ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:46 pm
Yeah. I don’t want it to be more of a “job,” per se, but I also don’t want a student to miss out on opportunities any other student could pursue just cuz they also happen to be an ath-o-lete too.
What percentage of non athletes profit from their NIL?
100% of those who get the opportunity.
With the key word being opportunity. It’s not like it’s impermissible for anyone else.
How much has the NCAA profited off of those NILs?
16,300 fans don't watch chemistry lab live and millions on tv.
And no one paid money to watch bryce Thomson play until he donned a jayhaek jersey...that's what creates the demand, the school and team etc. You need to be good, yes, but only relative to the competition. This year illustrates that fact. Ku fans roit for KU for KU.
Are you also upset that if a student does research and gets a patent, the university gets almost all the money for that?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:03 pm
by ousdahl
CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:01 pm
KFC are Louisville fans.
Take it to the fried chicken thread
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:04 pm
by PhDhawk
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:00 pm
Yeah, it’s not like other jobs or markets.
The lakers could ask Nicholson, or KFC could ask the Booths, if they wanted to. There’s not The Rules in place not to.
They'd get laughed at.
Universities do this ALL the time.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:11 pm
by ousdahl
So you’re trying to argue that because student ath-o-letes enjoy a unique economic position, is also the reason why they shouldn’t?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:18 pm
by Cascadia
I think the argument is that the pro NIL people make stupid ass arguments and comparisons that are irrelevant to the topic and are ineffective at convincing the other side to change their opinion
CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:01 pm
KFC are Louisville fans.
Take it to the fried chicken thread
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:49 pm
by ousdahl
Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:18 pm
I think the argument is that the pro NIL people make stupid ass arguments and comparisons that are irrelevant to the topic and are ineffective at convincing the other side to change their opinion
Yeah we’re kind of all over the place. But I think I can make my argument in one tidy little sentence:
Just legitimize the markets that have been a part of college athletics all along.
I don’t think that’s a radical take. I do think anyone arguing otherwise should also bear the burden of clarifying how they aren’t perpetuating the black market model.
You rarely, if ever, concede that athletes are being paid. You almost always frame it as free, forced labor of poor black kids for the benefit of rich white people.
And, again, I'm fine with them being compensated more than they are now. But, generally speaking, the people who advocate for this the loudest almost always present a false narrative.
I think I've been pretty consistent in acknowledging that that they are compensated, and that what they get has value.
What is self-evident from the existence of a black market is that what they get is clearly not representative of their true value.
I've also been consistent in my view that the reasons they can't access something closer to that true value are pretty evil, at bottom, and bad for the long-term health of the sport to boot.
Well, then take it as feedback from your audience. I've been reading your arguments on this topic for years and I disagree that you consistently acknowledge the fact that they are getting compensated. I'd also point out that I don't think you've never made an effort to find out what the value of the current compensation is and compared that number to what you think their fair market value truly is.
And slightly related to the conversation, I don't think additional compensation will make the game/sport any better. I think it's going to continue to be worse and worse over time. The college game is sandwiched in-between to garbage leagues and there isn't much that they can do to fix that. High School and the NBA are dominated by selfish players who can't be coached. Hard for college teams to do anything differently.
I guess you see what you're looking for. I could pull ten examples from this thread alone, probably.
As for the second piece...the value of what their current compensation is isn't all that relevant, is it? I don't think the exercise is that someone needs to determine what the gap is, and then cut a check for the difference.
The market makes clear that what they're getting isn't enough. The market would do just fine telling them what "enough" is.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:45 pm
by Sparko
Fish is exactly right. Especially as hard as it is even for a NPOY to stick at the next level.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:22 pm
by Deleted User 863
Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:29 pm
"Hey #75 recruit, here's $175,000 for shooting a 30 second commercial for the local Ford dealership"
Your example will rarely, if ever, happen. The local Ford dealership isn't spending $175k on a commercial. It's such a silly idea. It's not an Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mohomes commercial for State Farm....it won't happen for the #75 recruit.
Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:29 pm
"Hey #75 recruit, here's $175,000 for shooting a 30 second commercial for the local Ford dealership"
Your example will rarely, if ever, happen. The local Ford dealership isn't spending $175k on a commercial. It's such a silly idea. It's not an Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mohomes commercial for State Farm....it won't happen for the #75 recruit.
Glad to see your dumb fucking ass is back to completely miss the point again.
Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:29 pm
"Hey #75 recruit, here's $175,000 for shooting a 30 second commercial for the local Ford dealership"
Your example will rarely, if ever, happen. The local Ford dealership isn't spending $175k on a commercial. It's such a silly idea. It's not an Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mohomes commercial for State Farm....it won't happen for the #75 recruit.
Glad to see your dumb fucking ass is back to completely miss the point again.
We all appreciate it
Glad to see you're still so friendly and pleasant.
The point was that your example was stupid and unrealistic.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:30 am
by pdub
It’s not stupid or unrealistic.
A. There are car dealerships that spend that much on ad campaigns.
B. Cascadia is talking about avenues where boosters can funnel money. 30 wealthy people donate 10k at the local Ford dealerships “Spring extravaganza!” a private event. Now that dealership can have Miles McBride show up for an afternoon, speak a line, and collecting.
And then on top of that, you’ll have the big boys, Nikes, Gatorade’s, State Farm’s, with school allegiances. And you’ll say it’s happening now—but I think it will happen much more if only because its against the rules now so you get caught, you are punished.
I want college sports to be not that.
We can start another pro league with younger players if that’s what people want.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:29 am
by Deleted User 863
pdub wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:30 am
It’s not stupid or unrealistic.
A. There are car dealerships that spend that much on ad campaigns.
B. Cascadia is talking about avenues where boosters can funnel money. 30 wealthy people donate 10k at the local Ford dealerships “Spring extravaganza!” a private event. Now that dealership can have Miles McBride show up for an afternoon, speak a line, and collecting.
And then on top of that, you’ll have the big boys, Nikes, Gatorade’s, State Farm’s, with school allegiances. And you’ll say it’s happening now—but I think it will happen much more if only because its against the rules now so you get caught, you are punished.
I want college sports to be not that.
We can start another pro league with younger players if that’s what people want.
None of that is happening for the #75 recruit in the country (his ranking choice, not mine).
That type of thing would be realistic for 10-15 recruits per year. The same ones already taking money from our lead recruiter adidas. The same ones taking loans/advances from agents.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:30 am
by twocoach
pdub wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:30 am
It’s not stupid or unrealistic.
A. There are car dealerships that spend that much on ad campaigns.
B. Cascadia is talking about avenues where boosters can funnel money. 30 wealthy people donate 10k at the local Ford dealerships “Spring extravaganza!” a private event. Now that dealership can have Miles McBride show up for an afternoon, speak a line, and collecting.
And then on top of that, you’ll have the big boys, Nikes, Gatorade’s, State Farm’s, with school allegiances. And you’ll say it’s happening now—but I think it will happen much more if only because its against the rules now so you get caught, you are punished.
I want college sports to be not that.
We can start another pro league with younger players if that’s what people want.
I like college basketball now and it is already that now. Everyone just gets in trouble now for getting caught. I'd rather it continue without the schools facing punishment if it is discovered. Kids should be allowed to receive what people are willing to give them and schools shouldn't be punished for recruiting great players with pro potential.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:51 am
by ousdahl
If a legitimate pro/semi-pro league is established/further developed, what’s preventing the under-the-table deals from still happening anyway?
Will there be any less desire for a recruit to ask if his brother can come along on the campus visit too?
Will there be any less of an ncaa to go all keystone kops about it?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:54 am
by ousdahl
It seems it’s a balance between sanctity of The Rules vs. just letting a market be like a market.
Has criminalizing drugs reduced drug use? Can that reduction be successfully weighed against the lucrative, dangerous, unregulated black market it creates?
pdub wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:30 am
It’s not stupid or unrealistic.
A. There are car dealerships that spend that much on ad campaigns.
B. Cascadia is talking about avenues where boosters can funnel money. 30 wealthy people donate 10k at the local Ford dealerships “Spring extravaganza!” a private event. Now that dealership can have Miles McBride show up for an afternoon, speak a line, and collecting.
And then on top of that, you’ll have the big boys, Nikes, Gatorade’s, State Farm’s, with school allegiances. And you’ll say it’s happening now—but I think it will happen much more if only because its against the rules now so you get caught, you are punished.
I want college sports to be not that.
We can start another pro league with younger players if that’s what people want.
None of that is happening for the #75 recruit in the country (his ranking choice, not mine).
That type of thing would be realistic for 10-15 recruits per year. The same ones already taking money from our lead recruiter adidas. The same ones taking loans/advances from agents.
for the 10-15 top recruits a year, sure. For the once-in-a-Zion types, totally.
but you mention the #75 recruit - what about them?
more specifically, what about them their upperclassman years? I imagine that car dealer would rather have the Franks and Devontes pimping Chevys when their media profile is highest - during their senior years, not freshman.
Do we wanna put the Franks and Devontes in a position to choose between the school pride of their senior year, or the increasingly lucrative semi-pro league? Especially when a car dealer is otherwise ready to cut them a fat check, but only one of those leagues allows it?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:41 am
by pdub
Go pro if you don't think a free education and playing basketball for Kansas is important.
If 100,000 dollars now is more important than what the NCAA offers, go pro.
I'm all for it - I want the G League to succeed.