Quinn Ewers to enroll early in a few days and forego senior season... Wow..Just wow!!!!!

[TheDirector]

It is my opinion. Doesn't have to be yours. And that's ok.

I respect your opinion I'm just intrigued as to why you think this way. How is finishing high school and graduating early considered "screwing HS?" If someone graduates HS early and goes to Harvard is that "screwing HS?" Once you graduate you are free to move on to college IMHO. There are kids that reclassify to a year earlier recruiting class all the time because they have worked hard and graduated early. Again I'm not trying to come off as rude I'm just curious as to why you feel he is screwing his HS and why you wish him bad luck?

 

[golfballs]

1) People tune in for the school and entertainment, not because of “amateurism”…who the hell cheers for amateurism? Wasnt it more fun having the dream team than a hodge of college seniors?

2) If people are tuning into watch the players, how comes the coaches don’t have to deal with amateurism but the players do?

3) What’s changing? Tennessee is still gonna run through the T. They will still play Rocky Top. It’s still orange. They didn’t ban tackling. Just might see players in a couple that ads instead.

1) A lot of people do. There are a large number of people in this country who prefer amateur college athletics to professional sports.
2) The amateurism rule was for competitive reasons. The coach doesn't play. There were never rules set on this by the NCAA.
3) Just look to any of the reasons people prefer college sports to professional sports. Professionalism is a different beast. We'll hear about unions, and collective bargaining, etc.

Again, people can have different opinions on this without either being unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable for people not wanting to see something they like to change. I also don’t see how that has anything to do with “conservative types”

 

[05_never_again]

I don't see anyone making this argument. I don't think anyone would care if he went out and made money playing football out of high school. People don't really seem to care that high school baseball players can sign pro contracts. But more to the point, they also don't want to see college athletics become professionalized. I don't think those are at odds or that unreasonable .

What is your best argument against college football players being banned from selling their NIL? I don't consider "it's different than how it used to be" or "I don't like it" to be cogent arguments.

IMO, if you don't want college athletes to be able to sell their NIL, the sport needs to go back to what it was when the NCAA was founded 100+ years ago, which is basically glorified intramurals. Their rules of amateurism make total sense in that case.

If you want the modern version of the game, with 100k seat stadiums, every game on national TV, fan paraphernalia for sale everywhere, etc., it's really hard to justify why they shouldn't be allowed to make some dough by appearing in an ad on Instagram. NCAA rules barring players getting paid kind of lose their point once the sports in question start generating billions of dollars.

 

[golfballs]

What is your best argument against college football players being banned from selling their NIL? I don't consider "it's different than how it used to be" or "I don't like it" to be cogent arguments.

IMO, if you don't want college athletes to be able to sell their NIL, the sport needs to go back to what it was when the NCAA was founded 100+ years ago, which is basically glorified intramurals. Their rules of amateurism make total sense in that case.

If you want the modern version of the game, with 100k seat stadiums, every game on national TV, fan paraphernalia for sale everywhere, etc., it's really hard to justify why they shouldn't be allowed to make some dough by appearing in an ad on Instagram. NCAA rules barring players getting paid kind of lose their point once the sports in question start generating billions of dollars.

This doesn't really relate to what your post is about that I replied to. You said "conservative groups" are opposed to him getting paid. Which is kind of a dumb generalization, not relevant to the issue, and further I don't think it's even true. They just don't want it to be in college.

 

[golfballs]

And to your last point, it actually doesn't support the argument. Athletic departments around the country are where they are because they generate massive amounts of money without paying commensurate compensation to those actually playing. You start to take some of that away from the universities and they won't be able to afford all that they have typically paid for. So if anything it puts the "modern version" of the game more at risk, than it does to support it.

 

[zjcvols]

1) A lot of people do. There are a large number of people in this country who prefer amateur college athletics to professional sports.
2) The amateurism rule was for competitive reasons. The coach doesn't play. There were never rules set on this by the NCAA.
3) Just look to any of the reasons people prefer college sports to professional sports. Professionalism is a different beast. We'll hear about unions, and collective bargaining, etc.

Again, people can have different opinions on this without either being unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable for people not wanting to see something they like to change. I also don’t see how that has anything to do with “conservative types”

1) Players have been getting paid for decades. For those people who prefer amateurism and rules isn’t this better so players can get paid without the schools getting in trouble?

2) For “competitive reasons” the discrepancy become huge once we got television deals. Basketball and baseball tournaments won’t change because their 1 (or 3) game tournaments and variance naturally happens. We’ve had six schools win national titles since 2006 in football so I’m not buying that either.

3) You know how you won’t have to hear about unions and collective bargaining again in college sports? Because of the NIL. If the NIL didn’t happen, college sports was going to be unionized. This is actually a break for that.

 

[zjcvols]

This doesn't really relate to what your post is about that I replied to. You said "conservative groups" are opposed to him getting paid. Which is kind of a dumb generalization, not relevant to the issue, and further I don't think it's even true. They just don't want it to be in college.

Look I’m sure it’s not everyone and I’d like to avoid the politics talk, but I’d be willing to say about 90-95% of the takes opposing NIL I’ve seen are from conservatives.

 

[zjcvols]

And to your last point, it actually doesn't support the argument. Athletic departments around the country are where they are because they generate massive amounts of money without paying commensurate compensation to those actually playing. You start to take some of that away from the universities and they won't be able to afford all that they have typically paid for. So if anything it puts the "modern version" of the game more at risk, than it does to support it.

That’s not what is happening though. NIL isn’t a salary cap schools have to pay players. Schools aren’t paying a dime. NIL is actually gonna save them money because now there won’t be pressure to pay kids $100K for their athletic ability.

 

[zjcvols]

It’s weird how when schools started paying student-styles stipends for $2K/year outside of scholarship money that ratings didn’t decline drastically

 

[golfballs]

1) Players have been getting paid for decades. For those people who prefer amateurism and rules isn’t this better so players can get paid without the schools getting in trouble?

2) For “competitive reasons” the discrepancy become huge once we got television deals. Basketball and baseball tournaments won’t change because their 1 (or 3 games) game tournaments and variance Naturally happens. We’ve had six schools win national titles since 2006 in football so I’m not buying that either.

3) You know how you won’t have to hear about unions and collective bargaining again in college sports? Because of the NIL. If the NIL didn’t happen, college sports was going to be unionized. This is actually a break for that.

1) That's a separate matter of enforcement, not about the rule itself
2) You asked why it didn't apply to coaches. This response doesn't have anything to do with that. The reason it was adopted as a rule over 100 years ago was for competitive reasons - they didn't want schools to use professional athletes to compete.
3) I think people are concerned with how NIL might be abused, and what kind of impact it will have on competitive balance. And competitive balance is something that all leagues consider when making their rules. Again, I don't see how that's necessarily unreasonable. I will add, that in the end (I have another thread on this), universities will be forced to pay players, and they will have to unionize (mostly due to their brief time in college) and form collective bargaining agreements.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

And to your last point, it actually doesn't support the argument. Athletic departments around the country are where they are because they generate massive amounts of money without paying commensurate compensation to those actually playing. You start to take some of that away from the universities and they won't be able to afford all that they have typically paid for. So if anything it puts the "modern version" of the game more at risk, than it does to support it.

Schools aren’t paying the players for their NIL.

Nothing is being taken away from the schools, they’re making more now than they ever have.

The steady growth in revenue from media rights for schools and conferences over the past three decades is why NIL exists now.

 

[zjcvols]

1) That's a separate matter of enforcement, not about the rule itself
2) You asked why it didn't apply to coaches. This response doesn't have anything to do with that. The reason it was adopted as a rule over 100 years ago was for competitive reasons - they didn't want schools to use professional athletes to compete.
3) I think people are concerned with how NIL might be abused, and what kind of impact it will have on competitive balance. And competitive balance is something that all leagues consider when making their rules. Again, I don't see how that's necessarily unreasonable. I will add, that in the end (I have another thread on this), universities will be forced to pay players, and they will have to unionize (mostly due to their brief time in college) and form collective bargaining agreements.

If it’s all about amateurism then how come nobody cares when coaches making a few million dollars or millions from football or the NCAA spending millions upon millions of dollars to fight the NIL?

How will NIL be abused? It’s legal now. It can’t be abused.

If it’s how about amateurism and the “student” in student athlete, why would that same person care about competitive balance?

Maybe unionizing still happens, but with NIL it’s less likely now.

 

[zjcvols]

Mark Emmert makes like $5M/year but the NIL will kill amateurism and end college Athletics.

Come on

 

[golfballs]

That’s not what is happening though. NIL isn’t a salary cap schools have to pay players. Schools aren’t paying a dime. NIL is actually gonna save them money because now there won’t be pressure to pay kids $100K for their athletic ability.

Sponsors who may otherwise give to the school now have another outlet for their money - directly to the players. It won’t account for all of it, but that’s still potentially a significant risk.

 

[golfballs]

Look I’m sure it’s not everyone and I’d like to avoid the politics talk, but I’d be willing to say about 90-95% of the takes opposing NIL I’ve seen are from conservatives.

Well even if it were true that “conservatives” are opposed to NIL (which isn’t even generally correct as many Republican legislatures are passing NIL laws), that doesn’t mean they’re opposed to kids getting paid. Just not in college sports.

 

[golfballs]

Mark Emmert makes like $5M/year but the NIL will kill amateurism and end college Athletics.

Come on

I think you’re being a bit over dramatic. People’s concerns over NIL aren’t related to how much Mark Emmert makes

 

[zjcvols]

Sponsors who may otherwise give to the school now have another outlet for their money - directly to the players. It won’t account for all of it, but that’s still potentially a significant risk.

And that is different than boosters giving Cam Newton 250K….how? Most schools make money off television deals anyways, not booster donations.

If you’re able to give UT a few million dollars a year, I don’t think that will prevent rich people from preventing giving certain players six figures

 

[zjcvols]

Well even if it were true that “conservatives” are opposed to NIL (which isn’t even generally correct as many Republican legislatures are passing NIL laws), that doesn’t mean they’re opposed to kids getting paid. Just not in college sports.

Why? It’s America dude. Most conservatives are capitalists so why should a very small sub-sect of people being excluded from that? Because they wish it was pre WW2 and coaches were history teachers all in the name of “amateurism”?

 

[zjcvols]

I think you’re being a bit over dramatic. People’s concerns over NIL aren’t related to how much Mark Emmert makes

It all ties together. You can’t complain about NIL is gonna kill amateurism and how much that sucks when the guy who enforces amateurism is making $5M/year. It’s hypocrisy at its finest

 

[golfballs]

If it’s all about amateurism then how come nobody cares when coaches making a few million dollars or millions from football or the NCAA spending millions upon millions of dollars to fight the NIL?

How will NIL be abused? It’s legal now. It can’t be abused.

If it’s how about amateurism and the “student” in student athlete, why would that same person care about competitive balance?

Maybe unionizing still happens, but with NIL it’s less likely now.

I’ve answered your questions about coaches and amateurism.

Something being legal doesn’t preclude it from being abused.

I don’t understand what being a student has to do with it.

I kind of doubt it. W NIL the majority of kids on those teams will still be missing out. They’ll still want a cut of the mega millions that universities make on their efforts

 

[zjcvols]

It blows my mind that somebody says that players shouldn’t be able to profit of their name and likeness while Nick Saban can profit off his name and likeness in Aflac commercials because he’s famous off the players that play for him. Like…I can’t even imagine how someone can think that’s all perfectly fine and reasonable

 

[zjcvols]

I’ve answered your questions about coaches and amateurism.

Something being legal doesn’t preclude it from being abused.

I don’t understand what being a student has to do with it.

I kind of doubt it. W NIL the majority of kids on those teams will still be missing out. They’ll still want a cut of the mega millions that universities make on their efforts

If multiple walk ons from Tennessee, a team that has a losing record since 2008, can make money off NIL, I’m sure plenty of kids will be able to find sponsorship. Advertising and branding is an incredibly powerful too

 

[golfballs]

Why? It’s America dude. Most conservatives are capitalists so why should a very small sub-sect of people being excluded from that? Because they wish it was pre WW2 and coaches were history teachers all in the name of “amateurism”?

Republicans are passing NIL laws. Besides I thought you didn’t want to make this political.

 

[golfballs]

And that is different than boosters giving Cam Newton 250K….how? Most schools make money off television deals anyways, not booster donations.

If you’re able to give UT a few million dollars a year, I don’t think that will prevent rich people from preventing giving certain players six figures

Like I said before enforcement is a different issue

Universities get donations and corporate sponsorship dollars. When they’re making their spends they now have an alternative, and I doubt they’ll all of a sudden have more marketing dollars in their budgets. So it poses a risk. And have you seen the finances of college athletics departments? It won’t take much for them to move into the red. And either way they’ll have to cut expenses proportionally. How much so, is yet to be seen

 

[zjcvols]

Republicans are passing NIL laws. Besides I thought you didn’t want to make this political.

I didn’t say all conservatives opposed NIL. I said that almost all of the opposition from NIL I see is from conservatives. There’s a difference