Interesting article on the future of college sports
- Thread starter Ranchdawg
- Start date
Lots to unpack in that article. In one part of the article it says, "For the ones with the money, there is plenty of money to compensate the athletes and share it with the women’s sports. Once you divide it all up, this is not hard,"
In another part of the article it says, "Kessler also questions why football players should miss out on compensation because they hold the responsibility of funding the department with the revenue in which they generate. “They should not receive anything so that the money can go to the golf and tennis team?” Kessler asked. “Think of the composition of those teams and think of the composition of the teams that are giving up the money. What is that about? Why is it their responsibility to do that?”
So under this guys plans are the football players sharing their portion of the revenue or not?
Also, he only wants to focus on the top 70 or so schools (the Power 4 schools). How would this not push them to form their own super league? Why would they want to share playoff and bowl money with the group of 5 schools if they don't have to revenue share like them?
Finally, I can't see how this wouldn't end up getting most non-revenue producing sports either completely cut or changed to club sports not funded by the school. If you are paying football players as employees, you don't need to give them athletic scholarships like they are amateurs, which wipes out 85 scholarships you have to give women under Title IX. Also why would a school pay tennis or golf players like employees when they generate no revenue. Just cut the sport or make it a club sport and cut those athletic scholarships too.
In another part of the article it says, "Kessler also questions why football players should miss out on compensation because they hold the responsibility of funding the department with the revenue in which they generate. “They should not receive anything so that the money can go to the golf and tennis team?” Kessler asked. “Think of the composition of those teams and think of the composition of the teams that are giving up the money. What is that about? Why is it their responsibility to do that?”
So under this guys plans are the football players sharing their portion of the revenue or not?
Also, he only wants to focus on the top 70 or so schools (the Power 4 schools). How would this not push them to form their own super league? Why would they want to share playoff and bowl money with the group of 5 schools if they don't have to revenue share like them?
Finally, I can't see how this wouldn't end up getting most non-revenue producing sports either completely cut or changed to club sports not funded by the school. If you are paying football players as employees, you don't need to give them athletic scholarships like they are amateurs, which wipes out 85 scholarships you have to give women under Title IX. Also why would a school pay tennis or golf players like employees when they generate no revenue. Just cut the sport or make it a club sport and cut those athletic scholarships too.
From the article:
Kessler detailed four possibilities:
1. Conferences: NCAA economic regulations around compensation are eliminated and the individual conferences compete with each other by setting their own regulations and rules, creating “one marketplace standard” for athlete compensation.
2. Employment: Athletes are made employees or, at the very least, they unionize in an effort to collectively bargain with their school or conference.
3. Revenue sharing: A settlement from the House case produces a revenue-sharing model for athletes.
4. Congress: The federal government takes action with legislation that grants legal protection to the NCAA and potentially creates a carve-out for college athletes to earn compensation in a more regulated way.
What's next?
So how does this end? What’s the new model look like?Kessler detailed four possibilities:
1. Conferences: NCAA economic regulations around compensation are eliminated and the individual conferences compete with each other by setting their own regulations and rules, creating “one marketplace standard” for athlete compensation.
2. Employment: Athletes are made employees or, at the very least, they unionize in an effort to collectively bargain with their school or conference.
3. Revenue sharing: A settlement from the House case produces a revenue-sharing model for athletes.
4. Congress: The federal government takes action with legislation that grants legal protection to the NCAA and potentially creates a carve-out for college athletes to earn compensation in a more regulated way.
This quote is a big red flag. I'd have loved for the reporter to ask him what he means by composition.
I could easily be reading into that quote. But there is an undercurrent afoot in sports that indicates to me people who, in the past, might have been warriors for equality and agents of change aren't so much interested in equality or change but just that their in-group be dominant and remain dominant.Not a red flag at all.
If he means the money makers shouldn't share with the non-money makers, then I kind of, sort of agree.
BUT, if he means that the racial or gender compositions of those sports make the revenue sharing wrong, i.e. the predominantly black football players shouldn't be subsidizing the predominantly non-black athletes in non-revenue sports, well that would certainly be an interesting take.
As an example of the undercurrent I'm talking about, pay attention to how European players are covered in the NBA, especially by former and current American players.
That’s the impression I got.
There’s another paragraph or two covering why interest is more on the Power Conferences instead of the Group/Mid/Low Major conferences.
It is all about the money. Lawyers see a huge money pipeline to tap. They see the revenue stream from the power conferences and want ground floor entry into the super conference. Next step for the players is to petition to be released from the obligation of attending classes and just be employees of the schools.
I get they're suing for past payments to set up future payments. But I think it is ridiculous if they win a lawsuit for past payments.
Because back in the day, every player entered into a scholarship knowing what the agreement was. You play. You get free education (which is just dismissed by every talking head) a stipend and many other perks the regular students didn't receive.
..... also. ..... if these schools have to pay millions in back pay. You can bet the schools will halt spending that adds to the fan experience. Such as capital improvements. Fans will probably be the ones recouping the money anyways, through increased tickets prices and seat donations and concessions etc etc.
Because back in the day, every player entered into a scholarship knowing what the agreement was. You play. You get free education (which is just dismissed by every talking head) a stipend and many other perks the regular students didn't receive.
..... also. ..... if these schools have to pay millions in back pay. You can bet the schools will halt spending that adds to the fan experience. Such as capital improvements. Fans will probably be the ones recouping the money anyways, through increased tickets prices and seat donations and concessions etc etc.
He’s framing it in terms of black vs white to gain leverage, but it’s even more a question of women vs men. I mean, it’ll take someone acting first, but they could drop all scholarships then pay salaries for the sports they want to, primarily football and men’s basketball. You won’t be forced to stand up a bunch of losing sports due to Title IX anymore, and you can direct that money toward football. If someone isn’t as good as advertised, fire them. They could try to find a lower tier school that’ll pay them a salary, but it’d likely be low enough to not cover tuition. If this is truly left to the market, you’re going to have more players at mid and low tier universities who aren’t getting paid enough to go to school. I know they’re effectively getting paid those higher salaries in current state with their scholarships, but changing to an employee model will have people revisit that and pay the lower end players less
College sports, as we know it have pretty much ended.
I’m confident that you’re not reading into it all. His stance seems pretty clear that certain “compositions” should be sharing with other “compositions” but not the other way around, and the money should only trickle down so far. In other words, he’s being about as openly hypocritical as one could possibly be, but that’s rarely ever stopped d-bag lawyers like this when they see a big payday on the horizon and they think they have a chance to be a part of it
Just like all these liberal crusaders, this guy isn’t thinking about the unintended consequences. Did we learn nothing from NIL? It’s nothing like they expected it to be, because there will always be predators out there. So many fail to realize that we live in an imperfect world, and they continually try to make it perfect.
NCAA started this mess though. They should have allowed NIL from the beginning. Then, about 20 years ago when coaches started leaving all the time, they could have granted a one time transfer rule. Since they didn’t do any of that, they should have just stuck to their guns and just went down guns a blazing.
They only changed their rules due to political pressure, not to do the right thing. I really just don’t understand the will for these people (like this lawyer) to ruin something great. I really don’t. Well, maybe I do. It’s usually rooted in jealousy and getting a payday (for themselves, not the good of everyone).
MSU and college sports will always be a part of me. I admit that. But it’s over as far as me ‘committing to the cause’ or any of that shlt. It’s just entertainment now.
NCAA started this mess though. They should have allowed NIL from the beginning. Then, about 20 years ago when coaches started leaving all the time, they could have granted a one time transfer rule. Since they didn’t do any of that, they should have just stuck to their guns and just went down guns a blazing.
They only changed their rules due to political pressure, not to do the right thing. I really just don’t understand the will for these people (like this lawyer) to ruin something great. I really don’t. Well, maybe I do. It’s usually rooted in jealousy and getting a payday (for themselves, not the good of everyone).
MSU and college sports will always be a part of me. I admit that. But it’s over as far as me ‘committing to the cause’ or any of that shlt. It’s just entertainment now.
Last edited: