Hope against NIL insanity?

Baz = Heisman · Wednesday at 8:19 PM

Bipartisan college sports bill proposes salary cap, transfer limit

A group of U.S. senators introduced a bipartisan college sports bill that aims to regulate payments to players, limit transfers and restrict coach movement during the season.

www.espn.com

TheC · Thursday at 7:31 AM

Sports continue to unify us!

(Ok.... sometimes)

Eurocat · Thursday at 8:03 AM

Any word on what Tubberville thinks about all this?

Sheffielder · Thursday at 10:05 AM

I will say this...as I think we all agree, college sports are broken and are badly in need of fixing.

The status quo is on track to ruin the sport, especially for fans. One might assume the basic fundamentals of capitalism and market-driven principles would fix this, right? /sarcasm

I think it's interesting that all the possible solutions focus on limiting the earning potential and mobility of the kids on the field in a way that is not extended to coaches or administrators.

Sure, there is a token mention of no poaching of coaches during the season, which really won't do much since all the conversations can still be had in back rooms with agents and still won't stop significant coaching turnover throughout a player's five(?) year career.

It also says/does nothing to limit the revenue of these non-profit entities. You know why there aren't bidding wars for soccer players in kindergarten? Because there's no money in it.

CatManTrue · Thursday at 12:31 PM

Baz = Heisman said:
Bipartisan college sports bill proposes salary cap, transfer limit

A group of U.S. senators introduced a bipartisan college sports bill that aims to regulate payments to players, limit transfers and restrict coach movement during the season.

www.espn.com

NIL = No Illegal Living (wages)!

Just because a few dinosaurs don’t get how the economics of revenue college athletics works does not make this a bad thing

NU'06er · Thursday at 1:00 PM

Sheffielder said:
I think it's interesting that all the possible solutions focus on limiting the earning potential and mobility of the kids on the field in a way that is not extended to coaches or administrators.

Truth.

I'm in favor of ideas like a salary cap or limitations on movement from school to school. But I'd like those ideas even more if they included coaches and athletic department administrators as well. Good for the goose, good for the gander...

TheC · Thursday at 1:08 PM

NU'06er said:
Truth.

I'm in favor of ideas like a salary cap or limitations on movement from school to school. But I'd like those ideas even more if they included coaches and athletic department administrators as well. Good for the goose, good for the gander...

But what if it just looked more like pro sports? Those players make lots of money, of course. But a star player isn't switching a team three times in four years. In a league like the NFL with a strict salary cap, you get more competitive balance. I don't see why you can't have a system that works more like that. I don't know what that looks like in practice, but it seems to me like it involves multi-year contracts with a certain amount of guaranteed money within the context of some kind of salary cap. I don't think it makes sense to apply the same rules to coaches. If a coach moves more than once in a four year period, then its more likely because they are struggling, not that they are trying to maximize a one year return.

NJCat · Thursday at 1:12 PM

TheC said:
But what if it just looked more like pro sports? Those players make lots of money, of course. But a star player isn't switching a team three times in four years. In a league like the NFL with a strict salary cap, you get more competitive balance. I don't see why you can't have a system that works more like that. I don't know what that looks like in practice, but it seems to me like it involves multi-year contracts with a certain amount of guaranteed money within the context of some kind of salary cap. I don't think it makes sense to apply the same rules to coaches. If a coach moves more than once in a four year period, then its more likely because they are struggling, not that they are trying to maximize a one year return.

To look like pro sports, the players would have to unionize and then collectively bargain with the NCAA. To me that is a sensible answer.

NU'06er · Thursday at 1:25 PM

NJCat said:
To look like pro sports, the players would have to unionize and then collectively bargain with the NCAA. To me that is a sensible answer.

Agree.

I'm not wedded to any singular specific reform or change, and if I was designing the system from scratch I would have wanted more requirements that NIL money be placed in trust accessible after graduation, to keep with the educational incentive that is at least theoretically supposed to underpin student athletics.

But my preference for a more amateur system is essentially overtaken by events. They're paid players at this point, clearly, and rather than fight reality, the best option would seem to be to acknowledge as much and focus on regulating how that all works for the betterment of the game, etc. (Which is why I'd also be in favor of regulating how coaches and administrators get paid and move around, too, though that doesn't seem to be anyone's priority.)

Baz = Heisman · Thursday at 1:26 PM

CatManTrue said:
NIL = No Illegal Living (wages)!

Just because a few dinosaurs don’t get how the economics of revenue college athletics works does not make this a bad thing

LOL. No one was “suffering” under the old system. Such ********. The easy fix is just put rev share in a trust that’s unlocked with successful graduation. Literally solves 99% of the issues.

Baz = Heisman · Thursday at 1:27 PM

Sheffielder said:
I will say this...as I think we all agree, college sports are broken and are badly in need of fixing.

The status quo is on track to ruin the sport, especially for fans. One might assume the basic fundamentals of capitalism and market-driven principles would fix this, right? /sarcasm

I think it's interesting that all the possible solutions focus on limiting the earning potential and mobility of the kids on the field in a way that is not extended to coaches or administrators.

Sure, there is a token mention of no poaching of coaches during the season, which really won't do much since all the conversations can still be had in back rooms with agents and still won't stop significant coaching turnover throughout a player's five(?) year career.

It also says/does nothing to limit the revenue of these non-profit entities. You know why there aren't bidding wars for soccer players in kindergarten? Because there's no money in it.

Nah. There’s a few on this board who thinks it’s great! In fairness, they’re the idiots but they really believe it. “Player empowerment” people are the worst.

NU'06er · Thursday at 1:31 PM

TheC said:
But what if it just looked more like pro sports? Those players make lots of money, of course. But a star player isn't switching a team three times in four years. In a league like the NFL with a strict salary cap, you get more competitive balance. I don't see why you can't have a system that works more like that. I don't know what that looks like in practice, but it seems to me like it involves multi-year contracts with a certain amount of guaranteed money within the context of some kind of salary cap. I don't think it makes sense to apply the same rules to coaches. If a coach moves more than once in a four year period, then its more likely because they are struggling, not that they are trying to maximize a one year return.

My impression is that the problem with coach movement is less repeated one year jumps and more convenient timing and broken promises.

It's bad for fans that they have to re-learn entire new rosters of transfers every year and can't see their program invest in development of younger players because that makes their team function as a minor league system to wherever they transfer -- but it's also bad for fans when coaches jump ship right before a playoff run, recruit 17-21 year olds to uproot their lives to go places the coaches themselves have no intention of staying, run off leftover pieces at the new places they arrive, etc.

And maybe some of that is inevitable as we move towards more of a pro model. Once guys are getting paid and aren't students first, maybe they're less entitled to take an end of roster spot if they don't have the talent to stick. But we're practically incentivizing turnover the way things are currently structured, so I think it wouldn't be a bad thing if EVERYONE's cash and movement got a bit more regulated, not just the players (though again, I'm for some reform there, too).

bringbacktherantboard · Thursday at 1:54 PM

"The Protect College Sports Act tries to resolve some of that disparity by giving the conferences an option to negotiate future TV deals as one large group and share the money more evenly as long as 75% of FBS schools agree to join together."

As Big Ten fans, what are your thoughts on this? (I actually support it, as TV rights are the source of the disparity and the death of regional conferences.)

Sheffielder · Thursday at 4:16 PM

TheC said:
But what if it just looked more like pro sports? Those players make lots of money, of course. But a star player isn't switching a team three times in four years. In a league like the NFL with a strict salary cap, you get more competitive balance. I don't see why you can't have a system that works more like that. I don't know what that looks like in practice, but it seems to me like it involves multi-year contracts with a certain amount of guaranteed money within the context of some kind of salary cap. I don't think it makes sense to apply the same rules to coaches. If a coach moves more than once in a four year period, then its more likely because they are struggling, not that they are trying to maximize a one year return.

Two thoughts on the pro sports question:

1. I hate pro sports. If CFB just keeps looking more like the NFL...then why would I bother with watching inferior players and an inferior product on the field when I could pay the same or probably less to just do NFL. I like(d) and root(ed) for NU football because of what it represents/represented.

2. The whole college sports industry is overlooking the most obvious solution to this issue - make it about academics. Very few kids can transfer between four schools in five years and be on a path to degree conferral. Most universities require the final X credits of a degree to be taken "in residence." If, in order to accept a transfer student athlete a university needed to show how the kid can earn a degree in the time they have left as a scholarship athlete, it would naturally lead to no more than 1-2 transfers in a single career. In a heartbeat this would reduce the impact of the transfer portal and NIL, and it would all in the name of academics.

TheC · Thursday at 4:18 PM

NU'06er said:
My impression is that the problem with coach movement is less repeated one year jumps and more convenient timing and broken promises.

It's bad for fans that they have to re-learn entire new rosters of transfers every year and can't see their program invest in development of younger players because that makes their team function as a minor league system to wherever they transfer -- but it's also bad for fans when coaches jump ship right before a playoff run, recruit 17-21 year olds to uproot their lives to go places the coaches themselves have no intention of staying, run off leftover pieces at the new places they arrive, etc.

And maybe some of that is inevitable as we move towards more of a pro model. Once guys are getting paid and aren't students first, maybe they're less entitled to take an end of roster spot if they don't have the talent to stick. But we're practically incentivizing turnover the way things are currently structured, so I think it wouldn't be a bad thing if EVERYONE's cash and movement got a bit more regulated, not just the players (though again, I'm for some reform there, too).

Ok... I'm completely on board with some kind of reform that prevents a coach from jumping ship before the bowl games/playoffs. That is also something you never see in the pros. It would require changing the transfer portal period so that everything starts after the season is entirely over for everyone.

I don't think you can regulate a coach being able to leave for a better job after the season. That is one difference from the pros - there are clearly different levels in college and some jobs are way better than others. In the pros, they are a little more equal. Usually when you see a pro coach go join another team, it's because his old team got tired of him and wanted a different voice in the locker room.

TheC · Thursday at 4:22 PM

College sports will still have the pageantry and passion you don't find in pro sports (at least during the regular season). By becoming more like pro sports, I just mean in the ways that players are compensated so that you solve some of these mobility issues.

Your #2 is a noble thought, but academics has been mostly divorced from major college football for decades (maybe since forever) except at a few places, like ours.

Sheffielder · Thursday at 4:22 PM

bringbacktherantboard said:
"The Protect College Sports Act tries to resolve some of that disparity by giving the conferences an option to negotiate future TV deals as one large group and share the money more evenly as long as 75% of FBS schools agree to join together."

As Big Ten fans, what are your thoughts on this? (I actually support it, as TV rights are the source of the disparity and the death of regional conferences.)

1. Do conferences not already have the option to negotiate future tv deals as one large group? Is there some federal law that stopped the ACC and Big XII from trying to shop their tv rights around as a package? This is a serious question. I don't understand the 75% rule.

2. As a Big Ten fan, I'm admittedly disloyal to the ideals that make us wealthy and powerful. I realize Delany positioned us well to form a tv network before anyone else did and we're able to throw our weight around at will, but I fear that college football has mostly bad actors as its caretakers, and none worse than Tony Pettiti.

Sheffielder · Thursday at 4:29 PM

TheC said:
College sports will still have the pageantry and passion you don't find in pro sports (at least during the regular season). By becoming more like pro sports, I just mean in the ways that players are compensated so that you solve some of these mobility issues.

Your #2 is a noble thought, but academics has been mostly divorced from major college football for decades (maybe since forever) except at a few places, like ours.

I hear you, but I think the culture of pro sports is what it is - whether you're talking about on-the-field product or what happens in a board room, all these things keep moving CFB in the NFL's direction. It's all gross to me.

I only mentioned the academic piece because as a college administrator myself, it's almost too painfully obvious how limiting transfer eligibility on the basis of degree completion could solve a huge chunk of the problem. You would basically see players be able to move once or twice in the first 2-3 years, then have to wait on degree completion/grad transfer for one final opportunity.

bringbacktherantboard · Thursday at 5:54 PM

Sheffielder said:
1. Do conferences not already have the option to negotiate future tv deals as one large group? Is there some federal law that stopped the ACC and Big XII from trying to shop their tv rights around as a package? This is a serious question. I don't understand the 75% rule.

My understanding is that if 75% of FBS schools stand together, they can bind the Big Ten and SEC to whatever rights they negotiate. Maybe I'm wrong, though; one of the board lawyers can probably weigh in.

Baz = Heisman · Thursday at 9:16 PM

Sheffielder said:
Two thoughts on the pro sports question:

1. I hate pro sports. If CFB just keeps looking more like the NFL...then why would I bother with watching inferior players and an inferior product on the field when I could pay the same or probably less to just do NFL. I like(d) and root(ed) for NU football because of what it represents/represented.

2. The whole college sports industry is overlooking the most obvious solution to this issue - make it about academics. Very few kids can transfer between four schools in five years and be on a path to degree conferral. Most universities require the final X credits of a degree to be taken "in residence." If, in order to accept a transfer student athlete a university needed to show how the kid can earn a degree in the time they have left as a scholarship athlete, it would naturally lead to no more than 1-2 transfers in a single career. In a heartbeat this would reduce the impact of the transfer portal and NIL, and it would all in the name of academics.

A-freaking-men. Some people have lost the entire plot over “player empowerment” ********. Spot on here.

Baz = Heisman · Thursday at 9:18 PM

TheC said:
College sports will still have the pageantry and passion you don't find in pro sports (at least during the regular season). By becoming more like pro sports, I just mean in the ways that players are compensated so that you solve some of these mobility issues.

Your #2 is a noble thought, but academics has been mostly divorced from major college football for decades (maybe since forever) except at a few places, like ours.

Not really. Who is going to go for the band if the game is a worse version of the NFL? Very few. There’s no reason it needs to be pro sports. You can set up a post-grad trust with rev share so players are compensated but not during school and to give them an incentive to graduate.

Purple Pile Driver · 2026-05-29T10:45:38-0500

CatManTrue said:
NIL = No Illegal Living (wages)!

Just because a few dinosaurs don’t get how the economics of revenue college athletics works does not make this a bad thing

Most of us think there has to be some reform. Some of the dinosaurs still think players should be happy with the Scholarship and shut the **** up. They blame the players when the egotistical adults in the room cause the problem. Yet, some people complain while they gleefully job hop for 7 figure salaries and expect subordinates to be happy with a small fraction of the pie. It’s not sustainable in its current form but it doesn’t mean those fanatical payers that don’t care what the cost of a player is as long as it results in titles are going to stop before they bankrupt the system.

Hope against NIL insanity?

Junior

All-Conference

All-Conference

Senior

All-American

Sophomore

All-Conference

All-Conference

Sophomore

Junior

Junior

Sophomore

Senior

Senior

All-Conference

All-Conference

Senior

Senior

Senior

Junior

Junior

All-Conference