This post is more of a question than statements of fact or confident predictions. I was reading the Athletic's coverage on the recent bill. They had six of their reporters giving their thoughts on it and, what do you know, they all had the exact same opinion-It's all great. Nothing could go wrong. Worst case scenario for AD's is "they may have to build only one fountain outside of the football facilities instead of three"
It seems a little reckless to assume a potential federal law would simply allow student-athletes to make a little extra cash on the side without major negative consequences. I'm not sure what my opinion is on it yet, but at the very least, surely there are a few big outcomes that could happen:
-A couple of programs in every conference could have their rosters pillaged prior to the season. Two factors here-1. players getting paid can be a very simple transaction-boosters pay for an "autograph." 2. Transfer rules are already way more lenient than they used to be. If a federal law basically debilitates the NCAA, couldn't they become even more lenient? So, the programs that make it will need boosters to pony up and a really well-run program able to handle the organizational nightmare of 20+ players coming and going in addition to graduating seniors.
We might be one of the more organized/better run P5 programs outside of the bluebloods. Let's pretend for a second that we manage just fine because of that. It still sucks. I don't want to see a Big 12 where Texas Tech enters August with 55 scholarship players because they haven't had a program with a pulse in 2 decades (by the time this will be in effect). It hurts the product. I could see this happening to 2-3 schools in each conference.
-Would recruiting still revolve around any particular signing day? If a large number of recruits are promised a special deal on the side, wouldn't recruiting basically have to continue until the start of the season and beyond? If a kid gets to campus and his "deal" isn't as good as he thought, what keeps him there? Again, the NCAA could be pretty debilitated/transfer rules will continue to weaken.
-Title 9/olympic sports going away. I don't understand how this isn't a likely outcome. It's hard to envision the NCAA (or any governing body?) being strong enough to enforce that it continues. On top of that, boosters will pay recruits and players rather than donating to the Athletic Department.
So, AD's will see less money and there may not be any governing body with the power to force AD's to keep the 15 non-revenue producing sports. Whether or not this is ok, is a separate debate. The Athletic's echo chamber says "who cares! This industry is printing money and the players don't get any of it!"...I don't really see who is "getting rich off of these kids" to the degree that NIL will solve. Is their beef with Athletic Director salaries? Coaching salaries? I don't see how this bill will lower those in a way that allows non-revenue sports to continue. Bottom line-athletic departments will see less money from alumni-that's going to players.
Any others? I'm sure many issues will work themselves out after the first 5-10 years. But again, it feels reckless to assume that everything will be fine and it's as easy and simple as "letting players get paid to train younger kids back in their hometown."
It seems a little reckless to assume a potential federal law would simply allow student-athletes to make a little extra cash on the side without major negative consequences. I'm not sure what my opinion is on it yet, but at the very least, surely there are a few big outcomes that could happen:
-A couple of programs in every conference could have their rosters pillaged prior to the season. Two factors here-1. players getting paid can be a very simple transaction-boosters pay for an "autograph." 2. Transfer rules are already way more lenient than they used to be. If a federal law basically debilitates the NCAA, couldn't they become even more lenient? So, the programs that make it will need boosters to pony up and a really well-run program able to handle the organizational nightmare of 20+ players coming and going in addition to graduating seniors.
We might be one of the more organized/better run P5 programs outside of the bluebloods. Let's pretend for a second that we manage just fine because of that. It still sucks. I don't want to see a Big 12 where Texas Tech enters August with 55 scholarship players because they haven't had a program with a pulse in 2 decades (by the time this will be in effect). It hurts the product. I could see this happening to 2-3 schools in each conference.
-Would recruiting still revolve around any particular signing day? If a large number of recruits are promised a special deal on the side, wouldn't recruiting basically have to continue until the start of the season and beyond? If a kid gets to campus and his "deal" isn't as good as he thought, what keeps him there? Again, the NCAA could be pretty debilitated/transfer rules will continue to weaken.
-Title 9/olympic sports going away. I don't understand how this isn't a likely outcome. It's hard to envision the NCAA (or any governing body?) being strong enough to enforce that it continues. On top of that, boosters will pay recruits and players rather than donating to the Athletic Department.
So, AD's will see less money and there may not be any governing body with the power to force AD's to keep the 15 non-revenue producing sports. Whether or not this is ok, is a separate debate. The Athletic's echo chamber says "who cares! This industry is printing money and the players don't get any of it!"...I don't really see who is "getting rich off of these kids" to the degree that NIL will solve. Is their beef with Athletic Director salaries? Coaching salaries? I don't see how this bill will lower those in a way that allows non-revenue sports to continue. Bottom line-athletic departments will see less money from alumni-that's going to players.
Any others? I'm sure many issues will work themselves out after the first 5-10 years. But again, it feels reckless to assume that everything will be fine and it's as easy and simple as "letting players get paid to train younger kids back in their hometown."
