TN to add 'talent fee' to all tickets

[roadkill]

Agreed. Except there will also be an another source of compensation. The illegal bagmen. It’s not going away especially with caps in place.

Illegal bagmen may always be involved, but can they compete with basically unlimited NIL? I mean, there's only so much money to go around. Can the $100 handshake compete with the Lambo?

 

[roadkill]

I think a cap is dicey legally but I think the NCAA lawyers are motivated by many of their stakeholder schools to try to avoid a true Wild West AND to try to ignore true collective bargaining. So they’re hail marying.

Imagine if you worked for a company and them and their top competitors all decided to formally cap the salary for your role, in collusion with each other. It would get blown up by the courts when it came out like the Apple/Google no-poaching thing a few years back.

The Supreme Court has hinted strongly that they view it as very close to an employee relationship like a pro sports league or like that Apple example, leading to the assumption by many that this is actually still very challengable.

Hopefully, we should see where this settlement lands fairly soon in legal timeframes, although it could still be months away. Based on the judge's comments, who kicked the NCAA's proposal back to them for improvements, the sticking point in their original proposal had to do with limits on third-party NIL. If they agree to "no-limit" NIL from third parties, they may have a deal.

 

[Techster]

I get that. From the NCAA (emphasis mine): "Any institutional NIL payments would apply toward the 22% cap. Third parties may continue to enter into NIL agreements with student-athletes."

Perhaps it's @Techster that is missing some of the nuances. My back-and-forth argument was based on this blanket statement "There can't be a compensation "cap" (whether NIL, salary, etc.) without collective bargaining..."

You realize you have changed what you're actually trying to argue, right?

This was your reply to my OP:

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Class Action Settlement is sort of a proxy for a collective bargaining agreement. Any athlete can opt out of the settlement, but if they don't, the terms are binding within the bounds of the Class. Also if anyone opts out of the Settlement, they are on their own insofar as litigation against the NCAA is concerned.

How you got to your last statement from that is beyond me.

There is no nuance if you're changing goalposts. Anyhow, this horse has been beat to death. I'm checking out of this one.

 

[cpf2001]

The most effective way to deal with illegal bagmen is to make the bottom 80% of schools in the Big 10/SEC incentives to actually deal with the top 20% cheating. Currently they’re incentivized instead to also cheat to stay above the rest of D1. I don’t think there’s a way to do that short of a super league though.

 

[roadkill]

You realize you have changed what you're actually trying to argue, right?

This was your reply to my OP:

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Class Action Settlement is sort of a proxy for a collective bargaining agreement. Any athlete can opt out of the settlement, but if they don't, the terms are binding within the bounds of the Class. Also if anyone opts out of the Settlement, they are on their own insofar as litigation against the NCAA is concerned.

How you got to your last statement from that is beyond me.

There is no nuance if you're changing goalposts. Anyhow, this horse has been beat to death. I'm checking out of this one.

You're welcome to check out unless you want to continue trying to get in the last word. But your post above begs a response.

I concede that in our initial discourse on this topic, as you quoted above, you expressed confusion over my point (my bad for not being clear). I attempted to clarify that and directly quoted your statement that I was having an issue with. You subsequently expressed an understanding of my point. You also created a slight tangent to this point concerning how a class action could not affect future employees. We had a couple of exchanges to this tangent, which may have clouded my original point.

I’ve tried to be consistent with my argument that the NCAA proposal includes a cap, regardless of your stating that it can’t work without collective bargaining. I’ve quoted your ”can’t be a cap” statement twice and highlighted it an additional time in another post. I don’t see how I could have made the origin of my argument any more clear, and that goalpost hasn’t moved. If I’m wrong about the cap and it gets shot down from the settlement, I’ll gladly concede that you were correct.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Illegal bagmen may always be involved, but can they compete with basically unlimited NIL? I mean, there's only so much money to go around. Can the $100 handshake compete with the Lambo?

Illegal bagmen won’t be competing with NIL. The cheaters will give the legal NIL - so the player will already be offered the lambo and a direct deposit. The illegal money comes in when a GT and UGA both offer the same player a very nice NIL package. Then suddenly a bag of cash shows up at mommas house which is unreported and untaxed. Who do you think the player picks.

Here‘s what will happen. They’ll try and put in some caps or guide rails and some sort of enforcement of this (sound familiar?). All the school Presidents will agree and the ACC will host a huge dinner to celebrate that integrity is back. Then the school Presidents of the usual suspects will tell their AD “we better keep winning to keep bringing in the cash”. Then the AD tells the coach “keep winning”. And then the same game begins all over again. And when UGA, Bama, and Texas all offer the cap, the illegal tax free money or “inducements“ occur off the grid while the GT’s of the world watch player after player sign with the bagmen.

NIL has already shown to help GT because not every player is craving every dollar. But make no mistake, the Cams, the Garrison Hearsts, the Quinn Ewers types will be offered well beyond whatever “cap” is in place if it’s the difference from top 10 to top 4.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

The most effective way to deal with illegal bagmen is to make the bottom 80% of schools in the Big 10/SEC incentives to actually deal with the top 20% cheating. Currently they’re incentivized instead to also cheat to stay above the rest of D1. I don’t think there’s a way to do that short of a super league though.

I agree. But I can’t be naive. The NCAA showed us that the enforcement branch is easily manipulated or out right bought off with suites, family admissions, masters tickets, etc. No difference than every cop or prosecutor has at their disposal - DISCRETION. And much like the committtee did mental gymnastics to explain why FSU was left out, the NCAA has done that for decades in not investigating the UGA’s, Bama’s, OU’s etc. I would love to know how many times Homer Rice or the AD at Wake, Vandy, Missouri called the NCAA compliance office after a recruit told them what they had been offered and the call was never returned or were told “where’s the proof”.

How will the 80% prove anything when the minute they try and sanction a school the lawsuits will fly? The only system that will work is a system with ZERO rules. If schools want to spend 100 million then let their alumni deal with that. If a team wants a roster of 300 then let them. The infighting would be awesome and the portal would be amazing. As a GT alum, any system with rules will only hurt us because we will follow the rules and we know the teams that won’t. And we’ll be at a disadvantage which we are use to at this point,

 

[JacketOff]

"41% of GT graduates are millionaires", this is how we freaking compete. We should never confuse cheapness with the inability to compete.

The problem with this line of thinking; I’m not sure the majority of GT’s millionaires believe that spending money on the athletic abilities of 18 year olds for a few years is a worthwhile expenditure. I tend to agree. I’d love it if GT was a national powerhouse again, but I really don’t care enough to fork over loads of cash to some kid who will be at Ole Miss next year.

 

[stinger78]

The problem with this line of thinking; I’m not sure the majority of GT’s millionaires believe that spending money on the athletic abilities of 18 year olds for a few years is a worthwhile expenditure. I tend to agree. I’d love it if GT was a national powerhouse again, but I really don’t care enough to fork over loads of cash to some kid who will be at Ole Miss next year.

GT alumni are used to applying their expertise and busting their butts to get where they got over time. Most don’t like giving their hard earned money away to kids for playing a game.

 

[yeti92]

"41% of GT graduates are millionaires", this is how we freaking compete. We should never confuse cheapness with the inability to compete.

and I'd bet most of the other 59% just aren't far enough into their career to have reached that point yet.

 

[MacDaddy2]

GT alumni are used to applying their expertise and busting their butts to get where they got over time. Most don’t like giving their hard earned money away to kids for playing a game.

Then there should be no bitching when we are left further in the dust.

 

[SunBum]

GT alumni are used to applying their expertise and busting their butts to get where they got over time. Most don’t like giving their hard earned money away to kids for playing a game.

I remember years ago talking to a cart kid at a local golf course and it came up how GT folks (alumni, fans, whatever) are famously cheap. In this case with regard to tipping the staff. It just is what it is. I'm one myself, I guess. But I've seen it time and again. GT millionaires, however many of them there are (I'm not one btw), just aren't going to be as free or flashy with their cash on average relative to other schools. Add that to the fact that our alumni base is made up differently (demographically - the percentage that cares deeply about college football) than the large B1G or SEC state schools. If winning the war is based on who has the biggest war-chest, GT will not compete regularly. It's just not gonna happen.

 

[stinger78]

I remember years ago talking to a cart kid at a local golf course and it came up how GT folks (alumni, fans, whatever) are famously cheap. In this case with regard to tipping the staff. It just is what it is. I'm one myself, I guess. But I've seen it time and again. GT millionaires, however many of them there are (I'm not one btw), just aren't going to be as free or flashy with their cash on average relative to other schools. Add that to the fact that our alumni base is made up differently (demographically - the percentage that cares deeply about college football) than the large B1G or SEC state schools. If winning the war is based on who has the biggest war-chest, GT will not compete regularly. It's just not gonna happen.

Generally agree. I don’t know that we’re cheap, maybe so, I don’t know. I think we do tend to give greater amounts to more significant causes than football and caddies, for example.

I think it’s deeper than that wrt football. Generally, we go to GT because we see greater value in the degree and you better want to be there or you’re gone. It’s why we remain proud to be GT alumni the rest of our lives. Could it be we want our athletes to have the same motivation, not just more NIL?

 

[MWBATL]

Years ago, back in the days when college sports used the Collegiate Licensing Corporation as their agent for most sales which used the colleges’ logos or other copyrighted items…I worked with folks at the CLC on some projects. They listed GT as having a very small alumni and donor base, but that the percapita from that group was amongst the highest in college sports.

Maybe things have changed(that was 30 years ago). Or maybe (and in my opinion more likely) we just don’t have the numbers to raise the funds that other schools can raise. In other words, we’re not generally cheap…there just aren’t many of us.

 

[GTflyer0116]

There is a reason why Dave Ramsey's research shows that the highest % of millionaires are engineers. They don't spend it away on 18 year old kids playing football.... Hard truth but it is the truth.... I love GT, I love GT football, I am a proud alum, but the facts are the facts.

 

[tomknight]

the biggest problem is that we have a fraction of the alumni base of big state schools. and, just because you are a millionaire, doesn't mean you have a million dollars sitting in a bank account burning a hole in your pocket.

 

[jgtengineer]

Then there should be no bitching when we are left further in the dust.

from most gt alumni there isn't. because they don't follow sports.

 

[Southern psu fan]

This might not be popular to say but if Ga Tech fans want the football team to stay competitive and win we’re all are going to have to chip in and help pay. It’s just the way it is in today’s college football. I’m good for a couple of hundred a year if it helps Ga Tech win football games. We have plenty of talent in Georgia we just gotta come up with the money

 

[AugustaSwarm]

I don't really understand how you can pass laws to undermine lawful rules set by associations that its members all willingly agreed to. This is all headed for some kind of lawsuit against the NCAA but these laws are pure theatre.

The funny thing is that having a state law that allows players to get paid in no way makes it allowable per NCAA rules. It just shifts the responsibility to the NCAA to police and enforce it - there's now no backup from the government.

 

[RonJohn]

ESPN had an article about the House lawsuit a couple of days ago:

Attorneys: 'Progress' in clarifying NCAA settlement

Attorneys negotiating a settlement of class-action antitrust cases against the NCAA and the nation's biggest college conferences cited "good progress" in clarifying parts of the agreement after a judge urged that it be reworked.

www.espn.com

Apparently, the issues the judge has with the settlement is precisely related to limits on 3rd party payments to players.

EDIT: I really think that for the P4 to get what they actually want, they will have to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the players. If they do, they could limit transfers and put a cap on payments to players. The issue would likely be that the negotiated transfer rules will not end up being as limiting as the schools want, and that the salary cap will be much larger than the schools currently want.