I've predicted for a while that eventually NFL teams and colleges are going to wise up and collaborate. If the Houston Texans "sponsor" Texas A&M athletics, they can support the NIL deals of certain high school players of their choosing. As a term of the deal, said player agrees to not enter the draft and instead sign a free agency contract with the Texans directly once he's ready to play on the big stage.

It's the truest form of colleges functioning as the minor league for the NFL.

That & you can't do NIL for kids under 18.

You can't yet in Texas.

ARCHag08 said:

---

I believe any player entering the NFL must register for the draft. I think that will prevent this situation.

---

That is correct. The scenario that OP has "predicted for a while" cannot happen. I guess he didn't know that when he decided to make this thread.

So op wants to reverse NIL or impose NCAA regulations to rein it in because it could cause large schools like Georgia and Alabama to win more national championships?

I think your reasoning is poor. It's more likely to work around reputational advantages like multiple national championship wins to create better equity among the top half of NCAA football programs.

But more importantly: fans want to limit the wealth players can earn back to going off to college with less than full cost of attendance and no competition on educational benefits which violates the NCAA v. Alston ruling. Ain't happening on 9-0 decision.

And trying will lead to a fraud payout by schools in liability claims of 3x damages because of the 9-0 ruling. You sure that's worth the risk to force lack of financial competition of college football and college basketball players with unusual talent?

ARCHag08 said:

---

I believe any player entering the NFL must register for the draft. I think that will prevent this situation.

---

Which is exactly why they have a DRAFT. OP doesn't understand entering the DRAFT is MANDATORY not optional.

I think they need to do more to regulate transfers. Thats really the only power the NCAA has that can impact NIL.

Quote:

---

As a term of the deal, said player agrees to not enter the draft and instead sign a free agency contract with the Texans directly once he's ready to play on the big stage.

---

May want to learn the rules of nfl draft.


Solid fail thread

We are paying a coach 76 million to not coach and you worry about kids selling their name, image or likeness.

Truly amazing one's ok and one not.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Given that A&M is one of the largest and wealthiest alumni schools in the country whom NIL is an advantage for….I have no idea why the average A&M fans hates NIL. We are one of the 'HAVE' schools not 'HAVE NOT'.

---

You'd think a conservative school would embrace capitalism a bit more, but here we are.

if you don't think there will be changes to NIL your crazy. i am not saying it will play out the way OP proposed but it will change

you think the govt, lawyers, agents, basically all the parasites that control are lives are going to allow this to go on pretty much unregulated without getting their piece ? you haven't been paying attention. i don't know how it will change but it will. because they always get their pound of flesh.

NIL pertains to a lot more sports than just football.

LB12Diamond said:

---

NIL pertains to a lot more sports than just football.

---

Yes, but football is where almost all of it goes and pretty much the only one that matters

Personally, I don't have any issues with nil

My beef is with the free transfer

That's the true destroyer of college football

@MaxPower (on regulating transfers) - Do you want your potential employers to collude to make sure you can never leave your current job, no matter what they pay you and no matter how they treat you and no matter what work they make you do?

I do not, and I would not ask someone else to live like that.

NyAggie said:

---

Yes, but football is where almost all of it goes and pretty much the only one that matters

Personally, I don't have any issues with nil

My beef is with the free transfer

That's the true destroyer of college football

---

@NyAggie - or we just have to realize that the employment contracts are 1 year instead of 4. What I like about the NFL is the parity. 1 year contracts could help bring more parity to college football and basketball because the players want to actually play.

they aren't employees.

and once congress gets its legislation passed, that will be codified into federal law

BMX Bandit said:

---

they aren't employees.

and once congress gets its legislation passed, that will be codified into federal law

---

LOL. Anchoring on some legal definition is over complicating it. Athletes are labor, generating many millions of dollars. Without that labor, the business does not exist.

i know it feels like they are employees, but the fact is they aren't. no matter how bad you really want them to be.


pee wee football does not exist without little kids playing.

local park doesn't get cleaned without volunteers.

under your feels, they are all "employees"

DenverAggie said:

---

@MaxPower (on regulating transfers) - Do you want your potential employers to collude to make sure you can never leave your current job, no matter what they pay you and no matter how they treat you and no matter what work they make you do?

I do not, and I would not ask someone else to live like that.

---

I can leave my job any time. Should we allow players to transfer midseason?

DenverAggie said:

---

@MaxPower (on regulating transfers) - Do you want your potential employers to collude to make sure you can never leave your current job, no matter what they pay you and no matter how they treat you and no matter what work they make you do?

I do not, and I would not ask someone else to live like that.

---

No, but I do think the players should have to pay rent for the free platform they have. Research professors have to pay about 51% of their funds to A&M in overhead costs. For athletes, this overhead is the cost of their education, i.e. total attendance. If they want to make money off NIL, they should pay for their free platform first.

That's about as conservative as it gets. It's called "pay your debts before you get paid."

BMX Bandit said:

---

i know it feels like they are employees, but the fact is they aren't. no matter how bad you really want them to be.


pee wee football does not exist without little kids playing.

local park doesn't get cleaned without volunteers.

under your feels, they are all "employees"

---

@BMX Bandit: ok so play this out with me:

Your son's PeeWee football team is awesome, and specifically your son is amazing / he's the star, people are willing to buy tickets to come watch in person, a media company pays millions for the rights to broadcast, apparel is sold with the team logo, apparel is sold with your son's name on it, and community sponsors want to contribute to their success.

The team earns $80,000,000 this year.

Who do you believe should get $80,000,000? Do you believe your son has a right to any of it? How much?

MaxPower said:

---

DenverAggie said:

---

@MaxPower (on regulating transfers) - Do you want your potential employers to collude to make sure you can never leave your current job, no matter what they pay you and no matter how they treat you and no matter what work they make you do?

I do not, and I would not ask someone else to live like that.

---

I can leave my job any time. Should we allow players to transfer midseason?

---

This is not some mystery. The NFL figured it out and they have a great product. Labor simply agrees to a contract term. If I'm A&M, I don't offer a term that's less than one year. I'm in software; we don't do contracts for less than a year. This is simple.

If we're still hung up on "education," then set a minimum value of an academic scholarship and say a school has to provide that compensation if they "cut" an athlete vs trade an athlete to a school providing academic scholarship.

my thinking my son should get a cut is a wholly different issue than whether he is an employee.

if my son volunteers to clean a park all day with a group of friends and someone generously gives one of the boys $10,000, does that make my son an employee now if I think he should get a cut?

they are two separate issues. you can have all of your points about what players should receive and it has no bearing on their employment status.

94chem said:

---

No, but I do think the players should have to pay rent for the free platform they have. Research professors have to pay about 51% of their funds to A&M in overhead costs. For athletes, this overhead is the cost of their education, i.e. total attendance. If they want to make money off NIL, they should pay for their free platform first.

That's about as conservative as it gets. It's called "pay your debts before you get paid."

---

@94chem, it's easier than that. The market will decide all that.

Play this out with me: t.u. and A&M are recruiting the #1 QB. A&M's contract says we're offering $5M but we're making the player pay for all that stuff you think they should pay for. t.u.'s contract is $5M. Who does the recruit choose?

BMX Bandit said:

---

my thinking my son should get a cut is a wholly different issue than whether he is an employee.

if my son volunteers to clean a park all day with a group of friends and someone generously gives one of the boys $10,000, does that make my son an employee now if I think he should get a cut?

they are two separate issues. you can have all of your points about what players should receive and it has no bearing on their employment status.

---

@BMX Bandit.

You're limiting your own thinking with a legacy legal argument. Just be a human and think about what's right.

Let's try this one: if you and your neighbors generated $80,000,000 by building and maintaining your neighborhood park (it's a really nice park now), and the park is owned by your city but it only generated $80,000 before your neighbors got involved: who specifically gets $80,000,000?

NyAggie said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

NIL pertains to a lot more sports than just football.

---

Yes, but football is where almost all of it goes and pretty much the only one that matters

Personally, I don't have any issues with nil

My beef is with the free transfer

That's the true destroyer of college football

---

I'd have thought so too, but as of Oct. 2022 less than half of NIL money went to CFB.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/15/that-nike-bronny-james-nil-deal-was-a-big-deal-for-women-too.html

(From the article)
Football
49.6%
Men's basketball
18.9%
Women's basketball
12.6%
Women's volleyball
2.5%
Softball
1.9%
Baseball
1.5%
Women's track + field
1.4%
Women's Gymnastics
1.4%
Men's track + field
1.4%
Women's swimming + diving
1.1%

you are again trying to change the issue.

A person can think college athletes deserve money yet still understand that they are not employees under any definition.

I have no problem with NIL. I also know what an employee is and what an employee is not.

BMX Bandit said:

---

you are again trying to change the issue.

A person can think college athletes deserve money yet still understand that they are not employees under any definition.

I have no problem with NIL. I also know what an employee is and what an employee is not.

---

@BMX Bandit. Ok, let's get more specific; here's the actual math for A&M Football.

Revenue: $99,563,727
Expenses: $29,941,827
Profit: $69,621,900

Revenue from ticket sales: $41,710,523
Expenses for athletic student aid: $3,023,615
Expenses for coaching salaries: $10,386,819
Expenses for recruiting: $884,700

What we're really talking about is, how much of the $69,621,900 profit should go to the labor who produces it.

Bottom line, if our sons are helping generate $69,621,900 of profit, I think you and I can both agree our sons should receive more than $25,000 (tuition, housing, etc).

I don't think BMX is opposed to NIL or the thought that the athletes should be compensated. He's just arguing that that the talent aren't employees of the university, and that the legislation on the horizon will codify that in the legal sense.

The athletes will still collect NIL from third-parties regardless of how their relationship to the university is characterized.

DenverAggie said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

DenverAggie said:

---

@MaxPower (on regulating transfers) - Do you want your potential employers to collude to make sure you can never leave your current job, no matter what they pay you and no matter how they treat you and no matter what work they make you do?

I do not, and I would not ask someone else to live like that.

---

I can leave my job any time. Should we allow players to transfer midseason?

---

This is not some mystery. The NFL figured it out and they have a great product. Labor simply agrees to a contract term. If I'm A&M, I don't offer a term that's less than one year. I'm in software; we don't do contracts for less than a year. This is simple.

If we're still hung up on "education," then set a minimum value of an academic scholarship and say a school has to provide that compensation if they "cut" an athlete vs trade an athlete to a school providing academic scholarship.

---

You're talking about straight pay for play, which would require a significant change in how college athletes are viewed legally and through NCAA rules. I don't see that happening anytime soon. My suggestion was based on what could work within the confines of the existing structure.

College Football = Farm Team for NFL