Recent Comments
How does a team stocked with 4 stars and 5 stars and coached by Nick Saban have a game with (checks notes again) a bunch of "bad snaps?" No kidding, this Bama feels different.
“Maybe” a question, at the QB postion, but otherwise, NO. Bama is stacked with talent top to bottom. Saban Jedi mind tricks.
Again, why did rules against free parking exist in the first place?
"It's the Wild West" —"Yes, we’re pioneering the unknown of actually compensating a workforce responsible for generating billions of dollars. How foreign, how outlandish, how… un-American." And we're finally giving the players the same freedom of movement that coaches and administrators (and workers in any other industry) have enjoyed for decades. NCAA accidentally figured out how to get third parties to pay their workforce, and they're still mad about it.
So many weird statements here: "What are university presidents willing to do to fix the game?" University presidents should have nothing to do with NIL. They did have something to do with making coaches the highest paid state employees. “We are the NFL right now,” Auburn coach Hugh Freeze said. We just don’t have (player) contracts.”—because the schools, coaches, and NCAA don't want to admit that players are employees. "So the NCAA opened the door on NIL without specific rules"—No, the NCAA buried their heads in the sand, hoping against hope that college athletes wouldn't be given the same rights that every other American enjoys. "How college football is careening toward the NFL pay-for-play model." When players get six-figure payments, we're "careening," but when coaches get six-figure buyouts for not-coaching, no one bats an eye? (How many 10s of millions is Auburn paying people to not-coach again?) "None have guardrails pertaining to NIL."—Do schools need NIL guardrails? Do Coaches? Or networks, or shoe companies? Why can a coach scope out "economic opportunities" before committing to a school, but players can't? “You think (parity) is here?” Alabama coach Nick Saban said…" What's with the concern about parity? We haven't had parity in decades. At least with a more open transfer portal and NIL, we have more theoretical potential for parity. (Whether or not it happens, who knows, we're barely two years into this new era.
Forget strength of schedule, SEC needs to think about strength of advertising revenue. Marquee games almost every week if SEC goes to the 9 game schedule. Sure, ESPN might not cough up extra $$$ for now, but next time the contract goes up for grabs… If the SEC wants the most eyeballs every Saturday in the Fall, go to nine games.
NIL for college athletes does not need to be regulated any more than NIL for college music majors, communication majors, art majors, biology majors, or college coaches. And no, the NCAA does not deserve an anti-trust exemption.
NIL for college sports should be no different than NIL for music majors, computer science majors, theater majors, biology majors, or dance majors or coaches. Students should be able to entertain offers from anyone anywhere. NCAA wants to talk to Congress but not to the players.
NCAA: "We were too scared, shortsighted, and uncreative to allow NIL or to come up with a serious, commonsense set of guidelines for NIL, but give us immunity from lawsuits, and we'll take it from there. And we're still mad that someone else is able to pay our employees. It just doesn't seem fair."
UGA developed plenty of WR, but many of them seemed to get injured in the last two years. (see Pickens, for example). However UGA had backup WRs who could catch the ball. Bama's backup WRs dropped the ball, especially in the 2022 NC game. Also, UGA didn't take a single player from the portal last year—WR or otherwise. This year, Kirby isn't taking any chances with his WR corps, he both recruited and used the transfer portal.
Stetson didn't play in the 4th quarter for several games in 2022.
Auburn wastes 10 of millions on failed coaching hire buyouts but it’s the students who need “protections” to prevent poor financial decisions.
Just remember, NIL deals don't win titles. See TA&M.
"On June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of college athletes in a compensation dispute [Alston decision]. On July 1, college athletes could legally control their own name, image, and likeness (NIL) and began signing marketing deals." Technically JTF is correct. The courts never ruled directly on NIL but they didn't have to because… (1) The courts did rule against the NCAA in the Alston decision which gave schools the power to regulate the size of athletic scholarships and aid instead of the NCAA. Actually a better phrase would be the courts eviscerated and disemboweled the NCAA in the Alston decision. (2) Simultaneously, dozens of states enacted NIL legislation which kneecapped and suffocated the NCAA's absurd arguments against allowing their labor force getting paid for their labor. NCAA realized the student-athlete charade-fiasco-doublespeak was over and gave up with whimper. Remember they were threatening to kick California schools out of the NCAA because CA was the first to pass an NIL law? What a joke.
Your solutions make no sense. 1) If a chemistry/music/law student can receive NIL money their first year of college without endangering their scholarship, then a football student must be able to do the same. 2) Sounds nice but you can't stop "official" people from talking to "unofficial" people. How would you ever regulate something like that. 3) Back to No.1--to be fair/legal/enforceable any NIL cap for athletes would have to apply to every student regardless of major or athletic involvement. You can't put a cap on a music major earning $$$ by selling their music, for example, or on a computer science major creating an app and selling it, so why should an athlete have a cap on their earning potential. Courts aren't allowing it. The best comment I've seen (but can't remember where): "The NCAA and schools are the only business in the world who have figured out how to get other people to pay for their labor force—AND THEY ARE STILL MAD ABOUT IT!" If you want to put a sensible cap on something, how 'bout starting with coaches salaries? Just cap coach salaries at the level of the highest paid academic department chairs. In particular, coaches at state schools should not be the state's highest paid employees. (NCAA exec salaries should also be capped.) I won't believe anybody wants to return to the "love of the game" unless they start with coaches salaries. BTW, NCAA is implementing a "guilty until proven innocent" policy on NIL transgressions. What could possibly go wrong? SDS needs an article on this lunacy. Possibly the climax of NCAA irrelevance and stupidity.