Proposed FBS Subdivision to Directly Pay Players

[BigRedBuster]

33 minutes ago, PDXHusker said:

Which part do you not understand? Becoming a doctor is highly regulated. Becoming a college football player is not. It’s not a good analogy.

And I’m saying, if we are going to do this, let’s regulate it and put in a structure. You’re saying the highly regulated side is. The one you’re fine getting less money 

[PDXHusker]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

And I’m saying, if we are going to do this, let’s regulate it and put in a structure. You’re saying the highly regulated side is. The one you’re fine getting less money 

And I said go for it, see if the government really cares about college athletics versus medicine. Given they haven’t really yet, I’ll stick with your analogy not applying.

[BigRedBuster]

I"m interested in knowing how many programs do they project to be in this new subdivision.  

[Mavric]

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

18 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

You take an NFL/NBA model and yet distribute the funds on equal shares UNLIKE  said model you compared it to.  
 

Now you mentioned each team will form an LLC and license the rights to the schools name and image, etc… a few questions…

 

1) who will be the shareholders of the privately held LLC?

 

2) which leads to what happens when one of the owners decides the valuation of the LLC is just too great and wants to sell his/her shares? Or they decide to move because Texas decides their team sucks and wants to relocate the Nebraska football club and it’s players (Remember the school cannot be a shareholder)

 

 

This legal separation would be structured in a way to make the on field product as seemless as possible. I would guess that the legal separation would be similar to the relationship with the 1890 Collective.

 

This LLC/Incorporation/or whatever legal maneuver is made solely to negotiate with what will soon be the CFB players union. Presumably schools won't have to untether football from the universities, but in order to compete at the highest level they will have to. 

18 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

And since there will be a CBA, when does the draft process begin. No need to worry about recruiting anymore.

 

Also, there will be no need for 85 players on the squad anymore.  NFL model has 46 with some practice squad people for 17 games.  Great way for these LLC’s to save some money. 

All of this will be negotiated between the CFB Players Union and the schools. They could decide on roster sizes of any kind. It could be a radical shift in roster size or they could keep it at 85.

 

Recruiting could change as well. Again, it's up to the schools, conferences, and union on how the sport is structured. 

 

18 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Would you expect the person making a cameo appearance to get paid the same as the star?  
 

Because earlier you suggested each player should get $650,000.   that isn’t letting the free market play out as you are asking for.  

I'm not saying each player should get $650k. That's just a number of the average value they can get on average, per player, if they unionize. A punter may only get $50k and QBs might get $2 million. How money is structured will have to be negotiated. It could be by position or a flat rate per roster spot.

 

Thev real takeaway here isn't specific dollar amounts, it's that the proposal for a new subdivision proposed yesterday is still inadequate because the money Football players will receive is still much lower than it would be if they form a union. 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

This LLC/Incorporation/or whatever legal maneuver is made solely to negotiate with what will soon be the CFB players union. Presumably schools won't have to untether football from the universities, but in order to compete at the highest level they will have to. 

So who will be the shareholders (owners) of the football entity that as you said earlier the University won’t be able to own because of TitLE IX? 

[JJ Husker]

Me thinks somebody is needlessly trying to compare/mold this to the existing pro sports model. Pretty darned sure it isn’t going to end up there….and I hope it doesn’t.

 

Really all they need to do to fix the current situation is to tighten up transfers and institute some equivalent of a salary cap that would be applicable to scholarships and NIL earnings. If we want the schools paying players, fine, but what needs some limits and structure is transfers and the combined total amount of money teams can funnel to players to build their rosters.

 

Controlling/Limiting NIL money is going to be the trick given the current inability to limit what any individual player is allowed to make from their NIL. But it will have to be addressed somehow or reasonable parity won’t be possible.

[Archy1221]

13 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Me thinks somebody is needlessly trying to compare/mold this to the existing pro sports model. Pretty darned sure it isn’t going to end up there….and I hope it doesn’t.

 

Really all they need to do to fix the current situation is to tighten up transfers and institute some equivalent of a salary cap that would be applicable to scholarships and NIL earnings. If we want the schools paying players, fine, but what needs some limits and structure is transfers and the combined total amount of money teams can funnel to players to build their rosters.

 

Controlling/Limiting NIL money is going to be the trick given the current inability to limit what any individual player is allowed to make from their NIL. But it will have to be addressed somehow or reasonable parity won’t be possible.

Ideally, it should be a hybrid system to where schools can tie a commitment in years to the athletic scholarship like the old days, however, I would put it at three years of having to stay at the school if the athlete takes the scholarship.  If An athlete wants to go play for a program and only take whatever NIL funding he can get but pay his own way, then he’s free to leave whenever.  
 

And for f#&%s sake, can we finally get to a point where coaching contracts aren’t broken without full penalty.  Tired of seeing coaches (assistants included) get extensions and then leave with buyouts negotiated way down or no buyouts at all with assistant coaches.   If you want ant get the long term security contract, then pay the full price when you leave voluntarily.  Or have to sit out the remainder of the years left.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

42 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

So who will be the shareholders (owners) of the football entity that as you said earlier the University won’t be able to own because of TitLE IX? 

I thought I explained that it would be a third party, similar to a collective like 1890 that is *wink* not affiliated with the University. It could be a group of former administrators, the NU Foundation, or anything that officially is separate from the University.

 

College Football is almost certainly heading down this path. The new proposed model won't pay them enough. 

[Archy1221]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I thought I explained that it would be a third party, similar to a collective like 1890 that is *wink* not affiliated with the University. It could be a group of former administrators, the NU Foundation, or anything that officially is separate from the University.

Ok, so instantly that company is going to have a couple hundred million dollar valuation.  Do those people buy into that ownership?  Are they gifted it?  What if they want to sell their shares?  What if the owners disagree on how to move forward with an issue, or the direction of the team, or the coach etc…? 
 

who gets the profits if the “owners decide to spend only 30% of the revenue on expenses? 

[Dr. Strangelove]

27 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Ok, so instantly that company is going to have a couple hundred million dollar valuation.  Do those people buy into that ownership?  Are they gifted it?  What if they want to sell their shares?  What if the owners disagree on how to move forward with an issue, or the direction of the team, or the coach etc…? 
 

who gets the profits if the “owners decide to spend only 30% of the revenue on expenses? 

That ownership structure is going to have to be negotiated, either as a framework that all schools agree upon or each institution has itself. It could be a pro-sports model where those shares are invested into by prospective owners, or it could be a trust managed by administrators who's revenue is given to the Universities Foundation, with the unofficial but implied relationship with the Athletic Department. There are dozens of ways it could work. 

 

All I know is that all paths are leading down a road where players form a union. Court cases are working their way to SCOTUS as at speak, where they've already indicated they will rule in favor of the athletes. When that happens, schools are either going to: 

 

A. Negotiate with that union in a way that complies with Title IX and mostly keeps the current sports structure in tact, and non-revenue athletes get a piece of the pie.

 

B. Negotiate with a union that allows football players to not share revenue with non-revenue athletes, allowing Football Players to keep more money and giving their football program a competitive advantage. This option leads to an untethering of football from the school in order to rid themselves of Title IX compliance.

 

C. Congress gets involved.

 

I'm pretty sure I know which option Alabama/Ohio State/etc. is going to pick. 

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

That ownership structure is going to have to be negotiated, either as a framework that all schools agree upon or each institution has itself. It could be a pro-sports model where those shares are invested into by prospective owners, or it could be a trust managed by administrators who's revenue is given to the Universities Foundation, with the unofficial but implied relationship with the Athletic Department. There are dozens of ways it could work. 

 

All I know is that all paths are leading down a road where players form a union. Court cases are working their way to SCOTUS as at speak, where they've already indicated they will rule in favor of the athletes. When that happens, schools are either going to: 

 

A. Negotiate with that union in a way that complies with Title IX and mostly keeps the current sports structure in tact, and non-revenue athletes get a piece of the pie.

 

B. Negotiate with a union that allows football players to not share revenue with non-revenue athletes, allowing Football Players to keep more money and giving their football program a competitive advantage. This option leads to an untethering of football from the school in order to rid themselves of Title IX compliance.

 

C. Congress gets involved.

 

I'm pretty sure I know which option Alabama/Ohio State/etc. is going to pick. 

Option B is way more complicated than you are making it out to be because of Title IX and the massive amounts of money involved.   There will be no “wink wink nod nod” agreements when tens of millions of dollars are at stake and humans are involved.    

[Dr. Strangelove]

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Option B is way more complicated than you are making it out to be because of Title IX and the massive amounts of money involved.   There will be no “wink wink nod nod” agreements when tens of millions of dollars are at stake and humans are involved.    

I don't think it'll be easy at all and I think the path to get to that point will take a few years. 

 

But eventually players are going to want to keep as much of the money as possible, and a school somewhere is going to seek a competitive advantage to make it all happen. 

[desertshox]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

That ownership structure is going to have to be negotiated, either as a framework that all schools agree upon or each institution has itself. It could be a pro-sports model where those shares are invested into by prospective owners, or it could be a trust managed by administrators who's revenue is given to the Universities Foundation, with the unofficial but implied relationship with the Athletic Department. There are dozens of ways it could work. 

 

All I know is that all paths are leading down a road where players form a union. Court cases are working their way to SCOTUS as at speak, where they've already indicated they will rule in favor of the athletes. When that happens, schools are either going to: 

 

A. Negotiate with that union in a way that complies with Title IX and mostly keeps the current sports structure in tact, and non-revenue athletes get a piece of the pie.

 

B. Negotiate with a union that allows football players to not share revenue with non-revenue athletes, allowing Football Players to keep more money and giving their football program a competitive advantage. This option leads to an untethering of football from the school in order to rid themselves of Title IX compliance.

 

C. Congress gets involved.

 

I'm pretty sure I know which option Alabama/Ohio State/etc. is going to pick. 

 

D. The schools say gfy and make football a club sport. Or they all just drop the sport entirely.

[Archy1221]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I don't think it'll be easy at all and I think the path to get to that point will take a few years. 

 

But eventually players are going to want to keep as much of the money as possible, and a school somewhere is going to seek a competitive advantage to make it all happen. 

You keep bringing up players and no one is disagreeing with them wanting more.  But the concept of creating a separate company from the school will be very very hard to do because it involves a company that will have hundreds of millions of dollars of valuation that the school can have absolutely zero association with unless you want Title IX lawyers getting involved.  
 

If the school can’t own it, then someone has to.   Which means that someone/‘s will have hundreds of millions of reason to milk some profits like some owners of professional teams do.