Yeah, but they get to fly to Washington and eat and drink well. It's a nice junket.
Which is all it will be.
I kinda doubt the government is going to do anything. Frankly, I don't think any changes are coming any time soon.
- Both parties have be in charge and nothing has happened legislatively. There doesn't seem to be enough consensus to pass anything.
- There will not be significant change unless there is collective bargaining, as anti-trust issues would go away when employees-employer agree on terms
- Collective bargaining is unlikely because that would be substantially more expensive for schools, as the players would negotiate for higher % of revenue than they get now (which is fairly low vs. other pro sports) and the cost of making players employees would be material as well (providing insurance and retirement for example)
No question the current system is messy, but it has optimized one thing -- it's the cheapest option for schools. I think they care about that most.
It seems all we're going to get in the near-term are better rev share contracts that can be enforced, such as the one the B1G uses that kept Demond Williams at UW. That is a positive.
It's not the end of the world, IU just won the National Title, so the status quo isn't exactly terrible.
CFB can still improve other things too, like the schedule and the playoff selection/format.
@tammany Collective bargaining is inevitable. The schools (which are what make up the NCAA) are going to keep getting sued and losing. Lawsuits are VERY expensive. You're right in that people want to keep as much money in their pockets as possible and that's true in every aspect of business.
That status quo is changing even though the CFP stayed at 12 teams this year, it's going to change. TV deals are up soon-ish as well and will need to be renegotiated. IU winning a national title is not a cure all for me. Just because they won doesn't mean everything going forward is great or that people should like where it's going.
The NCAA fumbled the ball when they buried their heads in the sand with NIL. We all saw it coming years in advance. Now they are posturing and making threats that they cant enforce.
Thank you for reading Hoosier Huddle
@thehoosierhuddle I dunno man, legal fees are a literal drop in the bucket compared to what it costs to collectively bargain and make players employees. It's hard to estimate, but every school could easily be looking a $10-20M more in player costs per year. Plus there are other challenges to even get to collective bargaining, like conferences will need to become the employer and all that. So, I wouldn't say it collective bargaining is inevitable.
We'll see. It's possible, but well into the future in my view.
And of course IU winning doesn't mean everything is great in CFB, I didn't say that at all. All I am saying is everything isn't all bad. I'd like the sport to be more orderly, I just don't think it will happen anytime soon.
@tammany I understand that, but look at the Sorsby situation. He allegedly broke a multi-year deal with Cincinnati and the school is suing him for a $1 million buy out. The school is going to lose, because it's unenforceable.
The calendar is the first thing that needs to be fixed and now there are whispers of a "shadow portal" this spring that are loud enough the NCAA is threatening major penalties and fines (probably unenforceable as well). There's no magic wand though, but fixing the calendar should be top priority then they can chip away on everything else.
Thank you for reading Hoosier Huddle
The school is going to lose, because it's unenforceable.
I wouldnt be so sure the buyouts are unenforceable. Washington was able to bully Demond Williams into staying rather than being sued, and Miami had to pay a buyout to Duke for Mensah
@thehoosierhuddle But an occasional $1M or whatever buyout issue just isn't close to the cost of making players employees they have to collectively bargain with. That's adding a $10M+ expense every year. I just can't see schools going for this.
But again, we'll see. I'm just presenting my opinion.
I'd guess the contracts get better, those are enforceable since the player agrees to them. The B1G rev share agreement looks strong given we saw Demond's move to LSU thwarted. Perhaps more schools adopt whatever language the B1G has in their rev share contracts. Sorsby's is an NIL contract, those seem to not be written as well and it's tougher since they're not tied to actually playing.
And yea, those NCAA penalties for transferring outside the portal are severe. It'll be interesting if/when those get challenged.
I'd love to see these problems we're discussing solved for the good of the sport. I guess I just have my doubts about much happening.
@hoosierdaddy That was a rev share agreement. Sorsby was an NIL deal
Thank you for reading Hoosier Huddle
@thehoosierhuddle Williams was rev share, I thought Mensah was also a NIL deal though?
@thehoosierhuddle Williams was rev share, I thought Mensah was also a NIL deal though?
Duke sued Mensah over a clause that said he couldn't enter the portal until they'd gone through arbitration. Everything I saw said his deal was a combo of NIL and rev share.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
@hooky yeah, every contract has been different. UW used a Big Ten template that was more iron clad than others. Again, it’s all a mess.
Thank you for reading Hoosier Huddle
@tammany I totally understand the reluctance to have Congress step into college football in a big way, but I do believe it needs an anti-trust exemption in order to properly evolve into a viable ongoing concern.
Anti-trust exemption is what allows professional leagues to establish salary caps (usually tied into revenue), establish rules for transfer (whether by trade or free agency), tampering, etc
It's my opinion having some set of ENFORCEABLE salary cap, transfer, and tampering (players and coaches) rules are foundational needs for the long term viability of college football.
Not saying Congress should actually set those rules - but giving an entity (and I don't think the NCAA is necessarily the right entity) the ability to legal authority to create and enforce the rules of the league is necessary in my opinion.
Related to the original topic, the NCAA is too arbitrary as it tries to cling to relevance. In some ways, I hope they actually come after IU as I assume at that point, the B1G leads the charge to leave the NCAA. I assume the SEC would gladly join that exodus and of course the other schools wanting to play Big Boy Football would drop the NCAA in a flash.
College football needs some limited Congressional help - but let's keep that limited.
@dht Right. I keep blabbing about collective bargaining because that is a typical path to an anti-trust exemption.
The other way is for congress to just grant an anti-trust exemption with no CBA, which is part of what the SCORE Act proposes.
I'd like some entity to have real control over CFB like you lay out, I just struggle to see how it happens. I don't think the SCORE Act or something like it passes, and I also think schools don't want to collectively bargain due to the cost.
If a CFB super league is ever formed that might be the path this takes. Probably happens in early 2030's when the B1G and SEC TV deals are up for negotiation. It would be a ~60-70 team league and at that point something can be structured with an anti-trust exemption that gives some new entity real rules enforcement power. I dunno.
@tammany You reminded me of a major concern we had around here a few (short) years ago. Remember when we were all a little stressed that if there was ever a super league formed we'd be left out? Many of us feared being "relegated" to something like the MAC. Boy, did things change in a hurry!