NIL

An interesting take.

tldr: NIL can help the Ivies escape from the Academics Theatre of our prohibition on athletic scholarships. We can still keep our branding while our rich alumni drop helicopters of cash on our athletes. Use the designer label as a discriminator, and cough Development for payola.

Everybody wins.

thank god the rich people can save us

Awfully glad to hear that there are ad-men who think people will want to buy Zagnut bars endorsed by famous Yale squash players. If there's one thing the general public adores, it's Ivy Leaguers. High-end recruits with brains will still choose Notre Dame/Duke/Stanford/name-your-Jock-Powerhouse-with-good-academics to play basketball over Penn/Princeton.

ugarte
thank god the rich people can save us

When SAC bought the Mets I vowed we'd do him last.

Trotsky
An interesting take.

This seems like speculation. What evidence is there that the current Princeton players chose the Tigers based on NIL?

If they did so, fine but huh?

P.S. Is the NIL landscape going to eff up Division One hockey?

New York Times
The Best Teams That Money Could Buy

The four teams in the College Football Playoff used cash payments from fan “collectives” in unique ways to build their rosters, showing how much an influx of money has changed college sports.

Unlocked article:
[www.nytimes.com]

This article offers literally no evidence that any Princeton player earned a cent of NIL money.

I think it more likely NIL provides a mechanism to correct for situations in which a player qualifies for an Ivy and really wants to attend, but financial considerations would previously have stopped him. People aren't going to switch to an Ivy because Upper Class Twit of the Year buys him a Porsche, but NIL may stem Upper Middle Class flight.

a lot of things may happen but they are much more likely to use their money to intimidate the board of regents into forcing out a school president

Hey, man. What's freedom of expression compared to Cultivating a Beneficial Environment for Development?

Free-agentry - Couldn’t think of a better place to post this.

George64
Free-agentry - Couldn’t think of a better place to post this.

Confused. Thought that rule was dead?

Trotsky

George64
Free-agentry - Couldn’t think of a better place to post this.

Confused. Thought that rule was dead?

I think now, “student-athletes” are allowed one penalty-free transfer, it used to be none. Now they can continue to shop around for the best “scholarship” / NIL deal.

Trotsky

George64
Free-agentry - Couldn’t think of a better place to post this.

Confused. Thought that rule was dead?

You get the first transfer with immediate eligibility now, but you need to complete a year at School 2 before you can transfer to School 3 unless you get a waiver.

Weder

Trotsky

George64
Free-agentry - Couldn’t think of a better place to post this.

Confused. Thought that rule was dead?

You get the first transfer with immediate eligibility now, but you need to complete a year at School 2 before you can transfer to School 3 unless you get a waiver.

That description may be what troubles the Justice Department: that players aren't free to jump at any time, including maybe even during the season.

And it makes further farce of the idea that these athletes will be thought of that description alone, not students who are athletes.

I could see a college realignment where several dozen schools (25? 100?) go all in on the Mercenary Athlete plan. Then the Ivies and some others circle their wagons and reaffirm you don't get scholarships for dribbling a basketball. Maybe the big schools only go all out in a handful of sports. Do the academics-first schools shun them ?

They're employees, just give them a contract and pay them. Stop making them go to classes, it demeans everyone. If they want to, fine.

I had no idea the Dartmouth basketball team was going before the NLRB.

Trotsky
I had no idea the Dartmouth basketball team was going before the NLRB.

If Dartmouth basketball players demand to be paid, the end result isn’t them getting paid, it’s Dartmouth cutting their basketball program. What am I missing?

BearLover

Trotsky
I had no idea the Dartmouth basketball team was going before the NLRB.

If Dartmouth basketball players demand to be paid, the end result isn’t them getting paid, it’s Dartmouth cutting their basketball program. What am I missing?

According to adamw, nothing at all:

It is not outside the realm of possibility that the Ivy League decides, eventually, to discontinue NCAA D-I varsity athletics. This is the upshot the lawyers are advocating. [t.co]

— Adam Wodon (@CHN_AdamWodon) February 5, 2024

Even if Adam's Armageddon rhetoric were correct, if hundreds of thousands of athletes are getting opportunities because of athletics that means hundreds of thousands of students are denied opportunities because of athletics.

It's college. Books > balls.

But of course that rhetoric is not correct, and we will adjust, and we will continue to have college athletics even as we enjoy NCAA hockey early round games at campus sites.

You really think that Dart will now turn around and pay 300 athletes because they join a union? Because it wont just be one sport doing this? And do all the ivies bargain together with the union to level the field? or do all the schools in the ncaa do that like the pros do? That required some exemptions from congress?

And how will union pay work? Do all the kids get the same amount? Do starters get more or Srs or whatever? Unions have scale rates will all the kids accept they are equals?

Dart kids get $500 Harvard kids get $10k. BC kids get $100k? It will be chaos.


We have self funded sports to. Could gets start a new sport at a school and force the school to pay them the union rate?

Trotsky
Even if Adam's Armageddon rhetoric were correct, if hundreds of thousands of athletes are getting opportunities because of athletics that means hundreds of thousands of students are denied opportunities because of athletics.

It's college. Books > balls.

But of course that rhetoric is not correct, and we will adjust, and we will continue to have college athletics even as we enjoy NCAA hockey early round games at campus sites.

There’s no chance Cornell will ever compete nationally at any sport if we are forced to pay the athletes. These sports already lose Cornell and other schools huge amounts of money. We can only hope that these changes are confined to football and basketball. Otherwise, the choice is either going to be cut the sport entirely or use a D-III model.

BearLover

Trotsky
Even if Adam's Armageddon rhetoric were correct, if hundreds of thousands of athletes are getting opportunities because of athletics that means hundreds of thousands of students are denied opportunities because of athletics.

It's college. Books > balls.

But of course that rhetoric is not correct, and we will adjust, and we will continue to have college athletics even as we enjoy NCAA hockey early round games at campus sites.

There’s no chance Cornell will ever compete nationally at any sport if we are forced to pay the athletes. These sports already lose Cornell and other schools huge amounts of money. We can only hope that these changes are confined to football and basketball. Otherwise, the choice is either going to be cut the sport entirely or use a D-III model.

With that said, I am hopeful this remains confined to football and basketball. Those are the only profitable college sports. I would think the field hockey, gymnastics, crew athletes understand that demanding wages would result in their programs being cut entirely or relegated to D-III. Going forward we need to hope football and basketball are divorced from the rest of the NCAA.

Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players. Give them a percentage of the net profit. For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved. Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

It seems a key factor in this ruling was "compensation" the players (as employees) receive, even though previous rulings called them educational stipends. Those stipends weren't taxed. So do player's scholarships (academic as they are) now become taxable as remuneration/income?

Trotsky
Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players. Give them a percentage of the net profit. For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved. Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

nshapiro

Trotsky
Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players. Give them a percentage of the net profit. For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved. Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

No. In fact, Dartmouth cited this in its argument before the NLRB.

Athletics as a hole may not. bball as a singular may though

Its the same argument others school may make.

If fball bring in the bucks to fund the other sports can that money be separated out?

Like any business with multiple divisions that all make different profits

say OSU makes 80 million from TV and spends 60 and then 20 goes to someplace else at the college. Is there really a profit to give to the players?

nshapiro

Trotsky
Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players. Give them a percentage of the net profit. For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved. Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

ugarte

nshapiro

Trotsky
Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players. Give them a percentage of the net profit. For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved. Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

does a normal business do that? they pay the bills and they plan for the future.
if paying the kids means they cant pay the bills and plan for the future then the business shuts the doors

Some people want the kids to make money and thats fine.. But it wont/cant be 40% like the NFL the money is not big enough because we forget there are thousands and thousands of kids not hundreds or a thousand like the NBA and the MLB.

we lose site that 1% of the teams generate the real dollars across dozens of sports.

ugarte

nshapiro

Trotsky
Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players. Give them a percentage of the net profit. For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved. Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

…in exchange for the facilities falling apart and the coaches making so little they would never accept the job in the first place? Frankly, these programs that lose money are already providing a charity to their players…they are giving them the opportunity to attend school, often for free or at a significantly reduced cost, while pursuing the game they love. It’s one thing to say Power Five football players should share in the massive profits. It’s another to say this should apply to programs with negative profits. There is no place for the money to come from that won’t tank the whole program.

Interesting article in today’s Rochester D&C.

Arguably, college athletes, or any student with some notoriety, should be able to benefit through NIL, but should the university abet the practice? The article points out that it might affect even minor sports. How will this work out for the Ivies in this era of free agency? How will a free oil change and tune-up from Cutting Motors compete with a new car, or more, from a Boston or Hamden, CT, auto dealership? Personally, I liked things better when the main perk for Ferguson twins was to be bunkers at the College Town fire station.

Also, check out AD Moore’s most recent Big Red Threads.

BearLover

ugarte

nshapiro

Trotsky
Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players. Give them a percentage of the net profit. For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved. Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

…in exchange for the facilities falling apart and the coaches making so little they would never accept the job in the first place? Frankly, these programs that lose money are already providing a charity to their players…they are giving them the opportunity to attend school, often for free or at a significantly reduced cost, while pursuing the game they love. It’s one thing to say Power Five football players should share in the massive profits. It’s another to say this should apply to programs with negative profits. There is no place for the money to come from that won’t tank the whole program.

everyone loves markets until their artificial market distortions get threatened.

coach/admin salaries ballooned as the profits flowed and fancy facilities substituted as a market distinction for actual bidding for talent. the scholarship as full payment is essentially costless to the university and hasn't changed - until it was forced to change - in decades, with the only "inflation" a result of the comically inflated cost of college.

if the result of a non-collusive market is that nobody pays fencers more than a 1/4 scholarship, so be it, but please spare me the idea that there should be rules in place to restrict the labor market. the dartmouth ruling is focused on how these student-athletes have job-like responsibilities (practice schedules, special rules and restrictions) handed down from a coach that can take priority over the education that is supposed to be their "payment."

the system is fucked because it's so easy to laugh at the idea that anyone "deserves" anything but if college athletics were treated like the labor market it is (or the "extracurricular activity" it is not) the answers about value would become clear pretty quickly.

ugarte

BearLover

ugarte

nshapiro

Trotsky
Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players. Give them a percentage of the net profit. For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved. Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

…in exchange for the facilities falling apart and the coaches making so little they would never accept the job in the first place? Frankly, these programs that lose money are already providing a charity to their players…they are giving them the opportunity to attend school, often for free or at a significantly reduced cost, while pursuing the game they love. It’s one thing to say Power Five football players should share in the massive profits. It’s another to say this should apply to programs with negative profits. There is no place for the money to come from that won’t tank the whole program.

everyone loves markets until their artificial market distortions get threatened.

coach/admin salaries ballooned as the profits flowed and fancy facilities substituted as a market distinction for actual bidding for talent. the scholarship as full payment is essentially costless to the university and hasn't changed - until it was forced to change - in decades, with the only "inflation" a result of the comically inflated cost of college.

if the result of a non-collusive market is that nobody pays fencers more than a 1/4 scholarship, so be it, but please spare me the idea that there should be rules in place to restrict the labor market. the dartmouth ruling is focused on how these student-athletes have job-like responsibilities (practice schedules, special rules and restrictions) handed down from a coach that can take priority over the education that is supposed to be their "payment."

the system is fucked because it's so easy to laugh at the idea that anyone "deserves" anything but if college athletics were treated like the labor market it is (or the "extracurricular activity" it is not) the answers about value would become clear pretty quickly.

the issue is that you are ignoring that this is not a labor market.. This was an attempt to create a somewhat level playing field across 100s of teams.. The reason have scholie limis and the like in the first place.. if you look at teams as one market it all makes sense.. Like if you work at cornell there are limits on what you can make in any pay band. Depts cant offer more than another and in many bands/jobs you will top out. This is not working at a local place and taking a better paying job at Meta.. This is working at Tops and you make within peanuts of what others make at your same level.

upprdeck

ugarte

BearLover

ugarte

nshapiro

Trotsky
Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players. Give them a percentage of the net profit. For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved. Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

…in exchange for the facilities falling apart and the coaches making so little they would never accept the job in the first place? Frankly, these programs that lose money are already providing a charity to their players…they are giving them the opportunity to attend school, often for free or at a significantly reduced cost, while pursuing the game they love. It’s one thing to say Power Five football players should share in the massive profits. It’s another to say this should apply to programs with negative profits. There is no place for the money to come from that won’t tank the whole program.

everyone loves markets until their artificial market distortions get threatened.

coach/admin salaries ballooned as the profits flowed and fancy facilities substituted as a market distinction for actual bidding for talent. the scholarship as full payment is essentially costless to the university and hasn't changed - until it was forced to change - in decades, with the only "inflation" a result of the comically inflated cost of college.

if the result of a non-collusive market is that nobody pays fencers more than a 1/4 scholarship, so be it, but please spare me the idea that there should be rules in place to restrict the labor market. the dartmouth ruling is focused on how these student-athletes have job-like responsibilities (practice schedules, special rules and restrictions) handed down from a coach that can take priority over the education that is supposed to be their "payment."

the system is fucked because it's so easy to laugh at the idea that anyone "deserves" anything but if college athletics were treated like the labor market it is (or the "extracurricular activity" it is not) the answers about value would become clear pretty quickly.

the issue is that you are ignoring that this is not a labor market.. This was an attempt to create a somewhat level playing field across 100s of teams.. The reason have scholie limis and the like in the first place.. if you look at teams as one market it all makes sense.. Like if you work at cornell there are limits on what you can make in any pay band. Depts cant offer more than another and in many bands/jobs you will top out. This is not working at a local place and taking a better paying job at Meta.. This is working at Tops and you make within peanuts of what others make at your same level.

what if i told you it is a labor market and the rest of this analogy is a bunch of bullshit! the ncaa is a cartel controlling, among other things, labor costs through arguing that it's a special environment. they've been doing this for almost a century now, with the initial impetus being an unwillingness to pay workers comp after football players got hurt. The Tops comparison is awful but also too thread drifty.

TimV
It seems a key factor in this ruling was "compensation" the players (as employees) receive, even though previous rulings called them educational stipends. Those stipends weren't taxed. So do player's scholarships (academic as they are) now become taxable as remuneration/income?

I think tuition payments are not taxable anyway. When I was in grad school I had to pay income tax on my fellowship (which IIRC was a then-recent change) but not the tuition waiver.