03-26-2024, 07:47 AM
(03-25-2024, 06:17 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote: Has anyone ever seen Kyle Smith and Sean Penn in the same room? Just curious.
Damn! You beat me to it.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith
03-26-2024, 10:43 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2024, 10:45 AM by BillBradley.)
I really don't think there's a lot of negativity on the thread. Maybe a post or two. I just think it's hard for people (me certainly) to get excited about someone who's resume says he will make our team "far better than the norm". I guess it just comes down to people's individual expectations. Personally, I want to get back to being a Top-10 team. I want to field teams that can win against Duke, UNC, NC State, Syracuse, etc., not just keep the games close with lesser talent. In order to do that, we have to land top level recruits. Until Stanford goes all in on the NIL game, I just don't see that happening with Kyle Smith at the helm. That would be interesting analysis, to see if he improved the recruiting at each of the places he's been at. After watching his USF and WSU teams play, it doesn't seem like he's landed big talent. But truthfully, I don't know. I do know that WSU has had some NBA talent over the years, so it is possible.
Will he be able to get Reynaud, Carlyle, Stojakovich to return? Maybe he can get Reynaud, because he's a senior and one year's worth of NIL money won't be that big. But for Carlyle and Stojo? Consider this...Harrison Ingram is making somewhere around $300K per year of NIL money at UNC (source: conversational from trustworthy sources, and I believe it :>). I would think Carlyle and Stojakovich could command around the same, and the NIL world is GROWING. It's $300K now, it used to be $50K. What's it going to be like for these top players in 2-3 years? As others have noted, it also doesn't help that Ingraham, Ryan, and MOC have had success at these other schools. So Carlyle and Stojo are going to give up ~$1M to come back and play for...Kyle Smith? They might for Jay Wright. That's really all I'm saying here (and I do hope that I'm wrong and they all come back!). Smith is a good coach and all, but I highly doubt these guys sacrifice that level of money and eyeballs to come back to play for a coach with his track record of reasonable success at other places that are tough to win at. I do agree, he's a guy who can make us marginally better and as I've said, I think it's a great hire considering what we could get.
Will he be able to get Reynaud, Carlyle, Stojakovich to return? Maybe he can get Reynaud, because he's a senior and one year's worth of NIL money won't be that big. But for Carlyle and Stojo? Consider this...Harrison Ingram is making somewhere around $300K per year of NIL money at UNC (source: conversational from trustworthy sources, and I believe it :>). I would think Carlyle and Stojakovich could command around the same, and the NIL world is GROWING. It's $300K now, it used to be $50K. What's it going to be like for these top players in 2-3 years? As others have noted, it also doesn't help that Ingraham, Ryan, and MOC have had success at these other schools. So Carlyle and Stojo are going to give up ~$1M to come back and play for...Kyle Smith? They might for Jay Wright. That's really all I'm saying here (and I do hope that I'm wrong and they all come back!). Smith is a good coach and all, but I highly doubt these guys sacrifice that level of money and eyeballs to come back to play for a coach with his track record of reasonable success at other places that are tough to win at. I do agree, he's a guy who can make us marginally better and as I've said, I think it's a great hire considering what we could get.
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2024, 10:45 AM by BillBradley.)
I really don't think there's a lot of negativity on the thread. Maybe a post or two. I just think it's hard for people (me certainly) to get excited about someone who's resume says he will make our team "far better than the norm". I guess it just comes down to people's individual expectations. Personally, I want to get back to being a Top-10 team. I want to field teams that can win against Duke, UNC, NC State, Syracuse, etc., not just keep the games close with lesser talent. In order to do that, we have to land top level recruits. Until Stanford goes all in on the NIL game, I just don't see that happening with Kyle Smith at the helm. That would be interesting analysis, to see if he improved the recruiting at each of the places he's been at. After watching his USF and WSU teams play, it doesn't seem like he's landed big talent. But truthfully, I don't know. I do know that WSU has had some NBA talent over the years, so it is possible.
Will he be able to get Reynaud, Carlyle, Stojakovich to return? Maybe he can get Reynaud, because he's a senior and one year's worth of NIL money won't be that big. But for Carlyle and Stojo? Consider this...Harrison Ingram is making somewhere around $300K per year of NIL money at UNC (source: conversational from trustworthy sources, and I believe it :>). I would think Carlyle and Stojakovich could command around the same, and the NIL world is GROWING. It's $300K now, it used to be $50K. What's it going to be like for these top players in 2-3 years? As others have noted, it also doesn't help that Ingraham, Ryan, and MOC have had success at these other schools. So Carlyle and Stojo are going to give up ~$1M to come back and play for...Kyle Smith? They might for Jay Wright. That's really all I'm saying here (and I do hope that I'm wrong and they all come back!). Smith is a good coach and all, but I highly doubt these guys sacrifice that level of money and eyeballs to come back to play for a coach with his track record of reasonable success at other places that are tough to win at. I do agree, he's a guy who can make us marginally better and as I've said, I think it's a great hire considering what we could get.
Will he be able to get Reynaud, Carlyle, Stojakovich to return? Maybe he can get Reynaud, because he's a senior and one year's worth of NIL money won't be that big. But for Carlyle and Stojo? Consider this...Harrison Ingram is making somewhere around $300K per year of NIL money at UNC (source: conversational from trustworthy sources, and I believe it :>). I would think Carlyle and Stojakovich could command around the same, and the NIL world is GROWING. It's $300K now, it used to be $50K. What's it going to be like for these top players in 2-3 years? As others have noted, it also doesn't help that Ingraham, Ryan, and MOC have had success at these other schools. So Carlyle and Stojo are going to give up ~$1M to come back and play for...Kyle Smith? They might for Jay Wright. That's really all I'm saying here (and I do hope that I'm wrong and they all come back!). Smith is a good coach and all, but I highly doubt these guys sacrifice that level of money and eyeballs to come back to play for a coach with his track record of reasonable success at other places that are tough to win at. I do agree, he's a guy who can make us marginally better and as I've said, I think it's a great hire considering what we could get.
03-26-2024, 10:50 AM
(03-26-2024, 10:43 AM)BillBradley Wrote: I really don't think there's a lot of negativity on the thread. Maybe a post or two. I just think it's hard for people (me certainly) to get excited about someone who's resume says he will make our team "far better than the norm". I guess it just comes down to people's individual expectations. Personally, I want to get back to being a Top-10 team. I want to field teams that can win against Duke, UNC, NC State, Syracuse, etc., not just keep the games close with lesser talent. In order to do that, we have to land top level recruits. Until Stanford goes all in on the NIL game, I just don't see that happening with Kyle Smith at the helm. That would be interesting analysis, to see if he improved the recruiting at each of the places he's been at. After watching his USF and WSU teams play, it doesn't seem like he's landed big talent. But truthfully, I don't know. I do know that WSU has had some NBA talent over the years, so it is possible.
Will he be able to get Reynaud, Carlyle, Stojakovich to return? Maybe he can get Reynaud, because he's a senior and one year's worth of NIL money won't be that big. But for Carlyle and Stojo? Consider this...Harrison Ingram is making somewhere around $300K per year of NIL money at UNC (source: conversational from trustworthy sources, and I believe it :>). I would think Carlyle and Stojakovich could command around the same, and the NIL world is GROWING. It's $300K now, it used to be $50K. What's it going to be like for these top players in 2-3 years? As others have noted, it also doesn't help that Ingraham, Ryan, and MOC have had success at these other schools. So Carlyle and Stojo are going to give up ~$1M to come back and play for...Kyle Smith? They might for Jay Wright. That's really all I'm saying here (and I do hope that I'm wrong and they all come back!). Smith is a good coach and all, but I highly doubt these guys sacrifice that level of money and eyeballs to come back to play for a coach with his track record of reasonable success at other places that are tough to win at. I do agree, he's a guy who can make us marginally better and as I've said, I think it's a great hire considering what we could get.
But the fact that Stanford was able to attract these recruits in the first place is enough to say Stanford can succeed is it not?
(03-26-2024, 10:43 AM)BillBradley Wrote: I really don't think there's a lot of negativity on the thread. Maybe a post or two. I just think it's hard for people (me certainly) to get excited about someone who's resume says he will make our team "far better than the norm". I guess it just comes down to people's individual expectations. Personally, I want to get back to being a Top-10 team. I want to field teams that can win against Duke, UNC, NC State, Syracuse, etc., not just keep the games close with lesser talent. In order to do that, we have to land top level recruits. Until Stanford goes all in on the NIL game, I just don't see that happening with Kyle Smith at the helm. That would be interesting analysis, to see if he improved the recruiting at each of the places he's been at. After watching his USF and WSU teams play, it doesn't seem like he's landed big talent. But truthfully, I don't know. I do know that WSU has had some NBA talent over the years, so it is possible.
Will he be able to get Reynaud, Carlyle, Stojakovich to return? Maybe he can get Reynaud, because he's a senior and one year's worth of NIL money won't be that big. But for Carlyle and Stojo? Consider this...Harrison Ingram is making somewhere around $300K per year of NIL money at UNC (source: conversational from trustworthy sources, and I believe it :>). I would think Carlyle and Stojakovich could command around the same, and the NIL world is GROWING. It's $300K now, it used to be $50K. What's it going to be like for these top players in 2-3 years? As others have noted, it also doesn't help that Ingraham, Ryan, and MOC have had success at these other schools. So Carlyle and Stojo are going to give up ~$1M to come back and play for...Kyle Smith? They might for Jay Wright. That's really all I'm saying here (and I do hope that I'm wrong and they all come back!). Smith is a good coach and all, but I highly doubt these guys sacrifice that level of money and eyeballs to come back to play for a coach with his track record of reasonable success at other places that are tough to win at. I do agree, he's a guy who can make us marginally better and as I've said, I think it's a great hire considering what we could get.
But the fact that Stanford was able to attract these recruits in the first place is enough to say Stanford can succeed is it not?
(03-26-2024, 10:50 AM)norcard10 Wrote:(03-26-2024, 10:43 AM)BillBradley Wrote: I really don't think there's a lot of negativity on the thread. Maybe a post or two. I just think it's hard for people (me certainly) to get excited about someone who's resume says he will make our team "far better than the norm". I guess it just comes down to people's individual expectations. Personally, I want to get back to being a Top-10 team. I want to field teams that can win against Duke, UNC, NC State, Syracuse, etc., not just keep the games close with lesser talent. In order to do that, we have to land top level recruits. Until Stanford goes all in on the NIL game, I just don't see that happening with Kyle Smith at the helm. That would be interesting analysis, to see if he improved the recruiting at each of the places he's been at. After watching his USF and WSU teams play, it doesn't seem like he's landed big talent. But truthfully, I don't know. I do know that WSU has had some NBA talent over the years, so it is possible.
Will he be able to get Reynaud, Carlyle, Stojakovich to return? Maybe he can get Reynaud, because he's a senior and one year's worth of NIL money won't be that big. But for Carlyle and Stojo? Consider this...Harrison Ingram is making somewhere around $300K per year of NIL money at UNC (source: conversational from trustworthy sources, and I believe it :>). I would think Carlyle and Stojakovich could command around the same, and the NIL world is GROWING. It's $300K now, it used to be $50K. What's it going to be like for these top players in 2-3 years? As others have noted, it also doesn't help that Ingraham, Ryan, and MOC have had success at these other schools. So Carlyle and Stojo are going to give up ~$1M to come back and play for...Kyle Smith? They might for Jay Wright. That's really all I'm saying here (and I do hope that I'm wrong and they all come back!). Smith is a good coach and all, but I highly doubt these guys sacrifice that level of money and eyeballs to come back to play for a coach with his track record of reasonable success at other places that are tough to win at. I do agree, he's a guy who can make us marginally better and as I've said, I think it's a great hire considering what we could get.
But the fact that Stanford was able to attract these recruits in the first place is enough to say Stanford can succeed is it not?
Not necessarily.
As noted in Bradley’s post, the cost of doing business has increased substantially. How many premier recruits would choose Stanford today given the NIL opportunities elsewhere?
(03-26-2024, 10:50 AM)norcard10 Wrote:(03-26-2024, 10:43 AM)BillBradley Wrote: I really don't think there's a lot of negativity on the thread. Maybe a post or two. I just think it's hard for people (me certainly) to get excited about someone who's resume says he will make our team "far better than the norm". I guess it just comes down to people's individual expectations. Personally, I want to get back to being a Top-10 team. I want to field teams that can win against Duke, UNC, NC State, Syracuse, etc., not just keep the games close with lesser talent. In order to do that, we have to land top level recruits. Until Stanford goes all in on the NIL game, I just don't see that happening with Kyle Smith at the helm. That would be interesting analysis, to see if he improved the recruiting at each of the places he's been at. After watching his USF and WSU teams play, it doesn't seem like he's landed big talent. But truthfully, I don't know. I do know that WSU has had some NBA talent over the years, so it is possible.
Will he be able to get Reynaud, Carlyle, Stojakovich to return? Maybe he can get Reynaud, because he's a senior and one year's worth of NIL money won't be that big. But for Carlyle and Stojo? Consider this...Harrison Ingram is making somewhere around $300K per year of NIL money at UNC (source: conversational from trustworthy sources, and I believe it :>). I would think Carlyle and Stojakovich could command around the same, and the NIL world is GROWING. It's $300K now, it used to be $50K. What's it going to be like for these top players in 2-3 years? As others have noted, it also doesn't help that Ingraham, Ryan, and MOC have had success at these other schools. So Carlyle and Stojo are going to give up ~$1M to come back and play for...Kyle Smith? They might for Jay Wright. That's really all I'm saying here (and I do hope that I'm wrong and they all come back!). Smith is a good coach and all, but I highly doubt these guys sacrifice that level of money and eyeballs to come back to play for a coach with his track record of reasonable success at other places that are tough to win at. I do agree, he's a guy who can make us marginally better and as I've said, I think it's a great hire considering what we could get.
But the fact that Stanford was able to attract these recruits in the first place is enough to say Stanford can succeed is it not?
Not necessarily.
As noted in Bradley’s post, the cost of doing business has increased substantially. How many premier recruits would choose Stanford today given the NIL opportunities elsewhere?
03-26-2024, 12:07 PM
Certainly there are some schools that we just will not compete with on NIL dollars. But we're a mid-60s program by RPI. I highly doubt there are 60+ programs that can outspend us on NIL dollars, so I think there is plenty of room for improvement with Smith.
Smith seems like a great hire for a program that will need somebody who can do more with less.
Smith seems like a great hire for a program that will need somebody who can do more with less.
Certainly there are some schools that we just will not compete with on NIL dollars. But we're a mid-60s program by RPI. I highly doubt there are 60+ programs that can outspend us on NIL dollars, so I think there is plenty of room for improvement with Smith.
Smith seems like a great hire for a program that will need somebody who can do more with less.
Smith seems like a great hire for a program that will need somebody who can do more with less.
03-26-2024, 12:59 PM
Some thoughts on the thread:
1. Smith is a very solid hire. This is probably the best outcome to date of the move to the ACC and the unfortunate situations in Pullman and Corvallis. (I would love to see the Cougs or Beavs wreak havoc in the WCC though.) I would have been fine taking a flyer on a relative unknown who does nothing but win, but still wouldn't be comfortable that winner could win at Stanford.
2. Stanford shouldn't be about doing more with less. It should be about doing more with more. (Easy for me to say.)
3. Stanford could bury the rest of college sports with cash if they really wanted to do that. You think it is bad now? Try being bad and poor.
4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows. I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens. I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL. Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.
5. What do you call it when you are going to make some grand statement like "I'd take .500 in the ACC", do some research, and recognize it is a stupid take? Well I did the research, so there is no point in recycling it without sharing. I was ready to say something like teams go from barely .500 ACC records to the final four all the time. No. No they don't. I looked at the Final Four since expansion to 64 teams in 1985. It's all Duke and Carolina. The exceptions are 1990 with Duke at 9-5 and Georgia Tech at 8-6; 2002 with Maryland at 10-6 (that is definitely better than .500), and 2004 with Duke at 13-3 (Duke year) and Georgia Tech at 9-7. Virginia is the only other team not listed in this paragraph with a Final Four appearance (while in the ACC) and they were 16-2 in conference the year they won.
6. I often do not appreciate that coaches are people with families and lives beyond entertaining me and my couch potato ass for a couple hours every week or so. The Athletic has a nice piece on Coach Smith, his wife Katie (she's originally from Chelan and I spent many summers holed up in that vicinity while my dad helped build Grand Coulee's Third Power Plant), and their three sons. The middle son, Bo, has special needs and reading about their struggles is heartbreaking. I wish them well while they are in Palo Alto and beyond.
1. Smith is a very solid hire. This is probably the best outcome to date of the move to the ACC and the unfortunate situations in Pullman and Corvallis. (I would love to see the Cougs or Beavs wreak havoc in the WCC though.) I would have been fine taking a flyer on a relative unknown who does nothing but win, but still wouldn't be comfortable that winner could win at Stanford.
2. Stanford shouldn't be about doing more with less. It should be about doing more with more. (Easy for me to say.)
3. Stanford could bury the rest of college sports with cash if they really wanted to do that. You think it is bad now? Try being bad and poor.
4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows. I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens. I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL. Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.
5. What do you call it when you are going to make some grand statement like "I'd take .500 in the ACC", do some research, and recognize it is a stupid take? Well I did the research, so there is no point in recycling it without sharing. I was ready to say something like teams go from barely .500 ACC records to the final four all the time. No. No they don't. I looked at the Final Four since expansion to 64 teams in 1985. It's all Duke and Carolina. The exceptions are 1990 with Duke at 9-5 and Georgia Tech at 8-6; 2002 with Maryland at 10-6 (that is definitely better than .500), and 2004 with Duke at 13-3 (Duke year) and Georgia Tech at 9-7. Virginia is the only other team not listed in this paragraph with a Final Four appearance (while in the ACC) and they were 16-2 in conference the year they won.
6. I often do not appreciate that coaches are people with families and lives beyond entertaining me and my couch potato ass for a couple hours every week or so. The Athletic has a nice piece on Coach Smith, his wife Katie (she's originally from Chelan and I spent many summers holed up in that vicinity while my dad helped build Grand Coulee's Third Power Plant), and their three sons. The middle son, Bo, has special needs and reading about their struggles is heartbreaking. I wish them well while they are in Palo Alto and beyond.
Some thoughts on the thread:
1. Smith is a very solid hire. This is probably the best outcome to date of the move to the ACC and the unfortunate situations in Pullman and Corvallis. (I would love to see the Cougs or Beavs wreak havoc in the WCC though.) I would have been fine taking a flyer on a relative unknown who does nothing but win, but still wouldn't be comfortable that winner could win at Stanford.
2. Stanford shouldn't be about doing more with less. It should be about doing more with more. (Easy for me to say.)
3. Stanford could bury the rest of college sports with cash if they really wanted to do that. You think it is bad now? Try being bad and poor.
4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows. I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens. I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL. Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.
5. What do you call it when you are going to make some grand statement like "I'd take .500 in the ACC", do some research, and recognize it is a stupid take? Well I did the research, so there is no point in recycling it without sharing. I was ready to say something like teams go from barely .500 ACC records to the final four all the time. No. No they don't. I looked at the Final Four since expansion to 64 teams in 1985. It's all Duke and Carolina. The exceptions are 1990 with Duke at 9-5 and Georgia Tech at 8-6; 2002 with Maryland at 10-6 (that is definitely better than .500), and 2004 with Duke at 13-3 (Duke year) and Georgia Tech at 9-7. Virginia is the only other team not listed in this paragraph with a Final Four appearance (while in the ACC) and they were 16-2 in conference the year they won.
6. I often do not appreciate that coaches are people with families and lives beyond entertaining me and my couch potato ass for a couple hours every week or so. The Athletic has a nice piece on Coach Smith, his wife Katie (she's originally from Chelan and I spent many summers holed up in that vicinity while my dad helped build Grand Coulee's Third Power Plant), and their three sons. The middle son, Bo, has special needs and reading about their struggles is heartbreaking. I wish them well while they are in Palo Alto and beyond.
1. Smith is a very solid hire. This is probably the best outcome to date of the move to the ACC and the unfortunate situations in Pullman and Corvallis. (I would love to see the Cougs or Beavs wreak havoc in the WCC though.) I would have been fine taking a flyer on a relative unknown who does nothing but win, but still wouldn't be comfortable that winner could win at Stanford.
2. Stanford shouldn't be about doing more with less. It should be about doing more with more. (Easy for me to say.)
3. Stanford could bury the rest of college sports with cash if they really wanted to do that. You think it is bad now? Try being bad and poor.
4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows. I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens. I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL. Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.
5. What do you call it when you are going to make some grand statement like "I'd take .500 in the ACC", do some research, and recognize it is a stupid take? Well I did the research, so there is no point in recycling it without sharing. I was ready to say something like teams go from barely .500 ACC records to the final four all the time. No. No they don't. I looked at the Final Four since expansion to 64 teams in 1985. It's all Duke and Carolina. The exceptions are 1990 with Duke at 9-5 and Georgia Tech at 8-6; 2002 with Maryland at 10-6 (that is definitely better than .500), and 2004 with Duke at 13-3 (Duke year) and Georgia Tech at 9-7. Virginia is the only other team not listed in this paragraph with a Final Four appearance (while in the ACC) and they were 16-2 in conference the year they won.
6. I often do not appreciate that coaches are people with families and lives beyond entertaining me and my couch potato ass for a couple hours every week or so. The Athletic has a nice piece on Coach Smith, his wife Katie (she's originally from Chelan and I spent many summers holed up in that vicinity while my dad helped build Grand Coulee's Third Power Plant), and their three sons. The middle son, Bo, has special needs and reading about their struggles is heartbreaking. I wish them well while they are in Palo Alto and beyond.
03-26-2024, 01:15 PM
(03-26-2024, 12:59 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Some thoughts on the thread:Couldn't agree more on all 6 points.
1. Smith is a very solid hire. This is probably the best outcome to date of the move to the ACC and the unfortunate situations in Pullman and Corvallis. (I would love to see the Cougs or Beavs wreak havoc in the WCC though.) I would have been fine taking a flyer on a relative unknown who does nothing but win, but still wouldn't be comfortable that winner could win at Stanford.
2. Stanford shouldn't be about doing more with less. It should be about doing more with more. (Easy for me to say.)
3. Stanford could bury the rest of college sports with cash if they really wanted to do that. You think it is bad now? Try being bad and poor.
4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows. I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens. I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL. Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.
5. What do you call it when you are going to make some grand statement like "I'd take .500 in the ACC", do some research, and recognize it is a stupid take? Well I did the research, so there is no point in recycling it without sharing. I was ready to say something like teams go from barely .500 ACC records to the final four all the time. No. No they don't. I looked at the Final Four since expansion to 64 teams in 1985. It's all Duke and Carolina. The exceptions are 1990 with Duke at 9-5 and Georgia Tech at 8-6; 2002 with Maryland at 10-6 (that is definitely better than .500), and 2004 with Duke at 13-3 (Duke year) and Georgia Tech at 9-7. Virginia is the only other team not listed in this paragraph with a Final Four appearance (while in the ACC) and they were 16-2 in conference the year they won.
6. I often do not appreciate that coaches are people with families and lives beyond entertaining me and my couch potato ass for a couple hours every week or so. The Athletic has a nice piece on Coach Smith, his wife Katie (she's originally from Chelan and I spent many summers holed up in that vicinity while my dad helped build Grand Coulee's Third Power Plant), and their three sons. The middle son, Bo, has special needs and reading about their struggles is heartbreaking. I wish them well while they are in Palo Alto and beyond.
(03-26-2024, 12:59 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Some thoughts on the thread:Couldn't agree more on all 6 points.
1. Smith is a very solid hire. This is probably the best outcome to date of the move to the ACC and the unfortunate situations in Pullman and Corvallis. (I would love to see the Cougs or Beavs wreak havoc in the WCC though.) I would have been fine taking a flyer on a relative unknown who does nothing but win, but still wouldn't be comfortable that winner could win at Stanford.
2. Stanford shouldn't be about doing more with less. It should be about doing more with more. (Easy for me to say.)
3. Stanford could bury the rest of college sports with cash if they really wanted to do that. You think it is bad now? Try being bad and poor.
4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows. I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens. I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL. Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.
5. What do you call it when you are going to make some grand statement like "I'd take .500 in the ACC", do some research, and recognize it is a stupid take? Well I did the research, so there is no point in recycling it without sharing. I was ready to say something like teams go from barely .500 ACC records to the final four all the time. No. No they don't. I looked at the Final Four since expansion to 64 teams in 1985. It's all Duke and Carolina. The exceptions are 1990 with Duke at 9-5 and Georgia Tech at 8-6; 2002 with Maryland at 10-6 (that is definitely better than .500), and 2004 with Duke at 13-3 (Duke year) and Georgia Tech at 9-7. Virginia is the only other team not listed in this paragraph with a Final Four appearance (while in the ACC) and they were 16-2 in conference the year they won.
6. I often do not appreciate that coaches are people with families and lives beyond entertaining me and my couch potato ass for a couple hours every week or so. The Athletic has a nice piece on Coach Smith, his wife Katie (she's originally from Chelan and I spent many summers holed up in that vicinity while my dad helped build Grand Coulee's Third Power Plant), and their three sons. The middle son, Bo, has special needs and reading about their struggles is heartbreaking. I wish them well while they are in Palo Alto and beyond.
(03-26-2024, 12:59 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Some thoughts on the thread:
4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows. I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens. I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL. Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.
IMO you are quite mistaken. The determination that something is "untoward" or "corrupt" is a logical one based on a set of values (morals), not a legal one. Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it is just, moral, or honest. Conversely, something that by itself is neither immoral nor dishonest may be illegal, and arguably it is therefore "immoral" to do it.
FWIW, it is unclear to me that NIL as it is currently practiced is mandated by Alston. I fully support the notion that an student-athlete should be allowed to be compensated for somebody using said students name, image, or likeness for purposes that are customary and reasonable. In the "bad old days" students couldn't be compensated by businesses that used their images and names for things like video games. Some used car dealer couldn't pay an athlete to advertise for the dealership. Now they can. IMO this is legitimate "work" or exchanging money for value received. However, if such contracts are really just "fronts" for pay-to-play, they are arguably fraudulent. Funneling money to individuals for purposes other than what you claim it to be can get you in legal hot water if you are a business.
The NIL collectives which arguably have no commercial purpose other than paying NIL would by this standard be inherently fraudulent. They are not using the players name, image, or likeness. They are paying him to go to a certain school. IMO Alston was never intended to cover giving money to athletes as a "bribe" to attend a given school. Obviously if you are a business and require the athlete to do a few pro-forma tasks you have an argument it was actually pay for services. Even if the pay was disproportionate to the value received, the case is arguable by the payer. Even if it was a "personnel services" agreement the case is arguable by the payer. However if such payments are made for demonstrably non-business reasons IMO Alston doesn't cover it and was not intended to do so. The NCAA and the schools may not be willing to take this to court, but IMO they should.
(03-26-2024, 12:59 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Some thoughts on the thread:
4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows. I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens. I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL. Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.
IMO you are quite mistaken. The determination that something is "untoward" or "corrupt" is a logical one based on a set of values (morals), not a legal one. Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it is just, moral, or honest. Conversely, something that by itself is neither immoral nor dishonest may be illegal, and arguably it is therefore "immoral" to do it.
FWIW, it is unclear to me that NIL as it is currently practiced is mandated by Alston. I fully support the notion that an student-athlete should be allowed to be compensated for somebody using said students name, image, or likeness for purposes that are customary and reasonable. In the "bad old days" students couldn't be compensated by businesses that used their images and names for things like video games. Some used car dealer couldn't pay an athlete to advertise for the dealership. Now they can. IMO this is legitimate "work" or exchanging money for value received. However, if such contracts are really just "fronts" for pay-to-play, they are arguably fraudulent. Funneling money to individuals for purposes other than what you claim it to be can get you in legal hot water if you are a business.
The NIL collectives which arguably have no commercial purpose other than paying NIL would by this standard be inherently fraudulent. They are not using the players name, image, or likeness. They are paying him to go to a certain school. IMO Alston was never intended to cover giving money to athletes as a "bribe" to attend a given school. Obviously if you are a business and require the athlete to do a few pro-forma tasks you have an argument it was actually pay for services. Even if the pay was disproportionate to the value received, the case is arguable by the payer. Even if it was a "personnel services" agreement the case is arguable by the payer. However if such payments are made for demonstrably non-business reasons IMO Alston doesn't cover it and was not intended to do so. The NCAA and the schools may not be willing to take this to court, but IMO they should.
03-26-2024, 03:39 PM
Goose, how do you view Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in NCAA vs. Alston where he invited challenges to the NCAA's restrictions on other compensation?
It seems that his words have chilled any attempt by the NCAA to enforce restrictions on NIL compensation. Kavanaugh's words also seem to have emboldened lower courts to uphold challenges to NCAA actions. The NCAA is losing or has lost on just about every case it has taken up. The NCAA might have more likelihood of success trying to stop the sun from rising in the east than pushing back against NIL compensation.
Quote:although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordinary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws.
It seems that his words have chilled any attempt by the NCAA to enforce restrictions on NIL compensation. Kavanaugh's words also seem to have emboldened lower courts to uphold challenges to NCAA actions. The NCAA is losing or has lost on just about every case it has taken up. The NCAA might have more likelihood of success trying to stop the sun from rising in the east than pushing back against NIL compensation.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
Goose, how do you view Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in NCAA vs. Alston where he invited challenges to the NCAA's restrictions on other compensation?
It seems that his words have chilled any attempt by the NCAA to enforce restrictions on NIL compensation. Kavanaugh's words also seem to have emboldened lower courts to uphold challenges to NCAA actions. The NCAA is losing or has lost on just about every case it has taken up. The NCAA might have more likelihood of success trying to stop the sun from rising in the east than pushing back against NIL compensation.
Quote:although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordinary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws.
It seems that his words have chilled any attempt by the NCAA to enforce restrictions on NIL compensation. Kavanaugh's words also seem to have emboldened lower courts to uphold challenges to NCAA actions. The NCAA is losing or has lost on just about every case it has taken up. The NCAA might have more likelihood of success trying to stop the sun from rising in the east than pushing back against NIL compensation.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
03-26-2024, 03:55 PM
I certainly could be mistaken and admit that I don't understand Alston. I believe Alston affirmed the Ninth Circuit and Northern District of California's conclusions that NCAA rules limiting education-related benefits that schools may make available to student athletes violates anti-trust law. [emphasis added] I think Alston tossed the ideal of amateurism as somehow exempting college athletics from antitrust law. Alston did not address rules limiting scholarships and other compensation related to athletic performance. My logic above is not sound.
Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:
1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up. (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.) Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad. Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ? I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.
2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid. I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.
3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.
4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.)
Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:
1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up. (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.) Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad. Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ? I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.
2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid. I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.
3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.
4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.)
I certainly could be mistaken and admit that I don't understand Alston. I believe Alston affirmed the Ninth Circuit and Northern District of California's conclusions that NCAA rules limiting education-related benefits that schools may make available to student athletes violates anti-trust law. [emphasis added] I think Alston tossed the ideal of amateurism as somehow exempting college athletics from antitrust law. Alston did not address rules limiting scholarships and other compensation related to athletic performance. My logic above is not sound.
Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:
1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up. (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.) Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad. Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ? I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.
2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid. I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.
3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.
4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.)
Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:
1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up. (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.) Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad. Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ? I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.
2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid. I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.
3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.
4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.)
(03-26-2024, 03:39 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Goose, how do you view Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in NCAA vs. Alston where he invited challenges to the NCAA's restrictions on other compensation?
I view it as an opinion that got no joins. The amount of traction that his paien "from Durham to Storrs" got befuddles me to this day. Just because you join the winning side a lot doesn't mean you're the influential voice in the room in making that decision...
(03-26-2024, 03:39 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Goose, how do you view Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in NCAA vs. Alston where he invited challenges to the NCAA's restrictions on other compensation?
I view it as an opinion that got no joins. The amount of traction that his paien "from Durham to Storrs" got befuddles me to this day. Just because you join the winning side a lot doesn't mean you're the influential voice in the room in making that decision...
03-26-2024, 05:35 PM
(03-26-2024, 03:39 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Goose, how do you view Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in NCAA vs. Alston where he invited challenges to the NCAA's restrictions on other compensation?FWIW, I interpret Kavanaugh's statement literally. Ordinary "rule of reason" would mean that any NIL compensation that can be reasonably construed as "commerce" would be protected by anti-trust legislation. Paying somebody to attend a particular institution is perfectly legal. There is no law against it. However, the NCAA making a rule prohibiting athletes that receive such payments from participating in NCAA sports would not be a "restraint of trade" because such payments are not "trade". The "rule of reason" would be: Examine the transaction. If the payment is actually "commercial" in nature, i.e exchange of services for commercial benefit, the NCAA cannot ban the individual for receiving it. If one of the entities involved is not engaged in "trade", as NIL collectives generally are not, the NCAA can ban the individual because no "trade" was restrained.
Quote:although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordinary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws.
It seems that his words have chilled any attempt by the NCAA to enforce restrictions on NIL compensation. Kavanaugh's words also seem to have emboldened lower courts to uphold challenges to NCAA actions. The NCAA is losing or has lost on just about every case it has taken up. The NCAA might have more likelihood of success trying to stop the sun from rising in the east than pushing back against NIL compensation.
Note this interpretation does mean that a sports agent could sign an athlete to an exclusive "personal services" contract and then tell them to attend school X as part of the deal. However, the sports agent would have to show he was actually representing the athlete in the future and was trying to make money on the deal. Obviously this could be abused. Kavanaugh was IMO saying the "rule of reason" would be used to decide if the contract was actually what it was claimed to be.
I do agree that the concurrence is just one of nine and may not reflect the majority. IMO the NCAA isn't acting aggressively because they are scared to death of the "athletes are employee issues". Fighting against "non-commercial" NILs might possibly open up that issue.
(03-26-2024, 03:39 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Goose, how do you view Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in NCAA vs. Alston where he invited challenges to the NCAA's restrictions on other compensation?FWIW, I interpret Kavanaugh's statement literally. Ordinary "rule of reason" would mean that any NIL compensation that can be reasonably construed as "commerce" would be protected by anti-trust legislation. Paying somebody to attend a particular institution is perfectly legal. There is no law against it. However, the NCAA making a rule prohibiting athletes that receive such payments from participating in NCAA sports would not be a "restraint of trade" because such payments are not "trade". The "rule of reason" would be: Examine the transaction. If the payment is actually "commercial" in nature, i.e exchange of services for commercial benefit, the NCAA cannot ban the individual for receiving it. If one of the entities involved is not engaged in "trade", as NIL collectives generally are not, the NCAA can ban the individual because no "trade" was restrained.
Quote:although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordinary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws.
It seems that his words have chilled any attempt by the NCAA to enforce restrictions on NIL compensation. Kavanaugh's words also seem to have emboldened lower courts to uphold challenges to NCAA actions. The NCAA is losing or has lost on just about every case it has taken up. The NCAA might have more likelihood of success trying to stop the sun from rising in the east than pushing back against NIL compensation.
Note this interpretation does mean that a sports agent could sign an athlete to an exclusive "personal services" contract and then tell them to attend school X as part of the deal. However, the sports agent would have to show he was actually representing the athlete in the future and was trying to make money on the deal. Obviously this could be abused. Kavanaugh was IMO saying the "rule of reason" would be used to decide if the contract was actually what it was claimed to be.
I do agree that the concurrence is just one of nine and may not reflect the majority. IMO the NCAA isn't acting aggressively because they are scared to death of the "athletes are employee issues". Fighting against "non-commercial" NILs might possibly open up that issue.
03-26-2024, 06:15 PM
Point of clarification:
NCAA v. Alston established that the NCAA cannot restrict schools from providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships. The NCAA maintained that it prevented the appearance of professionalism. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, and the USSC agreed.
O'Bannon v. NCAA challenged the NCAA's use of the images and the likeness of its former student athletes for commercial purposes (and predated Alston). The suit argued that upon graduation, a former student athlete should become entitled to financial compensation for NCAA's commercial uses of their image. The district judge agreed, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in part, and reversed the ruling in part. The Supreme Court did not hear the case (and interestingly, it was O'Bannon that appealed the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion).
IMHO, the O'Bannon case was particularly egrigious. It's not so much that Ed O'Bannon was seeking to profit from his NIL while in school, so much as the NCAA licensed it out to EA Sports for their video game without his permission or any compensation. That's straight out theft.
But, formally, the USSC has never ruled on NIL. I think what spooked the NCAA was that Alston was a 9-0 decision, and Kavanaugh in his concurrence all but begged someone to challenge the NCAA on amateurism writ large. But that was a concurring opinion, and I am not sure that if the NCAA were to place restrictions on NILs as currently practiced (pay-to-play, collectives, free agency, etc) that a challenge would necessarily be successful.
BC
NCAA v. Alston established that the NCAA cannot restrict schools from providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships. The NCAA maintained that it prevented the appearance of professionalism. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, and the USSC agreed.
O'Bannon v. NCAA challenged the NCAA's use of the images and the likeness of its former student athletes for commercial purposes (and predated Alston). The suit argued that upon graduation, a former student athlete should become entitled to financial compensation for NCAA's commercial uses of their image. The district judge agreed, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in part, and reversed the ruling in part. The Supreme Court did not hear the case (and interestingly, it was O'Bannon that appealed the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion).
IMHO, the O'Bannon case was particularly egrigious. It's not so much that Ed O'Bannon was seeking to profit from his NIL while in school, so much as the NCAA licensed it out to EA Sports for their video game without his permission or any compensation. That's straight out theft.
But, formally, the USSC has never ruled on NIL. I think what spooked the NCAA was that Alston was a 9-0 decision, and Kavanaugh in his concurrence all but begged someone to challenge the NCAA on amateurism writ large. But that was a concurring opinion, and I am not sure that if the NCAA were to place restrictions on NILs as currently practiced (pay-to-play, collectives, free agency, etc) that a challenge would necessarily be successful.
BC
Point of clarification:
NCAA v. Alston established that the NCAA cannot restrict schools from providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships. The NCAA maintained that it prevented the appearance of professionalism. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, and the USSC agreed.
O'Bannon v. NCAA challenged the NCAA's use of the images and the likeness of its former student athletes for commercial purposes (and predated Alston). The suit argued that upon graduation, a former student athlete should become entitled to financial compensation for NCAA's commercial uses of their image. The district judge agreed, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in part, and reversed the ruling in part. The Supreme Court did not hear the case (and interestingly, it was O'Bannon that appealed the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion).
IMHO, the O'Bannon case was particularly egrigious. It's not so much that Ed O'Bannon was seeking to profit from his NIL while in school, so much as the NCAA licensed it out to EA Sports for their video game without his permission or any compensation. That's straight out theft.
But, formally, the USSC has never ruled on NIL. I think what spooked the NCAA was that Alston was a 9-0 decision, and Kavanaugh in his concurrence all but begged someone to challenge the NCAA on amateurism writ large. But that was a concurring opinion, and I am not sure that if the NCAA were to place restrictions on NILs as currently practiced (pay-to-play, collectives, free agency, etc) that a challenge would necessarily be successful.
BC
NCAA v. Alston established that the NCAA cannot restrict schools from providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships. The NCAA maintained that it prevented the appearance of professionalism. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, and the USSC agreed.
O'Bannon v. NCAA challenged the NCAA's use of the images and the likeness of its former student athletes for commercial purposes (and predated Alston). The suit argued that upon graduation, a former student athlete should become entitled to financial compensation for NCAA's commercial uses of their image. The district judge agreed, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in part, and reversed the ruling in part. The Supreme Court did not hear the case (and interestingly, it was O'Bannon that appealed the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion).
IMHO, the O'Bannon case was particularly egrigious. It's not so much that Ed O'Bannon was seeking to profit from his NIL while in school, so much as the NCAA licensed it out to EA Sports for their video game without his permission or any compensation. That's straight out theft.
But, formally, the USSC has never ruled on NIL. I think what spooked the NCAA was that Alston was a 9-0 decision, and Kavanaugh in his concurrence all but begged someone to challenge the NCAA on amateurism writ large. But that was a concurring opinion, and I am not sure that if the NCAA were to place restrictions on NILs as currently practiced (pay-to-play, collectives, free agency, etc) that a challenge would necessarily be successful.
BC
03-26-2024, 06:27 PM
(03-26-2024, 03:55 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:Agree. These are cases where there is value received for money paid. It is even legitimate for NB to tell Brink the gig is contingent on her remaining at Stanford because NB believed her value was greatly increased by being there (even if it was unclear that was true). That is a legitimate business judgement.
1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up. (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.) Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad. Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ? I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.
Quote:2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid.Arguably yes, it is different. You were a Stanford employee. You were doing something that was clearly part of Stanford's "business", i.e. teaching and labs. In that capacity you functioned as an employee and anybody else doing the job would be similarly treated. You paid taxes on that. The rest was a "gift" to you to benefit your education and not tied to the work you did. Stanford qualifies as a non-profit because education is a "legitimate" justification for non-profit status. It would be very difficult to argue that a sports team with payed players qualified as an "educational purpose". With a stretch it can be argued that NCAA sports are an educational experience for the players, so paying the coaches is a legitimate business expense. Paying the students (players) as employees to play their sport would be impossible to justify. What is the educational benefit to the rest of the University? The real issue here is in what sense are athletics a legitimate part of the University's educational goals. Your work clearly contributed to education of others at Stanford. Dunking a basketball would not.
Quote: I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.Which is absolutely reasonable on your part. In theory you could have chosen MIT because you got a job in Boston (inside or outside MIT) that paid better than Stanford did. Doesn't relate to athletics though. It is just "a job". It wasn't part of your education (although one often learns a lot from "the job"). I actually turned a profit while at Stanford. I was a TA, but my income from consulting was actually much more lucrative.
Quote:3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.I assume the scholarships are not in return for work performed. If so, it is not "commerce" and therefore not subject to anti-trust legislation (not that he cares about that :-).
Quote:4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.):-)
(03-26-2024, 03:55 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:Agree. These are cases where there is value received for money paid. It is even legitimate for NB to tell Brink the gig is contingent on her remaining at Stanford because NB believed her value was greatly increased by being there (even if it was unclear that was true). That is a legitimate business judgement.
1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up. (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.) Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad. Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ? I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.
Quote:2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid.Arguably yes, it is different. You were a Stanford employee. You were doing something that was clearly part of Stanford's "business", i.e. teaching and labs. In that capacity you functioned as an employee and anybody else doing the job would be similarly treated. You paid taxes on that. The rest was a "gift" to you to benefit your education and not tied to the work you did. Stanford qualifies as a non-profit because education is a "legitimate" justification for non-profit status. It would be very difficult to argue that a sports team with payed players qualified as an "educational purpose". With a stretch it can be argued that NCAA sports are an educational experience for the players, so paying the coaches is a legitimate business expense. Paying the students (players) as employees to play their sport would be impossible to justify. What is the educational benefit to the rest of the University? The real issue here is in what sense are athletics a legitimate part of the University's educational goals. Your work clearly contributed to education of others at Stanford. Dunking a basketball would not.
Quote: I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.Which is absolutely reasonable on your part. In theory you could have chosen MIT because you got a job in Boston (inside or outside MIT) that paid better than Stanford did. Doesn't relate to athletics though. It is just "a job". It wasn't part of your education (although one often learns a lot from "the job"). I actually turned a profit while at Stanford. I was a TA, but my income from consulting was actually much more lucrative.
Quote:3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.I assume the scholarships are not in return for work performed. If so, it is not "commerce" and therefore not subject to anti-trust legislation (not that he cares about that :-).
Quote:4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.):-)
03-26-2024, 06:51 PM
Thanks to everyone for such thoughtful replies, particularly Goose for his direct replies. This is really changing my thinking. I like sports (channeling Kavanaugh in a non-political way). I like the teams I support, financially, but more so the old-fashioned support as in rooting for success, which means to win more often than not. I had been finding myself torn between letting it go because the winning is fewer and farther between lately and it is getting unseemly in many respects; and knowing that being an athlete is a lot of work, so shouldn't they just be paid for it? So, I have a lot of food for thought as I watch both my schools (other than the Stanford women) watch the tournaments on TV.
Thanks to everyone for such thoughtful replies, particularly Goose for his direct replies. This is really changing my thinking. I like sports (channeling Kavanaugh in a non-political way). I like the teams I support, financially, but more so the old-fashioned support as in rooting for success, which means to win more often than not. I had been finding myself torn between letting it go because the winning is fewer and farther between lately and it is getting unseemly in many respects; and knowing that being an athlete is a lot of work, so shouldn't they just be paid for it? So, I have a lot of food for thought as I watch both my schools (other than the Stanford women) watch the tournaments on TV.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/m...e-smith-o/
Per this article, Kyle Smith was our top man and he even interviewed at Stanford before the Pac 12 tourney. Haase had to know he was done regardless of our performance in Vegas if coaches are on campus for interviews to replace him while the season is still going!
Per this article, Kyle Smith was our top man and he even interviewed at Stanford before the Pac 12 tourney. Haase had to know he was done regardless of our performance in Vegas if coaches are on campus for interviews to replace him while the season is still going!
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2024, 08:40 PM by Card10Fan.)
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/m...e-smith-o/
Per this article, Kyle Smith was our top man and he even interviewed at Stanford before the Pac 12 tourney. Haase had to know he was done regardless of our performance in Vegas if coaches are on campus for interviews to replace him while the season is still going!
Per this article, Kyle Smith was our top man and he even interviewed at Stanford before the Pac 12 tourney. Haase had to know he was done regardless of our performance in Vegas if coaches are on campus for interviews to replace him while the season is still going!
03-27-2024, 01:46 PM
I really liked what I heard from Kyle Smith in his introductory press conference. I'm now in the camp that we are in good hands, and that he is the right person for the job.
03-27-2024, 02:28 PM
(03-27-2024, 01:46 PM)PVTree Wrote: I really liked what I heard from Kyle Smith in his introductory press conference. I'm now in the camp that we are in good hands, and that he is the right person for the job.
He's actually a bit of a character! Easy to imagine him winning over students after a few wins, and that is needed with Maples looking as empty as its been.
(03-27-2024, 01:46 PM)PVTree Wrote: I really liked what I heard from Kyle Smith in his introductory press conference. I'm now in the camp that we are in good hands, and that he is the right person for the job.
He's actually a bit of a character! Easy to imagine him winning over students after a few wins, and that is needed with Maples looking as empty as its been.
(03-27-2024, 02:28 PM)needle Wrote:Just finished watching whole press conference. Is long! But yes it confirms my thought that I think he's a great hire.(03-27-2024, 01:46 PM)PVTree Wrote: I really liked what I heard from Kyle Smith in his introductory press conference. I'm now in the camp that we are in good hands, and that he is the right person for the job.
He's actually a bit of a character! Easy to imagine him winning over students after a few wins, and that is needed with Maples looking as empty as its been.
I see some similarities with Coach TT in that while he's not ruling out the portal for incomers, and in fact, put in a promotion he said came from Coach Tara for Stanford to better ease qualified grad transfers to come in, he will likely be focusing on getting really good HS recruits to come and develop and want to stay for their whole undergrad time.
I appreciated his comments when asked about playing in ACC, where it seemed like he said when at WashSt that playing in ACC would seem crazy... until you are faced with no more Pac-12, and the slim alternatives, and then playing in ACC suddenly seems both a great opportunity and a bit intimidating.
(paraphrasing a bit and maybe reading into it a bit, but something along these lines)
I also appreciated that he said he's reached out to all the current players and those in the transfer portal both.
Although at another point he seemed to say he had not reached all of them yet.
Either way, he sounded determined to complete talking to each one and encouraging them to stay and be part of the program.
I'd like to refer to him as Coach K but of course that was taken long ago by another. So maybe Coach Kyle for now.
(03-27-2024, 02:28 PM)needle Wrote:Just finished watching whole press conference. Is long! But yes it confirms my thought that I think he's a great hire.(03-27-2024, 01:46 PM)PVTree Wrote: I really liked what I heard from Kyle Smith in his introductory press conference. I'm now in the camp that we are in good hands, and that he is the right person for the job.
He's actually a bit of a character! Easy to imagine him winning over students after a few wins, and that is needed with Maples looking as empty as its been.
I see some similarities with Coach TT in that while he's not ruling out the portal for incomers, and in fact, put in a promotion he said came from Coach Tara for Stanford to better ease qualified grad transfers to come in, he will likely be focusing on getting really good HS recruits to come and develop and want to stay for their whole undergrad time.
I appreciated his comments when asked about playing in ACC, where it seemed like he said when at WashSt that playing in ACC would seem crazy... until you are faced with no more Pac-12, and the slim alternatives, and then playing in ACC suddenly seems both a great opportunity and a bit intimidating.
(paraphrasing a bit and maybe reading into it a bit, but something along these lines)
I also appreciated that he said he's reached out to all the current players and those in the transfer portal both.
Although at another point he seemed to say he had not reached all of them yet.
Either way, he sounded determined to complete talking to each one and encouraging them to stay and be part of the program.
I'd like to refer to him as Coach K but of course that was taken long ago by another. So maybe Coach Kyle for now.
03-28-2024, 01:28 PM
Not sure if this has been posted already to a different thread.
I don't think so, my apologies if it has.
Article about how Wash State tried to keep Kyle Smith:
https://247sports.com/college/washington...56767/amp/
I don't think so, my apologies if it has.
Article about how Wash State tried to keep Kyle Smith:
https://247sports.com/college/washington...56767/amp/
Not sure if this has been posted already to a different thread.
I don't think so, my apologies if it has.
Article about how Wash State tried to keep Kyle Smith:
https://247sports.com/college/washington...56767/amp/
I don't think so, my apologies if it has.
Article about how Wash State tried to keep Kyle Smith:
https://247sports.com/college/washington...56767/amp/
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »