NIL killed college hoops its now professional hoops
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
They were available very cheap if you waited til yesterday to purchase
Likely?
It seems more likely that we finish ahead of Washington, USC, Minnesota.
Of course, it doesn’t necessarily matter. Based on performance season-to-date, not many of us will truly want to see 1-2 more games of this team in the big ten tourney.
They are not. They are like bar-sponsored rec teams…only with lots more money and professional athletes. When was the last time you heard “academically intelligible”. Does it even exist anymore? Are some of our studs (and every other team’s) actually going to and passing classes? It’s all a money-making charade.
Last edited:
Whatever happened to "it's the name on the front and not the back?"
Most were pretty happy to root for Ace and Dylan knowing they were here only one year.
Funny, I don't recall all the "grad transfers are bad for the team. They are only here one year" posts. I'll have to do a better search maybe.
Simpson was here 2 years and couldn't have been run out the door faster.
Dean Reiber was here 3 years.
Davis is in his 2nd year and people want him to transfer out mid season.
It's almost as if production and results are more important than "loyalty" and "connection to the University".
If we were 14-2 (4-1), how many people would be fed up with this new roster?
Most were pretty happy to root for Ace and Dylan knowing they were here only one year.
Funny, I don't recall all the "grad transfers are bad for the team. They are only here one year" posts. I'll have to do a better search maybe.
Simpson was here 2 years and couldn't have been run out the door faster.
Dean Reiber was here 3 years.
Davis is in his 2nd year and people want him to transfer out mid season.
It's almost as if production and results are more important than "loyalty" and "connection to the University".
If we were 14-2 (4-1), how many people would be fed up with this new roster?
Nick, didn't we run off a bunch of guys to get Hayes, Martini, and Acuff who are all grad transfers and not subject to the old undergrad transfer rules?
We didn't lose a single undergrad player due to transfer rules. Both Cam and Cliff were 5th year ( I think Cliff was but I may be wrong with him) and both chased the $ . Same with Paul.
Transfer rules have zero to do with the Rutgers situation.
( I just read your last post so perhaps as usual we're not far apart here)
all of this was warned coming into the season going this route
as for grad transfers they were not getting paid when all this started..everyone else had to sit out....im not even sure when grad transfers actually became a thing because it never was until some year
also the covid nonsense of an extra year of eligibility really ****ed rosters up and was a total unnecessary move given that no season was lost.
I would suspect less than 50,000, if anywhere near that. I would suspect 96% of D1 athletes receive less than 30,000 a year, if anywhere near that.
The House v. NCAA settlement will change some of this. Athletes will be compensated directly by their school, which will be subject to a salary cap. NIL will be confined to business deals just as originally intended. Boosters won't be able to use NIL dgt players to come to or stay at their school; instead any deal between a booster and an athlete is going to have to have a valid business purpose rather than being a recruitment or retention inducement.
The House settlement does not affect the transfer portal. Players will be able to transfer the way they can now. But schools are going to be restrained by the salary cap in going after players. Schools are going to have to make sure that an athlete who isn't working out transfers elsewhere to free up the money to go after a free agent.
Yes, it's going to be a lot like professional sports. Yes, we can no longer imagine that the player is out there for dear old Rutgers any more than we can imagine that Juan Soto cares more about Mets fans than Yankees fans. But people root for professional teams, and they will probably still root for their college teams. Let's just hope the play doesn't degenerate to NBA levels with every player out for himself.
The only things that could change this are Congressional legislation -- good luck about whether it will happen or how good it will be -- or unionization of college athletes and a collective bargaining agreement with the schools. (Collective bargaining agreements are exempt from anti-trust laws, and it is those laws that have created the situation we have.) But the future looks way different than the past.
Basketball is just AAU with a school name on the jerseys. I’ve completely checked out watching. Sure I continue to follow and hope. But support will plummet
This is going to change dramatically with revenue sharing now that many schools have 20m per year to throw around.
This is the type of question that is making College basketball not as much fun as it used to be .
The question is valid and because of it college players are looked on as pros and many of them are.
Picking where they go or if they stay is based more on NIL money then anything else.
You’re saying sorry geo like I created NIL or dictated the market. They’re all being paid by someone who thinks it’s worth paying them.
There’s also such a small amount of people being paid huge money, you just happen to see it a lot because it’s in the news.
The rev share of colleges paying student athletes will definitely hurt the non rev sports.
But these are all things the NCAA has to do because of a judge’s ruling. You’re complaining about something deemed illegal 🤣
geo, when you and others fought college athletes' images being used without compensating the player , did you envision the NIL deals players are receiving being like it is now?
Only 1 reason I knew who Great osobor was...he was in Ace's neighborhood
Less and less connection each passing year between the players and schools. Yet the NIL narrative requires fans to be more invested financially than ever. That disconnect is a huge problem for college sports. All to now watch a watered down version of pro sports.
Eh, I definitely thought there would be some big time payments. Its just when you pair it with the transfer portal it’s a mess. People originally complained about the portal because coaches could technically leave for greener pastures whenever they want so I understood that but I feel like that would be the only way to kill the free agency problem legally. I know they’re also talking about having a 3rd party be involved to decide what is true Nil and what isn’t based on market value. But I’m not so sure that will work either. The market is the market and right now guys are getting millions. I think it would end in another lawsuit
I only bring your name up because your argument for NIL is completely different than what it turned out to be and happened like almost immediately. I know your intentions were good and honorable
I agree ncaa was a big part of the problem. The Courts decision compounding the issue. Congress worthless as everyone knows
The Title 9 issue looms large and I dont see women given the shaft so to speak
Except that there’s a lot more money available to spread around a football team.
It’s not just 1 or 2.
You’ll have plenty of leg room also.
Feel free to ask a question if you are having trouble.
Geo, thank you for participating here. Unfortunately it will be like talking to a rock. These guys are the classic old man yells at cloud from the Simpsons. They are upset old grumpy get off my lawn guys that want everything to be like it was.
There should be multi-year NIL contracts that only pay out the majority of the money once the student is enrolled in the second year at the same school, or if the player is out of eligibility after one year. It won’t solve the portal problem completely, but it will cut down on a lot of the jumping from team to team.
Please!
someone posted above that there would be no effect on the portal. Is it written anywhere that it isn’t allowed. Like let’s say we want to create contracts but Ohio State doesn’t. Are we just good to do it and we are subject to the market (ie kids who are willing to be on multi year contracts)?
I really like the idea of 2 year contracts.
Pick a school play 2.
Mutual decision to renew and become a sr and graduate or go find a new school and graduate there.
Pick a school play 2.
Mutual decision to renew and become a sr and graduate or go find a new school and graduate there.
A school can do anything it likes -- but if it makes an agreement with another school to do the same thing, then both might be liable under the antitrust laws for having created an unreasonable restraint on trade. No one is going to take that chance because the antitrust laws provide for triple damages. And no school is going to do on its own what you suggest for fear of losing players to schools that don't require two-year contracts. The genii can't be put back in the bottle without either Congressional action creating an exemption from the antitrust laws or a collective bargaining agreement between the schools and a players' union. (Collective bargaining agreements are exempt from the antitrust laws.)
Think of it this way: the courts are treating college athletic programs as businesses, and treating them just like all other businesses for purposes of the antitrust laws.
Last edited:
Just because something is doesn’t mean someone has to like it.Geo, thank you for participating here. Unfortunately it will be like talking to a rock. These guys are the classic old man yells at cloud from the Simpsons. They are upset old grumpy get off my lawn guys that want everything to be like it was.
Why do you have an issue with people voicing displeasure with a system you yourself says sucks.
If one school offers 2-year contracts and another school copies that idea, it doesn’t mean there was collusion. As long as schools don’t collude, and there is no evidence of them doing so, then how could they be held liable under anti-trust laws?
Also, what if contracts become partially incentive-based, and one of the incentives is to stay for at least 2 years, and teams offer different incentives for that?
Also, there are 354 D1 schools. As long as a player can play for one or more of them without having to commit for two years, then they have a choice. It’s not like 30 teams in pro sports where it’s a closed environment and you have no choice.
Last edited:
This is what is sad about it. It hit me in December watching our team play. What does Martini or PJ Hayes really care if we stink? What did they get? Probably 100-200k to be here for 4 months and bounce?
You think they will return for a letter winner event. You think they will give back? They don't/won't GAS about this place, how can you being here for such a short period of time and bouncing around from place to place. Hayes is on his 3rd school.
I think GS approach is much better than Pike just blowing up 80% of his roster each season but Pike is kind of forced because his recruiting has been such shit the last few years outside of these 5 star studs.
Do you currently sit in the 100s? Asking for a friend...
The NCAA had rules. The Supreme Court (in its infinite wisdom) invalidated them. It is not the NCAA's responsibility to fix what the Supreme Court ****ed up.
Good Info.
But in that case RU could find some kids who were interested in a multi year dear and others who weren’t and be free to cut individual deals at varying lengths if they so choose?
I added this to my post above:
Also, what if contracts become partially incentive-based, and one of the incentives is to stay for at least 2 years, and teams offer different incentives for that?
Also, there are 354 D1 schools. As long as a player can play for one or more of them without having to commit for two years, then they have a choice. It’s not like 30 teams in pro sports where it’s a closed environment and you have no choice.
I vaguely remember a premium post where Richie put a number to each transfer (based upon speculation) and that number was well north of 50K. It's all speculation however.
First and second paragraphs: Basically, a school has to tell its people, "Do not, on pain of death, discuss what we are doing with anybody from any other school." If they do, then the stage is set for litigation on whether there was collusion.
Third paragraph: it's not necessary that all 354 schools agree on something for it to be an antitrust violation. An agreement among companies that together have substantial market power is enough.
Keep in mind that the possibility of being subjected to triple damages is often enough to deter conduct that is even close to being considered an antitrust violation.
Probably. But I wonder how many players would prefer the security of a two-year deal over the possibility of being able to jump to another school after a single season. Would a school feel forced to make the contracts guaranteed in order to attract players.? If so, the school would be taking the chance of having to pay a dud for two years.
