MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: MU82 on April 07, 2020, 09:12:35 AM
-
There's no real "accuracy" to dispute, as there are no rules to guide the methodology, but there's still some eye-opening stuff in here.
https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/how-much-is-nil-really-worth-to-student-athletes/
As college athletics continue to grapple with the implementation of a fair and balanced set of rules for student-athletes to monetize their Name, Image and Likeness (NIL), the question of just how much money they could generate has been the subject of much speculation. In a continued effort to provide intercollegiate leaders with key insights, AthleticDirectorU teamed up with Navigate Research – one of the most trusted sources of media, marketing, and sponsorship valuations in the industry – to determine how much student-athletes can make off their NIL in both group licensing and free-market scenarios.
It goes on to explain the methodology a little, and it includes a list of the athletes they say would have cashed in biggest this past year.
Cole Anthony would have been No. 1, with the ability to make nearly $500K, but the biggest surprise is how many women are on the list, even from less-visible sports.
For example, 5 gymnasts, 2 women's basketball players and a softball player all would have brought in more than the No. 3 men's basketball player on the list, Cassius Winston.
Northwestern volleyball athlete Alana Walker was No. 18 ... three spots (and $19K) ahead of Obi Toppin, the men's Naismith Award winner.
If nothing else, this list, and the amount of money on it, should spur the NCAA to get in front of this.
-
Superbar.
-
Well, Mike Gundy’s comments might be a rally cry for people who want to pay players, without him meaning. This is an example of why I think we shouldn’t view coaches as experts on these types of things.
https://twitter.com/kyle__boone/status/1247615583442677760?s=21
-
Well, Mike Gundy’s comments might be a rally cry for people who want to pay players, without him meaning. This is an example of why I think we shouldn’t view coaches as experts on these types of things.
https://twitter.com/kyle__boone/status/1247615583442677760?s=21
To be fair, in the audio he did add the conditional statement "if the medical people allow it."
But coaches like Gundy are REALLY good at one thing. And that's usually about it.
-
The REAL question is how much was NIV worth to MU?
-
For example, 5 gymnasts, 2 women's basketball players and a softball player all would have brought in more than the No. 3 men's basketball player on the list, Cassius Winston.
Northwestern volleyball athlete Alana Walker was No. 18 ... three spots (and $19K) ahead of Obi Toppin, the men's Naismith Award winner.
Makes perfect sense to me. Since Coach McGuire, how many of our players would have made big dollars from their image and likeness while they were at Marquette?
Butch Lee, maybe? Perhaps Glenn Rivers. Lee because his success came in the 1976 Olympics and in 1977 occurred during his junior year.
Nationally, I could see Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton at UCLA, maybe Michael Jordan and James Worthy at North Carolina, Pete Maravich at LSU, Bill Russell at USF and maybe a couple of Dukies. I'm sure I am missing a few here and there, but by and large, I can't imagine there are many college stars who can make massive amounts of money from their image and likeness. Especially since the very best turn pro after a year or two.
Also keep in mind that the images you see of athletes are carefully crafted. Their diction and appearance worked on for years by professionals and that costs an enormous amount of money -- something college athletes DON'T have. Too many college athletes are raw and their language skills not tilted toward a mass, adult audience.
The women do well in no small measure because they're appealing and attractive. Don't shoot me for saying so, but sex appeal sells!
-
Makes perfect sense to me. Since Coach McGuire, how many of our players would have made big dollars from their image and likeness while they were at Marquette?
Butch Lee, maybe? Perhaps Glenn Rivers. Lee because his success came in the 1976 Olympics and in 1977 occurred during his junior year.
Nationally, I could see Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton at UCLA, maybe Michael Jordan and James Worthy at North Carolina, Pete Maravich at LSU, Bill Russell at USF and maybe a couple of Dukies. I'm sure I am missing a few here and there, but by and large, I can't imagine there are many college stars who can make massive amounts of money from their image and likeness. Especially since the very best turn pro after a year or two.
Also keep in mind that the images you see of athletes are carefully crafted. Their diction and appearance worked on for years by professionals and that costs an enormous amount of money -- something college athletes DON'T have. Too many college athletes are raw and their language skills not tilted toward a mass, adult audience.
The women do well in no small measure because they're appealing and attractive. Don't shoot me for saying so, but sex appeal sells!
Some of the ladies on this list also have been or are Olympians.
But if Cole Anthony woulda been worth almost half a mil, what would Zion have been worth?
Well, Mike Gundy’s comments might be a rally cry for people who want to pay players, without him meaning. This is an example of why I think we shouldn’t view coaches as experts on these types of things.
https://twitter.com/kyle__boone/status/1247615583442677760?s=21
Not a good human being.
-
Makes perfect sense to me. Since Coach McGuire, how many of our players would have made big dollars from their image and likeness while they were at Marquette?
Butch Lee, maybe? Perhaps Glenn Rivers. Lee because his success came in the 1976 Olympics and in 1977 occurred during his junior year.
Nationally, I could see Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton at UCLA, maybe Michael Jordan and James Worthy at North Carolina, Pete Maravich at LSU, Bill Russell at USF and maybe a couple of Dukies. I'm sure I am missing a few here and there, but by and large, I can't imagine there are many college stars who can make massive amounts of money from their image and likeness. Especially since the very best turn pro after a year or two.
Also keep in mind that the images you see of athletes are carefully crafted. Their diction and appearance worked on for years by professionals and that costs an enormous amount of money -- something college athletes DON'T have. Too many college athletes are raw and their language skills not tilted toward a mass, adult audience.
The women do well in no small measure because they're appealing and attractive. Don't shoot me for saying so, but sex appeal sells!
I think you're probably right about much of this.
Regarding the underlined part, a few others who come to mind are Shaq, Ewing and Sampson. Not a long list, though.
-
I think you're probably right about much of this.
Regarding the underlined part, a few others who come to mind are Shaq, Ewing and Sampson. Not a long list, though.
You dont think there would be a bidding war by shoe companies for lottery picks?
-
You dont think there would be a bidding war by shoe companies for lottery picks?
You mean like Darko Milcic in 2003? ;)
Seriously, I think there might be a a little of that...but there are already scores of pro athletes available for the pickings, and IMHO shoe companies are only gonna want to pay big bucks to so many people. In the end, they may decide mostly to stick with the sure things - people who already are pro stars - and limit their investments in guys who may or may not be stars.
I think it's quite possible that only the clearly revolutionary prospects - LeBron, Zion, etc - get any real money. Otherwise, you'd have failed investments in guys like Milcic....
Edit:
A few other examples of HIGH lottery picks that have had so-so careers:
2010: Evan Turner #2 - 9.7 career ppg.
2011: Derrick Williams #2 - 8.9 career ppg.
2012: Michael Kidd-Gilchrist #2 - 8.5 career ppg.
2013: Anthony Bennett #1 - 4.4 career ppg.
And those guys were #1 or #2 picks.
-
Remember Kyle Macy taking care of thoroughbreds? The money won’t come from shoe companies but for a few. The “transgressions“ will be from wealthy fans.
-
There won't be "bidding wars" -- at least not at first, and not in the sense that we associate the term with, as in free-agent pro athletes. There will be rules in place to mitigate the effects of this ... if the NCAA is smart and proactive. (I have my doubts about the NCAA being either, though.)
-
if the NCAA is smart and proactive.
Thanks for the laugh!!
-
You mean like Darko Milcic in 2003? ;)
Seriously, I think there might be a a little of that...but there are already scores of pro athletes available for the pickings, and IMHO shoe companies are only gonna want to pay big bucks to so many people. In the end, they may decide mostly to stick with the sure things - people who already are pro stars - and limit their investments in guys who may or may not be stars.
I think it's quite possible that only the clearly revolutionary prospects - LeBron, Zion, etc - get any real money. Otherwise, you'd have failed investments in guys like Milcic....
Edit:
A few other examples of HIGH lottery picks that have had so-so careers:
2010: Evan Turner #2 - 9.7 career ppg.
2011: Derrick Williams #2 - 8.9 career ppg.
2012: Michael Kidd-Gilchrist #2 - 8.5 career ppg.
2013: Anthony Bennett #1 - 4.4 career ppg.
And those guys were #1 or #2 picks.
I am not talking in the millions of dollars, but maybe 100 K. Which is 100K more than they are getting now.
-
I am not talking in the millions of dollars, but maybe 100 K. Which is 100K more than they are getting now.
Teal?
-
Teal?
Nope. Talking about actual dollars, not the "cost of education".
-
Nope. Talking about actual dollars, not the "cost of education".
I suspect Galway asked about teal because many think it's naive to assume that many lottery picks aren't already getting a little help on the side...in the form of actual dollars, vehicles, etc....
-
I suspect Galway asked about teal because many think it's naive to assume that many lottery picks aren't already getting a little help on the side...in the form of actual dollars, vehicles, etc....
Oh, got it now. I can be a little slow on the uptake
-
I suspect Galway asked about teal because many think it's naive to assume that many lottery picks aren't already getting a little help on the side...in the form of actual dollars, vehicles, etc....
This
-
Thanks for the laugh!!
I feel the same way, hence the parenthetical reference following my comment.
-
Here is the real issue about the NIL for student athletes in basketball.
1) Most who stay for four years are unhearlded, except within a region or an alumni affinity. Take Markus Howard for example. Great young man, great ballplayer and someone whose stock rose throughout his four years at Marquette. Where do you think Markus' image and likeness -- at this time -- would work to sell something? Klement's Sausage maybe?
Seriously, other than in local advertisements, I don't see it.
2) How many folks can you name off 2019's NatChamp? Do you really think Karl Guy or Ty Jerome could generate huge value for their name, image or likeness?
3) This is more of a football thing and will make the rich richer. Tua, for example, at Alabama, or Joe Burrow at LSU. This could make Notre Dame relevant in football again, with the potential for their national media exposure.
-
Here is the real issue about the NIL for student athletes in basketball.
1) Most who stay for four years are unhearlded, except within a region or an alumni affinity. Take Markus Howard for example. Great young man, great ballplayer and someone whose stock rose throughout his four years at Marquette. Where do you think Markus' image and likeness -- at this time -- would work to sell something? Klement's Sausage maybe?
Seriously, other than in local advertisements, I don't see it.
2) How many folks can you name off 2019's NatChamp? Do you really think Karl Guy or Ty Jerome could generate huge value for their name, image or likeness?
3) This is more of a football thing and will make the rich richer. Tua, for example, at Alabama, or Joe Burrow at LSU. This could make Notre Dame relevant in football again, with the potential for their national media exposure.
Maybe, dg, but that list sure included a lot of athletes who didn't play football or basketball, and most of them were women.
-
Looks like NIL is a #donedeal.
https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-governors-moves-toward-allowing-student-athlete-compensation-endorsements-and-promotions
-
Looks like NIL is a #donedeal.
https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-governors-moves-toward-allowing-student-athlete-compensation-endorsements-and-promotions
I was told the courts decided this?
-
I was told the courts decided this?
Remember when the NCAA threatened to ban schools from states that allowed this?
It took them all of seven months to go from "this will destroy college athletics" to "sounds good to me."
-
Remember when the NCAA threatened to ban schools from states that allowed this?
It took them all of seven months to go from "this will destroy college athletics" to "sounds good to me."
And how about this spin from the NCAA.
Dan Wolken
@DanWolken
Mark Emmert with an all-timer: "Our efforts over the years to improve the student-athlete experience have often been met with increased litigation and challenges that significantly limit the NCAA's ability to address those needs and opportunities."
"Yeah we would have done this sooner had y'all not sued us." Unreal.
-
Remember when the NCAA threatened to ban schools from states that allowed this?
It took them all of seven months to go from "this will destroy college athletics" to "sounds good to me."
Athletes have all the leverage. They need to use it
-
Bumping to include results of latest Axios report:
If athletes had full control of their NIL rights, the top women's basketball players in this year's Elite Eight would have greater earning power than the top men.
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sports-7edd9e63-8ebf-45cd-ae68-933f422ae1b1.html
Among the men's and women's Elite Eight teams, eight of the 10 most-followed players — and 10 of the top 20 — are women.
-
Bumping to include results of latest Axios report:
If athletes had full control of their NIL rights, the top women's basketball players in this year's Elite Eight would have greater earning power than the top men.
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sports-7edd9e63-8ebf-45cd-ae68-933f422ae1b1.html
Among the men's and women's Elite Eight teams, eight of the 10 most-followed players — and 10 of the top 20 — are women.
Huh, how about that?
-
Bumping to include results of latest Axios report:
If athletes had full control of their NIL rights, the top women's basketball players in this year's Elite Eight would have greater earning power than the top men.
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sports-7edd9e63-8ebf-45cd-ae68-933f422ae1b1.html
Among the men's and women's Elite Eight teams, eight of the 10 most-followed players — and 10 of the top 20 — are women.
I think there is some fuzzy math there. I think it’s an interesting discussion and shows that NLI wouldn’t “hurt” women athletes like some have argued. But this is hardly the best metric. Arguing that someone like Macio Teague or Isiah Livers would make less in potential revenue than the literal last player off the bench for Baylor’s women’s team, or Nunez from Michigan, purely off of IG followers is a bit silly.
-
I think there is some fuzzy math there. I think it’s an interesting discussion and shows that NLI wouldn’t “hurt” women athletes like some have argued. But this is hardly the best metric. Arguing that someone like Macio Teague or Isiah Livers would make less in potential revenue than the literal last player off the bench for Baylor’s women’s team, or Nunez from Michigan, purely off of IG followers is a bit silly.
Yeah, there's a lot of theoretical mumbo-jumbo going on, but I have no doubt that many female athletes would benefit from being able to use their NIL (while remaining eligible to compete in college) to make money as "influencers." There was another report last year hypothesizing that women gymnasts, volleyball players and others would be among the top NIL earners.
-
Yeah, there's a lot of theoretical mumbo-jumbo going on, but I have no doubt that many female athletes would benefit from being able to use their NIL (while remaining eligible to compete in college) to make money as "influencers." There was another report last year hypothesizing that women gymnasts, volleyball players and others would be among the top NIL earners.
For what it's worth I 100% can see Gymnasts be the biggest recipients... never underestimate the amount of creepy people on the internet that'll surplus people actual interested in the sport.
That being said, I think that once these players can start making virtual "train like DJ Carton" workouts or dunk videos, etc. then you'll see a much more accurate picture.
-
Supreme Court to hear arguments today.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/ncaa-college-athlete-compensation-case-comes-before-the-supreme-court.html?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20210331&instance_id=28678&nl=dealbook®i_id=108420427&segment_id=54563&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
The Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear arguments from the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a case over whether the organization can cap education-related benefits paid to college athletes.
The case comes amid a broader debate over compensation for student athletes and in the middle of the NCAA’s March Madness basketball tournament, which will hold its women’s and men’s championship games on Sunday and Monday. Some athletes playing in the games have sought to pressure the organization over its compensation policies, using the hashtag #NotNCAAProperty.
The NCAA has fought to protect the “amateur” quality of its games for years, though it has gradually allowed larger payments to some athletes, including full cost of attendance scholarships since 2015. The NCAA is in the process of reforming its policies to allow athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, though the effort was delayed earlier this year amid Justice Department scrutiny.
The case is the first one related to the NCAA to make it to the country’s highest court since the 1984 case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in which the justices struck down the organization’s plan for televising football games.
-
Supreme Court to hear arguments today.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/ncaa-college-athlete-compensation-case-comes-before-the-supreme-court.html?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20210331&instance_id=28678&nl=dealbook®i_id=108420427&segment_id=54563&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
The Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear arguments from the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a case over whether the organization can cap education-related benefits paid to college athletes.
The case comes amid a broader debate over compensation for student athletes and in the middle of the NCAA’s March Madness basketball tournament, which will hold its women’s and men’s championship games on Sunday and Monday. Some athletes playing in the games have sought to pressure the organization over its compensation policies, using the hashtag #NotNCAAProperty.
The NCAA has fought to protect the “amateur” quality of its games for years, though it has gradually allowed larger payments to some athletes, including full cost of attendance scholarships since 2015. The NCAA is in the process of reforming its policies to allow athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, though the effort was delayed earlier this year amid Justice Department scrutiny.
The case is the first one related to the NCAA to make it to the country’s highest court since the 1984 case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in which the justices struck down the organization’s plan for televising football games.
The case is being styled as an Anti Trust type issue. The NCAA will lose and amateurism will go by the way side. Schools will be able to pay players and Players will be able to generate revenues off their likeness and off campus services. It will be an open market and many different payment mechanisms will evolve.
-
The case is being styled as an Anti Trust type issue. The NCAA will lose and amateurism will go by the way side. Schools will be able to pay players and Players will be able to generate revenues off their likeness and off campus services. It will be an open market and many different payment mechanisms will evolve.
We'll see. Capitalists and those who value freedom -- like you and me -- should be all for that.
-
Four states -- Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and New Mexico -- already have NIL laws in place that take effect as early as July 1. And according to Iowa's Jordan Bohannon, NCAA president Mark Emmert told a group of basketball players last week that there was nothing the NCAA could do to stop those state's laws from taking effect. The same will be the case in states were new laws get passed in the coming months.
“He said he wouldn’t punish them,” Bohannon said. “I countered and asked what about the states that don’t have name, image and likeness? He really didn’t give much detail with that response. He said that he hoped something happened with Congress or the NCAA before that happens.”
But nothing has happened. Emmert and the NCAA has kept delaying, delaying, delaying, tying things up in courts and endless nonsense, and now apparently they are powerless. They are paralyzed by a major Supreme Court lawsuit that could determine the extent of their powers. Early questioning by justices suggested that they are not sympathetic to the NCAA.
Arkansas, last Wednesday, became the 11th state to pass some kind of law allowing college athletes to cash in on their NIL rights. Georgia has a July 1 bill awaiting the governor’s signature. South Carolina is rushing an NIL bill through, with the full support of Clemson and USC. California, the first state to pass an NIL bill, may move up its effective date from 2023.
With no national laws and/or NCAA rules imminent, the states that have passed NIL laws figure to have a major recruiting advantage.
What a shyte show. Another outstanding production by the NCAA.
Let's go, Wisconsin. Get something passed.
-
I would guess as soon as UW loses a football recruit to an NIL state, we will see some movement into Wisconsin.
-
NCAA could have gotten in front of this, could have worked with universities and key lawmakers to enact a national policy.
Instead, they chose to fight a battle they had zero chance of winning.
-
The things I think people tend to forget in this argument are the dependency of the athletes value on the existing college sports structure and the dependency of non-revenue sports on football and men’s basketball.
While the debate is about NIL, the fabric of college sports, as imperfect as it can be is delicately intertwined based on concepts of amateurism and play in exchange for education.
If we suddenly take this and make it effectively a pay for value model whether based on NIL or compensating players for the value they provide in terms of revenue earned the house of cards collapses.
The two things that happen will first be the virtually unlimited influence that shoe companies, boosters, agents and other invested interests will have on athletes. That will super charge the corruption on a currently imperfect but managed system. When suddenly there is no ability to control or regulate there stops being any concept of an education for play model and the need for colleges goes away as it is just another flavor of pro sports.
The other aspect, less the NIL and more the paying of players, is the funding of non-revenue sports by football and men’s basketball. When the same pot of money is pushed more to those who generate it, the funding for the other scholarships and other sports is no longer there. Title IX while wonderful from an equity and fairness lens is predicated on the availability of scholarship $s. When the men’s sports are no longer viable the others will fall as well.
This isn’t an argument for the purity of current college sports but the truly bad apples and real corruption is the 20 to the 80 so it is still by and large positive. When the restrictions on payments and involvement of external parties is relaxed with either NIL or compensating players the dominos and overall system will ultimately fall.
-
NCAA has figured out how to manage athlete employment. I trust they will figure out how to manage NIL
-
There won't be "bidding wars" -- at least not at first, and not in the sense that we associate the term with, as in free-agent pro athletes. There will be rules in place to mitigate the effects of this ... if the NCAA is smart and proactive. (I have my doubts about the NCAA being either, though.)
Bidding wars are already happening, before NIL is even in permissible. Schools are making promises in the recruiting process and kids are buying it.
Ideally the bill that goes into effect is the House bill sponsored by Rep. Gonzalez. The Senate Bill (Booker/Blumenthal) would be a disaster.
-
NCAA has figured out how to manage athlete employment. I trust they will figure out how to manage NIL
[/quote
I think title 9 will eventually have to go away. We’re all rooting for a professional model, right? This is an eventual consequence of this new thinking. Men’s professional sports don’t have to pay for their women counterparts or other non revenue men’s sports and neither should men’s college (professional) sports. Only the men’s basketball and football teams at most schools will have enough self generating revenue to survive.
The rest (non revenue men’s and women’s sports) should be club. Let’s just tear down the entire current structure.
-
NIL will have no impact on Title IX
-
The players who make a significant amount for NIL are typically at the largest, most successful programs. Those who would pay athletes for their NIL would incentivize athletes to go to certain programs over others. If athletes want to maximize their NIL returns they would not allow themselves to be restricted from going to these institutions. When suddenly all of the best/most valuable athletes only go to the top programs, even more than today the playing field becomes even more tilted than today when an education at a good school, good coaching, etc. are equalizing factors. Money tips those scales. When suddenly the revenue factor only exists at selected institutions the money is no longer there at the others and scholarship funding goes away as well.
Those that survive are just glorified semi-pro so why keep up the facade of “college” sports at that point.
The same arguments for NIL exist for providing athletes a greater share of revenue, i.e., paying players which leaves a smaller pot for everyone else.
Capitalism in terms of NIL is very “fair” and likely the most supportable legal argument but taken to its likely logical end will undoubtedly result in the collapse of college sports as we know them. Not right away but eventually. We’d all be better served to stand in support of a truer education for play model and structure it more like baseball where you either skip college altogether or at least have to stay in school for three years and get most of your education completed before going pro. Effectively a contractual arrangement into which both parties go in with eyes open. The value the institutions get from athletes allows those individuals and many others to get educations. If they don’t like it go pro and the value is yours. What we’d find is most won’t be as valuable as as individual contributors relying solely on their talent as they thought without the benefit of the institutional structure created by college basketball. A select few will be more ready, turn out to be stars and reap the benefits. Don’t accelerate the collapse for those few.
-
Bidding wars are already happening, before NIL is even in permissible. Schools are making promises in the recruiting process and kids are buying it.
As I said in the post you quoted: If the NCAA is smart and proactive. (I have my doubts about the NCAA being either, though.)
The players who make a significant amount for NIL are typically at the largest, most successful programs.
Well, since nobody has made anything from NIL yet, not sure how you can know this.
Several studies already have been done, and you might be surprised that athletes who are expected to do best under an NIL-compensation model will include volleyball players, gymnasts, swimmers and women's basketball players.
-
Hmm, that’s an interesting point with the non-revenue sports athletes as effectively they achieve their fame and consequently their NIL value via competition outside the context of collegiate athletics, is in an individual sport and the argument for denying them the value of those efforts is substantially weakened. From a legal perspective it might be hard to differentiate between those athletes and the stats of college football or basketball. Clearly allowing a star swimmer, gymnast or volleyball who achieves notoriety in the Olympics with his/her own resources to not profit from that while continuing to compete in college when the college contributes little to those athletes’ fame or value. In the end if legally these can’t be differentiated so be it. I still believe that the structure and resources of college basketball give as much to the athletes in terms of fame as their own talent outside of a select few. Much less of a pure legal argument than one that this seems to be something that will have consequences where our honest selves will look back and see this at its eventual end and wish we could have only focused more on the educational value and kept the professionals in pro sports.
-
As I said in the post you quoted: If the NCAA is smart and proactive. (I have my doubts about the NCAA being either, though.)
Well, since nobody has made anything from NIL yet, not sure how you can know this.
Several studies already have been done, and you might be surprised that athletes who are expected to do best under an NIL-compensation model will include volleyball players, gymnasts, swimmers and women's basketball players.
The NCAA tried with their legislation that was to have been passes In January. Instead, the Federal Government told them to table it.
I did write the testimony to help get my state’s NIL bill tabled though.
-
The players who make a significant amount for NIL are typically at the largest, most successful programs.
Because now the top players go all sorts of places right?
Sorry, but this isn't that hard. Letting them earn off their likeness, at no direct cost to the school, is a no-brainer that a decade from now no one will figure out what the big deal was. Just like amateurism at the Olympics.
-
Hmm, that’s an interesting point with the non-revenue sports athletes as effectively they achieve their fame and consequently their NIL value via competition outside the context of collegiate athletics, is in an individual sport and the argument for denying them the value of those efforts is substantially weakened. From a legal perspective it might be hard to differentiate between those athletes and the stats of college football or basketball. Clearly allowing a star swimmer, gymnast or volleyball who achieves notoriety in the Olympics with his/her own resources to not profit from that while continuing to compete in college when the college contributes little to those athletes’ fame or value. In the end if legally these can’t be differentiated so be it. I still believe that the structure and resources of college basketball give as much to the athletes in terms of fame as their own talent outside of a select few. Much less of a pure legal argument than one that this seems to be something that will have consequences where our honest selves will look back and see this at its eventual end and wish we could have only focused more on the educational value and kept the professionals in pro sports.
It’s easy for us old-timers to tell college athletes what we think they should value.
It’s just another change. College sports have survived a zillion of them. In our lifetimes, there were college sports programs that didn’t let Blacks participate. Woman couldn’t participate in scholarship sports, either. Each time change occurred, it was gonna be “the eventual end” in someone’s eyes.
-
I would guess as soon as UW loses a football recruit to an NIL state, we will see some movement into Wisconsin.
I would imagine with Emperor Barry moving on, this will have some more legs. He was pretty emphatically against it.
My biggest hope and excitement with all of this is a return of a CBB game for PS/XBOX
-
I would imagine with Emperor Barry moving on, this will have some more legs. He was pretty emphatically against it.
My biggest hope and excitement with all of this is a return of a CBB game for PS/XBOX
The current makeup of Wisconsin state government leads me to believe Wisconsin will be one of the last states to move toward some type of NIL legislation.
-
Because now the top players go all sorts of places right?
Sorry, but this isn't that hard. Letting them earn off their likeness, at no direct cost to the school, is a no-brainer that a decade from now no one will figure out what the big deal was. Just like amateurism at the Olympics.
One of the biggest issues is whether the schools can be involved. Under some proposed legislation schools would have to hire whole departments to market student athletes. I was on a Zoom seminar recently where we were told that having a staff to do the NIL work for SA’s is more important than having academic advisors. It’s not eligibility or getting a degree, it’s making them Tik Tok celebrities now.
-
One of the biggest issues is whether the schools can be involved. Under some proposed legislation schools would have to hire whole departments to market student athletes. I was on a Zoom seminar recently where we were told that having a staff to do the NIL work for SA’s is more important than having academic advisors. It’s not eligibility or getting a degree, it’s making them Tik Tok celebrities now.
Keefe would’ve been Theo’s first subscriber on OnlyFans if allowed.
-
This is just another step in the eventual end of college sports (bball, football) as we have known it. Its a good thing. Top athletes can be paid and i forsee non-scholorship students playing for their schools. I'll always follow MU hoops. Not sure I'll care about minor league basketball but I'm happy they get paid. Also, Michigan State moving on from it's association with basketball, something I predicted years ago, is more significant than NLI,
-
One of the biggest issues is whether the schools can be involved. Under some proposed legislation schools would have to hire whole departments to market student athletes. I was on a Zoom seminar recently where we were told that having a staff to do the NIL work for SA’s is more important than having academic advisors. It’s not eligibility or getting a degree, it’s making them Tik Tok celebrities now.
I have no idea why the schools would need to be involved.
-
Michigan State moving on from it's association with basketball, something I predicted years ago, is more significant than NLI,
Huh?
-
When those who value the NIL of college athletes are provided the opportunity to compensate them (directly or indirectly) they will want to maximize that value. Any who think that doesn’t mean an inability to retain competitively balanced college sports and a play for education model are kidding yourselves. This who don’t care are oddly present on a college basketball message board. It may be entirely lawful and just but who will care when there is no more college sports left to enjoy. The simple answer is a system where the best players go pro and those who wish to be a part of the education for play model sign a contract understanding the expectations that come with it. Anything different inevitably becomes semi-pro in one form or another and will collapse the delicate system or college athletics which would personally sadden me even if the athletes have a right to their NIL. If the system of college sports is eventually gone who really cares and who really wins?
-
There will be college sports.
-
This is just another step in the eventual end of college sports (bball, football) as we have known it. Its a good thing. Top athletes can be paid and i forsee non-scholorship students playing for their schools. I'll always follow MU hoops. Not sure I'll care about minor league basketball but I'm happy they get paid. Also, Michigan State moving on from it's association with basketball, something I predicted years ago, is more significant than NLI,
No, they just took eight figures from a billionaire alumnus so his company would be the “presenting sponsor” of basketball. It’s a massive advertisement buy, that’s all.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/03/15/michigan-state-men’s-basketball-will-be-‘presented-rocket-mortgage’
-
No, they just took eight figures from a billionaire alumnus so his company would be the “presenting sponsor” of basketball. It’s a massive advertisement buy, that’s all.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/03/15/michigan-state-men’s-basketball-will-be-‘presented-rocket-mortgage’
How long before Quicken Loans is paying Izzo and the players directly? I say less than 10 years. Then the IRS will get their share. The die is cast my friends.
-
NIL doesn't address the root of the problem. They players are at their most valuable when they're being recruited out of high school. The issue is the NCAA member institutions have effectively colluded together to cap the compensation they will give a player.
-
When those who value the NIL of college athletes are provided the opportunity to compensate them (directly or indirectly) they will want to maximize that value. Any who think that doesn’t mean an inability to retain competitively balanced college sports and a play for education model are kidding yourselves. This who don’t care are oddly present on a college basketball message board. It may be entirely lawful and just but who will care when there is no more college sports left to enjoy. The simple answer is a system where the best players go pro and those who wish to be a part of the education for play model sign a contract understanding the expectations that come with it. Anything different inevitably becomes semi-pro in one form or another and will collapse the delicate system or college athletics which would personally sadden me even if the athletes have a right to their NIL. If the system of college sports is eventually gone who really cares and who really wins?
Regarding the bolded...it isn't competitively balanced now. Different schools get different $$$ based on conference affiliation, etc. And those schools can provide more perks, etc.
Furthermore, I actually reject your premise. A school that champions an aggressive NIL program can actually use it to their advantage.
And finally, doomsday projections almost always look foolish in the long run. So I don't believe the situation is nearly as dire as you are projecting.
-
And finally, doomsday projections almost always look foolish in the long run. So I don't believe the situation is nearly as dire as you are projecting.
This, this, and more this.
-
How long before Quicken Loans is paying Izzo and the players directly? I say less than 10 years. Then the IRS will get their share. The die is cast my friends.
There is legit speculation that the deal was done to set MSU hoops up for NIL.
What situation MSU is in. Two billionaire alumni who hate each other fighting for control of the athletic department. Oh, the humanity!
-
Makes perfect sense to me. Since Coach McGuire, how many of our players would have made big dollars from their image and likeness while they were at Marquette?
Butch Lee, maybe? Perhaps Glenn Rivers. Lee because his success came in the 1976 Olympics and in 1977 occurred during his junior year.
Nationally, I could see Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton at UCLA, maybe Michael Jordan and James Worthy at North Carolina, Pete Maravich at LSU, Bill Russell at USF and maybe a couple of Dukies. I'm sure I am missing a few here and there, but by and large, I can't imagine there are many college stars who can make massive amounts of money from their image and likeness. Especially since the very best turn pro after a year or two.
Also keep in mind that the images you see of athletes are carefully crafted. Their diction and appearance worked on for years by professionals and that costs an enormous amount of money -- something college athletes DON'T have. Too many college athletes are raw and their language skills not tilted toward a mass, adult audience.
The women do well in no small measure because they're appealing and attractive. Don't shoot me for saying so, but sex appeal sells!
It doesn't matter how big or small the name is. A donor now can effectively be a shell company and pay whatever they want to get the person they want on "Their" team, in the form of an endorsement.
Hopefully, we see a long line of MU Recruits saying "One Call, That's All" on TV. David Gruber is going to give the MU team a lot of exposure.
-
It doesn't matter how big or small the name is. A donor now can effectively be a shell company and pay whatever they want to get the person they want on "Their" team, in the form of an endorsement.
Once there actually is a national rule, you don't expect there to be limits?
Maybe there won't be. Good for the athletes.
There will be an adjustment period, just as there always is whenever there is a significant rule change (be they on the court/field/ice or off). And then the new normal will have ended up being just fine.
-
Once there actually is a national rule, you don't expect there to be limits?
Maybe there won't be. Good for the athletes.
There will be an adjustment period, just as there always is whenever there is a significant rule change (be they on the court/field/ice or off). And then the new normal will have ended up being just fine.
National Rule? Last I heard, maybe a year ago, it was being taken up in around 22 state legislatures. It's a state issue. All it does is bring the under the table money to the forefront in greater sums now. There's now a private system available to pay college athletes. That money will now flow through as endorsements in many shapes and forms. Anyone on here could effectively pay a college athlete to come to MU via endorsement. Now, the interesting thing will be what kind of strings will be attached to that money ie - Number of years played, no transferring, stay out of trouble, etc.
-
Who are we gonna pay to endorse MUScoop?
-
It doesn't matter how big or small the name is. A donor now can effectively be a shell company and pay whatever they want to get the person they want on "Their" team, in the form of an endorsement.
People said the same thing when the NCAA decided to allow athletes to get summer jobs. "A donor can effectively be a shell company and pay whatever they want to get the person they want on "Their" team, in the form of a summer internship. Somehow, the NCAA has found a way to successfully regulate it. I think they will find a way to regulate endorsements.
-
National Rule? Last I heard, maybe a year ago, it was being taken up in around 22 state legislatures. It's a state issue. All it does is bring the under the table money to the forefront in greater sums now. There's now a private system available to pay college athletes. That money will now flow through as endorsements in many shapes and forms. Anyone on here could effectively pay a college athlete to come to MU via endorsement. Now, the interesting thing will be what kind of strings will be attached to that money ie - Number of years played, no transferring, stay out of trouble, etc.
I know this is asking a lot of any Scooper, but let's relax a little until we see what actually happens.
Crazy thought, to be sure.
-
Who are we gonna pay to endorse MUScoop?
Inspire Brands
The parent company of Arby's of course
-
Inspire Brands
The parent company of Arby's of course
Hah. But I meant which player would like to be paid in Arby's coupons, to represent MUScoop of course.
-
Hah. But I meant which player would like to be paid in Arby's coupons, to represent MUScoop of course.
Davante Gardner
-
Davante Gardner
He gowne!
-
Classic NCAA.
N.C.A.A. Chief, Pressured by State Laws, Pushes to Let Athletes Cash In
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/sports/ncaabasketball/ncaa-endorsements-mark-emmert.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20210508&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline®i_id=108420427&segment_id=57597&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
Five states are poised to allow college athletes to profit from their fame starting on July 1, and the N.C.A.A.’s leader says the association is preparing to respond.
In other words, we no longer can choose to keep these athletes under our thumbs as they make billions and billions of dollars a year for us while receiving relative peanuts in return, so we're finally ready to do what legislatures and courts will force us to do anyway.
-
Classic NCAA.
N.C.A.A. Chief, Pressured by State Laws, Pushes to Let Athletes Cash In
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/sports/ncaabasketball/ncaa-endorsements-mark-emmert.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20210508&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline®i_id=108420427&segment_id=57597&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
Five states are poised to allow college athletes to profit from their fame starting on July 1, and the N.C.A.A.’s leader says the association is preparing to respond.
In other words, we no longer can choose to keep these athletes under our thumbs as they make billions and billions of dollars a year for us while receiving relative peanuts in return, so we're finally ready to do what legislatures and courts will force us to do anyway.
Understand your point. But relative peanuts is misinformation and exaggeration. You sound like Fox News on Covid 19 vaccinations. These athlete’s get $200,000 worth of scholarships. Room and board. Access to personal trainers and specialized medical staff. Access to unbelievable equipment and resources to develop their game. Uncalculated value marketing themselves on a national stage.
We get your point. But they are not making relative peanuts. That is completely disingenuous. They are raking in money now. Hopefully some will get a couple thousand more a year. The elite athletes (.001 %) like Zion who shouldn’t have to go to college anyway will make more.
-
Understand your point. But relative peanuts is misinformation and exaggeration. You sound like Fox News on Covid 19 vaccinations. These athlete’s get $200,000 worth of scholarships. Room and board. Access to personal trainers and specialized medical staff. Access to unbelievable equipment and resources to develop their game. Uncalculated value marketing themselves on a national stage.
We get your point. But they are not making relative peanuts. That is completely disingenuous. They are raking in money now. Hopefully some will get a couple thousand more a year. The elite athletes (.001 %) like Zion who shouldn’t have to go to college anyway will make more.
While I agree with your point if the school you end up at is an in state directional school your scholarship valued amount is well south of 200k, plus plenty of smaller schools aren't getting unbelievable equipment and resources.
Just pointing out your argument only makes sense at higher level schools and/or private schools.
-
That is completely disingenuous. They are raking in money now.
Hm.
-
May the team with the richest donors win.
Maybe there should be a salary cap - even the pro sports needed to regulate how much they can pay players.
-
May the team with the richest donors win.
Maybe there should be a salary cap - even the pro sports needed to regulate how much they can pay players.
No, they didn't need to. They chose to.
-
May the team with the richest donors win.
So like now right?
-
Btw the NCAA has had YEARS to figure this out. And they have decided to push it out and ignore the writing on the wall. Now apparently they want Congress to intervene and give them anti-trust exemption.
-
Understand your point. But relative peanuts is misinformation and exaggeration. You sound like Fox News on Covid 19 vaccinations. These athlete’s get $200,000 worth of scholarships. Room and board. Access to personal trainers and specialized medical staff. Access to unbelievable equipment and resources to develop their game. Uncalculated value marketing themselves on a national stage.
We get your point. But they are not making relative peanuts. That is completely disingenuous. They are raking in money now. Hopefully some will get a couple thousand more a year. The elite athletes (.001 %) like Zion who shouldn’t have to go to college anyway will make more.
Getting a full ride -- which at many colleges and universities is worth far less than $200K -- is not the same as "raking in money."
Schools are raking in money. Athletic directors are raking in money. Coaches are really raking in money. Lots of assistant coaches are raking in money. All of the above individuals actually have good money direct-deposited into their checking accounts at regular intervals. And they get to market themselves. And there is no cap on what they can earn. And they can profit off their own NILs if they so choose.
At the end of four years, under current rules, a basketball or football player at any of those schools will have not raked in money unless the coach cheated. Indeed, he would have made very close to zero dollars -- relative peanuts. It's easy to see why the schools, ADs and coaches have loved the system since the dawn of big-time sports -- they have raked in money, the athletes who have worked their arses off have raked in bupkis.
Now, has the athlete received something of value, something that he could parlay into future earnings? Certainly. But again, that's not the same as "raking in money."
-
The value they receive is enormous for their services. It is disingenuous to state otherwise. Peanuts is simply wrong. Raking in the money is too (however now that I’m sending my kids to college it’s seems like they are raking in the money). But that is my major problem with NIL advocates. The hyperbole that these poor athletes are being taken advantage of. They are being paid handsomely. Should they have the right to more? Yes. But $100,000 (low end 4 year scholarship) * 13 players * 330 teams = a half a billion every fours years just for basketball and that is low end. Most top end high profile athletic schools cost more. That doesn’t even consider the money (billions) these schools spend on facilities and amenities for these athletes to make them comfortable and cater to their every need.
I hope average NCAA athletes get paid an extra $100 a year for the video game licensing fees they so richly deserve and future Zions get millions for the one year they are at Duke. Just don’t tell rational people they are getting little to nothing now. You are not correct with that line of thinking.
-
The value they receive is enormous for their services. It is disingenuous to state otherwise. Peanuts is simply wrong. Raking in the money is too (however now that I’m sending my kids to college it’s seems like they are raking in the money). But that is my major problem with NIL advocates. The hyperbole that these poor athletes are being taken advantage of. They are being paid handsomely. Should they have the right to more? Yes. But $100,000 (low end 4 year scholarship) * 13 players * 330 teams = a half a billion every fours years just for basketball and that is low end. Most top end high profile athletic schools cost more. That doesn’t even consider the money (billions) these schools spend on facilities and amenities for these athletes to make them comfortable and cater to their every need.
I hope average NCAA athletes get paid an extra $100 a year for the video game licensing fees they so richly deserve and future Zions get millions for the one year they are at Duke. Just don’t tell rational people they are getting little to nothing now. You are not correct with that line of thinking.
I hope you realize that video game royalties is a small fraction of the potential for NIL rights. The reason the NCAA is dragging their feet is because they know that this will likely move $$$ from their members to the student athletes.
-
Understood. But the hyperbole of the poor God forsaken athletes who make peanuts is rather annoying.
-
Again, Shooter, getting something of value is not the same as “making money.”
But yes, a college education can be a means toward making money eventually.
-
Again, Shooter, getting something of value is not the same as “making money.”
No, but it does have rather the same impact.
-
No, but it does have rather the same impact.
Not really. If I earn money from my NIL, I have money in my pocket.
If I make progress toward a degree -- which is all most major-program college basketball players can do because they are too busy meeting the demands of their "jobs" as semi-professional athletes for big-money "corporations" -- I still have lots of work to do before I even see any $$$.
And even those who do graduate with degrees are guaranteed nothing. When I graduated Marquette in 1982, America was in the middle of a major recession and jobs were difficult to come by. Any jobs, let alone those in our chosen fields.
And that's life. Recessions happen. I'm not asking for "guarantees." What I'm asking is that college athletes have the right to control and profit from their own names, images and likenesses -- as you and I and every other free person in America does.
-
How many everyday people get money for their NILs? Much less scholies and R&B and whatever.
-
How many everyday people get money for their NILs? Much less scholies and R&B and whatever.
Not many, but I am not sure why that matters. College athletes would definitely be able to, but are being prevented from doing so due to rules that don't make sense to a lot of people.
-
No, but it does have rather the same impact.
If my family is starving now, progress towards a degree doesn't help them for years at earliest. That's a huge difference
-
I think we underestimate the amount of money that could be made by being an influencer on Social Media. I’ve got friends that make a nice living off of a blog or Instagram page.
Kids make money just by broadcasting themselves playing video games. I believe athletes are only able to profit off of something like that if it is completely unrelated to their status as a student athlete. Which I would imagine is so fine of a line, it’s not worth the risk of crossing it on accident.
-
How many everyday people get money for their NILs? Much less scholies and R&B and whatever.
All everyday people are eligible to get money for their NIL. Including most that earn scholarships.
-
All everyday people are eligible to get money for their NIL. Including most that earn scholarships.
Sure, but how many people make money from their name or image or likeness as opposed to skills or invention or labor or whatever. We really are talking about endorsement money for an athletes mugshot.
-
Sure, but how many people make money from their name or image or likeness as opposed to skills or invention or labor or whatever. We really are talking about endorsement money for an athletes mugshot.
Mugshot???
And anyway, what exactly is wrong with "endorsement money?"
-
Again, Shooter, getting something of value is not the same as “making money.”
The IRS agrees
-
Mugshot???
And anyway, what exactly is wrong with "endorsement money?"
Mugshot...well that’s pretty much all what you will see in endorsements by SAs. In any event, I’m focusing more on the very small number of people that would benefit much from the NIL stuff. It’s really only going to benefit the more elite athletes who could make money by being pros anyway. I agree to disagree if you don’t mind.
-
Mugshot...well that’s pretty much all what you will see in endorsements by SAs.
Um why? Videos, social media, etc. You are acting like its 1985 or something.
-
Um why? Videos, social media, etc. You are acting like its 1985 or something.
Obviously, I’m overstating it. But that’s not really any different than Jose Perez (for example) being on a car commercial or whatever on whatever platforms or media. I think NIL stuff is nonsense for the most part. Now, if one is talking about an SA being able to make money coaching basketball skills (for example again) at a camp I’m far more agreeable since that involves actual work for pay as opposed to making endorsements that no one cares about or will even consider to be valid.
-
Obviously, I’m overstating it. But that’s not really any different than Jose Perez (for example) being on a car commercial or whatever on whatever platforms or media. I think NIL stuff is nonsense for the most part. Now, if one is talking about an SA being able to make money coaching basketball skills (for example again) at a camp I’m far more agreeable since that involves actual work for pay as opposed to making endorsements that no one cares about or will even consider to be valid.
Who determines what’s valid? I think if the company feels it’s worth it to pay a player for their endorsement, that seems valid.
I can see Gatorade paying Markus Howard to drink their drink in his Instagram story. Or Nike paying them to wear a certain type of sweats. That happens for more college students that aren’t athletes than we probably realize.
-
Obviously, I’m overstating it. But that’s not really any different than Jose Perez (for example) being on a car commercial or whatever on whatever platforms or media. I think NIL stuff is nonsense for the most part. Now, if one is talking about an SA being able to make money coaching basketball skills (for example again) at a camp I’m far more agreeable since that involves actual work for pay as opposed to making endorsements that no one cares about or will even consider to be valid.
If your goal is to come off old and out of touch, congrats.
-
Again, Shooter, getting something of value is not the same as “making money.”
But yes, a college education can be a means toward making money eventually.
Oh I get it. In the Greg Brady literal sense they are not receiving cash. It’s just saving their parents or themselves more cash than many people even have. Hell, maybe even more than the value of their homes. And it has the added benefit of setting them up for basketball and life without a ton of debt.
Minus the hyperbole of these poor athletes getting peanuts, you are correct.
-
If your goal is to come off old and out of touch, congrats.
Whatever. Fluffy, what examples are appropriate for you that are not simply handouts or inducements from boosters. Let’s be real here and what limits by the NCAA would be reasonable to you. Or do you favor huge payments for phony endorsements or whatever to the more elite SAs in FB and BB while the vast majority of SAs get no real benefit. In short, how do you see it playing out in practice in the real world.
-
I don't really care if a SA gets a "phoney endorsement deal" that is simply an inducement from boosters. And yes, the more elite players will get larger benefits. Kind of like real life.
Again, there has been growing revenue gaps between have and have not programs for years. Marquette can afford to buy out one seven figure coach, and turn right around and hire another due to the generosity of its donors and the Fox contract that membership in the Big East affords.
So schools and coaches benefit from a free market enterprise - but somehow student athletes should not? Seems kinda unamerican to me.
-
Oh I get it. In the Greg Brady literal sense they are not receiving cash. It’s just saving their parents or themselves more cash than many people even have.
This isn't true for all. This is only true if the student-athlete was planning on going to college regardless of basketball (or whatever sport). Otherwise it's adding a cost that they weren't going to pay for and then taking that cost away while getting the benefit (assuming the university actually provides the promised education).
-
American college sports fans tend to be big-time capitalists ... except when it comes to an athlete’s ability to share in the capitalism.
-
Who determines what’s valid? I think if the company feels it’s worth it to pay a player for their endorsement, that seems valid.
I can see Gatorade paying Markus Howard to drink their drink in his Instagram story. Or Nike paying them to wear a certain type of sweats. That happens for more college students that aren’t athletes than we probably realize.
I'm no particular fan of the NCAA, but I suspect that they will end up trying to be the arbiter of what is valid and what is not. Maybe the floodgates will be completely opened or maybe there will be some limitations. Currently, SAs can have jobs and work, but they cannot get paid more than someone else would be paid. It would not surprise me if the NCAA tries to have some sort of a similar concept in the NIL context where they try to impose some sort of "commercially viable" standard. Nike could pay someone a ton and that would be commercially viable. Same with Gatorade. Local car dealers, restaurants, message boards, etc. could also pay kids...but probably couldn't justify as much. This could be used as an attempt to limit some booster from forming an LLC and just paying a kid $1 million to attend their alma mater. There would have to be some expectation of a return on the marketing investment.
I'm not advocating this -- and I do think it would open up a can of worms -- but I will not be surprised if there is a push to have this sort of limits on what can be done as an attempt to avoid simply allowing rich boosters to pay athletes whatever they want.
-
Whatever. Fluffy, what examples are appropriate for you that are not simply handouts or inducements from boosters. Let’s be real here and what limits by the NCAA would be reasonable to you. Or do you favor huge payments for phony endorsements or whatever to the more elite SAs in FB and BB while the vast majority of SAs get no real benefit. In short, how do you see it playing out in practice in the real world.
I expect to play out just like allowing student athletes to have employment has. Before that change was made, there was fear that boosters would create bogus internships where recruits get paid millions to sit on their a$$es and do nothing in exchange for going to the school of the booster's choice. Instead, the NCAA put limits on it and I can't think of a single allegation of boosters funneling money to recruits through fake jobs.
NIL will be harder to regulate for sure, but honestly I don't foresee the rampant booster donations that some seem to be predicting. Choosing a student-athlete for an endorsement carries a large reputational risk for the endorsee. I think you will see a lot more of students getting paid marginal amounts for social media influencing, video games, skills camps, etc, then you will massive endorsement deals.
-
I expect to play out just like allowing student athletes to have employment has. Before that change was made, there was fear that boosters would create bogus internships where recruits get paid millions to sit on their a$$es and do nothing in exchange for going to the school of the booster's choice. Instead, the NCAA put limits on it and I can't think of a single allegation of boosters funneling money to recruits through fake jobs.
NIL will be harder to regulate for sure, but honestly I don't foresee the rampant booster donations that some seem to be predicting. Choosing a student-athlete for an endorsement carries a large reputational risk for the endorsee. I think you will see a lot more of students getting paid marginal amounts for social media influencing, video games, skills camps, etc, then you will massive endorsement deals.
I agree.
-
I expect to play out just like allowing student athletes to have employment has. Before that change was made, there was fear that boosters would create bogus internships where recruits get paid millions to sit on their a$$es and do nothing in exchange for going to the school of the booster's choice. Instead, the NCAA put limits on it and I can't think of a single allegation of boosters funneling money to recruits through fake jobs.
NIL will be harder to regulate for sure, but honestly I don't foresee the rampant booster donations that some seem to be predicting. Choosing a student-athlete for an endorsement carries a large reputational risk for the endorsee. I think you will see a lot more of students getting paid marginal amounts for social media influencing, video games, skills camps, etc, then you will massive endorsement deals.
Thats much what I’m suggesting. Some small numbers of the vast majority might benefit marginally while the elite Div I athletes get “paid” for their short stays in college. Weird outcome in the name of fairness for all SAs.
-
Thats much what I’m suggesting. Some small numbers of the vast majority might benefit marginally while the elite Div I athletes get “paid” for their short stays in college. Weird outcome in the name of fairness for all SAs.
So pretty much what happens now, but legal?
-
Thats much what I’m suggesting. Some small numbers of the vast majority might benefit marginally while the elite Div I athletes get “paid” for their short stays in college. Weird outcome in the name of fairness for all SAs.
Apparently Nukem is a Marxist.
-
So pretty much what happens now, but legal?
Probably far more of it it though when on a “legal” basis.
-
Thats much what I’m suggesting. Some small numbers of the vast majority might benefit marginally while the elite Div I athletes get “paid” for their short stays in college. Weird outcome in the name of fairness for all SAs.
I have no problem with that outcome in theory. I'm not entirely sure I trust the NCAA to administer it.
As someone who has benefitted from the current system, I am still totally in favor of these kids being permitted to benefit from the use of their NIL. I think some will do quite well if that happens. I suspect that quite a lot will make more than I expect. But I think most of the kids will not get much or anything. I think that what will be demonstrated is what I've said for quite a while -- there aren't all that many kids who really "move the needle." I honestly don't think it will change things all that much for the overwhelming majority of SAs.
-
I have no problem with that outcome in theory. I'm not entirely sure I trust the NCAA to administer it.
As someone who has benefitted from the current system, I am still totally in favor of these kids being permitted to benefit from the use of their NIL. I think some will do quite well if that happens. I suspect that quite a lot will make more than I expect. But I think most of the kids will not get much or anything. I think that what will be demonstrated is what I've said for quite a while -- there aren't all that many kids who really "move the needle." I honestly don't think it will change things all that much for the overwhelming majority of SAs.
I suppose some might find creative ways to make $$ via various social media and other platforms, but not many will “move the needle” as you say. In the meantime, some of the more elite Div I FB and BB players may find it more lucrative to stay in college for a year or two more.
But, we need to be fair to all.
-
I suppose some might find creative ways to make $$ via various social media and other platforms, but not many will “move the needle” as you say. In the meantime, some of the more elite Div I FB and BB players may find it more lucrative to stay in college for a year or two more.
But, we need to be fair to all.
Isn’t this more fair? I’m sure some kids are passing up money because it’s against NCAA rules.
I think it’s fair. Every person has a chance to profit off their NIL. However, just like anything, how much you profit depends on the value you provide.
-
I suppose some might find creative ways to make $$ via various social media and other platforms, but not many will “move the needle” as you say. In the meantime, some of the more elite Div I FB and BB players may find it more lucrative to stay in college for a year or two more.
But, we need to be fair to all.
Well, there's the rub, right? What is "fair to all"? Personally, I think it's more fair to allow kids who actually can "move the needle" get paid than to deny them that. I think that a large majority of SAs -- even in the revenue sports -- are not going to get much if anything beyond their scholarship. And that's because nobody is really turning out or tuning in to see them. Most fans are fans of the program and don't really have all that much of a rooting interest in the individual players. I have no problem with those kids not getting paid -- or getting small NIL payments. But the kids who really do have their own fans and following...I just don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to exploit that following and get paid.
-
I expect to play out just like allowing student athletes to have employment has. Before that change was made, there was fear that boosters would create bogus internships where recruits get paid millions to sit on their a$$es and do nothing in exchange for going to the school of the booster's choice. Instead, the NCAA put limits on it and I can't think of a single allegation of boosters funneling money to recruits through fake jobs.
NIL will be harder to regulate for sure, but honestly I don't foresee the rampant booster donations that some seem to be predicting. Choosing a student-athlete for an endorsement carries a large reputational risk for the endorsee. I think you will see a lot more of students getting paid marginal amounts for social media influencing, video games, skills camps, etc, then you will massive endorsement deals.
This, of course.
I suppose some might find creative ways to make $$ via various social media and other platforms, but not many will “move the needle” as you say. In the meantime, some of the more elite Div I FB and BB players may find it more lucrative to stay in college for a year or two more.
But, we need to be fair to all.
I am far too lazy to look for it, but articles have been posted at least a couple of times on Scoop in which experts on this kind of thing have shown that a variety of non-football and non-basketball athletes would do surprisingly well. IIRC, "Olympic sports" athletes such as gymnasts, swimmers, volleyball players, and track athletes would do especially well, as would many women's basketball players.
But I guess we won't see for sure until what should have happened decades ago -- letting the athletes share in the wealth of a system that wouldn't exist without them -- actually happens.
I'm looking forward to it!
-
Getting a full ride -- which at many colleges and universities is worth far less than $200K -- is not the same as "raking in money."
Schools are raking in money. Athletic directors are raking in money. Coaches are really raking in money. Lots of assistant coaches are raking in money. All of the above individuals actually have good money direct-deposited into their checking accounts at regular intervals. And they get to market themselves. And there is no cap on what they can earn. And they can profit off their own NILs if they so choose.
At the end of four years, under current rules, a basketball or football player at any of those schools will have not raked in money unless the coach cheated. Indeed, he would have made very close to zero dollars -- relative peanuts. It's easy to see why the schools, ADs and coaches have loved the system since the dawn of big-time sports -- they have raked in money, the athletes who have worked their arses off have raked in bupkis.
Now, has the athlete received something of value, something that he could parlay into future earnings? Certainly. But again, that's not the same as "raking in money."
At Michigan, or Ohio State, or Texas, sure. But at Northern Illinois? An HBCU? Monmouth? Those schools are not "raking in money" from athletes, and their coaches and administrators are not making millions while kids are getting $200K plus of scholarships, gear, and other benefits. AD's know this is going to tilt the balance of power even more than it is now. Kids are asking about NIL during recruiting. One call I was on regarding the subject, Miami's rep said establishing a department to market SA's social media profiles and brand is more important than having academic advisors.
I expect to play out just like allowing student athletes to have employment has. Before that change was made, there was fear that boosters would create bogus internships where recruits get paid millions to sit on their a$$es and do nothing in exchange for going to the school of the booster's choice. Instead, the NCAA put limits on it and I can't think of a single allegation of boosters funneling money to recruits through fake jobs.
they're still out there, but it's up to the school to enforce it and many look the other way or it's done under the table. The easiest job in college sports is compliance officer in the SEC or Big 12.
-
Thats much what I’m suggesting. Some small numbers of the vast majority might benefit marginally
I actually think the vast majority of the vast majority will benefit marginally. Which is better than not benefitting.
Weird outcome in the name of fairness for all SAs.
How is everyone getting the opportunity to make money less fair?
-
I actually think the vast majority of the vast majority will benefit marginally. Which is better than not benefitting.
How is everyone getting the opportunity to make money less fair?
As I said, the weird outcome is likely to be that the elite athletes will benefit far far more. In any event, this is all about to happen whether the NCAA and member schools like it or not. Game just about on.
-
As I said, the weird outcome is likely to be that the elite athletes will benefit far far more.
I think some of the confusion is why you think that is weird. That's what I'd expect. What's more, I think it's the most fair. I've generally been against paying the athletes because many of them are not really bringing more to the table than whoever would have had that scholarship if they'd decided to commit to another school. I think that paying those athletes -- even if the program is losing money -- doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But if athletes are able to market their NIL, more power to them.
-
I think some of the confusion is why you think that is weird. That's what I'd expect. What's more, I think it's the most fair. I've generally been against paying the athletes because many of them are not really bringing more to the table than whoever would have had that scholarship if they'd decided to commit to another school. I think that paying those athletes -- even if the program is losing money -- doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But if athletes are able to market their NIL, more power to them.
But, I don’t think that’s where the proponents of NIL legislation in various states are coming from or expect. They believe they are helping the little guy and that they look like the good guy in the eyes of their electorates. That’s what makes it weird. The “rich” get richer.
-
But, I don’t think that’s where the proponents of NIL legislation in various states are coming from or expect. They believe they are helping the little guy and that they look like the good guy in the eyes of their electorates. That’s what makes it weird. The “rich” get richer.
"Little" is a relative term. I think NIL helps the "little guy" when you figure Zion Williamson and Trevor Lawrence are the "little guys" as compared to Duke Basketball and Clemson Football. And some money will spread around at lower levels, I think. If anyone is presenting NIL as evening the playing field between superstars in revenue sports and role players or SAs in non-revenue sports, I haven't heard that. I'm not saying people aren't saying that; it's quite possible they are (and wouldn't be the first or the last time a completely unrealistic reason is given for something).
But if we're talking "little guys" like the third string OG or a tennis player or something similar as compared to the superstars...yeah...those "little guys" are not going to do as well under NIL. But, like some have said, I that there will be some surprises out there on who does well. I'd imagine a VB player in Nebraska or a wrestler in Iowa will be able to earn some money.
-
"Little" is a relative term. I think NIL helps the "little guy" when you figure Zion Williamson and Trevor Lawrence are the "little guys" as compared to Duke Basketball and Clemson Football. And some money will spread around at lower levels, I think. If anyone is presenting NIL as evening the playing field between superstars in revenue sports and role players or SAs in non-revenue sports, I haven't heard that. I'm not saying people aren't saying that; it's quite possible they are (and wouldn't be the first or the last time a completely unrealistic reason is given for something).
But if we're talking "little guys" like the third string OG or a tennis player or something similar as compared to the superstars...yeah...those "little guys" are not going to do as well under NIL. But, like some have said, I that there will be some surprises out there on who does well. I'd imagine a VB player in Nebraska or a wrestler in Iowa will be able to earn some money.
Im sure there will be some unique cases like you note and some creative cases using social media and technology. As for the BB Zion’s of the world, they have lucrative alternatives to the Dukes of the world. Don’t like NIL, but it’s coming live very soon. Will be very interesting to see how it plays out. Hopefully the NCAA and it’s member schools adjust well.
-
But, I don’t think that’s where the proponents of NIL legislation in various states are coming from or expect. They believe they are helping the little guy and that they look like the good guy in the eyes of their electorates. That’s what makes it weird. The “rich” get richer.
A single student athlete is a "little guy." NCAA member schools are the "big guys" in this scenario. No one is arguing that this won't benefit top football and men's basketball players significantly more than other sports.
-
A single student athlete is a "little guy." NCAA member schools are the "big guys" in this scenario. No one is arguing that this won't benefit top football and men's basketball players significantly more than other sports.
Im obviously slicing and dicing beyond that obvious distinction. The elites in FB and BB will just get more. The vast majority of SAs will be wondering what this was really all about. There will be those unusual cases and the creative ones, but the elites will be the ones cashing in on this.
-
Im obviously slicing and dicing beyond that obvious distinction. The elites in FB and BB will just get more. The vast majority of SAs will be wondering what this was really all about. There will be those unusual cases and the creative ones, but the elites will be the ones cashing in on this.
I think you are underestimating the number of SAs who will benefit.
And no one is arguing against your point about basketball and football players benefiting the most. That doesn't lessen the fact that this will be more fair for all student athletes.
-
I think you are underestimating the number of SAs who will benefit.
And no one is arguing against your point about basketball and football players benefiting the most. That doesn't lessen the fact that this will be more fair for all student athletes.
The number of SAs might be higher but the $$ will be minimal for the most part. But, I’m done here. It’s going to happen and we will see what happens.
-
The number of SAs might be higher but the $$ will be minimal for the most part. But, I’m done here. It’s going to happen and we will see what happens.
In addition to underestimating the number of SAs who will benefit, you also underestimate how much "minimal" money means to many families in this country.
-
In addition to underestimating the number of SAs who will benefit, you also underestimate how much "minimal" money means to many families in this country.
Not really. Where is this money coming from. Are SAs going to have Go Fund Me sites? Seriously, some might latch onto something. But......? Hope some can get some meaningful $$$, but is that realistic? Great for those that do. Doubt that this is a money machine.
-
At Michigan, or Ohio State, or Texas, sure. But at Northern Illinois? An HBCU? Monmouth? Those schools are not "raking in money" from athletes, and their coaches and administrators are not making millions while kids are getting $200K plus of scholarships, gear, and other benefits. AD's know this is going to tilt the balance of power even more than it is now. Kids are asking about NIL during recruiting. One call I was on regarding the subject, Miami's rep said establishing a department to market SA's social media profiles and brand is more important than having academic advisors.
OK.
And I didn't say EVERY school was raking in money. Lots are. Their coaches and athletic directors sure are.
My use of the term stemmed from Nukem's statement that giving an athlete a scholarship was the same as those students "raking in money."
-
Not really. Where is this money coming from. Are SAs going to have Go Fund Me sites? Seriously, some might latch onto something. But......? Hope some can get some meaningful $$$, but is that realistic? Great for those that do. Doubt that this is a money machine.
As have been explained to you already in this thread, it can come from numerous places, social media, getting employment at softball, basketball, baseball, volleyball, wrestling, gymnastic, insert sport here camps, giving private lessons, starting their own businesses, and who knows how many other ways.
The point you seemed to miss in the last post is that even minimal money can make a huge difference in some families' lives. Even if a student athlete only makes a hundred bucks because of NIL, that's a hundred more bucks then they would have had without it. For many, every little bit matters.
-
OK.
And I didn't say EVERY school was raking in money. Lots are. Their coaches and athletic directors sure are.
My use of the term stemmed from Nukem's statement that giving an athlete a scholarship was the same as those students "raking in money."
I’ll take credit for the “raking in money” comment. Similar to the getting “peanuts” comment you made. Both were hyperbole and both do not help our arguments.
-
I’ll take credit for the “raking in money” comment. Similar to the getting “peanuts” comment you made. Both were hyperbole and both do not help our arguments.
You're right. I will amend my "relative peanuts" to:
Compared to those making real money under the system that major college basketball and football has operated under for decades, the athletes received relative peanuts in cash but did receive something of value -- in lots of cases, significant value -- that, eventually, could have resulted in them making real money.
-
Non-football and basketball athletes leverage their Olympic or off-the-college-field/court channels to achieve their fame/value. They leverage college for a free education.
Basketball and football athletes depend upon the structure of NCAA sports and the investments and administrative systems schools make in them to achieve their value. If you take away that structure those athletes will suddenly see that value diminished. Very few college football athletes that achieve the value individually independent of school, coach and surrounding talent.
In football this will further diminish competitive balance and push more towards a super-league whereby teams with the greatest resources will provide athletes the maximum earning potential.
Basketball may be different as a single athlete or two can achieve notoriety and value regardless of team market (think Durant/Westbrook in OKC or Lebron in Cleveland). Certain individuals may choose to take the Marquette scholarship and individual notoriety while others may want to play with their other valuable peers at Kentucky or elsewhere. Where the NLI money comes from and how disparate the checks they will get will influence how much the talent pipeline tilts even further to select schools. Some may decide big fish-small pond drives more eyeballs but the money will dictate.
-
In football this will further diminish competitive balance and push more towards a super-league whereby teams with the greatest resources will provide athletes the maximum earning potential.
I'm not exactly sure how college football could get less competitively balanced than it is currently.
-
I'm not exactly sure how college football could get less competitively balanced than it is currently.
This was my first thought. 5 schools account for 22 of the 28 of the College Football Playoff appearances. If anything, NIL will give some additional ammo to other P5 teams to challenge the big 5.
-
Basketball and football athletes depend upon the structure of NCAA sports and the investments and administrative systems schools make in them to achieve their value. If you take away that structure those athletes will suddenly see that value diminished. Very few college football athletes that achieve the value individually independent of school, coach and surrounding talent.
...NBA and NFL players also depend on the structure of their leagues. If Lebron was just some dude shooting hoops in his backyard you don't think he would "suddenly see that value diminished?"
The NCAA increases the student athletes' value. The student athletes increase the NCAA's value. Neither would be successful without the other.
-
I'm not exactly sure how college football could get less competitively balanced than it is currently.
This.
The NCAA increases the student athletes' value. The student athletes increase the NCAA's value. Neither would be successful without the other.
And this. Though it would be fun to see the NCAA conduct sports seasons without athletes. Maybe the coaches could have chair-throwing contests!