Klatt Podcast on Future of CFB

[statsman 5674]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-joel-klatt-show-a-college-football-podcast/id1037085984?i=1000656883603
 
Klatt is smart, and talks to people. He discusses the NCAA vs. House court decision and what it means.  
 
His takeaways:

1. Necessary to stop the NCAA lawsuits, that they keep losing. He says the conferences are all onboard. 
2. Positive move that revenue sharing will be used to pay players, because he says current system (collectives) isn’t sustainable. He believes/wants NIL to be pure marketing for worthy marketable players, and not pay-for-play. 
3. He thinks legislation is needed so whole nation has same rules, plus an exemption from antitrust. 
4. He thinks the NCAA has to split away from non-revenue sports because it makes no sense to share the pie with those non-revenue players. 
5. He expects collective bargaining. 
 
Statsman’s thoughts:

1. Of course Klatt wants the course he has charted. He calls games for a couple of leagues of schools. He doesn’t want any of them (especially his alma mater) to become less relevant. He wants things to be the way they used to be. 
2. He describes a future NCAA that exists mainly to market a sport. That’s really not needed. Before the NCAA became a big thing, in the ‘50s, the conferences regulated and enforced rules. Then, the NCAA took that function over, leaving the conferences to market their leagues. I don’t see why the NCAA is needed if it won’t enforce rules (and it hasn’t for almost 15 years). 
3. I absolutely agree that if it came to a vote, most of the programs would vote for revenue sharing, salary caps and restrictions on movement, because that would help most of the programs. The programs that don’t need sharing, that don’t need a cap, and are fine with few player restrictions (teams like Texas) are very much the minority. 
 
I hope that Texas has plans for these proposals, and is working with similar programs. I wonder if it makes sense for there to be a super-league, with no caps and Texas NIL being a differentiator in recruiting. 

[Hagbard Celine 11156]

@immamac @hayden_horn @blacklab this should be merged

 

my take: #teamplonsky are going to HOWL like skinned hyenas when their title9 gets castrated (literally)

[troph 25088]

Well gotta win big and often while the getting is good. Let’s go sark, you’ve got all the advantages now even in the sec, don’t need dark money so let’s do this. Time to rake.

[BurntOrange&White 41635]

Revenue sharing isn't NIL...we will obviously be at or near the top of payout for revenue sharing depending on how they decide to cap it I suppose(percentage or specific value). NIL will still be the lure to get elite players I think that will keep the old bag game at bay still. 

Edited May 27 by BurntOrange&White

[troph 25088]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Revenue sharing isn't NIL...

If NIL can pay more outside of caps then great, still time to win big before any real regulation. We finally have ALL the advantages not just those on paper.

[PilotsError 2342]

Multiple threads are fine.  We're not FlyerTalk.

[billfromlaketravis 11783]

25 minutes ago, troph said:

Well gotta win big and often while the getting is good. Let’s go sark, you’ve got all the advantages now even in the sec, don’t need dark money so let’s do this. Time to rake.

This. Satan will continue to be a pain in the ass as long as he’s upright. Instead of doing it at Bama, he’ll try to ruin our lives from DC. He won’t rest until the politicians level the playing field for Bama. 

[Huckleberry 34403]

3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Revenue sharing isn't NIL...we will obviously be at or near the top of payout for revenue sharing depending on how they decide to cap it I suppose(percentage or specific value). NIL will still be the lure to get elite players I think that will keep the old bag game at bay still. 

Exactly, how do they think they are going to stop players from getting outside endorsement deals now that the cat's out of the bag? Do they think they're going to get an antitrust exemption that allows them to ban outside endorsements? I don't see that as very likely.

And if that doesn't happen then players at Texas and other well-funded programs in corporate hotbeds will get their NCAA salary and then also get more outside money.

Edited May 28 by Huckleberry

[statsman 5674]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Exactly, how do they think they are going to stop players from getting outside endorsement deals now that the cat's out of the bag? Do they think they're going to get an antitrust exemption that allows them to ban outside endorsements? I don't see that as very likely.

And if that doesn't happen then players at Texas and other well-funded programs in corporate hotbeds will get their NCAA salary and then also get more outside money.

Klatt talked as if the only NIL in this future world would be real marketing. That may be wishcasting the collectives away, leaving only the auto dealerships and the like. I think there are two ways that might be possibly understood. 
1. Maybe he think there is no need for a collective when players are getting paid from a $20M pool. For small programs, that can only scrape up $5M per year, that’s probably true. 
2. Maybe he thinks collective bargaining and new NCAA regulations would ban collectives. I am sure the majority of NCAA members would vote for that. If so, my hope is that programs like Texas, tOSU, Oregon, Michigan, UGA and the like tell the NCAA to pound sand. 

[tx 3 putt 78455]

i think college football breaks out as it's own sport, in their own conferences. everything should be regional conferences, expand the playoffs 

8 teams pods, everyone has 4 spots to take on traditional rivals 

[HRSchenker 2331]

Klatt is nuts if he thinks 4 is even a remote possibility. Once college athletes are given the employee designation, it's gonna be hard to avoid the Title VII question for women's sports. 

[Hermanator 7570]

Title 7 you say

[linux 1759]

10 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Revenue sharing isn't NIL...we will obviously be at or near the top of payout for revenue sharing depending on how they decide to cap it I suppose(percentage or specific value). NIL will still be the lure to get elite players I think that will keep the old bag game at bay still. 

The old bag game was still essentially bags there is only so much money you can fit in a McDonalds bag, once players earn enough from salary and real NIL they are not going to go to the team that gives them a transam (and he still went to SMU). They need to wire money and that leaves a trace.

[TDunk 590]

7 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Title 7 you say

Vii is more broad for discrimination via employees. IX is more students/employees and sex discrimination. Depends on how to interpret the ruling. 

[TKthunder2 5058]

14 hours ago, statsman said:

2. Maybe he thinks collective bargaining and new NCAA regulations would ban collectives. I am sure the majority of NCAA members would vote for that. If so, my hope is that programs like Texas, tOSU, Oregon, Michigan, UGA and the like tell the NCAA to pound sand. 

Confirmed cheaters like Alabama want to ban schools like Texas from paying legally. If they make it illegal it will stop many of our donors. While revenue sharing and true NIL will still be around, Alabama’s bag game would come back and help them level the playing field.

The collectives paying cash to license and market a player’s name has always been a risky proposition because in many cases they are literally paying for nothing. That practice might be one of the first things to get banned.

The collectives paying players to attend charity events and make appearances at meetings and fundraisers will never go away. Klatt is wish casting or delusional to think otherwise. I don’t see the courts ever curtailing that practice, because you NIL is literally worth what people wish to pay you.

[Zeus 6752]

 

[Beau Vine 55802]

18 hours ago, statsman said:

Klatt talked as if the only NIL in this future world would be real marketing.

[RollLeft 5086]

23 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

@immamac @hayden_horn @blacklab this should be merged

 

my take: #teamplonsky are going to HOWL like skinned hyenas when their title9 gets castrated (literally)

Its time to come to a head.  

[cochamps 1883]

My belief is that properly run collectives (including The One Fund) are not going away.  A 9-0 Supreme Court ruling ensures that, imo.

[statsman 5674]

5 minutes ago, cochamps said:

My belief is that properly run collectives (including The One Fund) are not going away.  A 9-0 Supreme Court ruling ensures that, imo.

It would require the universities to want to get rid of them. I think, for Klatt, it’s enough that most schools he talks to thinks the current environment is unsustainable. For most schools, it is unsustainable. Hopefully, the Texas leadership (and other Gullivers) refuse to be tied down by the Lilliputians. 

[Hurtlocker 2219]

Not sure where the right place to put this stuff for future CFB is that I used to dump in realignment  

 

Edited May 28 by Hurtlocker

[John80 160]

Cal's athletics department is in terrible financial shape and needs to cut a bunch of sports. Is the state going to fund all of the sports that they sponsor? I hate to see athletics siphoning money away from one of the world's great universities. Cal's value to the state and world isn't in athletics.

[ChiTownDoc 21323]

13 minutes ago, John80 said:

Cal's athletics department is in terrible financial shape and needs to cut a bunch of sports. Is the state going to fund all of the sports that they sponsor? I hate to see athletics siphoning money away from one of the world's great universities. Cal's value to the state and world isn't in athletics.

I love that Coach Cal has a larger budget than all of Cal.  What a world…