• The KillerFrogs

Notre Dame president and AD in NYT op-ed and SI podcast on NIL: “college athletics is in crisis”


SI Ross Dellenger article about Jack Swarbrick‘s thoughts from the podcast—

The podcast—


Dan Wetzel, SI’s Pat Forde & SI’s Ross Dellenger are joined on this episode by Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick.

Jack Swarbrick has a new NIL proposal to deal with some of the issues that have taken place across the college sports landscape since NIL was introduced. His idea includes class-miss policies to keep athletes on campus more and tries to solve for NIL being used as an inducement. Jack also provides his thoughts on Notre Dame’s status among the conference expansion discussions along with the new bill proposed in California that would dictate revenue share to athletes. Lastly, Jack caps off his appearance with a highly sought after rendition of the People’s Court.

2:00 Jack has a new NIL proposal
8:25 The NCAA should propose a national class-miss policy
15:55 Is it possible to not have NIL as an inducement?
21:05 What is the problem with NIL being used as an inducement?
29:25 What happens if new legislation can’t be implemented for NIL?
37:30 The impact of having heightened NIL on campuses
41:25 What is Notre Dame’s role in expansion?
47:40 Jack’s feelings on the athlete revenue sharing bill proposal in California
1:00:05 The People’s Court

Jack Swarbrick: “The next big issue is can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us or does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception, and if they do, how does that influence shape the future of college athletics?”
 
Last edited:

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
Anything that assists ND in getting favorable treatment should get tossed. Join a conference and play on the same level field everyone else does. No conference, no NC eligibility. They already have too many anointed NCs when they didn’t go to bowls, sat back and watched other teams eliminate themselves, leaving ND as the default choice.
 

Limey Frog

Full Member
NIL is a train wreck.
I've written this already, but X percent of conference TV revenue should go into a fund for athletes, to be paid out in wages and scholarship expenses. They should be classified as work-study student employees and paid standard shares per on-field start, with a slightly lesser share for appearances as a substitute. Those shares should be pro-rated in value commensurate with the percentage of the contract that is paid out for their sport: in other words, the football players' share would be about 2000% larger than a volleyball player's share, because... well, you already know.
 

Eight

Member

SI podcast interviewed Notre Dame AD, Swarbrick

The podcast—


Dan Wetzel, SI’s Pat Forde & SI’s Ross Dellenger are joined on this episode by Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick.

Jack Swarbrick has a new NIL proposal to deal with some of the issues that have taken place across the college sports landscape since NIL was introduced. His idea includes class-miss policies to keep athletes on campus more and tries to solve for NIL being used as an inducement. Jack also provides his thoughts on Notre Dame’s status among the conference expansion discussions along with the new bill proposed in California that would dictate revenue share to athletes. Lastly, Jack caps off his appearance with a highly sought after rendition of the People’s Court.

2:00 Jack has a new NIL proposal
8:25 The NCAA should propose a national class-miss policy
15:55 Is it possible to not have NIL as an inducement?
21:05 What is the problem with NIL being used as an inducement?
29:25 What happens if new legislation can’t be implemented for NIL?
37:30 The impact of having heightened NIL on campuses
41:25 What is Notre Dame’s role in expansion?
47:40 Jack’s feelings on the athlete revenue sharing bill proposal in California
1:00:05 The People’s Court


there are no answers that involve the ncaa as they gave an opportunity to provide direction years ago and the thought they can play a role is continued head in the sand

screw notre dame's ROLE in expansion, they are just one piece in this puzzle and the only way college sports starts to regain some control is they act as a collective and not what is best for an individual school or even conference
 

LVH

Active Member
I've written this already, but X percent of conference TV revenue should go into a fund for athletes, to be paid out in wages and scholarship expenses. They should be classified as work-study student employees and paid standard shares per on-field start, with a slightly lesser share for appearances as a substitute. Those shares should be pro-rated in value commensurate with the percentage of the contract that is paid out for their sport: in other words, the football players' share would be about 2000% larger than a volleyball player's share, because... well, you already know.
Would never fly. You'll have politicians infront of cameras whining about how unfair it is.

Watching March Madness over the last week they are trying REALLY hard to make the Women's tournament seem important and on equal footing with the men's tournament, but no one is buying it
 

Limey Frog

Full Member
Would never fly. You'll have politicians infront of cameras whining about how unfair it is.

Watching March Madness over the last week they are trying REALLY hard to make the Women's tournament seem important and on equal footing with the men's tournament, but no one is buying it
Literally, no one is buying it.
 

Eight

Member
Would never fly. You'll have politicians infront of cameras whining about how unfair it is.

Watching March Madness over the last week they are trying REALLY hard to make the Women's tournament seem important and on equal footing with the men's tournament, but no one is buying it

curious what the ratings are so far for the women's tournament
 

TopFrog

Lifelong Frog
I've written this already, but X percent of conference TV revenue should go into a fund for athletes, to be paid out in wages and scholarship expenses. They should be classified as work-study student employees and paid standard shares per on-field start, with a slightly lesser share for appearances as a substitute. Those shares should be pro-rated in value commensurate with the percentage of the contract that is paid out for their sport: in other words, the football players' share would be about 2000% larger than a volleyball player's share, because... well, you already know.
I'm sure that is racist and gender discriminatory somehow.
 

Limey Frog

Full Member
I'm sure that is racist and gender discriminatory somehow.
Honestly, I've always wondered at how stadiums full of mostly white men who pay $100s per ticket to watch mostly black football players get injured without regular pay or employment rights per se doesn't draw more criticism on that count than it actually does. Long habituation, I suppose. If you stop and think about it, the optics are kind of ... antebellum.

As far as gender discrimination goes, I'm already on record on this point: I think reclassifying athletes as student employees should be done in a way that moves football and basketball out of Title IX jurisdiction if possible. I'm fine with off-setting the cost of paying the players who actually generate the revenue by cutting the sports that no one wants to watch or pay for. That's bad news for scholarship women's sports, but I think it's fair. If people want volleyball, they can pay for volleyball. [To paraphrase Patrick Henry] If this is discriminatory, make of it what you will.
 

Zubaz

Member
Honestly, I've always wondered at how stadiums full of mostly white men who pay $100s per ticket to watch mostly black football players get injured without regular pay or employment rights per se doesn't draw more criticism on that count than it actually does. Long habituation, I suppose. If you stop and think about it, the optics are kind of ... antebellum.
1) I think that's long been a topic of conversation, particularly in the context of paying the athletes.
2) It was way worse back in the day when Ole Miss was waving friggin' confederate flags and playing Dixie during the games. So....at least we've made a little progress?
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I am no fan of NIL, but not a shock that the folks squealing the loudest about it are the kings of the status quo, Alabama (Saban) and Notre Dame.
Said this many times but the very simple solution that would solve 90% of the problems with NIL is do away with the immediate eligibility and make transfers sit a year. Hardly anyone complained about it for oh, about 80 years, and it worked fine.

NIL would start working much more the way it was intended, as a way for players to make $ off their name, image and likeness.
 

Eight

Member
Honestly, I've always wondered at how stadiums full of mostly white men who pay $100s per ticket to watch mostly black football players get injured without regular pay or employment rights per se doesn't draw more criticism on that count than it actually does. Long habituation, I suppose. If you stop and think about it, the optics are kind of ... antebellum.

As far as gender discrimination goes, I'm already on record on this point: I think reclassifying athletes as student employees should be done in a way that moves football and basketball out of Title IX jurisdiction if possible. I'm fine with off-setting the cost of paying the players who actually generate the revenue by cutting the sports that no one wants to watch or pay for. That's bad news for scholarship women's sports, but I think it's fair. If people want volleyball, they can pay for volleyball. [To paraphrase Patrick Henry] If this is discriminatory, make of it what you will.

college sports didn't start that way and has evolved over time
 

Eight

Member
There is a women’s tournament?

My9naXBoeS5naWY.gif
 
Top