OU Football 2024 Season

[jedicurt]

again they would not work for the state ..

also rev share from the schools is starting this summer for all sports .. 20 mil cap 90% is going to football and mens basketball players (and that has court approval)

except if they unionize and are not employees of the state, then that program would lose out on the NCAA revenue sharing as it's currently written. as it must go to school athletic departments, and you are wanting football to leave OU

[Bill Robertson]

college football has never been more popular then it is now ..

Yes it is. But professionalizing of college football hasn't happened. I for one would not feel the same way about Sooner football if it was a pro team that just licensed the name. I'm sure I'm far from being alone.

[Bill Robertson]

again they would not work for the state ..

also rev share from the schools is starting this summer for all sports .. 20 mil cap 90% is going to football and mens basketball players (and that has court approval)

Being state employees or not has nothing to do with it. Playing football for a college would mean that Title IX rules must apply. So if football players unionize all the other players of everything else would have to also. Every sport must have equal access.

[Dob Hooligan]

^^^ Where there's a dollar there's a way.

[jedicurt]

^^^ Where there's a dollar there's a way.

i mean, that's a lot of congressmen you are going to have to grease, since it's going to take a change in federal law.

[Bill Robertson]

^^ And again. Are the people with enough $$$$ also the same people that think the system is broken. Georgia, Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, Notre Dame, A&M, etc. are doing pretty well under the current NIL system. Why would their uber-rich supporters fund changing things? Are there enough uber-rich people that want to see things change to pay to get it done?

[BoulderSooner]

Being state employees or not has nothing to do with it. Playing football for a college would mean that Title IX rules must apply. So if football players unionize all the other players of everything else would have to also. Every sport must have equal access.

lol no this is not correct ... .. they would be employees of a private company ... playing football for a private company ...

[BoulderSooner]

Yes it is. But professionalizing of college football hasn't happened. I for one would not feel the same way about Sooner football if it was a pro team that just licensed the name. I'm sure I'm far from being alone.

the pay roll for the top 20 programs was over 10 mil this year .. with rev share the payroll will be over 30 for the top 20 programs next season ..

they are already professional athletes

[BoulderSooner]

except if they unionize and are not employees of the state, then that program would lose out on the NCAA revenue sharing as it's currently written. as it must go to school athletic departments, and you are wanting football to leave OU

that is only for the ncaa basketball tourney the ncaa has 0 control of football money in any way

[BoulderSooner]

i mean, that's a lot of congressmen you are going to have to grease, since it's going to take a change in federal law.

which i would support ... but it is either that or a cba there is no middle ..

[Bill Robertson]

lol no this is not correct ... .. they would be employees of a private company ... playing football for a private company ...

Having the football teams separate from the schools and be separate entities is only one possibility. Them remaining as part of the schools is probably more likely.

[Bill Robertson]

the pay roll for the top 20 programs was over 10 mil this year .. with rev share the payroll will be over 30 for the top 20 programs next season ..

they are already professional athletes

As I understand it there isn't player payroll this year. The shared revenue starts next year. Assuming it's finally approved by the court. Which I believe it will.

[Bill Robertson]

that is only for the ncaa basketball tourney the ncaa has 0 control of football money in any way

I've studied settlement that will begin allowing schools to directly pay players. Almost every article has something, usually in the headline, saying "For the first time colleges will be able to pay players". So if it's not the NCAA keeping them from paying players until next year who has it been?

[Dob Hooligan]

I've studied settlement that will begin allowing schools to directly pay players. Almost every article has something, usually in the headline, saying "For the first time colleges will be able to pay players". So if it's not the NCAA keeping them from paying players until next year who has it been?

I think the conferences are playing nice with the NCAA, but the Power 4 and FCS have essentially taken the money and enforcement power away. I think the pending nature of the "House Settlement" has everyone in a holding pattern. But, it is expected to be finalized within the next year, IIRC.

[Bill Robertson]

I think the conferences are playing nice with the NCAA, but the Power 4 and FCS have essentially taken the money and enforcement power away. I think the pending nature of the "House Settlement" has everyone in a holding pattern. But, it is expected to be finalized within the next year, IIRC.

That makes perfect sense. The settlement is supposed to be ruled on early next year. Assuming no dragged out appeals it should be in effect immediately.

[Bill Robertson]

Another question. Would there be enough interest in this subject to have such intense discussion if OU had done well in recruiting and the portal, had tons of NIL money to throw at players, had gone 12-1 and had a first round bye in the playoffs?

[jedicurt]

which i would support ... but it is either that or a cba there is no middle ..

except both options you currently proposing, a cba just for football, or the privatization of a university asset related to sports, are not legally allowed. so it has to stay in the middle, unless laws change, and there is currently no push anywhere for those type of law changes, or they want to include all athletes for all sports. i get that this is what you think will happen, but for it to happen, we are talking about at least a decade long fight, if not longer to change all of the required laws currently on the books that protect student athletics at public institutions.

[BoulderSooner]

except both options you currently proposing, a cba just for football, or the privatization of a university asset related to sports, are not legally allowed. so it has to stay in the middle, unless laws change, and there is currently no push anywhere for those type of law changes, or they want to include all athletes for all sports. i get that this is what you think will happen, but for it to happen, we are talking about at least a decade long fight, if not longer to change all of the required laws currently on the books that protect student athletics at public institutions.

CBA just for football would 100% be allowed currently ..

and that is where we are heading and very quickly with out federal legislation ..

[jedicurt]

CBA just for football would 100% be allowed currently ..

and that is where we are heading and very quickly with out federal legislation ..

except it isn't... in 47 states, they could only have a CBA if they were employees of the university and if it included all athletes. the other three they would not have to be employees of the university, there is some confusion if it would have to include all athletes to avoid violating federal law.

again, you might that that is where it is heading, but it's really not. Oklahoma can't collectively bargain in non-state employees, and in oklahoma, to protect womens sports, all sports must be included in any long term financial planning.

the NLRB was able to recognize Dartmouth Men's basketball as employees who then unionized because they are a private university, but even then the school is appealing

USC football and mens and women's basketball might be now recognized as employees (but that is being appealed, but there is still a lot of questions in California law if they could actually unionize without giving up their scholarships.

Labor laws around the country are very specific about what and whom the state and state entities can collectively bargain with and who they can recognize as members of a union. The state of oklahoma has a very specific exception for law enforcement, but strongly limits any other collective bargaining by a state entity.

the talk that the College Football Players Association (CFBPA) could be the one to collectively bargain, but no state recognizes them as a union, and thus can not bargain with them.

now yes, you are correct in that CFBPA executive director Jason Stahl is trying to propose federal legislation that would grant college athletes the right to bargain without becoming employees, but not a single member of congress has picked up on the idea to propose it to committee yet.

the closest that any school has gotten to the idea of collective bargaining for college athletes has been Notre Dame (again a private university), but they even stated that the only way to do so without extensive legal battles is to treat all athletes, regardless of sport as equals.



can you show any example of where a CBA just for football would be allowed? because almost every legal scholar disagrees.

[BoulderSooner]

except it isn't... in 47 states, they could only have a CBA if they were employees of the university and if it included all athletes. the other three they would not have to be employees of the university, there is some confusion if it would have to include all athletes to avoid violating federal law.

again, you might that that is where it is heading, but it's really not. Oklahoma can't collectively bargain in non-state employees, and in oklahoma, to protect womens sports, all sports must be included in any long term financial planning.

the NLRB was able to recognize Dartmouth Men's basketball as employees who then unionized because they are a private university, but even then the school is appealing

USC football and mens and women's basketball might be now recognized as employees (but that is being appealed, but there is still a lot of questions in California law if they could actually unionize without giving up their scholarships.

Labor laws around the country are very specific about what and whom the state and state entities can collectively bargain with and who they can recognize as members of a union. The state of oklahoma has a very specific exception for law enforcement, but strongly limits any other collective bargaining by a state entity.

the talk that the College Football Players Association (CFBPA) could be the one to collectively bargain, but no state recognizes them as a union, and thus can not bargain with them.

now yes, you are correct in that CFBPA executive director Jason Stahl is trying to propose federal legislation that would grant college athletes the right to bargain without becoming employees, but not a single member of congress has picked up on the idea to propose it to committee yet.

the closest that any school has gotten to the idea of collective bargaining for college athletes has been Notre Dame (again a private university), but they even stated that the only way to do so without extensive legal battles is to treat all athletes, regardless of sport as equals.



can you show any example of where a CBA just for football would be allowed? because almost every legal scholar disagrees.

a private company can have a CBA with only football players .... that is what would happen .. and womens sports would not be employees of the same private company ..

football players becoming emploees is where this 100% is going .... ... and they will be the ones that get the money ...

look at the proposed rev share (that is in the settlement ..that has prelim approval) .... football players are going to get the huge majority of that money .. and mens basketball will get the next pot .. the rest of the sports are going to split the the remainder .. (about 17 of the 20 mil to football and mens basketball) .

[jedicurt]

a private company can have a CBA with only football players .... that is what would happen .. and womens sports would not be employees of the same private company ..

football players becoming emploees is where this 100% is going .... ... and they will be the ones that get the money ...

look at the proposed rev share (that is in the settlement ..that has prelim approval) .... football players are going to get the huge majority of that money .. and mens basketball will get the next pot .. the rest of the sports are going to split the the remainder .. (about 17 of the 20 mil to football and mens basketball) .

the OU foundation and all of those private donations go away at that point. there is no way this ever gets done, because it would kill so many football programs. and there would be conversations of if these now employees of a private company can even be on campus for classes. because they would absolutely lose their scholarships at that point. you are talking about just creating a new football league, but if these players don't need to attend college in order to play, and there is no ties to the university, then the NFL just gets rid of the 3 year rule, and kills the league completely. there is no way the NFL willingly competes with another league that isn't directly related to the NCAA and universities. that is the only reason they haven't eliminated the rule already is their close ties to the universities, and how it works to farm fans, by them following their favorite players in college to their new NFL teams.

can you show any evidence that this idea of a private company being created and taking on the athletes as employees is being discussed? because i can't find it anywhere except college football message boards.

[BDP]

there is no way title 9 would allow the state to only collectively bargain with just football... it would have to be all sports.

I think the idea is that football will separate from the Universities and literally be affiliated in name only through licensing.

It most likely will be devastating to other sports that may have to operate 100% off donated support.

One possible tangential effect is that it will negatively impact our competitiveness in the Olympics. University supported athletics is uncommon in the world and ubiquitous in the US, giving us one of the biggest talent pools in the world from which to attract Olympic athletes. It's also why a lot of international student athletes come to the US, so they can essentially train here while getting an education, and then go on to compete for their home country. But the US usually dominates the summer Olympics primarily because so many of those sports are highly competitive sports in colleges with resources and facilities mostly subsidized by football revenue.

[jedicurt]

I think the idea is that football will separate from the Universities and literally be affiliated in name only through licensing.
.

a) the universities wouldn't allow it, because they don't' want to lose the money
b) the NFL wouldn't allow it, so they would change their rules so that kids can just go straight from high school and kill this idea before it ever got started
c) there is no legal basis for it to happen

[BoulderSooner]

the OU foundation and all of those private donations go away at that point. there is no way this ever gets done, because it would kill so many football programs. and there would be conversations of if these now employees of a private company can even be on campus for classes. because they would absolutely lose their scholarships at that point. you are talking about just creating a new football league, but if these players don't need to attend college in order to play, and there is no ties to the university, then the NFL just gets rid of the 3 year rule, and kills the league completely. there is no way the NFL willingly competes with another league that isn't directly related to the NCAA and universities. that is the only reason they haven't eliminated the rule already is their close ties to the universities, and how it works to farm fans, by them following their favorite players in college to their new NFL teams.

can you show any evidence that this idea of a private company being created and taking on the athletes as employees is being discussed? because i can't find it anywhere except college football message boards.

lol no it wouldn't it would kill all the other sports Football pays for .. that is the point ... the NFL has no reason to want to get rid of the 3 year rule .. (and doesn't want to in any way ) the NFL LOVES having a feeder league that it DOESN'T pay for ..

[BDP]

a) the universities wouldn't allow it, because they don't' want to lose the money
b) the NFL wouldn't allow it, so they would change their rules so that kids can just go straight from high school and kill this idea before it ever got started
c) there is no legal basis for it to happen

a) The Universities would make the money via licensing their IP to the team
b) Why would the owners want to pay to develop players when the college system, the one now or any in the future, is willing to do it for them. Unless, I guess, they started their own farm system. If they did that, maybe they'd want to license some Universities' IP. lol
c) What basis is needed? It does sound like a pain, especially if you have to get a bunch the state laws changed, but that will just come down to if any organization wants to pay / invest enough to make it happen.

I'm not advocating for it or saying it's what will for sure be done, but it's not an impossibility.