NIL and IU

[TheWatShot 14,492]

4 hours ago, jepwatso said:

Imagine being the Grammer police!

Probably pull someone over and ask them "Do you know how fast you was goin'?" 

[RaceToTheTop 27,196]

With NIL playing such a big factor in recruiting going forward, do you think we will see high school players announcing their decisions later and later in order to get a proper gauge on where they would earn the most?

[DWB 1,098]

20 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

With NIL playing such a big factor in recruiting going forward, do you think we will see high school players announcing their decisions later and later in order to get a proper gauge on where they would earn the most?

IMO, some will, some won't. But NIL might come back to bite them in the butt. Say kid gets a sweet upfront NIL deal. 2-3 years of it. Then he doesn't pan out for the NBA, or pro ball anywhere. Now, he's spoiled rotten with the free money he's gotten...entitlement. 

What effect will that have on him if he didn't get an education and skills other than playing a sport to support him in life.

It's not that far fetched.

[RaceToTheTop 27,196]

4 minutes ago, DWB said:

IMO, some will, some won't. But NIL might come back to bite them in the butt. Say kid gets a sweet upfront NIL deal. 2-3 years of it. Then he doesn't pan out for the NBA, or pro ball anywhere. Now, he's spoiled rotten with the free money he's gotten...entitlement. 

What effect will that have on him if he didn't get an education and skills other than playing a sport to support him in life.

It's not that far fetched.

Or he could grow up learning not to undervalue his services.

[go iu bb 7,099]

1 hour ago, RaceToTheTop said:

With NIL playing such a big factor in recruiting going forward, do you think we will see high school players announcing their decisions later and later in order to get a proper gauge on where they would earn the most?

No, not in the long run. It'll finally settle into a situation where they'll be able to evaluate how much players at different skill levels are able to earn at the schools they're interested in. This will include things like direct deals from local businesses, boosters, etc and how active a school's fan base is on social media (i.e. followers) which would have an effect on how much they can earn through social media advertising.

Right now it's new so things haven't settled yet. 

[Hardwood83 4,777]

I don't think any of us really know where this road leads. A lot of variables and undiscovered exploitations still to hash out. Might be in a few years some players have to take a pay cut in the NBA. 

[Stuhoo 83,432]

 

You know what?

Before it all shakes out for the long haul, next season will largely be college basketball in its current form and at its best.

So let’s hang mother****ing banner #6 next season.

 

[JSHoosier 20,918]

5 hours ago, Hardwood83 said:

I don't think any of us really know where this road leads. A lot of variables and undiscovered exploitations still to hash out. Might be in a few years some players have to take a pay cut in the NBA. 

Status quo at pUKe.

[Class of '66 Old Fart 86,691]

“I am against the players that strictly uses the college sport just to get paid,” he said.  “You know I think they’re going about it the wrong way if they do it that way.”

https://www.thedailyhoosier.com/mike-woodson-to-disgruntled-money-first-players-you-can-go-somewhere-else-and-do-your-thing/?fbclid=IwAR2GP4GMPaWi2exIAdyyL2qrYzUHa8efPjdthrMm8MH5-P79uCMQycVw_dQ

[hoosierbgh 1,264]

15 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Or he could grow up learning not to undervalue his services.

I suspect the number of athletes that undervalue their services compared to those that overvalue them, is fractionally small. 

[RaceToTheTop 27,196]

1 hour ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

“I am against the players that strictly uses the college sport just to get paid,” he said.  “You know I think they’re going about it the wrong way if they do it that way.”

https://www.thedailyhoosier.com/mike-woodson-to-disgruntled-money-first-players-you-can-go-somewhere-else-and-do-your-thing/?fbclid=IwAR2GP4GMPaWi2exIAdyyL2qrYzUHa8efPjdthrMm8MH5-P79uCMQycVw_dQ

I think the IDS pretty selectively focused on one thing he said for the title.  What I took away from the article really didn't match up with the title.

[RaceToTheTop 27,196]

7 minutes ago, hoosierbgh said:

I suspect the number of athletes that undervalue their services compared to those that overvalue them, is fractionally small. 

If someone is willing to pay you what you value your services at, they aren't undervalued.  Nijel Pack is a 400K player not because of his talent level -- he's a 400K player because someone in the market is willing to pay him that.

Anyone, water is eventually going to find its level and the values will be in line with what they are worth.

[hoosierbgh 1,264]

29 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

If someone is willing to pay you what you value your services at, they aren't undervalued.  Nijel Pack is a 400K player not because of his talent level -- he's a 400K player because someone in the market is willing to pay him that.

Anyone, water is eventually going to find its level and the values will be in line with what they are worth.

Nigel Pack probably thought he was worth even more than 400K but found out that was as high as anyone was willing to go. 

[IU Scott 2,375]

I am still concerned where college basketball will be in 5 years. On DD show he had coach Greensburg on and he feels in the next 5-10 years that the tournament will be a lot different.  I guess it will just be the power 6 conferences which will be a huge disaster for it's popularity.

[PB1230 502]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I am still concerned where college basketball will be in 5 years. On DD show he had coach Greensburg on and he feels in the next 5-10 years that the tournament will be a lot different.  I guess it will just be the power 6 conferences which will be a huge disaster for it's popularity.

There might be some changes, but I just think it go back to closer to what the tournament was in the late 80's through the 90's. There might be fewer upsets, but generally speaking a lot of upsets we have been seeing in the last decade are mediocre power conference teams that get hot which I don't think does anything for the tournament. For every St Peter's or Loyola upsets/runs (which are good for the tournament), there are 3 or 4 times as many 7+ seed power conference teams doing the same. And when a historically strong program having an off year then falls @$$ backwards into a final 4 (UNC, Kentucky, MSU, UCLA, Syracuse over the last decade), I think it hurts interest in the tournament.

[IU Scott 2,375]

44 minutes ago, PB1230 said:

There might be some changes, but I just think it go back to closer to what the tournament was in the late 80's through the 90's. There might be fewer upsets, but generally speaking a lot of upsets we have been seeing in the last decade are mediocre power conference teams that get hot which I don't think does anything for the tournament. For every St Peter's or Loyola upsets/runs (which are good for the tournament), there are 3 or 4 times as many 7+ seed power conference teams doing the same. And when a historically strong program having an off year then falls @$$ backwards into a final 4 (UNC, Kentucky, MSU, UCLA, Syracuse over the last decade), I think it hurts interest in the tournament.

For me what makes the tournament is the Cinderella teams making a huge upset.  If you totally take those programs away from the tournament then I think the popularity of it goes away down.  If you only have power 6 teams in the tournament the first and second round games will not be as exciting.

[PB1230 502]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

For me what makes the tournament is the Cinderella teams making a huge upset.  If you totally take those programs away from the tournament then I think the popularity of it goes away down.  If you only have power 6 teams in the tournament the first and second round games will not be as exciting.

Under what circumstances would those teams be totally taken away? In a given year, there are only like 50ish power conferences teams that even have winning records, so you would need to allow teams with losing records for a power conference field of 64/68. 

[IU Scott 2,375]

1 hour ago, PB1230 said:

Under what circumstances would those teams be totally taken away? In a given year, there are only like 50ish power conferences teams that even have winning records, so you would need to allow teams with losing records for a power conference field of 64/68. 

The talk is the power 6 will split away from the rest of the conferences and those teams will make up the tournament leaving out the rest of them.

[Hardwood83 4,777]

8 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

If someone is willing to pay you what you value your services at, they aren't undervalued.  Nijel Pack is a 400K player not because of his talent level -- he's a 400K player because someone in the market is willing to pay him that.

Anyone, water is eventually going to find its level and the values will be in line with what they are worth.

I don't have any problem allowing the efficiency of markets to work. My issue is what you are describing is a professional relationship- players getting paid in exchange for applying their skills. Again, God bless capitalistic free markets....but I don't want that for college sports. I understand the genie is out of the bottle now and we're never going back, I don't begrudge  anyone making bank either. I do regret what I see as the certain death of any vestige of amatuer sports. I get the NCAA is stupid and corrupt, I know the players have value but none of those things change the fact that something I have loved my whole life is disappearing quickly to be replaced by a de facto pro sports league.  Things always change but not always for the better. 

[HoosierHoopster 7,301]

22 hours ago, Hardwood83 said:

I don't have any problem allowing the efficiency of markets to work. My issue is what you are describing is a professional relationship- players getting paid in exchange for applying their skills. Again, God bless capitalistic free markets....but I don't want that for college sports. I understand the genie is out of the bottle now and we're never going back, I don't begrudge  anyone making bank either. I do regret what I see as the certain death of any vestige of amatuer sports. I get the NCAA is stupid and corrupt, I know the players have value but none of those things change the fact that something I have loved my whole life is disappearing quickly to be replaced by a de facto pro sports league.  Things always change but not always for the better. 

Well said. It's hard to see college amateurism going away and it's also true as you say that the NCAA is stupid and corrupt and players have value. I don't like the move to what is basically free agency. At the same time we all know colleges/the NCAA have been taking advantage of athletes and making millions off them. No easy answers, but I also don't like the change to what is defacto pro ball.