It's uglier than you imagined: NIL

It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL (/thread-23046.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - martyup - 04-20-2022

If anyone thinks that these funds have any real connection to the actual value of a players name, image, or likeness . . .

What a farce!

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - fullmetal - 04-20-2022

(04-20-2022, 01:31 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: Any of these guys wanna throw $500k at my startup instead?

Are you plugged into the alumni angels & entrepreneurs network? https://stanfordaande.com/

Mudhead - Mudhead - 04-21-2022

(04-13-2022, 11:54 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The idea that boosters won't pay millions of dollars to land coveted high school recruits is so preposterous I can't even believe anyone would post such a thing.

Boosters raise most of the money to pay the bulk of coach salaries. And coaches are hired in large measure to recruit those coveted high school athletes. If they have the ability, why would boosters not cut to the chase and pay recruits directly?

NIL may be the "legal" vehicle by which athletes are compensated, but there is nothing that says any NIL deal has to be a smart business decision in terms of a business ROI. There are going to be legit endorsement deals that don't go beyond the market value of an endorsement deal. But there are absolutely going to be athletes who are compensated well above typical market rate in deals that have no intention of being business ROI positive, because they are really about paying an athlete to join a certain team, and there is a market for the talent.

The NCAA will still say schools aren't allowed to pay players to attend their program, but there is nothing in place that can prevent that from happening, so it will.

You cannot overestimate how much money boosters will pour into a football or basketball program to increase the probability that the team wins. It is not a business decision. It is not an investment. NIL deals will be (are?) viewed as contributions to the school without getting your name put on something . Outsider Fan is dead right..I wish it were t so but he is correct .

I have hope that some excellent athletes will value education over the NIL deal but, as has been observed, “hope is not a strategy”. Stanford will have to operate in this world and do so effectively or it will cut itself off of access to a high percentage (‘80%?) of the premier athletes coming out of high school.

With the transfer portal as open as it is, there is not the option to build a program by finding undiscovered talent and developing it for a few years. Eventually you will have to be competitive in the NIL marketplace

. I don’t like that fact. I wish it were not so . But it is.

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Maple Leaf - 04-21-2022

(04-13-2022, 11:54 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The idea that boosters won't pay millions of dollars to land coveted high school recruits is so preposterous I can't even believe anyone would post such a thing.

Boosters raise most of the money to pay the bulk of coach salaries. And coaches are hired in large measure to recruit those coveted high school athletes. If they have the ability, why would boosters not cut to the chase and pay recruits directly?

NIL may be the "legal" vehicle by which athletes are compensated, but there is nothing that says any NIL deal has to be a smart business decision in terms of a business ROI. There are going to be legit endorsement deals that don't go beyond the market value of an endorsement deal. But there are absolutely going to be athletes who are compensated well above typical market rate in deals that have no intention of being business ROI positive, because they are really about paying an athlete to join a certain team, and there is a market for the talent.

The NCAA will still say schools aren't allowed to pay players to attend their program, but there is nothing in place that can prevent that from happening, so it will.

Boosters have been paying players for years even on the West Coast, Univ. of Washington was very active in this environment back in the mid 1950's. Hugh McElhenny was one such recipient, it was said that he made more money playing at UDUB than with the 49ers during his rookie year.

W

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 04-22-2022

ICYMI...

The Men's Basketball POY Oscar Tshiebwe, a Junior at Kentucky, is returning instead of declaring for the NBA draft, because he isn't considered a lottery pick or even first round NBA pick, but also because he is getting a $2M NIL deal to do so.

I don't know if he would have returned absent NIL money, but the NIL deal sealed it. It seems to me Haase needs to get a similar NIL money option going for his players who want to leave after their freshman year and aren't lottery picks, like Harrison Ingram for example.

Just because I hate the NIL system, it doesn't mean I think anyone should universally disarm, or in this case, arm themselves for the new reality.

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - M T - 04-22-2022

And what about the in-between player who threatens to go pro? Raise your hands and hand over your wallet?

TreesAndBirds - TreesAndBirds - 04-22-2022

Query whether NIL payments will turn out to be in addition to what boosters/advertisers previously contributed/paid to athletic departments, or whether NIL expenditures will be a partial substitution for such payments.

Although I dont like whats going on with unregulated NIL, to the extent it results in a partial shift of money to athletes from athletic departments, I like that. Less spending on coaches salaries, staff and luxury locker rooms and a reasonable stipend to the athletes seems like a good answer.

I would support an NIL that paid Stanford athletes a reasonable sum each year they maintained a 3.0 average, with the bulk contingent on graduating (not that my support would move the needle). I think an NIL fund that embraced Stanford values could be created.

I dont think this would allow us to compete with the SEC etc, but it would allow us to provide something to those athletes who really value academics. And make clear what our #1 priority is.

RE: TreesAndBirds - OutsiderFan - 04-22-2022

(04-22-2022, 12:51 PM)TreesAndBirds Wrote: Query whether NIL payments will turn out to be in addition to what boosters/advertisers previously contributed/paid to athletic departments, or whether NIL expenditures will be a partial substitution for such payments.

Although I dont like whats going on with unregulated NIL, to the extent it results in a partial shift of money to athletes from athletic departments, I like that. Less spending on coaches salaries, staff and luxury locker rooms and a reasonable stipend to the athletes seems like a good answer.

I would support an NIL that paid Stanford athletes a reasonable sum each year they maintained a 3.0 average, with the bulk contingent on graduating (not that my support would move the needle). I think an NIL fund that embraced Stanford values could be created.

I dont think this would allow us to compete with the SEC etc, but it would allow us to provide something to those athletes who really value academics. And make clear what our #1 priority is.

By definition what is being spent on thing 1 can't be spent on thing 2, and if more money must be paid to athletes to get more talent, that money is going to go to athletes more than coaches and fancy facilities. I believe we have therefore seen the end of the coach salary escalation era.

It is foolish to pay a coach $10M per year "to be a great recruiter" when $8M will buy you the better players without all the hassle of traditional recruiting, and the coach can live on $2M per year. So we will see a re-setting of the coaching salary market, not just for Head Coaches, but also assistants, with the players getting a lot of money that used to go to coaches.

The fun is going to start when the boosters want different players than the coaches want, and the boosters control the money.

RE: TreesAndBirds - DC 86 - 04-22-2022

(04-22-2022, 01:01 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: By definition what is being spent on thing 1 can't be spent on thing 2, and if more money must be paid to athletes to get more talent, that money is going to go to athletes more than coaches and fancy facilities. I believe we have therefore seen the end of the coach salary escalation era.

In 2024 the SEC primary broadcast deal jumps from $55 million/year to $300 million/year. The new Big-X deal will bring a similarly dramatic increase in revenue, and the Pac-12 (while lower) is also in line for a significant bump as well. The stakes (and rewards) are higher than ever and besides maximizing broadcast revenue athletic departments are developing countless new ways of monetizing their football programs. The arms race is going to be more competitive than ever, and boosters paying players only puts more pressure on athletic departments to invest in their programs.

As you said, what is spent on one things can't be spent on another, but you're assuming that the amount of money available is static, which is far from being the case, in fact it's growing exponentially.

RE: Mudhead - 81alum - 04-22-2022

(04-21-2022, 06:09 AM)Mudhead Wrote: Stanford will have to operate in this world and do so effectively or it will cut itself off of access to a high percentage (‘80%?) of the premier athletes coming out of high school.

We won't have to operate in that world if we "go Ivy" and just get out of the business. That possibility grows and grows with each of these corrupting changes. Stanford is remarkable for walking the tightrope between being an elite academic institution and competing at the highest levels of athletics. But the tightrope has been cut through on both ends. In the long run, I don't see a way back.

I'm going to enjoy what we have while we have it. I used to worry a lot about what would happen after Tara retires, for example. I'm no longer worried, since she might coach until we get out of Div I or otherwise drop out of the arms race.

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 04-22-2022

Have any of y'all seen or heard anyone from Stanford - such as the President, AD, Shaw, Van DerVeer, or Haase - take a position on the notion Stanford may drop out of major college sports given NIL and paying athlete realities?

It seems to me Stanford isn't going to give up the revenue source being in Pac-12 provides, and some fans are just being pollyanna-ish about the fact they think Stanford is "above it all" and taking some sort of satisfaction at the idea of Stanford taking its ball and going home.

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 04-23-2022

Nobody has mentioned taking its ball and going home, but we did just try to get rid of a bunch of sports. I don’t think it will happen in the immediate future, but I could see it happening in a generation.

BC

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - ca245 - 04-29-2022

So this is how it's going to be like: NIL agents running the show?
"Better NIL or I leave"

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 04-29-2022

(04-29-2022, 10:21 AM)ca245 Wrote: So this is how it's going to be like: NIL agents running the show?
"Better NIL or I leave"

Pretty hard for CBS to sell March Madness as "amateur athletes just here for an education, isn't this neat," when they are really professionals, but not recognized as such by the NCAA, while our intelligence is insulted that the schools aren't paying them, but kind of are in a way.

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Goose - 04-29-2022

(04-29-2022, 11:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 10:21 AM)ca245 Wrote: So this is how it's going to be like: NIL agents running the show?
"Better NIL or I leave"

Pretty hard for CBS to sell March Madness as "amateur athletes just here for an education, isn't this neat," when they are really professionals, but not recognized as such by the NCAA, while our intelligence is insulted that the schools aren't paying them, but kind of are in a way.

Absolutely true IMHO.

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - 81alum - 04-29-2022

(04-22-2022, 02:42 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Have any of y'all seen or heard anyone from Stanford - such as the President, AD, Shaw, Van DerVeer, or Haase - take a position on the notion Stanford may drop out of major college sports given NIL and paying athlete realities?

It seems to me Stanford isn't going to give up the revenue source being in Pac-12 provides, and some fans are just being pollyanna-ish about the fact they think Stanford is "above it all" and taking some sort of satisfaction at the idea of Stanford taking its ball and going home.

Nope, I have no evidence that anyone in a position of power is publicly discussing this. But then they have every incentive not to voice these concerns until/unless they decide to make a change. Just talking about it openly would undermine the existing programs, so they won't until/unless they decide to get out.

And I do not think it is a forgone conclusion that they will--but if NIL, the disruption of the NCAA, transfer anarchy, etc. continue and worsen it will get harder and harder to keep both the academic standards and athletic competitiveness high. Stanford won't compromise more than it already has on its academic standards--it is not about to open up a revolving door to transfer students and it won't facilitate million dollar payola (oops, NIL) deals for individual students. So we will lose competitiveness. How much and how fast is the question, and will we fall far enough to provoke a pull-out? I'm thinking 5-10 years, unless ICA undergoes a massive, national reform that resets the whole conversation.

As for losing the revenue stream--my educated guess is that Stanford's ICA program is a significant money loser--that is why they were attempting to cut sports. All but about 10 universities in the nation that publish their finances lose money on their ICA programs. Stanford doesn't publish but I can't see a reason for why we would be in the same echelon as the Texas/Alabama/Ohio State/Notre Dame crowd.

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Goose - 04-29-2022

(04-29-2022, 02:10 PM)81alum Wrote: I'm thinking 5-10 years, unless ICA undergoes a massive, national reform that resets the whole conversation.

I am hanging my hopes on this one, not just for Stanford but for college sports in general. Even Alabama doesn't like the status quo. Hopefully there can arise some leadership somewhere to get a fix for these problems that everyone will live with.

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - fullmetal - 04-29-2022

A Stanford alum is developing a board game based on college football recruiting called "Envelopes of Cash."
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/envelopesofcash/envelopes-of-cash

The usual caveats about Kickstarter projects and marketing vs. reality definitely apply; I have not done due diligence on this project. But I thought it'd be appropriate to mention that there's a board game saying the quiet part out loud.

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 04-30-2022

(04-29-2022, 11:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 10:21 AM)ca245 Wrote: So this is how it's going to be like: NIL agents running the show?
"Better NIL or I leave"

Pretty hard for CBS to sell March Madness as "amateur athletes just here for an education, isn't this neat," when they are really professionals, but not recognized as such by the NCAA, while our intelligence is insulted that the schools aren't paying them, but kind of are in a way.

Oh, FFS, CBS lifted that fig leaf eons ago. NIL is the last nail in the coffin, but before that you had boosters paying for fake jobs, “tutors” doing the work for athletes, fake classes, athletes who were found to be functionally illiterate, one-and-dones, etc. Newsflash, nobody really cared; revealed preference showed that fans attendance and television consumption increased throughout the period.

I think the combination of NIL and the transfer portal has been brutal for my personal interest in collegiate athletics, but the numbers suggest that I am in the minority. But also, this has been brewing for as long as I’ve been a fan. At every point, individuals (coaches, players, etc.) and organizations (the NCAA and the schools) have made choices to maximize revenue over amateurism, academics, etc. I can’t really blame them, presented with similar options, I’m not sure I would have turned down “more” of everything. But the sum total of the composite actions is why we can’t really have nice things, like a truly amateur collegiate athletics that cared about the students more than it cared about TV.

Maybe it’s time to adopt a local D3 school and root for kids who really do it for the love of the game.

BC

RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - DC 86 - 04-30-2022

(04-29-2022, 10:21 AM)ca245 Wrote: So this is how it's going to be like: NIL agents running the show?
"Better NIL or I leave"

As regards college basketball, the shoe companies have been running the show for four decades, sponsoring AAU teams while paying players under the table, funneling those players to colleges they sponsor while continuing to pay under the table through assistant coaches. The big time schools that are the NIL capitals now lost their innocence long ago, as corroborated by those FBI tapes. Sonny Vaccaro was more powerful than any NIL agent ever will be. Let's not pretend that NIL is what professionalized the sport.