Fire Coach Woodson Thread

[IUc2016 7,096]

8 minutes ago, Hornsby said:

And it's only going to he worse imo. I won't ever donate either. If they were getting paid nominal amounts I would but not when they are being paid like professionals.

Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk
 

I am curious as to why you thought, college basketball players who are quite literally on TV and advertised as much if not more than most celebrities, would be paid a nominal amount for their NIL?

[Hornsby 1,637]

I am curious as to why you thought, college basketball players who are quite literally on TV and advertised as much if not more than most celebrities, would be paid a nominal amount for the NIL?

Because it's college. They get free tuition and we're always seen as amateurs before. But panderas box is opened my guess is some will soon make more than nba players. I don't like the nba so thats why I always liked college ball. That's my opinion but I know some love nil.

 

I mean you might as well start paying high school players as well the schools make ticket money off the players.

 

Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[IUc2016 7,096]

4 minutes ago, Hornsby said:

Because it's college. They get free tuition and we're always seen as amateurs before. But panderas box is opened my guess is some will soon make than nba players. I don't like the nba so thats why I always liked college ball. That's my opinion but I know some love nil.

Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk
 

I don't think it has anything to do with loving NIL or not. It was bizarre that they could not make money off their OWN NAMES. That doesn't make them professional or amateur (which was always a silly argument) it just makes them like everyone else. 

[str8baller 4,838]

1 minute ago, Hornsby said:

Because it's college. They get free tuition and we're always seen as amateurs before. But panderas box is opened my guess is some will soon make than nba players. I don't like the nba so thats why I always liked college ball. That's my opinion but I know some love nil.

Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk
 

Logically what you’re saying doesn’t make any more sense than requiring Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg to disgorge billions in profits because they started their businesses while in college.  
 

But I get it as a fan. The problem  is there’s so much money now, even compared to something like the 80s or 90s that it has to go somewhere. Personally I think it is nutty to let all these dopey coaches and ADs get rich while the kids get nothing.  If the NCAA really ever cared about amateurism—and they didn’t—they would’ve maintained that coaches and administrators couldn’t be paid over a certain limit.  
 

It probably ends with the schools paying the players. Or maybe multi year NIL deals. That’ll help return some stability at least. I feel bad for the small schools the most. This hasobviously helped IU and maybe saved Woodys job. 

[AZ Hoosier 6,097]

9 minutes ago, IUc2016 said:

I don't think it has anything to do with loving NIL or not. It was bizarre that they could not make money off their OWN NAMES. That doesn't make them professional or amateur which was always a silly argument, it just makes them like everyone else. 

But "this" isn't "that". Doing personal appearances or sponsorship deals is one thing. There is nothing about that with the NIL deal where schools are paying players $1M to attend their school and play a sport in exchange for that money. What we now have is professional athletes disguised as amateurs.

At least the pro sports leagues have some sort of salary cap in an attempt to bring parity. There is no such "cap" on NIL spending, so it's truly a free-for-all. And if the NCAA (or some other authority) were to implement a cap, it would just return us to the days of under-the-table payments. 

Sadly, it is what it is and it is completely out of control.

[IUc2016 7,096]

2 minutes ago, AZ Hoosier said:

But "this" isn't "that". Doing personal appearances or sponsorship deals is one thing. There is nothing about that with the NIL deal where schools are paying players $1m to attend their school and play a sport in exchange for that money. What we now have is professional athletes disguised as amateurs.

At least the pro sports leagues have some sort of salary cap in an attempt to bring parity. There is no such "cap" on NIL spending, so it's truly a free-for-all. And if the NCAA (or some other authority) were to implement a cap, it would just return us to the days of under-the-table payments. 

Sadly, it is what it is and it is completely out of control.

Says who? 

NIL is nothing more than someone getting money for their own personal worth on the market. That is exactly what this is.

[str8baller 4,838]

4 minutes ago, AZ Hoosier said:

What we now have is professional athletes disguised as amateurs.

You’ve always had that. The difference is just where the money went.    
 

As far as salary cap I’m agnostic. It probably helps IU to not have one. Lots of sports leagues don’t have one. 

[Home Jersey 5,445]

1 minute ago, AZ Hoosier said:

But "this" isn't "that". Doing personal appearances or sponsorship deals is one thing.

Yep, this is where the discrepancy is IMO for why people feel so differently about "NIL."

Name, Image, and Likeness deals like the ones you described where you'd see a guest appearance, sponsorship/commercial, etc. 

There are also collectives, which provide direct cash payments as I understand it. That is where it's less about marketability/being paid for your own name and likeness, and more about being semi-pro sports with smaller budgets and no salary cap. 

As a concept, players getting paid is fine. They basically always have been. The devil is in the detail... and the collectives are problematic for sustainable success, not to mention the long-term feasibility of smaller schools being competitive/eventually, even fielding teams. Seems like the inevitable conclusion is revenue sharing/unionization, collective bargaining, etc. 

[TTT 793]

I am all for NIL and outrageous coaching salaries…..  If coaches and players build their own stadiums/Gyms, pay all expenses related to their sport and their lives. (and that is a huge itemized list that they are gifted…..from laundry and janitorial and landscaping services to travel, training, eating, upkeep of facilities, and other tangible and non tangible things and opportunities.

If in January you have a soso 12 win 8 loss record….will it be well there are many new faces, man…we just have to get these guys to gel…well man….got to keep working to make the tournament.  We don’t expect NIT bids.

Hard to make a connections for any team to a roster mostly of one and two year players unless they are highly, very highly successful both, on and off court.

 

[IUc2016 7,096]

3 minutes ago, Home Jersey said:

Yep, this is where the discrepancy is IMO for why people feel so differently about "NIL."

Name, Image, and Likeness deals like the ones you described where you'd see a guest appearance, sponsorship/commercial, etc. 

There are also collectives, which provide direct cash payments as I understand it. That is where it's less about marketability/being paid for your own name and likeness, and more about being semi-pro sports with smaller budgets and no salary cap. 

As a concept, players getting paid is fine. They basically always have been. The devil is in the detail... and the collectives are problematic for sustainable success, not to mention the long-term feasibility of smaller schools being competitive/eventually, even fielding teams. Seems like the inevitable conclusion is revenue sharing/unionization, collective bargaining, etc. 

But if people feel that is all name image and likeness is Idk what to tell them.

[Home Jersey 5,445]

1 minute ago, IUc2016 said:

But if people feel that is all name image and likeness is Idk what to tell them.

I mean we're getting pretty deep into semantics at this point... part of what makes a players NIL valuable is how good they are.

But they're usually mostly compensated in the form of a collective's cash payment, not a company's marketing budget for example. Which IMO is why some people have grievances with "NIL" pay... it's mostly collective payments which are more similar to a company payroll. When people think of NIL, they think about players who have made CBB nationally relevant being able to reap the rewards for their success via their NIL deals with local and national organizations, which is a good deal for everybody.

Instead, we see universities basically paying players for performance. Collectives can bring with them a world of political headaches (maybe that's part of the offseason drama we've seen play out at IU). Adding a 3rd party to your organization/program is always troublesome IMO. Therefore I hope we get to a point where the collectives go away, universities manage funds in house like a company payroll with a salary cap, and we go back to basketball being the primary focus with NIL as a nice bonus for doing well. 

[IUc2016 7,096]

7 minutes ago, Home Jersey said:

I mean we're getting pretty deep into semantics at this point... part of what makes a players NIL valuable is how good they are.

But they're usually mostly compensated in the form of a collective's cash payment, not a company's marketing budget for example. Which IMO is why some people have grievances with "NIL" pay... it's mostly collective payments which are more similar to a company payroll. When people think of NIL, they think about players who have made CBB nationally relevant being able to reap the rewards for their success via their NIL deals with local and national organizations, which is a good deal for everybody.

Instead, we see universities basically paying players for performance. Collectives can bring with them a world of political headaches (maybe that's part of the offseason drama we've seen play out at IU). Adding a 3rd party to your organization/program is always troublesome IMO. Therefore I hope we get to a point where the collectives go away, universities manage funds in house like a company payroll with a salary cap, and we go back to basketball being the primary focus with NIL as a nice bonus for doing well. 

I am not talking about where the money comes from and if that is problematic. That is not how this conversation got started.

Zach Edey was covered relentlessly this season by EVERYONE in and out of college basketball. To think he would make a nominal amount for his name, is silly. Regardless of who pays him or how he is paid. That's really the only point I was trying to make.

[Home Jersey 5,445]

2 minutes ago, IUc2016 said:

I am not talking about where the money comes from and if that is problematic. That is not how this conversation got started.

Zach Edey was covered relentlessly this season by EVERYONE in and out of college basketball. To think he would make a nominal amount for his name, is silly. Regardless of who pays him or how he is paid.

Not making an argument one way or the other... Just unpacking why I think some people have grievances with "NIL" / collectives in their current form.

[Hoosierfan2017 20,062]

My issue is with the combination of the transfer portal and NIL. Pick one or the other. The current climate where everyone’s a free agent at all times every year sucks. It has already ruined bowl season. 

[IUc2016 7,096]

Sorry for getting this off track. FIRE WOODY

 

[Golfman25 4,831]

1 hour ago, Hornsby said:

And it's only going to he worse imo. I won't ever donate either. If they were getting paid nominal amounts I would but not when they are being paid like professionals. Lower level programs simply don't be able to compete in the long run.

 

Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Within those 5 years it's going to go thru collective bargaining and revenue sharing.  Cause right now the schools keep all the TV/Conference money.  There will be some type of structure put into place.  NIL, if it still exists will probably morph into what it was intended to be -- dudes lining up their own advertising sponsorships.  Collectives and slush funds will be "illegal" and bags will go back to under the table.  

[Golfman25 4,831]

2 hours ago, IUc2016 said:

I am curious as to why you thought, college basketball players who are quite literally on TV and advertised as much if not more than most celebrities, would be paid a nominal amount for their NIL?

Because it was supposed to be based on their value as an "endorser" of products.  It has become a slush fund for "friends of the program."  

[Hornsby 1,637]

But "this" isn't "that". Doing personal appearances or sponsorship deals is one thing. There is nothing about that with the NIL deal where schools are paying players $1M to attend their school and play a sport in exchange for that money. What we now have is professional athletes disguised as amateurs.
At least the pro sports leagues have some sort of salary cap in an attempt to bring parity. There is no such "cap" on NIL spending, so it's truly a free-for-all. And if the NCAA (or some other authority) were to implement a cap, it would just return us to the days of under-the-table payments. 
Sadly, it is what it is and it is completely out of control.

Like you said they are now professional athletes and not amateurs. It's the wild west

Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk

[Hornsby 1,637]

Yep, this is where the discrepancy is IMO for why people feel so differently about "NIL."
Name, Image, and Likeness deals like the ones you described where you'd see a guest appearance, sponsorship/commercial, etc. 
There are also collectives, which provide direct cash payments as I understand it. That is where it's less about marketability/being paid for your own name and likeness, and more about being semi-pro sports with smaller budgets and no salary cap. 
As a concept, players getting paid is fine. They basically always have been. The devil is in the detail... and the collectives are problematic for sustainable success, not to mention the long-term feasibility of smaller schools being competitive/eventually, even fielding teams. Seems like the inevitable conclusion is revenue sharing/unionization, collective bargaining, etc. 

Smaller school cannot survive in this environment. It's great for schools like iu with unlimited money but look at Indiana State. They lost everyone. Their nil is probably 10% of indiana's.

Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk

[str8baller 4,838]

3 hours ago, TTT said:

If in January you have a soso 12 win 8 loss record….will it be well there are many new faces, man…we just have to get these guys to gel…well man….got to keep working to make the tournament.  We don’t expect NIT bids.

Hard to make a connections for any team to a roster mostly of one and two year players unless they are highly, very highly successful both, on and off court.

That’s an Indiana problem. As has been pointed out by other posters, most schools aren’t doing this and the ones that are typically aren’t successful.  
 

Of the final four teams only nc state really pieced it all together in one year and they barely made it on a miracle run. Uconn and Purdue added a guy or two a year—which isn’t wildly different from the grad transfer days. I think Bama had 2 or 3 new guys in their rotation.  
 

Between transfers, juco transfers and 1 and done or 2 and dones, a lot of the top programs have been adding 2 or 3 important rotation pieces every year anyways over the last couple decades. So consistency is still pretty important with the other 5 or 6 guys.  
 

Woody decided to go the route of adding 3 new staters and 2 or 3 more off the bench in the portal, and that’s on him. We’ll see how it plays out.