NCAA thread

[Merkin]

Football is obviously different than basketball of course, since basketball you can go straight to the G league, while you still have to do 3 years in college for football.

Every single one is a risk. I was thinking about Khalil Tate, was had that fantastic freshman season, but was a complete bust after that when he decided to be Peyton Manning instead of Cam Newton. Sumlin couldn't get Tate to run after he took over. I wonder if Nike would have better luck?

Like the old saying goes, college players play for the name on the front of their jerseys, pro players play for the name on the back. Now more than ever, college players will be trying to impress any possible sponsors.

[Merkin]

And why can't there by 15 millionaires at Alabama?

That's only 4 millionaires per year, so it is definitely possible.

Bama has 7 5 stars signed for the 2021 season.

[Beachcat97]

Like the old saying goes, college players play for the name on the front of their jerseys, pro players play for the name on the back. Now more than ever, college players will be trying to impress any possible sponsors.

It feels like the days of "playing for the name on the front of the jersey" are now numbered.

[Chicat]

I think you’re assuming a lot with your first statement.

As for your last, there’s also way more competition in major media hubs. Why get the QB from UCLA who is not a given to be a star in the pros and certainly isn’t a household name when you could have the QB from the Rams or Chargers? And last I checked, Tuscaloosa isn’t a major metro area and yet that’s the team you’re thinking will have 15 guys making millions in endorsements. If it’s going to be centered around major markets, then I guess Georgia will start pulling in kids that would have gone to Clemson and Bama consistently?

[Beachcat97]

I think you’re assuming a lot with your first statement.

As for your last, there’s also way more competition in major media hubs. Why get the QB from UCLA who is not a given to be a star in the pros and certainly isn’t a household name when you could have the QB from the Rams or Chargers? And last I checked, Tuscaloosa isn’t a major metro area and yet that’s the team you’re thinking will have 15 guys making millions in endorsements. If it’s going to be centered around major markets, then I guess Georgia will start pulling in kids that would have gone to Clemson and Bama consistently?

No, you're right about Tuscaloosa, but they have Saban. And Lexington has Cal. We have Jedd Fisch and Tommy Lloyd. Not exactly household names. I even wonder if Few could face some tougher recruiting competition from UW. Or, it's possible I'm overestimating the appeal of metro hubs, which would be good news for Tommy Boy.

Let me revise the earlier statement: it won't be uncommon for there to be significant number of millionaire college athletes on rosters at programs like Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson and USC in football, and Kentucky, UNC, and UCLA in basketball. I don't think this bodes well for the culture of competition in NCAA sports, but it's hard to deny it's a huge win for the players, and long overdue.

[Merkin]

The dam is breaking.

Unfortunately, I doubt this ends well for the UA. No way in hell we ever compete with Phil Knights $$Money$$......in football or basketball

6 figures for one season.

I have been saying Arizona football has been dying for quite some time, and this will just hasten it. Schools without resources like Oregon with Nike might as well move to a lower division, otherwise they will just be fodder like FCS schools are doing now to get money in. Pay to get beatdown.

[Chicat]

What kids, who could earn a 6 or 7 figure payday from Nike, were choosing Arizona over Oregon in previous years?

Five star football players will still go to Oregon, USC, Alabama, and Notre Dame. They will just be compensated now. We had no chance in hell BEFORE they could make money off their likeness.

But now, both UA players and Tucson/Southern Arizona businesses can have a mutually beneficial relationship. Our best players will still be our best players, and big fish in a small pond. Now instead of the athletic department shouting out Mr. An’s when the basketball team has dinner there, our future point guard will and he’ll make $500 in the bargain.

[Beachcat97]

What kids, who could earn a 6 or 7 figure payday from Nike, were choosing Arizona over Oregon in previous years?

Five star football players will still go to Oregon, USC, Alabama, and Notre Dame. They will just be compensated now. We had no chance in hell BEFORE they could make money off their likeness.

But now, both UA players and Tucson/Southern Arizona businesses can have a mutually beneficial relationship. Our best players will still be our best players, and big fish in a small pond. Now instead of the athletic department shouting out Mr. An’s when the basketball team has dinner there, our future point guard will and he’ll make $500 in the bargain.

It's not football I'm worried about.

[Chicat]

It's not football I'm worried about.

Yes, because absolutely no college basketball players were being paid by shoe companies prior to this year.

[Beachcat97]

It's not football I'm worried about.

Yes, because absolutely no college basketball players were being paid by shoe companies prior to this year.

Yeah, it's the same point you've made a few times. I get it. I'm just not seeing (yet) how inviting more money (ie: purely business interests) into college sports is good for the culture.

[Chicat]

It's not football I'm worried about.

Yes, because absolutely no college basketball players were being paid by shoe companies prior to this year.

Yeah, it's the same point you've made a few times. I get it. I'm just not seeing (yet) how inviting more money (ie: purely business interests) into college sports is good for the culture.

The culture…

It’s good for the players.

It’s bad for shady agents, AAU coaches, “advisors”, and “guardians”. You know, all the people who took advantage of these kids’ financial situations to enrich themselves by pretending to look out for their best interest.

[Beachcat97]

It's not football I'm worried about.

Yes, because absolutely no college basketball players were being paid by shoe companies prior to this year.

Yeah, it's the same point you've made a few times. I get it. I'm just not seeing (yet) how inviting more money (ie: purely business interests) into college sports is good for the culture.

The culture…

It’s good for the players.

It’s bad for shady agents, AAU coaches, “advisors”, and “guardians”. You know, all the people who took advantage of these kids’ financial situations to enrich themselves by pretending to look out for their best interest.

Chi, my understanding of college sports culture has always been that it provides an opportunity for individuals to become part of a tight-knit group. Of something bigger than themselves. You come to play basketball at Arizona to be part of a proud tradition, where winning a national title is a very difficult but attainable goal.

This doesn't mean that student-athletes shouldn't be allowed to make money. They absolutely should. And as you've been reminding us, they always have.

My concern is that it's coming at the expense of destroying whatever is left of preps picking a school where they want to win games and contribute to the culture of a program. It's possible this part of college sports died long ago, and that I'm kidding myself. But it used to be that college sports was a brief period when these athletes could commit to winning games as a team, for their school; individual glory/achievement was either secondary or irrelevant.

The NIL is effectively the professionalization of college sports. Schools/teams will now matter much less than an individual player's business interests. Occasionally, a school's interests and the player's interests will coincide. A guy will choose to go to UNC because that's a very high profile program, so he can be on TV a lot (first and foremost) and maybe even win a few games (the secondary goal).

How is this good for the competitive culture of college sports *and* the student-athletes? Pretty sure it's only good for the latter, which is fine, but it's going to change things in ways we can't fully understand yet.

[Chicat]

Not trolling, but BC, how many D1 college basketball players have you known in your life? Like, well enough to know their thoughts, feelings, and motivations?

[Beachcat97]

Not trolling, but BC, how many D1 college basketball players have you known in your life? Like, well enough to know their thoughts, feelings, and motivations?

Zero. Care to elaborate?

[Chicat]

It explains your mythologized view of the good ol’ days.

[Beachcat97]

It explains your mythologized view of the good ol’ days.

You're implying that I'm naive. You can just say it, Chi. Better than beating around the bush. And trust me, I've been called much worse. You're a good dude. Pretty sure you're just making conversation.

Naive or not, the question remains about what we want college sports to look like in the coming decades. I'm not really hearing you explain how the NIL is good for college athletics competition, or how this is good for UofA in particular, but you've made it pretty clear that you think the NIL is a net win for the parties involved.

If UofA's student-athletes can now enter business relationships at the time they begin college, which relationship carries more weight, the one with their business partner(s) or the one with the school? How exactly does the NIL change student-athletes' relationship with their school? How about with their coaches? Nike is paying them, not Dana Altman, right? How does it change their relationships with their teammates? How does it impact UofA's campus culture?

I'm certainly not expecting you to answer these questions. Just some things I've been wondering about.

[Chicat]

What we want college sports to look like in many cases is directly contradictory to what the participants want and need.

[scumdevils86]

What we want college sports to look like in many cases is directly contradictory to what the participants want and need.

Yep. It is a fantasy and has been for quite some time. I finally realized this a year or two ago and I view college sports very differently. It is good for the players. Culture smulture.

[Beachcat97]

What we want college sports to look like in many cases is directly contradictory to what the participants want and need.

Imagine Arizona gets to the Final Four this year. Mathurin turns out to be vastly better than anyone knew and is considered a surefire lotto pick. Hours before our national semifinal game, he gets a phone call from a high-level UnderArmor rep offering him a guaranteed 7 figure contract, as long as he gets on a plane to New York and skips the Final Four. Maybe the UnderArmor rep is a fan of the team we're going to play or something, who knows. I know. This scenario is admittedly ridiculous and virtually impossible. It's just meant to illustrate how "what the participants want and need" has the potential to make college sports into a joke.

[Chicat]

What we want college sports to look like in many cases is directly contradictory to what the participants want and need.

Imagine Arizona gets to the Final Four this year. Mathurin turns out to be vastly better than anyone knew and is considered a surefire lotto pick. Hours before our national semifinal game, he gets a phone call from a high-level UnderArmor rep offering him a guaranteed 7 figure contract, as long as he gets on a plane to New York and skips the Final Four. Maybe the UnderArmor rep is a fan of the team we're going to play or something, who knows. I know. This scenario is admittedly ridiculous and virtually impossible. It's just meant to illustrate how "what the participants want and need" has the potential to make college sports into a joke.

What would stop Mathurin from getting on that plane without the new rule? You said in this scenario he is a surefire lottery pick. What the fuck does he need Arizona for at that point?

Haven’t football players been skipping bowl games the last three+ years? Haven’t we seen kids like Zion encouraged to skip college altogether? Don’t we have kids who would have played for schools like Arizona going to Australia and the G League?

It’s a new era. It’s time we woke up to that fact.

[Beachcat97]

What we want college sports to look like in many cases is directly contradictory to what the participants want and need.

Imagine Arizona gets to the Final Four this year. Mathurin turns out to be vastly better than anyone knew and is considered a surefire lotto pick. Hours before our national semifinal game, he gets a phone call from a high-level UnderArmor rep offering him a guaranteed 7 figure contract, as long as he gets on a plane to New York and skips the Final Four. Maybe the UnderArmor rep is a fan of the team we're going to play or something, who knows. I know. This scenario is admittedly ridiculous and virtually impossible. It's just meant to illustrate how "what the participants want and need" has the potential to make college sports into a joke.

What would stop Mathurin from getting on that plane without the new rule? You said in this scenario he is a surefire lottery pick. What the fuck does he need Arizona for at that point?

Haven’t football players been skipping bowl games the last three+ years? Haven’t we seen kids like Zion encouraged to skip college altogether? Don’t we have kids who would have played for schools like Arizona going to Australia and the G League?

It’s a new era. It’s time we woke up to that fact.

Jalen Suggs is a surefire lotto pick. I remember seeing him at the Final Four.

But yeah, if the cynicism is now so deep that we’re counting on college teams’ best players to skip playoff games to get paid, we’re indeed in a new era.

[Chicat]

You addressed none of my points. Instead you pine for an era that ended years ago and feel personally assaulted because times change for the better for everyone not handcuffed by mythologized nostalgia.

[Beachcat97]

You addressed none of my points. Instead you pine for an era that ended years ago and feel personally assaulted because times change for the better for everyone not handcuffed by mythologized nostalgia.

I don't understand your point about Mathurin, in the scenario I described. Why would he "need" Arizona at that point? Because it's his team, and those are his teammates. Are we already at the point where that doesn't matter at all? Are college athletes always already "free agents," without any kind of obligation to their team/program?

I don't follow college football, so I didn't know that guys have been skipping bowl games. You're saying that the best players at Alabama, Ohio State and Clemson have been skipping the national semifinal or title game? If so, that's bonkers.

I don't think college hoops needs a guy like Zion. It's nothing against Zion. I just don't think it does much for the sport to have these pro-level OADs overshadow the sport for three months and then disappear. If Zion could've entered the NBA Draft instead of enrolling at Duke, he would've. I support giving him that right.

Those guys going to Australia and the G League have my blessing. Give the scholarships to guys who actually want to go to college.

Personally assaulted? Nah, man. What you're calling mythologized nostalgia is really just my memories of the Lute Olson era. I think there can be a middle ground between traditional college athletics (ie: where guys are actually excited to play at least a couple seasons for Jay Wright or Mark Few or Juwan Howard) and empowering the athletes to earn money however they can as early as possible. What I'm hoping to avoid is the utter exploitation of college sports, where the season is primarily a series of exhibitions where the next Lonzo Ball can create new highlight reels, and the season is only incidentally about wins and losses. Yes, the athletes themselves have been exploited forever, and it's terrible. I don't think the answer is to just flip things upside down: athletes exploit the NCAA however they can and skip games when it suits their interests.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this, Chi. Appreciate the conversation.

[Chicat]

You addressed none of my points. Instead you pine for an era that ended years ago and feel personally assaulted because times change for the better for everyone not handcuffed by mythologized nostalgia.

I don't understand your point about Mathurin, in the scenario I described. Why would he "need" Arizona at that point? Because it's his team, and those are his teammates. Are we already at the point where that doesn't matter at all? Are college athletes always already "free agents," without any kind of obligation to their team/program?

Have you seen the transfer rates even before Covid??

I’m sorry that I’ve lifted the rock you’ve been living under and now you’re blinded by the light, but maybe blink a few times and join the rest of us here in the 2020s.

[Beachcat97]

You addressed none of my points. Instead you pine for an era that ended years ago and feel personally assaulted because times change for the better for everyone not handcuffed by mythologized nostalgia.

I don't understand your point about Mathurin, in the scenario I described. Why would he "need" Arizona at that point? Because it's his team, and those are his teammates. Are we already at the point where that doesn't matter at all? Are college athletes always already "free agents," without any kind of obligation to their team/program?

Have you seen the transfer rates even before Covid??

I’m sorry that I’ve lifted the rock you’ve been living under and now you’re blinded by the light, but maybe blink a few times and join the rest of us here in the 2020s.

Do you think those high transfer rates are good for the sport? Or is all that matters what's good for the athletes?

[Chicat]

You addressed none of my points. Instead you pine for an era that ended years ago and feel personally assaulted because times change for the better for everyone not handcuffed by mythologized nostalgia.

I don't understand your point about Mathurin, in the scenario I described. Why would he "need" Arizona at that point? Because it's his team, and those are his teammates. Are we already at the point where that doesn't matter at all? Are college athletes always already "free agents," without any kind of obligation to their team/program?

Have you seen the transfer rates even before Covid??

I’m sorry that I’ve lifted the rock you’ve been living under and now you’re blinded by the light, but maybe blink a few times and join the rest of us here in the 2020s.

Do you think those high transfer rates are good for the sport? Or is all that matters what's good for the athletes?

I will always advocate for the individual over something vague like “the sport” or “the culture”.

Slavery might have been woven into the economy and culture of the United States South in the 16, 17, & 1800s but I think you’d agree that it’s a good thing that it’s gone, especially for those who the system abused unrelentingly. But don’t get it twisted. There were plenty of people who didn’t want to see their way of life upended. In fact, they went to war over it.

I’m not trying to sensationalize this issue by comparing it to Slavery and the Civil War, but if you’ll take off your “everything was better during the Lute era” glasses you may want to ask yourself… “for who”? If your answer is “for me”, take a moment to contemplate how selfish and self-centered that is. These are young men and women who work incredibly hard, often to the detriment of their bodies, minds, and sometimes their futures. Your feelings don’t matter more than theirs. In fact, I’d say less so.

[Beachcat97]

I’m not trying to sensationalize this issue by comparing it to Slavery and the Civil War, but if you’ll take off your “everything was better during the Lute era” glasses you may want to ask yourself… “for who”? If your answer is “for me”, take a moment to contemplate how selfish and self-centered that is. These are young men and women who work incredibly hard, often to the detriment of their bodies, minds, and sometimes their futures. Your feelings don’t matter more than theirs. In fact, I’d say less so.

Woah. Slavery? Seriously? I'll let others weigh in on this analogy.

I'm going to assume that things were pretty good in those years for Miles Simon, Jason Terry and Mike Bibby. Perhaps you see it differently.

My feelings don't matter. Like, at all. It is possible, Chi, to try to see the sport objectively. There are many interests involved: the players', the schools', the NCAA's, the corporate entities in business with these first three, etc. And unlike you apparently, I also think there's an interest in preserving certain elements of the sport, as long as it does not lead to the detriment of these young men and women, whom you're comparing to slaves (which is weird, even with your disclaimer).

Like everyone, I hope that the NIL and the coming conference configuration changes make the sport better, not worse. I hope that the student-athletes feel empowered by the NIL and that college athletics is now going to evolve in ways that serve as many interests as possible.

Happy Hump Day, Chi!

[Chicat]

You think I’m the only one who has described the pre-NIL NCAA as modern day slave masters?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... utType=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theundefea ... labor/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yah ... 29327.html


Even Uncle Luke knew what was up…

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/ncaa ... ry-6383449

[Beachcat97]

I'm glad that the NIL has ended slavery. Slavery is bad. Is that the point you're making? Or is it that any concern for college athletics' history, culture or non-exploitative traditions is tantamount to supporting slavery? I'm now confused.

[YoDeFoe]

I think the larger concern here is that the deterioration of the traditions of college athletics due to the influx of NIL money will cause a degradation of the sport. That in turn would cause a worse product on the field and less interest from the fans, leading to death spiral for college athletics. No more NIL money, no more scholarships - worst of both worlds.

That might sound fantastical - maybe it is - but it's worth a thought. If we're a member of the Big XII in two seasons and players are transferring out not because of playing time but because they're looking for more features on ESPN... how much more do we love the game? Or how much less?

I realize, as Chi has said, this is a bit "old man yells at clouds." I know that the world changes, life moves on, and maybe it moved on a long time ago. But I agree with BC - I worry about unintended consequences, and that by "empowering" a few individuals we've poisoned the well for the rest of college sports.

[Chicat]

I'm glad that the NIL has ended slavery. Slavery is bad. Is that the point you're making? Or is it that any concern for college athletics' history, culture or non-exploitative traditions is tantamount to supporting slavery? I'm now confused.

Yeah, I can tell.

Have a good one Beachcat.

[Beachcat97]

I think the larger concern here is that the deterioration of the traditions of college athletics due to the influx of NIL money will cause a degradation of the sport. That in turn would cause a worse product on the field and less interest from the fans, leading to death spiral for college athletics. No more NIL money, no more scholarships - worst of both worlds.

That might sound fantastical - maybe it is - but it's worth a thought. If we're a member of the Big XII in two seasons and players are transferring out not because of playing time but because they're looking for more features on ESPN... how much more do we love the game? Or how much less?

I realize, as Chi has said, this is a bit "old man yells at clouds." I know that the world changes, life moves on, and maybe it moved on a long time ago. But I agree with BC - I worry about unintended consequences, and that by "empowering" a few individuals we've poisoned the well for the rest of college sports.

Great post. YDF has articulated my concerns better than I could.

[YoDeFoe]

I think the larger concern here is that the deterioration of the traditions of college athletics due to the influx of NIL money will cause a degradation of the sport. That in turn would cause a worse product on the field and less interest from the fans, leading to death spiral for college athletics. No more NIL money, no more scholarships - worst of both worlds.

That might sound fantastical - maybe it is - but it's worth a thought. If we're a member of the Big XII in two seasons and players are transferring out not because of playing time but because they're looking for more features on ESPN... how much more do we love the game? Or how much less?

I realize, as Chi has said, this is a bit "old man yells at clouds." I know that the world changes, life moves on, and maybe it moved on a long time ago. But I agree with BC - I worry about unintended consequences, and that by "empowering" a few individuals we've poisoned the well for the rest of college sports.

Great post. YDF has articulated my concerns better than I could.

We can be naïve and behind-the-times together

[Chicat]

I worry about unintended consequences, and that by "empowering" a few individuals we've poisoned the well for the rest of college sports.

I know this is in no way your intent, but I wonder if you realize that this is very similar language to op-ed’s and Letters-to-the-Editor from the 50s & 60s lamenting the integration of college sports.

There was a lot of hand-wringing about the purity of the college game and lowering academic standards to accommodate the gold rush atmosphere inherent in recruiting Negro athletes. The prevailing thought was that colleges would be irreparably diminished by extending scholarships to athletes who wouldn’t be able to keep up with the work and would upend the traditional culture of those academic institutions.

Lot of pining for the good old days back then. Seems to be true today too.

[YoDeFoe]

I worry about unintended consequences, and that by "empowering" a few individuals we've poisoned the well for the rest of college sports.

I know this is in no way your intent, but I wonder if you realize that this is very similar language to op-ed’s and Letters-to-the-Editor from the 50s & 60s lamenting the integration of college sports.

There was a lot of hand-wringing about the purity of the college game and lowering academic standards to accommodate the gold rush atmosphere inherent in recruiting Negro athletes. The prevailing thought was that colleges would be irreparably diminished by extending scholarships to athletes who wouldn’t be able to keep up with the work and would upend the traditional culture of those academic institutions.

JESUS CHI

Dude, invoking slavery and segregation is going to make it pretty tough for anyone to have a reasonable conversation here.

[Chicat]

Just trying to give you food for thought.

Don’t starve your brain YDF. It can handle an expanded worldview.

[scumdevils86]

I worry about unintended consequences, and that by "empowering" a few individuals we've poisoned the well for the rest of college sports.

I know this is in no way your intent, but I wonder if you realize that this is very similar language to op-ed’s and Letters-to-the-Editor from the 50s & 60s lamenting the integration of college sports.

There was a lot of hand-wringing about the purity of the college game and lowering academic standards to accommodate the gold rush atmosphere inherent in recruiting Negro athletes. The prevailing thought was that colleges would be irreparably diminished by extending scholarships to athletes who wouldn’t be able to keep up with the work and would upend the traditional culture of those academic institutions.

JESUS CHI

Dude, invoking slavery and segregation is going to make it pretty tough for anyone to have a reasonable conversation here.

It only makes it hard to have a conversation if for some reason you feel weird or icky about the comparison. That would make it a you problem. Sounds about white.

[gronk4heisman]

I am all for players getting paid through the NIL and I also believe that as a fan of Arizona this will cause the product to suffer and has the potential to make my University irrelevant. I guess that makes me a pro slavery racist according to the language being thrown around here.

[Chicat]

I am all for players getting paid through the NIL and I also believe that as a fan of Arizona this will cause the produce to suffer and has the potential to make my University irrelevant. I guess that makes me a pro slavery racist according to the language being thrown around here.

Uhhh…



Is it that hard to grasp the concept of analogies?

[EastCoastCat]

Back to the topic at hand it’s hard to be shocked at the evolution of college sports, not because of moral/social reasons, but because of the ole mighty dollar. As revenue exploded from all the TV & Sponsor money for the NCAA there was no way the status quo was going to remain in tact.

The athletes deserve to get paid. Period. They are providing the entertainment and generating the revenue so this was inevitable.

NCAA sports will survive. Just like MLB did when the reserve clause was abolished, just like the Olympics did when professional players were allowed (ahem Eastern Block), just like free agency in general. There is too much tradition and fan support for the sport to get ruined. It will just adapt, and probably for the better.

We will just have to wait and see and hope Arizona can continue to compete on a very high level.

[gronk4heisman]

I am all for players getting paid through the NIL and I also believe that as a fan of Arizona this will cause the produce to suffer and has the potential to make my University irrelevant. I guess that makes me a pro slavery racist according to the language being thrown around here.

Uhhh…



Is it that hard to grasp the concept of analogies?

Marjorie Taylor Green and you get them much better then me I think. Is that an analogy?

[Chicat]

I am all for players getting paid through the NIL and I also believe that as a fan of Arizona this will cause the produce to suffer and has the potential to make my University irrelevant. I guess that makes me a pro slavery racist according to the language being thrown around here.

Uhhh…



Is it that hard to grasp the concept of analogies?

Marjorie Taylor Green and you get them much better then me I think. Is that an analogy?

Sure, if you’ve been drinking since this morning.

My apologies for trying to inject perspective into this discussion. I’ll let you all go back to crying about the loss of amateurism and them cancelling the Andy Griffith Show.

[Beachcat97]

I am all for players getting paid through the NIL and I also believe that as a fan of Arizona this will cause the produce to suffer and has the potential to make my University irrelevant. I guess that makes me a pro slavery racist according to the language being thrown around here.

Uhhh…



Is it that hard to grasp the concept of analogies?

Marjorie Taylor Green and you get them much better then me I think. Is that an analogy?

Sure, if you’ve been drinking since this morning.

My apologies for trying to inject perspective into this discussion. I’ll let you all go back to crying about the loss of amateurism and them cancelling the Andy Griffith Show.

Just to get it on record, Chi...besides calling some of us old and nostalgic (and more or less implying we're dumb), what is it exactly that you're arguing here? I get that you're pro-NIL, but so are most of us in this thread. Are you just saying that conversations about whether the NIL could negatively impact the sport are misguided?

I haven't heard anyone here disagree with your arguments for protecting individual athletes' livelihoods and well-being. The notion that there are two options available -- NIL or indentured servitude -- is a pretty hardcore false dichotomy. It's possible to have the NIL while also supporting measures that protect the parts of college athletics we still consider valuable and/or necessary. We can toss the bath water and spare the baby.

[TheCat]

Just trying to give you food for thought.

Don’t starve your brain YDF. It can handle an expanded worldview.

I agree with what you say but be prepared that a lot of kids will go to the highest bidder. Nick Saban has already started by dropping the fact that the potential starting QB will have a 7 figure deal. As long as you accept that the U of A will not get many top notch players in any sport that is the reality we live in. Adjust your expectations.
Should probably take a hard look at women's sports and promote those as they will be cheaper.

[Jefe]

[U.P. Zona Fan]

Who cared about the Miley Cyrus concert, I made food in the kitchen while she prattled on.

They could have split that 5 mil amongst the 884 players that went to the tournament and each would have gotten 5,656.10

Dude, even better, they could have gotten all the players together to sing "we are the world"

I would have watched that.

[TheCat]

Interesting article on the real affects of NIL.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/tcu-coach- ... 10143.html

[Chicat]

Interesting article on the real affects of NIL.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/tcu-coach- ... 10143.html

A) Patterson is 100% correct to plead with local businesses to pony up.

B) There need to be hard and definitive rules regarding tampering with kids by utilizing the NIL who are currently at other schools.

C) TCU is a school that has always and is always going to have their players poached, NIL or not, which is why point A is so important.

[Irish27]

[Chicat]