Good article about the current state of NIL in WBB

[#1LVLS MAN 4 LIFE]

This ia a clip that may add some thoughts about this issue.

 

[Majors]

I don't doubt that Olivia is a talented gymnast, but she's the "Anna Kournikova" of her sport: an elite player who's fame transcends her results on the floor. Finishing 6th is an impressive accomplishment, but she's more famous than whoever finished 1-5, and it's not because of her proficiency in the sport.

So which part is wrong? She earned her praise/proficiency in the sport prior to NIL. Created a brand and increased her value…isn’t that the point of NIL. No doubt she’s more famous now because of her social media, which majority has no idea about gymnastics including myself. But the purpose of businesses of NIL is to compensate players for media reach to a wide audience. Not just to make kids happy and stay to win games. Both are ways to do it. Two of the others that finished ahead are in the top 10 for female athletes with their social media footprint falling well short . Not that it matters, Anna at 15 was playing against adult professionals. I’ll cut her slack for not having a childhood and people wanting her to fail.

 

[Amb3096]

While it's true that Hailey Van Lith is an excellent athlete, that's not the reason she's getting big NIL bucks.

As said on this video...women's basketball, women's volleyball and women's gymnastics athletes leading the field in NIL $$$s is for reasons other than the sports themselves. I don't think it's boosters shelling out big bucks to get them to go play for their designated school.

 

[Amb3096]

So which part is wrong? She earned her praise/proficiency in the sport prior to NIL. Created a brand and increased her value…isn’t that the point of NIL. No doubt she’s more famous now because of her social media, which majority has no idea about gymnastics including myself. But the purpose of businesses of NIL is to compensate players for media reach to a wide audience. Not just to make kids happy and stay to win games. Both are ways to do it. Two of the others that finished ahead are in the top 10 for female athletes with their social media footprint falling well short . Not that it matters, Anna at 15 was playing against adult professionals. I’ll cut her slack for not having a childhood and people wanting her to fail.

Your comment about the other two less well known gymnasts with better results than Olivia is my point. The "athlete" component is not the most important part of the equation for NIL potential, and in some cases is not even relevant at all. I'm all for Olivia making bank on her brand; more power to her. My point is that her fame and NIL potential has very little to do with her being a good gymnast. It's 95% (probably more) based on her looks. And if she can cash in on it, then there's no reason she should be held back. I used her as an example of who companies want to spend NIL dollars on: it's the marketable players, not necessarily the best ones. So that's why I don't think NIL will move the needle at all with regards to women's basketball, because there aren't that many players...at last yet...who have the right combination of looks and marketing smarts to create a profitable brand for themselves like Olivia has done...and she didn't need gymnastics to do it.

RE: Kournikova. Turning pro at 15 was pretty common in women's tennis: Graf, Evert, Sabatini, Hingis, Serena, Venus, etc. The issue wasn't her age; it's that she wasn't as good as the other players. She was still an extremely good player though, but her endorsements weren't because she was ranked #8 in the world.

 

[Rooster1]

There are a lot of intangibles in these comparisions. Private schools have better alumni networks but the real advantages kick in when you go for a graduate degree. The NPV on UG degrees actually favors state universities. Here is one such comparison for Ivy League and I would assume Stanford has a similar profile:

Is an Ivy League Degree Worthwhile?

Honestly, the equation is different for elite athletes because they build other kind of capital. Would Kara Lawson have been better off playing at Harvard or UT? Harvard would have given her a more prestigious UG degree but the national exposure from the LV program opened up other kinds of doors.

But my original point was simply that the curriculum and skills you gain from an UG degree in say communications at Stanford is not going to be much different from Tennessee. UG programs are really quite standardized.

I didn't have to get far into that article to see the big red flags........specifically it states that a graduate from a public university starts off with higher average pay than an Ivy League graduate. Come on.

 

[Majors]

Your comment about the other two less well known gymnasts with better results than Olivia is my point. The "athlete" component is not the most important part of the equation for NIL potential, and in some cases is not even relevant at all. I'm all for Olivia making bank on her brand; more power to her. My point is that her fame and NIL potential has very little to do with her being a good gymnast. It's 95% (probably more) based on her looks. And if she can cash in on it, then there's no reason she should be held back. I used her as an example of who companies want to spend NIL dollars on: it's the marketable players, not necessarily the best ones. So that's why I don't think NIL will move the needle at all with regards to women's basketball, because there aren't that many players...at last yet...who have the right combination of looks and marketing smarts to create a profitable brand for themselves like Olivia has done...and she didn't need gymnastics to do it.

RE: Kournikova. Turning pro at 15 was pretty common in women's tennis: Graf, Evert, Sabatini, Hingis, Serena, Venus, etc. The issue wasn't her age; it's that she wasn't as good as the other players. She was still an extremely good player though, but her endorsements weren't because she was ranked #8 in the world.

She catapulted (no pun) her brand using her athletic platform. So we established the others aren’t as gifted in looks, but better in 2017 athletes…although still making more money in NIL than most male or female.

 

[Amb3096]

She catapulted (no pun) her brand using her athletic platform. So we established the others aren’t as gifted in looks, but better in 2017 athletes…although still making more money in NIL than most male or female.

I'm guessing Suni Lee was one of the 2 gymnasts you mentioned? She may not have as many followers as Olivia does, but she's got a solid following and has built a good brand for herself. She's doing pretty well for herself in the NIL landscape from what I understand, and seems to be showcasing her...other assets in addition to her medals.

I'm all for whoever capitalizing on whatever they got going on for NIL. I think that it's place in women's college sports is a lot different than men's, since there will be a subset of women deemed more "marketable" than their male colleagues for reasons other than sports.

 

[Majors]

I'm guessing Suni Lee was one of the 2 gymnasts you mentioned? She may not have as many followers as Olivia does, but she's got a solid following and has built a good brand for herself. She's doing pretty well for herself in the NIL landscape from what I understand, and seems to be showcasing her...other assets in addition to her medals.

I'm all for whoever capitalizing on whatever they got going on for NIL. I think that it's place in women's college sports is a lot different than men's, since there will be a subset of women deemed more "marketable" than their male colleagues for reasons other than sports.

Suni wasn’t one of them…but she is #2 doing very well.

 

[madtownvol]

I didn't have to get far into that article to see the big red flags........specifically it states that a graduate from a public university starts off with higher average pay than an Ivy League graduate. Come on.

Not a red flag at all. Ivy League schools have a higher proportion of humanities majors in their undergrad programs which lowers their respective average starting salaries. Remember we are talking about Bachelors degrees. Starbucks pays the same salary to creative writing majors whether their degree is from Yale or Tennessee.

The same articles show that the other private schools (like Stanford or Duke) have the highest starting salaries, followed by state schools (which load onto engineering, business, and tech), and then the Ivy Leagues. The key factor is that all are within a few thousand dollars of each other. This fact is no secret in the education, If you are looking for best financial value (and there are other considerations in choosing a school), your best option is to go to a good state school and then a more elite private for grad school.

 

[Rooster1]

Not a red flag at all. Ivy League schools have a higher proportion of humanities majors in their undergrad programs which lowers their respective average starting salaries. Remember we are talking about Bachelors degrees. Starbucks pays the same salary to creative writing majors whether their degree is from Yale or Tennessee.

The same articles show that the other private schools (like Stanford or Duke) have the highest starting salaries, followed by state schools (which load onto engineering, business, and tech), and then the Ivy Leagues. The key factor is that all are within a few thousand dollars of each other. This fact is no secret in the education, If you are looking for best financial value (and there are other considerations in choosing a school), your best option is to go to a good state school and then a more elite private for grad school.

Oh geeze, now I gotta go dig up the real numbers. You gotta know better Mad.

 

[Rooster1]

A study conducted by the US Department of Education revealed that graduates with a bachelors degree had an average income of $54,700 and those with a masters degree or higher had an income of $65,000 per annum.
Although having a college degree increases your salary, statistically, attending a university in the Ivy League can improve it even more. Here are the numbers:

Average Income of Ivy League Undergraduates
Average Salary per annum Brown$67,500, Columbia$83,300, Cornell$77,200, Dartmouth$75,500, Harvard$89,700, Penn$85,500, Princeton$74,700, Yale$83,200.

If you attend an Ivy League, you have the potential to secure an above-average salary. Except for MIT, Harvard graduates make more money after college than graduates from any other college.

This chart shows how much more Ivy League grads make than you - The Washington Post

How Much Is an Ivy League Degree Worth? | Best Colleges | U.S. News (usnews.com)

 

[madtownvol]

I never questioned that those with a bachelors degree earn more on average than those with only a high school or associate degree. Not sure what your point is in regard to the first link.

Per the US News link, their averages, like the link I originally cited, are based on Payscale data. So, I was puzzled by this discrepancy and then, on closer inspection, I saw that the averages reported in my link were calculated for the top 8 schools in each category. So, for state schools that would likely Cal-Berkeley, Michigan,Virginia etc., whose reps are reasonably close to private schools. Your link is based on a broader sample so in that sense those numbers are more representative.

But in the end, your link largely concurs with the implication of my prior posts:

Payscale's College Salary Report consistently shows that graduates from these prestigious Ivy League universities have high earnings that outrank other graduates," PayScale data analyst Jackson Gruver wrote in a statement. "However, large public universities dominate our College ROI rankings, demonstrating that one does not need an Ivy League education to optimize the value received from their college experience."

 

[Rooster1]

I never questioned that those with a bachelors degree earn more on average than those with only a high school or associate degree. Not sure what your point is in regard to the first link.

Per the US News link, their averages, like the link I originally cited, are based on Payscale data. So, I was puzzled by this discrepancy and then, on closer inspection, I saw that the averages reported in my link were calculated for the top 8 schools in each category. So, for state schools that would likely Cal-Berkeley, Michigan,Virginia etc., whose reps are reasonably close to private schools. Your link is based on a broader sample so in that sense those numbers are more representative.

But in the end, your link largely concurs with the implication of my prior posts:

Mad, you need to reread, your comprehension was off. Also, it was always foolish to think graduates of state schools make more in starting salary than Ivy League grads…..geeze Louise.

 

[37620VOL]

Mad, you need to reread, your comprehension was off. Also, it was always foolish to think graduates of state schools make more in starting salary than Ivy League grads…..geeze Louise.

For it to be a true comparison you would need to compare Harvard Business vs Haslam College of Business. Public universities have too many fluff majors which drags down their averages. The average still probably leans to the Ivy's but I'd guess that's due to "degree nepotism" that occurs at the big banks and fortune 500 companies. I'd be interested to know which schools turn out the best entrepreneurs.

 

[Max Roguespierre]

This is a clip that may add some thoughts about this issue.

Emmert is a reprobate huckster.

 

[MadMaxSC]

There is a big reason beyond tradition. High profile sports teams are major marketing tools. Successful football and basketball programs attract students and their tuition dollars. It has been that way for a long but more so now than ever. Universities and colleges everywhere are very nervous about the long term threat posed by lower cost and more convenient on-line options for higher education. In response, they are selling the "college experience" and athletics is a big part of that.

I am quite confident that the university and college system we know is going to look very different in the next twenty. The current model is just not sustainable in this new technological environment with on-line alternatives multiplying rapidly. At minimum, there will be a huge consolidation of schools. I could envision a world where most people get their education through lower cost on-line means and the remaining universities and private colleges go back to their original mission of catering to the rich. I don't think it will be NILs that end college sports as we know them but the bigger disruptions in higher ed. College sports may spin off into feeder leagues for the pros, without the direct tie to universities.

You make some good points but, European Universities don't depend on sports revenue to exist. They are "State Funded" or donor funded. They believe the ROI on education is much better than the ROI on sports.
You are 100% right about the landscape changing over the next 20 years. If I am still around I probably won't be lucid enough to know or care.