OT: NIL and the Transfer Portal...How do you fix it?

[auror]

Lolz

This will never become a thing, because everyday fans aren't going to move any needles in NIL.

But it's a genius business model, because they hold people's money until the commit, so they can just invest it in the interim.

 

[uconnric]

If college athletes unionize and participate in collective bargaining, it only solidifies the fact that they are to be considered employees. With revenue sharing on the horizon, that may be the inevitable result. So would they then become eligible for workers comp (NFL players can be eligible) and unemployment benefits?

About a third of P4 teams (and ND) will be remain head and shoulders above everyone else, whether Congress gets involved or not. That will also kill whatever competitive balance is left in the revenue sports. Pro sports maintain a sort of competitive balance by agreement and have remained exempt from anti-trust laws. The problem the NCAA has is that it regulates everyone, and the "haves" will only seek to keep their advantage. With NIL the schism between the P4's and the P5's will only get wider. You won't be able to kill NIL or the portal, but hopefully their are some college AD's and Presidents who realize that that will eventually hurt competition and college athletics are we know it.

We'll see.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Changing the NIL is over. I think everyone recognizes that ship has sailed. As for the transfer portal there may be some room for change but the biggest obstacle I agree with the above comment will be the courts, as well as the DOJ participating, in antitrust actions and decisions against the NCAA in trying to restrict transfers. No, changing the transfer portal is a ship that has been outfitted and is ready to leave the dock. While there's always some adjustments and tweeks possible, at this point there is little or nothing that the NCAA can or has the will to change on an overall basis despite talk to the contrary about multiple transfers except maybe to make it even more open and conducive for players to transfer.

The NIL will be changed. There is not another industry in the country where labor is paid through a third party collective. There are huge legal problems with this structure, that will need to get fixed.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

He said legal framework, not remedy. There are rules everywhere, why not for this?

I don't think people get that every single market they participate in, anywhere in the country or the world for that matter, is regulated by someone or something. Maybe it is the government, maybe it is an industry association or co-op, but someone is regulating it. College sports is going to come apart pretty soon if it doesn't figure out a way to regulate itself.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

If college athletes unionize and participate in collective bargaining, it only solidifies the fact that they are to be considered employees. With revenue sharing on the horizon, that may be the inevitable result. So would they then become eligible for workers comp (NFL players can be eligible) and unemployment benefits?

About a third of P4 teams (and ND) will be remain head and shoulders above everyone else, whether Congress gets involved or not. That will also kill whatever competitive balance is left in the revenue sports. Pro sports maintain a sort of competitive balance by agreement and have remained exempt from anti-trust laws. The problem the NCAA has is that it regulates everyone, and the "haves" will only seek to keep their advantage. With NIL the schism between the P4's and the P5's will only get wider. You won't be able to kill NIL or the portal, but hopefully their are some college AD's and Presidents who realize that that will eventually hurt competition and college athletics are we know it.

We'll see.

Pro sports decided to pursue competitive balance because they realized that no one wanted to watch blowouts or watch seasons that were over before they started.

 

[metsfan2323]

No championships without DC, Castle, Karaban, Sanogo, Hawkins, etc. More recruits than transfers have had a hand in UConn's success. Yes, there have been very talented portal players for UConn but plenty more recruiting successes.

There is a decent chance Karaban would have entered the draft if not for NIL, I don't want to go back to the days when everyone is cheating and UConn is the only school getting sanctioned for it. The transfer portal funnels talent to the top which is a huge benefit to our basketball programs. Where would this year's team be without Diarra, Reed and Mahaney? It's great to be able to reload instead of going on a 3 year rebuild.

 

[metsfan2323]

Pro sports decided to pursue competitive balance because they realized that no one wanted to watch blowouts or watch seasons that were over before they started.

UConn fans itching for competitive balance when we are two time defending champs is a bit odd. Let Providence and Seton Hall fans dream of balance.

 

[JSB60]

Kavanaugh is waiting to kick the NCAAs butt if they try any significant changes. I hate the guy, but he had to put up with all the NCAA bs in the 80s as a non-scholarship JV basketball player at Yale.

 

[mussels]

If college athletes unionize and participate in collective bargaining, it only solidifies the fact that they are to be considered employees. With revenue sharing on the horizon, that may be the inevitable result. So would they then become eligible for workers comp (NFL players can be eligible) and unemployment benefits?

About a third of P4 teams (and ND) will be remain head and shoulders above everyone else, whether Congress gets involved or not. That will also kill whatever competitive balance is left in the revenue sports. Pro sports maintain a sort of competitive balance by agreement and have remained exempt from anti-trust laws. The problem the NCAA has is that it regulates everyone, and the "haves" will only seek to keep their advantage. With NIL the schism between the P4's and the P5's will only get wider. You won't be able to kill NIL or the portal, but hopefully their are some college AD's and Presidents who realize that that will eventually hurt competition and college athletics are we know it.

We'll see.

The main problem I see with designating athletes as employees and making them elegible to join unions, is the effect it will have on the non-revenue sports. The cost of paying all the non-revenue atheletes would result in the elimination of many/most sports for all but the biggest/richest programs.

Already underway, this trend will be greatly accelerated. Sad irony is that before college sports became a multi-billion dollar professional enterprise, more people could actuallly participate in NCAA sports teams supported by the University.

During the olympics when we were all pulling for the pomel horse guy, they stated that there only 12 division one schools that sponser mens gymnastics. (and three are the military academies.)

 

[Flipside]

UConn fans itching for competitive balance when we are two time defending champs is a bit odd. Let Providence and Seton Hall fans dream of balance.

odd is an understatement ... again, these discussions imho & experience, are often about outsiders looking to regain control over young men & women athletes (fka, slave labor) that now have opportunities that a poster would never have in their lives - hence the 'outrage' lol

anyone old enough to remember this? -

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Kavanaugh is waiting to kick the NCAAs butt if they try any significant changes. I hate the guy, but he had to put up with all the NCAA bs in the 80s as a non-scholarship JV basketball player at Yale.

It was a unanimous Supreme Court opinion because the existing structure was so patently illegal, as some had pointed out on this board for years.

While I think the current SC is pretty far off the rails, historically the USSC has not dictated that industries adopt policies that insure their demise. Kavanaugh laid out a reasonable path for the NCAA to remain compliant and viable.

 

[auror]

The main problem I see with designating athletes as employees and making them elegible to join unions, is the effect it will have on the non-revenue sports. The cost of paying all the non-revenue atheletes would result in the elimination of many/most sports for all but the biggest/richest programs.

Already underway, this trend will be greatly accelerated. Sad irony is that before college sports became a multi-billion dollar professional enterprise, more people could actuallly participate in NCAA sports teams supported by the University.

During the olympics when we were all pulling for the pomel horse guy, they stated that there only 12 division one schools that sponser mens gymnastics. (and three are the military academies.)

Can probably figure out some sort of classification where the athletes are only employees if they generate money for their effort. So if the school doesn't sell tickets to the non-revenue sports or whatever, it'll be fine.

 

[ctchamps]

Lack of competitive balance is making football into a joke, and basketball is not far behind. The game is the product in sports, and if the games increasingly turn into blowouts, people are going to stop watching, and there will be less money for everyone.

Funny but most of us prefer sure things. Blowouts haven't stopped the UConn women from having a national audience. People who didn't play golf started following Tiger Woods. Remember when The Cowboys were Americas team? For decades the Yankees were the team for most of the nation including areas which had their own team.

Bandwagon fans tune in to sporting event to be entertained. And these fans don't get entertained losing or stressing out game after game. Even in this forum which is populated predominately with obsessed dedicated fans your postulation has holes. Take a poll. Which game would people in this forum prefer watching again - the competitive Butler championship game or this past season's NCAA tournament game against Illinois? Which viewing experience gives them more satisfaction? Not the result. But the viewing experience. Take another poll. Who in this forum would like to stomp Duke, Providence or Syracuse every game versus eke out a win game after game.

Sports fans without an allegiance to any one team don't align with your point of view. And the majority of fans are bandwagon fans. If the UConn mens bb team keeps winning championships more and more unaffiliated fans will become UConn fans. And they would prefer that we dominate every game.

So getting back to NIL. I maintain that the transferring out of players in football, even taking place among the current stronger programs, will have a huge negative impact to teams including these stronger programs. They will have to spend a lot of money to keep their best players from being poached and although they have more funding paying those top players will eat up those funds quickly. They will struggle to go two deep with superior players. A few injuries which currently doesn't impact them will in the future. So I disagree with you and am predicting football parity. The second point I disagree with is that this outcome will translate to more close games, not less. And the third thing I disagree with you is that the nationwide viewership for college football will decrease as a result. As a UConn fan I would love to see the college football power base take a big hit.

 

[mussels]

Can probably figure out some sort of classification where the athletes are only employees if they generate money for their effort. So if the school doesn't sell tickets to the non-revenue sports or whatever, it'll be fine.

Hopefully, but keep in mind that the now-on-hold effort to be represented by a union was initiated by Dartmouth basketball. Not exactly a revenue powerhouse.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Funny but most of us prefer sure things. Blowouts haven't stopped the UConn women from having a national audience. People who didn't play golf started following Tiger Woods. Remember when The Cowboys were Americas team? For decades the Yankees were the team for most of the nation including areas which had their own team.

Bandwagon fans tune in to sporting event to be entertained. And these fans don't get entertained losing or stressing out game after game. Even in this forum which is populated predominately with obsessed dedicated fans your postulation has holes. Take a poll. Which game would people in this forum prefer watching again - the competitive Butler championship game or this past season's NCAA tournament game against Illinois? Which viewing experience gives them more satisfaction? Not the result. But the viewing experience. Take another poll. Who in this forum would like to stomp Duke, Providence or Syracuse every game versus eke out a win game after game.

Sports fans without an allegiance to any one team don't align with your point of view. And the majority of fans are bandwagon fans. If the UConn mens bb team keeps winning championships more and more unaffiliated fans will become UConn fans. And they would prefer that we dominate every game.

So getting back to NIL. I maintain that the transferring out of players in football, even taking place among the current stronger programs, will have a huge negative impact to teams including these stronger programs. They will have to spend a lot of money to keep their best players from being poached and although they have more funding paying those top players will eat up those funds quickly. They will struggle to go two deep with superior players. A few injuries which currently doesn't impact them will in the future. So I disagree with you and am predicting football parity. The second point I disagree with is that this outcome will translate to more close games, not less. And the third thing I disagree with you is that the nationwide viewership for college football will decrease as a result. As a UConn fan I would love to see the college football power base take a big hit.

You are arguing that people want blowouts. If that is the case, why aren’t fans demanding schools downgrade leagues so they can win more games? And why not play all of UConn’s non conference games against NEC schools?

Which games draw better crowds, ones that will be competitive or one that will be a blowout? Does your preference for blowouts extend to when UConn is on the losing side?

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Funny but most of us prefer sure things. Blowouts haven't stopped the UConn women from having a national audience. People who didn't play golf started following Tiger Woods. Remember when The Cowboys were Americas team? For decades the Yankees were the team for most of the nation including areas which had their own team.

I feel like Women’s college bball having its moment now, when the UConn women haven’t dominated in a while and there is more parity than the game has seen in a long time is not the argument for your point that you think it is.

 

[ctchamps]

I feel like Women’s college bball having its moment now, when the UConn women haven’t dominated in a while and there is more parity than the game has seen in a long time is not the argument for your point that you think it is.

There isn't parity. Just 4-8 new dominating teams. It was UConn Tennessee with two to four other potentials. Not it's UConn South Carolina with two to four other potentials. And UConn has been to the final four all but one year in the last decade plus. And UConn has had the worst luck injury wise the past three years including last year where they were one contentious basket from playing in the finals.

 

[ctchamps]

You are arguing that people want blowouts. If that is the case, why aren’t fans demanding schools downgrade leagues so they can win more games? And why not play all of UConn’s non conference games against NEC schools?

Which games draw better crowds, ones that will be competitive or one that will be a blowout? Does your preference for blowouts extend to when UConn is on the losing side?

I'm talking about non dedicated fans. You want national audiences to turn into games. Not just the dedicated school fans who have season tickets. How many UConn fans is that? 10 - 20 - thousand who are going to the games and are the passionate dedicated fans that are not the average fans. That want to see strong competition but come to this forum when the game should have been a blow out and we win by 4 - 8 points.

In our 99 championship year almost all the hype was about Duke and they were blowing out teams game after game.

People root for winners. They don't care how that happens. If there is not a succession of years by a dominant team casual fans start to tune out. But give them something that's a sure or almost sure thing and they tune in. It's not like Caitlin Clark had a national audience the first two seasons of her career.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

There isn't parity. Just 4-8 new dominating teams. It was UConn Tennessee with two to four other potentials. Not it's UConn South Carolina with two to four other potentials. And UConn has been to the final four all but one year in the last decade plus. And UConn has had the worst luck injury wise the past three years including last year where they were one contentious basket from playing in the finals.

There’s less parity than men’s bball, there’s way more parity than there used to be in women’s bball though and the average fan seems to like that.

 

[ctchamps]

There’s less parity than men’s bball, there’s way more parity than there used to be in women’s bball though and the average fan seems to like that.

There is significantly less parity versus the men. After the top 4 - 8 teams there is a large drop-off in talent. There are far fewer upsets for those top teams than in mens basketball. Have things gotten better. Yes. Maybe you have another 20 good teams that give some challenge instead of five. But that still leaves 330 teams that are just w's for these few teams. The bar was so low and the change so little as to not make the improvement significant imo. Ratings are up because of the marketing of certain players like Caitlin and Paige and the media is finally recognizing they can make a decent profit promoting the women's game.