BobInHouston

A deal has two sides. Weaver would have had to agree to play less, and that didn't consider the money.

Good place for him. He wouldn't have played as much as he had if he stayed.

It seems like they've enticed donors who are interested in a return (which you don't get with NIL) to back an advance to the school. The school is counting on a big enough increase in media rights five years from now to pay back the investors. The problem as I see it is that they are paying out from a boost in rights later that they will not be able to put into the program. For you old Popeye cartoon fans, this is Wimpy agreeing to pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. It's possible that they could keep this going, but there is a chance of a reckoning long after the people who put this into place are gone.

How about everyone cool down and let the seniors play? The NCAA already poisoned the well by saying that fourth-year seniors weren't covered. And the judge said other rules weren't affected, so if you aren't already in the portal, too bad. I do not see what the big deal is. Every other class can play, and nobody promised them 5-for-5 when *they* signed. Much ado about nothing.

If someone has won in court against an organization, and the organization subsequently threatens someone that can provide a remedy, a judge is not likely to tell that someone, "Sorry, can't do anything about that." That judge would want that decision enforced.

Why are they popular enough to be paid? The colleges want it both ways. They were the ones that built the huge stadiums (many larger than those used by actual pros). They took in all the money and paid it to people of their choosing, who were not the ones actually playing the games, because they relied on the public believing that it was an activity engaged in by everyday students. The financial part relies on the loyalty of college grads who lived the experience and want it to continue. Removing the college connection will cause it to crash (which is why the schools, who control the money, are doing all they can to keep it flowing while still paying the athletes as little as possible. The problem is that the courts are no longer looking the other way when the NCAA says, "This is how we've always done it."

While I agree, we're a lonnnnng way from that. It starts with the schools conceding that these revenue-sport athletes are employees, and they won't do that. When enough schools cry uncle, things will change, but not until then. In the meantime, the schools have no business trying to limit compensation for a legal activity. Supply and demand for the win!

The NFL caps, rules, and boundaries are collectively bargained. These rules would be imposed. Big difference. Schools can pay, up to $20 mil. Players can ask ("demand"). Schools can say no. Players can go elsewhere. It's how the American economy works. I don't see a difference between a school paying, or "real" NIL, or under the table. Until there is a contract between the schools and athletes, there *shouldn't* be any rules. Why is college athletics the one place in which the federal government should be allowed to set maximum pay? But you do get it right at the end. They need collective bargaining, and the B1G and SEC will fight any pay limit that materially affects them. When the NCAA set the cap at zero dollars, people cheated because the talent was more valuable than that, and as time has gone on, the value has become much greater. The issue is that the schools don't want to bargain collectively. They want federal law to impose rules. Admins and coaches in football and basketball are making money, schools are making money. It's not right, not fair to the athletes not to be able to make as much as they can. After all, without athletes, there are no games.

Why do you think it is that important? If it's not illegal, and there's no collectively bargained contract, people get to spend their money the way they want. Freedom of association and freedom to contract -- it's the American way.

NCAA rules never have been laws, so you can forget about subpoena power.

You would fit in quite well with the NCAA, which has tried for decades (and failed) to repeal the law of supply and demand. We have had like a hundred years of this "nonsense." More than that, actually. The "cap" was basically zero, in terms of actual cash, and schools ignored it, because the market the schools wanted to tap cost real money. When NIL became "legal," costs skyrocketed because schools need the best players they can find. The schools are welcome to live by the laws you suggest, but they won't, because they want their TV rights to be worth the millions they're being paid for them. But they do want the rules, because they will lower costs.

If you're not seriously considering athletes' rights when you say you're going to cap, and collectively bargain, you're not seriously working on the problem. I'm not saying that's easy. It's extraordinarily hard. But the schools are acting as though they can solve this problem without the athletes, and they can't.

That's really interesting.

When he announced on TV with sunglasses on, I figured he would be a problem.

So an exhibition will count in the Lone Star shootout?