Athletic: College football may be in danger

Donate To GopherHole
GopherGrit said:
Bold: again nonsense

Players will get a bigger slice of the revenue. That's always the prime reason for them to accept a (new) CBA.
Click to expand...
Have you considered a lot of players would be giving up more in NIL than they would get with more revenue sharing?

First, the current players have no way of knowing how much more TV revenue they would get with a new TV deal - so why would they give up their known millions in NIL for an unknown? Secondly, they won't even be in college football when a new TV deal comes about, so you're really asking them to give up 100% of NIL so that players in the future might get more rev sharing.

I think you're scenario is the nonsensical one.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Have you considered a lot of players would be giving up more in NIL than they would get with more revenue sharing?

First, the current players have no way of knowing how much more TV revenue they would get with a new TV deal - so why would they give up their known millions in NIL for an unknown? Secondly, they won't even be in college football when a new TV deal comes about, so you're really asking them to give up 100% of NIL so that players in the future might get more rev sharing.

I think you're scenario is the nonsensical one.
Click to expand...
The problem is that "players" is not a homogenous group. The average players have completely different interests than the star players.

I agree with your assessment though, that scenario does not make any sense. I think NIL will be mostly driven by the star players.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
The problem is that "players" is not a homogenous group. The average players have completely different interests than the star players.

I agree with your assessment though, that scenario does not make any sense. I think NIL will be mostly driven by the star players.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but considering the poster I was responding to, I wanted to keep it as brief as possible. ;)

I'd think even the average players would be against a CBA though too. If the star players are no longer getting the NIL money, they would eat up a larger portion of the rev sharing budget.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
You talking it into existence isn't going to make it happen.

I'll bet you $100 that you'll be on you 1000th new moniker name, which is only like 994 more to go, and college football still won't have a CBA.

There is no reason for the players to accept one, and no way to force them to like the NFL does with it's players (hold outs).

Go ahead and keep your head in the sand though and just speak the truths that you want to see exist.
Click to expand...
Is Grit still of the mindset that schools are following the revenue sharing and NIL "rules?"
That's precious if he believes that it's not a complete wild west free for all.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Have you considered a lot of players would be giving up more in NIL than they would get with more revenue sharing?

First, the current players have no way of knowing how much more TV revenue they would get with a new TV deal - so why would they give up their known millions in NIL for an unknown? Secondly, they won't even be in college football when a new TV deal comes about, so you're really asking them to give up 100% of NIL so that players in the future might get more rev sharing.

I think you're scenario is the nonsensical one.
Click to expand...
The problem with your argument is that the number of players getting bigtime $$$ from third-party NIL is actually relatively small, compared to the entire bloc of players who would get to vote on ratifying a new CBA.

Most of those players stand to gain more by voting yes, and so that's how it goes.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom