You wanna talk portal and NIL? Consider the tale of QB Rashada....

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
That's my point and it really imo undermines the notion of team or being a fan. I have to wait every year now until August to even know who is on the team this year.
Click to expand...
...or also wait until just before post-season play to see who is still on the football team.

...and in basketball, wait a third of the way through the season to find out who is still on the team.
 
#27
#27
@lawgator1
Asking seriously, have any courts yet addressed this question?

If a male player uses up his NCAA eligibility, but then "transitions" into a "female" athlete... has he also used up his eligibility for women's sports?

If self-identification overrules the legal standing of a birth certificate... what other legal standings might it overrule? I'm no lawyer but it doesn't seem like anyone has established a guiding legal principle for self-identity issues.
 
#29
#29
Delmar said:
I didn’t know about this until I heard it on a talk show today. Rashada also attended 4 high schools in 4 years as well. The colleges should have seen the red flags. Buyer Beware!
Click to expand...
Interesting. Seems the "Suitcase" tag used in a post above is quite fitting. To his detriment, how do you develop if you never stay in one place more than a year to develop. You will always already be at your peak, and you never invest in raising hte peak.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
That's my point and it really imo undermines the notion of team or being a fan. I have to wait every year now until August to even know who is on the team this year.
Click to expand...
MLB all over again.
I haven't watched a MLB game in over 15 years.

I'm not quitting the VOLS over it, but I spent 30 years watching the Braves, and haven't watched a complete inning since Pete van Wieren and Skip Carey stopped broadcasting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ttocswob
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
They are separate issues. Yes, UF screwed up the NIL deal. It was the first year, they mishandled it, no excuse. But my larger point is that this typifies the attitude of players these days working both ends against the middle.
Click to expand...
You're right. He is not alone though. I think I have seen several names who may be on their fourth transfer this year.
 
#34
#34
BruisedOrange said:
Seems somehow appropriate to ask here:

If a male player uses up his NCAA eligibility, but then "transitions" into a "female" athlete... has he used up his eligibility for women's sports? :confused:

Oh Lord, to live again in a time when some questions were just stupid and silly.
Click to expand...
An absurd question that will soon be a case in court against NCAA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruisedOrange
#36
#36
Old Model:
Five-star player enrolls and spends about four years at a school. There is a chance they play for the school and that they get drafted by an NFL team and earn large amounts of money. If they don't play, then they can transfer and sit out one year. This is a gamble given that the average player's ability peaks around the age of 27. Otherwise, they wait for another player to suffer and injury and hope to finally start. They receive housing, food, a small stipend, and a college degree.
The big takeaway, there is a chance that they are eventually drafted and earn a large income.

New Model:
Five-star player begins earning a large income by enrolling at a school. If they don't start, then they move to another school and earn a large income. There is still a chance that they eventually get drafted by an NFL team and earn large amounts of income, but the jumping from one school to another may reduce their chances of getting drafted by an NFL team. At a minimum, they receive housing, food, a college degree, and, with certainty, a large amount of income.

Here is a simple scenario to explain with numbers, omitting any discounting. When the player graduates from high school:
Expected earnings under the "Old Model," assuming there is a 50% chance of being drafted and the receive a contract providing them $4m per year, is $2m per year for the length of the contract, but they have a chance of receiving this income three to four years in the future.
Expected earning under the "New Model," assuming there is only a 30% chance of being drafted by an NFL team and receive a $2m per year contract and they also earn $1m per year in NIL money, is 4*$1m + 30%*$2m = $4m from NIL plus an expected NFL income of $0.6m per year. Earnings under the new model > earnings under the old model. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some players make the choice to remain in college to earn NIL money with certainty and not declare for the NFL draft due to the differential in expected income.

One more thing- under the old model, the players generated revenue for the school but most of the revenue remained with the school and could not be payed out to the players. The players received, housing, food, medical care, and a small stipend. The revenue generated by the starting players is greater than the benefits received. Where did this extra revenue go? I suspect a proportion if this extra revenue resulted larger contracts for coaches. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a decline in the rate of growth in coach compensation when the schools begin writing contracts and paying players.
 
#37
#37
Bearkat_Vol said:
Old Model:
Five-star player enrolls and spends about four years at a school. There is a chance they play for the school and that they get drafted by an NFL team and earn large amounts of money. If they don't play, then they can transfer and sit out one year. This is a gamble given that the average player's ability peaks around the age of 27. Otherwise, they wait for another player to suffer and injury and hope to finally start. They receive housing, food, a small stipend, and a college degree.
The big takeaway, there is a chance that they are eventually drafted and earn a large income.

New Model:
Five-star player begins earning a large income by enrolling at a school. If they don't start, then they move to another school and earn a large income. There is still a chance that they eventually get drafted by an NFL team and earn large amounts of income, but the jumping from one school to another may reduce their chances of getting drafted by an NFL team. At a minimum, they receive housing, food, a college degree, and, with certainty, a large amount of income.

Here is a simple scenario to explain with numbers, omitting any discounting. When the player graduates from high school:
Expected earnings under the "Old Model," assuming there is a 50% chance of being drafted and the receive a contract providing them $4m per year, is $2m per year for the length of the contract, but they have a chance of receiving this income three to four years in the future.
Expected earning under the "New Model," assuming there is only a 30% chance of being drafted by an NFL team and receive a $2m per year contract and they also earn $1m per year in NIL money, is 4*$1m + 30%*$2m = $4m from NIL plus an expected NFL income of $0.6m per year. Earnings under the new model > earnings under the old model. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some players make the choice to remain in college to earn NIL money with certainty and not declare for the NFL draft due to the differential in expected income.

One more thing- under the old model, the players generated revenue for the school but most of the revenue remained with the school and could not be payed out to the players. The players received, housing, food, medical care, and a small stipend. The revenue generated by the starting players is greater than the benefits received. Where did this extra revenue go? I suspect a proportion if this extra revenue resulted larger contracts for coaches. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a decline in the rate of growth in coach compensation when the schools begin writing contracts and paying players.
Click to expand...
Of course with your old model, you left out the under the table money by Bama…..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plecoptera and Bearkat_Vol
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
Commits to Miami, UF steals him away but screws up the NIL. So he leaves UF and goes to Az State.

There for a seaon, goes to UGA and sues UF.

Now?
...

..entering the portal again.

sports.yahoo.com

Report: Georgia QB Jaden Rashada to enter transfer portal

Rashada played at Arizona State in 2023 after signing with Florida and filed a lawsuit against UF coach Billy Napier and a booster in May.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com



Wish him luck but who is going to take a chance on this guy after 4 schools in two years, and now looking for a high bidder.

And will sue you if it goes South.
Click to expand...
Appeal to Outliers. Logical fallacy.
 
#39
#39
Bearkat_Vol said:
Old Model:
Five-star player enrolls and spends about four years at a school. There is a chance they play for the school and that they get drafted by an NFL team and earn large amounts of money. If they don't play, then they can transfer and sit out one year. This is a gamble given that the average player's ability peaks around the age of 27. Otherwise, they wait for another player to suffer and injury and hope to finally start. They receive housing, food, a small stipend, and a college degree.
The big takeaway, there is a chance that they are eventually drafted and earn a large income.

New Model:
Five-star player begins earning a large income by enrolling at a school. If they don't start, then they move to another school and earn a large income. There is still a chance that they eventually get drafted by an NFL team and earn large amounts of income, but the jumping from one school to another may reduce their chances of getting drafted by an NFL team. At a minimum, they receive housing, food, a college degree, and, with certainty, a large amount of income.

Here is a simple scenario to explain with numbers, omitting any discounting. When the player graduates from high school:
Expected earnings under the "Old Model," assuming there is a 50% chance of being drafted and the receive a contract providing them $4m per year, is $2m per year for the length of the contract, but they have a chance of receiving this income three to four years in the future.
Expected earning under the "New Model," assuming there is only a 30% chance of being drafted by an NFL team and receive a $2m per year contract and they also earn $1m per year in NIL money, is 4*$1m + 30%*$2m = $4m from NIL plus an expected NFL income of $0.6m per year. Earnings under the new model > earnings under the old model. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some players make the choice to remain in college to earn NIL money with certainty and not declare for the NFL draft due to the differential in expected income.

One more thing- under the old model, the players generated revenue for the school but most of the revenue remained with the school and could not be payed out to the players. The players received, housing, food, medical care, and a small stipend. The revenue generated by the starting players is greater than the benefits received. Where did this extra revenue go? I suspect a proportion if this extra revenue resulted larger contracts for coaches. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a decline in the rate of growth in coach compensation when the schools begin writing contracts and paying players.
Click to expand...
you also have the profit sharing coming to as guaranteed income. not sure if that is required to be split evenly or what but if so its:

22million/85 players=250k per
22million/105 players= 200k per.

I think that will slow down SOME of the transfer portal stuff. its a lot different if you going from no money to good money, vs some money to good money. More is better so some will jump in, but with a consistent base the difference may not be as stark as before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bearkat_Vol
#40
#40
LouderVol said:
you also have the profit sharing coming to as guaranteed income. not sure if that is required to be split evenly or what but if so its:

22million/85 players=250k per
22million/105 players= 200k per.

I think that will slow down SOME of the transfer portal stuff. its a lot different if you going from no money to good money, vs some money to good money. More is better so some will jump in, but with a consistent base the difference may not be as stark as before.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I forgot about profit sharing, which definitely adds another wrinkle to the calculation.
 
#41
#41
LouderVol said:
you also have the profit sharing coming to as guaranteed income. not sure if that is required to be split evenly or what but if so its:

22million/85 players=250k per
22million/105 players= 200k per.

I think that will slow down SOME of the transfer portal stuff. its a lot different if you going from no money to good money, vs some money to good money. More is better so some will jump in, but with a consistent base the difference may not be as stark as before.
Click to expand...
I believe that profit sharing isn't just for football. Basketball is a revenue sport also at many schools and potentially other sports.

It's not all going to football at UT, I'm sure.
 
#42
#42
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I believe that profit sharing isn't just for football. Basketball is a revenue sport also at many schools and potentially other sports.

It's not all going to football at UT, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
yeah, I knew that was possible, just wasn't sure how it would/could work out. or if the courts have made that decision.

Seems strange to me that its a flat 22 million per P4 school. even though each one will have different levels of profit, and different sports that produce.

There may even be a few schools where baseball makes money, Vandy comes to mind; or women's BB like UConn. Do they split the same 22 million among 3 or 4 sports, while everyone else just splits between 1 or 2 sports?
 
#43
#43
LouderVol said:
yeah, I knew that was possible, just wasn't sure how it would/could work out. or if the courts have made that decision.

Seems strange to me that its a flat 22 million per P4 school. even though each one will have different levels of profit, and different sports that produce.

There may even be a few schools where baseball makes money, Vandy comes to mind; or women's BB like UConn. Do they split the same 22 million among 3 or 4 sports, while everyone else just splits between 1 or 2 sports?
Click to expand...
With the NCAA being completely useless, seeing a relatively arbitrary "cap" of $22M is par for the course.

I'm unsure what programs ACTUALLY bring in revenue at UT, but if you have a lot of successful programs you might end up with some issues concerning just sharing revenue those programs the accountants say are profitable.

It's a large mess waiting to happen and someone like DeerPark12 might have a handle on the specifics. I can see social issues too. The Baseball Vols are great athletes but not money makers, I'm sure, so getting shut out of revenue sharing would be a lousy message to guys who are good athletes for the school.
 
#44
#44
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I believe that profit sharing isn't just for football. Basketball is a revenue sport also at many schools and potentially other sports.

It's not all going to football at UT, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Profit or revenue…two very different things. A lot of sports take money in but not enough to pay the bills

Will be interesting to see if each school is paying based on the revenue or profit and if the pay is determined at the sport level or AD level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top