Posted this yesterday on the insider board. A few folks have asked me to post it over here as well so I'm doing so. Feel free to skip it if you've already read it over there or skip it if you find my rants long and boring. Guessed that is most of you.


Every day I read multiple posts on this board bemoaning NIL. Even folks who will acknowledge this shift has been good for Cal will often qualify that with a statement that they find it "distasteful" or "unfortunate". I have tried to be sensitive to these feelings since I understand change can be hard and this new world is different and hence scary.

But I'm done with it. So fair warning. Rant incoming. Buckle up.

You know what? The old system of "amateur" college athletics sucked and it sucked on multiple levels. It was similar (but worse than) the old Olympic model which limited competition to "amateurs" and allowed communist nations to game the system by characterising their professional athletes as "workers" and still claim amateur status. Hence you had the 1972 Olympics in basketball where America's team was composed of college kids and the Soviets played a bunch of professional men.

The second this system changed to allowing everyone to compete the Soviet block's medal count plummeted and has never recovered.

College football and MBB pre-2021 were even worse. You had multiple schools absolutely illegally paying their athletes. Why do you think last year was the first time in the CFP era that the SEC didn't have a representative in the title game? Hell some years the championship was just two SEC teams playing each other (again). What exactly do you think Alabama's Red Elephant Club was doing down there anyway?

The SEC and a handful of other schools paid players for decades and (shockingly) these were the teams that won. And if you feel like you personally don't like the dawn of the NIL era well theses teams REALLY didn't like it, because it is way less fun to have everyone competing on a level playing field than it is to roll out your professionals against a bunch of amateurs and win 11 games every season. Winning is enjoyable. Losing far less so.

So in this way, the pre-NIL era was a lot like the "amateur" model used in the Olympics before 1992. It was dumb and it distorted the market.

But I said that the pre-NIL era was worse than the amateur era of the Olympics and I meant it. It was worse because the Soviets were just trying to score a propaganda win against the West and if you squinted hard enough it looked like a thirst for athletic excellence and national pride. But college football isn't really about pride. College football is about money and it has been awash in the stuff since the game became a broadcast juggernaut for television and honestly even before that. And because none of this money (beyond scholarships and room and board) was going to the workers who were creating the value it increasingly went to a bunch of coaches and administrators and universities.

Why do I say this? I say it because it's obviously true. You have multiple college coaches getting paid more than NFL coaches with 8 figure salaries and buyouts to STOP coaching worth tens of millions of dollars more. You have athletic directors in virtually every state making more than the governor. You have teams such as Oregon building locker rooms and practice facilities that boggle the mind and make the average NFL franchise green with envy. Etc., etc., etc.

The money was there and it had to go somewhere and it did. And boy was it great to be a coach or an AD or a successful P5 university in the era of free labor. it's the same dynamic that made slavery super profitable, so much so that half the country was willing to go to war to preserve it. Or let the Tsars of Russia buy gold and jewel encrusted eggs while their people starved. Or the 18th Century Louises build Versailles in a world where those doing the labor literally had no bread. It's really great to be at the top of the pyramid when those at the bottom are working for you for free.

And this was what was going on with college football for decades and everyone who was ok with a system of coaches making $14m and training centers costing a quarter of a billion dollars (which is essentially everyone who was watching college football over the last few decades) was complicit. And if now the players are getting a small sliver of the money they are generating while being a full time student, then all I can say is GOOD! It's about time.

And that's of course without even touching on the point I've made multiple times that this NIL model is great for Cal. We needed a paradigm shift (badly) and we got one. The NIL era plays to our strengths and aggregate wealth and finally allows us to field teams where we aren't giving up three or four inches and 20 or 30 pounds across the line or with skill position players that are just demonstrably slower and less skilled than our competition.

Is this talent infusion resulting in us being an unbeatable juggernaut? We are 5-4 so obviously not. We leveled the playing field, we didn't tilt it fully in our favor. But it gave us more than a shot to take down everyone we've played. 9 games in this season and this is the first time I can ever remember that being true. In most years we are just outclassed and the game is a forgone conclusion before the first snap. Now that's not the case. We are in every game and we should have won more than we have. Working on how we can take this next (hopefully last) step this off season.

So in conclusion, no the NIL era is not unfortunate or distasteful. It is awesome. It is righting a wrong and it is helping Cal. It is probably the best thing that has happened to college football in my lifetime. And I'm tired of people stating otherwise.

Sebastabear said:

---

Posted this yesterday on the insider board. A few folks have asked me to post it over here as well so I'm doing so. Feel free to skip it if you've already read it over there or skip it if you find my rants long and boring. Guessed that is most of you.


Every day I read multiple posts on this board bemoaning NIL. Even folks who will acknowledge this shift has been good for Cal will often qualify that with a statement that they find it "distasteful" or "unfortunate". I have tried to be sensitive to these feelings since I understand change can be hard and this new world is different and hence scary.

But I'm done with it. So fair warning. Rant incoming. Buckle up.

You know what? The old system of "amateur" college athletics sucked and it sucked on multiple levels. It was similar (but worse than) the old Olympic model which limited competition to "amateurs" and allowed communist nations to game the system by characterising their professional athletes as "workers" and still claim amateur status. Hence you had the 1972 Olympics in basketball where America's team was composed of college kids and the Soviets played a bunch of professional men.

The second this system changed to allowing everyone to compete the Soviet block's medal count plummeted and has never recovered.

College football and MBB pre-2021 were even worse. You had multiple schools absolutely illegally paying their athletes. Why do you think last year was the first time in the CFP era that the SEC didn't have a representative in the title game? Hell some years the championship was just two SEC teams playing each other (again). What exactly do you think Alabama's Red Elephant Club was doing down there anyway?

The SEC and a handful of other schools paid players for decades and (shockingly) these were the teams that won. And if you feel like you personally don't like the dawn of the NIL era well theses teams REALLY didn't like it, because it is way less fun to have everyone competing on a level playing field than it is to roll out your professionals against a bunch of amateurs and win 11 games every season. Winning is enjoyable. Losing far less so.

So in this way, the pre-NIL era was a lot like the "amateur" model used in the Olympics before 1992. It was dumb and it distorted the market.

But I said that the pre-NIL era was worse than the amateur era of the Olympics and I meant it. It was worse because the Soviets were just trying to score a propaganda win against the West and if you squinted hard enough it looked like a thirst for athletic excellence and national pride. But college football isn't really about pride. College football is about money and it has been awash in the stuff since the game became a broadcast juggernaut for television and honestly even before that. And because none of this money (beyond scholarships and room and board) was going to the workers who were creating the value it increasingly went to a bunch of coaches and administrators and universities.

Why do I say this? I say it because it's obviously true. You have multiple college coaches getting paid more than NFL coaches with 8 figure salaries and buyouts to STOP coaching worth tens of millions of dollars more. You have athletic directors in virtually every state making more than the governor. You have teams such as Oregon building locker rooms and practice facilities that boggle the mind and make the average NFL franchise green with envy. Etc., etc., etc.

The money was there and it had to go somewhere and it did. And boy was it great to be a coach or an AD or a successful P5 university in the era of free labor. it's the same dynamic that made slavery super profitable, so much so that half the country was willing to go to war to preserve it. Or let the Tsars of Russia buy gold and jewel encrusted eggs while their people starved. Or the 18th Century Louises build Versailles in a world where those doing the labor literally had no bread. It's really great to be at the top of the pyramid when those at the bottom are working for you for free.

And this was what was going on with college football for decades and everyone who was ok with a system of coaches making $14m and training centers costing a quarter of a billion dollars (which is essentially everyone who was watching college football over the last few decades) was complicit. And if now the players are getting a small sliver of the money they are generating while being a full time student, then all I can say is GOOD! It's about time.

And that's of course without even touching on the point I've made multiple times that this NIL model is great for Cal. We needed a paradigm shift (badly) and we got one. The NIL era plays to our strengths and aggregate wealth and finally allows us to field teams where we aren't giving up three or four inches and 20 or 30 pounds across the line or with skill position players that are just demonstrably slower and less skilled than our competition.

Is this talent infusion resulting in us being an unbeatable juggernaut? We are 5-4 so obviously not. We leveled the playing field, we didn't tilt it fully in our favor. But it gave us more than a shot to take down everyone we've played. 9 games in this season and this is the first time I can ever remember that being true. In most years we are just outclassed and the game is a forgone conclusion before the first snap. Now that's not the case. We are in every game and we should have won more than we have. Working on how we can take this next (hopefully last) step this off season.

So in conclusion, no the NIL era is not unfortunate or distasteful. It is awesome. It is righting a wrong and it is helping Cal. It is probably the best thing that has happened to college football in my lifetime. And I'm tired of people stating otherwise.

---

Michigan is reportedly offering a top QB target $10 million.

Quote:

---

The University of Michigan has reportedly made highly touted quarterback recruit Bryce Underwood a massive name, image and likeness contract offer in hopes of getting him to flip his commitment from LSU.
Richard Johnson of CBS Sports reported this week that while On3 initially reported the offer to be in the neighborhood of $5 million, it is actually closer to a $10 million NIL offer over the course of multiple seasons.
Underwood, who is rated by 247Sports as the No. 1 overall prospect in the 2025 recruiting class, committed to LSU back in January.

---

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10142747-report-5-star-qb-bryce-underwoods-michigan-nil-offer-closer-to-10m-amid-lsu-buzz

This is not a system that plays to our strength, this is a system that is going to marginalize programs like ours, distort the sport of college football and ultimately ruin it.

There has to be a better compromise between that, and the previous one with student-athletes starving in the offseason.

Important to realize that's undoubtedly over 5 years which if he's good enough to warrant that pay he'll never spend in college. Of course even at $2m / year that's going to blow a huge percentage of the $20m the schools are allowed to pay directly under the House settlement. So the money would have to come from the outside collective and (under House) that could only be paid for "true NIL". Is that limitation legally enforceable? I highly doubt it. But right now it's what people are working with. So whether this QB gets anything like $10m over the course of his collegiate career . . . Yeah. We'll just see about that.

Long way of saying stories like this are promulgated by agents to pump up the market and demand for their clients. Most are BS. Like democracy, the NIL system is far from perfect but it's the best thing (for Cal) anyone has come up with yet.

^ kevin is right, nil dollars are often wildly exaggerated...his work along with lance cooper is tireless

asu's largest donor mr silverleaf sun angel has tole me the real #s for jaden rashada & their not even close to the reported #s for miami & georgia

bottom line, cal is now finally in the nil era on relatively equal footing for the 1st time since guys wuz running the wrong way at the rose bowl...with better coaching which includes the failing s&c program the bears have been in a legit position to win EVERY game this season (9-0)

the syracuse game against a high octane qb1 is gonna be another epic battle that could turn on special teams

Multiple things can be equally true here.

1) We can morn the loss of amateur football and the concept of a true student athlete. As you noted, the concept has been dead for 50+ years if not longer, but the NIL changes were the final nail in the coffin. We can no longer bury our head in the sand and pretend that these are just student athletes.

2) The old system was corrupt. The "student athletes" were generating billions of dollars for those schools that were being appropriated elsewhere. That profit was NOT going to the student athletes that were generating it. Some schools realized the more you invest in football the more you get out of it so they over invested in football, but all schools took the profits from football and used it to finance the other non revenue generating sports. That has become the expectation, that collegiate athletics are self funded and don't cost the campus anything monetarily.

Frankly that entire concept needs to go away. Revenues generated from a sport need to go back into that sport rather than being used to finance other sports. When paying athletes becomes a thing the money won't be there for football to finance all the other sports. Title IX makes that complicated, but in general if we want the olympic sports at Berkeley, then the school has to decide its going to figure out how to fund them with funds outside of football generated revenue.

All that being said, even with NIL those billions of dollars STILL are NOT going to the student athletes...all that NIL does is legalize paying players with other money unrelated to what they are actually generating.

3) The old system may have been corrupt, but so is NIL. Numerous examples have already been brought up here. There is lying about how much is getting paid. There is lying to the student athletes saying they will get paid when they won't. There is the presumption of "legitimate NIL" vs pay to play, and by far and away we are seeing pay to play. There are two ways to level the playing field. You can stop the cheating from occurring or you can make the cheating legal. NIL is leveling the playing field by legalizing the cheating so everyone can do it. Is that better than the old system where only a few were cheating? Yes. That doesn't mean its great.


Don't get me wrong, what we had was broken. I'm saddened by it, but the fact of the matter is college football generates billions of dollars every year. I get that it happened slowly over time and not over night, but this needed to get fixed a long time ago. The people who had the power to fix it chose to pocket the cash instead of fixing it, and someone else chose to fix it for them. The result is chaos.

But the WORST thing we can do right now is NOT take advantage of the current chaos. I am extremely thankful of all of the efforts you have put into NIL at Cal. It is directly responsible for us having a conference right now. It is directly responsible for us getting College Gameday. It is directly responsible for the Calgorithm taking off. Without your efforts we would be looking at the death of college football at Cal.

I'd feel better about NIL if the transfer portal didn't exist. As it is, lower profile schools have effectively turned into the Oakland A's where many of the best players that they develop or the diamonds in the rough are going to jump ship for more money or more visibility. We may be the receipients of said players right now (just look at MBB where virtually our entire team is from the portal), but that can easily flip and we become a giver.

👀

Quote:

---

Working on how we can take this next (hopefully last) step this off season.

---

The players need to collectively bargain, obtain employment status and the protections that will follow, and the league needs to implement a salary cap. It's great that labor is finally getting paid, but the rules are severely lacking, there's way too many shenanigans and lack of oversight /control.

The quasi hybrid professional/student model is a farce.

Vandalus said:

---

The players need to collectively bargain, obtain employment status and the protections that will follow, and the league needs to implement a salary cap. It's great that labor is finally getting paid, but the rules are severely lacking, there's way too many shenanigans and lack of oversight /control.

The quasi hybrid professional/student model is a farce.

---

Agree with the problem, but the solution is not so simple. As you note, only employees can collectively bargain and agree to a salary cap. The problem is that the consequence of student athletes being employees (and able to collectively bargain) is that all of their benefits, including tuition and room and board and food, etc. then become taxable perks. And since the students don't have the money to pay those taxes all these payments would have to be grossed up by the universities and those gross up payments would in turn be taxable, etc. Basically it would bankrupt the entire system almost immediately. Again, why congressional action here is the only real solution.

As I have noted in other posts, the problem with the current system is not that the students are finally getting a share of the revenue they are generating. The problem is the unlimited ability to transfer at any time combined with the students getting paid. This doesn't work in the NFL or any professional league and it doesn't work here. We need to fix the transfer portal.

The NCAA is the problem. A revenue sharing model could have been established that would not have led to this pay for play era, but they *****ed out, as usual.

Sebastabear said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

The players need to collectively bargain, obtain employment status and the protections that will follow, and the league needs to implement a salary cap. It's great that labor is finally getting paid, but the rules are severely lacking, there's way too many shenanigans and lack of oversight /control.

The quasi hybrid professional/student model is a farce.

---

Agree with the problem, but the solution is not so simple. As you note, only employees can collectively bargain and agree to a salary cap. The problem is that the consequence of student athletes being employees (and able to collectively bargain) is that all of their benefits, including tuition and room and board and food, etc. then become taxable perks. And since the students don't have the money to pay those taxes all these payments would have to be grossed up by the universities and those gross up payments would in turn be taxable, etc. Basically it would bankrupt the entire system almost immediately. Again, why congressional action here is the only real solution.

As I have noted in other posts, the problem with the current system is not that the students are finally getting a share of the revenue they are generating. The problem is the unlimited ability to transfer at any time combined with the students getting paid. This doesn't work in the NFL or any professional league and it doesn't work here. We need to fix the transfer portal.

---

Sebasta, I'm not sure the transfer portal is as big a problem as you (and other thoughtful observers) have suggested. In general, the current rules allow a student-athlete to transfer once without having to sit out a season; a second transfer would force the student athlete to burn a year of eligibility (or a redshirt year) on the bench.* (Of course, the sit-out rule doesn't apply to graduate transfers, but those tend to be fewer as most graduates have used up their eligibility.)

The main reasons we saw so many transfers these past two years, IMHO, are (1) the extra Covid year and (2) novelty. The first problem will resolve itself with time, since next year will be the last year of extra Covid eligibility for (the vast majority of) student-athletes. The second problem will also soon fade away as (a) more student-athletes become accustomed to the transfer portal and (b) the NCAA reduces the number of portal days and windows.

In short, I suspect the portal to have fewer and fewer (undergraduate) participants over time, even as that NIL packages attract more and more graduating high school student athletes, in the near future. Recruits will hear from their agents about which NIL collectives renege on contracts and which ones pay as promised. This will help steer recruits to NILs, like Cal's, where the students are paid what they're promised while avoiding those with reputations for allegedly misleading or defrauding student athletes (e.g., Florida).


* Last year, Cal's Jaylon Tyson was almost the victim of this rule, but was able to play after winning on appeal.

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

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

---

They are now being sued by players transferring in from JC on the limit of eligibility - basically saying they do not get as fair of a deal as a regular college student with the 5 years of eligibility since they have to do two years of JC.

I have to believe that the NCAA can still have some level of authority on being a student to play college football. NIL is not the reason why there is college football. NIL is a byproduct of that. It seems like that is at least what they can still do. And unlimited transfers if fine I think if they do it once per year, and I think at the end of the school year. That would limit it quite a bit and still make players want to play in the bowl games, the playoffs, look at the pro's, etc - before deciding to transfer.

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.

Fantastic thread everyone. Thank you Sebasta for starting it and providing so much information for someone like me who's been a Cal fan since the mid 70s. I don't really know anything about the money that flows behind the scenes of college athletics. They didn't really pay us on the JV baseball team back in 1980 other than the cool hoodie and baseball cap I proudly have in my closet. ;-)

When the legal challenge is finally made, transfers will be unlimited, at any time, even during the game. "Bags" flying in from the stands will be the new goal line defense.

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.

WalterSobchak said:

---

👀

Quote:

---

Working on how we can take this next (hopefully last) step this off season.

---

---

bump

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, Sebasta! (For the record, I really appreciate what you do for the Cal athletics program. Without you and your tireless efforts, we may not even have Cal football or basketball any more.)

I guess if my curiosity remains piqued once I have a little free time next year, I might look into the NCAA cases and read the opinions.

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.

---

Yeah, if you work in tech, imagine if all the tech companies got together and formed a cartel called the "International Technology Employers Association" and said they wanted to limit job hopping and salary inflation, so they made a agreement that employees can quit their job to work elsewhere, but under the employer agreement, employees who leave their employers will be penalized and have to sit out for a year before they can start working for their new employer. I think it should be obvious that would limit an employee's market value and would be very illegal.

As I have said before, I think the solution when we go to an "employee model" is to have the players (and coaches) be employed by an alumni run non-profit, much like the collective you have created.

Basically, the university would outsource management and marketing of the revenue sports to the collective. Players would be employees of the collective instead of employees of the university, just like students can work at Blondies, a tech company or a non-profit while still a student. They can receive scholarships and/or pay.

This would allow all the non-revenue sports to continue on with the amateur (plus NIL) model.

The non-profit collective could accept donations which would confer voting rights, both for electing a board and for general initiatives (maybe even firing and approving hiring). The collective would take over the Learfield contract and duties, manage the game day experience, conduct billboard campaigns, fund the Calgorithm, work with BART, give away tickets as it sees fit, borrow against future revenues to fund a buyout…. And of course profits would be donated to the university making booster donations potentially tax deductible….

calumnus said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you work in tech, imagine if all the tech companies got together and formed a cartel called the "International Technology Employers Association" and said they wanted to limit job hopping and salary inflation, so they made a agreement that employees can quit their job to work elsewhere, but under the employer agreement, employees who leave their employers will be penalized and have to sit out for a year before they can start working for their new employer. I think it should be obvious that would limit an employee's market value and would be very illegal.

---

With respect to the tech industry there are in certain circumstances non-compete contracts (which generally prevent working for a company that competes is in the same space as an acquiring company for a number of years, typically from 1 to 3 or more years), which are required and signed relatively frequently by key employees with substantial ownership of an acquired company when one company acquires another. That key technical talent is often a significant reason why an acquiring company purchases an acquired company, and the acquiring company often wants to retain that key technical talent or not have to compete with them immediately after paying a significant amount to that key technical talent.

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you work in tech, imagine if all the tech companies got together and formed a cartel called the "International Technology Employers Association" and said they wanted to limit job hopping and salary inflation, so they made a agreement that employees can quit their job to work elsewhere, but under the employer agreement, employees who leave their employers will be penalized and have to sit out for a year before they can start working for their new employer. I think it should be obvious that would limit an employee's market value and would be very illegal.

---

With respect to the tech industry there are in certain circumstances non-compete contracts (which generally prevent working for a company that competes is in the same space as an acquiring company for a number of years, typically from 1 to 3 or more years), which are required and signed relatively frequently by key employees with substantial ownership of an acquired company when one company acquires another. That key technical talent is often a significant reason why an acquiring company purchases an acquired company, and the acquiring company often wants to retain that key technical talent or not have to compete with them immediately after paying a significant amount to that key technical talent.

---

A non- compete is an agreement between the employee and the employer (and are not always enforceable). An agreement among employers to limit employee mobility without the employees agreeing (through collective bargaining) is a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act with potentially huge criminal (jail time) and civil (treble damages) penalties.

Yes non-competes limiting the mobility of employees are very difficult to enforce in CA.

calumnus said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you work in tech, imagine if all the tech companies got together and formed a cartel called the "International Technology Employers Association" and said they wanted to limit job hopping and salary inflation, so they made a agreement that employees can quit their job to work elsewhere, but under the employer agreement, employees who leave their employers will be penalized and have to sit out for a year before they can start working for their new employer. I think it should be obvious that would limit an employee's market value and would be very illegal.

---

With respect to the tech industry there are in certain circumstances non-compete contracts (which generally prevent working for a company that competes is in the same space as an acquiring company for a number of years, typically from 1 to 3 or more years), which are required and signed relatively frequently by key employees with substantial ownership of an acquired company when one company acquires another. That key technical talent is often a significant reason why an acquiring company purchases an acquired company, and the acquiring company often wants to retain that key technical talent or not have to compete with them immediately after paying a significant amount to that key technical talent.

---

A non- compete is an agreement between the employee and the employer (and are not always enforceable). An agreement among employers to limit employee mobility without the employees agreeing (through collective bargaining) is a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act with potentially huge criminal (jail time) and civil (treble damages) penalties.

---

Key technical employees with substantial ownership (who almost never are part of collective bargaining agreements) almost always agree to sign enforceable non-compete contracts (the circumstances described do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act) when their companies are acquired by other companies because those employees want to receive the monetary compensation that the acquiring companies are offering.

Those key employees signing the non-compete is almost always a requirement by the acquiring company in order to complete the acquisition and for those employees to get compensated.

The key employees who are required to sign non-compete contracts are only those who are critical to the company's success and have substantial ownership and are not typical rank and file employees.

To me I don't honestly get the complaints, were people complaining it's unfair LSU can double the salary of any coach in the G5 or is it because players aren't getting the money it's okay? I much rather the players get paid more and no one I see that opposed NIL argues for a cap for coach salaries or prevents them from transferring for another school.

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you work in tech, imagine if all the tech companies got together and formed a cartel called the "International Technology Employers Association" and said they wanted to limit job hopping and salary inflation, so they made a agreement that employees can quit their job to work elsewhere, but under the employer agreement, employees who leave their employers will be penalized and have to sit out for a year before they can start working for their new employer. I think it should be obvious that would limit an employee's market value and would be very illegal.

---

With respect to the tech industry there are in certain circumstances non-compete contracts (which generally prevent working for a company that competes is in the same space as an acquiring company for a number of years, typically from 1 to 3 or more years), which are required and signed relatively frequently by key employees with substantial ownership of an acquired company when one company acquires another. That key technical talent is often a significant reason why an acquiring company purchases an acquired company, and the acquiring company often wants to retain that key technical talent or not have to compete with them immediately after paying a significant amount to that key technical talent.

---

A non- compete is an agreement between the employee and the employer (and are not always enforceable). An agreement among employers to limit employee mobility without the employees agreeing (through collective bargaining) is a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act with potentially huge criminal (jail time) and civil (treble damages) penalties.

---

Key technical employees with substantial ownership (who almost never are part of collective bargaining agreements) almost always agree to sign enforceable non-compete contracts (the circumstances described do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act) when their companies are acquired by other companies because those employees want to receive the monetary compensation that the acquiring companies are offering.

Those key employees signing the non-compete is almost always a requirement by the acquiring company in order to complete the acquisition and for those employees to get compensated.

The key employees who are required to sign non-compete contracts are only those who are critical to the company's success and have substantial ownership and are not typical rank and file employees.

---

Yes, this is some of what I was referring to in running down a Sherman Act rabbit hole. Noncompetes are generally enforceable in connection with the sale of a business against the owners of that business. Noncompetes are generally not enforceable against employees. Which category would student athletes would fall into? Hint; guys who own businesses generally don't work for generations for free.

It doesn't make sense for us to talk about noncompete against business owners. It has nothing to do with our current situation. There is no exception under the law that would allow the NCAA to do what it has done to student athletes. Which is why it keeps losing these lawsuits

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...

Sebastabear said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you work in tech, imagine if all the tech companies got together and formed a cartel called the "International Technology Employers Association" and said they wanted to limit job hopping and salary inflation, so they made a agreement that employees can quit their job to work elsewhere, but under the employer agreement, employees who leave their employers will be penalized and have to sit out for a year before they can start working for their new employer. I think it should be obvious that would limit an employee's market value and would be very illegal.

---

With respect to the tech industry there are in certain circumstances non-compete contracts (which generally prevent working for a company that competes is in the same space as an acquiring company for a number of years, typically from 1 to 3 or more years), which are required and signed relatively frequently by key employees with substantial ownership of an acquired company when one company acquires another. That key technical talent is often a significant reason why an acquiring company purchases an acquired company, and the acquiring company often wants to retain that key technical talent or not have to compete with them immediately after paying a significant amount to that key technical talent.

---

A non- compete is an agreement between the employee and the employer (and are not always enforceable). An agreement among employers to limit employee mobility without the employees agreeing (through collective bargaining) is a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act with potentially huge criminal (jail time) and civil (treble damages) penalties.

---

Key technical employees with substantial ownership (who almost never are part of collective bargaining agreements) almost always agree to sign enforceable non-compete contracts (the circumstances described do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act) when their companies are acquired by other companies because those employees want to receive the monetary compensation that the acquiring companies are offering.

Those key employees signing the non-compete is almost always a requirement by the acquiring company in order to complete the acquisition and for those employees to get compensated.

The key employees who are required to sign non-compete contracts are only those who are critical to the company's success and have substantial ownership and are not typical rank and file employees.

---

Yes, this is some of what I was referring to in running down a Sherman Act rabbit hole. Noncompetes are generally enforceable in connection with the sale of a business against the owners of that business. Noncompetes are generally not enforceable against employees. Which category would student athletes would fall into? Hint; guys who own businesses generally don't work for generations for free.

It doesn't make sense for us to talk about noncompete against business owners. It has nothing to do with our current situation. There is no exception under the law that would allow the NCAA to do what it has done to student athletes. Which is why it keeps losing these lawsuits

---

The point I was trying to make is that with the current college football situation as it is, I think that some outside the box brainstorming could be instructive.

Employees can also be owners.

The university could make key football players ("employees") effectively share holders ("owners") of the team and give them a proportionate share of the profits as part of their compensation.

That would make non-competes (between a university and key football players) with respect to those players enforceable, allowing the university to retain key talent. Non-competes would not be enforceable with respect to non key players (simply "employees").

The NCAA would not be involved at all. These agreements would only be between the university and the student-athletes.

It may seem a bit "off the wall," but when brainstorming one can't be sure as to what might stick.

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.

BerkeleyBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you work in tech, imagine if all the tech companies got together and formed a cartel called the "International Technology Employers Association" and said they wanted to limit job hopping and salary inflation, so they made a agreement that employees can quit their job to work elsewhere, but under the employer agreement, employees who leave their employers will be penalized and have to sit out for a year before they can start working for their new employer. I think it should be obvious that would limit an employee's market value and would be very illegal.

---

With respect to the tech industry there are in certain circumstances non-compete contracts (which generally prevent working for a company that competes is in the same space as an acquiring company for a number of years, typically from 1 to 3 or more years), which are required and signed relatively frequently by key employees with substantial ownership of an acquired company when one company acquires another. That key technical talent is often a significant reason why an acquiring company purchases an acquired company, and the acquiring company often wants to retain that key technical talent or not have to compete with them immediately after paying a significant amount to that key technical talent.

---

A non- compete is an agreement between the employee and the employer (and are not always enforceable). An agreement among employers to limit employee mobility without the employees agreeing (through collective bargaining) is a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act with potentially huge criminal (jail time) and civil (treble damages) penalties.

---

Key technical employees with substantial ownership (who almost never are part of collective bargaining agreements) almost always agree to sign enforceable non-compete contracts (the circumstances described do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act) when their companies are acquired by other companies because those employees want to receive the monetary compensation that the acquiring companies are offering.

Those key employees signing the non-compete is almost always a requirement by the acquiring company in order to complete the acquisition and for those employees to get compensated.

The key employees who are required to sign non-compete contracts are only those who are critical to the company's success and have substantial ownership and are not typical rank and file employees.

---

Yes, this is some of what I was referring to in running down a Sherman Act rabbit hole. Noncompetes are generally enforceable in connection with the sale of a business against the owners of that business. Noncompetes are generally not enforceable against employees. Which category would student athletes would fall into? Hint; guys who own businesses generally don't work for generations for free.

It doesn't make sense for us to talk about noncompete against business owners. It has nothing to do with our current situation. There is no exception under the law that would allow the NCAA to do what it has done to student athletes. Which is why it keeps losing these lawsuits

---

The point I was trying to make is that with the current college football situation as it is, I think that some outside the box brainstorming could be instructive.

Employees can also be owners.

The university could make key football players ("employees") effectively share holders ("owners") of the team and give them a proportionate share of the profits as part of their compensation.

That would make non-competes (between a university and key football players) with respect to those players enforceable, allowing the university to retain key talent. Non-competes would not be enforceable with respect to non key players (simply "employees").

The NCAA would not be involved at all. These agreements would only be between the university and the student-athletes.

It may seem a bit "off the wall," but when brainstorming one can't be sure as to what might stick.

---

Well sure but you're talking about athletes moving from unpaid labor to owners in one fell swoop. I think we should crawl before we walk.

And once again, although I keep saying I don't want to get dragged into this discussion because it's just too complicated, owners can agree to noncompetes in connection with the sale of a business because they are receiving a significant windfall. The noncompete is viewed as partial consideration for the sale of their business. You are analogizing that to a player leaving through the transfer portal. Who exactly is buying their interest in Cal Football at that point? The other school? So now Georgia owns a part of Cal Football?

This isn't a path anyone is going to follow. The only solution is Congressional action. Give the NCAA antitrust exemption. Remove Title IX considerations from applying to football. And figure out a structure that works for the transfer portal. This is what we need.

I think that is why the only thing the NCAA can do (and did do) as to currently stands is to limit the transfer portal timing to once per year, for example. I do not like the current timing on that - I think it should be at the end of the academic year, since they are, after all college students. Having it at the end of the regular season but before the playoffs and bowl games is stupid, in my opinion, if you want college football to survive.

I think the Owners (chancellors and presidents of universities) should allow for transfers at the end of the spring semesters / quarters. Share the revenue, pay market rates, tamper, whatever. But you can't transfer until the next school year.

Sebastabear said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you work in tech, imagine if all the tech companies got together and formed a cartel called the "International Technology Employers Association" and said they wanted to limit job hopping and salary inflation, so they made a agreement that employees can quit their job to work elsewhere, but under the employer agreement, employees who leave their employers will be penalized and have to sit out for a year before they can start working for their new employer. I think it should be obvious that would limit an employee's market value and would be very illegal.

---

With respect to the tech industry there are in certain circumstances non-compete contracts (which generally prevent working for a company that competes is in the same space as an acquiring company for a number of years, typically from 1 to 3 or more years), which are required and signed relatively frequently by key employees with substantial ownership of an acquired company when one company acquires another. That key technical talent is often a significant reason why an acquiring company purchases an acquired company, and the acquiring company often wants to retain that key technical talent or not have to compete with them immediately after paying a significant amount to that key technical talent.

---

A non- compete is an agreement between the employee and the employer (and are not always enforceable). An agreement among employers to limit employee mobility without the employees agreeing (through collective bargaining) is a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act with potentially huge criminal (jail time) and civil (treble damages) penalties.

---

Key technical employees with substantial ownership (who almost never are part of collective bargaining agreements) almost always agree to sign enforceable non-compete contracts (the circumstances described do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act) when their companies are acquired by other companies because those employees want to receive the monetary compensation that the acquiring companies are offering.

Those key employees signing the non-compete is almost always a requirement by the acquiring company in order to complete the acquisition and for those employees to get compensated.

The key employees who are required to sign non-compete contracts are only those who are critical to the company's success and have substantial ownership and are not typical rank and file employees.

---

Yes, this is some of what I was referring to in running down a Sherman Act rabbit hole. Noncompetes are generally enforceable in connection with the sale of a business against the owners of that business. Noncompetes are generally not enforceable against employees. Which category would student athletes would fall into? Hint; guys who own businesses generally don't work for generations for free.

It doesn't make sense for us to talk about noncompete against business owners. It has nothing to do with our current situation. There is no exception under the law that would allow the NCAA to do what it has done to student athletes. Which is why it keeps losing these lawsuits

---

The point I was trying to make is that with the current college football situation as it is, I think that some outside the box brainstorming could be instructive.

Employees can also be owners.

The university could make key football players ("employees") effectively share holders ("owners") of the team and give them a proportionate share of the profits as part of their compensation.

That would make non-competes (between a university and key football players) with respect to those players enforceable, allowing the university to retain key talent. Non-competes would not be enforceable with respect to non key players (simply "employees").

The NCAA would not be involved at all. These agreements would only be between the university and the student-athletes.

It may seem a bit "off the wall," but when brainstorming one can't be sure as to what might stick.

---

Well sure but you're talking about athletes moving from unpaid labor to owners in one fell swoop. I think we should crawl before we walk.

And once again, although I keep saying I don't want to get dragged into this discussion because it's just too complicated, owners can agree to noncompetes in connection with the sale of a business because they are receiving a significant windfall. The noncompete is viewed as partial consideration for the sale of their business. You are analogizing that to a player leaving through the transfer portal. Who exactly is buying their interest in Cal Football at that point? The other school? So now Georgia owns a part of Cal Football?

This isn't a path anyone is going to follow. The only solution is Congressional action. Give the NCAA antitrust exemption. Remove Title IX considerations from applying to football. And figure out a structure that works for the transfer portal. This is what we need.

---

Yes, it would be complicated, but I think that any "solution" is going to be complicated.

The analogy is that the non-compete is signed when the player joins the Cal team and becomes an "owner" and the windfall is the share of the profit that a player receives from Cal each year.

If a player violated the non-compete, for example, by entering the portal and not sitting out for a year or two (whatever term the non-compete stated), that player would be legally required to return any windfall compensation received from Cal.

The school that the player transferred to would not 'own" any part of Cal football.

Unfortunately, the current state of Congress is dysfunctional and given how even more severely dysfunctional the federal government is likely to be over the next four years, I don't expect to see any constructive solutions emanating from Washington until at least 2029.

What is the future of non-revenue sports? Will all of the money flowing to football and basketball players instead of to the other sports end up killing most of them?

Sebastabear said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BerkeleyBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you work in tech, imagine if all the tech companies got together and formed a cartel called the "International Technology Employers Association" and said they wanted to limit job hopping and salary inflation, so they made a agreement that employees can quit their job to work elsewhere, but under the employer agreement, employees who leave their employers will be penalized and have to sit out for a year before they can start working for their new employer. I think it should be obvious that would limit an employee's market value and would be very illegal.

---

With respect to the tech industry there are in certain circumstances non-compete contracts (which generally prevent working for a company that competes is in the same space as an acquiring company for a number of years, typically from 1 to 3 or more years), which are required and signed relatively frequently by key employees with substantial ownership of an acquired company when one company acquires another. That key technical talent is often a significant reason why an acquiring company purchases an acquired company, and the acquiring company often wants to retain that key technical talent or not have to compete with them immediately after paying a significant amount to that key technical talent.

---

A non- compete is an agreement between the employee and the employer (and are not always enforceable). An agreement among employers to limit employee mobility without the employees agreeing (through collective bargaining) is a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act with potentially huge criminal (jail time) and civil (treble damages) penalties.

---

Key technical employees with substantial ownership (who almost never are part of collective bargaining agreements) almost always agree to sign enforceable non-compete contracts (the circumstances described do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act) when their companies are acquired by other companies because those employees want to receive the monetary compensation that the acquiring companies are offering.

Those key employees signing the non-compete is almost always a requirement by the acquiring company in order to complete the acquisition and for those employees to get compensated.

The key employees who are required to sign non-compete contracts are only those who are critical to the company's success and have substantial ownership and are not typical rank and file employees.

---

Yes, this is some of what I was referring to in running down a Sherman Act rabbit hole. Noncompetes are generally enforceable in connection with the sale of a business against the owners of that business. Noncompetes are generally not enforceable against employees. Which category would student athletes would fall into? Hint; guys who own businesses generally don't work for generations for free.

It doesn't make sense for us to talk about noncompete against business owners. It has nothing to do with our current situation. There is no exception under the law that would allow the NCAA to do what it has done to student athletes. Which is why it keeps losing these lawsuits

---

The point I was trying to make is that with the current college football situation as it is, I think that some outside the box brainstorming could be instructive.

Employees can also be owners.

The university could make key football players ("employees") effectively share holders ("owners") of the team and give them a proportionate share of the profits as part of their compensation.

That would make non-competes (between a university and key football players) with respect to those players enforceable, allowing the university to retain key talent. Non-competes would not be enforceable with respect to non key players (simply "employees").

The NCAA would not be involved at all. These agreements would only be between the university and the student-athletes.

It may seem a bit "off the wall," but when brainstorming one can't be sure as to what might stick.

---

Well sure but you're talking about athletes moving from unpaid labor to owners in one fell swoop. I think we should crawl before we walk.

And once again, although I keep saying I don't want to get dragged into this discussion because it's just too complicated, owners can agree to noncompetes in connection with the sale of a business because they are receiving a significant windfall. The noncompete is viewed as partial consideration for the sale of their business. You are analogizing that to a player leaving through the transfer portal. Who exactly is buying their interest in Cal Football at that point? The other school? So now Georgia owns a part of Cal Football?

This isn't a path anyone is going to follow. The only solution is Congressional action. Give the NCAA antitrust exemption. Remove Title IX considerations from applying to football. And figure out a structure that works for the transfer portal. This is what we need.

---

This is exactly right. It is an unrestricted open market unless Congress says otherwise.

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...