I feel like most of this issue would disappear if someone forced the NFL to drop their 3 year removed from high school rule (or however it is written exactly). Even just making it 2 years seems like it would satisfy many so it doesn't feel like the kid is 'stuck'. I think many folks believe that is an NCAA rule.
Hopefully I'm wrong and this NIL thing works....but just don't have a good feeling about it.
If players didn't HAVE to go to college for 3 years prior to going to the NFL...the ones who wanted to go get paid could go
The first one is that NIL rights never should have belonged to anyone other than the athletes. I can't think of either a legal basis or an ethical basis for it to be any other way.
On the other hand, eligibility for the NFL is a collective bargaining issue. Agree or disagree with the righteousness of the three year rule, the NFL owners and players have a right to put an eligibility in the CBA. Maurice Clarett filed an anti-trust challenge in federal court and won, but the decision was reversed on appeal by a three judge panel that included a young judge named Sonia Sotomayor. The appeals court held that the rule was a collective bargaining matter.
(Side note: Sotomayor is the judge who found the baseball owners in violation of labor lar and ordered baseball to reopen after its last work stoppage.)
The second difference is the practical matter of readiness. The NFL is more physically demanding than any other major team sport. Very few true college juniors are physically ready for the NFL, let alone sophomores and freshmen; so realistically, the ones who want to go get paid can't get a job in the NFL.
If football had a legitimate minor league, players might have a choice before they spend three years in college; but a football minor league has yet to be financially viable.
league. Heck, they can't even get a spring developmental league because they basically have a huge supply of players already coming from college.
I know that you know that, I'm just echoing it for emphasis. College football has become the de facto minor league and it is pretty much no longer amateur athletics.
Kobe or LeBron can go to the NBA and bang around with 28 year old guys roughly the same size.
A 20yo isn’t going to last in a league with Ray Lewis types in their multi-year development prime. OL and DL,would certainly see issues. Maybe some of the receivers/RBs could hack it. QBs would still need time to develop.
positions (e.g., OLine or DLine), putting an 18-year old against a 25-year old is reckless endangerment.
and I am still not sure what the heck it has to do with name, image and likeness.
go pro.
They’re stuck.
So why not allow NIL cash?
I guess that the easier way of looking at it is that the NFL and NFLPA are responsible for determining eligibility into their league/union. The NCAA has had the opportunity (though the states and perhaps Congress might be taking it away from them) to set up proper NIL and make it modern, and they have yet to do so. There's really only one reason that they haven't (cash grab) and they're getting called on it.
I agree and for this reason the number that would actually leave after 2 years would be slim. I think it is more of a perception of being trapped and I bet many think it is an NCAA rule.
but the fact that this has become a money grab is what has gotten people's attention, not so much the being able to go pro right away.
Name, image, and likeness issues go to the core point of the fact that this is basically no longer amateur athletics and guys like Gene Smith (a Notre Dame man) and Jim Harbaugh (a Michigan man) get rich while the vast majority of the labor don't get monetary compensation. Sure, there is value in the scholarship (especially at a place like Notre Dame) but there is also value in being able to endorse products, sign autographs, and use your image and likeness in a video game and be compensated by people outside of the NCAA and member institutions.
got about a grand.
Nothing compared to a 250k handshake.
You can cease pulling numbers out of left field now.
Good Lord. Why stop at $250,000? Just make it 10,000,000.
True or not, I guaranf’in tee you it was orders
if magnitude more than 1k.
I've never seen that.
I get that people hate some are getting big bucks off ‘free’ labor but I think the school is a big part of their popularity due to built in fan base of Alumni. Most don’t know who these kids are coming out of high school but school gives them a platform.....i think that should buy the school maybe a year or two of service but I think when a kid has a standout Freshman or Sophomore year, that is when people feel the pendulum swings and school is getting more from player. They should be able to cash in at next level.
Unfortunately, there are kids that are good popular college football players that won’t get a chance to cash in but those are likely the ones that don’t care.
Isn’t the outcry less on basketball side with one and done? Or has everyone just accepted that they are getting paid by agents and sponsors?
You should familiarize yourself with the NIL discussions and proposals. This is not pay for play.
Never said it was pay to play by the schools.
that it is an NFL rule and not an NCAA rule. They would get any and all info on it from the school or from runners/agents. The NFL doesn't have an incentive to let people in earlier nor do they have an incentive to form their own minor league. There also are not professional leagues (at least not popular ones) overseas where kids have the option to go and develop unlike soccer, basketball, and even baseball (to an extent).
This is minor league football, like it or not. Once again, I don't see the tie in between NIL and draft eligibility. I don't think many want or need that opportunity quicker than they already have it; perhaps some skill position kids or outliers on the defensive/offensive line. With the amount of money at stake here, it makes little sense to hold these kids hostage to NIL rules that were put in place a century ago to stop (or try and stop) schools from paying ringers.
Sorry, I meant general public perception....agree players and their families know it is an NFL rule.
Hope it works out well for all.
I am disappointed that it has gotten to this point. Administrators and AD's and coaches have let it get too far due to selfish motives, IMO.
Every #3 is for Joe.
This would belong in the dictionary next to “tempting fate” if Charles Weis had been born mute.
Arnaz Battle
(who I enjoyed watching as a player)
my guess would be that someone would have to buy the jersey (with the school getting the proceeds) and then the player might be able to autograph it down the line for a fee (or whatever).
Don't confuse the issue. Basically, at the end of the day yours is a nonsense question.
I think it's legitimate, because traditionally with the pro teams, the money goes to the players association and is distributed evenly to the players.
Are the college players going to have an "association" or union that tracks and distributes it? Is it up to the university to figure out?
Apparel and merch is a huge piece of the revenue pie. If I buy my nephew a Number 11 Texas jersey, who gets the money, Major Applewhite or Sam Ehlinger? What if I don't put a name on it? What if I do?
It's not a reason not to do it and it's not the main question, but it's an important one to figure out given the amount of money tied to jerseys and merchandise. For the professionals now, even if your jersey sells more, Mike Trout isn't getting a bigger check from the MLBPA. But he makes more than most on other endorsement deals, etc.
Is that how it's going to be for college? The money gets shared evenly for some things, and then things like autographs and commercials is where a given player can make more than someone else? I'm all for the players finally getting a cut. But I think they need to figure this out some more. What about walk ons? Who counts for that "pool"? I think they are all good/important questions that the players and schools need to figure out. Because if they don't follow what the other professional sports have done, and seek to blaze a new/different path, I could see it going poorly.
it's completely separate, and I've gone into the reasons already several times. The schools would have nothing to do with paying the players outside of the scholarship/room and board/meal plan.
It's nonsense and a way to divert attention.
To answer your question, the athletes would not have a union or association but they would have the ability to gain representation for the purpose of generating endorsement income. The schools would maintain their own likeness/merchandise rights.
Who gets that dough? hi
How is this so hard to understand?
I tell you what, all of this information (including outlines of the NCAA proposal) is out there. These questions are not hard to answer.
Montana.
My love for ND started with him.
trademark licensing I assure you my question is not "a nonsense question", but go ahead and keep thinking that way if it makes you feel better.
Most schools have a player's name on the back of their jersey making the issue somewhat less complicated. Trade dress also comes into play along with any "agreements" players may have signed in the past and myriad other issues depending upon the school.
Bottom line...it is a Pandora's box requiring a lot of sorting through before the legal issues are settled.
Marketing/advertising team. We can get your son x amount per month. This will help the rich get even richer. Deep pockets will reign and wont help the unlevel playing field the game faces now. I expect it to go poorly.
But realistically, how many college players have national marketing appeal... or even significant regional appeal?
Consider the last 10 Heisman winners - DeVonta Smith, Joe Burrow, Kyler Murray, Baker Mayfield, Lamar Jackson, Derrick Henry, Marcus Mariotta, Jameis Winston, Johnny Manziel, Robert Griffin III. How many of those guys had significant marketing appeal in college? How many of those who have been good in the NFL are making a lot of money endorsing products? Shoe deals, yes; but I have yet to see a Derrick Henry commercial even though he's one of the best two or three RBs in football.
It's more likely that the marketing dollars will be local. For example, the ND offensive line might pose for a poster and make an appearance at a local retailer or auto dealer to autograph the poster. The star QB might do the same, just by himself (i.e. no need to share the appearance fee).
If there is any benefit, it will be at schools located in big cities or not too far from big cities because the local opportunities are more plentiful; and even then, they college athletes will have to compete with professional athletes for appearance and marketing dollars in most of those cities.
mainly for basketball guys, but I can see football as well. Obviously Oregon/Nike jumps out here, but they won't be alone. And looking at sports besides football, this would really help some non-major sports like skiing, track and field, etc.
I agree with you about the local opportunities as well and I think that the smart schools will know how to funnel kids to the right places (without getting directly involved).
I don't think that we're talking about huge money one way or the other, but even if we were I don't know why we should care.
How many football players can anyone remember having national recognition and appeal while in college? Tebow?
Maybe Brady Quinn in 05/06.
It still won't level it completely ... nothing will (and it never has been level anyway). But that 17th 5 star player for Bama may instead want to go to a Tennessee or an Iowa instead so that he can make some better endorsement money with playing time earlier on top of all the other reasons to look at other programs. I think this will be a great thing for college football, and an even better thing for the athletes who are completely taken advantage of today. It just takes some $$ away from the athletic departments, which is why they have opposing it forever.
And honestly, there is no reason these players shouldn't be compensated for things like that. It's about damn time this changes.
when there is a gap after graduation. Ohio State should not have been that good the last two seasons. If any of the big three have an opening at quarterback your ____ (Sam Howell, Trey Lance, Justin Fields even) will jump over there without wasting a year to throw to receiving cores like those three have.
and we're actively involved in it. How does being able to profit off of your name, image and likeness change that?
an inherent recruiting advantage due to the increased earnings potential for the recruit v-v-v NIL and joint merch sales profits. The bigger your eventual school's addressable market over a four year career with a successful high vis program (assuming you become a star or multi year starter), the bigger your projected profits rise year over year, year after year.
Now this mostly only applies to the top 50 or 100 or so players each year, but as we have noted their ever more successful recruitment is a significant differentiator for a program's future talent gathering and NC winning odds.
Or so it would seem.
this is basically professional sports for everyone except the athlete.
the time for Notre Dame to lead on this issue and keep this as an amateur sport was about 30 years ago. The cat is out of the bag. Certain schools in power conferences generate a ton of revenue, enjoy massive recruiting advantages, and have fantastic facilities (go look up what Auburn is building--a freaking recording studio and a flight simulator inside of it's football complex).
This is a big business. That's what has people's attention. This idea that some schools would gain some sort of advantage that they don't already have is silly.
to this new model. At least short-term. To me, that signifies opportunity.
benefit more than some of the football factories from the NIL dynamic? Dare I say, maybe even uniquely? Using NBC as a platform, national fan base, etc.
Or conversely, could ND suffer and fall even more behind some of the big boys if they miss the boat, poorly implement NIL strategies, etc.?
both of the things that you say could in theory be true.
My concern is with the athletes. They have not been treated fairly and have been left behind while everyone else has gotten rich. I do not think that the vast majority of them would get rich in this scenario, but they would at least have the right to get paid endorsement dollars and earn what the market would bear.
The kids have marketable skills. If Jim Harbaugh can clear 15 million a year than I think that it's fair for the players to have an ability to make some money as well.
From the NCAA you have posted about?
and if the NCAA cannot get fair rules implemented prior to this summer when the states' rules go into effect, it will speed it up even more.
There is so much money already there; by having the very top teams split, they can retain an even larger piece of the pie. The question really becomes how many teams split away; there are 64 or so Power 5 teams, but not all of those are really true "equity partners" with schools like Alabama, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. I would look especially at the Pac 12, as they really lag behind even conferences like the Big 10 as it relates to coach pay, etc.
Definitely something to keep an eye on.
I might be mistaken.
In either event, I'm not sure what the problem would be if they did. Look at all the other stuff that they already provide (which is conveniently listed on the letter of intent with the "cost of attendance" stuff): nutritionist, strength and conditioning staff, tutors, academic support, etc.
are paranoid about being deemed “employers,” which might fuel some kind of restrictions.
I’ve also seen that schools want veto rights over stuff not in keeping with their “institutional values” and a kid can’t sign a deal with a competitor of a school’s sponsor (e.g., Hamilton can’t sign with Nike, because of Under Armor).
I don’t see how NIL won’t become just another point of competition in recruiting.
(many of which have included excerpts of the NCAA proposal) the schools are mostly staying out of it and are certainly not getting involved in paying the athletes.
As it relates to recruiting advantages, those are already out there. I doubt that this will tip the scales much. The big name schools will still get the vast, vast majority of the big time talent. Nothing new here.