OT: From the Cavinder twins to Kendric Davis, the transfers who should cash in big in college basketball

[Carnac]

If this was previously posted, my apologies. I did a search before I posted this that came back negative.

An interesting read:

The name, image, likeness (NIL) world has changed the college basketball landscape. Top recruits and elite players have already earned significant sums -- sometimes seven figures -- in just the first year of this new era.

The rapid change has also prompted top leaders to push for more NIL opportunities on behalf of their athletes. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said this summer it would take $13 million a year to maintain the talent pipeline in Columbus. This is no longer about stadiums and arenas and fancy locker rooms in the race to be the best in college sports. The NIL opportunities available to athletes matter, too -- particularly when it comes to attracting transfers.

From the Cavinder twins to Kendric Davis, the transfers who should cash in big in college basketball

The ever-changing landscape has prompted leaders to push for more NIL opportunities on behalf of their athletes. Here we focus on the players at new schools.

www.espn.com

 

[Bone Dog]

I wonder if universities should be allowed to be middlemen in NIL. There's probably no way to really prevent it. That is, the restrictions shouldn't be on players profiting from NIL, but on universities having a role in it.

Also, one thing that stands out in the list of prospects is that these aren't all big starts. The Cavinder twins are good players at the mid-major level. But they're quite clever about managing their images. Angel Reese is a major D1 talent, and probably won't be nearly as successful at NIL.

 

[caseyb7]

Color me cautious on the whole NIL experiment.

While change was inevitable with the state of college favors to star athletes, some overt, some covert - based on the immense appetite the public has for their star power and the enormous revenue power for their respective universities - this still strikes me as a concept in evolution.

Maybe similar to the crypto currency wild west this needs to evolve to a certain maturity before the rules-keepers know enough to set guidelines and parameters - which isn't quite there yet but keeps the financial regulators up-at-night.

As of today the NIL free-for-all frightens me more than not. I hope I'm wrong and I hope we see a sanguine path to regulation/reform versus a knee-jerk clampdown forced by a catastrophic public abuse resulting in damage to the sport.

 

[Bone Dog]

Color me cautious on the whole NIL experiment.

While change was inevitable with the state of college favors to star athletes, some overt, some covert - based on the immense appetite the public has for their star power and the enormous revenue power for their respective universities - this still strikes me as a concept in evolution.

Maybe similar to the crypto currency wild west this needs to evolve to a certain maturity before the rules-keepers know enough to set guidelines and parameters - which isn't quite there yet but keeps the financial regulators up-at-night.

As of today the NIL free-for-all frightens me more than not. I hope I'm wrong and I hope we see a sanguine path to regulation/reform versus a knee-jerk clampdown forced by a catastrophic public abuse resulting in damage to the sport.

It frightens me, too, because I fear for the competitiveness of the game. But change wasn't inevitable because of schools cheating to get star players in the past. That only explains why it doesn't matter as much -- NIL is no worse than that. But it's probably much, MUCH better legally and morally.

Change was inevitable, even necessary and long overdue I'd argue, because the previous scheme was immoral, probably illegal, and unconstitutional. It violated the fundamental right to property guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Schools were obviously profiting off (i.e. stealing, conversion is probably the legal term) the property of students in a hundred different ways, and hiding the tawdry fact under the sham ideal of "amateurism."

Imagine, any student, whether on financial aid or scholarship, has always been allowed to work outside jobs, make money legally in whatever way they could, but somehow athletes weren't allowed to do this. Working outside jobs was even praised as a sign of industry. But not for kids on athletic scholarships. This fact alone should reveal how corrupt the previous regime was.

So, I'm all in favor of NIL. But I don't think it makes sense to allow schools (the malefactors in the previous scenario) to worm their way into it. Sadly, there may not be a way to prevent this. And I'm not willing to return to the old days to protect competitiveness and (gag) amateurism.

 

[Ozimoto]

The Pandora's box has been opened. The consequences have yet to be fully realized.

 

[Next 12]

The only thing I am concerned with is will the game suffer because of the NIL. Money has an insidious way of affecting a persons thinking. It is a powerful aphrodisiac. Before NIL the only thoughts were the game. Now another dimension enters and I hope it will not affect the players or the game. I am not against the players making money off of their skills. They deserve the money. I just hope it doesn't affect the game. GO HUSKIES!!!

 

[HopJim]

I wonder if universities should be allowed to be middlemen in NIL. There's probably no way to really prevent it. That is, the restrictions shouldn't be on players profiting from NIL, but on universities having a role in it.

Also, one thing that stands out in the list of prospects is that these aren't all big starts. The Cavinder twins are good players at the mid-major level. But they're quite clever about managing their images. Angel Reese is a major D1 talent, and probably won't be nearly as successful at NIL.

It can be stopped but only with some complicated negotiations. Some strong lawyers will make alot of money in lawsuits. Its getting to be out of control.