Brief reflection on the new landscape of college athletics
(caveat that the new system is still very much experiencing its birth pangs and will almost certainly look and feel very different 5, 10, 20 years from today)
One of the vagaries of human psychology is a strong bias in favor of the status quo.
The status quo of college football pre-NIL and pre-immediate eligibility post-transfer created a LOT of damage for college athletes - but that damage was accepted as the cost of doing business and barely even discussed in major public sources.
The damage included: not being compensated fairly (or at all) despite being massive generators of revenue for their universities, not being able to freely transfer and be immediately eligible when blocked from playing time or when the coach moves on, being forced to sit out for a year when transferring.
This damage was barely recognized by most fans - but it was real and lasted for DECADES. Think of all the players from the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s who could've been set up financially when leaving college (whether they made it to the NFL or not) and who could've found a new, lucrative opportunity by a free transfer with immediate eligibility. Instead, wildly popular college athletes who never made it in a big way professionally - like an Aaron Craft at Ohio State or a Denard Robinson at Michigan or a Tommie Frazier at Nebraska - were not able to benefit financially at ALL despite bringing in millions and millions to their respective academic institutions.
The new system creates a different kind of damage - but in my opinion it is a preferable and less harmful kind of damage. It's the damage of fans feeling like they are just rooting for laundry because players are all free agents moving around. In my opinion, this new landscape creates a morally and ethically preferable damage to the type of damage we accepted as normal and natural for so many decades.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:10 PM ^
Every time this topic comes up. It's just a repeat of the same arguments that make no sense and have been proven wrong over and over again. It is pretty simple and easy:
No one else in this country has their earning potential capped for spurious reasons.
The education and perks they get still pale in comparison to their market value. Getting something, doesn't mean you get your fair share. And literally no one else on this blog would stand for being given a paltry fraction of their value for their work.
Just because something has been done one way, doesn't make it correct or morally better.
The solution to the chaos is also super simple: a players union that negotiates with the universities. and contracts for roster stability.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:28 PM ^
You're not offering a solution.
You're just turning college athletes into pros.
You're argument that nobody else...blah blah blah
It's a unique situation. They aren't auto workers.
If they have proper NIL arrangements, their earning potential isn't capped.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:52 PM ^
It is only a unique situation because you want it to be. There is nothing unique about someone generating revenue with their skills. They aren't any different than auto workers. They are people in America, where we reward people by compensating them for their skills. Anything else is un-American. If you can only get entertainment by watching people work for free, that is a you problem. Maybe you can move to Saudi Arabia to watch people in the kafala system build their cities, if that's how you get your rocks off.
January 23rd, 2024 at 6:16 PM ^
That’s fine and there is a place for that. It’s called the minor leagues. Minor leagues should not be run by schools whose primary mission is to educate students and do research.
Players are not getting ripped off. They have a choice and willingly accept the opportunity because a better one in a football-exclusive professional environment does not currently exist.
Its not un-American either. They are being compensated both through NIL and scholarships whose market value over 4 years at many places is almost $300,000. This sum of money is not insignificant and many students would love to be in a situation where their families were not asked to sacrifice savings or taking up large debt loads for the sake of their education.
If players feel they can get a better deal they should do so, but no one should constantly feel sorry for them. Many people would love to have the opportunity that they have.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:16 PM ^
The athletes who don't make the pros have a University degree.
How is that not working?
Dinosaurish? It worked.
Right now, nobody has a better solution, but we were told there were BILLIONS to be had for everyone.
The only solutions I've seen proposed are for football only and entail turning college athletics into some sort of semi-pro league. Are fans going to be as enthusiastic about that? Eliminate non-revenue sports? That in itself is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Pay the coaches less, and lose them all to the NFL.
I realize we can't go backwards, but we can certainly slow the sentiment of turning college football into a semi pro league that nobody cares about.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:49 PM ^
"it worked" in the sense that college athletic departments got super rich. It all depends how you define "working." Did it work for the players who missed out on earning some money while playing? You're having a real easy time taking money out of their pockets, while you sit on your couch watching them. But to play in that game they've spent years of training to get to that point. I'd say you've got blinders on. Your attitude is "just give me football, who cares about the players." It's selfish.
The solution is a player's union and a collective bargaining agreement with contracts to prevent movement and tampering. I don't think anyone has ever said players will make billions. But the whole sport brings that in. That isn't even debatable. There is a huge pie. It comes down to how do you divide that up. The old system gives 95% to the admin. Players get about 5% in the form of scholarships. Most sports leagues are near 50/50 between the owners the players.
To show my work on that, I looked up Michigan's 2021 budget. Aid to football players was $6.7M. Tickets $47.5M, Football TV revenue $37.5M, football related donations $30 (this is an estimate based on the fact that the first year Michigan made the playoffs donations went from $13M to $43.5M), and bowl game revenue $7.2M. So its about 6.7/122 or about 5%. Note that I ignored another $34.5M in revenue due to sponsorships, licensing, royalties, and investments. At least some of which is probably related to football.
Anyway to continue with your points: we don't have to eliminate non-rev sports. No one is advocating for that. Even including non-rev costs, you can see from the above math, there is still plenty to go around. Non-rev aid cost is still less than 10% of the total AD budget.
As far as losing coaches.. there are only 32 NFL teams. NFL teams could currently hire the top 20 college coaches if they wanted. For a variety of reasons, colleges still have good coaches. Did Alabama ever get outbid for Saban? Michigan hasn't been outbid for Harbaugh yet.
January 23rd, 2024 at 3:21 PM ^
" The old system gives 95% to the admin."
No, it gave most of it to non-revenue sports, as required by Title IX.
January 23rd, 2024 at 5:49 PM ^
I mean this is wrong, you can look up the Michigan athletics budgets. It is all public.
As I posted elsewhere in the thread, non rev aid is like 10% of the budget. And Title IX is a red herring. The football players already receive way more perks and things than the women's volleyball team. Football team flies on jets to away games, non rev sports don't. Football facilities are much more lavish than other sports, etc. Title IX does not require that every athlete gets exactly the same thing or that the same $ amount is spent on every single athlete.
January 23rd, 2024 at 4:17 PM ^
For the current fiscal year, the athletic department projects a slight operating surplus of $0.2 million based on operating revenues of $215.1 million and operating expenses of $214.9 million.
January 23rd, 2024 at 5:51 PM ^
Yes because they inflate expenses with creative accounting in order to look like they are breaking even. We've gone through this a million times. Instead of using millions to build bowling alleys and laser tag facilities for football players and staff, they could use that revenue elsewhere. The current system incentivizes them to cry poor.
January 23rd, 2024 at 6:26 PM ^
In other words, the current surplus-deficit accounting that non-profits get away with is a fraud that enables tax avoidance. This is exactly why we should stop operating football under the nonsense auspices of a non-profit athletic department. It would encourage accountability and more efficient spending of funds. It would also clearly delineate that football operations are adjacent but not core to university‘s operations. They would also then be free to deal with players as employees and satisfy responsible budgeting decisions to meet payroll rather some of the boondoggles that doubtlessly are covered up in this sloppy system.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:42 PM ^
The old system artificially capped a player's market value. It would be hard to devise a system more anti-American than the way it was. Telling people they aren't allowed to earn money "cause that's the way it is and change makes me uncomfortable" is one of the worst arguments ever. There's no logical basis for it. And the market has proven that the free education they get is still much less than their actual value. Imagine the largest corporations all got together and started capping people's wages with the argument "well just be thankful you get paid at all." People would rightfully go nuts. It's a cartel.
"it worked wonderfully" for who? The athletic departments. The coaches. It didn't work wonderfully for the athletes.
January 23rd, 2024 at 11:53 AM ^
The future is a collectively bargained agreement between a new post-NCAA organization and a players union. Then money will be paid athletes on an agreed upon basis and enforceable rules might actually be established.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:01 PM ^
Agreed, and I think that will be the best possible outcome.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:17 PM ^
That will probably happen one day. But I don't see how it will do anything about NIL, which by definition is money outside the system.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:35 PM ^
I've begun to wonder if the only way anything with NIL will change is if Congress has to get involved and pass actual federal legislation for it.
Not a legal expert, no idea how that would work, but it seems like the only option, because its become clearly obvious that some states are much, MUCH more NIL-friendly than others are.
Either that, or you'd have to create some kind of post-NCAA organization (or at least one for football and basketball) that the schools would actually have enough respect to collectively listen to and adhere to their rules. Right now we don't have that.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:10 PM ^
The various state laws are interesting. Which provokes a question - which states will pass a law that describes NIL monies as "non taxable income"?
I wonder how many student athletes with significant NIL deals will be drowning in tax debt and legal issues before they realize it?
My sense is - that will happen in a future wave - to be determined.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:24 PM ^
Dupe. Deleted. My apologies.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:24 PM ^
I'm not sure if this can really be accomplished. Why, you may ask?
First - revenue sharing from the media agreements that conferences / teams are involved with - addressing Title IX, non-revenue generating sports, etc. - will actually be the "easy" part of the solution.
Second - NIL and brown bagging. Based on court decisions - this will be incredibly difficult to change or enforce - unless laws are passed which prevent student athletes from earning money being a spokesperson for a third party organization / entity. The only way this "slows down" is if wealthy collectives / boosters think their "relationship / investment" in the student athlete isn't providing a return - and, that "return" is in two forms - first, a business return from being a spokesperson - but, (my guess is) more importantly the results on the gridiron.
Most of the collectives / boosters - IMO - care more about the "on the field" return, than any ROI associated with the specific business entity they're involved with.
And - from my point of view - there IS great value in an education. And, in the world of college football - there's no academic institution that combines strong academics and competitive athletics as effectively as Michigan. (I also respect what Stanford has done - so, they're another very strong academic institution with great results in athletics - though, over the past six years - their most visible revenue generating athletic sport hasn't really been delivering. Stanford's football program hasn't had a record better than .500 for the past five seasons.)
One aspect is - the University makes a commitmen to the student athlete. And, in today's landscape - what commitment does the student athlete make to the University?
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:29 PM ^
So why cant this be accomplished?
Better tell me twice to make sure I get it.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:36 PM ^
Yes, employees being paid what will be termed "stipends" that will be collectively bargained. I'm not sure if the P2 will keep the NCAA around for football or create their own organization.
January 23rd, 2024 at 11:54 AM ^
Rooting for laundry is only a feeling you get when you're losing games or losing transfers. Our transfer/NIL guys included Barner, Henderson, Stewart, etc. I had zero problems rooting for those guys. Loved it. On the other side of things, Dickinson transfered out. The basketball team is struggling. Hated it.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:02 PM ^
I would argue a full ride to a major university IS being compensated. Especially when several universities admitted people that otherwise would not meet requirements.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:02 PM ^
So I guess you'd gladly accept getting $2/hour for your labor because at least you're being compensated.
Seriously, this argument is so dumb it's exhausting to hear it repeated every time this comes up. Being compensated and being compensated fairly in relation to the value you provide are two different things. We know the value of the scholarship is less than the market value of the athlete because otherwise under the table pay wouldn't have been happening for decades and NIL wouldn't be a thing.
January 23rd, 2024 at 3:23 PM ^
We know the value of the scholarship is less than the market value of the athlete for the top 5% of college football players.
January 23rd, 2024 at 5:58 PM ^
This is false according to every economic paper on the subject. here is one saying long snappers are worth about $140k
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:04 PM ^
Not that these guys aren't entitled to make as much as they can in life, because everyone is in a capitalist world. But free college tuition, training, meal plans, tutors, housing and 4-5 years of leadership and teamwork training is nothing to sneeze at for those of us not graced with wealthy parents.
2/3 of these guys who never see a NFL paycheck will make it in life better than average because they had the drive to do college football and backed that up with a education, diploma and/or the network that comes with all that.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:03 PM ^
Exactly
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:15 PM ^
You bring up capitalism then ignore it. Capitalism doesn't say anything about "as long as you're better off than most people, shut up." Like if I apply your line of thinking to the general public, then I assume you'd be good with a 100% seizure of all assets someone has over $500 million? Because anyone that rich has it much better than the majority of us, so we can take all the stuff and they will still have a good life.
January 23rd, 2024 at 4:53 PM ^
No, capitalism simply says if you take a job (and being a student athlete is a job) at a certain wage, then that's what the job is worth. What these student athletes earned prior to NIL was nothing to sneeze at, and it was just compensation because otherwise they wouldn't take the job. What they earn now is also a just wage, or again... they wouldn't take the job.
Yes, yes, I understand colleges unfairly restrict trade/opportunities for these student athletes; welcome to adulthood. We all work in businesses that some genius has restricted trade and wages in one direction or the other.
You pretty much say the exact opposite of what I said. I will assume my lack of clearly articulating my thoughts is at fault.
January 23rd, 2024 at 6:02 PM ^
"unfairly restricting opportunities" is not capitalism though. All of the colleges banding together and deciding to pay nothing is not capitalism.
"it was just...because otherwise they wouldn't take it." Again, no. You're not giving them a serious choice. You've made up a law that they can either take what they get or kick rocks. Again, that isn't capitalism.
If you like the system, say you like the system, but don't call it capitalism. When it is by definition, nothing close.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:17 PM ^
An even better system would be the creation of a true minor league just like hockey has or like G-league in basketball. That way kids could decide what path that they want to take and the NFL can pay the kids so that colleges don't have to and can instead focus on putting their money and resources toward their core educational mission. Perish the thought but it would also be nice if actual students rather than only recruits play on teams sponsored by universities. Any way that you slice it what we have and will have are professional teams masquerading as university teams that only share a label.
I don't begrudge the players anything but if it is going to first and foremost be about getting paid for playing football let players do it in a professional league and dispense with the optics and nonsense that this is really university athletics. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we insist on keeping the association with universities then do away with football programs existing under athletic departments that should first-and-foremost serve the needs of students that are true amateurs that want to represent their schools as a co-curricular to their main vocation of earning a degree. Put football under a separate for-profit umbrella, do away with eligibility requirements while also removing eligibility for amateur awards (i.e. Big Ten honors, varsity letters) and separate admissions to the football programs from admission to academic departments unless schools want to open football management programs or coaching majors. Have the NFL sponsor the operating budgets and have schools spend their money on what they are supposed to spend on, students, faculty, research, financial aid, and campus facilities.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:50 PM ^
Your points are interesting - but, the "G League"? Perhaps I don't follow the NBA closely enough - how many high school players forgoe a season (or two, three, four) and go directly to the G League?
IMO - "one and done" in college hoops with the NBA's approach to drafting and the G League has basically destroyed college hoops. I'm not a fan.
January 23rd, 2024 at 5:16 PM ^
I‘m just using the G League as an example. You could also look at professional tennis or golf.
What bothers me is that revenue sports comport to the letter of the rules and not the spirit of the rules. Following the rules in a legalistic way is not an example of integrity. Puffing out your chest and saying that we follow the rules and therefore do things the right way is not actually doing things the right way, it is hypocrisy channeled into performative theatre to avoid the scrutiny of unsuspecting consumers. What we currently have is a corrupt farce that does the one thing that higher education institutions should never want to be part of and that is intellectual dishonesty.
If the current regime of paying for play in all but name is the way things let’s just dispense with the niceties. These aren’t student-athletes, football is not core to the mission of the university, coaches are not educators, and most of all, players in FBS are not amateurs.
Why not come clean. Then at least we can have an honest discussion about what is best for the programs, the players, students, and the institutions themselves. What we currently have are yet more internal contradictions and controversies, to add to those already brewing, that make the public lose faith in why higher education is worth funding.
If I had my druthers we would have a two tier system that borrows a page from the Ivies and runs the sport as both professional-affiliated teams and one strictly for real amateur student-athletes.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:19 PM ^
As the fan, you would rather take on the "damage" yourself?
January 23rd, 2024 at 3:15 PM ^
Absolutely! I'd rather have a slightly to somewhat less enjoyable product that isn't taking advantage of a pool of labor by forcing them to work for free. That's called ethics, my friend.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:20 PM ^
I was a D1 athlete in the early 2000's era and I must say I didn't find the rules back then to be all that cumbersome. I had it better than 95% of the students on campus due to lack of education debt and all the amenities at my disposal. The transfer rule was a nice change, but could use some tweaking. Being able to come and go at any time doesn't teach you much about honoring your commitments. The NCAA is never proactive, so things are going to spiral out of control for a while until it turns enough people off to affect revenue.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:56 PM ^
Great comment.
First - I appreciate your perspective as a former student athlete.
Second - I think you raise a very good point about "honoring your commitments". There needs to be some balance between the institution and the student athlete. The institution makes a commitment to the student athlete - however, it does not seem like the student athlete makes a commitment to the instituion these days. I look at Julian Sayin - who enrolled in Tuscaloosa a few weeks ago - and, he's already moving on to Ohio State.
I'm not necessarily against transfers - particularly the "one time free" - especially with a coaching transtion - and sit a season for the second / third. But, perhaps a commitment from the student athlete for at least one semester at the school they commit to / sign with could be an option.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:22 PM ^
I understand that its an "old fashioned" way of thinking in the current climate. I do not pretend to speak for everyone, but my beliefs are that you are failing students and athletes if you're not preparing them for the challenges they will face in life. Handing me $1 million at the age of 18 or 19 without teaching me how to make that money work for me would not of been too beneficial IMO. Probably would of led me to make some terrible life choices. Picking which university to attend is also a great teaching moment due to all the variables. These are all things that help mold you into what you become. Transferring should always be an option, but jumping from school to school each year looking for a bigger payout or more beneficial roster spot always seemed selfish in a team sport.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:40 PM ^
The only thing that is different now is that paying players is more transparent which drives up the cost of labor and puts more power in the hands of the most important resource in college football. The rest, I agree, is psychological dissonance from fans.
January 23rd, 2024 at 12:46 PM ^
I'm amazed that people are still arguing "eh, a free tuition is enough". Our coach (ok, current coach) sure isn't. He gets it, and has been advocating for players getting a share of the (big) pie. Why doesn't (some of) this fanbase?
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:16 PM ^
I'm not suggesting that "a free tuition is enough" - but, I am suggesting that the cost of an education / scholarship should be understood and factored in to the equation.
I love and follow collegiate athletics FAR more than I follow professional sports. The path college sports is on does not appeal to me - specifically - "the best team money can buy". There are significant differences between the college and professional levels - with one of those differences being a salary cap for many sports leagues.
If I had a wish - it would be for the B1G to become a leader in collegiate athletics - and, actually develop a revenue sharing model - so - every student athlete in every sport - at every B1G school - would get a share of the Media Monies the conference gains. This won't be easy - balancing Title IX, revenue / non-revenue generating sports, etc. But, wouldn't it be nice if the B1G could actually be proactive and try to figure it out.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:26 PM ^
It is understood and factored in though. Players who are worth only a free education receive just that. A free ride and nothing more. Thousands of players have no NIL deals. Players who are worth a free education + extra money receive that.
January 23rd, 2024 at 2:20 PM ^
For me - it's the "extra money" that is impossible to quantify.
Should revenue sharing - of the $1B the B1G gets annually - somehow be shared among the student athletes? Look at Big Ten Network programming - yes, they replay football games in the fall - but, they'll also broadcast field hockey, ice hockey, gymnastics, mostly women's hoops because other networks tend to carry men's hoops, etc. Should all student athletes get an "even share"? Should football / basketball players get "a bit more" - after all, the biggest revenue generator for the B1G is probably football? And, in football - should starters get more than the second, third, or practice squad?
It's not an easy equation to solve. I would probably advocate for a "defined share / amount" for every student athlete - it's a "constant" - a single amount whether you're JJ McCarthy, or the lowest ranked distance swimmer. AND, complement that with NIL.
And, with NIL - how to enforce "spokesperson" agreements - like Caitlin Clark has - compared to other athletes. I'm fine with NIL - or spokesperson - and would hope that Name, Image, and Likeness really mean something and can be enforced.
I'm sensitive to this - "the best team that money can buy". Many professional leagues have salary caps. College athletics do not. And, whereas there are market conditions on spokespersons at the professional level - Boosters / Collectives will spend "as much as they can" to buy a winning team - or, at least that's the direction I think college football is going.
January 23rd, 2024 at 5:27 PM ^
Because there are more stakeholders involved than just players and coaches. Someone pays for all of this largesse. Consumers who buy tickets, apparel, streaming services, etc. and tuition-paying families and taxpayers. And that is fine. But at a time when educational debt is skyrocketing and many institutions don’t have the funds that the need to support their core mission of education and research it is a legitimate question to ask whether the structure in place is fit for task.
Go ahead and let the players make as much as they deserve, but schools themselves should be less involved and more attendant to their other obligations. College football does not exist in a vacuum.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:06 PM ^
I'm glad the players are getting paid, but NIL and the portal are killing small-mid schools' program. If you're Indiana and you put together a strong program for a year, your reward is now not only does your coach leave, but a lot of your players leave too.
My intuition is that if we want the small to mid schools to have a chance, there is going to have to be full payment to players, but then some kind of salary cap and/or revenue sharing.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:12 PM ^
Years ago, I remember listening to a lobbyist who talked about government systems and legislation. Unlike some of that gang, this guy was quite interesting and funny. The biggest take away is that whether it's a change to a law (tax code, criminal justice, etc.) or a corporate policy (bonus and rewards programs, etc.), there will always be WINNERS and LOSERS from any system - and from any change - someone will gain, someone will lose.
Overall, the NIL has been a net positive because it has diverted some money to players that would otherwise have been stashed away into endowment funds or otherwise squandered on pet projects.
The biggest problems that probably need help from Congress since the NCAA keeps losing in court.
1. Regulation and conditions on NILs - are they taxable? what terms (how many years, etc.)? what happens if someone leaves early (Henson had to pay back the Yankees when he left before his 6 years were up, but what about NIL athletes?)?
2. More equity in sharing the wealth. How much does a womens' lacrosse player get vs a Quinn Ewers? This is where Congress may need to rewrite labor law to allow college athletes to unionize (probably a pipe dream given the political divide, but worth considering).
3. Some kind of award for completing a degree within some many years. Maybe even a post-season participation bonus or better injury insurance paid for out of revenue. Why should Jake Butt have to had his own policy when this could have been covered by the pool of cash along with better payouts.
For the traditionalists, I grew up following sports in the 70s and 80s when the NCAA had draconian control over everything. Some of this was good (drove out some of the cheating, etc.). But other times (Steve Alford being suspended for the Kentucky game because he posed for a sorority poster without being paid, etc.) they were absurd. Meanwhile, SI did stories about hoops players who left without graduating and had 6th grade reading skills - PROP 48 just punished people to "fix" the problem (sit out FR year, instead of creating an action plan, including summer school prior to FR year to help the athlete).
January 23rd, 2024 at 5:39 PM ^
You bring up good points but I don’t agree with constantly positioning players as victims. They choose to play with all of the potential benefits and risks that playing entails. No one forces them to play the recruitment game or accept scholarships and NIL money. They also very clearly get a break on admissions compared to typical applicants. They don’t need financial rewards for completing their degrees. Other students don’t receive that benefit. Other students’ rewards are massive amounts of student debt and uncertainty about their career prospects. To continually position revenue sport athletes as victims while coming up with two tier support systems for them versus what ordinary students receive makes no sense while continuing to press the sham that they are just like any other students. Pick a lane. I’d say that clearly revenue sport athletes should be paid. But let’s stop treating them like the are the most important components of what universities do.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:14 PM ^
NIL is a total sham. Money isn't being directed to athletes for their name, image, or likeness, it is being paid to players to just join or stay on a football team. Give me old college football any time. I'm sick of watching college football turn into the haves and the have nots based strictly on cash payments. Guys like Klatt that are "excited" by what OSU is doing just don't get it. No lower level major school will ever be able to keep their best athletes any more. It will forever be about going to the highest bidder. What is happening to the game as we knew it is really sad.
January 23rd, 2024 at 1:53 PM ^
Just get a players union formed, set contracts that will limit transfer portal stuff, incentivize longevity on campus and grad transfers. This can also effectively end bowl game opt outs. They can negotiate a new LOI process so that there isn't an early signing day in the middle of the College Football Playoff.
If college football needs a commissioner (not affiliated with the NCAA) on their side to secure negotiations, I hear Nick Saban is available and motivated to fix this mess.