The Penalty Box: NIL Has Run Amuck
August 24, 2022 at 12:38 a.m.
The Penalty Box: NIL Has Run Amuck
By Roger Grossman-
The NCAA and its member schools are reaching for the gate, but the dust from the college athletes is visible on the horizon.
The two big arguments in favor of allowing college athletes to get paid for the Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) is so athletes can share in the wealth of college sports and to take some of the edge off the cheating and scandal around athletes getting pain under the table by boosters.
Let’s back up a few steps and remember what we’re talking about.
A court ruled, and the NCAA relented, that college athletes could not receive cash from the college itself and from businesses to do marketing and commercials. It also means that when the university gift shop sells a home football jersey with the number “5” on it, the guy who wears number “5” gets a cut from that.
With colleges making hundreds of millions of dollars on their athletic programs, the NIL concept was supposed to allow the athletes to see some of that cash come their way.
Those of us who were against NIL from the start bit our tongues ‘til they bled.
We knew what was going to happen.
We knew this would never solve the problem.
But it’s here.
Immediately, we started seeing the concept of NIL get abused.
Athletes started talking about getting paid by business owners, but no one every saw the marketing work they got paid for.
Athletes started to tell coaches who were recruiting them what the minimum NIL deal would have to be to get them to come to their school.
In reality, the sleezy feel to college sports feels just as sleezy as it always did—it just looks a little different than before.
So, what’s the point of NIL?
I renew my quest to eliminate the current model of college athletics and go to The Grossman Model.
The Grossman Model, basically, changes the status of college football players, men’s basketball players and women’s basketball players from “student athletes” to “employees.”
I included women’s basketball in this in anticipation of a Title IX lawsuit if I didn’t, and my purpose is not to exclude women from this opportunity. I am just not sure they would experience the same financial opportunities as men. Fair or unfair, that’s the reality of it.
Every school would pay every player on those teams a minimum base salary determined by and monitored by the NCAA.
Then, each program would have a salary cap, also determined by and monitored by the NCAA. Colleges would be allowed to take their cap money and pay players to come to their school and play. It would be a “hard cap”, so any school who was caught spending more than the cap would receive a four-year postseason ban for the first offense and then a 20% reduction in their salary cap money for 4 years for a second offense.
Players would then be able to supplement their personal income with NIL money. But, under The Grossman Plan, proof of what the players did to earn that NIL money would have to be readily available.
For the athletes, no more pretending to be students and filling up classroom seats that could be used by kids who really want to study and learn there.
For schools, the rules are much easier to follow and harder to break.
For the NCAA, maintaining a fair playing field is much earlier to achieve.
For businesses and companies—local, regional and national—it means being able to hire athletes to pitch their brands and products without having to slide money into anyone’s coat pocket after midnight in a dark alley somewhere.
Yes, it means college sports is more like a minor league level for college sports. Breaking news: it is already! The difference is, under my plan, we’d quit pretending that everything is fair and actually make it be fairer.
Oh, and college athletes would be under 3-year written agreements (contracts) at that school. They would be allowed to transfer once during their college career on their own for any reason, or if the coach who signed them to the contract would be fired or leave that school, the contract would be terminated and they would be free to go to another college for the remainder of their written agreement for the same pay they would have gotten at the previous school.
Example: Joe Smith just finished his sophomore year at Indiana University where he is getting $100,000 a year to play football. IU fires the football coach after his second season. Smith could transfer to another school for one more season for $100,000. Then he could sign on somewhere else after that third year.
Another example: Jerry Martin plays three years at Purdue and would like to play a fourth year but is ready for a change. He enters himself into the portal that lets colleges know that he’s interested in changing (like the transfer portal is doing now).
The players would have five years to play at the college level, then they would have to move up to the professional ranks or move on to what they are going to do with the rest of their lives.
Which, of course, they would have a better grasp of if they went to their college classes in the first place.
The NCAA and its member schools are reaching for the gate, but the dust from the college athletes is visible on the horizon.
The two big arguments in favor of allowing college athletes to get paid for the Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) is so athletes can share in the wealth of college sports and to take some of the edge off the cheating and scandal around athletes getting pain under the table by boosters.
Let’s back up a few steps and remember what we’re talking about.
A court ruled, and the NCAA relented, that college athletes could not receive cash from the college itself and from businesses to do marketing and commercials. It also means that when the university gift shop sells a home football jersey with the number “5” on it, the guy who wears number “5” gets a cut from that.
With colleges making hundreds of millions of dollars on their athletic programs, the NIL concept was supposed to allow the athletes to see some of that cash come their way.
Those of us who were against NIL from the start bit our tongues ‘til they bled.
We knew what was going to happen.
We knew this would never solve the problem.
But it’s here.
Immediately, we started seeing the concept of NIL get abused.
Athletes started talking about getting paid by business owners, but no one every saw the marketing work they got paid for.
Athletes started to tell coaches who were recruiting them what the minimum NIL deal would have to be to get them to come to their school.
In reality, the sleezy feel to college sports feels just as sleezy as it always did—it just looks a little different than before.
So, what’s the point of NIL?
I renew my quest to eliminate the current model of college athletics and go to The Grossman Model.
The Grossman Model, basically, changes the status of college football players, men’s basketball players and women’s basketball players from “student athletes” to “employees.”
I included women’s basketball in this in anticipation of a Title IX lawsuit if I didn’t, and my purpose is not to exclude women from this opportunity. I am just not sure they would experience the same financial opportunities as men. Fair or unfair, that’s the reality of it.
Every school would pay every player on those teams a minimum base salary determined by and monitored by the NCAA.
Then, each program would have a salary cap, also determined by and monitored by the NCAA. Colleges would be allowed to take their cap money and pay players to come to their school and play. It would be a “hard cap”, so any school who was caught spending more than the cap would receive a four-year postseason ban for the first offense and then a 20% reduction in their salary cap money for 4 years for a second offense.
Players would then be able to supplement their personal income with NIL money. But, under The Grossman Plan, proof of what the players did to earn that NIL money would have to be readily available.
For the athletes, no more pretending to be students and filling up classroom seats that could be used by kids who really want to study and learn there.
For schools, the rules are much easier to follow and harder to break.
For the NCAA, maintaining a fair playing field is much earlier to achieve.
For businesses and companies—local, regional and national—it means being able to hire athletes to pitch their brands and products without having to slide money into anyone’s coat pocket after midnight in a dark alley somewhere.
Yes, it means college sports is more like a minor league level for college sports. Breaking news: it is already! The difference is, under my plan, we’d quit pretending that everything is fair and actually make it be fairer.
Oh, and college athletes would be under 3-year written agreements (contracts) at that school. They would be allowed to transfer once during their college career on their own for any reason, or if the coach who signed them to the contract would be fired or leave that school, the contract would be terminated and they would be free to go to another college for the remainder of their written agreement for the same pay they would have gotten at the previous school.
Example: Joe Smith just finished his sophomore year at Indiana University where he is getting $100,000 a year to play football. IU fires the football coach after his second season. Smith could transfer to another school for one more season for $100,000. Then he could sign on somewhere else after that third year.
Another example: Jerry Martin plays three years at Purdue and would like to play a fourth year but is ready for a change. He enters himself into the portal that lets colleges know that he’s interested in changing (like the transfer portal is doing now).
The players would have five years to play at the college level, then they would have to move up to the professional ranks or move on to what they are going to do with the rest of their lives.
Which, of course, they would have a better grasp of if they went to their college classes in the first place.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092