No one defends the NCAA ...there may be macro law by the Supremes ... but right now, at the micro law level there are no guiding policies or penalties. The old saying is true, "every man did that which was right in their own eyes." And that is where we are now.
And so it begins... NIL
- Thread starter Yellow Snow
- Start date
His point is if you are against NIL because it won't be fair and the rich will get richer that's a poor argument because it's already been happening.
Negative...my point is NIL will accelerate and totally corrupt what is left of the rigged system. The NCAA greed and ineptitude allowed this crap to happen ...and now we think that very same NCAA is going to figure things out as NIL with all of its forthcoming permutations emerge?? Good luck with that.
Again ..this is not about endorsing or selling t-shirts ...that is chump change. Under the table corrupt cash ... big money donors stuffing players pockets is where the real money will reside.
It's not a one way street. The market value of the player is increased by playing for the school, and the market value of the school is increased by having successful players and teams. Only one side of the equation has reaped all of the benefits of this arrangement so far with the absolute windfalls of cash flowing through P5 programs.
Here's the thing - they weren't lying. I was one of the people that thought it wouldn't be that much money flowing to the players. It's already more than I ever thought it would be.
You asked what @Mr Janny 's point was, I answered for him because I have seen his posts on here enough to know what he meant, and you respond with "negative" because YOUR point is something different than what I said. That's not how conversation works.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,737
- 33,752
- 113
Absolutely the opposite. All of the chicken littles running around here screaming about how NIL rights will only make the rich richer should ask themselves "How much richer could they possibly get!" Under the existing system, you have 4 teams getting nearly 2/3 of the spots in the Football playoff, with the remaining 1/3 going to the other 125 programs. You're fighting to save a system with those outcomes and trying to use "competitive fairness" as an argument? I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.
And what exactly are the realistic alternatives? Given the way the court cases have gone, what exactly can the NCAA do? Their model is not stable. The very idea that schools can all agree to limit the value of a scholarship is on the brink of collapse. It's just waiting for the right lawsuit to completely demolish it. State laws are in effect preventing the NCAA from punishing players for profiting from their NIL rights. Transfer rules have also been relaxed and aren't going back.
Can you not see which way the wind is blowing? You lost this fight. It's over. It's been over for a while.
there was nothing wrong with the model. There was a huge window of opportunity back in the days where most leagues only had about 2 or 3 schools investing heavily in football. Here an some examples. Pac-USC/UCLA, BIG-Michigan/OSU, Big 8-Nebraska/OU, East-Penn State/Pitt, SEC-Bama/LSU, SWC-Texas/Arkansas. Then there was another opportunity in the 80s when the NCAA lost control of the TV rights. By then Iowa started investing heavily into their program, they crashed the OSU/Michigan party. Also in the 80s dozens of programs woke up and started investing heavily into their programs. We did the exact opposite at that time, our administration purged the football program. We fell so far behind in the arms race. So again, it wasn't' the model, it was our own ineptitude that had our program in a crap hole for so long. We are in good shape under the current model. We have enough resources and the right staff to compete. With the NIL, it has a chance to put us at a disadvantage, only this time we wouldn't be doing it to ourselves, it's something we can't control.
Social media is going to make these kids a ton of money. Followers/subscribers are worth a ton - I think we will see a lot of these top level recruits in high school hire people to run their social media in a way that maximizes followers, which will in turn maximize NIL value. Attractive female athletes may be bigger winners in this than many people would have ever imagined.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,737
- 33,752
- 113
Where the big money already resides, you mean. Because it's already there.
Again, you are only fighting to preserve a fairy tale, the NCAA as you imagine it to be.
You think the schools don't have policies on this? I gaurantee you they do or will VERY soon. But that's a red herring argument anyways. None of the guiding policies or penalties in regards to NIL should have anything to do with competitive balance, which is what all of the whining from everyone in this thread is about.
but I think this has a chance to amplify what is already there. Plus this will put some schools that are not blue bloods into an advantageous situation they were not in prior to the NIL. For example, Boston College resides in a metro area of 4.6 mil. Boston College really doesn't have that much of a following in that city. They don't have a rabid fan base like ISU, they only get about 40,000 per game. But the opportunities for NIL at BC dwarf Iowa State. So it's not the bluebloods that are already rich and will get richer that is the issue, well it is an issue, but the greater issue is now location will give some programs huge opportunities compared to others.
I'm pretty sure companies in Boston are going to primarily focus on local professional athletes. College athletics doesn't really move the needle in Boston.
I could see a scenario playing out where someone like Georges has a lot more NIL ability than a star player for a college team in a big market. That's assuming purity in the NIL deal where people are actually paid based on what their NIL is worth in their market, which I don't see playing out because I see the wealthy donors simply buying recruits and players to get them on their team vs paying them according to their true NIL worth.
Will be interesting for sure.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,737
- 33,752
- 113
Again, some programs having huge opportunities compared to others is a hallmark of the current system. That's nothing new. And if a school like Boston College becomes a power under the new rules, so be it. I don't see that as a bad thing at all. Grow the number of power teams.
Iowa State can get a seat at the table as well. We have intelligent, forward thinking leadership, who are going to navigate these new waters.
We are two weeks into this. Nobody knows how things are going to play out, and what this looks like going forward. I certainly don't. But I do know that college sports will still exist. Iowa State isn't going to fold up shop and stop playing.
I'm pretty sure we already were disadvantaged trying to convince some kids to come to the middle of Iowa compared to Florida or California.
That was my thought too but I was thinking more about Minnesota or even Wisconsin to a lesser extent where we like to recruit basketball players. Especially Minny, the Gophers are like the 5th tier in Minneapolis. Yeah there is a lot of money there... but does anybody really care? And if nobody cares, then there isn't much to be made in advertising.
There is always the possibility of some super deep pockets alumnus parachuting in, but that again has always been the case. T. Boone Pickens reshaped the OSU athletics programs when he dropped hundreds of millions for them to use for facilities.
Still waiting on Dabo Sweeney to follow through with this threat to quit coaching college football if players start getting paid!
Bingo....the only difference is that instead of having to donate for over the top facilities and coach buyouts, now the athletes that are actually generating the revenue can profit if they wish.
Won't ever be able to stop some donor with **** you money from tipping the scales.
