BlacknGold Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 Spent an hour on the flo show this morning complaining about NIL, while also trying to explain he wants students to "get payed what they are worth." Someone inform the guy he contradicts himself every other sentence 1
nhs67 Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 14 minutes ago, BlacknGold said: Spent an hour on the flo show this morning complaining about NIL, while also trying to explain he wants students to "get payed what they are worth." Someone inform the guy he contradicts himself every other sentence They aren't contradictions. NIL the way it is working now is that yes... these kids are getting paid... at certain schools or in certain situations. The Penn States, the Michigans, the Iowas... these schools can pay out the ass. In fact they can pay more than what these kids are actually worth. What he wants and is asking for is a standard system in which every kid gets what they're worth, not just the kids that are justifiably exploiting the system as it is currently designed. 2 "I know actually nothing. It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me
1032004 Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 I haven't watched today's yet but he has a point. I think in the past he's been in favor of athletes earning money from brands/companies etc. based off actually doing advertisements, etc. for them. But he's against "collectives" and whatnot just handing out cash for going to a certain school. Yes, you can make the argument that an NIL deal is worth "what someone is willing to pay," but in reality, 4th & 5th place finishers are not bringing in $200k+ of revenue or whatever the rumors have been. I think his follow up point is usually that after a few years and they realize they're not getting much return, that the money could dry up. 1
BlacknGold Posted June 19, 2023 Author Posted June 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, nhs67 said: They aren't contradictions. They are contradictions, but that's ok, we usually disagree on everything. Some schools will have more money and that's life. Can't level the playing field without hurting free market. What will you do, install a salary cap like pro sports? Or some other limitations? All that does is take money out of the students pockets The reason ncaa made changes in the 1st place was because sports programs were getting rich off athletes and the money wasn't being fairly shared with their performers. Now the money is being dished back and everyone throws a tantrum if it isn't their team first
BlacknGold Posted June 19, 2023 Author Posted June 19, 2023 10 minutes ago, 1032004 said: I haven't watched today's yet but he has a point. I think in the past he's been in favor of athletes earning money from brands/companies etc. based off actually doing advertisements, etc. for them. But he's against "collectives" and whatnot just handing out cash for going to a certain school. Yes, you can make the argument that an NIL deal is worth "what someone is willing to pay," but in reality, 4th & 5th place finishers are not bringing in $200k+ of revenue or whatever the rumors have been. I think his follow up point is usually that after a few years and they realize they're not getting much return, that the money could dry up. It doesn't matter who, when, where, why, or how. What you are offered is what you are worth. If Ben is against "collectives" than he's not for students "getting paid what they're worth" and utterly contradicting himself
DJT Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, BlacknGold said: The reason ncaa made changes in the 1st place was because sports programs were getting rich off athletes and the money wasn't being fairly shared with their performers. Now the money is being dished back and everyone throws a tantrum if it isn't their team first NCAA made the change because they were about to lose billions in anti-trust lawsuits and also feared student-athletes would begin unionizing. They rolled out NIL in a vague and chaotic manner (just telling schools to follow whatever the law was in their state, and if there wasn’t one, just make up some rules), likely on purpose in hopes that there would be chaos, and, ultimately, schools would beg the NCAA to take back control. Again, I don’t think this has much to do with people throwing tantrums about their teams not getting transfers, as it does with people acknowledging the chaos and need for some actual structure… Either that, or get rid of the NCAA and let college teams be semi-pro, allowing schools to pay kids directly.
billyhoyle Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, DJT said: NCAA made the change because they were about to lose billions in anti-trust lawsuits and also feared student-athletes would begin unionizing. They rolled out NIL in a vague and chaotic manner (just telling schools to follow whatever the law was in their state, and if there wasn’t one, just make up some rules), likely on purpose in hopes that there would be chaos, and, ultimately, schools would beg the NCAA to take back control. Again, I don’t think this has much to do with people throwing tantrums about their teams not getting transfers, as it does with people acknowledging the chaos and need for some actual structure… Either that, or get rid of the NCAA and let college teams be semi-pro, allowing schools to pay kids directly. There is no way to let athletes make money off of endorsements without it being abused like this. The disaster that is NIL was obvious since day 1. Once the idea of a free college education was devalued to the point where people viewed college athletes as needing significantly more $$ on top, the entire concept of NCAA sports became pointless. I agree that the courts forced this on the NCAA, but there is no way more to have a functioning version of NIL without socializing it across all athletes regardless of team, which would also be illegal. Edited June 19, 2023 by billyhoyle
ionel Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 (edited) 27 minutes ago, BlacknGold said: It doesn't matter who, when, where, why, or how. What you are offered is what you are worth. If Ben is against "collectives" than he's not for students "getting paid what they're worth" and utterly contradicting himself Being against "collectives" doesn't mean you are against student athletes being paid what they are worth. Collectives as they are being used by some dont really align with NCAA rules (or maybe IRS) and are being used to recruit kids over and above the 9.9 instead of for image value. It's like how some programs used camp money (and later RTC) after a scholarship to get a kid and then ask him to take a reduction (will make it up when you get here wink wink) to then offer another kid that scholarship money thus getting around the 9.9. I have seen good examples (commercials) of kids with likeness value but explain how a HS wrestler with no known market value can be worth a $500k offer? Edited June 19, 2023 by ionel .
BlacknGold Posted June 19, 2023 Author Posted June 19, 2023 1 minute ago, DJT said: ultimately, schools would beg the NCAA to take back control. Is that what's happening already? Sounds like it to me. None of this makes sense from a "let them get payed what they're worth" perspective. Ben wants students to get paid, but NOT if the money is coming from a bunch of rich guys, only if you can find the money elsewhere, THEN he's all for it. Makes no sense. Are the programs supposed to put together car wash events to make money for the program? The only way to change this NIL free market would be by creating limitations, which would only take money out of students pockets. So you guys keep saying you want them to get paid but only under certain conditions, only if your favorite program gets the exact playing field or equal amount of resources as top programs with more sponsorship. Just sounds petty. You either want them to get payed or you don't, can't be on the fence
BlacknGold Posted June 19, 2023 Author Posted June 19, 2023 4 minutes ago, billyhoyle said: I agree that the courts forced this on the NCAA, but there is no way more to have a functioning version of NIL without socializing it across all athletes regardless of team, which would also be illegal. That's exactly what I'm saying. Can't change it without massive interference of free market and creating limitations, which takes money away from students ultimately
BlacknGold Posted June 19, 2023 Author Posted June 19, 2023 3 minutes ago, ionel said: Being against "collectives" doesn't mean you are against student athletes being paid what they are worth. Collectives as they are being used by some dont really align with NCAA rules (or maybe IRS) and are being used to recruit kids over and above the 9.9 instead of for image value. It's like how some programs used camp money (and later RTC) after a scholarship to get a kid and then ask him to take a reduction (will make it up when you get here wink wink) to then offer another kid that scholarship money thus getting around the 9.9. I have seen good examples (commercials) of kids with likeness value but explain how a HS wrestler with no know market value can be worth a $500k offer? Without collectives, student make less money
ionel Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, BlacknGold said: Without collectives, student make less money So collectives also help academic students (non athletes)? .
VakAttack Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 57 minutes ago, nhs67 said: They aren't contradictions. NIL the way it is working now is that yes... these kids are getting paid... at certain schools or in certain situations. The Penn States, the Michigans, the Iowas... these schools can pay out the ass. In fact they can pay more than what these kids are actually worth. What he wants and is asking for is a standard system in which every kid gets what they're worth, not just the kids that are justifiably exploiting the system as it is currently designed. Based on the free market ideals Ben claims to believe in, you are worth whatever somebody will pay you. 1
1032004 Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 9 minutes ago, BlacknGold said: That's exactly what I'm saying. Can't change it without massive interference of free market and creating limitations, which takes money away from students ultimately Basically the NCAA's whole argument previously was that more of the value is in the name of the school, not the specific players. By having these offers illegally tied to attendance at a certain school, they are pretty much being proven correct. 1
BlacknGold Posted June 19, 2023 Author Posted June 19, 2023 I'm all for it. Any amount that was offered this offseason and MORE. I hope Shane Griffith got a new Lamborghini for going to Michigan
BlacknGold Posted June 19, 2023 Author Posted June 19, 2023 These kids earned any amount they're being offered. Collectives or not
DJT Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 5 minutes ago, BlacknGold said: These kids earned any amount they're being offered. Collectives or not And when a kid signs an NIL contract with the Swarm Collective, then goes to Minnesota but demands Swarm to honor the contract, how will you feel? Sure, he might have to drive down to IC to visit the children’s hospital a couple times to get his $100k, but whatever.
VakAttack Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 People are conflating what an athletes services are worth vs. the actual monetary value they generate. We're in a non-revenue sport. Very few of the athletes generate actual profits. But, to a booster, an athlete at their school earning AA or helping to a team trophy/team title may have more value to them than straight dollars and cents. We do this all the time in society. 1
Idaho Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 1 hour ago, BlacknGold said: The only way to change this NIL free market would be by creating limitations, which would only take money out of students pockets. So you guys keep saying you want them to get paid but only under certain conditions, only if your favorite program gets the exact playing field or equal amount of resources as top programs with more sponsorship. Just sounds petty. You either want them to get payed or you don't, can't be on the fence 2 hours ago, BlacknGold said: Can't level the playing field without hurting free market. What will you do, install a salary cap like pro sports? Or some other limitations? 1 hour ago, BlacknGold said: That's exactly what I'm saying. Can't change it without massive interference of free market and creating limitations, which takes money away from students ultimately Why do pro sports have salary caps, revenue sharing and competitive balance? If you want to be treated like a pro athlete by earning money and being able to unionize, be prepared for what comes with that. Sponsored by INTERMAT
1032004 Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 36 minutes ago, VakAttack said: People are conflating what an athletes services are worth vs. the actual monetary value they generate. We're in a non-revenue sport. Very few of the athletes generate actual profits. But, to a booster, an athlete at their school earning AA or helping to a team trophy/team title may have more value to them than straight dollars and cents. We do this all the time in society. Can you provide some other examples where "we do this all the time in society"? I know it happens, the closest I can think of is maybe memorabilia, but I'm not sure if it happens "all the time," at least not to this extent where people are paying many times more than what the overwhelming majority of people would pay for something. Some would probably argue real estate but I'd disagree with that except for maybe a few exceptions.
VakAttack Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 13 minutes ago, 1032004 said: Can you provide some other examples where "we do this all the time in society"? I know it happens, the closest I can think of is maybe memorabilia, but I'm not sure if it happens "all the time," at least not to this extent where people are paying many times more than what the overwhelming majority of people would pay for something. Some would probably argue real estate but I'd disagree with that except for maybe a few exceptions. Anything we assign sentimental value to. Charitable donations. Sports memorabilia was a good example. Pretty much any collectible. The current crypto boomlet/NFTs. The point being the calculus isn't always how much you are paying out vs how much you are bringing in for every transaction. 1
ionel Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 1 hour ago, VakAttack said: People are conflating what an athletes services are worth vs. the actual monetary value they generate. We're in a non-revenue sport. Very few of the athletes generate actual profits. But, to a booster, an athlete at their school earning AA or helping to a team trophy/team title may have more value to them than straight dollars and cents. We do this all the time in society. I have some beach front property in central Kansas for sale. I'd think said rich booster would get a lot of value by being able to say they own beach front property. Can someone tell me how to contact these potential buyers? .
1032004 Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 25 minutes ago, VakAttack said: Anything we assign sentimental value to. Charitable donations. Sports memorabilia was a good example. Pretty much any collectible. The current crypto boomlet/NFTs. The point being the calculus isn't always how much you are paying out vs how much you are bringing in for every transaction. Charitable donations is probably a good comparison. That's basically what a 4th place wrestler getting $200K would be...
VakAttack Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 5 minutes ago, 1032004 said: Charitable donations is probably a good comparison. That's basically what a 4th place wrestler getting $200K would be... If I pay one of my children $20 to clean her room (I have all girls), I'm not getting $20 worth of work. There's countless examples, like I said. I don't think most people would claim that their investments in these kinds of deals generate commensurate profits. There are...collateral values. Or non-financial benefits. That kind of thing.
ionel Posted June 19, 2023 Posted June 19, 2023 4 minutes ago, VakAttack said: If I pay one of my children $20 to clean her room (I have all girls), I'm not getting $20 worth of work. There's countless examples, like I said. I don't think most people would claim that their investments in these kinds of deals generate commensurate profits. There are...collateral values. Or non-financial benefits. That kind of thing. This is a good example but I'd say its not image & likeness. These donors are not paying for image and likeness value they are just trying to buy a team which they were trying to do 30/50 years ago. It was against the NCAA rules then and still is but now the NCAA can not really do anything about it. .
Recommended Posts