NIL, Transfers, and Stratospheric Salaries. What Is the Future of GT Football and College Football in General?

leatherneckjacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
782
Location
Atlanta, GA
If it is, then it would seem to be an issue with the current rules. As recently as last October the NCAA released some clarifications to their interim policies such that schools could now do things like cross-promotion with NIL entities, but as far as I know the rule against using enrollment as a condition (or vice-versa) remains in place. The actual wording from the NCAA publication:
"An NIL agreement between a SA and a booster/NIL entity may not be guaranteed or promised contingent on initial or continuing enrollment at a particular institution."
That just means the NIL entity cannot get into an actual agreement with a SA prior to their entering school. They get around this by telling that there are NIL opportunities once they are in school without coming to an agreement or promising anything specific. They can also make the deals one year in duration to get around the continuing enrollment.
 

Root4GT

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
610
The ncaa can control its members and not the players or coaches = free country

Power 5 FOOTBALL
To put disincentive on large NIL, reduce raiding, we should penalize STOCK PILING OF TALENT 6-8 Schools whose TEAMS WHO DOMINATE THE PLAYOFFS.
Ncaa board of gov can change max allowed number of scholarships and can place restriction who participates in games .
They currently limit the total scholarships to 85 at start of season. They allow more players for scout teams 105 or more and scout team players are allowed to play.
A STARTING IDEA
- based on principal that money flees uncertainty.
1. Increase scholarship limit slightly to 88.
2. Only allow scholarship players to play.
3. In the following year schools in playoffs will receive a reduced scholarship limit associated with level of participation in playoff.
Examplec
The reduction will be spread over a 6 year period as selected by the school.

A starter ratio = make 12 team playoffs loose 3 scholarships, advance loose 3 more, advance loose 3 , advance loose 3.


Some sort of a ratio will make it more difficult to build a dynasty due to repeat success.

No need for congress, lawyers, all in house AND SPREADS the wealth, while making the paying or taking $$$ NIL higher risk ( lower value)

[ pro teams did something like this for long term competition leveling]
We hat is your goal and how does whatever your goal is serve the TV deals that fund college football.

TV folks love Ohio State, Alabama and the other brand names being the best. They don’t give a crap about Miss St, TCU or GT. Money will continue to drive college football. Changes won’t be made that take away eyeballs from live broadcasts.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,159
We hat is your goal and how does whatever your goal is serve the TV deals that fund college football.

TV folks love Ohio State, Alabama and the other brand names being the best. They don’t give a crap about Miss St, TCU or GT. Money will continue to drive college football. Changes won’t be made that take away eyeballs from live broadcasts.
You have no solution to nil, portal and attack my idea w a silly tangent.

Tv is not the old south - wonder where you call home.

You said tcu or miss state - thats silly talk.

Tv market is where the people are = Big 10 pac 12 big 12, east coast.

1 of last 16 champs came from outside old south. Not sustainable.

Pro football have teams spread out in every market.

Please give the tv tangent argument a rest and "p
resent your solution that helps gt "?

Imo, we are at risk - 200,000,000 debt, lowest acc donations, low tv (acc) revenue.

If the tv guys rule, what happens to gt?
 
Last edited:

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,648
Location
North Shore, Chicago
You have no solution to nil, portal and attack my idea w a silly tangent.

Tv is not the old south - wonder where you call home.

You said tcu or miss state - thats silly talk.

Tv market is where the people are = Big 10 pac 12 big 12, east coast.

1 of last 16 champs came from outside old south. Not sustainable.

Pro football have teams spread out in every market.

Please give the tv tangent argument a rest and "p
resent your solution that helps gt "?

Imo, we are at risk - 200,000,000 debt, lowest acc donations, low tv (acc) revenue.

If the tv guys rule, what happens to gt?
If you're a known booster, not allowed to participate in NIL. PERIOD. Get caught, death penalty. Tamper with other teams' players, death penalty. That would stop all the illegal crap.

The problem is no one wants to enforce the rules and no one wants to be the one to call their colleagues on the carpet.
 

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
202
You have no solution to nil, portal and attack my idea w a silly tangent.

Tv is not the old south - wonder where you call home.

You said tcu or miss state - thats silly talk.

Tv market is where the people are = Big 10 pac 12 big 12, east coast.

1 of last 16 champs came from outside old south. Not sustainable.

Pro football have teams spread out in every market.

Please give the tv tangent argument a rest and "p
resent your solution that helps gt "?

Imo, we are at risk - 200,000,000 debt, lowest acc donations, low tv (acc) revenue.

If the tv guys rule, what happens to gt?
I didn’t interpret Root’s response as an attack. You offered a very creative idea and Root pointed out some big holes. Nothing is wrong with that. I like your idea about limiting team size, but I’m not a fan of penalizing teams who win (ie reducing scholarships). Something doesn’t seem right with that.

You can’t restrict what a player can make via NIL (supreme court has ruled on that). What you can do, I think, is limit NIL deals to one year. I think the big NIL dollars dry up for the kids that can’t crack the starting line-up after a year or two. Donors are not going to keep donating money to a NIL deal for kids who aren’t playing. And the reality is, if the kid isn't playing, it's highly likely that the value of his Name, Image and Likeness has been very much reduced.

I also think we should turn back the clock and make the SA sit out a year upon transferring. This should significantly reduce tampering. The SA is still free to transfer to any school they want so you are not restricting movement.

I would also implement a finite time of eligibility for any sport. You have 5 years to play 4 years of any sport - no exceptions. No redshirting, medical hardships, etc. This should reduce the rich schools (with big NIL pockets) from stockpiling talent. The SA is going to want to go somewhere to play if the clock is ticking.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,557
There are a couple of issues
  • Anti-trust: the NCAA never got an anti-trust exemption like the NFL or MLB, so wage-setting across employers is illegal collusion
  • Did I say “employers”?: the NCAA and member institutions tried to have it both ways—they aren’t paying you, it’s a scholarship, so the school is not an employer, but the athletes can’t take money from anyone else. The Supreme Court said “you have to pick”.
  • What is NIL?: there were plenty of examples of NIL prior to the court verdict, and they didn’t look like what we have now. That was “influencer” money. This is just funneling cash to athletes.
1. Can employers put limits on outside income? Sure, many do. The NCAA still hasn’t admitted that this is a job, so they can’t.

2. Can the NCAA enforce common payment standards across member schools—basically a salary cap? Only with an anti-trust exemption.

Any regulations on income will either be a hard cap or a soft cap, so they’ll need agreement of the member schools and congressional support through an anti-trust exemption—or you’ll have multiple leagues with competing standards and pay scales.

We bandy a lot of ideas around here, but none of them will work without addressing those two points.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,159
There are a couple of issues
  • Anti-trust: the NCAA never got an anti-trust exemption like the NFL or MLB, so wage-setting across employers is illegal collusion
  • Did I say “employers”?: the NCAA and member institutions tried to have it both ways—they aren’t paying you, it’s a scholarship, so the school is not an employer, but the athletes can’t take money from anyone else. The Supreme Court said “you have to pick”.
  • What is NIL?: there were plenty of examples of NIL prior to the court verdict, and they didn’t look like what we have now. That was “influencer” money. This is just funneling cash to athletes.
1. Can employers put limits on outside income? Sure, many do. The NCAA still hasn’t admitted that this is a job, so they can’t.

2. Can the NCAA enforce common payment standards across member schools—basically a salary cap? Only with an anti-trust exemption.

Any regulations on income will either be a hard cap or a soft cap, so they’ll need agreement of the member schools and congressional support through an anti-trust exemption—or you’ll have multiple leagues with competing standards and pay scales.

We bandy a lot of ideas around here, but none of them will work without addressing those two points.

My idea for reducing scholarships for excessive cfp participation is workable with no need of lawyers, laws, and all kinds of intrusive enforcement.

Will the ncaa govern itself? It did nothing a decade ago when The Former Prez of gt was prez of board of governors. Probably not.

Any ideas for solutions not needing lawyers, new federal laws and intrusive enforcement are WELCOME.
 

roadkill

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
327
There are a couple of issues
  • Anti-trust: the NCAA never got an anti-trust exemption like the NFL or MLB, so wage-setting across employers is illegal collusion
  • Did I say “employers”?: the NCAA and member institutions tried to have it both ways—they aren’t paying you, it’s a scholarship, so the school is not an employer, but the athletes can’t take money from anyone else. The Supreme Court said “you have to pick”.
  • What is NIL?: there were plenty of examples of NIL prior to the court verdict, and they didn’t look like what we have now. That was “influencer” money. This is just funneling cash to athletes.
1. Can employers put limits on outside income? Sure, many do. The NCAA still hasn’t admitted that this is a job, so they can’t.

2. Can the NCAA enforce common payment standards across member schools—basically a salary cap? Only with an anti-trust exemption.

Any regulations on income will either be a hard cap or a soft cap, so they’ll need agreement of the member schools and congressional support through an anti-trust exemption—or you’ll have multiple leagues with competing standards and pay scales.

We bandy a lot of ideas around here, but none of them will work without addressing those two points.
This may be correct, but I remain hopeful that some alternate means of reining in the "stockpiling of talent", as @iceeater1969 put it, is available to the college game. As you stated, NIL can't really be limited without a special exemption. That leaves the schools themselves as the only entities that can legally have restrictions.

The NCAA has addressed this problem over the years by incrementally creating more restrictive scholarship limits. The NCAA could, for example, again drastically reduce the allowed number of scholly's. This might help some, but the top players now stand to gain more in NIL income than the value of a scholarship, which undermines the limit concept. Also, it would be seen as removing educational opportunities for the lower-tier athletes who otherwise might get a full ride. Thus it would be highly unpopular.

Certainly, the transfer rules can be tweaked/restored to discourage tampering.

I agree with @Root4GT that, ultimately, TV revenue is steering the ship. But I also think that the majority of NCAA member schools want some semblance of parity, or else the market for the product will erode.
Again, restricting and penalizing schools seems to be fair game, as long as the member schools agree via the NCAA or conference affiliations. One restriction in place now is the number of on-field coaches. This rule was passed in response to certain teams gaining an advantage via huge coaching staffs. What if the rule was extended to include off-field staff counts? Is it enforceable? Would it help? Just spitballing here with thoughts in the area of feasible restrictions.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,557
My idea for reducing scholarships for excessive cfp participation is workable with no need of lawyers, laws, and all kinds of intrusive enforcement.

Will the ncaa govern itself? It did nothing a decade ago when The Former Prez of gt was prez of board of governors. Probably not.

Any ideas for solutions not needing lawyers, new federal laws and intrusive enforcement are WELCOME.
I think that would run into both issues—a “soft” or indirect income cap that would need an anti-trust exemption and the need to get member support
 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,490
My idea for reducing scholarships for excessive cfp participation is workable with no need of lawyers, laws, and all kinds of intrusive enforcement.

Will the ncaa govern itself? It did nothing a decade ago when The Former Prez of gt was prez of board of governors. Probably not.

Any ideas for solutions not needing lawyers, new federal laws and intrusive enforcement are WELCOME.

Reducing scholarships will never pass its to easy to counter with "removing oppurtunity from underprivileged people" and that is right that is punishing future kids for current kids success.

Removing the concept of a walk on is probably better and limiting OFF field positions. Cut the support staff to 12 total would go a lot further to limiting factories.

Change the rule for the underclassman transfer portal to only apply the free transfer year if the player has a redshirt (it burns the redshirt but they can play immediately) OR in the case of a coaching change at the head coach or cooardinator level. Otherwise you sit a year. Grad transfers work like they always have.

You do this you limit free agency of contributors but don't penalize kids that are sitting on the bench if they want to leave.

Last change is do away with signing days. All offers are immediately actionable. You can't offer if you aren't willing to sign them that day.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,159
Reducing scholarships will never pass its to easy to counter with "removing oppurtunity from underprivileged people" and that is right that is punishing future kids for current kids success.

Removing the concept of a walk on is probably better and limiting OFF field positions. Cut the support staff to 12 total would go a lot further to limiting factories.

Change the rule for the underclassman transfer portal to only apply the free transfer year if the player has a redshirt (it burns the redshirt but they can play immediately) OR in the case of a coaching change at the head coach or cooardinator level. Otherwise you sit a year. Grad transfers work like they always have.

You do this you limit free agency of contributors but don't penalize kids that are sitting on the bench if they want to leave.

Last change is do away with signing days. All offers are immediately actionable. You can't offer if you aren't willing to sign them that day.
Your ideas infringe on individual rights under state laws - i can leave school so can athlete regardless of class.

Cry fest of what might happen = wah wah cant reduce scholarships from alabama its racist.
Solution
The scholarships reduced by over participation at are paid by over achiever to historically black universisty scholarship pool.
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
158
I don’t think every league has an anti trust exemption, but what they have and the NCAA does not is a contract with the athletes, collectively bargained with the players unions. This goes both ways, with salary minimums not just caps and other benefits. And there have been competing leagues at times, just not able to compete player-wise because there’s carrot too, not just stick.

Compared to that, the NCAA just tried to set terms, not negotiate.
 

IM79

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
346
Reducing scholarships will never pass its to easy to counter with "removing oppurtunity from underprivileged people" and that is right that is punishing future kids for current kids success.

Removing the concept of a walk on is probably better and limiting OFF field positions. Cut the support staff to 12 total would go a lot further to limiting factories.

Change the rule for the underclassman transfer portal to only apply the free transfer year if the player has a redshirt (it burns the redshirt but they can play immediately) OR in the case of a coaching change at the head coach or cooardinator level. Otherwise you sit a year. Grad transfers work like they always have.

You do this you limit free agency of contributors but don't penalize kids that are sitting on the bench if they want to leave.

Last change is do away with signing days. All offers are immediately actionable. You can't offer if you aren't willing to sign them that day.
Y'all are wanting new rules but at the FBS coaches meeting earlier this month here is what was being talked about. "let's blow the thing up." Less rules, not more:


 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,490
Your ideas infringe on individual rights under state laws - i can leave school so can athlete regardless of class.

Cry fest of what might happen = wah wah cant reduce scholarships from alabama its racist.
Solution
The scholarships reduced by over participation at are paid by over achiever to historically black universisty scholarship pool.

They wouldn't be.

Or we just do away with scholarships all together and make them grants with stipulations like an actual contract.
 

CEB

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
915
Y'all are wanting new rules but at the FBS coaches meeting earlier this month here is what was being talked about. "let's blow the thing up." Less rules, not more:


I could read that another way... the guy following the rules just wants everyone to follow the rules too. If current rules aren’t enforceable (or won’t be enforced) make rules that are enforceable / enforced.
I think it’s a commentary on how the current state of college sports is to arbitrarily enforce silly rules while ignoring gaping holes and irregularities in areas that could actually make a difference.
It has been a long time coming and will get worse before it gets better.
 

roadkill

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
327
Your ideas infringe on individual rights under state laws - i can leave school so can athlete regardless of class.

Cry fest of what might happen = wah wah cant reduce scholarships from alabama its racist.
Solution
The scholarships reduced by over participation at are paid by over achiever to historically black universisty scholarship pool.
I don't see how the proposals suggested by @jgtengineer infringe on rights. Athletes are still free to change schools, they just give up a year of eligibility. Similar to the old rule until this year.

Related to the scholarship discussion, something I was not aware of until just now is that the Ivy League, which does not allow athletic scholarships, was able to do so through a special anti-trust exemption granted by Congress. The special exemption was just allowed to expire (Congress isn't interested in renewing it), so the league is reconsidering allowing scholarships. That legal situation may have a bearing on any attempts to tweak the current scholarship limits for D1.
 

roadkill

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
327
I could read that another way... the guy following the rules just wants everyone to follow the rules too. If current rules aren’t enforceable (or won’t be enforced) make rules that are enforceable / enforced.
I think it’s a commentary on how the current state of college sports is to arbitrarily enforce silly rules while ignoring gaping holes and irregularities in areas that could actually make a difference.
It has been a long time coming and will get worse before it gets better.
I think this was Clawson's key point. I don't think he was actually suggesting "no rules", but that rules should factor in the reality that some most coaches take the approach of "If you ain't cheating you ain't trying", so any rules should take enforceability into account. Otherwise, you just end up penalizing the ones who attempt to follow rules.
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,895
Location
Albany Georgia
What would the non-athlete version be? Lose your scholarship for taking an internship? Does the school have the right to prevent an adult student from entering in an otherwise legal contract like that?
If you want to continue down this path, then go to it. I am convinced that this will lead to Tech being increasingly marginalized in a semi pro environment that will cater to college programs willing to pay players exorbitant sums in grooming them to be professional athletes.
 

leatherneckjacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
782
Location
Atlanta, GA
If you want to continue down this path, then go to it. I am convinced that this will lead to Tech being increasingly marginalized in a semi pro environment that will cater to college programs willing to pay players exorbitant sums in grooming them to be professional athletes.
As soon as it becomes clear that it is no longer about developing student-athletes, but exclusively catering to future athletes, I am done.
 

BainbridgeJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,128
As soon as it becomes clear that it is no longer about developing student-athletes, but exclusively catering to future athletes, I am done.
fetchimage
 
Top