Jump to content

Duquesne First to Hire NIL Coach for Athletes


Recommended Posts

14 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.

Pistol did an excellent job of laying out the potential landscape.  But he's only moved me from the idea of a star mid-major player getting no ad money to maybe getting the equivalent of a low-wage summer job income.  Maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour 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.

If this is true, then what is the point of not letting them be paid for their own NLIs? Why is the NCAA bothering to regulate such a small upside?

Straight payoffs are and still would be illegal. This is simply to give players the freedom to leverage their own popularity - whatever the scale may be - for pay. Just as it is with other college students and everyone else.

Look, I don't think the scale here is out of control. I think your point about a lot of local pro athletes is fair, that not all of them are lining up endorsements all over the place. However, that doesn't mean college athletes should be shut out altogether. Plus, people have a different connection to their alma maters. I'd be way more drawn to seeing SLU athletes featured in advertising than a mid-roster Blues or Cardinals player, the same way I'm more interested in their social media. The opportunities would be different.

When I was at SLU, one day Brad Soderberg was in the West Pine Gym filming a Lou Fusz commercial. They had an "actor" on camera with him who was about 7 feet tall and he had on a generic, blank blue jersey. He had no lines, but it was a visual joke and Brad had some line about needing a roomy interior or something. I just see no reason why that couldn't have been Ian Vouyoukas or Bryce Husak getting a few hundred bucks for standing in.

Another example is how an athlete may have his/her image used in ways they don't want to, without being able to have any control over it or payment from it. Allison Stokke is a prime example and her Wiki covers this; photos of her went viral before she even got to college and she spent those years trying to slow it down to no avail. Had she been able to sign an agent, model/endorse on her own terms, and monetize her social media, she could've made 6 figures a year in college easily, which certainly helps mitigate having to deal with millions of creeps taking her image a direction she never intended it to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

Pistol did an excellent job of laying out the potential landscape.  But he's only moved me from the idea of a star mid-major player getting no ad money to maybe getting the equivalent of a low-wage summer job income.  Maybe.

yep, bet 3 seniors would of made bit of change for the billboard on 44. good concrete example bout generic big & brad

That's all we're asking ***. right now if Pappy's wanted to put Yuri on an ad saying "Assist leader's know the bestway to score Q in town is a Yurmania pass away from here" on back of the game program they can't. Yuri pockets a couple hundred $$ if they can.. I c no losers except the knuckle dragging folks amongst us feelings. Right now the losers are the kids.

u youngins may not be aware of this but when going pro early became a thing & a controversy back in 60-70s the similar line of thought was something like "what is that bratty kid thinking not taking this great education that he can't afford and going off to make money?".  Eventually reality took over & now one has to wonder y a 1&dunner would go to school rather than take certain first round $$$. of course the big $$ of the modern era is main driver of doubters over the finish line.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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.

-if they are just athletes, sure, if they are student-athletes I disagree

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

-if they are just athletes, sure, if they are student-athletes I disagree

Taking into account inflation, the average athlete made more money during the summer in 1960 than he does now.  Kids back then weren't required to be athletes year-round.  They had summer jobs back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another thing that it will do. Illinois started allowing gaming machines in bars a handful of years ago. A lot of bars were already paying out on their "for entertainment purposes only" machines for many decades before it was technically legal. The law changed and all of the sudden every bar in Illinois has a handful of machines and rakes in thousands a month because people aren't worried about getting caught. 

Right now there is a ton of money circulated under the table to recruits and players. This will make a lot of it come out to the light. Guys will get $10,000 for a "commercial" when in reality it was just a pre-arranged deal to go to that school. After the new rules are passed or legislated into existence, there will be a lot more money out there that coaches and/or boosters were too scared to offer in fear of getting caught. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tarheelbilliken said:

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..

I think Dusty Dvoracek brought up a good point concerning this specific thing on ESPNU Radio this morning.  If you are a for star kid where do you have a better chance of establishing a brand quicker and making more NIL money, signing to play football at Oklahoma or at K State?  Since you are most likely not going to start for at least a couple seasons at OU and when you do start at OU you are probably not going to be one of the ten biggest stars on the team,  the answer is K State.  When kids start looking at it that way, it changes the whole equation.  

I think many players at SLU will have plenty of chances to make personal appearance money.  You know why you don't see many pro athletes in any city doing personal appearances?  Because they are already making enough money that they don't think it is worth their time.  Several retired athletes make the rounds on the appearance circuit because the financial equation has changed at that point.   When I was a kid and pro athletes made less money, they were out doing personal appearances often  because they weren't making as much money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 3star_recruit said:

Taking into account inflation, the average athlete made more money during the summer in 1960 than he does now.  Kids back then weren't required to be athletes year-round.  They had summer jobs back then.

-kids are not required to do anything now, they choose to play a sport in college, with the roses and the warts

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

Taking into account inflation, the average athlete made more money during the summer in 1960 than he does now.  Kids back then weren't required to be athletes year-round.  They had summer jobs back then.

That’s why I started this thing saying they needed to be paid a reasonable sum of money. All getting the same amount.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JMM28 said:

Here is another thing that it will do. Illinois started allowing gaming machines in bars a handful of years ago. A lot of bars were already paying out on their "for entertainment purposes only" machines for many decades before it was technically legal. The law changed and all of the sudden every bar in Illinois has a handful of machines and rakes in thousands a month because people aren't worried about getting caught. 

Right now there is a ton of money circulated under the table to recruits and players. This will make a lot of it come out to the light. Guys will get $10,000 for a "commercial" when in reality it was just a pre-arranged deal to go to that school. After the new rules are passed or legislated into existence, there will be a lot more money out there that coaches and/or boosters were too scared to offer in fear of getting caught. 

Turning a black market into a legitimate one is a good thing. Above-board taxable income, earned out in the open.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cowboy said:

-if they are just athletes, sure, if they are student-athletes I disagree

Why? Other students can go make money however they want, including those on scholarship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a free market capitalist so let the chips fall where they may.   I don't care if you get paid for being hot,  funny,  having a lot of Instagram followers whatever.   If you think the rich will get richer you probably already believe there's cheating so what will this change?

Former Texas QB Sam Ehlinger could've made more on promotions in college than he will holding a clip board in the NFL (Axios estimated $962k).*

I get it if you're worried about SLU being competitive.  Don't be you gotta find a way to win whatever the environment.   This is just another change like the transfer portal.  Be smart find away to make it work.

*https://247sports.com/college/texas/Article/Texas-Longhorns-football-QB-Sam-Ehlinger-Indianapolis-Colts-NFL-Draft-2021-rookie-card-165040128/

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Reinert310 said:

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.

I agree with the video game argument.  Divide the royalties by the number of student athletes shown and send them a check.  I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with extending the rule to personal appearances and advertising when it is likely that allowing so will more mostly result in pay for play scenarios rather than a business truly thinking that paying the player will really benefit their bottom line.

As far as not knowing what will happen since the rule is just going into effect, somethings are just common sense.  I guarantee that when this all starts, you will see college athletes who are much less known to the public getting these deals while professional athletes that are much more well known will not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Pistol said:

If this is true, then what is the point of not letting them be paid for their own NLIs? Why is the NCAA bothering to regulate such a small upside?

Straight payoffs are and still would be illegal. This is simply to give players the freedom to leverage their own popularity - whatever the scale may be - for pay. Just as it is with other college students and everyone else.

Look, I don't think the scale here is out of control. I think your point about a lot of local pro athletes is fair, that not all of them are lining up endorsements all over the place. However, that doesn't mean college athletes should be shut out altogether. Plus, people have a different connection to their alma maters. I'd be way more drawn to seeing SLU athletes featured in advertising than a mid-roster Blues or Cardinals player, the same way I'm more interested in their social media. The opportunities would be different.

When I was at SLU, one day Brad Soderberg was in the West Pine Gym filming a Lou Fusz commercial. They had an "actor" on camera with him who was about 7 feet tall and he had on a generic, blank blue jersey. He had no lines, but it was a visual joke and Brad had some line about needing a roomy interior or something. I just see no reason why that couldn't have been Ian Vouyoukas or Bryce Husak getting a few hundred bucks for standing in.

Another example is how an athlete may have his/her image used in ways they don't want to, without being able to have any control over it or payment from it. Allison Stokke is a prime example and her Wiki covers this; photos of her went viral before she even got to college and she spent those years trying to slow it down to no avail. Had she been able to sign an agent, model/endorse on her own terms, and monetize her social media, she could've made 6 figures a year in college easily, which certainly helps mitigate having to deal with millions of creeps taking her image a direction she never intended it to go.

This is being done for two reasons:

1. Social Pressure - The idea of college athletes being able to benefit from their likenesses sounds like a reasonable thing before one considers the abuses that will occur

2. Blue Bloods Realizing it Will Benefit Them - The big programs see that this will legitimize what they have been doing under the table for years.  They love that it will prevent them from having to hide this activity any more and that being able to promise a kid that "if you come to ********, you will get $50,000 in endorsement deals," making it even more likely that the are able to lock in all of the top talent.

I know some want to interpret this argument as if I am some big, bad ogre that doesn't want college athletes to have any money.  I promise you that this is not the case.  I just don't think that this is happening for the reasons you think.  I also believe that it will absolutely benefit the power conferences to the detriment of schools like SLU.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cgeldmacher said:

This is being done for two reasons:

1. Social Pressure - The idea of college athletes being able to benefit from their likenesses sounds like a reasonable thing before one considers the abuses that will occur

2. Blue Bloods Realizing it Will Benefit Them - The big programs see that this will legitimize what they have been doing under the table for years.  They love that it will prevent them from having to hide this activity any more and that being able to promise a kid that "if you come to ********, you will get $50,000 in endorsement deals," making it even more likely that the are able to lock in all of the top talent.

I know some want to interpret this argument as if I am some big, bad ogre that doesn't want college athletes to have any money.  I promise you that this is not the case.  I just don't think that this is happening for the reasons you think.  I also believe that it will absolutely benefit the power conferences to the detriment of schools like SLU.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NH said:

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.

I cannot disagree with this.  Not sure if it would or would not hold up, but I don't disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2021 at 8:54 PM, Pistol said:

Why? Other students can go make money however they want, including those on scholarship.

-My disagreement isn’t as much on the ability of student athletes to get paid under the NLI as it is on your description that the NCAA’s amateurism model is a sham and has been hurting athletes for too long.  How many student athletes, millions? hundreds of thousands? certainly the number is at least in the thousands, have received athletic scholarships to get a college degree.  I don’t have stats for this but some or many came from backgrounds without the means to afford the cost of college and that degree gave them a chance they wouldn’t otherwise have had. 

-Student-athletes did get a lot in return for scoring touchdowns, making baskets, or whatever their sport involved.  For many years they have gotten tutoring not otherwise available to other students.  Training tables.  Medical care.  Clothing and shoes.  Tuition, room and board.  All of this, and probably more not coming to mind, tax free.

-These kids are not lining up to get kicked in the gut or worse.  Far from it.

-If these kids didn’t know the rules before they went to school, that is on them, their high school, their parents, handlers, coaches or whoever.  There has been a substantial benefit to so many student athletes through athletic scholarships affording them the chance at a college degree.  To call that a sham and that athletes have been hurt by it rings hollow to me.

-For those attending college just to play sports, I think college is not the place for them or that. 

-But it seems you have a different view of the value of the current situation, which I am not saying is perfect.  I don’t think you can change my mind like I probably can’t change yours.  That’s okay.

-If you want to debate the integrity, honesty, usefulness of the NCAA, you will get very little debate from me.  That organization lost its way somewhere along the line, yeah probably by chasing dollars, that whatever changes get forced on it are of its own making. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...