Boosters can technically pay athletes as of July 1

[aburks41]

I think these guys being able to profit off their own name is good, but I cannot see a way where this happens and doesn't completely ruin the college landscape. The SEC/Big 12/Big 10/ACC are going to absolutely dominate and unless we have big boosters ready and willing to pay up, we're going to have a very hard time recruiting at a high level to keep up with them

And I know these big programs have already been paying under the table for years, but now they will have unlimited big money to throw around without needing to be sneaky about it.

 

[Ajs120102]

I think these guys being able to profit off their own name is good, but I cannot see a way where this happens and doesn't completely ruin the college landscape. The SEC/Big 12/Big 10/ACC are going to absolutely dominate and unless we have big boosters ready and willing to pay up, we're going to have a very hard time recruiting at a high level to keep up with them

And I know these big programs have already been paying under the table for years, but now they will have unlimited big money to throw around without needing to be sneaky about it.

Maybe for football but for basketball I think we can keep on par. We have some pretty big basketball donors. football on the other hand that’s a lost cause.

 

[Guapo]

I think these guys being able to profit off their own name is good, but I cannot see a way where this happens and doesn't completely ruin the college landscape. The SEC/Big 12/Big 10/ACC are going to absolutely dominate and unless we have big boosters ready and willing to pay up, we're going to have a very hard time recruiting at a high level to keep up with them

And I know these big programs have already been paying under the table for years, but now they will have unlimited big money to throw around without needing to be sneaky about it.

The idea that SEC boosters (along with other FB conferences) will waste big money on basketball recruits is humorous.

Lets look at UGA’s first NIL deal. The clothing company Onward Reserve signed 2 football players, a baseball player and a golfer.

 

[Guapo]

Maybe for football but for basketball I think we can keep on par. We have some pretty big basketball donors. football on the other hand that’s a lost cause.

Agreed 100%

 

[aburks41]

Maybe for football but for basketball I think we can keep on par. We have some pretty big basketball donors. football on the other hand that’s a lost cause.

I don't really care about the football aspect. I'm more concerned about traditionally bad P5 basketball programs with a ton of football donor $ will now try to become major players. I mean just look at Michigan vs us for DC. They probably have 500x the amount of rich boosters that we do, we'll find out pretty soon if this ends up being the difference maker in recruiting

 

[Ajs120102]

I don't really care about the football aspect. I'm more concerned about traditionally bad P5 basketball programs with a ton of football donor $ will now try to become major players. I mean just look at Michigan vs us for DC. They probably have 500x the amount of rich boosters that we do, we'll find out pretty soon if this ends up being the difference maker in recruiting

to be honest the money that they will be willing to spend on prospects are in the 1-25 range. UConn seems to be recruiting in the 35-100 range. Don’t know if that will demand the huge money we think it will. Also technically it’ll be a violation to offer money for recruits so it’s going to be years before we see where we are in the landscape of this thing.

 

[metsfan2323]

The idea that SEC boosters (along with other FB conferences) will waste big money on basketball recruits is humorous.

Nope, not funny at all.

 

[Guapo]

I don't really care about the football aspect. I'm more concerned about traditionally bad P5 basketball programs with a ton of football donor $ will now try to become major players. I mean just look at Michigan vs us for DC. They probably have 500x the amount of rich boosters that we do, we'll find out pretty soon if this ends up being the difference maker in recruiting

It’s really not that hard to understand. Those boosters, by and large, do not care about college basketball.

This is not a theory of mine. I know it to be true. I live in the heart of the SEC. Football is really the only sport that matters and gymnastics, baseball, softball and, in some cases, WBB matters more than MBB.

I know it’s hard for some of you to wrap your heads around but college basketball simply does not exist here as a major sports entity

 

[Stinger92860]

Correct.

Schools near large concentrations of wealth should start getting better players.

Schools with large, established alumni networks whose alumni feel attachment to the school and are willing to blow their play cash on paying players vice another vacation home or bigger/better toys will also do better.

The SEC is going to leverage the new rules to create an even greater advantage. From what I can tell, boosters can pay whatever they want and now its an on the books business expense. One example I am thinking is commercial for car dealer. What if they include a video of the entire team? Lot’s of options to exploit this new ruling.

 

[Guapo]

You guys, I’m not saying the SEC is gong to not spend money on basketball, but thinking they’re going to do so at a rate that far outpaces the other conferences is straight up delusional.

Football of course is a different animal

 

[metsfan2323]

You guys, I’m not saying the SEC is gong to not spend money on basketball, but thinking they’re going to do so at a rate that far outpaces the other conferences is straight up delusional.

Football of course is a different animal

The idea that the P5 conferences don't care about basketball is delusional. Of course they do.

 

[aburks41]

to be honest the money that they will be willing to spend on prospects are in the 1-25 range. UConn seems to be recruiting in the 35-100 range. Don’t know if that will demand the huge money we think it will. Also technically it’ll be a violation to offer money for recruits so it’s going to be years before we see where we are in the landscape of this thing.

It’s really not that hard to understand. Those boosters, by and large, do not care about college basketball.

This is not a theory of mine. I know it to be true. I live in the heart of the SEC. Football is really the only sports that matters and gymnastics, baseball, softball and, in some cases, WBB matters more than MBB.

I know it’s hard for some of you to wrap your heads around but college basketball simply does not exist here as a major sports entity

The 2023 recruiting class will probably be the best indicator if anything major is going to change in the CBB landscape. Guess we'll see who is right and who isn't

 

[Guapo]

The idea that the P5 conferences don't care about basketball is delusional. Of course they do.

You seem to have issues differentiating between conferences, athletic departments, boosters and fanbases.

ive done all I can to try and help. Be blessed and have a wonderful day.

 

[Guapo]

The 2023 recruiting class will probably be the best indicator if anything major is going to change in the CBB landscape. Guess we'll see who is right and who isn't

Yeah it’ll be interesting.

TBH I’m not even sure if 2023 is going to be a great indicator.

I don’t know if this is a situation where its going to take time for the impact of all of this to filter through the system OR we could see a situation where it’s super crazy at first and then it settles down.

I happen to be of an opinion that, by and large, it won’t impact the quality of player each school has access to. It’ll obviously impact the process, but the rosters resulting on the other end will look pretty much like they always have at most schools

 

[UCDaveD]

But what about aMaTeUrIsM????

 

[Chin Diesel]

I think these guys being able to profit off their own name is good, but I cannot see a way where this happens and doesn't completely ruin the college landscape. The SEC/Big 12/Big 10/ACC are going to absolutely dominate and unless we have big boosters ready and willing to pay up, we're going to have a very hard time recruiting at a high level to keep up with them

And I know these big programs have already been paying under the table for years, but now they will have unlimited big money to throw around without needing to be sneaky about it.

Maybe for football but for basketball I think we can keep on par. We have some pretty big basketball donors. football on the other hand that’s a lost cause.

I think I am good with that.

I think for any of these sports, the high level athletes will be able to get theirs regardless of school. The social media and other deals go beyond school borders.

The key for success is the second and third tier players you need for program depth. A couple of hundred bucks or up to $1k/month is plenty enough for roster fillers. They're now nothing more than filler players on an A or AA baseball team to fill out the roster for the higher level prospects.

 

[superjohn]

I think I am good with that.

I think for any of these sports, the high level athletes will be able to get theirs regardless of school. The social media and other deals go beyond school borders.

The key for success is the second and third tier players you need for program depth. A couple of hundred bucks or up to $1k/month is plenty enough for roster fillers. They're now nothing more than filler players on an A or AA baseball team to fill out the roster for the higher level prospects.

What's to stop Nike and Under Armour from giving millions to kids to go to Oregon and Maryland?

I don't see how any of this is good in this wild west format, they need to work all this stuff out and soon or college sports are done.

 

[CL82]

UCONN's athletic department operates at a huge loss, even if some of it is accounting BS, I think the net loss is real. No massive TV contracts for UCONN.

So since players are being allowed to join in the money being made by their colleges sports programs, does that that mean that have to money back to UConn?

(Hi sprinter X, your share of the athletic depts loss is $76,492. We'll send you a bill.)

 

[Guapo]

What's to stop Nike and Under Armour from giving millions to kids to go to Oregon and Maryland?

I don't see how any of this is good in this wild west format, they need to work all this stuff out and soon or college sports are done.

The fallacy of your argument is right there; if Nike or Under Armour values college sports enough to pay “millions” to college athletes, why would it make sense to them to destroy college sports?

Also, side note, these are public companies that need to answer to stock holders etc. So, I would settle down on the hyperbole a lil bit

 

[kobebeanbryant]

So since players are being allowed to join in the money being made by their colleges sports programs, does that that mean that have to money back to UConn?

(Hi sprinter X, your share of the athletic depts loss is $76,492. We'll send you a bill.)

i’m assuming you are being facetious, but in case not…that’s not how employment works anywhere, so why would that apply here?

 

[superjohn]

The fallacy of your argument is right there; if Nike or Under Armour values college sports enough to pay “millions” to college athletes, why would it make sense to them to destroy college sports?

Also, side note, these are public companies that need to answer to stock holders etc. So, I would settle down on the hyperbole a lil bit

When you only have a small group of teams competing you ruin college sports, when you're only a good program and able to compete because you have the most millionaire and billionaire donors you're ruining college sports.

Phil Knight and the like don't answer to anyone. So, I would settle down on the naivete a little bit.

 

[Guapo]

When you only have a small group of teams competing you ruin college sports, when you're only a good program and able to compete because you have the most millionaire and billionaire donors you're ruining college sports.

Phil Knight and the like don't answer to anyone. So, I would settle down on the naivete a little bit.

Question, how do you morally justify Nike sponsoring schools and coaches, buying TV ads during college games, and buying advertisements in stadiums? But not this?

 

[CL82]

i’m assuming you are being facetious, but in case not…that’s not how employment works anywhere, so why would that apply here?

Wasn't that the underlying collectivist principal regarding NIL? Athletes should share in the what colleges were making from their efforts. If they share in the gain, shouldn't their share in the loss?

 

[CL82]

The fallacy of your argument is right there; if Nike or Under Armour values college sports enough to pay “millions” to college athletes, why would it make sense to them to destroy college sports?

Who says that they value college sports? It was just an relatively efficient marketing tool. If paying the athletes directly is more a efficient marketing tool, why wouldn't they eliminate the middleman?

 

[polycom]

Can the people who said they weren't going to watch college sports when the players get paid please come to the front of the line? We'd like a word with you. The facade of amateurism is dead thank god. Also give Reggie Bush his trophy back.

 

[Psolo12]

When you only have a small group of teams competing you ruin college sports, when you're only a good program and able to compete because you have the most millionaire and billionaire donors you're ruining college sports.

Phil Knight and the like don't answer to anyone. So, I would settle down on the naivete a little bit.

I mean, there has only been a small group of teams really competing in college sports when it comes to pulling in 5 star recruits. Also, these companies had already been funneling money to kids through colleges. It's been happening.

 

[polycom]

When you only have a small group of teams competing you ruin college sports, when you're only a good program and able to compete because you have the most millionaire and billionaire donors you're ruining college sports.

Phil Knight and the like don't answer to anyone. So, I would settle down on the naivete a little bit.

Yeah that's not exactly true. Phil Knight absolutely care what shareholders think...

 

[kobebeanbryant]

Wasn't that the underlying collectivist principal regarding NIL? Athletes should share in the what colleges were making from their efforts. If they share in the gain, shouldn't their share in the loss?

is that how your job works? it’s not how mine does.

 

[CL82]

is that how your job works? it’s not how mine does.

Do you get a share of the profits?

 

[superjohn]

Yeah that's not exactly true. Phil Knight absolutely care what shareholders think...

No, it's exactly true. Phil Knight can throw millions wherever he likes it and doesn't have to answer to shareholders.