Leaderboard

Also I don't think he played with a lack of intensity at all. I think he could have asserted himself more offensively at times. However, when you're on a team with JGood, Has, and Perkins it tough to always know when to be aggressive and when to defer to the big 3. I wish him all the best at Ball State. He seems like a good guy and team mate

"Jacobs did not become our best player/scorer." OK, that may be true, but where's the logic in using that yardstick when every player but one will fail? Jacobs succeeded in his sixth man role; he came off the bench and turned the tide of games more than once. This board was praising him. He was never the same after the prolonged COVID break, and neither was the team. The fact the NCAA is granting eligibility for another season underscores how whacked everything was. Jacobs was WAY better pre-COVID this season compared to his turnover-prone initial season. Surely that took drive, motivation and a work ethic. Kudos to everyone wishing him well, agree he was great for the program and fun to watch.

I think Jacobs is very good, but is not an aggressive person by nature. Some things cannot be changed.

thanks, couldn't muster up the words but these are perfect. I bet he does very well.

https://youtu.be/cdX184vBnpI

It’s not good.

You’re forgetting about a crucial third reason: 3) the NCAA’s sham amateurism model is quite possibly illegal, which is why they are spending so much time having to defend it in court and in front of congress for the past several years. The NIL rule is an easy way for the NCAA to allow student athletes to get paid and to appease the regulators and lawyers without forcing the schools to actually pay the players out of their own pockets.

The McDermott interview was great, I really enjoyed it (especially as someone who isn't plugged into SLU soccer as often as many of the more die-hard fans). The pod has proven to be a great way for me to keep up with the non-basketball sports. You and Peter are doing a great job; the production quality and your ability to have a natural conversation is impressive for such a relatively new podcast. I have to add though that I disagreed with a lot of the Jordan Goodwin discussion. I think at one point Zac compared him to Yadier Molina or some of the older Blues players which didn't really make sense to me since Jordan Goodwin is not an aging player; he's still getting better and his return would immediately elevate the ceiling of our team. The Cardinals wouldn't have let go of prime, all-star Yadier Molina just because they thought it was time for a fresh catcher behind the plate. And if it's time to move on from Goodwin, I don't really follow why you guys seemed to be keen on Aaron Cook, who would basically present the same issues as Goodwin in terms of taking time away from our other guards. But even though I have a different opinion on those topics it's always good to hear well informed Bills fans talk about the team and I'm grateful for the offseason content.

Yes. Much of the $$ will be for personal appearances. As to the question of whether players would be able use SLU logos, names, etc., it's an interesting topic. In some situations, top-tier players may compete with SLU for sponsorship dollars. In others, there may be joint team/player/sponsor opportunities. In yet other situations, sponsors may use player appearances as a cheap way to buy an implied relationship with SLU/team or defeat another sponsor's exclusivity. Each might have different solutions as to use of marks. There may be some top-tier players who capture the entire market's passion who advertisers want for more than just appearances. They might compete with the school for sponsorship $$. Now if the sponsor also buys a team sponsorship (or if already a team sponsor,) would SLU prohibit the use of their trademarks and all of the resulting co-marketing opportunities simply because the player is also getting paid? I wouldn't. Now if the sponsor is major, didn't buy a SLU sponsorship (bought the player only) -- and wants more than player appearances -- if you're SLU, you're probably prohibiting use of marks. But there are downsides: no SLU awareness via promotional co-marketing activities, and it reduces the opportunity to use this player-only sponsorship to ultimately bring the sponsor into a SLU sponsorship down the road. It also runs the possibility of angering your player if the deal goes south (because you didn't allow use of marks,) literally costing the player big money. Maybe the player walks at end of school year. There are two other situations. 1) Some schools offer exclusive sponsorships within business categories. For example, "official beer sponsor", "official wireless carrier", etc. (I have no idea if SLU has such.) Sometimes sponsors locked out of exclusive deals use player sponsorships to "break" the exclusivity, especially when there isn't a labor union governing this kind of thing, definitely the situation here. Imagine for a second, if Verizon tried to sponsor a player to undermine TMobile. (again, have no idea whether TMobile's SLU sponsorship is exclusive.) In that situation of using a player-only sponsorship to defeat another sponsor's SLU exclusivity, it would be a definite no-no on use of marks. But what about a player sponsorship in which there is no exclusivity involved, but it does compete with an existing sponsor. An example might be selling players to an automotive dealership group that competes with Bommarito Automotive. (again, I have no idea if that is an exclusive deal.) But what would Bommarito say if 4 or 5 players signed a deal to make personal appearances at a competitive dealership at half the cost of a SLU sponsorship? SLU gets nothing. Players might undermine an existing sponsorship. My opinion: no marks. And I don't really like the thought of it. 2) Small, mom & pop sponsors for personal appearances. A pizza parlor, for example. It's kind of a tough call. They're not likely ever going to be a SLU sponsor -- too small. So probably no loss of revenue that would have come to SLU. And it helps in building local goodwill. But in allowing use of marks, SLU might lose control of how its marks are used and which brands they're associated with. The player would control. Not good. Trying to police this for all their players? A nightmare. On other hand, SLU doesn't want to anger its players. Tough call. Maybe no SLU marks. But simple "SLU player" in ad copy/text is OK. A mess. Perhaps a solution would be a joint Athletic Dept/Players sponsorship sales strategy with rules governing. It would offer a stronger array of options, opportunities for both $$ (short and longer term) and co-marketing. But there may also be legal/anti-trust limitations for SLU, too. While SLU certainly owns and controls its marks, in the interest of protecting its sponsors and sponsorship pricing, can SLU actually limit the sponsors its players sell and the prices they charge? I'm not sure. The players don't have a labor union to negotiate these kind of things. Sorry if I've gotten too far into the weeds on this! But it's a complicated subject, actually way more so than I've highlighted. There will have to be much discussion, processes, rules, approvals, etc put in place. And lawyers. Getting a headache just thinking about it! (no offense to the many great lawyers on this board!)

Yarbrough came into college as a point forward. Despite being a knucklehead, he eventually became an all-conference player in the Valley doing just that. Strickland is an elite athlete in search of a position.

I think you are proving the point. Jacobs spent too much time deferring, thus his disappearances in games......