Is a NIL "salary cap" a viable option

[olelion]

Where do the "Yuengling" and "Michelob Ultra" crowds fit in?

is Michelob Ultra really beer?

 

[BobPSU92]

Where do the "Yuengling" and "Michelob Ultra" crowds fit in?

I’ll fight for the latte-and-scone crowd.

 

[Bob78]

I’ll fight for the latte-and-scone crowd.

Attaboy. You gotta fight for the right to LAAAAAA-TTEEEEEEE!
Scone, brother.

 

[kgilbert78]

"NIL collectives can only be eliminated via collective-bargaining or if the NCAA is given antitrust protections by Congress via the protect college sports act"

Nonsense.


"NIL collectives" have NOTHING to do with a ballplayers' ability to make $ based on his Name Image and Likeness value - and there is no law that prevents a school/program from not engaging in vast overwhelming stupidity of "NIL Collectives".

The "Oakland Rule" means that schools won't drop out of NIL collectives. By that I mean the Oakland decided not to fund any stadium initiatives and let the billionaires pay for it themselves. The result was the end of major league pro sports in Oakland. Those schools who choose not to participae in NIL collectives will end up like they Ivy's. Irrelevant.

 

[LionJim]

Attaboy. You gotta fight for the right to LAAAAAA-TTEEEEEEE!
Scone, brother.

Dang. Priceless.

 

[BobPSU92]

The "Oakland Rule" means that schools won't drop out of NIL collectives. By that I mean the Oakland decided not to fund any stadium initiatives and let the billionaires pay for it themselves. The result was the end of major league pro sports in Oakland. Those schools who choose not to participae in NIL collectives will end up like they Ivy's. Irrelevant.

PSU should opt out. Can we make that happen?

 

[PSUForever]

NIL shouldn't be limited but it also shouldn't be affiliated with the school; let the kids hire agents and work on their behalf to secure deals. Having 'in house' NIL just allows for payments without meeting true NIL requirements per the clearing house established by the settlement. Will teams get around this? Probably - for a while. But I don't see programs lining up to continue to pay over market value for bad products/players (and that is what we have now):

Not allowed:

- Pay for Play
- Above Market Pay
- Money for No Real Business or Deliverable

NIL Deal Checker — Will Your Deal Clear the Clearinghouse? | HDBND

Answer a few questions about a proposed NIL deal and get an instant read on whether it's likely to clear the NIL clearinghouse's fair-market-value review — plus concrete fixes. Free.

hdbnd.com

The salary and pay for play that is paid by the school and these collectives at the schools need to be capped. Then the NIL is a separate deal worked out by the player and their agent but the school does not fund any of it. If company X wants to hire the QB to hock their product and get paid for it then fine do it but that money is not coming from the current NIL funds that we know now.


By disassociating the school from NIL sponsorships it starts to level the field with recruiting and portal recruiting since there would be a salary cap. It is not perfect because schools could work back channels with corporations or businesses to help the athlete get deals and/or if they have an existing relationship with a business that sponsors or supports the program then they can leverage this in their recruiting. Think what Oregon can tell recruits.....we have an agreement with Nike and you will have sponsorship opportunities. The key, though, is the NIL part for the athlete is true to just that, it is a sponsorship or endorsement type deal. Not pay for play, that is the salary component. That way the NIL should be limited to only the top guys because these companies don't have an endless marketing budget nor products or sponsorship opportunities to dole out to say WR#2 at school X.

 

[PSUFTG]

Wrt a "salary cap" (not talking about the collectives or other aspects of NIL), I don't see how they can implement a salary cap that would hold up in court without it being bargained and under contract. I'm open to being wrong on that, maybe I just don't understand that aspect of it fully.

Note: The OP of the thread asked about establishing a cap; it seems that evolved into the NIL as a whole.

Well, the Courts had already set a "salary cap" (in the way it is being used here) in the House settlement.
So someone would have to "overturn" that if the felt a "cap" was illegal.

 

[PSUFTG]

Where do the "Yuengling" and "Michelob Ultra" crowds fit in?

To the left and the right

 

[PSUFTG]

That should be correct.

Yes, they "should".
But "Should" and "Are" are different things, obviously

 

[PSUFTG]

The salary and pay for play that is paid by the school and these collectives at the schools need to be capped. Then the NIL is a separate deal worked out by the player and their agent but the school does not fund any of it. If company X wants to hire the QB to hock their product and get paid for it then fine do it but that money is not coming from the current NIL funds that we know now.


By disassociating the school from NIL sponsorships it starts to level the field with recruiting and portal recruiting since there would be a salary cap. It is not perfect because schools could work back channels with corporations or businesses to help the athlete get deals and/or if they have an existing relationship with a business that sponsors or supports the program then they can leverage this in their recruiting. Think what Oregon can tell recruits.....we have an agreement with Nike and you will have sponsorship opportunities. The key, though, is the NIL part for the athlete is true to just that, it is a sponsorship or endorsement type deal. Not pay for play, that is the salary component. That way the NIL should be limited to only the top guys because these companies don't have an endless marketing budget nor products or sponsorship opportunities to dole out to say WR#2 at school X.

Outstanding.

As always, the biggest impediment - as it has been for DECADES - is the incompetence, greed, ego, etc of the people in charge (NCAA, Conferernces, ADs, coaches, etc)

 

[Bob78]

Well, the Courts had already set a "salary cap" (in the way it is being used here) in the House settlement.
So someone would have to "overturn" that if the felt a "cap" was illegal.

I think the schools are already blowing through the original cap, and have stated they need a higher bar. Congress can try to impose a cap, but until it is challenged in court, I'm not confident it will stick or be anything more than a suggestion.
Also, I'm thinking the players' "people" will at some point challenge its legality, as it is a cap imposed and not agreed to by the players. The NCAA has a batting average of about .008 in court over these issues. So I think it has a decent chance of being overturned.
Mutual agreement levels the playing field and keeps the issue out of court. Theoretically.

 

[LMTLION]

Well, the Courts had already set a "salary cap" (in the way it is being used here) in the House settlement.
So someone would have to "overturn" that if the felt a "cap" was illegal.

You are confusing rev share and NIL. They are two separate subjects.

 

[Midnighter]

I’d be curious to see how a school with a $50mm roster, like OSU, justifies around $28mm in NIL deals. That’s more than a million per starter….no way that is above board.

 

[PSUFTG]

You are confusing rev share and NIL. They are two separate subjects.

I'm confused?? Really? Seriously?

You think Rocco is getting $1 Million (or whatever) due to the value and commercialization of his Name Image and Likeness?
Or do you think he is getting a check from PSU, for playing football? Paid for out of the funds PSU is able to raise?

 

[PSUFTG]

I think the schools are already blowing through the original cap, and have stated they need a higher bar. Congress can try to impose a cap, but until it is challenged in court, I'm not confident it will stick or be anything more than a suggestion.
Also, I'm thinking the players' "people" will at some point challenge its legality, as it is a cap imposed and not agreed to by the players. The NCAA has a batting average of about .008 in court over these issues. So I think it has a decent chance of being overturned.
Mutual agreement levels the playing field and keeps the issue out of court. Theoretically.

Mutual Agreement = Cap (from a legal standpoint anyway)
Might also be called "collusion", but the effect is the same.


Now, if the folks in charge could - together - manage an IQ above room temperature, they would have taken the House ruling and "mutually agreed" that "that was that", and they would provide those rev share funds and that was it (and kids who set up outside actual business deals for their NIL, good for them, but the schools wash their hands of all of that).

But they are (nearly) all too stupid, too egotistical, and too self-centered and short-term focused (not to mention fiscally irresponsible and incompetent) to not look a gift horse in the mouth.
And that is the rest of the story (and why college sports is where it is at today)

 

[PSUFTG]

I think the schools are already blowing through the original cap, and have stated they need a higher bar. Congress can try to impose a cap, but until it is challenged in court, I'm not confident it will stick or be anything more than a suggestion.
Also, I'm thinking the players' "people" will at some point challenge its legality, as it is a cap imposed and not agreed to by the players. The NCAA has a batting average of about .008 in court over these issues. So I think it has a decent chance of being overturned.
Mutual agreement levels the playing field and keeps the issue out of court. Theoretically.

Also:
I also would be unsurprised of the players' "people" continue to try to draw more milk from the cow.

I will say, once the Big Ten (and SEC) set up the new deals - which I expect to happen fairly soon (meaning within a few years tops) they will find that the cow ain't got a whole lot more milk.

The milk supply may even dry up a good bit - when and if some of the non Big Ten/SEC/Big Boys realize the whole thing isn't fiscally sustainable (for them, at least).

That doesn't mean the "people" might not still battle to get a bigger share of the milk (They are just as self-centered and greedy as the powers-that-be. They sure as hell don't give two licks about sustainability of the business)) - but the total supply is at risk of being more scarce.

 

[Bob78]

Mutual Agreement = Cap (from a legal standpoint anyway)
Might also be called "collusion", but the effect is the same.


Now, if the folks in charge could - together - manage an IQ above room temperature, they would have taken the House ruling and "mutually agreed" that "that was that", and they would provide those rev share funds and that was it (and kids who set up outside actual business deals for their NIL, good for them, but the schools wash their hands of all of that).

But they are (nearly) all too stupid, too egotistical, and too self-centered and short-term focused (not to mention fiscally irresponsible and incompetent) to not look a gift horse in the mouth.
And that is the rest of the story (and why college sports is where it is at today)

Mutual Agreement = Cap (from a legal standpoint anyway)
Might also be called "collusion", but the effect is the same.


Now, if the folks in charge could - together - manage an IQ above room temperature, they would have taken the House ruling and "mutually agreed" that "that was that", and they would provide those rev share funds and that was it (and kids who set up outside actual business deals for their NIL, good for them, but the schools wash their hands of all of that).

But they are (nearly) all too stupid, too egotistical, and too self-centered and short-term focused (not to mention fiscally irresponsible and incompetent) to not look a gift horse in the mouth.
And that is the rest of the story (and why college sports is where it is at today)

My mistake - I used the term "mutual agreement" instead of collectively bargained. Not even sure why I did that. What I wrote could be interpreted as agreement among the schools, as you read it - not what I intended.

I believe the players need to sign off on the rev. share cap via collective bargaining in order for the salary chaos to subside. No one wants them to be employees, but that may be the pill to swallow in order for the craziness to go away.

They also need to collectively bargain the "free agency" Ts&Cs. Minimum of 2 year contracts, but 3 should be the standard. I can wish for 4, but that's just unrealistic (as is 3, probably).

NIL is separate, and market driven, as you said ($500 here, $1000 there, etc.). To each what they can get there, and that's where the collectives come in to help find those opportunities. (e.g. Wrestling and Blaise Alexander Auto here in State College).

 

[Bob78]

Also:
I also would be unsurprised of the players' "people" continue to try to draw more milk from the cow.

I will say, once the Big Ten (and SEC) set up the new deals - which I expect to happen fairly soon (meaning within a few years tops) they will find that the cow ain't got a whole lot more milk.

The milk supply may even dry up a good bit - when and if some of the non Big Ten/SEC/Big Boys realize the whole thing isn't fiscally sustainable (for them, at least).

That doesn't mean the "people" might not still battle to get a bigger share of the milk (They are just as self-centered and greedy as the powers-that-be. They sure as hell don't give two licks about sustainability of the business)) - but the total supply is at risk of being more scarce.

Also:
I also would be unsurprised of the players' "people" continue to try to draw more milk from the cow.

I will say, once the Big Ten (and SEC) set up the new deals - which I expect to happen fairly soon (meaning within a few years tops) they will find that the cow ain't got a whole lot more milk.

The milk supply may even dry up a good bit - when and if some of the non Big Ten/SEC/Big Boys realize the whole thing isn't fiscally sustainable (for them, at least).

That doesn't mean the "people" might not still battle to get a bigger share of the milk (They are just as self-centered and greedy as the powers-that-be. They sure as hell don't give two licks about sustainability of the business)) - but the total supply is at risk of being more scarce.

This is where I agree with those who say that prollegiate football conferences are passe. They are already blown to bits, so just collect all the Power Conferences and ND for football and go to the networks as a 70-unit block to negotiate the next deal(s).

The conferences were fun while they lasted, until they more or less didn't a decade or so ago. I don't care about playing Purdue (among other mediocre B1Gs) anymore; I would be more interested in playing Kentucky this season. Or Arizona. Or Georgia Tech.

I don't want to go back to a more regional approach in prollegiate football, either. Make the schedules without walls - min. of 10 Power, max. of 2 Group schools. Have a governing body create the schedules in 2 year clips. Give PSU fans a trip to Baylor in November instead of to Maryland.

And by all means, forget the Maines! No more 1AA (FCS) opponents.

Create a playoff for the Group schools. Let them bargain with the networks as a block. I'm a lifelong college football fan - I would tune in and enjoy those playoff games very much.

 

[LMTLION]

I'm confused?? Really? Seriously?

You think Rocco is getting $1 Million (or whatever) due to the value and commercialization of his Name Image and Likeness?
Or do you think he is getting a check from PSU, for playing football? Paid for out of the funds PSU is able to raise?

You really don’t know how this works. Schools can use up to 20.5m of their own athletic department revenue for total player compensation. And NIL is permitted on top of that, even through collectives, as long as there is a real business purpose. Rocco is getting a lot more than 1 million, and it’s probably a combination of Rev share and NIL.

 

[PSUFTG]

You really don’t know how this works. Schools can use up to 20.5m of their own athletic department revenue for total player compensation. And NIL is permitted on top of that, even through collectives, as long as there is a real business purpose. Rocco is getting a lot more than 1 million, and it’s probably a combination of Rev share and NIL.

Is there a tangent there connecting to the issue at hand, or anything I said?

Do you still believe it is Names Image and Likeness? I don't think you do - but you keep responding as such?

 

[PSUFTG]

This is where I agree with those who say that prollegiate football conferences are passe. They are already blown to bits, so just collect all the Power Conferences and ND for football and go to the networks as a 70-unit block to negotiate the next deal(s).

The conferences were fun while they lasted, until they more or less didn't a decade or so ago. I don't care about playing Purdue (among other mediocre B1Gs) anymore; I would be more interested in playing Kentucky this season. Or Arizona. Or Georgia Tech.

I don't want to go back to a more regional approach in prollegiate football, either. Make the schedules without walls - min. of 10 Power, max. of 2 Group schools. Have a governing body create the schedules in 2 year clips. Give PSU fans a trip to Baylor in November instead of to Maryland.

And by all means, forget the Maines! No more 1AA (FCS) opponents.

Create a playoff for the Group schools. Let them bargain with the networks as a block. I'm a lifelong college football fan - I would tune in and enjoy those playoff games very much.

There won't be nearly 70 in the block.

The fuckwads at the Big 10 and SEC want to trim down a lot more than that - because they think they will have the gigantic slice of pie, and not have to split it in as many pieces.
That is just the way that is.
The second reason for that, is they don't want more competition on the field.
Of course those go together, because if the "others" don't have the $ (at least roughly competitive levels of $), they can't compete anyway.

That is what it is. That is what those greedy, self-interested, ego hounds want.

In fact, that may also slow down any "group" negotiations among the SEC and Big Ten (and the few others who make the cut). I do agree with you that negotiating things like TV rights as a group might make sense - wrt preserving competitiveness in "college" football, and enhancing the gross level of revenue.
But the SEC may very well say - even after they and the Big Ten lay the foundation for starving out the others "We think we can also kick the Big Ten's *** - so lets let them wither away a bit too, get more revenue than the Big Ten, and then negotiate an SEC friendly deal"
The SEC is kicking the Big Ten's *** hugely in viewership - especially when you consider it from a per team basis - so the next round of TV negotiations in, IIRC, 2030 (with the SEC holding an opt-in option, IIRC, to open up their current deal early) it will be very interesting. If the SEC negotiates a significantly higher revenue per capita than the Big Ten, look out

 

[Bob78]

There won't be nearly 70 in the block.

The fuckwads at the Big 10 and SEC want to trim down a lot more than that - because they think they will have the gigantic slice of pie, and not have to split it in as many pieces.
That is just the way that is.
The second reason for that, is they don't want more competition on the field.
Of course those go together, because if the "others" don't have the $ (at least roughly competitive levels of $), they can't compete anyway.

That is what it is. That is what those greedy, self-interested, ego hounds want.

In fact, that may also slow down any "group" negotiations among the SEC and Big Ten (and the few others who make the cut). I do agree with you that negotiating things like TV rights as a group might make sense - wrt preserving competitiveness in "college" football, and enhancing the gross level of revenue.
But the SEC may very well say - even after they and the Big Ten lay the foundation for starving out the others "We think we can also kick the Big Ten's *** - so lets let them wither away a bit too, get more revenue than the Big Ten, and then negotiate an SEC friendly deal"
The SEC is kicking the Big Ten's *** hugely in viewership - especially when you consider it from a per team basis - so the next round of TV negotiations in, IIRC, 2030 (with the SEC holding an opt-in option, IIRC, to open up their current deal early) it will be very interesting. If the SEC negotiates a significantly higher revenue per capita than the Big Ten, look out

I can see that wrt the SEC. That could prompt the ACC and Big12 to partner with the B1G on the TV deal. They would try to capture ND with them as well. It may become a shear numbers show of power more than anything else, in order to combat the SEC Goliath.
I have no doubt it will get fugly in a number of ways. It may have to break completely in order to build it back with common sense and with the fans, who pay the freight, in mind.

 

[PSUFTG]

I can see that wrt the SEC. That could prompt the ACC and Big12 to partner with the B1G on the TV deal. They would try to capture ND with them as well. It may become a shear numbers show of power more than anything else, in order to combat the SEC Goliath.
I have no doubt it will get fugly in a number of ways. It may have to break completely in order to build it back with common sense and with the fans, who pay the freight, in mind.

Very true

 

[PSUForever]

An "out there" proposal is to take the top 36 football programs and turn it into an NFL model. So each of these programs get bought at a fair market price and are owned by an owner. The AD would have to report to the owner and the school President would really not have much of a role as far as football matters go.

NCAA? History. Conferences and conference commissioners? History.

These program are run like an NFL franchise.

There would be 6 divisions and 2 conferences. 6 teams per division setup geographically and a playoff of perhaps 9 teams per two conferences. Big Ten schools who make this league in one conference and SEC teams in another. Then fill it in with the rest from the ACC and B12 into the two conferences who can make the cut. ND in this league as well.

Still maintain the school's name and all the traditions with it but now it is officially a professional football franchise.

One issue would he how static or stable these 36 teams are in terms of staying in the league. Maybe the "bubble teams" drop out and others replace them. Not sure what you do with a program that went this way then got booted out because they weren't good enough. I guess they just drop to the lower tier of schools that are operating in the traditional model.

A principle would be though that if you want to compete at this highest level you need to have an owner who will purchase your program.

 

[olelion]

Now that CFB is officially the NFL minor leagues leagues why not mirror the NFL? I don't know what the chances are but the B1G and SEC donors and/or the conferences themselves might likely kill the idea at brth

Did I hear correctly today that the B1G is going to impose some sort of cap?

 

[PSUFTG]

An "out there" proposal is to take the top 36 football programs and turn it into an NFL model. So each of these programs get bought at a fair market price and are owned by an owner. The AD would have to report to the owner and the school President would really not have much of a role as far as football matters go.

NCAA? History. Conferences and conference commissioners? History.

These program are run like an NFL franchise.

There would be 6 divisions and 2 conferences. 6 teams per division setup geographically and a playoff of perhaps 9 teams per two conferences. Big Ten schools who make this league in one conference and SEC teams in another. Then fill it in with the rest from the ACC and B12 into the two conferences who can make the cut. ND in this league as well.

Still maintain the school's name and all the traditions with it but now it is officially a professional football franchise.

One issue would he how static or stable these 36 teams are in terms of staying in the league. Maybe the "bubble teams" drop out and others replace them. Not sure what you do with a program that went this way then got booted out because they weren't good enough. I guess they just drop to the lower tier of schools that are operating in the traditional model.

A principle would be though that if you want to compete at this highest level you need to have an owner who will purchase your program.

I can imagine someone out there in the Blogosphere talking about it.
But it is a ridiculous notion - and would have huge hurdles to overcome, even if someone were to try to set it up, at all public universities.

 

[Midnighter]

Did I hear correctly today that the B1G is going to impose some sort of cap?

Yes. They’re tying to get ahead of the limits imposed by the Save College Sports Act but it’s going to almost certainly backfire.