You can go the premium board and find this out right now plebe.
The “We Will” Collective
- Thread starter Proton
- Start date
- Status
You can go the premium board and find this out right now plebe.
Why is everyone so whiny about this? If you don’t want to give then don’t
Last edited:
Perfectly fine. Just don’t insinuate that you aren’t giving because you are poor. That was/is the issue with Gunner’s post. You aren’t giving because you simply don’t want to give.
I actually thought..."hmmm......how long until recruiting services are in in the take" lol
"I'll bump you to a 4 star for a 3% cut or I'll bump you to a 5 star for 6% or I'll create a whole new 6 star for 12%, you tell me what you are in for"
I think because it is a fundamental shift in what people have been supporting for years. Amateur athletics. How many times after a bad game where a player is being ripped on does someone bring up an argument about how these kids are student athletes and not professionals. Now they are professionals. Maybe some requirement of them is going to class or whatever, but these are now paid players who will make more than some nfl players.
Maybe college athletics has been a sham for a long time, but this has pulled back the curtain. I agree that players should be able to sell tshirts and have jobs, but this is directly pay to play, where the people who lose are the fans. The ncaa makes billions and the fans are the ones who have to pay the players. Whole thing just is off putting. The disconnect between the school and the player grows even further. Athletes already get free food, clothes, special housing (at some schools), schooling, free tutoring, special workout centers. Allowed to cheat in classes, even fake classes altogether at some schools like unc , and now they get 100s of thousands of dollars on top of all that to be "amateur" student athletes. All so schools can make more money. They are school employees who can't be paid by the school so fans are asked to shell out.
Might as well just pay to have a pro team throw our logo on their jersey as their corporate sponsor and skip all the student athlete ********.
David Montgomery may have a few dollars to toss our way
Yeah, fan entitlement is crazy already, imagine what happens the first time a big NIL guy transfers
One thing I have not seen in the discussion and analysis of this new NIL regime is the change in total dollars spent and made in the industry. Here's what I mean:
- Universities - will still sell tickets and jerseys, will still provide scholarship funds, and will still be required to build top-notch facilities to remain competitive, which means donations will need to come in at the same rate they always have. So, this seems like no change, in the aggregate.
- Players - will still receive a scholarship for tuition/room/board and a living stipend from the University. Now, players may also receive NIL funds, which is a completely new bundle of money entering the equation. Thus, a net increase in money flowing to players, in the aggregate.
- Fans/donors - will still buy tickets and jerseys, and will still donate to facilities, athletic department, etc. In that regard, they will spend the same as always. Now, you have NIL funds that will also be paid to players, and these will be coming from fans/donors (at least, that's my understanding of where this money comes from). Thus, the entire new bundle of money that is involved in college athletics is expected to be provided exclusively by fans/donors.
Here is my point - this entire conversation pre-supposes that fans/donors of Universities have the interest and the financial wherewithal to fund an additional bundle of money (NIL payments) that was never there before, thereby donating some percentage more than before in the aggregate, for no specific additional benefit, other than the fear that if they don't do it, others will and their favorite team will suffer competitively. The early discussion of the topic and rumored actions (creating collectives, etc.) seem to suggest that this is absolutely true - that is, fans/donors are collectively willing to give more money, there apparently just needed to be a compelling case made as to why that additional giving was necessary (like competing in the NIL landscape). I just wonder if it will actually turn out to be true, or whether the assumed willingness of donors to give in these collectives will not measure up. It's an amazing economic exercise, that people can be convinced to simply increase spending, getting nothing directly tangible in return (just the hope that their giving will advance the cause of their favorite University's athletic department, which ostensibly is why donors gave money previously as well).
Sorry to ramble, this topic is just objectively interesting, in addition to sparking subjective emotions in people (including me) about the effect this will have on amateurism in athletics, competitive balance, etc.
- Universities - will still sell tickets and jerseys, will still provide scholarship funds, and will still be required to build top-notch facilities to remain competitive, which means donations will need to come in at the same rate they always have. So, this seems like no change, in the aggregate.
- Players - will still receive a scholarship for tuition/room/board and a living stipend from the University. Now, players may also receive NIL funds, which is a completely new bundle of money entering the equation. Thus, a net increase in money flowing to players, in the aggregate.
- Fans/donors - will still buy tickets and jerseys, and will still donate to facilities, athletic department, etc. In that regard, they will spend the same as always. Now, you have NIL funds that will also be paid to players, and these will be coming from fans/donors (at least, that's my understanding of where this money comes from). Thus, the entire new bundle of money that is involved in college athletics is expected to be provided exclusively by fans/donors.
Here is my point - this entire conversation pre-supposes that fans/donors of Universities have the interest and the financial wherewithal to fund an additional bundle of money (NIL payments) that was never there before, thereby donating some percentage more than before in the aggregate, for no specific additional benefit, other than the fear that if they don't do it, others will and their favorite team will suffer competitively. The early discussion of the topic and rumored actions (creating collectives, etc.) seem to suggest that this is absolutely true - that is, fans/donors are collectively willing to give more money, there apparently just needed to be a compelling case made as to why that additional giving was necessary (like competing in the NIL landscape). I just wonder if it will actually turn out to be true, or whether the assumed willingness of donors to give in these collectives will not measure up. It's an amazing economic exercise, that people can be convinced to simply increase spending, getting nothing directly tangible in return (just the hope that their giving will advance the cause of their favorite University's athletic department, which ostensibly is why donors gave money previously as well).
Sorry to ramble, this topic is just objectively interesting, in addition to sparking subjective emotions in people (including me) about the effect this will have on amateurism in athletics, competitive balance, etc.
Its almost like there is the potential for corruption in this whole system.
Maybe they could put the AAU in charge to keep it clean. I don't think the IOC or UN would be available to help.
Look around this thread. I think the concern is real.
Before, colleges bribed student athletes with 20 million dollar training facilities. I think they are finding out the kids would rather have it in cash.
Thank you! I’m not currently planning to give, and I hate this new world of college athletics where the rich are just going to get richer (likely at our expense), but I also recognize we need to do this to stay competitive and there will be people willing to support it.
Because we know this is the end. Our own collective's projections, per Jeremy's post, have us affording one average 3* recruit per year.
Good ramble and breakdown. I know speaking as an alum of 2 big ten schools that’s your first section regarding facilities, scholarships, etc is going to be handled by new mega media deals. Big ten numbers I'm hearing are getting close to the 85-90mil per school from media rights alone and the SEC isn’t far behind. You bring up a very interesting point about the flow of money outside of that though. I wonder what the breakdown will be between people not willing to donate to the university before but will for NIL. Also wonder if this will bring some money in from fans that weren’t alumni
Will NIL give high school principals more or less leverage with student athletes? They will obviously feel more pressure to keep kids eligible. Also, when will NIL hit high schools?
- Status