NIL - Yay or Nay
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
I’ll report back when CJ Stroud inevitably drops his G-Wagon in to the Olentangy River early on a Sunday morning.
I voted yes on intention, no on reality. My broader thought on both NIL and beyond NIL is that college athletics needs better rules governing it. The NCAA as an institution doesn't make very much sense to me. It is made up of its member schools and exists because those schools choose to have it exist. It isn't an independent oversight organization; instead it represents the schools more so than the athletes.
In my view, there are two paths that could reconcile the issues with college athletics oversight. (1) Congress could set up an active oversight body with representation for both athletes and institutions that will regulate some of the biggest issues including athlete compensation/employment, safety, and education. (2) Unionization of athletes to collectively bargain with the NCAA on these issues.
Both of these are ideas that are pretty unlikely, although I'd guess that (2) is more likely than (1). It really just amazes me the lack of transparency and accountability that the NCAA has. An example of that--when I've tried to look up transfer or eligibility rules before, it appears that there is no little to no public information published by the NCAA about those rules, just occasional press releases when a rule changes. As far as accountability is concerned, it doesn't face competition for athletes due to professional rules, and as long as the on-field product stays the same it's unlikely to feel consumer market consequences. Those monopolistic factors mean that rules and regulations must be dealt with differently.
In my view, there are two paths that could reconcile the issues with college athletics oversight. (1) Congress could set up an active oversight body with representation for both athletes and institutions that will regulate some of the biggest issues including athlete compensation/employment, safety, and education. (2) Unionization of athletes to collectively bargain with the NCAA on these issues.
Both of these are ideas that are pretty unlikely, although I'd guess that (2) is more likely than (1). It really just amazes me the lack of transparency and accountability that the NCAA has. An example of that--when I've tried to look up transfer or eligibility rules before, it appears that there is no little to no public information published by the NCAA about those rules, just occasional press releases when a rule changes. As far as accountability is concerned, it doesn't face competition for athletes due to professional rules, and as long as the on-field product stays the same it's unlikely to feel consumer market consequences. Those monopolistic factors mean that rules and regulations must be dealt with differently.
Athletes put so much time and effort into their sport while going to school, they should have been given a stipend and had health insurance set up for after school. So many have destroyed their bodies but once done with the school, they're on their own.
No solution was going to clean and with a toothless organization like the NCAA in charge nothing was going to change because they had to pretend and fake the "student-athlete" facade. All that was left was some outside the NCAA control.
No solution was going to clean and with a toothless organization like the NCAA in charge nothing was going to change because they had to pretend and fake the "student-athlete" facade. All that was left was some outside the NCAA control.
No one made them do anything. It’s not like they were told they were going to get health insurance and had the rug pulled out from under them.
Absolutely horrible, trying to forget it ever happened. When I see 2 people running towards each other I get PTSD.
That's strictly true, but morally I believe schools have an obligation to do something for athletes disabled playing for the school. From what I've heard, I like how ISU is doing the Collective money. It's not just handed out so much per position. The athletes have to do stuff to represent the school.
It was always what it was going to become, unfortunately, and why many said that allowing NIL would be massively problematic.
Never said they were forced. Only was looking at a different way for athletes to get compensated within the existing NCAA framework.
Would it be reasonable for an umbrella organization over college athletics to set a sort of salary cap on NIL payments based on the market average value of people's names, images and likenesses?
I have no problem with kids trying to make money. It just happened at the exact same time you didn’t have to sit out a year on a transfer. That’s the worst part. If it happened ten years ago it would be totally different now
Do you get a refund when they fold again in a year?
No, but I still wear my shirt from XFL 1.0.
Met a guy who had an XFL fantasy league. A wee bit too hardcore for me
The more I think about it, $43k for that player might be a fair market value for that player's NIL vs the 6 or 7 figure deals other players are getting. Comparing the average market value for players' NIL to what they actually receive might be a way of checking to see if players are getting money more for NIL versus pay for play.
Overall, this could be a period of transition to open pay for play in some form.
Last edited:
A bit of an aside but I'm curious to see how the EA franchise handles NIL. My bet would be they overlook it entirely.
