Notre Dame AD Calls Division I Breakup ‘Inevitable’

thejazzcat

HR Heisman
Sep 25, 2001
5,053
4,503
113
But you also go on to say that you don't think a challenge by the Government/IRS would be successful. Why do you think that?
The challenge would be within the government, not from it. Let's just call them a pro-sports faction and an anti-sports faction. I just think the pro-sports faction would win and rewrite whatever code was necessary to allow a new framework to function tax free. Of course, that in, and of itself, is debatable. But the lobbies on the pro-sports side are gigantic and would include the entire charitable world, as well.
I mean, what if the U bought several grocery stores, and all the profit was either paid out to employees or retained? It would simply be a for profit business - don't you think that would be subject to corporate tax?
Interesting that you'd use this example. Have you ever heard of an ESOP? I have a business client that is structured as a 100% ESOP - which basically means they are 100% employee owned and a tax exempt company. They have 100 employees, $20M in annual sales, and are reasonably profitable. So who pays the tax? Ultimately, the shareholders/employees will when they retire. Currently, each employee owns shares of the company. When they retire their share will basically look like any other retirement account; they'll roll it over or pay taxes, and if they do roll it over (to an IRA) they'll pay pay taxes when they take distributions. It's a very complex ownership arrangement, but that's it in a nutshell, and one possible option for your scenario.
 

Hawkdiver

Team MVP
Jun 27, 2019
272
393
63
The loophole I could see in this is that the profits generated by the players are used to educate (the mission) those in the non-revenue sports. Yes some of the income goes to sustain the entertainment portion but a large portion goes to those amateur athletes in fulfilling the mission.
 

thejazzcat

HR Heisman
Sep 25, 2001
5,053
4,503
113
The loophole I could see in this is that the profits generated by the players are used to educate (the mission) those in the non-revenue sports. Yes some of the income goes to sustain the entertainment portion but a large portion goes to those amateur athletes in fulfilling the mission.
Yes, this would likely be a center piece of the argument.
 

Hawk_4shur

HR Legend
Jan 2, 2009
15,422
20,523
113
The challenge would be within the government, not from it. Let's just call them a pro-sports faction and an anti-sports faction. I just think the pro-sports faction would win and rewrite whatever code was necessary to allow a new framework to function tax free. Of course, that in, and of itself, is debatable. But the lobbies on the pro-sports side are gigantic and would include the entire charitable world, as well.

Interesting that you'd use this example. Have you ever heard of an ESOP? I have a business client that is structured as a 100% ESOP - which basically means they are 100% employee owned and a tax exempt company. They have 100 employees, $20M in annual sales, and are reasonably profitable. So who pays the tax? Ultimately, the shareholders/employees will when they retire. Currently, each employee owns shares of the company. When they retire their share will basically look like any other retirement account; they'll roll it over or pay taxes, and if they do roll it over (to an IRA) they'll pay pay taxes when they take distributions. It's a very complex ownership arrangement, but that's it in a nutshell, and one possible option for your scenario.
An ESOP is not a 501(c)(3). You're suggesting a 100% ESOP owned S Corp. and would be wholly owned by the employees.

I asking about a profitable business, owned by a charitable tax exempt organization like a University, which I guess is a 511(a)(2)(B).

In any event, it seems likely to me that direct payments to players would cause the activity to be subject to UBIT at a minimum.
 

thejazzcat

HR Heisman
Sep 25, 2001
5,053
4,503
113
An ESOP is not a 501(c)(3). You're suggesting a 100% ESOP owned S Corp. and would be wholly owned by the employees.

I asking about a profitable business, owned by a charitable tax exempt organization like a University, which I guess is a 511(a)(2)(B).

In any event, it seems likely to me that direct payments to players would cause the activity to be subject to UBIT at a minimum.
Yes, an ESOP is tax exempt to the extent of ownership. A 100% ESOP can make profits that are 100% tax exempt. And tax exempt organizations can own businesses, but that's not the point. The point is that smarter people than me know the depth of this code and find ways to navigate it. Whether player salaries would cause sports income to be recharacterized as UBIT I suppose is possible (under present code), but not presumable IMO (why is a player's current benefit package, which is significant, not taxable to them and cause income to the university to be considered UBIT?). It'll be interesting. I have some resources I'll float this by and see what they say.
 

Hawk_4shur

HR Legend
Jan 2, 2009
15,422
20,523
113
Yes, an ESOP is tax exempt to the extent of ownership. A 100% ESOP can make profits that are 100% tax exempt. And tax exempt organizations can own businesses, but that's not the point. The point is that smarter people than me know the depth of this code and find ways to navigate it. Whether player salaries would cause sports income to be recharacterized as UBIT I suppose is possible (under present code), but not presumable IMO (why is a player's current benefit package, which is significant, not taxable to them and cause income to the university to be considered UBIT?). It'll be interesting. I have some resources I'll float this by and see what they say.
I "think" the entire argument goes back many decades. These are students participating in an extracurricular activity (cough!) as part of their education at the school. The benefits they receive are similar to top students that qualify for scholarships (cough, cough) and the school wishes them to be a part of their student body since the school needs accomplished students to enhance their prestige. (ack, wheeze)

Scholarships and related benefits are part of the total cost of having that student at their school. (sigh) They are not in cash and dependent upon the student to meet the requirements of the scholarship and therefore not taxable.

The key argument is that it's just part of the students education (whatever).

No one questions whether the women's rowing team or the tennis team should be subject to UBIT - because they lose money and it's just not that big of a deal. So, if not the tennis team, why the football team? The football and basketball teams used to lose money as well I imagine - all supplemented by the school.

I am an ardent Hawkeye fan. I am also an alumni, whose parents were alums and all three children are alums. I want the sports teams to be successful.

I also paid for my kids college to the turn of about $250,000, and that was a while ago (my youngest is 32). I get pretty aggravated by all the handouts to football and basketball players - this NIL stuff has me pretty hot.

Anyway, whether it is eventually subject to UBIT, or the schools spin them out into "affiliated" organizations, the landscape ahead is murky IMO ... and rocky.
 

bumpstock

HR MVP
Feb 27, 2018
2,185
2,660
113
Arizona
I "think" the entire argument goes back many decades. These are students participating in an extracurricular activity (cough!) as part of their education at the school. The benefits they receive are similar to top students that qualify for scholarships (cough, cough) and the school wishes them to be a part of their student body since the school needs accomplished students to enhance their prestige. (ack, wheeze)

Scholarships and related benefits are part of the total cost of having that student at their school. (sigh) They are not in cash and dependent upon the student to meet the requirements of the scholarship and therefore not taxable.

The key argument is that it's just part of the students education (whatever).

No one questions whether the women's rowing team or the tennis team should be subject to UBIT - because they lose money and it's just not that big of a deal. So, if not the tennis team, why the football team? The football and basketball teams used to lose money as well I imagine - all supplemented by the school.

I am an ardent Hawkeye fan. I am also an alumni, whose parents were alums and all three children are alums. I want the sports teams to be successful.

I also paid for my kids college to the turn of about $250,000, and that was a while ago (my youngest is 32). I get pretty aggravated by all the handouts to football and basketball players - this NIL stuff has me pretty hot.

Anyway, whether it is eventually subject to UBIT, or the schools spin them out into "affiliated" organizations, the landscape ahead is murky IMO ... and rocky.
Can you define the nexus between:

a. Player and School;
b. Player and NIL Collective; and
c. School and NIL Collective?

All three are "feeding" off one another.
 

Mountain Man Hawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Mar 30, 2010
5,769
3,641
113
Some comments from Jamie Pollard along the same lines as those discussed in this thread. Basically says that maybe the top 30 or so schools need to break off because the other schools can’t realistically play the same game as them.


I think we’re just into a new age. And, you know, but what I’m more concerned about, are some of the things that I think are coming down the pipe, you know, that could radically change the business model of no scholarship limitations, you know, no sport requirements, things like that, that’ll that could cause a divide, but maybe that divide needs to be, maybe it needs to happen. You know, and if we need to have 30 schools, go play minor league sports and all their sports and let them go do it. You know, I thought coach Campbell said it best to me. He said, ‘Hey, if we’re going to be in that space, I’m going to the NFL, because at least there’s salary caps and there’s rules,’ because what you’re talking about right now has no salary caps and no rules. That’s a recipe for disaster. And he’s absolutely right. And if so, if a group of schools thinks that’s the way forward, have at it, because that’ll be a mess.


 

Mountain Man Hawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Mar 30, 2010
5,769
3,641
113
Some more Jamie Pollard comments. Essentially says that if ISU isn’t in the top 30 schools that break away, then fans need to look at the bright side. He lists as examples that North Dakota State can feel good about their accomplishments even though they could never beat Alabama. Another example he gives is how high school kids in class 2A can still feel good about themselves even if they would get throttled in class 4a.

Here are the quotes:

the kids in 2A aren’t trying to compete with the kids in 4A, but the 2A state championship feels just as good as the 4A state championship. That’s where we’ve messed up in college athletics. You know, the fans and the kids at North Dakota State feel really good about what they do in football. And I think it’s awesome. But the rest of their programs, you know, they’re really kind of competing for conference championships because they’re competing against the Alabamas and the Iowa States and the Iowas, in all their other sports. And there’s not really a viable pathway to a championship. And maybe there’s something to be learned from that. Maybe there is room for another division, that isn’t minor league sports, that does have some rules and parameters. You know, but that’s not going to happen tomorrow. But it could start happening in the near future with the right leadership.

 
May 17, 2021
1,216
2,611
113
Some comments from Jamie Pollard along the same lines as those discussed in this thread. Basically says that maybe the top 30 or so schools need to break off because the other schools can’t realistically play the same game as them.


I think we’re just into a new age. And, you know, but what I’m more concerned about, are some of the things that I think are coming down the pipe, you know, that could radically change the business model of no scholarship limitations, you know, no sport requirements, things like that, that’ll that could cause a divide, but maybe that divide needs to be, maybe it needs to happen. You know, and if we need to have 30 schools, go play minor league sports and all their sports and let them go do it. You know, I thought coach Campbell said it best to me. He said, ‘Hey, if we’re going to be in that space, I’m going to the NFL, because at least there’s salary caps and there’s rules,’ because what you’re talking about right now has no salary caps and no rules. That’s a recipe for disaster. And he’s absolutely right. And if so, if a group of schools thinks that’s the way forward, have at it, because that’ll be a mess.


This is so Iowa State athletics, I love it.

pollard is such a D bag. And he’s not even smart.

I love the fact that the words “the changes coming down the pipe“ came out of his mouth. And that the journalist didn’t even take the time to fix it with a [sic] just so that the publication doesn’t also look stupid, but apparently nobody caught it.

his programs are definitely going down the pipe, but he should have said “ changes coming down the pike.”

Total want of bees and pre Madonna. Maybe he’s the guy who posts here all the time under fake Hawkeye fan avatar names? Maybe Pollard is responsible for much of the tdrumbpfukkery here?
 

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,229
1,082
113
Yes, an ESOP is tax exempt to the extent of ownership. A 100% ESOP can make profits that are 100% tax exempt. And tax exempt organizations can own businesses, but that's not the point. The point is that smarter people than me know the depth of this code and find ways to navigate it. Whether player salaries would cause sports income to be recharacterized as UBIT I suppose is possible (under present code), but not presumable IMO (why is a player's current benefit package, which is significant, not taxable to them and cause income to the university to be considered UBIT?). It'll be interesting. I have some resources I'll float this by and see what they say.
By definition, a non-profit does not have shareholders, so while an ESOP may not "show a profit", it's because, like an S-Corp, those profits are "distributed" to the shareholders. Where they avoid taxability is by deferring them to retirement funds.

And frankly, that may be one way to allow direct payments to players and NOT affect Title IX, inequalities between athletic and non-athletic scholarships, etc. Some sort of ESOP or LLC set-up, where deferring or redistributing the payments and profits to educational, or even post-grad educational funding. Or, like any employee enrolled in retirement or pension plans, they leave school, they roll that fund to next employer.

Where I (personally) see the biggest problem, and thus Swarbrick's most valid point, is not NIL, or Transfer Portal, or whatever, but rather, the confluence. As he is quoted, "We went from what some called the most restrictive system to the most unrestricted free-agent labor market in the history of all sports".
 
  • Like
Reactions: thejazzcat

thejazzcat

HR Heisman
Sep 25, 2001
5,053
4,503
113
By definition, a non-profit does not have shareholders, so while an ESOP may not "show a profit", it's because, like an S-Corp, those profits are "distributed" to the shareholders. Where they avoid taxability is by deferring them to retirement funds.

And frankly, that may be one way to allow direct payments to players and NOT affect Title IX, inequalities between athletic and non-athletic scholarships, etc. Some sort of ESOP or LLC set-up, where deferring or redistributing the payments and profits to educational, or even post-grad educational funding. Or, like any employee enrolled in retirement or pension plans, they leave school, they roll that fund to next employer.

Where I (personally) see the biggest problem, and thus Swarbrick's most valid point, is not NIL, or Transfer Portal, or whatever, but rather, the confluence. As he is quoted, "We went from what some called the most restrictive system to the most unrestricted free-agent labor market in the history of all sports".
Yes, there's a LOT of nuance in advanced charitable strategies. I only mentioned ESOPs as an example of integrating profitable enterprises with tax exemption. The business I mentioned is a profitable manufacturing company (S Corp) that looks like any other business. Except 100% of it's shares are held in a retirement plan. I've been careful not to call them a non-profit - because that's not what they are. But they are tax exempt, and profits are reflected in the annual valuation of shares. My only point is there are people that are extraordinarily skilled at navigating the charitable tax code and finding workable strategies.

To your last point, I'm very curious as to who's going to step up and oversee it all. The NCAA? Yikes. The government? Again. Yikes.
 

SchwartzUndGold

Scout Team
Nov 20, 2019
121
165
43
This quote from Swarbrick stood out for me, "Should the schism come, Notre Dame would be among those that still tied its athletics to the educational mission of the school and answered to its president and academic administration. Others could essentially be spun off while retaining the school name and branding. A theoretical example (not proffered by Swarbrick): Oregon Ducks Athletics, Inc."

Here is why it stood out for me. For an historic program like Notre Dame to concede they will not be part of semi-pro or minor league football tells me there are big changes ahead for the current membership of the Big Ten Conference. When Jim Delaney was conference commissioner he uttered a similar position to that of Swarbrick. It is my opinion that Northwestern and some of the other members would decline to participate in a college semi-pro model of athletic competition. It also my opinion that Ohio State and maybe 2 or 3 others would bail on the conference rather than be part of the amateur model. If that happens the money is going to dry up for many members of the current west division.

As an older fan I've experienced and witnessed a lot of changes related to college sports. I can definitely envision two models of participation; minor league/semipro and amateur. I believe Iowa would choose the Amateur model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDHawkDoc

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,229
1,082
113
Yes, there's a LOT of nuance in advanced charitable strategies. I only mentioned ESOPs as an example of integrating profitable enterprises with tax exemption. The business I mentioned is a profitable manufacturing company (S Corp) that looks like any other business. Except 100% of it's shares are held in a retirement plan. I've been careful not to call them a non-profit - because that's not what they are. But they are tax exempt, and profits are reflected in the annual valuation of shares. My only point is there are people that are extraordinarily skilled at navigating the charitable tax code and finding workable strategies.

To your last point, I'm very curious as to who's going to step up and oversee it all. The NCAA? Yikes. The government? Again. Yikes.
Your two "yikes" make the appropriate "double yikes!", at least if we're talking government or the NCAA!
 

mikesright

HR MVP
Jun 7, 2009
1,523
1,600
113
This quote from Swarbrick stood out for me, "Should the schism come, Notre Dame would be among those that still tied its athletics to the educational mission of the school and answered to its president and academic administration. Others could essentially be spun off while retaining the school name and branding. A theoretical example (not proffered by Swarbrick): Oregon Ducks Athletics, Inc."

Here is why it stood out for me. For an historic program like Notre Dame to concede they will not be part of semi-pro or minor league football tells me there are big changes ahead for the current membership of the Big Ten Conference. When Jim Delaney was conference commissioner he uttered a similar position to that of Swarbrick. It is my opinion that Northwestern and some of the other members would decline to participate in a college semi-pro model of athletic competition. It also my opinion that Ohio State and maybe 2 or 3 others would bail on the conference rather than be part of the amateur model. If that happens the money is going to dry up for many members of the current west division.

As an older fan I've experienced and witnessed a lot of changes related to college sports. I can definitely envision two models of participation; minor league/semipro and amateur. I believe Iowa would choose the Amateur model.
I don't buy for one second that any school would willingly be part of a lesser league when this all goes down. It will never happen, its an empty threat - one that is being said because all of these administrators are (rightfully) concerned that their own money and power in that system will be far less than what you see now.

These teams will always be physically connected to the university as all of these kids will remain students. That is a core part of the product. How these kids are distributed funds and how the rules work will probably evolve over time though.
 

mikesright

HR MVP
Jun 7, 2009
1,523
1,600
113
This is so Iowa State athletics, I love it.

pollard is such a D bag. And he’s not even smart.

I love the fact that the words “the changes coming down the pipe“ came out of his mouth. And that the journalist didn’t even take the time to fix it with a [sic] just so that the publication doesn’t also look stupid, but apparently nobody caught it.

his programs are definitely going down the pipe, but he should have said “ changes coming down the pike.”

Total want of bees and pre Madonna. Maybe he’s the guy who posts here all the time under fake Hawkeye fan avatar names? Maybe Pollard is responsible for much of the tdrumbpfukkery here?
He can't quite figure out whether NIL is going to be the death knell for Iowa State or whether it is going to not change a thing. He also doesn't seem to understand any of the dynamics with NIL very well and he made it sound like his coaches don't either. He's definitely not the kind of visionary that is required for navigating this space well. He sounded more like a radio jock than a professional in that interview.
 

Mountain Man Hawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Mar 30, 2010
5,769
3,641
113
I don't buy for one second that any school would willingly be part of a lesser league when this all goes down. It will never happen, its an empty threat - one that is being said because all of these administrators are (rightfully) concerned that their own money and power in that system will be far less than what you see now.

These teams will always be physically connected to the university as all of these kids will remain students. That is a core part of the product. How these kids are distributed funds and how the rules work will probably evolve over time though.
I think so too. It’s the popular thing for coaches to say and I get it, it just doesn’t sound good to say you don’t believe in playing only for the love of the game and love of your university and the great education you get, etc.

But let’s see how many coaches feel that way when they can’t get paid millions to coach because the money in the lesser league will be a fraction of the money in the upper league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jo12208

cmhawks99

HR Heisman
Jul 23, 2002
9,516
3,764
113
I haven’t read this whole thread but there are a bunch of very interesting views in here, kudos guys…!!

I will weigh in on my opinion of Iowa: I have been on record for many years that the changing landscape won’t hurt Iowa and it might help them a little bit. But I believe our place is pretty secure in the future of college football!

for many years I’ve lauded Iowas inclusion in the Forbes top 25 valued college football programs. Iowa is not Ohio State or Texas or Alabama or A&M or a lot of those type of teams but they are Wisconsin who also is routinely included in the top 25!

We have money, we have value, and we have rich boosters, like I said we may not advance but we won’t lose our spot per se.

And for the fans that hate hearing about our draft picks. Anything and everything that is positive in the press about our university helps increase our brand and being a huge alumni provider for the NFL helps THAT.

we don’t have the best brand but we have a good brand. Good imaging, good uniforms, good color scheme (thanks Hayden) lots of history, the wave…we have a good brand!
 

FrankBurns00

Team MVP
May 18, 2010
294
333
63
Fok title 9!! Tell women to go watch and support women's sports...then they'll get paid too! Few want to watch them and certainly not pay to watch.

Is it male athletes fault that more women likely support them than female athletes??? Hell no....title ix is a big reason for the damn nil mess anyways.

You really don't understand what Title IV is do you? It is a law that only applys to schools that recieve federal funding (most do). Only a very small portion of it has anything to do with athletics. It's an education law.

A bigger question might be, "Why do colleges/universities have sports teams?" What other country on the planet has a system like ours in the USA?

NIL is legal, but can it exist along with title IV? Will it be legal ? Clearly the majority of the NIL money will go to male athletes and that may not be legal at federally funded schools. This could be the beginning of the end of college sponsored athletics.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: LaQuintaHawkeye

bumpstock

HR MVP
Feb 27, 2018
2,185
2,660
113
Arizona
What percentage of NIL Collectives are connected to organized crime?

What percentage of players with NIL Collective contracts are on the take?

How much "extra" does a player with a NIL Collective contract get to miss/make the spread?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: LaQuintaHawkeye

onlyTheObvious

HR Heisman
Jan 3, 2021
6,482
7,550
113
It won’t solve much, only define those with a seat at the table more clearly.

schools will still have players leave for money. All it will do is let your fans know you are F’d and even a dream season won’t give you a shot because you don’t even play in that division.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK

nbanflfactory

HR Heisman
Aug 22, 2021
6,497
6,288
113
You really don't understand what Title IV is do you? It is a law that only applys to schools that recieve federal funding (most do). Only a very small portion of it has anything to do with athletics. It's an education law.

A bigger question might be, "Why do colleges/universities have sports teams?" What other country on the planet has a system like ours in the USA?

NIL is legal, but can it exist along with title IV? Will it be legal ? Clearly the majority of the NIL money will go to male athletes and that may not be legal at federally funded schools. This could be the beginning of the end of college sponsored athletics.
Of course 5hey can't co exist...not these days

Title ix sports have everything to do with football plain and simple
 

pistachio1999

HR MVP
Nov 29, 2021
2,432
2,869
113
F
I haven’t read this whole thread but there are a bunch of very interesting views in here, kudos guys…!!

I will weigh in on my opinion of Iowa: I have been on record for many years that the changing landscape won’t hurt Iowa and it might help them a little bit. But I believe our place is pretty secure in the future of college football!

for many years I’ve lauded Iowas inclusion in the Forbes top 25 valued college football programs. Iowa is not Ohio State or Texas or Alabama or A&M or a lot of those type of teams but they are Wisconsin who also is routinely included in the top 25!

We have money, we have value, and we have rich boosters, like I said we may not advance but we won’t lose our spot per se.

And for the fans that hate hearing about our draft picks. Anything and everything that is positive in the press about our university helps increase our brand and being a huge alumni provider for the NFL helps THAT.

we don’t have the best brand but we have a good brand. Good imaging, good uniforms, good color scheme (thanks Hayden) lots of history, the wave…we have a good brand!
Farmers gotta lot of coin. Leave your farms to the Hawks!
 

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,685
2,628
113
I have always thought a breakup was going to happen at some point. It was clear because of the amount of money involved. There is just a huge difference between say Iowa and a small school. The same rules don't need to apply and it is silly to have them apply. Both basketball and football have too many teams deemed Division 1.
This is why this is the beginning of the end of college football as we know it.

I like playing isu, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota. I like that it is local enough that usually there is a player or 2 on an iowa team from my hometown area. I think thats cool. This is the draw of college sports. If there are less teams, then there are less players so there is less of a local feel. Then it is just another minor league sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,685
2,628
113
I agree totally, hence my concern. Whats going on right now has absolutely NOTHING to do with why these Universities even exist. At some point i fear there's going to be a reckoning for all of this and it won't be good...
I know there are people in iowa city who would love kinick stadium to become a new parking lot for the hospital.
 

hawkjt

HR Legend
Feb 14, 2004
33,239
2,531
113
In the end it looks like U. Of Chicago was the pioneering Big Ten school.
They have survived, and flourished as the top academic institution in the Midwest without big time sports and Stagg still holds the records.
Big Ten can become the Ivy League of the Midwest...cept for Nebraska, of course.
 

vacuum_cleaner

All-Conference
Jul 27, 2004
400
511
93
This is why this is the beginning of the end of college football as we know it.

I like playing isu, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota. I like that it is local enough that usually there is a player or 2 on an iowa team from my hometown area. I think thats cool. This is the draw of college sports. If there are less teams, then there are less players so there is less of a local feel. Then it is just another minor league sport.

Exactly. I feel like fans get attached to players just as much as they do to teams...so will fan interest start to die off if we reach the point where 75% of a team's roster is comprised of rent-a-players who play for a year then move on to another NCAA team or a shot at the NFL?

Free agency and players constantly switching teams is one of the main reasons that interest in MLB and NBA has absolutely cratered over the past 2-3 decades IMO. Teams used to be defined by their star players and fans developed a connection with them. The St. Louis Cardinals were Ozzie Smith and Willie McGee...Cubs and Sandberg...Lakers and Magic Johnson...Celtics Bird, Yanks Jeter. Etc etc. It's not like anymore.

I'm a moderate Cubs fan and recognized about 2 names on the opening day roster. I think it'd be a very bad thing if that starts to become the norm for college sports, too.
 

onlyTheObvious

HR Heisman
Jan 3, 2021
6,482
7,550
113
We must have cured CTE cause sure don’t hear nearly as much about it since all this money is getting tossed in and players are getting paid.
Make a million as a player. Piss it all away. Come back a decade later for another million.

I am very surprised colleges haven’t been hit with CTE lawsuits yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrankBurns00

SDHawkDoc

HR Heisman
Jan 27, 2013
8,841
9,112
113
Very likely the minority opinion, but I'd be fine if there was a breakaway of schools that wanted to stop pretending and be corporate sponsored minor league for the NFL.

And Iowa not to be one of them.
 

BrunoMars420

HR Legend
Feb 14, 2016
11,977
13,084
113
Very likely the minority opinion, but I'd be fine if there was a breakaway of schools that wanted to stop pretending and be corporate sponsored minor league for the NFL.

And Iowa not to be one of them.
Yah definitely the minority opinion. You sound like Pollard
 

LaQuintaHawkeye

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2017
4,645
6,712
113
Very likely the minority opinion, but I'd be fine if there was a breakaway of schools that wanted to stop pretending and be corporate sponsored minor league for the NFL.

And Iowa not to be one of them.

Not going to lie, I'd rather Iowa be a medium fish in a deep pond than a small fish in a shallow pond.
 

onlyTheObvious

HR Heisman
Jan 3, 2021
6,482
7,550
113
Very likely the minority opinion, but I'd be fine if there was a breakaway of schools that wanted to stop pretending and be corporate sponsored minor league for the NFL.

And Iowa not to be one of them.
Tv money would shrink beyond belief.

maybe the fans keep coming on the same numbers but long term I doubt it.

the non revenue sports would suffer the most. Their existence is based on football revenue.
 

Hwk-I-St8

HR Legend
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2009
13,374
8,943
113
Lower Slobovia
You really don't understand what Title IV is do you? It is a law that only applys to schools that recieve federal funding (most do). Only a very small portion of it has anything to do with athletics. It's an education law.

A bigger question might be, "Why do colleges/universities have sports teams?" What other country on the planet has a system like ours in the USA?

NIL is legal, but can it exist along with title IV? Will it be legal ? Clearly the majority of the NIL money will go to male athletes and that may not be legal at federally funded schools. This could be the beginning of the end of college sponsored athletics.
NIL doesn't really clash with Title IX because the money isn't coming from the university. Title IX doesn't apply to some collective or Joe's Used Cars....they can put their money wherever they want.

Where things get interesting is if it comes to the point where schools are paying players. At that point, you can drop the scholarship, drop the student part and they just become employees (or contractors). If that happens all those male scholarships go away, so the corresponding female scholarships can be dropped. If football and basketball players are getting paid, they'll need to drop those non-revenue sports to afford the payroll.
 

ft254

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2003
14,624
12,292
113
Change is tough. I love the NIL and these young adults getting money for what they are doing for these universities.

How can title 9 get involved with this since this has nothing to technically do with the university? They are making money off their likeness. And who is to say the women aren’t getting huge money deals? A lot of good looking college gals can easily use IG or tiktok to become an influencer.

I agree with athletes receiving compensation but the problem is the ratio will be commensurate with the media markets, or in individual cases, program marketability. This will result in the lions share of NIL shared among a select few. Not necessarily the best, or most rewarding.

In the case of Caitlin Clark, i.e., she is bigger than the NCAA. She garnered unreal attention despite NCAA's efforts to put 1st Paige Buecher, then Aliyah Boston on every sports broadcast. Clark was the one getting wall-to-wall coverage and social media with her magnetic personality and awesome exploits. But she is an anomaly.