Future of NCAA (and the sport, itself)

The short run -- say, the 5 years to come -- I can't say anything about.  The longer run of course depends on whether Congress acts.  Congress is a loose cannon.  You never know what they might do.  You might say the rule is always, "Follow the money," but that's a useless guide here, because moneyed interests may well be divergent.  So rather than speculate about legislation, I'll just lay out what must happen, inexorably although not on any predictable timetable, if the laws stay as they are.

For college sports and teams that don't make a lot of money, nothing will change.  However, the NCAA was organized to do something about big-time money making football, and the issues today as concern other significant money making sports -- basketball and possibly some tournaments -- are the same.  The legal regime as it stands will convert all those who play on those teams -- and anyone else who might currently be volunteering their help as costumed mascots or towel carriers -- into employees.  There's really no way around it.  And since they're employees, they could not be discriminated against by having to be enrolled at the institution to be hired, so eligibility rules could not be applied to them.  Competitiveness will lead to teams composed entirely of professionals.  And IRS will then look at those operations and question whether they're really integral to the institution's overall operation and part of their tax treatment, and decide "no".  So the colleges will spin those programs off, licensing their name, as arm's-length passive investments, like the royalties they collect on inventions.

So the great majority of intercollegiate competition, whether NCAA or otherwise, will be unaffected, while the big time money makers will become professional clubs connected in name only to the institutions.  It won't be about the type of sport -- there'll be football and basketball teams on either side of this divide -- only about the individual entries.  There may be some schools that spin off a pro team in a sport but also keep a team of their own students so as to be part of their traditional competition -- or the students may organize student clubs to do that.  Old rivalries that'd become lopsided in the competition may thus be revived!  There was precedent for that in Life Chiropractic College, whose rugby team over the years got too good for the graduate and professional school division; they wound up as home to a team in the nominally professional Super League, and a team of (relatively speaking) scrubs who played in the graduate and professional school division.

The model you propose here, with universities licensing their mascot, colors, likeness, etc to pro clubs that represent them is how I have thought for a long time it should be. What will be interesting to me is:

1) Once these newly formed pro clubs start paying solid salaries (some players are already getting good money through NIL), you will probably start to see some players "linger in the nest a bit longer" so to speak, and choose to keep playing "college ball" as long as they are making good money to avoid having to play at a more challenging and physically taxing level like the NFL. Why go up to pro ball and get the chit beat out of you even more than you already are at the college level, when you could stay at the college level indefinitely now and still make good money? Obviously, that won't be everyone, as there will guys who stand to make mega money in the NFL after 2-3 years in college, so they would go to the NFL instead of sticking around for another year or two

2) Similar to above, there will be guys who, in the past could have stood another year or two in college to raise their draft stock and make more NFL money, but chose to go ahead and declare for the draft and get some money rather than risk getting injured while sticking around in college another year or two and then getting no money, it would now make sense for them to stay in college another year or two to raise their draft stock, because they will now be able to get paid in college, so they are guaranteed at least SOME money regardless of what they do

3) There could be some guys who spend some time in the NFL, make bank, and then when they are winding down at the end of their career, might drop back down to college to make some extra change in the twilight of their career playing at an "easier" level

The issue is fairly obvious on the surface- a group of athletic programs at various colleges have evolved into professional sports organIzations. Look at the websites of some of these programs and you will see Football staffs of 60-70 employees NOT COUNTING the onfield coaching staffs. Athletic program directories of 150-175 people. All on the backs of un paid (not necessarily uncompensated, but definitely compensated under market value)

Some may argure this has “always” been the case, but clearly the vast increases in TV money have just created a system that can not be ignored.

Why would anyone expect an organization (NCAA) designed to handle amateur athletic policy and procedures with regards to academic institutions

I think that 60 team super-league is all but an inevitability at this point. The SEC/Big 10 merger is coming.

The economic issues with player comp is the interesting part. Brock Purdy has made a little under 2 million in his career. Cam Ward got $7 million to transfer from WSU. College ball is a true free market right now and it will take time for the dust to settle and some semblance of order to fall into place.

Right now it's European soccer, gone overnight to the highest bidder. I don't think anyone truly wants that, so the answer is probably some salary pool that is even among the super league teams.

The big thing to remember is that it's not the kids and their families that are to blame here. The history and tradition of the sport were unceremoniously torn asunder by MBAs in suits who maneuvered for giant TV deals. The American economy is in full robber-baron mode and sports is no exception. All social contracts are gone. If you want to change it, stop watching.

The biggest problem has been since the enacting of Title IX.

And first let me say I'm for Title IX because I'm father of two daughters, glad that Women's Sports have been expanded-got on equal footing.

College athletes have been getting "paid" through scholarships for a long time.

At universities like Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State etc. the scholarships, facilities, equipment, travel, coaches' salaries - not just for women but all "Non-Revenue" sports - get paid for by Football (and in rare instances Basketball).

The Football schools can only fund all their sports (Ohio State has I think 36 total for ex.) if the Football team wins-brings in TV revenue and ticket sales.

Thus they must win.

So they have to hire a HC that can - and pay him the "market value."

That's why coaches' salaries have exploded.

Even if Nick Saban was making $10 million a year at Bama that wasn't big for what he was doing for the university's athletic program as a whole.

And college scholarships are not cheap, either.

Those "student-athletes" don't leave with the student loan debt most will even if they don't get a red cent of NIL money.

You are correct - but isn't that what we're talking about?

FCS, D-2, D-3 - they have much different issues financially.

Even G5 football programs have to try to do NIL or lose their best players to the P5s.

Jayden Read (now with Packers) was a freshman All-American at my G5 alma mater. A year later he was playing for Michigan State (as one example).

I believe this is the problem…

1. Fans want the absolute best players they can get, which (at the highest level of CFB, are world class athletes with NFL futures) regardless of where they come from. Alabama fans would rather have a great player from California or Sydney, Australia, than a good player from Tuscaloosa. This makes the games more exciting and increases their school’s chances of winning, but it’s not helping Tommy Tuscaloosa out and the fans don’t care about that.

2. Fans want players to love their school and have the loyalty and passion of Tommy Tuscaloosa when that stud from California or Australia (who doesn’t even know who Bear Bryant is) arrives on campus. A lot of Bama fans are upset at Isaiah Bond, who caught the winning pass against Auburn, bolting for Texas for his own self-interests. But when you sign mercenaries for the sake of winning, expect mercenary loyalty.

3. Fans want players who are legitimate students who are satisfied with programs bringing in untold millions, HC’s making eight figures, and coordinators making seven figures - all off their backs.

That’s asking a lot.

I also think the world’s changed quite a bit. Tons of high school and college age kids are making bank on social media, etc.,in ways that didn’t even exist a generation ago. Seems unfair to lock high profile college players out of that.

At the end of the day, college should benefit the “students.” Let the students make what they can from NIL and if some oil tycoon from Texas wants to “buy” a roster, go for it. That’s no less ridiculous than coaches with nine figure contracts for running an extracurricular activity at an institution of higher learning.

The richest programs are going to win anyway just like they have for many years. The bottom feeders can’t afford the staff and facilities of places like Georgia and Ohio State. NIL and the transfer portal aren’t going to change the pecking order. You’re just going to have wealthy athletes that are more transient.

This has been a long time coming as TV deals and coaching salaries have escalated exponentially.

The term "student-athlete" can no longer be considered a "blanket" term in big-time college football. Yes, maybe in Division III where there are no athletic scholarships, and possibly in the IVY League where a prospect's talent can be "translated" into his academic prowess. "Fans" of big-time college football are more interested in QBR than GPA. Care more about 5 stars than gold stars. "Amateurs?" HA! Those are the guys playing intramural football. Historically the word "student" in the term "student-athlete" has long been a misnomer. There have been many colleges, college football coaches, and college football fans who have played a part in recruiting those football "mercenaries" who have taken advantage of the word "amateur."

Big-time college football today (NIL, transfer portal, MONEY) has become even more of a Big-Business than ever before. That's fine. But let's not pretend anymore that it is what it isn't. I still hold to the belief that the big-business of pro football (NFL) will find a way to strike a deal with the big-business of college football (ESPN) to create a semi-professional "collegiate" football league. Of course Big-Money will win out. At that point Colleges/Universities that can't afford the investment of that new European Club format will be forced to make a choice to either continue playing football at a scholarship level, or de-emphasize football, or eliminate football altogether.

Not just that but beautiful young women are very popular on social media. Olivia Dunne, a gymnast from LSU, has millions of followers on her accounts, and I don't think she's supposed to be anything special as a college athlete. A generation ago (without all the convenient platforms accessible on smartphones to show off her attractiveness) I doubt anyone would have heard of her. But she's a seven figure earner with 2024 technology, and I am sure LSU's athletic department has benefited from her fame.

It's just a different world for college kids today.

Yeah, but it's an aspect that can further increase the popularity of women's sports vs. men's sports that used to not be the case - at least not to the same extent.

What is a D-III school?    

And that is another underlying issue.   The 28 girls on the UNC field hockey team actually aren't that different than the girls on the Middlebury women's team (had to look that up).  That just isn't the case with Marvin Harrison Jr or Malik Neighbors compared to their Div III counterparts.  I get it, programs  like Ohio State, LSU etc are probably right in thinking that Louisiana Monroe (ULM) Warhawks or the New Mexico Lobos should not be considered the same as they are with regards to policy.   The problem is that while all 4 have academic institutions, 2 of those 4 have professional sports organizations operating using monikers and colors adopted by the university.   But those pro sports organizations REALLY only have to do with Football and mens basketball to a lesser extent. So it gets very chaotic, because the ULM Tennis team is probably not significantly different than the OSU tennis team, than the New Mexico Tennis team etc. 

You couldn't be more correct.  I know first-hand after coaching football and track at the Division III level that the athletes under my tutelage in both sports were TRULY student-athletes.  I did have a few "scholly seekers" in football (not track), who thought they were better than D3 and used us as a stepping stone to a higher level, BUT...to their credit they did get accepted academically to a very competitive academic D3 institution, and DID get accepted at another competitive academic school at the FCS level.  

Proof IMO that recruiting might be able to measure height, weight, speed, jumping ability, arm length, etc. but it can't measure an athlete's character, nor heart. 

Sure, but it's called the Flutie Effect for a reason. Can anybody even name the coach of that BC team without looking it up?