|
|
Post by 25or624 on Jun 14, 2024 12:31:56 GMT -5
I think we should agree, or not, on what is really at issue. Is NIL "pay for play"? When I think of pay for play, it seems to imply something beyond NIL.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jun 14, 2024 12:40:27 GMT -5
I think we should agree, or not, on what is really at issue. Is NIL "pay for play"? When I think of pay for play, it seems to imply something beyond NIL. The original intent was that college athletes would be able to get sponsorship deals and do paid appearances and otherwise monetize their brand just like the pros can. MJ doing promos for Exact Sciences. CC recruiting students to sign up for UW Hospital's research studies. Devyn being a "Bubblr athlete," including cans of Bubblr in her Insta stories. Frank and Izzy running camps & clinics when they're back home for break. Dan selling her art. But athletic departments rushed to create these collectives that raise money and create what are essentially slush funds that can pay players or provide other compensation, like luxury apartments and car leases, in exchange for very little extra work on their part. And NIL is so poorly defined and so poorly regulated that there's very little that anyone can do to stop it from becoming Pay for Play. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 14, 2024 12:43:37 GMT -5
I think we should agree, or not, on what is really at issue. Is NIL "pay for play"? When I think of pay for play, it seems to imply something beyond NIL. Some people on here seem to think it's black and white. I think it's more complicated than that. I feel like it's hard to distinguish between pay for play and NIL. More like impossible. It's more like the famous definition of obscenity, where the Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, stated he'd know it when he sees it. Hard to make a policy around that. If you're allowing student athletes to benefit from selling the rights to their name, image, and likeness, but somehow you're restricting who they're able to sell it to in some way, there better be some robust definitions around it that make sense to everyone, especially in a court of law. Just as importantly, there better be an enforcement arm that can be both aggressive and yet somehow judicious, with some appropriate penalties for organizations that are seen to break the rules. And finally, it would be helpful if the rules were equally applied everywhere. Some folks seem to think the settlement is a step in that direction. I guess we'll see, but I don't believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 14, 2024 12:45:57 GMT -5
I think we should agree, or not, on what is really at issue. Is NIL "pay for play"? When I think of pay for play, it seems to imply something beyond NIL. The original intent was that college athletes would be able to get sponsorship deals and do paid appearances and otherwise monetize their brand just like the pros can. MJ doing promos for Exact Sciences. CC recruiting students to sign up for UW Hospital's research studies. Devyn being a "Bubblr athlete," including cans of Bubblr in her Insta stories. Frank and Izzy running camps & clinics when they're back home for break. Dan selling her art. But athletic departments rushed to create these collectives that raise money and create what are essentially slush funds that can pay players or provide other compensation, like luxury apartments and car leases, in exchange for very little extra work on their part. And NIL is so poorly defined and so poorly regulated that there's very little that anyone can do to stop it from becoming Pay for Play. I can tell you that athletic departments absolutely did not rush to create collectives. The athletic departments were very nervous about collectives. There's now more a cost of doing business attitude at many programs, but that was not how they were viewed from the beginning. Collectives were absolutely a booster led development. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 14, 2024 12:50:23 GMT -5
They sure do. I’d say Wisconsin is a clear second though. I’m not quite sure of your point, though. To me he’s saying if we’re outbid, it probably wasn’t a good fit in any case. However, for young ladies who are interested in NIL opportunities, we have them right here at Wisconsin. I think he’s plenty smart to understand NIL is important, so he wants to make it clear he’s supportive of it and Wisconsin has more than their fair share of opportunities. But he’s not interested in bidding wars. That’s how I read it. My point is Sheffield likely wasn’t alluding to Landfair, because he said, “the opportunities for NIL are a lot higher [at Wisconsin] than for programs that don’t have much of a following.” Landfair chose Nebraska over Wisconsin and Nebraska has an even larger following, so he couldn’t have been referring to Landfair. Yes, I see your point. My strong feeling is that he can still be alluding to Landfair. Landfair could have hypothetically had a much larger NIL offer from Nebraska. In all likelihood she did. Sheffield could feel like they were very close to getting Landfair, but ended up falling short because of that. But instead of decrying the evils of NIL overall, he simply suggested some players choose a location because of money, and those players are probably not a fit in any case. But for players who are interested in NIL opportunities, Wisconsin has some great ones in part because of the rabid fan base. But that's speculation on my part. I'm simply saying that's the name that popped into my head when I read the quote. It's still the name that pops into my head, even with your reasoning. You are being dismissive of it being Landfair. I am not. |
|
|
|
Post by chibadgerfan on Jun 14, 2024 12:52:25 GMT -5
I think we should agree, or not, on what is really at issue. Is NIL "pay for play"? When I think of pay for play, it seems to imply something beyond NIL. The original intent was that college athletes would be able to get sponsorship deals and do paid appearances and otherwise monetize their brand just like the pros can. MJ doing promos for Exact Sciences. CC recruiting students to sign up for UW Hospital's research studies. Devyn being a "Bubblr athlete," including cans of Bubblr in her Insta stories. Frank and Izzy running camps & clinics when they're back home for break. Dan selling her art. But athletic departments rushed to create these collectives that raise money and create what are essentially slush funds that can pay players or provide other compensation, like luxury apartments and car leases, in exchange for very little extra work on their part. And NIL is so poorly defined and so poorly regulated that there's very little that anyone can do to stop it from becoming Pay for Play. I think the upcoming reforms are going to blow away those distinctions, and SAs will become employees, like the pros are. Wisconsin, and every university, will need to choose if they want to continue their athletic programs, or exit. There won’t be a high ground anymore. Some great coaches (Nick Saban comes to mind) may simply decide it isn’t for them. I could see some universities doing the same. Do Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Stanford really need a power conference caliber athletic program to maintain prominence? None of the Ivy League have one, nor MIT and nor U Chicago. |
|
|
|
Post by 25or624 on Jun 14, 2024 12:57:27 GMT -5
I think we should agree, or not, on what is really at issue. Is NIL "pay for play"? When I think of pay for play, it seems to imply something beyond NIL. Some people on here seem to think it's black and white. I think it's more complicated than that. I feel like it's hard to distinguish between pay for play and NIL. More like impossible. It's more like the famous definition of obscenity, where the Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, stated he'd know it when he sees it. Hard to make a policy around that. If you're allowing student athletes to benefit from selling the rights to their name, image, and likeness, but somehow you're restricting who they're able to sell it to in some way, there better be some robust definitions around it that make sense to everyone, especially in a court of law. Just as importantly, there better be an enforcement arm that can be both aggressive and yet somehow judicious, with some appropriate penalties for organizations that are seen to break the rules. And finally, it would be helpful if the rules were equally applied everywhere. Some folks seem to think the settlement is a step in that direction. I guess we'll see, but I don't believe it. Sheff's comment - "We have not entered a pay-for-play type of deal here with our program" - coupled with his NIL-related comments, implies a bright line distinction between NIL / pay for play in his mind. It would be interesting to hear more from him, but he's probably said everything he's willing to say in public. |
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jun 14, 2024 13:01:15 GMT -5
The original intent was that college athletes would be able to get sponsorship deals and do paid appearances and otherwise monetize their brand just like the pros can. MJ doing promos for Exact Sciences. CC recruiting students to sign up for UW Hospital's research studies. Devyn being a "Bubblr athlete," including cans of Bubblr in her Insta stories. Frank and Izzy running camps & clinics when they're back home for break. Dan selling her art. But athletic departments rushed to create these collectives that raise money and create what are essentially slush funds that can pay players or provide other compensation, like luxury apartments and car leases, in exchange for very little extra work on their part. And NIL is so poorly defined and so poorly regulated that there's very little that anyone can do to stop it from becoming Pay for Play. I can tell you that athletic departments absolutely did not rush to create collectives. The athletic departments were very nervous about collectives. There's now more a cost of doing business attitude at many programs, but that was not how they were viewed from the beginning. Collectives were absolutely a booster led development. True, my apologies, boosters rushed to create collectives. But there is coordination between collectives and athletic departments, even more now that the restrictions have been eased to allow athletic departments to facilitate athletes' NIL deals. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 14, 2024 13:12:56 GMT -5
I can tell you that athletic departments absolutely did not rush to create collectives. The athletic departments were very nervous about collectives. There's now more a cost of doing business attitude at many programs, but that was not how they were viewed from the beginning. Collectives were absolutely a booster led development. True, my apologies, boosters rushed to create collectives. But there is coordination between collectives and athletic departments, even more now that the restrictions have been eased to allow athletic departments to facilitate athletes' NIL deals. There wasn't anything the athletic departments could do about collectives. So they had this rogue element out there pulling money from the same customer base the athletic departments relied upon, with no real cooperation as to how they conducted business, who they signed deals with, or how much money was being given. Which, I'd argue, is exactly what NIL should be. But it made the athletic departments extremely nervous. So they campaigned on any number of levels to allow some associations so they could exert some level of control over the process. I'm not saying any of that is a good thing, necessarily. But it's not an accident restrictions have been eased. Athletic departments campaigned for it. And now we have plenty of athletic departments completely embracing collectives. The settlement is an effort to try to bring all of that in house on some level, at least from what I've read. I don't think that's going to be possible, but it seems to be part of the intent. All I'm saying is that athletic departments and collectives are not walking in lockstep. Athletic departments want control over the process, but also want the bare minimum arm's length relationship to the extent it serves their purposes. The collectives want to assist in acquiring the best talent for their favorite program. Those kinds of activities have always existed at every level of football and men's basketball. NIL simply legitimized in certain ways a behavior that has gone on since college sports were started. And because it was suddenly legitimized, the amounts grew exponentially. |
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jun 14, 2024 13:47:27 GMT -5
Okay. All the NIL stuff is getting in the way of the bingo. No news?
|
|
|
|
Post by greatlakesvballer on Jun 14, 2024 15:20:05 GMT -5
Okay. All the NIL stuff is getting in the way of the bingo. No news? GIVE US THE BINGO!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by chibadgerfan on Jun 14, 2024 15:20:10 GMT -5
My point is Sheffield likely wasn’t alluding to Landfair, because he said, “the opportunities for NIL are a lot higher [at Wisconsin] than for programs that don’t have much of a following.” Landfair chose Nebraska over Wisconsin and Nebraska has an even larger following, so he couldn’t have been referring to Landfair. Yes, I see your point…I'm simply saying that's the name that popped into my head when I read the quote. It's still the name that pops into my head, even with your reasoning. You are being dismissive of it being Landfair. I am not. I’m glad you see my point. I think “dismissive” is a bit strong, but I do think he wasn’t thinking of Landfair when he said that. After all that was months ago. in any event, I also would love to see Wisconsin recruit at the level of Texas and Nebraska does. We’re close. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Jun 14, 2024 15:25:50 GMT -5
Okay. All the NIL stuff is getting in the way of the bingo. No news? GIVE US THE BINGO!!! There will be no bingo today because the window is not open until after midnight tonight. And if you read that article about their approach, there may not be one tomorrow either. They are being quite deliberate and scheduling zoom calls with 12 or so players tomorrow. No decision will be made until at least after those calls are made. At least, that is what they are saying. I guess a really eager prospect might schedule a zoom call immediately and accept tomorrow. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by 25or624 on Jun 14, 2024 15:52:15 GMT -5
GIVE US THE BINGO!!! There will be no bingo today because the window is not open until after midnight tonight. And if you read that article about their approach, there may not be one tomorrow either. They are being quite deliberate and scheduling zoom calls with 12 or so players tomorrow. No decision will be made until at least after those calls are made. At least, that is what they are saying. I guess a really eager prospect might schedule a zoom call immediately and accept tomorrow. We'll see. Sheff was good to us last year, first BINGO was on 6/16. I'm hoping for, but not predicting, a quick yes from Layli Ostovar (5-11 OH), Charlie's club teammate. |
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jun 14, 2024 16:05:10 GMT -5
More importantly, I want a transfer.
|
|
