He’s not crying…he doesn’t want play the game…he’s older…has won more than any other coach, has zippo to prove and is loaded. That’s called having ALL the options. Fishing, boating, trips, the absolute best food and drink anyone could want!
WINNING.
NIL impact from Saban
- Thread starter rucoe89
- Start date
WINNING.
Bu11$hi+!!! All of those guys took off and ran when the playing field became even. When did you ever see Rutgers land 2 of the top 5 players in the country.
He saw it coming when he lost a player to Jackson St. Just sit back and watch the kids will always follow the money.
All of those guys played the money game and they have been doing this for years. Not hard to win when you have the top talent in the country.
He also cited things like players with a lack of class.
"Saban, 72, offered a particularly pointed comment on how he did not feel like his players lost with “class” when Michigan defeated Alabama, 27-20, in an overtime thriller at Rose Bowl on New Year’s Day.
“I want to be clear that wasn’t the reason, but some of those events certainly contributed,” Saban told ESPN. “I was really disappointed in the way that the players acted after the game. You gotta win with class. You gotta lose with class. We had our opportunities to win the game and we didn’t do it, and then showing your a– and being frustrated and throwing helmets and doing that stuff … that’s not who we are and what we’ve promoted in our program.”
Saban also believes that shifting factors in college football have made players more out for themselves as opposed to pursuing team goals."
Alabama reaction to Michigan loss ‘contributed’ to Nick Saban’s retirement
Nick Saban did not like how his Alabama squad handled its loss to Michigan in the Rose Bowl.nypost.com
Hire thugs to play ball expect them to not act like thugs? LOL.
Sportsmanship died with Muhammad Ali.
Another lesson we'll have to re-learn as a society.
I buy tickets, for now. You're handing money to random kids to play a game with no commitment. I support the tradition. You buy tattoos.
Very good paywalled article on NIL and donor fatigue in The Athletic, which you can get for $1/month if you shop around. Will provide some snippets and quote some of the comments to the story, which may be more interesting than the story itself. @NickRU714 - you may find the story an comments of interest. If I understand a lot of your comments correctly, you seem to draw no major distinction between athletic department donations (e.g., the weight room) or to NIL. IMO, and in others, there are differences.
And let's stop with the silly name "NIL". This is pay for play. I had this debate many months earlier with @retired711 - nobody is paying Joe NoName as a freshman who playing on special teams for his Name Image or Likeness.
Interesting comment from a Bama fan: "I've been an Alabama season ticket hold for 35 years and been fortunate to see half a dozen national championships over that amazing window, but my 4 tickets with the required scholarship seat licence was up to $15,000 this season. With the new distasteful NIL era upon us killing the sport, I finally decided to just say " thanks but no thanks " to help pay for this nonsense"
From middle class fans, who already contributes $2-4K/year to keep his prime season tickets:
“No ill will toward the university or anything. My gripe is with the system,” Freeman said. “Asking us fans, I think, is wrong. I think it’s comical the money the NCAA brings in, and the fact they’re asking fans — and not just Georgia fans, but fans across the country — to give more, it’s just kind of comical. You can’t explain to me that this is the best way to do it.”
"If the NIL era is here to stay, Sullivan thinks the schools should be the ones directly paying. He pointed to another factor in his reluctance to give: a lack of transparency from the collectives, which are not public and don’t have to divulge their finances. Fans not privy to information don’t know how much players are getting, how much the collective needs and how much the collective has."
“The money overcomes the loyalty,” Paul said. “I’ll hear friends who are donors say, ‘Well, they’re hitting us up for this, can you increase your donation by 10 percent’ or whatever amount? … Where does it end?”
“Those people have now had to step up to pay not only the university’s regular operating costs but now the payroll of these teams,” Belzer said. “We’re now in the third year of NIL, and a lot of schools’ donors aren’t getting a return on their investment. Before you at least got your name on the building. Now you pay for the payroll, and your team doesn’t win.”
Freeman agrees the players deserve to be paid. He’s happy they are.
“I just don’t think it should be coming from hardworking middle-class people who have been donating to the school,” he said. “Especially when you hear about the billion dollars they’re getting from ESPN.”
“The consensus is it’s not fair to the fans. It’s not fair to pile on and to give and give and give. And there’s no regulation or policing of it,” he said. “We’re just starting. When’s it going to stop? What’s it going to look like in five years?”
theathletic.com
-----
COMMENTS TO STORY:
For small donors, the whole concept of donating to NIL is absurd.
In no other sport with a TV contract and tickets, would you personally be expected to pay for players. When I pay $200 to go to an NFL game, that *is* my donation. If the team put a message on the Jumbotron asking fans to give them money for the upcoming free agency class, literally every single person in the stadium would burst out laughing and/or cuss out ownership as a cheap tightwad.
But in college it's now considered reasonable because of the weird-ass situation where the universities have to pretend that the athletics department has nothing to do with NIL, no sir, definitely not, we don't pay players of course not.
--
If you don’t think the NL is an arm of the university, you’re kidding yourself. It may not be formally tied in legal sense, but it is definitely an arm of the university. Ask any head coach or athletic Director about the NL and they’ll know more details than anyone else. Why? Because they put it together and control it! At UGA’s touchdown club here in Athens, Kirby spoke last year and his entire focus was on the need to contribute to the NIL. He doesn’t like it, but as he said, this is the way life is right now.
---
I think it’s more so that people in this thread are just complaining about how ridiculous the system has become. And I think this should be a safe place to do so - honestly who in their right mind is going to stand up for this current system - which gives 0 chance for fair play on the field AND requires the fans to fork over their money for players? Clearly not sustainable, as stated in the article.
Also, not brought up in this article, but how can you expect fans to pay for these players THAT LITERALLY DO NOT EVEN PLAY IN BOWL GAMES AND CONSTANTLY OPT OUT WHEN THEY CAN PLAY?
College football is in a huge need to take a step back and make massive changes. It’s ok for people to mourn over what college football once was, it was incredible, but what it used to be is dead now and we need to figure out a better way forward.
---
And let's stop with the silly name "NIL". This is pay for play. I had this debate many months earlier with @retired711 - nobody is paying Joe NoName as a freshman who playing on special teams for his Name Image or Likeness.
Interesting comment from a Bama fan: "I've been an Alabama season ticket hold for 35 years and been fortunate to see half a dozen national championships over that amazing window, but my 4 tickets with the required scholarship seat licence was up to $15,000 this season. With the new distasteful NIL era upon us killing the sport, I finally decided to just say " thanks but no thanks " to help pay for this nonsense"
From middle class fans, who already contributes $2-4K/year to keep his prime season tickets:
“No ill will toward the university or anything. My gripe is with the system,” Freeman said. “Asking us fans, I think, is wrong. I think it’s comical the money the NCAA brings in, and the fact they’re asking fans — and not just Georgia fans, but fans across the country — to give more, it’s just kind of comical. You can’t explain to me that this is the best way to do it.”
"If the NIL era is here to stay, Sullivan thinks the schools should be the ones directly paying. He pointed to another factor in his reluctance to give: a lack of transparency from the collectives, which are not public and don’t have to divulge their finances. Fans not privy to information don’t know how much players are getting, how much the collective needs and how much the collective has."
“The money overcomes the loyalty,” Paul said. “I’ll hear friends who are donors say, ‘Well, they’re hitting us up for this, can you increase your donation by 10 percent’ or whatever amount? … Where does it end?”
“Those people have now had to step up to pay not only the university’s regular operating costs but now the payroll of these teams,” Belzer said. “We’re now in the third year of NIL, and a lot of schools’ donors aren’t getting a return on their investment. Before you at least got your name on the building. Now you pay for the payroll, and your team doesn’t win.”
Freeman agrees the players deserve to be paid. He’s happy they are.
“I just don’t think it should be coming from hardworking middle-class people who have been donating to the school,” he said. “Especially when you hear about the billion dollars they’re getting from ESPN.”
“The consensus is it’s not fair to the fans. It’s not fair to pile on and to give and give and give. And there’s no regulation or policing of it,” he said. “We’re just starting. When’s it going to stop? What’s it going to look like in five years?”
‘My gripe is with the system’: Why some fans are resisting giving money to NIL collectives
Fans worry they'll increasingly be asked for more money in name, image and likeness era.
theathletic.com
-----
COMMENTS TO STORY:
For small donors, the whole concept of donating to NIL is absurd.
In no other sport with a TV contract and tickets, would you personally be expected to pay for players. When I pay $200 to go to an NFL game, that *is* my donation. If the team put a message on the Jumbotron asking fans to give them money for the upcoming free agency class, literally every single person in the stadium would burst out laughing and/or cuss out ownership as a cheap tightwad.
But in college it's now considered reasonable because of the weird-ass situation where the universities have to pretend that the athletics department has nothing to do with NIL, no sir, definitely not, we don't pay players of course not.
--
If you don’t think the NL is an arm of the university, you’re kidding yourself. It may not be formally tied in legal sense, but it is definitely an arm of the university. Ask any head coach or athletic Director about the NL and they’ll know more details than anyone else. Why? Because they put it together and control it! At UGA’s touchdown club here in Athens, Kirby spoke last year and his entire focus was on the need to contribute to the NIL. He doesn’t like it, but as he said, this is the way life is right now.
---
I think it’s more so that people in this thread are just complaining about how ridiculous the system has become. And I think this should be a safe place to do so - honestly who in their right mind is going to stand up for this current system - which gives 0 chance for fair play on the field AND requires the fans to fork over their money for players? Clearly not sustainable, as stated in the article.
Also, not brought up in this article, but how can you expect fans to pay for these players THAT LITERALLY DO NOT EVEN PLAY IN BOWL GAMES AND CONSTANTLY OPT OUT WHEN THEY CAN PLAY?
College football is in a huge need to take a step back and make massive changes. It’s ok for people to mourn over what college football once was, it was incredible, but what it used to be is dead now and we need to figure out a better way forward.
---
Since @Knight Shift mentions me . . .
There's NIL and there's NIL. Caitlin Clark is an example of how NIL is supposed to work. She has eleven known deals with companies like Nike that are using her name, likeness or image to promote their products. She's making a ton of money.
OTOH, there's the "collectives," composed of alumni and other fans. Their purpose is clear: to gin up arrangements between an athlete and entities like local car dealerships for the purpose of recruiting or retaining that athlete. For the time being, the schools themselves are trying to act as though they have nothing to do with the collectives, but this will change if that Tennessee district court decision striking down the NCAA's NIL rules stands up on appeal (which I don't think it will.) Indeed, the schools may end up financing NIL deals.
The Caitlin Clark kind of NIL is not going away, nor should it. She's profiting from her own ability and hard work just like everybody else. The other kind -- to say the least, it needs regulation.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nca...a-nike-sponsors-2024/e58534cadc3b2960663a36cb
There's NIL and there's NIL. Caitlin Clark is an example of how NIL is supposed to work. She has eleven known deals with companies like Nike that are using her name, likeness or image to promote their products. She's making a ton of money.
OTOH, there's the "collectives," composed of alumni and other fans. Their purpose is clear: to gin up arrangements between an athlete and entities like local car dealerships for the purpose of recruiting or retaining that athlete. For the time being, the schools themselves are trying to act as though they have nothing to do with the collectives, but this will change if that Tennessee district court decision striking down the NCAA's NIL rules stands up on appeal (which I don't think it will.) Indeed, the schools may end up financing NIL deals.
The Caitlin Clark kind of NIL is not going away, nor should it. She's profiting from her own ability and hard work just like everybody else. The other kind -- to say the least, it needs regulation.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nca...a-nike-sponsors-2024/e58534cadc3b2960663a36cb
I agree with everything you say, but in addition to "ginning up arrangements between an athlete and entities like local car dealerships for the purpose of recruiting or retaining that athlete," they are raising large sums of money that are being paid directly to the athletes in direct cooperation with the head coaches of the teams.
THIS is the very thing that is not NIL (IMO). And THIS is the very thing that is quite unlike any other professional or semi-professional sports league--asking the fans to "chip in" to pay the salaries of the players in addition to the fans already paying for seat licenses, tickets, merchandise, etc. It seems more unseemly when rank and file fans are being asked to pay college athletes who already are receiving a tuition free education and a lot of other perks, particularly when some of the fans paid their own way through college and are still paying off college loans. It's downright ludicrous when these same rank and file fans see media rights deals paying these universities just under $100 million/year for media rights.
I'm not mad at the system. I'm just amazed at the gall of those with their hands out asking for rank and file fans to pay for it (NIL).
You buy individual game tickets?
No additional “donations” to the Athletic Department?
No donations for parking passes?
If you do, then you are supporting tradition of buying HC Schiano underwear and a golf membership.
Very heroic and Nobel.
Let me be a devil's advocate for a minute -- what is the difference between fans paying the cost of players' salaries (if that's largely what NIL is) and the fans paying every other expense ? Is the only difference that paying players is a new expense? Or is the difference that paying players isn't hidden in ticket prices or mandatory "donations" so that paying players through NIL is visible? (Note that it wouldn't be hidden if the schools were paying athletes directly.) No one seems to complain much when prices are increased to pay for capital projects that give players perks far beyond what intramural athletes get -- is paying players any different? Is paying players really more unseemly than paying huge salaries to coaches?
To put it another way, would you object as much if the schools paid players' salaries directly as opposed to having it done through NIL?
Forget capital projects.
What about 75k in UberEats for the players?
Or flying players private to media days?
Or a HCs personal clothing stipend (free underwear!!) in addition to $4m in salary?
What about funding a buyout for a terrible coach (and subsequently getting blamed "we can't fire the HC unless donors step-up")
It seems to me, as long as the AD is the intermediary - nobody complains at all about players getting benefits from their money.
But if money goes directly to a player - it's end of the world.
I addressed other in my post above. There is a lack of transparency with the collective. I raised other points too. The bottom line for many fans is that B1G member schools and the conference are taking in a lot of money from media rights and donors. They should find a way to allocate the money to pay the players instead of hitting up the fans to pay a collective as an intermediary to funnel money to players. I raised the point too- name another professional or semi professional sport where fans are asked to contribute directly to players salaries.
I did read it.
The entire article is dumb.
NIL has nothing do with paying $15k for tickets.
Funny how there were no articles and crocodile tears about the AD requiring $15k in money annually.
You are right. No other professional sports directly solicits fans to pay for players.
Does any other sport directly solicit fans to pay for coach buyouts? Or weight rooms? Or practice buildings?
Did you see the message at MetLife Stadium: "Giants would like to fire HC Judge but we can only do that if fans give us money"?
"Giants can't compete with the Cowboys or Eagles unless they build the new Training Center. And we can't build it unless fans chip in and pay for it."
I must have missed those emails from the Giants.
Does any other sport mandate their best fans (season ticket holders) pay MORE than casual fans who buy individual tickets?
Every other sport gives you a DISCOUNT for buying in bulk as part of a season ticket package.
College athletics requires extra.
(Note - PSLs are a 1 time expense. ADs require the "PSL" expense annually)
As I said - the entire college athletics model is based on "fans will pay for any and all expenses as deemed by the AD with zero oversight".
Now when player salaries are added - its "we need oversight! this is too far!"
There isn't even an acknowledgement "Well maybe we messed up for the past 20 years and this is all our fault."
Instead it's "These greedy players aren't playing for the right reasons. They already get a scholarship. Why are they asking for more! So greedy!"
Why would the AD NOT expect fans to pay for salaries?
They "have the gall" to ask fans to pay for literally every other expense the AD has.
(Note - fans are ALREADY paying the players. Scholarships are paid by fans. The AD won't even cover the minimum player salary and forces fans to "chip in".
Supposed the ADs do start paying players directly. No more outside NIL or asking fans to "chip in".
And then that $15k donation turns into $20k.
Is that a better situation?
Do you really think fans aren't going to "chip in" for another AD expense?
If "fans chipping in" when there are $100m media contracts is a problem - the answer isn't just moving players salaries under the AD.
That just makes fans "chip in" even more directly to the AD.
Ban "NIL" tomorrow and "fans chipping in" still exists.
Want to actually solve the problem - Ban "mandatory donations".
No more "Parking is $30/game........plus a $2k annual fee".
"Tickets are only $55/game.........plus a $2.5k annual fee"
If the AD wants fans to chip in - build it into the ticket price like every other sport does.
The problem is the AD wants to spend as much as they can without any actual fiscal responsibility.
And FANS allow that.
That's where the "gall" comes from.
That just makes fans "chip in" even more directly to the AD.
Ban "NIL" tomorrow and "fans chipping in" still exists.
Want to actually solve the problem - Ban "mandatory donations".
No more "Parking is $30/game........plus a $2k annual fee".
"Tickets are only $55/game.........plus a $2.5k annual fee"
If the AD wants fans to chip in - build it into the ticket price like every other sport does.
The problem is the AD wants to spend as much as they can without any actual fiscal responsibility.
And FANS allow that.
That's where the "gall" comes from.
You make many good points, but some hyperbole that is off base, IMO, and on important items.
Have not seen a large outcry about "greedy" players. But let's not close our eyes to the sweet deals the scholarship players already have- many of them are marginal students receiving an education and room and board for free. Plus all the perks, including training, special meals, high end recovery --saunas, etc. All of this is worth at least $40-50K per year.
I know what your comeback will be--- but the coaches make millions! The comeback to that is most of these coaches spent years working their way up the ladder as graduate assistants, at low level jobs, making little money. They paid their dues. It's a fair question to ask what college players are worth in the ecosystem when they are unproven and already receiving at least $40-50K in free benefits.
Now, I also think that head coaching and coordinator salaries are way out of line for college football, and these salaries are a good lightning rod for the players to ask what is in it for them. Frankly, think that their should be enforced salary caps for coaches. Yeah, that will happen when pigs fly.
You raise a fair point about coach contracts and clothing allowances and other perks. I generally agree with you on the ridiculousness of these perks for people making millions per year. The only all comeback to that is head coaches are like CEOs of an organization, and like corporate pay packages for executives, the executives receive lavish perks. That does not make it right for college football. It's quite comical that there are travel funds that donors give to that support recruiting travel costs for coaches making $5-12M per year. I make far less than that, and in our business, the owners wind up paying their own travel costs out of pocket, because it comes out of the profits as an expense.
The other item you did not address that adds a level of unseemliness to the players getting so-called NIL money is the collectives that work in coordination with the coaches who tell the collectives how much they need and the money is then dispensed. But the donors have no idea where exactly their money as gone and how it was spent. At least if a donor gives to the head coaches surf and turf fund, they know where it is going.
That entire article is not dumb at all. It exposes a lot of issues with the feelings of rank and file fans, and perhaps has shines a light on the bus going off the cliff. For me, I think I'm done with athletics donations beyond the request fees, etc. B1G member schools have enoug money from media rights, and they should figure out how to fairly divide up that pie. Their are far more worthy causes I plan to give to than whether Rutgers has a winning football or basketball team.
It wasn't NIL that did this, but perhaps it is the straw that broke the camel's back. And to be clear, the players should get paid. How much is another question.
It’s very disingenuous for Saban to complain about players asking for more money. Saban’s last contract extension included a clause that would automatically raise his annual salary to match the ave salary of the top 3 coaches every year.
He made $11 M last year from Alabama. That doesn’t include $5M he earned from endorsements.
Thanks for your response! It seems to me that we agree -- that NIL payments should result only from legitimate deals between the athlete and outsiders (as with Caitlin Clark) and that NIL should not be used as a disguised way to pay athletes; that if players are going to receive salaries (and, as you say, that is what the NIL paid through collectives amounts to) , those salaries should be paid directly by the schools just as schools pay salaries of coaches. If that is true, then it seems to me there is no real argument between you and @nick614 -- both of you agree that institutions should be paying athletes. Do you think I'm understanding you correctly?
Absolutely, and you are correct that @NickRU714 and I agree on most things. Nick has made the fair point that paying the players' salaries/NIL is no different than what fans have been pay for over the years to fund facilities, coaches' contracts, etc. As I noted, this NIL (really salary stuff) is, pick your favorite metaphor- a bridge too far or the straw that broke the camel's back. To be clear, it's not the NIL (players' salaries) that is so objectionable, it's the sum total of things fans have been asked to pay for over the years. That was the point of the article from The Athletic- donor fatigue has set in. Perhaps it should have set in sooner. And donors are somewhat complicit because they kept feeding the monster.
The pay for play along with free agency has drastically changed college football in bad pro football. It is no longer Rutgers Students playing students from some other college. I'm not interested in watching a bunch of mercenaries play other mercenaries. The traditions of the game and the student athlete have been destroyed. For folks who don't care, enjoy yourselves. For those of us who do we've either left already or are hanging by a thread.
As for further donations. There's enough money in CFB without mine. Let the players and league pay for what they say they need. I'm done with that.
Yeah, the whole idea of "Rutgers men" and "Rutgers women" has largely been lost. While I took a contrary position in the basketball forum thread, is Cam Spencer really a "Rutgers man" or a "Rutgers one year rental?" I say the latter. I suppose we can claim some tangential prestige that a Rutgers "grad" has made the NBA (if this indeed happens), but the feeling around that is kind of like:
Yeah, the whole idea of "Rutgers men" and "Rutgers women" has largely been lost. While I took a contrary position in the basketball forum thread, is Cam Spencer really a "Rutgers man" or a "Rutgers one year rental?" I say the latter. I suppose we can claim some tangential prestige that a Rutgers "grad" has made the NBA (if this indeed happens), but the feeling around that is kind of like:
They're almost all one year rentals on a one year lease.
A couple of other things that may be lost in the discussion:
1. Coaches such as Hafley (and there were others) who have left college coaching to go to the pros. Hafley was interesting because he left a head coaching position to take a lower position with an NFL team. Other coaches have complained out loud about NIL (Saban (ex-coach), Kiffin, Loxley, and others.
2. If NCAA is going to move to a paid model, salary caps should be in place to prevent the "richer" schools/teams from buying championships. Each team should be allowed to spend a capped amount on players salaries (and let's stop with the NIL nonsense name).
I know I say this over and over, but the only ways to achieve #2 are for either the NCAA to convince the courts that the limits are "reasonable" restraints on trade (very risky and time-consuming), Congress to grant college sports some kind of exemption from the antitrust (or to establish some kind of administrative agency to make rules), or for the players to be organized into a union so that a cap and other limits can be established through a collective bargaining agreement (as in pro football). The last is probably the easiest, but of course it assumes that athletes are going to be paid.
I hate to support salary caps but in this situation it's certainly good for competition.
I have to imagine it's pretty disagreeable to have a 17 year old HS Sr. and his entourage show up in a HOF college coaches office and start dictating terms of employment.
Isn't the NFL the obvious model? The NFL splits TV revenue among its teams and has a salary cap in its collective bargaining agreement with the players' union. That puts the have-nots in a position of equality.
It is the obvious model.
But it'll never happen - fans and schools and conferences don't want that model.
The problem with a salary cap is that revenues needs to be distributed among ALL teams.
Salary cap is a sliding scale calculation based on revenues.
CFB: 130 teams
CBB: 350 teams
Is Rutgers really going to share revenues with Temple so an equitable salary cap be instituted?
Any salary cap (players paid by AD or even NIL) would be BELOW the level Rutgers operates at.
We are a "have". Not a "have not".
Any caps bring us down and most other schools up.
This why all the complaining and teeth gnashing over "equality" and "what about the other 350 basketball teams" goes out the window.
Waiting for the first person to advocate for Rutgers and Big Ten to revenue share with the AAC and Temple to create a "level playing field".
Waiting for the first person to advocate for Rutgers and Big Ten to revenue share with the AAC and Temple to create a "level playing field".
There is an alternative: to maintain the current amount of revenue for each conference, and to have salary caps within the conference. That is, each Big Ten school would receive the same share of the conference's TV revenue as at present, and for each Big Ten school to have the same salary cap. In this way, Ohio State and Rutgers would have the same salary cap, but schools from lesser conferences would have lower caps reflecting their lower TV revenue.
Are there any NCAA rules that don't apply to all schools equally?
Are the conferences expected to invoke salary caps?
What if Big Ten does and SEC does not?
Exactly. Nobody would ever suggested it would be equal across all NCAA teams.
The NCAA's days are numbered anyway.
The P4 or whatever they will become P3 or P2 can make conference rules. The others will be like the XFL and G League
