6956bear said:
concordtom said:
Maybe someone can read this and explain. I think folks here should want to read this link.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/college-football/breaking-news/article/power-conferences-working-on-contract-to-bind-schools-to-new-enforcement-rules-with-strict-punishments-005652210.html
This seems to be an effort by the P4 conferences to get agreement to abide by the House settlement and allow Deloitte to set and enforce the outside NIL guidelines. Getting agreement from the schools etc is one thing, but the lawyers in states, and agents representing players will file lawsuits. Additionally have a single entity enforce the rules and pass out punishments.
Without federal legislation I am not sure how this holds up legally. But it does seem to suggest that schools are starting to realize that there has to be a structure to have a somewhat equal playing field for the conferences and programs.
By signing the agreement they are showing congress they want and need help and are open to it. Failure to sign on could possibly have your school evicted from your conference and have other programs that have signed no longer play you in any sport.
What a great time to be a lawyer.
There are so many problems with this and I don't see any way this gets adopted in a meaningful way.
An agreement like this has to be beneficial to all parties. This isn't. How does this agreement in any way benefit Michigan, or Clemson, or Alabama, or Texas, or Ohio State? This "deal" amounts to pointing at the power schools and saying "under the current system you have too much power and will win too often. You need to sign an agreement that gives up power and makes you win less. What you get in return is we don't evict you." LOL. Why would any of the power schools sign this?
The eviction threat is massively overplaying their hand. (their hand being no pairs or straights 7 high). So the Big Ten is going to evict Michigan and Ohio State in favor of Northwestern and Minnesota? Michigan and Ohio State are the money makers for the conference. They are being asked to unilaterally disarm. And they are being asked to give up their right to sue. And they are being asked to tell their state governments they won't follow laws. And in return they get what? The only thing I potentially see is cost control, but I don't see that is a motivator. In the NFL, there is an incentive to agree to salary caps because the owners pay the salary. In college, these schools have alums that will pay it. A power school will not benefit from cost controls and by disarming their alums, they risk being less competitive and then making less money.
So they simply say no and won't sign. So according to this plan then, they will be evicted from their conferences. Let's see how that goes.
ACC evicts Clemson, FSU and Miami
Big Ten evicts Michigan, Penn State, Oregon, Ohio State, USC, Notre Dame
SEC evicts, hell who don't they evict, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky, LSU, Oklahoma, Georgia, Texas, Texas A&M, Florida.
They get together and join their own conference where they can keep doing what they are doing and don't have to drag the dead weight around. Who is going to get the TV money, ya think? My new conference or the SEC with Vandy and Ole Miss, the ACC with BC and Stanford, the Big Ten with Northwestern and Minnesota?
And then the likes of Wisconsin and UNC and Virginia, and Louisville look up and say "wait a minute. do I want to be with Michigan, Alabama and Clemson or do I want to be with Vandy, Stanford and Northwestern. Easy answer. So long. And the bottom teams know what it feels like to be Oregon State and WSU.
When do deals ever get done where the parties with all of the leverage give up everything with nothing in return? No, these schools are not getting evicted.
This seems to be a deal that is supposed to benefit the fans. (To which I would ask "what fans?" because I don't know that fans of the blue bloods have an issue with a system that keeps them winning). But the fans aren't a party to the deal. You think Alabama is going to make themselves fundamentally worse off so that Cal fans can have more fun at football games? You think their alums are going to let them? You think their state law makers are going to let them?
Further, it is extremely questionable whether these schools, especially public ones can sign agreements which require them to violate state law. And, if they do succeed in that legal argument, the state legislatures will pass new laws making it illegal for their public universities to sign agreements that require them to not enforce their rights under state law. And all those publics go away.
And, if suddenly all these power schools and their alums, and their state legislatures decide to be charitable for the good of the institution of college sports, the players are coming after you. The NFL and NBA have salary caps BECAUSE THEY HAVE A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. The players have agreed to it. Why would the players and agents agree to the terms they are outlining? They just fought for the rights to make the money they are making and they would just agree not to because?
This is nothing more than a group with zero leverage deciding how things should be and trying to force that on a bunch of parties who have more leverage and they think the laughable threat of eviction gives them the power to do so. Every group with any leverage has every incentive to tell them to go pound sand.
People need to understand that this is now a market based system. Those talking about competitive balance do not seem to get this. This is not Little League. We aren't all getting in a room and deciding how to make the most fair system for the kiddos and their parents to enjoy sport. Each school is a business and they compete with other schools AS BUSINESSES. This is capitalism, baby. This is free market. Coke and Pepsi didn't sit there and decide how they could develop an even playing field with RC Cola so that consumers could have more choices. They did deals with super markets designed to drive them out of business...er...compete successfully in the market place.
Nothing about this system is going to function to increase competitive parity on the field. Nothing. And even if you think it is "bad" for them to have uncompetitive teams, the solution to that is to jettison those uncompetitive teams. Every national pro sports league has roughly 30 teams. That is the number that works. FBS has 133. Power conferences have 67. If you take the top 30, you will have a league that is competitive top to bottom. They keep the system they have because it is of use to them to have noncompetitive teams to "practice" against in live games. That system is not beneficial enough to them to give up competitive advantage.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to have a system where players who at least pretend to be students go to schools with the intention of sticking around to graduation, get reasonable compensation, and the money is somewhat evenly dispersed among schools so that everyone can have a shot at being competitive. Where school spirit runs free and TV works around game schedules instead of game schedules working around TV. But that isn't the system. Fans all say they want these things. They all think they want these things. They want to want these things. But at the end of the day, they reward businesses who win with dollars and punish businesses who lose by withholding dollars. Really what fans want as shown by their spending habits is to win at all costs and schools are therefore going to look to every advantage they have to do that. A subset of schools have tremendous advantages over the others. They aren't giving that up. The public votes with their dollars as much as some may voice alternate opinions.
