New recruit Petty $800,000 per year NIL

[roadkill]

Please, please, please define what parity is and how you would ever expect that under table money is not happening in a clearly unregulated situation? For the love of God, have mercy on all of us, please?

I would like to respond to the content of your post but it's just too incoherent. Instead, I'll just quote @forensicbuzz:

No, you've got a real hot take here and in the other thread you were posting in, and you seem to be lumping different responses all together.

 

[Bennett]

I highly doubt we are paying Josh Petty $800,000 a year in NIL money. If you go on the On3 website it has an estimate of what the players NIL value is. His says $385,000. Most likely that number was put in by an FSU insider to make them feel better about missing on him. Just 2 cents.

 

[RonJohn]

I highly doubt we are paying Josh Petty $800,000 a year in NIL money. If you go on the On3 website it has an estimate of what the players NIL value is. His says $385,000. Most likely that number was put in by an FSU insider to make them feel better about missing on him. Just 2 cents.

It was On3 who posted the $800k number. All of the reporting about NIL money is sketchy, or at least unreliable at best.

 

[Bennett]

It was On3 who posted the $800k number. All of the reporting about NIL money is sketchy, or at least unreliable at best.

I know. It was FSUs On3 guy.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Musical and forensic, both great posts. But please remember your angst of today over this system is the same angst many, like me, have felt all throughout our college football fandom. That you guys are now waking up to the absolute corrupt system doesn’t mean the system will implode or is not sustainable. I’ve been hoping it would implode for over 30 years now because watching these schools beat their chest over bought and paid for National and conference titles has made me puke for decades.

NIL is just the latest iteration and schools will have to decide how they want to handle this iteration just like they had to decide on how nice to make their athletic dorms, meal halls, and bagmen. Schools like GT obviously decided not to play the bagman and facilities game on the level of others and we have paid a dear price going from a top 10 program to an afterthought. NIL simply takes away the worry of getting smacked by the NCAA if a school does decide to enter the bagman fray. Clearly, GT has, which is why we are about to have one of the top recruiting classes in our history.

But the money and fans are there so the sport itself is not going to implode and the model is clearly sustainable because there will always be fans willing to spend their disposable cash to win a game. Sure, some fans may be disgusted enough to walk away, but right now today we have portal guys all over the starting lineup and we have NIL guys all over the starting lineup and I don’t see an6 GT fans looking to boycott next Saturday.

The first part (underlined) is a huge assumption on your part, the rest is your opinion (and mine too) because we're in unchartered territory.

In my opinion, the system is going to implode. It has to, because it is unsustainable as it is. As others join the melee, the arms race will change the game (not saying for better or worse, but I believe worse).

 

[WreckinGT]

I know. It was FSUs On3 guy.

Pete Nakos isn't assigned to any team. He reports on business and NIL of aspects in college football in general. He has recent articles covering a wide range of teams.

 

[stinger78]

This is a common misconception about the root cause of the NIL rulings. OBannon was about EA Sports using players' image and likeness for their video games without compensation to the athletes because the NCAA wouldn't allow it. EA Sports and the Collegiate Licensing Company settled out of court but the NCAA stuck to their guns. They lost the case, resulting in athletes now being allowed to have paid sponsorships, agents, etc. Why did they lose the case? Because the NCAA's "amateurism" rules were clearly illegal.

There is a tie here to the recently released NCAA 2025 video game. The last prior release of the game was 2014. EA Sports had to wait until the fog had cleared on NIL payments to athletes before releasing a new one. All our FB players whose names and likenesses were used in the game got $600 checks, something that the NCAA wouldn't have allowed earlier.


I'm not following you here. How is an "unwritten notion" legal? By NCAA decree?

Some posters have taken the position that an athlete's scholarship and ancillary benefits are ample compensation. I get that, but you're missing the point. The legal issue isn't that athletes were denied any compensation at all, but instead that they were illegally prohibited via the NCAA's monopoly power from any additional compensation, such as for someone using their image in a promotion or product. The NCAA was essentially saying "Here's your compensation in the form of a scholarship - if you don't like it and think you're entitled to more, too bad because we won't allow it."

The fact that "NIL" has now become code for what is arguably "pay to play" and is potentially bringing a host of other issues to the sport doesn't take away from the fact that the NCAA had been getting away with an illegal restraint of trade for years. Had they been proactive instead of reactive, they might have been able to get ahead of the issue and mitigate the mess it has become.

1. Yes, O’Bannon was about EA use of his image on their NCAA basketball game.

2. An unwritten legal notion is a concept that is accepted to the point that it is simply not challenged. The reserve clause in MLB is an example. For decades MLB operated under a reserve clause that restricted movement of players. Finally, Curt Flood challenged it and it was eventually struck down. Are we to assume that MLB operated unlawfully for all those decades? No. The legal landscape changed and then it became challengeable in court.

 

[roadkill]

1. Yes, O’Bannon was about EA use of his image on their NCAA basketball game.

2. An unwritten legal notion is a concept that is accepted to the point that it is simply not challenged. The reserve clause in MLB is an example. For decades MLB operated under a reserve clause that restricted movement of players. Finally, Curt Flood challenged it and it was eventually struck down. Are we to assume that MLB operated unlawfully for all those decades? No. The legal landscape changed and then it became challengeable in court.

1. Sounds like you agree now that NIL wasn’t a result of players just wanting a piece of the same pie that was paying coaches ever larger amounts.
2. There are concepts accepted as law that aren’t written down as law. But MLB’s Reserve Clause isn’t a good example of an illegal concept that was accepted as legal. MLB has an antitrust exemption, so they’ve been able to do things that are considered illegal in other sports. Curt Flood took MLB to court over the Reserve Clause and lost. It took years of negotiation and arbitration with the player’s union before the Reserve Clause was abandoned.

You seem to be arguing that the NIL situation is an example of something no longer accepted as legal due to a changing legal landscape. This is not the case. The laws making the NCAA’s restrictions on player compensation illegal have been on the books for many decades. Obannon was filed in 2009. I don't know if there were any challenges before then. Court cases take time, especially if they are appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean there wasn't illegal activity taking place prior to the case being decided, or even filed.

 

[stinger78]

1. Sounds like you agree now that NIL wasn’t a result of players just wanting a piece of the same pie that was paying coaches ever larger amounts.
2. There are concepts accepted as law that aren’t written down as law. But MLB’s Reserve Clause isn’t a good example of an illegal concept that was accepted as legal. MLB has an antitrust exemption, so they’ve been able to do things that are considered illegal in other sports. Curt Flood took MLB to court over the Reserve Clause and lost. It took years of negotiation and arbitration with the player’s union before the Reserve Clause was abandoned.

You seem to be arguing that the NIL situation is an example of something no longer accepted as legal due to a changing legal landscape. This is not the case. The laws making the NCAA’s restrictions on player compensation illegal have been on the books for many decades. Obannon was filed in 2009. I don't know if there were any challenges before then. Court cases take time, especially if they are appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean there wasn't illegal activity taking place prior to the case being decided, or even filed.

NIL emerged from a multi-faceted attack on the concept of amateurism. That includes, but is not limited to, a small handful of challenges by athletes. As decisions have piled up, largely since 1984, the concept of a tacit exemption due to protection of amateurism gradually faded away. Finally, challenges by O'Bannon (NIL vis. gaming images) and Alston (NCAA's non-cash compensation rule) were the ones that hit at the right time and popped the cork.

College athletics stipends have been offered for about 150 years now in some form or other, with athletic scholarships created in 1950. There have been court decisions all along the way that declined to view the student-athlete in light of the Sherman Act. This is the "notion" that I refer to.

Here's a 2007 article from the Oregon Law Review discussing the history of the NCAA vis. Sherman. Quite interesting indeed. You'll notice that the concept of amateurism was the restraint largely keeping the NCAA free of Sherman application.

A couple of excerpts:
"Conventional judicial wisdom suggests that NCAA regulations fall into two general categories: (1) rules designed to promote and preserve the eligibility and amateur status of student athletes; and (2) other forms of regulation with a more economic purpose." [329]

"Courts tend to routinely validate restrictions allegedly designed to promote the goal of amateurism, while other NCAA rules and regulations are subject to closer judicial scrutiny." [329]

"In 1916, the NCAA defined the “amateur athlete” as “one who participates in competitive physical sports only for the pleasure, and the physical, mental, moral, and social benefits directly derived therefrom.” [331]

"The tremendous growth in popularity of college football beginning in the 1920s apparently made actual enforcement of the NCAA amateur code so difficult that it “presented a dilemma not unlike the one posed by the Eighteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where in it prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages.” [332]

"Consequently, in 1948, the NCAA took a significant step by adopting the so-called Sanity Code in an effort to develop a meaningful enforcement mechanism to assure compliance with its rules and regulations. The Sanity Code restricted financial aid to student-athletes by requiring that recipients utilize the “normal channels” that other students were compelled to follow. [332]

"From an antitrust perspective, this attempt to secure concerted action from NCAA member institutions also laid the foundation for, and increased the likelihood of, Sherman Act challenges to rules and regulations that arguably restrained competitive forces in the marketplace." [333}

"The Sanity Code did not enjoy a long life; in fact, within two years the Code was dead." [333]

"Prior to the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in NCAA v. Board of Regents, very few antitrust claims had been asserted against the NCAA. Courts tended to be dismissive of antitrust challenges to NCAA rules and regulations and often focused on the NCAA’s alleged noncommercial objectives. Federal judges resisted the idea of interfering with what was perceived to be a legitimate effort to promote amateurism and fair competition in NCAA athletics. Even when the plaintiff was not a student athlete challenging amateurism or eligibility standards, the NCAA generally prevailed." [337]

"Importantly, the Supreme Court implicitly determined that the NCAA is not a single entity by applying section 1 of the Sherman Act to the collective actions of the NCAA member institutions." [338]

"In the wake of the relatively few federal district and appellate court antitrust decisions dealing with allegedly anticompetitive NCAA practices, the Supreme Court decided Board of Regents. In the context of an antitrust challenge to the NCAA’s college football television plan, the Supreme Court set the stage for the modern dichotomous approach to antitrust analysis of NCAA regulatory activity. The issue of academic and economic regulation of college athletes was not directly before the Court, but the majority opinion nevertheless laid a strong foundation for subsequent arguments that the antitrust laws should not invalidate restraints on competition for the services of NCAA student-athletes." [339]

 

[Beeski]

I think we are now able to go against the Factories and their NIL funds, because the GTAA is able / required to spend $20mil/year directly to student-athletes as part of the NIL agreement being worked out. This means the baseline is $20mil, I assume the factories can spend more with their private NIL monies.

"The agreement includes a revenue-sharing plan allowing each school to share up to roughly $20 million per year with its athletes, sources said."

NCAA, Power 5 agree to let schools pay players

The NCAA and its leagues are moving forward with a multibillion-dollar settlement agreement that will allow schools to directly pay players for the first time in the history of college sports.

www.espn.com

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

The first part (underlined) is a huge assumption on your part, the rest is your opinion (and mine too) because we're in unchartered territory.

In my opinion, the system is going to implode. It has to, because it is unsustainable as it is. As others join the melee, the arms race will change the game (not saying for better or worse, but I believe worse).

So what metric do you have that leads you to believe the system is going to implode? I don’t necessarily like where it’s going either but the ratings are up, the expanded playoffs will allow more fanbases to stay in the hunt longer, and a real post season will create an entire month (December) of meaningful football instead of a few weeks of garbage bowl games.

Why does having more teams now able to pay players less sustainable than the old system where about 20 schools paid players? That system lasted for roughly 50 years since I figure it was somewhere in the early 70’s when it started. We know by 1979 it was rolling because Herschel told us. I know inducements started much earlier than that but I figure straight cash started in the 70’s. As a GT fan I am extremely happy that we are giving NIL to Haynes King, Jamaal Haynes, Singleton, and others. Without it we’d be looking at another 3 win season and the stadium would be empty because these players would have transferred out.

I guess we’ll find out if it’s sustainable over the next couple of decades. I remember when everyone said free agency would kill pro sports. And the angst with the first 100million baseball contract (GT’s Kevin Brown), then the angst with the first 200million contract, and then 300million (Machado). Now Shohei signed for 700million and Soto will be in the 500million range soon. Point is, it is sustainable because as a country we have more disposable income than sense. The minute we have a real war, I agree it will all crash down but at that point no one will care who won a game.

 

[roadkill]

NIL emerged from a multi-faceted attack on the concept of amateurism. That includes, but is not limited to, a small handful of challenges by athletes. As decisions have piled up, largely since 1984, the concept of a tacit exemption due to protection of amateurism gradually faded away. Finally, challenges by O'Bannon (NIL vis. gaming images) and Alston (NCAA's non-cash compensation rule) were the ones that hit at the right time and popped the cork.

College athletics stipends have been offered for about 150 years now in some form or other, with athletic scholarships created in 1950. There have been court decisions all along the way that declined to view the student-athlete in light of the Sherman Act. This is the "notion" that I refer to.

Here's a 2007 article from the Oregon Law Review discussing the history of the NCAA vis. Sherman. Quite interesting indeed. You'll notice that the concept of amateurism was the restraint largely keeping the NCAA free of Sherman application.

A couple of excerpts:
"Conventional judicial wisdom suggests that NCAA regulations fall into two general categories: (1) rules designed to promote and preserve the eligibility and amateur status of student athletes; and (2) other forms of regulation with a more economic purpose." [329]

"Courts tend to routinely validate restrictions allegedly designed to promote the goal of amateurism, while other NCAA rules and regulations are subject to closer judicial scrutiny." [329]

"In 1916, the NCAA defined the “amateur athlete” as “one who participates in competitive physical sports only for the pleasure, and the physical, mental, moral, and social benefits directly derived therefrom.” [331]

"The tremendous growth in popularity of college football beginning in the 1920s apparently made actual enforcement of the NCAA amateur code so difficult that it “presented a dilemma not unlike the one posed by the Eighteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where in it prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages.” [332]

"Consequently, in 1948, the NCAA took a significant step by adopting the so-called Sanity Code in an effort to develop a meaningful enforcement mechanism to assure compliance with its rules and regulations. The Sanity Code restricted financial aid to student-athletes by requiring that recipients utilize the “normal channels” that other students were compelled to follow. [332]

"From an antitrust perspective, this attempt to secure concerted action from NCAA member institutions also laid the foundation for, and increased the likelihood of, Sherman Act challenges to rules and regulations that arguably restrained competitive forces in the marketplace." [333}

"The Sanity Code did not enjoy a long life; in fact, within two years the Code was dead." [333]

"Prior to the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in NCAA v. Board of Regents, very few antitrust claims had been asserted against the NCAA. Courts tended to be dismissive of antitrust challenges to NCAA rules and regulations and often focused on the NCAA’s alleged noncommercial objectives. Federal judges resisted the idea of interfering with what was perceived to be a legitimate effort to promote amateurism and fair competition in NCAA athletics. Even when the plaintiff was not a student athlete challenging amateurism or eligibility standards, the NCAA generally prevailed." [337]

"Importantly, the Supreme Court implicitly determined that the NCAA is not a single entity by applying section 1 of the Sherman Act to the collective actions of the NCAA member institutions." [338]

"In the wake of the relatively few federal district and appellate court antitrust decisions dealing with allegedly anticompetitive NCAA practices, the Supreme Court decided Board of Regents. In the context of an antitrust challenge to the NCAA’s college football television plan, the Supreme Court set the stage for the modern dichotomous approach to antitrust analysis of NCAA regulatory activity. The issue of academic and economic regulation of college athletes was not directly before the Court, but the majority opinion nevertheless laid a strong foundation for subsequent arguments that the antitrust laws should not invalidate restraints on competition for the services of NCAA student-athletes." [339]

Thanks for sharing the historical references on this issue, which better explains your point about legal attitudes changing. I learned something. I also surmise that challenges to the NCAA’s position have evolved into more convincing arguments before the courts in the light of past decisions. I modify my point that the NCAA’s restraints on S-A NIL compensation have only been found to be illegal since the OBannon decision. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country.

Back to today - the NIL genie is out of the bottle, and it's going to be next to impossible to put it back in without running afoul of antitrust. And even if a way were found to level the playing field for the players, that wouldn’t stop the arms race in coaching salaries and facilities. We can complain about the way the game is played and its inherent unfairness, but what solutions are available to us if we still want to play?

 

[roadkill]

This is not a job, but you can’t take a job

Great quote - love the irony in that statement. The arrogance of the NCAA, and by association, its member institutions, is a reason for the situation the sport is in today. Had they made reasonable rules, they might still apply.

 

[stinger78]

Great quote - love the irony in that statement. The arrogance of the NCAA, and by association, its member institutions, is a reason for the situation the sport is in today. Had they made reasonable rules, they might still apply.

They were certainly given every opportunity by the courts throughout the 20th century to do so, but I have to think in the end it was really all just fool's gold. Given our litigious society today and the explosion of dollars into the system, I consider it nigh on unavoidable.

 

[forensicbuzz]

So what metric do you have that leads you to believe the system is going to implode? I don’t necessarily like where it’s going either but the ratings are up, the expanded playoffs will allow more fanbases to stay in the hunt longer, and a real post season will create an entire month (December) of meaningful football instead of a few weeks of garbage bowl games.

Why does having more teams now able to pay players less sustainable than the old system where about 20 schools paid players? That system lasted for roughly 50 years since I figure it was somewhere in the early 70’s when it started. We know by 1979 it was rolling because Herschel told us. I know inducements started much earlier than that but I figure straight cash started in the 70’s. As a GT fan I am extremely happy that we are giving NIL to Haynes King, Jamaal Haynes, Singleton, and others. Without it we’d be looking at another 3 win season and the stadium would be empty because these players would have transferred out.

I guess we’ll find out if it’s sustainable over the next couple of decades. I remember when everyone said free agency would kill pro sports. And the angst with the first 100million baseball contract (GT’s Kevin Brown), then the angst with the first 200million contract, and then 300million (Machado). Now Shohei signed for 700million and Soto will be in the 500million range soon. Point is, it is sustainable because as a country we have more disposable income than sense. The minute we have a real war, I agree it will all crash down but at that point no one will care who won a game.

By implode, I mean collapse under its own weight. This is going to happen because there are no bumpers. Free agency didn't kill pro sports because the owners and the players got together and put upper limits on what could be spent by teams. Unless there are boundaries put in place, it will grow until it collapses, and that's going to happen because these aren't people thinking with their business acumen, they're thinking with their emotions and egos. No school is going to leave the ACC before 2036 (or very close to it) unless the whole system blows up and there are massive realignments into different leagues. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[stinger78]

By implode, I mean collapse under its own weight. This is going to happen because there are no bumpers. Free agency didn't kill pro sports because the owners and the players got together and put upper limits on what could be spent by teams. Unless there are boundaries put in place, it will grow until it collapses, and that's going to happen because these aren't people thinking with their business acumen, they're thinking with their emotions and egos. No school is going to leave the ACC before 2036 (or very close to it) unless the whole system blows up and there are massive realignments into different leagues. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The players will have to unionize to get a CBA.

Boy! I can’t wait for that!

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

By implode, I mean collapse under its own weight. This is going to happen because there are no bumpers. Free agency didn't kill pro sports because the owners and the players got together and put upper limits on what could be spent by teams. Unless there are boundaries put in place, it will grow until it collapses, and that's going to happen because these aren't people thinking with their business acumen, they're thinking with their emotions and egos. No school is going to leave the ACC before 2036 (or very close to it) unless the whole system blows up and there are massive realignments into different leagues. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I hear you. And I agree that certain schools may implode who overpay or get into debt to win. But the sport will not collapse even if the top 20 teams all collapse. Look at past top 20 rankings when you see teams that are nowhere near the top 20 today. The sport didn’t collapse, the names just changed. If Bama, UGA, and others spend their way into collapsing that doesn’t mean everyone will. Just because my neighbor has 30 maxed out credit cards doesn’t mean the system will collapse.

And I’ll gladly buy you dinner in 2036 if no team leaves the ACC between now and then. We can do it when GT plays at Northwestern in a conference game!

 

[RonJohn]

The players will have to unionize to get a CBA.

Boy! I can’t wait for that!

There was already a National Labor Relations Board decision that the Dartmouth basketball players should be categorized as employees and could unionize. Dartmouth is an Ivy League school that doesn't even provide athletic scholarships. It isn't a court decision, and judges might rule differently. However, if you look at the legal definition of employee, student-athletes hit most of the points used to decide whether someone is an employee or not. I am not making any argument about whether they should be categorized as employees or not. I am only stating that if you look at the legal definition, things such as whether they are told when to engage in activities, where to engage in those activities, how to engage in those activities, etc, student-athletes check most of the boxes. I don't see how, from a purely legal standpoint, they are not declared employees at some point unless there is action taken by Congress.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I hear you. And I agree that certain schools may implode who overpay or get into debt to win. But the sport will not collapse even if the top 20 teams all collapse. Look at past top 20 rankings when you see teams that are nowhere near the top 20 today. The sport didn’t collapse, the names just changed. If Bama, UGA, and others spend their way into collapsing that doesn’t mean everyone will. Just because my neighbor has 30 maxed out credit cards doesn’t mean the system will collapse.

And I’ll gladly buy you dinner in 2036 if no team leaves the ACC between now and then. We can do it when GT plays at Northwestern in a conference game!

My comments are NOT that the sport will implode, but that the current system will implode. I agree CFB will always be around.

 

[forensicbuzz]

There was already a National Labor Relations Board decision that the Dartmouth basketball players should be categorized as employees and could unionize. Dartmouth is an Ivy League school that doesn't even provide athletic scholarships. It isn't a court decision, and judges might rule differently. However, if you look at the legal definition of employee, student-athletes hit most of the points used to decide whether someone is an employee or not. I am not making any argument about whether they should be categorized as employees or not. I am only stating that if you look at the legal definition, things such as whether they are told when to engage in activities, where to engage in those activities, how to engage in those activities, etc, student-athletes check most of the boxes. I don't see how, from a purely legal standpoint, they are not declared employees at some point unless there is action taken by Congress.

The schools will just identify them as independent contractors and then don't have to negotiate with their union.