2023 College Basketball Transfer Portal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

Lets all stop pretending that Miller and/or Xavier is taking some anti NIL/players wanting to get the most stance though. Xavier just can't compete with Miami offering 800K for 2 years for a guy. They aren't taking some moral stance, if they could compete with that they would. It certainly has worked out quite well for Miami.

---

Does anyone have that opinion? I don't recall anyone with that viewpoint. If money is the deciding factor, Xavier likely isn't the best fit. That is the stance Sean Miller is taking, not some moral high ground that he doesn't want to pay a player. Just that Xavier isn't going to out bid anyone. Players will get paid at Xavier, some will get paid well. But we don't have the resources nor the time to spend chasing the type of player that ONLY cares about getting the most money for their services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuts4xu

Xavier is playing the NIL game, but they are not going to out bid other schools for kids wanting to transfer. That is the game Miller isn't playing.

Last off season, it was widely speculated Miami University offered LSU transfer Nigele Peck in the range of $400k. Xavier was recruiting him, but was never going to put up that type coin, and he ended up going to the highest bidder.

My understanding is the NIL program at Xavier is competitive but we will not pursue mercenaries or kids that want to take their services to the highest bidder.

---

Just to be clear, that was the University of Miami (not Miami U in Oxford) that bid in $450K per year, for Pack----a total of nearly $900K. At least, that is the sum quoted by the media. The announcers during the Miami - Texas game also quoted that number. Doesn't mean it is accurate because NIL isn't very transparent, but it has been the number widely quoted. BTW, for those who argue this year's final four confirms that College hoops isn't going to follow Charles Barkley's prediction, I point to the U. They were reportedly very active in NIL for both Men's and Women's hoops and look at the results. Men's team is in its first final four and Women's team made the Sweet Sixteen for the first time. That, of course, doesn't prove anything but it can be seen as confirmatory evidence that NIL matters. Is going to be interesting to watch what happens to college sports over the next few years.

I hope X doesn't pursue the players who just want to get paid. On the one hand, I cannot blame many of the players---especially those who will likely never go pro and haven't taken the free education part of a full ride seriously. Nigel Pack money may be the biggest financial opportunity they will ever see. On the other hand, free agency in professional sports is one of the factors that has made it less interesting to follow for some, like me. Player turnover can loosen the bond between team and fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuts4xu

Does anyone have that opinion? I don't recall anyone with that viewpoint. If money is the deciding factor, Xavier likely isn't the best fit. That is the stance Sean Miller is taking, not some moral high ground that he doesn't want to pay a player. Just that Xavier isn't going to out bid anyone. Players will get paid at Xavier, some will get paid well. But we don't have the resources nor the time to spend chasing the type of player that ONLY cares about getting the most money for their services.

---

I believe that in some instances Miller identifies a guy he wants and Xavier is also the highest bidder.

I do agree that Xavier won't be able to outbid many schools for certain guys who would not be worth going after.

But for example, say Boum was a guy Miller identified he wanted and Boum was also a guy who was interested in going to whoever offered him the most NIL money. Boum last offseason didn't seem to be all that highly sought after in the portal, there could have been a match where Boum wanted the most he could get and Xavier offered him the most.

So I agree there are some guys who will be out of reach who won't be worth pursuing, I disagree Miller disregards any transfer who is looking to get the most they can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuts4xu

Does anyone have that opinion? I don't recall anyone with that viewpoint. If money is the deciding factor, Xavier likely isn't the best fit. That is the stance Sean Miller is taking, not some moral high ground that he doesn't want to pay a player. Just that Xavier isn't going to out bid anyone. Players will get paid at Xavier, some will get paid well. But we don't have the resources nor the time to spend chasing the type of player that ONLY cares about getting the most money for their services.

---

Sean will have a roster mostly full of players he recruited next year. Should be interesting to see who he can get from the portal. Maybe make a sneaky bid for Bronny James. Who knows. Buckle up. Gonna be quite the ride during the portal window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murray87

Jameer Nelson Jr is in the portal. That makes me feel even older!

---

Me, too! Ugh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, it appears that some degree of reality is setting in.

The portal "window" may well turn out to be more important annually than the traditional recruiting window. In fact, I'm fully expecting that.

But I think there is alot more reality that we maybe dont want to face.

When deciding on a new school, I think about 80% of the final decision will come down to the amount of NIL money offered. By that, I mean if all other things were equal and a player was considering 2 schools, that if one offer was less than 80% of the other, then the larger offer will be the deciding factor.

I'll take that idea even further. It is very rare that "all things are equal", and I think 50% of ALL transfer decisions will be based on NIL Money. Take this scenario: School A is in a very good conference with a quality coach and a tournament worthy roster, and is offering 100K in NIL. Team B is Miami (OH) and is offering 200K. remember, you are a 20 year old kid.

Money is going to be a major factor and in some cases will be the only factor.

Anyone can see this in hindsight. But can you see it in foresight? This is happening. The biggest and most popular teams will dominate the NIL "market" with "corporate" dollars designed to return some marketing benefit. Then big affluent alumni bases will also play a big role by just funneling money directly to kids with no apparent marketing obligation of the kid.

the more I look at the way the rosters of some of the NCAA teams that went deep were constructed, the more convinced i am that we are just at the edge of this wave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MHettel

Well, it appears that some degree of reality is setting in.

The portal "window" may well turn out to be more important annually than the traditional recruiting window. In fact, I'm fully expecting that.

But I think there is alot more reality that we maybe dont want to face.

When deciding on a new school, I think about 80% of the final decision will come down to the amount of NIL money offered. By that, I mean if all other things were equal and a player was considering 2 schools, that if one offer was less than 80% of the other, then the larger offer will be the deciding factor.

I'll take that idea even further. It is very rare that "all things are equal", and I think 50% of ALL transfer decisions will be based on NIL Money. Take this scenario: School A is in a very good conference with a quality coach and a tournament worthy roster, and is offering 100K in NIL. Team B is Miami (OH) and is offering 200K. remember, you are a 20 year old kid.

Money is going to be a major factor and in some cases will be the only factor.

Anyone can see this in hindsight. But can you see it in foresight? This is happening. The biggest and most popular teams will dominate the NIL "market" with "corporate" dollars designed to return some marketing benefit. Then big affluent alumni bases will also play a big role by just funneling money directly to kids with no apparent marketing obligation of the kid.

the more I look at the way the rosters of some of the NCAA teams that went deep were constructed, the more convinced i am that we are just at the edge of this wave.

---

What is it specifically that bothers you about this? Is it like a sanctity of amateurism in college sports type deal? If not, what?

The largest schools with the most money have always dominated college athletics. So what is the big change you see happening? The only difference is the athletes themselves now have a lot more power and are benefiting financially.

What is it about people using their leverage to get the most money they can that bothers you so much?

Why would you give two shits that the athlete in your scenario picked Miami OH? Also, that does the opposite of what you are predicting, Miami OH, who usually stinks, now has an opportunity to level the playing field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

What is it specifically that bothers you about this? Is it like a sanctity of amateurism in college sports type deal? If not, what?

The largest schools with the most money have always dominated college athletics. So what is the big change you see happening? The only difference is the athletes themselves now have a lot more power and are benefiting financially.

What is it about people using their leverage to get the most money they can that bothers you so much?

Why would you give two shits that the athlete in your scenario picked Miami OH? Also, that does the opposite of what you are predicting, Miami OH, who usually stinks, now has an opportunity to level the playing field.

---

Public reps, the man is keeping me down.

And, now, like a Woke mob, fellow posters descend on Hettel because he finds the NIL money grab distasteful. I'm with you Hettel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumpin_Jamal_Forever

And, now, like a Woke mob, fellow posters descend on Hettel because he finds the NIL money grab distasteful. I'm with you Hettel.

---

Asking questions about why it bothers someone is akin to a "woke mob"? Don't be a snowflake.

Why does it bother you? Dislike capitalism? Or is it the amateur thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

What is it specifically that bothers you about this? Is it like a sanctity of amateurism in college sports type deal? If not, what?

The largest schools with the most money have always dominated college athletics. So what is the big change you see happening? The only difference is the athletes themselves now have a lot more power and are benefiting financially.

What is it about people using their leverage to get the most money they can that bothers you so much?

Why would you give two shits that the athlete in your scenario picked Miami OH? Also, that does the opposite of what you are predicting, Miami OH, who usually stinks, now has an opportunity to level the playing field.

---

It appears that you support paying players or more specifically paying players through the NIL model. Let me ask you a question. Would you be upset if Sean Miller announced next year that he had accepted a head coaching job with another school and the reason why he was leaving Xavier was because he didn’t feel he could be successful due to insufficient NIL funding (sorry for the run-on sentence)?

I guess the ones that have a problem with nil are the ones who have stuck their heads in the sand and believe that players weren’t getting paid for decades under the table. Must be nice to live in the world of fantasy and make believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final4

It appears that you support paying players or more specifically paying players through the NIL model. Let me ask you a question. Would you be upset if Sean Miller announced next year that he had accepted a head coaching job with another school and the reason why he was leaving Xavier was because he didn’t feel he could be successful due to insufficient NIL funding (sorry for the run-on sentence)?

---

That would suck for Xavier, but because that sucks for Xavier do I think every college player who can make money off their image and likeness should be denied the right to do so? Heck no. However, Miller knows exactly the situation he's walking into at X, what the advantages are, and what the limitations are, so I'd be pretty surprised if that happened. Plus this is already, essentially, why Miller left in 2009 the first time. For a program that was bigger, with more resources.

Anyway this is all a moot point to discuss in terms of it we like it or not. It isn't going anywhere. It isn't even a rule the NCAA decided on that they can now take away. The courts told them they can't stop it. Not legally allowed.

Now do I think some more common sense things can be applied to some of this stuff? Sure, probably more portal related than NIL though. I think there probably should be more of a defined portal period, no just something that is open all the time. I think that should be the case for coaches leaving their teams for another too though (seems to be more of an issue in football) where they are leaving, in some instances, before huge meaningful bowl games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final4

It appears that you support paying players or more specifically paying players through the NIL model. Let me ask you a question. Would you be upset if Sean Miller announced next year that he had accepted a head coaching job with another school and the reason why he was leaving Xavier was because he didn’t feel he could be successful due to insufficient NIL funding (sorry for the run-on sentence)?

---

Here is a question for you. It appears you support coaches being allowed to make as much money as they want, and as much as someone will pay them. Would you be upset if UNC fired Hubert Davis tomorrow and offered Sean Miller 9 million per year to coach at UNC, and Miller took it stating it was life changing money he could not pass up for his family?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

Here is a question for you. It appears you support coaches being allowed to make as much money as they want, and as much as someone will pay them. Would you be upset if UNC fired Hubert Davis tomorrow and offered Sean Miller 9 million per year to coach at UNC, and Miller took it stating it was life changing money he could not pass up for his family?

---

I'll you what........I asked my question first so how 'bout you answer mine and then I'll answer yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final4

It appears that you support paying players or more specifically paying players through the NIL model. Let me ask you a question. Would you be upset if Sean Miller announced next year that he had accepted a head coaching job with another school and the reason why he was leaving Xavier was because he didn’t feel he could be successful due to insufficient NIL funding (sorry for the run-on sentence)?

---

X has had 6 of its last 7 coaches leave because they didn't think they could win at the highest level for one reason or another. NIL would just be another "excuse" for a coach to leave.

A slight refocusing on the topic, given that NIL is most likely here to stay in some form.

What are outcomes/realities that could bring sanity to the NIL environment (if I am allowed to presume that NIL is here to stay, but is operating at a more feverish level out of the gate at this point)?

I see two potential governing possibilities:

1. Supply and demand of available talent; and

2. Funding fatigue on the part of NIL sponsors who don't always realize their perceived/stated objectives with the NIL-funded player.


Re #1: As has been pointed out, there has always been a stratification of talent in the sport with the most talented going to the bigger programs, and with most of those players, if not all of them receiving "support" for choosing those schools. Are we at a place in the pecking order that will still allow us to operate effectively with a sufficient talent pool for Sean? Does the supply of available talent at the level we require it outpace the demand for NIL-targeted players we may want? I guess we could draw conclusions from rating services lists, etc., but part of this is complicated by the amount of oxygen that football playing schools are going to suck away from each other as they chase football players on the NIL side. Yes, bigger schools, so more NIL co-op space, but still, they have to make room for at least 22 starters on both sides of the ball for football. I don't have an answer for this, obviously. I'm just wondering if the issue is abated somewhat by having enough of a talent pool to begin with, and then having a little competitive relief from the fact that the "P5" crowd has other funding issues to address.

Re #2: Here is where I may be naive, but how does a SPONSOR achieve true marketing value from a kid who may only be around for one, two or a few years? As I've noted before, an 18-year old or a 22-year old basketball player isn't going to sell me a car. Beyond that, what if my INVESTMENT breaks an ankle or something and is left sitting on the bench watching the game? Corporate NIL deals. Publicly traded companies spending this way in their marketing departments? NCAAT sponsors maybe - look at AT&T. But that is a very few people benefitting from that one. Privately-held company that makes a lot of money? So you make a lot of money - 7-digits a year - but are you going to be willing to go out of pocket for this stuff over multiple years to the tune of six-digit installments over those years? Perhaps, if you're one of the avid boosters. Perhaps not, or perhaps it gets old after a while as you assess the value of the NIL "investment" and other ways of supporting your school. Here is where I get back to worrying mostly about the collectives as I understand them. Big schools with huge alumni bases that PayPal there way online through $5 and $10 here and there over 40,000 people. Wait. That tops out at $400k. Good for ony player for the "U."

Now I'm babbling. The question remains: what could bring sanity to this area. Who is paying for C. J. Stroud's scheduled maintenance calls at the Bentley dealership? Well, bad example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

I guess the ones that have a problem with nil are the ones who have stuck their heads in the sand and believe that players weren’t getting paid for decades under the table. Must be nice to live in the world of fantasy and make believe.

---

This is flat earth level shit.

I'm sure that in the most exceptional circumstances players were getting paid modest amounts. Like VERY rarely were players getting paid at all, and usually probably more like the "hundred dollar handshake."

To say that "its no different than it's always been, i'ts just not being hidden anymore" is just ridiculous.

And KyKy has entered the Portal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

Asking questions about why it bothers someone is akin to a "woke mob"? Don't be a snowflake.

Why does it bother you? Dislike capitalism? Or is it the amateur thing?

---

Maybe I just think the Value of the Scholarhip (and assorted other benefits) is sufficient. Actually, I dont think that. I think a stipend for players would be appropriate. But only to the extent that the stipend amount is uniform for all players at all schools for a certain sport. I'd be in favor of 1000 a month per player during the school year. this gets them off the "Ramen Plan", and allows them to upgrade to the "frozen chicken strips plan".

I didnt think you needed a free education AND a sports car.

By the way, at this juncture, I would like to see the scholarships revoked and just have kids pay their own way using the NIL money. Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MHettel

Maybe I just think the Value of the Scholarhip (and assorted other benefits) is sufficient. Actually, I dont think that. I think a stipend for players would be appropriate. But only to the extent that the stipend amount is uniform for all players at all schools for a certain sport. I'd be in favor of 1000 a month per player during the school year. this gets them off the "Ramen Plan", and allows them to upgrade to the "frozen chicken strips plan".

---

This exists. It's about $3k per semester.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final4

I'll you what........I asked my question first so how 'bout you answer mine and then I'll answer yours.

---

I already did right before this post you quoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MHettel

Maybe I just think the Value of the Scholarhip (and assorted other benefits) is sufficient. Actually, I dont think that. I think a stipend for players would be appropriate. But only to the extent that the stipend amount is uniform for all players at all schools for a certain sport. I'd be in favor of 1000 a month per player during the school year. this gets them off the "Ramen Plan", and allows them to upgrade to the "frozen chicken strips plan".

I didnt think you needed a free education AND a sports car.

By the way, at this juncture, I would like to see the scholarships revoked and just have kids pay their own way using the NIL money. Why not?

---

So is it jealousy? Or a yearning for how things used to be? If the market dictates they are worth more then why do you care they get more? Do you think 2 million should be enough for Miller and other coaches, why do they need 4 million and 6 million and on?

Being worried about Xavier's ability to keep up and the detrimental effects it may have on their program if they don't keep up makes a lot more sense to me as a reason to wish things were how the used to be. But if even smaller schools, or mid major schools are competing at a high level, I just can't wrap my head around why anyone would care.

However, to each their own. Not trying to convince you to feel differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xudash

A slight refocusing on the topic, given that NIL is most likely here to stay in some form.

What are outcomes/realities that could bring sanity to the NIL environment (if I am allowed to presume that NIL is here to stay, but is operating at a more feverish level out of the gate at this point)?

I see two potential governing possibilities:

1. Supply and demand of available talent; and

2. Funding fatigue on the part of NIL sponsors who don't always realize their perceived/stated objectives with the NIL-funded player.


Re #1: As has been pointed out, there has always been a stratification of talent in the sport with the most talented going to the bigger programs, and with most of those players, if not all of them receiving "support" for choosing those schools. Are we at a place in the pecking order that will still allow us to operate effectively with a sufficient talent pool for Sean? Does the supply of available talent at the level we require it outpace the demand for NIL-targeted players we may want? I guess we could draw conclusions from rating services lists, etc., but part of this is complicated by the amount of oxygen that football playing schools are going to suck away from each other as they chase football players on the NIL side. Yes, bigger schools, so more NIL co-op space, but still, they have to make room for at least 22 starters on both sides of the ball for football. I don't have an answer for this, obviously. I'm just wondering if the issue is abated somewhat by having enough of a talent pool to begin with, and then having a little competitive relief from the fact that the "P5" crowd has other funding issues to address.

Re #2: Here is where I may be naive, but how does a SPONSOR achieve true marketing value from a kid who may only be around for one, two or a few years? As I've noted before, an 18-year old or a 22-year old basketball player isn't going to sell me a car. Beyond that, what if my INVESTMENT breaks an ankle or something and is left sitting on the bench watching the game? Corporate NIL deals. Publicly traded companies spending this way in their marketing departments? NCAAT sponsors maybe - look at AT&T. But that is a very few people benefitting from that one. Privately-held company that makes a lot of money? So you make a lot of money - 7-digits a year - but are you going to be willing to go out of pocket for this stuff over multiple years to the tune of six-digit installments over those years? Perhaps, if you're one of the avid boosters. Perhaps not, or perhaps it gets old after a while as you assess the value of the NIL "investment" and other ways of supporting your school. Here is where I get back to worrying mostly about the collectives as I understand them. Big schools with huge alumni bases that PayPal there way online through $5 and $10 here and there over 40,000 people. Wait. That tops out at $400k. Good for ony player for the "U."

Now I'm babbling. The question remains: what could bring sanity to this area. Who is paying for C. J. Stroud's scheduled maintenance calls at the Bentley dealership? Well, bad example.

---

I think this is a very important question, and that it taps into something that most people are missing.

Think back to the scandals with the apparel companies and agents. Why were they doing that?? It wasn't so much to sell a product as it was to get access to and build relationships with players. Basketball is a global game. It doesn't have the global appeal that soccer has, but it is a global game. Most people don't realize this either, but more than half of all D1 players end up playing professionally somewhere in the world, and the vast majority end up making over $70k a year. A large percentage of players make a lot more than that. For P5 schools, I believe that number is close to 80%. That's not NBA money, but it's some money. Most agents will make anywhere from 4% to 15% of a contract. That's why agents and bag men are willing to give money to players, and the apparel companies were willing to front that money in exchange for access to an agent's really good players.

Far more basketball players were getting money that they technically were not supposed to be getting than what most people ever realized. Sometimes it wasn't even coming from the school or from a booster. Many times a school may not have even known. So, in men's basketball, at the D1 level, while a lot of money may be officially coming from a "sponsor" MOST of the time I don't think it's because of that particular player's marketing value for that partuclar company, but rather as a way for companies to get closer to agents and for agents to get closer to players.

And there is a whole big session on NIL at this year's Coaches Convention at the Final Four. And while oftentimes nothing ever changes during and after conventions, I'm kind of curious to hear about how this goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

So is it jealousy? Or a yearning for how things used to be? If the market dictates they are worth more then why do you care they get more? Do you think 2 million should be enough for Miller and other coaches, why do they need 4 million and 6 million and on?

Being worried about Xavier's ability to keep up and the detrimental effects it may have on their program if they don't keep up makes a lot more sense to me as a reason to wish things were how the used to be. But if even smaller schools, or mid major schools are competing at a high level, I just can't wrap my head around why anyone would care.

However, to each their own. Not trying to convince you to feel differently.

---

I dont mean to break the news here, but this IS an internet message board. And I AM just voicing my opinion about how I feel about the situation. You get that right? I dont like it. I loved college basketball just the way it was. It wasnt perfect, but I'm not on some mission to make it perfect either.

I think having crazy roster turnover year after year will diminish my level of enjoying the game.

I also think that getting a free education to play a sport and be on TV would be a DREAM for most kids and yet we're bitching about them not ALSO getting 6 figure salaries and sports cars. Thats a bit unsavory to me.

Its about me. I dont like it.

It's laugable that people were like "ah, it's nothing, things will be the same." We are one year into it and the whole thing is turned on it's head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

I guess the ones that have a problem with nil are the ones who have stuck their heads in the sand and believe that players weren’t getting paid for decades under the table. Must be nice to live in the world of fantasy and make believe.

---

I am not opposed to NIL, but this statement is utter nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XUBison

I am not opposed to NIL, but this statement is utter nonsense.

---

To the extent of what some are allegedly making now, maybe. However, I think it is utter nonsense that people think players weren’t being paid.

I guess all that stuff the fbi found was just nonsense and that those players were the only ones getting paid. Like come on man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MHettel

I dont mean to break the news here, but this IS an internet message board. And I AM just voicing my opinion about how I feel about the situation. You get that right? I dont like it. I loved college basketball just the way it was. It wasnt perfect, but I'm not on some mission to make it perfect either.

I think having crazy roster turnover year after year will diminish my level of enjoying the game.

I also think that getting a free education to play a sport and be on TV would be a DREAM for most kids and yet we're bitching about them not ALSO getting 6 figure salaries and sports cars. Thats a bit unsavory to me.

Its about me. I dont like it.

It's laugable that people were like "ah, it's nothing, things will be the same." We are one year into it and the whole thing is turned on it's head.

---

Fair enough.

So it is fair to say you no longer love college basketball then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MHettel

This is flat earth level shit.

I'm sure that in the most exceptional circumstances players were getting paid modest amounts. Like VERY rarely were players getting paid at all, and usually probably more like the "hundred dollar handshake."

To say that "its no different than it's always been, i'ts just not being hidden anymore" is just ridiculous.

---

Yeah will wade, pitino, cal, self etc etc etc only tried to pay a player once and never again and ayton was the only one who got paid to go to zona. Come on.

I guess all those UCLA players went to play for wooden for funsies.

I don’t think it was as widespread as it is now, but I think it happened significantly and to think otherwise in my mind is pretty naive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

Yeah will wade, pitino, cal, self etc etc etc only tried to pay a player once and never again and ayton was the only one who got paid to go to zona. Come on.

I guess all those UCLA players went to play for wooden for funsies.

I don’t think it was as widespread as it is now, but I think it happened significantly and to think otherwise in my mind is pretty naive

---

I think it was incredibly widespread. Perhaps not to the degree it is now that there is NIL, but think of it like this. Now that NIL is here a lot of people want to pay players now that are not under the umbrella of the NCAA and feel no obligation whatsoever to follow any of the NCAA's rules. They did not just all of a sudden start wanting to do that a year ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xubrew

I think it was incredibly widespread. Perhaps not to the degree it is now that there is NIL, but think of it like this. Now that NIL is here a lot of people want to pay players now that are not under the umbrella of the NCAA and feel no obligation whatsoever to follow any of the NCAA's rules. They did not just all of a sudden start wanting to do that a year ago.

---

Thank you. I think some here just want to believe what they want to believe even though there was smoke and in some cases fire for decades. Nothing to see here folks

[QUOTE=D-West & PO-Z;760119]
…The largest schools with the most money have always dominated college athletics. So what is the big change you see happening? The only difference is the athletes themselves now have a lot more power and are benefiting financially…/QUOTE]

1. The largest schools with the most money? You mean like Minnesota, Arizona State, Texas A&M, Penn State, Georgia, et al.? They have dominated schools like Xavier, Gonzaga, Creighton, Villanova, Baylor, Miami, et al.? This point is wrong.

2. Fine with me if players benefit financially, but power? Were the players in need of more power? Why? Because of those meany coaches? Even Huggie-Bear’s former players love the guy.

I personally could very easily get to a point where my fandom for college sports could waiver. Where I could be driven away from watching on TV and/or in person. I do not want professionals representing a college. But I’m realistic enough to know that my opinion is very possibly that of the minority. So take it for what it’s worth. I’m not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking and therefore won’t offer up reasons why one should. We all have to make our decisions for ourselves. I will only offer up this for your consideration….

The NFL is by far the most popular sports organization in the US, perhaps even the world. Some years ago the owners realized that having just a handful of the same teams capable of winning the championship was not good for business. It would turn off more fans than it would bring in. So they, in cooperation with the players Union, have instituted several rules that are designed to “even the playing field” and make sure that all teams have an equal opportunity to compete with each other. Some may call that socialism or communism, but I call it smart business. No one can deny the success of the NFL. No NFL team loses money.

On the other hand you have Major League Baseball, once our “national pastime” and the most popular leisure activity in the country. They have gone the opposite route. Big market teams with big bucks dominate. Rosters change yearly now, where before the players became synonymous with a city or a franchise. The players were part of the community. Realistically only a few franchises have a chance of winning. And what has happened? Attendance across the league is down. TV viewership is down. Fan interest is down. Teams are actually losing money.

IMHO…..the NCAA and all of the colleges need to look at MLB closely and do whatever they can to not repeat their mistakes. If they don’t get some kind of handle on this NIL system, and the money that is out there for a select few colleges and not others, the casual fans are going to lose interest, and the colleges are going to lose fans. And when that happens in a large scale way, what then?

Well by the looks of the final 4 I would say the NIL is doing the opposite of what everybody is afraid of. With the exception of UCONN the rest are first timers. I think the NIL is going to finally let lesser known schools finally compete. It only takes one rich donor.

I don’t think it’s the role of the ncaa to ensure parity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OTRMUSKIE

Well by the looks of the final 4 I would say the NIL is doing the opposite of what everybody is afraid of. With the exception of UCONN the rest are first timers. I think the NIL is going to finally let lesser known schools finally compete. It only takes one rich donor.

---

Which school is more likely to have a wealthy alumnus with a wild hair for college athletics, a school with a student body of 100,000 or a school of 10,000?

Wyoming transfer Graham Ike on X campus today.
Ike is a 6-foot-9, 255-pound center who averaged 19.5 points, 9.6 rebounds, and 1.3 assists for the Cowboys during the 2021-22 season.
A leg injury caused him to miss all of this season
He has three years of eligibility remaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XUBison

1. The largest schools with the most money? You mean like Minnesota, Arizona State, Texas A&M, Penn State, Georgia, et al.? They have dominated schools like Xavier, Gonzaga, Creighton, Villanova, Baylor, Miami, et al.? This point is wrong.

2. Fine with me if players benefit financially, but power? Were the players in need of more power? Why? Because of those meany coaches? Even Huggie-Bear’s former players love the guy.

---

Yes by all means pick the worst basketball schools in all the power conferences to make your point. :rolleyes:

What issue do you have with the players having more power to make choices that benefit them?

Seems we have a lot of guys on this board who wish they were good enough to be star college athletes but because they weren't think everyone who is should just be happy they are, shut up, know their place, and not ask for anything more. Kinda weird. :headscratch:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BandAid

I don’t think it’s the role of the ncaa to ensure parity.

---

NCAA Principles….

Bylaw 2.10 The Principle of Competitive Equity.[*] The structure and programs of the Association and the activities of its members shall promote opportunity for equity in competition to ensure that individual student-athletes and institutions will not be prevented unfairly from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics.


Parity in results? No.

Parity in opportunity? Yes, within the realities of the world and as much as they can do with the rules. No one is crazy enough to think that a school like Ohio State doesn’t have built in advantages over a school like Xavier. Leaving the NIL out of it, they have dozens of advantages in money, facilities, student body size, educational options, etc. that X will never have. But the NCAA rules are designed in part to make sure that even with those built in advantages, that X can still compete (if they choose to) on as even a playing field as they can make it.

I’m only saying that if the NIL is left without any kind of structure designed to minimize the advantages, that it might actually kill the hand that feeds it…..fandom. What good are the names, images, and likenesses if nobody cares? If nobody is watching?

Bylaw 2.9….Amateurism

2.9 The Principle of Amateurism.[*] Student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and student-athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.