Congressional NIL Hearings…

[xubrew]

For those that are interested…..

https://www.youtube.com/live/A9KuWQnwxXc?feature=share

[xubrew]

In regards to both NIL and the Alston Case, which are two separate things but that actually overlap quite a bit...

For decades (literally) the NCAA would not budge on "amateurism." I felt it was ridiculously stubborn, and I also felt that it would eventually blow up in their faces if they continued to dig in their heels, which they did. It was the hill they chose to die on, and they died.

I always felt college athletes, as in ALL of them, deserved more than what they were getting and that there were ways for them to get more that wouldn't totally disrupt college athletics itself. Having said that, while I thought they should get more, I also never felt that they were being exploited. Being a student-athlete, even back then, wasn't a bad deal.

But however you felt about it, the one thing that should have been undeniable was that if this ever got into the courts, the NCAA would lose. They would lose HUGE! People that are critical of the NCAA for changing the rules don't seem to understand that it wasn't really their choice to do so. The courts told them "What you're doing is illegal! Change it, or else!!" So, they did. And the changes they were forced to make ended up being way more than what they likely would have been had they just made some changes on their own sooner, and made it to where people weren't lining up to take them to court.

That's what kills me. If you know you can't win in court, then wouldn't you want to do anything you could to stay out of court?? Like...do you want to have to amputate your finger?? Of course not! But would you do it if you knew that doing so could prevent you from having to amputate your entire arm?? YES! But, the NCAA chose not to do that. And now they're seemingly losing control of everything.

[MHettel]

I get the NIL. The NCAA probably could have prevented the current Wild West environment by implementing a stipend across the board. This was about making sure college athletes could make ends meet, not creating an auction for their “services”.

Fine.

But the portal? The immediate transfer rules? That’s like deciding to build your campfire over by the crate of dynamite.

The NIL by itself was always going to create more of a competitive imbalance. Adding the immediate transfer rule into the mix takes it to a whole new level.

Also, why do we undervalue the actual feee education so much. It’s not only 100+ K that these kids save, but I’m alot of cases it’s their only avenue to even going to college. The future dividend of having a degree could be worth millions vs not having one.

[xubrew]

I get the NIL. The NCAA probably could have prevented the current Wild West environment by implementing a stipend across the board. This was about making sure college athletes could make ends meet, not creating an auction for their “services”.

Fine.

But the portal? The immediate transfer rules? That’s like deciding to build your campfire over by the crate of dynamite.

The NIL by itself was always going to create more of a competitive imbalance. Adding the immediate transfer rule into the mix takes it to a whole new level.

Also, why do we undervalue the actual feee education so much. It’s not only 100+ K that these kids save, but I’m alot of cases it’s their only avenue to even going to college. The future dividend of having a degree could be worth millions vs not having one.


The transfer rules are a different issue, but it essentially came down to the same thing. There were only four sports (I think) that didn't allow players to play immediately after transferring. Men's basketball, women's basketball, football, and men's hockey. The stated reason for the rule was that they felt it was in the best academic interests of the players to have a year to get assimilated to a new school. Everyone knew this was bullshit. Whether you liked the rule or not, the stated reason for having it was utterly ridiculous, ESPECIALLY since it only existed for a limited number of sports. Once more and more players threatened to sue, they went ahead and changed the rule.

If a player transfers a second time, they still have to sit out unless they have graduated. It's quite possible, and even probable, that had this landed in the courts, ALL restrictions would have been wiped away. Players could transfer as often as they wanted and been immediately eligible right away. At least now they can only do it once prior to graduating.

[noteggs]

Yes they are very different rule changes and we can all take viewpoints on each. Also think Heet is right on the changes happening at the same time has really amplified things for some on here.

NCAA would have been wise to implement these rule changes out at different times. Unfortunately like Brew has noted numerous times, the NCAA is completely incompetent so here we are.

This is why some have versions of the Wild West IMO. Warranted or not. Thanks NCAA!

[MHettel]

The transfer rules are a different issue, but it essentially came down to the same thing. There were only four sports (I think) that didn't allow players to play immediately after transferring. Men's basketball, women's basketball, football, and men's hockey. The stated reason for the rule was that they felt it was in the best academic interests of the players to have a year to get assimilated to a new school. Everyone knew this was bullshit. Whether you liked the rule or not, the stated reason for having it was utterly ridiculous, ESPECIALLY since it only existed for a limited number of sports. Once more and more players threatened to sue, they went ahead and changed the rule.

If a player transfers a second time, they still have to sit out unless they have graduated. It's quite possible, and even probable, that had this landed in the courts, ALL restrictions would have been wiped away. Players could transfer as often as they wanted and been immediately eligible right away. At least now they can only do it once prior to graduating.

I dont understand why they wouldnt just make it a condition of accepting the scholarship. In the fine print, you just have a clause that says you agree to sit out a year if you elect to transfer. I would actually be in favor of it being designed in such a way that if the COACH dismisses the player or the scholarship is not renewed, then they are free to transfer.

My issue with immediate transfer rule (aside from just not liking it) is that it only applies the logic to a limited extent. Why only let them transfer one time? Any argument you can make to allow for an immediate transfer ONCE, can be applied to an argument to allow immediate transfers as many times as they want. Whats different about the second time? In fact, I'd make an argument that a kid should be able to transfer MID-YEAR and become immediately eligible. make an argument AGAINST that. Then I'll use that exact argument against allowing the 1st immediate transfer.

[Uncle Joe]

Can someone explain why universities are involved with NIL agreements?

1) Are there any NIL dollars coming directly out of the coffers of universities?

2) Why not allow athletes to make agreements directly with third parties (advertisers), thus allowing them to realize their full potential value? Would this not make the playing field a little more level? In other words, is Kerr Kriisa, as an example, limited by the amount of money that Xavier can offer him. I assume this is because of the arrangements/donor access that XU has? Why not allow him to effectively be on his own and transact with any advertisers locally or nationally that he can arrange for himself? Would this not more or less give him more freedom as to where to play, thus allowing smaller schools to compete with the bigger schools?

I guess it's obvious I don't understand exactly how NIL works in the real world.

[MHettel]

Can someone explain why universities are involved with NIL agreements?

1) Are there any NIL dollars coming directly out of the coffers of universities?

2) Why not allow athletes to make agreements directly with third parties (advertisers), thus allowing them to realize their full potential value? Would this not make the playing field a little more level? In other words, is Kerr Kriisa, as an example, limited by the amount of money that Xavier can offer him. I assume this is because of the arrangements/donor access that XU has? Why not allow him to effectively be on his own and transact with any advertisers locally or nationally that he can arrange for himself? Would this not more or less give him more freedom as to where to play, thus allowing smaller schools to compete with the bigger schools?

I guess it's obvious I don't understand exactly how NIL works in the real world.

I dont think the schools are directly involved. I think there is a person or a group of people that understand the universe of willing NIL "donors" or "investors" and that information is made known to the coaches. Players kind of have an idea of what they are looking for and the coaches have an idea of how much of the "pool" they would be willing to commit to any one player. Basically, as far as I can tell, there is a "matchmaker" that gets it all done behind the scenes but includes the 3 key stakeholders in the player, the coach and the NIL sponsor.

[xubrew]

Can someone explain why universities are involved with NIL agreements?

1) Are there any NIL dollars coming directly out of the coffers of universities?

2) Why not allow athletes to make agreements directly with third parties (advertisers), thus allowing them to realize their full potential value? Would this not make the playing field a little more level? In other words, is Kerr Kriisa, as an example, limited by the amount of money that Xavier can offer him. I assume this is because of the arrangements/donor access that XU has? Why not allow him to effectively be on his own and transact with any advertisers locally or nationally that he can arrange for himself? Would this not more or less give him more freedom as to where to play, thus allowing smaller schools to compete with the bigger schools?

I guess it's obvious I don't understand exactly how NIL works in the real world.


I dont think the schools are directly involved. I think there is a person or a group of people that understand the universe of willing NIL "donors" or "investors" and that information is made known to the coaches. Players kind of have an idea of what they are looking for and the coaches have an idea of how much of the "pool" they would be willing to commit to any one player. Basically, as far as I can tell, there is a "matchmaker" that gets it all done behind the scenes but includes the 3 key stakeholders in the player, the coach and the NIL sponsor.

Basically what he said.

For NIL, schools aren't directly involved at all. Name, Image, and Likeness basically allows a player to earn money off of what amounts to endorsement deals. The Alston Case will allow schools to pay players directly, but that's different from NIL. And there are no limits to how much a player can make. Universities are involved only in the sense that they are supposed to report all of the NIL money that is being earned to make sure that it is not coming from an agent (at least not directly), or that they are receiving money for doing nothing. That being said, I'm not exactly sure what happens if a school does not report it, and as best I can tell a player can do something like sign autographs and sell those to whomever may want to buy them for however much they want to pay for them, which is the ultimate end-around for receiving money for doing nothing.

[Uncle Joe]

Basically what he said.

For NIL, schools aren't directly involved at all. Name, Image, and Likeness basically allows a player to earn money off of what amounts to endorsement deals. The Alston Case will allow schools to pay players directly, but that's different from NIL. And there are no limits to how much a player can make. Universities are involved only in the sense that they are supposed to report all of the NIL money that is being earned to make sure that it is not coming from an agent (at least not directly), or that they are receiving money for doing nothing. That being said, I'm not exactly sure what happens if a school does not report it, and as best I can tell a player can do something like sign autographs and sell those to whomever may want to buy them for however much they want to pay for them, which is the ultimate end-around for receiving money for doing nothing.

Are the athletes getting a cut of jerseys, etc sold thru the bookstore: https://www.bkstr.com/xavierstore/search/keyword/basketball/men

[D-West & PO-Z]

Can someone explain why universities are involved with NIL agreements?

1) Are there any NIL dollars coming directly out of the coffers of universities?

2) Why not allow athletes to make agreements directly with third parties (advertisers), thus allowing them to realize their full potential value? Would this not make the playing field a little more level? In other words, is Kerr Kriisa, as an example, limited by the amount of money that Xavier can offer him. I assume this is because of the arrangements/donor access that XU has? Why not allow him to effectively be on his own and transact with any advertisers locally or nationally that he can arrange for himself? Would this not more or less give him more freedom as to where to play, thus allowing smaller schools to compete with the bigger schools?

I guess it's obvious I don't understand exactly how NIL works in the real world.

I believe players are allowed to do it on their own as well. The "schools" or the collectives realize that it is a lot more enticing to a kids to say here is what we already have lined up for you instead of them having to do it on their own.

I actually would be fine if there were not allowed to be any collectives or backdoor coaches involvement etc and it was just 100% on the kids to find their own deals etc. Although I guess the fear is boosters being involved which I don't think they are still allowed (or supposed to be allowed) to do directly. But not sure why not.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Are the athletes getting a cut of jerseys, etc sold thru the bookstore: https://www.bkstr.com/xavierstore/search/keyword/basketball/men

I think so, but can't say 100%.

[MHettel]

I think so, but can't say 100%.

How could they NOT be getting money. It is literally their name on a jersey. The reason the names WERENT on the jerseys before is that the jersey sellers knew that they cannot sell a jersey with someone likeness on it without their consent and "consideration" in exchange. The consideration breaks the old rule.

Remember when XU would auction off the game worn jersey and it would be listed as "#25" and not "Dante Jackson" and the name would literally be removed from the jersey.

c'mon D-West. This was a layup

[nuts4xu]

How could they NOT be getting money. It is literally their name on a jersey. The reason the names WERENT on the jerseys before is that the jersey sellers knew that they cannot sell a jersey with someone likeness on it without their consent and "consideration" in exchange. The consideration breaks the old rule.

Remember when XU would auction off the game worn jersey and it would be listed as "#25" and not "Dante Jackson" and the name would literally be removed from the jersey.

c'mon D-West. This was a layup

They are allowed to put names on the jerseys because the players DO make money. As you stated, it's the only reason they weren't putting names on the jerseys in the past, because they couldn't profit off someone's name.

[xubrew]

Are the athletes getting a cut of jerseys, etc sold thru the bookstore: https://www.bkstr.com/xavierstore/search/keyword/basketball/men

Yes, but I believe it would be coming from the apparel company (Champion in the case of Xavier) and/or the retailer that the bookstore is affiliated with (Barnes and Noble for instance) and not directly from the athletic dept.

But, yes, generally speaking that is allowed. Specifically speaking to Xavier, I have no idea what sort of arrangement they have.

[paulxu]

a player can do something like sign autographs and sell those to whomever may want to buy them for however much they want to pay for them, which is the ultimate end-around for receiving money for doing nothing.

I'm working here.

https://media.lasvegassun.com/media/img/photos/2015/06/29/Unknown_t653.jpeg?214bc4f9d9bd7c08c7d0f6599bb33287 10e01e7b

[xubrew]

I'm working here.

https://media.lasvegassun.com/media/img/photos/2015/06/29/Unknown_t653.jpeg?214bc4f9d9bd7c08c7d0f6599bb33287 10e01e7b

Perfectly within the rules now! Players can do this! If wants to buy a jersey and pay a player $10k to sign it, it's allowed. If someoen wants an autograph on a looseleaf piece of paper....also allowed.

EDIT: Two things that have never made any sense to me at all are autographs and shirts with other people's names on them. I think both of those things are absolutely ridiculous and more pointless than almost anything else I can think of minus maybe jewelry. I mean...whatever makes people happy I guess! But seriously...what's the point??

[paulxu]

You find a 1952 Mickey Mantle baseball card (Topps; #311), and send it to me.

Then I promise to answer your last question.

[D-West & PO-Z]

How could they NOT be getting money. It is literally their name on a jersey. The reason the names WERENT on the jerseys before is that the jersey sellers knew that they cannot sell a jersey with someone likeness on it without their consent and "consideration" in exchange. The consideration breaks the old rule.

Remember when XU would auction off the game worn jersey and it would be listed as "#25" and not "Dante Jackson" and the name would literally be removed from the jersey.

c'mon D-West. This was a layup

Yeah, I knew they were but wasn't really sure who that money was coming from bc I didn't think X was allowed to pay them. But I guess as brew said the apparel company. Obviously it would make no sense if they didn't get money from it.

[D-West & PO-Z]

shirts with other people's names on them.

Ha, my dad (and my wife, but mostly my dad) find grown men wearing jerseys ridiculous. I love sports jerseys. Have 2-3 X jerseys (2 with payers names), 7+ Giants jerseys, 3-4 Mets jerseys, 1 Knicks (Ewing) jersey. My family makes fun of me, but I don't care!

[XUGRAD80]

What a minute…..now we have a REAL contest! We get to see who is MORE INCOMPETENT, the NCAA or Congress. Now that’s entertainment!

[xubrew]

You find a 1952 Mickey Mantle baseball card (Topps; #311), and send it to me.

Then I promise to answer your last question.

Hey, I get that it's valuable! I am just not entirely sure why other than that anyone would want it. There is no real intrinsic value to it. It's just a picture of Mickey Mantle. EXTRENSICALLY it's a completely different story...but seriously....why?? If you got it, would you keep it or sell it?? Most people who want it only want it so they can some day sell it for more. It may as well be a picture of a hotdog for all they care.

[94GRAD]

Hey, I get that it's valuable! I am just not entirely sure why other than that anyone would want it. There is no real intrinsic value to it. It's just a picture of Mickey Mantle. EXTRENSICALLY it's a completely different story...but seriously....why?? If you got it, would you keep it or sell it?? Most people who want it only want it so they can some day sell it for more. It may as well be a picture of a hotdog for all they care.

That's called an NFT

[bjf123]

What a minute…..now we have a REAL contest! We get to see who is MORE INCOMPETENT, the NCAA or Congress. Now that’s entertainment!

That’s a tough one.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230329/4c81bd793a570af35fe7a34f0a2d5de1.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulxu]

That's called an NFT

Hah. The monkey or ape ones.

[Muskie]

Ha, my dad (and my wife, but mostly my dad) find grown men wearing jerseys ridiculous. I love sports jerseys. Have 2-3 X jerseys (2 with payers names), 7+ Giants jerseys, 3-4 Mets jerseys, 1 Knicks (Ewing) jersey. My family makes fun of me, but I don't care!

I'm out of the jersey wearing game at this point in my life. However, I still enjoy collecting autographs. Started as a kid with baseball cards (mailing them off) and now includes a decent size X collection. Can't explain it. Just find it relaxing to look at when I'm watching a game.

[xubrew]

I'm out of the jersey wearing game at this point in my life. However, I still enjoy collecting autographs. Started as a kid with baseball cards (mailing them off) and now includes a decent size X collection. Can't explain it. Just find it relaxing to look at when I'm watching a game.

I realize I'm in the minority when it comes to memorabilia. I have an uncle that collects it. I love him, and because I love him I love busting his balls. Driving for hours and hours, to spend hours and hours waiting in a line, to get someone to sign a jersey does seem ludicrous to me, but I have my own hobbies that seem ludicrous to other people (including myself) too. If that's what you like, then go for it! There are far worse hobbies.

I'm also a HUGE soccer fan. Every soccer fan on the planet (or at least in the US) has jerseys with someone else's name on it that they wear to seemingly everything. I don't get it. I love making fun of my fellow fans that do it. But at the same time, if that's what they like, then they shouldn't care what I think.

[GoMuskies]

Ha, my dad (and my wife, but mostly my dad) find grown men wearing jerseys ridiculous.

Your dad and wife seem wise!

[94GRAD]

I realize I'm in the minority when it comes to memorabilia. I have an uncle that collects it. I love him, and because I love him I love busting his balls. Driving for hours and hours, to spend hours and hours waiting in a line, to get someone to sign a jersey does seem ludicrous to me, but I have my own hobbies that seem ludicrous to other people (including myself) too. If that's what you like, then go for it! There are far worse hobbies.

I'm also a HUGE soccer fan. Every soccer fan on the planet (or at least in the US) has jerseys with someone else's name on it that they wear to seemingly everything. I don't get it. I love making fun of my fellow fans that do it. But at the same time, if that's what they like, then they shouldn't care what I think.

What's the difference between that and wearing Ralph Lauren/Tommy Hilfiger/etc on your front chest?

[xubrew]

What's the difference between that and wearing Ralph Lauren/Tommy Hilfiger/etc on your front chest?

Great question!! There really isn’t now that I think of it. I don’t do that either! Although back in college I did take a white t-shirt and write Tommy Hilfiger across it with a sharpie and wore that around for a while.

[xudash]

That’s a tough one.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230329/4c81bd793a570af35fe7a34f0a2d5de1.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you. I needed a good laugh.

[paulxu]

What's the difference between that and wearing Ralph Lauren/Tommy Hilfiger/etc on your front chest?

Can I get a refund on my Dana Gardens T-shirts (long and short) ?

[94GRAD]

Can I get a refund on my Dana Gardens T-shirts (long and short) ?

If you have a shirt that has BJ on it, you definitely need a refund!

[bigdiggins]

If you have a shirt that has BJ on it, you definitely need a refund!

Monica Lewinski has a blue dress with that on it...

[D-West & PO-Z]

Your dad and wife seem wise!

Ha, they seem like haters to me!

[xubrew]

Monica Lewinski has a blue dress with that on it...

I wonder what that would sell for if both she and Bill signed it?

[bigdiggins]

I wonder what that would sell for if both she and Bill signed it?

Or if Hunter painted it