Could CFB move to a contract structure?

[RUtix4me]

The concept would be to sign players to 1-4 year contracts to help counter increased mobility. This could be done in tandem with NIL make it a two way street. Player can secure a commitment from a school, at the same time they can also just sign for a year if they feel they have upside.

i know this wont happen, as the big boys would never support this. It seems like it could be a way for schools to level the playing field in light of the rapid changes in NIL and transferring and stabilize the game a bit

have at it and rip this apart.

 

[NickRU714]

Why would Rutgers want this?

There are multiple threads about how we literally need to use the Transfer Portal to rebuild the entire offense and pray for player mobility just to be barely competitive next year.

 

[NickRU714]

If there was no player mobility we go into next season with just the players still on the roster and incoming recruits (which apparently isn't impressive).

 

[krup]

I have always thought that at some point the players will find a sympathetic court that rules they are employees, not just students. When that happens, the idea of paying a salary for sports brings in Title IX issues into play.

I think that would cause the revenue sports teams to be broken from the schools into a separate legal entity, and a thing like your varied contracts could happen then.

 

[yessir321]

The concept would be to sign players to 1-4 year contracts to help counter increased mobility. This could be done in tandem with NIL make it a two way street. Player can secure a commitment from a school, at the same time they can also just sign for a year if they feel they have upside.

i know this wont happen, as the big boys would never support this. It seems like it could be a way for schools to level the playing field in light of the rapid changes in NIL and transferring and stabilize the game a bit

have at it and rip this apart.

You’re coming from a perspective that college football and the blue bloods give a d*mn about parody… they don’t. It’s all about $$$ and the NCAA will support whatever structure gets them the most $. Blue bloods attract the most money, it’s that simple, so if they can create a system to ensure the blue bloods remain at the top each year they’re going to. The NCAA wants as many #2 vs #3 OSU/Mich games as it can get…. I hate to break this to you, but we’re on our own if we want to make any noise. The NCAA isn’t going to give a rat’s ass about Rutgers and other non blue bloods throughout this

 

[NickRU714]

You’re coming from a perspective that college football and the blue bloods give a d*mn about parody… they don’t. It’s all about $$$ and the NCAA will support whatever structure gets them the most $. Blue bloods attract the most money, it’s that simple, so if they can create a system to ensure the blue bloods remain at the top each year they’re going to. The NCAA wants as many #2 vs #3 OSU/Mich games as it can get…. I hate to break this to you, but we’re on our own if we want to make any noise. The NCAA isn’t going to give a rat’s ass about Rutgers and other non blue bloods throughout this

I would add fans don't actually want parity either.
At least fans of the top P5 conferences.
Just see all the celebrating if the new media deal.

The extreme money increases help put us further and further away from the Temple, Syracuse and UConns of the world.

 

[yessir321]

I would add fans don't actually want parity either.
At least fans of the top P5 conferences.
Just see all the celebrating if the new media deal.

The extreme money increases help put us further and further away from the Temple, Syracuse and UConns of the world.

Look, people wanna criticize UConn that’s fine. Reality is I’d give 20 straight winless seasons in football to have the basketball program they have. Kinda like Duke football in the 90’s and 00’s. The money doesn’t seem to prevent cuse and UConn from winning BIG in basketball

 

[vkj91]

Mike Leach had some good thoughts on this. You are worth a student athlete or a pro. Can’t have it both ways. You want to go the pro route with NIL etc. I treat you like a pro. I can trade you. I can cut you. Won’t o be a student athlete. Same rules we have now.

 

[RUtix4me]

Why would Rutgers want this?

There are multiple threads about how we literally need to use the Transfer Portal to rebuild the entire offense and pray for player mobility just to be barely competitive next year.

I think you miss the point, we need to go to the portal since a large number of players we develop, leave. we are at risk right now of losing players that will be better than anything we pick up. Portal will be a net loss for us

 

[blueoyster]

Mike Leach had some good thoughts on this. You are worth a student athlete or a pro. Can’t have it both ways. You want to go the pro route with NIL etc. I treat you like a pro. I can trade you. I can cut you. Won’t o be a student athlete. Same rules we have now.

Love his perspective! Kids shouldn't be able to have thier cake and it it too!!

 

[NickRU714]

I think you miss the point, we need to go to the portal since a large number of players we develop, leave. we are at risk right now of losing players that will be better than anything we pick up. Portal will be a net loss for us

What players have we developed that have left for better programs?
Jonah Jackson? That was pre-NIL.

Players have always transfered up (and down).
Want to get rid of players transfers? Sure go ahead.
But transfers isn't why we need to hit the Portal this off-season. It's because of a lack of development.

Lately we've been doing the poaching from lower level programs - see Cam Spencer.

 

[RUtix4me]

What players have we developed that have left for better programs?
Jonah Jackson? That was pre-NIL.

Players have always transfered up (and down).
Want to get rid of players transfers? Sure go ahead.
But transfers isn't why we need to hit the Portal this off-season. It's because of a lack of development.

Lately we've been doing the poaching from lower level programs - see Cam Spencer.

Does Cam play offense or defense? I thought we were talking football here, basketball is a totally different situation. As Iu derstand it we are at risk right now of losing some of our better players

 

[rutgersguy1]

What players have we developed that have left for better programs?
Jonah Jackson? That was pre-NIL.

Players have always transfered up (and down).
Want to get rid of players transfers? Sure go ahead.
But transfers isn't why we need to hit the Portal this off-season. It's because of a lack of development.

Lately we've been doing the poaching from lower level programs - see Cam Spencer.

I say it often, find a way to make it work with what you have.

TCU lost Zach Evans, one of their top RBs to Ole Miss. He became a nice 1-2 punch with Judkins at Ole Miss. Did it fall apart? No they’re undeafeated and their other RB Kendre Miller stepped up an rushed for 1200yds iirc.

WF lost Walker last year to MSU and he flourished there. WF won 11 games last year in one of their best seasons ever.

 

[WhiteBus]

This is a very poorly thought out post. Trying to change all of College Football to make it easier for Rutgers to compete is just dumb.
First off the NIL is between a corporation or collective and an individual player. That is the courts ruling. The NCAA, conferences and colleges have no say in the matter nor do they have the power to force a sharing of the money
Secondly the perennial teams are not going to share in their power or wealth.
Third there is no way in hell to going back to pre portal.
To late to close the barn doors.

 

[RU Cheese]

I don't understand why it's not like that today. If I'm executing a contract to license a players NIL, why can't I insert a clause stipulating that if the player transfers before the deal terms expire, there is a penalty or part of the upfront payments must be returned.

This would disincentivize transfers and I wouldn't expect most players to react or push back on it.

 

[WhiteBus]

I don't understand why it's not like that today. If I'm executing a contract to license a players NIL, why can't I insert a clause stipulating that if the player transfers before the deal terms expire, there is a penalty or part of the upfront payments must be returned.

This would disincentivize transfers and I wouldn't expect most players to react or push back on it.

Apparently the contract can not be contingent on him going to a certain school. The smart move is just give one year contracts.

 

[ScarletDave]

The issue could be helped some by having a happy medium. Not fair to make kids sit out a year/lose a year of eligibility like before if their coach gets fired or leaves for another job and they want out. But also, the new way where it’s a free-for-all with no contracts is also too crazy. Instead, it should be you can transfer freely like today ONLY if your coach gets fired/leaves for another job. But if not, and you want to move on to only help yourself at the expense of your coach who recruited you and put in the work, then you have to sit out a year like the old days. This would calm everything down and be the most fair to both sides.

 

[WhiteBus]

The issue could be helped some by having a happy medium. Not fair to make kids sit out a year/lose a year of eligibility like before if their coach gets fired or leaves for another job and they want out. But also, the new way where it’s a free-for-all with no contracts is also too crazy. Instead, it should be you can transfer freely like today ONLY if your coach gets fired/leaves for another job. But if not, and you want to move on to only help yourself at the expense of your coach who recruited you and put in the work, then you have to sit out a year like the old days. This would calm everything down and be the most fair to both sides.

They aren't going backwards.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

NIL and the idea to pay players and the brown-bag payments that have gone on for a while were always about the BIG NAME and MONIED programs staying at the top and keeping the rest of the programs down.

That is, of course, from a PROGRAM perspective. The players, of course, want the money and FREEDOM from bizarre NCAA limitations.

The TV interests and the advertisers also want the BIG NAME products to remain the ones to talk about.. the ones that bring in viewers on a national scale.

Anything we can imagine to help make this fairer to the programs with lesser names and fewer fans and a whole lot less money behind them... well, it goes against the will of the entities that have the money.

 

[LotusAggressor]

I think you miss the point, we need to go to the portal since a large number of players we develop, leave. we are at risk right now of losing players that will be better than anything we pick up. Portal will be a net loss for us

The players that are leaving RU didn't get developed. Particularly on offense.

 

[RU Cheese]

Apparently the contract can not be contingent on him going to a certain school. The smart move is just give one year contracts.

According to what though? It's outside the scope of NCAA - I can sign a contract with whatever clauses I want (legal ones). And I don't see how school attendance would be illegal

 

[WhiteBus]

According to what though? It's outside the scope of NCAA - I can sign a contract with whatever clauses I want (legal ones). And I don't see how school attendance would be illegal

No it's not outside the scope of the NCAA. That is why the schools can not pay players directly. This was another rule handed down.

 

[RU Cheese]

No it's not outside the scope of the NCAA. That is why the schools can not pay players directly. This was another rule handed down.

Handed down from who? They can't have it both ways - it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[RUScrew85]

The concept would be to sign players to 1-4 year contracts to help counter increased mobility. This could be done in tandem with NIL make it a two way street. Player can secure a commitment from a school, at the same time they can also just sign for a year if they feel they have upside.

i know this wont happen, as the big boys would never support this. It seems like it could be a way for schools to level the playing field in light of the rapid changes in NIL and transferring and stabilize the game a bit

have at it and rip this apart.

College football either needs to go back to restricted transfers or this or NIL is going to kill it.

As for coaches - maybe schools shouldn't be allowed to lure away a coach under contract. You sign a contract you can't be hired by other schools. Like a pro athlete contract. You sign and get fired you still get paid but can move after being fired. Or you can move once the contract expires. Period.

Then both would have reasonable restrictions. Might help parity and avoid the destruction of teams like us.

 

[RUScrew85]

The issue could be helped some by having a happy medium. Not fair to make kids sit out a year/lose a year of eligibility like before if their coach gets fired or leaves for another job and they want out. But also, the new way where it’s a free-for-all with no contracts is also too crazy. Instead, it should be you can transfer freely like today ONLY if your coach gets fired/leaves for another job. But if not, and you want to move on to only help yourself at the expense of your coach who recruited you and put in the work, then you have to sit out a year like the old days. This would calm everything down and be the most fair to both sides.

Add my coaching restrictions and I think CFB would be OK. Players always point to coaches mobility so lets restrict that too.

 

[WhiteBus]

Handed down from who? They can't have it both ways - it doesn't make sense to me.

The NCAA had to set rules to the schools and the players about what can/can not be done.
A simple Google search is all you needed to do instead of arguing with me.

"Is anything actually illegal now?

Of course. It’s still the NCAA. Let’s say there’s a big booster that owns a car dealership. That booster still can’t say, “I’ll give you $50k to attend and star for my alma mater.” That’s still illegal. There are still going to be the same type of recruiting restrictions that have resulted in infractions and punishments in the past."

The NIL is paying an athlete to represent your company or collective. It doesn't allow for them to require where they can go to school.

 

[Kbee3]

The NCAA had to set rules to the schools and the players about what can/can not be done.
A simple Google search is all you needed to do instead of arguing with me.

"Is anything actually illegal now?

Of course. It’s still the NCAA. Let’s say there’s a big booster that owns a car dealership. That booster still can’t say, “I’ll give you $50k to attend and star for my alma mater.” That’s still illegal. There are still going to be the same type of recruiting restrictions that have resulted in infractions and punishments in the past."

The NIL is paying an athlete to represent your company or collective. It doesn't allow for them to require where they can go to school.

Can the booster say "I'll pay you $50K if I can put up cardboard cutouts of your image around my dealerships" ?

 

[WhiteBus]

Can the booster say "I'll pay you $50K if I can put up cardboard cutouts of your image around my dealerships" ?

Sure.

 

[rucoe89]

I say it often, find a way to make it work with what you have.

TCU lost Zach Evans, one of their top RBs to Ole Miss. He became a nice 1-2 punch with Judkins at Ole Miss. Did it fall apart? No they’re undeafeated and their other RB Kendre Miller stepped up an rushed for 1200yds iirc.

WF lost Walker last year to MSU and he flourished there. WF won 11 games last year in one of their best seasons ever.

Good observations. Control what you can. Make the experience at school one in which players want to stay. That may mean emphasis on qualitative experience if you can't compete quantitatively. Not everyone will stay because the quantitative draw will just be too much for some. Hence, you have to build with the assumption your best may not stay. This will mean a double down on recruiting mindset to continue to recruit the best at every position and offer no promises to anyone (QBs included). It also will mean keeping short lists of possible transfers to immediately pounce on once their intentions are known. It'll be "next man up" in the world of college football free agency. I think Schiano in some strange way may be built for this given his propensity to plan ahead.

 

[Kbee3]

Wow. What a country.
I guess the word "amateur" has the same meaning here as it once did in the Soviet Union.

 

[WhiteBus]

Wow. What a country.
I guess the word "amateur" has the same meaning here as it once did in the Soviet Union.

Are you just figuring out what the NIL has been all about? It's a lot different then an amateur from the Soviet Union. Nobody is going to force you to move to the ghetto if you miss a pass or catch!
Meanwhile I couldn't play college golf after one season at Rutgers golf when they found out I worked at Spring Meadow in the Pro Shop and didn't have to pay for golf. It took 2 years for Rutgers to admit they were wrong. I was still an amateur the whole time.😡

 

[RU Cheese]

The NCAA had to set rules to the schools and the players about what can/can not be done.
A simple Google search is all you needed to do instead of arguing with me.

"Is anything actually illegal now?

Of course. It’s still the NCAA. Let’s say there’s a big booster that owns a car dealership. That booster still can’t say, “I’ll give you $50k to attend and star for my alma mater.” That’s still illegal. There are still going to be the same type of recruiting restrictions that have resulted in infractions and punishments in the past."

The NIL is paying an athlete to represent your company or collective. It doesn't allow for them to require where they can go to school.

I'm not arguing but simply asking, and I still think it's totally possible. Maybe you can't say attends this school, but I can certainly license someone's NIL provided they live in the state, show up to events in Piscataway 7 saturdays a year, etc. that's why there are lawyers.

 

[WhiteBus]

I'm not arguing but simply asking, and I still think it's totally possible. Maybe you can't say attends this school, but I can certainly license someone's NIL provided they live in the state, show up to events in Piscataway 7 saturdays a year, etc. that's why there are lawyers.

Again do some research on the facts. No they can not require someone to live in the state. Most players are from other states in all colleges so another poorly tought out response.
You asked. I responded yet you questioned my answer. I answered again with facts and you questioned that too. Yes you arguing with me. And too lazy to look up the facts yourself. So yes you just want to argue the facts.

 

[RU Cheese]

Again do some research on the facts. No they can not require someone to live in the state. Most players are from other states in all colleges so another poorly tought out response.
You asked. I responded yet you questioned my answer. I answered again with facts and you questioned that too. Yes you arguing with me. And too lazy to look up the facts yourself. So yes you just want to argue the facts.

Jesus lighten up.

 

[Kbee3]

Jesus lighten up.

I don't think it's possible for him to do that.

 

[WhiteBus]

Jesus lighten up.

Funny because that is exactly what I told you to do, Francis. You ask questions, get an answer and immediately question it.
The simple solution is you don't sign a player until the season begins and only sign for a season at a time. No rules broken. If he transfers you don't sign him next season.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

...The NIL is paying an athlete to represent your company or collective. It doesn't allow for them to require where they can go to school.

Can you prove that? Here's the actual NIL rule from the NCAA.. it says:

*****

The NCAA is committed to ensuring that its rules, and its enforcement of those rules, protect and enhance student-athlete well-being and maintain national standards for recruiting. Those goals are consistent with the NCAA’s foundational prohibitions on pay-for-play and impermissible recruiting inducements, which remain essential to collegiate athletics.​

​

As the NCAA continues to work with Congress to adopt federal legislation to support student-athletes use of NIL, it is necessary to take specific, short-term action with respect to applicable NCAA rules. Accordingly, effective July 1, 2021, and until such time that either federal legislation or new NCAA rules are adopted, member institutions and their student-athletes should adhere to the guidance below:​

​

1. NCAA Bylaws, including prohibitions on pay-for-play and improper recruiting inducements, remain in effect, subject to the following:​

​

• For institutions in states without NIL laws or executive actions or with NIL laws or executive actions that have not yet taken effect, if an individual elects to engage in an NIL activity, the individual’s eligibility for intercollegiate athletics will not be impacted by application of Bylaw 12 (Amateurism and Athletics Eligibility).​

​

• For institutions in states with NIL laws or executive actions with the force of law in effect, if an individual or member institution elects to engage in an NIL activity that is protected by law or executive order, the individual’s eligibility for and/or the membership institution’s full participation in NCAA athletics will not be impacted by application of NCAA Bylaws unless the state law is invalidated or rendered unenforceable by operation of law.​

​

• Use of a professional services provider is also permissible for NIL activities, except as otherwise provided by a state law or executive action with the force of law that has not been invalidated or rendered unenforceable by operation of law.​

​

2. The NCAA will continue its normal regulatory operations but will not monitor for compliance with state law.​

​

3. Individuals should report NIL activities consistent with state law and/or institutional requirements.​

*****

I think the key phrase is this:

• For institutions in states with NIL laws or executive actions with the force of law in effect, if an individual or member institution elects to engage in an NIL activity that is protected by law or executive order, the individual’s eligibility for and/or the membership institution’s full participation in NCAA athletics will not be impacted by application of NCAA Bylaws unless the state law is invalidated or rendered unenforceable by operation of law.​

A state or the Congress could pass laws allowing an NIL contract to include something like a stipulation regarding attendance at a specific school and the NCAA could do nothing about it. Would such a law by constitutional if tested? I don't see why not.

 

[WhiteBus]

Can you prove that? Here's the actual NIL rule from the NCAA.. it says:

*****

The NCAA is committed to ensuring that its rules, and its enforcement of those rules, protect and enhance student-athlete well-being and maintain national standards for recruiting. Those goals are consistent with the NCAA’s foundational prohibitions on pay-for-play and impermissible recruiting inducements, which remain essential to collegiate athletics.​

​

As the NCAA continues to work with Congress to adopt federal legislation to support student-athletes use of NIL, it is necessary to take specific, short-term action with respect to applicable NCAA rules. Accordingly, effective July 1, 2021, and until such time that either federal legislation or new NCAA rules are adopted, member institutions and their student-athletes should adhere to the guidance below:​

​

1. NCAA Bylaws, including prohibitions on pay-for-play and improper recruiting inducements, remain in effect, subject to the following:​

​

• For institutions in states without NIL laws or executive actions or with NIL laws or executive actions that have not yet taken effect, if an individual elects to engage in an NIL activity, the individual’s eligibility for intercollegiate athletics will not be impacted by application of Bylaw 12 (Amateurism and Athletics Eligibility).​

​

• For institutions in states with NIL laws or executive actions with the force of law in effect, if an individual or member institution elects to engage in an NIL activity that is protected by law or executive order, the individual’s eligibility for and/or the membership institution’s full participation in NCAA athletics will not be impacted by application of NCAA Bylaws unless the state law is invalidated or rendered unenforceable by operation of law.​

​

• Use of a professional services provider is also permissible for NIL activities, except as otherwise provided by a state law or executive action with the force of law that has not been invalidated or rendered unenforceable by operation of law.​

​

2. The NCAA will continue its normal regulatory operations but will not monitor for compliance with state law.​

​

3. Individuals should report NIL activities consistent with state law and/or institutional requirements.​

*****

I think the key phrase is this:

• For institutions in states with NIL laws or executive actions with the force of law in effect, if an individual or member institution elects to engage in an NIL activity that is protected by law or executive order, the individual’s eligibility for and/or the membership institution’s full participation in NCAA athletics will not be impacted by application of NCAA Bylaws unless the state law is invalidated or rendered unenforceable by operation of law.​

A state or the Congress could pass laws allowing an NIL contract to include something like a stipulation regarding attendance at a specific school and the NCAA could do nothing about it. Would such a law by constitutional if tested? I don't see why not.

I already did. See above posts. Plenty of sources confirm this. From SI

"Two things remain disallowed by NCAA rules: 1) you can't pay a player, and, 2) no quid pro quo.

Players aren't supposed to get any compensation tied for performance, and recruits cannot sign any NIL deal contingent on going to any particular school."

 

[rutgersal]

The issue could be helped some by having a happy medium. Not fair to make kids sit out a year/lose a year of eligibility like before if their coach gets fired or leaves for another job and they want out. But also, the new way where it’s a free-for-all with no contracts is also too crazy. Instead, it should be you can transfer freely like today ONLY if your coach gets fired/leaves for another job. But if not, and you want to move on to only help yourself at the expense of your coach who recruited you and put in the work, then you have to sit out a year like the old days. This would calm everything down and be the most fair to both sides.

So coaches can move freely but players can’t? Nope, not gonna hold up in court. All these changes are due to a court decision, where a justice professed the opinion that the market for players should resemble a free market. You want to keep a player? Write a check.