NCAA okay with paying athletes.

[IUP24]

Other items I’d like to add that expand on my previous post:

1. Is this going to eliminate X coach poaching Y player off Z roster? No.. But it’s going to probably create more balance across FBS football, specifically within the Power 4 schools. Ohio State has 5 quarterbacks on their roster currently who were ranked as 4 star or better recruits. Those players are all there cashing in on bogus NIL deals that won’t be permissible in 2025. So are those players all going to stay? What this will ultimately do is create a “going rate,” so to speak… Position by position… Sport by sport.. It’ll be, to a point, like free agency. Somebody sets the market and then the market adjusts. If the going rate for a starting QB at a P4 school is 1.5 million, those 4 players at OSU holding clipboards will go to where they can make the going rate and be a starting QB because OSU cannot physically pay them all the going rate for a starting QB. So somebody will transfer to Boston College, and Kansas, and Georgia Tech, etc., because they can be the starter, get a ton of tape, and make the going rate. Will the best players, mostly, still choose the best schools from a recruiting perspective? Yeah. But you’ll see over time this will prevent teams from being able to just stack their rosters with 4 and 5 star players 3 and 4 deep on the depth chart like you see now because schools physically cannot afford to pay them. The gap between some of the football factories and the other P4 schools likely gets smaller because of this, not wider. The other thing to consider, like I mentioned in my previous post, there is now simply going to be way less NIL money than before. So a coach can try to poach a player off a roster, but that coach may not have the money needed to make the transfer actually worth the player’s while. For fans of schools at non-football factories, that’s a GOOD thing.

2. I think this is great news for us D2 fans. Guys we missed out on previously because they went as a PWO at Pitt, Penn State, etc., will likely come back to the PSAC out of high school. I also think there will be far less transfers up a level now. The best of the absolute best can and will still make the jump. But the fringe guys… They aren’t leaving anymore. Not because they don’t want to. It’s because there are going to be less roster spots now. So unless you absolutely have a home locked up, those guys will stay at this level.

3. There is obviously a sport by sport conversation of this. Long term, I think you’ll see schools focus efforts regarding monetary distribution on what they are good at currently. For example, Boston College isn’t a football powerhouse. But they have a national championship women’s lacrosse program. They have an excellent men’s and women’s ice hockey program. It may not behoove them to put all of their 22 million into football. They will use a large chunk there, I’m sure, to be the same as they are now - which is average at best. But they will probably invest heavily into hockey and lacrosse to keep those programs at extremely high levels capable of winning national championships.

4. I read a post above expressing some grief over what this does to schools in the G5 conferences and how with this ruling, the gap is even wider between P4 and G5 than it was before... I struggle to agree with that at face value. Is Akron trying to spend with Ohio State? No. And to be clear.. Akron was never trying to spend with Ohio State. The gap between those types of schools and the P4 schools was always big (even before NIL). The only change now is that Akron’s best player will transfer the first opportunity he gets; he previously couldn’t do that. But people want to believe that there was a greater frequency of MAC level programs walking into road environments in the SEC, ACC, and B1G and winning before NIL. There really wasn’t. What those schools should be doing is spending to stack up with one another. Bowling Green, Ball State, etc., can’t spend 22 million. But if Ball State spends 2 million, and Toledo spends 8, Ball State is at a big disadvantage within their own playing field. Those schools need to compete with each other, not with the SEC. Expanding on my first point… I think you’ll still see upward movement from the best guys from the G5 schools to the P4 schools (with the one free transfer rule, there is no way to fix that at this point). But I still firmly believe that you’ll see less movement now within the P4 schools.

[IUP24]

I spent an hour typing this on my phone and it was going to get buried as the last post on a page and would’ve been viewed by 3 people if that. So I’m dropping it here. Lol

I do hope people have an open mind to my explanation and how I’ve laid this out. Happy to address any questions. I’ve followed this insanely close since it’s been happening and I think I can provide more legitimate context to anyone’s concerns on the application of this rather than just give a doom and gloom, negative outlook.

It’s not perfect, but some of this structure is going to reign in a lot of the stuff that many in this thread have complained about for 3 years.

I’ve not read every post here (and based on what I have skimmed through, I’m probably better for it). Many know that I’m probably one of the most frequent posters on the D1 threads here as they pop up. I’ve followed this entire situation extremely, extremely close since these lawsuits started popping up. I have never been a fan of a direct compensation model in college athletics, and still am not. That said, when I objectively evaluate this, I firmly believe this was the best outcome and is actually good for major college athletics. I do hope many will have a true open mind and hear me out. I’m happy to address questions. I’ve followed this very, very close.

1. There was a post early about a bunch of suits being the ones to really get the ball rolling for this result. That’s accurate. But this series of anti trust and class action suits ultimately created a scenario where many wanted to work together to put some guardrails in place for athlete compensation, NIL, collectives, etc. That's exactly what this did. That’s a GOOD thing. You have to accept that college sports isn’t ever going back to what it was. I agree that money and greed killed it, but if you didn’t like what you saw over the last 3 years, you should be excited about this.

2. The roster caps are scholarship limits. So there is no longer any such thing as “scholarship equivalencies.” The roster limits for each sport are not yet finalized. The number I’m hearing for football is 90. A sport like baseball may have 25-30. Each school can choose how to fund that sports team. If baseball has a roster limit of 30, that’s it. You can only fund 15 scholarships. You don’t have to necessarily have every athlete on a full ride, but you can’t have more than 30 players on your roster. When it comes to football, and any sport, for those who like D2 athletics, that is only positively going to impact our schools. Because let’s now consider a guy who typically would have had an opportunity to play at SRU, Cal, IUP or be a preferred walk on at Penn State… He isn’t able to walk on anymore because Penn State won’t be allowed a +1 on their roster. If he isn’t one of the 90 they give a scholarship to, then he is playing where he should be playing in the PSAC.

3. The money that is being paid to athletes is not necessarily a direct compensation model. Rather, it’s a percentage of the tv revenue averaged out over all of the 134 FBS schools. That number ultimately comes to between 20-22 million dollars. Its percentage based and can fluctuate yearly. How the school chooses to allocate that money is entirely up to them. If you choose to pay up to the “cap” is your prerogative. If you choose to pay your athletes at all is up to each school too. To be blunt… There is nothing that is saying every Division 1 institution has to do this. There’s a limit and restriction to how much, but no requirement to participate at all. That said, not fully participating puts you at a disadvantage for sure. But it’s not requiring schools like Kent State to shell out 22 million dollars if they don’t feel comfortable doing so.

4. There are no changes to varsity sport requirements to be a member of the NCAA Division 1. There’s a common automatic belief that schools will start cutting sports left and right. Some sports may be casualties, yeah. Some sports may no longer have the same number of athletes getting scholarship help either, but schools are not legally allowed to go below 16 varsity sports or be out of compliance with Title IX. Title IX is part of this agreement as well, but from everything I’ve read, some of the fine print needs worked out.

5. This GREATLY lessens the impact of NIL and collectives. What everybody needs to realize is that prior to this agreement, all of these universities took all of their extra cash and external resources (alumni, donors, collectives, etc.) and they funneled that all into bogus NIL deals. All the school had to do was pay for the scholarship, and that was it. The fans covered the rest because they wanted Cam Ward to play Quarterback at Ohio State. Or because they wanted Jordan Addison to transfer to USC. What you need to understand is that now the school has to cover the scholarship AND 22 million dollars that’s distributed however they choose to distribute it. And that money can come from wherever, but it has to get paid by the school. Meaning… A school can take all of the money that their collective generates and they can use that towards the revenue sharing total. Or they can take their television deal money and pay it from there. Or they can create another line item in the university’s budget and pay it. But any way you pay it, you have recognize that the school is paying that money and they have 22 million dollars less than they had before. That’s significant. Many believe these collectives are limitless. They are not. And you’re going to see that quickly (and at some of the big schools too). Miami was relying on John Ruiz’s LifeWallet to fund their entire collective; he’s about to go bankrupt. Penn State is about to go into 700 million in debt to finance a stadium upgrade and they are in bad financial shape currently. They cut a ton of money from their budget to break even on the balance sheet last year WITH the largest television deal in sports history AND not having to pay an extra 22 million out of their budget. Texas A&M’s collective started drying up when they got investigated by the SEC (not the football conference). Now all of the rich Texas money learned that donating to their collective isn’t a tax write off and that money is disappearing QUICKLY. Nick Saban previously reported “donor fatigue” saying that the largest benefactors at Alabama were saying that they couldn’t continue to support at the rate that they were being asked to. So consider that and the fact that these schools all now still owe 22 million to student athletes. That’s far less money every school has to create some NIL farce to entice a player to transfer.

6. Part of this agreement is putting provisions in place for fair market value on any NIL deal now. Everything currently is simply shadow money. “I want this player. Let’s find 750k to get him.” That WILL NOT happen anymore. These deals all have to now get reported and they are audited by an independent firm. The deals have to be market value and have services attached. That is a great thing. Meaning… I can’t get a couple buddies in Indiana County together, call up Tort, and tell him we have 50K for Karst Hunter to come to IUP. We can come up with that capital, but there has to be legitimate services attached to that deal. That’s going to GREATLY impact how this all looks. Not to mention that there will be far less usage of collectives now that schools are paying out up to 22 million. Some of that collective money will just be going straight into the 22 million fund. And there is ultimately far less cash to go around for the NIL deal.

This is not perfect by any stretch, but it’s far better than what existed previously. This will limit player movement and eliminate back room NIL deals. Those are good things.

[EyeoftheHawk]

Thanks for taking the time because I hadn’t done much research and now here are the Cliff Notes.

I think what most college athletic programs and fans of those schools want is a reasonable level of fairness. If this helps accomplish that, I’m all in. I think the people who have the biggest problem with this are the ones who wouldn’t let themselves believe that compensating players, poaching players, etc. wasn’t already going on. This just says the quiet part out loud and attempts to put some limits on it. Not perfect, but maybe better than the Wild West of NIL.

I like the potential for D2 as you laid it out, and I assume there would be a trickle down effect that would help D3.

[Chuck Norris]

I’m happy we’re getting a college football video game again.

[IUP24]

Thanks for taking the time because I hadn’t done much research and now here are the Cliff Notes.

I think what most college athletic programs and fans of those schools want is a reasonable level of fairness. If this helps accomplish that, I’m all in. I think the people who have the biggest problem with this are the ones who wouldn’t let themselves believe that compensating players, poaching players, etc. wasn’t already going on. This just says the quiet part out loud and attempts to put some limits on it. Not perfect, but maybe better than the Wild West of NIL.

I like the potential for D2 as you laid it out, and I assume there would be a trickle down effect that would help D3.

Yes, this will undoubtedly help lower levels. I will keep repeating… I encourage people to keep an open mind and perspective. As I was reading all of the reporting throughout the last few weeks, I became more positive as time progressed. It doesn’t fix everything, but it puts restraints on a lot of it. Will people still skirt lines? Yes. But this makes things extremely transparent- because legally, it has to be now.

Im extremely happy the shadow money from fake NIL deals are going away. Will people still try? Yes. But now each one of those is audited. And if its determined that paying Cam Ward 2 million dollars to do a single commercial for a car dealership in Columbus is not accurate market value for the for services (meaning that may be worth 50,000, not 2 million), guess what? He only gets what is consider accurate compensation. That type of transparency, and ensuring these are all audited agreements, is huge for reigning this stuff in.

[IUPNation]

I’ve not read every post here (and based on what I have skimmed through, I’m probably better for it). Many know that I’m probably one of the most frequent posters on the D1 threads here as they pop up. I’ve followed this entire situation extremely, extremely close since these lawsuits started popping up. I have never been a fan of a direct compensation model in college athletics, and still am not. That said, when I objectively evaluate this, I firmly believe this was the best outcome and is actually good for major college athletics. I do hope many will have a true open mind and hear me out. I’m happy to address questions. I’ve followed this very, very close.

1. There was a post early about a bunch of suits being the ones to really get the ball rolling for this result. That’s accurate. But this series of anti trust and class action suits ultimately created a scenario where many wanted to work together to put some guardrails in place for athlete compensation, NIL, collectives, etc. That's exactly what this did. That’s a GOOD thing. You have to accept that college sports isn’t ever going back to what it was. I agree that money and greed killed it, but if you didn’t like what you saw over the last 3 years, you should be excited about this.

2. The roster caps are scholarship limits. So there is no longer any such thing as “scholarship equivalencies.” The roster limits for each sport are not yet finalized. The number I’m hearing for football is 90. A sport like baseball may have 25-30. Each school can choose how to fund that sports team. If baseball has a roster limit of 30, that’s it. You can only fund 15 scholarships. You don’t have to necessarily have every athlete on a full ride, but you can’t have more than 30 players on your roster. When it comes to football, and any sport, for those who like D2 athletics, that is only positively going to impact our schools. Because let’s now consider a guy who typically would have had an opportunity to play at SRU, Cal, IUP or be a preferred walk on at Penn State… He isn’t able to walk on anymore because Penn State won’t be allowed a +1 on their roster. If he isn’t one of the 90 they give a scholarship to, then he is playing where he should be playing in the PSAC.

3. The money that is being paid to athletes is not necessarily a direct compensation model. Rather, it’s a percentage of the tv revenue averaged out over all of the 134 FBS schools. That number ultimately comes to between 20-22 million dollars. Its percentage based and can fluctuate yearly. How the school chooses to allocate that money is entirely up to them. If you choose to pay up to the “cap” is your prerogative. If you choose to pay your athletes at all is up to each school too. To be blunt… There is nothing that is saying every Division 1 institution has to do this. There’s a limit and restriction to how much, but no requirement to participate at all. That said, not fully participating puts you at a disadvantage for sure. But it’s not requiring schools like Kent State to shell out 22 million dollars if they don’t feel comfortable doing so.

4. There are no changes to varsity sport requirements to be a member of the NCAA Division 1. There’s a common automatic belief that schools will start cutting sports left and right. Some sports may be casualties, yeah. Some sports may no longer have the same number of athletes getting scholarship help either, but schools are not legally allowed to go below 16 varsity sports or be out of compliance with Title IX. Title IX is part of this agreement as well, but from everything I’ve read, some of the fine print needs worked out.

5. This GREATLY lessens the impact of NIL and collectives. What everybody needs to realize is that prior to this agreement, all of these universities took all of their extra cash and external resources (alumni, donors, collectives, etc.) and they funneled that all into bogus NIL deals. All the school had to do was pay for the scholarship, and that was it. The fans covered the rest because they wanted Cam Ward to play Quarterback at Ohio State. Or because they wanted Jordan Addison to transfer to USC. What you need to understand is that now the school has to cover the scholarship AND 22 million dollars that’s distributed however they choose to distribute it. And that money can come from wherever, but it has to get paid by the school. Meaning… A school can take all of the money that their collective generates and they can use that towards the revenue sharing total. Or they can take their television deal money and pay it from there. Or they can create another line item in the university’s budget and pay it. But any way you pay it, you have recognize that the school is paying that money and they have 22 million dollars less than they had before. That’s significant. Many believe these collectives are limitless. They are not. And you’re going to see that quickly (and at some of the big schools too). Miami was relying on John Ruiz’s LifeWallet to fund their entire collective; he’s about to go bankrupt. Penn State is about to go into 700 million in debt to finance a stadium upgrade and they are in bad financial shape currently. They cut a ton of money from their budget to break even on the balance sheet last year WITH the largest television deal in sports history AND not having to pay an extra 22 million out of their budget. Texas A&M’s collective started drying up when they got investigated by the SEC (not the football conference). Now all of the rich Texas money learned that donating to their collective isn’t a tax write off and that money is disappearing QUICKLY. Nick Saban previously reported “donor fatigue” saying that the largest benefactors at Alabama were saying that they couldn’t continue to support at the rate that they were being asked to. So consider that and the fact that these schools all now still owe 22 million to student athletes. That’s far less money every school has to create some NIL farce to entice a player to transfer.

6. Part of this agreement is putting provisions in place for fair market value on any NIL deal now. Everything currently is simply shadow money. “I want this player. Let’s find 750k to get him.” That WILL NOT happen anymore. These deals all have to now get reported and they are audited by an independent firm. The deals have to be market value and have services attached. That is a great thing. Meaning… I can’t get a couple buddies in Indiana County together, call up Tort, and tell him we have 50K for Karst Hunter to come to IUP. We can come up with that capital, but there has to be legitimate services attached to that deal. That’s going to GREATLY impact how this all looks. Not to mention that there will be far less usage of collectives now that schools are paying out up to 22 million. Some of that collective money will just be going straight into the 22 million fund. And there is ultimately far less cash to go around for the NIL deal.

This is not perfect by any stretch, but it’s far better than what existed previously. This will limit player movement and eliminate back room NIL deals. Those are good things.

Very well thought out and informative.

Thank you. I can see all of your points.

Something had to be done to keep some balance.

[iupgroundhog]

Other items I’d like to add that expand on my previous post:

1. Is this going to eliminate X coach poaching Y player off Z roster? No.. But it’s going to probably create more balance across FBS football, specifically within the Power 4 schools. Ohio State has 5 quarterbacks on their roster currently who were ranked as 4 star or better recruits. Those players are all there cashing in on bogus NIL deals that won’t be permissible in 2025. So are those players all going to stay? What this will ultimately do is create a “going rate,” so to speak… Position by position… Sport by sport.. It’ll be, to a point, like free agency. Somebody sets the market and then the market adjusts. If the going rate for a starting QB at a P4 school is 1.5 million, those 4 players at OSU holding clipboards will go to where they can make the going rate and be a starting QB because OSU cannot physically pay them all the going rate for a starting QB. So somebody will transfer to Boston College, and Kansas, and Georgia Tech, etc., because they can be the starter, get a ton of tape, and make the going rate. Will the best players, mostly, still choose the best schools from a recruiting perspective? Yeah. But you’ll see over time this will prevent teams from being able to just stack their rosters with 4 and 5 star players 3 and 4 deep on the depth chart like you see now because schools physically cannot afford to pay them. The gap between some of the football factories and the other P4 schools likely gets smaller because of this, not wider. The other thing to consider, like I mentioned in my previous post, there is now simply going to be way less NIL money than before. So a coach can try to poach a player off a roster, but that coach may not have the money needed to make the transfer actually worth the player’s while. For fans of schools at non-football factories, that’s a GOOD thing.

2. I think this is great news for us D2 fans. Guys we missed out on previously because they went as a PWO at Pitt, Penn State, etc., will likely come back to the PSAC out of high school. I also think there will be far less transfers up a level now. The best of the absolute best can and will still make the jump. But the fringe guys… They aren’t leaving anymore. Not because they don’t want to. It’s because there are going to be less roster spots now. So unless you absolutely have a home locked up, those guys will stay at this level.

3. There is obviously a sport by sport conversation of this. Long term, I think you’ll see schools focus efforts regarding monetary distribution on what they are good at currently. For example, Boston College isn’t a football powerhouse. But they have a national championship women’s lacrosse program. They have an excellent men’s and women’s ice hockey program. It may not behoove them to put all of their 22 million into football. They will use a large chunk there, I’m sure, to be the same as they are now - which is average at best. But they will probably invest heavily into hockey and lacrosse to keep those programs at extremely high levels capable of winning national championships.

4. I read a post above expressing some grief over what this does to schools in the G5 conferences and how with this ruling, the gap is even wider between P4 and G5 than it was before... I struggle to agree with that at face value. Is Akron trying to spend with Ohio State? No. And to be clear.. Akron was never trying to spend with Ohio State. The gap between those types of schools and the P4 schools was always big (even before NIL). The only change now is that Akron’s best player will transfer the first opportunity he gets; he previously couldn’t do that. But people want to believe that there was a greater frequency of MAC level programs walking into road environments in the SEC, ACC, and B1G and winning before NIL. There really wasn’t. What those schools should be doing is spending to stack up with one another. Bowling Green, Ball State, etc., can’t spend 22 million. But if Ball State spends 2 million, and Toledo spends 8, Ball State is at a big disadvantage within their own playing field. Those schools need to compete with each other, not with the SEC. Expanding on my first point… I think you’ll still see upward movement from the best guys from the G5 schools to the P4 schools (with the one free transfer rule, there is no way to fix that at this point). But I still firmly believe that you’ll see less movement now within the P4 schools.

I have a lot of trouble reading the stuff you write. It's too verbose. My attention span isn't that great. It's a bullet point world. Aside from that, I see a lot of assumptions e.g. it will do this, it will do that. I don't think anybody knows what it will do. Not to mention, the agreements made today are going to be constantly challenged in courts. I think what people like myself who are frustrated by this believe is on a more macro level. It's not the nuts and bolts, the mechanics, to a lot of people. It's the concept of professionalizing college sports. Professional sports and educational institutions are an inconsistent pairing.

As for D2 and D3, I don't think anybody knows how it will play out over time. Might be positive, as you claim, might be negative, might have little effect.

Ultimately, the entire thing is based on greed and it is only going to create more cynicism regarding big time college sports with people.

[iupgroundhog]

Reading IUP24's posts did make me wonder about one thing. The PASSHE has 4 special case programs in wrestling. Lock Haven, Edinboro, Clarion, and Bloomsburg compete in D1 Wrestling. Will they be frozen out of this while schools like Penn State, Iowa, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Michigan wrestling programs reap benefits from this new world?

[IUP24]

I have a lot of trouble reading the stuff you write. It's too verbose. My attention span isn't that great. It's a bullet point world. Aside from that, I see a lot of assumptions e.g. it will do this, it will do that. I don't think anybody knows what it will do. Not to mention, the agreements made today are going to be constantly challenged in courts. I think what people like myself who are frustrated by this believe is on a more macro level. It's not the nuts and bolts, the mechanics, to a lot of people. It's the concept of professionalizing college sports. Professional sports and educational institutions are an inconsistent pairing.

As for D2 and D3, I don't think anybody knows how it will play out over time. Might be positive, as you claim, might be negative, might have little effect.

Ultimately, the entire thing is based on greed and it is only going to create more cynicism regarding big time college sports with people.

I provided you a cliff notes version of weeks of lawyers arguing. Could have been far worse. This was a bullet point version with context.

The reality is that it puts restrictions on what can and can’t happen. That did not exist previously. It does now. My uncle played college football at Nebraska 30 some years ago. He was the 4th QB on the depth chart. He got paid to wash a boosters car weekly. The starting QB got a higher “wage.” The stuff like that always happened. It’s now simply transparent - legitimately. Not the shadow NIL money. And this creates a structure for what guys are likely making.

I never wanted professionalized college sports, but it’s not going backwards. If you wanted some semblance on restrictions regarding major college athletics, you got it.

Keep an open mind. This outcome was about as good as it could have been.

[iupgroundhog]

I provided you a cliff notes version of weeks of lawyers arguing. Could have been far worse. This was a bullet point version with context.

The reality is that it puts restrictions on what can and can’t happen. That did t exist previously. It does now. My uncle played college football at Nebraska 30 some years ago. He was the 4th QB on the depth chart. He got paid to wash a boosters car weekly. The starting QB got a higher “wage.” The stuff like that always happened. It’s now simply transparent - legitimately. Not the shadow NIL money.

I never wanted professionalized college sports, but it’s not going backwards. If you wanted some semblance on restrictions regarding major college athletics, you got it.

Keep an open mind. This outcome was about as good as it could have been.

I think I'm understanding the perspective. But it makes it more like the business world. Do you think the business world is transparent, even though it is regulated by laws? It is not. It's translucent, at best. There will still be corruption and back room deals. Maybe more.

[IUP24]

Reading IUP24's posts did make me wonder about one thing. The PASSHE has 4 special case programs in wrestling. Lock Haven, Edinboro, Clarion, and Bloomsburg compete in D1 Wrestling. Will they be frozen out of this while schools like Penn State, Iowa, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Michigan wrestling programs reap benefits from this new world?

That’s a good question, and one I don’t know the answer to. I will add that the same scenario exists in D1 hockey. You have schools like Mankato and UMD participating in NCAA D1 hockey, but are otherwise D2 athletic programs.

This is applied to all NCAA D1 institutions (FBS and FCS in football terminology- but the percentage of revenue sharing is based off FBS tv revenue). So I do not know what the provisions for those in different levels would be.

But… you have to ask the question… What percentage of money is Penn State going to funnel at wrestling now in this new world? Do they care more about football and beating Ohio State, or do they care about having individual national champions on the mat? It’s not a forgone conclusion that any of these schools you mentioned will benefit from this in wrestling, because they may not choose to invest their money into “paying” those athletes. And if NIL is the route you choose, remember there is now going to be far less of that.

It’s also not absurd to say that Lock Haven or somebody, could not benefit because Penn State or Iowa may decide to not fully fund wrestling, or pay those individuals in revenue sharing. I don’t think that will happen, but you have to keep an open perspective. How much will those big wrestling programs actually benefit? They only have 22 million to distribute. 90% probably going to football and basketball yet there is still Title IX requirements (not yet finalized). So is the pay to any wrestler enough to create a massive advantage for one program that puts most of their eggs in football? Unlikely.

This is likely creating more balance (in many cases) in major college athletics, not widening it.

[IUP24]

I think I'm understanding the perspective. But it makes it more like the business world. Do you think the business world is transparent, even though it is regulated by laws? It is not. It's translucent, at best. There will still be corruption and back room deals. Maybe more.

And those always existed. What you choose to believe is that this will make this worse, not better. These external resources and collectives aren’t limitless. I provided numerous examples of that. There is significantly less money now for those back room deals. And now they are auditing and regulating NIL deals. That is a good thing.

And lawyers can fight and argue all they want, and make appeals. The NCAA and their members all agreed to this.
In fact, they settled so this didn’t go to court which would have ultimately bankrupted the NCAA and a number of schools. And the assumptions you’re saying I’m making, aren’t that. Those are all intended outcomes that were discussed on record in Washington. I am extremely happy with the outcome of this.

Will this fix everything? No. But is this better? Yes.

[Ship69]

Hey Ship69, just to clarify, my last post was a joke. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing.

No problem, and you're free to believe what you want. Groundhog and I did not bring that into the discussion, and I'm fine with leaving it where it is, but I will respond when people bring in that kind of shade.

[Ship69]

[QUOTE=Eagle74;n827860]

There were a lot of schitty run down homes along 422 between Ebensburg and Indiana with Fat Felon signs out front in 2016. The same house we’re most likely still run down hovels in 2020. They were still dumps in 2018, the last time I was in Indiana.QUOTE

I'm sure those shotty homes are now even worse dumps, but now full of illegals (from freakin who know where) and lots of fentanyl (which is out of control coming across the border) addicts / victims. Nothing is really better in the US these days, and quickly getting worse.

The vast majority of convicted fentanyl traffickers the past few years have been U.S. citizens, and of course the market for it is created by the seemingly insatiable demand of U.S. citizens for drugs. I can't put myself in the shoes of people who would inject this crap into their bodies or take pills containing it. I do have sympathy for those who become hooked on painkillers overprescribed in this country. I've certainly seen violent crime worse in the U.S. in my lifetime, but of course history started in 2000 and everything now is the best or worst it's ever been — the 24/7 cable stations and masters of the Interweb are around to inform you of that.

[Ship69]

I spent an hour typing this on my phone and it was going to get buried as the last post on a page and would’ve been viewed by 3 people if that. So I’m dropping it here. Lol

I do hope people have an open mind to my explanation and how I’ve laid this out. Happy to address any questions. I’ve followed this insanely close since it’s been happening and I think I can provide more legitimate context to anyone’s concerns on the application of this rather than just give a doom and gloom, negative outlook.

It’s not perfect, but some of this structure is going to reign in a lot of the stuff that many in this thread have complained about for 3 years.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. That was some good information.