Here Is Your Chance - Solve the College Sports 'Quasi-Pro' Problem!

[Stuhoo]

Lots (and lots and lots) of posts over the years decrying the problem of today's 'college' athletes turning into quasi-pro athletes with little connection to the schools they play for.

Lots (and lots and lots) of smart, imaginative people post on this board, so this thread is a place for ideas and discussion about how to rectify or improve that situation. In opining, please try to focus on ideas for improvement that are also legally plausible, not merely an airing of grievances. 

Ready... GO!

[sirhoosierlot]

My dumb idea. Disband the NCAA and make college athletes actual professionals. Multiple "leagues" and keep conferences, playoffs and tournaments as they are but add in relegations and promotions like European soccer. 

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

You sign a pro contract of any kind - G League, NBA, overseas - you're no longer technically an amateur and thus not eligible for college athletics.

If you're collecting a monthly federal entitlement check you're no longer eligible for college athletics.   [only half in jest]

[AH1971]

You've got two options.

1) Declare student-athletes employees and form a CBA like you would see in a professional league setting. This would establish some kind of hard/soft salary cap and players would be held to the contracts they've previously signed.

or

2) Declare an age limit (23 and under would be my preference) and a definitive eligibility standard ie you get 5 years to play 5 years. NCAA continually loses eligibility cases because they don't consistently apply their rules. Judges have sided with the NCAA when a precedent has been set, but you can't let one guy play and then deny eligibility to the next guy with a similar case. Once you start enforcing age and eligibility requirements consistently, the lawsuits will start to hold up.

[Pagoda]

My $0.02, which could be wrong.  I see two primary issues here.

1) In order to get an anti-trust exemption that allows rules to be enforced, I think there will need to be collective bargaining.  Congress, who does the anti-trust thing, isn't close to agreeing on an anti-trust exemption without one. 

It's just how it works -- if employer and labor agree on terms, anti-trust can be waived.

The last thing schools want to do is collectively bargain.  The reason is the result will likely be schools paying the players way more than they make now.  A CBA negotiation is going to include (i) players pushing for more comp by citing pro leagues that get a higher % of revenue than college players, and (ii) players becoming employees that get benefits like insurance and retirement, which is expensive (~$25K+ per player).  I could easily see this increasing just the football roster expenses by $5-10M+.  This is the last thing schools want -- this is the group that fought tooth and nail to not pay players for decades.

2) Schools and conferences all have conflicting interests.  Big programs and conferences like the power they have and don't want to give it up.  Smaller conferences want things to level the playing field like caps and jointly negotiated media rights.  No one agrees on things, so rules can't be formed and schools won't follow them.

For those two above reasons, I expect little change anytime soon.

A positive I've seen is the one enforceable thing in college sports is contracts players sign with schools.  Those contracts are getting better such that they're hard to break.

I don't have a solution.  If I had to guess what happens, in the 2030's there will be a breakaway super league for football.  60 to 70 schools, a massive TV deal that can fund the expense of collective bargaining, and CFB will have some order.  Perhaps something similar is done for CBB too -- with CBB you've got a different pool of schools.

Meanwhile, IU is pretty well positioned to operate in the chaos.  We're in a powerful conference and we've got money.  And it's worked -- we're the CFB champs and king of college sports.  I like that!

[Stuhoo]

17 minutes ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

You sign a pro contract of any kind - G League, NBA, overseas - you're no longer technically an amateur and thus not eligible for college athletics.

If you're collecting a monthly federal entitlement check you're no longer eligible for college athletics.   [only half in jest]

And if you are collecting Social Security or have an AARP membership like Chad Baker-Mazara you are officially too old to be a college athlete. 

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

Don't know if it could even work, but find a way to remove eligibility cases out of the local (maybe too friendly) courts and to an arbitration panel or mediation.  The lawyers on board would have to weigh in if anything like that is even a possibility.

[Stuhoo]

6 minutes ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

Don't know if it could even work, but find a way to remove eligibility cases out of the local (maybe too friendly) courts and to an arbitration panel or mediation.  The lawyers on board would have to weigh in if anything like that is even a possibility.

It would take Congressional legislation to carve out a removal for a specific type of employment law disputes into federal court, or to create a new, separate federal court of college eligibility jurisdiction (and that's not going to happen). Even if that were done, while the federal supremacy clause would have the ability to claim more uniform jurisdiction over many of these cases,  plaintiffs' attorneys would still attempt to go venue shopping.

[Dave from Dayton]

53 minutes ago, Pagoda said:

My $0.02, which could be wrong.  I see two primary issues here.

1) In order to get an anti-trust exemption that allows rules to be enforced, I think there will need to be collective bargaining.  Congress, who does the anti-trust thing, isn't close to agreeing on an anti-trust exemption without one. 

It's just how it works -- if employer and labor agree on terms, anti-trust can be waived.

The last thing schools want to do is collectively bargain.  The reason is the result will likely be schools paying the players way more than they make now.  A CBA negotiation is going to include (i) players pushing for more comp by citing pro leagues that get a higher % of revenue than college players, and (ii) players becoming employees that get benefits like insurance and retirement, which is expensive (~$25K+ per player).  I could easily see this increasing just the football roster expenses by $5-10M+.  This is the last thing schools want -- this is the group that fought tooth and nail to not pay players for decades.

2) Schools and conferences all have conflicting interests.  Big programs and conferences like the power they have and don't want to give it up.  Smaller conferences want things to level the playing field like caps and jointly negotiated media rights.  No one agrees on things, so rules can't be formed and schools won't follow them.

For those two above reasons, I expect little change anytime soon.

A positive I've seen is the one enforceable thing in college sports is contracts players sign with schools.  Those contracts are getting better such that they're hard to break.

I don't have a solution.  If I had to guess what happens, in the 2030's there will be a breakaway super league for football.  60 to 70 schools, a massive TV deal that can fund the expense of collective bargaining, and CFB will have some order.  Perhaps something similar is done for CBB too -- with CBB you've got a different pool of schools.

Meanwhile, IU is pretty well positioned to operate in the chaos.  We're in a powerful conference and we've got money.  And it's worked -- we're the CFB champs and king of college sports.  I like that!

I mostly agree with Pagoda's comments.  I see a mega-conference of those universities that have lots of money excluding others.  The confederacy-like NCAA is not a sustainable institution.

I see players incorporating and wearing sponsorships on their uniforms.

I see collective bargaining being attempted, but because of contrary conservative politics it will ultimately be controlled by corporations and billionaires.

We will all be paying more and enjoying it less.  It will become all flash and fighting.  And it will not lend itself to supporting higher education.

Imagine the 1980's scifi 'Blade Runner' for prepro sports.  There are a lot of movies and novels that look to the future of corporate sponsorship for everything.

That is unless the NBA takes it over like a bunch of lower-level pro leagues playing with the college name on it, too.

Quite the depressing dystopia.

[RaceToTheTop]

College contracts where a transferring player is 'taxed' 10% of his NIL deal with this new team.  That money going back to the school where he transferred from.

This would level the playing field a little plus would make recruiting freshman (who would have no buyout tax).

[Pagoda]

31 minutes ago, Dave from Dayton said:

Imagine the 1980's scifi 'Blade Runner' for prepro sports.  There are a lot of movies and novels that look to the future of corporate sponsorship for everything.

Sounds grim Dave!

 

[Home Jersey]

Should schools have to pay a transfer fee to the player's previous school like in soccer?

[str8baller]

Money isn’t the problem and they should shy away from legislating that. 
 

If they want to maintain any semblance of the old system they need to keep their ties to the school and 19-22/23yr old student athletes. They should take some classes and integrate with the student body a little. I always liked Creans philosophy on one-and-dones: “They have to unpack their bags.”  
 

Simple is usually the best. Hard cap age limit of 23. 4 years of eligibility. 1 no-strings attached transfer. 

[Stuhoo]

1 hour ago, Home Jersey said:

Should schools have to pay a transfer fee to the player's previous school like in soccer?

Unlike some of these other suggestions that may not pass legal muster, if all member schools agreed this could be a thing.

[Stuhoo]

40 minutes ago, str8baller said:

Money isn’t the problem and they should shy away from legislating that. 
 

If they want to maintain any semblance of the old system they need to keep their ties to the school and 19-22/23yr old student athletes. They should take some classes and integrate with the student body a little. I always liked Creans philosophy on one-and-dones: “They have to unpack their bags.”  
 

Simple is usually the best. Hard cap age limit of 23. 4 years of eligibility. 1 no-strings attached transfer. 

I'm not thinking an age cap would pass legal muster. Years of eligibility ... yes. One time transfer only? Not sure about that one.

[Golfman25]

A fundamental problem is the athletes need to be treated no worse than the regular student.  The regular dude can work, transfer, etc.  So you can't penalize them for that. There are zero good answers.  The money and "free agency" will eventually ruin college sports as it has done professional sports.  We'll all have to find something better to do.   

 

[str8baller]

35 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

I'm not thinking an age cap would pass legal muster. Years of eligibility ... yes. One time transfer only? Not sure about that one.

It always has in the past.  The NBA’s quasi-age limit has held up.  The NFL’s defacto age limit has withstood legal challenges. Most HS leagues have age limits. An age range of 18-23 is probably the strongest nexus that binds college athletics to the actual universities and other students and separates it from American professional leagues. 
 

They’re going to have to dump the NCAA or rebrand it. They’re too politically toxic to win enough legal challenges to keep whatever the conferences want to enforce. 

[AH1971]

4 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

I'm not thinking an age cap would pass legal muster. Years of eligibility ... yes. One time transfer only? Not sure about that one.

NBA has a minimum age requirement. I think if you added an exemption waiver that included religious purposes (Mormon missions), military service, and severe injury/illness (like recovering from cancer), it would probably pass. Basically make the NCAA a 23U organization where you can’t start your final year of eligibility after you’ve turned 24.

[BtownStrength]

I am a fan of the 5 to play 5 model. Once you are first listed on a college roster, the "clock" begins and despite injury, leave, or anything else, thats all you get. No age rule, as there would be so many exemptions it would get ridiculous. This would allow for religious mission and military service to work within the confines of the 5 year rule. Injured? That's why everyone gets a "grad year". Injured multiple times? Sorry to sound harsh, but thats life. They would still get paid well through NIL and (hopefully) get a degree. 

[BGleas]

I get the issues are kind of tied together, but I think the bigger issue is the transfer portal and transfer policy. 

That's a bigger issue than NIL or players getting paid. 

The problem is that we essentially have free agency for every player every season. It's absolutely ridiculous when we have guys that have played 5 seasons at 4-5 different schools. 

That's the problem with college basketball. Way bigger negative for the sport than players getting paid. 

But again they're sort of tied together. Seems the only/best way to fix that is to have multi-year contracts or something?