I fear this too. It's why I've long felt the NCAA should try their best to establish a more NFL like system where there is mandatory sharing. If a QB gets $1mil for signing, they are required to share 10% or something with the team, which is required for their success. I realize this sounds stupidly un-American. Or there is a cap on how …
I fear this too. It's why I've long felt the NCAA should try their best to establish a more NFL like system where there is mandatory sharing. If a QB gets $1mil for signing, they are required to share 10% or something with the team, which is required for their success. I realize this sounds stupidly un-American. Or there is a cap on how much teams can spend in NIL, set low enough that national powers like Notre Dame can't buy success and the smaller schools have some shot. Pipe dreams.
The purpose of NIL was never parity. It was to remove the ridiculous constraints on student athletes and allow them (albeit indirectly) to profit off of their talents just like any other student might, such as an engineering undergrad doing an internship or a musician receiving pay for a show. In that sense, it's been a success in my opinion.
I know the purpose was never parity, but that doesn't mean in my fantasy world it could at least not make worse what has always been bad about college athletics. I agree it is being successful in putting money in the hands of the young people, yet there are other considerations. If the schools aren't giving any of their own revenues to the NIL, then nothing we pay for seats or gear or such is helping the NIL. It's just all kinds of imperfect, we must agree.
It is indeed very imperfect. Although I'm a bit of an optimist. The big schools were always paying their players, they just hid it. Now that it's out in the open it's business as usual for them but a school like Cal now no longer has the whole "oh we can't do that" disadvantage.
I fear this too. It's why I've long felt the NCAA should try their best to establish a more NFL like system where there is mandatory sharing. If a QB gets $1mil for signing, they are required to share 10% or something with the team, which is required for their success. I realize this sounds stupidly un-American. Or there is a cap on how much teams can spend in NIL, set low enough that national powers like Notre Dame can't buy success and the smaller schools have some shot. Pipe dreams.
The purpose of NIL was never parity. It was to remove the ridiculous constraints on student athletes and allow them (albeit indirectly) to profit off of their talents just like any other student might, such as an engineering undergrad doing an internship or a musician receiving pay for a show. In that sense, it's been a success in my opinion.
I know the purpose was never parity, but that doesn't mean in my fantasy world it could at least not make worse what has always been bad about college athletics. I agree it is being successful in putting money in the hands of the young people, yet there are other considerations. If the schools aren't giving any of their own revenues to the NIL, then nothing we pay for seats or gear or such is helping the NIL. It's just all kinds of imperfect, we must agree.
It is indeed very imperfect. Although I'm a bit of an optimist. The big schools were always paying their players, they just hid it. Now that it's out in the open it's business as usual for them but a school like Cal now no longer has the whole "oh we can't do that" disadvantage.