replying to yours only because it's the latest criticism of Bennett. Here is an article expressing a different viewpoint:
augustafreepress.com
I read this, and some thoughts:replying to yours only because it's the latest criticism of Bennett. Here is an article expressing a different viewpoint:
UVA Basketball: ‘Towering Fraud’ Pat Forde gets one last lick in at Tony Bennett
Dean Smith retired on Oct. 9, 1997, to engineer giving the UNC job to Bill Guthridge, and SI.com columnist Pat Forde had no issue.
I've read nothing, but Forde probably deserved it.
Excellent discussion, and very well handled -- thanks!
This discussion is one of those times I advocate against myself as a fan, as I value the player interest the highest because they're providing the product and for the longest time were not fairly compensated. I fully accept being priced out of attending games as long as they're selling out and the tickets don't go to waste because it means more money to an athletic department that desperately needs it.
I actually think the vast majority of former college athletes think they were 'fairly compensated'.
I got bored of the discussion and I still think we all can agree with that.
People keep making this claim. I'd love to see numbers backing it. As far as I can tell from the NCAA submitted school forms, the vast majority of DivI schools run at a loss on BB. They do it as an advertising mechanism, and for school spirit. UIUC making any profit is an anomoly. They are in the top 10% (maybe top 5%). Even UIUC only "makes money" because donors cover a lot of the expenses. Without the donations UIUC runs negative. (Remember, the entire Assembly hall retrofit cost was all hidden by donors.)
I mean right here in your text you provide solid examples of how student athletes provide value to a university. Advertising is a thing organizations pay a lot of money for. Keeping donors happy is a pretty important thing for a major university. The program running at a loss is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether the players generate value or whether their compensation is fair.
Question on the table: Are the current NIL numbers fair value to the university, or grossly inflated due to rich alumni egos?
Fair enough, no doubt.
I agree. Especially if one includes athletes beyond those on the football team and mens basketball.
Hm. I can't sign on to that, though I don't completely disagree either. I guess my reaction is: what is the 'product' that you refer to? Football? Basketball? Either way, there will be no success without excellent, committed players. None at all. Winning a National Championship, Coach Underwood's repeated goal, won't happen without outstanding player talent and player character.
) Without fans, collegiate athletics isn't on TV, isn't generating millions, isn't the subject of impassioned interactions across the country. No fans, and this would all be as thrilling as field hockey on a rainy, cold day. (Which would be fine -- those who pursue their interests in the absence of outside cheering are amazing, I think.)Interesting prediction. I hadn't thought along these lines, at least clearly. I will not be surprised to see you proven correct in this prediction in the years to come.
You are overcomplicating this. The value of anything is determined by what people will pay for it. The fact that college athletes (at least those in revenue sports) were paid under the table previously, and that now they are being paid handsomely in NIL, is incontrovertable proof that the compensation of scholarship and housing was well below what they would get on the open market.
I've seen this theory before but completely disagree with it. NIL has to compete with other opportunities such as playing overseas and the NBA G-League (and it has successfully killed the latter's attempted expansion), so it makes sense for NIL to be greater than those opportunities for it to attract top talent. The first pick in the NBA draft will make around $15M in his first year. Cooper Flagg, the projected first pick next year, is supposedly making around 10% of that in NIL. If anything that sounds like an underpay to me. Yes he could bust, but think about it, does one year difference really demand a 1000% pay increase or is it perhaps he's actually grossly underpaid in college? The same applies to the rest of the players, just in much smaller numbers.
I spent about an hour writing a nice post to watch it get eaten. Here is the quick and dirty gist without any wordsmithing.
30 years is a little too short for that analysis; you need to go back 50, to the fight over free agency, which has a lot of similarities with the pre-NIL world. Players signed with a team and that was who they were stuck with until the team no longer wanted them and then they could go elsewhere.
I could see what you're saying but here's my counter. Let's say there's those groups like you say. The 30 players demand their millions and playing time so most likely a team gets two of these players at most. So you're a school that has those two guys and with that you think you can probably make the tournament but will probably lose first round if you surround them with scrubs. So my question is- how much money would you pay to the group 2 guys to improve your team to the point it could reach the final?
