Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80

Thread: Withers: Zags & the NIL issue

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colville, Wa.
    Posts
    13,838

    Default Withers: Zags & the NIL issue

    https://en.bloguru.com/GloryHounds/3...-the-nil-issue


    (have been traveling for a week, didn't see this posted)
    This post is for March Madness seeding purposes only.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chattaroy
    Posts
    3,379

    Default

    Pandora's Box .....
    http://www.fowlplaces.com/zags/GoZagsTinySignGuyGlassesColor.png

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    14,949

    Default

    Good article by Bud. He covers the issue quite fairly.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagamatic View Post
    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.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagamatic View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,582

    Default

    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.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Napa, CA
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    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?
    I will thank God for the day and the moment I have. - Jimmy V

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webspinnre View Post
    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.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    11,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagamatic View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    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?
    Agent provocateur

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    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)?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    56,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    56,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webspinnre View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kdaleb View Post
    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.
    Agent provocateur

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,582

    Default

    Lets go with kdalebs viewpoint for a second... If it is all above the table instead... what does that do to the WCC. I'd bet the drop off after GU and BYU would be tremendous.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    56,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    Lets go with kdalebs viewpoint for a second... If it is all above the table instead... what does that do to the WCC. I'd bet the drop off after GU and BYU would be tremendous.
    You definitely could be correct that it will end up hurting the schools at the bottom of the WCC... except that I don't think this would change much at all as far as talent distribution is concerned. The top schools would keep getting the top players. And the mid level schools would keep getting the lower level players. The players that play for Pepperdine, Loyala, and Pacific are still going to need a place to play.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    Lets go with kdalebs viewpoint for a second... If it is all above the table instead... what does that do to the WCC. I'd bet the drop off after GU and BYU would be tremendous.
    Where do you think the kids who are now middle tier WCC recruits are going to go instead?
    Agent provocateur

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonuvazag View Post
    Where do you think the kids who are now middle tier WCC recruits are going to go instead?
    Mountain West.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    Mountain West.
    Interesting. It could happen. With the exception of Gonzaga, these are two conferences that seem to be in the same recruiting ballpark already.

    In Division I basketball, these two conferences are ranked right next to each other in the average annual expenses per program with the WCC slightly ahead.

    In 247 recruiting scores for 2019, the Mountain West had a better average score than the WCC. So it's close, but it seems the MW is already winning a few more of these recruiting battles on average.

    If we're thinking about which schools have more money in the bank, the WCC has a distinct advantage in the average endowments of the schools.

    So I'm not sure why the Mountain West would be in a better position to pay players than the WCC but if they were more committed to it, yeah.

    https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018...zaga-mid-major
    https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Ba...TeamRankings/#

    Agent provocateur

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    358

    Default

    I really do not understand this topic. My understanding these kids are getting an education free of charge, that education has a price tag of what, 30-60k? will the scholarships be faded out? It sounds to me that greed has something to do with this.
    I understand that these kids should have a right to make money off there name, cool. should this not also extend to science majors participating in R&D; when they get breakthroughs the kids are not paid, but the university or school retains the copyright, and or patent on said breakthrough.
    School is for education, If the kids want to start making that type of money, maybe they should have opted to go pro instead of eating a scholarship. just my opinion.
    when you introduce money, i can see it going horribly wrong, and becoming even more uneven in college recruiting.
    I like college basketball/volleyball because they are amateur sports.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dan71w View Post
    I really do not understand this topic. My understanding these kids are getting an education free of charge, that education has a price tag of what, 30-60k? will the scholarships be faded out? It sounds to me that greed has something to do with this.
    I understand that these kids should have a right to make money off there name, cool. should this not also extend to science majors participating in R&D; when they get breakthroughs the kids are not paid, but the university or school retains the copyright, and or patent on said breakthrough.
    School is for education, If the kids want to start making that type of money, maybe they should have opted to go pro instead of eating a scholarship. just my opinion.
    when you introduce money, i can see it going horribly wrong, and becoming even more uneven in college recruiting.
    I like college basketball/volleyball because they are amateur sports.
    It is interesting that the PAC 12 commissioner is pretty much against this as well.
    https://ktla.com/2019/10/07/its-amat...es-make-money/

    I could see a situation where the College athlete has the right to hire an agent and make money from their likeness, but not be allowed to participate in sports. If the conference AND the individual schools don't allow the individuals on their teams to do this, it would be a very interesting legal battle with 45 (more or less) states and the vast majority of the Universities and Colleges siding WITH the NCAA to fight this.


    So Sure, you have the right to be paid, but not at any of THESE schools. Could the Cali legislature REQUIRE the schools to accept ANY athlete?
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dan71w View Post
    I really do not understand this topic. My understanding these kids are getting an education free of charge, that education has a price tag of what, 30-60k? will the scholarships be faded out? It sounds to me that greed has something to do with this.
    I understand that these kids should have a right to make money off there name, cool. should this not also extend to science majors participating in R&D; when they get breakthroughs the kids are not paid, but the university or school retains the copyright, and or patent on said breakthrough.
    School is for education, If the kids want to start making that type of money, maybe they should have opted to go pro instead of eating a scholarship. just my opinion.
    when you introduce money, i can see it going horribly wrong, and becoming even more uneven in college recruiting.
    I like college basketball/volleyball because they are amateur sports.
    Its a tricky situation to deal with.

    But the issue is simply this.
    NCAA Brings in 1 Million in Revenue.
    https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...-revenue-first
    A large portion of that revenue is from College Basketball.

    The players are the ones actually playing the games and providing that entertainment while the NCAA and the industry profits off of the students.

    Gonzaga has been very successful in leveraging its success on the back of the Men's Basketball Teams success. NCAA has made some good money off of the players ability to perform and bring in ratings. ESPN has made money off the players ability to draw ratings. Everyone is making money off these players disproportionately to what they get in return.

    The problem is the competition generates too much damn money and the ones actually playing the game get screwed in comparison to the industry who just leeches off of them and then says "you are an amateur, you should play for the experience and education. How dare you take food out of my babies mouths and gas out of my 5 cars. I have to pay this mortgage on this 500k house no to mention my vacation homes! How dare you!"

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asoc View Post
    Its a tricky situation to deal with.

    The problem is the competition generates too much damn money and the ones actually playing the game get screwed in comparison to the industry who just leeches off of them and then says "you are an amateur, you should play for the experience and education. How dare you take food out of my babies mouths and gas out of my 5 cars. I have to pay this mortgage on this 500k house no to mention my vacation homes! How dare you!"
    The problem is, the Waltons of Walmart, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, The CEO of any major corporation in this country are making Millions to Billions, and we are told to be happy with a new cell phone, with crappy health care, with a new-used car. And they say " How dare you take food out of my babies mouths and gas out of my 5 cars. I have to pay this mortgage on this 500k house no to mention my vacation homes! How dare you!"

    Sounds like the way of the world and the student athletes ARE getting something of value, something that will HOLD it's value and perhaps even be a spring board to becoming a CEO.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asoc View Post
    Its a tricky situation to deal with.

    But the issue is simply this.
    NCAA Brings in 1 Million in Revenue.
    https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...-revenue-first
    A large portion of that revenue is from College Basketball.

    The players are the ones actually playing the games and providing that entertainment while the NCAA and the industry profits off of the students.

    Gonzaga has been very successful in leveraging its success on the back of the Men's Basketball Teams success. NCAA has made some good money off of the players ability to perform and bring in ratings. ESPN has made money off the players ability to draw ratings. Everyone is making money off these players disproportionately to what they get in return.

    The problem is the competition generates too much damn money and the ones actually playing the game get screwed in comparison to the industry who just leeches off of them and then says "you are an amateur, you should play for the experience and education. How dare you take food out of my babies mouths and gas out of my 5 cars. I have to pay this mortgage on this 500k house no to mention my vacation homes! How dare you!"
    As has been mentioned numerous times in the various threads on this issue.

    Yes the NCAA brings in about a $1 billion dollars a year mostly from Mbb, but it is also true that they return about 96% of the revenue back to the member institutions.

    The NCAA is not awash in cash like some posters continue to believe.

    The member institutions as a whole make approximately 10 times the amount of money that the NCAA does and they keep the money.

    Everyone is making money off these players disproportionately to what they get in return.


    So, as a whole, a full ride scholarship, a year of coaching, nutritionist, trainer, etc. has been estimated to be worth approximately $100,000 per year. exactly how many Mbb players are getting the "shaft" by not being able to make additional money off their name, likeness or image? How many of the 13 scholarship players on last year's GU squad do you think came out on the short end of the stick? Rui? anybody else? 1 out of 13?

    ZagDad

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •