(05-12-2022 03:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 03:30 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 02:15 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 01:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  Frank, you might have said "the insurance company will pay for it".

Third party monies are funds that would have gotten to the school instead of some individuals pocket.
NIL isn't going to kill the goose, but it will rob the nest of lots of golden eggs.

Which is still a win for AD budgets.
They get donors to spend more on the most revenue generating input, but keep the revenue.
The fixed costs and inflated salaries will come down now that the arms race is on donors buying players.

The real question is once the ADs can spend on players directly, how quickly to they get a CBA in place? Otherwise ADs will be incentivized to compete with each other on players. Still, a lot less need for gold locker rooms then, but a CBA is beneficial to schools and players

Help me understand why is a win for AD budgets.
Donors don't give money to the school but make risky investments in players of unknown benefit to the school.
The school gets less money but keeps the revenue?
How long will it take to reduce those inflated salaries?

Because right now they are forced to spend millions on even riskier things. What’s the ROI on a building? On an unproven coach?

Instead, they can now have donors just buy players.

In fact, if donors won’t do it, you’ll see schools redirect funds to NIL, basically giving donors their money back to donate to NIL, as it’s a better driver of revenue..

In the transition period, funds will be borrowed for fixed costs if donors don’t increase and variable cost relief isn’t an option. Effectively the same as refinancing.

Paying players is much more efficient than the previous arms race. It is actually a direct revenue generating cost. Likely with a CBA to keep it from escalating

Why? Nobody ever paid players before (except the SEC).
Your math is still fuzzy, now you have the schools paying the players with NIL funds and borrowing money for capital improvements instead of using donated funds?
It must be "new math".

Because of amateurism. Yes, it is ridiculous we've held on to that for so long and created a backmarket for player compensation.

The math is not fuzzy at all. I am not sure I can make it clearer, but I'll try.

I provided an example how even schools in which donors foolishly do not want to pay players, the input cost with best ROI, the AD will still use their donations to pay for players over buildings.

Any fixed costs already incurred in which moving such donations would jeopardize, would be covered by borrowing if needed. That is how much paying players is superior to any other cost- costs inflated due to arms race spending infrastructure and salaries as proxy's to spend on players.

Pretty simple stuff. Hope that helps.