NIL Policy Coming to NCAA

[Texsox]

The closer we get to college athletes making a nice living the happier I am for them, it just seems fair,  and the less likely I am to be watching college sports. If I want to see pros,  I'll watch pros. 

 

[Two-Gun Pete]

Uh....

Gotta ask, as I dont much care for watching children. But what is "NIL Policy?"

 

Thanks.

[bigruss]

23 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Uh....

Gotta ask, as I dont much care for watching children. But what is "NIL Policy?"

 

Thanks.

Name, Image, Likeness

Essentially, they can profit for them being...them.

[Two-Gun Pete]

1 hour ago, bigruss said:

Name, Image, Likeness

Essentially, they can profit for them being...them.

Hey, thanks.

 

I'd always assumed that most major revenue sports athletes were getting under the table payments already. (Shrugs)

[Kyyle23]

So I have to wonder if this will make the already incredibly fat hog Major colleges even fatter.  It feels like a way to basically make the mid major and smaller colleges a feeder league because they will not be able to compete with the big boys when they come calling with legal bags of cash now 

and I know that they won't be throwing bags of cash per se(some will im sure) but the exposure at big colleges will be far better for your likeness/name/image sales than the smaller colleges, and would be quite a recruiting tool 

[Harry Chappas]

What revenue will the players be getting under this? 

They can go to an autograph sho and sign stuff for $50each or is there something bigger? 

[ptatc]

On 6/28/2021 at 3:10 PM, Texsox said:

The closer we get to college athletes making a nice living the happier I am for them, it just seems fair,  and the less likely I am to be watching college sports. If I want to see pros,  I'll watch pros. 

 

Do the schools get a cut of the students income? The university would be a significant reason that their image is worth anything. As with everything this is just going to make the , wealthier school more dominant as the can promote the "student" more.

[ptatc]

6 hours ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Hey, thanks.

 

I'd always assumed that most major revenue sports athletes were getting under the table payments already. (Shrugs)

Under the table yes, legally no.

[ptatc]

5 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

So I have to wonder if this will make the already incredibly fat hog Major colleges even fatter.  It feels like a way to basically make the mid major and smaller colleges a feeder league because they will not be able to compete with the big boys when they come calling with legal bags of cash now 

and I know that they won't be throwing bags of cash per se(some will im sure) but the exposure at big colleges will be far better for your likeness/name/image sales than the smaller colleges, and would be quite a recruiting tool 

I agree, this will be the end result. 

[CentralChamps21]

Just now, ptatc said:

I agree, this will be the end result. 

The power 5 schools have been talking about splitting from the NCAA for a while now, and this may be what shoves them over the edge.

Power 5 conferences plus ND, and maybe the service acadamies, and a handful of competitive G5 schools like BYU, Boise st, Cincinnati,  break away to form their own association.

Top non-football schools from the Big East, MVC and WCC may get to come along to keep the basketball tournament as close to status quo as possible.

[SexiAlexei]

I think this has the potential to help out some of the "smaller" schools in a large market.

If a kid was looking to make money, choosing a school like Northwestern or DePaul would provide quite the opportunity, if he was good enough.

But I do agree, this will definitely help the top schools the most, as they can offer national attention.

I was originally against paying college kids, but when I look around and see everything that the NCAA is doing to make money off these kids, I think it's about time the kids got some of the action.

[greg775]

On 6/28/2021 at 3:10 PM, Texsox said:

The closer we get to college athletes making a nice living the happier I am for them, it just seems fair,  and the less likely I am to be watching college sports. If I want to see pros,  I'll watch pros. 

 

I was thinking, if the NCAA now is competing against the NBA, I would think the NBA would win. Though I don't watch a lot of NBA the players obviously are the elite of the elite compared to college guys. I think most people though would agree the NCAA athletes deserve a piece of the pie. Coaches make 5-8 million a year; the players now have the right to make some deals for money.

[greg775]

2 hours ago, SexiAlexei said:

I think this has the potential to help out some of the "smaller" schools in a large market.

If a kid was looking to make money, choosing a school like Northwestern or DePaul would provide quite the opportunity, if he was good enough.

But I do agree, this will definitely help the top schools the most, as they can offer national attention.

I was originally against paying college kids, but when I look around and see everything that the NCAA is doing to make money off these kids, I think it's about time the kids got some of the action.

I was thinking, even some mid major kids could make some good money I'd think ... if that town loves its college teams. For instance, a Western Kentucky kid could get a ton of deals in Bowling Green. How bout kids who go to Bradley? Isn't Peoria crazy about its hoops? Or SIU if the Salukis get good again? Obviously kids at Kentucky will make a ton of $$ from NIL. But some small towns are awfully proud of their colleges and they have businesses there too that can get the players some good money. But like you said the kid has to be a decent player probably and the team has to be a winner.

Edited July 1, 2021 by greg775

[Two-Gun Pete]

7 hours ago, ptatc said:

Under the table yes, legally no.

So, just like legalizing pot, or allowing sports betting, the NIL policy (in theory) could make payment to players legit, yes?

If so, this sounds like a good thing.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[Kyyle23]

14 hours ago, greg775 said:

I was thinking, even some mid major kids could make some good money I'd think ... if that town loves its college teams. For instance, a Western Kentucky kid could get a ton of deals in Bowling Green. How bout kids who go to Bradley? Isn't Peoria crazy about its hoops? Or SIU if the Salukis get good again? Obviously kids at Kentucky will make a ton of $$ from NIL. But some small towns are awfully proud of their colleges and they have businesses there too that can get the players some good money. But like you said the kid has to be a decent player probably and the team has to be a winner.

The problem with siu and Bradley and W Kentucky is once the big boys come poaching, how do you convince them to stay.  If Kansas came to Ja Morant six years ago and said "I'm going to put you on ESPN every week of your NCAA life and also get you national sponsorships" how does any Mid Major compete with that?

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Kyyle23 said:

The problem with siu and Bradley and W Kentucky is once the big boys come poaching, how do you convince them to stay.  If Kansas came to Ja Morant six years ago and said "I'm going to put you on ESPN every week of your NCAA life and also get you national sponsorships" how does any Mid Major compete with that?

For the most part that is already true, but those teams still have the same number of slots.

[Kyyle23]

13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

For the most part that is already true, but those teams still have the same number of slots.

It's done in the dark now but now it's going to be out in the open and moving at a much faster pace 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Kyyle23 said:

It's done in the dark now but now it's going to be out in the open and moving at a much faster pace 

That's fine with me.  These kids are a multi-billion dollar industry.  Let them get a taste of it legally.

[Kyyle23]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

That's fine with me.  These kids are a multi-billion dollar industry.  Let them get a taste of it legally.

I'm not saying I'm against it, I just think an unintended side effect will hurt the mid major and smaller schools.  Hopefully it doesn't 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Kyyle23 said:

I'm not saying I'm against it, I just think an unintended side effect will hurt the mid major and smaller schools.  Hopefully it doesn't 

I think most of that is fear rhetoric from the NCAA.  In my view, there are only so many slots.  Kansas still only has 13 scholarship slots.  There aren't a whole lot of people who were previously playing at a mid-major who could have played at a Kansas type of a school, so this really isn't going to affect them.  Not many guys are turning down Wichita State for Kansas now, let alone a Southern Illinois-Edwardsville type of small school, so what changes there?  Small schools have always had small budgets anyway, so that won't change.  Maybe a top guy at a small school gets a small endorsement deal, while a guy at Kansas gets a new Mercedes, but that kid from SIU-E was never going to turn down Kansas anyway, because Kansas wouldn't have wanted him.

Maybe I am totally wrong, but I see this as already built into the system the NCAA created, so I don't see it changing much, except the kids actually getting to profit from their own skills.

[Two-Gun Pete]

18 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I'm not saying I'm against it, I just think an unintended side effect will hurt the mid major and smaller schools.  Hopefully it doesn't 

Meh, as a tax payer, I fail to see the need for a lot/most of these programs at the smaller schools. 

Plenty of schools do just fine without sports; if the NIL policies force states to re-evaluate the need to continue loser programs at directional schools, so much the better.

 

In any case, there really are only a handful of programs that can win a championship in a given year. (I.e. NIU ain't beating Bama in FB, SIU ain't beating Duke in men's BB.) So again, this makes the smaller programs all the more insignificant in the bigger scheme of things.

[Kyyle23]

1 minute ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Meh, as a tax payer, I fail to see the need for a lot/most of these programs at the smaller schools. 

Plenty of schools do just fine without sports; if the NIL policies force states to re-evaluate the need to continue loser programs at directional schools, so much the better.

 

In any case, there really are only a handful of programs that can win a championship in a given year. (I.e. NIU ain't beating Bama in FB, SIU ain't beating Duke in men's BB.) So again, this makes the smaller programs all the more insignificant in the bigger scheme of things.

Loyola was in the final 4 three years ago, Butler made national championships twice .  It's gotten closer and closer and a lot of those mid majors are getting better.  I get that big schools are likely to win,  but that doesn't mean you just close up shop and say it's over.  Those mid major teams do a hell of a lot of fundraising off the tournament 

[Two-Gun Pete]

9 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Loyola was in the final 4 three years ago, Butler made national championships twice .  It's gotten closer and closer and a lot of those mid majors are getting better.  I get that big schools are likely to win,  but that doesn't mean you just close up shop and say it's over.  Those mid major teams do a hell of a lot of fundraising off the tournament 

Cool.

Exactly why should taxpayers continue to support loser programs that cost money? And why should parents of students pay ever-higher tuition and fees to support them as well? There's not a whole lot of value proposition in there, even if you like NCAA sports.

 

I mean, I'd take a finance degree from U of Chicago 20 times out of 10 over a finance degree from one of the directional schools. And U of C doesn't have any  competitive sports at all.

If you don't care for that comparison, look at northeastern Illinois University's student population since eliminating sports. They seem to be doing just fine. OTOH, Chicago State seems to be on fumes, despite having D1 programs. (Shrugs)

Edited July 1, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[Texsox]

On 6/30/2021 at 10:36 AM, Harry Chappas said:

What revenue will the players be getting under this? 

They can go to an autograph sho and sign stuff for $50each or is there something bigger? 

Potentially much bigger if you are a star in a revenue positive sport. But for 99% of the kids, it won’t be much if anything. 

[CentralChamps21]

1 hour ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Cool.

Exactly why should taxpayers continue to support loser programs that cost money? And why should parents of students pay ever-higher tuition and fees to support them as well? There's not a whole lot of value proposition in there, even if you like NCAA sports.

 

I mean, I'd take a finance degree from U of Chicago 20 times out of 10 over a finance degree from one of the directional schools. And U of C doesn't have any  competitive sports at all.

If you don't care for that comparison, look at northeastern Illinois University's student population since eliminating sports. They seem to be doing just fine. OTOH, Chicago State seems to be on fumes, despite having D1 programs. (Shrugs)

U of C is already an elite academic school. They don't need sports to draw students. Schools not in U of C's class have to compete for students, and a top football or basketball program can make them stand out from other schools.

Notre Dame was a tiny, struggling school until football put them on the map and now they are an elite school. Schools like Louisville and Florida State have improved their academic standing as they made their way up from the old Metro Conference all the way to the ACC.