Remember everyone, NIL isn't Pay to Play

Remember when that was the big refrain that everyone used on what NIL was super good and absolutely necessary?

Oops, said the quiet part out loud.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.


Hold on, I lost my shocked face. Going to have to clean out the garage to find it.

I am not sure what to do with my hands now

Well then those school have already fully funded multi-million dollars NIL corporations from boosters specifically to make sure that every linemen gets at least $50,000, etc... Technically it wasn't the school. But it is definitely what got SMU the death penalty before.

Can't wait for the 5 year investigation into this video that will result in 3 lost scholarships

I just sit on my couch and b*tch. - HokieChemE2016

It'll all buff out, when I become our very own T. Boone Pickens.

VT '10--US Citizen; (804) Virginian By Birth; (210) Texan By the Grace of God.

Rick Monday... You Made a Great Play...

I also root for: The Keydets, TexAggies, NY Giants, NY Rangers, and Braves.

We all knew that CFB was run by the dollar but at least it tried to pretend it had some integrity left. Now it is just the open deal that money is all that matters to the players and the schools.

"I'm too drunk to taste this chicken" - Colonel Sanders via Ricky Bobby

NIL is still good, particularly for the kids who have no shot at going pro and especially in non-rev sports. just because NCAA (and its member schools) chose not to have regulations in place doesn't make it bad. it makes the administrators incompetent

This^ allowing players to be paid for their autograph, to be in commercials etc made total sense. The old rules where players couldn't have a YouTube channel and make money off ads because being an athlete gave them an apparent advantage were archaic and ridiculous. The NCAA just botched the implementation so that there are now no rules and it's just pay for play

VT '17

There was never a point where this wasn't going to immediately be pay for play. They used the good feelings of paying kids for their autographs and allowing athletes to make a quick buck on the side to hide the true intentions of this whole thing from the start, which was unregulated paying of players to commit to schools. That was always going to be the end game here, and its very telling that it took less than a year for us to get here.

This is my school
This is home

if it was entirely predictable (and it was) why do we still need to clutch the proverbial pearls every time there's a reminder that it's basically back-door pay-for-play?

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

We don't need to. People just don't like change, and yearn for the olden days when things were "better".

It was predictable and took so little time because the infrastructure was already in place.

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74


In the immediate 3-4 years of their playing time, NIL might be good for them, but (particularly for those that will never play Pro) what is the long-term benefit of NIL?

Let's say a guy gets $5k for an endorsement and autograph are most 18-22 year-olds going to spend that money?

Is there a minority that are going to thoughtfully save or invest it? Sure..probably a few.

But I know what I would have done at that age and I bet the vast majority of CFB players are spending the vast majority of NIL on immediately gratifying consumer goods--most of which lose value the minute they leave the shelf or lot.

What I would advocate for is a system where an Athletic Scholly grants a player 6 years to finish a they can come back freely if they test the Pro waters and don't ever make a 53 man Roster (which is the vast majority). A degree has so much more value and particularly lasting value than some NIL endorsement deal that vanishes the minute you leave school or don't produce on the field.

Why does it matter how the athlete uses it? If it was a college student who made $100k trading crypto, no governing organization would dictate how it could/couldn't be spend.

I just don't understand any argument that says students athletes should be subjected to more regulation than regular old students.

Twitter me

No one is arguing for regulation. I don't care how they use their NIL money.

My argument is that 10, 15, and 20 years from now, a Degree will be orders of magnitude more valuable than an endorsement deal from a local car dealership that just happens to be owned by a major donor.

The argument that I am sick of is the "these poor athletes" one. A free education is a pretty damn sweet deal. There are plenty of extremely intelligent, deserving young people that either bust their asses working through college or can't afford to get there at all.

The " they deserve it" part to be paid six-figures out of high school before even stepping foot on the field is illogical.

If the free market of NIL deals dictates six figure deals, why is that a problem? It's not the student athlete's fault the market for NIL is running wild

VB born, class of '14

First of all, if any non-athlete student has a full scholarship, they are allowed to pursue any opportunities for additional revenue. I'm I'm yet to hear a reason why athletes should not have this opportunity as well.

Secondly, I would argue that a degree is not necessarily more valuable than an endorsement deal. The most valuable part of the degree is the professional network that comes with it, and NIL stands to improve that network.

Finally, you're overlooking the all to common reality: coaches frequent pressure (if not force) student athletes to pursue easier majors so they have more time to focus on football, even if it leads to less lucrative and fulfilling careers. There's a variety of other unethical behaviors that completely invalidate the 'they're getting a scholarship, that should be enough' argument

Twitter me

Paying Brent Pry $20 million to do a job he's never done seems illogical doesn't it? Why can't we get a coach for the ~$50k we "pay" the players. Let Brent take as many classes as he wants so that he'll have something to fall back on if he doesn't do well.

Pay to (get) play(ers)

NIL has ruined everything!!!! In the old days players chose a school based on purely academic reasons!

Are we seriously going to act like we're talking about similar amounts here? Even the amount that Heisman winner Cam Newton was rumored to have committed for was a fraction of these deals, even accounting for inflation. And it allows for the more squeamish boosters to finally participate. This is on a vastly larger and broader scale.

You think the trans am was a one time thing? Dickerson was rumored to take a pay cut going to the NFL.

That car would have cost ~$40k in today's dollars. Or look at it in football dollars, Dickerson got $9,725, sticker cost of the trams am. Bobby Collins got a $100k deal to coach. So top player make 1/10th coaches, which is starting to be a million dollars right now.

I believe it was called the Trans A&M

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

What if we called it 'pay for work' instead of 'pay for play'?

Twitter me

I know what you're getting at, and yeah, being a D1 athlete is a full-time job and then some.

But the phrase "Pay for work" brought the image of an MLM (or pyramid scheme or my favorite, the inverted funnel) to my mind. πŸ˜†

.... this is the most perfectly written thing I've ever seen on this site

It's not a pyramid scheme, it is a direct sales partnership opportunity

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

.... this is the most perfectly written thing I've ever seen on this site

It's not even the fact that being a D1 athlete is a full time job - I would never suggest that someone is entitled to extra compensation just because their job is time consuming.

I just don't understand why student athletes should be subjected to additional restrictions just because they are both students and athletes, instead of just students.

Twitter me

entitled to extra compensation just because their job is time consuming.

Overtime is a thing for good reason, but I get what you're driving at. I always thought it was bullshit a player couldn't get even a part-time job at a Burger King.

.... this is the most perfectly written thing I've ever seen on this site

Only took a month for one of Texas A&M's signees to chime in.....

This is my school
This is home

Bama and Georgia, duh

Could've asked this question at any point in the last 5 decades, and it would be just as relevant as it is today.

Twitter me

But now they're paying the little guys.

That doesn't make it ok

And by that I mean when the corruption is rampant the way to combat it isn't to just give everyone everything they want so that the inmates are running the asylum. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the NCAA did.

This is my school
This is home

There's nothing morally wrong, or illegal about players getting paid what people are willing to pay them.

Then get rid of scholarships and treat them like everyone else on campus.

They were already getting a shitload from the schools and everyone got hoodwinked into thinking they didn't get enough. Graduating debt free in an era where student loans runs in the 6 figures is a monumental leg up on everyone else on campus and I'm sick and tired of hearing that it wasn't good enough and that finally all those poor athletes are finally getting their compensation because someone is paying them 5 or 6 figures in cash on top of all the benefits they already had over their peers on campus.

This is my school
This is home

Random question. Can non-athletes sign NIL deals in theory? Like the ME robotics team gets a a NIL deal with Boston Dynamics or something?

if a ME student wanted to run a camp sponsored by Boston Dynamics or had enough name recognition to be in ads, they could do that

Athletes are the only subset of college students that have broad restrictions on the income they can earn. (Illegal means aside).

They can get both, just like any other student on scholarship. Scholarships aren't just for athletes. If you're good enough at something, whether it's football, physics, or the violin, you can get a scholarship. Athletes are the only ones restricted from making money elsewhere, because coaches, administrators, and CEOs want that money for themselves.

I agree student debt, and the cost of education is a problem, but it's not one that's fixed by limiting a small subset of people from earning what they're worth.

They were already getting a shitload from the schools and everyone got hoodwinked into thinking they didn't get enough. Graduating debt free in an era where student loans runs in the 6 figures is a monumental leg up on everyone else on campus and I'm sick and tired of hearing that it wasn't good enough and that finally all those poor athletes are finally getting their compensation because someone is paying them 5 or 6 figures in cash on top of all the benefits they already had over their peers on campus.

Counter arguments:

  • Any other student who is on a scholarship for any other reason is allowed to pursue other opportunities for income. Why Scholarship Athletes should be subject to unique restrictions?
  • As I said above, you're overlooking the all to common reality: coaches frequent pressure (if not force) student athletes to pursue easier majors so they have more time to focus on football, even if it leads to less lucrative and fulfilling careers. Depending on how cynical you are, one could argue that many coaches pressure students to major in areas that result in very low paying jobs, so that upon graduation, that individual has no choice but to coach high school football after graduating, at which point that individual becomes an asset to improve recruiting for the program.

I'm yet to hear a morality-based argument that effectively explains why it's unethical for student athletes to maximize their compensation. The fact that other students are going into debt is irrelevant to this conversation - student-athletes have more intrinsic value to a university - if you believe otherwise, then you probably wouldn't be on TKP discussing the depth chart, or complaining about our school's budget, etc.

Twitter me

The answer is that they were restricted because the NCAA knew that the temptation to pay overpay amateur student athletes for any kind of work to get them to come to your university would be too great for people to resist.

If you want fair competition, you have to have some kind of rules.

Maybe the better rule now would be to pay all college athletes in a sport at a certain level the same thing. They used to have something like that, called scholarships. Tuition, room and board aren't nothing. Now that college football is so lucrative, there's no reason they couldn't pay every college football player a certain amount of money in addition to that.

The schools who recruit the most professional athletes, however aren't interested in fairness, and why would they be? So we'll continue with the wild, wild west, and see how it works out.

Now it might be that everyone wants to watch the SEC and the B1G, and good luck with that. But many folks watch college football because they have some association with the university or the teams. So it seems like it would also be in the interest of all to keep the ACC, the Big 12, and the Pac 12 around. I guess we'll find out.

If you want to say that NIL is bad because it's unfair, I would counter by saying that this sport has never been fair. Players have always been paid beyond their scholarship, so this is nothing new - the difference is that it's impossible to deny now. NIL has helped erase the illusion of fairness, so now fans of about ~100 FBS schools realize that they don't have a shot at a national title. The reality is, they never did.

If you actually want fairness, we need to see cooperation across multiple independant entities - there's 2 things I can think of that will actually help here:

  • NFL could elminate the minimum age/experience requirements - There's very few players who can have a major impact on a game, and lately those players are distributed across very few teams. If the NFL eliminated the 3-years of college requirement, most of those players would go straight to the NFL, or spend a year or 2 at most in college. If those players are playing less, the talent distribution would be far more even.
  • Conferences could come together and take a more 'federalist' approach to governance - The NCAA is very similar to the Articles of Confederation (this is in part due to its design, also in part due to a variety of antitrust rulings - primarily NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma). If schools/conferences were willing to create a governing body, and give that governing body permission to negotiate for TV contracts, as well as, you know, actually govern, then thisi body could do things like force revenue sharing (like every other major league sport).

Twitter me

I didn't say NIL is unfair, but it is unequal. It's fair in some ways, and unfair in others. I guess the goal should be "relatively fair".

You're right about the NCAA not being fair, and not wanting to be. The haves want to stay the haves.

With regards to fairness, saying "But it's always been unfair!" isn't much of a rebuttal. Life isn't fair. Doesn't mean we can't try to improve. The goal shouldn't be an appearance of fairness. It should be fairness.

I agree with your potential solutions. But the powerful of the sport aren't going to want that. If you're Alabama or Ohio State, you don't want to share the cookie.

I actually agree with a lot of your comment. All I'm saying (and I think we probably agree here) is that if we were able to put the metaphorical toothpaste back in the tube, and eliminate NIL, it would make very little difference in the greater college football landscape.

So why bother complaining about/trying to eliminate NIL?

Twitter me

Oh, I don't think we should try and eliminate it.

I think we should make the rules as fair as possible to all students involved, and all schools involved. Which would imply more transparency and parity.

I don't think there is really a good answer. College football and basketball players have always gotten paid, and always will get take away the NIL or to set a standard salary for all players just pushes the bagmen back to the shadows, with no significant consequences for the teams that get caught

If they really wanted a level playing field, they could set in writing a standard salary for each player, or each position. If you get caught having boosters go beyond that, have a standard minimum review, or appeals etc....if a player is caught receiving more than $XXXX, that team is suspended from competition for the following year. Period.

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Exactly. I don't think you want to eliminate it, I think you should regulate it.

But since the NCAA doesn't seem to have any hand, and it's not in the biggest schools interest, would be very difficult for anyone to do.

Influencing a 17 or 18 year old's life decision with money to suit your entertainment preference is pretty fucking shady to me and that is what these boosters are doing.

"I'm too drunk to taste this chicken" - Colonel Sanders via Ricky Bobby

What's the difference between a 'life decision' and a 'professional decision'? How is this different that an employer enticing me to make a change based on giving me better comp?

Another question - what about people who aren't doing it for 'entertainment' but may have their own selfish motives? Parents/family members might pressure a kid to go somewhere for financial or personel reasons. High school coaches might pressure a kid to go somewhere for personal pride/clout, or to get another kid recruited by that school, or just because they think they know better than the recruit does, etc. How does a 'bagman' compare to these other individuals who can influence a recruit?

I'm genuinely interested to hear out this argument, because it's the first ethic/morality based argument I've heard against paying athletes that actually makes sense to me.

Twitter me

You may not have meant anything, but this is problematic phrasing

More broadly, that's not what the NCAA did. In fact, the NCAA did nothing and was told they couldn't limit player payment for NIL by the supreme court.

It's weird that you care so much about teenagers and young adults getting paid. You suggest treating football players like every other student, but they aren't like every other student. The money horse bolted out the barn a long time ago.

This has been discussed ad nausea, so not sure what point you're trying to make now.

Because its insulting to every other student that we are spending this much time trying to solve a problem that was completely overblown (athletes not getting compensated while under full debt free scholarship) when everything around out of control college tuition is a roaring inferno. Money should be going to the fucking students to keep them from a lifetime of debt rather than to pad the pockets of those who were already graduating debt free. We're doing fuckall to help those who are currently paying student debt nor are we doing a damn thing about the future generations who have this on their horizon.

But good for the athletes, I guess.

This is my school
This is home

yeah I don't disagree about debt etc but what you're describing are problems with educational and fiscal policy at the federal government level which is 1) out of the scope of a conversation for this forum and 2) not the fault of football players.

Echoing CNote's reponse, but:

  1. Yes, good for Athletes! They're improving their station in life, and (IMO) we should be happy for them.
  2. As far as it being insulting to other students... the other students don't seem that insulted when they pick a school based (in part) on the football team/the culture it creates. Even if they are, the other students can chose a school that doesn't revolve around football, or that has better tuition payment options (side note: check out waht Purdue is doing. It's very cool)
  3. The NCAA's job (this can be another discussion in itself; the NCAA is designed to represent its members, not to govern/regulate them, but I digress) isn't to fix the student loan problem; it's to represent its member institutions in athletic endevors.

Twitter me

As far as it being insulting to other students... the other students don't seem that insulted when they pick a school based (in part) on the football team/the culture it creates. Even if they are, the other students can chose a school that doesn't revolve around football, or that has better tuition payment options (side note: check out waht Purdue is doing. It's very cool)

Students don't have a fucking choice. Tuition is out of control across the board and jobs are increasingly demanding higher education for minimum wage entry level jobs. You basically have to go to school and sign up for the price gouge of a tuition to be able to qualify for a job nowadays. I don't care that Purdue is doing something, because they very much are the exception for the rule right now, and until this is addressed en masse to help out students across the board, then I don't really give a fuck if those who already are graduating debt free don't feel like they're getting their fair shake. And I am certainly not going to hold back in stating that our priorities are beyond fucked that we're so hell bent on paying off the ones who were already going to be well off financially after college in lieu of giving any attention to the vast majority who are long term screwed.

This is my school
This is home

So, we can't improve small pieces of society until we fix the whole thing? Seems like a way to just never get anything done. Taking the large scale student debt question away, it is a positive thing that young athletes are able to generate income for themselves and their families. That positive thing doesn't need to bear the weight of a large scale societal problem.

Would you like Prys with that?

Oh yeah because as we all know, once you take care of the ones who are already financially well off in the US, those same benefits are just around the corner for everyone else.

This is my school
This is home

Its not the same pot of money. NIL is closest to a hybrid donation/advertising expenditure, and if it didn't exist, its not like the money would be used to pay down generic student debt. It's not a zero-sum thing. They are totally independent, uncorrelated situations.

Also, its not even enough money to be a drop in the bucket. Its not even a molecule in the bucket.

$1.6 TRILLION student debt dollars in the US right now.
$907 MILLION in NIL last year.


NIL is irrelevant in size and uncorrelated with student debt.

Would you like Prys with that?

NIL is irrelevant in size and uncorrelated with student debt.

See, that's an overstep. Because universities have to charge tuition to pay for facilities, and these include expenditures for student athlete facilities.

Sure, they partially keep these separate, but some public and tuition money is absolutely supporting college sports.

And many universities directly charge students a fee that supports college sports. In other words, providing the infrastructure for these select student athletes to get paid.

While I support tuition, scholarships, and some degree of expenses (or even income) being paid, we need to admit that some of the money for college sports is coming from taxpayers and students. One can argue that they get some benefit from the PR, but it gets downright messy, given the amount tuitions have gone up.

Because universities have to charge tuition to pay for facilities, and these include expenditures for student athlete facilities.

This is true, but that isn't NIL money. As far as I know, only "unaffiliated" people are allowed to provide NIL funding, and schools themselves can't. If we want to talk about the rapid bloating in college costs as a function of expenditures on things like unnecessary facilities and administration, I'm down, but that isn't NIL money.

So, I agree with your principle, but it doesn't apply to this situation. School expenditures and taxpayer dollar allocations have nothing to do with the Shelor Motor Group paying Dax Hollifield $200k to appear in commercials for the year. (This is an example, I don't know if that particular sponsorship is actually happening).

Would you like Prys with that?

It's the link between NIL and tuition. They both support athletics. No tuition and taxpayer support, no infrastructure for athletics.

The point it this. People are making the claim that student tuition is in no way affected by NIL, when tuition (and taxpayer funds) are supporting the infrastructure for the business. So they are related, in that regular students, and taxpayers, are supporting this for-profit industry that has developed on their infrastructure. The taxpayers and students are making this business possible.

You can make the argument that students and taxpayers are already supporting this business regardless of NIL, and that's true. But it's no less true that the taxpayers and students are supporting this business with their money, and that's the connection to student debt.


I assume Shelor Motor Corp is a for profit business? If so, do businesses typically invest in something that will never get them a near return? Right. Oh, some guy at Shelor is a VT football fan. Gotcha

Businesses invest in non-direct profit generating things ALL the time. If we go buy the sarcastic principle you are claiming here, no sane business would ever donate to a charity, would ever host a party for employees and family, would ever sponsor a charity race or a bench in a park.

But, they do these things all the time because they believe the goodwill associated with the action might lead to improved profits. Shelor Motor Corp. filming a commercial with Dax possibly would increase their goodwill with Tech fans (probably a large percent of their customers) and maybe result in higher profits.

Would you like Prys with that?

But NIL aren't going to be tax deductible.

I mean, hiring Mike Young to do a commercial isn't tax deductible either. I'm failing to see why it is different to hire Dax?

Would you like Prys with that?

Echoing Brownrc - I get that college students provide financial support to college sports (directly and indirectly), and I'm not a fan of this either, but this is irrelevant to NIL.

Twitter me

I was providing the connection with student debt.

Students are paying more in tuition, and taxpayers are paying money to universities that goes towards sporting infrastructure that could be going to lower student debt.

We're giving money to universities, and they're burning it in the sports machine.

I love sports, but that's the reality.

But what hurts the students significantly more is the way the government and industry have structured student loans. That's a whole different can of worms.

That's unrelated to NIL money thought. I get that students are funding sports, and I dislike that. But that problem has existed long before NIL. Not sure why this would suddenly be an issue when NIL becomes allowed.

Twitter me

I'm not saying it's "suddenly an issue".

I'm saying athletics make school more expensive for the average student.

So you have athletes who get free tuition, room, board, and now NIL as a part of the monetization of college sports. The average student gets debt.

So you can say "it's not fair that we aren't paying student athletes", but it's also not fair that the typical student has to subsidize college sports.

Whether they are followed or not there are rules about how fees that students pay towards athletics. What is actual tuition (class cost not the fees) cannot go to athletic departments.

I think in total it was like $600 in fees for athletics out of the ~$100k VT cost for me to go there. Not sure what the fee is today or what tuition/room and board costs today.

Stadium renovations, that new juice bar, locker rooms, etc all come from the athletic department budget which is largely from revenue and donations. The AD is a separate entity from the university.

Oh yeah, I could see outside of a power 5 that schools pull this shit.

No, VT isn't reasonable, its LESS EGREGIOUS. $300 for students to contribute to sports, who's athletes receive scholarship money is ridiculous. Now, athletes are permitted to make money from sources outside the university. GET RID OF THE ATHLETIC FEES...period.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think our athletic fees help with upkeep of intramural fields, intramurals themselves, War/McComas Hall, etc

Two different fees. $192 for Athletics and $175 for Intercollegiate sports

Thanks for clarification, I just remember hearing we had comparatively low athletic fees and some of it was used for student org athletic things.

It also covers the students free tickets to games...

For those who win the lottery, no?

Why should they be subsidized by the students who never go to games?

Another solution to raise the same money would be to have students pay some nominal fee to attend games.

Feeding the entitlement beast is the opposite of fixing society. Why is VT's backup safety entitled to money?

Because someone is willing to pay him? That is the only justification that is required.

Would you like Prys with that?

Why is he entitled to a scholarship? Why give him room and board?

ADs, coaches, etc = management
players= labor

players are closer to their student peers than any coach or administrator. you're not making the revolutionary point you think you are by complaining about the athletes getting something

In this scenario,

Students and taxpayers = sheep

Look, I recognize the issue around college prices and the predatory nature of student loans/the university system. It's a major problem with far reaching personal and economic effects.

I still don't understand how athletes getting paid impacts regular students? If a student finds it insulting, then they should go to a different school where social life/university culture doesn't revolve (somewhat) around athletics (like UVA, JMU, ODU, W&M, etc). If Dax Hollifield gets $100k in NIL money this season, how does that negatively impact some other Hokie's life? I genuinely don't understand the connection.

Twitter me

At UVa, the students pay a yearly fee to support athletics.

At UVa, the students pay a yearly fee to support athletics.

in lieu of football attendance

and damned worth it.

So do all VT students.

If I recall, the amount is a fraction of what UVA students pay.

Especially since most top level football players don't even pretend to be real students anyway. Yes, I said it.


Really? Better keep a lid on that.

IMO that's a very reasonable conversation that almost no one is having. The current model make no sense, and never has. Let's just have minor league football/basketball, where players are employees of the franchise first, and one of the benefits they get (if they want it) is tuition reimbursement (like any other employer). Introduce transfer fees - if a player transfers to a different team (whether it's another minor league team or an NFL team), then the team they transfer to has to pay the team they left. Boosters now become part-owners.

Twitter me

Big, if true.

Isnt the the UNC model?

Or the Ohio state model:

"We ain't come here to play SCHOOL"

he did end up graduating - and calling that tweet stupid in retrospect. Though, his grammar is imperfect so kinda cuts himself at the knee a bit Β―\_(ツ)_/Β―

Onward and upward

So what you're saying is that he DID play school, and realized that playing school was important.

You know who is pretty insulted though...every broke-ass motherfucker that has had no other way to pay for school but signing up to spend 4 years with their Uncle Sam. Some of them lost everything in the pursuit. But the poor, pitiful players are "screwed over" because the school and coaches made a fuck ton of money from their work.

They still get a free education...if they want, a lot less wear and tear, and they're virtually guaranteed to survive the experience.

Now, get off my lawn!

If you play it, they will win.

"How the ass pocket will be used, I do not know. Alls I know is, the ass pocket will be used." -The BoD

Leg for DTMTBSD, love that movie.

I'm here for the memes, I just stay for the football.

That doesn't make it ok

And by that I mean when the corruption is rampant the way to combat it isn't to just give everyone everything they want so that the inmates are running the asylum. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the NCAA did.

My point in my initial comment is that players have always been compensated beyond the scholarship. The difference is that previously, fans could claim ignorance. Now, fans have a front row seat to the sausage factory.

Now that fans can no longer claim ignorance, there's a lot of outrage. But that outrage was absent before, despite the fact that players were still getting paid. No one on TKP was complaining when Tyrod and David Wilson were driving around suped up cars.

I don't know... The arguments against paying players didn't make sense then, and IMO they still don't make sense now.

Twitter me

Not sure if this deserves its own thread so going to post it here,

SMU has a NIL collective that has announced they are going to play all football and men's basketball players a $36,000 annual salary,


The Boulevard Collective, a new NIL collective driven by Dallas business leaders and SMU alumni, will pay football and men's basketball players $36,000 each for a total of $3.5 million annually.

Oh the irony that this is the same school that got the death penalty in the 80's for doing exactly this. This is definitely not what anyone imagined with NIL but here we are. How long before we have to do something like this?

not sure how long before we have to, but whenever that is, it'll probably be the half-life of how long before we will

edit: or not, wow. I'm legitimately surprised and impressed. Now if I can just de-Weaverize my brain...

21st century QBs Undefeated vs UVA:
MV7, MV5, LT3, Braxton Burmeister, Ryan Willis, Josh Jackson, Jerod Evans, Michael Brewer, Tyrod Taylor, Sean Glennon, and Grant Noel. That's right, UVA. You couldn't beat Grant Noel.

Yesterday if we want to stay in the big leagues

I told him I’d crawl on my hands and knees to be the DL coach at Virginia Tech. Now, all of a sudden, I’m sitting in this chair and I told him I’d still crawl on my hands and knees to work here. I just want to be here.
JC Price

We basically are

Twitter me

True, but those deals likely vary so this situation is a new wrinkle in NIL so to speak.. This NIL collective is just straight up paying every men's basketball and football player a base salary of 36k. That is just to start, of course the stars probably get more deals.

So this is a situation where they can say if you sign with us then you get this at a minimum.

36k checks out. plus free tuition, etc. Amateur athletics for the win.

Where do you get $36K from? Is that a different collective?

Edit, nevermind, I see your post, above.

That's $10.7k per.....

Pain is Temporary, Chicks Dig Scars
Glory is Forever, Let's Go Hokies!!

Baylor will soon pay 100K then. And so it begins. I would love to know where all of this booster money comes from as people complain about food and gas prices, tax hikes, etc. There are apparently boosters out there that wipe their asses with 100 dollar bills. More money than they know what to do with. So they pay the 3rd string kicker at SMU.

Ever heard of the haves and the have-nots? Old money runs deep through college football country.

Old money runs deep through college football country.

Particularly here in Dallas (LOTS of oil money still here, 25yr old dudes driving Ferrari's around town) so no surprise this happens at SMU. We call it Southern Millionaires University here for a reason.

So they pay the 3rd string kicker at SMU

Hey - the 3rd string kicker at SMU needs coke money too!

Twitter me

Sharing something I heard on a podcast recently...

The NCAA had 50+ years to figure out a way to pay players. Instead, they spent all of that time and effort trying (and failing) to enforce amaturism. Instead they waited until they no longer had a choice.

Twitter me

They should have made it non-profit. Invest profit back into charities, highly regulate it. Like all of the Bleu Cross Blue Shield plans... those executives make millions.. for a non-profit org. Coaches would get paid- handsomely, but you keep amateurism and people comparing players to slaves by making it non profit. That's what they should have done.


As a nonprofit organization, the NCAA puts its money where its mission is: equipping student-athletes to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life.

The NCAA receives most of its annual revenue from two sources: television and marketing rights for the Division I Men's Basketball Championship and ticket sales for all championships. That money is distributed in more than a dozen ways β€” almost all of which directly support NCAA schools, conferences and nearly half a million student-athletes.

NCAA website

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

"Non-profit" lol. Just like in the non profit world you don't call it profit, you just call it a surplus. Not disparaging the great work that so many legit charitable and social welfare/health oriented non-profits do, but non-profit tax status and organization is a very strategic and useful tool for many.

I think there was sarcasm in DC's post.

Twitter me

OK. I think I see it. I didn't understand the comparison to Insurance plans among other parts of that comment.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

If it makes you feel better, I had a paragraph written up as well and reread his comment then deleted it lol

Twitter me