Withers: Zags & the NIL issue

[sittingon50]

https://en.bloguru.com/GloryHounds/359008/zags-in-the-crosshairs-of-the-nil-issue

(have been traveling for a week, didn't see this posted)

[Zagger]

Pandora's Box .....

[kitzbuel]

Good article by Bud. He covers the issue quite fairly.

[zagamatic]

I honestly don't see how it can or should be treated any differently than having a part time job. It's just a better paying part time job. I mean, if a student who has a scholarship related to economics, etc was able to use their skills to turn a big profit in the stock market on their own time, would we be having this discussion? The only real difference is that everyone knows that there are less than honest institutions out there that are more than willing to take advantage of young adults with a high visibility. But again, how is this any different from any other 18 year old kid being taken advantage of? I mean, there are those in law enforcement who would take advantage of a naive young adult and put them into a deadly situation just to get an arrest.
Comparatively speaking, is it really that bad of a thing to let a kid make some extra money? Especially if they already have a wife and kids as some college athletes do?
I think that the real question is what laws do we create to limit a scumbags involvement in these kids lives? Not should they be able to use their image to make money. Might as well shut down the whole modeling and fashion industry if you are saying that young adults can't make money from their image.

[willandi]

I honestly don't see how it can or should be treated any differently than having a part time job. It's just a better paying part time job. I mean, if a student who has a scholarship related to economics, etc was able to use their skills to turn a big profit in the stock market on their own time, would we be having this discussion? The only real difference is that everyone knows that there are less than honest institutions out there that are more than willing to take advantage of young adults with a high visibility. But again, how is this any different from any other 18 year old kid being taken advantage of? I mean, there are those in law enforcement who would take advantage of a naive young adult and put them into a deadly situation just to get an arrest.
Comparatively speaking, is it really that bad of a thing to let a kid make some extra money? Especially if they already have a wife and kids as some college athletes do?
I think that the real question is what laws do we create to limit a scumbags involvement in these kids lives? Not should they be able to use their image to make money. Might as well shut down the whole modeling and fashion industry if you are saying that young adults can't make money from their image.

The difference is, would a booster pay that economic student a large sum of money without them having to do the stock market?

The reason the rules are in place is exactly because boosters, in the past, WOULD pay student athletes large sums of money for doing nothing to very little. Nothing has changed.

[bdmiller7]

I honestly don't see how it can or should be treated any differently than having a part time job. It's just a better paying part time job. I mean, if a student who has a scholarship related to economics, etc was able to use their skills to turn a big profit in the stock market on their own time, would we be having this discussion? The only real difference is that everyone knows that there are less than honest institutions out there that are more than willing to take advantage of young adults with a high visibility. But again, how is this any different from any other 18 year old kid being taken advantage of? I mean, there are those in law enforcement who would take advantage of a naive young adult and put them into a deadly situation just to get an arrest.
Comparatively speaking, is it really that bad of a thing to let a kid make some extra money? Especially if they already have a wife and kids as some college athletes do?
I think that the real question is what laws do we create to limit a scumbags involvement in these kids lives? Not should they be able to use their image to make money. Might as well shut down the whole modeling and fashion industry if you are saying that young adults can't make money from their image.

I dont think there is a worry of 18 year olds being taken advantage, I think it's a matter of trying to maintain a level playing field for all. Some universities have 500,000+ alumni and big time boosters who would could promise big time payments for little or no work just to get kids on campus. I think the big issue the ncaa is trying to sort out is how to do it where kids can make money but the system isnt taken advantage of, not the 18 year olds.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Unless it is done right, we are definitely going back the the Gilbert era. Bud skirted around it and never named him... but you knew exactly who he was talking about. 10 championships in 12 years... bet Gilbert and Wooden thought it was money well spent.

[webspinnre]

The difference is, would a booster pay that economic student a large sum of money without them having to do the stock market?

The reason the rules are in place is exactly because boosters, in the past, WOULD pay student athletes large sums of money for doing nothing to very little. Nothing has changed.

This is the struggle. How can we ensure students can profit from their NIL as they should have the right to do, without it simply being a bidding war between the wealthiest alumni bases to pay athletes they've never heard of to come to their schools?

[willandi]

This is the struggle. How can we ensure students can profit from their NIL as they should have the right to do, without it simply being a bidding war between the wealthiest alumni bases to pay athletes they've never heard of to come to their schools?

Easiest is no likeness or jersey with names of current student athletes allowed.

Black market dealers can be pursued to the full extent of the law.

For the Zags, it would mean the Rui, Clarke, Goss-Williams, Morrison et al would be sold, but no Tillie, Kispert, Raver etc. The athletes would each get a cut of the sale.

[MDABE80]

I honestly don't see how it can or should be treated any differently than having a part time job. It's just a better paying part time job. I mean, if a student who has a scholarship related to economics, etc was able to use their skills to turn a big profit in the stock market on their own time, would we be having this discussion? The only real difference is that everyone knows that there are less than honest institutions out there that are more than willing to take advantage of young adults with a high visibility. But again, how is this any different from any other 18 year old kid being taken advantage of? I mean, there are those in law enforcement who would take advantage of a naive young adult and put them into a deadly situation just to get an arrest.
Comparatively speaking, is it really that bad of a thing to let a kid make some extra money? Especially if they already have a wife and kids as some college athletes do?
I think that the real question is what laws do we create to limit a scumbags involvement in these kids lives? Not should they be able to use their image to make money. Might as well shut down the whole modeling and fashion industry if you are saying that young adults can't make money from their image.

So u think 18-20 yr olds should go to the highest bidder? It’s ok for teens to go into business for themselves?? Just something to consider.

[sonuvazag]

Unless it is done right, we are definitely going back the the Gilbert era. Bud skirted around it and never named him... but you knew exactly who he was talking about. 10 championships in 12 years... bet Gilbert and Wooden thought it was money well spent.

I get your concerns and I'm just trying to understand the following if you know the answers. Was there an actual bidding war going on that UCLA won for every athlete it wanted or did UCLA benefit from skirting the rules that most other universities played by ... or a bit of both? Do you think being the "it" school could have helped UCLA win recruiting battles even had it been outbid?

[Bogozags]

Unless it is done right, we are definitely going back the the Gilbert era. Bud skirted around it and never named him... but you knew exactly who he was talking about. 10 championships in 12 years... bet Gilbert and Wooden thought it was money well spent.

Question: If there was proof that Coach Wooden was involved, wouldn't the NCAA have gone back and taken those Championships away from UCLA like the did for UL and Vilanova (Howard)?

[kdaleb]

Unless it is done right, we are definitely going back the the Gilbert era. Bud skirted around it and never named him... but you knew exactly who he was talking about. 10 championships in 12 years... bet Gilbert and Wooden thought it was money well spent.

Personally, I don't have a problem with this... the difference then was UCLA was playing by a different set of rules than everyone else. If everyone is playing by the same rules then....

The universe of potential players won't change, the number of players on the court at one time one change. Duke and Kentucky will still only be able to put five guys in at a time. The 50th best player in the country will still need a place to go. And those guys will still have a chance to knock off a "better" team come tourney time. Plus, if guys know they can still make money at college, perhaps guys who are fringe pros won't leave to make 50k in the G League or 150k in Europe if they know they can make $25k or $40k from endorsements if they stay with the Zags. I could see this potential rule change really improving college ball by encouraging a lot of guys to stick around an extra year or two.

[kdaleb]

This is the struggle. How can we ensure students can profit from their NIL as they should have the right to do, without it simply being a bidding war between the wealthiest alumni bases to pay athletes they've never heard of to come to their schools?

How is that different from today? The best players still go to Duke and Kentucky every year, with the next level blue bloods (UNC, Kansas, etc) competing for the next tier of players and the next level of good programs competing on down. There already is some money going to recruits and their families. Some of it legal (Bagley's dad running a youth ball program for Nike) some of it not legal (De Sousa at Kansas)... but either way, there's only so many roster spots at each school. If some rich booster wants to make Northern Illinois into a major program by spending tons of dough, I think that's fine. At least it would be above board and the money would actually go to the young men adding value instead of to the coach, AD, and a bunch of shadowy fringe people (whether family or "representatives") siphoning in the illegal side money.

[sonuvazag]

How is that different from today? The best players still go to Duke and Kentucky every year, with the next level blue bloods (UNC, Kansas, etc) competing for the next tier of players and the next level of good programs competing on down. There already is some money going to recruits and their families. Some of it legal (Bagley's dad running a youth ball program for Nike) some of it not legal (De Sousa at Kansas)... but either way, there's only so many roster spots at each school. If some rich booster wants to make Northern Illinois into a major program by spending tons of dough, I think that's fine. At least it would be above board and the money would actually go to the young men adding value instead of to the coach, AD, and a bunch of shadowy fringe people (whether family or "representatives") siphoning in the illegal side money.

Whether fair or not, the idea that someone would donate money directly to a student athlete is what most find unseemly.

Essentially no one except non-sports people thinks it's unseemly for a donor to give to an athletic program, even if the program is already flush with cash and the only thing to do with the money is pamper the athletes. Many or most seem to think it would be acceptable for athletes to trade their NIL for fair market value such as endorsements that generate business. And in both of these cases, the concept of a level playing field is totally under attack by the amount of money involved so that's no excuse.