NIL and IU

[IU Scott]

Just now, PB1230 said:

If you are concerned about amateurism in college sports in general, it’s infatuation built on false pretenses. The whole concept initially began as a way for mediocre rich guys to maintain ability to play at a prominent level and stuck around for the ability to exploit and profit off of athletes. 
 

if you are concerned about competitive advantage concentrating to top schools, we are really only turning back the clock 20 years on gains in parity

I don't buy that these kids were taken advantage of.  If they were being taken advantage of please sign me up because college athletes had it made.  They were getting $50,000 to $60,000 a year and free housing and all the free advertising they could want.

[Stuhoo]

6 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I don't buy that these kids were taken advantage of.  If they were being taken advantage of please sign me up because college athletes had it made.  They were getting $50,000 to $60,000 a year and free housing and all the free advertising they could want.

They weren’t suffering or being taken advantage of before, but that’s not the point. 
What’s the point?? 
Free market.

Capitalism!!

College ball legalized capitalism for non-university payments.

I’m a rule follower. Wanted IU to follow the prior rules. I also want them to follow the new rules, which are far more aligned with free market principles.

 

[PB1230]

13 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

Disagree…in the pros players that make the minimum look at the big money guys and say “cool! I wanna be that guy someday!”

Also, it’s more than just a few hundred dollars. I would say even a guy like Leal was probably making at least $10-20k

[str8baller]

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

The thing is that they are not making money on name, Image or likeness and not having to earn that money.  I new this is what NIL would lead to and it will be the end of college sports that I love.

I’m not sure I understand then. What is it that they are making the money on?  I guess in my mind, getting paid for who you are is the definition of getting paid “on your name.”  That’s how it works in my industry. 
 

To the second part, college sports has always had players getting paid under the table and in the last two decades coaches have made $5-10 million per year. Putting it above board doesn’t seem that disruptive to me. Again…quite possibly reasonable minds can differ here.

[IU Scott]

1 minute ago, str8baller said:

I’m not sure I understand then. What is it that they are making the money on?  I guess in my mind, getting paid for who you are is the definition of getting paid “on your name.”  That’s how it works in my industry. 
 

To the second part, college sports has always had players getting paid under the table and in the last two decades coaches have made $5-10 million per year. Putting it above board doesn’t seem that disruptive to me. Again…quite possibly reasonable minds can differ here.

You are supposed to earn the money by actually doing stuff like advertising or signing autographs and not just handed over money

[PB1230]

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I don't buy that these kids were taken advantage of.  If they were being taken advantage of please sign me up because college athletes had it made.  They were getting $50,000 to $60,000 a year and free housing and all the free advertising they could want.

Were they compensated on some level, sure but as a share of revenue, you are probably talking 50-100 times less than professional athletes

[IU Scott]

Just now, PB1230 said:

Were they compensated on some level, sure but as a share of revenue, you are probably talking 50-100 times less than professional athletes

They aren't professional athletes

[PB1230]

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

They aren't professional athletes

In name only because the profits say otherwise.

[IU Scott]

1 minute ago, PB1230 said:

In name only because the profits say otherwise.

Do you make the same as the CEO of the company you work for.  The workers do all the work that makes the money yet the higher ups gets most of the money.  College athletes compensation is probably more than a lot of regular workers make.

[cthomas]

11 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

They weren’t suffering or being taken advantage of before, but that’s not the point. 
What’s the point?? 
Free market.

Capitalism!!

College ball legalized capitalism for non-university payments.

I’m a rule follower. Wanted IU to follow the prior rules. I also want them to follow the new rules, which are far more aligned with free market principles.

 

Yes, and this applies to so many other things as well. It's not about what's right or wrong, if that discussion even exists anymore, it's about what is legal. How long before we drop the pretenses and just call them the professional basketball team that represents Indiana University for a given number of years. It really feels like that's the direction we are headed.

[Stuhoo]

The “do I like it?” discussion is completely legit, but it has little to do with the “what should we do about it?” discussion.

We should do whatever it takes to succeed within the new rules, or risk being Purdoo who got “Nijel Pack-Ed” today.

 

[Brass Cannon]

7 minutes ago, PB1230 said:

In name only because the profits say otherwise.

They aren’t being paid to play. They are being paid for being famous.  There is an important distinction. 

 

[PB1230]

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Do you make the same as the CEO of the company you work for.  The workers do all the work that makes the money yet the higher ups gets most of the money.  College athletes compensation is probably more than a lot of regular workers make.

No, but the CEO doesn’t make 100 times all other employees combined, and that’s what we are talking about

[HoosierHoops1]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

The thing is that they are not making money on name, Image or likeness and not having to earn that money.  I new this is what NIL would lead to and it will be the end of college sports that I love.

Yep. Doubtful Pack  has a LIKENESS that the Miami company recognizes.

They probably didn't know the NAME Nigel Pack 3 weeks ago.

And they wouldn't know a good Nigel Pack Sillouette, or IMAGE.

 

and without any of that, they can sign him to an NIL deal... only because the Miami coach wants him.

[cthomas]

33 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

They aren’t being paid to play. They are being paid for being famous.  There is an important distinction. 

 

If they couldn't play, they wouldn't be famous.

[Brass Cannon]

4 minutes ago, cthomas said:

If they couldn't play, they wouldn't be famous.

Doesn’t matter.  They aren’t professional athletes just because they profit off their likeness. 

[cthomas]

Just now, Brass Cannon said:

Doesn’t matter.  They aren’t professional athletes just because they profit off their likeness. 

Seems like splitting hairs. People are famous for whatever talent they have. They get paid for that talent. I am a photographer but I don't get paid to do it. If I did, I would be a professional photographer.

[str8baller]

20 minutes ago, HoosierHoops1 said:

Yep. Doubtful Pack  has a LIKENESS that the Miami company recognizes.

They probably didn't know the NAME Nigel Pack 3 weeks ago.

And they wouldn't know a good Nigel Pack Sillouette, or IMAGE.

 

and without any of that, they can sign him to an NIL deal... only because the Miami coach wants him.

But they will know him. It’s speculative. No different than you having money in the stock market. 

[str8baller]

55 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Do you make the same as the CEO of the company you work for.  The workers do all the work that makes the money yet the higher ups gets most of the money.  College athletes compensation is probably more than a lot of regular workers make.

This is an interesting thought exercise. On the free market, the players are more of the ceo than the coach. In almost any professional  league the players make 3-5x as much, or more, than the coaches.   
 

If this were truly amateur then the coaches and AD’s would get meals, housing, and $50k a year. We crossed that bridge a long time ago. Not sure why in any sane world Tom Crean should have ever made more money than Cody Zeller.  
 

College basketball is a multi billion dollar industry. That’s just revenue to the schools. Very little of that goes to the players. I’m not sure why people want to restrict them from earning money completely outside of that revenue stream. At this point it just seems petty. 

[WayneFleekHoosier]

This is an interesting thought exercise. On the free market, the players are more of the ceo than the coach. In almost any professional  league the players make 3-5x as much, or more, than the coaches.   
 
If this were truly amateur then the coaches and AD’s would get meals, housing, and $50k a year. We crossed that bridge a long time ago. Not sure why in any sane world Tom Crean should have ever made more money than Cody Zeller.  
 
College basketball is a multi billion dollar industry. That’s just revenue to the schools. Very little of that goes to the players. I’m not sure why people want to restrict them from earning money completely outside of that revenue stream. At this point it just seems petty. 

People want to stay in bubbles and think it ruins the purity of things that never really existed. In many ways, the new method of capitalism will be much better.

There is still incentive to be better at/in college and also to advance in the NBA if possible.

Players were transferring like crazy before NIL so transfer rate can’t be blamed on NIL, but rather playing time and that was never going away.

I don’t see why this changes things for people besides them being jealous.

Hopefully great players continue to want to play for Indiana. If we can compensate them adequately, all parties win. They chose us, they want to get better and advance just like they did before. Nothing really has changed except those blinded by college athletics have had the blinders taken off. If those paying for players don’t get the ROI they want it will balance over time. Again, everyone wins.




Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app