Nick Saban, a known cheater like his friend Bill Belichick, wants to limit player compensation

[L A M P]

NIL needs no tweaking IMO. It's an open market and should be. Like any other entertainer.

If anything needs tweaking it is probably the transfer portal

Like with any new developing market, my guess is that it can be improved upon. Same with the portal.

Re-assess. Tweak (if needed). Profit.

 

[CaneinBroward]

Nobody doubts they're connected to the football program in some way. After all, the collectives are named after the teams.

But the money doesn't come from the school. It has nothing to do with the revenue from TV contracts, tickets or school donations. It's a third party.

The key is the distinction between revenue-sharing and collectives. In the NFL, the teams make hundreds of millions from TV deals, tickets and the like. They split the revenue with the players. The players, through a union, collectively bargain for the split (which is reflected in a salary cap) and rules to avoid circumventing the cap.

None of that is present here. Let's talk about the House Settlement, which is what Saban wants Congress to codify as law:

- The revenue split is not 50/50 or even 48/52. The players only get 22%. The rest goes to bloated athletic departments.

- There is no collective bargaining and nobody truly representing the players. The terms are negotiated by plaintiff's lawyers, and those terms would bind players currently in Pop Warner.

- NIL money, which boosters are currently willing to pay, would be subject to approval by an NCAA clearinghouse (or a third-party hired by the NCAA). They would be tasked with determining "market value" (whatever that means) and would have the power to reject deals as pay-for-play. The NCAA would grow its enforcement arm which, as we know from our own experience, is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

- The end result is that the players get less money because they are cut off from a major money source (boosters), given a paltry 22% share of revenue, and forced to fund every other sport with no corresponding benefit to them.

This is the reality of what Saban is pushing. The judge rejected the House settlement because the NIL restrictions made no sense. Rather than craft something legal, they are going to ask Congress for an antitrust law exemption that allows the NCAA to enforce their illegal rules with impunity.

Just wait. Collective bargaining is coming. UAB has unionized. Northwestern has looked into it. It is just a matter of time.

The question is what form will college football end up taking. You're bringing up free market ideology when it's not a free market. The government has its fingers (and funding) all over colleges and the sports they play.

You're upset that the money is going to bloated athletic departments. Okay, well, much of that bloat is to offer the number of sports to be within Title IX regulations. Either add more women's sports or cut men's programs. I was at Miami in the early '90's when a huge number of men's sports were discontinued because of the need to get the number of scholarships in order for Title IX.

If you want the free market to reign supreme, then D1 college football is going to have to -privatize and become for-profit. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I will say be careful what you wish for because Miami is probably not one of those schools that would be able to be competitive in that circumstance (especially with Ruiz going through some rough times now).

Most people would agree with you that players should be paid, but quit using NIL and collectives as the facade for making it happen. NIL would be payments for using the athlete's name on jerseys, or likeness in video games. Keep those contracts separate and they follow the athlete wherever he may go. Make the collectives and their agreements with athletes what they are really for - getting athletes to play for the university. An employment contract and enforce it as such. Oh, you don't want to play in the bowl game? You're not getting that portion of your contract. Oh, you decided you want to enter the transfer portal and are not going to play for the rest of the year? You're not getting paid.

You mentioned the NCAA getting an anti-trust exemption. Well, MLB has it, so who knows? I'd only be for it if the NCAA actually had power over the schools it represents. Let's be honest, the conferences are the ones really in charge. Each one has its own TV deal and therefore the biggest source of revenue in the industry. Imagine the AFC East teams being paid $30M less per year than the NFC North because the NFC North has a better TV deal? How do you collectively bargain with such disparities in the market? Each conference would have to negotiate its own collective bargaining agreement? Pure madness.

 

[AtlAtty]

I think Ice Cube described Nick Saban best when he said “A B*tch is a B*tch”.

Ok so the line was not specifically about Saban, but the shoe fits, and Saban is one.

 

[AtlAtty]

Like with any new developing market, my guess is that it can be improved upon. Same with the portal.

Re-assess. Tweak (if needed). Profit.

Yes but let the free market do the tweaking, which it will. We don’t need legislation for how much money a person can make.

 

[MiamisMoperiestMopes]

I hate what this is doing and will ultimately do to my favorite sport but am also glad we’re at least on the good side of it for now.

Good discussion here though.

 

[DMoney]

Just wait. Collective bargaining is coming. UAB has unionized. Northwestern has looked into it. It is just a matter of time.

The question is what form will college football end up taking. You're bringing up free market ideology when it's not a free market. The government has its fingers (and funding) all over colleges and the sports they play.

You're upset that the money is going to bloated athletic departments. Okay, well, much of that bloat is to offer the number of sports to be within Title IX regulations. Either add more women's sports or cut men's programs. I was at Miami in the early '90's when a huge number of men's sports were discontinued because of the need to get the number of scholarships in order for Title IX.

If you want the free market to reign supreme, then D1 college football is going to have to -privatize and become for-profit. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I will say be careful what you wish for because Miami is probably not one of those schools that would be able to be competitive in that circumstance (especially with Ruiz going through some rough times now).

Most people would agree with you that players should be paid, but quit using NIL and collectives as the facade for making it happen. NIL would be payments for using the athlete's name on jerseys, or likeness in video games. Keep those contracts separate and they follow the athlete wherever he may go. Make the collectives and their agreements with athletes what they are really for - getting athletes to play for the university. An employment contract and enforce it as such. Oh, you don't want to play in the bowl game? You're not getting that portion of your contract. Oh, you decided you want to enter the transfer portal and are not going to play for the rest of the year? You're not getting paid.

You mentioned the NCAA getting an anti-trust exemption. Well, MLB has it, so who knows? I'd only be for it if the NCAA actually had power over the schools it represents. Let's be honest, the conferences are the ones really in charge. Each one has its own TV deal and therefore the biggest source of revenue in the industry. Imagine the AFC East teams being paid $30M less per year than the NFC North because the NFC North has a better TV deal? How do you collectively bargain with such disparities in the market? Each conference would have to negotiate its own collective bargaining agreement? Pure madness.

I agree with you that this is where it ultimately ends (collective bargaining, privatization, restricted player movement, looser affiliation with schools). And that would be a better system in the long term.

My issue with the proposal pushed by Saban is that the NCAA returns to being the regulator and the enforcer. They’ve lost all credibility, and the terms of the House Settlement are garbage for the players.

Either blow it up, or let the players have free rein to get paid by boosters. Don’t artificially deflate their earning power and prop up an NCAA bureaucracy.

 

[AtlAtty]

Just wait. Collective bargaining is coming. UAB has unionized. Northwestern has looked into it. It is just a matter of time.

The question is what form will college football end up taking. You're bringing up free market ideology when it's not a free market. The government has its fingers (and funding) all over colleges and the sports they play.

You're upset that the money is going to bloated athletic departments. Okay, well, much of that bloat is to offer the number of sports to be within Title IX regulations. Either add more women's sports or cut men's programs. I was at Miami in the early '90's when a huge number of men's sports were discontinued because of the need to get the number of scholarships in order for Title IX.

If you want the free market to reign supreme, then D1 college football is going to have to -privatize and become for-profit. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I will say be careful what you wish for because Miami is probably not one of those schools that would be able to be competitive in that circumstance (especially with Ruiz going through some rough times now).

Most people would agree with you that players should be paid, but quit using NIL and collectives as the facade for making it happen. NIL would be payments for using the athlete's name on jerseys, or likeness in video games. Keep those contracts separate and they follow the athlete wherever he may go. Make the collectives and their agreements with athletes what they are really for - getting athletes to play for the university. An employment contract and enforce it as such. Oh, you don't want to play in the bowl game? You're not getting that portion of your contract. Oh, you decided you want to enter the transfer portal and are not going to play for the rest of the year? You're not getting paid.

You mentioned the NCAA getting an anti-trust exemption. Well, MLB has it, so who knows? I'd only be for it if the NCAA actually had power over the schools it represents. Let's be honest, the conferences are the ones really in charge. Each one has its own TV deal and therefore the biggest source of revenue in the industry. Imagine the AFC East teams being paid $30M less per year than the NFC North because the NFC North has a better TV deal? How do you collectively bargain with such disparities in the market? Each conference would have to negotiate its own collective bargaining agreement? Pure madness.

I will say that every player’s NIL deal requires something of the player. Notice all the autograph signings that @DMoney keeps posting about. That is because those players have it in their contracts that they must do __ number of signings, ___ number of social media posts, and so on.
Now by doing so, the collectives are paying the player’s for their Name, Image and Likeness; an autograph or social media post are absolutely NIL.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that UM requires its players to provide their NIL to satisfy their contracts. My nephew plays basketball at UM and I reviewed his contract for him.

Lastly, I think there is about a 0.00% chance the NCAA receives anti-trust exemption from Congress. it would be wildly unpopular. Even MLB would not receive an exemption if the issue arose today. And notice that the NBA and NFL have not as well.

As the US Supreme Court told us, you cannot stop a person from making money off THEIR NIL. Any legislation that tried to do so would be shot down by the Supreme Court.

 

[Caned Peach]

I like this new D$:

 

[Dwinstitles]

They know that SEC strangle hold is going to end. All they want is to protect the conference, thats why they want to limit the cap.

 

[CaneinBroward]

I will say that every player’s NIL deal requires something of the player. Notice all the autograph signings that @DMoney keeps posting about. That is because those players have it in their contracts that they must do __ number of signings, ___ number of social media posts, and so on.
Now by doing so, the collectives are paying the player’s for their Name, Image and Likeness; an autograph or social media post are absolutely NIL.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that UM requires its players to provide their NIL to satisfy their contracts. My nephew plays basketball at UM and I reviewed his contract for him.

Lastly, I think there is about a 0.00% chance the NCAA receives anti-trust exemption from Congress. it would be wildly unpopular. Even MLB would not receive an exemption if the issue arose today. And notice that the NBA and NFL have not as well.

As the US Supreme Court told us, you cannot stop a person from making money off THEIR NIL. Any legislation that tried to do so would be shot down by the Supreme Court.

I don't think anyone has a problem with players making money off their NIL or any other source. However, don't falsely label them as NIL if they are not NIL. It's bs. The vast majority does not give a crap for how often they go to autograph sessions, make social media posts, etc. and would not pay that level of money for autograph sessions. The majority of contracts are there for the player to play sports at that university.

 

[Dwinstitles]

It dead *** looks like I hacked Dmoney's account

 

[SCarolina Ibis]

I’m tired of glorifying cheaters.

Saban got exposed when he went to the pros and couldn’t cheat to buy the best players. When NIL leveled the playing field in college, he quit and cried.

His friend Belichick got caught cheating because he didn’t have the same relationship with the NFL that Saban had with Emmert, the NCAA president. Emmert hired Saban when he was chancellor of LSU.

If we’re keeping Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens out of the HOF, these two cheaters deserve worse.

This really puts Saban/Emmert into perspective:

1994: NCAA delivers official letter of inquiry accusing Alabama of rules violations ... including lack of institutional control.

1995: Alabama is placed on probation for three years, banned from a bowl appearance, ordered to give up 26 scholarships over three years and forced to foreit eight victories from 1993 (reduced to two years and 17 scholarships on appeal).

1996: NCAA strips the football program of one scholarship for failing to disclose player loans that were guaranteed by a Birmingham tire and wheel dealer.

1999: Alabama avoids NCAA sanctions following claims a former assistant basketball coach tried to create a slush fund for recruits. NCAA warns severe penalties could result from any violations over the next five years.

January 2001: The Commercial Appeal, reports that a Crimson Tide booster is said to have paid a high school coach $200,000 to steer a top recruit to Alabama.

February 2001: Alabama receives a preliminary letter of inquiry from the NCAA.

Sept. 2001: Alabama receives official notice of alleged rules violations from NCAA.

Feb. 2002: Alabama football receives five years probation, including a two-year postseason ban, because of a recruiting scandal in which boosters were accused of paying money for prep players.

Oct. 2007: University bookstore employee discovers questionable textbook charges by women’s track and field athlete, prompting internal investigation.

January 3, 2007: Nick Saban named HC.

June 11, 2009: The NCAA places 16 athletic programs, including football on three years of probation for misuse of free textbooks student athletes obtained for others using their scholarships.

November 1, 2010: Mark Emmert officially takes over as NCAA president.

2011: Alabama is a clean program
2012: Alabama is a clean program
2013: Alabama is a clean program
2014: Alabama is a clean program
2015: Alabama is a clean program
2016: Alabama is a clean program
2017: Alabama is a clean program
2018: Alabama is a clean program
2019: Alabama is a clean program
2020: Alabama is a clean program
2021: Alabama is a clean program
2022: Alabama is a clean program

March 1, 2023: Mark Emmert retires.
January 10, 2024: Saban announces his retirement.

 

[Return of the U]

OK, so here’s what happens in the professional world:

-You pay ur own way
-If you get cut, you’re only protected for the upfront, guarantee $
-You don’t have a guaranteed roster spot
-Any off field incident can lead to a void of contract

So in other words:

Universities need to stop supplying free education b/c that’s not happening in the professional world

Players should be able to get cut w/ zero repercussions

Players need to sign a dotted line for contractual obligations

This blurred line of NIL needs to stop being pushed. NIL was never intended to be what we’re seeing, period. The purpose of NIL was to not prohibit a student from being able to profit off their name image or likeness in the commercial world which included lost monies from video games, commercial appearances, apparel sales, memorabilia sales that went only to the University, Apparel Companies, Auctioneers, and/or Electronic Companies.

That was the whole point; the pay for play language was touched upon but not fully executed. My problem w/ the sensationalism is everything has been short sighted, to the point that it’s eroding college athletics, & it’s a want my cake & ice cream too. The same ones that r screaming let NIL remain in its current format are the same ones saying but these are kids and student athletes. One minute u want them to be professionals & the next get the same treatment as a student. You can’t have it both ways,

So if u want CFB to be a minor league football program ala UFL, then let’s go all the way. Let’s separate CFB from College, place a commissioner over all non NCAA participant programs, get a salary cap, get rid of scholarships and bring on contracts, reduce the number of players on a roster, & start treating them like paid professionals. I’m sick of the half stepping; either they’re student athletes that should be able to commercialize off their names or they are professional athletes that will be contracted.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges here.

I am in the camp that says paid players are no longer "kids" and should be criticized for their performance.

I also think players were compensated more than people wanted to admit prior to NIL through scholarships, nutrition, training, coaching costs (IIRC there were estimates that a player costs big time programs $250k plus a year).

That being said - what you are outlining/comparing to is revenue sharing - which is not NIL. NIL is outside a school. Sure every "team" has a collective, but that is simply a group of people OUTSIDE the school willing to pay players for certain - as D$ put it - deliverables. They are not related to the school. They can bargain for whatever they want with the players on the open market, including limiting the length of NIL deals and how/when they renew or terminate.

That's totally different from pro sports which is a revenue sharing model. Your arguments would hold 10x more weight across the board if it was revenue sharing - which it's not. Additonally, revenue sharing should be bargained for, like any other contract in the real world. That means what college athletes agree to would not necessarily be the same as pro sports - there could be differences. Which is why it's all conjecture when comparing a pro athlete's salary and endorsement deal to NIL.

Then we can talk about paying your own way vs. scholarships, banning collectives to circumvent any bargained for salary cap, limiting transfers, etc.

But as NIL is currently setup, by the NCAA and it's member institutions, there is no valid argument to limiting NIL/collectives or questioning their "intent."

And certainly no reason for Congress to be passing legislation limiting NIL (unconstitutional as anything). Since when does Congress get involved with private contracts?

 

[AtlAtty]

I don't think anyone has a problem with players making money off their NIL or any other source. However, don't falsely label them as NIL if they are not NIL. It's bs. The vast majority does not give a crap for how often they go to autograph sessions, make social media posts, etc. and would not pay that level of money for autograph sessions. The majority of contracts are there for the player to play sports at that university.

But autograph signings and social media posts are Name, image and likeness.

Look, no one can say what the value is an autograph is. I may think 1 autograph is worth $500,000. You may think it is worth $5. But in both situations, the athlete is being paid for their autograph, which is part of their Name, Image and Likeness.
No one can say the value of anything in a free market society.

And lastly, and maybe most importantly to your last point, my nephew’s contract explicitly states that his compensation is not tied to him playing basketball for UM. In order to satisfy the terms of the contract, my nephew has to provide his NIL as agreed upon under the terms of the contract. Even if he never gets off the bench he will still earn the same money.

So how is it pay to play if it not connected to playing?

 

[Dwinstitles]

There is absolutely nothing good about this, & the only reason y u’re stating this is b/c Miami has benefited “somewhat” from this.

Our roster has been in influx since 2019 w/ no cohesion. So yeah, we’ve been able to buy a player for a season or two, w/ what results? Meanwhile, u have a school like Texas that’s buying up the whole **** CFB world. Oregon is buying up every 5 star walking planet earth.

I don’t want that ****; u want CFB to be ran like California, & I’m saying California is a total **** show b/c of lack of parameters. EVERY infrastructure needs structure. I do not want college athletics to lose what made college athletics different than professional athletics. Ppl still care about college.

So yes, there needs to be parameters around both NIL & The Transfer Portal, & I really wish u would stop looking at things from an Orange & Green lens vs. the betterment & health of the entire sport. Under the table bags should’ve always been regulated w/ extreme prejudice, just like removing the ability of a student athlete to make $$ off their NIL should’ve never been imposed. There’s a happy medium, but I feel both sides r way too right & way too left.

Again, I’m all for NIL. If Pepsi wanna pay player A $2m for 5 yrs to star in their commercial, so be it. If Adidas wanna pay player B $1.5m to rock their products, so be it. If Mercedes want player C to advertise their car on campus, so be it. If The University shares $$ from jersey sales to player D, so be. But if the Collectives from University wanna pay E to play at their favorite school, or steal player E from their current school, that’s bull **** & not the intent of NIL.

You right about Cali and yea that does happen when you just go crazy and give give give.....it collapses

 

[Return of the U]

Like with any new developing market, my guess is that it can be improved upon. Same with the portal.

Re-assess. Tweak (if needed). Profit.

I think that onus is on the collectives.

Ideally we get some bargained for revenue sharing, then we can talk about limiting transfers, cutting players, etc. Not sure why players would agree to limit their NIL in that instance either.

Schools would have to push for banning circumvention of the revenue sharing. But players would still be able to sign deals with Gatorade - or even bigger - Canesinsight - if they wanted to.

 

[CaneinBroward]

But autograph signings and social media posts are Name, image and likeness.

Look, no one can say what the value is an autograph is. I may think 1 autograph is worth $500,000. You may think it is worth $5. But in both situations, the athlete is being paid for their autograph, which is part of their Name, Image and Likeness.
No one can say the value of anything in a free market society.

And lastly, and maybe most importantly to your last point, my nephew’s contract explicitly states that his compensation is not tied to him playing basketball for UM. In order to satisfy the terms of the contract, my nephew has to provide his NIL as agreed upon under the terms of the contract. Even if he never gets off the bench he will still earn the same money.

So how is it pay to play if it not connected to playing?

Would your nephew get that contract if he didn't play basketball for Miami? If he decides to play basketball for Duke next year, will the collective renew his contract?

That's my whole point. Get rid of the facade. It's like someone mentioned in another part of the thread regarding Stephen Ross paying $10M for Tua to be his babysitter on the side.

 

[TwentySix]

Only made it two pages into this thread but I will literally never understand people that are so pro-salary cap in any sport. Y’all wanna be pro capitalism and free market so bad until it comes to sports.

Also don’t see why “pay to play” has become such a negative term. That’s literally what a contract is. Being paid to do a job.

 

[TwentySix]

Oh also **** Nick Saban. Whole ******* football program was riding around in brand new Chargers and Challengers (literally, not just an internet joke) but now he wants to cry about it because being insulated from scrutiny in Tuscaloosa doesn’t do any good.

 

[AtlAtty]

Would your nephew get that contract if he didn't play basketball for Miami? If he decides to play basketball for Duke next year, will the collective renew his contract?

My nephew’s contract is for 1 year and it is based on the value UM places on him. Your points are valid in that the real value is his ability to play basketball, but there is nothing in the contract that provides performance bonuses or anything of the sort. His value to UM is because he's a good basketball player-we can all agree. But his actual compensation is for that he does off the court, not on the court.

This may seem like semantics to you, but the entire job of lawyers is to create contracts that are within the rules.