Caleb McConnell signs NIL deal with Knights of The Raritan

[wkbrdr3448]

If he wasn't wearing the uniform, you wouldn't be giving him a dollar ... so yes, my dear Watson, it's paying for play.

No. He has value because he wears a uniform and has built a platform. He has followers. He has built a brand. Players who build their brand more provide more value. You aren't paying to play. You are paying for brand value and access to their network. Are the concepts commingled? Sure. He built his network and following because he plays. But we aren't paying him to play. It shouldn't be this hard for people who went to Rutgers to understand a fairly simple concept.

Let me dumb this down... If somehow, a women's field hockey player had 10 million followers on their instagram/twitter/IG... and a company paid that field hockey player to tweet their product... is the company paying for access to their followers and marketing capability? Or is the company paying for them to play on the field?

 

[wkbrdr3448]

Well ... if you are knowingly entering into an endorsement deal where you are certain you will lose money ... then you're paying the player to play. Corporations pay money to celebrities to endorse their product (to feature in advertisements and to make public appearances) because they believe it will generate even more money for the corporation.

We believe it will provide value to our members. Value in the form of meet and greets, autograph signings, you name it. There's value that's not just monetary. You really struggle with these concepts, don't you?

 

[wkbrdr3448]

We believe it will provide value to our members. Value in the form of meet and greets, autograph signings, you name it. There's value that's not just monetary. You really struggle with these concepts, don't you?

Let me guess... the reply will be "then you're paying for him to play because you get his autograph"... ummm no. The market decides if an autograph has value. Does a kid want it because he/she idolizes a player? Does a parent want it as a memory, or to resell? Who knows. But buying memorabilia, or access to an individual is buying access to their brand and what they bring to the table. Is that value higher because they play? I've already said yes... but there's a complete disconnect economically and in the pure quid pro quo arrangement when comparing the two concepts.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

No. He has value because he wears a uniform and has built a platform. He has followers. He has built a brand. Players who build their brand more provide more value. You aren't paying to play. You are paying for brand value and access to their network. Are the concepts commingled? Sure. He built his network and following because he plays. But we aren't paying him to play. It shouldn't be this hard for people who went to Rutgers to understand a fairly simple concept.

Let me dumb this down... If somehow, a women's field hockey player had 10 million followers on their instagram/twitter/IG... and a company paid that field hockey player to tweet their product... is the company paying for access to their followers and marketing capability? Or is the company paying for them to play on the field?

If he remained in the draft, he'd still have the same number of instagram followers, right? Would you still be paying him? What if he decides to drop out of college tomorrow and play basketball in Bulgaria? Would the deal still be in place?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

We believe it will provide value to our members. Value in the form of meet and greets, autograph signings, you name it. There's value that's not just monetary. You really struggle with these concepts, don't you?

You should keep insulting people; that will certainly convince them of your point of view.

 

[wkbrdr3448]

If he remained in the draft, he'd still have the same number of instagram followers, right? Would you still be paying him? What if he decides to drop out of college tomorrow and play basketball in Bulgaria? Would the deal still be in place?

Someone could, but KTR is not supporting non-Rutgers student athletes. Our mission for KTR is to support Rutgers student athletes. Part of the value we see in all of this is empowering them - as I said, this isn't for profit. When Rutgers student athletes succeed, the program and the school succeeds.

 

[Geo_Baker_1]

I no longer wear the rutgers uniform and I’m still getting paid to promote brands. I’m shooting a video tomorrow for a new start up app! If you think people aren’t willing to pay to see Caleb, one of the pioneers that changed the culture of rutgers basketball, and the reigning dpoy, then i don’t know what to tell you 😂

 

[wkbrdr3448]

You should keep insulting people; that will certainly convince them of your point of view.

It's not an insult. It's simply pointing out that you're struggling with the rudimentary concept that this is not paying a player to play. Despite all the ways you want to try to spin it - we are paying players for a service. What that service is will be dependent on each player and NIL activation. Each service will have different price points based on the perceived value of said service. To continuously try to claim that there is effectively no service, or no value to said service...and that we are simply paying kids to play...highlights that you struggle with the concept. What else can I say?

 

[Geo_Baker_1]

Anyway… June 6th at 9 pm we’ll be diving into NIL and if/how Rutgers can survive the NIL era. Me, Eric leGrand, RHJ, Todd Frazier, Caleb and more… gonna be a really good listen for everybody!

 

[wkbrdr3448]

Anyway… June 6th at 9 pm we’ll be diving into NIL and if/how Rutgers can survive the NIL era. Me, Eric leGrand, RHJ, Todd Frazier, Caleb and more… gonna be a really good listen for everybody!

View embedded media

I'll be listening bud. I set that reminder on spaces/twitter. Can't wait.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I no longer wear the rutgers uniform and I’m still getting paid to promote brands. I’m shooting a video tomorrow for a new start up app! If you think people aren’t willing to pay to see Caleb, one of the pioneers that changed the culture of rutgers basketball, and the reigning dpoy, then i don’t know what to tell you 😂

wkbrdr3448 just said KTR won't pay you (no uniform) and they wouldn't pay Caleb if he wasn't wearing the uniform.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

It's not an insult. It's simply pointing out that you're struggling with the rudimentary concept that this is not paying a player to play. Despite all the ways you want to try to spin it - we are paying players for a service. What that service is will be dependent on each player and NIL activation. Each service will have different price points based on the perceived value of said service. To continuously try to claim that there is effectively no service, or no value to said service...and that we are simply paying kids to play...highlights that you struggle with the concept. What else can I say?

There is certainly a service. The "service" is (a) playing athletics well at (b) Rutgers University. Take away "a" or "b" and you're not paying them. That's how I know it's the service.

 

[wkbrdr3448]

wkbrdr3448 just said KTR won't pay you (no uniform) and they wouldn't pay Caleb if he wasn't wearing the uniform.

Your point is what? I said that they have value and brand value, and Geo has started a business for himself that will capitalize on that value. KTR as an organization is not funding Geo's post-collegiate business as the organization's foundation/mission is to support current student athletes.

 

[wkbrdr3448]

There is certainly a service. The "service" is (a) playing athletics well at (b) Rutgers University. Take away "a" or "b" and you're not paying them. That's how I know it's the service.

Lol you really just don't understand how people have value other than simply playing on the court/field? You really don't get how they can build a brand based on their performance? How that brand then has value? It's more likely that a top performer on the field with a large public following will have more brand value than a redshirt freshman who hasn't played? You're either just being argumentative/troll, or you really are a ditz. At this point, I have to call it as I see it. I'll happily continue to dance around in a circle explaining to you how we are paying for value, and I will do it all night, all day, and continue the thread. Or you can just accept that you are wrong/this is a losing battle for you.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Lol you really just don't understand how people have value other than simply playing on the court/field?

How many people is your collective contracting with for services that are not playing on a Rutgers University court or field?

 

[wkbrdr3448]

How many people is your collective contracting with for services that are not playing on a Rutgers University court or field?

Zero - as I said, the collective is about supporting student athlete NIL activations. And empowering them/monetizing their NILs in a manner where we see value.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Your point is what? I said that they have value and brand value, and Geo has started a business for himself that will capitalize on that value. KTR as an organization is not funding Geo's post-collegiate business as the organization's foundation/mission is to support current student athletes.

My point is that we (you and I) were having a conversation, Geo interjected with something unrelated to the specific conversation we were having, and I demonstrated it to him with a single sentence so he would realize why his comment didn't pertain to our conversation.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Ohio State coach Ryan Day puts a number on NIL cost, says Buckeyes need $13 million to keep roster intact

The Buckeyes see the need for an influx of cash to keep up with college football's top teams

www.cbssports.com

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Zero - as I said, the collective is about supporting student athlete NIL activations. And empowering them/monetizing their NILs in a manner where we see value.

Great, then we agree that nobody has value to your collective organization if they aren't playing on Rutgers University court or field.

 

[wkbrdr3448]

Great, then we agree that nobody has value to your collective organization if they aren't playing on Rutgers University court or field.

We agree that KTR is focused on extracting value only from players at Rutgers University. That is correct.

But to make the next leap to your basic point "we are paying to play" is wrong.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

We agree that KTR is focused on extracting value only from players at Rutgers University. That is correct.

But to make the next leap to your basic point "we are paying to play" is wrong.

... but if they aren't playing, you aren't paying.

 

[wkbrdr3448]

... but if they aren't playing, you aren't paying.

No, they could be sitting on the sideline not playing, have the biggest social media following of all time, and we could pay them to come to an autograph session. Again, you don't understand how pay for services rendered by someone who plays doesn't equal pay for play.

 

[Geo_Baker_1]

My point is that we (you and I) were having a conversation, Geo interjected with something unrelated to the specific conversation we were having, and I demonstrated it to him with a single sentence so he would realize why his comment didn't pertain to our conversation.

ahh i see. I thought you meant that Caleb has no value to anybody. Yes their organization is geared toward helping Rutgers athletes. Would you rather them focus on all athletes? I don’t think it takes away from the fact it is an NIL deal.

Either way, why does this upset you?

 

[Geo_Baker_1]

... but if they aren't playing, you aren't paying.

The highest paid player on Michigan last year didn’t play a second

 

[wkbrdr3448]

ahh i see. I thought you meant that Caleb has no value to anybody. Yes their organization is geared toward helping Rutgers athletes. Would you rather them focus on all athletes? I don’t think it takes away from the fact it is an NIL deal.

Either way, why does this upset you?

He's just being argumentative and trying to poke a hole in our overarching theme that we are not a pay to play organization. He's completely trying to have everyone ignore the fact that players have value that people are willing to pay for, that isn't just playing on a field.

We are not giving cash filled handshakes to players so they play at RU.

We are paying for services and helping players build those services.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

ahh i see. I thought you meant that Caleb has no value to anybody. Yes their organization is geared toward helping Rutgers athletes. Would you rather them focus on all athletes? I don’t think it takes away from the fact it is an NIL deal.

Either way, why does this upset you?

I said on the day they announced their organization that I wasn't sure if I wish them well or if I hope it collapses immediately. I still don't know.

It upsets me because, as I explained earlier in the thread (at least I think it was this thread - there are several competing threads on the same topic), the end game of this framework is that there are going to be 25 to 40 schools (let's just say 50 to be generous) that will move forward intending to compete in Professional College Athletics (with no salary cap) and the remainder will eventually (20 years? 25?) bow out and refuse to try to compete. And because I've had a small involvement in Rutgers Athletics since before you were born, and was a fan long before that, I am well aware that our particular school traditionally makes no effort when it comes to being competitive in interscholastic athletics. In fact, the vast majority of those affiliated with the school (administrators, faculty, staff, students, local media) would prefer we lose repeatedly and stop trying to compete at all; they don't want the school to make an effort. Still, for the last 70 years or so, Rutgers has adopted a stance of pretending to care if we win, and pretending to make an effort, but not actually doing the things necessary to make it happen (spending $$$, and spending it on the correct priorities).

So when I see that the new landscape is that those schools that are willing to spend enough $$$ to be competitive will actually continue to have major college athletic programs and those that aren't willing to spend will not, I assume (based on history, track record and ease of path) that Rutgers University will quickly fall into the later category. And while I don't want Rutgers to fall out of major college athletics, I want even less for it to pretend it is trying to compete (while throwing a tiny portion of money at it as a wasteful show) because that will provide the school administrators and the state politicians the excuse to act like they thought they were being competitive and "Oh gee, who could have guessed we were only doing a 10th of what was necessary to compete with a Michigan State or an Iowa??? Oh well, here comes the Patriot League."

So returning to my first comment, why am I uncertain if I want to wish them well or want them to collapse immediately? Because this KTR organization, as currently planning to operate, is playing pretend. It's pretending that Rutgers is being set up to compete. Its major function is to serve as an excuse to everyone affiliated with the school to say, "Well, we thought it was going to work, but it didn't come close. How could we have known?" rather than have those same people (administrators, politicians, local media, larger donors) to say the truthful thing which is ... the school will not be competitive unless it comes up with a massive amount of money and goes and recruits players just like all of these other schools (that aren't pretending) intend to do. That isn't what KTR is intending; I'm sure this guy arguing with me and representing the organization is being sincere. But being sincere isn't enough. What this organization is set up to do isn't enough. Nothing short of paying to play and recruiting players is going to be enough.

So it upsets me because its play pretend, it won't work, and it is an excuse for others not to do anything.

 

[LETSGORU91]

So donors are giving money to an Athletic Department...err...an NIL collective that is in turn routing that money to directly benefit players.....

Sounds exactly like all the "high donor school" arguments we've always had. About schools getting more donations from alumni than Rutgers.

Maybe conferences should start pooling donor AD contributions and evenly distribute.
Why should OSU benefit from having a "high donor" alumni base while other schools can't?

Yes..so essentially pay to play but not according to the technicalities. I doubt pooling will ocxur in the near future because blue bloods will need to be blue bloods. But the current model is ridiculous and might implode sooner than later.

 

[wkbrdr3448]

I said on the day they announced their organization that I wasn't sure if I wish them well or if I hope it collapses immediately. I still don't know.

It upsets me because, as I explained earlier in the thread (at least I think it was this thread - there are several competing threads on the same topic), the end game of this framework is that there are going to be 25 to 40 schools (let's just say 50 to be generous) that will move forward intending to compete in Professional College Athletics (with no salary cap) and the remainder will eventually (20 years? 25?) bow out and refuse to compete. And because I've had small involvement in Rutgers Athletics before you were born, and was a fan long before that, I am well aware that our particular school traditionally makes no effort when it comes to being competitive in interscholastic athletics. In fact, the vast majority of those affiliated with the school (administrators, faculty, staff, students, local media) would prefer we lose repeatedly and stop trying to compete at all; they don't want the school to make an effort. Still, for the last 70 years or so, Rutgers has adopted a stance of pretending to care if we win, and pretending to make an effort, but not actually doing the things necessary to make it happen (spending $$$, and spending it on the correct priorities).

So when I see that the new landscape is that those schools that are willing to spend enough $$$ to be competitive will actually continue to have major college athletic programs and those that aren't willing to spend will not, I assume (based on history, track record and ease of path) that Rutgers University will quickly fall into the later category. And while I don't want Rutgers to fall out of major college athletics, I want even less for it to pretend it is trying to compete (while throwing a tiny portion of money at it as a wasteful show) because that will the school administrators and the state politicians the excuse to act like they thought they were being competitive and "Oh gee, who could have guessed we were only a 10th of what was necessary to compete with a Michigan State or an Iowa???"

So returning to my first comment, why am I uncertain if I want to wish them will or want them to collapse immediately? Because this KTR organization, as currently planning to operate, is playing pretend. It's pretending that Rutgers is being set up to compete. It major function is to serve as an excuse to everyone affiliated with the school to say, "Well, we thought it was going to work, but it didn't come close. How could we have known?" rather than have those same people (administrators, politicians, local media, larger donors) to say the truthful thing which is ... the school will not be competitive unless it comes up with a massive amount of money and goes and recruits players just like all of these other schools (that aren't pretending) intend to do.

So it upsets me because its play pretend, it won't work, and it is an excuse for others not to do anything.

I appreciate your thoughtful response here.

If you've seen all of my responses here and in all of the other threads, you will see that I have a grim view on the long-term outlook of NIL as it's currently structured and its impact on college sports. I do not think that the buy-a-player side of NIL is good. I don't know if it will last - it's questionable if there's enough long-term money to support it because of lack of ROI... though there's always stupid money in the world paying for dumber things. If that side of NIL does not get curbed... I see a dire long-term trend 5- 10- 30- years from now (timeframe unknown).

But the good side of NIL is supporting student athletes. Finding ways to empower players to make money and monetize their brands. There is nothing pretend there. We want the student athletes to succeed on the field and off the field. We want them to understand how they can build their social media presences and can tap into our large rutgers fan base. We want the fans to see that there's value in supporting those players directly, through social following, purchasing merchandise, autographs etc. KTR truly believes that if the ecosystem is built for student athletes and the second largest alumni base to easily exchange services, that it will entice players to stay home as well as attract new talent.

Do I think KTR solves all of NIL for RU when looking at the broader NIL landscape? No. Can RU and athletics fail if the current NIL landscape continues? Absolutely. If someone wants to go develop an RU NIL initiative to buy players, we have been quite open with this statement - "GOOD". Ultimately, we want what is best for the student athletes, the school, and the sports programs that we are fans of. If someone else stepped in to do NIL and buy players, then that's totally ok with us. It's just not where we are focused on as we don't see that as the right side of NIL to play.

So I personally take offense when someone tries to skew what we are doing and dumb it down to a "you're simply buying players". No. We are not.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Yes..so essentially pay to play but not according to the technicalities. I doubt pooling will ocxur in the near future because blue bloods will need to be blue bloods. But the current model is ridiculous and might implode sooner than later.

It will implode the first time a collective fails to make a payment and the player files a lawsuit and all the dirty laundry ("Of course they were paying me to play. We talked about it all the time.") gets aired in court and then the NCAA gets put in the position of admitting they have no intention of trying to enforce the new NIL groundrules.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

So I personally take offense when someone tries to skew what we are doing and dumb it down to a "you're simply buying players". No. We are not.

You're not buying players. You're paying players to play, only you're not doing it in a way that will allow the school to be competitive under the new rules (which is to say, actually buying players). You're also playing semantics, which I'm sure some non-profit lawyer (rightfully) insisted you do (I'm a lawyer - I get it - I can read the NCAA rulebook, and have). And when someone refuses to engage in your semantics, you insult them. From a "trying to raise revenue and get donors with money to participate" standpoint, it's foolish. But perhaps it has value from a "trying to seem cool to kids in their late teens and early twenties" approach, if that's your goal. I don't know as I left my early twenties many years ago.

 

[LETSGORU91]

Let me guess... the reply will be "then you're paying for him to play because you get his autograph"... ummm no. The market decides if an autograph has value. Does a kid want it because he/she idolizes a player? Does a parent want it as a memory, or to resell? Who knows. But buying memorabilia, or access to an individual is buying access to their brand and what they bring to the table. Is that value higher because they play? I've already said yes... but there's a complete disconnect economically and in the pure quid pro quo arrangement when comparing the two concepts.

Do I long for the day where a player enjoyed giving an autograph because he was well liked.. now...$$$

Someone could, but KTR is not supporting non-Rutgers student athletes. Our mission for KTR is to support Rutgers student athletes. Part of the value we see in all of this is empowering them - as I said, this isn't for profit. When Rutgers student athletes succeed, the program and the school succeeds.

Hmmm...Tom Cruise: "Show me the money!!" Which prominent, head coach said one of the first recruiting conversations is "how much money can I get"? Ryan Day: "We need 13 mil to retain our players" . That's a direct scream to bosters and businesses to pony up to play.

I no longer wear the rutgers uniform and I’m still getting paid to promote brands. I’m shooting a video tomorrow for a new start up app! If you think people aren’t willing to pay to see Caleb, one of the pioneers that changed the culture of rutgers basketball, and the reigning dpoy, then i don’t know what to tell you 😂

Geo, was great to have you here and represent Rutgers. Hands down, you are an absolute favorite of mine. Thank you. Everyone is entitled to what they deserve. The market will dictate what these players shall get. How long do think this is sustainable?

It's not an insult. It's simply pointing out that you're struggling with the rudimentary concept that this is not paying a player to play. Despite all the ways you want to try to spin it - we are paying players for a service. What that service is will be dependent on each player and NIL activation. Each service will have different price points based on the perceived value of said service. To continuously try to claim that there is effectively no service, or no value to said service...and that we are simply paying kids to play...highlights that you struggle with the concept. What else can I say?

What was it? All BYU lineman were "compensated" for being in the team. What service did they provide? And as a disclosure, I'm going on memory here...so forgive me if I'm off on the facts. Point is..the system is being abused.

He's just being argumentative and trying to poke a hole in our overarching theme that we are not a pay to play organization. He's completely trying to have everyone ignore the fact that players have value that people are willing to pay for, that isn't just playing on a field.

We are not giving cash filled handshakes to players so they play at RU.

We are paying for services and helping players build those services.

While this may be the case at RU, some of the reported, off the wall stuff is over the top and will tarnish college athletics. I feel each blue blood college will try and "one up" their rival. It's a system set up for abaurdity...kinda like? Professional sports. This will be abused in order to help attain success by many.

 

[wkbrdr3448]

You're not buying players. You're paying players to play, only you're not doing it in a way that will allow the school to be competitive under the new rules (which is to say, actually buying players). You're also playing semantics, which I'm sure some non-profit lawyer (rightfully) insisted you do (I'm a lawyer - I get it - I can read the NCAA rulebook, and have). And when someone refuses to engage in your semantics, you insult them. From a "trying to raise revenue and get donors with money to participate" standpoint, it's foolish. But perhaps it has value from a "trying to seem cool to kids in their late teens and early twenties" approach, if that's your goal. I don't know as I left my early twenties many years ago.

No, you just like to ignore semantics, which is surprising for a lawyer. I'm a finance guy - I see things in value. Players sell services. We are not paying for a them to play, which is a service in and of itself. Again, I will go around this circle all night with you.

 

[Geo_Baker_1]

I said on the day they announced their organization that I wasn't sure if I wish them well or if I hope it collapses immediately. I still don't know.

It upsets me because, as I explained earlier in the thread (at least I think it was this thread - there are several competing threads on the same topic), the end game of this framework is that there are going to be 25 to 40 schools (let's just say 50 to be generous) that will move forward intending to compete in Professional College Athletics (with no salary cap) and the remainder will eventually (20 years? 25?) bow out and refuse to try to compete. And because I've had a small involvement in Rutgers Athletics since before you were born, and was a fan long before that, I am well aware that our particular school traditionally makes no effort when it comes to being competitive in interscholastic athletics. In fact, the vast majority of those affiliated with the school (administrators, faculty, staff, students, local media) would prefer we lose repeatedly and stop trying to compete at all; they don't want the school to make an effort. Still, for the last 70 years or so, Rutgers has adopted a stance of pretending to care if we win, and pretending to make an effort, but not actually doing the things necessary to make it happen (spending $$$, and spending it on the correct priorities).

So when I see that the new landscape is that those schools that are willing to spend enough $$$ to be competitive will actually continue to have major college athletic programs and those that aren't willing to spend will not, I assume (based on history, track record and ease of path) that Rutgers University will quickly fall into the later category. And while I don't want Rutgers to fall out of major college athletics, I want even less for it to pretend it is trying to compete (while throwing a tiny portion of money at it as a wasteful show) because that will provide the school administrators and the state politicians the excuse to act like they thought they were being competitive and "Oh gee, who could have guessed we were only doing a 10th of what was necessary to compete with a Michigan State or an Iowa??? Oh well, here comes the Patriot League."

So returning to my first comment, why am I uncertain if I want to wish them well or want them to collapse immediately? Because this KTR organization, as currently planning to operate, is playing pretend. It's pretending that Rutgers is being set up to compete. Its major function is to serve as an excuse to everyone affiliated with the school to say, "Well, we thought it was going to work, but it didn't come close. How could we have known?" rather than have those same people (administrators, politicians, local media, larger donors) to say the truthful thing which is ... the school will not be competitive unless it comes up with a massive amount of money and goes and recruits players just like all of these other schools (that aren't pretending) intend to do. That isn't what KTR is intending; I'm sure this guy arguing with me and representing the organization is being sincere. But being sincere isn't enough. What this organization is set up to do isn't enough. Nothing short of paying to play and recruiting players is going to be enough.

So it upsets me because its play pretend, it won't work, and it is an excuse for others not to do anything.

So just to clarify, you are an athletics fan, but upset that there are people “pretending” to support athletics. You are much older than me which is why I’m sure my outlook is completely different. I see the same struggles that you see. But i will approach it differently. There aren’t a ton of NIL supporters. There weren’t a ton of athletics supporters before NIL. (Completely unrelated but if you think about it, any donation for new facilities is really pay for play if you are using the same guidelines to deduct that a collective is pay for play. People were upgrading facilities to get higher recruits interested in rutgers. Nil is just the new tool instead. We just made 3 straight ncaa tournaments in that version of pay for play. That’s completely unrelated. So back to the topic).

Be a part of the change instead of being mad at “pretenders.” Energy is transferable. The more positive the better. Rutgers had no facilities when i arrived and pat Hobbs completely turned it around. Is he pretending? We just had a team in a final four. Is that pretend?

people care. And more people will care when the fan base stops being bitter about every little thing that happens and instead decide to be more active in problem solving. I would rather be a “pretend” problem solver than watch and complain about what Rutgers can’t have when honestly all of the resources are right in front of us.

 

[LETSGORU91]

It will implode the first time a collective fails to make a payment and the player files a lawsuit and all the dirty laundry ("Of course they were paying me to play. We talked about it all the time.") gets aired in court and then the NCAA gets put in the position of admitting they have no intention of trying to enforce the new NIL groundrules.

As Clint Eastwood uttered in "Heatbreak Ridge", "It's a cluster fvck". It's only gonna get abused more and get worse.

 

[wkbrdr3448]

Do I long for the day where a player enjoyed giving an autograph because he was well liked.. now...$$$

Hmmm...Tom Cruise: "Show me the money!!" Which prominent, head coach said one of the first recruiting conversations is "how much money can I get"? Ryan Day: "We need 13 mil to retain our players" . That's a direct scream to bosters and businesses to pony up to play.

Geo, was great to have you here and represent Rutgers. Hands down, you are an absolute favorite of mine. Thank you. Everyone is entitled to what they deserve. The market will dictate what these players shall get. How long do think this is sustainable?

What was it? All BYU lineman were "compensated" for being in the team. What service did they provide? And as a disclosure, I'm going on memory here...so forgive me if I'm off on the facts. Point is..the system is being abused.

While this may be the case at RU, some of the reported, off the wall stuff is over the top and will tarnish college athletics. I feel each blue blood college will try and "one up" their rival. It's a system set up for abaurdity...kinda like? Professional sports. Stupid NIL deals are (anD will continue to ) rivaling stupid pro salaries? It will be abused in order to help attain success.

Your responses are focused on how other schools are doing NIL. Not how we are doing it here. My responses were focused on how we are doing it here. I don't disagree with you on some of the issues you've pointed out regarding NIL elsewhere.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

(Completely unrelated but if you think about it, any donation for new facilities is really pay for play if you are using the same guidelines to deduct that a collective is pay for play. People were upgrading facilities to get higher recruits interested in rutgers. Nil is just the new tool instead.

Sure, in the same way McDonalds is "paying" its cashiers and its customers when it installs a new playground. I suppose I get paid by McDonalds almost every week when I stop in to get a McFlurry. By the same logic, Cliff just got "paid" when Pikiell signed a new contract two months ago.

There's a difference between (a) giving someone money and letting them choose what to do with it and, (b) investing in your own infrastructure, which in turn makes you more attractive to people you are trying to attract.

 

[Geo_Baker_1]

Sure, in the same way McDonalds is "paying" its cashiers and its customers when it installs a new playground. I suppose I get paid by McDonalds almost every week when I stop in to get a McFlurry. By the same logic, Cliff just got "paid" when Pikiell signed a new contract two months ago.

There's a difference between (a) giving someone money and letting them choose what to do with it and, (b) investing in your own infrastructure, which in turn makes you more attractive to people you are trying to attract.

The literal *only* reason to build new facilities was to attract better players. That was the only thing rutgers was investing in when they built the apc. I’m sure you can find quotes where they talk about how great of a “recruiting tool” the apc will be once it’s built. McDonald’s building a new playground doesn’t effect what workers come in for an application nor does it effect their hourly pay at all. So that’s actually a horrible example.

 

[Geo_Baker_1]

Rutgers wasnt worried about their infrastructure when they built the apc. They were worried about the players they were getting

 

[Geo_Baker_1]

I also love how you ignored the rest of my post haha. Maybe when i get older I’ll feel the way that you do, but i honestly hope not! It doesn’t seem fun lol. I don’t mind taking on all the weight and at least attempting to be the change rutgers athletics needs.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

The literal *only* reason to build new facilities was to attract better players. That was the only thing rutgers was investing in when they built the apc. I’m sure you can find quotes where they talk about how great of a “recruiting tool” the apc will be once it’s built. McDonald’s building a new playground doesn’t effect what workers come in for an application nor does it effect their hourly pay at all. So that’s actually a horrible example.

Well, the excuse they used when they built the Hale Center was that the primary reason it was built was to provide an environment where the student athletes could focus on being a student and being an athlete which would, in turn, increase academic and athletic performance.

Are facilities built to attract recruits? Sure. That's definitely a reason. But it is not the only reason.

And it's still not "payment" ... unless of course you are saying Rutgers is paying it's British Literature students when it builds a new dorm or a new library.