players and there is no way to make it fair across the board from a university standpoint. The haves will always be better than the have nots in this current system. A current example are schools with Billionaire alumni, who don't mind giving $100,000,000 or more. Oklahoma State was gifted $650 million by T. Boone Pickens and more recently, Cody Campbell has already given Texas Tech $25 million toward the new stadium but could easily give them a huge NIL check should he choose to do so. Even Alabama has had a large but not opulent donation last year by J. Frank Barefield Jr. who gave $35 Million to create a discretionary endowment. We could have used that in NIL, but that's just an example. The bottom line is that schools with super rich alumni (Auburn has a few, Jimmy Rane whose net worth is estimated to be $1.5 Billion and Tim Cook who has a net worth valued at $2.9 Billion). Either of them could easily pony up $100 million for NIL. Bama has a few wealthy people too who could give a bunch, but the point was made. Any school with a super wealthy alumni or simple fan, could impart a HUGE windfall for that school and that is why the current system is broken. As you mention in your plan, having an antitrust exemption would allow the leadership of the NCAA or other governing body the power needed to regulate this issue and create a level playing field.
TideFans.com | By the Fans, For the Fans. - Commentary: A Five-Point Plan to Fix Amateur Athletics
It’s a difficult path to follow, the stilted steps taken over the past few years to attempt to rein in the out-of-control nature of, primarily, the major NCAA college sports of football and, …news.tidefans.com
Superb piece Jess and overall great discussion. I would say that most of the college football world would see it in a different light given our success in the sport. Fans of Indiana certainly don't want things to change nor would any other program that couldn't sniff a championship before present day. Certainly, the present situation persists for exactly that reason. So, I don't see any changes coming that will profoundly affect the course this is headed. I remain a passionate supporter of UA and will keep paying for the streaming service. Certainly, my expectations are tempered but the program is built for resilience which I think this coach is perfect for in this day in time. Roll with the punches and endeavor to persevere...all we can really do.
The issue, however, is the clearinghouse. It was reported recently they had turned down something like $90 million in NIL deals. The stated reason was: "The most common reasons for a deal not to clear are (1) the deal is not for a valid business purpose as that term is defined by the settlement and NCAA bylaws, (2) the compensation is not at rates and terms commensurate with similarly situated student-athletes, and/or (3) the deal does not include direction activation of the student-athlete's NIL," a CSC spokesperson said in a statement to ESPN."
In other words, a wealthy donor can't simply give money and the school then dole it out for no legit NIL reason. I don't know if the clearinghouse is ensuring that "true" NIL are deals between the athlete and the person giving the money or not. But I am not sure the money is yet where most think it is.
NIL clearinghouse has rejected $90M in deals
The clearinghouse charged with analyzing NIL deals has rejected $90 million worth of those submitted.
Not sure where this belongs, but here it goes.
This might be worth discussing here.
While conference expansion serves as a shiny object, a more important issue looms with Senate bill still in limbo
Salary cap for college athletics?This might be worth discussing here.
Here's a discussion: college athletics are no longer college athletics, so why don't we call them something else? We should. Many of us are holding out hope that some semblance of real college athletics survives. Many embrace the new version as long as they can wager on it. I say call it what it is. Make it professional and get it away from campuses if these kids aren't real students. I'll still watch two star athletes represent my university, while I have zero interest in watching professional athletes impersonating greats of the past while wearing the crimson.
I cut the cable cord a decade plus ago. I left Texas almost six years ago and I haven't even bothered to see if I get any local stations at all here in Carlsbad, NM. I hit the wrong button on the remote the other day and it tried to tune to a Corpus Christi station.
So, no. I probably won't see a game at all this year.
And it makes me sad.
The "something else" is pretty easy - minor league professional sports. There doesn't need to be any relationship with that and a university beyond the fact that no one cares about minor league professional sports beyond the most local level (e.g., minor league basketball, the G-League, any football league not the NFL, etc).
Either provide some evidence that "student athletes" are really both or make it minor league professional sports.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Freeman, Fighting Irish focus on opener, not CFP- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
ESPN: Sources: Indiana DL Daley returning for 5th year
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: One Akron football season-ticket holder can design opening drive of game
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Buckeyes, Ducks lead off preseason coaches poll
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0