NIL

[BleedinRed]

The most Marxist legislature in the country kicked this off when they made NIL the law in California.  There was plenty of commentary at the time about the exploitation of the black athlete. 

Can you point us to any of that commentary?  I never saw anything about race being a driver and can't find anything on the Google machine.  

[The Whyte Boar]

Can you point us to any of that commentary?  I never saw anything about race being a driver and can't find anything on the Google machine. 

Well, if you can't find it on Google, particularly if it relates to Democrat policies in California, it clearly doesn't exist.

[SwahiliSteve]

Well, if you can't find it on Google, particularly if it relates to Democrat policies in California, it clearly doesn't exist.

so you just made it up

[The Whyte Boar]

so you just made it up

Nope, you're not smart enough to remember or find it.

Ramogi Huma is the head of the non profit National College Players Association based in California.  This is him;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramogi_Huma

Ramogi Huma basically wrote the original NIL bill sponsored by state senator Nancy Skinner.  This is her:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Skinner_(politician)

These are some articles with Mr. Huma talking about race in college sports:

https://www.ncpanow.org/studies-revenue/study-how-the-ncaas-empire-robs-predominantly-black-athletes-of-billions-in-generational-wealth#:~:text=Huma%2520stated%252C%2520%E2%80%9CThere%2520is%2520no,players%2520themselves%2520will%2520never%2520see%E2%80%9D.

Huma stated, "There is no better example of NCAA sports' racial exploitation than colleges marching their football players into the COVID-19 pandemic without the enforcement of any health and safety standards in pursuit of football revenue that players themselves will never see".

https://girlsunited.essence.com/feedback/news/black-collegiate-athletes-complaint-ncaa/

Huma called out the cap on student-athlete compensation for being a discriminatory practice that "disproportionately harms Black athletes, while predominantly white coaches and administrators make millions of dollars," according to the AP. College athletes throughout predominantly white sports receive fair market compensation, but athletes in the only predominantly Black sports do not."

California state senator Stephen Bradford was a co-sponser of the original bill.  This is him:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Bradford

He has made lots of statements about race in college sports even going on to the College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act which begins thusly:

The act begins by declaring certain findings, including:

College athletes of color in football and men's basketball graduate at lower rates than other students;
Black athletes experience educational neglect due to a range of issues; and
California Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football players and Division I men and women basketball players are predominantly black and do not receive at least 50 percent of the revenue they produce.

But hey, you're right.  I completely made up my memories of these guys talking about race in college sports being a motivating factor.

[Show-Me Hog]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/07/race-money-and-exploitation-why-college-sport-is-still-the-new-plantation

https://youtu.be/Damic47Llxo?si=ohfWV4UE20-N_KHr

Professor Harry Edwards has always been leading the charge.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/harry-edwards-revolt-of-todays-black-athlete/

[mde114]

In your heart's you know TWB is right.

[animal]

Here are a few articles that discuss the exploitation of young minority athletes and the rise of NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rights:

• A Player's Worth: The exploitation of Black athletes and the rise of NIL: This article delves into the history of how colleges have exploited Black athletes for their talent and how NIL deals have provided much-needed recognition and financial benefits.
• College Athletes Lured by NIL Deals, Exploited by Fine Print: This piece highlights the challenges and potential exploitation athletes face with NIL deals, including scams and disreputable agents.
• Title IX memo throws wrench in plans for schools to pay NIL money directly to athletes: This article discusses the complications and legal challenges surrounding NIL payments and how they intersect with Title IX regulations.

[hit_that_line]

Give me 85 kids from Hardy and Pea Ridge then. I don't care.

[The Whyte Boar]

This Title IX memo really hits at the collectives.  An individual or business can still directly pay a player whatever they want.  But these collectives while theoretically independent are pretty thinly veiled ways for a school to funnel money to athletes and pay them directly.  And the memo says that as such, they have to do it proportionately in accordance with Title IX. 

From an Arkansas angle it's pretty typical.  Yurachek and Pittman have been touting revenue sharing nonstop as a way to level the playing field and now that would appear to be out the window for the time being.  I know this isn't his fault but whatever Yurachek touches seems to turn to shit.

[hit_that_line]

This Title IX memo really hits at the collectives.  An individual or business can still directly pay a player whatever they want.  But these collectives while theoretically independent are pretty thinly veiled ways for a school to funnel money to athletes and pay them directly.  And the memo says that as such, they have to do it proportionately in accordance with Title IX. 

From an Arkansas angle it's pretty typical.  Yurachek and Pittman have been touting revenue sharing nonstop as a way to level the playing field and now that would appear to be out the window for the time being.  I know this isn't his fault but whatever Yurachek touches seems to turn to shit.

I don't think so. From what I can tell, power schools will be required to share north of $20mm in revenues beginning next year.

[buff2.0]

From 2011

[Show-Me Hog]

This article is less pessimistic than the woopigs.  But I would still put my money on the woopigs.

On President Joe Biden's way out the door, his Education Department has thrown a wrench into plans for universities to pay student-athletes directly. The payments will almost certainly still happen, but instead of schools using the vast majority of the payments on athletes in big-revenue programs (i.e. football), the Education Department says under Title IX the payments must be "proportionate" between male and female athletes.

The news probably gave some college football coaches and administrators a small heart attack—would they be able to keep the promises they made to a star recruit about how much money he'd make?—until they realized this is far from settled law.

The idea that Title IX applies here comes from a fact sheet published by the department's Office for Civil Rights. The incoming Trump administration's Education Department staff can just as easily publish their own fact sheet that says otherwise (as predicted by Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas)). Even if the Trump administration leaves the issue alone, the fact sheet is not a formal regulation and didn't go through any kind of rule-making procedure. It doesn't carry the force of law and probably wouldn't have much weight in court.

But the fact sheet still serves as a warning to college athletic departments: Next time there's a Democrat in the White House, be ready for this possibility.

The fact sheet says payments must be "substantially proportionate to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics at that school." Data vary, but the NCAA seems to have a slight majority of male athletes. If that ratio holds up across most schools, then it would upend plans to spend the vast majority of the money on football teams, which often generate the vast majority of athletic department revenue. Instead, almost half of the payments would have to go to women's sports. (Presumably, within the sexes, schools could still spend the vast majority on one sport, such as football or women's basketball.)

The controversial justification is that the payments are "athletic financial assistance," and thus subject to Title IX rules. "The basis for the Title IX guidance is that it classifies revenue sharing as financial assistance (similar to athletic scholarships) which appears to be highly questionable," Patrick O'Rourke, an accountant who compiled possible revenue-sharing estimates, wrote. But others think the application of Title IX to the payments is more clear. "Of course it applies to Title IX, it applies to higher education and has for all sorts of other things," says Mark Owens, an associate professor of economics at Penn State University. "I don't know why this is any different."

Either way, future presidential administrations could just as easily put out a fact sheet like this one, and even go further and put a less-ambiguous interpretation through the formal rule-making procedure.

Or, since the original 1972 law that included Title IX did not address how schools distribute revenue-sharing payments (since such payments did not exist), courts may not defer to the Education Department's interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court's recent overturning of Chevron doctrine may play a role here. "Per the Court's ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, judges may no longer defer to an agency interpretation because the statute is ambiguous," University of New Hampshire Law Professor Michael McCann wrote in a Sportico column.
This "could play an instrumental role in diminishing the [name, image, and likeness] fact sheet's importance."

Starting next school year, universities will likely be allowed by the NCAA to start directly paying student-athletes under revenue-sharing agreements. The new payments will be allowed under a new legal settlement that's expected to be finalized in April. Schools will be allowed to spend up to $20.5 million in that school year, with the number set to grow every year. Some coaches have already told the media they expect to have somewhere between $12.5 million or up to $17 million to spend on their football rosters—which would clearly not be compliant with Title IX.

If enacted, the new rule would further burden athletic departments with another regulation to keep track of. "That's kind of another layer that, within these institutions, you have to make sure that everything is, you know, Title IX compliant," Owens says. Throw that on the pile along with a complex web of recruiting rules, NCAA student-athlete rules, and all state and federal laws that affect athletic departments, and it's hard to see how any college sports teams manage to get through a season without breaking anything.

https://reason.com/2025/01/17/biden-makes-last-ditch-pass-at-interfering-in-college-sports/

[The Whyte Boar]

I agree with article but it has one big flaw in its thinking.  As it points out, these issues aren't settled law.  Regardless of the validity of the ruling or if it gets changed, it provides sort of a template for future litigation.  And let's not even mention what happens if in four years a democratic administration comes in and adopts it again.  And if they disregard and start the revenue sharing plan as they had planned and a future court decision or ruling finds they shouldn't have AND RULES THEY HAVE TO PAY BACK PAY AND DAMAGES?  What then?  We're talking huge numbers.

People in education tend to be extremely risk adverse anyway.  Now we expect them to go full speed ahead on revenue sharing with these sorts of issues unresolved? 

There is going to have to be legislation.  Expect the Democrats to vote as a bloc against anything perceived as limiting the earning potential of minority athletes and limiting their absolute freedom to move around as they please.  Any legislation will need zero Republican defections in the House and likely won't meet the 60 vote threshold needed to get to a vote in the Senate.

[The Whyte Boar]

So the only thing regulating transfers at this point are a school's admission rules.  Most schools allow transfers at semester.  So a player could transfer to a playoff team and play.  If a school allows a mid semester transfer seems like according to this, a player could play on two teams in the same season.

Even if playing on two teams in a season is technically against NCAA rules, how are they going to enforce that if challenged in court?

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/1880381446474592519

[SwahiliSteve]

This NIL shit just gets more and more complicated.

[The Whyte Boar]

I think all you need to remember about the NCAA and pretty much any rule, not just NIL, is one thing.  There are no rules.  If the NCAA tries to enforce a "rule" they are sued immediately and the court either rules they are violating anti-trust laws, or they capitulate pretty quickly to avoid a more damaging ruling.  That's all you need to know.

[Natty_Ice]

best NIL vid I've seen:

[FNG]

best NIL vid I've seen:

Thanks for posting this.

Schools like Arkansas will never have a chance again under this system. Unless professional collegiate athletics become carefully and fairly regulated we will see the same cast of FBS, Final Four and CWS teams year in and year out. I will always root for Razorback athletes but I will never expect to see a winning conference record again.

I did appreciate the accompanying B roll of Ole Miss and Mizzou when the narrator was discussing poaching.

[The Whyte Boar]

Can only be fixed with legislation, otherwise schools and the leagues will get sued in half a dozen different jurisdictions and venues and it will still be chaos. 

They might be able to do something with the basketball tournament and the playoff.   For instance the NCAA and Playoff Committee could set forth a set of conditions/rules that are required for consideration play in each.  And then if a school didn't agree and comply, it wouldn't be considered no matter what.  A set of rules like that would probably fall short of anti-trust collusion because a school would be free to do whatever it wanted and compete during the year, it just wouldn't be eligible for the playoffs or the NCAA tournament if it didn't follow the rules for playoff/tournament eligibility.  So most schools would fall in line and you would in effect have schools voluntarily following certain rules in order to play in a post season event.  That's potentially a lot different than a national organization where the schools collude and agree to rules. 

Of course, nothing would stop anyone from setting up alternate events with different rules. 

[Trigger7672]

Thanks for posting this.

Schools like Arkansas will never have a chance again under this system. Unless professional collegiate athletics become carefully and fairly regulated we will see the same cast of FBS, Final Four and CWS teams year in and year out.

Do we not spend the most on NIL in college basketball right now? Does a majority of the country still not give a fuck about college baseball? We should be okay in those two sports.