And just like that, the collectives are back in bidness

[Dawgzilla2]

YAHOO sports

No details on how the standards have changed, but giving money to players is now a valid business purpose. Announcement to come later.

"As part of the agreement, the College Sports Commission is expected to treat collectives or any “school-associated entity” in a similar fashion as other businesses when determining the legitimacy of third-party NIL deals submitted to the CSC’s NIL Go clearinghouse."

 

[T-TownDawgg]

I don’t care anymore. Nothing new under the sun. The shadows will be where it happens. You can’t hold back the rivers. Competent cheaters prosper. Rinse repeat.

I know one damned thing for sure above all this legal wrangling and rule changes:

Kevin Fant should be granted a lifetime supply of whatever tires and wheels he desires.

 

[ckDOG]

If this sticks, might as well get rid of the clearinghouse completely and be honest. If collectives qualify as a valid business purpose then everything does. No reason to church it up with rubber stamp reviews and pretend to be providing a framework for capped pay for play.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

I didn’t understand how any entity can tell a company an advertising expense isn’t a valid business purpose. That’s pretty hard to prove.

 

[patdog]

Of course they are. They were never going anywhere.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Go to collective bargaining and get this framed out. Otherwise it’s just wide open.

 

[patdog]

Go to collective bargaining and get this framed out. Otherwise it’s just wide open.

Why would the players every want to unionize and collective bargain? They've already got everything they could possibly ask for thanks to the courts except unlimited eligibility, and that's probably coming soon (at least more eligibility).

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Of course they are. They were never going anywhere.

Exactly.

The House attorneys have a say,
So the Collectives are gonna stay.

If I can think of several more lines like the above, I can write a song…

#yalldontwantthat
#maybeseeificanmakethoselinestighter

 

[11thEagleFan]

I know many on here won’t like it, but this model is probably better for State than the revenue sharing + clearinghouse model. Of course, it’ll greatly benefit Ole Miss.

 

[onewoof]

The House attorneys have a say,
So the Collectives are gonna stay.

Do the attorneys want this bonanza to end? I think we know that answer

 

[mstateglfr]

I didn’t understand how any entity can tell a company an advertising expense isn’t a valid business purpose. That’s pretty hard to prove.

100%.

This entire NIL restriction is absurd because it is just setting yet another arbitrary limitation on one's earning potential.
It used to officially be $0, then it was established that you could profit and now it's back to trying to limit the profit so it's all 'legitimate' agreements.

It's absurd because in life there are countless employment agreements that the majority look at at say 'well that's clearly BS'...yet it's accepted.
People are paid to have titles and never work- it's a means to an end.

Paying players is legal, but limiting pay and capping potential earnings is against the very concept that got us in this dumb position in the first place.
Trying to tightrope walk this and limit player earnings is a sure way to fall, or at least slice open your sack when you slip.


You can't successfully have players being paid, NIL earnings potential that arbitrarily limits agreements, no CBA, and fan satisfaction.
Players, schools, fans, or businesses will always be frustrated and threaten lawsuit.


Those 4 things don't co-exist, at least not in this reality.

 

[ckDOG]

Why would the players ever want to unionize and collective bargain? They've already got everything they could possibly ask for thanks to the courts except unlimited eligibility, and that's probably coming soon (at least more eligibility).

I assume the kids that don't make much or anything still outnumber the kids that do. So there could be some union opportunities to make sure the average SA is taken care of under the University umbrella. The more often you see rev share deals like with that TTech offensive tackle recently announced the more Joe blow SA is going to get disgruntled. It could happen. No clue how likely though but the psychology would easily be there.

But that would only regulate one world. As long as adults want to pay recruits directly or indirectly via collectives to play a sport at their preferred school, it's going to happen. You can't stop that nor should you (#MERICA). My hope that it would be pushed back under the table where it belongs or count towards a rev cap is dead.

Oh well.

 

[TheBannerM]

I know many on here won’t like it, but this model is probably better for State than the revenue sharing + clearinghouse model. Of course, it’ll greatly benefit Ole Miss.

Especially if State was going to give a higher percentage of the rev-share to baseball than everyone else in the league. Let all the baseball-first State fans pay for their niche sport and let's at least pretend like we're serious about the most important sport on campus - football.

 

[paindonthurt]

I didn’t understand how any entity can tell a company an advertising expense isn’t a valid business purpose. That’s pretty hard to prove.

Note to self if you own your own business.

All expenses are advertising.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

100%.

This entire NIL restriction is absurd because it is just setting yet another arbitrary limitation on one's earning potential.
It used to officially be $0, then it was established that you could profit and now it's back to trying to limit the profit so it's all 'legitimate' agreements.

It's absurd because in life there are countless employment agreements that the majority look at at say 'well that's clearly BS'...yet it's accepted.
People are paid to have titles and never work- it's a means to an end.

Paying players is legal, but limiting pay and capping potential earnings is against the very concept that got us in this dumb position in the first place.
Trying to tightrope walk this and limit player earnings is a sure way to fall, or at least slice open your sack when you slip.


You can't successfully have players being paid, NIL earnings potential that arbitrarily limits agreements, no CBA, and fan satisfaction.
Players, schools, fans, or businesses will always be frustrated and threaten lawsuit.


Those 4 things don't co-exist, at least not in this reality.

The limitations aren't going away, and they arent "arbitrary", but they are certainly going to be lifted quite a bit. Im surprised the NCAA et al wasn't willing to let the court rule on this, but overall it's better to have the parties resolve it rather than the court.

Meanwhile, the legislation is marching forward in Congress. I think it has a lot of holes already, but this would be another area to clarify.

 

[paindonthurt]

I know many on here won’t like it, but this model is probably better for State than the revenue sharing + clearinghouse model. Of course, it’ll greatly benefit Ole Miss.

Not disagreeing but what’s your logic here?

 

[ckDOG]

100%.

This entire NIL restriction is absurd because it is just setting yet another arbitrary limitation on one's earning potential.
It used to officially be $0, then it was established that you could profit and now it's back to trying to limit the profit so it's all 'legitimate' agreements.

It's absurd because in life there are countless employment agreements that the majority look at at say 'well that's clearly BS'...yet it's accepted.
People are paid to have titles and never work- it's a means to an end.

Paying players is legal, but limiting pay and capping potential earnings is against the very concept that got us in this dumb position in the first place.
Trying to tightrope walk this and limit player earnings is a sure way to fall, or at least slice open your sack when you slip.


You can't successfully have players being paid, NIL earnings potential that arbitrarily limits agreements, no CBA, and fan satisfaction.
Players, schools, fans, or businesses will always be frustrated and threaten lawsuit.


Those 4 things don't co-exist, at least not in this reality.

Why are the options $0 or infinity? I missed that discussion. There are many leagues that come up with a number in between and the fans that watch the product are rewarded with competition that makes it entertaining.

College sports is unique in that so many private individuals want to pay the athletes on top of what they receive formally through a league, team, university, etc. I'm in no position to tell an individual how to spend their money - doesn't mean that you can't arrive at a pay for play cap for the greater good of the league even with this aspect being a reality. Is that easy or practical to regulate? That's a different conversation but arguing for a pay for play cap to foster competition and a good product is a very reasonable and common position to take.

 

[paindonthurt]

Especially if State was going to give a higher percentage of the rev-share to baseball than everyone else in the league. Let all the baseball-first State fans pay for their niche sport and let's at least pretend like we're serious about the most important sport on campus - football.

I don’t think that’s how rev share was gonna work.

 

[paindonthurt]

Why are the options $0 or infinity? I missed that discussion. There are many leagues that come up with a number in between and the fans that watch the product are rewarded with competition that makes it entertaining.

College sports is unique in that so many private individuals want to pay the athletes on top of what they receive formally through a league, team, university, etc. I'm in no position to tell an individual how to spend their money - doesn't mean that you can't arrive at a pay for play cap for the greater good of the league even with this aspect being a reality. Is that easy or practical to regulate? That's a different conversation but arguing for a pay for play cap to foster competition and a good product is a very reasonable and common position to take.

And the option was never $0.

scholarship players have always been compensated. And it wasn’t insignificant.

love to see them all get between $50,000 and $250,000 a year and then have to pay their own tuition and books and rent etc.

talk about an absolute fair system that would collapse on them all.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Why would the players every want to unionize and collective bargain? They've already got everything they could possibly ask for thanks to the courts except unlimited eligibility, and that's probably coming soon (at least more eligibility).

The NCAA is actually winning cases regarding eligibility. Im not sure the NCAA has ever won a legal battle, but an appellate court recently agreed that D2 and lower division play can count against D1 eligibility, and the Seventh Circuit reversed an injunction that would have provided a Wisconsin cornerback with an extra year

I know Diego Pavia got his extra year, but overall the NCAA has successfully defended a handful of other cases regarding eligibility limits.

 

[mstateglfr]

Why are the options $0 or infinity? I missed that discussion. There are many leagues that come up with a number in between and the fans that watch the product are rewarded with competition that makes it entertaining.

College sports is unique in that so many private individuals want to pay the athletes on top of what they receive formally through a league, team, university, etc. I'm in no position to tell an individual how to spend their money - doesn't mean that you can't arrive at a pay for play cap for the greater good of the league even with this aspect being a reality. Is that easy or practical to regulate? That's a different conversation but arguing for a pay for play cap to foster competition and a good product is a very reasonable and common position to take.

It's $0 or infinity because there is no draft with CBA and salary cap.


Implementing one thing without other things that would also be needed is just creating a whack-a-mole situation.

 

[ckDOG]

It's $0 or infinity because there is no draft with CBA and salary cap.


Implementing one thing without other things that would also be needed is just creating a whack-a-mole situation.

If your point is about process to bring about structure, then I absolutely agree. This is all insanity that can only result in uncapped chaos. I suppose it will always stay that way until fans/viewers get tired of the product and start watching something else.

 

[TheBannerM]

I don’t think that’s how rev share was gonna work.

The way I understand it, if you opt-in you have up to $20.5 million to pay for scholarships and distribute to players how every you decide. NIL was a separate deal, but you have to go through the clearinghouse for approval. Treating the collectives like legitimate business means you can pay players with fan-donations to promote things like your literacy program or whatever thing you make up to justify the payments.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

The way I understand it, if you opt-in you have up to $20.5 million to pay for scholarships and distribute to players how every you decide. NIL was a separate deal, but you have to go through the clearinghouse for approval. Treating the collectives like legitimate business means you can pay players with fan-donations to promote things like your literacy program or whatever thing you make up to justify the payments.

We're still gonna have to see everything in action to try to understand it. Even if the collectives themselves are a valid business purpose, the should still be bound to the reasonbleness standard....but maybe they won't be.

The way it works at the pro level, a league can question the legitimacy of an endorsement deal, and the business entity - along with the player's agent - have an opportunity to explain how they arrived at such a large figure. And its based on the perceived value of the endorsement to the business. There's a level of negotiation.

AFAIK, so far none of the collegiate deals that were rejected have even been resubmitted. There certainly hasn't been arbitration. So Im still curious how the Deloitte algorithm will treat certain collective deals even if they consider the Collective a valid business purpose. The logic will be circular...The endorsement value for QB1 is $2MM, because that's what how much he wants.

 

[mstateglfr]

The way I understand it, if you opt-in you have up to $20.5 million to pay for scholarships and distribute to players how every you decide. NIL was a separate deal, but you have to go through the clearinghouse for approval. Treating the collectives like legitimate business means you can pay players with fan-donations to promote things like your literacy program or whatever thing you make up to justify the payments.

Athletes should just sign agreements with NIL collectives where they agree to advertise and help bring value to the collective.

- Money goes into the collective from dumbass fans.
- Athletes sign marketing agreements with the collective to advertise the collective.
- Money goes out of the collective and to athletes.
- Athletes take some pictures and short form video for the collective.
- The collective pushes out inexpensive media advertising for itself.
- Money goes into the collective from dumbass fans.

Repeat until fans stop being dumbasses.
The marketing contracts would clearly be for NAME IMAGE LIKENESS, and the collective could clearly show the contract values are legitimate since the marketing of those athletes brings in money.

 

[paindonthurt]

The way I understand it, if you opt-in you have up to $20.5 million to pay for scholarships and distribute to players how every you decide. NIL was a separate deal, but you have to go through the clearinghouse for approval. Treating the collectives like legitimate business means you can pay players with fan-donations to promote things like your literacy program or whatever thing you make up to justify the payments.

I could be wrong but i though rev share allocated a certain amount to football.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I could be wrong but i though rev share allocated a certain amount to football.

The revenue sharing is completely up to the school. But if an SEC school isn't using at least 70% on football, they may as well be MSU.

 

[paindonthurt]

The revenue sharing is completely up to the school. But if an SEC school isn't using at least 70% on football, they may as well be MSU.

Appears the percentages i've seen are just what most people are doing.

Mississippi state will handle it about like everyone else.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Repeat until fans stop being dumbasses.
The marketing contracts would clearly be for NAME IMAGE LIKENESS, and the collective could clearly show the contract values are legitimate since the marketing of those athletes brings in money.

It usually takes a little more than just revenue to show the value of an endorsement deal is reasonable. But, who really knows what the standard will be at this point?

A legitimate business, that has no vested interest in paying the player to play for his school, would be able to show an advertising budget, and the expected sales increases associated with the endorsement deal, along with other factors such as past advertising deals, rejected offers to other athletes, etc.etc. Now, the advertising campaign itself might fail miserably, but you wont know that until after the deal has been cleared.

I'm not sure what the Collective can show? Is their advertising budget 100% of donations received? We expect QB1 to generate at least $2MM in donations, because that's what we have to pay him to stay here? It doesn't sound like a legitimate business to me, but college sports never has sounded like a sound business model.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

If this sticks, might as well get rid of the clearinghouse completely and be honest. If collectives qualify as a valid business purpose then everything does. No reason to church it up with rubber stamp reviews and pretend to be providing a framework for capped pay for play.

I still don't understand why it can't just be a gift. Collectives are just a means to give bigger ones.

I really don't see the problem. I don't LIKE it, mainly for MSU purposes. But I don't see the issue. We act like it's such a bad thing for 18-22 year olds to have money, but when are we going to look at the people who are willingly giving it to them?

 

[patdog]

Appears the percentages i've seen are just what most people are doing.

Mississippi state will handle it about like everyone else.

Yeah. I think everyone is distributing the money based of revenues the sports generate. Which “should” head off lawsuits. Or at least provide a good defense if you are sued.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I still don't understand why it can't just be a gift. Collectives are just a means to give bigger ones.

I really don't see the problem. I don't LIKE it, mainly for MSU purposes. But I don't see the issue. We act like it's such a bad thing for 18-22 year olds to have money, but when are we going to look at the people who are willingly giving it to them?

Its more like a bribe, than a gift.

Back in the day, I pretty much agreed with your take. On the surface, there is nothing immoral about giving money to a college student, other than possible gift tax implications if it was that much money. It was only immoral because it was against the rules set up to provide some sort of competitive fairness.

This is similar. We are now saying it's okay for players to EARN extra money on the side, but in the interest of maintaining some type of fairness and overall competitive balance (not parity, but some balance) we still dont want the players bribed to attend a certain school.

I think. I've kinda lost track now.

 

[paindonthurt]

Yeah. I think everyone is distributing the money based of revenues the sports generate. Which “should” head off lawsuits. Or at least provide a good defense if you are sued.

I was about to say.

seems like a nightmare if someone takes football revenue and pays women basketball a crap ton of money.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I was about to say.

seems like a nightmare if someone takes football revenue and pays women basketball a crap ton of money.

Its all a facade. The schools aren't directly sharing revenue with the players, and they arent utilizing the NIL they are allegedly licensing with the money.

The "revenue share cap" is loosely based on the average media rights revenue received by the P4 schools. At $20.5 MM, a school like Baylor is paying a much higher percentage of its revenue than, say, Ohio State

And there is an appeal pending that questions how that $20.5MM figure was derived, plus an appeal questioning whether Title IX should apply.

The schools are under no obligation to distribute the money based on revenue generated, but obviously they want to support the sports that bring in money.

I think if we see any lawsuits over the revenue share, the argument will be the overall cap should be higher, rather than arguing their sport should get a higher percentage.

 

[paindonthurt]

I think if we see any lawsuits over the revenue share, the argument will be the overall cap should be higher, rather than arguing their sport should get a higher percentage.

Your first statement may be true and likely is

But if schools give double to women’s basketball or baseball compared to their revenue percentage, football players and basketball players are gonna sue. It’s just logical.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Your first statement may be true and likely is

But if schools give double to women’s basketball or baseball compared to their revenue percentage, football players and basketball players are gonna sue. It’s just logical.

It could happen, but the terms of the settlement are pretty clear on this. And if a player doesn't like his offer from a school, he can transfer. The House attorneys wont be able to chime in, because they represent all of the student athletes.

 

[paindonthurt]

It could happen, but the terms of the settlement are pretty clear on this. And if a player doesn't like his offer from a school, he can transfer. The House attorneys wont be able to chime in, because they represent all of the student athletes.

I don't know what to tell you if you think their isn't another lawsuit when/if schools start paying disproportionately to revenue for sports.

 

[Perd Hapley]

It could happen, but the terms of the settlement are pretty clear on this. And if a player doesn't like his offer from a school, he can transfer. The House attorneys wont be able to chime in, because they represent all of the student athletes.

Just like the terms of the settlement were pretty clear that the collectives would be going away…..

It didn’t even take a month to thoroughly unwind what was supposed to be the “big win for college football” from this whole thing. As everyone knew would happen, the revenue share is adding to the pie and is now a minimum ante to sit at the table. It’s not replacing pieces of the pie at all. Its not making the pie forcibly smaller. It’s just the latest domino (until today) of things tilting even further into the favor of the athletes.

I will skip the legal discussion and go straight to the bottom line. Ohio State, Bama, UGA, Michigan, LSU, Texas, Texas A&M, et. al will not be told that they cannot do everything in their power to prevent another one of Ohio State, Bama, UGA, Michigan, LSU, Texas, Texas A&M, et. al from getting players that they truly want. Those money schools control the most powerful conferences. The most powerful conferences control the CSC. And the CSC essentially controls everything as it relates to NIL and pay for play. The heads of the SEC / B1G are openly talking from both sides of their mouth, and its getting old. They allegedly want “fairness and guard rails”, but not at the expense of their member schools losing talent to similarly positioned schools in other leagues. Its truly a joke. “We’ll get rid of our nukes as soon as you get rid of yours…..no? Ok, same time then….1, 2, 3….”

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I don't know what to tell you if you think their isn't another lawsuit when/if schools start paying disproportionately to revenue for sports.

You could start by me telling me the cause of action.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Just like the terms of the settlement were pretty clear that the collectives would be going away…..

I dont think anyone said that. They said pay for play was going away, and that idea seems to be taking a big hit.