WELCOME HEAD COACH JOSH SCHERTZ!!

[TheChosenOne]

34 minutes ago, TRN said:

The rising NIL costs aren’t sustainable and that’s why you see university presidents and ADs asking for the NCAA and Congress to figure it out.

Yet, boosters keep paying it and increasing the level needed to compete. It is wild to me how quickly NIL spun out of control and how it is yet to truly slow down. I completely agree with you (and I think it will basically need to include formalized contracts for a level of transparency and protection), but am starting to wonder when that will actually happen! None of it makes any sense. Is your d!ck that small and ego so big that you need to pay a star basketball player a million dollars to play for your school? I am glad we have some folks willing to pay, but if there is a bigger waste of money, I am not sure what it would be.

SEC programs received $50+ million from their conference distribution, yet boosters are expected to pay the labor?!?! Someone explain to me how any of this makes sense? I guess it truly is playing rich people's egos against each other because there is no way to justify it.

[billikenfan05]

2 minutes ago, TheChosenOne said:

Yet, boosters keep paying it and increasing the level needed to compete. It is wild to me how quickly NIL spun out of control and how it is yet to truly slow down. I completely agree with you (and I think it will basically need to include formalized contracts for a level of transparency and protection), but am starting to wonder when that will actually happen! None of it makes any sense. Is your d!ck that small and ego so big that you need to pay a star basketball player a million dollars to play for your school? I am glad we have some folks willing to pay, but if there is a bigger waste of money, I am not sure what it would be.

It's going to be VERY interesting to see guys taking paycuts leaving college.

[TheChosenOne]

5 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

It's going to be VERY interesting to see guys taking paycuts leaving college.

That is what is so shocking to me. The compensation went so quickly to essentially being right below the NBA and NFL. Paired with the free COVID year, why wouldn't you stay in college as long as possible if you are not a surefire draft pick in the NBA or NFL? Especially now that while not formally stated, the academic side of college athletics is an understood farce.

Again, thanks to those who are funding the program and NIL at SLU.

[Pistol]

We're going to see some of the bloat exit in 2025 after the final season of COVID bonus players work through the system. However, I expect to see every stall tactic possible from players. Everyone is going to take advantage of the grad transfer rule now. If players have any chance at all to redshirt, medical or otherwise, you'll see them go for it. Any way to stretch a 4-year career into 5 will be utilized. And it's hard to blame them as long as the market exists.

[TheA_Bomb]

Seems like the market can take care of itself. If it's not sustainable and no one pays there's less money. Pretty simple.

You can choose to donate, not donate, watch, don't watch. Everyone has a choice now even the players.

For every regulation or new law there's unintended consequences and loop holes to be exploited.

If better players stay and don't jump to G League or Europe don't we see better basketball? Seems like the system is rewarding more experienced players and keeping a team together as long as possible. That's why Calipari struggled with a bunch of one and dones when he previously dominated.

[ACE]

12 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

Seems like the market can take care of itself. If it's not sustainable and no one pays there's less money. Pretty simple.

You can choose to donate, not donate, watch, don't watch. Everyone has a choice now even the players.

For every regulation or new law there's unintended consequences and loop holes to be exploited.

If better players stay and don't jump to G League or Europe don't we see better basketball? Seems like the system is rewarding more experienced players and keeping a team together as long as possible. That's why Calipari struggled with a bunch of one and dones when he previously dominated.

But the system makes it nearly impossible to keep a team together for a long time. Keeping a core together for multiple years is becoming a thing of the past. As a result, we're not seeing better basketball.

[cgeldmacher]

30 minutes ago, Pistol said:

We're going to see some of the bloat exit in 2025 after the final season of COVID bonus players work through the system. However, I expect to see every stall tactic possible from players. Everyone is going to take advantage of the grad transfer rule now. If players have any chance at all to redshirt, medical or otherwise, you'll see them go for it. Any way to stretch a 4-year career into 5 will be utilized. And it's hard to blame them as long as the market exists.

Here's a question.  All of the arguments that were used to say that players shouldn't be saddle with transfer restrictions and shouldn't be prevented from profiting off of NIL could be used to challenge the four year limit.  Why should poor little college athletes that are constantly being raped by the big bad NCAA be restricted to a four year college career?  How long before that lawsuit gets filed?

[TRN]

2 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Here's a question.  All of the arguments that were used to say that players shouldn't be saddle with transfer restrictions and shouldn't be prevented from profiting off of NIL could be used to challenge the four year limit.  Why should poor little college athletes that are constantly being raped by the big bad NCAA be restricted to a four year college career?  How long before that lawsuit gets filed?

It definitely will be challenged. That’s why I say just give them 5 years and no exceptions.  The NCAA can say they are expanding it from 4 to 5 years to account for all redshirts and hardship situations.  After the 5 year clock is over you are done.  

They can make a caveat for people that do missions and other similar breaks in school attendance.  But, they need to be stringent on allowing no exceptions, it’s becoming a joke.

[Pistol]

8 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Here's a question.  All of the arguments that were used to say that players shouldn't be saddle with transfer restrictions and shouldn't be prevented from profiting off of NIL could be used to challenge the four year limit.  Why should poor little college athletes that are constantly being raped by the big bad NCAA be restricted to a four year college career?  How long before that lawsuit gets filed?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying there will be a lawsuit stating that they can stay eligible within the NCAA indefinitely? They're already not restricted to 4-year careers - athletes have 6 years in which to play 4 full seasons.

[cgeldmacher]

Just now, TRN said:

It definitely will be challenged. That’s why I say just give them 5 years and no exceptions.  The NCAA can say they are expanding it from 4 to 5 years to account for all redshirts and hardship situations.  After the 5 year clock is over you are done.  

They can make a caveat for people that do missions and other similar breaks in school attendance.  But, they need to be stringent on allowing no exceptions, it’s becoming a joke.

Four years or five years doesn't matter.  It is still a restriction.  If restricting to four years is determined to not be allowed by the courts, five won't be any different.  My point is that if that challenge is coming and wins in court, the NCAA won't be able to prevent it by making a five year rule.

The same thing is true of the transfer rule.  If someone thinks that restricting transferring is unlawful and should be allowed in college sports, then why is that concept restricted to year by year.  Why not semester by semester, month by month, week by week, or day by day.  You cannot say that transferring should not be restricted, but then arbitrarily apply a one year restrictions from transferring just because that meshes with the college sports season.

 

[cgeldmacher]

Just now, Pistol said:

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying there will be a lawsuit stating that they can stay eligible within the NCAA indefinitely? They're already not restricted to 4-year careers - athletes have 6 years in which to play 4 full seasons.

Why?  What is the point of the restriction.  Why shouldn't a kid be able to spend as much time "educating his or herself" and play sports while doing it.  Why is there a six year restriction?  That's my whole point.  Everytime people say, "why is that rule in place, the NCAA can't restrict that," they never consider they ultimate end game of the argument they are spewing.

I, personally, think that the NCAA should be able to put a limit on a college career, should be able to prevent unlimited transferring, should be able to limit pay for play, should be able to restrict NIL, but many out there disagree, and they are winning.  The fact that those ideas are winning is killing college sports, or will lead to its demise.

So, I will double down.  If it is unlawful to restrict a player transferring whenever they want and making as much money as they want, then why would it be permissible to restrict how long they can play or whether they can transfer mid season?

[cheeseman]

4 hours ago, kshoe said:

Not every team is going to get a 25X increase. If you are a relative nobody team and all of a sudden become a top 25 team, you can expect a large increase.

Same goes for individual players. A player may be getting $20k a year somewhere, have a breakout season and be offered $500k somewhere else the next season. Of course the opposite could be true...a player may have a 200k deal then play poorly or get hurt and next year he is told he'll only be getting 50k or that he should hit the portal. There is a downside for players that don't perform as free agency every year for every player doesn't work out so well if you don't perform up to your contract.

The real question is how much will the entire pot of NIL funds grow each year.  That's the true test of sustainability.

I get your point but if ISU would have to go from 80K to 2 million to keep the level they had then it won't be sustainable year after year.  I guess we will see some schools spend big and then regress if they can't get the type of players they want.  I also saw an article about Jerry Jones giving AR big money for NIL for Coach Cal to spend.  This can get crazy real fast.  I also think that at a school like Missouri the football team will syphon all the NIL money at some point especially if they play for a National Championship which some think is not that far fetched.

[TheA_Bomb]

To address @cgeldmacher 's point regarding restrictions on the # of years.  College sports are set up as an extracurricular activity for college students.  As far as I know that's full time students in pursuit of a degree.  That is the same as most other college activities like Mock Trial, Chess Club, what have you. 

So the limitation is being a full time student in pursuit of a degree in good standing.  

Now one could stay in school full time more than 4 years that's true.  So I'm not sure if a limitation will be able to be upheld. If they're a student in good standing in pursuit of a degree.

So we could possibly see that challenged and changed as well.

Quickest way to get that challenged and changed is to try and impose other arbitrary restrictions.  More rules more challenges. More change.

[willie]

Has the IRS ever issued a rulling on whether these contributions are tax deductible? 

[Bills By 40]

3 hours ago, David King said:

ISU basically had 6 players. $2 million for them is an exaggeration.

The stated range was $1.5-2 million, no doubt that's accurate. Robbie and Conwell alone will command ~$1 million, the other 3 starters combine for $500k-1 mill. Checks out. 

You think Texas didn't drop Kent and Larry a combined 500k?? 

[Old guy]

...

[Pistol]

1 hour ago, cgeldmacher said:

Why?  What is the point of the restriction.  Why shouldn't a kid be able to spend as much time "educating his or herself" and play sports while doing it.  Why is there a six year restriction?  That's my whole point.  Everytime people say, "why is that rule in place, the NCAA can't restrict that," they never consider they ultimate end game of the argument they are spewing.

I, personally, think that the NCAA should be able to put a limit on a college career, should be able to prevent unlimited transferring, should be able to limit pay for play, should be able to restrict NIL, but many out there disagree, and they are winning.  The fact that those ideas are winning is killing college sports, or will lead to its demise.

So, I will double down.  If it is unlawful to restrict a player transferring whenever they want and making as much money as they want, then why would it be permissible to restrict how long they can play or whether they can transfer mid season?

As long as sports are tied to college education, there's a somewhat logical length of time that a career can last. As toothless as the NCAA has become, I don't see careers stretching over the existing 6-year limit. But hey, you're the lawyer, not me.

By the way, midseason transfers already exist. I'm not sure why that's part of this particular argument.

[ARon]

Once all the lawsuits work out and unions form we'll see the college teams in revenue sports become professional organizations that are merely "sponsored" by the universities.  The universities and their donors will seed them with assets and kick back operating profits to the unis as a way of paying for the right to use the unis' facilities and trademarks.

With that we'll see a complete and total end to transfer restrictions, red-shirts, and academic requirements.  We'll probably also start seeing kids getting multi-year contracts as programs try to keep teams together.  They'll finally just be professional athletes.

[kshoe]

1 hour ago, Pistol said:

As long as sports are tied to college education, there's a somewhat logical length of time that a career can last. As toothless as the NCAA has become, I don't see careers stretching over the existing 6-year limit. But hey, you're the lawyer, not me.

By the way, midseason transfers already exist. I'm not sure why that's part of this particular argument.

I think cgelmacher's point is that at some point someone will sue and say they should be able to play college basketball as long as they want. If I or you can go to school as long as I want, why can't I also play basketball as long as I want? How dare the NCAA limit me to only 4 seasons. They can't limit me from transferring or getting paid or anything like that, so why are they limiting me from playing more than 4 years will be the argument.

As to whether people would want to play basketball at the college level indefinitely, of course they would. It's a far more attractive option for a 25 year old to play college basketball in the U.S. than to go over to some Eastern European country and play for $50k. Take a few classes for free, call yourself a "student athlete" and you can make $300k playing in the U.S. College basketball would be full of 25-30 year olds if allowed.

[JohnnyJumpUp]

4 hours ago, Lord Elrond said:

Not with this amount of money. Back in the days of shady guys handing kids bags of money it was all under cover. Now, it’s all public and semi-public, and people can throw in money without worrying about going to jail. The cost to everyone has skyrocketed, and no one putting in NIL money is getting any return on their money (no share of ownership, no part of revenue from the sport) other than the pure ego of buying their team a championship. And most of the money will not buy a championship, and the rate of increase is crazy. I just don’t see this as being sustainable.

We will never know what amount of money was spent in the past before NIL. Could be similar amounts... with new money being thrown in without fear of any repercussions, lessening the need for old money and their contributions possibly decreasing? I would assume it is more now though, with lots of new money pouring in on top of the old money. If it has been sustainable for decades before NIL, and the assumption that there is more money involved now, I can see it flourishing now that there are not any risk of legal issues.

[JohnnyJumpUp]

3 hours ago, slu72 said:

Not to the extent of NIL. 

Correct, I can only assume it has grown now with NIL, more new money on top of old money without risk of legal issues. If it was sustainable before, it will continue to be sustainable in the future. More money available now, equals more demand for money, the ratio is most likely still very similar.

[David King]

2 hours ago, Bills By 40 said:

The stated range was $1.5-2 million, no doubt that's accurate. Robbie and Conwell alone will command ~$1 million, the other 3 starters combine for $500k-1 mill. Checks out. 

You think Texas didn't drop Kent and Larry a combined 500k?? 

From what I read, Avila’s going to get between $250k to $350k. Those other guys aren’t getting more than him. No, I don’t think Kent and Larry got $500k between them.

[billikenbill]

2 hours ago, willie said:

Has the IRS ever issued a rulling on whether these contributions are tax deductible? 

Yes.

They are not tax deductible.

[SLU_Lax]

14 minutes ago, billikenbill said:

Yes.

They are not tax deductible.

Unless of course you manage to make it a business expense.  So if a bank makes a contribution and it is wrapped into their overall advertising strategy or builds their corporate goodwill, they can make it deductible.  Of course, the details matter and they still may get some scrutiny or second guessing by the IRS.

[cgeldmacher]

2 hours ago, ARon said:

Once all the lawsuits work out and unions form we'll see the college teams in revenue sports become professional organizations that are merely "sponsored" by the universities.  The universities and their donors will seed them with assets and kick back operating profits to the unis as a way of paying for the right to use the unis' facilities and trademarks.

With that we'll see a complete and total end to transfer restrictions, red-shirts, and academic requirements.  We'll probably also start seeing kids getting multi-year contracts as programs try to keep teams together.  They'll finally just be professional athletes.

I think it is either going to be that, or the government will step in and finally divorce college sports from the big business it has become.  I understand that universities have made millions on these kids for years (men's football and basketball only).  I also understand the argument that the kids should benefit from the millions being made off of them.  However, there is another argument that his just as logical as this argument and it is that universities are for students who want to receive an education.  That's all.  If you really take a step back and see the forest for the trees, it makes about as much sense for universities to be involved in professional sports as it does our national parks or trade unions to be involved in professional sports.  By that, I mean it makes no sense.  People in Europe can't comprehend why our universities are so involved in sports and, they are the ones that are right, not us.

When college sports started, it was literally guys who agreed to go to the same university for purely academic reasons creating club teams for their spare time.  That turned into organized teams.  That turned into organized conferences.  That turned into TV deal and national championships.  That turned into schools creating sham classes so those kids can go to school and play for the school's team.  That turned into kids getting paid now to pretend they are students so that they can represent the school's team.

If it were up to me, I would have Congress pass a law that essentially accomplishes the following: If you want to be a professional athlete then go pro.  If you want to go to college and play sports, you have to understand that you will not benefit from that situation other than having your tuition paid for and room and board.  Then, you have to go to real classes, study, and stay academically eligible.  You can't go pro for four years after agreeing to go to college.  That will bring the talent level down in football and basketball.  It will not lower the passion that fans have for their teams one bit.

I know I sound like an old guy, probably because I sort of am, but that is what I would like to see.  I'm not saying to go back to what it was when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's.  I'm saying take it back further than that.