Kirk Herbstreit reveals three-step plan to solve 'really big problem' in college football

I guess rather than use his bully pulpit to push commissioners to a table Charlie Baker is just going to pass the buck or wait for Congress to make the commissioners sit down to work on something like what Herbie is talking about. Just simple-minded, I guess, but seems like it could be solved without politicians but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Charlie Baker and the NCAA aren't going to push for the proper solution because they work for the schools. They are going to push for the schools' agenda -- a shortcut via Congress, which seems unlikely, will just be a band-aid, create different problems, and won't stop litigation. I agree, we don't need politicians involved.

DonCallahan said:

Charlie Baker and the NCAA aren't going to push for the proper solution because they work for the schools. They are going to push for the schools' agenda -- a shortcut via Congress, which seems unlikely, will just be a band-aid, create different problems, and won't stop litigation. I agree, we don't need politicians involved.

Do you have a guess on who brings the litigation? Seems unlikely the NCAA will (why not just start negotiations if that’s what they want?), but also unlikely athletes will unionize when it could drive down the $ top guys are getting (& probably every athlete sees himself or herself getting that $). I could almost see a few top QBs, say, counter-suing athletes trying to unionize or something. Maybe a conference like the Sun Belt? Idk.

DeanroyMcSmithridge said:

Do you have a guess on who brings the litigation? Seems unlikely the NCAA will (why not just start negotiations if that’s what they want?), but also unlikely athletes will unionize when it could drive down the $ top guys are getting (& probably every athlete sees himself or herself getting that $). I could almost see a few top QBs, say, counter-suing athletes trying to unionize or something. Maybe a conference like the Sun Belt? Idk.

It's so hard to say how it all comes together. Together, Tony Petitti and Greg Sankey likely are the only people powerful enough to force such a shift, but they answer to their schools, and I don't think enough of them want a CBA. We would likely need a major lawsuit to force a shift, as the House case did. If you think about it, when the House case first started to work its way through the legal system, no one could have seen that it would force the NCAA into rev-share, the creation of the CSC, etc.

CBA would require schools to declare athletes as employees and then the players certify a union, right? Different union for each sport? No easy answers. Not sure which one is best. NFL anti-trust exemption doesn’t have politicians meddling in the NFL.

Don do you agree or disagree that intervention and “correction” will come in some form or another soon enough ( regardless how it comes) ? Is it just a matter of time or are you more cynical like many here who think the wild Wild West will continue for the foreseeable future ?

DonCallahan said:

Charlie Baker and the NCAA aren't going to push for the proper solution because they work for the schools. They are going to push for the schools' agenda -- a shortcut via Congress, which seems unlikely, will just be a band-aid, create different problems, and won't stop litigation. I agree, we don't need politicians involved.

Do they really work for the schools, though? The majority of the NCAA's revenue comes from the NCAA Tournament (about 70%, https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39439274/ncaa-generates-nearly-13-billion-revenue-2022-23). Could the schools easily rest that from the NCAA? I have a growing suspicion that the incentives at the NCAA corporate office are foremost to protect the revenue interest in the NCAA Tournament. Importantly, the NCAA doesn't have the same revenue model (or really any revenue at all, as far as I understand) from the CFP. I think the question to ask about what the NCAA will and won't do is "What would cause the NCAA to lose their NCAA Tournament money?" I'm not sure this changes the answer to the original question, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the NCAA has its own weird set of incentives in this world.

Isn’t the crux of the problem getting all the schools to agree to the same thing combined with conferences? NCAA work for the schools. They can’t wave a magic wand I wouldn’t think. There would have to be a proposal that they all agree to or a certain % right?

BallDontLieNumbersDo said:

Do they really work for the schools, though? The majority of the NCAA's revenue comes from the NCAA Tournament (about 70%, https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39439274/ncaa-generates-nearly-13-billion-revenue-2022-23). Could the schools easily rest that from the NCAA? I have a growing suspicion that the incentives at the NCAA corporate office are foremost to protect the revenue interest in the NCAA Tournament. Importantly, the NCAA doesn't have the same revenue model (or really any revenue at all, as far as I understand) from the CFP. I think the question to ask about what the NCAA will and won't do is "What would cause the NCAA to lose their NCAA Tournament money?" I'm not sure this changes the answer to the original question, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the NCAA has its own weird set of incentives in this world.

On that revenue stream, typical of Mark Emrick (sp.?), Baker’s predecessor, who was so terrible, the NCAA signed one of the worst TV deals ever for the tourney. I can’t remember the details offhand, but it was way too long & way undervalued. Some folks much smarter than me but made some really dumb decisions.

unctar2001 said:

Isn’t the crux of the problem getting all the schools to agree to the same thing combined with conferences? NCAA work for the schools. They can’t wave a magic wand I wouldn’t think. There would have to be a proposal that they all agree to or a certain % right?

Pretty much nail the impossibility (seems to me). What is going to get B10 & SEC to agree? You’d think other conferences would fall in. Each commish would lose power. Hard to see that happening.

DeanroyMcSmithridge said:

Pretty much nail the impossibility (seems to me). What is going to get B10 & SEC to agree? You’d think other conferences would fall in. Each commish would lose power. Hard to see that happening.

And once you do get them to agree… You have to prove in court the agreement isn’t in violation of anti-trust laws Agreement is just step one

BallDontLieNumbersDo said:

Do they really work for the schools, though? The majority of the NCAA's revenue comes from the NCAA Tournament (about 70%, https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39439274/ncaa-generates-nearly-13-billion-revenue-2022-23). Could the schools easily rest that from the NCAA? I have a growing suspicion that the incentives at the NCAA corporate office are foremost to protect the revenue interest in the NCAA Tournament. Importantly, the NCAA doesn't have the same revenue model (or really any revenue at all, as far as I understand) from the CFP. I think the question to ask about what the NCAA will and won't do is "What would cause the NCAA to lose their NCAA Tournament money?" I'm not sure this changes the answer to the original question, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the NCAA has its own weird set of incentives in this world.

NCAA rules and policies are set by committees composed of school administrators. That structure explains why, even though most of the NCAA’s revenue comes from the men’s basketball tournament, Power Four football still drives the major decisions. You’re pointing to an important reality, though: the weird incentives contribute to the difficulty of the problem.

Heel9091DS said:

CBA would require schools to declare athletes as employees and then the players certify a union, right? Different union for each sport? No easy answers. Not sure which one is best. NFL anti-trust exemption doesn’t have politicians meddling in the NFL.

There has been a lot of conversation that this could happen without declaring athletes employees

What incentive do the players currently have to bargain on a CBA? And also, is the CBA limited to football? Are other athletes part of the union?

goheels1117 said:

What incentive do the players currently have to bargain on a CBA? And also, is the CBA limited to football? Are other athletes part of the union?

The players had plenty of incentive for a CBA five years ago before Brett Kavanaugh turned the college sports world upside down. You're right that the incentive has significantly declined. Having a seat at the table - finally - is ultimately worth it, I think. May take the NCAA giving more than it wanted, which is why Baker is working so hard to lobby Congress.

DeanroyMcSmithridge said:

I guess rather than use his bully pulpit to push commissioners to a table Charlie Baker is just going to pass the buck or wait for Congress to make the commissioners sit down to work on something like what Herbie is talking about. Just simple-minded, I guess, but seems like it could be solved without politicians but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

NCAA opponents in the Jeremy Bloom Congressional hearing 22 years harped on the fact that the only times the NCAA has been willing to change its ways is when the government forced such changes. It's humorous that the NCAA is now pleading with Congress for a lifeline.

There are just so many more teams in College football than the NFL, trying to police every single one of them will be almost impossible, it's always been impossible. I don't think Congress has an answer either, someone is always going to find a loophole in every rule that they come up with. It's a tough situation.

DeanroyMcSmithridge said:

I guess rather than use his bully pulpit to push commissioners to a table Charlie Baker is just going to pass the buck or wait for Congress to make the commissioners sit down to work on something like what Herbie is talking about. Just simple-minded, I guess, but seems like it could be solved without politicians but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

You ever try to separate a Politician from someone else's money!? I'm tellin' ya, you'd have to be one STRONG individual! ;)