And allow (force) the NFL to get in on it as well.

But unfortunately, I don't think most college players are worth that much. A small percentage are. I don't make the claim that colleges can't afford it, but I'm not convinced that most D1 college football players - let alone most D1 college athletes - will be better off in a market based system. A small percentage will do dramatically better (though maybe not much better than NIL allows), a larger, but still small chunk will do about the same, and the vast majority will be worse off.

The top 6 cap hits on the Chiefs make up more than 50% of the total team salary. College will likely follow a similar route where Isaiah Foskey, Mayer, Ben Morrison, Joe Alt and Sam Hartman get compensated the highest compared to the guys at the bottom of the roster.

At the end of the day, I’d rather those guys get the money compared to the coaches and Admin. The players are the ones sacrificing their health for our enjoyment.

If Chris O’Leary makes, say, $500k, Morrison is worth at least 3x.

If Al Washington makes $500K, I’d pay a stud edge prospect like Keon Keeley $2M per year. He’d be worth it, even if "unproven" - just like Will Anderson, unproven as he is, will be worth whatever he gets from the Arizona Cardinals with the 3rd pick next month.

Sam Hartman should probably be making $5M this year.

The NFL has always been able to change their rules to suit their needs. The NFL players have collectively bargained for the three year rule. And your answer, rather than remove compensation restrictions for college athletes, is to force the NFL players and owners to change their rules?

Why does it matter that some will be better off but most won’t? Even assuming that’s true, which I doubt it is, a system of artificial restraint which is then partially filled by black market compensation hardly seems the better alternative. But, maybe the whole thing burns itself up, and we go back to some form of the current system in 20 or 30 years. Seems a worthwhile risk compared to watching schools taking advantage of free labor to sign $10m contracts for mediocre coaches.

You probably don’t think Brian Kelly is a $10m coach, but he is according to LSU. So that should guide your thinking when you say “I don’t think most college players are worth that much”

If it wasn't for a specially granted congressional exemption.

The idea that the existing employment based model should be allowed to continue to collude to not hire people while the existing amateur model should be forced to pay people doesn't quite make sense to me.

I'm advocating removing restrictions on pay which I think is a pretty big difference. If schools don't want to pay then so be it -- as long as the athletes have appropriate representation.

Then it's forcing pay.

Now, I'll admit that I haven't researched whether Hollywood actors are characterized as independent contractors or employees. I thought at one time that professional athletes were independent contractors, but based on what I have found online in limited searching, they are employees.

I don't feel like getting into the IRS definition of employees vs. independent contractors. I would guess based on the captive and control provisions, it is likely the IRS would deem NCAA athletes employees.

Based on the black market compensation historically and now with NIL, it appears that both sides are in agreement that there is surplus value provided by the service providers. I'm not forcing universities to change their rules. I'd force the NCAA to abolish the amateurism rules thus allowing its member institutions the freedom to contract with the athletes as they'd like and for the athletes to procure proper representation. If Notre Dame wanted to continue with their current approach of NIL and scholarships and no other compensation, then I don't have a problem with it. They won't win, but I have come to expect that result anyway so no change there.

$25K per scholarship player per year. That's the same payroll as Texas Tech's football team's player payroll.

I believe at least a small group of high-performers get a lot more (mid 6 figures) or have done so in this most recent year. "NIL"...or whatever.

Ohio State is targeting $13M per year. Penn State/Franklin are on the record for wanting similar for payroll. Harbaugh thinks Michigan could do 2x that. Locksley (Maryland) says he could do well with 1/2 of the $13M Ryan Day wants.

Imagine that. The schools (well, their captive but "independent" charities) are voluntarily raising money to sign these players to deals out of the goodness of their hearts. That's so sweet of them. I was told in this thread that it's not a market so it can't be supply and demand driving these payments. We all know that 1st round All-American tight ends are a dime a dozen.

And, if anything isn't a more clear example of the stupidity of the current amateur structure, it's every single school funneling donations to NIL funds. So, rather than just removing the arcane amateurism rules around compensation and player representation, they've implemented a system where they are openly paying players but saying "it's not directly from the school". It's the equivalent of the pastor's daughter fucking half the football team but saying she's still a virgin because she only does anal. Well, sure, technically, but not really.

Justin Scott, the 5 star defensive line prospect at St. Ignatius, should have an attorney and an agent (certified by the NCAA) helping him with this process. Certainly not his high school football coach or a "friend of the family". We treat these kids like professionals in every way when it comes to the schools' interest but not when it comes to their own interests. It's preposterous the number of people on this board supporting the continuation of the obvious power imbalance.

They did a little post-mortem on their interview of Swarbrick from earlier in this week.

Wetzel finds it laughable that the NCAA/C. Baker are trying to turn NIL into a consumer protection concern while ignoring/blocking any progress to a free market system (which apparently Baker ran on politically at some point?), and the joke of a system that major CFB is in that it doesn't allow players the basic right of negotiating.

The transparency guy was full of shit. If they want to require disclosure to the school or another governing body, then it should only go as far as KYC-type reporting and not into actual contract terms.

I get most frustrated about the whole thing when people act like there aren't other models to follow for how to execute and where to put guardrails to protect from bad actors. The NBA and NFL have agent certification and registration requirements. I'm pretty sure both leagues also have rules about the kinds of products that can be endorsed.


I don't love salary caps or even collective bargaining at least to start. I'd prefer running it wide open for 5 or so years to see if universities are able avoid colluding to keep compensation down or, on the other end, bankrupting themselves with bad deals. If, after 5 years, the athletes want to consider unionizing and collective bargaining then it might make sense. Jumping straight there will be a bad deal for the players almost guaranteed.

Michael Mayer and Drake Maye are recent examples of success stories. Same with Nigel Pack, Nico I (Tennessee QB), Kansas State basketball, et al. The Rashada deal was unfortunate, but probably a necessary learning point for recruits and current CFB players.

I agree a wide-open marketplace (like the real world job market) would be better than unionized labor and salary caps and floors. I bang the 50% rev share drum primarily to show the discrepancy in treatment between Major CFB and the other 4 major pro leagues. 5% vs. 50%.

I believe the free market is much better. Let Ohio State find their $13M and see if that is enough to compete. If not, ratchet it up to $25M, $30M, $60M whatever it takes to pay the players and still have a shot at the national title.

If Northwestern wants to put all their donations from Ryan into a stadium and keep player payroll at $2M a year, pocket the TV money, and go 1-11, so be it.

Dan Wetzel as guest ("Fixing College Football"). Much of the same from Wetzel plus more. Should be required listening for all CFB fans. A couple of highlights:

"Amateurism is a ruse"

"What is morally wrong about paying people money that are good at sports?"

The NCAA and all the ADs are bureaucrats that like rules, structures, codes and would be better off just letting NIL "go" wherever it may go. There is no problem. As Wetzel continually asked Swarbrick "Where's the problem?"

Freeman wants NIL "enhanced."

Anything to avoid the looming FLSA/DOL/Title IX clusterfuck he's created.

And agree on Justin Scott, he should do quite well if he chooses to shop around.

If Alabama wants to offer ND's best player $1M to play TE for 1 season, he should be able to consider that option, go back to ND with that information, receive a counteroffer and then make a decision.

And same with all players, regardless of star power or benchwarmer status.

Recruits too.

I am fine with this less-restrictive model as well, although I see it being a lot messier than the NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL collectively-bargained rev share structure.

Contracts would eventually start to look like coach's contracts with termination language and fees, guarantees, moral character language, etc.

Colleges and athletic departments would be free to make decisions they think are in their best interests as would athletes. Budgets and pay ranges by position will develop. Some schools and boosters will care more than others and invest what many would consider to be insane amounts. Some will pay lip service to competing, pay below market, and extract huge profits. Same as it's ever been.

they deserve/demand from the system, it would be a much better system than the current one.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand the courts are loathe to override such agreements; setting eligibility for employment is a right that I can certainly see subject to bargaining.