Bilas: NCAA NLI plans not nearly enough

Jay’s stance, which is quite plausible, is that virtually all limits on athlete compensation be removed. That athletes should not be penalized because boosters can’t follow the rules. Amateurism is not something that should be protected; it should be removed, just as it was by the International Olympic Committee.

I understand the argument. Part of me agrees with him. However, all that means is there will be a huge bidding war with the richest schools getting the best players. Perhaps that’s exactly what we’re seeing now, so maybe there’ll be no noticeable change. NCAA can still limit the size of squads & “scholarships,” but schools with huge boosters will get the top players every year. We’ll just need to persuade Jerry Jones, Rob Walton, the Tysons, et al to contribute a bunch to the payroll.

Wonder if the schools will have a payroll account or if these things will all be independnnt contractors paid by their “real” boss, the booster?

2 Likes

Is there anything wrong with that? It’s only cheating if there’s a rule against it. Remove the rule, it isn’t cheating. Are our boosters going to need to step up? Probably but we need that anyway.

Rule or no rule, we’re already seeing basketball players skip college to go to the G League, and I don’t think most recruits are going to attract the salary levels that Green and the UCLA signee are going to get in the G League.

Kids aren’t interested in amateurism, they’re interested in monetizing their talents as soon as possible. Meanwhile, in the dorm room next to a scholarship athlete, a coed may be making hundreds of dollars a night with her webcam.

I can see letting the athlete go directly into professional ball, which I guess in basketball is already happening a bit, albeit not directly into the NBA, if it is all about money. However if one is going to have collegiate sports, seems there has to be some rules and control, even if a corrupt body governs it. If one does not care if the meat market is opened up further, then why limit rosters, why have academic requirements, etc. I personally prefer collegiate sports over professional sports and see this move changing the landscape, so I am more conservative on opening the financial faucet, especially without some way to ensure competitive fairness.

I know that big time college sports and the big dollars generated to schools and coaches makes them ripe for criticism, but I still see this as having the potential for hurting kids, because if the ante goes up, we will likely see less players (athletic programs) in the game. With fewer programs able to compete then we likely would see schools getting out of the sports arena and eliminating scholarships. So while the kids who have extreme talent will likely see themselves benefit during their college time, what happens to the kids whose scholarships were being utilized to gain an education see the number of scholarships evaporate?

Should attending school and using the scholarship be optional?

Let’s just eliminate college sports. Shut 'em down. If we are going to pay players to play college sports, then is it really college sports? No, it is professional sports.

Who wants to watch highly paid college players from the University of Arkansas play highly paid players from Auburn University? We could never win that battle, and even if we could, it would not be amateur sports, it would be professional sports. Do they need to even be enrolled in school or do the players just play for pay and never even attend school. Hired guns are what we would have. That is not college sports. This will undermine and destroy college sports.

2 Likes

Beats what’s been happening lately. Watching unpaid players from the University of Arkansas play highly paid players from Auburn University.

In the Olympics, generally speaking, there isn’t the possibility of a bidding war between, say, the USA and Russia, as to which team Billy Bob will compete for. That is not the case in college sports. You don’t have to go to Arkansas because you are from Arkansas. You can come to Arkansas, even though you are from Texas.

If you think we can compete with the big boys dollar for dollar if it is a bidding war, I think you are sadly mistaken. Maybe I am wrong. Sure have been before.

I my opinion, if you make it open season, you will have a few top schools who will get everyone in football and basketball. We won’t be one of them. Baseball? I could be wrong, I don’t think it will be that way, already the kids with marketability out of high school go to the pros for the most part. Heck, most of them aren’t getting even a full ride to come to college.

Good chance they will have to create different rules for a separate division of college sports. Kids who agree to come to that division will not be able to be paid. That is the division we will end up in and we won’t sell many tickets. We will be able to reduce the football stadium to 20,000 or so, basketball to 5,000 or so, and they won’t be full very often!

Just my opinion. Hope I am wrong.

Two things about the status quo: it’s not sustainable, and it’s not a good deal for the vast majority of schools. You’re dreaming if you think we’re going to catch up with Bama or Clemson if things don’t change. And it’s not sustainable in large part because it’s already been found to be illegal under antitrust law, which ain’t gonna change.

If you can’t stand the thought of watching players who are actually compensated for what is more than a full time job, all I can say is get ready to spend your Saturdays doing chores, because you just lost your excuse and you’re not going to get what you want. This is just a first step. The amateurism horse is not only out of the barn, but the barn is burning.

I agree, let’s just say that’s not a thing anymore. No more free education for talented young athletes that aren’t really good enough to get paid. This will be good for the states, which is why after living in CA for several years, I get why they led the way. They will be able tax the $'s that were being paid tax free. It’s not really about the athlete … it’s about revenue. So be it… all things change and we can either continue to support or not. Personal choices but I suspect it probably won’t be the same but will be supported by many just as it is now. Not sure how it will affect donations etc… it will affect ticket prices.

The thing is, how popular is minor league baseball? Not that much. Not totally unpopular, but even the playoffs aren’t on TV that I recall. For sure not a big deal.

So if college ball is just minor leagues, it won’t survive that way either.

To me, unlike some, it isn’t the paying of players so much, but with NO RULES, then there is no any type of level playing field. We and 90% (or more) of schools have no chance.

You say under the current system we can never catch Clemson. Maybe so. But how long ago was Clemson no where near the top? Not long. They won a title in the 80’s, but for the most part were not a big time player until a few years ago (I haven’t looked it up, but their name was not on my mind like Bama, Texas, USC, etc. was). So there was a path to success for schools like us. It may have been a narrow path and I am not saying we could have gotten there, but I am 100% sure we can’t do it with no rules.

Let them be paid, but Bama is not able to pay them more than us? OK, then we have some sort of even game.

Because there is cheating and likely under the table deals, does not seem to justify turning over collegiate sports to the gamblers, flesh peddlers and jock sniffers in my opinion. I strongly disagree with your train of thought and do not accept that only the Alabama’s, Clemson’s etc can have dominant programs. We have been close before and while I think it will be a bigger challenge to get there again, I have not written off such a possibility. While you seem certain in your thinking, I am as certain that there are other possibilities.

I’m for it.
Hopefully we can field an sec caliber team because of it.

I never said it would be cheating. I know better. It’d simply open up a full bidding war & will change the game as we know it. We might not mind the difference. We might not even notice it. However, I expect there will be some unforeseen consequences. One thing that will be interesting to see is how it affects the non-revenue sports.

Absolutely. Change does that. My point is that change is unavoidable, so get on, hang on and try to figure out how to manage those unforeseen consequences. Or watch while others take advantage and we don’t.

Yes, Clemson was where we were 30 years ago. They took our coach, remember, when our fans ran him off for Jesus wept and failing to throw enough. Clemson struck gold with Dabo. They’ll probably fall off after he leaves in 10 or 15 years. Bama is Bama and they’ll do what they have to do after Saban leaves. What this does is level the playing field. The stuff Bama and Auburn have been doing forever that is illegal, won’t be illegal anymore.

I doubt very seriously that athletes in anything but football and basketball will be able to profit much from this if at all. So for 16 of our sports there probably won’t be any difference at all.

Wonder how Title IX will be woven into this???

I promise the NCAA took that into account when formulating their guidance. It’s a big deal politically and financially.

My guess is that it won’t be an issue as long as private sponsors alone choose who to pay. It would be more directly applicable if the university choses where money is directed.

Right now I’d bet endorsement deals are being discussed (covertly) with businesses tied to many schools. I’d imagine that many of those will end up being a part of the recruiting pitch.

We know that those deals are already happening under the table with many schools. When these changes are made some will be “legit”. But if anyone thinks this will eliminate ‘bag men” and other forms of cheating…I’ll sell you some ocean front property in Pine Bluff. And yes I know that ending corruption is not the goal here.

I’m not sure what to make of it. But it’s here and we might as well get used to it.

I agree. If the players are paid by outside sponsors, non-revenue athletes probably don’t have much of a legal gripe. If the schools handle it or coordinate it some way, they might.

I can see all sorts of problems. I just have no idea what any of them will be. We’ll know after it’s been done for a couple of years.

And Jeff might be right about our ability to compete in this new 'wild west" kind of market. There is a lot of money in Ark & NW Ark. If it’s outside sponsors doing the buying, I’m not sure we’re much poorer than Alabama or Auburn. I do wonder who the players will feel more obligation to: their coach & team or the sponsor. Broyles always managed to placate high dollar donors yet run the AD himself. Auburn is one school where it worked the other way around. The donors called the shots.

1 Like

Title IX is not an issue here. Payments will not be coming through the schools, and female athletes will have the same access, if not the same market demand, as male athletes.

1 Like