Steveo’s Salvos
Lebanon, TN – Believe it – revenue sharing qualifies as one of eight improvements offered in Fifty Years of Tailgate Tales: The Good, the Fun and the Ugly. In James Parks’s online article of March 12 on CFB-HQ Fan Nation, Nick Saban reiterates exactly what I proposed. That calls for an NCAA augmented revenue sharing system. Read “Nick Saban offers solution to NIL in college football to Congress.” After that, purchase your copy of Fifty Years of Tailgate Tales. Read about this and seven other proposals made to improve the game of college football. Many fans will lose interest in the game based on the direction the sport spiraling away from competitiveness. I present solutions to other issues negatively impacting college football in my second of two essays at the end of my life-long adventure entitled, “For the Love of the Game.”
Revenue-sharing: the first step
Nick Saban presented his revenue-sharing idea to Congress. In my book, under the subtitle “Revenue Sharing” in my final essay, emphasis highlighted, regretfully, the need for federal legislation. It points out that the Name Image and Likeness (NIL) policy abused by Collectives makes only rich programs richer. The policy creates a greater imbalance of competition within college football.
In a recent “Steveo’s Salvo,” here on our site, we suspect “sustainability” of the NIL policy could impact this great sport even more negatively. The NCAA seemed careless in controlling what it wished for. The follow-up question to this however is, “What did it wish for?” Seems like a few teams will really benefit while most others become “fodder” for the few elites.
More steps to be taken, or else.
In the end with the combined changes taking place, college fan interest will start to dwindle. Saban presented all the NIL issues adeptly to Congress. What Fifty Years also addressed includes other issues that also make college football less competitive. Other challenges remain ahead, and most likely, Nick Saban will not challenge them. Strength of schedule evaluation, scheduling manipulation, playoff formats, budget considerations, graduate school questions, and post-season participation prevent leveling the play on the football field. In addition, topics such as TV time-outs that minimize fan interest should be addressed. Without further review and solutions applied soon, the spirit of this great game may terminate the interest it stirs will be gone. Pay for play replaces what we savored as “the old college try.”
We unload a broadside of revenue-sharing to offset the unfair power of NILs.
Steve Koreivo, ed. Member of Football Writers Association of America