It's not the ONLY way to do so. And what really makes the NFL (and most other pro leagues) remain competitive is some version of a salary cap. Used to be that the NCAA managed this with a scholarships cap, but that's not really all that significant anymore. At the moment the D1 big boys are more or less racing to figure out the sustainable limit of expenditures, and how many schools can maintain that. Once they get there, that will determine the size of the league, and they can go about figuring out how to institute a salary cap.

They would get flooded with transfers of folks good enough to win in college but maybe not good enough for a pro career.

A salary cap is not the answer. Put a limit on how much a school can spend on their athletic department. Put a floor in as well. Ties it to sports offered. I think this is where they may find their "cap"

Setting a salary cap per school vs. per team is still a salary cap. Not sure why the number of sports offered should make a difference. Stop worry about tying to keep things like they were. Worry about getting where they're going sooner. Players unions do not typically agree to caps unless there are also floors.

as employees. A Cap on the athletic budget as a whole - no matter the media or playoff money. If a school makes more than the cap, they offer scholarships to non athletes, or give the money to the universities general fund. There is no players union, and I don't see how kids going to school for an education will be able to form one.

These private schools probably have swarms of professional labor organizers tugging at the players' shirt tails.

This is one of those things that sham-amatuerism has people believing in, that we'll all be better off when it goes away.

Now whether SCOTUS will support their decision is TBD. If the previous NIL related rulings are any indication, then it may indicate the early favorite is that SCOTUS will support the players' decision.

look good for the Dartmouth kids, but we will see how the if the court decisions work out. keep in mind, each state will be different. The haven't been labeled employees yet, only that they are entitled to revenue via the settlement - that may, or may not hold up.

the issue can be left up to the individual states though. At least the US Constitution (Commerce Clause) defines interstate commerce as being a federal issue. Now if you can present an argument where an athletic event between Kansas and Incarnate Word, which is located in San Antonio, in any NCAA sport qualifies as intra-state commerce, then I am all ears. Also, the fact that schools recruit student-athletes from other states too is another factor. FWIW within the last week or two a committee in the House voted by party line to exempt colleges/universities from being required to define student-athletes as employees. I don't believe there is enough support to bring the bill to the floor in the House for a vote. Even if the House passes it, I am pretty sure there isn't enough support in the Senate to pass it. ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 6/27/2024, 5:38:42 PM

as a fan, is that it will be a heavy lift to organize kids that are playing for four years to agree on anything. I also think that there will be an attempt at getting some sort of anti trust legislation. There are a LOT of domino's that need to fall before we seriously discuss unionizing college athletes. The truth is, I don't know haw this plays out, but there are a LOT of fans (voters), and this could very well rise up the ladder of relevance in politics.

referring to in my previous post. Given that all 23 votes for it came from 1 party and all 16 votes against it came from the other party, it may be an early sign on where each party stands on the issue. Likewise, it may even be an early indication as to why Congress may never pass any antitrust exemption bill for college athletics. If Congress isn't able to pass anything, then you may see a state attempt it. However, I don't believe the states will be able to weather the storm in court because of the interstate vs. intra-state debate. You (as a fan) may think a lot of dominos need to fall before everyone is ready to talk about the unionization of collegiate athletes debate. However, the collegiate athletes may not be willing to wait so they will force the issue one way or another. Particularly if the Dartmouth men's basketball team end up taking the issue to court. Buckle up because I have a feeling it will be an interesting ride. ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 6/27/2024, 6:01:38 PM

that is unlike high school, preschool or even the NFL. And that is that YOU get to pick where you go. This is also the case for athletes. Now choices are often limited by reality (scholarship offers, budget, academic acceptance, etc.). But still. BTW, the way the draft is done in the NFL and NBA is anti-competitive and reward failure. Tanking anyone? There are enough established college football programs in America that you could go to a legit relegation and promotion system with many tiers. Would be much better than a franchise style draft for NCAAF if it were even possible.

Possible. And yes, there's problems with the way the NFL and NBA do it, but those problems are not nearly as big as the problems existing in college football. In fact, the NFL seems to have things going pretty well right now.

All a high school student who was drafted to a school he didn’t want to attend would need to say is they don’t offer my major there. I realize education is not the main goal for many college athletes, but it does influence where many attend school. Also, would a player need to declare for a conference? A student in California might be interested in playing in the Big 10 for USC, UCLA, Oregon or Washington, but gets drafted by Maryland or Rutgers. Can’t imagine the player or the parents being really happy about that happening. Lastly, wouldn’t the transfer portal nullify a draft? Get drafted to a school you don’t want to be at then transfer to where you want to go at the end of the first semester. The transfer portal isn’t going anywhere and it would completely negate a draft.

maybe have the salary cap on coaching salaries and expenses....if Bama had to judiciously use its private jet trips to visit recruits..... they would cheat though and rich alumni would donate their planes It's tough as the college game doesn't have the limiting factor of profits to consider...it's a commercialized charity really, so it can in effect raise next to unlimited money relative to what it needs it's a pickle...i guess i have no answers

The vast majority of the college coaches are state employees because they work for public schools. How did it get to this point where they get salaries and bonuses for millions of dollars as state employees? This should have been cutoff by states and schools a long time ago and handled through endorsement money. And definitely no golden parachutes for getting fired.

profession in the entertainment industry vs. the public sector. Most people are fine if a person makes millions of dollars as an actor, singer, or athlete. However, I am not sure they would feel the same way if the profession is a teacher, fire fighter, police officer, or someone in the military. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if there are people out there who feel people working in the public sector are currently overpaid regardless of what is required of them to perform the job. This is in reference to the thread on the football board talking about the pay scale for HS football coaches in VA vs. other states (GA was specifically referenced in the thread).

I am specifically speaking to this part; However, I am not sure they would feel the same way if the profession is a teacher, fire fighter, police officer, or someone in the military. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if there are people out there who feel people working in the public sector are currently overpaid regardless of what is required of them to perform the job. I know this to be fact, at least here in Michigan. There are those that view us educators as an enemy. I won’t get into the political aspects (it’s very political) but it’s very different than it was 25 years ago when I started teaching. I will say that where I teach, there is a ton of support for us teachers, especially those that are established and have a good reputation. There are other places that do not have any support at all.

spent their entire careers in public education in VA. My father managed to work his way up from being a middle school/HS math teacher in the 70s to work in the central office before retiring in the early 2010s. Also, I agree with you the issue is very political in a lot of states. Maybe even all states. I always knew I wanted to do something in public service. While I was trying to determine which field I wanted to go into, it was a reality check to see the starting salary of most jobs in the public sector compared to the private sector. Also, I do agree with you that people do support those in the public sector who do have a good reputation. However, there may still be a fine line between complete support and qualified support specifically when it comes to the salaries of those in that chosen profession. At least I suspect that is the root cause for a lot of the politics surrounding this topic. While I was growing up multiple people told me that if I want to be rich, then don't go into public service. For the most part I still believe that statement to be true because the exceptions seem to be politicians, college coaches, and maybe a few other administrative positions at the collegiate level. IIWII at this point because I don't think it will change any time soon. People will still read articles about a HS/school system spending millions of dollars to build a football stadium that may rival most colleges. However, it is unlikely people will ever read an article where that same HS/school system spent the same amount to support academia in some way (assuming it even spends at that level) or a HS/school system lacks adequate funding to be able to provide its students a proper chemistry lab or access to computers while in school.