The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(07-15-2021 07:30 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:21 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I can't logically or morally be against NIL when lots of head coaches are making $5 million + per year, with coordinators at big schools making $1 million +. That's not to mention the money that Mark Emmert, the athletic directors, the conference commissioners, and the media partners are making. The best analogy I've heard is -- if a really talented musician on scholarship at CCM wants to make some money gigging on the weekends or teaching lessons, no one bats an eye. Yet, if an athlete wants to be paid for his/her time, it's frowned upon. This should have happened years, if not decades ago. Unfortunately, it likely doesn't benefit UC -- but most things about modern college athletics don't either. The divide between the haves and have-nots will continue to grow regardless of NIL.

The difference is schools aren't competing against each other to win a national championship in music. A talented musician isn't going to get a gig just because he chose to go to UC.

I'm not against players getting paid but the last I checked they were already getting paid. A UC scholarship with free room and board, meals, clothing, etc is worth over $125K for four years. Plus they get roughly another $6K per year as a stipend from the ruling that came about several years ago.

Without a way to control it, this will eventually turn into a bidding war for high school recruits. Frankly I wouldn't care if I rooted for OSU or Alabama. Those schools will have plenty of money and willing boosters to make sure they keep getting the top athletes. UC will suffer and the divide will only grow.

You do realize that the scholarship is essentially a salary for work carried out for the University, but these players are otherwise not able to make money off of anyone using their likeness, or really much of anything in general? Two completely different animals...it's essentially like you trying to say you can't collect dividends on your portfolio because you're already being paid a salary every year by a completely different entity. There is a reason why "Cincinnati" isn't anywhere on this NIL stuff...players cannot use their playing status to market themselves, it has to be done on personal notoriety (one interesting wrinkle to this in general). Truthfully, I agree with many on here that there will be an initial burst around the country, but many people and corporations will realize it is a poor use of their business expenses after a little while. The biggest thing this does is lay the groundwork for a general likeness use agreement for video games and whatnot, where every player would get a flat check a la the NFAPA/EA agreement. I had a few buddies get nice checks from that without even playing an NFL down.

To me, this won't cause a greater divide...hell, I think we've already reach critical mass there. I'm just happy people aren't being held captive by the system anymore. I've said this numerous times, but I was not allowed to collect my salary for a co-op because of NCAA regulations on how I wrote my resume, I had friends who had parents who couldn't afford their apartments who were playing for coaches making millions of dollars off of their talents...its just not right.

It is quite interesting that many who are for free markets generally are against this and vice versa...kind of a Freaky Friday-ish situation going on.

Count me in the camp of paying the players / NIL is bad for college athletics. It really kind of eliminates the point.

However, now that we are going down this road I hope UC is a trailblazer in student (lol) athlete sponsorships. I want to be the best at this new thing that will clearly create a bigger divide between haves and have nots. Lets get on the right side of that.

(07-15-2021 08:28 AM)Helicopter Wrote:  Count me in the camp of paying the players / NIL is bad for college athletics. It really kind of eliminates the point.

However, now that we are going down this road I hope UC is a trailblazer in student (lol) athlete sponsorships. I want to be the best at this new thing that will clearly create a bigger divide between haves and have nots. Lets get on the right side of that.

Can you elaborate on that? That's an argument I have never understood in all of this honestly.

(07-15-2021 08:28 AM)Helicopter Wrote:  Count me in the camp of paying the players / NIL is bad for college athletics. It really kind of eliminates the point.

However, now that we are going down this road I hope UC is a trailblazer in student (lol) athlete sponsorships. I want to be the best at this new thing that will clearly create a bigger divide between haves and have nots. Lets get on the right side of that.

Hasn't the ROI on a 4-year degree been steadily declining anyway?

(07-15-2021 09:01 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:28 AM)Helicopter Wrote:  Count me in the camp of paying the players / NIL is bad for college athletics. It really kind of eliminates the point.

However, now that we are going down this road I hope UC is a trailblazer in student (lol) athlete sponsorships. I want to be the best at this new thing that will clearly create a bigger divide between haves and have nots. Lets get on the right side of that.

Can you elaborate on that? That's an argument I have never understood in all of this honestly.

I knew several guys who were on scholarship for football, several at UC.

They lived like kings. And that was even when UC sucked at football.

This Shabazz Napier "I went to bed hungry every night"... I guess it's possible, but I never saw it.

And the "the coaches and colleges make so much money off of them" is a lame argument. My employers have always made a pretty penny off of my efforts that I didn't think was proportionate, but I never started a company, either.

I, like the scholarship athletes, have the option to leave if we don't like it. And yet we stay. This NIL stuff is not well thought out and is going to lead to a big mess.

(07-15-2021 09:01 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:28 AM)Helicopter Wrote:  Count me in the camp of paying the players / NIL is bad for college athletics. It really kind of eliminates the point.

However, now that we are going down this road I hope UC is a trailblazer in student (lol) athlete sponsorships. I want to be the best at this new thing that will clearly create a bigger divide between haves and have nots. Lets get on the right side of that.

Can you elaborate on that? That's an argument I have never understood in all of this honestly.

I'll answer.

The point has always been that students are representing their school. Same as in high school. Other students root for the team because they are friends & peers with the team members. Parents root for the team because they are "our kids."

It's distinctly different from pro sports, where the athletes play for money. They are guns for hire. Fans pay big money to see the best players & the best teams.

Does anyone play for the Reds or the Bengals because they love Cincinnati? Other than Huber (and maybe Votto), no way. Yet there's tons of UC players who play at UC because it's THEIR hometown school. Even players who grew up elsewhere like Ridder and Pead grew to love the school in a way that Adam Dunn and Carson Palmer never did (or could).


I know there's been toes over that line for a long time. But most football players outside the top-10 programs are legit students who have no shot at the NFL. They go to classes. They graduate at a higher rate than non-athletes. At many schools (like UC, TCU, and UCF), the majority are local kids.

Does that mentality survive NIL? It's possible, but I think we all have doubts.

(07-15-2021 09:01 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:28 AM)Helicopter Wrote:  Count me in the camp of paying the players / NIL is bad for college athletics. It really kind of eliminates the point.

However, now that we are going down this road I hope UC is a trailblazer in student (lol) athlete sponsorships. I want to be the best at this new thing that will clearly create a bigger divide between haves and have nots. Lets get on the right side of that.

Can you elaborate on that? That's an argument I have never understood in all of this honestly.

I'll explain it differently than the previous post.

If you don't have rules governing how much a college athlete can be paid then what you have is simply a pro sport with no salary cap. Small market teams like the Reds already struggle being competitive with when a team like the Dodgers has a payroll more than double the Reds.

Extrapolate that out into college athletics where teams like OSU will find a way to assure their top players make 5x or 10x more on average than UC's players.

(07-15-2021 12:08 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 09:01 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:28 AM)Helicopter Wrote:  Count me in the camp of paying the players / NIL is bad for college athletics. It really kind of eliminates the point.

However, now that we are going down this road I hope UC is a trailblazer in student (lol) athlete sponsorships. I want to be the best at this new thing that will clearly create a bigger divide between haves and have nots. Lets get on the right side of that.

Can you elaborate on that? That's an argument I have never understood in all of this honestly.

I'll explain it differently than the previous post.

If you don't have rules governing how much a college athlete can be paid then what you have is simply a pro sport with no salary cap. Small market teams like the Reds already struggle being competitive with when a team like the Dodgers has a payroll more than double the Reds.

Extrapolate that out into college athletics where teams like OSU will find a way to assure their top players make 5x or 10x more on average than UC's players.

See, this is where things muddy up for me...there is already a pretty clear and blatant separation between schools like Ohio State and UC. In that regard, nothing changes IMO. If UC proves it on the field and develops a NATIONAL following in the same way OSU has one, their players will get the deals too...god willing that can happen, though I doubt we'll be much more than having a fringe relevance nationally even with our great years sadly...at least in Football.

I guess it is just different perspectives from a former college athlete and a fan. I do understand that the lack of oversight and clear, articulate guidelines could cause issues and I'm hopeful that that's ironed out soon, but IMO, I see nothing wrong with 5-10 players on a team getting some cash for their accolades, which is essentially what this is at the moment. If companies want to waste their money thinking people care about Arkansas' OLmen, then let them do that...I think the market correction would be pretty swift after a year or two of that money going down the drain with no fiscal benefit. Truthfully, I don't see things changing all that much as far as competitive balance is concerned, but if I'm wrong I will completely admit that in a decade.

For those worried about the "love for the school" developed by players...that's still going to happen, same as always. I highly doubt a $500 t-shirt deal or a video game streaming partnership is going to change that. You're going to see the primo athletes who have already developed a following through their play on the field get the fat checks (as they should), no one in their right mind is giving a person that no one outside of fervent fans will know about for two years a promotional deal. Again, I'll gladly, in a manner of speaking, admit that I was wrong about this if things change immensely...I just doubt they will. Lots of "doom and gloom" types try to make something incremental seem like something monumental...I just think this is more of the same in the national argument. Either that, or a lot of old men yelling at the clouds.

Is there anything in the rules that is keeping Nike from giving a player an deal.

(07-15-2021 12:24 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Is there anything in the rules that is keeping Nike from giving a player an deal.

Not at all...why would the size of the company matter? I would assume they would only give money to athletes at Nike schools though, otherwise it would get a little hairy with the apparel deals. Then again, there was nothing to stop them from doing that for years before, and even when they were caught, nothing truly happened to anyone involved .

For companies that don't have a raving lunatic at the head, this will all be about market permeation...if there is a Zion Williamson out there with 5M instagram follows and who is a household name in HS, then yeah, he's getting that check (like he deserves to). Nike isn't going to be handing out crazy checks to every player under the sun though, they're smarter than that. That's the thing, people aren't going to be dropping money to support 3*s who aren't going to see the field for 2 years...the pre-enrollment money, if it is even legal (which I think there is something in the original brief saying the exact opposite) is only going to the top 10-20 players annually IF THAT in my opinion...you're not really gaining anything after that because no one knows who they are. It's funny to think about, but the ones who stand to gain the most from this are likely the female athletes who have crazy social media followings, not the faceless players on the gridiron.

(07-15-2021 12:24 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Is there anything in the rules that is keeping Nike from giving a player an deal.

This is a perfect example. What's stopping Phil Knight from telling every 5-star recruit that if they sign with Oregon he'll give them a Nike deal.

(07-15-2021 12:37 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:24 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Is there anything in the rules that is keeping Nike from giving a player an deal.

This is a perfect example. What's stopping Phil Knight from telling every 5-star recruit that if they sign with Oregon he'll give them a Nike deal.

Nothing, other than his general business sense, shareholders, the SEC (not the conference), and the NCAA who forbid financial deals to be made prior to a commitment...and yes, I realize there are "agreements" that can be made before that.

Hell, what stopped Adidas from giving fat checks to every under the sun for 8 years...oh wait...nothing did

What stopped Jeff Wyler from giving back door leases for cars to numerous affiliated basketball players in the 00's and 10's? Nothing...

What stopped mom and pops and local establishments from giving freebees to people over and over again? Absolutely nothing...they did it...and did you hate college sports before that stuff saw the light of day? My guess is that's a nope.

Just let it play out, rather than trying to be keyboard experts. I don't know the half of what is going to happen...I just don't think it is going to change much.

(07-14-2021 09:10 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I'm going to attempt to just not worry about the $, paying players, etc. and try to separate all of that from watching the sports. I hope I can do that. If not, I'll just watch the Bengals I suppose.

I guess I don't understand how it's that hard to do that...but I'm also not one of the people who says they'll stop watching sports because a guy gets on a knee even if I personally stand up and put my hand on my heart for the anthem. Just enjoy the game, because that is all it is...just because 4-5 kids on a team get a $1,000 check doesn't change how the game itself makes you feel, or how watching your alma mater win should.

I won’t unplug until the UK’s and Memphis’ of the world start openly starting shell companies to funnel money directly to recruits with cash transfers the day they show up to campus and matriculate.

And yes, those types of shenanigans are going to start pronto.

(07-15-2021 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:10 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I'm going to attempt to just not worry about the $, paying players, etc. and try to separate all of that from watching the sports. I hope I can do that. If not, I'll just watch the Bengals I suppose.

I guess I don't understand how it's that hard to do that...but I'm also not one of the people who says they'll stop watching sports because a guy gets on a knee even if I personally stand up and put my hand on my heart for the anthem. Just enjoy the game, because that is all it is...just because 4-5 kids on a team get a $1,000 check doesn't change how the game itself makes you feel, or how watching your alma mater win should.

I won’t unplug until the UK’s and Memphis’ of the world start openly starting shell companies to funnel money directly to recruits with cash transfers the day they show up to campus and matriculate.

And yes, those types of shenanigans are going to start pronto.

If they do that, and money is coming directly from the Universities, they're going to be fined to frigging Alpha Centauri by the DOE for being out of compliance with Title IV, because I can guarantee there will be federal funds in there somewhere...especially if general student fees still go into Athletic Department budgets.

(07-15-2021 12:33 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:24 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Is there anything in the rules that is keeping Nike from giving a player an deal.

Not at all...why would the size of the company matter? I would assume they would only give money to athletes at Nike schools though, otherwise it would get a little hairy with the apparel deals. Then again, there was nothing to stop them from doing that for years before, and even when they were caught, nothing truly happened to anyone involved .

For companies that don't have a raving lunatic at the head, this will all be about market permeation...if there is a Zion Williamson out there with 5M instagram follows and who is a household name in HS, then yeah, he's getting that check (like he deserves to). Nike isn't going to be handing out crazy checks to every player under the sun though, they're smarter than that. That's the thing, people aren't going to be dropping money to support 3*s who aren't going to see the field for 2 years...the pre-enrollment money, if it is even legal (which I think there is something in the original brief saying the exact opposite) is only going to the top 10-20 players annually IF THAT in my opinion...you're not really gaining anything after that because no one knows who they are. It's funny to think about, but the ones who stand to gain the most from this are likely the female athletes who have crazy social media followings, not the faceless players on the gridiron.

I think the real concern isn't the famous kids. No one begrudges Trevor Lawrence getting paid like the celebrity he is.

My concern is that Ole Miss boosters will see the Rebels as Mississippi's professional team and will pay their backup O-linemen $200,000 salaries from day one under the deception of "Name, Image, and Likeness."

In the past, those payments were under the table. And they were cash money, so you had to have the cooperation of a banker who didn't care about a $20,000 cash withdrawal. That made it very hard to pay them like a pro team.

Now, it's a perfectly legal direct deposit payment. And (importantly) it's a tax-deductible expense for any business owner.

As a US taxpayer, I don't like that some auto dealer in Jackson, MS won't have to pay any corporate income taxes because he pays several 19-year old's salaries on a professional-college football team.

(07-15-2021 04:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:10 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I'm going to attempt to just not worry about the $, paying players, etc. and try to separate all of that from watching the sports. I hope I can do that. If not, I'll just watch the Bengals I suppose.

I guess I don't understand how it's that hard to do that...but I'm also not one of the people who says they'll stop watching sports because a guy gets on a knee even if I personally stand up and put my hand on my heart for the anthem. Just enjoy the game, because that is all it is...just because 4-5 kids on a team get a $1,000 check doesn't change how the game itself makes you feel, or how watching your alma mater win should.

I won’t unplug until the UK’s and Memphis’ of the world start openly starting shell companies to funnel money directly to recruits with cash transfers the day they show up to campus and matriculate.

And yes, those types of shenanigans are going to start pronto.

If they do that, and money is coming directly from the Universities, they're going to be fined to frigging Alpha Centauri by the DOE for being out of compliance with Title IV, because I can guarantee there will be federal funds in there somewhere...especially if general student fees still go into Athletic Department budgets.

It wil be boosters funding it. The schools will only be involved in the distribution and decision marking by the staffs when targeting recruits.

Won’t need World Wide Wes types anymore. Bag man will be all legit.

(07-15-2021 12:33 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:24 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Is there anything in the rules that is keeping Nike from giving a player an deal.

Not at all...why would the size of the company matter? I would assume they would only give money to athletes at Nike schools though, otherwise it would get a little hairy with the apparel deals. Then again, there was nothing to stop them from doing that for years before, and even when they were caught, nothing truly happened to anyone involved .

For companies that don't have a raving lunatic at the head, this will all be about market permeation...if there is a Zion Williamson out there with 5M instagram follows and who is a household name in HS, then yeah, he's getting that check (like he deserves to). Nike isn't going to be handing out crazy checks to every player under the sun though, they're smarter than that. That's the thing, people aren't going to be dropping money to support 3*s who aren't going to see the field for 2 years...the pre-enrollment money, if it is even legal (which I think there is something in the original brief saying the exact opposite) is only going to the top 10-20 players annually IF THAT in my opinion...you're not really gaining anything after that because no one knows who they are. It's funny to think about, but the ones who stand to gain the most from this are likely the female athletes who have crazy social media followings, not the faceless players on the gridiron.

I think you might know this so I will ask. Do you know how much Knight just spent on Oregon's Track and Field. When I saw that thing for the Olympic trials I was like are you kidding me that guys likes to spend money on all things Oregon. He just throws money at them.

(07-15-2021 06:19 PM)Nobones Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:33 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:24 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Is there anything in the rules that is keeping Nike from giving a player an deal.

Not at all...why would the size of the company matter? I would assume they would only give money to athletes at Nike schools though, otherwise it would get a little hairy with the apparel deals. Then again, there was nothing to stop them from doing that for years before, and even when they were caught, nothing truly happened to anyone involved .

For companies that don't have a raving lunatic at the head, this will all be about market permeation...if there is a Zion Williamson out there with 5M instagram follows and who is a household name in HS, then yeah, he's getting that check (like he deserves to). Nike isn't going to be handing out crazy checks to every player under the sun though, they're smarter than that. That's the thing, people aren't going to be dropping money to support 3*s who aren't going to see the field for 2 years...the pre-enrollment money, if it is even legal (which I think there is something in the original brief saying the exact opposite) is only going to the top 10-20 players annually IF THAT in my opinion...you're not really gaining anything after that because no one knows who they are. It's funny to think about, but the ones who stand to gain the most from this are likely the female athletes who have crazy social media followings, not the faceless players on the gridiron.

I think you might know this so I will ask. Do you know how much Knight just spent on Oregon's Track and Field. When I saw that thing for the Olympic trials I was like are you kidding me that guys likes to spend money on all things Oregon. He just throws money at them.

The entire project was just over a quarter billion, but it was financed in part by the USOC and they list 50 other donors. That wasn't just an Oregon thing...I believe it's more or less the professional track, USOC stadium, and just happens to be on Oregon's campus (though the connection definitely helped the overall situation). The problem is, he, like many donors, like to see their names on things...the amount of development meetings I've been in that have fallen out completely because the person's name wasn't associate with something is probably pushing 50 now.

(07-15-2021 05:16 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 04:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:10 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I'm going to attempt to just not worry about the $, paying players, etc. and try to separate all of that from watching the sports. I hope I can do that. If not, I'll just watch the Bengals I suppose.

I guess I don't understand how it's that hard to do that...but I'm also not one of the people who says they'll stop watching sports because a guy gets on a knee even if I personally stand up and put my hand on my heart for the anthem. Just enjoy the game, because that is all it is...just because 4-5 kids on a team get a $1,000 check doesn't change how the game itself makes you feel, or how watching your alma mater win should.

I won’t unplug until the UK’s and Memphis’ of the world start openly starting shell companies to funnel money directly to recruits with cash transfers the day they show up to campus and matriculate.

And yes, those types of shenanigans are going to start pronto.

If they do that, and money is coming directly from the Universities, they're going to be fined to frigging Alpha Centauri by the DOE for being out of compliance with Title IV, because I can guarantee there will be federal funds in there somewhere...especially if general student fees still go into Athletic Department budgets.

It wil be boosters funding it. The schools will only be involved in the distribution and decision marking by the staffs when targeting recruits.

Won’t need World Wide Wes types anymore. Bag man will be all legit.

All I'm saying is if the school distributes the money (which isn't legal based on the current framework by the way) and they take ANY federal funding to pay the bills in Athletics, they will need to have the cleanest books in the history of planet Earth to not be taken to the woodshed by the T4 compliance people. For the record, any school that takes student fees for athletics uses Federal monies...so that would be every public institution in America with the exception of, like, 4 if USAToday's database is up to date on the Fee distributions.

(07-15-2021 06:51 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 06:19 PM)Nobones Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:33 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:24 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Is there anything in the rules that is keeping Nike from giving a player an deal.

Not at all...why would the size of the company matter? I would assume they would only give money to athletes at Nike schools though, otherwise it would get a little hairy with the apparel deals. Then again, there was nothing to stop them from doing that for years before, and even when they were caught, nothing truly happened to anyone involved .

For companies that don't have a raving lunatic at the head, this will all be about market permeation...if there is a Zion Williamson out there with 5M instagram follows and who is a household name in HS, then yeah, he's getting that check (like he deserves to). Nike isn't going to be handing out crazy checks to every player under the sun though, they're smarter than that. That's the thing, people aren't going to be dropping money to support 3*s who aren't going to see the field for 2 years...the pre-enrollment money, if it is even legal (which I think there is something in the original brief saying the exact opposite) is only going to the top 10-20 players annually IF THAT in my opinion...you're not really gaining anything after that because no one knows who they are. It's funny to think about, but the ones who stand to gain the most from this are likely the female athletes who have crazy social media followings, not the faceless players on the gridiron.

I think you might know this so I will ask. Do you know how much Knight just spent on Oregon's Track and Field. When I saw that thing for the Olympic trials I was like are you kidding me that guys likes to spend money on all things Oregon. He just throws money at them.

The entire project was just over a quarter billion, but it was financed in part by the USOC and they list 50 other donors. That wasn't just an Oregon thing...I believe it's more or less the professional track, USOC stadium, and just happens to be on Oregon's campus (though the connection definitely helped the overall situation). The problem is, he, like many donors, like to see their names on things...the amount of development meetings I've been in that have fallen out completely because the person's name wasn't associate with something is probably pushing 50 now.

Thanks I knew you would have the info.