Duquesne First to Hire NIL Coach for Athletes

[3star_recruit]

Investing in a player who's likely on his way to the league is one thing. His likeness will pay off for your business for years after he leaves.  Where's the return on investment for investing in a kid who's headed to Eastern Europe in 3 years?

[Cowboy]

-people spend their money for all kinds of reasons, if some spending benefits SLU then I'm all for it, and sometimes it is driven by ego, if the president of ABC Corp wants to invite  player A to have lunch with them for $5k or $50k, under the new system, go for it

-Adman raises some interesting points on this and the decisions that will need to be made

-welcome to the somewhat regulated wild wild west

 

[Reinert310]

48 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

Investing in a player who's likely on his way to the league is one thing. His likeness will pay off for your business for years after he leaves.  Where's the return on investment for investing in a kid who's headed to Eastern Europe in 3 years?

I think as a company, you would structure any deal so it only last for the amount of time they’re in the city. Or you prepay them a certain sum of money to use them in your ads. Then, if they graduate or transfer in a year, you stop running the ads and you’re not out any extra money. And it would be a lot cheaper to make a 30-second spot of JGood eating IMO’s than it is to make the same 30-second spot using Ryan O’Reilly. So, you might have a smaller return on the ads, but you’re also paying them significantly less money. 

[Taj79]

I would think that the player(s) would need to have some sort of cachet to cash in on advertising.  I mean, you have to know who the person who is selling your the goods or the sale is inconsequential.  Would St. Louisans know who Jordan Goodwin is/was?  Without the Billiken logo?  What about Javonte?  I have no clue who Rashard WIlliams is or what  he looks like.  Would local kids flock to an aouting that promised autographs with Jimmy Bell Jr.?  Markhi Strickland?  Maybe TJ over on the east side, I don't know.  Gibby woudl need to become almost deadly from three to sell his likeness on a t-shirt with "Bang! He Got It!"  on it.  

The fact that they can do it is one thing and I'm happy for that.  The real question will be who gets what in the long run.

[Reinert310]

41 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

I would think that the player(s) would need to have some sort of cachet to cash in on advertising.  I mean, you have to know who the person who is selling your the goods or the sale is inconsequential.  Would St. Louisans know who Jordan Goodwin is/was?  Without the Billiken logo?  What about Javonte?  I have no clue who Rashard WIlliams is or what  he looks like.  Would local kids flock to an aouting that promised autographs with Jimmy Bell Jr.?  Markhi Strickland?  Maybe TJ over on the east side, I don't know.  Gibby woudl need to become almost deadly from three to sell his likeness on a t-shirt with "Bang! He Got It!"  on it.  

The fact that they can do it is one thing and I'm happy for that.  The real question will be who gets what in the long run.

There are ways around that. “I’m Jordan Goodwin, star player from St. Louis’ own college basketball team. And when I eat donuts, I get them from another homegrown company. That’s why I always get my donuts from Strange Donuts. (Takes a bite). Mmmmm mmmmmm. Now that’s a good donut. Strange Donuts, now with 4 locations.” You throw a grand at JGood. Spend another few grand for the shoot and editing and everything. You get a quality advertisement with a well-known, homegrown college basketball player and get the point across that you’re a local business when the “support local businesses” trend is everywhere. I think there would absolutely be some value in something like that.

[willie]

30 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

I would think that the player(s) would need to have some sort of cachet to cash in on advertising.  I mean, you have to know who the person who is selling your the goods or the sale is inconsequential.  Would St. Louisans know who Jordan Goodwin is/was?  Without the Billiken logo?  What about Javonte?  I have no clue who Rashard WIlliams is or what  he looks like.  Would local kids flock to an aouting that promised autographs with Jimmy Bell Jr.?  Markhi Strickland?  Maybe TJ over on the east side, I don't know.  Gibby woudl need to become almost deadly from three to sell his likeness on a t-shirt with "Bang! He Got It!"  on it.  

The fact that they can do it is one thing and I'm happy for that.  The real question will be who gets what in the long run.

I can be dead wrong but I think everyone is looking at this from the wrong side. The business side. I don’t think this will provide a return  on investment but will allow avid boosters to legally buy players. Instead of hiring players to do sham work you can have them do legal promotion work. Let’s do a hypothetical. Aufenbergh (sp) Motors is an east side auto dealership. What’s to keep him from getting Goodwin to do a commercial for one of his dealerships. Might actually be a good investment. My point is I don’t see us having enough Aufenbergh’s in our program to compete with the Kentucky’s or Missouri’s for players like Jordan or Yuri. Kentucky may be a bad example as we don’t typically recruit against them but there are a lot of wealthy Missouri alumni in this area who give big bucks to their football program. 

[3star_recruit]

15 minutes ago, willie said:

I can be dead wrong but I think everyone is looking at this from the wrong side. The business side. I don’t think this will provide a return  on investment but will allow avid boosters to legally buy players. Instead of hiring players to do sham work you can have them do legal promotion work. Let’s do a hypothetical. Aufenbergh (sp) Motors is an east side auto dealership. What’s to keep him from getting Goodwin to do a commercial for one of his dealerships. Might actually be a good investment. My point is I don’t see us having enough Aufenbergh’s in our program to compete with the Kentucky’s or Missouri’s for players like Jordan or Yuri. Kentucky may be a bad example as we don’t typically recruit against them but there are a lot of wealthy Missouri alumni in this area who give big bucks to their football program. 

Why am I, as a booster, paying for anybody other than a potential one and doner?  Rarely is as a top 75 freshman even the leading scorer on a team.  Why would I pay for him when my best player is a senior that I'm not paying anything?

[willie]

7 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

Why am I, as a booster, paying for anybody other than a potential one and doner?  Rarely is as a top 75 freshman even the leading scorer on a team.  Why would I pay for him when my best player is a senior that I'm not paying anything?

You are hung up on one and doners I believe Kentucky and Duke showed that that’s not how you win a championship. I would rather put my money in a Timme than a Suggs . 

[3star_recruit]

6 minutes ago, willie said:

You are hung up on one and doners I believe Kentucky and Duke showed that that’s not how you win a championship. I would rather put my money in a Timme than a Suggs . 

Again, why pay high school recruit Drew Timme anything when Gonzaga's best player in Timme's freshman year was Filip Petrusev and their second best player was Corey Kispert?

[BilliesBy40]

1 hour ago, 3star_recruit said:

Why am I, as a booster, paying for anybody other than a potential one and doner?  Rarely is as a top 75 freshman even the leading scorer on a team.  Why would I pay for him when my best player is a senior that I'm not paying anything?

Ask the people doing it already without a legal avenue to do so

[Reinert310]

20 minutes ago, BilliesBy40 said:

Ask the people doing it already without a legal avenue to do so

I think it’s pretty rare that 4* and especially 3* kids are paid anything to go to a school. The people (boosters) that throw that kind of money around usually want an immediate return on their investment. They’re not paying for developmental kids that could be great in 3 or 4 years. 

[BilliesBy40]

2 minutes ago, Reinert310 said:

I think it’s pretty rare that 4* and especially 3* kids are paid anything to go to a school. The people (boosters) that throw that kind of money around usually want an immediate return on their investment. They’re not paying for developmental kids that could be great in 3 or 4 years. 

That’s not what I’ve been told by people who have first hand knowledge

[brianstl]

20 hours ago, willie said:

I can be dead wrong but I think everyone is looking at this from the wrong side. The business side. I don’t think this will provide a return  on investment but will allow avid boosters to legally buy players. Instead of hiring players to do sham work you can have them do legal promotion work. Let’s do a hypothetical. Aufenbergh (sp) Motors is an east side auto dealership. What’s to keep him from getting Goodwin to do a commercial for one of his dealerships. Might actually be a good investment. My point is I don’t see us having enough Aufenbergh’s in our program to compete with the Kentucky’s or Missouri’s for players like Jordan or Yuri. Kentucky may be a bad example as we don’t typically recruit against them but there are a lot of wealthy Missouri alumni in this area who give big bucks to their football program. 

I think there is some money to be made on the business side.  How much would it be worth for a bar near Chaifetz to lock up Perkins to do meet and greets after home games?  Stuff like that is why I think the money for most of these guys will be appearance fees at least at first.

There will be even more money to be made for businesses as these kids learn how to better brand themselves.

I really think basketball only schools really have an advantage for basketball by not having to compete with football for booster dollars.  The first instinct for most P5 schools is going to be to try to drive as much of that money as possible to the football side because there is far more money for the athletic programs to make off football.  You only need one billionaire boaster to be all in at a non football school to be a top player in the NIL basketball business.

[Reinert310]

16 minutes ago, BilliesBy40 said:

That’s not what I’ve been told by people who have first hand knowledge

I definitely don’t have first hand knowledge, so absolutely could be wrong.

[Pistol]

Crazy how so many self-proclaimed free market capitalists won't apply their belief system to college athletes hoping to exercise some degree of control over their own name and image. Weird.

[3star_recruit]

1 hour ago, Pistol said:

Crazy how so many self-proclaimed free market capitalists won't apply their belief system to college athletes hoping to exercise some degree of control over their own name and image. Weird.

It is weird.  But for those of us who don't have a dog in this fight, it's equally weird how people expect the free market to play out. 

There are folks who honestly thought, for example, that mid-major guards averaging 10 points a game would be in high demand in the transfer market.  Nope, it is the top 10% of mid-major players who are in high demand.  Most of these guys are just languishing in the portal, making lateral moves or staying at their schools .

[Taj79]

It's return on investment (ROI) if you are a businessman; it's just plain buying kids if you're a big program booster.  How many kids drink Sprite because LeBron James says so?  How many kids bought the shoes "to be like Mike."  Again, bravo that the kids can do it, but what will it get them?  I could see Imo's being the 'hometown pizza" with Jayson Tatum's face on the box but Jayson is in Boston now.  The NIL issue is based in decent foundations, but I don't think it will lead to much in terms of equality.  The rich will get richer.  Short of a group autograph session, I can't see where a SLU kid will make money off their Name, Image or Likeness.  That seems liek a full-time gig ... along with practicing, playing games, travel, school work and the like.

[billiken_roy]

jason is very much recognized still in st louis.   a lot of locals seem to somewhat disappear when they head out of town permanently but imo, we still see and hear from jason more than most.   for example, bradley beal spends a lot of money on the local AAU team, but beyond that, we dont know much about beal here in st louis.   tatum does the imo's commercials and i see a lot of tatum jersey out and about the kids.   so the "endorsement" seems to be working there more than beal's goodwill.   weird.    

that all said, i will be the first to admit i am not as tied into the nba as i am for college basketball, particularly the billikens or major league baseball so maybe i just am not paying attention enough.   of course my enthusiasm for baseball has taken a noticeable hit after the all star game nonsense in georgia.   really upsetting to me that baseball got involved in politics.   i am a huge political watcher, but i also am a big proponent that we need to keep it out of the sports scene so we have an escape somewhere.   

[BilliesBy40]

1 hour ago, Taj79 said:

It's return on investment (ROI) if you are a businessman; it's just plain buying kids if you're a big program booster.  How many kids drink Sprite because LeBron James says so?  How many kids bought the shoes "to be like Mike."  Again, bravo that the kids can do it, but what will it get them?  I could see Imo's being the 'hometown pizza" with Jayson Tatum's face on the box but Jayson is in Boston now.  The NIL issue is based in decent foundations, but I don't think it will lead to much in terms of equality.  The rich will get richer.  Short of a group autograph session, I can't see where a SLU kid will make money off their Name, Image or Likeness.  That seems liek a full-time gig ... along with practicing, playing games, travel, school work and the like.

I agree with much of your sentiment as it pertains to the college game. However, it makes more sense to view the pros vs. college dynamics separately, as sports marketing with pro athletes is undeniably successful. You ask how many kids bought shoes to be like Mike. Millions, literally. Jordan single-handedly transformed Nike from a second-rate brand to the leader in sports apparel. The Jordan brand brings in revenue over $3 billion per year. Nike hasn't paid Jordan over $1 billion for nothing.

I view the college NIL issue as an opportunity for boosters to help steer (or keep) players to their favorite team. There is demand in this space, albeit for different reasons than increasing revenue for a business. The rich may get richer, but non-powers with deep-pocketed boosters could also benefit from the change.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/05/03/michael-jordans-1-billion-nike-endorsement-is-the-biggest-bargain-in-sports/?sh=3c63f0066136

[Pistol]

1 hour ago, 3star_recruit said:

It is weird.  But for those of us who don't have a dog in this fight, it's equally weird how people expect the free market to play out. 

There are folks who honestly thought, for example, that mid-major guards averaging 10 points a game would be in high demand in the transfer market.  Nope, it is the top 10% of mid-major players who are in high demand.  Most of these guys are just languishing in the portal, making lateral moves or staying at their schools .

The thing that isn't changing is the number of players on a roster. Fans at our level can wring their hands all they want about the "rich getting richer" but there are only 13 scholarships to give, and rotations only go so deep. There just aren't enough spots for those programs to take from the tiers below them. Be it transfers or the NLI stuff, the balance of power doesn't really shift, it's just the means by which players get to their ultimate destinations.

People are also thinking way too locally in terms of how NLI will play out.

First and foremost, players would be able to monetize social media. That has nothing to do with where they're physically located or which school they attend. They can partner with brands from anywhere for sponsored content. An elite dunker can go viral from anywhere.

Secondly, the earning power of athletes in non-revenue sports is never higher than when they're in college. There just isn't a pro infrastructure for a lot of them, so if someone's a star field hockey player and a company that makes field hockey equipment wants to use her in advertising, it never makes more sense than when she's an active collegiate player. This is honestly true for most revenue generating sport athletes, as well, since so few play pro ball. A guy like Goodwin may have been more marketable over the past four years than he will be over the next four. College athletes are also perfect candidates for modeling.

Third, this allows athletes to be compensated when their NLIs are used for video games and other media representations.

Fourth, when it comes to local marketing, is market size really the best determinant of how much an athlete could make? A stud football player in Stillwater, Oklahoma might have more NLI value there than he would at Rutgers in the NYC market if you're thinking in terms of car dealerships and pizza chains. Almost 100% name recognition in a small place vs. minimal name recognition in a big city. It just depends on what opportunities are available.

I could go on. Point is, there's just no logical argument against this. The sham of the NCAA's amateurism model has to end. It's been hurting athletes for too long. And SLU loses nothing if this rule change passes, either.

[almaman]

15 minutes ago, Pistol said:

The thing that isn't changing is the number of players on a roster. Fans at our level can wring their hands all they want about the "rich getting richer" but there are only 13 scholarships to give, and rotations only go so deep. There just aren't enough spots for those programs to take from the tiers below them. Be it transfers or the NLI stuff, the balance of power doesn't really shift, it's just the means by which players get to their ultimate destinations.

People are also thinking way too locally in terms of how NLI will play out.

First and foremost, players would be able to monetize social media. That has nothing to do with where they're physically located or which school they attend. They can partner with brands from anywhere for sponsored content. An elite dunker can go viral from anywhere.

Secondly, the earning power of athletes in non-revenue sports is never higher than when they're in college. There just isn't a pro infrastructure for a lot of them, so if someone's a star field hockey player and a company that makes field hockey equipment wants to use her in advertising, it never makes more sense than when she's an active collegiate player. This is honestly true for most revenue generating sport athletes, as well, since so few play pro ball. A guy like Goodwin may have been more marketable over the past four years than he will be over the next four. College athletes are also perfect candidates for modeling.

Third, this allows athletes to be compensated when their NLIs are used for video games and other media representations.

Fourth, when it comes to local marketing, is market size really the best determinant of how much an athlete could make? A stud football player in Stillwater, Oklahoma might have more NLI value there than he would at Rutgers in the NYC market if you're thinking in terms of car dealerships and pizza chains. Almost 100% name recognition in a small place vs. minimal name recognition in a big city. It just depends on what opportunities are available.

I could go on. Point is, there's just no logical argument against this. The sham of the NCAA's amateurism model has to end. It's been hurting athletes for too long. And SLU loses nothing if this rule change passes, either.

well said. y anyone equates this with college players becoming national spokes people like Snoop, or the Progressive insurance lady is missing the obvious. Signing autographs at fish Fries and school picnics, small local companies things of that nature are all over the place. Belleville guys could be in Eckert's commercials, Sky View Drive in, Beast Craft, L.O.T.S. Christmas display. Those using local athletes can be seen as supporting college athletics by using the local guys rather than generic local actors and save $$. Local fitness clubs seems like a natural fit also.

[JMM28]

1 hour ago, Pistol said:

The thing that isn't changing is the number of players on a roster. Fans at our level can wring their hands all they want about the "rich getting richer" but there are only 13 scholarships to give, and rotations only go so deep. There just aren't enough spots for those programs to take from the tiers below them. Be it transfers or the NLI stuff, the balance of power doesn't really shift, it's just the means by which players get to their ultimate destinations.

People are also thinking way too locally in terms of how NLI will play out.

First and foremost, players would be able to monetize social media. That has nothing to do with where they're physically located or which school they attend. They can partner with brands from anywhere for sponsored content. An elite dunker can go viral from anywhere.

Secondly, the earning power of athletes in non-revenue sports is never higher than when they're in college. There just isn't a pro infrastructure for a lot of them, so if someone's a star field hockey player and a company that makes field hockey equipment wants to use her in advertising, it never makes more sense than when she's an active collegiate player. This is honestly true for most revenue generating sport athletes, as well, since so few play pro ball. A guy like Goodwin may have been more marketable over the past four years than he will be over the next four. College athletes are also perfect candidates for modeling.

Third, this allows athletes to be compensated when their NLIs are used for video games and other media representations.

Fourth, when it comes to local marketing, is market size really the best determinant of how much an athlete could make? A stud football player in Stillwater, Oklahoma might have more NLI value there than he would at Rutgers in the NYC market if you're thinking in terms of car dealerships and pizza chains. Almost 100% name recognition in a small place vs. minimal name recognition in a big city. It just depends on what opportunities are available.

I could go on. Point is, there's just no logical argument against this. The sham of the NCAA's amateurism model has to end. It's been hurting athletes for too long. And SLU loses nothing if this rule change passes, either.

You've had a lot of good posts but this might be the best one yet. Congratulations sir. 

[cgeldmacher]

5 hours ago, Pistol said:

Crazy how so many self-proclaimed free market capitalists won't apply their belief system to college athletes hoping to exercise some degree of control over their own name and image. Weird.

My response to that is to say that for what you are saying to be true there would have to be some demand for players to do endorsements and appearances that is getting thwarted by the NCAA rules prohibiting such enterprise.  That demand doesn't exist.  So, all this is really accomplishing is to legalize what had been illegal payoffs to players.

Let's just use SLU for now.  Our professional athletes in town rarely get chosen for cashing in on local ad money.  If they're not getting appearance money and ad money, why would SLU players?  I'm a passionate Billiken fan, but I recognize that the amount of people in town that would recognize a SLU basketball player is dwarfed by the number that would recognize a Cardinal or Blues player.  No business in town is going to reasonably think that it is a wise business investment to hand Perkins $5,000 for a personal appearance.  The only reason they would do that is if they think it is the equivalent of making a donation to SLU's athletic programs.

As 3-Star has said, the system not allowing college athletes to control their own name and image only practically applies to the very few players that are known commodities for the very short period of time that they play NCAA sports.  For the rest, there just isn't a demand out their for their names and images that they need control over.

[MusicCityBilliken]

13 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

My response to that is to say that for what you are saying to be true there would have to be some demand for players to do endorsements and appearances that is getting thwarted by the NCAA rules prohibiting such enterprise.  That demand doesn't exist.  So, all this is really accomplishing is to legalize what had been illegal payoffs to players.

Let's just use SLU for now.  Our professional athletes in town rarely get chosen for cashing in on local ad money.  If they're not getting appearance money and ad money, why would SLU players?  I'm a passionate Billiken fan, but I recognize that the amount of people in town that would recognize a SLU basketball player is dwarfed by the number that would recognize a Cardinal or Blues player.  No business in town is going to reasonably think that it is a wise business investment to hand Perkins $5,000 for a personal appearance.  The only reason they would do that is if they think it is the equivalent of making a donation to SLU's athletic programs.

As 3-Star has said, the system not allowing college athletes to control their own name and image only practically applies to the very few players that are known commodities for the very short period of time that they play NCAA sports.  For the rest, there just isn't a demand out their for their names and images that they need control over.

Your right about SLU but this is where the Blue Bloods make out especially where pro sports are very limited or non-existant. Example: Kentucky, Kansas, Carolina, etc...

In Atlanta, Georgia football is #1 over Falcons, Braves, Hawks, United, etc..

[Reinert310]

16 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

My response to that is to say that for what you are saying to be true there would have to be some demand for players to do endorsements and appearances that is getting thwarted by the NCAA rules prohibiting such enterprise.  That demand doesn't exist.  So, all this is really accomplishing is to legalize what had been illegal payoffs to players.

Let's just use SLU for now.  Our professional athletes in town rarely get chosen for cashing in on local ad money.  If they're not getting appearance money and ad money, why would SLU players?  I'm a passionate Billiken fan, but I recognize that the amount of people in town that would recognize a SLU basketball player is dwarfed by the number that would recognize a Cardinal or Blues player.  No business in town is going to reasonably think that it is a wise business investment to hand Perkins $5,000 for a personal appearance.  The only reason they would do that is if they think it is the equivalent of making a donation to SLU's athletic programs.

As 3-Star has said, the system not allowing college athletes to control their own name and image only practically applies to the very few players that are known commodities for the very short period of time that they play NCAA sports.  For the rest, there just isn't a demand out their for their names and images that they need control over.

How can you say that the demand doesn’t exist when the rule hasn’t even been put in place yet? Not to mention the rule extends well beyond local advertisements. There have been rumblings about college sports video games returning for a while now. If that’s the case, each player will be able to profit from their likenesses being used. Is it going to be millions of dollars? Of course not. But even hundreds of dollars can mean a lot to college kids. And even if it doesn’t happen much in St. Louis, it could absolutely be used more in other places. Especially in small college towns where the school is central to just about everything. Limiting the scope of how we analyze the new rule to only the perspectives of SLU athletes is pointless.