OT: Just to catch up on what is going on in CFB NIL world. Portnoy offers $3mil for a QB for Michigan

[NickRU714]

Because athletics rely on the illusion of competitive balance in order for the sport to prosper.

No it doesn’t.
There is zero illusion of competitive balance.
What illusion is there?
The rules (that nearly everyone here loves) specifically look to achieve the most unbalanced competition possible.

Conference distribution?
Media revenue?
CFP compensation?
Alumni “donations” to Athletic Departments?
All designed to create a competitive imbalance.

Rutgers will make nearly $100m in conference revenue while Temple makes nearly $10m?
What is OSU or UM athletic department donations compared to Rutgers?

NOBODY wants “competitive balance” college athletics .
Just say the obvious “I want underpaid athletes because that how it always was.”

 

[LotusAggressor]

The NCAA will declare this illegal AF when that Rutgers Billionaire Alum offers the same thing to play for Rutgers.

Of course. The NCAA train is never late when it comes to this. They're like a retarded computer.

 

[LotusAggressor]

Because athletics rely on the illusion of competitive balance in order for the sport to prosper.

College athletics has long relied on free labor with the illusion of real compensation to prosper. Competitive balance has never even been an illusion. When the status quo has been threatened, the threats to it were neutralized by the arbitrary power of the NCAA. The courts, state legislatures, the transfer portal, and NIL have eroded that power.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Here are the rules (or lack thereof)

We can play by the rules
We choose not to, that's on us

We do, we become elite
Pretty simple

You should tell the athletics department about all the new and interesting ways you've developed for getting blood out of a stone.

 

[JayDogSmooth]

You should tell the athletics department about all the new and interesting ways you've developed for getting blood out of a stone.

We’ve had the same discussion no less than 14,000 times, and I’m still not incorrect in my assertion, while you have yet to back up yours

Here’s the facts - pre NIL, we had zero shot to ever become elite on a consistent basis

Zero
Nada
Zilch

Now, we at least have hope
Gun to my head, do I think we get there?
No

But there’s a least a chance
Whereas before, there was literally not a chance in hell we’d ever ascend to more than a mid tier bowl team

 

[RUAldo]

College athletics has long relied on free labor with the illusion of real compensation to prosper.

I’m no fan of the NCAA buffoons but without the schools supporting the programs and the NCAA as the governing body none of these kids would have opportunities for a free education and to play at the next level. College sports Armageddon is coming. Portnoy’s offer of $3M per year to the best QB willing to wear the MI uniform is a game changer. That’s not NIL…that’s just a rich guy buying a player for his favorite team.

 

[NickRU714]

I’m no fan of the NCAA buffoons but without the schools supporting the programs and the NCAA as the governing body none of these kids would have opportunities for a free education and to play at the next level. College sports Armageddon is coming. Portnoy’s offer of $3M per year to the best QB willing to wear the MI uniform is a game changer. That’s not NIL…that’s just a rich guy buying a player for his favorite team.

And without the players, none of these coaches or athletic directors or gameday operators or the entire athletic department staff would have their jobs.

Note: jobs where they can literally run at a deficit seemingly forever and keep getting raises while forcing the fans to cover for their spending increases (and seemingly never considering reducing expenses).

It goes both ways.

 

[RUGuitarMan]

The new world of college athletics in many ways has been long overdue. The “power conferences” now need to get together and establish rules and regulations for the NIL issue. There needs to be transparency and a process implemented for paying the athletes through the institutions not 3rd parties. There also need to be rules and consequences regarding player tampering. Violation of the rules should include scholarship reductions and maybe financial penalties.

 

[LETSGORU91]

I think Portnoy offered the line judge 3 million to call Minnesota offsides on that onside kick to secure the game for his Wolverines.

 

[RUAldo]

scholarship reductions

Why even have scholarships they are meaningless if NIL is how the recruiting game will be played.

 

[RUGuitarMan]

Why even have scholarships they are meaningless if NIL is how the recruiting game will be played.

That’s very much an overreaction. Most players aren’t getting paid and earning a degree for them is important.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

We’ve had the same discussion no less than 14,000 times, and I’m still not incorrect in my assertion, while you have yet to back up yours

Here’s the facts - pre NIL, we had zero shot to ever become elite on a consistent basis

Zero
Nada
Zilch

Now, we at least have hope
Gun to my head, do I think we get there?
No

But there’s a least a chance
Whereas before, there was literally not a chance in hell we’d ever ascend to more than a mid tier bowl team

My assertion is that the school does not have a donor base that will support Michigan/Texas/USC levels of spending. The supporting evidence for this assertion is that we've been playing football since the 1860s and the school's donor base has never demonstrated an ability or willingness to provide that level of support.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

The new world of college athletics in many ways has been long overdue. The “power conferences” now need to get together and establish rules and regulations for the NIL issue. There needs to be transparency and a process implemented for paying the athletes through the institutions not 3rd parties. There also need to be rules and consequences regarding player tampering. Violation of the rules should include scholarship reductions and maybe financial penalties.

The NCAA had rules. The Supreme Court invalidated them (foolishly).

 

[RUGuitarMan]

The NCAA had rules. The Supreme Court invalidated them (foolishly).

The NCAA had rules (which they randomly applied) from 1952. The rules did not address the current realities of the sport at all. It was if they existed in some type of nostalgic time warp.

 

[Brisket and Bourbon]

The new world of college athletics in many ways has been long overdue. The “power conferences” now need to get together and establish rules and regulations for the NIL issue. There needs to be transparency and a process implemented for paying the athletes through the institutions not 3rd parties. There also need to be rules and consequences regarding player tampering. Violation of the rules should include scholarship reductions and maybe financial penalties.

There will be as much transparency as there is in our outrageously inept federal monster. Think of glass covered in tar and then slathered in mud…

 

[NickRU714]

My assertion is that the school does not have a donor base that will support Michigan/Texas/USC levels of spending. The supporting evidence for this assertion is that we've been playing football since the 1860s and the school's donor base has never demonstrated an ability or willingness to provide that level of support.

Are you a proponent of eliminating private "donations" to college athletics departments as well?
Under the same "competitive balance" theory.
Your assertion would certainly apply.

If you want competitive balance, why stop at NIL?
In fact, your evidence is actually based on historical athletic department donations or lack thereof.
You are just transferring that evidence to NIL.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Are you a proponent of eliminating private "donations" to college athletics departments as well?
Under the same "competitive balance" theory.

If it was necessary to maintain the illusion of competitive balance? Sure. If not, no.

If you want competitive balance, why stop at NIL?

I don't want competitive balance. I recognize the absolute need for the illusion of competitive balance. If enough people (fans, donors, media, alumni, school administrators, etc) conclude that their school cannot compete (measured however they measure it ... but for our purposes, let's just say competing for a ranking in the Top 25, or to go to a bowl game), then those schools are going to drop the sport. Because schools are not going to pay to fund a sport that loses money, gets consistently drilled, and has no hope of ever competing (Top 25 or bowl game). And if schools drop sports, that means the athletes at those schools lose their scholarships and their opportunity to attend college and get a degree.

The current NIL rules will result in a 40 to 50 team superconference (with paid players, a salary cap and all the other things many people don't like about the NFL - essentially minor league football), the Ivy League playing itself, and most of the other schools slowly dropping their football programs (especially with Title IX, where having a football program means you need to also fund another 100 scholarships for women's sports). In its most blunt form, current NIL means the death of thousands of scholarship opportunities for poor kids that will never get to attend college.

In fact, your evidence is actually based on historical athletic department donations or lack thereof.
You are just transferring that evidence to NIL.

At Rutgers I am; certainly. I'd be willing to bet our donations per living alumni are in the bottom ten percent.

 

[RUAldo]

At Rutgers I am; certainly. I'd be willing to bet our donations per living alumni are in the bottem ten percent.

Sad but probably true. I’ve always donated based on perhaps the false notion that my donation was helping to “build” the university through capital improvements and supporting athletic scholarships. New facilities, great coaching, etc. to attract talent. That’s money put to good use if in fact my donations were directed that way. On the other hand, using donations or NIL to write checks to mercenary athletes is a non-starter for me. I suspect RU alumni don’t care enough about playing the Tennessee “talent fee” or Portnoy QB game if that’s what it will take to compete. In 5 years college football will enter crisis mode as programs get dropped left and right…or universities will seek outside investments from Wall Street turning the college sports landscape into nothing more than minor league sports.

 

[Caliknight]

I saw that. It’s a crazy world out here.

I’m trying to wrap my head around two thought processes

1. Do people like this just have so much money that this is like their way of owning a part of a sports team , without being a billionaire . So it’s just money towards their own ego, pride, entertainment and “power”?
I mean my tiny donations towards RU are essentially the same thing. I hope it helps the team win. My hundreds or thousands in donations I guess is the equivalent of his net worth to mine ??? Except I get a little gift from RU while he probably gets full access and treated like part of the team.

2. It’s crazy college players are essentially bribed in public now. None of this feels like it’s going to end well. It’s gotta be temporary.. right ?

It’s just fandom. I had this argument with people here who never believed people would spend money with no monetary ROI

The ROI is winning. I’m sure those people understand that now.

It’s no different than donating to build a field. Only now you buy a player instead of field turf.

 

[NickRU714]

Sad but probably true. I’ve always donated based on perhaps the false notion that my donation was helping to “build” the university through capital improvements and supporting athletic scholarships. New facilities, great coaching, etc. to attract talent. That’s money put to good use if in fact my donations were directed that way. On the other hand, using donations or NIL to write checks to mercenary athletes is a non-starter for me. I suspect RU alumni don’t care enough about playing the Tennessee “talent fee” or Portnoy QB game if that’s what it will take to compete. In 5 years college football will enter crisis mode as programs get dropped left and right…or universities will seek outside investments from Wall Street turning the college sports landscape into nothing more than minor league sports.

Isn't funding scholarships "writing checks to mercenary athletes"?
Was AK transferring here as a walk on?
Would KM have come here if we didn't offer a scholarship?

Also, building a new football facility or weight room (that will be replaced within 15 years) isn't exactly helping to build the University.
And if that is your goal, then investing in athletic facilities is likely shortsighted.

An easy argument could be made that NIL is the same as any other donation to the AD - funds to help win.

 

[mildone]

We’ve had the same discussion no less than 14,000 times, and I’m still not incorrect in my assertion, while you have yet to back up yours

Here’s the facts - pre NIL, we had zero shot to ever become elite on a consistent basis

Zero
Nada
Zilch

Now, we at least have hope
Gun to my head, do I think we get there?
No

But there’s a least a chance
Whereas before, there was literally not a chance in hell we’d ever ascend to more than a mid tier bowl team

That's the undeniable reality. There was never any parity. It's unarguable. It's yet another instance of how the "good old days" were not actually good.

So why are people still trying to use that as an excuse for why they are angry about student athletes being allowed to earn money from their abilities? Especially when every other college kid on scholarship can do so? Why do people lock themselves into this cycle of invoking false narratives about the situation? Jealousy? Ignorance? Fear of change? I don't get it.

There are vast amounts of money involved in college sports. So, while none of us can predict the future with certainty, it sure seems highly unlikely that college sports are going to suffer from all this. It's change, and change is disruptive. But the system will adapt and thrive. Because all the financial stakeholders, which now properly includes the players, will do whatever's necessary to keep the money flowing.

 

[mildone]

On the other hand, using donations or NIL to write checks to mercenary athletes is a non-starter for me.

"Mercenary"?

Have you not earned money based on your talents and hard work? Were you being mercenary? Are college students on academic scholarship that go out and form a business and earn money being mercenary? What makes students on athletic scholarship any more mercenary than students on academic scholarship?

I don't donate to athletics at all anymore. Because I prefer to spend that money on things I view as more much important than sports (e.g. cancer research for child cancers). I couldn't care less what anybody thinks about that. I don't tell anybody what to do with their money. Donate or not, it's nobody's business but yours.

But portraying student athletes as mercenary while giving everybody else, including other students on academic scholarship, a pass? How is that not hypocritical?

 

[jaydogsmooth1]

My assertion is that the school does not have a donor base that will support Michigan/Texas/USC levels of spending. The supporting evidence for this assertion is that we've been playing football since the 1860s and the school's donor base has never demonstrated an ability or willingness to provide that level of support.

Again, it's not about our current donor base
It's about getting the corporations in the tri state area on board as the primary source of NIL, with the current donor base as the secondary source

I repeat, we had no chance of competition pre NIL
We had what, 2 breakthrough seasons in 100 years, in watered down conferences not facing quality competition

There's now at least hope

A team has been hired to get these corporations on board
Presumendly, if they don't succeed, they'll be replaced by people who will attempt to do the same thing

 

[jaydogsmooth1]

"Mercenary"?

Have you not earned money based on your talents and hard work? Were you being mercenary? Are college students on academic scholarship that go out and form a business and earn money being mercenary? What makes students on athletic scholarship any more mercenary than students on academic scholarship?

I don't donate to athletics at all anymore. Because I prefer to spend that money on things I view as more much important than sports (e.g. cancer research for child cancers). I couldn't care less what anybody thinks about that. I don't tell anybody what to do with their money. Donate or not, it's nobody's business but yours.

But portraying student athletes as mercenary while giving everybody else, including other students on academic scholarship, a pass? How is that not hypocritical?

Couldn't agree more

By this definition, Schiano would be the ultimate Mercenary
Guy left us high and dry, shortly before signing day, to become the Bucs coach
*** Full disclosure, it was the opportunityh of a lifetime. I don't blame him one bit. He'd be crazy not to take that job

But that, my friends, is the textbook definition of mercenary

 

[NickRU714]

That's the undeniable reality. There was never any parity. It's unarguable. It's yet another instance of how the "good old days" were not actually good.

So why are people still trying to use that as an excuse for why they are angry about student athletes being allowed to earn money from their abilities? Especially when every other college kid on scholarship can do so? Why do people lock themselves into this cycle of invoking false narratives about the situation? Jealousy? Ignorance? Fear of change? I don't get it.

There are vast amounts of money involved in college sports. So, while none of us can predict the future with certainty, it sure seems highly unlikely that college sports are going to suffer from all this. It's change, and change is disruptive. But the system will adapt and thrive. Because all the financial stakeholders, which now properly includes the players, will do whatever's necessary to keep the money flowing.

The moment UConn drops football, I'll start taking "college athletics are going to fall apart" argument seriously.

Remove NIL and they still have arguably the worst situation and no chance for Top 25 or whatever other metric people want to throw out there.

The situation and outlook for teams is literally the same pre and post NIL.
Schools were already losing huge amounts of money on “hopeless” athletic departments.

How many schools have dropped athletics or even moved down a level?

 

[RUAldo]

I don't donate to athletics at all anymore. Because I prefer to spend that money on things I view as more much important than sports (e.g. cancer research for child cancers). I couldn't care less what anybody thinks about that. I don't tell anybody what to do with their money. Donate or not, it's nobody's business but yours.

Amen brother!

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Remove NIL and they still have arguably the worst situation and no chance for Top 25 or whatever other metric people want to throw out there.

They were in a New Year's Day bowl game in 2010.

How many schools have dropped athletics or even moved down a level?

We're in Year Two of NIL ... the hopelessness is going to set in around Years 10 to 15 (especially if SuperConferenceUSA forms).

 

[RUAldo]

Have you not earned money based on your talents and hard work?

I thought universities were supposed to be places of higher learning? If they are just like the corporations I’ve worked for then why are there any rules whatsoever? Rule’s regarding eligibility, transfer, admissions, rosters, etc. = get rid of it all then. My company doesn’t have any restrictions on how many engineers they can hire. Let colleges do whatever they want whenever they want. Otherwise I fail to understand comparisons of university students to employees of companies.

 

[NickRU714]

They were in a New Year's Day bowl game in 2010.



We're in Year Two of NIL ... the hopelessness is going to set in around Years 10 to 15 (especially if SuperConferenceUSA forms).

Before NIL, we’re teams not hopeless?
How is Temple any more hopeless now than 3 years ago?
What about UMass?
Or Troy or Georgia State?

This is where you say “they were on the verge of national success and competing with the elites until NIL came around”.

 

[NickRU714]

So UConn wasn’t hopeless 5 years ago when they went 2-10 in 2019 and then 1-11 in 2021?

It was only after NIL that they became hopeless?
That’s makes perfect sense.
If not for NIL they likely are already in the Big Ten and fighting off the SEC.

 

[mildone]

Amen brother!

Just as long as you understand that it has nothing to do with NIL or players getting paid. I’m 100% for college players getting their piece of the massive pie that is college sports money.

 

[mildone]

I thought universities were supposed to be places of higher learning? If they are just like the corporations I’ve worked for then why are there any rules whatsoever? Rule’s regarding eligibility, transfer, admissions, rosters, etc. = get rid of it all then. My company doesn’t have any restrictions on how many engineers they can hire. Let colleges do whatever they want whenever they want. Otherwise I fail to understand comparisons of university students to employees of companies.

How does earning money prohibit learning in college? And you know as well as I do that colleges are all about the money these days, with insanely high tuition and fees.

It’s disingenuous to use an all or nothing argument when there’s plenty of room for nuance, as is the case here. It’s like saying, in a debate about a 1% tax increase or 1% tax decrease, that we might as well make the tax rate 100% or 0%. A totally false choice in order to refuse a reasonable change.

Players can absolutely earn NIL money while going to school, same as STEM scholarship kids can earn plenty of money while they go to school.

Any argument about eligibility, transfers, admissions and so on are all separable from arguments about NIL. One thing has nothing to do with the others.

 

[RUAldo]

How does earning money prohibit learning in college? And you know as well as I do that colleges are all about the money these days, with insanely high tuition and fees.

Definition: college (Latin: collegium) is an educational institution or a constituent part of one.

I’m a purist what can I say and certainly agree that donating to causes like curing cancer makes paying $3M for a QB seem like just another reason today’s society is a joke.

Perhaps the Ivies have it right although with their endowments they could blow up collegiate sports and dominate just about every sport except perhaps football.

 

[NickRU714]

Definition: college (Latin: collegium) is an educational institution or a constituent part of one.

I’m a purist what can I say and certainly agree that donating to causes like curing cancer makes paying $3M for a QB seem like just another reason today’s society is a joke.

Perhaps the Ivies have it right although with their endowments they could blow up collegiate sports and dominate just about every sport except perhaps football.

Funny. I didn’t see anywhere in that definition about the highest paid employee of an “educational institution” being a football or basketball coach.

Doesn’t seem very educational.

Sounds like your problem isn’t with college students being paid to play sports. You seem to have a problem with college athletics all together.

 

[RUAldo]

Sounds like your problem isn’t with college students being paid to play sports. You seem to have a problem with college athletics all together.

This may be true. I watch more college and high school sports than the pros because it always seemed like the purest form of competition. If college sports becomes nothing more than an arms-race backed by rich alumni/fans, the have-nots will throw in the towel and many schools and athletes will suffer as a result. FWIW, I’ve talked to some head coaches of top D1 non-revenue sports teams and they have no clue how their programs will be funded under the new settlement. They all basically said the same thing = it’s great for football and basketball but bad for other sports (with a few exceptions) unless the schools are willing to dramatically increase athletic budgets.

 

[NickRU714]

This may be true. I watch more college and high school sports than the pros because it always seemed like the purest form of competition. If college sports becomes nothing more than an arms-race backed by rich alumni/fans, the have-nots will throw in the towel and many schools and athletes will suffer as a result. FWIW, I’ve talked to some head coaches of top D1 non-revenue sports teams and they have no clue how their programs will be funded under the new settlement. They all basically said the same thing = it’s great for football and basketball but bad for other sports (with a few exceptions) unless the schools are willing to dramatically increase athletic budgets.

"If college sports becomes nothing more than an arms-race backed by rich alumni/fans, the have-nots will throw in the towel and many schools and athletes will suffer as a result."

This is kind of my point. That is exactly what college sports has been for decades.
And yet the have-nots (UConn, Rice. Georgia State, Kennesaw State et al.) are NOT throwing in the towel.
Instead teams are going the other way and keep moving up to FBS.

 

[NickRU714]

Regarding non-revenue sports: it's not the fault of football/basketball athletrs that schools don't want to pay for non-revenue sports.

If schools want to have these non-revenue sports they who should be funding them?

 

[RUAldo]

There is a separate thread on this issue, but seems crazy that states are passing laws preventing legacy admissions practices at public and private schools. Portnoy can pay $3M for a QB that likely won’t even be close to the UM admissions standards. But an alumni’s kid, that otherwise meets admissions standards, can’t get early decision legacy preference? Why shouldn’t a parent be able to pay $3M to get his kid an acceptance letter if Portnoy can pay $3M for a QB?

 

[mildone]

There is a separate thread on this issue, but seems crazy that states are passing laws preventing legacy admissions practices at public and private schools. Portnoy can pay $3M for a QB that likely won’t even be close to the UM admissions standards. But an alumni’s kid, that otherwise meets admissions standards, can’t get early decision legacy preference? Why shouldn’t a parent be able to pay $3M to get his kid an acceptance letter if Portnoy can pay $3M for a QB?

Those are almost entirely opposite scenarios. In one scenario, a family is paying the school to choose their student over other deserving students. In the other case, some person or organization is paying a student to choose a particular school.

One is favoritism, a form of corruption, and is innately ethically dubious. The other is merely enticement, and enticement is innately ethically acceptable (or we wouldn’t have paid advertisements, or salary offers for jobs, or even marriage proposals).

They are just not comparable things.

 

[RUAldo]

Those are almost entirely opposite scenarios. In one scenario, a family is paying the school to choose their student over other deserving students. In the other case, some person or organization is paying a student to choose a particular school.

One is favoritism, a form of corruption, and is innately ethically dubious. The other is merely enticement, and enticement is innately ethically acceptable (or we wouldn’t have paid advertisements, or salary offers for jobs, or even marriage proposals).

They are just not comparable things.

So…basically…

Alumni parent willing to pay school $3M to have child, that meets all admission criteria, accepted = bad?
Random college football fan that is sports media figure and pizza connoisseur wiling to pay $3M to QB,, that like would not meet all admission criteria, to attend UM = good?