NCAA moving towards allowing NIL

[muguru]

So, the majority doesn't rule? 

And "it's dumb" and shouldn't be that way is an argument, huh?

That's a lot of self-owning

Now those are YOUR arguments for things..it's all you have really given for a reason as to why you hate the NCAA and why you want NIL etc. You have given no other well thought out explanation...because you don't have one, or you would have done so by now. So the "it's dumb and shouldn't be that way" are your typical arguments. Those are your posts Rico, not mine.

[Uncle Rico]

It's happening, so the discussion is moot.  The NCAA not being prepared is on them.  They could have taken the lead but instead state legislatures and the federal government have.  It has widespread bipartisan support. 

[Uncle Rico]

Now those are YOUR arguments for things..it's all you have really given for a reason as to why you hate the NCAA and why you want NIL etc. You have given no other well thought out explanation...because you don't have one, or you would have done so by now. So the "it's dumb and shouldn't be that way" are your typical arguments. Those are your posts Rico, not mine.

I've listed reasons plenty of time.  You just choose to ignore them. 

[muguru]

Allowing people to earn what they are worth is treating them fairly.

They "earned" scholarships, didn't they? But wait Sultan..we want people to earn what they are worth, okay, let's go with that for a minute..so then how come "your side" loathes "rich white men" and coaches etc, that have only done the exact same thing you are advocating...earning what they are worth? Again, I'm honestly trying hard to see it the way you are, but when you want it one way but not the other, I just can't get on board with that. Even you have to see the hypocrisy in that, right??

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You're also not offering any proof at all that a significant number are for it either, you'll agree with that right?? Just because fans want it doesn't mean the student athletes do..all I'm asking in all seriousness is, what if the vast majority don't?? Isn't it supposed to be about the kids? Why isn't anyone seemingly not caring what they might think or want?? I mean there is at least some proof that not as many SA's want this as some may think, given the Student Athlete Advisory committee(who are the voice of student athletes) have many concerns about it. Shouldn't that at least warrant some pause and concern amongst the rank and file?? Look, I can and will get on board with NIL IF I was convinced or had proof a majority of SA's were for it. Right now, I'm not convinced(and haven't seen anything to change my mind yet) that this is the case. THEY should be the one's deciding on this, don't you think??

We have seen too many instances in this country in the last decade or so of "change" being made by people because they THINK it's best for everyone (when actually they are changing things because of some loud voices(and fear of those particular voices) and ignoring the even louder voices against it). Many times, it isn't for the best, and the people that make the decisions are deciding on change for some that want it, but ignoring the one's that don't. I can handle change, what I cannot handle, and shouldn't have to is being told how I HAVE to think or feel about said change and having it "crammed" down my throat. Change is not always for the best and as the last decade or so has shown, it's actually been bad in a lot of instances, and should have never been changed.

I have not heard a groundswell of opposition from student athletes against it. 

And they're not "kids."

And again, this is all about you being against change. Good luck with that. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

They "earned" scholarships, didn't they? But wait Sultan..we want people to earn what they are worth, okay, let's go with that for a minute..so then how come "your side" loathes "rich white men" and coaches etc, that have only done the exact same thing you are advocating...earning what they are worth? Again, I'm honestly trying hard to see it the way you are, but when you want it one way but not the other, I just can't get on board with that. Even you have to see the hypocrisy in that, right??

No hypocrisy here. I don't have a problem with coaches salaries at all. I don't care how much "rich white men" make either.

[muguru]

I've listed reasons plenty of time.  You just choose to ignore them.

No you haven't Rico, now well thought out reasons...I have heard things like "I don't like the athletes being treated like cattle", or "I don't like people profiting off of people doing all the work". Those aren't reasons...those are simply things you don't like. There's a difference. I'm just waiting for a well thought out, reasoned response and answer as to why you hate the NCAA so much, what did they do to you?? What made you hate them so much instead of your typical short, canned answers.

[Uncle Rico]

No hypocrisy here. I don't have a problem with coaches salaries at all. I don't care how much "rich white men" make either.

"Your side" is code for Democrat.  Never mind the fact this issue has bipartisan support

[muguru]

It's happening, so the discussion is moot.  The NCAA not being prepared is on them.  They could have taken the lead but instead state legislatures and the federal government have.  It has widespread bipartisan support.

Now please...I'm going to try one last time to see if I can get a non smart ass answer out of you, and I'm being sincere with this..You have said repeatedly, you're on the side of the student athlete, I honestly have no problem with that to be perfectly honest. But, that being said if that's the case, why are you okay with other people(state legislators, feds) making this decision for them. Shouldn't they have the say in this more than anyone else?? It's about them, right?? Let them decide then.

[WhiteTrash]

Then eliminate athletic scholarships and adopt the Ivy League model if ethics is your concern

That is not in-line with Catholic morals. Jesuit and most other schools have afforded higher education to the less fortunate vía athletic scholarships.  Plus most Ivy League athletes get academic scholarships.

I guess you'd like college sports to be for the wealthy only.

[panda]

Now please...I'm going to try one last time to see if I can get a non smart ass answer out of you, and I'm being sincere with this..You have said repeatedly, you're on the side of the student athlete, I honestly have no problem with that to be perfectly honest. But, that being said if that's the case, why are you okay with other people(state legislators, feds) making this decision for them. Shouldn't they have the say in this more than anyone else?? It's about them, right?? Let them decide then.

Why would they vote no?

[Uncle Rico]

No you haven't Rico, now well thought out reasons...I have heard things like "I don't like the athletes being treated like cattle", or "I don't like people profiting off of people doing all the work". Those aren't reasons...those are simply things you don't like. There's a difference. I'm just waiting for a well thought out, reasoned response and answer as to why you hate the NCAA so much, what did they do to you?? What made you hate them so much instead of your typical short, canned answers.

1. Many college athletes across all sports can maximize their earning potential as athletes while being college athletes.

2. Draconian NCAA rules prohibit these athletes from silly things such as free meals or even borrowing a car from a friend.

3. The major conferences pay universities anywhere between $20-$50 in TV revenue.  That revenue would be non-existent without the student athlete.

4. Without the players, there is no NCAA.  Universities long ago decided amateurism was something to profit from.  The players are the faces of these universities

[Newsdreams]

That is not in-line with Catholic morals. Jesuit and most other schools have afforded higher education to the less fortunate vía athletic scholarships.  Plus most Ivy League athletes get academic scholarships.

I guess you'd like college sports to be for the wealthy only.

Ivy's don't give academic scholarships they give on need base only. Real Ivy schools I mean

[Uncle Rico]

That is not in-line with Catholic morals. Jesuit and most other schools have afforded higher education to the less fortunate vía athletic scholarships.  Plus most Ivy League athletes get academic scholarships.

I guess you'd like college sports to be for the wealthy only.

If it's a question of morality, then winning doesn't matter. 

Also, then Jesuit and Catholic schools would have open arms to the less fortunate having an opportunity to help provide for their communities and families by earning off NIL.

[muguru]

Why would they vote no?

Maybe they wouldn't..but all I want to see is for them to decide. It's an issue FOR them, they should be the one's to decide. Just like I'm not convinced that basketball players and football players would be overwhelmingly supportive for the one time transfer rule. Now granted it was a small sample size, but the article in the athletic really made me wonder just how many would.

Also, I think you might be surprised at how a vote would really go..You have to remember, in all likelihood only the top athletes would vote for it, a vast majority of the non revenue athletes would oppose it I'd think, as would the football and basketball players that know they wouldn't benefit much from it. There'd be jealousy because of it(if it passed), from the one's that wouldn't benefit from it.

[WhiteTrash]

If it's a question of morality, then winning doesn't matter. 

Also, then Jesuit and Catholic schools would have open arms to the less fortunate having an opportunity to help provide for their communities and families by earning off NIL.

Okay, we've reached the height of ignorance. 

NIL will NOT increase the amount of revenue to college athletics. It will redistribute it.

The money has to come from somewhere.  Nike will not suddenly become richer and fund both athletes and general athletic funds.

The fact that universities don't want that because they can use that money for non-revenue sports does not make them fundimentaly bad. NLI  is also not fundamentaly bad, it just moves resources from lesser sports.

[muguru]

1. Many college athletes across all sports can maximize their earning potential as athletes while being college athletes.

2. Draconian NCAA rules prohibit these athletes from silly things such as free meals or even borrowing a car from a friend.

3. The major conferences pay universities anywhere between $20-$50 in TV revenue.  That revenue would be non-existent without the student athlete.

4. Without the players, there is no NCAA.  Universities long ago decided amateurism was something to profit from.  The players are the faces of these universities

Thank you, this is all I ever asked for. Now I don't necessarily agree with all of them(but I do agree the NCAA has a lot of stupid rules), but at least you finally gave me well thought out, reasoned answers.

[panda]

Maybe they wouldn't..but all I want to see is for them to decide. It's an issue FOR them, they should be the one's to decide. Just like I'm not convinced that basketball players and football players would be overwhelmingly supportive for the one time transfer rule. Now granted it was a small sample size, but the article in the athletic really made me wonder just how many would.

Also, I think you might be surprised at how a vote would really go..You have to remember, in all likelihood only the top athletes would vote for it, a vast majority of the non revenue athletes would oppose it I'd think, as would the football and basketball players that know they wouldn't benefit much from it. There'd be jealousy because of it(if it passed), from the one's that wouldn't benefit from it.

What are those who don't stand to profit off of their likeness losing that they wouldn't have before the decision?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-money-could-student-athletes-make-as-social-media-influencers/amp/

Lots of non revenue athletes on the list who stand to make the most....

[Uncle Rico]

Okay, we've reached the height of ignorance. 

NIL will NOT increase the amount of revenue to college athletics. It will redistribute it.

The money has to come from somewhere.  Nike will not suddenly become richer and fund both athletes and general athletic funds.

The fact that universities don't want that because they can use that money for non-revenue sports does not make them fundimentaly bad. NLI  is also not fundamentaly bad, it just moves resources from lesser sports.

Nike isn't going to stop sponsoring schools.  It'll sponsor both.  Nike kids already go to Nike schools a good amount of the time.  Same with other apparel and school affiliations.

[Uncle Rico]

What are those who don't stand to profit off of their likeness losing that they wouldn't have before the decision?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-money-could-student-athletes-make-as-social-media-influencers/amp/

Lots of non revenue athletes on the list who stand to make the most....

The non-revenue sports argument is a red herring. 

[panda]

The non-revenue sports argument is a red herring.

Exactly. I'm proving guru's idiocy.

[WhiteTrash]

Nike isn't going to stop sponsoring schools.  It'll sponsor both.  Nike kids already go to Nike schools a good amount of the time.  Same with other apparel and school affiliations.

Never said Nike would.  Be rational.  If Nike spends a $1MM at a school but then they are going to find a pot of gold to suddenly spend $1.5 MM to for a school and basketball players?

If you want to argue about redistributing revenue,  then that's okay. The idea that sponsors are going to get richer and pay athletes without taking money from elsewhere is laughable.

[muguru]

NM

[wadesworld]

Okay, we've reached the height of ignorance. 

NIL will NOT increase the amount of revenue to college athletics. It will redistribute it.

The money has to come from somewhere.  Nike will not suddenly become richer and fund both athletes and general athletic funds.

The fact that universities don't want that because they can use that money for non-revenue sports does not make them fundimentaly bad. NLI  is also not fundamentaly bad, it just moves resources from lesser sports.

Nike (and Adidas, Under Armor, etc.) is already paying athletic programs and college athletes. The height of ignorance would be pretending shoe companies have to decide between paying the school or the student athletes when they already pay both. They'd just be able to do so legally.

[muguru]

What are those who don't stand to profit off of their likeness losing that they wouldn't have before the decision?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-money-could-student-athletes-make-as-social-media-influencers/amp/

Lots of non revenue athletes on the list who stand to make the most....

Okay here's my question...if this proves true that one of the biggest avenue of money making will be basically running ads/promotions on athletes social media, how many followers will these athletes lose because people get tired of checking that athletes social media and seeing ads run all the time?? I'm asking because I don't know that answer, but i would think they would lose many. I can tell you me personally, there is nothing I hate more than pop ups and banner ads etc on websites I visit, that's why I have several ad blockers that pretty much block every ad on every website I ever go to. It's annoying. I would think that many others would feel the same way in regards to visiting someone's social media and seeing an ad or promotion. I see no ads on twitter now, the last thing I want to do is see an ad from an athlete I follow on twitter. That's not why I visit their page. I know I'm only one person but if this is what started happening, I would simply un follow that person. I'm just not interested in seeing them promote some product I'd likely never have any interest in buying anyway.

When I think of NIL and the kinds of deals SA's can get I think of the one's that can sign autographs and actually make a lot doing that(non revenue athletes aren't going to make much doing this) or a car dealership offering a six figure deal to the star QB to promote their dealership, they aren't going to do that for a women's soccer player. That's where the top athletes will benefit the most.