(05-11-2022 01:31 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 12:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 12:18 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:10 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Pete I tend to agree with you...however, just the threat might be enough to bring some sanity to the NIL and portal chaos.

I doubt it.

All of these schools seem to want their cake and eat it, too.

It's easy for all of these schools to bemoan that NIL, the transfer portal and other changes in college sports are negatively impacting their respective academic missions.

However, what's not easy for all of these schools is no longer seeing their football and/or basketball games in prime slots on major TV networks while making tens of millions of dollars per year from their respective conferences. That's what would happen if they become a lower tier version of college sports compared to the "SEC pro model" that you've mentioned here.

If these schools are truly and legitimately fine with the latter (the direct loss of money and exposure by downgrading sports), then more power to them. I don't buy that will happen at all, though - not Stanford, not ND, not Duke, not anyone that's currently in a P5 league. Call me crazy, but unilaterally downgrading money and prestige (which is conferred with P5 membership) isn't something that really wealthy and prestigious schools actively choose to do in anything that they participate in, which would include sports.

Totally understand that but what's the breaking point?
Ex: School earns $40m/year from TV and pays $400m/year of NIL.
Is this a business proposition you would go forward with?

Example seems dumb but NIL is spiraling out of control.
Bama and OSU paid $1m/yr to QBs that added no $ value to their teams/schools in 2021. If Young and Stroud weren't on the team would the schools not receive the TV money? Would the fans not show up to games? They were simply paid to choose those schools to play for. So paying the 7th string OL $40m/yr doesnt seem like the best business move but the market may dictate it.

The school doesn't pay NIL in the first place. This is third party money. That's the first mistake that so many posts seem to make. No school should care whatsoever how much NIL money their players are receiving (and if anything, ought to be encouraging it so it disincentivizes those players from seeking more direct compensation from the schools themselves). A school earning $40 million from TV while their roster is receiving $400 million in NIL compensation is a school that's earning $40 million from TV while paying $0 in NIL compensation (with a lot of happy players that aren't trying to get money directly from the schools). That's essentially the best deal ever for the schools.

I should have been more clear. They don't pay now but will either have to pay in the future under a union model or the third parties that pay (probably donors) will stop donating to the school. It's not like the donors will suddenly do both. Plus avg player will now make more money in college than in the pros.

If the school is doing it, then why are you thinking a school will spend $400 million past revenue?

More importantly, how are they doing that? Who is lending them the cash to do that?

And if schools are doing it, it’s employment, and this is what CBAs are for.

Your example isn’t possible and won’t happen, but there would be upward pressure to spend on players. Some schools may go in the red a little, they already do. But a CBA would be implemented to keep player salaries well below revenue so that other costs can be paid. That CBA could include some NIL inducement language and would actually have a chance of being enforced