College Sports (Football)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
RabidDawgClassic
Battle89 said:
Rather ironic, coming from someone using this site to hawk T-shirts. ;)

I don't know Mr. Gies, so I can't speak for his true motivation. But officially the stadium was re-named in honor of his father, who did serve (and has passed) and therefore the Memorial name still at least indirectly fits.

But even without that, yes I think there is a difference between a corporate and a personal sponsor. Maybe the money still eventually traces back to some business somewhere, but I can easily feel that corporate branding principles would not want anything associated with war or death alongside their name.
Click to expand...
For the record, I am not opposed in any way shape or form to taking the $100 million dollar “gift” and slapping Gies’ name on the stadium. That’s a deal you take all day everyday, especially in the current NIL/Portal era where every million dollars matters.

Where I take offense is the eager willingness by a large majority of the Illini fan base to simply accept the absurd logic that, because Mr. Gies’ dad served in the military that the “memorial” in the stadium name still technically stands because… well because… well, just because. This is the UI administration pi$$ing on our legs and telling us it’s raining. And so many here are running to get an umbrella.

The stadium was named to honor the fallen Illini of WWI. That’s who it was a memorial to. One hundred years later, Mr. Gies has usurped that honor and, in the university’s lame attempt to pacify an easily fooled fanbase, has offered the “his father served” rationale.

We have sacrificed the original honorees for $100 million dollars. And again, I have no bones about that. You take that deal. It’s just the stupid argument — and the equally stupid acceptance — that it wasn’t anything more than a business transaction where the naming rights were sold.

Now…. BUY MY SHIRTS!!! 😉
 
#27      
TheGMan
RabidDawgClassic said:
For the record, I am not opposed in any way shape or form to taking the $100 million dollar “gift” and slapping Gies’ name on the stadium. That’s a deal you take all day everyday, especially in the current NIL/Portal era where every million dollars matters.

Where I take offense is the eager willingness by a large majority of the Illini fan base to simply accept the absurd logic that, because Mr. Gies’ dad served in the military that the “memorial” in the stadium name still technically stands because… well because… well, just because. This is the UI administration pi$$ing on our legs and telling us it’s raining. And so many here are running to get an umbrella.

The stadium was named to honor the fallen Illini of WWI. That’s who it was a memorial to. One hundred years later, Mr. Gies has usurped that honor and, in the university’s lame attempt to pacify an easily fooled fanbase, has offered the “his father served” rationale.

We have sacrificed the original honorees for $100 million dollars. And again, I have no bones about that. You take that deal. It’s just the stupid argument — and the equally stupid acceptance — that it wasn’t anything more than a business transaction where the naming rights were sold.

Now…. BUY MY SHIRTS!!! 😉
Click to expand...
Just to play devil's advocate, but was it just the name of the stadium that was the honor, or was it the stadium itself? Cause if it's the latter, then, arguably, the stadium is still a Memorial, no matter what it is officially named.
 
#28      
RabidDawgClassic
TheGMan said:
Just to play devil's advocate, but was it just the name of the stadium that was the honor, or was it the stadium itself? Cause if it's the latter, then, arguably, the stadium is still a Memorial, no matter what it is officially named.
Click to expand...
I mean… tell yourself what you gotta tell yourself, I guess.
 
#30      
IlliniCaboose
RabidDawgClassic said:
Is it, though? Or is that just what we’re telling ourselves to assuage the guilt of being a high dollar wh0re?
Click to expand...
I swear I would love to see the Venn Diagram of "Change nothing about our program!" And "We need to be competing with the big boys!"
I never served so take my views for what they're worth, but it seems we got a huge check while keeping the purpose for the stadium intact. What more do you complainers want?
 
#32      
RabidDawgClassic
IlliniCaboose said:
I swear I would love to see the Venn Diagram of "Change nothing about our program!" And "We need to be competing with the big boys!"
I never served so take my views for what they're worth, but it seems we got a huge check while keeping the purpose for the stadium intact. What more do you complainers want?
Click to expand...
Where did I say “change nothing?” I said take the money. Change the name. But don’t gaslight me by saying we haven’t sold something we considered untouchable for more than a century. That’s all.

Remember all the people who suggested our new mascot could be a World War I doughboy? Well, now I guess Larry’s dad could fill that role.

But again… the UI would’ve been fools NOT to take the deal. They just had to wrap the lie in a pretty package to disguise a hypocritical truth.
 
#35      
Calvin
WolfpackIllini said:
The prior thread was closed, so I started this one with an interesting update on enforcement of NIL contracts:

www.espn.com

Cincinnati sues Sorsby over $1M exit fee after Texas Tech transfer

Cincinnati is suing former quarterback Brendan Sorsby, alleging he breached his NIL contract with the Bearcats by refusing to pay a $1 million exit fee following his transfer to Texas Tech.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...

Interesting to see how these types of disputes evolve. Without knowing all the facts that apply here, it seems to me that some athletes will test the waters on the deals they sign, and it's up to the schools to make them stick. Once there's more certainty, most of these lawsuits will stop...in theory. I say in theory because if you look at coaches buyouts, you still see lawsuits, posturing and manipulation to try and get out of the terms as written. I fully expect similar disputes between schools and athletes.
 
#36      
WolfpackIllini
Calvin said:
Interesting to see how these types of disputes evolve. Without knowing all the facts that apply here, it seems to me that some athletes will test the waters on the deals they sign, and it's up to the schools to make them stick. Once there's more certainty, most of these lawsuits will stop...in theory. I say in theory because if you look at coaches buyouts, you still see lawsuits, posturing and manipulation to try and get out of the terms as written. I fully expect similar disputes between schools and athletes.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the prior thread talked about NIL deals are for the kid's Name Image and Likeness only, not his playing for the team. The interesting thing about this Cincinnati contract is that it is a contract (offer-acceptance-consideration) which specifies (essentially) that the kid needs to be a playing member of the football team for his NIL to be worth anything to the school, and especially, so there would be no arguments if he stopped being a playing member of the football team, the liquidated damages that the kid agreed to pay back to the school is $1M (even tho he had only been paid $850K up to that point).

Apart from a gotcha in the contract, seems to me this is a slam dunk in favor of the school, especially since the kid left to sign a $4 M package elsewhere, which proves he has the money to pay the LD, and that the school's claim that his NIL deal with them wouldn't peak in value until year 2.

It will be interesting to see what the courts say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back