Jump to content

General College Basketball News (Stories Undeserving Of Their Own Topic)


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, tdhoosier said:

Didn't know where to post this and couldn't find it f we already started an 'NIL' thread. 

Anyway, Hoosier Hysterics has a good interview with the CEO of Opendorse, a new company who is working/consulting IU about the NIL. The way I understand it, this company sets up a program that connects our athletes with companies looking for endorsements. The example given was: an athlete will get a message "Pepsi wants you to send out this tweet out for $1,000" (a pre-made tweet will be ready for them)....click 'yes' or 'no'. For the advertisers the company also establishes a 'market value' per athlete (which is kind of like a Zestimate on Zillow), demographics they appeal to, etc. Some atheltes won't be offered $1k and some won't be contacted by Pepsi, but they do have a value (high or low) that they will financially benefit from.

It was an interesting listen, mainly because you begin realize how many opportunities could be available to so many athletes when the NIL becomes reality. This is going to go so far beyond 'a local car dealership paying a player for an endorsement.' This is going to be about athlete's cashing in on their influence, online presence, personality, style, etc. 

...talk about an education. (I'm not being facetious) Hands on, real world experience in college about branding, marketing, financial management, contract management, etc......for many athletes this won't be a 'case study'. I'm glad IU is leading the way on this and setting up a support system for current and future athletes. 

I created a twitter account just to add to the athletes' follower counts to do my part to help them get money for things like this. Now the NCAA just needs to get their s#!t together and make it so all athletes can earn and not just those in the 5 states which passed laws so the IU players can start earning.

I think others that also don't already have a twitter account should do the same. Don't need to go on there often, just long enough to follow players.

Edited by go_iu_bb
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, go_iu_bb said:

I created a twitter account just to add to the athletes' follower counts to do my part to help them get money for things like this. Now the NCAA just needs to get their s#!t together and make it so all athletes can earn and not just those in the 5 states which passed laws so the IU players can start earning.

I think others that also don't already have a twitter account should do the same. Don't need to go on there often, just long enough to follow players.

I was thinking about following all our recruiting targets just to unfollow them when they don’t pick us. That will show ‘em. 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

This is somewhat interesting.  With Title IX, the cost of sports is going to go up even more.  Let's be real, only 2 sports (Football and Men's basketball) would be able to maintain themselves as businesses if you stripped away the colleges from them.  

This is going to sound cruel, but at a certain point the cost to maintain things like women's gymnastics or men's wrestling will not be worth it.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUCrazy2 said:

This is somewhat interesting.  With Title IX, the cost of sports is going to go up even more.  Let's be real, only 2 sports (Football and Men's basketball) would be able to maintain themselves as businesses if you stripped away the colleges from them.  

This is going to sound cruel, but at a certain point the cost to maintain things like women's gymnastics or men's wrestling will not be worth it.  

I'm not sure why it's worth it now, but I agree, it will become increasingly less so as more and more basketball and football money stays with the people who earn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

I'm not sure why it's worth it now, but I agree, it will become increasingly less so as more and more basketball and football money stays with the people who earn it.

I'm not so sure how much the NCAA and schools are going to push to PAY athletes as opposed to just letting them use NIL. I don't see them interested in giving up ANY of the money they have coming in...more likely just let you earn your OWN money...but we will see. More about keeping as much of our own pie as we can....and letting you bake your own pie for those that have the ability to do so.

Edited by dgambill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HoosierDom said:

I'm not sure why it's worth it now, but I agree, it will become increasingly less so as more and more basketball and football money stays with the people who earn it.

Well there is XI which will lead to lawsuits because womens sports will be eradicated.

What about IU baseball, swimming, golf?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Well there is XI which will lead to lawsuits because womens sports will be eradicated.

What about IU baseball, swimming, golf?

 

Yeah, I don’t think colleges should relinquish that revenue. It would kill every other sport out there minus those two big ones. Shoot… most basketball programs would be killed without football. I’ll submit to the ability for them to earn money in other ways though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrflynn03 said:

Well there is XI which will lead to lawsuits because womens sports will be eradicated.

What about IU baseball, swimming, golf?

 

Certainly Title IX will complicate things, but, assuming it stands in its current form, I can see a world where only basketball, football and the requisite balancing number of women's sports exist. I don't have a problem with that. I have nothing against baseball, swimming or golf, but I don't see why other people should pay for those sports. I (who have been a tax-payer, student and alum) am happy to pay to help some kid get his degree and I'm happy to pay to help the basketball program (because it entertains me), but I don't want to pay for some kid to golf, no matter how good he or she is at it. Some sports, maybe those you mentioned, will likely be able to survive in some paired back form. I'm okay with them having to severely pinch pennies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

Certainly Title IX will complicate things, but, assuming it stands in its current form, I can see a world where only basketball, football and the requisite balancing number of women's sports exist. I don't have a problem with that. I have nothing against baseball, swimming or golf, but I don't see why other people should pay for those sports. I (who have been a tax-payer, student and alum) am happy to pay to help some kid get his degree and I'm happy to pay to help the basketball program (because it entertains me), but I don't want to pay for some kid to golf, no matter how good he or she is at it. Some sports, maybe those you mentioned, will likely be able to survive in some paired back form. I'm okay with them having to severely pinch pennies.

Because that is what college athletics is supposed to be about.  All college athletes should be rewarded for their hard work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dgambill said:

I'm not so sure how much the NCAA and schools are going to push to PAY athletes as opposed to just letting them use NIL. I don't see them interested in giving up ANY of the money they have coming in...more likely just let you earn your OWN money...but we will see. More about keeping as much of our own pie as we can....and letting you bake your own pie for those that have the ability to do so.

It seems pretty clear that the supreme court is in favor of players being able to get paid. Kavanaugh's concurrence is wholly unnecessary and very strongly worded, he is clearly signaling future plaintiffs. It's very likely that they will change things soon. But, even without that speculation, the court just allowed schools to "provide their athletes with educational equipment, study abroad programs, internships and even cash rewards". Let's ignore the cash rewards, as I imagine there are restrictions (I haven't looked into it enough to know), but the study abroad programs means that things like trips to Maui and Bahamas are going to be far more common than once every 5 years. I would guess they will become multiple times every summer. Educational equipment will be cell phones, computers, virtual reality gear, and undoubtedly more. The amount of money spent on basketball and football players is going to go way up even if nothing beyond this decision happens. 

Big schools will be more than happy to pay players to make sure they can get the ones they want.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HoosierDom said:

It seems pretty clear that the supreme court is in favor of players being able to get paid. Kavanaugh's concurrence is wholly unnecessary and very strongly worded, he is clearly signaling future plaintiffs. It's very likely that they will change things soon. But, even without that speculation, the court just allowed schools to "provide their athletes with educational equipment, study abroad programs, internships and even cash rewards". Let's ignore the cash rewards, as I imagine there are restrictions (I haven't looked into it enough to know), but the study abroad programs means that things like trips to Maui and Bahamas are going to be far more common than once every 5 years. I would guess they will become multiple times every summer. Educational equipment will be cell phones, computers, virtual reality gear, and undoubtedly more. The amount of money spent on basketball and football players is going to go way up even if nothing beyond this decision happens. 

Big schools will be more than happy to pay players to make sure they can get the ones they want.  

A 2 week team trip is not study abroad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, dgambill said:

I'm not so sure how much the NCAA and schools are going to push to PAY athletes as opposed to just letting them use NIL. I don't see them interested in giving up ANY of the money they have coming in...more likely just let you earn your OWN money...but we will see. More about keeping as much of our own pie as we can....and letting you bake your own pie for those that have the ability to do so.

They won't at first, then a Kentucky will drop a large amount of extras on a recruiting class, win a title, and start an arms race.  Same will happen on the football side.  All it takes is one school to start it and eventually everyone who wants to truly compete has to get on board too.

The funny thing to me is that for most of these schools, the revenue generated by the athletes goes directly back to the athletes.  Our basketball players stay in the nicest apartments in town.  They have tutors.  They have their own practice facility that they get use of any time of day.  And if you removed the college aspect from the teams, these guys would be getting paid an average of $35k a year to play games in places like Sioux City and Fort Wayne to crowds of about 5,000 people.  And they sure as heck would not have the perks that the colleges are giving them.  

I honestly think that the big time players are given more credit for driving the money than they deserve.  They are there for a year.  Most fans are not tuning in to see Top Rated Player X.  They are tuning in to watch Indiana, Kentucky, Duke, and UNC.  That money is not there if the college name is not attached.  

I don't care what anybody says, the minor leagues would not make NCAA money with the same players because the attachment to those teams is not there unless you are from the area.  People in Fort Wayne don't care about the Indianapolis Indians and people in Indianapolis do not care about the Mad Ants.  People in Fort Wayne and Indianapolis do care about Indiana, Purdue, and Notre Dame.  The South Bend Steel Heads (fictitious NFL developmental team) are not going to be followed by anyone outside of their footprint.

I just think the players are vastly overestimating their worth in a sport where the average player is on his team for 2 or 3 years at the big schools.  

Edited by IUCrazy2
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This day has been coming for a very long time.  "College athletics" is a cash cow and it seems as though the athletes have always been omitted from a piece of the pie.  That being said I am interested as to how the NCAA proceeds as well as individual institutions.  The cash is generated by football and men's basketball at most schools.  If I am a businessman(university) then I am cutting all non-revenue generating sports.  It is quite a dilemma for the schools and the NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUCrazy2 said:

They won't at first, then a Kentucky will drop a large amount of extras on a recruiting class, win a title, and start an arms race.  Same will happen on the football side.  All it takes is one school to start it and eventually everyone who wants to truly compete has to get on board too.

The funny thing to me is that for most of these schools, the revenue generated by the athletes goes directly back to the athletes.  Our basketball players stay in the nicest apartments in town.  They have tutors.  They have their own practice facility that they get use of any time of day.  And if you removed the college aspect from the teams, these guys would be getting paid an average of $35k a year to play games in places like Sioux City and Fort Wayne to crowds of about 5,000 people.  And they sure as heck would not have the perks that the colleges are giving them.  

I honestly think that the big time players are given more credit for driving the money than they deserve.  They are there for a year.  Most fans are not tuning in to see Top Rated Player X.  They are tuning in to watch Indiana, Kentucky, Duke, and UNC.  That money is not there if the college name is not attached.  

I don't care what anybody says, the minor leagues would not make NCAA money with the same players because the attachment to those teams is not there unless you are from the area.  People in Fort Wayne don't care about the Indianapolis Indians and people in Indianapolis do not care about the Mad Ants.  People in Fort Wayne and Indianapolis do care about Indiana, Purdue, and Notre Dame.  The South Bend Steel Heads (fictitious NFL developmental team) are not going to be followed by anyone outside of their footprint.

I just think the players are vastly overestimating their worth in a sport where the average player is on his team for 2 or 3 years at the big schools.  

In this country we determine worth by what the free market is willing to pay. My understanding is that the black-market is already paying 6 figures, do you really doubt that schools won't pay that? Saying that the college name is needed is both true and beside the point: Kentucky makes a lot less money when they lose, so they pay to win. You wouldn't say that a Google programmer is given more credit for driving the money than they deserve, even though it's equally true that the Google name drives their money. The same is true here: if given the chance to bid freely, schools would pay for talent and schools would profit by doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUCrazy2 said:

They won't at first, then a Kentucky will drop a large amount of extras on a recruiting class, win a title, and start an arms race.  Same will happen on the football side.  All it takes is one school to start it and eventually everyone who wants to truly compete has to get on board too.

From what I saw from the opinion, athletes would be allowed to received certain things that are tied back to education. I'm not sure this specific rule would further inflame an arms race (which already exists on a grand scale) or not, but ironically it was the NCAA that brought this to the supreme court, and they not only got their stance crushingly defeated, but it opened a whole other box of worms they weren't expecting. Maybe the silver lining in all of this is that the NCAA, in all their incompetence, will cease to exist in the future. And I hate to blame it all specifically on the NCAA because the member schools and conferences are the voting members who guide the decisions. 

There has been a conversation of where the money goes. How much of the pie will the athletes get...and who's piece of pie that will be taken from? I just have to ask......how much of that pie is the NCAA getting right now? Then how much are the conferences getting? Then how much are the schools getting? Then how much are the athletic departments getting? Let's not forget that there are a lot of hands in the cookie jar right now. As the revenue works it's way down, everybody is taking their cut along the way. Everybody except the actual product on the court/field. We can debate their value all we want (it will ultimately get determined, so for now the point is moot), but I'm not so sure they are the problem. 

That said, I just have to ask.....what if the NCAA is abolished? Their bloated salaries? Their inability to fairly regulate? The bias of the voting members? Their hand from the cookie jar? I honestly think the writing is on the wall. The NCAA is fighting this so hard because it takes away the demand for their services.....they are essentially fighting for their ability to exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

In this country we determine worth by what the free market is willing to pay. My understanding is that the black-market is already paying 6 figures, do you really doubt that schools won't pay that? Saying that the college name is needed is both true and beside the point: Kentucky makes a lot less money when they lose, so they pay to win. You wouldn't say that a Google programmer is given more credit for driving the money than they deserve, even though it's equally true that the Google name drives their money. The same is true here: if given the chance to bid freely, schools would pay for talent and schools would profit by doing so.

I think with a small minority (supply) willing to accept illegal benefits then that 6 figure value is inflated. When all is fair game the supply of players will grow, thus decreasing the demand. 

On the hoosier hysterics podcast I linked a page back, they guy they interviewed estimated TJD's value in a NIL world at about $120k/year. He takes into account a whole bunch of factors: the number of social media followers he has, the size/value of IU's fanbase, IUBB media exposure/televised games, etc. He said his projections are perceived to be on the low side, but again, once all athletes are allowed to except endorsement money the supply of product will dramatically increase and things will level out. 

Edited by tdhoosier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

I think with a small minority (supply) willing to accept illegal benefits then that 6 figure value is inflated. When all is fair game the supply of players will grown, thus decreasing the demand. 

On the hoosier hysterics podcast I linked a page back, they guy they interviewed estimated TJD's value in a NIL world at about $120k/year. He takes into account a whole bunch of factors: the number of social media followers he has, the size/value of IU's fanbase, IUBB media exposure/televised games, etc. He said his projections are perceived to be on the low side, but again, once all athletes are allowed to except endorsement money the supply of product will dramatically increase and things will level out. 

That's in the ballpark of what ESPN said a while back. But, I'm talking about if schools were flat out allowed to bid on players. I doubt we're headed there, but that's the only way to determine what a player is worth. I don't have any guesses as to how many players are in the supply pool, but the demand pool (schools paying illegally) is also limited, so who can say. But, the difference between winning and losing is a lot of money, so I don't see an argument that schools wouldn't pay handsomely. Far more than the G-League (or whatever it's called now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IUCrazy2 said:

They won't at first, then a Kentucky will drop a large amount of extras on a recruiting class, win a title, and start an arms race.  Same will happen on the football side.  All it takes is one school to start it and eventually everyone who wants to truly compete has to get on board too.

The funny thing to me is that for most of these schools, the revenue generated by the athletes goes directly back to the athletes.  Our basketball players stay in the nicest apartments in town.  They have tutors.  They have their own practice facility that they get use of any time of day.  And if you removed the college aspect from the teams, these guys would be getting paid an average of $35k a year to play games in places like Sioux City and Fort Wayne to crowds of about 5,000 people.  And they sure as heck would not have the perks that the colleges are giving them.  

I honestly think that the big time players are given more credit for driving the money than they deserve.  They are there for a year.  Most fans are not tuning in to see Top Rated Player X.  They are tuning in to watch Indiana, Kentucky, Duke, and UNC.  That money is not there if the college name is not attached.  

I don't care what anybody says, the minor leagues would not make NCAA money with the same players because the attachment to those teams is not there unless you are from the area.  People in Fort Wayne don't care about the Indianapolis Indians and people in Indianapolis do not care about the Mad Ants.  People in Fort Wayne and Indianapolis do care about Indiana, Purdue, and Notre Dame.  The South Bend Steel Heads (fictitious NFL developmental team) are not going to be followed by anyone outside of their footprint.

I just think the players are vastly overestimating their worth in a sport where the average player is on his team for 2 or 3 years at the big schools.  

Amen to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are we thinking there will be just football and basketball (probably schools would keep a certain amount of other low cost sports for PR such as baseball and soccer or where they can get marketing donations to cover them) and everything else will just be a club sport...where those teams and athletes will have to raise their own money and sponsor their own events? I mean I remember when I went to school our university didn't have a school sponsored rugby team but the students still formed one and bought uniforms  and scheduled matches against other local universities. Surely there is enough studying going on to see what the outcome will look like once you let the cat out of the bag. Even with a monopoly etc wouldn't the system that is set up stand to benefit the most individuals as currently constructed then to tear it down and force this change that will benefit a narrow select few and could stand to destroy the vast majority of college sports? 

 

I should have had caffeine this morning...this hurts my head to even think about. I'm sure the ramifications have been considered and this won't be the end to all of college sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...