HoosierDom

On 8/27/2021 at 7:46 PM, IU Scott said:

What ever he wants.

I think we will lose TJD, Race, Kopp, Johnson, RP, Bates so we will have a lot of openings

You think all of those guys are leaving after this year? Other than TJD, I don't see any going pro, so seems they would only leave if things weren't working for them here.

2 hours ago, Hoosier51 said:

 If Trayce shows he can hit from the outside with some consistency i think he could easily be a late lottery pick or at least a first round selection. 

Sure, and if he becomes a 6'9" Steph Curry, he will be the top pick overall. But, realistically, he hasn't shown the ability to be an outside shooter, and it would be pretty unusual to all of a sudden develop that in one off season. 

Hopefully IU boosters get their act together and the kid brings in a couple hundred thousand dollars this year and he faces the real possibility that being a second round pick is a pay cut. To me, that would be a bigger recruiting boost than getting a guy or two to the league. Any kid outside of the top 10 should realize that getting to the league is far from certain, but if you can make some serious money either way, that should be appealing to the 20-50 ranked kids and those are the kids I want anyway.

23 minutes ago, rico said:

Okie State?

The second biggest football school in a state with 4 million people. I don't see conferences fighting over them.

9 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I think they can survive in a AAC/BIG EAST sort of way...but I think long term the schools will look to try to join another conference...it's just will anyone take them. I think we confuse being competitive on the field/court with being competitive $$$ in negotiating tv contracts and conference revenue. Winning doesn't always = $$$ Especially when winning has been subsidized by Texas and Oklahoma football so you can build your facilities and have your visability. What happens when that is gone....can you still win without that revenue....maybe...if you are run very well...or maybe the school goes back to it's original focus on being an academic institution with religious emphasis (Baylor/TCU)  If you don't have the money coming in can you keep paying top salaries to keep Campbell and Gundy and Drew and Self etc etc or do they get sucked up by other power conference schools and then can you sustain it without them.

 If it stays Big 12 then I think you need UH to pull in some viewers back from the Houston market. SEC is going to eat a lot anyways but to just keep eyes. Maybe convince UCF, Cincy, and bring in a Boise St or something to keep it the conference viable but honestly it's lost a lot of its value already so those schools are going to suffer if they can't find one of the big conferences to take them...but they will go on. The more I think about it the less value I think these schools really have to bring revenue to another conference. The conference will just be diminished and end up like C-USA, AAC, Big East....and if they can't agree...they will just end up breaking up and going to those lesser conferences. I

It's not just bad luck that causes schools to keep leaving the Big 12. Those remaining teams are not appealing conference mates and no one is going to want them. 

In the second half of the first game, he did a great job creating space for himself. If he can do that, he will be a deadly player. If he's just a catch and shoot guy, I will be happy enough (we sure could have used one of those the last couple of years), but I was impressed with his ability to get his own shot. I didn't see any evidence that he can get to the rim, but he made space.

35 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Not sure I understand that statement...

If you're insinuating that UT and OU are "only ok at football" I'd say you're off base there. The fertile recruiting grounds of Texas can by itself turn a program, all it takes is the right coach (and for the record, I don't believe Sarkasian is it either).

If you're insinuating that Michigan and OSU are happy being the 2 biggest fish in a big pond, that may have some legs to it...but you have to admit for bottom line purposes a schedule that might feature UGA, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, UT, Oklahoma, Florida, not to mention FSU and Clemson if the article I cited was correct, beats the crap out of anything the B1G could muster up...

Again, I didn't make up the scenario...I simply provided a link to a credible source (SI) that said there have been talks...my gut tells me it'd take a sweetheart of a deal to get UM and OSU to move, but the B1G isn't huddling up with the other conferences for nothing...

Yes, I mean the second thing. UM and OSU have everything they could ever ask for here: they don't want to move. 

If Michigan wanted to have a killer schedule, they could easily schedule 4 powerhouse non-conference games. But, that isn't what they, or anyone else, is looking for. I think that's a big part of what a lot of the conversation in this thread is missing. Top schools don't want a loaded schedule. The unmistakable proof of that is that no school goes out and loads up their non-conference schedule. They still sell our their 100k stadiums when they play Northern Michigan, so they want the wins and good times that come along with that. They need some big games, but the BIG provides enough of those. If it ever stops doing that, you go get those games in the non-conference.

To me, that SI article is akin to saying Chipotle is trying to hire Nick Saban because he saw a help wanted sign when he went to get his burrito. I'm sure they would love him, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from his point of view. As I've said before, I think the only thing the SEC could offer that would truly entice UM and OSU is if they are making a move to abandon the NCAA and run their own thing as they see fit, but with the NIL, I think that is far less likely.

The only things I have seen about this conference huddling up are vague terms of cooperation that make it seem like they're not even talking about doing anything of substance, so what they end up agreeing to will likely be close to nothing. But, the articles I've seen are so unclear that it's hard to read the situation precisely. 

33 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

It's not like I'm making it up out of thin air 

I'm sure a few years ago people who preside over the Big 12 wouldn't have believed UT and OU would leave them either...and Texas is the top revenue producing football program in the NCAA (Oklahoma was in at #8) and has been for a while...

 

But the Big Ten is not the Big Twelve. Just look at an electoral map to make the numbers easy to see. Texas DOMINATES the Big 12, no other state is even close. So the Big 12 just doesn't offer much. The Big Ten has a lot more people and they are a lot more spread out. Big schools that are only okay at football: that's the dream every top team wants to fill their conference with and the BIG is loaded with them. No one wants to give that up. Texas wasn't getting much from the Big 12 and they were running a real risk of falling behind A&M. Michigan and OSU don't have that same kind of pressure. 

1 hour ago, IUFLA said:

Yep, all about the money...

Makes you really wonder though if the powers that be at Ohio State, Michigan, USC et al would wash away over a century of tradition and brand building for a buck if the SEC offered...

Sadly, I'm almost positive they would...

Sorry, this just doesn't make sense. What money? Less than 1/3rd of the money OSU and UM bring in comes from TV. Maybe the SEC could increase the TV deal a little, but only maybe and only a little. BTN makes so much money because cable subscribers pay for the channel and Chicago, DC, NYC are all in Big Ten country. Just look at an electoral college map to easily see the population of these places. Illinois, PA, Ohio, MI are big, even MN, WI are all bigger than places like MS, AL, Arkansas, Louisiana. The numbers just aren't there. And, even more importantly, BIG schools have huge alumni bases. The SEC is better at football, but they can't compete with those numbers. The schools are smaller and the cities are smaller. Plus, Michigan would be mediocre, at best, if they have to compete weekly in the SEC. They know it and don't want it. They benefit from being in a conference with large schools that are only okay at football. Smaller schools that are better at football is a minus, not a plus.

56 minutes ago, rico said:

Academically, Tech is far and away the better school.

Is the conference looking to improve its average SAT scores?

34 minutes ago, HoosierAlice said:

Georgia Tech would be an interesting addition.   Puts the Big Ten in the south and a big city in Atlanta.   

I agree, though, to my mind, Georgia is the bigger power there. I don't actually know their relative sizes, but that's my impression. And I doubt we could steal them.

I have to disagree with a lot of what is being discussed here. 

- The risk of a B1G implosion is minimal, almost non-existent. Our tv contract is still richer than the SEC's - that may change with their next deal, but we will likely pass them back next time ours gets redone. But, even if we stay behind, we're talking about 10% or so they will beat us by, and we're only talking about tv money which is less than 1/3rd of the total revenue the big schools bring in. UM and OSU are going to risk blowing up a good thing to increase their revenue by 3% (10% of 33%)? Michigan is certainly not. The SEC would destroy their talk of a "Michigan Man", and they know they can't be consistently competitive in the SEC. OSU probably thinks they can hang down there, and maybe they're right, but they have so little to gain and Ohio weather is not going to steal recruits from down south. 

- Our past expansion was driven by specific goals. When we added Nebraska, I believe we had to get to 12 schools to have a conference championship in football, so that 12th school added a lot of value. Maryland and Rutgers come with the biggest and 6th biggest media markets in the country, so they brought value. How many other schools are going to increase the Big 10 pie by more than the slice they will take? Very few. Notre Dame is the only non-media market school that might. If we don't get them, we have to get a big city. Maybe Boston, but there doesn't seem to be a fit. Maybe Philly, but again, I don't see a fit. We seem locked out of Texas. That leaves LA or San Fran, I would think that could be on the table, but it creates a lot of problems. So, it seems very likely things stay the same.

- The only way I could see a major change happening is if the power conferences are going to break from the NCAA and run their own thing, but with the NIL, the impetus to do that is greatly reduced.

Someone convince me that I care what the SEC does. 

Let's say they succeed in adding Texas, OU, let's throw in FSU and Clemson, so the SEC is just stacked with football powers. Why does that affect me as a Big Ten fan? That conference will win a lot of national championships, but I would think individual Big Ten programs will continue winning at their normal rates. It seems to me that the only reason I would care is if the SEC stops participating in things like the playoffs. But, I'm sure it's still in the SEC's financial interest to have some sort of meaningful competition with other top programs, so I don't see the BIG losing much. 

Why would their move force the BIG to respond? I don't see it right now.

No way in hell Michigan goes to the SEC. They think they're way too good for that (hopefully, they're right).

10 hours ago, BGleas said:

I thought the same. Really should have been flagrant. 

It really was awful. I'm sure that it won't happen, but if I were in charge, I would have to think long and hard about suspending him for game 6. There is no more vulnerable player in basketball than a guy going up like that, you can't purposely shove him.

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

The reason you don’t see Tom Brady ads and see it as being a good bang for your buck is because Tom Brady markets to a totally different crowd then Peyton Manning. Tom Brady positions himself in high end luxury products with very low National visability. He promotes Tag Heur & Movado watches, Ugg boots, and Aston Martins. Glaceau Smart Water…even does a lot of international work in Europe. He sells to the high end because he is seen as the best…the best only buy the best. Brady resinates with rich high end luxury brands and he doesn’t lower his image peddling papa John’s pizza or Buick’s. Peyton marketing is like his game…stats heavy…quantity over quality. He is very down to earth and resinates to the every man. Hey I want to be like Peyton….he uses nationwide insurance and a Buick is cool enough for him. You don’t see Brady commercials because you aren’t the target audience for the most part of what he is selling. Also those type of goods aren’t in your face advertisers. You’ll see a magazine ad, an internet ad that is exclusively on high end websites etc. I’d say though that Brady probably drives the same value for those companies though who aren’t looking for volume and mass appeal but rather a niche market that Brady exclusiveness speaks to. Probably doesn’t hurt Im sure Tom gets plenty of advice and direction from how Gisele markets her brand.
 

So in conclusion…just two different types of promotions and both are excellent at what they do. I think both are very effective and both found a great market for their services.

I think you're spot on, but, in keeping with the earlier posts, I would change the bolded to "d-bags want to buy a product endorsed by a d-bag".

My quick google search says that Manning is estimated to make 10 million a year from endorsements. Brady makes 22 million.

Just saw that Mississippi State's qb is charging 10k an hour to hang out with him. I bet he gets some boosters to pay it.

1 hour ago, tdhoosier said:

Ah, I got you. I guess we'll see. There is no crime against being a bad businessman, but something that blatant would seem to be red flagged once a more solid system is put in place. A shell company whose sole revenue comes from donations is still essentially a booster program...just one step removed.

No doubt it's going to take away donations from athletic departments. 

Fo the record, I'm not suggesting things will be squeaky clean at all. There are definitely going to be kinks and loopholes that will need to be worked out. That said, throwing out figures like one million dollars is just not going to happen for 99.9% of athletes. I think, again all speculative, the best are just going to eclipse six figures per year. The very best (phenoms) may get close to $1 million. 

The supply of endorsers (endorsees?) just jumped exponentially last night. I don't care how rich you are...you're not going to give an athlete a million dollar contract when his second best offer is $100k. 

 

I assume similar things are why the NCAA hasn't been able to come up with any rules: there is no tenable way to prevent that sort of thing. Who is going to do this red flagging you are talking about? The NCAA is not going to have this "company's" business records. The NCAA does not have subpoena power; these won't be publicly traded companies, so their business records will not be disclosed to anyone. 

There was an ESPN (maybe it was CBS?) article a while back that estimated the average power conference star would be worth something like 150k in endorsements, so I think you're right. But, that is only counting money that comes from people who view their payment to players as legitimate business opportunities where they are making an honest attempt to increase their own profits. The first article I found on the topic said that in 2015 there were 20 schools that raised over $25 million in athletic contributions - that year alone. That's $500 million spread out over those schools. That's not enough to make the going rate for a 5 start player go to 7 figures?  

16 hours ago, tdhoosier said:

I’m not sure I’m following. A couple of things though:

-Donations have been made to schools; the NIL won’t change that. 

-Per the NIL rules in place, there has to be a quid pro quo. Money needs to be exchanged for a service. 

-Players can’t accept money/gifts for nothing or as a donation. They simply can’t be ‘given’ money. 

Are you suggesting donated money being filtered through a non for profit shell company that doesn’t offer any products or services to pay athletes for an endorsement? I’m not sure that would be legal; that sounds like money laundering. Essentially Knight would pay athletes indirectly for a non existent service? Technically that would be a donation, which again, is against the NIL rules.

I'm not suggesting actual donations. If I'm a booster that would normally donate a million bucks to the athletic department, that no longer seems like the best way to help my team win. Now, instead of doing that, I create a website for IU fans. I put that million dollars towards paying players so that I can put their pictures on my site, maybe have them come into my chat board once a month and answer some questions. Those things will help build my site. I doubt I will recoup my million, but that was never my goal. I'm not suggesting a not for profit company, I'm suggesting a company that is set us as a regular old for profit enterprise, but that will most likely fail at ever generating a profit. There's not a law against being a bad businessman. 

On 6/30/2021 at 9:38 AM, tdhoosier said:

Thanks @IUfaninIllinois for starting the thread. I enjoy talking about this topic because it’s really interesting. 

To answer the question (with speculation), Nike is still a company that needs to make smart business decisions. They have a board of directors to answer to, CEOs and owners can’t just do whatever they want. A market value will be established and companies won’t be frivolous paying over that value in order to secure a recruit for one executive’s allegiance to a certain program. Based on the scenario you painted above, why doesn’t Michael Jordan offer huge, over valued endorsement contracts to secure free agents in Charlotte? 

A company uses marketing to make money from a specific endorsement, not break even….or lose it. Further more, how is Michigan or UCLA going to feel about MJ and Jumpman steering recruits to UNC? They’re endorsed by Jumpman too. Playing favorites could put those sponsorships in jeopardy…..and these college sponsorships are way more valuable to Jordan than a recruit who may only stay at UNC for a year. 

Water will find it’s level. 

I suspect you're right when you're talking about profit seeking companies - endorsements will spread to the big schools and they will be on roughly equivalent footing with each other, though at enormous advantage over the non-big schools. But, what about non-profit seeking money? I believe Knight has given on the order of a billion dollars of his own money to the school. What's to stop him from funneling that money through some non-Nike entity, say a website for Oregon fans that has no realistic chance of making money, and having it pay every Oregon player a million bucks? I'm assuming that the primary motive for his donation is making Oregon win (and if that statement doesn't apply strictly to Knight, it certainly does to countless other boosters), seems that giving players cash is the efficient way to do that. My guess is that legitimate businesses trying to profit off a relationship with a player will be small potatoes compared to money that is essentially a donation to help a team win. 

11 hours ago, IUCrazy2 said:

I think we talked past each other. 

Yes, the value is there IF the school is attached.  Which is what I said.  We have a clear cut case of their value without the school attached in the G League for all but the top 25 or so players each year.  And on average that is about $35k a year.

Someone used TJD as an example up above.  With Twitter followers and such he is worth about $120k a year.  However, without an Indiana University fanbase and hype machine around him, what is he worth if he was just playing for a team like the Mad Ants in Fort Wayne?  "He is the next big thing for the Pacers!!!"  Cool, ask Triple A baseball players what that ends up being worth.

My point was not that colleges would not be trying to pay guys or get them money through the NIL.  I believe that will happen, particularly with the NIL.  However, I think a bunch of people are in denial about the players' value when not attached to one of these big schools.  If you did away with the NCAA and had a minor league system like baseball, the Zion Williamsons of the world would go straight to the pros and guys like TJD would languish in a minor league system gaining little attention outside their small geographic footprint.

IU is the draw more than any one player because in college the players are not around long enough to be the draw, particularly the uber talented ones.  

I absolutely agree with you - from a financial standpoint, there is no viable alternative for a player, even a star, that isn't ready for the NBA.

My point is, I don't think that's terribly relevant to a discussion of what a player deserves and/or will end up getting. If schools could bid on players (I doubt we will see that ever happen) IU would probably pay TJD 7 figures. If the free market were allowed to operate, he would get that.  

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).

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.

1 hour ago, go_iu_bb said:

A 2 week team trip is not study abroad.

It is if they take a "class".

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.