NCAA to allow NIL?

[79Warrior]

Self Awareness Level = Zero

So true.

[Lennys Tap]

I couldn't care less about the men's and women's lacrosse teams, tennis teams etc. If the basketball team makes the money, they should keep it. Same goes for football. If a school cannot afford the other sports, relegate them to club sports, or find the nmoney elsewhere.

Hooray! A fellow capitalist salutes you.

[Cheeks]

I couldn't care less about the men's and women's lacrosse teams, tennis teams etc. If the basketball team makes the money, they should keep it. Same goes for football. If a school cannot afford the other sports, relegate them to club sports, or find the nmoney elsewhere.

LOL.  Well good luck with Title IX and staying in Division 1 then where a minimum of 14 sports must be fielded.

In terms of what the college model is....simple.

You come to our school in an athletic grant in aid to play for us.

In exchange, we will give you tuition, room and board, tutoring, travel, clothing, etc.


That's the college model.

[lawdog77]

LOL.  Well good luck with Title IX and staying in Division 1 then where a minimum of 14 sports must be fielded.

In terms of what the college model is....simple.

You come to our school in an athletic grant in aid to play for us.

In exchange, we will give you tuition, room and board, tutoring, travel, clothing, etc.


That's the college model.

According to Mark Emmert, athletic spending represents a very small proportion of total institutional spending: approximately 3.8 percent.-Pay the players and Pony up some more if you want to stay D-1.  See:http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-president%E2%80%99s-testimony-value-college-model

[Galway Eagle]

He doesn't want college sports to be the "same" as pro sports. But he has been making NFL money on the backs of his "student/athletes" for years.

He wants access to infinite millions for his personal bank account. He does not think his players should have access to anything above a scholarship -- even though scholarship non-athletes at Clemson have that access.

I happen to think that's hypocritical. It's OK if you don't.

Important: I don't begrudge Dabo his millions. As you said, he earned them. The nit I'm picking is that he wants to deny the athletes (who made it possible for him to be rich) the right to market their own likenesses.

Fortunately for the athletes, he will have no say in it, and it's gonna happen.

Let him leave. There's always another coach in the wings.

I don't think your use of hypocritical fits though unless he also was paid as a player.

[MU82]

You can already feel the "slimey" people licking their chops over this one...Example: Kentucky BB player is said to be a one and done, widely known. End of the season and declaration date comes...and shockingly, he doesn't declare. people are stunned. Find out a few weeks later it's announced he signed a NIL deal with Bob car dealership for 100K. Couldn't be simply because Bob, who happens to be a HUGE UK fan, did that just to get said player to stay at UK one more year, right?? SLIMEY. The NCAA would certainly think that was the case.

You can already feel the "Chicken Little" people -- COLLEGE SPORTS WILL BE DOOMED! DOOMED, I SAY!! -- offering ridiculous hypothetical situations over this one.

people aren't stunned.

[Benny B]

Ah well I guess that eliminates any current fans that have donated. Could still impact fans considering donating for the first time. The NCAA is already overburdened trying to enforce their current regulations.  I don't foresee a new batch of regulations solving the core issue, which is fans wanting to pay players to play for their team. So much easier to embrace it and just let them get paid by whoever wants to pay them for whatever reason.

smh

NIL or not, being a fan who donates for the first time makes you a booster, and being a fan who wants to pay a student-athlete for whatever reason is a recruiting violation.

NIL is completely separate from the schools and athletic participation... not sure why this is so difficult to understand. 

[Cheeks]

Self Awareness Level = Zero

Right back at you

[Cheeks]

None of this supports your contention that Dabo earned players bazillions of dollars.

Maybe I'll just rely on the NFL player personnel, the draft experts, the players themselves that say he and the staff were a big reason why.  Not the only reason, but as I said originally...he HELPED THEM MAKE IT.  Somehow that was controversial to you, no kidding.

[Cheeks]

Regular students do not provide revenue for the school. Your comparison is idiotic

Neither do most student athletes.

[forgetful]

According to Mark Emmert, athletic spending represents a very small proportion of total institutional spending: approximately 3.8 percent.-Pay the players and Pony up some more if you want to stay D-1.  See:http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-president%E2%80%99s-testimony-value-college-model

That number is incorrect. The number varies from 5-11% with major athletic programs tilting closer to the 11% mark.

[Cheeks]

According to Mark Emmert, athletic spending represents a very small proportion of total institutional spending: approximately 3.8 percent.-Pay the players and Pony up some more if you want to stay D-1.  See:http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-president%E2%80%99s-testimony-value-college-model

That is correct, because colleges aren't mean to be on this great earth simply to push athletic endeavors...they are here to educate kids, do research, etc.

You are also correct, you start requiring schools to pay, schools will drop sports because many cannot afford to have them...something I have said often here.

Glad you and I agree with the outcome.  Now, here's the dirty little secret after working many years in athletic departmentS, including 5+ at MU, and having sponsored them the last 20....schools like MU don't have a lot of money for athletics.  Decent amount, spend more than most, but the budgets aren't endless.  You are a poster child argued for the haves and the have nots, the rich getting richer and will ultimately destroy college athletics if you had it your way.

The schools aren't going to step up like you would like....not a school like MU and many others.  If that is what you want, then keep on preaching.

[79Warrior]

That is correct, because colleges aren't mean to be on this great earth simply to push athletic endeavors...they are here to educate kids, do research, etc.

You are also correct, you start requiring schools to pay, schools will drop sports because many cannot afford to have them...something I have said often here.

Glad you and I agree with the outcome.  Now, here's the dirty little secret after working many years in athletic departmentS, including 5+ at MU, and having sponsored them the last 20....schools like MU don't have a lot of money for athletics.  Decent amount, spend more than most, but the budgets aren't endless.  You are a poster child argued for the haves and the have nots, the rich getting richer and will ultimately destroy college athletics if you had it your way.

The schools aren't going to step up like you would like....not a school like MU and many others.  If that is what you want, then keep on preaching.

Time will tell. The world will move on. Relax.

[Cheeks]

Time will tell. The world will move on. Relax.

Super chill.  Relaxed.  Yes, the world will move on in a less enjoyable way, with less opportunities for many young men and women...that's a shame. 

[Jockey]

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/18/dabo-says-he-may-quit-college-football-if-players-get-paid/

Well Dabo?

His payments to recruits will be much less important now that players can make money at most most schools.

Might be a little tougher to win championships with a level playing field.

[79Warrior]

Super chill.  Relaxed.  Yes, the world will move on in a less enjoyable way, with less opportunities for many young men and women...that's a shame.

So say you. Who knows. I am not a sky is falling person. Time will tell. You are hardly an authority on this issue.

[StillAWarrior]

Surprised by how fast they folded.

It only "feels" fast because it comes close on the heels of the California law.  But this started when they let Arike Ogunbowale be on Dancing with the Stars.  Once they allowed that, I thought it was pretty clear that this was coming.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Wojo supports, says it was 25 years too late (meaning for him).

[Cheeks]

So say you. Who knows. I am not a sky is falling person. Time will tell. You are hardly an authority on this issue.

You are right, time will tell...it will take a number of years for it to unfold, how the market is formed, who becomes the go to "investors", what do sponsors do as their contracts unwind (we are already thinking about this now on the news), etc.   I speak to people that are authorities in this space routinely. 

I am most hopeful the NCAA comes up with strong guardrails...it is what the schools want and many of us participating in this space as ncaa sponsors....I realize this will make other people's heads explode as they want full Armageddon.

I was speaking to well respected person in this space yesterday about the timing and she had a very interesting response.  In her opinion the NCAA did not dare move to do this earlier and waited for the lawmakers to insert themselves because if they had acted earlier lawmakers and others would push for more more more anyway.  In other words, if the NCAA had decided to do NIL 4 years ago, the push now would be an incremental ask for another mile when the NCAA gave up an inch.  Now the NCAA can shape how this goes, and doesn't need to let people that really know nothing about college sports or what is at stake for non revenue sports really screw it up.  Take it for what it is worth, but I found her comments quite interesting.

[Cheeks]

Wojo supports, says it was 25 years too late (meaning for him).

Now that the NCAA has made their initial vote known, most coaches in America have no choice but to say how much they support it even if 48 hours earlier they didn't.  Purely a recruiting position now.  Note I said most

[Dr. Blackheart]

Now that the NCAA has made their initial vote known, most coaches in America have no choice but to say how much they support it even if 48 hours earlier they didn't.  Purely a recruiting position now.  Note I said most

And you know this how?

[lawdog77]

You are right, time will tell...it will take a number of years for it to unfold, how the market is formed, who becomes the go to "investors", what do sponsors do as their contracts unwind (we are already thinking about this now on the news), etc.

I am most hopeful the NCAA comes up with strong guardrails...it is what the schools want and many of us participating in this space as ncaa sponsors....I realize this will make other people's heads explode as they want full Armageddon.

I was speaking to well respected person in this space yesterday about the timing and she had a very interesting response.  In her opinion the NCAA did not dare move to do this earlier and waited for the lawmakers to insert themselves because if they had acted earlier lawmakers and others would push for more more more anyway.  In other words, if the NCAA had decided to do NIL 4 years ago, the push now would be an incremental ask for another mile when the NCAA gave up an inch.  Now the NCAA can shape how this goes, and doesn't need to let people that really know nothing about college sports or what is at stake for non revenue sports really screw it up.  Take it for what it is worth, but I found her comments quite interesting.

How gracious of them to give up an inch. I still feel it is going to come down to the apparel companies. If the athletes cannot do separate licencsing agreements with Nike, etc., lawsuits will follow. The schools will just get richer (names on jerseys in the bookstore/arena, NIKE commercials etc.) There is plenty of money to go around. Heck, just cut the coaches salaries in half, and give that money to the players.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Now that the NCAA has made their initial vote known, most coaches in America have no choice but to say how much they support it even if 48 hours earlier they didn't.  Purely a recruiting position now.  Note I said most

If this is true, wouldn't it also be true that before the NCAA made their initial vote known, most coaches in America had no choice but to say how much they were against it even if the actually weren't? Not saying that they are or aren't for it. But if you argue that the coaches have to follow the NCAA's lead then I think that would always be true.

[Cheeks]

And you know this how?

The advisement of one of the largest sports media agencies in the USA and their COO telling me exactly that yesterday...they would be fools to not say it for pure recruiting advantages alone.  The same reason why other states suddenly submitted copy cat bills because they were worried their state would be at a recruiting disadvantage.  It is easy for the coaches to do and keep their distance from the athletic dept stance, which will be to work within the college model. 

[Cheeks]

If this is true, wouldn't it also be true that before the NCAA made their initial vote known, most coaches in America had no choice but to say how much they were against it even if the actually weren't? Not saying that they are or aren't for it. But if you argue that the coaches have to follow the NCAA's lead then I think that would always be true.

Absolutely not...why would this be the case?  The coaches care ultimately about wins and losses and getting players.  Many coaches could give two rips about their AD or what is best for women's soccer, volleyball, etc....they are more singularly focused.