Depressing article in the UT today

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2022-04-22/zeigler-college-sports-nil-name-image-likeness-recruiting-collectives-payouts

Cal can't compete in that world. Maybe the talent fox is getting really is the best out there.

Very interesting. The question is what group or person is putting something like that together for Cal? Of course admissions will be a road block. They should look at it as an opportunity to increase revenue from ticket sales which would help other sports, possibly. You would think there is more money in the bay area than other parts of the country.

We will probably be the last school to embrace the new normal.no sense changing coaches unless we get onboard.

Bless you and thank you for volunteering.

One of the top transfers gets a huge NIL deal. We will have to get creative to compete. Anyone have faith in Fox to do that? Old school disciplinarians and NIL are a bad mix. I'm sure younger coaches like Golden and Gates already have plans in place.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/nijel-pack-transfers-to-miami-former-kansas-state-star-to-earn-800000-in-nil-deal-with-lifewallet/amp/

I gave up when I saw the bi-line : "NIL was supposed to fix college sports"

Not sure why Zeigler thinks that. But his premise is wrong on many levels.

socaltownie said:

---

Depressing article in the UT today

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2022-04-22/zeigler-college-sports-nil-name-image-likeness-recruiting-collectives-payouts

Cal can't compete in that world. Maybe the talent fox is getting really is the best out there.

---

that is a good article. the only surprise is that people are surprised. I called it 100% free agency all the time ... I heard an interview on ESPN radio where a pac12 coach was asked about the upcoming signing day. He said, with the transfer portal, every day is signing day.

some good points, many of which is the first time I've seen in an article...

"... they were already getting an estimated $200,000 or more per year in scholarships, medical care, food, lodging, tutoring, fitness training, equipment, clothing, charter flights, five-star hotels, cost of attendance stipends, coaching and preparation for the professional level. And, oh yeah, admittance to a university beyond the academic reach of most athletes."

(I am not saying this is fair compensation, but at least they include other things besides the usual 'only get a scholarship', and it doesn't they still don't include probably the biggest value they receive from playing college sports ... growing their brand)

"There are also the transfers who have essentially become free agents with the NCAA no longer mandating they sit out a year. One coach tells the story of two SEC basketball programs bidding for a high-profile transfer, and one tapping out when it got to $650,000."


"The only regulation is the universities themselves can't make the deals. No problem. Just as politicians created Super PACs (political action committees) to skirt campaign finance laws, with no limits on donation size, boosters have formed nonprofit "collectives" to funnel money to athletes without answering to Title IX."

"Schools with billionaire boosters can stomach spending millions for unproven recruits in the name of an SEC title. The have-nots might get $75,000 here or $100,000 there in the short term, but what happens when you keep dipping the bucket into that well?"

"The bigger concern among athletic directors is what happens to their own budgets when all the millions they traditionally receive from donors are diverted to NIL cooperatives? Women's sports advocates, curiously, haven't made the connection: Their sports will suffer funding cuts and, possibly, probably, elimination."

BeachedBear said:

---

I gave up when I saw the bi-line : "NIL was supposed to fix college sports"

Not sure why Zeigler thinks that. But his premise is wrong on many levels.

---

Agreed. Anyone with one scintilla of common sense could see the NCAA would quickly dissolve into the Haves and the Have-nots. (And sadly, Cal is in the latter group.)

CalLifer said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

No wonder I've been losing interest in college sports. Think of all the good things people could do with that money. Instead they waste it on entertainment. I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and if I had an extra million dollars, the shelter would get a check. I wouldn't waste it on sports. .

---

I'm curious as to why people wasting money on entertainment is causing you such grief now that the players are getting some of it… did it bother you as much years ago when coaches started getting million dollar deals? That's also insane levels of money being wasted.

---

I have always felt that way. I've frequently debated on asking some of our high rollers why they put money toward the programs and whether they give as much to charity, but it always felt rude. And no, I can't wrap my head around why people associated with entertainment get paid as much as they do when social workers and factory workers and people who add true value to society get paid so little. I just don't bring it up ever.

parentswerebears said:

---

I have always felt that way. I've frequently debated on asking some of our high rollers why they put money toward the programs and whether they give as much to charity, but it always felt rude. And no, I can't wrap my head around why people associated with entertainment get paid as much as they do when social workers and factory workers and people who add true value to society get paid so little. I just don't bring it up ever.

---

I consider it unfortunate that more people don't have your priorities. My ideal for people with real money is Melinda French Gates.

HoopDreams said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

No wonder I've been losing interest in college sports. Think of all the good things people could do with that money. Instead they waste it on entertainment. I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and if I had an extra million dollars, the shelter would get a check. I wouldn't waste it on sports. .

---

I'm curious as to why people wasting money on entertainment is causing you such grief now that the players are getting some of it… did it bother you as much years ago when coaches started getting million dollar deals? That's also insane levels of money being wasted.

---

your question was not to me, but I'll chime in...

I have no issue with players getting compensation ... I think they should

but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports

these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.

if winning and losing is only about what school can pull together the $100M fund because they have some mega donors, and that anyone else is at a big disadvantage than it is less interesting to some of us fans.

With 100% free agency all the time and NIL war chests commanding the market, I see it just as a minor league pro sports league, and less and less compatibility with college sports and the University mission

But that's ok, I'm sure they won't miss me

---

I'm not trying to pick on you HD, but when was there ever competitive balance in terms of the amount of money available to different programs? There have always been programs that had access to infinitely more money than others. NIL is not creating any imbalances that didn't already exist. Will it exacerbate them? Yeah, maybe. But I'm less going to complain about these things when players finally are getting a piece of the pie. Should there be a little more structure around transfers, and maybe windows of time where that is allowed? Yeah, probably. I'm guessing those things will happen as this new Wild West evolves…. Or we will get to a super-league of the top programs.

parentswerebears said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

No wonder I've been losing interest in college sports. Think of all the good things people could do with that money. Instead they waste it on entertainment. I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and if I had an extra million dollars, the shelter would get a check. I wouldn't waste it on sports. .

---

I'm curious as to why people wasting money on entertainment is causing you such grief now that the players are getting some of it… did it bother you as much years ago when coaches started getting million dollar deals? That's also insane levels of money being wasted.

---

I have always felt that way. I've frequently debated on asking some of our high rollers why they put money toward the programs and whether they give as much to charity, but it always felt rude. And no, I can't wrap my head around why people associated with entertainment get paid as much as they do when social workers and factory workers and people who add true value to society get paid so little. I just don't bring it up ever.

---

I don't think it's really a judgment on their value to society that results in entertainers being paid what they are, it's just that it's really easy to get a handle on the revenue they generate while the same is nearly impossible for someone who works in the public service sector like a high school chemistry teacher.

62bear said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

No wonder I've been losing interest in college sports. Think of all the good things people could do with that money. Instead they waste it on entertainment. I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and if I had an extra million dollars, the shelter would get a check. I wouldn't waste it on sports. .

---

I'm curious as to why people wasting money on entertainment is causing you such grief now that the players are getting some of it… did it bother you as much years ago when coaches started getting million dollar deals? That's also insane levels of money being wasted.

---

I have always felt that way. I've frequently debated on asking some of our high rollers why they put money toward the programs and whether they give as much to charity, but it always felt rude. And no, I can't wrap my head around why people associated with entertainment get paid as much as they do when social workers and factory workers and people who add true value to society get paid so little. I just don't bring it up ever.

---

I don't think it's really a judgment on their value to society that results in entertainers being paid what they are, it's just that it's really easy to get a handle on the revenue they generate while the same is nearly impossible for someone who works in the public service sector like a high school chemistry teacher.

---

True. But if what to see what's important to a society, follow the money. Bread and Circuses

CalLifer said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

No wonder I've been losing interest in college sports. Think of all the good things people could do with that money. Instead they waste it on entertainment. I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and if I had an extra million dollars, the shelter would get a check. I wouldn't waste it on sports. .

---

I'm curious as to why people wasting money on entertainment is causing you such grief now that the players are getting some of it… did it bother you as much years ago when coaches started getting million dollar deals? That's also insane levels of money being wasted.

---

your question was not to me, but I'll chime in...

I have no issue with players getting compensation ... I think they should

but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports

these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.

if winning and losing is only about what school can pull together the $100M fund because they have some mega donors, and that anyone else is at a big disadvantage than it is less interesting to some of us fans.

With 100% free agency all the time and NIL war chests commanding the market, I see it just as a minor league pro sports league, and less and less compatibility with college sports and the University mission

But that's ok, I'm sure they won't miss me

---

I'm not trying to pick on you HD, but when was there ever competitive balance in terms of the amount of money available to different programs? There have always been programs that had access to infinitely more money than others. NIL is not creating any imbalances that didn't already exist. Will it exacerbate them? Yeah, maybe. But I'm less going to complain about these things when players finally are getting a piece of the pie. Should there be a little more structure around transfers, and maybe windows of time where that is allowed? Yeah, probably. I'm guessing those things will happen as this new Wild West evolves…. Or we will get to a super-league of the top programs.

---

Scholarship limits were an attempt to help with competitive balance. Might as well do away with the limits at this point. Who are we to limit the number of available schollies to student-athletes? Oh, wait, apparently there is no value in them anyway. Maybe we should just do away with them altogether.

I still wonder what happens on a team where the stud QB, who has a NIL deal with "Company A" throws preferentially to his WR who also has a NIL deal with "CompanyA" and ignores another WR/TE who has a NIL deal with "CompanyB". What's the coach going to do?

This scenario is probably more likely in college basketball, where play is much less scripted and players have more control of what actually happens. One player can literally dictate play. The motive is obvious - if successful, it enhances the brands for the two players and their sponsoring company. Of course, the coach has now lost control, especially if the two players are really good, and team chemistry goes down the toilet.

Then the next step is when two players from competing teams who have NIL deals from the same company play just a little softer defense against each other . . .

62bear said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

No wonder I've been losing interest in college sports. Think of all the good things people could do with that money. Instead they waste it on entertainment. I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and if I had an extra million dollars, the shelter would get a check. I wouldn't waste it on sports. .

---

I'm curious as to why people wasting money on entertainment is causing you such grief now that the players are getting some of it… did it bother you as much years ago when coaches started getting million dollar deals? That's also insane levels of money being wasted.

---

I have always felt that way. I've frequently debated on asking some of our high rollers why they put money toward the programs and whether they give as much to charity, but it always felt rude. And no, I can't wrap my head around why people associated with entertainment get paid as much as they do when social workers and factory workers and people who add true value to society get paid so little. I just don't bring it up ever.

---

I don't think it's really a judgment on their value to society that results in entertainers being paid what they are, it's just that it's really easy to get a handle on the revenue they generate while the same is nearly impossible for someone who works in the public service sector like a high school chemistry teacher.

---

I think more than that, personal value comes down to do with how replaceable you are.

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

No wonder I've been losing interest in college sports. Think of all the good things people could do with that money. Instead they waste it on entertainment. I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and if I had an extra million dollars, the shelter would get a check. I wouldn't waste it on sports. .

---

I'm curious as to why people wasting money on entertainment is causing you such grief now that the players are getting some of it… did it bother you as much years ago when coaches started getting million dollar deals? That's also insane levels of money being wasted.

---

your question was not to me, but I'll chime in...

I have no issue with players getting compensation ... I think they should

but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports

these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.

if winning and losing is only about what school can pull together the $100M fund because they have some mega donors, and that anyone else is at a big disadvantage than it is less interesting to some of us fans.

With 100% free agency all the time and NIL war chests commanding the market, I see it just as a minor league pro sports league, and less and less compatibility with college sports and the University mission

But that's ok, I'm sure they won't miss me

---

I'm not trying to pick on you HD, but when was there ever competitive balance in terms of the amount of money available to different programs? There have always been programs that had access to infinitely more money than others. NIL is not creating any imbalances that didn't already exist. Will it exacerbate them? Yeah, maybe. But I'm less going to complain about these things when players finally are getting a piece of the pie. Should there be a little more structure around transfers, and maybe windows of time where that is allowed? Yeah, probably. I'm guessing those things will happen as this new Wild West evolves…. Or we will get to a super-league of the top programs.

---

Scholarship limits were an attempt to help with competitive balance. Might as well do away with the limits at this point. Who are we to limit the number of available schollies to student-athletes? Oh, wait, apparently there is no value in them anyway. Maybe we should just do away with them altogether.

---

aren't scholarship limits basically functionally gone? If a school hits the scholarship limits why wouldn't it just NIL the money to cover the cost of tuition, etc to the next guy? There's some explanation that has to happen and there's probably some status and a few other rules that'd have to be worked around but that seems overcome able. If you're offered a scholarship to school A or a preferred walk on spot plus $100K/year to school B it seems like school B isn't a bad choice.

HoopDreams said:

---

but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports

these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.

---

Can't analogize college sports to pro sports. The team owners in NFL, NBA, etc. are in business together with the other owners in their own league. The teams compete on the field, but off the field the 49ers and Rams and all the other NFL teams are partners in a multi-billion-dollar business.

USC and San Diego State are not in business together. To a much lesser extent than the NFL or NBA, the members of a single conference are in business together, but that's as far as it goes.

It is not important to Ohio State that Kent State or Minnesota be able to compete toe-to-toe with the Buckeyes. In fact, Ohio State benefits from having a huge pool of teams that claim to be at the same level but are there for Ohio State to beat in football at least 9,999 times out of 10,000. The entire business model of college football "franchises" like Ohio State or Alabama is to rake in the money by hopefully winning at least 10 games every year, and it's much easier to do that if, like those teams, you play 4 games against teams you beat pretty much every time, 6 games against teams you beat 90% of the time, and 2 games that you win 50-75% of the time.

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports

these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.

---

Can't analogize college sports to pro sports. The team owners in NFL, NBA, etc. are in business together with the other owners in their own league. The teams compete on the field, but off the field the 49ers and Rams and all the other NFL teams are partners in a multi-billion-dollar business.

USC and San Diego State are not in business together. To a much lesser extent than the NFL or NBA, the members of a single conference are in business together, but that's as far as it goes.

It is not important to Ohio State that Kent State or Minnesota be able to compete toe-to-toe with the Buckeyes. In fact, Ohio State benefits from having a huge pool of teams that claim to be at the same level but are there for Ohio State to beat in football at least 9,999 times out of 10,000. The entire business model of college football "franchises" like Ohio State or Alabama is to rake in the money by hopefully winning at least 10 games every year, and it's much easier to do that if, like those teams, you play 4 games against teams you beat pretty much every time, 6 games against teams you beat 90% of the time, and 2 games that you win 50-75% of the time.

---

No but.....

The real problem is NOT Kent state vs. tOSU. It is Cal vs. USC. The real issue is whether this mirrors the issues that emerged during the 1960s and 1970s - a time when the NCAA was weaker on the enforcement front (as well as no scholarship limits) and USC would routinely beat Cal by 7 or 8 TDs and the Bears would not score a point.

Now Cal getting crushed is of little concern. But if Oregon and USC are the ONLY Pac-12 teams that play this game (which is NOT an unlikely situation) what sort of product is put out on the field when you do not have compelling TV - when you have either blow outs (which is the likely product that is TV'ed) or games featuring the "other guys".

Then factor in that BETTING is a huge driver of TV viewership and games with lines of -35 just are not attractive bets.

That is the real danger - that NILs create deep gaps WITHIN conferences and make for less interesting TV (and gate) and that this, in turn, exacerbates AD deficits and forces real questions about revenue sports and colleges.

I honestly do not believe Cal will be playing football in a P5 conference in 2032. I hope to be wrong but I think that we are going to long for the days of being 500 fairly shortly and it ISN"T because of Wilcox and ADs but because that Cal just isn't going to be very good in this modern world.

I think BB will be even worse. Football is such a brutal game that I think there are a fair number of players who think about it as a ticket to getting a degree. Plus the lack anything other than the NFL and a bad union really do lead to a much greater focus using the game to advance other goals. BB, on the other hand, is not a sport where you are one play from having your career end and even if you do not make it in the NLF you can get a middle class lifestyle playing overseas (and see the world ;-). My guess is that the worst issues in NIL are there.

As a side note - I am going to be VERY interested to see if there is any blow back at the regents/President level when UCLA basketball goes all in. Really it is the first newspaper story about recruits/frosh being minted with 6 or 7 figure NILs. I could see a push at the regents level for UCLA to unilaterally disarm.

socaltownie said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I still wonder what happens on a team where the stud QB, who has a NIL deal with "Company A" throws preferentially to his WR who also has a NIL deal with "CompanyA" and ignores another WR/TE who has a NIL deal with "CompanyB". What's the coach going to do?

This scenario is probably more likely in college basketball, where play is much less scripted and players have more control of what actually happens. One player can literally dictate play. The motive is obvious - if successful, it enhances the brands for the two players and their sponsoring company. Of course, the coach has now lost control, especially if the two players are really good, and team chemistry goes down the toilet.

Then the next step is when two players from competing teams who have NIL deals from the same company play just a little softer defense against each other . . .

---

LOL. This assume that this is about actually marketing/endorsements. Silly goose. This is ONLY about a "legal" way for alumni to do what they have been wanting to do for 50 years - directly pay recruits so that Good Old Tech competes for a national championship.

Simply stop thinking about it that way. This is about paying players to play for school X.

---

You're right - what was I thinking?

boredom said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

No wonder I've been losing interest in college sports. Think of all the good things people could do with that money. Instead they waste it on entertainment. I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and if I had an extra million dollars, the shelter would get a check. I wouldn't waste it on sports. .

---

I'm curious as to why people wasting money on entertainment is causing you such grief now that the players are getting some of it… did it bother you as much years ago when coaches started getting million dollar deals? That's also insane levels of money being wasted.

---

your question was not to me, but I'll chime in...

I have no issue with players getting compensation ... I think they should

but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports

these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.

if winning and losing is only about what school can pull together the $100M fund because they have some mega donors, and that anyone else is at a big disadvantage than it is less interesting to some of us fans.

With 100% free agency all the time and NIL war chests commanding the market, I see it just as a minor league pro sports league, and less and less compatibility with college sports and the University mission

But that's ok, I'm sure they won't miss me

---

I'm not trying to pick on you HD, but when was there ever competitive balance in terms of the amount of money available to different programs? There have always been programs that had access to infinitely more money than others. NIL is not creating any imbalances that didn't already exist. Will it exacerbate them? Yeah, maybe. But I'm less going to complain about these things when players finally are getting a piece of the pie. Should there be a little more structure around transfers, and maybe windows of time where that is allowed? Yeah, probably. I'm guessing those things will happen as this new Wild West evolves…. Or we will get to a super-league of the top programs.

---

Scholarship limits were an attempt to help with competitive balance. Might as well do away with the limits at this point. Who are we to limit the number of available schollies to student-athletes? Oh, wait, apparently there is no value in them anyway. Maybe we should just do away with them altogether.

---

aren't scholarship limits basically functionally gone? If a school hits the scholarship limits why wouldn't it just NIL the money to cover the cost of tuition, etc to the next guy? There's some explanation that has to happen and there's probably some status and a few other rules that'd have to be worked around but that seems overcome able. If you're offered a scholarship to school A or a preferred walk on spot plus $100K/year to school B it seems like school B isn't a bad choice.

---

Agreed. Might as well get rid of them.

So no one answered my question. Do we have wealthy alumni who are going to pay the athletes we need? If not, why? They are willing to pay huge buy outs to keep changing coaches. Seems like a no brainer to turn the program around. Find kids who can get into acal who are 5. Stars and pay them. What am I missing? Do we have less money than Alabama?

We?

oskidunker said:

---

So no one answered my question. Do we have wealthy alumni who are going to pay the athletes we need? If not, why? They are willing to pay huge buy outs to keep changing coaches. Seems like a no brainer to turn the program around. Find kids who can get into acal who are 5. Stars and pay them. What am I missing? Do we have less money than Alabama?

---

It is an interesting question. So far no visible collective has emerged.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

We?

---

Yes, us Cal fans who depend on Goldman etc

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports

these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.

---

Can't analogize college sports to pro sports. The team owners in NFL, NBA, etc. are in business together with the other owners in their own league. The teams compete on the field, but off the field the 49ers and Rams and all the other NFL teams are partners in a multi-billion-dollar business.

USC and San Diego State are not in business together. To a much lesser extent than the NFL or NBA, the members of a single conference are in business together, but that's as far as it goes.

It is not important to Ohio State that Kent State or Minnesota be able to compete toe-to-toe with the Buckeyes. In fact, Ohio State benefits from having a huge pool of teams that claim to be at the same level but are there for Ohio State to beat in football at least 9,999 times out of 10,000. The entire business model of college football "franchises" like Ohio State or Alabama is to rake in the money by hopefully winning at least 10 games every year, and it's much easier to do that if, like those teams, you play 4 games against teams you beat pretty much every time, 6 games against teams you beat 90% of the time, and 2 games that you win 50-75% of the time.

---

No but.....

The real problem is NOT Kent state vs. tOSU. It is Cal vs. USC. The real issue is whether this mirrors the issues that emerged during the 1960s and 1970s - a time when the NCAA was weaker on the enforcement front (as well as no scholarship limits) and USC would routinely beat Cal by 7 or 8 TDs and the Bears would not score a point.

Now Cal getting crushed is of little concern. But if Oregon and USC are the ONLY Pac-12 teams that play this game (which is NOT an unlikely situation) what sort of product is put out on the field when you do not have compelling TV - when you have either blow outs (which is the likely product that is TV'ed) or games featuring the "other guys".

Then factor in that BETTING is a huge driver of TV viewership and games with lines of -35 just are not attractive bets.

That is the real danger - that NILs create deep gaps WITHIN conferences and make for less interesting TV (and gate) and that this, in turn, exacerbates AD deficits and forces real questions about revenue sports and colleges.

I honestly do not believe Cal will be playing football in a P5 conference in 2032. I hope to be wrong but I think that we are going to long for the days of being 500 fairly shortly and it ISN"T because of Wilcox and ADs but because that Cal just isn't going to be very good in this modern world.

I think BB will be even worse. Football is such a brutal game that I think there are a fair number of players who think about it as a ticket to getting a degree. Plus the lack anything other than the NFL and a bad union really do lead to a much greater focus using the game to advance other goals. BB, on the other hand, is not a sport where you are one play from having your career end and even if you do not make it in the NLF you can get a middle class lifestyle playing overseas (and see the world ;-). My guess is that the worst issues in NIL are there.

As a side note - I am going to be VERY interested to see if there is any blow back at the regents/President level when UCLA basketball goes all in. Really it is the first newspaper story about recruits/frosh being minted with 6 or 7 figure NILs. I could see a push at the regents level for UCLA to unilaterally disarm.

---

I agree with soccal. I don't want Cal to be another Kent State fodder for Ohio State to beat "at least 9,999 times out of 10,000"

On ESPN radio today, the two hosts were discussing NIL. One host was asking if it's okay if 30% of the schools drop football, eliminating 30 team's scholarships, plus many non-revenue sports teams and those scholarships too? He said he was not okay with that.

He said he was for players making money on social media (I agree), but that's not how the majority of NIL money is being used. He said NIL is just buying players.

The other host was on the other side, and said the way NIL works is a good thing. He graduated from Middle Tennessee State, and said if his school can win a national championship with NIL then he's all for it.

Then later he conceded that NIL sucked now, but it will self-correct. That may be true, which is why I'll wait it out for a couple years to see how it shakes out. There are probably reasonable ways to do this which fairly compensates players, while also not crashing the sport.

but I'm not optimistic

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports

these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.

---

Can't analogize college sports to pro sports. The team owners in NFL, NBA, etc. are in business together with the other owners in their own league. The teams compete on the field, but off the field the 49ers and Rams and all the other NFL teams are partners in a multi-billion-dollar business.

USC and San Diego State are not in business together. To a much lesser extent than the NFL or NBA, the members of a single conference are in business together, but that's as far as it goes.

It is not important to Ohio State that Kent State or Minnesota be able to compete toe-to-toe with the Buckeyes. In fact, Ohio State benefits from having a huge pool of teams that claim to be at the same level but are there for Ohio State to beat in football at least 9,999 times out of 10,000. The entire business model of college football "franchises" like Ohio State or Alabama is to rake in the money by hopefully winning at least 10 games every year, and it's much easier to do that if, like those teams, you play 4 games against teams you beat pretty much every time, 6 games against teams you beat 90% of the time, and 2 games that you win 50-75% of the time.

---

No but.....

The real problem is NOT Kent state vs. tOSU. It is Cal vs. USC. The real issue is whether this mirrors the issues that emerged during the 1960s and 1970s - a time when the NCAA was weaker on the enforcement front (as well as no scholarship limits) and USC would routinely beat Cal by 7 or 8 TDs and the Bears would not score a point.

Now Cal getting crushed is of little concern. But if Oregon and USC are the ONLY Pac-12 teams that play this game (which is NOT an unlikely situation) what sort of product is put out on the field when you do not have compelling TV - when you have either blow outs (which is the likely product that is TV'ed) or games featuring the "other guys".

Then factor in that BETTING is a huge driver of TV viewership and games with lines of -35 just are not attractive bets.

That is the real danger - that NILs create deep gaps WITHIN conferences and make for less interesting TV (and gate) and that this, in turn, exacerbates AD deficits and forces real questions about revenue sports and colleges.

---

1) I mentioned Minnesota above -- they're in the same position wrt Ohio State that Cal is in wrt USC. Really almost everyone in the Big Ten is. Since the Big Ten started east/west divisions in football, Ohio State has won 93% of its games against the seven west division teams. That won't change, because those teams can't keep up with Buckeye boosters using NIL to get better football players to Columbus.

2) If the Pac-12 has 2 or 3 teams that out-NIL the rest, then the same is likely to happen in the Big Ten. Maybe the SEC will have half a dozen teams that go big on NIL. The ACC will have 2 or 3 at most, and their conference would suffer most because they have the most number of really weak football teams.

3) Having said all of that, I don't think the win-loss outcomes will be much different than today. USC, when they have a really good coaching staff and not a bumbling staff, is going to have a much higher average talent level than Cal with or without NIL. Same for Ohio State over Minnesota, Alabama over Missouri, etc., etc. The same group of elite recruits are going to end up at the same small group of teams, only they'll get paid something above the table now.

I had season tickets and went to every game except usc and Arizona because I knew we had no chance. I guessed right.