• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2023 College Football Thread: Michigan Recognized as National Champions of Cheating !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The CFP was already in bed with ESPN. That just makes it incest.
 
Here's another good analysis from On3.com of the potential problems with the Dec 5 NCAA proposal.

The biggest challenges for any NIL reform proposal are 1) getting special exemption from antitrust laws for college sports and 2) creating a system that adequately addresses Title IX regulations. Like a lot of things these days, government gets the final say.

www.on3.com

Under NCAA proposal, some NIL collectives could be rendered obsolete, others redefined

Will the NCAA's reform proposal, if adopted, render many NIL collectives obsolete or just redefine their mission? Experts weigh in.
www.on3.com www.on3.com

...On the heels of the NCAA’s attention-grabbing proposal – which would for the first time allow schools to enter into NIL deals with athletes – one of the many questions stirring debate is, if the plan is adopted, what would be the fate of the current model of third-party collectives?

The answer? It likely depends on the specific collective, the individuals who operate them, and the goals of the athletic department. But make no mistake, the collective model would change dramatically.

“It would definitely redefine collectives,” Walker Jones, executive director of the Ole Miss-focused Grove Collective and a leader in The Collective Association who has testified in front of Congress, told On3.

In the proposal’s current form “I don’t think it makes collectives obsolete,” he said. “I think it maybe refocuses collectives on those revenue-generating sports to maintain some anonymity from Title IX. Maybe collectives only focus on football and maybe men’s or women’s basketball in some cases, or baseball. It would definitely change collectives’ missions and who they are contracting with.”

Because collectives operate as third-party entities, legal experts have told On3, many schools – whether intentionally or not – evade Title IX requirements as the collectives distribute the vast majority of their dollars to male athletes. In his Tuesday morning letter, NCAA President Charlie Baker specifically noted that the two biggest changes he is proposing would ensure Title IX compliance because they would formally occur under schools’ umbrellas:

First, the plan details, a college sports subdivision – comprised of institutions with the highest resources – should be required to annually invest at least $30,000 per athlete into an enhanced educational trust fund for at least half of the institution’s eligible student-athletes.

Secondly, Baker asserts, rules should change for any Division I school, at their choice, to enter into name, image and likeness licensing opportunities with their student-athletes.

Is proposed model be better than current system?​

Under this proposal, schools would be mindful of Title IX compliance when distributing dollars from the trust fund and entering into NIL deals with athletes. In theory, there could still be a role for some third-party collectives to then give players in revenue-generating sports their fair market value in NIL dollars.

“Just like the football coach is always going to make more than the softball coach, the starting quarterback is going to make more than your starting center fielder in softball, or your goalkeeper in soccer,” Jones said. “Those economic disparities already exist.”

Jones said a collective could continue to operate and perhaps exclusively distribute dollars to football and men’s basketball players, as appropriate. At the same time, within the framework of the trust fund model, the university would spend millions on non-revenue, Olympic sports athletes, he said, “which they don’t currently do.”

In the NCAA’s proposal, if a university has some 400 athletes, it would need to pay at least 200 of them at least $30,000 annually. That’s $6 million per year – at a minimum.

Jones’ question is how this proposed model is any better than the current system. The NCAA would be saddling universities with another $6 million that needs to be spent on athletes, including those from non-revenue generating sports.

Moving closer to in-house collectives?​

Through interviews with a wide array of legal experts and collective operators, if the NCAA proposal is adopted in its current form – and that remains a large question – many believe some collectives will indeed be rendered obsolete, and that that outcome was part of the NCAA’s calculus with the proposal.

Some collectives likely would fold into the athletic department’s NIL arm. Some may continue as third-party entities, but perhaps with different value propositions. And, in some cases, new third-party entities could blossom to also assist schools when NIL activity moves in-house.

Some collective operators are influential stakeholders highly valued by athletic department officials, but most are not. Some would move to assist in the athletic department’s NIL operation, sources said, but most may not.

Corey Staniscia, co-founder and director of the USF-focused collective, Fowler Ave Collective, tweeted that if you’re a collective operator and concerned about the implications of the proposal “get your head out of the clouds. Too much money/power went to many collectives across the country who of course want to continue feeding the beast. I welcome the day when this can be done through the institution itself.”

Staniscia added that the NCAA should allow the institutions to contract with athletes even just for their rights of publicity to directly sell merchandise, co-branded billboards, and bobbleheads for fans.

Ayden Syal, the CEO and co-founder of MOGL – a leading athlete marketplace and NIL operations software provider – said under this proposal, athletic departments will need a division responsible for distributing compensation amounts.

“It is unclear if that role would or could be assumed by collectives, but it’s important to remember that many collectives are managed by former members of athletic departments,” Syal told On3. “Because of this, collectives in theory could be brought in-house as the entity or department responsible for the management and distribution of the ‘trust funds’. Schools will likely need a robust software solution and management system to support this.”

One prominent collective operator told On3 that the proposal, if adopted, will just cause the collective to formally move in-house, a scenario many industry leaders have long endorsed because they believe it would address donor fatigue and inefficiencies, and ensure Title IX compliance...


The collective source added that the proposal would adversely affect half of some power leagues and “completely destroy” schools that aren’t strong revenue generators. However, the source said it would help schools that have robust operating revenue but weaker donor support.

“This thing would have to come with some kind of revenue-sharing agreement and salary cap to keep it from ruining the whole institution of college football,” the source said.

Is in-house NIL model liability risk for schools?​

Not all leading stakeholders endorse bringing collective and NIL activity under schools’ umbrellas. North Carolina Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham told On3 before the proposal was unveiled that he opposed bringing collectives or NIL activity in-house.

“Universities are not prepared to bring collectives or other elements of NIL in-house,” Cunningham said. “There are too many unanswered questions about employment, compensation, antitrust, Title IX and Title VII that must be considered.”

There is another issue related to NIL activities formally moving under schools’ umbrellas that was not addressed in Baker’s letter: increased liability risk for schools.

Consider the perspective of Sean Hughes, co-founder and CEO of Athliance – a top NIL compliance solution. Hughes said liability would be the biggest issue in such a revamped structure.

“The clear example of that is that collectives help organize a deal with, like the Utah team where their entire team gets cars,” Hughes told On3. “Now, what happens if one of those 18 or 19-year-olds gets a DUI and [hurts] somebody in one of those cars? It’s an extreme example. But there’s very clear-cut liability issues with schools being involved in facilitating those deals.”

Jones echoed potential liability concerns for schools in the in-house NIL model, adding, “As you peel back the onion, where does the liability now shift? How can a university mitigate that and then account for it when some outlying version like that Utah truck deal comes up?”...
Click to expand...
 
Pilchard said:
Rumor had it that Tommy White received substantial NIL offers (as in six figures) from FSU and LSU when he transferred from NC State. The upcoming Diamond Deac baseball dinner is going to raise substantial NIL funds for the WF baseball program. Winning big has led to some solid NIL paydays for WF baseball players.
Click to expand...
It was closer to 7 figures all in actually, all sources
 
Looks like they don’t do NIL rankings for baseball.
 
The Omaha newspaper ran this story in June during the CWS about NIL in college baseball.

omaha.com

'It’s going to only get bigger': NIL deals worth effort for CWS stars

While football remains king among NIL spending in college sports, baseball is still creating opportunities many current players never would have expected. Just ask some College World Series stars.
omaha.com omaha.com

…NIL turns two years old July 1 and continues to grow and evolve. Football remains king — Opendorse reports it accounts for nearly 38% of all college NIL spending through May, with baseball (6%) ranked fifth. While top football earners have earned seven figures, players of America’s Pastime have mostly landed far humbler — yet still meaningful — grassroots deals.

Such is generally the case for the stars of this year’s College World Series. TCU pitcher Cam Brown had a deal with a Dallas-area boot company because he knows the owner’s daughter. Slugging teammate Brayden Taylor promoted Cane’s. Outfielder Elijah Nunez has his apartment furnished through a relationship with Nebraska Furniture Mart.

“Our whole living room is made because of his NIL deal,” said infielder Tre Richardson, who is Nunez’s roommate. “We’ve got the couches, the TV, all that stuff. It’s a cool time to be a college athlete.”…

…The SEC continues to separate itself in college baseball NIL. Tennessee signed a team-wide deal ahead of its CWS trip through its Volunteer Club collective. As part of the pact, each player is compensated four figures for promoting the collective on social media and signing some items.
One source this week said most SEC clubs have roughly $1-2 million in NIL funds for baseball, with LSU exceeding even that. The Tigers lured top talent from the transfer portal last summer including current CWS stars like pitcher Paul Skenes (Air Force), slugger Tommy White (NC State) and key reliever Thatcher Hurd (UCLA).

Not that all choose to keep everything. Skenes said in February he would pledge $10 for every strikeout — he has an SEC single-season record 209 — to a nonprofit that provides educational scholarships to family of military and first responders who were injured or killed. White donates a portion of his earnings to a local Baton Rouge youth organization. Hurt has previously said he would give all of his NIL proceeds to local charities…
Click to expand...
 
I have no idea how these sites track NIL deals and maybe I’m using the term NIL far too loosely. But equipment sponsorships deals, supplement company deals, social media deals add up pretty quick for top tier dudes in any sport.

I mean there are low D1 baseball dudes making 5 figures a year just by being out there hustling (100% confidence level on this last sentence)
 
Last edited:
There seem to be two ways to make some big reforms to college sports: either lawyers, courts and judges will force the changes or the NCAA will get Congress to approve a special exemption for the NCAA and its members from antitrust law. Either way some athletes eventually will be getting a bigger share of the pie.

www.on3.com

Why NCAA unveiled its reform proposal now is crystal clear: The writing is on the wall

The reason the NCAA unveiled its bold proposal now is crystal clear. Now comes the hard part: consensus building and oodles of questions.
www.on3.com www.on3.com

...The NCAA sees the writing on the wall.

It’s there for all to see. The association faces a perpetual threat of litigation – two lawsuits were filed against the NCAA within hours on Thursday alone. It could already be on the hook for as much as $4.2 billion in damages from one antitrust suit. A potential landscape-shifting employment train is also barreling down the tracks.

The NCAA is in search of a lifeline. This was their best attempt to get the attention of Congress. It shows lawmakers that it is working on a forward-thinking new model; it is a step forward, what they hope will be viewed as a good-faith effort to reform. The NCAA wants some antitrust protection and a formal designation that athletes are not employees.

And it believes it needs it fast because the winds of change are now howling – louder and more fierce than ever.

At Wednesday’s Sports Business Journal Intercollegiate Athletic Forum, Baker urged for “urgent patience” regarding the work needed to bring his proposal to fruition.

Baker wants to create a new subdivision – comprised of institutions with the highest resources that can then craft their own policies, perhaps entirely separate from other Division I schools. Inclusion in that subdivision, Baker says, should require that schools invest in a trust fund of at least $30,000 per athlete annually, which would be paid to at least half of the school’s athletes.

Baker proposes that rules should change for any Division I school, of their choice, to enter into name, image and likeness licensing opportunities with their student-athletes.

There’s a lot to untangle from the plan, what it means and what it doesn’t mean – as well as what’s the next shoe to drop.

For some clarity, here are five important questions and answers..
 
Furman @ Montana fun game. Half. 20-14 Montana

By the way, both QB's are better than Mitch.
 
Crazy how Texas gets NO then Houston if they win. Those are two home games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top