OT More on the Brave New World of NIL

[SharpesTriumph]

what do you think would happen if Congress passed a law limiting NBA salaries AND endorsement deals to a max of 10 million/year? How quickly would the law be found unconstitutional?

sure looked to me like the SCOTUS ruled that college athletes have the same constitutional rights for NIL compensation as NBA players

The NBA does have max contracts, no thats not spelled out by congress, but US law allows the NBA and players to agree to that.

Maybe the college player could earn all they like, but in that case over so many millions are required to pay for all their college tuition, room and board, have to pay fees to coaching staff, pay for training, etc. Who knows what the exact legal language or mechanics of it end up being. My point was if there is enough public sentiment against college athletes making basically professional money, its very possible there are rules or laws passed that change this.

No changes seem to be imminent though.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

no

when Oregon was losing games in the 70's & 80's while posting year after year of losing records, Autzen stadium was half full and the Ducks were rarely on TV. When they were winning under Bellotti and Chip Kelly, Autzen was sold out every game; SRO. And they were on TV all the time. Viewers turn in to see good teams and buy tickets to see good teams. And good teams require good players. Good players are the other side of the equation from high attendance and TV ratings. That's because a lot more people will show up and tune in to see Marcus Mariotta lead the team to the national championship game than when Norval Turner is leading the Ducks to a 2-9 record

If all the best college players leave the NCAA and go to arena league, or JV colleges, or elsewhere there will still be a NCAA team winning national titles. Fans will pay to fill up those stadiums and watch a team win regardless if its the best players in the country or 4th tier athletes. Yes fans want to watch a college team win, but they don't care if the level of play is at a high school or NFL level.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

We're not talking about individual teams though; we're talking about the organization as a whole. The NBA G-League has a much higher caliber of player than the college game, yet the NCAA garners far more attention and revenue. Why? Because of the institutions. And, I might also add, the real "stars" in the college game are the coaches.

The players, for all intents and purposes, are interchangeable, replaceable, and disposable elements to the college athletics machine.

Yes exactly. You put the top 100 college athletes into the G League and the worst walk on athletes into college and you would hardly change the revenue of either college or the G league.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

that's just wrong on a very real level, and you can make the same misleading argument about the pros. How much did attendance drop off for the Blazers when they trotted out lottery teams? This year it's 17,125; in 2018-19 when they won 53 games it was 19,496. That's a 12% drop but that doesn't really tell us anything because of Covid restrictions. In 2016-17 when Portland won 41 games their attendance was 19,318. So, that 2018-19 Blazer team that was 29% better in wins increased attendance by 0.9%.

that isn't the full picture either because in 2012-13 when Portland only won 33 games, their attendance was 19,830. But wait!! the next season when Portland won 54 games their attendance dropped to 19,747. Hmmm...sure looks like the players and wins don't matter in the NBA either. And if you argue that Portland is unique because of the pro-sports market then it means that the players, in the Portland part of the NBA at least, "for all intents and purposes, are interchangeable, replaceable, and disposable elements"

in other words, it sure looks like you're trying to set different goal posts to gauge the value of college players vs pros.

NBA players get what percentage of gross revenue? Is it 50%?

"College football generates more than $4 billion in annual revenue for the 65 universities making up the Power 5, according to data provided to Fortune by Patrick Rishe, director of the sports business program at Washington University in St. Louis. Combined, those schools reaped nearly $1.8 billion in profits from their football programs in 2018"

did the players get 50% of that 4B+ like the NBA? Did they get 48% of that like players in the NFL? Or the 49% that MLB players get? Hell no they didn't and team loyalty in the pros is the same as school loyalty in college

and it's not like the college athletes are suddenly taking a portion of TV revenue, gate receipts, concessions etc. They still don't get any share of that. They have just been allowed to start being compensated for NIL. All that traditional revenue will still be going to all of the greedy shits at the top of the food chain, including all those mercenary coaches you claim are the stars

and LOL at the comparison of the G-League to college. Now, why don't you compare the G-League to the NBA?

Nobody said an individual teams revenue stays the same regardless of their wins or losses. You are arguing against a strawman.

 

[wizenheimer]

I don't agree with this in terms of college athletes at all. Fans root for the teams and whatever people on those teams are having the most success. You have donors paying only for their single school, if they can't pay for player x they pay for player y. Donors only pay for their school.

You don't have donors paying for a single player regardless of the school that player chooses, rooting and paying for the player whatever school he goes to. If the best 20 year old players went to the arena league instead of college football your not going to see a big change in revenue of either league.

but it's no different in the pros. Fans root for the teams. Blazer fans root for Portland because they are in or from Portland, or the state of Oregon. I mean, what the fuck is this forum all about? I joined in 2008 and no player on the Blazers then was still on the team after June, 2015...7 years ago. I was a Blazer fan before Walton was a Blazer. I became a Blazer fan because I'm a native Oregonian; I became a Duck fan because I went to school there. There no real difference

it's just loopy to try and argue fan loyalty is different in college than it is in the pros. In all cases it's an emotional attachment

you guys keep trying to dig up examples of the differences between college and pros. But the motivations of fans, running the scale from rabid to casual, are the same for the pros as for college; and it's those motivations that generate the revenue

and it's simply ridiculous, IMO, to try and argue that a CJ McCollum is entitled to 35M/year as a Pro while a Justin Herbert is entitled to nothing as a college player

what are you guys even bitching about anyway? It looks like you're saying the players shouldn't be paid?

 

[wizenheimer]

Nobody said an individual teams revenue stays the same regardless of their wins or losses. You are arguing against a strawman.

that is bullshit. If players are "interchangeable and disposable" then revenues and attendance should stay the same no matter if the teams are winning or losing

better players will generate more wins and more winning will generate more revenue. That's true in college and it's true in the pros

 

[wizenheimer]

Regarding NIL deals in high school, I would think that 18 year olds cannot enter into legally binding contracts. Perhaps their parents can on their behalf, but if a kid breaks his contractual obligations, it's not on the kid, it's on the parents. Which is yet another legal grey area.

Or, you know, the country could just do away with "amateur athletes" and being tied to educational institutions and create privately-owned Acadamies like other countries do with youth soccer and basketball, where kids are trained and paid while learning and growing.

I think 18 year olds are considered adults so they could enter into binding contracts. But this will see a lot of 17 year olds signing deals so yeah, parents are going to be part of the legal equation

during the podcast I linked, Bruce Feldman said the attorney he talked to (who prepared the contract in question) told him he's heard of contracts that the parents of some athletes have signed that have clauses that would allow the entity paying NIL to come back and demand money back from the family, including interest. There is definitely going to be lots of dark side to NIL

 

[blazerfan11]

that is bullshit. If players are "interchangeable and disposable" then revenues and attendance should stay the same no matter if the teams are winning or losing

better players will generate more wins and more winning will generate more revenue. That's true in college and it's true in the pros

I think you are confusing winning and losing and "talent" level.

Players don't create wins and losses. Leagues do.

People do attend games based on winning and losing, but that is INDEPENDENT of talent outside the league.

Like what was already said, if ALL the best basketball talent played in the G-league, would college basketball attendance drop? At all?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

that is bullshit. If players are "interchangeable and disposable" then revenues and attendance should stay the same no matter if the teams are winning or losing

better players will generate more wins and more winning will generate more revenue. That's true in college and it's true in the pros

Every college game has one winner and one loser regardless of the talent of the players. The last part of your statement is not true if there are rules that apply to all major colleges.

Pro's vs college is a totally different dynamic. There are multiple legit professional leagues already established, players would actually have the ability to create a rival league (if teams tried to pay them peanuts). LeBron himself could easily finance the start of an entire 16 team+ league. No it wouldn't earn what the NBA does, but it would earn a hell of a lot of millions.

A high school player entering college has none of these options, nor the track record of success, nor the fan interest and dollars.

I'm not arguing that college athletes deserve to make nothing; I'm just saying I don't know that they deserve to make multi million professional level money. I suspect there might be many others that share this belief as time passes and we see the results of NIL. Maybe its just something that NIL players can't enjoy the financial benefits of free college scholarships, free room and board, and have to pay a some other fees when they make millions. I'm still developing my opinions on this.

 

[handiman]

NBA players get what percentage of gross revenue? Is it 50%?

"College football generates more than $4 billion in annual revenue for the 65 universities making up the Power 5, according to data provided to Fortune by Patrick Rishe, director of the sports business program at Washington University in St. Louis. Combined, those schools reaped nearly $1.8 billion in profits from their football programs in 2018"

did the players get 50% of that 4B+ like the NBA? Did they get 48% of that like players in the NFL? Or the 49% that MLB players get? Hell no they didn't and team loyalty in the pros is the same as school loyalty in college

You cherry picked a quote that supports the article's headline but not so much its content...

"About half of the public Power 5 athletic departments were self-sustaining in 2017-18, meaning revenue covered expenses without funding from student fees or university support."

"Even more remarkable: In a multibillion-dollar industry, fewer than half of FBS athletic departments have financial reserves in place that could be used during this type of crisis"

The costs of running a football program are astronomical. All that NCAA revenue that people like to talk about is mostly flushed right down the toilet via expenses. If fewer than half the big programs are breaking even and/or have financial reserves, where is this supposed money coming from to pay the athletes? Most of the actual profit is clustered among a select few schools.

The problem with using that article within this context is, it's looking at lost revenue when games aren't played, not the fixed expenses that don't go away during a shutdown.

 

[wizenheimer]

I'm not arguing that college athletes deserve to make nothing; I'm just saying I don't know that they deserve to make multi million professional level money. I suspect there might be many others that share this belief as time passes and we see the results of NIL. Maybe its just something that NIL players can't enjoy the financial benefits of free college scholarships, free room and board, and have to pay a some other fees when they make millions. I'm still developing my opinions on this.

ok...now that at least I find a valid perspective. I think we have no clue how this will play out. It may be that the laws of unintended consequences will destroy college sports, or at least the major sports of FB and BB

players getting financial compensation was a long time coming. The NCAA had their collective heads in the sand for decades about this. They could have actually starting developing frameworks to at least set up some guard rails but they refused to see the train barreling down the tracks and that's a big reason why NIL seems for Wild West and out of control. I think college sports, especially football, will never be the same

I just don't think it will do any good to blame the players or try and restrict the compensation they can receive.

 

[wizenheimer]

Sabrina Ionescu:




if anybody is interested, the full interview:

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Sabrina Ionescu:




if anybody is interested, the full interview:

This always seemed ridiculous to me. Not only the athletes couldn't afford to eat at Chipolote; the rules banned them from getting a job at chipolte to work and be able to afford crappy fast food.

There could have been a stipend or something that at least gives them some dollars to afford food, crappy old car, clothes, phone, etc as even most poor college students have. Having these two extremes where they are too broke to afford fast food and inexpensive basics in life, or now possibly earning multi million per year contract both seem equally ridiculous.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

ok...now that at least I find a valid perspective. I think we have no clue how this will play out. It may be that the laws of unintended consequences will destroy college sports, or at least the major sports of FB and BB

players getting financial compensation was a long time coming. The NCAA had their collective heads in the sand for decades about this. They could have actually starting developing frameworks to at least set up some guard rails but they refused to see the train barreling down the tracks and that's a big reason why NIL seems for Wild West and out of control. I think college sports, especially football, will never be the same

I just don't think it will do any good to blame the players or try and restrict the compensation they can receive.

I've never blamed an individual player. If a player, any individual single person has the chance to earn something, I'm all for them seizing whatever opportunity is in front of them. As long as they aren't hurting someone else, or breaking a law, go for it. Just as I'm for any individual to pay the fewest taxes their tax return legally allows, or other such rules our society has constructed. The issue isn't a player or group of players being blamed. Its the broad financial rules that apply to the situation; in this case all student athletes in all colleges everywhere.

I seriously question if it make sense to have student athletes able to earn multi-millions of dollars. My initial reaction on reading these topics today is no, I am not in favor of that and would support rules that limited this. Earning under $100k per year I probably could care less about, I'm talking about those super rare case but where the dollars just get ridiculous. The escalation of dollars we might see where multiple college groups start overbidding each other by millions, and super wealthy donors involved. I guess it depends exactly how we see this play out, and exactly what any rule proposals looked like.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

If we start seeing NIL agreements for seniors in high school that are 17; why wouldn't we start seeing this for underclassmen in high school too?

Would we start seeing AAU middle schoolers getting paid?

 

[Hoopguru]

I've never blamed an individual player. If a player, any individual single person has the chance to earn something, I'm all for them seizing whatever opportunity is in front of them. As long as they aren't hurting someone else, or breaking a law, go for it. Just as I'm for any individual to pay the fewest taxes their tax return legally allows, or other such rules our society has constructed. The issue isn't a player or group of players being blamed. Its the broad financial rules that apply to the situation; in this case all student athletes in all colleges everywhere.

I seriously question if it make sense to have student athletes able to earn multi-millions of dollars. My initial reaction on reading these topics today is no, I am not in favor of that and would support rules that limited this. Earning under $100k per year I probably could care less about, I'm talking about those super rare case but where the dollars just get ridiculous. The escalation of dollars we might see where multiple college groups start overbidding each other by millions, and super wealthy donors involved. I guess it depends exactly how we see this play out, and exactly what any rule proposals looked like.

Yeah, there needs to be some definite rules that don't discriminate from one institutional Men and women sport.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

Good line of thought, but you got the cutoff wrong. 18 is when they can enter into legally binding agreements, so virtually all HS seniors would be in the clear.

I thought the OP was referring to high schools attracting Middle School/Junior High kids to attend their high school by offering NIL deals. You know that's coming.

 

[wizenheimer]

I seriously question if it make sense to have student athletes able to earn multi-millions of dollars. My initial reaction on reading these topics today is no, I am not in favor of that and would support rules that limited this. Earning under $100k per year I probably could care less about, I'm talking about those super rare case but where the dollars just get ridiculous. The escalation of dollars we might see where multiple college groups start overbidding each other by millions, and super wealthy donors involved. I guess it depends exactly how we see this play out, and exactly what any rule proposals looked like.

I don't see any way to limit what these athletes make, even when they are 17-19 years old. Nobody talked about limiting the incomes of Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus when they were under 21. Nobody talked about limiting the the incomes of Serena Williams or Martina Hingis or Monica Seles when they were teenagers. Or Dru Barrymore when she was a teenager. Nobody was saying Tiger Woods should have a limit on his endorsement income when he was under 21

if these athletes are entitled to profit from NIL, and it sure seems the SCOTUS and most states now say they do, I don't know what mechanism exists to say "no, that's too much; we're capping how much you can earn at 100K".

 

[handiman]

I don't see any way to limit what these athletes make, even when they are 17-19 years old. Nobody talked about limiting the incomes of Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus when they were under 21. Nobody talked about limiting the the incomes of Serena Williams or Martina Hingis or Monica Seles when they were teenagers. Or Dru Barrymore when she was a teenager. Nobody was saying Tiger Woods should have a limit on his endorsement income when he was under 21

You keep resorting to completely unrelated realms. Those examples are all professionals, representing themselves, not an academic institution where much of their funding comes from fellow students.

 

[THE HCP]

This always seemed ridiculous to me. Not only the athletes couldn't afford to eat at Chipolote; the rules banned them from getting a job at chipolte to work and be able to afford crappy fast food.

There could have been a stipend or something that at least gives them some dollars to afford food, crappy old car, clothes, phone, etc as even most poor college students have. Having these two extremes where they are too broke to afford fast food and inexpensive basics in life, or now possibly earning multi million per year contract both seem equally ridiculous.

I don't understand her comment. She was on a full ride at UofO. She could eat for free EVERYDAY at the school. UofO has one of the nicest ATHLETE ONLY facilities in the country she could have eaten at. Sure the school was making money off her and all the other athletes, but this kid wasn't roaming the streets begging for change.

 

[wizenheimer]

You keep resorting to completely unrelated realms. Those examples are all professionals, representing themselves, not an academic institution where much of their funding comes from fellow students.

what difference does it make where that educational funding comes from?

NIL is the same thing as with 'professionals'....it's exactly "athletes representing themselves"...they are just younger. NIL has nothing to do with tuition or fellow students or athletic department budgets. Those are irrelevant. What the SCOTUS has said, and many states have confirmed thru legislation, is that athletes own their NIL...not the schools.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I don't understand her comment. She was on a full ride at UofO. She could eat for free EVERYDAY at the school. UofO has one of the nicest ATHLETE ONLY facilities in the country she could have eaten at. Sure the school was making money off her and all the other athletes, but this kid wasn't roaming the streets begging for change.

So what if her friends are going out? You never left the dorms or campus ever in college? Buying a $6 chipotle should be something every college student can afford. The NCAA banned her from working, made money off her, and basically holds her hostage to only eat on their "beautiful" campus. Sounds more like a prison. Yes it's a very nice prison, but still a prison.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

what difference does it make where that educational funding comes from?

NIL is the same thing as with 'professionals'....it's exactly "athletes representing themselves"...they are just younger. NIL has nothing to do with tuition or fellow students or athletic department budgets. Those are irrelevant. What the SCOTUS has said, and many states have confirmed thru legislation, is that athletes own their NIL...not the schools.

It's a good argument you have. I don't have a problem with some of this in theory. It's when we start seeing these donors giving millions to kids, and then early high school kids, AAU kids.

Yes there are child actors or artists, but record companies and movie studios are respectable organizations more above board. A lot of big money donors and shady people are going to be getting in on this. I'm not sure overall this is good for the majority of student athletes.

Plus all the kids, most kids, who don't get checks. The women that likely don't get equal endorsement to men's sports. The innocent of watching young student athletes trying to prove themselves before they are a paid professional.

 

[handiman]

Good line of thought, but you got the cutoff wrong. 18 is when they can enter into legally binding agreements, so virtually all HS seniors would be in the clear.

Although... Signing takes place when many seniors are still 17, so that could be an issue unless deals aren't signed until after commitments are made.

 

[handiman]

So what if her friends are going out? You never left the dorms or campus ever in college? Buying a $6 chipotle should be something every college student can afford. The NCAA banned her from working, made money off her, and basically holds her hostage to only eat on their "beautiful" campus. Sounds more like a prison. Yes it's a very nice prison, but still a prison.

That's always been a weird argument for me. Working is the equivalent of an athletic scholarship: both are a means to pay for school and living expenses. Any non-athlete student basically either works or relies on money from parents and/or savings. I don't see why scholarship athletes should be any different in that respect. (I.e., just because they can't get money from work sources, because of the well documented abuses by donors, doesn't mean they're any less likely to have their own funding sources.) Unless we're making it a cultural argument, which is a slippery slope.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

That's always been a weird argument for me. Working is the equivalent of an athletic scholarship: both are a means to pay for school and living expenses. Any non-athlete student basically either works or relies on money from parents and/or savings. I don't see why scholarship athletes should be any different in that respect. (I.e., just because they can't get money from work sources, because of the well documented abuses by donors, doesn't mean they're any less likely to have their own funding sources.) Unless we're making it a cultural argument, which is a slippery slope.

Yes, I think most student athletes on a full ride would have some family support or savings to pay for incidentals like a $6 chipotle.

Unfortunately the ones who don't probably do come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, or discriminated classes. All the more reason a small stipen would've been a good idea.

 

[handiman]

Yes, I think most student athletes on a full ride would have some family support or savings to pay for incidentals like a $6 chipotle.

Unfortunately the ones who don't probably do come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, or discriminated classes. All the more reason a small stipen would've been a good idea.

I'm not up to date on the rules, but as far as I know, there's always been more of a stipend in place than tends to get discussed. It varies by school and by sport, like most things.

 

[wizenheimer]

Yes there are child actors or artists, but record companies and movie studios are respectable organizations more above board.

when did that happen?

 

[wizenheimer]

I think the chances are that NIL will cause some significant erosion to the 'institutions' of NCAA sports. But it's been pretty obvious for a long time that the NCAA athletic framework has lots of dry rot and termites. Corruption and inconsistency with festering blind eyes everywhere. Where it's headed is anyone's guess, and football may be headed a different direction than other sports

but I'm wondering: might it be that NIL could actually help NCAA basketball? The one-and-done rule takes a lot of talent out of the NCAA pool every year. The lure of a potential NBA contract, or two-way contract, or even G-League contract, is enough to have dozens of players leaving college each year after one season. Might it be that NIL opportunities will keep a lot of these players with their college teams longer? There will be lots of players who don't have a good chance at an NBA career who are stars for their college teams. If they can earn as much, or more income from NIL as they could from a G-League or 2-way contract, the motivation to leave college might be a lot less

 

[THE HCP]

So what if her friends are going out? You never left the dorms or campus ever in college? Buying a $6 chipotle should be something every college student can afford. The NCAA banned her from working, made money off her, and basically holds her hostage to only eat on their "beautiful" campus. Sounds more like a prison. Yes it's a very nice prison, but still a prison.

Wow, the NCAA "banned....made money off of......hostage.....prison".

Funny thing is, right now I'm hoping a D1 school will treat our daughter the EXACT same way. Interesting you look at getting a free education so negatively.