Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NIL
Apr 30, 2022 10:56:56 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2022 10:56:56 GMT -5
A big difference between between college players and pros is that any limits on the pros' compensation has been collectively bargained. I think it's pretty clear players are responsible for creating some part of that value and they've thus far been under compensated. I have no idea what Paolo Banchero or Aiden Hutchinson should make in a fair market, but it's certainly more than a scholarship and COA. Why would the players collectively agree to cut off their own windfall? The only way I think they might go along with it, is if they get a direct piece of the pie (talking athletic dept revenue, perhaps a direct piece of that big check that gets cut from the conference to the school), in exchange for "limiting/regulating" NIL. Otherwise, I don't think they're going to believe (or care) that they're strangling their own golden goose with this behavior, and how many people it will turn off.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2022 11:21:56 GMT -5
A big difference between between college players and pros is that any limits on the pros' compensation has been collectively bargained. I think it's pretty clear players are responsible for creating some part of that value and they've thus far been under compensated. I have no idea what Paolo Banchero or Aiden Hutchinson should make in a fair market, but it's certainly more than a scholarship and COA. Why would the players collectively agree to cut off their own windfall? It's not much of a windfall right now. If an outside entity (the NCAA, Congress, individual universities) tries to pare back the current framework, unionizing would be the best counter to preserve bargaining power. It's also a way to force a larger piece of the pie. Pay for play is coming, so it can come on the athlete's terms or on the terms of the people in power. I don't think it's going to turn off that many people, but I suppose it could in the long run. It's also not clear to me the players even have a golden goose to strangle at the moment. Almost everyone making life-changing money off college sports is still holding a whistle or sitting behind a desk.
|
|
|
NIL
Apr 30, 2022 11:27:24 GMT -5
reader likes this
Post by bbg95 on Apr 30, 2022 11:27:24 GMT -5
NIL (and the free transfer) quickly becoming an arms race to buy the best athletes was the most predictable thing in the history of the world. Yep. It's the combination together that makes for an awful product. Can you imagine if this is how it worked in the NFL: - new players can sign with whichever team they want - they can play for 1 year, and then completely of their own accord, on any whim, decide to just get up and leave - then they can immediately play the next season for any other team - no salary caps of any kind, whichever team ('s market/fans) is richest, can pay whatever it wants for whomever it thinks are the best players - "tampering" is completely allowed, you can offer anything you want to any player who is already on any other roster Sorry, but that's a trash product (other than for fans of those few teams). That's what we're talking about here for major college. Agreed. As I said, the NFL has way more regulation right now than college football, which is absurd and untenable. One solution to this that I've heard is just reinstating the transfer wait rule for sports like football and men's basketball, at least for schools in the P5. As a concession, the player would keep the year of eligibility, but they would have to sit out a year before playing for the new school. That would cut down on a lot of the issues. Tampering becomes a lot less attractive if both the player and the coach of the tampering school know that the player will have to sit for a year.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 30, 2022 11:27:43 GMT -5
NIL (and the free transfer) quickly becoming an arms race to buy the best athletes was the most predictable thing in the history of the world. Yep. It's the combination together that makes for an awful product. Can you imagine if this is how it worked in the NFL: - new players can sign with whichever team they want - they can play for 1 year, and then completely of their own accord, on any whim, decide to just get up and leave - then they can immediately play the next season for any other team - no salary caps of any kind, whichever team ('s market/fans) is richest, can pay whatever it wants for whomever it thinks are the best players - "tampering" is completely allowed, you can offer anything you want to any player who is already on any other roster Sorry, but that's a trash product (other than for fans of those few teams). That's what we're talking about here for major college. But that's what it always was going to be once NIL became a thing. It's why the NCAA fought so hard against it, oftentimes in an extreme way. It's stunning to me people are so surprised by this. I've spent the last 10 years or so saying this is what it would become any time anyone tried to talk about how unfair it was that schools were making so much revenue off of college sports and players were only getting a scholarship and a small stipend. Not saying it wasn't unfair. It always has been. But there is simply no way to regulate it nor enforce any regulations imposed. It's legally and realistically impossible. The only organization that could possibly regulate and enforce anything is Congress and the DOJ/FBI. You think they want to be in charge of regulating and enforcing college sports? But there isn't anyone else. So the only solution is mo money, mo money, mo money. The power conference schools are going to leave the NCAA to form their own group, and at that point schools will have to make a judgement call whether they want to be a part of a competitive environment which is even more patently unfair towards the wealthiest schools/markets, or step down in competition, deemphasize college sports, and go to more of an Ivy League/Div II sort of model.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2022 11:34:41 GMT -5
Why would the P5 leave? They're getting everything they want. The NIL and labor issues aren't suddenly going to disappear if they form their own organization.
|
|
|
NIL
Apr 30, 2022 11:36:29 GMT -5
Post by bbg95 on Apr 30, 2022 11:36:29 GMT -5
Pay for play is coming, so it can come on the athlete's terms or on the terms of the people in power. Pay for play is already here. NIL is legalized bag man recruiting.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 30, 2022 11:54:29 GMT -5
Apparently, there is now an $8 million NIL deal for a single recruit.
If that name sounds familiar, it may be due to the fact that Iamaleava is also one of the best volleyball prospects in the country.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2022 12:02:15 GMT -5
Pay for play is coming, so it can come on the athlete's terms or on the terms of the people in power. Pay for play is already here. NIL is legalized bag man recruiting. Kind of. It seems to me the difference between a super PAC and an actual campaign. They're not really allowed to coordinate, and the money comes from two different places. To me, pay for play would be the schools paying players directly. I said it in another thread, but it's not like bags of cash still aren't happening all the time.
|
|
|
NIL
Apr 30, 2022 12:21:16 GMT -5
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 30, 2022 12:21:16 GMT -5
I don't get throwing millions at a quarterback, unless you're going to give the o-line and d-line commensurate deals. Winning in college football is about quality depth, not having one player who may (or may not) turn out to be elite.
|
|
|
NIL
Apr 30, 2022 12:31:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2022 12:31:20 GMT -5
I don't get throwing millions at a quarterback, unless you're going to give the o-line and d-line commensurate deals. Winning in college football is about quality depth, not having one player who may (or may not) turn out to be elite. Our local football staff is focusing on rallying NIL collectives to keep guys from transferring out rather than entice specific recruits with up front deals. I tend to agree with them that's where the whole thing is likely to reach equilibrium. Put your resources towards established guys rather than teenagers. $2 million a year for a high school kid feels like lighting money on fire.
|
|
|
NIL
Apr 30, 2022 12:59:18 GMT -5
Post by slxpress on Apr 30, 2022 12:59:18 GMT -5
I don't get throwing millions at a quarterback, unless you're going to give the o-line and d-line commensurate deals. Winning in college football is about quality depth, not having one player who may (or may not) turn out to be elite. Our local football staff is focusing on rallying NIL collectives to keep guys from transferring out rather than entice specific recruits with up front deals. I tend to agree with them that's where the whole thing is likely to reach equilibrium. Put your resources towards established guys rather than teenagers. $2 million a year for a high school kid feels like lighting money on fire. Until you get Cam Newton or Vince Young and he helps bring your school a national championship. The rumor is A&M spent over $15m to bring in the highest ranked football recruiting class since they’ve been measured, this past signing class. Is that number going to go down? Zero chance. That becomes the new floor for if you want to compete for the most talented players. They’re not all going to pan out. But if you even want your foot in the door to try to grab these players, you have to be willing to play the game, and without a doubt talent matters. You say it’s lighting money on fire, but that’s not how markets work, especially speculative markets. It’s supply and demand, and there’s a ginormous amount of people out there willing to spend an overwhelming amount of dollars on a relatively few number of talented athletes just to give their favorite team a better chance of winning a championship. I keep seeing people acting all agog about the amounts being tossed around. You’ve been living in a fairy land. This was always what was going to happen once NIL was allowed. We’re just getting started. The amounts we’re talking about now are going to be dwarfed by what is coming. And anyone who doesn’t think it’s going to affect volleyball is kidding themselves. It’s going to affect all college sports. Some more than others. But the schools that are able to build an NIL infrastructure to support their volleyball team are going to be able to corner the market on top talent even more than they have previously, both from high school and transfers. This is why Texas left for the SEC. it wasn’t because of the increase in revenue. It was specifically to be a part of the new college sports landscape. Many of the schools in the Big 12 simply can’t compete in what college sports is going to become. They don’t have the athletic budget and they don’t have the means to support a huge payroll via NIL for their athletes. Very soon the power conferences will form their own affiliation where the ridiculousness of NIL will be embraced as the new reality, and each institution within those conferences will have to make a determination if they want to be a part of it or not.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 30, 2022 13:30:32 GMT -5
Our local football staff is focusing on rallying NIL collectives to keep guys from transferring out rather than entice specific recruits with up front deals. I tend to agree with them that's where the whole thing is likely to reach equilibrium. Put your resources towards established guys rather than teenagers. $2 million a year for a high school kid feels like lighting money on fire. Until you get Cam Newton or Vince Young and he helps bring your school a national championship. The rumor is A&M spent over $15m to bring in the highest ranked football recruiting class since they’ve been measured, this past signing class. Is that number going to go down? Zero chance. That becomes the new floor for if you want to compete for the most talented players. They’re not all going to pan out. But if you even want your foot in the door to try to grab these players, you have to be willing to play the game, and without a doubt talent matters. You say it’s lighting money on fire, but that’s not how markets work, especially speculative markets. It’s supply and demand, and there’s a ginormous amount of people out there willing to spend an overwhelming amount of dollars on a relatively few number of talented athletes just to give their favorite team a better chance of winning a championship. I keep seeing people acting all agog about the amounts being tossed around. You’ve been living in a fairy land. This was always what was going to happen once NIL was allowed. We’re just getting started. The amounts we’re talking about now are going to be dwarfed by what is coming. And anyone who doesn’t think it’s going to affect volleyball is kidding themselves. It’s going to affect all college sports. Some more than others. But the schools that are able to build an NIL infrastructure to support their volleyball team are going to be able to corner the market on top talent even more than they have previously, both from high school and transfers. This is why Texas left for the SEC. it wasn’t because of the increase in revenue. It was specifically to be a part of the new college sports landscape. Many of the schools in the Big 12 simply can’t compete in what college sports is going to become. They don’t have the athletic budget and they don’t have the means to support a huge payroll via NIL for their athletes. Very soon the power conferences will form their own affiliation where the ridiculousness of NIL will be embraced as the new reality, and each institution within those conferences will have to make a determination if they want to be a part of it or not. The naivety is hilarious. Look at the poll on this thread. Nearly 70% of people thought small markets would benefit more than big markets. Granted, Tuscaloosa isn't a big market in the conventional sense, but if we think of the schools themselves as markets, Alabama is about as big as it gets.
|
|
|
NIL
Apr 30, 2022 15:06:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2022 15:06:40 GMT -5
I don't know where this is going to end up at equilibrium, but I get the sense it's going to be a lot of $10k-ish annual investments, which isn't nothing. The blockbuster deals are going to happen, but they'll be in the 50k-100k range, not seven figures. Although I could be wrong! Guess I was wrong! Although in my defense, I was thinking about traditional endorsement deals like Logan Eggleston with Champion or Paige Bueckers and Gatorade. Not these NIL collectives.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 30, 2022 15:11:42 GMT -5
I don't know where this is going to end up at equilibrium, but I get the sense it's going to be a lot of $10k-ish annual investments, which isn't nothing. The blockbuster deals are going to happen, but they'll be in the 50k-100k range, not seven figures. Although I could be wrong! Guess I was wrong! Although in my defense, I was thinking about traditional endorsement deals like Logan Eggleston with Champion or Paige Bueckers and Gatorade. Not these NIL collectives. The money the alums pour into NIL deals will dwarf the endorsement deals for legitimate commercial purposes. I’m sure there’s going to be plenty of big endorsement deals signed, but the impetus is not the same for companies as it is for alums.
|
|
|
NIL
Apr 30, 2022 15:20:32 GMT -5
Post by bbg95 on Apr 30, 2022 15:20:32 GMT -5
I don't know where this is going to end up at equilibrium, but I get the sense it's going to be a lot of $10k-ish annual investments, which isn't nothing. The blockbuster deals are going to happen, but they'll be in the 50k-100k range, not seven figures. Although I could be wrong! Guess I was wrong! Although in my defense, I was thinking about traditional endorsement deals like Logan Eggleston with Champion or Paige Bueckers and Gatorade. Not these NIL collectives. Sure, if NIL was actually based on the players' marketing value to a business rather than just being a way to funnel money to them, it would be less.
|
|