You have suggested an artificial rule to enforce limits on SAs to address changes that you fear might result in further imbalances in the sport.
It's no more "artificial" than the current scholarship limit of 85. That number used to be greater, and schools used that to their full advantage to recruit players they knew likely would never play.
So it's not hypothetical. It already happened.
The problem is that your proposed rule addresses those fears by limiting the rights of SAs
Again, I say this is not a valid argument.
It's like trying to argue that the existence of speed limits in turn limits the rights of people to purchase the type of car that they want to own. It does not, in any way.
The courts are rejecting the old paradigm where the NCAA and the schools unilaterally made rules in their own interests in favor of one that demands more equity for the SAs.
The courts are in no way in favor of complete and total deregulation "wild west" scenario.
There are still plenty of rules, which would be upheld in court if need be.
So, I disagree that courts upholding that players have the right to earn side money from NIL deals equals that roster limits will be struck down.
It could well be true that greater dispersion of talent would be best for the long-term vitality of the sport, but that's not the fight right now. Instead, it's the rights of the schools vs. the rights of the SAs.
Disagree with you trying to frame it this way.
It might happen, but it won't be because the NCAA encourages the SAs to unionize so that they can negotiate as a block.
It happening or not won't have anything to do with NCAA "encouragement". They sure as hell did not encourage the outcomes of the O'Bannon lawsuit.
It's only "wrong" if you assume that the key objective is to create parity in the sport. That might be best for overall fan interest, but it's not necessarily what's best for the individual SAs and it's not been a consideration that the courts have given much weight.
This here, to date at least, is an argument you win hands down. The powers that be in major college football, particularly the College Football Playoff, has shown zero desire in enhancing parity in the sport. And unless the players push for it, there probably won't be any movement in that direction. Schools such as Minnesota and Iowa State, will have to luck out with getting coaches that can bootstrap lower P5 programs like ours into a higher tier, for so long as they can hang onto those coaches before they're plucked away by the upper tier.
If I get to Texas and find that I am the fourth string QB, I now have the choice to stay and collect my NIL money and try to move up the depth chart or move on to pursue a better opportunity to play.
Nothing wrong with saying this. It simply is no more valid an argument that trying to argue that the NCAA should have been allowing 125 scholarship football players all this time. No different at all.
A rule that says that only a certain number of the SAs on the roster can avail themselves of the benefits related to their NIL certainly restrains the free market.
But see, that's
not what the rule would say, at all. Indeed, any player
on the roster would have full privilege and benefits under the NIL rights. Nothing about that would change.
It's each player's own business whether they make the roster, or not.
In a free market, they'd each be able to pursue whatever deals the market would bear.
Nothing would change here.
Your rule artificially limits that in a way that benefits some conception of the greater good, but not the impacted SAs.
It doesn't "artificially" limit anything.
IF you make the roster, you have full access to everything. There is no, and never should be, some kind of rule guaranteeing anyone who wants to automatically makes the roster.
Again, the NFL isn't an apt analogy because it's a system where there are collectively bargained rules and limits on contracts, player acquisition, player movement, etc.
This is true, and there's nothing I can do about that.
You are predicting that the NCAA will limit the rosters to 85 scholarship only players and end the practice of having walk-ons to supplement the rosters as a way to limit the potential unequal impacts of allowing NIL?
I'm not making that prediction. I don't know what will happen, and don't even have a good guess where it will go.
One could just as easily argue that the NIL rules end the practice of walk-ons, as we knew them, altogether??
What's the point of having extra spots for "walk-ons" when they get more money than a scholarship is worth, for shooting a promo video for a car wash? That's not a walk-on. That's a scholarship.
