Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#226      
Hmmm, let’s see … extracurricular activity vs. job. Just throwing that out there.

There are many points of view that can sustain logic and intellectual consistency. Not just one or two.
How many public employees outside of university coaches make millions a year? How many students work 40+ hours a week on an extracurricular activity? For that matter, how much do university employees typically get paid to oversee non-athletic extracurricular activities?
 
#227      
Man I’m pretty against having unlimited transfers. I’m fine with one, but if a kid can’t make it at multiple schools maybe they should just get better. And if a kid is a star at a slightly smaller school, will they just transfer to the blue bloods?

I can see a very boring league where just a few schools end up getting all the best players and it turns into something super boring and repetitive like the college football playoff.
 
#228      
How many public employees outside of university coaches make millions a year? How many students work 40+ hours a week on an extracurricular activity? For that matter, how much do university employees typically get paid to oversee non-athletic extracurricular activities?
So, you’re arguing degree, not principle.
 
#229      
So, you’re arguing degree, not principle.
As if degree cannot inform principle.

The difference between your typical extracurricular activity and job is that the former is of predominant benefit to the participant, whereas the latter benefits the employer quite a bit, which justifies compensation.

Students don't get paid to participate in stuff like glee club. They do get paid to work in the library. Why the difference? Glee club's primary benefit is to the kids who participate in it. Working in the library however benefits the university.

Clearly the university benefits from the revenue and media attention brought in by student athletes. And still doesn't pay them btw. Now, finally, athletes are merely not prohibited from seeking off the court compensation. Which by the way has never been a prohibition faced by students on academic scholarships.
 
#230      
As if degree cannot inform principle.

The difference between your typical extracurricular activity and job is that the former is of predominant benefit to the participant, whereas the latter benefits the employer quite a bit, which justifies compensation.

Students don't get paid to participate in stuff like glee club. They do get paid to work in the library. Why the difference? Glee club's primary benefit is to the kids who participate in it. Working in the library however benefits the university.

Clearly the university benefits from the revenue and media attention brought in by student athletes. And still doesn't pay them btw. Now, finally, athletes are merely not prohibited from seeking off the court compensation. Which by the way has never been a prohibition faced by students on academic scholarships.
I never said (or implied) that degree cannot inform principle. And yet here you are trying to equate extracurricular activities (sports, glee clubs) with jobs (coaching, library work).

Slim out.
 
#231      

billybaroo

Pebble Beach, CA
GIF by The Cubby Bear Chicago
 
#232      
As if degree cannot inform principle.

The difference between your typical extracurricular activity and job is that the former is of predominant benefit to the participant, whereas the latter benefits the employer quite a bit, which justifies compensation.

Students don't get paid to participate in stuff like glee club. They do get paid to work in the library. Why the difference? Glee club's primary benefit is to the kids who participate in it. Working in the library however benefits the university.

Clearly the university benefits from the revenue and media attention brought in by student athletes. And still doesn't pay them btw. Now, finally, athletes are merely not prohibited from seeking off the court compensation. Which by the way has never been a prohibition faced by students on academic scholarships.
It's not about paying the players, and it's not about allowing unlimited transfers. The problem is combining them with no regulations whatsoever.

College sports could turn into professional sports with no salary cap and no contracts. If Nike wanted Oregon to win, they could easily pay every star athlete $2 million to come to Oregon. A billionaire alum could just throw money at players. Coaches will be using back channels to talk to players about transfers. You could be looking at a largely new team every year. Sure that's worst case scenario, but it's certainly reasonable that it would happen. Why would a player that had a big year not test the market and see how much they can make? Coaches will absolutely have to deal with players asking for a raise.
 
#233      
It’s too bad that Bronny isn’t considering college because I think it’s his only chance to play in front of big crowds and make serious bank himself via NIL (he already has a ridiculous 6.3 mil Instagram followers).

I’ve seen him play quite a few times in person, and while I think he is a very good player, I just don’t see NBA talent (unless his Dad demands that his team signs Bronny as a condition to Dad playing, which is possible but would be pretty unprecedented and weird).
 
Last edited:
#235      
I never said (or implied) that degree cannot inform principle. And yet here you are trying to equate extracurricular activities (sports, glee clubs) with jobs (coaching, library work).

Slim out.
If you insist on treating revenue sports as just another extracurricular activity, then be consistent.

A music major on scholarship, who also participates in a univeristy sanctioned glee club faces no prohibition, from either their scholarship or their extracurricular participation, against using their musical talents to earn money outside of their school or extracurricular activities. They can earn money performing, selling their music, or using their music to market products on social media. If NCAA athletics are just another extracurricular activity, why should the rules be different?
 
#236      

The Galloping Ghost

Washington, DC
If you insist on treating revenue sports as just another extracurricular activity, then be consistent.

A music major on scholarship, who also participates in a univeristy sanctioned glee club faces no prohibition, from either their scholarship or their extracurricular participation, against using their musical talents to earn money outside of their school or extracurricular activities. They can earn money performing, selling their music, or using their music to market products on social media. If NCAA athletics are just another extracurricular activity, why should the rules be different?
Because it allows older fans to hold onto the lie the NCAA has pushed since the dawn of time that college athletics are pure and wholesome and shouldn't be corrupted by money. Meanwhile, NCAA officials, networks, conferences, schools, and coaches swim in their piles of money like Scrooge friggin' McDuck.

I'm gonna say it as many times as necessary, labor getting paid is a good thing. Labor gaining more rights is a good thing. The old system was fundamentally bad. The new system is going to have some growing pains and take some getting used to, but it's significantly better than the way it used to be.
 
#237      
NCAA athletics is not just an extracurricular activity because the participants generate millions of dollars in income to the University. Athletic departments in the Px conferences have budget surpluses in the millions of dollars and in most cases pay that surplus back to the University general fund. This fact is in part why the courts have sided with athletes to create these new set of rules.
 
#238      
This was the logic that started this ball rolling. It was reasonable. But players are getting paid far I'm excess of their actual market value for "endorsements.

I'm not sure the answer to growing competitive disparity but unlimited transfers is going the opposite direction
 
#239      
This was the logic that started this ball rolling. It was reasonable. But players are getting paid far I'm excess of their actual market value for "endorsements.

I'm not sure the answer to growing competitive disparity but unlimited transfers is going the opposite direction
There is no such thing as “in excess of their actual market value.” If the market is paying, THAT’S their actual value.
 
#243      
There is no such thing as “in excess of their actual market value.” If the market is paying, THAT’S their actual value.
say hello to the 2008 real estate crash. There is market value and then there is inflated disaster waiting to happen market value. Those driving the market to the disastrous untrue levels (smart attorneys/agents/accounts), give two S&^$s if it destroys the market as long as it lines their pockets in the process.
 
#244      
say hello to the 2008 real estate crash. There is market value and then there is inflated disaster waiting to happen market value. Those driving the market to the disastrous untrue levels (smart attorneys/agents/accounts), give two S&^$s if it destroys the market as long as it lines their pockets in the process.
For some reason I'm fairly confident college athletes getting paid isn't going to lead to economic ruin.
 
#246      
How are those different?
One you get paid for your performance on the court. The other you get paid for your ability to help a company sell a product.

We have had very few actual endorsements floating around the program. I'm guessing the same is going on around the country. What is happening is that money is flowing to players from alumni in some guise of NIL but really outside of what the NIL change was envisioning by most.
 
#247      
For some reason I'm fairly confident college athletes getting paid isn't going to lead to economic ruin.
No but the values of some of these NIL deals is very much not sustainable. I think the point he is trying to make is the value returned to the business is not in excess to the pay the athletes are getting. Some of these people paying are most definitely going into negative value with the deals. Generally not a good business plan.
 
#248      

sacraig

The desert
One you get paid for your performance on the court. The other you get paid for your ability to help a company sell a product.

We have had very few actual endorsements floating around the program. I'm guessing the same is going on around the country. What is happening is that money is flowing to players from alumni in some guise of NIL but really outside of what the NIL change was envisioning by most.
In the pros, a player gets paid for the performance a team projects they'll get on the court. The same player can get paid to be a brand ambassador for a company as a function of their popularity, which is also largely based on their play on the court. They're both based largely on performance. It's a distinction without a difference.

In the NCAA the only difference is the teams can't pay them directly, so the only way a players value is realized is through endorsements.
 
#249      
NCAA athletics is not just an extracurricular activity because the participants generate millions of dollars in income to the University. Athletic departments in the Px conferences have budget surpluses in the millions of dollars and in most cases pay that surplus back to the University general fund. This fact is in part why the courts have sided with athletes to create these new set of rules.

Click on Summary: Revenues and Expenses 2020.
 
Last edited:
#250      
No but the values of some of these NIL deals is very much not sustainable. I think the point he is trying to make is the value returned to the business is not in excess to the pay the athletes are getting. Some of these people paying are most definitely going into negative value with the deals. Generally not a good business plan.
They aren't doing it as a business plan. They might be disguising it that way, although that is fraught, especially for a corporation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.