Maybe we need a college NIL (salary) cap.
I know this subject has been discussed and I don't want to be "get off my lawn" guy, but I have serious concerns with the direction of college football. I support the concept of NIL and players should be able to profit for the value of their NIL. But the NCAA appears to be hands off with NIL and we've immediately seen schools blatantly guaranteeing (paying) a high school recruit to sign, Ryan Day publicly says to his boosters that he needs 13 million in NIL (payroll) to keep his roster together, and it looks like we're headed for two super conferences which seems a lot like the NFC and AFC to me.
I know football is king and college football isn't going anywhere but is a natty really that special when you're one of a handful of teams that has the money to pay for a top level roster? Even the NFL has a salary cap!
Eventually will head that way, but need a union first.
One that is ran by competent people and not baboons.
Quattro, Quattro...what did any baboon ever do to you to make you treat them so disrespectfully?
Actually, the first thing that would need to happen is that the players would need to be contracted as employees as opposed to solely student athletes.
Then they could theoretically form a union and collectively bargain in a salary cap. But even that would only impact university benefits and not NIL. I suppose the union itself could put some NIL parameters in place but I don't know why they would do that absent a "strike" by non-skill position players or something else crazy like that.
I think you are talking about 10 years for all that to happen.
Yes, unions have shown they aren't corrupt at all
Technically, they aren't being paid to play football so there is no salary to cap.
The players don't get a dime of the actual football revenue being derived from the monster TV rights deals. That's what is silly about the whole thing. If they were actually paid, then there could be contracts and some order to the madness.
I wish the NCAA had taken this on. I think there could've been some happy medium, where players are getting proceeds from revenues, but not salaries. Maybe what I'm talking about is just semantics, but I think they could've framed it in such a way that felt like fair compensation (maybe money to be received upon completion of a college career) but that didn't thrust us into a situation where college football is quickly becoming pro football lite. They had their chance.
So what are they being paid to do? They are not getting money to attend class
They are being paid for the name, image, and likeness. If some rabid fan/booster thinks a kid's autograph is worth $5M, they can transact that. But, there is no contract with the "owner" (the school).
If the schools could pay them directly, it would be an athletic department budget item, derived the revenue the school receives.
It would be like a very high paying work study job offered as part of admission.
It could also come with a contract, which would help mitigate the every year free agency that we now have with the transfer portal. It could allow for regular payments and perhaps even bonuses for graduation, etc.
Won't work. Unenforceable.
NIL will work itself out. The wealthy didn't get that way by throwing cash away and that is what NIL is doing right now. Throwing cash at 17-22 year old kids. On the recruiting side of it, offering millions to a 17 year old when at least 1/3 won't do anything at the next level will get expensive fast.
Also, what return on investment is there? I get it if you get a bigtime name there is definite return on investment. But, what about the players that never make it or contribute? So you throw 5, 10, 30 million at recruits for a class and how much of that will you get back? And in what time frame? 2, 3 year returns for all but the one or two elite players that make a name for themselves as tr fr. I don't see it as sustainable.
IMO it eventually returns to sec bag money level where they will get a couple hundred grand or more for avg recruits and the elites will get top NIL deals...I can definitely be wrong, but who knows how this all plays out.
The cure for high prices is high prices. I'm hopeful that this all gets sorted out as 'investors" realize that they aren't getting a good return on investment (ROI).
The "cure for high prices" is either a diminution of demand or a lowering of quality to lower the price(s). There is, typically, no ROI on paying a kid to play ball - unless you own the team, the kid's contract, own the revenue/gate to the game or get a piece of the broadcast revenues. Other than that - nothing.
It will get sorted out - has to.
And high prices lead to diminution of demand, except for the really wealthy who don't care about prices.
Now if only some of the corporate behemoths would realize this about stadium naming rights and jersey ads.
I’m not sure it will work itself out. Instead, what you’ll see is the big spenders change. The Texas A&M boosters will eventually cut back but someone like Arkansas will step up to the plate. As long as there is no legal limit (for all practical purposes), there will be new Manchester Citys and PSGs of college sports emerging every few years.
maybe oil sheik's and Russian oligarchs will start buying universities....
The first name that comes to mind for me is Spencer Rattler. He was super highly rated recruit, would've gotten big money to go to Oklahoma. He didn't pan out, so then what? He just leaves? They pay him that money to be backup? Seems like a couple of these misses and a school will stop paying high sums to unproven high schoolers
Pandora's Box has already been opened ending college football as it was---whether that is good or bad is irrelevant---it simply is. There is no rule or limit that one can impose at this point that will bring it back from the grave. The new product is being developed in the present. It may do away with the student requirement and quit pretending major college sports are something they are not. Free tuition in addition to their other pay and incentives if they wish. Im fine with pro sports affiliated with Universities for advertising and recognition---I have little interest in pro sports pretending to be collegiate activities.
Is there just endless money so it doesn't matter and paying kids for playing ball is a hobby for the rich? There can't be much ROI on paying a 17 Year old to come to a school. I don't get it.
We had one, people just went around it. They would do the same again
So after removing an unenforced rule about player compensation that essentially incentivized unscrupulous behavior, we should solve an imagined future problem by reintroducing another?
Bingo. We had a salary cap for a long time. It was capped at zero. Most teams skirted the rules somewhat, and some teams ignored it altogether. And that is exactly what is happening now. Most teams are using it to entice kids to sign (not really NIL), and some are paying huge signing bonuses (definitely not NIL). Absent a full pro league with contracts and a CBA, or an amateur league with some enforcement powers, it won't make a difference.
Unless it's practice time violations they're dealing with, the NCAA has proven themselves toothless since last millennium.
It's ultimately going to be up to the individual (super)conferences and their member institutions to get anything done, not the NCAA. And the SEC just seems much more likely to continue down the current unregulated path than the B1G.
That's why I truly expect ohio st to someday defect to the SEC while Michigan and the rest of the B1G are likely to look for ways to legally set up some limitations.
If it isn't happening already, I suspect it won't be long until someone uses NIL to pay for a walk-on's tuition especially for in-state players at a public university. Thus, effectively eliminating the cap on scholarships.
Michigan theoretically could convert all of its in-state scholarship players to walk-ons (making them whole with an incremental $35k / player / year NIL "scholarship equivalent" deal). And have several more scholarships available for out-of staters.
There are other advantages to being on scholarship vs. walk on as opposed to just the financial benefits. I read an article a couple of years ago that detailed all of the differences.
This is already happening, albeit at BYU.
https://universe.byu.edu/2021/08/12/built-brands-enters-nil-partnership-with-byu-football-to-pay-walk-on-tuition/
Nothing stopping other schools from doing the same.
I think the sport is heading to a two conference system consisting of the Big Ten and SEC. The NCAA will be out and the two conferences will pursue a Commissioner to oversee the sport and make their own rules along with a governing body. NIL will stay but there needs to be some guardrails in place.
The only reason NIL exists is that it is a private transaction - there is nothing for a body to regulate.
Anyone has the right to have an NIL deal with a company or individual (i.e. booster), but where I disagree with the court ruling is that being part of an NCAA sport is a privilege, not a right. If that organization puts a constraint on membership, such as the individuals abstaining from outside NIL arrangements while participating, they should have that right... no one is forcing them to play the college sport. There are numerous other precedents where participants (even employees) may need to refrain from something they could rightfully do as a condition of their membership/employment.
Could an NIL like structure to be used to compensate pro players outside of a salary cap structure as a way around salary caps. Eg, come play for team X, and you'll get a NIL deal on top of your salary.
Yes, and it's been done and it's been called out as a violation. See Deandre Jordan
It's not a violation to know that playing in NY or LA may be better for endorsements than elsewhere.
You're getting at what the OP is missing - NIL & salary cap are completed unrelated. All the pro league salary caps have exactly 0 relevance to how much much Nike can pay an athlete for NIL
My NIL cap idea was more tongue in cheek than a serious solution. My post was intended to be more about my concern for the state of college football. I don't have solutions, just concerns.
@ kejamder
* exactly *
"no one is forcing them to play the college sport" - you are wrong.
There is no other viable path for people who want to opportunity to play football as a profession. Thus, they are absolutely forced to play college football in order to go into their chosen profession.
What you are describing is a classic restraint of trade by the NCAA and is exactly why they lost so decisively in court.
If these players were paid professionals - then the restrictions on NIL could be bargained (individually or collectively) but universities can't have their cake and eat it too.
With the money involved right now, the scholarships seem less relevant. Scholarship limits are nowhere near as important as they were.
A cap would require a CBA, which would require a union and a management structure. Perhaps some day, but given the size of college sports and the need for a different solution for football than the for other sports, it's going to take a few years of chaos to get those discussions started.
Would we, at Michigan, want a solution designed to even the playing field? Wouldn't the SEC fight it tooth-and-nail? So how do you bake in a structure that's not designed to be fair?
We need something. It's unclear what that something is, because every path I can think of would change college football so much that it wouldn't make sense to keep it connected to the university structure. But I think salary caps and drafts would be a very hard sell.
Any discussion of regulating NIL must begin with enforcement. NCAA has never consistently or effectively enforced anything. Why would this be different? A salary cap makes sense, but OSU, SEC and most others would simply continue without one. Why wouldn't they?
Honestly, I'd like it because at least UM would then pay up to the cap instead of being as far behind as they are currently (paying nothing when others are uncapped).
Wouldn’t hold up in court. You can’t limit the earning of these players. The NCAA has no jurisdiction over that.
Even the NFL has a salary cap!
True. However, college athletes aren’t being paid by the schools. They’re earning money from endorsements. While the NFL has a salary cap, it does not limit the amount of money players earn from endorsements.
Not going to happen until players become employees, unionize, and collective bargain.
Personally I think that is not a matter of "if" as it is "when".
Until then, if a conference or the NCAA tries to impose a salary cap for NIL on players without representation, litigation with vengeance will follow. The NLRB will make sure of it.
Salary can be capped. Endorsements can't.
I’m upset no one is bragging about getting a bag at Michigan. That’s what I am upset about. Not one recruit. Now look at that recruiting class and tell me about how we are worried Michigan is paying athletes too much.
Why is it that salary caps aren't considered collusion? genuinely curious
Because they are created, by mutual consent, under the auspices of a contractual labor agreement and within the context of a collection of sports clubs.
OP: "Even the NFL has a salary cap!"
NIL money is not employment salary; therefore, it cannot be "capped".
College football is becoming a mess and, speaking only for myself, turning me off the game. I would be very sad to turn it off.
Everyone on this forum was so excited for NIL because of the "Michigan money cannon" and how no other school would be able to outspend it. Now people are asking for a salary cap