Lebanon, TN – Ok, so per the House vs. NCAA settlement, college athletes will now be compensated by the millions in revenues football programs rake in already, but not all equally. In my book, Fifty Tears of Tailgate Tales: The Good, the Fun and the Ugly, I predicted all this was coming. However, I offered parameters that still need to be put in place to maintain and improve a more equal level of competition among 134 (and growing) Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) programs. Realty is this can’t happen. It won’t despite what is referred to as “revenue sharing” in many articles including this article, “How historic House v. NCAA settlement will impact college athletics on and off the field for years to come” by Shehan Jeyarajah posted on cbssports.com on May 24, 2024, among others.
In NCAA football, a different context
To me, when I hear “revenue-sharing,” I think of the NFL model where all 32 teams divide and share equal amounts of revenues from media and merchandising sales, etc. It’s how a franchise in Green Bay, Wisconsin or Pittsburgh, PA can compete equally with mega market teams in New York and Las Angelas. They compete with comparable payrolls under league, agreed-to sanctions. House vs NCAA pertains to schools now sharing revenues directly with the college athletes. Understood and needed to a point, but “sharing” is not equal among 134 different football programs.
Talent disparity too wide among college athletes already
However, Ohio State’s latest operating income, as stated in Jeyarajah’s article at $280 million, competes for the College Football Playoff against the likes of UL Monroe with an annual budget of $19.4 million. The disparity varies significantly among all FBS teams in between. No doubt, the budgets determine the level of talent among college athletes attracted by these two schools. To put this in perspective, consider the top 134 rosters in all of professional baseball. That’s like the New York Yankees scheduling the Carolina Mudcats of the Single-A Carolina League during the regular season to play to get to the World Series!
If revenue sharing cannot be implemented among 134 football programs, how can all have the same crack at recruiting rosters of equivalent talent? This plan has to be developed even further. I spell it out in Fifty Years. How about starting with either a point system based on school budgets to determine strengths of schedules? Or how about limiting programs to play only schools within a budgetary, determined level of play. How about not scheduling teams not playing for the same desired championship? How about “picking on somebody your own size?”
More college football subdivisions make more sense
It seems to be going this way regarding the formation of Super conferences. However, if that be the case, compete for championships within each level. We already have the FBS and the FCS (Football Championship Subdivision) and D-2 and D-III. Once the Super Conference is determined, for the championship, they should only play equivalent competition for their College Football Playoff. Others not attaining Super conference status should compete amongst each other for a separate championship.
House vs NCAA is only a new beginning
This offers only a start. If schools can offer compensation to play for pay, there should be contractual agreements between the program and the player for all four years. At least one way to stop the transfer portal madness. Pundits talk about freedom now for the college athlete. What about his commitment to something other than himself? Like his team (this coach-player relationship irritates me to be honest). If they want “pay to play,” commit to stay! Another question, should there still be scholarships? Why should anybody with an annual salary get the benefit of a totally free education other students can’t attain? Is it still “college football?”
If “revenue sharing” is to be provided equally among programs, what happens to NIL revenues? I will surmise that this be done outside of direct involvement by the schools. Players can work directly with the agency that signs them, but not for play within a particular school. Long-term, I don’t think Name, Image and Likeness (NILs) revenues are sustainable any way. How many fans and alum will continuously throw money into their favorite football program if they don’t win a national championship? Each season, only one team can win it all. And if the players they attracted with donations transfer elsewhere, what’s the sense of donating? There has to be better returns on investment for people with disposable income elsewhere.
Collegefootballfan.com: focus all about 60 minutes competing on the playing field
There’s a lot that has to happen to make this great game more competitive so more teams can win a championship. I have my favorite teams at all levels of NCAA play. I enjoy watching college athletes competing against comparable competition. For my infatuation for all of college football, it’s the competition within each contest that makes this game so great. When I select games to attend, the goal is to see a good, competitive game played wire to wire. Blow-outs are wastes of time.
It may not always be the top-ranked teams in a struggle for conference championships or rankings like Ohio State vs. Penn State, or Oregon at Wisconsin, or the CFP Orange Bowl in my plans for this year. In 2003, I attended 0-6 UL Monroe against 0-6 UL Lafayette. Perfect! The Warhawks defeated the Ragin’ Cajuns, 45-42, in a game where neither team left anything on the field. As long as games exist from week to week to provide excitement like these, I will continue to enjoy this great lifetime experience. The efforts, the heart and the action on the field for 60 minutes (or more) are what college football should be all about.
Ed. by Steve Koreivo, member of Football Writers Association of America
