ATLANTA — Of the Power Five conferences, the ACC is the most circumspect. If it’s not as brawny as the braying SEC, neither is it as flaky as the Big Ten. (“We’re not playing this fall. No, wait! We ARE playing!”) The ACC says and does nothing without due consideration. There’s your preface.
Last week, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said: “I think it’s time to look at alternative models for football.”
This was the second heavy hitter – speaking with ESPN, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith was the first – to suggest that college sports, mostly meaning college football, needs to step into a post-NCAA world. The advent of NIL money and the transfer portal has destroyed the last shred of the association’s credibility.
The College Football Playoff came into being in 2014. The NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP, which is run out of Dallas by Bill Hancock, who once upon a time oversaw the Final Four for the NCAA. As immense as March Madness is, it’s not college football. No amateur sport is as big as college football, which has ceased being an amateur sport.
Big-time college boosters get a bad name, often deservedly so. We’ve just been reminded that big-time boosters didn’t get rich by being stupid. When state legislatures cleared the way for college athletes to receive money for usage of their names/images/likenesses, boosters took to boosting on Day 1. They formed “collectives” and pooled money. Just like that, athletes were banking above-the-table dollars.
Ten months after NIL money became an actual thing, it became both an amusing and ridiculous thing. The NIL agent for Isaiah Wong, a Miami basketball player, declared that his client’s deal warranted redoing because Nijel Pack, who is relocating from Kansas State to Miami, landed a bigger deal – $800K and a car.
Quoth Adam Papas, agent for both Wong and Pack: “(Wong) has seen what incoming Miami Hurricane basketball players are getting in NIL and would like his NIL to reflect that he was a team leader of an Elite Eight team.”
Nick Saban felt the need to aver that Alabama hadn’t tampered with Louisville receiver Tyler Harrell, now an Alabama receiver. Jordan Addison, the nation’s best returning wideout, has entered the portal. ESPN revealed that Pitt coach Pat Narduzzi called Lincoln Riley, now of USC, to suggest that inappropriate overtures were made. (Inside Texas reports Addison will choose between Texas and, um, USC.)
Last week, Wake Forest coach Dave Clawson claimed one of his players reported an offer from another school conveyed by another player. Said Clawson: “If he had interest in going, there was a scholarship available and a certain amount of name/image/likeness money that would become available.”
Also from Clawson: “There doesn’t appear to be any enforcement, so nobody’s quite sure what the rules are. It’s like a road without a speed limit.”
Ten days ago, the NCAA issued guidelines regarding NIL. Not rules, we note, but “guidelines.” Said Jere Morehead, chair of the NCAA’s board of directors and Georgia’s president: “While the NCAA may pursue the most outrageous violations that were clearly contrary to the interim policy adopted last summer, our focus is on the future.”
Translation: “Given that our enforcement department consists of an intern named Timmy, don’t expect us to penalize anybody for anything ever. We suggest you contact your state legislator.”
For decades, coaches have groused that NCAA regulations are whimsical at best and moronic at worst. We’ve now ventured into a realm where the purported ruling body hasn’t gotten around to making any rules, not that it would matter if it had. (Wake me when those Kansas basketball sanctions are announced.)
It’s impossible to govern when your membership has no confidence in your ability to do so. NIL money has turned athletes into independent contractors. The portal empowers them to follow the money wherever it leads. The NCAA’s response is to issue guidelines offering zero guidance. Here sits collegiate sports in all its color and pageantry – and chaos.
Mark Bradley: NIL money + transfer portal = chaos
Eric Gay
California college athletes would be the first to receive payments related to their athletic performance directly from schools. The NCAA, following what’s been laid out in court decisions, has always fought to keep benefits “tethered to education.”
Well, in SB 1401, much of the compensation still would be related to academics. The bill states a noble goal of improving graduation rates for Black athletes in football and men’s and women’s basketball — the only three sports where players currently don’t receive more than 50% of revenues back purely through their scholarships.
Schools would establish a degree completion fund for each athlete, and the contents of the fund — fed annually — would be made available soon after degree completion (within six years). If the athlete does not graduate within six years, he or she will forfeit the fund and it will go back into the athletic budget. Players would have immediate access to a maximum of $25,000 each year, while the rest would build over time.
Eric Gay
California college athletes would be the first to receive payments related to their athletic performance directly from schools. The NCAA, following what’s been laid out in court decisions, has always fought to keep benefits “tethered to education.”
Well, in SB 1401, much of the compensation still would be related to academics. The bill states a noble goal of improving graduation rates for Black athletes in football and men’s and women’s basketball — the only three sports where players currently don’t receive more than 50% of revenues back purely through their scholarships.
Schools would establish a degree completion fund for each athlete, and the contents of the fund — fed annually — would be made available soon after degree completion (within six years). If the athlete does not graduate within six years, he or she will forfeit the fund and it will go back into the athletic budget. Players would have immediate access to a maximum of $25,000 each year, while the rest would build over time.
The amount owed to each athlete would be the half of the sport’s total revenue minus the team’s total student grant-in-aid package divided by the number of players. For instance, each USC football player could make upwards of $200,000 a year.
Think about taking $15 million to $20 million that currently has been used to reinvest in football resources and to fund the rest of the athletic department and transferring it to football players, and it’s easy to see why administrators are getting ready for a fight.
On the other side of the coin — and this point will have been argued by Sen. Steven Bradford, the bill’s author, and National College Players Assn. executive director Ramogi Huma — should it really have been college football and basketball players’ sacrifice all these years to subsidize the training of America’s future Olympians?
There’s a compelling argument that the amateur model — particularly in the last two decades as television revenues have exploded — has led to a displacement of what could have been generational wealth for young Black athletes and their families.
Aaron M. Sprecher
The amount owed to each athlete would be the half of the sport’s total revenue minus the team’s total student grant-in-aid package divided by the number of players. For instance, each USC football player could make upwards of $200,000 a year.
Think about taking $15 million to $20 million that currently has been used to reinvest in football resources and to fund the rest of the athletic department and transferring it to football players, and it’s easy to see why administrators are getting ready for a fight.
On the other side of the coin — and this point will have been argued by Sen. Steven Bradford, the bill’s author, and National College Players Assn. executive director Ramogi Huma — should it really have been college football and basketball players’ sacrifice all these years to subsidize the training of America’s future Olympians?
There’s a compelling argument that the amateur model — particularly in the last two decades as television revenues have exploded — has led to a displacement of what could have been generational wealth for young Black athletes and their families.
The bill establishes a “pay for play” model but stops at designating athletes as employees, stating, “This does not establish evidence of an employment relationship between a student athlete and their institution of higher education.”
Among administrators, this is viewed as clever wording meant to make the bill easier to pass and harder to lobby against. The assumption is that once “pay for play” begins, employment and collective bargaining will quickly follow.
The bill establishes a “pay for play” model but stops at designating athletes as employees, stating, “This does not establish evidence of an employment relationship between a student athlete and their institution of higher education.”
Among administrators, this is viewed as clever wording meant to make the bill easier to pass and harder to lobby against. The assumption is that once “pay for play” begins, employment and collective bargaining will quickly follow.
That is hard to know. It has a long way to go, needing to make it through the Senate and then through a bunch of committees in the Assembly and then the Assembly floor before moving onto the governor’s desk.
The bill has already been amended. The original asked for Title IX protections and mechanisms in place to curb the cutting of non-revenue sports, but those parts have been removed to fully focus on revenue sharing.
Given the massive implications for athletic department budgets as it’s currently written, there has already been discussion about amending the payment structure to give schools the option of distributing only new revenues (increases year over year) to the players.
In that case, say USC football made $10 million more in 2022 than it did in 2021. Then all of the gain would go to feeding the players’ degree completion funds — $117,650 each — but the department would be able to continue to use the same amount from 2021 to fund the rest of its sports and avoid the doomsday scenario.
One thing to factor in is that the Pac-12 will be renegotiating its media rights contracts for 2024, which should bring in significantly more revenue from the conference.
If SB 1401 becomes law, much of that windfall could go to the athletes and quickly make them whole, so to speak, in working toward the bill’s requirement of a 50/50 split.
It seems likely that if the bill passes, it will have something like this new revenues option in place, because it would give the schools a chance to maintain their current level of operations.
Jae C. Hong
That is hard to know. It has a long way to go, needing to make it through the Senate and then through a bunch of committees in the Assembly and then the Assembly floor before moving onto the governor’s desk.
The bill has already been amended. The original asked for Title IX protections and mechanisms in place to curb the cutting of non-revenue sports, but those parts have been removed to fully focus on revenue sharing.
Given the massive implications for athletic department budgets as it’s currently written, there has already been discussion about amending the payment structure to give schools the option of distributing only new revenues (increases year over year) to the players.
In that case, say USC football made $10 million more in 2022 than it did in 2021. Then all of the gain would go to feeding the players’ degree completion funds — $117,650 each — but the department would be able to continue to use the same amount from 2021 to fund the rest of its sports and avoid the doomsday scenario.
One thing to factor in is that the Pac-12 will be renegotiating its media rights contracts for 2024, which should bring in significantly more revenue from the conference.
If SB 1401 becomes law, much of that windfall could go to the athletes and quickly make them whole, so to speak, in working toward the bill’s requirement of a 50/50 split.
It seems likely that if the bill passes, it will have something like this new revenues option in place, because it would give the schools a chance to maintain their current level of operations.
In the era of the one-time transfer waiver, this is a key component of the bill — especially one tied to degree completion.
The wording states that if an athlete transfers to another California institution, the degree completion fund will transfer after enrollment and be managed and funded by the new school.
If an athlete transfers to an institution out of state, the degree completion fund is forfeited.
Greg Beacham
In the era of the one-time transfer waiver, this is a key component of the bill — especially one tied to degree completion.
The wording states that if an athlete transfers to another California institution, the degree completion fund will transfer after enrollment and be managed and funded by the new school.
If an athlete transfers to an institution out of state, the degree completion fund is forfeited.
Huma, the former UCLA linebacker who has become one of the leaders of the college athlete rights movement nationally, is confident that the answer is no.
When the NCAA made threats against California with SB 206, the Department of Justice antitrust division established an NCAA boycott of California schools would be a violation of antitrust laws.
Power Five conference leaders already talking publicly about possibly leaving behind NCAA governance certainly wouldn’t help the association’s cause if it were to threaten California.
Brynn Anderson
Huma, the former UCLA linebacker who has become one of the leaders of the college athlete rights movement nationally, is confident that the answer is no.
When the NCAA made threats against California with SB 206, the Department of Justice antitrust division established an NCAA boycott of California schools would be a violation of antitrust laws.
Power Five conference leaders already talking publicly about possibly leaving behind NCAA governance certainly wouldn’t help the association’s cause if it were to threaten California.
Study: Diversity hires underrepresented in college athletics
Aaron M. Sprecher
FILE - An athlete stands near the NCAA logo during a softball game in Beaumont, Texas, April 19, 2019. The latest diversity study on FBS hiring finds women and people of color are underrepresented in athletic departments. The report card was issued Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2022, by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport.(AP Photo/Aaron M. Sprecher, File)
Aaron M. Sprecher
FILE - An athlete stands near the NCAA logo during a softball game in Beaumont, Texas, April 19, 2019. The latest diversity study on FBS hiring finds women and people of color are underrepresented in athletic departments. The report card was issued Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2022, by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport.(AP Photo/Aaron M. Sprecher, File)
