NIL, the AD, and where does the line get drawn (Hoosier Hysterics)

[NotIThatLives]

9 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

Really? I didn’t know that. Ridiculous.

Nohting drives me more crazy than when cities subsidize their stadiums. 

https://www.publicsource.org/why-is-the-nfl-a-nonprofit/

[mrflynn03]

6 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

I mean @Maedhros just killed it.  If we started over from scratch, the billions would get shared with the revenue makers.  Student loans is a personal decision.  If we want the government involved in it, which we don't, then we should start with educating people what they are signing up for.  I had no clue what so ever.  I know attempt to educate my nieces and nephews and even my brother and in laws.  But what have they done so far?   Sign all the kids up for student loans.  Just blows my mind to cripple a young person in debt before they even have a job.  

 

Government getting involved in higher education is what screwed it up to begin with.  LBJ and his Higher Education Act is what started the student loan racket. 

I didn't go to IU because of the cost of tuition. I went to USI and paid about 1/3 the amount. 

If I was graduating today I'd go apprentice with a trade union and not even consider college. 

[Purdue7]

16 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

And so is the NFL.  How insane.

I wonder how much the ncaa spent on lobbyists & lawyers to keep things the same ?

 

 

[tdhoosier]

1 minute ago, Purdue7 said:

I wonder how much the ncaa spent on lobbyists & lawyers to keep things the same ?

 

 

Quote

The NFL has maintained its nonprofit status thanks, in part, to a sophisticated lobbying effort on both the local and national levels. According to Open Secrets, the NFL has spent nearly $3 million lobbying over the past three years, while a Sunlight Foundation report showed that NFL personnel — owners, players and staff — donated $1.5 million to candidates in the 2012 election.

 

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, mrflynn03 said:

Something I thought of that I'd like to point out.  These tv deals essentially give the athletes free advertising that they can use to help monetize themselves.  If these tv deals didn't exist and they didn't get the level of exposure they do then nobody would have any name recognition.  So it isn't like they're not benefiting from these tv contracts. 

Social media also makes it much easier to make side money. 

I have always said that individual players is not what sells in college it is the name on the front of the jersey. All those IU fans that went to Vegas to watch IU play did it because it is IU and not just for TJD.

[NotIThatLives]

13 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I have always said that individual players is not what sells in college it is the name on the front of the jersey. All those IU fans that went to Vegas to watch IU play did it because it is IU and not just for TJD.

True.  But what does that have to do with all the extra money coming in now?  So much so they can't even spend it all.  

[tdhoosier]

7 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I have always said that individual players is not what sells in college it is the name on the front of the jersey. All those IU fans that went to Vegas to watch IU play did it because it is IU and not just for TJD.

I couldn’t disagree more. When you talk about about the valuable programs in basketball what great players do you think of?

UNC: Jordan, Worthy, Stackhouse, Psycho T, Vince Carter

Duke: Laetner, Zion, Kyrie, Grant Hill, Grayson Allen

Kentucky: Anthony Davis, John Wall, Mashburn, Antoine Walker

IU: Alford, Cheney, May, Buckner, Jeffries

 

Now think of a MBB program without much value:

Northwestern….uh

Nebraska…..uh

 

The reason the blue-bloods are great are because of the great players who built them. 

[IUCrazy2]

1 hour ago, Kdug said:

Agreed, schools still indirectly spend a lot of money on athletes, but that's because it's still extremely profitable to do so and the existing rules prevent them from paying players directly, or they absolutely would pay them. There's a reason a lot of the top college football programs have nicer facilities than the NFL. It's because they make a ton of money and don't have to pay the players who are generating that revenue, so over the top facilities are how schools gain a competitive advantage vs other schools.

I just can't see how this doesn't end up with schools directly paying players now that the TV deals alone are bringing in $100M per school per year.

The minute they do that, the athletic program should really be divorced from the schools.

It isn't going to fly and I won't get into it for political reasons, but when the government is seriously considering dropping federal money into writing off school loans for students at these same institutions, I would tax the ever loving sh*t out of NCAA athletics.

[HoosierDom]

3 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

The minute they do that, the athletic program should really be divorced from the schools.

It isn't going to fly and I won't get into it for political reasons, but when the government is seriously considering dropping federal money into writing off school loans for students at these same institutions, I would tax the ever loving sh*t out of NCAA athletics.

How are those related issues? You would tax them if they pay the players, but not if they're unpaid? What if someone else pays the players under NIL? If you want to tax college athletics, great, I definitely agree. But where that money goes shouldn't influence that decision. 

[HoosierDom]

31 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I have always said that individual players is not what sells in college it is the name on the front of the jersey. All those IU fans that went to Vegas to watch IU play did it because it is IU and not just for TJD.

You're right, I'm not going to watch TJD if he goes to some other school, but how long are fans going to keep going to Vegas if we are always losing? I've watched every game this year. I couldn't say that about Crean's first year. Even then, I felt the program was on the upswing, so I was willing to suffer with them. But it wasn't can't miss tv. Imagine if we had that kind of year with no hope in sight. Are you going to watch every game? I'm not. Revenue depends on success and success depends on players. 

[IU Scott]

3 hours ago, tdhoosier said:

I couldn’t disagree more. When you talk about about the valuable programs in basketball what great players do you think of?

UNC: Jordan, Worthy, Stackhouse, Psycho T, Vince Carter

Duke: Laetner, Zion, Kyrie, Grant Hill, Grayson Allen

Kentucky: Anthony Davis, John Wall, Mashburn, Antoine Walker

IU: Alford, Cheney, May, Buckner, Jeffries

 

Now think of a MBB program without much value:

Northwestern….uh

Nebraska…..uh

 

The reason the blue-bloods are great are because of the great players who built them. 

I would guarantee that if you took all the top players from the power conferences you would still see fans watch college sports. If you have average to above average players plus the top mid majors players on Duke or UK and they were winning you would have the same fan support.

Edited December 16, 2022 by IU Scott

[tdhoosier]

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I would guarantee that if yountopk all the top players from the power conferences you wod still see fans watch college sports. If you have average to above average players plus the top mid majors players on Duke or UK and they were winning you would have the same fan support.

….But they wouldn’t win with average players. 

@HoosierDom said it in the most simple way:

Revenue depends on success and success depends on players. 

Good players and good programs go hand in hand. They owe their success to each other. 

 

[IUCrazy2]

47 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

How are those related issues? You would tax them if they pay the players, but not if they're unpaid? What if someone else pays the players under NIL? If you want to tax college athletics, great, I definitely agree. But where that money goes shouldn't influence that decision. 

I would love to tax them (heavily) either way.  NIL is a defacto pro league but it still gives at least some veneer that the schools aren't a pro league, the minute the schools start paying players directly, that is out the door.

Personally, the way it is going, I think college athletics at the major D1 level should be shut down.  I think their true value to the school is the same "value" cities get when they build new pro stadiums and put it on the taxpayers dime (studies show they don't make money on it).

[HoosierDom]

12 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

I would love to tax them (heavily) either way.  NIL is a defacto pro league but it still gives at least some veneer that the schools aren't a pro league, the minute the schools start paying players directly, that is out the door.

Personally, the way it is going, I think college athletics at the major D1 level should be shut down.  I think their true value to the school is the same "value" cities get when they build new pro stadiums and put it on the taxpayers dime (studies show they don't make money on it).

College basketball and football are money making endeavors, not charities, the fact that they aren't taxed accordingly is insane.

I don't understand why competitive sports are something that schools are engaged in. Basketball and football at least bring in money and exposure (mostly positive), so I get why a school would want those things. I see no reason for other sports to exist at the college level. I don't think many here will agree.

 

[Drroogh]

Just now, HoosierDom said:

College basketball and football are money making endeavors, not charities, the fact that they aren't taxed accordingly is insane.

I don't understand why competitive sports are something that schools are engaged in. Basketball and football at least bring in money and exposure (mostly positive), so I get why a school would want those things. I see no reason for other sports to exist at the college level. I don't think many here will agree.

 

As a former competitor of a non revenue sport. I totally disagree! 

[rico]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I have always said that individual players is not what sells in college it is the name on the front of the jersey. All those IU fans that went to Vegas to watch IU play did it because it is IU and not just for TJD.

Blah, blah, blah

[btownqb]

31 minutes ago, Drroogh said:

As a former competitor of a non revenue sport. I totally disagree! 

As an IU non-revenue sports fan, same!

[mrflynn03]

36 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

College basketball and football are money making endeavors, not charities, the fact that they aren't taxed accordingly is insane.

I don't understand why competitive sports are something that schools are engaged in. Basketball and football at least bring in money and exposure (mostly positive), so I get why a school would want those things. I see no reason for other sports to exist at the college level. I don't think many here will agree.

 

Well, the original intent, way before all this money got involved, was for sports to be for Student-athletes.  

 

[MoyeCowbell]

39 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

College basketball and football are money making endeavors, not charities, the fact that they aren't taxed accordingly is insane.

I don't understand why competitive sports are something that schools are engaged in. Basketball and football at least bring in money and exposure (mostly positive), so I get why a school would want those things. I see no reason for other sports to exist at the college level. I don't think many here will agree.

 

Why? Is it simply a revenue reason? Care to elaborate?

There are many merits of college sports - organized and arbitrated by schools - that go beyond simple financial gains.

[Steubenhoosier]

The soccer program has given IU plenty of national exposure. Back in the day with Doc Counsilman, the swimming program did the same. Coach Moren has the ladies’ hoops program smack in the sights of ESPN and their$$$. 
 

Yes, football and men’s basketball are the bell cow programs. Not sure how you value the benefits these “non-revenue “ teams bring to Bloomington.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Steubenhoosier

[HoosierDom]

9 minutes ago, MoyeCowbell said:

Why? Is it simply a revenue reason? Care to elaborate?

There are many merits of college sports - organized and arbitrated by schools - that go beyond simple financial gains.

I absolutely agree. The thing I don't get about sports, is why spend so much money on them? Why recruit for them, why have student spend so much time doing something that isn't academic? My roommate in school was just stupid good at an online video game. Should schools recruit him for that? Should they pay his coach 500k a year so our team in that game wins? I certainly think they should not. If he wants to play, that's great. If he wanted to form some sort of a school club, that's okay, too. But we shouldn't send him all over the country to play. We shouldn't essentially force him to spend huge amounts of time playing. Video games have nothing to do with the purpose of a university, and neither do sports. 

[HoosierDom]

17 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

The soccer program has given IU plenty of national exposure. Back in the day with Doc Counsilman, the swimming program did the same. Coach Moren has the ladies’ hoops program smack in the sights of ESPN and their$$$. 
 

Yes, football and men’s basketball are the bell cow programs. Not sure how you value the benefits these “non-revenue “ teams bring to Bloomington.

I concede there are select sports at select schools that go beyond just football and men's basketball. 

[13th&Jackson]

21 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

The soccer program has given IU plenty of national exposure. Back in the day with Doc Counsilman, the swimming program did the same.
 

I was at IU when the swim team’s 140 dual meet win streak ended. Doc said maybe fans will come out and watch now. 

[Drroogh]

15 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

I absolutely agree. The thing I don't get about sports, is why spend so much money on them? Why recruit for them, why have student spend so much time doing something that isn't academic? My roommate in school was just stupid good at an online video game. Should schools recruit him for that? Should they pay his coach 500k a year so our team in that game wins? I certainly think they should not. If he wants to play, that's great. If he wanted to form some sort of a school club, that's okay, too. But we shouldn't send him all over the country to play. We shouldn't essentially force him to spend huge amounts of time playing. Video games have nothing to do with the purpose of a university, and neither do sports. 

You obviously have no clue about non revenue sports especially at small schools. I paid for my own equipment, the only thing paid for us was travel expenses and I’m not so sure that wasn’t coming out of coaches pocket. He didn’t make 500,000, he was a consular at the school.

[btownqb]

21 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

I absolutely agree. The thing I don't get about sports, is why spend so much money on them? Why recruit for them, why have student spend so much time doing something that isn't academic? My roommate in school was just stupid good at an online video game. Should schools recruit him for that? Should they pay his coach 500k a year so our team in that game wins? I certainly think they should not. If he wants to play, that's great. If he wanted to form some sort of a school club, that's okay, too. But we shouldn't send him all over the country to play. We shouldn't essentially force him to spend huge amounts of time playing. Video games have nothing to do with the purpose of a university, and neither do sports. 

You're vastly underestimating networking... and "growing" the IU brand.