Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, iu eyedoc said:

So you are equating choosing a school to country of citizenship based on an "offer" is slimy?

That argument fails on so many levels

1) Every Olympic athletes is born a citizens of a given country that they are allowed to compete for in the Olympics,they have to actively switch their citizenship to become a citizen of a different country. Unless you believe college athletes should have to compete only for a state school this makes no sense.

2)The Olympics are a contest based on the athletic ability of the countries citizenship, there is no assumption that IU is represented by only Indiana citizens or that UC Santa Barbara are only allowed players from the city of Santa Barbara.

3)Interesting that the offer of money to improve your current situation is somehow slimy, while choosing a school that by education or exposure  can contribute to your future ability to improve your situation somehow is a noble pursuit.

Only fails on the level to which you're having trouble with my response to the Olympic athlete comment.

 

IF... it's a implied word... an Olympic athlete competed for whatever country provided the most $, that would be slimy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, go iu bb said:

Slimy or not (it's not), NIL is here to stay.

suck-it-up-buttercup.jpg

It might be here to stay, but it won't likely be as free and "slimy" as it currently is.

These college and high school kids have more movement and $ leverage now than professionals only dream about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maharkn said:

That would be nice but I don't think they could afford that or the game would cost a crazy amount to offset so that they still make there money. They already had to spend the money for the lawsuit for the foot all game

Sent from my SM-A515U1 using Tapatalk
 

How long before players refuse to play in an event without getting a cut of the profits. Will a players union be next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cthomas said:

How long before players refuse to play in an event without getting a cut of the profits. Will a players union be next?

It feels like it definitely could be. Either of those scenarios would likely be the end of it for me though. I haven't watched the NBA in years because both the on-court product isn't appealing and the entire organization (owners & players) are distasteful to me. I'm not interested in an "NBA, Jr" league masquerading as college sports. Nigel Pack took the best package offered him- $400k and a new car. That is completely understandable FOR HIM, I am a consumer that makes my own decisions and I can choose to participate in that process (watching games, buying tickets & merchandise) or not, too. Eventually a fair question will be "what is the point of having 'College' sports at all?" Why should state educational institutions be in the business of offering pro sport opportunities?  If they are just another pro league, then fold them into the existing leagues and remove the pretense.  

I don't know exactly where that line is, but it's getting awfully fuzzy and once it's crossed it might have some permanent ramifications. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cthomas said:

How long before players refuse to play in an event without getting a cut of the profits. Will a players union be next?

The economics of college sports are much more complicated than NBA/NFL/etc, and profits are frequently slim as most school revenue gets invested back into the athletic department, so there's not much of a cut to give.

Also because of Title IX, any union would likely need to include all sports to give equal access to men and women, which would give non-revenue sport athletes the vast majority of the leverage which would likely prevent revenue sport athletes from squeezing the athletic department and if anything would potentially hurt football and men's basketball players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, PB1230 said:

You have absolutely no idea how universities work. Universities function as a conglomerate of hundreds if not thousands of individual entities. Money comes into universities from A LOT of different sources and LEGALLY it needs to be kept in separate pools/accounts because the money coming in almost always has strings/regulations/stipulations attached dictating how that money is spent and you need to account for where the dollars coming in are being spent. If you don't spend all the money for the specific purpose for which it was received within a set period of time, the remainder usually needs to be paid back. 

Athletic departments work under their own siloed budgets and revenue streams. And scholarships at IU are predominantly paid out of an endowment funded by donations specifically earmarked for scholarships.

Sure but money if fungible and the politicians are great at the old bait and switch.  Just look at the lottery.  They sell it on "it's for the kids" and "to fund the schools."  And then when it passes, the schools are funded and then they take the money that was going to the school and spend it somewhere else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PB1230 said:

The economics of college sports are much more complicated than NBA/NFL/etc, and profits are frequently slim as most school revenue gets invested back into the athletic department, so there's not much of a cut to give.

Also because of Title IX, any union would likely need to include all sports to give equal access to men and women, which would give non-revenue sport athletes the vast majority of the leverage which would likely prevent revenue sport athletes from squeezing the athletic department and if anything would potentially hurt football and men's basketball players. 

NIL money doesn't come from the universities. And there are revenue streams like television and their advertising money from "made for tv" big games. I could see kids eventually wanting a piece of these other streams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, cthomas said:

NIL money doesn't come from the universities. And there are revenue streams like television and their advertising money from "made for tv" big games. I could see kids eventually wanting a piece of these other streams.

I don't think players have anywhere that kind of leverage. Let's say at some point in the future, an Alabama starting QB goes to ESPN and says, I'm not going to play in the Auburn game unless you pay me $50k upfront. Even let's say that coaches become so beholden to players they can't kick them off the team for a stunt like that, I still don't think it ends well for the player. 1) I don't think ESPN cares if he doesn't play as the surrounding drama probably boosts the ratings for the game so they will call his bluff, and if he convinces a bunch of teammates to join him, ESPN will just put another game in that timeslot. 2) Following through with not playing damages future income potential through reduced NIL deals and draft stock. 3) The player(s) would need to flee the state of Alabama with armed security and never return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PB1230 said:

I don't think players have anywhere that kind of leverage. Let's say at some point in the future, an Alabama starting QB goes to ESPN and says, I'm not going to play in the Auburn game unless you pay me $50k upfront. Even let's say that coaches become so beholden to players they can't kick them off the team for a stunt like that, I still don't think it ends well for the player. 1) I don't think ESPN cares if he doesn't play as the surrounding drama probably boosts the ratings for the game so they will call his bluff, and if he convinces a bunch of teammates to join him, ESPN will just put another game in that timeslot. 2) Following through with not playing damages future income potential through reduced NIL deals and draft stock. 3) The player(s) would need to flee the state of Alabama with armed security and never return.

I agree that it seems unlikely, but I didn't see what we have now coming this quickly either. Once a thing like this starts rolling, it tends to escalate until something stops it. It will be interesting to who or what that thing is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, cthomas said:

I agree that it seems unlikely, but I didn't see what we have now coming this quickly either. Once a thing like this starts rolling, it tends to escalate until something stops it. It will be interesting to who or what that thing is.

That’s odd to me as it’s been discussed for  the last 15-20 years. It seems like the floodgates are open now because the NCAA stuck their heads in the sand and refused to deal with it until there was nothing to do but open the floodgates.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, str8baller said:

That’s odd to me as it’s been discussed for  the last 15-20 years. It seems like the floodgates are open now because the NCAA stuck their heads in the sand and refused to deal with it until there was nothing to do but open the floodgates.  
 

Just reteading this and I want to clarify that I wasn’t trying to be dismissive or rude to you, cthomas. 
 

Obviously, if one is a younger fan or not particularly interested in the law and econ side of college sports, one might have not really seen this stuff discussed much. But for example, I can remember people—possibly even national columnists—way back during the Ed Obannon case positing that the logical outcome would be allowing kids to profit of their likeness. That was 10+ years ago. 
 

I didn’t mean to imply fans would necessarily have a handle on all this. But instead any institution complaining about how unforeseen this all is should be viewed as negligent considering it was rather foreseeable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LamarCheeks said:

DICKIE V. IS PISSED OFF, BAY-BEEEEE! 
 

 

If the NCAA hasn't awakened by now, it never will. Exactly what did people think was going to happen? There was never going to be a gentlemen's agreement that would limit the the amount to be spent. The rich get richer is the only way this was going to go. We can play in this sandbox, not that I like it, but we are big enough to play. Cheaters now don't have to. The NCAA doesn't, and never will, have any control of NIL. Love it or hate it, but just get used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hovadipo said:

Wow. Nijel Pack shockwaves still spreading. 

Ok, lawyer-types, would contracts like this kid’s tie them to the school in such a way that the booster quoted in this article would be in a position to sue the kid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

U Miami may force a change in college sports.

Think they can at least in part put the genie back in the bottle?

 

This might come to a head much quicker than I anticipated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×