|
NIL money
Jan 30, 2024 21:02:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Jan 30, 2024 21:02:13 GMT -5
Just pay the players and the collectives go away. That’s not true at all. If the schools pay a market rate for the players, then I’d agree. But if the pay is some kind of flat rate then there will be adjunct pay available. If collectives exist then part of it will come from there. But there’s some kind of delusion that collectives are the issue, so if we somehow do away with collectives then the issue ceases to exist. The fundamental problem is that alums value their favorite school’s sports teams winning, in a way that’s not reflected in a monetary return on investment. It’s an emotional return on investment. It’s difficult to put an accurate measurement reflected in dollars on that value. If we do away with collectives we will still find ways to funnel money to athletes if there’s a chance it will provide a competitive edge. Thinking we’re going to legislate this away or come up with a rule that eliminates it is foolhardy. That said, the biggest issue we have is a lack of transparency. Anything that is done to create more transparency - including paying players directly - is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jan 30, 2024 21:10:07 GMT -5
The top WBB teams are spending north of $500k annually (some of them way north), so I'd start around there for WVB. There's no one in WVB who has the social media followings of a Dunne, Clark or Reese yet. Right now 50k a year in NIL for Women's Vball is near the top. Who are the top VBers on social media?
|
|
|
NIL money
Jan 30, 2024 21:11:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 30, 2024 21:11:03 GMT -5
Just pay the players and the collectives go away. That’s not true at all. If the schools pay a market rate for the players, then I’d agree. But if the pay is some kind of flat rate then there will be adjunct pay available. If collectives exist then part of it will come from there. But there’s some kind of delusion that collectives are the issue, so if we somehow do away with collectives then the issue ceases to exist. The fundamental problem is that alums value their favorite school’s sports teams winning, in a way that’s not reflected in a monetary return on investment. It’s an emotional return on investment. It’s difficult to put an accurate measurement reflected in dollars on that value. If we do away with collectives we will still find ways to funnel money to athletes if there’s a chance it will provide a competitive edge. Thinking we’re going to legislate this away or come up with a rule that eliminates it is foolhardy. That said, the biggest issue we have is a lack of transparency. Anything that is done to create more transparency - including paying players directly - is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. Donors paying players will never go away. Donors giving their money to collectives to make payroll will go away when the schools are the ones responsible for making payroll.
|
|
|
NIL money
Jan 30, 2024 21:31:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Jan 30, 2024 21:31:59 GMT -5
That’s not true at all. If the schools pay a market rate for the players, then I’d agree. But if the pay is some kind of flat rate then there will be adjunct pay available. If collectives exist then part of it will come from there. But there’s some kind of delusion that collectives are the issue, so if we somehow do away with collectives then the issue ceases to exist. The fundamental problem is that alums value their favorite school’s sports teams winning, in a way that’s not reflected in a monetary return on investment. It’s an emotional return on investment. It’s difficult to put an accurate measurement reflected in dollars on that value. If we do away with collectives we will still find ways to funnel money to athletes if there’s a chance it will provide a competitive edge. Thinking we’re going to legislate this away or come up with a rule that eliminates it is foolhardy. That said, the biggest issue we have is a lack of transparency. Anything that is done to create more transparency - including paying players directly - is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. Donors paying players will never go away. Donors giving their money to collectives to make payroll will go away when the schools are the ones responsible for making payroll. If the schools are responsible for the whole payroll. If they’re responsible for a flat rate of compensation it isn’t going away. Also, schools paying market rate for athletes has hair all over it as well, and I don’t see that being any more sustainable than what we have now, which means that’s going to collapse if it’s ever enacted in some way. Just as the “system” - if you can even describe the Wild West we’re currently in as such - college athletics operates under is going to collapse sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jan 30, 2024 21:52:08 GMT -5
Just pay the players and the collectives go away. That’s not true at all. If the schools pay a market rate for the players, then I’d agree. But if the pay is some kind of flat rate then there will be adjunct pay available. If collectives exist then part of it will come from there. But there’s some kind of delusion that collectives are the issue, so if we somehow do away with collectives then the issue ceases to exist. The fundamental problem is that alums value their favorite school’s sports teams winning, in a way that’s not reflected in a monetary return on investment. It’s an emotional return on investment. It’s difficult to put an accurate measurement reflected in dollars on that value. If we do away with collectives we will still find ways to funnel money to athletes if there’s a chance it will provide a competitive edge. Thinking we’re going to legislate this away or come up with a rule that eliminates it is foolhardy. That said, the biggest issue we have is a lack of transparency. Anything that is done to create more transparency - including paying players directly - is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. The problem won't go away, but collectives surely are a big part of the problem. They are akin to Super Pacs in politics. If these athletes actually had to individually go out and solicit themselves to actual businesses to promote their name, likeness, and image, we'd be seeing a lot less blanket pay for play. Instead, a select few invested boosters go out on behalf of the collective, raise a bunch of funds from individual donations, pool the funds, and just GIVE said athlete(s) the pooled money.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 30, 2024 21:58:01 GMT -5
Money given to a collective whose sole purpose is to pay athletes at a particular school isn’t tax deductible. That reality is transforming the collective model because as much as rich donors like making splashy donations, they like the idea of tax deductions even better.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jan 30, 2024 22:08:01 GMT -5
Money given to a collective whose sole purpose is to pay athletes at a particular school isn’t tax deductible. That reality is transforming the collective model because as much as rich donors like making splashy donations, they like the idea of tax deductions even better. Eliminate Itemized Tax Deductions!!! Sorry for the politics - It's the off season.
|
|
|
NIL money
Jan 30, 2024 22:19:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Jan 30, 2024 22:19:54 GMT -5
Money given to a collective whose sole purpose is to pay athletes at a particular school isn’t tax deductible. That reality is transforming the collective model because as much as rich donors like making splashy donations, they like the idea of tax deductions even better. It’s not transforming the collective model as much as you think. NIL payments are still on a hockey puck growth pattern. People want to win.
|
|
|
NIL money
Jan 30, 2024 22:24:22 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Jan 30, 2024 22:24:22 GMT -5
That’s not true at all. If the schools pay a market rate for the players, then I’d agree. But if the pay is some kind of flat rate then there will be adjunct pay available. If collectives exist then part of it will come from there. But there’s some kind of delusion that collectives are the issue, so if we somehow do away with collectives then the issue ceases to exist. The fundamental problem is that alums value their favorite school’s sports teams winning, in a way that’s not reflected in a monetary return on investment. It’s an emotional return on investment. It’s difficult to put an accurate measurement reflected in dollars on that value. If we do away with collectives we will still find ways to funnel money to athletes if there’s a chance it will provide a competitive edge. Thinking we’re going to legislate this away or come up with a rule that eliminates it is foolhardy. That said, the biggest issue we have is a lack of transparency. Anything that is done to create more transparency - including paying players directly - is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. The problem won't go away, but collectives surely are a big part of the problem. They are akin to Super Pacs in politics. If these athletes actually had to individually go out and solicit themselves to actual businesses to promote their name, likeness, and image, we'd be seeing a lot less blanket pay for play. Instead, a select few invested boosters go out on behalf of the collective, raise a bunch of funds from individual donations, pool the funds, and just GIVE said athlete(s) the pooled money. That’s never going to happen, though. The best players sign with an agency and the agency negotiated the NIL deals. Packages will be put together whether a collective is involved or not. I will agree with you regarding the Super PAC analogy, though. Collectives have absolutely increased the amount of money available, so there would be a shift in the market of some sort. But if a different mechanism is found to funnel the money, then there would be little to no change in the money being invested. The fundamental desire to see their team win is still the primary factor, and that doesn’t change.
|
|
vbruh
Sophomore
Posts: 193
|
Post by vbruh on Jan 30, 2024 22:32:50 GMT -5
The top WBB teams are spending north of $500k annually (some of them way north), so I'd start around there for WVB. There's no one in WVB who has the social media followings of a Dunne, Clark or Reese yet. Right now 50k a year in NIL for Women's Vball is near the top. There were offers of 100K+/year to recruits this summer. This is all new to WVB but it’s happening, and not just top programs. There are mid majors with successful business people who love volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 30, 2024 23:00:15 GMT -5
Money given to a collective whose sole purpose is to pay athletes at a particular school isn’t tax deductible. That reality is transforming the collective model because as much as rich donors like making splashy donations, they like the idea of tax deductions even better. It’s not transforming the collective model as much as you think. NIL payments are still on a hockey puck growth pattern. People want to win. It hasn't dissuaded everyone immediately, but everyone is also searching for a better alternative. That sense of imminent urgency is part of what is driving the NCAA's alternative proposal and the push for employee status (where donations could be tax deductible).
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jan 30, 2024 23:17:43 GMT -5
It’s not transforming the collective model as much as you think. NIL payments are still on a hockey puck growth pattern. People want to win. It hasn't dissuaded everyone immediately, but everyone is also searching for a better alternative. That sense of imminent urgency is part of what is driving the NCAA's alternative proposal and the push for employee status (where donations could be tax deductible). The NCAA is still not proposing employee status. That's a push coming from a different direction. The NCAA wants protection from Congress so athletes aren't classified as employees. The NCAA proposals are about flat fee compensation for athletes. There will still be money funneled to players under any kind of proposal which includes flat fee compensation. Some players simply have a higher market value than other players. People are going to find ways to compensate them accordingly because it gives their favorite program a better chance of winning. I'll also say everyone can search for an alternative all they want. Congress will have to pass legislation, and that doesn't seem very plausible right now to me.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 30, 2024 23:22:26 GMT -5
It hasn't dissuaded everyone immediately, but everyone is also searching for a better alternative. That sense of imminent urgency is part of what is driving the NCAA's alternative proposal and the push for employee status (where donations could be tax deductible). The NCAA is still not proposing employee status. That's a push coming from a different direction. The NCAA wants protection from Congress so athletes aren't classified as employees. The NCAA proposals are about flat fee compensation for athletes. There will still be money funneled to players under any kind of proposal which includes flat fee compensation. Some players simply have a higher market value than other players. People are going to find ways to compensate them accordingly because it gives their favorite program a better chance of winning. I'll also say everyone can search for an alternative all they want. Congress will have to pass legislation, and that doesn't seem very plausible right now to me. I didn't say that was part of the NCAA's proposal (I used "and" to separate the proposals and to indicate the variety of perspectives being proposed). There aren't a lot of really good opinions out there in the public domain, but I thought this one had some more insightful trains of thought than most: sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-stuck-in-quagmire-of-its-own-making-with-latest-nil-mess-230729158.html
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Jan 31, 2024 10:02:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Jan 31, 2024 10:05:21 GMT -5
|
|