|
Post by slxpress on Apr 22, 2024 18:21:35 GMT -5
I would think $200K Payments are big time. No? I don’t exactly know what you’re referring to. All I can tell you is that none of Stanford, Cal, nor UCLA have robust NIL programs designed to support the athletic department as a whole. It’s particularly acute in football, but men’s basketball is also being impacted. In those sports $200,000 payments are a dime a dozen. For premier positions it doesn’t even get your foot in the door. On the west coast I’d say Oregon is the only other school with a robust NIL program. Not sure what Washington is doing in the future, but they’re not on the same level as USC and Oregon right now. I can’t speak to the future. If Stanford ever had driven people in charge, with buy in from the community, they could easily build an NIL program that’s the envy of college sports just based on the wealth and entrepreneurial success of their alumni base.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 22, 2024 18:35:02 GMT -5
I would think $200K Payments are big time. No? I can’t speak to the future. If Stanford ever had driven people in charge, with buy in from the community, they could easily build an NIL program that’s the envy of college sports just based on the wealth and entrepreneurial success of their alumni base. I'm not sure what "buy in from the community" means to you, but I just don't see that happening. I don't think enough people in the general alumni database care about football and basketball to pay tons of athletes hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars a year to attend Stanford. They'd have to find one or two very large benefactors with strong ties to the Stanford football program to be the athletics sugar daddy. This is the only reason why Oregon can throw its weight around in the pay to play world - one billionaire who wants to spend his money on Oregon football. This is in contrast to the myriad of programs in the south/mid-west who can get tons of smaller dollar donations to the collective as well as a good number of upper-middle class households to contribute thousands/tens of thousands of dollars to collectives - those people actually care about their college football team winning... a typical Stanford graduate does not. The relative mediocrity of the Stanford football program combined with the lack of greater support from the alumni network to change that perception is probably THE reason why Stanford is not in the Big 10 next year.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 22, 2024 19:03:54 GMT -5
California schools are very active with NIL it started in California The only California school I know of that’s truly active in big time NIL deals is USC. USC has an active collective, but USC staff are not allowed to participate in those deals under California law.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 22, 2024 19:06:44 GMT -5
Some states have laws that prohibit Universities from being involved in NIL (California for one, but there are many others). Other, like Virginia and Tenn, do not prohibit it, and are seeking to prevent the NCAA from enforcing its own rules that limit the involvement of school in NIL. Eventually, the matter will end up in the Supreme Court again. But I also think the aggressive stance taken by states like VA and Tenn are going to back-fire because there isn't any legal basis to prevent the NCAA from regulating it's own members on the question of NIL. I don’t agree. I think the NCAA is seeking legislative relief from Congress while floating the idea of a more no holds barred division where rules enforcement is more limited in a desperate effort to stay relevant. I do not believe the cases involving Tennessee and Virginia end up in the Supreme Court, although once legislation is finally passed (who knows how long from now that will be or what it will look like) aspects of that relating to NIL certainly will. If the injunction is upheld at the Appeals Court level, there almost certainly will be Supreme Court review. If Congress were to pass legislation, it might render the cases moot, but I seem to recall that you didn’t think Congress would ever pass any legislation.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 22, 2024 21:05:04 GMT -5
I don’t agree. I think the NCAA is seeking legislative relief from Congress while floating the idea of a more no holds barred division where rules enforcement is more limited in a desperate effort to stay relevant. I do not believe the cases involving Tennessee and Virginia end up in the Supreme Court, although once legislation is finally passed (who knows how long from now that will be or what it will look like) aspects of that relating to NIL certainly will. If the injunction is upheld at the Appeals Court level, there almost certainly will be Supreme Court review. If Congress were to pass legislation, it might render the cases moot, but I seem to recall that you didn’t think Congress would ever pass any legislation. That’s not true regarding legislation. I think that’s the eventuality because the current system is unsustainable so it’s going to collapse in some kind of Hindenburg/2008 housing crisis type explosion at some point. Legislation is inevitable. What I have said and continue to say is that we’re nowhere near getting any “help” from that corner, given the abject dysfunction of our political system. I’ll also say when help comes it’s gojng to be highly controversial, because that’s how it works. So it’s not like the legislation gets passed in whatever form it takes and then it’s done. A critical part will always be the enforcement mechanism. I think the NCAA is going to seek another solution rather than face off in the Supreme Court again. But we’ll see. I believe they’re ready to give the high revenue programs their own playground and Pontius Pilate their way out of enforcing NIL.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 22, 2024 21:06:42 GMT -5
The only California school I know of that’s truly active in big time NIL deals is USC. USC has an active collective, but USC staff are not allowed to participate in those deals under California law. Haha! I have a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge I want to sell you on the cheap.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 22, 2024 21:09:09 GMT -5
USC has an active collective, but USC staff are not allowed to participate in those deals under California law. Haha! I have a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge I want to sell you on the cheap. I already own the Brooklyn Bridge. You got something else?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 22, 2024 21:12:11 GMT -5
If the injunction is upheld at the Appeals Court level, there almost certainly will be Supreme Court review. If Congress were to pass legislation, it might render the cases moot, but I seem to recall that you didn’t think Congress would ever pass any legislation. That’s not true regarding legislation. I think that’s the eventuality because the current system is unsustainable so it’s going to collapse in some kind of Hindenburg/2008 housing crisis type explosion at some point. Legislation is inevitable. What I have said and continue to say is that we’re nowhere near getting any “help” from that corner, given the abject dysfunction of our political system. I’ll also say when help comes it’s gojng to be highly controversial, because that’s how it works. So it’s not like the legislation gets passed in whatever form it takes and then it’s done. A critical part will always be the enforcement mechanism. I think the NCAA is going to seek another solution rather than face off in the Supreme Court again. But we’ll see. I believe they’re ready to give the high revenue programs their own playground and Pontius Pilate their way out of enforcing NIL. What type of legislation are you expecting out of a dysfunctional system? I don’t see that happening. That leaves the courts or the Anti-Trust Division of the Justice Department.
|
|
|
Post by volleylbc on Apr 22, 2024 21:32:02 GMT -5
Sending good vibes annd congrats out to Kipp! I really hope she can make the VNL traveling roster. Not too familiar with any of the others Opps and their current play. Would be a dream to see her hit off of Poulter & Carlini.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 22, 2024 21:42:53 GMT -5
I can’t speak to the future. If Stanford ever had driven people in charge, with buy in from the community, they could easily build an NIL program that’s the envy of college sports just based on the wealth and entrepreneurial success of their alumni base. I'm not sure what "buy in from the community" means to you, but I just don't see that happening. I don't think enough people in the general alumni database care about football and basketball to pay tons of athletes hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars a year to attend Stanford. They'd have to find one or two very large benefactors with strong ties to the Stanford football program to be the athletics sugar daddy. This is the only reason why Oregon can throw its weight around in the pay to play world - one billionaire who wants to spend his money on Oregon football. This is in contrast to the myriad of programs in the south/mid-west who can get tons of smaller dollar donations to the collective as well as a good number of upper-middle class households to contribute thousands/tens of thousands of dollars to collectives - those people actually care about their college football team winning... a typical Stanford graduate does not. The relative mediocrity of the Stanford football program combined with the lack of greater support from the alumni network to change that perception is probably THE reason why Stanford is not in the Big 10 next year. Oregon has a decent sized group of professionals dedicated to financially supporting the Oregon NIL program. I think it’s naive to believe Oregon has anything remotely close to the stature in athletics they do without Phil Knight’s influence. He’s certainly a driving force behind them having an active NIL. But once he passes they’ll still have an active NIL. His loss is going to be felt more on the capital improvements side of the budget and the massive annual donations required to keep Oregon’s annual revenue commensurate with the other big boys. Autzen Stadium simply doesn’t produce enough revenue. They can’t expand the stadium because they can’t fill the seats. They need more premium seating with suites and private club seating, but that’s gping to take awhile. In any case, their NIL program is more robust than one guy. More than anything else Oregon has a culture where athletics is recognized as vitally important to the brand overall, and the community is on board with that. It takes significantly more resources to build state of the art facilities than it does to collect $10 to $20 million per year for a significant NIL collective budget. I feel like Oregon is pretty judicious with their NIL money overall. But they’re definitely on the generous side for football. They want to win. Getting back to Stanford, I have no idea what will happen in the future regarding their athletics. They’ve been a unicorn for so long. I’ve had the utmost respect for them in their ability to have it all - superior athletic success combined with limited compromises on the academic side. I just question how long that will continue. There are always going to be sports they can dominate. But unless they have a Jim Harbaugh as coach who is willing to bend every rule in the book to produce a winner while also being an outstanding coach, I think they’re doomed to cellar dwelling status. Getting a significant number of transfers is always going to be tough, even if guidelines are relaxed, which will be institutionally challenging to do regardless. As the impact of NIL trickles down from football, to men and women’s basketball (the NIL price for women’s basketball is up substantially this current portal period with a lot more programs participating financially). It’s impactjbg baseball and softball. We’ve seen it impact volleyball. Track and field will be bigger in NIL. Mens and women’s swimming? Tennis? Golf? Soccer? I think the NIL numbers are going to grow, but especially in any sport where viewership is going up. I just think Stanford’s model for athletic success is under greater and greater pressure. This desperate move to the ACC is a part of it. Either some kind of group of Stanford alumni come together to subsidize athletics at a much higher rate or Stanford’s athletic success in so many sports - specifically higher visibility sports, which I think volleyball is quickly becoming - will be a thing of the past.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 22, 2024 21:58:57 GMT -5
That’s not true regarding legislation. I think that’s the eventuality because the current system is unsustainable so it’s going to collapse in some kind of Hindenburg/2008 housing crisis type explosion at some point. Legislation is inevitable. What I have said and continue to say is that we’re nowhere near getting any “help” from that corner, given the abject dysfunction of our political system. I’ll also say when help comes it’s gojng to be highly controversial, because that’s how it works. So it’s not like the legislation gets passed in whatever form it takes and then it’s done. A critical part will always be the enforcement mechanism. I think the NCAA is going to seek another solution rather than face off in the Supreme Court again. But we’ll see. I believe they’re ready to give the high revenue programs their own playground and Pontius Pilate their way out of enforcing NIL. What type of legislation are you expecting out of a dysfunctional system? I don’t see that happening. That leaves the courts or the Anti-Trust Division of the Justice Department. Eventually I think the current college athletic system collapses because of the existential rise in competitive costs and then Congress passes some kind of legislation. I have no idea what form it would take. To be honest, I assume our country will have so many other issues tearing us apart even I will consider it a relatively minor issue. But I do think things are on a bad enough trajectory, and college sports is important enough to the American psyche as a whole, that some kind of legislation will be passed. But I’m not thinking it’s imminent. I still don’t believe the current case involving the states of Tennessee and Virginia ends up at the Supreme Court. I do not believe the NCAA has the appetite for it. I also don’t think the Big 10 nor the SEC trust the NCAA as an enforcement arm. A different solution is going to be found that isn’t going to involve the Supreme Court in this case. But we’ll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 22, 2024 22:18:28 GMT -5
What type of legislation are you expecting out of a dysfunctional system? I don’t see that happening. That leaves the courts or the Anti-Trust Division of the Justice Department. Eventually I think the current college athletic system collapses because of the existential rise in competitive costs and then Congress passes some kind of legislation. I have no idea what form it would take. To be honest, I assume our country will have so many other issues tearing us apart even I will consider it a relatively minor issue. But I do think things are on a bad enough trajectory, and college sports is important enough to the American psyche as a whole, that some kind of legislation will be passed. But I’m not thinking it’s imminent. I still don’t believe the current case involving the states of Tennessee and Virginia ends up at the Supreme Court. I do not believe the NCAA has the appetite for it. I also don’t think the Big 10 nor the SEC trust the NCAA as an enforcement arm. A different solution is going to be found that isn’t going to involve the Supreme Court in this case. But we’ll see what happens. We all know that the competitive programs are trying to go all in on NIL, and specifically, trying to harness it to their benefit. Sometimes, your tone insinuates that the argument about whether it’s permissible or not is somehow naive or blinded to reality. It isn’t that. Programs, coaches, boosters have been doing similar things for years, long before Alston and NIL. They’re now looking to do similar things, but now on a more consolidated scale. They’re doing it because they can in the current environment of perceived NCAA weakness. In some cases, like Tennessee, they’re doing it under the cover being provided by state legislators, and in others, like USC, they’re doing it around the margins of state law and the NCAA. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not individual member institutions of the NCAA directing NIL deals to enrolled student-athletes, or for the purpose of enrolling student-athletes, is anti-competitive, and therefore, impermissible under anti-trust law and/or the Alston decision. The Alston decision specifically excluded conferences, but not the NCAA or individual member institutions, which is why the conference solution might be in play as the exit ramp for the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 22, 2024 23:42:45 GMT -5
Eventually I think the current college athletic system collapses because of the existential rise in competitive costs and then Congress passes some kind of legislation. I have no idea what form it would take. To be honest, I assume our country will have so many other issues tearing us apart even I will consider it a relatively minor issue. But I do think things are on a bad enough trajectory, and college sports is important enough to the American psyche as a whole, that some kind of legislation will be passed. But I’m not thinking it’s imminent. I still don’t believe the current case involving the states of Tennessee and Virginia ends up at the Supreme Court. I do not believe the NCAA has the appetite for it. I also don’t think the Big 10 nor the SEC trust the NCAA as an enforcement arm. A different solution is going to be found that isn’t going to involve the Supreme Court in this case. But we’ll see what happens. We all know that the competitive programs are trying to go all in on NIL, and specifically, trying to harness it to their benefit. Sometimes, your tone insinuates that the argument about whether it’s permissible or not is somehow naive or blinded to reality. It isn’t that. Programs, coaches, boosters have been doing similar things for years, long before Alston and NIL. They’re now looking to do similar things, but now on a more consolidated scale. They’re doing it because they can in the current environment of perceived NCAA weakness. In some cases, like Tennessee, they’re doing it under the cover being provided by state legislators, and in others, like USC, they’re doing it around the margins of state law and the NCAA. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not individual member institutions of the NCAA directing NIL deals to enrolled student-athletes, or for the purpose of enrolling student-athletes, is anti-competitive, and therefore, impermissible under anti-trust law and/or the Alston decision. The Alston decision specifically excluded conferences, but not the NCAA or individual member institutions, which is why the conference solution might be in play as the exit ramp for the NCAA. Does my tone insinuate that? Because if it does, I'm not being blunt enough. If there's no effective enforcement mechanism whether it's permissible or not becomes moot. People can shake their fist all they want that people should drive the speed limit, but if there's no enforcement it's moot. People can shake their fist that Hutus shouldn't murder the Tutsis, or Hitler shouldn't be expanding the military in violation of the Versailles treaty, or college athletes shouldn't be compensated in pay for play schemes. "It says it right there!" Programs, coaches, and boosters have been doing it since college sports began. And frankly, not just at the college level. High school football in Texas is famous for all the communities that would provide jobs to parents with athletically gifted parents. Gordon Wood set the national record for wins at the high school level by doing just that at Brownwood. Odessa Permian, from Friday Night Lights fame, ensured they were a state powerhouse. During WWII nearly every base had a football team. The best ones had generals actively making sure the best athletes were stationed at their base. What is going on since the Alston decision far surpasses what has transpired before. You seem to love to argue that it isn't permissible, yet no matter how much shouting you do from your volleytalk pulpit about how the Supreme Court decision reads, NIL payments are on a hockey stick growth pattern. When schools and their employees aren't directing the NIL payments themselves, they're still being consulted to make sure the payments are being organized and arranged according to the priority of the coaching staffs. In places where state legislation is being passed to allow school involvement with NIL collectives, the argument is being used that without it these organizations are left to their own devices. At least with school involvement there can be some level of oversight. To me I don't think it matters whether schools can officially be involved or not. At the most competitive programs they're going to be. And all of it has hair all over it regardless. To me you seem to want a world where the Alston decision is followed rigorously. That's not the world we live in. It's not going to be the world we're going to live in. Some kind of congressional legislation will have to be passed. Some kind of effective enforcement mechanism will have to be adopted. What we have now is going to be run over by the forces that have been unleashed by the Alston decision. You crying about it makes you look like the Chinese dude blocking the tanks at Tiananmen Square. Again, I don't believe the legal case involving Virginia and Tennessee is going to make it to the Supreme Court. You do. Something else will happen before that occurs. What that is, I don't know, but either the NCAA is going to capitulate completely, they're going to hand off whatever enforcement occurs to a new organization run by the heavy hitters, congressional legislation is going to be passed that makes the case not applicable, some kind of combination of all the above, or something I'm not anticipating, like an alien attack or a nuclear war. I do not believe for one second the NCAA is going to argue this case in front of the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 22, 2024 23:50:50 GMT -5
We all know that the competitive programs are trying to go all in on NIL, and specifically, trying to harness it to their benefit. Sometimes, your tone insinuates that the argument about whether it’s permissible or not is somehow naive or blinded to reality. It isn’t that. Programs, coaches, boosters have been doing similar things for years, long before Alston and NIL. They’re now looking to do similar things, but now on a more consolidated scale. They’re doing it because they can in the current environment of perceived NCAA weakness. In some cases, like Tennessee, they’re doing it under the cover being provided by state legislators, and in others, like USC, they’re doing it around the margins of state law and the NCAA. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not individual member institutions of the NCAA directing NIL deals to enrolled student-athletes, or for the purpose of enrolling student-athletes, is anti-competitive, and therefore, impermissible under anti-trust law and/or the Alston decision. The Alston decision specifically excluded conferences, but not the NCAA or individual member institutions, which is why the conference solution might be in play as the exit ramp for the NCAA. Does my tone insinuate that? Because if it does, I'm not being blunt enough. If there's no effective enforcement mechanism whether it's permissible or not becomes moot. People can shake their fist all they want that people should drive the speed limit, but if there's no enforcement it's moot. People can shake their fist that Hutus shouldn't murder the Tutsis, or Hitler shouldn't be expanding the military in violation of the Versailles treaty, or college athletes shouldn't be compensated in pay for play schemes. "It says it right there!" Programs, coaches, and boosters have been doing it since college sports began. And frankly, not just at the college level. High school football in Texas is famous for all the communities that would provide jobs to parents with athletically gifted parents. Gordon Wood set the national record for wins at the high school level by doing just that at Brownwood. Odessa Permian, from Friday Night Lights fame, ensured they were a state powerhouse. During WWII nearly every base had a football team. The best ones had generals actively making sure the best athletes were stationed at their base. What is going on since the Alston decision far surpasses what has transpired before. You seem to love to argue that it isn't permissible, yet no matter how much shouting you do from your volleytalk pulpit about how the Supreme Court decision reads, NIL payments are on a hockey stick growth pattern. When schools and their employees aren't directing the NIL payments themselves, they're still being consulted to make sure the payments are being organized and arranged according to the priority of the coaching staffs. In places where state legislation is being passed to allow school involvement with NIL collectives, the argument is being used that without it these organizations are left to their own devices. At least with school involvement there can be some level of oversight. To me I don't think it matters whether schools can officially be involved or not. At the most competitive programs they're going to be. And all of it has hair all over it regardless. To me you seem to want a world where the Alston decision is followed rigorously. That's not the world we live in. It's not going to be the world we're going to live in. Some kind of congressional legislation will have to be passed. Some kind of effective enforcement mechanism will have to be adopted. What we have now is going to be run over by the forces that have been unleashed by the Alston decision. You crying about it makes you look like the Chinese dude blocking the tanks at Tiananmen Square. Again, I don't believe the legal case involving Virginia and Tennessee is going to make it to the Supreme Court. You do. Something else will happen before that occurs. What that is, I don't know, but either the NCAA is going to capitulate completely, they're going to hand off whatever enforcement occurs to a new organization run by the heavy hitters, congressional legislation is going to be passed that makes the case not applicable, some kind of combination of all the above, or something I'm not anticipating, like an alien attack or a nuclear war. I do not believe for one second the NCAA is going to argue this case in front of the Supreme Court. Summary, please.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 23, 2024 0:40:10 GMT -5
I'm not sure what "buy in from the community" means to you, but I just don't see that happening. I don't think enough people in the general alumni database care about football and basketball to pay tons of athletes hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars a year to attend Stanford. They'd have to find one or two very large benefactors with strong ties to the Stanford football program to be the athletics sugar daddy. This is the only reason why Oregon can throw its weight around in the pay to play world - one billionaire who wants to spend his money on Oregon football. This is in contrast to the myriad of programs in the south/mid-west who can get tons of smaller dollar donations to the collective as well as a good number of upper-middle class households to contribute thousands/tens of thousands of dollars to collectives - those people actually care about their college football team winning... a typical Stanford graduate does not. The relative mediocrity of the Stanford football program combined with the lack of greater support from the alumni network to change that perception is probably THE reason why Stanford is not in the Big 10 next year. Oregon has a decent sized group of professionals dedicated to financially supporting the Oregon NIL program. I think it’s naive to believe Oregon has anything remotely close to the stature in athletics they do without Phil Knight’s influence. He’s certainly a driving force behind them having an active NIL. But once he passes they’ll still have an active NIL. His loss is going to be felt more on the capital improvements side of the budget and the massive annual donations required to keep Oregon’s annual revenue commensurate with the other big boys. Autzen Stadium simply doesn’t produce enough revenue. They can’t expand the stadium because they can’t fill the seats. They need more premium seating with suites and private club seating, but that’s gping to take awhile. In any case, their NIL program is more robust than one guy. More than anything else Oregon has a culture where athletics is recognized as vitally important to the brand overall, and the community is on board with that. It takes significantly more resources to build state of the art facilities than it does to collect $10 to $20 million per year for a significant NIL collective budget. I feel like Oregon is pretty judicious with their NIL money overall. But they’re definitely on the generous side for football. They want to win. Take out Phil Knight and I'd bet good money that Oregon's overall collective athletic donor class is behind Washingtons. But that's neither here nor there, I don't actually care, but I DO think you touched on a very important topic, which is what happens when the old guard of college boosters start dying. Unless they leave part of their estate directly to the athletic departments/collectives, MANY programs will have a new problem to contend with - convincing millennials to care about college sports enough to give these programs and recruiting pools tons of money. This is purely anecdotal, but I think a lot of schools are going to see reduced revenue streams when this happens.
|
|