Ross with much more details on the revenue sharing.

DesotoCountyDawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
23,071
11,271
113
This is a lot to process but if you think college sports has changed just wait. Won’t be recognizable.

I tried to include all the tweets but there might be some repeats.









 

8dog

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2008
12,586
3,564
113
The most important thing I saw is the a rev share would be used to buy someone’s NIL rights. That seems like it would cut down on transfers.

A third party to rule in NIL will be worthless. As soon as they rule against a player they will get sued under state law.
 

8dog

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2008
12,586
3,564
113
NCAA would have been better off to just dig in their heels on NIL/portal and just continue to fight the lawsuits. Would have at least slowed down the avalanche.
You can’t fight something you are going to lose and cost yourself billions more especially when the SCOTUS is not on your side.
 

ETK99

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2019
6,276
8,373
112
105 will not hurt State. That insures there will be a lot of 4 stars entering the portal every year. These guys will all head to the big schools and learn really fast they are just another fish. they will see school like MSU as a place they will get to play.
It also means AL can do what Bear used to do and that's grab up EVERY top player and some lesser guys we'd normally get. The 105 is going to be really bad until things settle out.
 

GloryDawg

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2005
15,235
6,493
113
It also means AL can do what Bear used to do and that's grab up EVERY top player and some lesser guys we'd normally get. The 105 is going to be really bad until things settle out.
I disagree. Most of those guys will not see the field. They will get the hell out of dodge once they figure that out. They want to play for Alabama but more than that they want to get on the field. Why do you think guys hit the portal now? Because they want to get on the field. The only change will be with 105 rather than 85 is a greater chance of not getting on the field. They will hit the portal. It will probably change who we get out of high school but the portal will be loaded with talent.

What the Bear did worked in the 1960's when guys could not transfer at will. They had to get permission and sit out a year. That's not the case anymore. They can hook up and leave anytime they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MSUDOG24

mcdawg22

Well-known member
Sep 18, 2004
11,320
5,682
113
So they are getting rid of the NLI. Oh boy, recruiting drama is going to go all the way up to August now for football.
 

Bulldog45

Well-known member
Oct 2, 2018
646
856
93
So when a player opts out after 4 games do they forfeit their scholarship/have to pay it back for that semester? Seems as though they should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TXDawg.sixpack

mcdawg22

Well-known member
Sep 18, 2004
11,320
5,682
113
You think we're going to take a hit.. wait til we see what this does to the level of play at G5 schools.
Right! What would the bidding war for Ashton Jeanty look like between the tier 1 schools? He’d make more than he would entering the draft.
 

aTotal360

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2009
19,366
8,766
113
Any of you all have another $8M lying around? Gonna need one of those biannually.
 

RockyDog

Well-known member
Jan 2, 2023
1,098
1,348
113
It also means AL can do what Bear used to do and that's grab up EVERY top player and some lesser guys we'd normally get. The 105 is going to be really bad until things settle out.
Ya but this isn’t 1980 when you were on TV once or twice per season. There are still on 22 starting spots and these pre madonnas don’t want to go ANYWHERE and sit on the bench. Look at the Oatis situation now.

All of these kids think it is their god given right to play in the NFL and you don’t get seen from the bench, even at Bama or Georgia
 

8dog

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2008
12,586
3,564
113
Ya but this isn’t 1980 when you were on TV once or twice per season. There are still on 22 starting spots and these pre madonnas don’t want to go ANYWHERE and sit on the bench. Look at the Oatis situation now.

All of these kids think it is their god given right to play in the NFL and you don’t get seen from the bench, even at Bama or Georgia
The benefit to a Bama with the 105 is it gives them more margin for error. They are fine with the back half leaving but they will have little weakness in the first 50+
 

RockyDog

Well-known member
Jan 2, 2023
1,098
1,348
113
They should be shrinking roster size, not expanding it. The NFL has a 53 man roster plus practice squad. But what the NFL also has is parity and the powers that be don't want that at all.
The NFL also has in season trading, waivers, free agency.

I’m not disagreeing that 85 should have been reduced. SOME. But you can’t go to the extreme. Expecting a major conference team to carry minimal numbers of offensive or defensive linemen and making thru a 12-15 game season could be dangerous.
 

travis.sixpack

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2008
1,104
1,127
113
105 will not hurt State. That insures there will be a lot of 4 stars entering the portal every year. These guys will all head to the big schools and learn really fast they are just another fish. they will see school like MSU as a place they will get to play.
Perhaps, but you're going to have to pay a premium for transfer portal players, instead of what a HS player would cost...and they can still transfer again. Also, State hasn't really hasn't burned it up in the portal.
 

POTUS

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,959
4,679
113
The NFL also has in season trading, waivers, free agency.

I’m not disagreeing that 85 should have been reduced. SOME. But you can’t go to the extreme. Expecting a major conference team to carry minimal numbers of offensive or defensive linemen and making thru a 12-15 game season could be dangerous.
22 starters + 2 back ups at each position is 66. Specialist included no reason to have more than 75 or players on a team.
 

The Peeper

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2008
12,576
6,027
113
I think I will sue my employer now because workers in the future in my position are going to be making more than I do now and that's not fair. I'm also going to sue for back wages because I should have been making more in the past than I have been, even though I agreed to make that amount when I was hired. I want what I deserve or I'm going to open up my recruitment and demand it from somebody else. Please respect my decision
 

8dog

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2008
12,586
3,564
113
I think I will sue my employer now because workers in the future in my position are going to be making more than I do now and that's not fair. I'm also going to sue for back wages because I should have been making more in the past than I have been, even though I agreed to make that amount when I was hired. I want what I deserve or I'm going to open up my recruitment and demand it from somebody else. Please respect my decision
These are anti-trust issues so it’s not analogous
 

mcdawg22

Well-known member
Sep 18, 2004
11,320
5,682
113
I disagree. Most of those guys will not see the field. They will get the hell out of dodge once they figure that out. They want to play for Alabama but more than that they want to get on the field. Why do you think guys hit the portal now? Because they want to get on the field. The only change will be with 105 rather than 85 is a greater chance of not getting on the field. They will hit the portal. It will probably change who we get out of high school but the portal will be loaded with talent.

What the Bear did worked in the 1960's when guys could not transfer at will. They had to get permission and sit out a year. That's not the case anymore. They can hook up and leave anytime they want.
Exactly! Oatis is a perfect example of that. I’ve said all along paying players with no transfer portal would be a nightmare for smaller schools. I always go back to that Bama team that had Najee and Damien Harris, Bo Scarborough, and Josh Jacobs. With the portal, one or two of those guys would have probably transferred out.
 

Seinfeld

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2006
9,859
4,265
113
There's plenty to hate about the current state of college athletics, but for those hoping that we eventually get to a point of having actual structure behind all the madness, this seems like a positive step towards that.

For one, there will now be an actual spending cap for those that choose to opt in to this payment plan, and part of the deal here is that it will require schools that opt in to regularly submit their payrolls. Compared to what we have today with the complete lack of transparency surrounding NIL, I think that this is big.

Second, there will be plenty of jokes about this new enforcement arm and rightfully so, but I'm glad to see that future true NIL deals outside of the revenue sharing plan will at least now have some form of 3rd party review/approval.

Of course, there's always a flip side, and this one especially caught my eye. What could possibly go wrong here?

1728409338448.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maroon13

MSUDOG24

Well-known member
Mar 31, 2021
706
528
93
There's plenty to hate about the current state of college athletics, but for those hoping that we eventually get to a point of having actual structure behind all the madness, this seems like a positive step towards that.

For one, there will now be an actual spending cap for those that choose to opt in to this payment plan, and part of the deal here is that it will require schools that opt in to regularly submit their payrolls. Compared to what we have today with the complete lack of transparency surrounding NIL, I think that this is big.

Second, there will be plenty of jokes about this new enforcement arm and rightfully so, but I'm glad to see that future true NIL deals outside of the revenue sharing plan will at least now have some form of 3rd party review/approval.

Of course, there's always a flip side, and this one especially caught my eye. What could possibly go wrong here?

View attachment 666779
Saw that and thought "prize money" is an odd term. Any guess what that is?
 

Pilgrimdawg

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2018
1,285
1,440
113
So what happens if a significant portion of the fans of College sports gets sick of this whole thing and stop buying tickets, stop giving their hard earned money, and stop watching the games on TV? Who’s going to fund the payments then? Attendance has been shrinking at some schools for a few years now and that may continue at a faster pace. Who knows? We all enjoy the games or we wouldn’t be here on SPS, but we have other entertainment options for our time and dollars. The whole thing is just out of control. I intend to continue to enjoy it for as long as I can tolerate it but I guess time will tell where that point is where we just walk away from it. We have attended games for a really long time and have already made the decision not to buy season tickets next year and just watch on TV. That’s partly due to old age health issues but also partly due just kind of becoming “turned off” by the current situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RocketDawg

MSF87

Member
Sep 29, 2022
121
208
43
So what happens if a significant portion of the fans of College sports gets sick of this whole thing and stop buying tickets, stop giving their hard earned money, and stop watching the games on TV? Who’s going to fund the payments then? Attendance has been shrinking at some schools for a few years now and that may continue at a faster pace.
Attendance was already trending in that direction pre-NIL, due to the growing availability of games on TV, where ratings are very high. Those ratings are all that really matter to the sport, and are what drives all of these decisions.
 

Colonel Kang

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
19,056
30,054
113
It also means AL can do what Bear used to do and that's grab up EVERY top player and some lesser guys we'd normally get. The 105 is going to be really bad until things settle out.
If kids choose Bama for 100,000s less than MSU offers, then yes
 

Colonel Kang

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
19,056
30,054
113
You guys don't it.

Yes you can have 105 on scholarship but as long as Bama & MSU are sharing the same amount of revenue & get to allocate it freely, then kids will have to choose to take a super significant pay cut, at some point, to play for Bama rather than MSU. That won't happen super often in a 12-16 team playoff era
 

RocketDawg

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2011
16,790
654
113
105 scholarships will put the final nail in the coffin for Mississippi State as an SEC team soon.
Shouldn't "scholarships" be reduced instead of increased? And what about schools (perhaps Notre Dame, Stanford, etc.) that value academics over athletics? All schools have reduced requirements for athletes, but not to the same degree.

Is the next step to not require athletes to be students? It's almost to that point already, but will it reach what amounts to a minor league team representing a school?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pilgrimdawg

Colonel Kang

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
19,056
30,054
113
Shouldn't "scholarships" be reduced instead of increased?
it doesn't matter. Teams can allocate money how they choose. If a kid chooses to play for Bama for $50K over MSU for $300K & is in 2 deep, then he doesn't want to play football anyway
 

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
49,746
14,323
113
You guys don't it.

Yes you can have 105 on scholarship but as long as Bama & MSU are sharing the same amount of revenue & get to allocate it freely, then kids will have to choose to take a super significant pay cut, at some point, to play for Bama rather than MSU. That won't happen super often in a 12-16 team playoff era
I think $22M is just the minimum. I doubt there's going to be a cap. But this could actually help us on a comparative basis. Say we're spending $5,000,000 now and the big boys are spending $15,000,000. This would boost us to $27,000,000 vs their $37,000,000. So we'd be at 73% of what they're paying vs 33% now.
 

Colonel Kang

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
19,056
30,054
113
I think $22M is just the minimum. I doubt there's going to be a cap. But this could actually help us on a comparative basis. Say we're spending $5,000,000 now and the big boys are spending $15,000,000. This would boost us to $27,000,000 vs their $37,000,000. So we'd be at 73% of what they're paying vs 33% now.
I just don't if I forsee continuing to spend $10 mil over the revenue cap for 2nd stringers. We should be able to compete at a high level in this era, especially with more playoff spots

It's one thing to get a booster to pay $ for a 5 star starter, but quite another asking them to cough up $1 mil for a 2nd string guy just because they have a roster spot.
 

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
49,746
14,323
113
I just don't if I forsee continuing to spend $10 mil over the revenue cap for 2nd stringers. We should be able to compete at a high level in this era, especially with more playoff spots

It's one thing to get a booster to pay $ for a 5 star starter, but quite another asking them to cough up $1 mil for a 2nd string guy just because they have a roster spot.
We'll see how this all shakes out. But if dawgstudent is right and the Excellence Fund within the Bulldog Club will be used to pay the $22,000,000 and the Bulldog Initiative will continue to exist to pay the excess, I'm going to continue to make most of my donations to the Initiative. I'm not contributing a dime for the $22,000,000.
 

IBleedMaroonDawg

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2007
23,823
8,034
113
Well, I got to see the end of college football. It's a shame it will be dead and buried like this. I agree that the kid should get some money but there's no good way to allocate this much money.
 

ababyatemydingo

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2008
3,087
1,724
113
This is a lot to process but if you think college sports has changed just wait. Won’t be recognizable.

I tried to include all the tweets but there might be some repeats.










That's gonna pretty much do it for college sports. And just think of the Title IX lawsuits incoming. It's over, boys. Was fun while it lasted
 

Xenomorph

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2007
13,771
4,844
113
The NFL also has in season trading, waivers, free agency.

I’m not disagreeing that 85 should have been reduced. SOME. But you can’t go to the extreme. Expecting a major conference team to carry minimal numbers of offensive or defensive linemen and making thru a 12-15 game season could be dangerous.
I expect the day to soon come when players can transfer mid season. No sarkasterisks.
 
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login