What is most discouraging about this team, and there are many possibilities

[RUJMM78]

The first five minutes of games where Bailey and Harper aren't taking shots.It sets the wrong focus trying to get the other starters involved in the offense who are poor shooters.Rutgers needs at least 45 points from Bailey and Harper to win because the defense stinks.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I don’t think most teams actually have rim protectors. They are hard to find and pay. We can win without one although certainly more rebounders would help.

Folks are using the term interchangeably with “solid post defender”. We must recruit a big, physical player who is a plus defender in the post. That player doesn’t have to fill up the stat sheet with blocks.

 

[aplus29]

Actually - no. I blame the defensive failures on using the open spots on the roster to bring in those 3 guys instead of targeting potential replacements for Cliff, Mag and yes, even Hyatt’s defense in the post. Even Hyatt who I’ve been a huge critic of on the defensive end, was still a multi year experienced player in Pike’s system. His D was suspect in past years but had graduated to servicable in the 4 slot last season. When you remove those 3 guys and Derek who is an excellent rebounding guard despite his height limitations and was the best defensive guard on the roster - there is was major hole on D that needed to be filled.

We brought in zero post players from the portal who play defense. We decided to roll with Lathan and so we got what we got. I’m not blaming the guys who are sitting for this, rather I’m saying we could’ve used those spots to bring in other guys who could’ve helped.

Agree on this. Zero post presence. We’ve needed a glass cleaning 4 for years but got by with strong presence at the 5 and all B1G defenders in MacConnell and Mag. Now our 5 plays like a guard and we still don’t have that enforcer at the 4 and no top echelon defender.

We’ve also needed a knock down shooter since Cam left. Fernandes underperformed. Hayes is never schemed open. Martini lacks the athleticism.

 

[darkcheck]

Agree on this. Zero post presence. We’ve needed a glass cleaning 4 for years but got by with strong presence at the 5 and all B1G defenders in MacConnell and Mag. Now our 5 plays like a guard and we still don’t have that enforcer at the 4 and no top echelon defender.

We’ve also needed a knock down shooter since Cam left. Fernandes underperformed. Hayes is never schemed open. Martini lacks the athleticism.

We’ve been told we have a knock down shooter so many times, Jaden Jones, Griffiths, Fernandes, Martini, Hayes….I’m not sure the staff can identify one that’s B1G caliber. Or as you say they don’t scheme for one to set them up for success (which I agree with), but sadly that’s never going to change.

 

[fluoxetine]

Not exactly. It used to be point blank against the rules for players to earn any money directly or indirectly related to their “name, image and likeness” as a basketball player.

Now there will be a valuation committee assessing the validity of any deals that do not come through the school. If I had to guess, I’d say that outside of a small handful of high school recruits (top 5 type kids like Ace, Dylan, etc. who have legitimate deals from 3rd party sneaker companies and such coming out of high school) this will be the end of high school booster pay for play. There’s no market value for the brand of the 50th ranked kid on the HS circuit. Nobody is paying big bucks for that kid’s autograph or to use that kid in a commercial based on long term potential. A random tire company owned by a booster will no longer be able to stick a kid in a commercial (that clearly doesn’t benefit or even relate to the company) and hand them a bag as a legitimate NIL deal.

But established players will be interesting. They still won’t be able to be plopped into BS tire commercials but kids with a real brand tied either to school or their own success as an individual player could have legitimate 3rd party offers. The boosters job will likely become about making the case of this legitimacy to offer competitive packages that pass the valuation review. If you think about it from a vendor management perspective, the 3 quote rule comes to mind. It won’t be exactly that but typically secondary market pricing is verified by collecting 3 independent quotes for the same service. If only one company is willing to “pay” for a kid’s appearance in a commercial at $1M will that be good enough? Deloitte is a reputable big 4 audit firm so I’m guessing not… We really don’t yet know how this will play out. It should be better than the Wild West though - at least a little bit. I’m hopeful, that player development might be restored somewhat as there could be incentive to build a brand with a school. Jersey Mikes would be more likely to contract a well known veteran senior Rutgers starter than a first year transfer new to the program. One would think.

This is going to be such a weird can of worms. Surely there are a lot of total BS deals now, but for more borderline stuff who is some audit firm to say what has commercial value.

If I own the tire company and I actually buy the ad time and put the kid in the ad, are they really going to dig through whether that ad was profitable or not? Now we’ve got NCAA auditors telling me how to run my business?

I always imagined the true BS stuff was you like pay to put the kid on as a brand ambassador or some shit and then he never actually does anything. Those I can see auditing.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

This is going to be such a weird can of worms. Surely there are a lot of total BS deals now, but for more borderline stuff who is some audit firm to say what has commercial value.

If I own the tire company and I actually buy the ad time and put the kid in the ad, are they really going to dig through whether that ad was profitable or not? Now we’ve got NCAA auditors telling me how to run my business?

I always imagined the true BS stuff was you like pay to put the kid on as a brand ambassador or some shit and then he never actually does anything. Those I can see auditing.

I see where your going, but the short answer, is yes, that’s exactly what I think they will attempt to do. A top tier audit firm like Deloitte would not have won the RFP for this role if it wasn’t at least intended in spirit to be taken seriously.

Pay for play with a purpose of fielding a winning team is now the responsibility of the individual teams within a structured max cap. Effective with this change, third parties aka fans, boosters, etc. are no longer allowed to directly or indirectly pay players with a clear primary goal of furthering this end. You may not like that or think it’s fair, but that’s the stated change at face value. Period.

What this means (at least on paper), is that any additional monetary benefits received from 3rd parties will get reviewed by this committee to assess the legitimacy of an alternative purpose and the reasonableness of the fee to be collected from the player performing their end. How this is enforced is anyone’s guess; however, as someone who comes from an audit background I would be surprised if there wasn’t some kind of mandate to demonstrate reasonable comparables to justify proposed deals going forward. Using a random college BB player in a tire commercial wouldn’t have that. Prior athletes appearing in Jersey Mikes commercials would. How much did those athletes receive adjusted for inflation of the times. I’m thinking the reviews will consider these things. If not - there’d be no point in Deloitte. Just my take.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

One important thing to add here.

The source of the push for this change - it’s not the NCAA. They are powerless. The blue bloods call the shots. This is being implemented because they want it. No other reason.

Alas, it’s not out of the realm that good old fashioned Econ 101 leads the way in sorting out the Wild West. It might not go down that way, but there’s at least some hope in my view that it could. You see, Alabama and company may have seen the writing on the wall. A world where one wealthy Miami or SMU booster could buy an entire roster of stars is not the outcome they are after. Think about it. Who does the new structure benefit the most? Which programs will have local / regional even national vendors who can justify a market value in featuring individual players in commercials / advertisements and such?

 

[Scarlet Shack]

One important thing to add here.

The source of the push for this change - it’s not the NCAA. They are powerless. The blue bloods call the shots. This is being implemented because they want it. No other reason.

Alas, it’s not out of the realm that good old fashioned Econ 101 leads the way in sorting out the Wild West. It might not go down that way, but there’s at least some hope in my view that it could. You see, Alabama and company may have seen the writing on the wall. A world where one wealthy Miami or SMU booster could buy an entire roster of stars is not the outcome they are after. Think about it. Who does the new structure benefit the most? Which programs will have local / regional even national vendors who can justify a market value in featuring individual players in commercials / advertisements and such?

It’s going to be very interesting to see what happens here . History shows that every tine a new twist comes around to “even the pkayinf field “….the loopholes get found and taken to another level

 

[retired711]

Not exactly. It used to be point blank against the rules for players to earn any money directly or indirectly related to their “name, image and likeness” as a basketball player.

Now there will be a valuation committee assessing the validity of any deals that do not come through the school. If I had to guess, I’d say that outside of a small handful of high school recruits (top 5 type kids like Ace, Dylan, etc. who have legitimate deals from 3rd party sneaker companies and such coming out of high school) this will be the end of high school booster pay for play. There’s no market value for the brand of the 50th ranked kid on the HS circuit. Nobody is paying big bucks for that kid’s autograph or to use that kid in a commercial based on long term potential. A random tire company owned by a booster will no longer be able to stick a kid in a commercial (that clearly doesn’t benefit or even relate to the company) and hand them a bag as a legitimate NIL deal.

But established players will be interesting. They still won’t be able to be plopped into BS tire commercials but kids with a real brand tied either to school or their own success as an individual player could have legitimate 3rd party offers. The boosters job will likely become about making the case of this legitimacy to offer competitive packages that pass the valuation review. If you think about it from a vendor management perspective, the 3 quote rule comes to mind. It won’t be exactly that but typically secondary market pricing is verified by collecting 3 independent quotes for the same service. If only one company is willing to “pay” for a kid’s appearance in a commercial at $1M will that be good enough? Deloitte is a reputable big 4 audit firm so I’m guessing not… We really don’t yet know how this will play out. It should be better than the Wild West though - at least a little bit. I’m hopeful, that player development might be restored somewhat as there could be incentive to build a brand with a school. Jersey Mikes would be more likely to contract a well known veteran senior Rutgers starter than a first year transfer new to the program. One would think.

Let me condense that:

1. Schools will be able to pay athletes up to a $22 million cap. Scholarships count toward the cap.

2. Athletes will be able to get additional compensation through NIL deals with third parties. But NIL deals between athletes and groups "'of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools,' such as collectives . . must be approved through a third-party clearinghouse. . . . An arbitrator will determine whether the NIL deals serve a "valid business purpose" or are merely pay-for-play schemes disguised as NIL agreements." Note that the NCAA will not be part of the arbitration process.

Probably only stars will get paid, although I can imagine an NIL deal between a third party and the whole of a championship team for endorsing a product.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/pu...d-bring-significant-changes-to-college-sports

 

[retired711]

This is going to be such a weird can of worms. Surely there are a lot of total BS deals now, but for more borderline stuff who is some audit firm to say what has commercial value.

If I own the tire company and I actually buy the ad time and put the kid in the ad, are they really going to dig through whether that ad was profitable or not? Now we’ve got NCAA auditors telling me how to run my business?

I always imagined the true BS stuff was you like pay to put the kid on as a brand ambassador or some shit and then he never actually does anything. Those I can see auditing.

The approval process only extends to deals between the athlete and persons affiliated with the school. At the judge's insistence, the parties gave up on trying to regulate deals between the athlete and others (such as the tire company.)

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Let me condense that:

1. Schools will be able to pay athletes up to a $22 million cap. Scholarships count toward the cap.

2. Athletes will be able to get additional compensation through NIL deals with third parties. But NIL deals between athletes and groups "'of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools,' such as collectives . . must be approved through a third-party clearinghouse. . . . An arbitrator will determine whether the NIL deals serve a "valid business purpose" or are merely pay-for-play schemes disguised as NIL agreements." Note that the NCAA will not be part of the arbitration process.

Probably only stars will get paid, although I can imagine an NIL deal between a third party and the whole of a championship team for endorsing a product.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/pu...d-bring-significant-changes-to-college-sports

Yeah but not just “any” arbitrator. The fact that Deloitte has been engaged to perform this function suggests, in my view, that it will be pretty legit. Deloitte, after all, is a top tier audit firm with a reputation to protect. If this was intended as merely a rubber stamp they wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole.

To your other point, I don’t entirely agree. This isn’t only intended for big time stars. It’d be all 3rd party engagements. Just to throw out a totally legit example - that kid who plays (or played) for a mid-major with one arm (I forgot his name). Thats a great story and someone like that could legitimately be selected for a commercial with a clear business purpose directed at benefitting the business. In Rutgers terms - Agee was known as a great personality. If he was asked to be a guest visitor on a comedy show or something (I’m totally making this up) that would go through the arbitrator and clear out as legitimate.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

The approval process only extends to deals between the athlete and persons affiliated with the school. At the judge's insistence, the parties gave up on trying to regulate deals between the athlete and others (such as the tire company.)

Direct and indirect persons affiliated. The limitation is intended to prevent an overflow of little cases like the comedian example I gave. There would be too much volume with a mandate for every single deal to be reviewed. My understanding though is that the committee is allowed at their discretion to take on any case they want and you can bet there will be Whistleblower referrals flying left and right on the Tire example. A lot of under the table shuffling would be needed to remove ties to anyone with an affiliation to the university and make it seem like the tire company randomly decided to hire that BB player to be in a commercial. Sure - there are always loopholes but it won’t be so easy.

 

[retired711]

Yeah but not just “any” arbitrator. The fact that Deloitte has been engaged to perform this function suggests, in my view, that it will be pretty legit. Deloitte, after all, is a top tier audit firm with a reputation to protect. If this was intended as merely a rubber stamp they wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole.

To your other point, I don’t entirely agree. This isn’t only intended for big time stars. It’d be all 3rd party engagements. Just to throw out a totally legit example - that kid who plays (or played) for a mid-major with one arm (I forgot his name). Thats a great story and someone like that could legitimately be selected for a commercial with a clear business purpose directed at benefitting the business. In Rutgers terms - Agee was known as a great personality. If he was asked to be a guest visitor on a comedy show or something (I’m totally making this up) that would go through the arbitrator and clear out as legitimate.

I didn't say "any" arbitrator and I agree that Deloitte is very reputable. Keep in mind that the only NIL agreements that need to go through the arbitration process are those between athletes and boosters (entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools) . It may not always be easy to determine who falls into the category of boosters. The settlement agreement was originally going to require all NIL deals to be subject to arbitration but the judge said this would excessively discourage NIL deals.

I agree that a kid with a great personality or a great story to tell could well get an NIL deal even if not a star.