There is a discussion on the tug but the politics are immaterial. What matters is that I was right. Called this before day 1
I was right
- Thread starter RaceBannon
- Start date
I maintain legalization will kill the sport. I don't see this being rolled back. One more fix ought to do the trick
Been right so far
Been right so far
The SEC is back!
PostGameOrangeSlices
Well-known poster
Not going to happen. It's not "your" name image and likeness if someone else is getting paid for it
I figured this was going to be what killed the open NIL in the first place and surprised it took this long for this. As much as I vehemently hate the Wild West NIL world, I worry about a situation where they can't find something that works for everyone so it tears down the sport. It could also just be the domino that gets the SEC and Big 10 football serious about finding a way to break off from the NCAA.
I predict the kids won't have to play school anymore within five years. They'll just be football players.
whatshouldicareabout
Active poster
Football and basketball will break off from the NCAA in a year or two
And the SEC an B1G from that
Title 9 has been the law of the land since 1972. It actually worked for women getting scholarships to play sports. I actually agree with that.
But there were those of us who warned that football needed an exception since it pays the bills. There isn't one.
Title 9 would have to be repealed and reworked. Good luck with that because women vote more than men
We also warned that paying players would require paying Misty for volleyball. Equality means equal
It was a good run while it lasted
But there were those of us who warned that football needed an exception since it pays the bills. There isn't one.
Title 9 would have to be repealed and reworked. Good luck with that because women vote more than men
We also warned that paying players would require paying Misty for volleyball. Equality means equal
It was a good run while it lasted
Are collectives illegal now? If not, how does any slice of money from the NCAA affect private citizens from continuing to donate to collectives to buy football rosters? This title 9 ruling only lowers the base salary of football players from the NCAA, it shouldn't have a bearing on how much they can get in "NIL" deals from private collectives for their talents, right? I haven't been following so if someone wants to fill me in that would be great.
Also, UW has a smaller pool of athletes than most of the B10. No men's and women's hockey, field hockey, lacrosse or wrestling, no swim/dive. Wouldn't UW's teams across the board get a larger base salary?
TIA
Also, UW has a smaller pool of athletes than most of the B10. No men's and women's hockey, field hockey, lacrosse or wrestling, no swim/dive. Wouldn't UW's teams across the board get a larger base salary?
TIA
creepycoug
Well-known poster
Fug it. Put a bullet it it. We'll? see if we're? interested in watching the Washington Sled Dawgs playing the Oregon Platypuses of the re-branded XCFB League.
Hiring people means pro sports. Period. It's never been that complicated.
Schools will sell their brands to some league, and thereafter have no control over it. Some dipshit marketing person of said league will change the purchased brand over time to their liking and our great grandchildren will visit our graves talking about what we used to care about in the way olden days.
Race will be there to clarify any details if necessary.
Hiring people means pro sports. Period. It's never been that complicated.
Schools will sell their brands to some league, and thereafter have no control over it. Some dipshit marketing person of said league will change the purchased brand over time to their liking and our great grandchildren will visit our graves talking about what we used to care about in the way olden days.
Race will be there to clarify any details if necessary.
Last edited:
I honestly actually forget they still do. At least I think? It's always been farcical but I can't even imagine how bad it is now to have a guy getting paydays like they are now and having to go to some anthropology class or some shit. It's kind of ridiculous we are still doing that for any kid, non-paid athletes, but that's a different story.
Seems pretty simple to more or less resolve the way it should have always been done. Take it back to where the collective basically is dispersed evenly. Want to donate? You're donating across the board, but then just open up NIL opportunities that are legitimate and have to be vetted by the NCAA. Amazon or Adidas or Beacon fucking Plumbing wants to do endorsements with Penix and Odunze, sure. Or Dr. Pepper wants Quinn Ewers in an ad, sure. Crypt keeper wants to pay someone's shitball dad and fake agent just to go to their program. Fuck off. Sanctions.
The female athletes would do better with this than some might think as there are more female Olympic athlete types in the NCAA than you think and they are 100x better at being influencers.
The female athletes would do better with this than some might think as there are more female Olympic athlete types in the NCAA than you think and they are 100x better at being influencers.
Last edited:
I'd do it the other way. You want to play at an NCAA institution? OK, your fee to play for Alma Mater State is x% of your taxable income which goes into a fund which pays all athletes equally (so you get a little rebate). Without the school logo, you ain't shit.
Make as much fucking money as you want - just know that if you want to don a uniform within the NCAA, there's an admittance fee.
Kids get charged up the ying yang to play on AAU and travel teams. Why not?
Last edited:
AtomicDawg
New Fish
They'll just license the logos. What's interesting is how the kids that are not nfl or high level college players pivot.
If they don't have a scholarship and are just an employee that's some major disruption for the kids that actually play school.
DoubleJDawg
New Fish
Totally agree on licensing - that's absolutely where it's ending up
The scholarship can/should be a specific benefit which can end up in the packages of kids who want it — it could even be a future benefit (it's yours to use sometime within 5-10 years of end of playing career), it could be a partial/discounted scholarship, etc.
That said, I know we love to marvel at the (university-established, price gouging level) "price" of a scholarship but the actual marginal cost of that a scholarship to a big state school is pretty negligible. I'm betting many/most serious big schools will consider that table stakes or a throw-in to pretty much every deal, particularly if they assume that not 100% of the players of the future will actually use the benefit (which they certainly won't, once they decouple "eligibility" from participation)
SmallEugenePool
New Fish
Fisch pretty much called that last year.
It really feels like they aren’t students at all anymore. It seems like it used to be a pain in the ass academically in getting transfers in. I can’t remember the last time I heard about a Vernon Adams who can’t math or a guy being unable to transfer because the school doesn’t have a PE program.