wangus12 said:
I agree. I don't see it changing because it creates a backup in the pipeline. All of a sudden there are no roster spots after a couple years because why bring in an 18 year old when you can have a team of physically developed and experienced 24-28 year olds.
GIF Reactor said:
There is no age restriction now, is there? You have guys who have bounced around who are in their mid to late 20's. I think they'll use the precedent that it's already sort of allowed; Chris Weinke, Mark Farris, Brandon Weeden, Akili Smith, Drew Henson, Monte Harrison, etc. type situations. I think the argument will be why does the specific sport matter, especially as the game basically decouples from the University in an academic sense.
S.A. Aggie said:
Do they even take the SAT's anymore? I know. Stupid question.
The only thing expanding it supports with actual academic progress is student athletes completing baccalaureate level degrees or now quite a few complete a masters. The Alston settlement requires more competition on educational benefits and tacking on funding for a PhD program is a potentially competitive benefit. But given the Ivies allow exactly four years of eligibility with very few exceptions leaves me thinking that might stand. If the student athlete can squeeze in a masters so be it.Iowaggie said:
I think from a court/law perspective they will be able to keep the student part. But when NIL was announced I thought the 4 year eligibility or professional experience making a player ineligible would be changed if it was ever challenged in court.
Why limit how m much money a person can make?
There are some in effect if you ever enroll. But the NJCAA ruling might decouple junior college and senior college rules permanently. They need a comprehensive agreement with students not imposed on students. I'm not sure the member institutions can stop thinking like totalitarians long enough…BTKAG97 said:
Age restrictions would solve some of this problems/issues.
Or one step further: All the eligibility, school attendance, restrictions go away, and the teams are minor league professional teams. Just like pro NFL teams relocate, maybe we can finally win by renaming "Alabama's" football operation and paying them to relocate to Kyle Field, lol! Just pay for the whole damn operation to move to Kyle. (I'm kidding...)12mn95 said:
It will end up being Texas A&M Athletics Inc. A team owned by the university.
An example, in Monterrey Mexico, the 8 time Mexican Soccer League champion Tigres (Tigers) is the official team of the state university. None of the players attend the university.
alamogeorge said:
A bunch of NFL washouts would all of a sudden "finish their degree" and partake in the NIL paycheck.
Subway, Ankles, Tattoos ?Milwaukees Best Light said:S.A. Aggie said:
Do they even take the SAT's anymore? I know. Stupid question.
Speed, Agility, Tackling?
i like how you thinkWhaler said:Or one step further: All the eligibility, school attendance, restrictions go away, and the teams are minor league professional teams. Just like pro NFL teams relocate, maybe we can finally win by renaming "Alabama's" football operation and paying them to relocate to Kyle Field, lol! Just pay for the whole damn operation to move to Kyle. (I'm kidding...)12mn95 said:
It will end up being Texas A&M Athletics Inc. A team owned by the university.
An example, in Monterrey Mexico, the 8 time Mexican Soccer League champion Tigres (Tigers) is the official team of the state university. None of the players attend the university.
Update:greg.w.h said:The only thing expanding it supports with actual academic progress is student athletes completing baccalaureate level degrees or now quite a few complete a masters. The Alston settlement requires more competition on educational benefits and tacking on funding for a PhD program is a potentially competitive benefit. But given the Ivies allow exactly four years of eligibility with very few exceptions leaves me thinking that might stand. If the student athlete can squeeze in a masters so be it.Iowaggie said:
I think from a court/law perspective they will be able to keep the student part. But when NIL was announced I thought the 4 year eligibility or professional experience making a player ineligible would be changed if it was ever challenged in court.
Why limit how m much money a person can make?
Tack on years due to a medical redshirt don't really improve their marjetability at the pro level. The redshirt for a true freshman has some value to the school for development purposes.
But after whatever the House settlement looks like after finally approved it adds $20+ million and subtracts from especially mid-level schools to fund the backward looking portions of the settlement.
In addition there will be lawsuits over Title IX supposed infractions in the House settlement even though the judge said she can't consider that in the decision/settlrment.
This can shake out several ways:
1. All parties return before the court periodically to update the settlement to reflect changes in revenue.
2. Collective Bargaining Agreements replace the settlement and offer some anti-trust immunity.
3. Some schools crackdown on costs by gradually decreasing non-revenue sports to make up for the internal NIL payments for their own use of their student-athletes' NIL.
While I am absolutely sure the giant schools with very deep alumni pockets will continue funding all of this, the new definition of someone associated with the program likely for trim pay for play external NIL but the NCAA needs legal footing for doing so without triggering more anti-trust suits. I'm not sure the House settlement will be sufficient for that.
