WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 (/thread-25441.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 (/thread-25441.html)
Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 11:49 AM)BillBradley Wrote:(02-03-2025, 07:06 AM)81alum Wrote: So there is a lot more upside to our still developing younger players than to our graduating class, which has shown us all they have. Umeh, too, is doing well but is a freshman. We will get an enormous influx of talent next year--but they (of course) will all be freshmen. Even if Paye installs a simpler offense over the summer, I think we are probably looking at 2026-27 before we get back to dominant form. Any maybe we never will if our best player gets purchased away from us each year.Question: Which would you (and others) prefer?
1) Stanford "sells its soul", offers $1M in NIL (just making that up) and keeps Nunu.
2) Stanford "sticks to it's principles", only offers $400K, and Nunu goes to USC.
I know both of those options make many throw up a little, but is there a preference? Assuming Nunu is going to do what's in her own best interest, is there even a 3rd option?
Good questions; ones which I hope have been resolved in favor of (1). My only caveat is the assumption that speeding $1m, or whatever amount, on Nunu is better for our talent pool than spending it elsewhere on thee team or to succeed in the portal. The ‘Principle’ here is that failing to pay Nunu what the market says she is worth , after allowing for the perceived value of a Stanford degree to Nunu vs a USC degree, is not principled at all. That will only work as long as Nunu doesn’t understand the market.
On a pragmatic basis , we need to be perceived as a place that will fight back and not let our talent be raided on the cheap. That will deter forays into our talent pool and encourage new entrants.
The alternatives are (1) drop down to what used to be Div 3 or (2) get comfortable with finding talent and developing it for USC to use to win championships.
My opinion and I recognize the legitimacy of not agreeing with it. But it is as ‘Principled’
’ as any other approach.
RE: Mudhead - BillBradley - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 12:03 PM)Mudhead Wrote:Yes, that's a good way to model the offer. But lets look at that math...Nunu has 2 more years of eligibility. So if USC does offer $1M in the example, and Stanford offers $400K plus the perceived value of a Stanford degree vs. a USC degree, then the decision is actually:(02-03-2025, 11:49 AM)BillBradley Wrote:(02-03-2025, 07:06 AM)81alum Wrote: So there is a lot more upside to our still developing younger players than to our graduating class, which has shown us all they have. Umeh, too, is doing well but is a freshman. We will get an enormous influx of talent next year--but they (of course) will all be freshmen. Even if Paye installs a simpler offense over the summer, I think we are probably looking at 2026-27 before we get back to dominant form. Any maybe we never will if our best player gets purchased away from us each year.Question: Which would you (and others) prefer?
1) Stanford "sells its soul", offers $1M in NIL (just making that up) and keeps Nunu.
2) Stanford "sticks to it's principles", only offers $400K, and Nunu goes to USC.
I know both of those options make many throw up a little, but is there a preference? Assuming Nunu is going to do what's in her own best interest, is there even a 3rd option?
The ‘Principle’ here is that failing to pay Nunu what the market says she is worth , after allowing for the perceived value of a Stanford degree to Nunu vs a USC degree, is not principled at all. That will only work as long as Nunu doesn’t understand the market.
USC = $2M plus USC degree.
Stanford = $800K plus Stanford degree.
RE: Mudhead - SkiBum80 - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 12:03 PM)Mudhead Wrote:Thanks for a thought provoking post.(02-03-2025, 11:49 AM)BillBradley Wrote:(02-03-2025, 07:06 AM)81alum Wrote: So there is a lot more upside to our still developing younger players than to our graduating class, which has shown us all they have. Umeh, too, is doing well but is a freshman. We will get an enormous influx of talent next year--but they (of course) will all be freshmen. Even if Paye installs a simpler offense over the summer, I think we are probably looking at 2026-27 before we get back to dominant form. Any maybe we never will if our best player gets purchased away from us each year.Question: Which would you (and others) prefer?
1) Stanford "sells its soul", offers $1M in NIL (just making that up) and keeps Nunu.
2) Stanford "sticks to it's principles", only offers $400K, and Nunu goes to USC.
I know both of those options make many throw up a little, but is there a preference? Assuming Nunu is going to do what's in her own best interest, is there even a 3rd option?
Good questions; ones which I hope have been resolved in favor of (1). My only caveat is the assumption that speeding $1m, or whatever amount, on Nunu is better for our talent pool than spending it elsewhere on thee team or to succeed in the portal. The ‘Principle’ here is that failing to pay Nunu what the market says she is worth , after allowing for the perceived value of a Stanford degree to Nunu vs a USC degree, is not principled at all. That will only work as long as Nunu doesn’t understand the market.
On a pragmatic basis , we need to be perceived as a place that will fight back and not let our talent be raided on the cheap. That will deter forays into our talent pool and encourage new entrants.
The alternatives are (1) drop down to what used to be Div 3 or (2) get comfortable with finding talent and developing it for USC to use to win championships.
My opinion and I recognize the legitimacy of not agreeing with it. But it is as ‘Principled’
’ as any other approach.
Apologies for simplifying it down to:
Pay the player what they're worth. What are they worth? What the Market says they are worth.
This is easier to do with something like NASDAQ where there is liquidity and lots of activity on equally valuable items, a common share in a particular company.
The complication, as life is never that easy, is that NIL for athletes is more like a Sotheby's auction,
and worse case, maybe even a silent auction where you don't know exactly what others are bidding.
So NIL on Agara is more like a Van Gogh coming up for auction that maybe has some comparables, but is not identical to any other painting recently auctioned. You can make a guess beforehand on the value.
But the guess could end up being far wrong.
Only after the auction completed can you know what was the actual market value.
If the auction was silent, you never had a chance to adjust your bid higher than your initial guess, even if you wanted or could afford to do so.
Bottom line, I see the job of those running the Lifetime Cardinal and making hard-to-do judgement calls on the reasonableness of specific offers to top athletes, and whether such offers will end up being a winning market setter, as being a really difficult job.
RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - Goose - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 11:49 AM)BillBradley Wrote: Question: Which would you (and others) prefer?What principles would we be "sticking to" by being willing willing to pay $400K but not $1M?
1) Stanford "sells its soul", offers $1M in NIL (just making that up) and keeps Nunu.
2) Stanford "sticks to it's principles", only offers $400K, and Nunu goes to USC.
I know both of those options make many throw up a little, but is there a preference? Assuming Nunu is going to do what's in her own best interest, is there even a 3rd option?
RE: Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 02:22 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote:(02-03-2025, 12:03 PM)Mudhead Wrote:Thanks for a thought provoking post.(02-03-2025, 11:49 AM)BillBradley Wrote:(02-03-2025, 07:06 AM)81alum Wrote: So there is a lot more upside to our still developing younger players than to our graduating class, which has shown us all they have. Umeh, too, is doing well but is a freshman. We will get an enormous influx of talent next year--but they (of course) will all be freshmen. Even if Paye installs a simpler offense over the summer, I think we are probably looking at 2026-27 before we get back to dominant form. Any maybe we never will if our best player gets purchased away from us each year.Question: Which would you (and others) prefer?
1) Stanford "sells its soul", offers $1M in NIL (just making that up) and keeps Nunu.
2) Stanford "sticks to it's principles", only offers $400K, and Nunu goes to USC.
I know both of those options make many throw up a little, but is there a preference? Assuming Nunu is going to do what's in her own best interest, is there even a 3rd option?
Good questions; ones which I hope have been resolved in favor of (1). My only caveat is the assumption that speeding $1m, or whatever amount, on Nunu is better for our talent pool than spending it elsewhere on thee team or to succeed in the portal. The ‘Principle’ here is that failing to pay Nunu what the market says she is worth , after allowing for the perceived value of a Stanford degree to Nunu vs a USC degree, is not principled at all. That will only work as long as Nunu doesn’t understand the market.
On a pragmatic basis , we need to be perceived as a place that will fight back and not let our talent be raided on the cheap. That will deter forays into our talent pool and encourage new entrants.
The alternatives are (1) drop down to what used to be Div 3 or (2) get comfortable with finding talent and developing it for USC to use to win championships.
My opinion and I recognize the legitimacy of not agreeing with it. But it is as ‘Principled’
’ as any other approach.
Apologies for simplifying it down to:
Pay the player what they're worth. What are they worth? What the Market says they are worth.
This is easier to do with something like NASDAQ where there is liquidity and lots of activity on equally valuable items, a common share in a particular company.
The complication, as life is never that easy, is that NIL for athletes is more like a Sotheby's auction,
and worse case, maybe even a silent auction where you don't know exactly what others are bidding.
So NIL on Agara is more like a Van Gogh coming up for auction that maybe has some comparables, but is not identical to any other painting recently auctioned. You can make a guess beforehand on the value.
But the guess could end up being far wrong.
Only after the auction completed can you know what was the actual market value.
If the auction was silent, you never had a chance to adjust your bid higher than your initial guess, even if you wanted or could afford to do so.
Bottom line, I see the job of those running the Lifetime Cardinal and making hard-to-do judgement calls on the reasonableness of specific offers to top athletes, and whether such offers will end up being a winning market setter, as being a really difficult job.
RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - Spiny_Norman - 02-03-2025
Let's say No No to Nunu joining Juju to replace Kiki.
RE: Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 02:22 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote:(02-03-2025, 12:03 PM)Mudhead Wrote:Thanks for a thought provoking post.(02-03-2025, 11:49 AM)BillBradley Wrote:(02-03-2025, 07:06 AM)81alum Wrote: So there is a lot more upside to our still developing younger players than to our graduating class, which has shown us all they have. Umeh, too, is doing well but is a freshman. We will get an enormous influx of talent next year--but they (of course) will all be freshmen. Even if Paye installs a simpler offense over the summer, I think we are probably looking at 2026-27 before we get back to dominant form. Any maybe we never will if our best player gets purchased away from us each year.Question: Which would you (and others) prefer?
1) Stanford "sells its soul", offers $1M in NIL (just making that up) and keeps Nunu.
2) Stanford "sticks to it's principles", only offers $400K, and Nunu goes to USC.
I know both of those options make many throw up a little, but is there a preference? Assuming Nunu is going to do what's in her own best interest, is there even a 3rd option?
Good questions; ones which I hope have been resolved in favor of (1). My only caveat is the assumption that speeding $1m, or whatever amount, on Nunu is better for our talent pool than spending it elsewhere on thee team or to succeed in the portal. The ‘Principle’ here is that failing to pay Nunu what the market says she is worth , after allowing for the perceived value of a Stanford degree to Nunu vs a USC degree, is not principled at all. That will only work as long as Nunu doesn’t understand the market.
On a pragmatic basis , we need to be perceived as a place that will fight back and not let our talent be raided on the cheap. That will deter forays into our talent pool and encourage new entrants.
The alternatives are (1) drop down to what used to be Div 3 or (2) get comfortable with finding talent and developing it for USC to use to win championships.
My opinion and I recognize the legitimacy of not agreeing with it. But it is as ‘Principled’
’ as any other approach.
Apologies for simplifying it down to:
Pay the player what they're worth. What are they worth? What the Market says they are worth.
This is easier to do with something like NASDAQ where there is liquidity and lots of activity on equally valuable items, a common share in a particular company.
The complication, as life is never that easy, is that NIL for athletes is more like a Sotheby's auction,
and worse case, maybe even a silent auction where you don't know exactly what others are bidding.
So NIL on Agara is more like a Van Gogh coming up for auction that maybe has some comparables, but is not identical to any other painting recently auctioned. You can make a guess beforehand on the value.
But the guess could end up being far wrong.
Only after the auction completed can you know what was the actual market value.
If the auction was silent, you never had a chance to adjust your bid higher than your initial guess, even if you wanted or could afford to do so.
Bottom line, I see the job of those running the Lifetime Cardinal and making hard-to-do judgement calls on the reasonableness of specific offers to top athletes, and whether such offers will end up being a winning market setter, as being a really difficult job.
I I agree totally that knowing the market is difficult. It is particularly so if you are competing against bidders who don’t give a damn about the market, they just want the player. Witness our experience with softball pitchers. Still, winning I. This market has now become a core competency for successful women’s basketball program.
I believe that if you intend to compete in this somewhat deranged market, you have to be willing to overpay. Once you establish that reputation , other potential bidders will tend to look elsewhere to poach. In the alternative, if you adhere strictly to a formula that stays with a rigorous market value concept, you will lose to the Texas Tech program that has a higher than market value on a pitcher because the value to them is the establishment of a big time program. ( that really not a good example; you will always have problems with the irrational bidder.) But if you are known as a place that overpays, recruits will light up and competitors will tend to look elsewhere for talent.
Showing that you are prepared to verge on the excessive and have the $ to do so , is also the only way to drive some sanity into this process. I know other schools who fear that Stanford will tumble to this and use its wealth to dominate the market for academically superior high talent players. I’d like to test this .
RE: Mudhead - Goose - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 03:00 PM)Mudhead Wrote: Showing that you are prepared to verge on the excessive and have the $ to do so , is also the only way to drive some sanity into this process.I fail to see how this can be described as "sanity". "We must destroy the village in order to save it" comes to mind.
Quote:I know other schools who fear that Stanford will tumble to this and use its wealth to dominate the market for academically superior high talent players. I’d like to test this .Stanford should therefore buy each and every athlete, good, bad, or mediocre. Stanford can monopolize college sports. Problem solved. The only problem with this approach is that some athletes don't want to "work" for Stanford. They don't necessarily enjoy it here. If they can get a lot of money elsewhere, we may not be able to "buy" them.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 03:25 PM)Goose Wrote:(02-03-2025, 03:00 PM)Mudhead Wrote: Showing that you are prepared to verge on the excessive and have the $ to do so , is also the only way to drive some sanity into this process.I fail to see how this can be described as "sanity". "We must destroy the village in order to save it" comes to mind.
Quote:I know other schools who fear that Stanford will tumble to this and use its wealth to dominate the market for academically superior high talent players. I’d like to test this .Stanford should therefore buy each and every athlete, good, bad, or mediocre. Stanford can monopolize college sports. Problem solved. The only problem with this approach is that some athletes don't want to "work" for Stanford. They don't necessarily enjoy it here. If they can get a lot of money elsewhere, we may not be able to "buy" them.
You are correct. I think you will have to burn the village and then rebuild it. Eventually, that will happen. We can all conjecture what the new landscape will be but we will all probably be wrong. Either an “athletes as employees” model with a collective bargaining agreement to regulate sports or replacement of student athletes with club teams strikes me as the most likely outcomes.
That may well take ten years to sort out. In the meantime you either get good at paying athletes or you get out of college sports. The student athlete model is a dodo bird. Wish it were not , but I fear it is.
RE: Mudhead - chrisk - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 03:25 PM)Goose Wrote:(02-03-2025, 03:00 PM)Mudhead Wrote: Showing that you are prepared to verge on the excessive and have the $ to do so , is also the only way to drive some sanity into this process.I fail to see how this can be described as "sanity". "We must destroy the village in order to save it" comes to mind.
Quote:I know other schools who fear that Stanford will tumble to this and use its wealth to dominate the market for academically superior high talent players. I’d like to test this .Stanford should therefore buy each and every athlete, good, bad, or mediocre. Stanford can monopolize college sports. Problem solved. The only problem with this approach is that some athletes don't want to "work" for Stanford. They don't necessarily enjoy it here. If they can get a lot of money elsewhere, we may not be able to "buy" them.
The payments by the school come out of the $20M House cap. The budget for the entire women's BB team is unlikely to be much more than $1m, at least at most schools. Third party payments have to meet a market test. Unless an athlete has already developed their own image in a significant way, there shouldn't be any crazy $1M payments. If an athlete commands a market-rate NIL, that is over and above what the school pays.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 04:50 PM)chrisk Wrote:(02-03-2025, 03:25 PM)Goose Wrote:(02-03-2025, 03:00 PM)Mudhead Wrote: Showing that you are prepared to verge on the excessive and have the $ to do so , is also the only way to drive some sanity into this process.I fail to see how this can be described as "sanity". "We must destroy the village in order to save it" comes to mind.
Quote:I know other schools who fear that Stanford will tumble to this and use its wealth to dominate the market for academically superior high talent players. I’d like to test this .Stanford should therefore buy each and every athlete, good, bad, or mediocre. Stanford can monopolize college sports. Problem solved. The only problem with this approach is that some athletes don't want to "work" for Stanford. They don't necessarily enjoy it here. If they can get a lot of money elsewhere, we may not be able to "buy" them.
The payments by the school come out of the $20M House cap. The budget for the entire women's BB team is unlikely to be much more than $1m, at least at most schools. Third party payments have to meet a market test. Unless an athlete has already developed their own image in a significant way, there shouldn't be any crazy $1M payments. If an athlete commands a market-rate NIL, that is over and above what the school pays.
NIL will continue to exist. The Collectives will,be regulated to some extent, but absent another Supreme Court case, nothing will prevent the Texas Tech example or things like it from continuing. If I own a car wash and , independently of the School of course, decide that I want Nunu to do ads for my business at $ 200,000 or $300,000 a year, I don’t think that can be regulated by the NCAA, the conference or the school. And if you don’t think that will happen, you have never been to Texas.
House will open the door to Collective bargaining because it’s hard to see why athletes are not employees of the school. Once they are employees , why shouldn’t they have a union like everyone else? But NFL cb agreements don’t prevent athletes from having shoe contracts, they only cover salary scale paid by the team and signing bonuses. There will be many traps for the unwary in terms of connections with schools but I have no doubt creative and wealthy fans will figure out a way to pay players as long as it is legal .
Do you have any doubt about USCs willingness to test the bounds of legality? Or beyond.
RE: Mudhead - BostonCard - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 02:22 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Apologies for simplifying it down to:
Pay the player what they're worth. What are they worth? What the Market says they are worth.
Are you volunteering to front the money. If so, Bob has provided the link to lifetime Cardinal, but if not, then no, Stanford should not pay every athlete whatever the market says they are worth because Stanford does not have a bottomless source of funds to pay all athletes whatever they could get. Stanford (via Lifetime Cardinal, at least until the House settlement is approved) should pay athletes whatever it determienes they are worth, taking into account competing funding requirements. Sometimes that will be less than athletes can get elsewhere, just as sometimes a professor will say "School X is offering me an endowed professorship and a position heading an institute with 8 FTE's, can you match it?" and the the Stanford department chair will be left saying; "Congratulations and best of luck at school X".
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - chrisk - 02-03-2025
From a recent NCAA Q&A on the House settlement (mentions arbitration for challenges to fair-market valuse assessments)
Question No. 31: How and when will a student-athletes’ third-party NIL deals be subject to the fair-market-value assessment contemplated by the settlement?
Answer: All Division I student-athletes will be required to report third-party NIL deals worth $600 or more, whether or not their institution opts in to the settlement. All agreements with associated entities and associated individuals with payments occurring after July 1, 2025, will be subject to the fair-market-value assessment contemplated by the settlement. Also, all new agreements with associated entities and associated individuals executed after settlement approval (which could occur any time after April 7, 2025) will be subject to a fair-market-value review. In addition, if there is a challenge to determinations related to fair-market-value, third-party arbitrators approved by the plaintiffs, the defendant conferences and the NCAA will render a decision.
NCAA Question 34 says that Deloitte is developing the NIL fair market value platform:
Question No. 34: When will the technology behind the cap-reporting and NIL fair-market-value platforms be developed? Answer: The defendant conferences have reached agreement with vendors who will develop, test and provide appropriate training for the platforms. LBi has been selected as the vendor for the cap reporting platform and Deloitte has been selected for the NIL fair market value platform. The defendant conferences will be responsible for the build-out of the cap-reporting system and related enforcement of complying with the cap. The defendant conferences also are responsible for overseeing the administration of the fair-market-value system. Schools should not contact vendors directly with questions at this time. More information will be forthcoming about the development of both platforms.
RE: Mudhead - liveoak - 02-03-2025
(02-03-2025, 08:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(02-03-2025, 02:22 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Apologies for simplifying it down to:
Pay the player what they're worth. What are they worth? What the Market says they are worth.
Are you volunteering to front the money. If so, Bob has provided the link to lifetime Cardinal, but if not, then no, Stanford should not pay every athlete whatever the market says they are worth because Stanford does not have a bottomless source of funds to pay all athletes whatever they could get. Stanford (via Lifetime Cardinal, at least until the House settlement is approved) should pay athletes whatever it determienes they are worth, taking into account competing funding requirements. Sometimes that will be less than athletes can get elsewhere, just as sometimes a professor will say "School X is offering me an endowed professorship and a position heading an institute with 8 FTE's, can you match it?" and the the Stanford department chair will be left saying; "Congratulations and best of luck at school X".
BC
I personally don't have the money, but I find it hard to believe that Stanford alums could not raise and contribute enough money to pay athletes at market rates. Whether they should do that is another matter - but I think the money is there to pay market rates.
RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - martyup - 02-04-2025
It seems like these new "fair market value" rules will severely lower the level of NIL money available to athletes. I doubt there would be justification under the new system for the $1mil paid to a woman softball pitcher.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-04-2025
(02-04-2025, 11:24 AM)martyup Wrote: It seems like these new "fair market value" rules will severely lower the level of NIL money available to athletes. I doubt there would be justification under the new system for the $1mil paid to a woman softball pitcher.
You may be right. I havent read the Alston case, only reports of it. It apparently was decided narrowly on educational benefits and didn’t reach pay for play. It was a unanimous case so all 9 justices agreed that NCAA rules preventing payments of educational benefits beyond tuition, room and board violated antitrust laws. At least one Justice ( Kavanaugh) seemed to believe any restriction agreed upon by schools that restricted what was paid to athletes was illegal. Presumably , he would allow pay for play. But that was not before the court so it’s not permitted nor is there any support for prohibiting it in the Alston decision.
There will almost certainly be efforts to do Texas Tech type deals, though probably without even tacit approval by the schools, in the future. If the NCAA, the conferences or the schools try and limit them , they will be challenged with a lawsuit that may well go back to the Supreme Court. It’s not at all clear to me that the Supreme Court would agree that restricting such NIL deals is ok.
Sorry for getting into the weeds . Just suggesting that we will not be free from “whatever consenting parties agree to” vs some formulation of fair value type of NIL deals in the future. If your going to try and be competitive, you have to be prepared to compete in a marketplace like the one existing today.
RE: Mudhead - BillBradley - 02-04-2025
(02-04-2025, 12:59 PM)Mudhead Wrote:Right, there's a long way to go. Whatever happens, history will probably repeat itself. The NCAA will be awful at enforcement and the regulation will just lead to corruption. After all, before NIL, athletes were forbidden to take gifts from boosters and we all know how that played out.(02-04-2025, 11:24 AM)martyup Wrote: It seems like these new "fair market value" rules will severely lower the level of NIL money available to athletes. I doubt there would be justification under the new system for the $1mil paid to a woman softball pitcher.
You may be right. I havent read the Alston case, only reports of it. It apparently was decided narrowly on educational benefits and didn’t reach pay for play. It was a unanimous case so all 9 justices agreed that NCAA rules preventing payments of educational benefits beyond tuition, room and board violated antitrust laws. At least one Justice ( Kavanaugh) seemed to believe any restriction agreed upon by schools that restricted what was paid to athletes was illegal. Presumably , he would allow pay for play. But that was not before the court so it’s not permitted nor is there any support for prohibiting it in the Alston decision.
There will almost certainly be efforts to do Texas Tech type deals, though probably without even tacit approval by the schools, in the future. If the NCAA, the conferences or the schools try and limit them , they will be challenged with a lawsuit that may well go back to the Supreme Court. It’s not at all clear to me that the Supreme Court would agree that restricting such NIL deals is ok.
Sorry for getting into the weeds . Just suggesting that we will not be free from “whatever consenting parties agree to” vs some formulation of fair value type of NIL deals in the future. If your going to try and be competitive, you have to be prepared to compete in a marketplace like the one existing today.
And who's to say what should pass a fair market value test? If some legitimate company (not a carwash) in SoCal that's owned by a USC booster is willing to pay Swain $200K to be their spokesperson, how does anyone go about determining if that passes the fair market value test? It's not $2M it's $200K. A negotiation between the two entities will occur and Swain's agent will certainly argue her "celebrity status" to get her top dollar. And of course other contracts across the country will be brought into play (e.g. "Hidalgo got $175K for her spokesperson contract and that was allowed, so Swain's should pass the test too"). USC gets her a few hundred K cash plus a handful of these third party contracts and voila, there's her $1M package. All legal. Over time, the values will continue to rise. There's no stopping it. The revenue sharing cash amounts coming from the colleges will be controlled, but the packages will skyrocket. In 5 years time, we'll be routinely seeing deals for the top stars in football and basketball in the multi-millions.
Back to Nunu...we are less than 2 months away from the transfer portal craze. If someone wants her, they can buy her as these new rules won't go into effect until later. I hope we get out the checkbook for her...
RE: Mudhead - TheFarm07 - 02-04-2025
(02-04-2025, 02:15 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Back to Nunu...we are less than 2 months away from the transfer portal craze. If someone wants her, they can buy her as these new rules won't go into effect until later. I hope we get out the checkbook for her...
As a sophomore, I hope she recognizes that reinforcements will be coming in next season and she won't have to shoulder the burden by herself. Combining her experience and hopefully offseason improvements with talents such as Swain and Somfai can hopefully propel us back into the rankings, if not title contenders and by the 26-27 season, we would have added another elite prospect or two to make a deep NCAA run and challenge for the championship again.
RE: Mudhead - old spanish trail - 02-04-2025
(02-04-2025, 03:02 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote:(02-04-2025, 02:15 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Back to Nunu...we are less than 2 months away from the transfer portal craze. If someone wants her, they can buy her as these new rules won't go into effect until later. I hope we get out the checkbook for her...
As a sophomore, I hope she recognizes that reinforcements will be coming in next season and she won't have to shoulder the burden by herself. Combining her experience and hopefully offseason improvements with talents such as Swain and Somfai can hopefully propel us back into the rankings, if not title contenders and by the 26-27 season, we would have added another elite prospect or two to make a deep NCAA run and challenge for the championship again.
Speaking of next year, I'm thinking Eschmeyer will be a gem.
RE: Mudhead - chrisk - 02-04-2025
(02-04-2025, 02:15 PM)BillBradley Wrote:(02-04-2025, 12:59 PM)Mudhead Wrote:Right, there's a long way to go. Whatever happens, history will probably repeat itself. The NCAA will be awful at enforcement and the regulation will just lead to corruption. After all, before NIL, athletes were forbidden to take gifts from boosters and we all know how that played out.(02-04-2025, 11:24 AM)martyup Wrote: It seems like these new "fair market value" rules will severely lower the level of NIL money available to athletes. I doubt there would be justification under the new system for the $1mil paid to a woman softball pitcher.
You may be right. I havent read the Alston case, only reports of it. It apparently was decided narrowly on educational benefits and didn’t reach pay for play. It was a unanimous case so all 9 justices agreed that NCAA rules preventing payments of educational benefits beyond tuition, room and board violated antitrust laws. At least one Justice ( Kavanaugh) seemed to believe any restriction agreed upon by schools that restricted what was paid to athletes was illegal. Presumably , he would allow pay for play. But that was not before the court so it’s not permitted nor is there any support for prohibiting it in the Alston decision.
There will almost certainly be efforts to do Texas Tech type deals, though probably without even tacit approval by the schools, in the future. If the NCAA, the conferences or the schools try and limit them , they will be challenged with a lawsuit that may well go back to the Supreme Court. It’s not at all clear to me that the Supreme Court would agree that restricting such NIL deals is ok.
Sorry for getting into the weeds . Just suggesting that we will not be free from “whatever consenting parties agree to” vs some formulation of fair value type of NIL deals in the future. If your going to try and be competitive, you have to be prepared to compete in a marketplace like the one existing today.
And who's to say what should pass a fair market value test? If some legitimate company (not a carwash) in SoCal that's owned by a USC booster is willing to pay Swain $200K to be their spokesperson, how does anyone go about determining if that passes the fair market value test? It's not $2M it's $200K. A negotiation between the two entities will occur and Swain's agent will certainly argue her "celebrity status" to get her top dollar. And of course other contracts across the country will be brought into play (e.g. "Hidalgo got $175K for her spokesperson contract and that was allowed, so Swain's should pass the test too"). USC gets her a few hundred K cash plus a handful of these third party contracts and voila, there's her $1M package. All legal. Over time, the values will continue to rise. There's no stopping it. The revenue sharing cash amounts coming from the colleges will be controlled, but the packages will skyrocket. In 5 years time, we'll be routinely seeing deals for the top stars in football and basketball in the multi-millions.
Back to Nunu...we are less than 2 months away from the transfer portal craze. If someone wants her, they can buy her as these new rules won't go into effect until later. I hope we get out the checkbook for her...
The House settlement is on point here, not the Alston case.
As mentioned in the NCAA Q&A, Deloitte is developing (operating?) the fair market value platform. There is an arbitration mechanism for disputes. How likely is it that $1 million payments will make through those steps?
Only athletes who already have developed a significant online presence, not very many HS recruits.