So the toothless NCAA...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

I doubt much will happen, but the NCAA is like an animal backed into a corner with it appearing they have no authority... it wouldn't surprise me at all if they give OM the max punishment they can. They've hit OM before too

I just hope it isn't a show cause bc Golding doesn't scare me at all

---

It won't be a show cause. Trust me. It won't be much of anything. Now, if Golding was to go 3-9 next year, they'd use this to fire him. With Cause.

If you really wanna stop it, you slap the school with a 1-year postseason ban and make the said player ineligible for one season

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve

Let me tell you what structure looks like. Collective Bargaining and a Player's Association. Which most people think would be great. Except it will eventually lead to what MLB is about to see. A strike. When you start dealing with CBAs and Players Associations then a strike is inevitable.

Did Ole Miss do something wrong? Yes. They contacted a kid after he had signed a FAA with another school. Should they be punished? Yes. They should be fined. Maybe 500K for the school and 250K for Golding. That's punitive enough. But let me tell you what happens if/when that occurs. Ole Miss is then going to do the same thing to 3 other schools. Then those schools are going to do the same thing to 5 or 6 other schools. And on and on it goes. It's just like the old days. We didn't turn OM in for recruiting violations because we were doing the same thing.

Because here's the thing, coaches and staffers are contacting these kids during the season. I know that for a fact because I know there were multiple coaches and staffers who contacted Issac Smith in 24 before and after the Florida game. He sat out that Texas game because of it. They said it was concussion protocol, which was convenient to hide behind, but we were having to renegotiate his deal. Now, most would say, why did we not turn those schools in? Because we were doing the same thing. Chad Bumphis was talking to Ayden Williams from October of 24 til he got in the portal. Lebby was talking to Brennen Thompson damn near the entire season. Everyone does it. Dabo is just mad they didn't get paid. If they would've signed a rev share agreement with the kid, they would have. Their inability to understand this new landscape in college football is to blame. Ole Miss just took advantage of it.

---

I know all of that but wide open free reign cannot work long term. I don't really WANT a CBA and contracts, that's a lot more expense than many think and the public university aspect is thrown in there as well. You still have a lot of presidents that are at best leery of going down that route. Many are adamant against it. It is a very complex and expensive problem. But it can't continue like it is. There will probably be differing models of where it will end up over the next decade. But things have to implode to get to structure, and I just don't see it not coming to that point. The sooner it implodes the better in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

If you really wanna stop it, you slap the school with a 1-year postseason ban and make the said player ineligible for one season

---

Then we'd be ineligible for the postseason and still wouldn't have gotten Markel Bell...........


I think the easiest thing is fine OM 500K, fine Golding 250K, and he's suspended for one game(probably Charlotte or Wofford). None of that will do anything to stop it but at least the NCAA gets to act like they did something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

If you really wanna stop it, you slap the school with a 1-year postseason ban and make the said player ineligible for one season

---

A postseason ban doesn't do much now, you see how many schools are opting out of playing in bowl games. Now a playoff ban would be punitive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

A postseason ban doesn't do much now, you see how many schools are opting out of playing in bowl games. Now a playoff ban would be punitive

---

Postseason ban makes you ineligible for bowl distribution money, right? It should if it doesn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve

Then we'd be ineligible for the postseason and still wouldn't have gotten Markel Bell...........


I think the easiest thing is fine OM 500K, fine Golding 250K, and he's suspended for one game(probably Charlotte or Wofford). None of that will do anything to stop it but at least the NCAA gets to act like they did something.

---

So be it. This sport is falling apart... it needs some rules to this mess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

I know all of that but wide open free reign cannot work long term. I don't really WANT a CBA and contracts, that's a lot more expense than many think and the public university aspect is thrown in there as well. You still have a lot of presidents that are at best leery of going down that route. Many are adamant against it. It is a very complex and expensive problem. But it can't continue like it is. There will probably be differing models of where it will end up over the next decade. But things have to implode to get to structure, and I just don't see it not coming to that point. The sooner it implodes the better in my opinion.

---

Here's the thing, paying players is not going away. I think that's what some people think is going to happen. I don't think you mean it but you used the term they often use, "implodes". I do agree it needs structure but I don't know that structure can really ever be provided in the college model. I mean at some point these Presidents are going to ask themselves, and most are probably already doing it, why are we continuing this fallacy that these kids are "student athletes"? They're not. They're athletes who are being paid. I don't know that there is a good way to fix this. Because at a certain point, we've devalued the student portion of this thing to the point of, "Why are they even going to class?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Postseason ban makes you ineligible for bowl distribution money, right? It should if it doesn't

---

No. Also, the postseason is peanuts compared to the ESPN money. They'll get a donor to cut them the bowl distribution check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Postseason ban makes you ineligible for bowl distribution money, right? It should if it doesn't

---

Pretty sure they don't get the bowl money split out but they still get the TV money, etc. someone can check me on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve

Here's the thing, paying players is not going away. I think that's what some people think is going to happen. I don't think you mean it but you used the term they often use, "implodes". I do agree it needs structure but I don't know that structure can really ever be provided in the college model. I mean at some point these Presidents are going to ask themselves, and most are probably already doing it, why are we continuing this fallacy that these kids are "student athletes"? They're not. They're athletes who are being paid. I don't know that there is a good way to fix this. Because at a certain point, we've devalued the student portion of this thing to the point of, "Why are they even going to class?"

---

Oh I never meant paying players is going away. That's here to stay. And I agree it is very complex with the university side being a large problem of how do you develop a pro like league with all of these different agendas and thoughts from the each conference much less the individual schools and presidents. Who do still have power in what takes place. I agree they will have to wake up at some point and decide these are employees, we are going to contract them for a period of time, they no longer get scholarships unless they make below a certain threshold of salary but can get employee tuition discount, we will have to cover medical, retirement, etc. but we will invest enough in the program to recoup that to generate more for the university. Then we have to get all the presidents and AD's to agree to the same language and terms which is a huge mountain. I've said it before, anything inside of a decade is probably the best we can do unless someone emerges with the leadership that gets everyone away from running their own agendas, won't happen. But several implosions along the way will help push it closer in my opinion. Very very complex issue. Then we will still have to go through all the Title IX implications and lawsuits, etc. being tied to federal funding. Messy all around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Oh I never meant paying players is going away. That's here to stay. And I agree it is very complex with the university side being a large problem of how do you develop a pro like league with all of these different agendas and thoughts from the each conference much less the individual schools and presidents. Who do still have power in what takes place. I agree they will have to wake up at some point and decide these are employees, we are going to contract them for a period of time, they no longer get scholarships unless they make below a certain threshold of salary but can get employee tuition discount, we will have to cover medical, retirement, etc. but we will invest enough in the program to recoup that to generate more for the university. Then we have to get all the presidents and AD's to agree to the same language and terms which is a huge mountain. I've said it before, anything inside of a decade is probably the best we can do unless someone emerges with the leadership that gets everyone away from running their own agendas, won't happen. But several implosions along the way will help push it closer in my opinion. Very very complex issue. Then we will still have to go through all the Title IX implications and lawsuits, etc. being tied to federal funding. Messy all around.

---

I agree. I think we'll be lucky to have any of this decided by 2036.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve

I agree. I think we'll be lucky to have any of this decided by 2036.

---

Well B10 TV contract ends 2030 and SEC's ends 2034. I do think that the networks will push to have at least an initial structure set or beginning to form with either the existing conferences or a new league before they extend a long term deal that might end up losing significant value before it expires. Or language that allows for it expire upon certain league changes to negotiate anew. I just don't think 2030 B10 contract is far enough away unless a significant issue pushes the timetable up. 2034 might be closer to having something in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extendedcab

It has nothing to do with winning but with keeping one’s integrity and self worth as a human! Just because some or maybe even the majority may act like lemmings and walk/run off the cliff doesn’t mean we should follow the path to destruction! I still think that one day, the non blue blood university sports teams will withdraw from the current alignment and form a new true college league and the blue bloods can continue to be the minors for the “pro” leagues.

The current NIL/TRANSFER arrangement is not sustainable.

---

I think this is closer than you think. But I also think programs like State will pay for membership into the upper group and continue to be the whipping boy for the elites. If you drop into the non-pay-for-play division, if you have any success, the elites will just come and buy your best players. For reference see current portal results from G6, FCS, DII, Ivy League, and even the Service Academies. So, State has to stay in the upper level on the chance that it will find that once in every 10 years 9 win season. We are STUCK!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve

Here's the thing, paying players is not going away. I think that's what some people think is going to happen. I don't think you mean it but you used the term they often use, "implodes". I do agree it needs structure but I don't know that structure can really ever be provided in the college model. I mean at some point these Presidents are going to ask themselves, and most are probably already doing it, why are we continuing this fallacy that these kids are "student athletes"? They're not. They're athletes who are being paid. I don't know that there is a good way to fix this. Because at a certain point, we've devalued the student portion of this thing to the point of, "Why are they even going to class?"

---

I doubt most even attend classes in person, have tutors in the Templeton Center, take online classes, choose questionable majors, or make limited progress toward a degree when at your 6th or so school in 4 years. My grad school son saw his first athlete on campus yesterday: MBB, for the 2025-2026 academic year.

What did the Warden say in Cool Hand Luke? "What we got here is a failure to communicate".lol