mbBear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Yeah the one year/ sit out for a second transfer was a workable system . . , in theory. But you are describing a rule that no longer exists. In December 2023 in response to the injunction issued by a West Virginia Court the NCAA started allowing unlimited transfers with no requirement to sit out a year. The rule was made official in April 2024. All too late for Jaylon Tyson but luckily he had gotten his waiver anyway.

Why? The answer is always the same. It's because literally everything the NCAA does in this sphere is an anti-trust violation. They simply do not have this power they have pretended like they had to restrict how and when students can earn money. And every time they go to court they lose. And they will continue to lose until Congress gets its act together and gives them the power to restrict transfers or set salary caps, etc.

The Emperor has no clothes and now everyone has seen it.. So unfortunately at this moment in time there are in fact unlimited transfers with no requirement to sit out of year. It's a debacle

---

I think I must've missed the elimination of the sit-out rule. I didn't realize transfers were now unlimited. Now I'm curious how anti-trust law applies to prohibit the NCAA from enforcing the sit-out rule. It's not like transfers are prohibited from trading on their NIL if they have to sit-out a year. Also, are NIL collectives considered consumers? If so, wouldn't the sit-out rule actually benefit consumers as it would keep costs down for consumers? Isn't that the whole rationale behind anti-trust laws?

ETA: This isn't meant to be an attack on Sebasta. Rather, I'm legitimately curious how anti-trust laws apply in these cases.

---

While I'm happy to run down rabbit holes in general, this requires an analysis of the Sherman Act at a level that wouldn't really work on a sports message board. Suffice it to say that it is very difficult in the U.S. for a group of employers to do much of anything to limit employee wages under the Act absent collective bargaining. And only employees can collectively bargain. Which is why the college football thing is such a conundrum. The NCAA and the universities desperately want to be able to limit NIL but they also desperately do not want their students to be classified as employees. It's an unsolvable problem IMHO absent Congress doing something

The NCAA has an unbroken loss streak in these court cases trying to claim some form of antitrust exemption. Portal just exploits these flaws.

---

Thanks for the great posts...confess to being an "NIL sucks" Old Blue, and you have made me think...

---

I like NIL as a concept.The players deserve a piece of the pie and the opportunity to earn money off their name, image and likeness. This has evolved into direct pay for play and that train is running wild. There needs to be some reasonable guardrails in place to create a more competitive landscape.

The transfer portal is crazy. This is a supposedly regulated environment that is actuality as unregulated as can be. Programs are tampering. Players and players agents/families/coaches etc are actively shopping players services. The portal will have a few suprises, but the better players already know the market and have a real good idea of their options ahead of the portal opening. See how many of the best players commit within a few days after entering.

The NCAA knows there is tampering and has no teeth to really enforce anything. Since nearly every program tampers these days there is no reporting of offending programs. The lies regarding NIL payments are many. The new rules should help some in this area. Players are supposed to be signing financial agreements now rather than letters of intent.

I understand why many hate this new world. But it is here and you either adapt or get out of college sports.

---

I had less problem with "players getting part of the pie" vs. NIL...like "flat rate" kind of dollars, that kind of thing. But right, here we are...

---

The NCAA and member schools foolishly held on to "amateurism" when everything going on told them those days were over. How many lawsuits do you need to lose to open your eyes?

So yes here we are. I don't like it either. But the blame goes to the adults that failed the fans. So now not only do you need to pay for tickets, but also provide NIL $$ to players so the program has a chance to compete.

The players are taking advantage of the market. I do not blame them one bit.

NIL pay for play (calling it what it is) provides, generally speaking, an equitable manner to pay college players for the revenue they help produce. The only amateur quality about college athletics was that colleges refused to pay their players and now donors do that through collectives that acts like market forces. A market economy that avoids discrimination against certain classes, in this case athletes, is what we try to achieve in our society, for better or worse. There are some other benefits such as presently, there is more competition in the major sports, as Sebasterbear touched on, better post-season games, and materially more interest in college football and women's basketball, and increased interest in men's basketball. NIL also encourages players to be more concerned about their image and branding, and thus they now tend to avoid not doing stupid stuff, help players become more knowledgeable about business, and a lot of other intangibles, which represent real benefits to players. I view NIL as a net positive.

NIL has not been implemented in a thought out or cohesive manner, and comes have with a set of complexities that should raise concerns to college sports fans.

The introduction of NIL has reduced the environment differences between college and professional sports, at least in the major sports. They are now being viewed more as a business for these athletes rather than in conjunction with school. At many schools, football players have never attended a live class or met their professors. This is not true at Cal, but very few schools are Cal when it comes to academics.

Then there is the Portal. As a preliminary, I'm not sure how the Portal doesn't violate anti-trust law by forcing players to only change schools at certain times. Nevertheless, the Portal means massive changes in rosters, that no one seems to like, yet most schools not named Clemson, seem to have. Will this trend continue unabated? Sebasterbear suggests probably not, and I hope he is right. But presently we have players not receiving promised compensation, being moved when injured or otherwise not performing, and a lot of other situations that one does not associate with college athletics. Ultimately as players and player agents become more savvy, the success of NIL deals into the world of collegiate sports seemingly will require a balanced approach that prioritizes the development of players on the field and in college life. Like it or not, very few players get that big NFL payday.
There also is the fact that there are perceived inequities in NIL payments. Think about what Sebasterbear could do with Texas A&M's collectives budget. Cal and some other programs have punched above their weight class, as they try to keep up with FSU, USC, Texas and other programs who have collectives with huge wallets in the college player arms race. But how long will that continue? Now some folks here are going to say is if the House anti-trust settlement is approved, private collectives won't be able to offer pay to play and the each college will have a maximum amount it can spend on NIL. First, pretty much any legal scholar I have read thinks there is absolutely no chance the settlement will work against private collectives who are not parties to the lawsuit. The experts also consider the settlement to violate anti-trust law even if they were parties. Second, this also gets us right back to the old system of prohibiting how much players can make, which absent Federal legislation is per se illegal, and moreover, creates an environment where athletic elites will find a way to work around the rules or cheat. Third, most athletic programs are in a sea of annual budget deficits presently. Paying players under House threatens to also limit the playing fields to elite universities with large budgets. Why would programs already in deep debt be able to raise up to around $23 million annually for "salaries" to players under House, absent massive donor or school cash infusions that these colleges already have not been able to procure? The upshot likely is that only a handful of powerful programs will stand to gain in competition for athletic talent simply because they can afford to pay salaries.

Further, college paid House payments come with additional problems. There are the tax implications of the schools paying players that Sebasterbear mentioned. Add that many states don't allow public employees to join unions, and the view that House is supposed to lead to some sort of binding collective agreement that adds desired "guard rails" to NIL and the Portal, means that agreement can only come about through federal preemption under remedial legislation. Bottom line, is none of this goes anywhere good without cohesive federal legislation.

Which gets us to other existing legislation and artificial market disrupters such as NCAA rules. Black letter law is Title 9 doesn't apply to NIL paid by collectives, unless you happen to be internal counsel at Cal. Of the top 100 athletes in NIL rankings last year, 98 are either football or basketball players. Likewise, there is also a clear imbalance between men's and women's sports. Clarke became the all-time leading scorer only was 38th in NIL income. That said, women's basketball is achieving major increases in revenues and NIL. But the other disparity, once you move beyond the Big 3 sports (football and men's and women's basketball), is that the other sports offer limited NIL opportunities. The big money just isn't there beyond unique situations. And it seems like the gender doesn't matter, the money generally isn't there. The hard, cold fact is that most schools also have to cut unprofitable sports.

In a House world, donors are going to fund what they want, and that is the Big 3 Sports. The schools recognize this and have been moving to the view that even NIL paid by schools is not subject to Title 9. Now Cal's inside counsel may not agree, and as one attorney for another peer school suggested: "did she graduate from Woke U? No one believes that. " But Cal is in for a real arse-kicking unless it gets off that position, because donors will simply donate to the NIL collective instead, and it really doesn't matter what the counsel from Woke U thinks. The reality in a world with remedial federal legislation is to treat the Big 3 differently than other sports. The latter likely will need to function more like programs in pre-NIL days, including with respect to Title 9 compliance.

wifeisafurd said:

---

NIL pay for play (calling it what it is) provides, generally speaking, an equitable manner to pay college players for the revenue they help produce. The only amateur quality about college athletics was that colleges refused to pay their players and now donors do that through collectives that acts like market forces. A market economy that avoids discrimination against certain classes, in this case athletes, is what we try to achieve in our society, for better or worse. There are some other benefits such as presently, there is more competition in the major sports, as Sebasterbear touched on, better post-season games, and materially more interest in college football and women's basketball, and increased interest in men's basketball. NIL also encourages players to be more concerned about their image and branding, and thus they now tend to avoid not doing stupid stuff, help players become more knowledgeable about business, and a lot of other intangibles, which represent real benefits to players. I view NIL as a net positive.

NIL has not been implemented in a thought out or cohesive manner, and comes have with a set of complexities that should raise concerns to college sports fans.

The introduction of NIL has reduced the environment differences between college and professional sports, at least in the major sports. They are now being viewed more as a business for these athletes rather than in conjunction with school. At many schools, football players have never attended a live class or met their professors. This is not true at Cal, but very few schools are Cal when it comes to academics.

Then there is the Portal. As a preliminary, I'm not sure how the Portal doesn't violate anti-trust law by forcing players to only change schools at certain times. Nevertheless, the Portal means massive changes in rosters, that no one seems to like, yet most schools not named Clemson, seem to have. Will this trend continue unabated? Sebasterbear suggests probably not, and I hope he is right. But presently we have players not receiving promised compensation, being moved when injured or otherwise not performing, and a lot of other situations that one does not associate with college athletics. Ultimately as players and player agents become more savvy, the success of NIL deals into the world of collegiate sports seemingly will require a balanced approach that prioritizes the development of players on the field and in college life. Like it or not, very few players get that big NFL payday.
There also is the fact that there are perceived inequities in NIL payments. Think about what Sebasterbear could do with Texas A&M's collectives budget. Cal and some other programs have punched above their weight class, as they try to keep up with FSU, USC, Texas and other programs who have collectives with huge wallets in the college player arms race. But how long will that continue? Now some folks here are going to say is if the House anti-trust settlement is approved, private collectives won't be able to offer pay to play and the each college will have a maximum amount it can spend on NIL. First, pretty much any legal scholar I have read thinks there is absolutely no chance the settlement will work against private collectives who are not parties to the lawsuit. The experts also consider the settlement to violate anti-trust law even if they were parties. Second, this also gets us right back to the old system of prohibiting how much players can make, which absent Federal legislation is per se illegal, and moreover, creates an environment where athletic elites will find a way to work around the rules or cheat. Third, most athletic programs are in a sea of annual budget deficits presently. Paying players under House threatens to also limit the playing fields to elite universities with large budgets. Why would programs already in deep debt be able to raise up to around $23 million annually for "salaries" to players under House, absent massive donor or school cash infusions that these colleges already have not been able to procure? The upshot likely is that only a handful of powerful programs will stand to gain in competition for athletic talent simply because they can afford to pay salaries.

Further, college paid House payments come with additional problems. There are the tax implications of the schools paying players that Sebasterbear mentioned. Add that many states don't allow public employees to join unions, and the view that House is supposed to lead to some sort of binding collective agreement that adds desired "guard rails" to NIL and the Portal, means that agreement can only come about through federal preemption under remedial legislation. Bottom line, is none of this goes anywhere good without cohesive federal legislation.

Which gets us to other existing legislation and artificial market disrupters such as NCAA rules. Black letter law is Title 9 doesn't apply to NIL paid by collectives, unless you happen to be internal counsel at Cal. Of the top 100 athletes in NIL rankings last year, 98 are either football or basketball players. Likewise, there is also a clear imbalance between men's and women's sports. Clarke became the all-time leading scorer only was 38th in NIL income. That said, women's basketball is achieving major increases in revenues and NIL. But the other disparity, once you move beyond the Big 3 sports (football and men's and women's basketball), is that the other sports offer limited NIL opportunities. The big money just isn't there beyond unique situations. And it seems like the gender doesn't matter, the money generally isn't there. The hard, cold fact is that most schools also have to cut unprofitable sports.

In a House world, donors are going to fund what they want, and that is the Big 3 Sports. The schools recognize this and have been moving to the view that even NIL paid by schools is not subject to Title 9. Now Cal's inside counsel may not agree, and as one attorney for another peer school suggested: "did she graduate from Woke U? No one believes that. " But Cal is in for a real arse-kicking unless it gets off that position, because donors will simply donate to the NIL collective instead, and it really doesn't matter what the counsel from Woke U thinks. The reality in a world with remedial federal legislation is to treat the Big 3 differently than other sports. The latter likely will need to function more like programs in pre-NIL days, including with respect to Title 9 compliance.

---

Here is an early morning thought that your post brought about in me: what other minor league sport makes big money? I can't think of any but maybe there are some. If there are none then I don't see how college football as a big money, NIL fueled sport doesn't dissolve back into playing for a school, ie. old college football. It may take a while but how does NIL college football keep attracting it's rabid alums to plunk down money for a team that is playing football at a lesser quality than their favorite pro team. I can't see school pride continuing to be the driving force when the players don't hang around long enough to be considered a co-alum. Maybe I have a very naive view. Or will NIL and tv ratings continue on due to some other force I can't see?

wifeisafurd said:

---

NIL pay for play (calling it what it is) provides, generally speaking, an equitable manner to pay college players for the revenue they help produce. The only amateur quality about college athletics was that colleges refused to pay their players and now donors do that through collectives that acts like market forces. A market economy that avoids discrimination against certain classes, in this case athletes, is what we try to achieve in our society, for better or worse. There are some other benefits such as presently, there is more competition in the major sports, as Sebasterbear touched on, better post-season games, and materially more interest in college football and women's basketball, and increased interest in men's basketball. NIL also encourages players to be more concerned about their image and branding, and thus they now tend to avoid not doing stupid stuff, help players become more knowledgeable about business, and a lot of other intangibles, which represent real benefits to players. I view NIL as a net positive.

NIL has not been implemented in a thought out or cohesive manner, and comes have with a set of complexities that should raise concerns to college sports fans.

The introduction of NIL has reduced the environment differences between college and professional sports, at least in the major sports. They are now being viewed more as a business for these athletes rather than in conjunction with school. At many schools, football players have never attended a live class or met their professors. This is not true at Cal, but very few schools are Cal when it comes to academics.

Then there is the Portal. As a preliminary, I'm not sure how the Portal doesn't violate anti-trust law by forcing players to only change schools at certain times. Nevertheless, the Portal means massive changes in rosters, that no one seems to like, yet most schools not named Clemson, seem to have. Will this trend continue unabated? Sebasterbear suggests probably not, and I hope he is right. But presently we have players not receiving promised compensation, being moved when injured or otherwise not performing, and a lot of other situations that one does not associate with college athletics. Ultimately as players and player agents become more savvy, the success of NIL deals into the world of collegiate sports seemingly will require a balanced approach that prioritizes the development of players on the field and in college life. Like it or not, very few players get that big NFL payday.
There also is the fact that there are perceived inequities in NIL payments. Think about what Sebasterbear could do with Texas A&M's collectives budget. Cal and some other programs have punched above their weight class, as they try to keep up with FSU, USC, Texas and other programs who have collectives with huge wallets in the college player arms race. But how long will that continue? Now some folks here are going to say is if the House anti-trust settlement is approved, private collectives won't be able to offer pay to play and the each college will have a maximum amount it can spend on NIL. First, pretty much any legal scholar I have read thinks there is absolutely no chance the settlement will work against private collectives who are not parties to the lawsuit. The experts also consider the settlement to violate anti-trust law even if they were parties. Second, this also gets us right back to the old system of prohibiting how much players can make, which absent Federal legislation is per se illegal, and moreover, creates an environment where athletic elites will find a way to work around the rules or cheat. Third, most athletic programs are in a sea of annual budget deficits presently. Paying players under House threatens to also limit the playing fields to elite universities with large budgets. Why would programs already in deep debt be able to raise up to around $23 million annually for "salaries" to players under House, absent massive donor or school cash infusions that these colleges already have not been able to procure? The upshot likely is that only a handful of powerful programs will stand to gain in competition for athletic talent simply because they can afford to pay salaries.

Further, college paid House payments come with additional problems. There are the tax implications of the schools paying players that Sebasterbear mentioned. Add that many states don't allow public employees to join unions, and the view that House is supposed to lead to some sort of binding collective agreement that adds desired "guard rails" to NIL and the Portal, means that agreement can only come about through federal preemption under remedial legislation. Bottom line, is none of this goes anywhere good without cohesive federal legislation.

Which gets us to other existing legislation and artificial market disrupters such as NCAA rules. Black letter law is Title 9 doesn't apply to NIL paid by collectives, unless you happen to be internal counsel at Cal. Of the top 100 athletes in NIL rankings last year, 98 are either football or basketball players. Likewise, there is also a clear imbalance between men's and women's sports. Clarke became the all-time leading scorer only was 38th in NIL income. That said, women's basketball is achieving major increases in revenues and NIL. But the other disparity, once you move beyond the Big 3 sports (football and men's and women's basketball), is that the other sports offer limited NIL opportunities. The big money just isn't there beyond unique situations. And it seems like the gender doesn't matter, the money generally isn't there. The hard, cold fact is that most schools also have to cut unprofitable sports.

In a House world, donors are going to fund what they want, and that is the Big 3 Sports. The schools recognize this and have been moving to the view that even NIL paid by schools is not subject to Title 9. Now Cal's inside counsel may not agree, and as one attorney for another peer school suggested: "did she graduate from Woke U? No one believes that. " But Cal is in for a real arse-kicking unless it gets off that position, because donors will simply donate to the NIL collective instead, and it really doesn't matter what the counsel from Woke U thinks. The reality in a world with remedial federal legislation is to treat the Big 3 differently than other sports. The latter likely will need to function more like programs in pre-NIL days, including with respect to Title 9 compliance.

---

This is the thing that concerns me the most regarding Cal football and all Cal athletics. If they destroy the competitiveness of football and Cal gets relegated out of the P4 they will destroy most if not all Cal athletics teams. Somehow I think for some that is a goal.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

NIL pay for play (calling it what it is) provides, generally speaking, an equitable manner to pay college players for the revenue they help produce. The only amateur quality about college athletics was that colleges refused to pay their players and now donors do that through collectives that acts like market forces. A market economy that avoids discrimination against certain classes, in this case athletes, is what we try to achieve in our society, for better or worse. There are some other benefits such as presently, there is more competition in the major sports, as Sebasterbear touched on, better post-season games, and materially more interest in college football and women's basketball, and increased interest in men's basketball. NIL also encourages players to be more concerned about their image and branding, and thus they now tend to avoid not doing stupid stuff, help players become more knowledgeable about business, and a lot of other intangibles, which represent real benefits to players. I view NIL as a net positive.

NIL has not been implemented in a thought out or cohesive manner, and comes have with a set of complexities that should raise concerns to college sports fans.

The introduction of NIL has reduced the environment differences between college and professional sports, at least in the major sports. They are now being viewed more as a business for these athletes rather than in conjunction with school. At many schools, football players have never attended a live class or met their professors. This is not true at Cal, but very few schools are Cal when it comes to academics.

Then there is the Portal. As a preliminary, I'm not sure how the Portal doesn't violate anti-trust law by forcing players to only change schools at certain times. Nevertheless, the Portal means massive changes in rosters, that no one seems to like, yet most schools not named Clemson, seem to have. Will this trend continue unabated? Sebasterbear suggests probably not, and I hope he is right. But presently we have players not receiving promised compensation, being moved when injured or otherwise not performing, and a lot of other situations that one does not associate with college athletics. Ultimately as players and player agents become more savvy, the success of NIL deals into the world of collegiate sports seemingly will require a balanced approach that prioritizes the development of players on the field and in college life. Like it or not, very few players get that big NFL payday.
There also is the fact that there are perceived inequities in NIL payments. Think about what Sebasterbear could do with Texas A&M's collectives budget. Cal and some other programs have punched above their weight class, as they try to keep up with FSU, USC, Texas and other programs who have collectives with huge wallets in the college player arms race. But how long will that continue? Now some folks here are going to say is if the House anti-trust settlement is approved, private collectives won't be able to offer pay to play and the each college will have a maximum amount it can spend on NIL. First, pretty much any legal scholar I have read thinks there is absolutely no chance the settlement will work against private collectives who are not parties to the lawsuit. The experts also consider the settlement to violate anti-trust law even if they were parties. Second, this also gets us right back to the old system of prohibiting how much players can make, which absent Federal legislation is per se illegal, and moreover, creates an environment where athletic elites will find a way to work around the rules or cheat. Third, most athletic programs are in a sea of annual budget deficits presently. Paying players under House threatens to also limit the playing fields to elite universities with large budgets. Why would programs already in deep debt be able to raise up to around $23 million annually for "salaries" to players under House, absent massive donor or school cash infusions that these colleges already have not been able to procure? The upshot likely is that only a handful of powerful programs will stand to gain in competition for athletic talent simply because they can afford to pay salaries.

Further, college paid House payments come with additional problems. There are the tax implications of the schools paying players that Sebasterbear mentioned. Add that many states don't allow public employees to join unions, and the view that House is supposed to lead to some sort of binding collective agreement that adds desired "guard rails" to NIL and the Portal, means that agreement can only come about through federal preemption under remedial legislation. Bottom line, is none of this goes anywhere good without cohesive federal legislation.

Which gets us to other existing legislation and artificial market disrupters such as NCAA rules. Black letter law is Title 9 doesn't apply to NIL paid by collectives, unless you happen to be internal counsel at Cal. Of the top 100 athletes in NIL rankings last year, 98 are either football or basketball players. Likewise, there is also a clear imbalance between men's and women's sports. Clarke became the all-time leading scorer only was 38th in NIL income. That said, women's basketball is achieving major increases in revenues and NIL. But the other disparity, once you move beyond the Big 3 sports (football and men's and women's basketball), is that the other sports offer limited NIL opportunities. The big money just isn't there beyond unique situations. And it seems like the gender doesn't matter, the money generally isn't there. The hard, cold fact is that most schools also have to cut unprofitable sports.

In a House world, donors are going to fund what they want, and that is the Big 3 Sports. The schools recognize this and have been moving to the view that even NIL paid by schools is not subject to Title 9. Now Cal's inside counsel may not agree, and as one attorney for another peer school suggested: "did she graduate from Woke U? No one believes that. " But Cal is in for a real arse-kicking unless it gets off that position, because donors will simply donate to the NIL collective instead, and it really doesn't matter what the counsel from Woke U thinks. The reality in a world with remedial federal legislation is to treat the Big 3 differently than other sports. The latter likely will need to function more like programs in pre-NIL days, including with respect to Title 9 compliance.

---

Here is an early morning thought that your post brought about in me: what other minor league sport makes big money?

---

That is a brilliant question. College football and basketball are unique in that regard. And I agree that absent market demand that generates big money, these other sports ultimately will end up being for the most part like pre-NIL sports programs, except they will not be able to rely on having deficits funded by football and basketball (which is where I think you were going).

Let me take this question to the next level. Maybe those college CEOs, should think more about while eating their croissants at meetings: Why do we care so much about college football and basketball that we are willing to invest large sums and time? We watch games, thereby causing advertisers to fund TV revenue and we attend games often paying large sums for more exclusive seats and perks. Why?

Some of it has to be tradition. Having been to games at Clemson, FSU and Auburn this year, I get it. Just the pre-game traditions are amazing. Touching a rock, a guy in an Indian outfit riding into a stadium with a flaming spear,, an eagle soaring around a stadium, all seem like something dumb, until you see it in person. That is why having a Chancellor that knows not to do a Bear Territory chant early less he woof at the football Gods, sounds so dumb, but shows an utter lack of reverence. Okay, we all know this really is superstition and Miami won because for other reasons, but that isn't the point. The point is traditions matter. Some of it has to be community - which is something that you see in tailgates and events surrounding games (one wonders how clueless Furd and Cal administrators have been in the past given waning attendance at these schools). Some of it probably is school spirit which seems a lot more noticeable in some places than others. Some of it may be the show - bands, cheerleaders, mascots, dancing girls , fireworks, flyovers, drone shows, etc.. For those shaking their heads, I dare you to go to a Clemson game some time. Some of it may be simply the interaction with colleagues and friends, discussing rivalries, drama, history, etc. In many areas, the local football team represents the area or in the case of Notre Dame possibly even their religion. Laugh at you might at some of this, but college football is more than a game in this country, and it is a passion that in fact drives you folks to this board. Hopefully those college CEOs calling the shots don't f' it up.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

NIL pay for play (calling it what it is) provides, generally speaking, an equitable manner to pay college players for the revenue they help produce. The only amateur quality about college athletics was that colleges refused to pay their players and now donors do that through collectives that acts like market forces. A market economy that avoids discrimination against certain classes, in this case athletes, is what we try to achieve in our society, for better or worse. There are some other benefits such as presently, there is more competition in the major sports, as Sebasterbear touched on, better post-season games, and materially more interest in college football and women's basketball, and increased interest in men's basketball. NIL also encourages players to be more concerned about their image and branding, and thus they now tend to avoid not doing stupid stuff, help players become more knowledgeable about business, and a lot of other intangibles, which represent real benefits to players. I view NIL as a net positive.

NIL has not been implemented in a thought out or cohesive manner, and comes have with a set of complexities that should raise concerns to college sports fans.

The introduction of NIL has reduced the environment differences between college and professional sports, at least in the major sports. They are now being viewed more as a business for these athletes rather than in conjunction with school. At many schools, football players have never attended a live class or met their professors. This is not true at Cal, but very few schools are Cal when it comes to academics.

Then there is the Portal. As a preliminary, I'm not sure how the Portal doesn't violate anti-trust law by forcing players to only change schools at certain times. Nevertheless, the Portal means massive changes in rosters, that no one seems to like, yet most schools not named Clemson, seem to have. Will this trend continue unabated? Sebasterbear suggests probably not, and I hope he is right. But presently we have players not receiving promised compensation, being moved when injured or otherwise not performing, and a lot of other situations that one does not associate with college athletics. Ultimately as players and player agents become more savvy, the success of NIL deals into the world of collegiate sports seemingly will require a balanced approach that prioritizes the development of players on the field and in college life. Like it or not, very few players get that big NFL payday.
There also is the fact that there are perceived inequities in NIL payments. Think about what Sebasterbear could do with Texas A&M's collectives budget. Cal and some other programs have punched above their weight class, as they try to keep up with FSU, USC, Texas and other programs who have collectives with huge wallets in the college player arms race. But how long will that continue? Now some folks here are going to say is if the House anti-trust settlement is approved, private collectives won't be able to offer pay to play and the each college will have a maximum amount it can spend on NIL. First, pretty much any legal scholar I have read thinks there is absolutely no chance the settlement will work against private collectives who are not parties to the lawsuit. The experts also consider the settlement to violate anti-trust law even if they were parties. Second, this also gets us right back to the old system of prohibiting how much players can make, which absent Federal legislation is per se illegal, and moreover, creates an environment where athletic elites will find a way to work around the rules or cheat. Third, most athletic programs are in a sea of annual budget deficits presently. Paying players under House threatens to also limit the playing fields to elite universities with large budgets. Why would programs already in deep debt be able to raise up to around $23 million annually for "salaries" to players under House, absent massive donor or school cash infusions that these colleges already have not been able to procure? The upshot likely is that only a handful of powerful programs will stand to gain in competition for athletic talent simply because they can afford to pay salaries.

Further, college paid House payments come with additional problems. There are the tax implications of the schools paying players that Sebasterbear mentioned. Add that many states don't allow public employees to join unions, and the view that House is supposed to lead to some sort of binding collective agreement that adds desired "guard rails" to NIL and the Portal, means that agreement can only come about through federal preemption under remedial legislation. Bottom line, is none of this goes anywhere good without cohesive federal legislation.

Which gets us to other existing legislation and artificial market disrupters such as NCAA rules. Black letter law is Title 9 doesn't apply to NIL paid by collectives, unless you happen to be internal counsel at Cal. Of the top 100 athletes in NIL rankings last year, 98 are either football or basketball players. Likewise, there is also a clear imbalance between men's and women's sports. Clarke became the all-time leading scorer only was 38th in NIL income. That said, women's basketball is achieving major increases in revenues and NIL. But the other disparity, once you move beyond the Big 3 sports (football and men's and women's basketball), is that the other sports offer limited NIL opportunities. The big money just isn't there beyond unique situations. And it seems like the gender doesn't matter, the money generally isn't there. The hard, cold fact is that most schools also have to cut unprofitable sports.

In a House world, donors are going to fund what they want, and that is the Big 3 Sports. The schools recognize this and have been moving to the view that even NIL paid by schools is not subject to Title 9. Now Cal's inside counsel may not agree, and as one attorney for another peer school suggested: "did she graduate from Woke U? No one believes that. " But Cal is in for a real arse-kicking unless it gets off that position, because donors will simply donate to the NIL collective instead, and it really doesn't matter what the counsel from Woke U thinks. The reality in a world with remedial federal legislation is to treat the Big 3 differently than other sports. The latter likely will need to function more like programs in pre-NIL days, including with respect to Title 9 compliance.

---

Here is an early morning thought that your post brought about in me: what other minor league sport makes big money? I can't think of any but maybe there are some. If there are none then I don't see how college football as a big money, NIL fueled sport doesn't dissolve back into playing for a school, ie. old college football. It may take a while but how does NIL college football keep attracting it's rabid alums to plunk down money for a team that is playing football at a lesser quality than their favorite pro team. I can't see school pride continuing to be the driving force when the players don't hang around long enough to be considered a co-alum. Maybe I have a very naive view. Or will NIL and tv ratings continue on due to some other force I can't see?

---

Part of this is that college football often fills that void in places that don't have major pro teams. That doesn't entirely explain Big Ten country, but it does help explain why attendance tends to struggle in the northeast or the west coast near major cities.

Love the example!

College needs to get to a NIL cap and some sort of contract to limit movement. Otherwise it's the NFL with no cap and every player is a perpetual FA. IOW, the worst of both worlds.

The House decision might be a de facto cap, but the portal needs to be tamed, IMHO.