Thoughtful article Nick. I think you know my position so I won't bore you with a repeat of my thoughts. However, I did see an idea put forth from one University (sadly I can't remember which one) that said they would adopt a policy where 75% of the earnings by any athlete would go into a pool to be distributed equally to all players on the team. I could see something like this working, especially if the pool is for more than just the players on the team. That way no team loaded with talent becomes rich, drawing more talent while other schools in the opposite situation continue to deteriorate. If the NCAA had a pool that included 75% of all players earnings to be distributed equally to all players across the FBS (or FCS), then I'm ok with the changes. But if the NCAA goes to a pure professional model, I'll stop watching college football.
It's the new Georgia law, where 75% gets put into escrow and then disbursed based on time spent at the university. But I think the tax rate is also super high.
As someone who went through the NCAA brainwashing when I visited their Hall of Champions in Indianapolis a few years ago (the NCAA saved lives! they outlaw the "wedge" aka the "Flying V" from the Mighty Ducks which turned into players being killed in the very early days of football), I don't quite see them as completely useless. Instead, it's an ineffective and corrupt organization (like many things that have been in power for too long) that does need some major updates.
I think there are two major stages in how collegiate amateurism might end. The first one, which has been put in motion in many state legislations, is the athletes being able to profit off their own images and fame. While this act alone can cause some imbalance between larger schools and small schools, I think the impact will be minimal. What would be more interesting maybe if athletes will leverage their fame to get their school to pay them for all the advertisements that are free under the current system.
Also, schools with rather savvy business programs will likely benefit the most initially. This may or may not includes Cal - though some of the top recent Cal student-athletes like now pro-golfer Collin Morikawa and multiple Olympic gold-medalist Ryan Murphy did get a degree from the Haas School of Business.
The bigger change would be a potential revenue-sharing plan with the student-athletes. This would ultimately be used by many schools as the reason/excuse to further eliminate more non-revenue programs. Even with an obvious, necessary cap on how much each student-athlete could earn, this might also open pandora's box of the have and have-not in college sports. You also get into the argument about whether the student-athletes whose team had more success should earn more compensation (in addition to the PS5 for making a bowl game curretly).
With open transfer, the Real Players in “college” football will shop the lower levels, like most of the PAC12, for proven players to fill out rosters depleted by the NFL draft. Boosters will supply $millions to grease the wheels. It’s only fair for the “student athletes”, but don’t expect Cal to play the game.
Oh no! The most powerful programs will be able to get the best athletes! Like Alabama, Clemson, and LSU!
I just hope some athletes get paid. I don't expect much to change for us as a program or a university. We are rather middle class in the larger scheme of things. But maybe/hopefully the next Marshawn or Desean or Aaron or Jared or Jaylen or Ivan will be able to earn some dollars while playing for us.
Thoughtful article Nick. I think you know my position so I won't bore you with a repeat of my thoughts. However, I did see an idea put forth from one University (sadly I can't remember which one) that said they would adopt a policy where 75% of the earnings by any athlete would go into a pool to be distributed equally to all players on the team. I could see something like this working, especially if the pool is for more than just the players on the team. That way no team loaded with talent becomes rich, drawing more talent while other schools in the opposite situation continue to deteriorate. If the NCAA had a pool that included 75% of all players earnings to be distributed equally to all players across the FBS (or FCS), then I'm ok with the changes. But if the NCAA goes to a pure professional model, I'll stop watching college football.
It's the new Georgia law, where 75% gets put into escrow and then disbursed based on time spent at the university. But I think the tax rate is also super high.
As someone who went through the NCAA brainwashing when I visited their Hall of Champions in Indianapolis a few years ago (the NCAA saved lives! they outlaw the "wedge" aka the "Flying V" from the Mighty Ducks which turned into players being killed in the very early days of football), I don't quite see them as completely useless. Instead, it's an ineffective and corrupt organization (like many things that have been in power for too long) that does need some major updates.
I think there are two major stages in how collegiate amateurism might end. The first one, which has been put in motion in many state legislations, is the athletes being able to profit off their own images and fame. While this act alone can cause some imbalance between larger schools and small schools, I think the impact will be minimal. What would be more interesting maybe if athletes will leverage their fame to get their school to pay them for all the advertisements that are free under the current system.
Also, schools with rather savvy business programs will likely benefit the most initially. This may or may not includes Cal - though some of the top recent Cal student-athletes like now pro-golfer Collin Morikawa and multiple Olympic gold-medalist Ryan Murphy did get a degree from the Haas School of Business.
The bigger change would be a potential revenue-sharing plan with the student-athletes. This would ultimately be used by many schools as the reason/excuse to further eliminate more non-revenue programs. Even with an obvious, necessary cap on how much each student-athlete could earn, this might also open pandora's box of the have and have-not in college sports. You also get into the argument about whether the student-athletes whose team had more success should earn more compensation (in addition to the PS5 for making a bowl game curretly).
With open transfer, the Real Players in “college” football will shop the lower levels, like most of the PAC12, for proven players to fill out rosters depleted by the NFL draft. Boosters will supply $millions to grease the wheels. It’s only fair for the “student athletes”, but don’t expect Cal to play the game.
Oh no! The most powerful programs will be able to get the best athletes! Like Alabama, Clemson, and LSU!
I just hope some athletes get paid. I don't expect much to change for us as a program or a university. We are rather middle class in the larger scheme of things. But maybe/hopefully the next Marshawn or Desean or Aaron or Jared or Jaylen or Ivan will be able to earn some dollars while playing for us.