WELCOME HEAD COACH JOSH SCHERTZ!!

[slu72]

One could also look at a scholie and room and board as a financial benefit therefore taxable. Lots of decisions to make here. 

[billiken_roy]

Great post cgeldmacher.   I've been preaching for years if some booster wants to throw fortunes and cars, even houses at kids I don't care.   But if this is college they should be college kids.   They should qualify to get enrolled like any other college student.   They should attend classes and pass and be able to prove they are on pace to graduated in their 5 years of eligibility.   

The NCAA should put 100% of their police work into this.   If the players don't want to be students, let them go pro.   Colleges should not be the NBA and the NFL minor leagues 

And I'm betting it would not take anything away from the fan experience.   The competition would still be there.

[cgeldmacher]

10 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

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 is 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.

 

[cgeldmacher]

2 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

Great post cgeldmacher.   I've been preaching for years if some booster wants to throw fortunes and cars, even houses at kids I don't care.   But if this is college they should be college kids.   They should qualify to get enrolled like any other college student.   They should attend classes and pass and be able to prove they are on pace to graduated in their 5 years of eligibility.   

The NCAA should put 100% of their police work into this.   If the players don't want to be students, let them go pro.   Colleges should not be the NBA and the NFL minor leagues 

And I'm betting it would not take anything away from the fan experience.   The competition would still be there.

I agree that the argument that it would take away from the competition is ridiculous.  College football and basketball is already a lesser product from a talent standpoint than the NFL or NBA.  We still love watching it even though it is lesser talent.  If we lowered the talent level further by making sure that it was only for those wanting to go to college, it would not lessen our passion or our level of enjoyment as long as parity and good competition remained.

[Taj79]

Virginia has become the first state to enact a law that allows the school itself to pay its players:

Virginia law allows schools to pay athletes for NIL - ESPN

Click on the link and listen to Tim Legler's take on it all.  He is saying everything I have said or believed ---- and it starts with calling it pay-for-play.  He also talks about how it's likely the ruination OF sport as we knew it and echoes the same thing Nick Saban is saying about the term "student-athlete" being a MYTH.  

Unlike a statement in the article, I do not believe this gets us closer to a federal or national solution because i believe in what cgeldmacher is saying about pending law suites and continued issues going forward.  The UVa AD believes the school has "an obligation to maintain elite athletics program at UVa."  This law will force most other states to do the same to "keep up with the Jones."  Schools will then have to increase their operating budgets to cover the new cost of NIL line in their bottom lines.  It might or migh tnot take the payment plans out of the hands of rabid boosters.  Virginia has stepped in where the NCAA continues to fail.  But I don't know how the NCAA can succeed when at every turn, they are rebuked by a court case as cgeldemacher states.

They continue to call these NIL deals when we all know the reality is simply pay-for-play.  I think these scholarship players ought to pay their own way through school now.  They seem to have enough money on hand.  

[brianstl]

26 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Virginia has become the first state to enact a law that allows the school itself to pay its players:

Virginia law allows schools to pay athletes for NIL - ESPN

Click on the link and listen to Tim Legler's take on it all.  He is saying everything I have said or believed ---- and it starts with calling it pay-for-play.  He also talks about how it's likely the ruination OF sport as we knew it and echoes the same thing Nick Saban is saying about the term "student-athlete" being a MYTH.  

Unlike a statement in the article, I do not believe this gets us closer to a federal or national solution because i believe in what cgeldmacher is saying about pending law suites and continued issues going forward.  The UVa AD believes the school has "an obligation to maintain elite athletics program at UVa."  This law will force most other states to do the same to "keep up with the Jones."  Schools will then have to increase their operating budgets to cover the new cost of NIL line in their bottom lines.  It might or migh tnot take the payment plans out of the hands of rabid boosters.  Virginia has stepped in where the NCAA continues to fail.  But I don't know how the NCAA can succeed when at every turn, they are rebuked by a court case as cgeldemacher states.

They continue to call these NIL deals when we all know the reality is simply pay-for-play.  I think these scholarship players ought to pay their own way through school now.  They seem to have enough money on hand.  

Very important thing buried in the article:

“They both said they do not yet know with certainty how their schools would interpret Title IX laws when figuring out how to equitably share NIL opportunities with men and women athletes.”

They are about to get slapped hard in the face about the realities of Title IX.

[TheA_Bomb]

2 hours ago, cgeldmacher said:

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.

This is kinda how they do things in the People's Republic of China the government tells citizens where they have to go and how much money they can make.

I googled "fear of change" this is what it returned: 

"AI overviews are experimental. Learn more

The fear of change is called metathesiophobia, and it's an extreme version of the basic survival instinct to stick to what you know. It can cause severe anxiety or panic attacks, and can become a debilitating fear that prevents people from making changes in their lives. Metathesiophobia can also cause:

Self-doubt

Lack of self-esteem

Social anxiety

Depression

Inability to adapt to new situations

Isolation

Inability to make decisions

Failure to consider options

Defining identity by external things

Dependence on possessions 

Here are some ways to overcome the fear of change:

Reframe the experience: Be more present with the experience as it is, and experience it to its fullest instead of worrying about it changing

Practice repetition: Train your brain to follow a path of positive feedback

 rather than a negative feedback loop

Write down the pros and cons: Encourage clients to write down the pros and cons of making change."

[Old guy]

There is another argument about the money made by college basketball and football. It can be argued that the profits coming from  college basketball and football are being spent in financing dozens of other sports both male and female sports and paying the athletic scholarships for the students in the swimming team, lacrosse, or golf. 

The point I am making is that the arguments and counter arguments to keep things as they are will take a very long time to be decided. I assume that college sports will be divided into semiprofessional teams with salaries but no scholarships. And more of a club like lower sport levels with their own competitions in a variety of sports for males and females similar to Div II and III and with or without scholarships. I really do not think I will be alive to see this set of NIL and salary issues resolved in court.

[billiken_roy]

6 hours ago, Old guy said:

I assume that college sports will be divided into semiprofessional teams with salaries but no scholarships. And more of a club like lower sport levels with their own competitions in a variety of sports for males and females similar to Div II and III and with or without scholarships. I really do not think I will be alive to see this set of NIL and salary issues resolved in court.

colleges should always be in the business of education first and foremost.  they have no business running a professional sports franchise and giving the athletes (notice i didnt say student athletes) money with no emphisis on education.   if the athletes want to play their sport for a career, fine go to a minor league otherwise get in the classroom and earn a diploma.   

[cheeseman]

18 hours ago, willie said:

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

I believe so - in order to be tax deductible you must be able to show that you are doing public good.  Now I understand that some can play fast and loose with that requirement.  Also, I think only 80% of your Billiken Club donation is deductible.  Why and how that % is reached I have no clue.

[cheeseman]

19 hours ago, billikenfan05 said:

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

See Caitlin Clark

[slu72]

While I agree, the reality is many colleges are identified by their sports program’s achievements and not their academic or scientific breakthroughs. The Ivies are considered bastions of academics and knowledge, but when you mention say Alabama the majority of people think of FB and not any scientific, medical, or academic achievements the school might have earned over the years. The fact is people aren’t buying season tickets to watch scientists hunkered over their microscopes in a lab. 

[cheeseman]

19 hours 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.

The idea that the market always takes care of itself is not always true.  When you let the power be concentrated in a few hands that is when excesses occurs.  Last month the meat/poultry prices were credited with a driver of the increase in the inflation rate but with basically 4 companies controlling this market there is little incentive to bring prices down - in essence you have a type of a monopoly.  A few blue bloods in basketball and football will end up controlling the NIL market thus setting the prices - a quasi monopoly.

[3star_recruit]

4 minutes ago, slu72 said:

While I agree, the reality is many colleges are identified by their sports program’s achievements and not their academic or scientific breakthroughs. The Ivies are considered bastions of academics and knowledge, but when you mention say Alabama the majority of people think of FB and not any scientific, medical, or academic achievements the school might have earned over the years. The fact is people aren’t buying season tickets to watch scientists hunkered over their microscopes in a lab. 

I'd estimate that less than 10% of D1 programs are defined by the greatness of their sports teams.  So that 10% should define how the other 90% operate?

[cheeseman]

14 hours ago, slu72 said:

One could also look at a scholie and room and board as a financial benefit therefore taxable. Lots of decisions to make here. 

Actually I think that may very well happen - many benefits you get over your salary is taxable so why not tax it.

[cheeseman]

13 hours ago, brianstl said:

Very important thing buried in the article:

“They both said they do not yet know with certainty how their schools would interpret Title IX laws when figuring out how to equitably share NIL opportunities with men and women athletes.”

They are about to get slapped hard in the face about the realities of Title IX.

Good point - I would think this is why a school would not want to be doing the NIL paying.  By doing so they no longer claim it is not us doing it.

[TheChosenOne]

FedEx announced a 5 year $5 million per year NIL deal with Memphis athletics. That seemed like a logical next step in all of this. Again, we are still in the arms race phase of NIL. While I assume at some point this all slows/normalizes/formalizes, that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[David King]

55 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

See Caitlin Clark

Caitlin Clark reportedly was paid $3.1 million in NIL money. However, I believe she thinks she'll make even more in the WNBA, because she chose not to use her 5th year of eligibility.

[Bills By 40]

16 hours ago, David King said:

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.

I think you're sorely mistaken. 

[3star_recruit]

10 minutes ago, TheChosenOne said:

FedEx announced a 5 year $5 million per year NIL deal with Memphis athletics. That seemed like a logical next step in all of this. Again, we are still in the arms race phase of NIL. While I assume at some point this all slows/normalizes/formalizes, that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Memphis has a football team.  I agree that all the football teams are in the nil race.  I don't agree that everybody else should be.

[TheA_Bomb]

58 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

I'd estimate that less than 10% of D1 programs are defined by the greatness of their sports teams.  So that 10% should define how the other 90% operate?

Guess you haven't had ESPN for the last 30 years.

Big schools, conferences were already driving everything, NIL or not.

[cheeseman]

14 minutes ago, David King said:

Caitlin Clark reportedly was paid $3.1 million in NIL money. However, I believe she thinks she'll make even more in the WNBA, because she chose not to use her 5th year of eligibility.

Her salary will be something like 65-70K a year.  Now I agree she can make more from endorsements.

[billikens747]

1 minute ago, cheeseman said:

Her salary will be something like 65-70K a year.  Now I agree she can make more from endorsements.

She got 20M+ from Nike. 

[willie]

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

I believe so - in order to be tax deductible you must be able to show that you are doing public good.  Now I understand that some can play fast and loose with that requirement.  Also, I think only 80% of your Billiken Club donation is deductible.  Why and how that % is reached I have no clue.

With the exception of the golf tournament I don't believe that is true. 

[billiken_roy]

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

See Caitlin Clark

with her new endorsement deals (reportedly signing a huge nike deal this week) as well as still having her state farm deal as well as other endorsements from last year all renewed, Caitlin will have more direct deposits this year than last.   her WNBA contract is just something to do.