NIL has already begun to get out of hand

#251
#251
volfanbill said:
So what business model is this you speak of? A bigger playoff?
Click to expand...
05_never_again said:
I did read the thread. Not being a smartass but didn't really catch a reason, just that you thought it would ruin college sports and players would complain if they didn't get deals.
Click to expand...
It's all good. Not trying to persuade anyone, it's just my belief. The entire money grab is going to change things dramaticly.
I don't want to see college players holding out for more money, or making enough to say "I'm done for the year."
When a new "super division" comes of age, the G5 schools will turn into what FCS is now and FCS will turn into D2. I just don't want to see it change like that. I'll adapt, but I don't have to like it. And, it's already trickeling down to HS.
 
#252
#252
peaygolf said:
I'm for capitalisim as well, but not at the expense of ruining what you already have.
Just because somethin can be done, doesn't always mean it should be done.
Click to expand...
You are thinking about it backwards. We ruined capitalism before with the limits, this is the fix. The stupid NCAA was too greedy to make the changes necessary on their end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again and Lawrence Wright
#253
#253
peaygolf said:
It's all good. Not trying to persuade anyone, it's just my belief. The entire money grab is going to change things dramaticly.
I don't want to see college players holding out for more money, or making enough to say "I'm done for the year."
When a new "super division" comes of age, the G5 schools will turn into what FCS is now and FCS will turn into D2. I just don't want to see it change like that. I'll adapt, but I don't have to like it. And, it's already trickeling down to HS.
Click to expand...
Even without direct money we see players holding themselves out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#255
#255
peaygolf said:
It's all good. Not trying to persuade anyone, it's just my belief. The entire money grab is going to change things dramaticly.
I don't want to see college players holding out for more money, or making enough to say "I'm done for the year."
When a new "super division" comes of age, the G5 schools will turn into what FCS is now and FCS will turn into D2. I just don't want to see it change like that. I'll adapt, but I don't have to like it. And, it's already trickeling down to HS.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but the old model where they could not even sell their NIL was not feasible for a modern era. When the NCAA initially came up with all their rules, nobody could have imagined 100 years from then what college sports would turn into. The rules made sense then, when college athletics was in its infancy.

However, in 2021 when the sports these kids play bring in hundreds of millions of dollars, is there a compelling argument against, for example, barring them from signing autographs for money? Or appearing in an ad for money? I don't think there is. I personally don't consider "Well, they might waste the money" to be a compelling argument. You could say that about any enterprise where people make money, and of course personal responsibility has to come into play.

I still buy the notion that a model where the schools themselves make direct payments to players is unfeasible, but I do not really see how you can argue with a straight face anymore that a student-athlete shouldn't be able to appear in an ad for a company, for example, and be compensated for it. The days of Todd Gurley being suspended 4 games because he was paid $3k to sign some memorabilia are over, and that is not a bad thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182 and Lawrence Wright
#256
#256
05_never_again said:
I hear you, but the old model where they could not even sell their NIL was not feasible for a modern era. When the NCAA initially came up with all their rules, nobody could have imagined 100 years from then what college sports would turn into. The rules made sense then, when college athletics was in its infancy.

However, in 2021 when the sports these kids play bring in hundreds of millions of dollars, is there a compelling argument against, for example, barring them from signing autographs for money? Or appearing in an ad for money? I don't think there is. I personally don't consider "Well, they might waste the money" to be a compelling argument. You could say that about any enterprise where people make money, and of course personal responsibility has to come into play.

I still buy the notion that a model where the schools themselves make direct payments to players is unfeasible, but I do not really see how you can argue with a straight face anymore that a student-athlete shouldn't be able to appear in an ad for a company, for example, and be compensated for it. The days of Todd Gurley being suspended 4 games because he was paid $3k to sign some memorabilia are over, and that is not a bad thing.
Click to expand...
no,no,no....

I'm not saying the players shouldn't be allowed to make money, or there should be rule saying they can't. I am only saying that I don't like the fact things ARE going to change. I don't want the greed to hurt the game.

In my utopia, they can make all they want....and the game stay the same as it is now. (Pipe dream):confused:

I know this is the NIL thread, and my original post was about it already trickling down to HS, but my main beef with the "money grab" is with the schools and conferences and the play-offs.
 
Last edited:
#257
#257
peaygolf said:
no,no,no....

I'm not saying the players shouldn't be allowed to make money, or there should be rule saying they can't. I am only saying that I don't like the fact things ARE going to change. I don't the greed to hurt the game.

In my utopia, they can make all they want....and the game stay the same as it is now. (Pipe dream):confused:

I know this is the NIL thread, and my original post was about it already trickling down to HS, but my main beef with the "money grab" is with the schools and conferences and the play-offs.
Click to expand...
Stuff is always changing though man, even if you don't realize it. The version of college football that you grew up with (whichever one it was, I don't know how old you are) was much different than the version that existed 25 years before that one, and I'm sure at that time people were lamenting that the sport was changing and they didn't like it.

Money changes things. Every individual on this board has played a part in it. We're on an internet message board talking about it. We attend games. We watch the games on TV. We buy apparel with the school logo on it. Billions of dollars get injected into the sport that the founders of the NCAA never imagined.

It seems like you can have the version of college athletics that we have today, or you can go back to when they were basically glorified intramurals. You can't really have a form of the sport that has both though...a version that has the bells and whistles of today (100k seat stadiums, every game on TV, etc) but with players who are there purely "for the love of the game."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182
#258
#258
05_never_again said:
Stuff is always changing though man, even if you don't realize it. The version of college football that you grew up with (whichever one it was, I don't know how old you are) was much different than the version that existed 25 years before that one, and I'm sure at that time people were lamenting that the sport was changing and they didn't like it.

Money changes things. Every individual on this board has played a part in it. We're on an internet message board talking about it. We attend games. We watch the games on TV. We buy apparel with the school logo on it. Billions of dollars get injected into the sport that the founders of the NCAA never imagined.

It seems like you can have the version of college athletics that we have today, or you can go back to when they were basically glorified intramurals. You can't really have a form of the sport that has both though...a version that has the bells and whistles of today (100k seat stadiums, every game on TV, etc) but with players who are there purely "for the love of the game."
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct.....I do wish it was the way it used to be............ Sugar Bowl was the ultimate prize for the SEC. Rose Bowl or bust for Pac-10 and Big 10. I'm being the old guy saying, "Back in my day....." I know that.:confused:
I know things change,. I'm showing my age (51), but I personally liked it better then. I'll adapt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#260
#260
Lawrence Wright said:
Then you’re not for capitalism.

You can’t be in favor of someone maximizing their earning potential, then place limits on it because it affects you or me as fans/consumers.
Click to expand...
Ironically, this is not about capitalism. If pro leagues didn’t have anti-trust exemptions from congress (inherently anti capitalist - or crony capitalism as they say - government interference) then you’d see less of this. Are you in favor of congress revoking anti-trust exemptions for the pro leagues?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#261
#261
05_never_again said:
I hear you, but the old model where they could not even sell their NIL was not feasible for a modern era. When the NCAA initially came up with all their rules, nobody could have imagined 100 years from then what college sports would turn into. The rules made sense then, when college athletics was in its infancy.

However, in 2021 when the sports these kids play bring in hundreds of millions of dollars, is there a compelling argument against, for example, barring them from signing autographs for money? Or appearing in an ad for money? I don't think there is. I personally don't consider "Well, they might waste the money" to be a compelling argument. You could say that about any enterprise where people make money, and of course personal responsibility has to come into play.

I still buy the notion that a model where the schools themselves make direct payments to players is unfeasible, but I do not really see how you can argue with a straight face anymore that a student-athlete shouldn't be able to appear in an ad for a company, for example, and be compensated for it. The days of Todd Gurley being suspended 4 games because he was paid $3k to sign some memorabilia are over, and that is not a bad thing.
Click to expand...
There isn’t a problem with amateurism. The problem is that it’s only enforced on the athletes while others get insanely rich. The NCAA didn’t initially set up a system with that intent but that’s what it became, in part due to the popularity of the model, which is a catch 22 for the ncaa. They change that model and it will undoubtedly lead to an overall decline jn popularity of the sport. But it is what it is.

Also, not only is it feasible but it will 100% happen where schools make direct payment to the players. There is no way around it. I’d the school brings in tens of millions of dollars in revenues and can directly pay the head coach millions, then it will also pay the athletes. No amount of scholarships, room and board or whatever will come close. That has to be understood before anyone can have a valid take on this situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182 and DuckInAPen
#264
#264
n_huffhines said:
Just two months ago somebody here said allowing athletes to get paid would just result in the rich (future NFL/NBA stars) getting richer and nothing changing for everybody else. Well, Fulky got a sponsorship.

Click to expand...

I never understood that line of thinking. However, on a smaller scale it’s true. The star players of varying schools, or homegrown feel good story kids will get all the deals. Others will get nothing. Except it’s mostly a regional thing, not a national thing like many predicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vol66
#265
#265
Christian Lowe said:
I never understood that line of thinking. However, on a smaller scale it’s true. The star players of varying schools, or homegrown feel good story kids will get all the deals. Others will get nothing. Except it’s mostly a regional thing, not a national thing like many predicted.
Click to expand...
For a very, very small number of players, it will turn into a national thing (Heisman winners, etc.). But most of the deals will be local legends like Fulky.

The deals for true freshmen who have never played a down will cool off over time; for every kid that ends up becoming a great player, 10 will crash and burn.
 
#266
#266
I really hope we got business in town willing to do this for a ton of five stars.

About to see who really wants to win.
 
#271
#271
n_huffhines said:
This is so awesome. 36 scholarships paid for by Built. Look at all the good freedom creates.

Click to expand...

Man f those kids. College football is ruined forever. Forever

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lawrence Wright
#273
#273
volsknx said:
Miami booster offers $540,000 NIL endorsement deal to all Hurricanes scholarship football players

Welcome corporate sponsorship.

I'm wondering if Universities will lose a funding source if money begins to flow to the kids instead of the schools. Companies may be more relegated to put resources into a move "visible" source of advertising.
Click to expand...

Wait until the dude is a bust or suffers a season ending injury. Id say both players and sponsors are going to get screwed.
 
#274
#274
RDU VOL#14 said:
Maybe **** em, but I still think there needs to be some regulations. Pro athletes don’t have as much freedom as college athletes right now. Yes the chickens are coming home to roost, but I don’t want this to be the detriment to the game.
Click to expand...

The game is already screwed. Players can leave anytime, no loyalty, the games are 5 hours long due to commercials, migjt as well pay the players.
 
#275
#275
Can't wait for someone to play holier than thou when fans get critical of these "professional" players when they play a crappy game. These aren't amateur athletes anymore. Fair game now?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top