(07-18-2021 05:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-17-2021 01:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 06:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IIRC some believe Congress will rescue the NCAA from the courts by amending the antitrust laws, giving it an exemption in exchange for regulation.

Imo this letter indicates the NCAA does not forsee that kind of rescue.

I dont read it that way. I read it as they have no choice right now. They are literally simply following the ruling that was handed down that the NCAA cannot regulate compensation across multiple conferences. The conferences CAN do so per the ruling (though there is no real logic to that and I suspect that will also be challenged by the players and eventually overturned). Thus, anything having to do with compensation will HAVE to be done at the conference level or not at all. So--of course a change in governance must occur. But that will likely have substantial somewhat predictable fall out. That means there could easily be a complete reshuffle of D1 in terms of pay-for-play schools may no longer be in the same D1 division as "scholarship only" schools. It may mean that some schools are in a pay-for-play league for football and basketball----but are in a "scholarship only" leagues for their non-revenue sports. I think the structure of the NCAA may very well change radically from what it is today.

I agree with your account of what is likely to happen, but think it means what i said. If Emmert was talking to Biden administration officials and Congressional leadership and there was strong movement towards a antitrust rescue, he would be telling conferences "don't panic, no need for the NCAA to make big changes, the rescue is on the way".

But i think he knows it ain't.

Because the sport as we know it has already been destroyed. While there were 10 separate FBS leagues---the biggest race followed in college football as we know it has always been national championship. With each league playing by different rules, the coherent national D1 athletic arena where teams competed within some sort of consistent structure providing for a reasonably level national playing field---is dead. The sport we have followed since the 1960's is essentially gone. It may be that once legislators see what their inaction has done---maybe they offer anti-trust exemption (along with substantial governmental regulation that creates a body designed to protect/negotiate player interests) so the players can be paid while preserving a traditional competitive model. If not---whatever form of college football that emerges from this new pay-for-play era will be radically different from what we have been watching since the 1960's.

What I see as the most likely outcome is a split in D1. There will be a new smaller full on pay-for-play league at the top level of college sports. A scholarship "only" division that resembles the current sport would be the next level down. The "scholarship only" model on a national level will be fine as long as there is a pay-for-play"division" above it. From a market prospective----if none of the pay-for-play schools is willing to sign you as a player---then I'd say thats pretty good market based evidence that your "market value" as a player commodity is that of an "amateur". Thus, the "scholarship only" compensation model is a more than reasonable compensation model for players at the amateur level.

I don't foresee universities ever paying players directly. Then you have to make them employees, let them form unions if they desire, etc. And we're really only talking football and basketball.

I also disagree about the amateur model you seem to mourn. It's not amateur when the two sports bring in billions annually. It's just illegal to do that and not somehow let players profit off the same system. But NIL works fine, in theory. I think reality is it will work for a few stars, and a few willing business-owning boosters with money to burn (plus some inevitable cheaters, as always), not so much for everybody else. But the opportunity is there if the player is good enough, as you say.

As for chasing a football natty with 10 conferences, that has never been real. It's 5 conferences. The latest possibility of a 12 team CFP at least gives the other 5 a sliver of a fighting chance, for the first time.

I think it’s fairly inconsistent to think that think the schools will avoid pay-for-play “because they don’t want it” and then decry the current amateur system as “illegal”. If it’s illegal, then eventually the schools will be forced by the courts to directly compensate the players just as any other business (and you’ve made it clear you believe college football IS a business). The first thing I expect to be challenged is the ruling that "conferences can limit player compensation". That’s an easy one to flip since it’s already been decided previously (see the NFL). If challenged, its pretty likley conferences will be told they can only limit compensation as part of a collective bargaining agreement (thats long ago decided by the courts and is generally seen as established law). The conferences are not going to win that case---which is what Kavanaugh was trying to make clear in his harshly written separate opinion.

The move to straight up pay for play obviously won’t happen voluntarily—but once it does, the split within D1 will be voluntary. Its going to take several years, but—-barring Congressional legislation directly addressing college sports by creating a special niche law governing it—there is really no other way for this play out at this point other than an eventual straight up pay-for-play model. That is where we are headed. It is what it is.