I see the B1G championship as being the Rose Bowl every year, on January 1st. The SEC Championship will be the Sugar Bowl.

It wouldn't surprise me if one or both of the leagues decide to let HS graduates ... 18+ year olds play. As HS players gain more notoriety, it seems inevitable that the San Antonio Brahms take some 5 star bling, bling QB from Houston, or the Vegas Vipers entice a high profile kid from Bishop Gorman to play "locally". It is possible that they become a default "minor league" offering an alternative to the college life for kids who just want to play ball.

Will they shift their schedules from the spring? Maybe play mid-week in the fall for TV contracts - so you have football 7 days a week in the fall? Seems plausible to me.

I think CFB boosters will keep CFB alive, if not thrive, but I think there will be some new competition / alternatives for players.

it will come down to whatever makes the most money for the most people with the most power.

That’s the way of the world.

With elite high school underclassmen signing letters of intent, are NIL payments next? Will Nike sign and pay high school players? What about the local car dealership and BBQ restaurant?

Do local school districts make an implicit profit off of top-rated athletic programs driving up housing prices and school board property taxes? Isn't ND's true profit off of thousands of Sorin Society donors and the $$$$ donors feted at games. So maybe it's not as big of a reach as it seems at first.

With an occasional flying wedge thrown in the keep those Yale bastards from getting too cocky

Yale will always be first in gentlemanly club life.

This is not what I want, but what I expect:

The B1G and SEC will grow a little more, break out of the NCAA, and form their own set of rules, including championship eligibility. The rules will allow the schools to "associate" their football programs in such a way that football is largely off the books. Perhaps there will be some set of "scholarship" players who continue to go to class and work toward a degree. The others will practice/play for the NIL and possible NFL money. This has the added advantage of "lowering" spending and scholarships on men's sports, solving a potential Title IX challenge. The schools would set up partnering relationships with the teams, which could include a payment to the school which the school could then use as it pleases (for example, to continue to fund other varsity sports, although perhaps at a reduced level).

This mega-conference would welcome teams who want to play by their rules, and some set of the Group of Five, Big12, and Pac12 might join. Some schools might opt out completely and form a rival association with a more traditional model (student-athletes, restricted NIL agreements, etc). It would seem to be a less prestigious and less financially successful league, although it may grow over time.

The mega-conference would probably restrict overall membership (40? 50?) and permit some form of revenue sharing to help those teams which are less successful compete. But in the end, they would have some form of relegation for unsuccessful programs.

What began as a unique-if-shady "student-athlete" amateur sport will have grown into a full fledged minor league with only tenuous ties to the academic institutions which spawned it, all because those institutions were so blinded by greed they could govern themselves.

I have no idea which way Notre Dame would choose at this point.

End result for CFB - and the user experience - would seem to be:

-Players coming to college to play football for more than academic reasons, or with little care to academics. Some will come for both, still.
-Players getting paid to play at major college football programs.
-Expanded playoff structure to increase total revenue.
-Player movement between teams, with some regulation, and with risk of being cut/released.

Don't we already have all of those things? And for decades on 3/4 of those items.

And,
-Less crap matchups against Bowling Green, North Texas, et al.
-More high-valued games (=TV revenue and other FRR) amongst the Major CFB League's 50 or so teams?
-Reduced spending on coaches, bloated admin staffs in the Athletic Dept and facilities and amenities.

I'm guessing fans will adapt, and consume.

EDIT to add: I'd also include increased gambling and fantasy football revenues that throw off millions of dollars of new revenue per program.

But it will be tough for students and future alumni to have a real connection to the football team. This is especially the case at a place like Notre Dame where the athletes are “real” students. The connection in the above scenario is more like choosing your favorite NFL team.

I also think in this scenario that ND, under current leadership, would sooner bulldoze the stadium than participate.

an inclination to pass up billions of dollars in revenues and would just as soon bulldoze the stadium.

Right.

Swarbrick says they've increased headcount by so much in the football program that their meeting spaces are no longer adequate for positional meetings, recruiting meetings, etc.

And they need more space for studying and eating, as the players are doing those things more and more at the Gug these days.

and bulldoze the stadium.

Because Jenkins says he doesn't want to have the players as employees.

Right.

People need to focus on what Jenkins and Jack do and not what they say.

what would prevent Notre Dame from maintaining status quo in terms of football players living in the dorms, earning their undergrad degree, etc?

Recognize, ND players are getting paid today (and some, quite well) and some grad student players are part time students not working towards a degree.

"student" model if the SEC/B1G don't.

which of ND's star players right now (or any player for that matter) would tap out if offered a chance to not get the degree from ND?

I think CJ Carr and Cam Williams would choose ND still. Or maybe even more confidently.

playing professional football, which is what the SEC/B1G would be doing by eliminating the student requirement. We have a hard enough time by having serious student standards now. If the other major programs formally eliminate the student requirement altogether, that gap will only widen.

the only place I've seen that suggested is on this board, usually by you. I have heard nothing similar to that anywhere else.

Is this your new replacement for the title 9 boogeyman?

I get it, I took Marketing with the football players. Some courses are sort of "easier" than others intentionally. It happens. But it's still a far cry from people majoring in PE or General Studies.

But for every group like that you have a student that takes the harder road. I think Jabari Holloway had like a 3.85 in Engineering. Sure, he gets personal tutors but you have to apply some elbow grease to do that and be a starting player.

Honestly, if we're going to start paying people big bucks, then why make that contingent on being a student? It's sort of an insult to the students and the other sports.

I take exception to your "title 9 boogeyman" on behalf of him. You continually state anyone wanting anything other than your scheme is propping up corrupt ADs, which is certainly not the case. "AD boogeyman" maybe?

requirement; it sets up a specific timeframe for when eligibility is concluded. That will be important for setting up rules and parameters for whatever changes take place with any new setup down the line.

The title 9 defense is laughable. You can take offense if you wish, that's your prerogative. Yes, it is something that they will have to work around. No, it will not be a deal breaker like vadbldomer seems to constantly indicate. It's something that the NCAA (and more recently, Notre Dame's president and athletic director) throw out there as a defense, as if they don't already treat different sports and athletes differently. The courts laughed at it, and so should anyone who understands how things work.

laughing" at schools trotting out the Title IX defense. Taking your version of events as true -- that one judge during an oral argument took a dim view of an NCAA attorney pointing out a Title IX problem = all federal judges everywhere, including SCOTUS, dismiss it as a problem -- that in no way means that all federal judges will laugh at a female student athlete suing for what she argues is equitable compensation if/when a couple guys on the football team are making 7 figures directly from the school while she's getting $7.25/hour. Very few judges would laugh at that claim.

But maybe you're right, and that it's all a tempest in a teapot. Maybe student-athletes will be paid like equity law firm partners, eat what you kill. I don't think Title IX allows that. In fact, I'm pretty sure it mandates the antithesis of it. But maybe you're right. After all, you played college football and coached football for 100 years, and I've only watched it.

Especially for football?

better question: What happens to title 9 when/if athletes are declared employees?

You do have the NCAA fear talking points down, I will give you that.

lighting what strikes me as a significant issue that needs to be addressed in wherever this is going.

As to your questions, that's where the rubber meets the road IMO. You have pretty much stated that athletes will remain students. I hope that's right, but I'm curious what you think that would look like in practice. All I'm hearing suggested amounts to "eat what you kill," and I have grave doubts that would pass Title IX muster. The other alternatives are to pay all student-athletes equitably or to eliminate the student aspect entirely. You claim that "nobody" (except me evidently, and now maybe ravenium) is considering the latter and only Swarbrick/NCAA defenders are suggesting it. Well, I don't know who is/isn't suggesting it, but to get to "eat what you kill" and eliminate Title IX, that is the logical endpoint.

But, again, I didn't play college football and coach for decades, so I'm sure those who have know better.

Title 9 is far down the list. Probably top of the list is workman's comp and long term health care issues. Title 9 is a red herring. The ncaa doesn't really care about that, but they do care about long term expenses.

about Title IX, particularly as it would pertain to compensation. I think that's naive, but I could certainly be wrong. Note well, I'm not saying anything about the NCAA or ADs.

I don't think anyone has made that assumption.

there seems to be an assumption on your part, however, that female athletes want to be included on revenues generated from other sports. I don't think that's necessarily accurate. In fact, I have yet to see that claimed by any female athlete anywhere.

however, I have seen the NCAA talking points which basically go something along the lines of, "if we pay the male players, it will ruin women's sports. Why do you hate women?" Of course, anyone even somewhat capable of critical thinking sees that nonsensical argument for exactly what it is.

specious arguments. (again, at the risk of politically adjacent topics) People out here are using the ADA to sue the city for not clearing homeless tents. I would postulate they do not actually care about people with disabilities, they wanted a vehicle (or an excuse, depending on how you look at it) for the other issue. Be that as it may, they may actually be legally correct.

Likewise, it could entirely be true that Jack and co are using title 9 as an excuse to not change anything, but that hardly means change isn't a fraught and perilous subject, nor does it mean those who question things under title 9 are all shills for The Man.

You have yet to see female athletes wanting money revenue? I'm pretty sure if you ask the womens' basketball team if they'd like to be paid they'd say "ok!".

hence the request for athletes to be paid minimum wage (as a starting point). I have yet to see female athletes demand to be paid from the same pie as the football players, as an example. That would be silly.

I think it'd be fine to have football as a ND in Name Only semi-pro sport, separate from the university.

The NFL is getting its milk for free, and the universities don't want to relinquish the cash cow they've developed. It'd take years, if ever, to organically develop the following of university athletics in a minor league. Fine, we're now the owner of the AAA ND Fighting Irish.

Is eligibility a concern? Right now we come up with sort of BS reasons for people to stay for a 5th year anyway. If they're professional athletes with proper compensation, it's just a contract.

I honestly think Title 9 as a defense is about as flimsy as people around here who claim the homeless blocking the sidewalks is an ADA concern - it's a deceptive legal vehicle and a means to an end. However, I would say if I'm a star point guard for ND women's basketball, I'd be sort of pissed that the star point guard for the men's team is making 10x for the same level of effort.

We may do this, but it doesn't make it right, and we shouldn't seek to make it less right. To suggest "that's how things work" ignores the fact that we're trying to fix how thinks work in an equitable (forgive the use of a currently fraught word) fashion.

Under a players as employees model, why not endeavor to recruit/employ the same type of kid ND targets right now; hard working, responsible, an asset in the community, etc.

Let's say 80 percent of the team had the grades to earn a ND degree and the other 20 percent, either didn't have the grades/or didn't want a degree, but were still a strong presence in the ND community and wanted to play for the ND brand, but not work towards a degree.

We have statues outside the stadium for Lou and Ara who didn't go to school here and were just "employees" of the university. Are there recruits/individuals out there who may not be suited for the ND classrooms, but are impressive individuals I'd be happy to represent my school and are a net positive to the community? I'd think so.

(in that he came back to finish his degree)

Guarantee four years as part of compensation (and whatever pay model) but you don't say when those four years have to be. You can come back and finish your degree if your NFL career doesn't pan out.

being insulted by ND football players attending class and making money?

Is that how they feel now about Mayer, Hamilton, Foskey, Buchner et al?

(and even if so, not sure why that would matter, assuming the players are also working towards a degree in the classroom).

I suspect the 18-22 year old students would deal with this a lot better than the old folks.

considering this. Female, full scholarship athletes at ND probably realize they have a pretty good thing going and would be less inclined to rock the boat. But I'm not so sure the same rationale would obtain at any number of SEC/B1G schools. Do you think female sprinters at LSU/Ohio State will be "all good" making $7.25/hour while the starting skill position players are making 7 figures? I'm fairly certain you'd have no shortage of plaintiff's attorneys salivating over that claim.

Even NIL could be creating TItle IX liability at Notre Dame and elsewhere.

ND football players getting $25K each, annually, via "NIL" while the only women's sport in which an entire roster is getting paid is basketball...that could be viewed one of two ways, it seems:
- an unequal opportunity provided by a booster party (more accurately defined as a 3rd party partner of ND's athletic department called FUND), and a potential Title IX violation, - OR _
- an equal opportunity to market one's own name, image, likeness for all student-athletes; CFB players are just simply more marketable and attract more NIL dollars (See: any and all data on TV viewership of CFB/women's sports, the fact the entire WNBA is only 40% the market size of ND football, and so on).

Obviously, I tend to lean towards the side of merit-based compensation and that Major CFB is a unique beast and a multi-billion dollar industry (and as such should be treated differently) while the other college sports are nothing like it and more in line with the extracurricular activities intended from the start.

That being said, not sure the courts will see it that way, as you say.

of other people's salary?

Seriously, people just have the NCAA's talking points down like a bunch of trained monkeys.

"Oh, oh title 9!"

"Oh, oh other athletes will be jealous!"

"Oh, oh most of them don't deserve that kind of salary!"

Silly.

so it's probably just best to not give them any of the money and let the coaches and 350 athletic department employees keep it all.

It's not required to give it either to the athletes or the athletic administration.

and pay them handsomely. And not sure the general student population has an entitlement claim for those millions of dollars in revenue, either, but that's just my opinion.

There are probably no college students treated better, fed better, and provided more financial benefits than football players. With NIL it is not even close. I do not have a lot of sympathy about how "exploited" they are. I compare them to their peer group - other students.

As to whether the general student population is entitled, I would argue that it is the existence of the general student population that makes developmental football an order of magnitude more financially successful than minor leagues in other sports.

Players in this industry should have free-market rights and be able to negotiate for optimal conditions, compensation, etc. Just like their brethren in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL.

They can certainly still be good students, good classmates, and 18-22 years old at the same time.

cujays96 and MrE to be positing it as a possibility. I know you have posted before that you don't think it will happen, which I'm happy to hear.

If ND is one of the only, or the only, major CFB program that requires or has a high percentage of attending-class players, I think their crop of 20-24 recruits signed every year will be BETTER than their current crop.

The sales pitch will be stronger, not weaker.

If Ohio State, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, USC et al. are paying the same money as ND is to players, then the differentiator would be the academic experience and being surrounded by other student-athletes, not just guys fixated 100% on football. I'd bet ND would be able to land kids like Emeka Egbuka, Treveyon Henderson, Landon Turner, Keon Keeley, Christopher Vizzina, Xavier Nwankpa, Sam Okunlola and so on.

More Cam Williameses, more CJ Carrs, more Jaylon Smiths, more Chris Tyrees, more Blake Fishers, more Jaylon Sneeds.

They would, indeed, continue to lose out on the kids that don't want to play school. They never get those kids now.

Let the other schools slither down the drain together.

EDIT to add: More Braylone Jameses, more Ben Morrisons, more Tyler Buchners, more Kyle Hamiltons, more Christian Grays, more Drayk Bowens, you get the point.

been how to squeeze everything past Title IX. I am a proponent of women sports. But there's a massive void when it comes to football which is an outlier. Especially after the lawsuits start percolating over the lack of NIL money directed at female athletes, colleges will start to look into the advantages of putting football into a separate catgeory, and based on the premise that players are not students - or at least a portion of them.

The NCAA is doomed. It's a matter of when not if. The fact that it has lasted this long is actually a testament to how much we love college football. And the conference route is unsustainable. Colleges are self-interested. I don't blame them. It's the disingenuousness that they have the students in mind that bothers me.

I think there's a lot to unpack but I'm not sure what you described isn't necessarily bad for Notre Dame. If there isn't already, there will be a fork in the road and I don't think the one where Notre Dame has 85 employee-football players is a good one. Even now, we've seen how roster management impacts the connection points we have with the team. Sam Hartman seems like a great guy but he'll be 24 years old next year and this will be his 6th year playing college football.

league. NFL pays the players. Colleges pay all other operating costs.

It will be akin to how the top soccer clubs in Europe loan their younger players to lesser teams to get development opportunities.

Why would the NFL agree to pay $.01 to any college players or schools? They are getting the product for free, what would be the benefit to them to change that model? The schools can do whatever they want and create any eligibility rules that they want, I don't think the NFL will be contributing any money towards that. They also have a monopoly on the product. If you want to play football, where else are you going to go? Again, not saying that things won't change, but for the NFL to be involved college football would essentially have to go away, have no association with any schools, and become a true minor league. They aren't giving money without control over the product, training, coaching, roster management, etc.