On Tuesday the big story sweeping the sports world was the NCAA's unanimous vote to allow student-athletes to profit off the use of their name, image, and likeness.
It was a huge pivot and change of course for an organization headed by a man, Mark Emmert, that had so vehemently opposed such a move in the past.
The Cats Illustrated staff heads to that familiar table format for a discussion of what the decision could mean moving forward.
David Sisk: At first glance, I like the direction all of this is heading. I have always been for college athletes getting paid what they are worth if possible. Secondly, I think this is a good deal for Kentucky. Fans are passionate, and if there is a place where they will be compensated for their likeness, this is it. I don't know how the sausage will be made though. How far is the NCAA willing to go? Will there be restrictions? Can states and the Federal Government come together with uniform legislation? It is certainly a good start, but frankly I don't know if any of us know which trail this will go down or what it will look like when it is enacted.
Jeff Drummond: Like most college sports fans, I'm in that early stage of trying to learn more about NIL legislation and what it might mean for the future of the NCAA as we have known it. There's a lot of stuff flying around right now, and it's a bit overwhelming. As a general rule, I'm in favor of allowing student-athletes more freedom to take advantage of their name, image, and likeness. That is long overdue. The NCAA's often-draconian rules have prevented this for far too long. That being said, this will not likely be an easy transition. There are bound to be unintended consequences, and maybe even more headaches for student-athletes than they had before, especially when it comes to details like taxes. This may wind up being a "careful what you wish for" situation.
Justin Rowland: It's early enough that we still don't know how all of this is going to play out. Because of litigation and California's recent bill, the NCAA's hand was kind of forced. It's quite the embarrassment for the organization because of the red line it had drawn in the past and how it had framed the issue before things snowballed beyond its control, and as all institutions do, it granted concessions when its power was threatened in the bigger picture. My first instinct is this will make powerhouse programs even more powerful especially in college football and men's basketball. All other things being equal, it's easy to envision endless streams of revenue emerging for Kentucky basketball players and Alabama football players, in places where those most popular college athletes are held up on such a pedestal as some of the most important and revered public figures in the state. Mark Emmert has reportedly said he doesn't want this to make for less of a level playing field in regard to recruiting but it's hard to imagine that won't come into play somehow.
