“All we’re trying to do is make for competitive balance. It’s really unfortunate that I don’t know if competitive balance is going to come out of it.” You can be the benefactor of many things, but on some random day, the realization that you can benefit from such things is going to tick you off. Such is the case for Kirby Smart. On Tuesday, Smart dropped a bombshell regarding the House v. NCAA settlement. His main concern surrounds the current NIL model and the ambiguity of the proposed “fix” of the $20.5 million cap. Even if the settlement passes and schools get limited to the cap, will it change anything? Or is it just like applying a temporary Band-Aid on a deep flesh wound? Let’s just say Kirby Smart gets his desired “competitive balance.” What is the guarantee it won’t backfire?

“Now, when Kirby is talking about wanting competitive balance, that ain’t good for Kirby. That ain’t good for Georgia. Competitive balance means it’s a system where Mississippi State can have as good of a roster as you guys do. You don’t want that,” Andy Staples points out on On3.

Before creating fake scenarios, let’s understand this: The NIL system and the subsequent cap have their positives and negatives. The first thing that comes to our mind is something Nick Saban pointed out long ago. “Well, I’m not sure if the system is great for the development of players,” Saban explained. The system here is the $10+ million Michigan managed to throw to secure Bryce Underwood.

Even considering Georgia, the Carson Beck drama and the $4 million paycheck Miami coughed up is another good example. The summary is that the ability of some programs to just throw money and solve problems results in a landscape where players suddenly start playing only for the cash and not for the passion of the game.

That in itself is extremely dangerous. However, it is this exact system that separates your Michigan from your Vanderbilt. Without the buying power, will your school remain a Power Conference champ? This is the dilemma that Staples points out.

But let’s just assume the $20.5 million cap becomes successful. Will it change anything? Look beyond the Power 5, and you will find multiple schools that will fail to hit the cap in the first place. Plus are we also forgetting this new drama that the AAC started with its $10 million target? “Schools that fail to meet the $10 million minimum standard by the 2027-28 academic year will be subject to a “review” of their membership status within the league.”

The amount of ambiguity that this entire case brings up is headache-inducing. Like, even if Smart pushes for “competitive balance,” can it solve the current issue connected to tampering? Unless you’re some oracle, how will you figure out that one of your committed guys is having a good ol’ handshake over some secret Zoom call?

Kirby Smart’s “player shopping” fear

“There’s stuff going on right now, guys, in college football. There’s people reaching out to have a Zoom call and present all the players they represent that are on teams, including our teams.” In all honesty, Smart’s worry surrounding the supposed tampering isn’t far-fetched.

If anything, he is speaking from firsthand experience with Beck. Like a slice from the Wall Street pie, players are literally up for auction on Zoom calls. Forget calls – just look at the transfer portal itself. There was a time when players coming from the portal used to select schools based on renown or their love for the school.

Now? The highest bidder gets the top candidate. For Smart, this House settlement feels like a lamp that will bring out all the ugly insects of the business. You place a cap, and suddenly, some schools and recruitment teams find new ways to manipulate the said $20.5 million cap.

All in all, college football is now your Saturday evening poker game.