‘23 CA QB Nicholaus Iamaleava (Tennessee)

#1,727
#1,727
Orange_Crush said:
I don't think you understand my post. My post agrees with you, and the "robbing" was a reference to denying the player the right to make the deal freely.

The quote you replied to was arguing against limiting or halting the free market due to its supposed impact on those who can't afford to compete in it. That'd be like telling Porsche that they can't charge for their cars since everyone can't afford one.
Click to expand...
Agree to a great degree but monopolies and trusts are not good for the free market. I'm a pretty strong disciple... but as long as fallible, sinful human beings are involved there's always a risk for corruption.


This debate tends to break down into camps who think the players have been screwed and those who think reductions to the power of the programs will ruin the game. I don't think the players have been screwed. They agreed to the deal they got... and got something of tremendous worth if they applied themselves at all.

I am not certain yet about the other. It will definitely change the game. The risk is that there will be too few "haves" and too many "have nots". Coupled to the portal... there's a risk that about 120 teams have very little need to show up on Saturdays.
 
#1,728
#1,728
sjt18 said:
Agree to a great degree but monopolies and trusts are not good for the free market. I'm a pretty strong disciple... but as long as fallible, sinful human beings are involved there's always a risk for corruption.


This debate tends to break down into camps who think the players have been screwed and those who think reductions to the power of the programs will ruin the game. I don't think the players have been screwed. They agreed to the deal they got... and got something of tremendous worth if they applied themselves at all.

I am not certain yet about the other. It will definitely change the game. The risk is that there will be too few "haves" and too many "have nots". Coupled to the portal... there's a risk that about 120 teams have very little need to show up on Saturdays.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I am in favor of limited oversight and intervention into markets (particularly due to the bolded). And I agree as well per the athlete getting the deal they agreed to in the old system. Who is to say that Universities HAVE to offer more than they want to offer?

I had already pointed out the difference between scholarship/University deals, and NIL endorsement deals.

IMHO, the conversation gets a lot more dicey when you also add that the athlete should be refused the right from profiting off of their own likeness from OTHER deals? OK then. Let's go back to gladiatorial Rome where slaves performed for the entertainment and pride of an elite class? I know that's a provocative way of putting it, but is that in essence what one argues for when they say that athletes should be refused the right to profit from their work simply because certain colleges may not be able to spend like other colleges?

Where do we draw the line on infringing personal liberties? And there are fewer more personal liberties than being compensated for your work/likeness/etc...
 
#1,729
#1,729
I wanna see somebody put some money up, because I'm not hearing about anybody at UT even making a million on NIL, let along, giving a recruit a million+, after he signs........or have I missed a Vol making that much ?
 
#1,740
#1,740
Vol8188 said:
That's fine. You can keep your insurance and benefits. Just give up your salary

Seriously though, why do so many of you want to limit another person's ability to earn money?

Does this take food off your table?
Click to expand...
Does being in favor of the NFL's salary cap mean I want to limit another person's ability to make money? No, it doesn't take food off my table. But I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling at the idea that Texas AM is going to win a championship off of nothing but cash in the next few years either. Reducing college athletics to a silent auction is not why anyone watches sports.

Prior to NIL, college athletes could make as much money as they wanted. All they had to do was leave school and go join the work force. Being an NCAA athlete was not the grand imposition people made it out to be, and, like any other aspect of life, athletes don't have to sign a contract they don't want to sign.

I agree with NIL in principle. Workplaces don't get to tell you how to make money outside of work, generally speaking. But what is happening now is just further justification for why that rule was in place. None of the money being passed around has anything to do with name, image, or likeness, and everyone knows it.
 
#1,742
#1,742
Ten_Titans said:
Does being in favor of the NFL's salary cap mean I want to limit another person's ability to make money? No, it doesn't take food off my table. But I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling at the idea that Texas AM is going to win a championship off of nothing but cash in the next few years either. Reducing college athletics to a silent auction is not why anyone watches sports.

Prior to NIL, college athletes could make as much money as they wanted. All they had to do was leave school and go join the work force. Being an NCAA athlete was not the grand imposition people made it out to be, and, like any other aspect of life, athletes don't have to sign a contract they don't want to sign.

I agree with NIL in principle. Workplaces don't get to tell you how to make money outside of work, generally speaking. But what is happening now is just further justification for why that rule was in place. None of the money being passed around has anything to do with name, image, or likeness, and everyone knows it.
Click to expand...
NIL is not an agreement between the university and the athlete, as you yourself affirmed in the post. NIL is an external sponsorship deal, independent of the university (owners, in your analogy). For your analogy to work, the NFL would have to prohibit/limit the sponsorship money of athletes in an effort to promote equity of talent among the teams.
 
#1,743
#1,743
Ten_Titans said:
Does being in favor of the NFL's salary cap mean I want to limit another person's ability to make money? No, it doesn't take food off my table. But I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling at the idea that Texas AM is going to win a championship off of nothing but cash in the next few years either.

Prior to NIL, college athletes could make as much money as they wanted. All they had to do was leave school and go join the work force. Being an NCAA athlete was not the grand imposition people made it out to be, and, like any other aspect of life, athletes don't have to sign a contract they don't want to sign.

I agree with NIL in principle. Workplaces don't get to tell you how to make money outside of work, generally speaking. But what is happening now is just further justification for why that rule was in place. None of the money being passed around has anything to do with name, image, or likeness, and everyone knows it.
Click to expand...

MLB is just fine without a salary cap. You never stated why you support the NFL salary cap.

A&M's 3 pre-NIL recruiting classes were ranked 8, 6, and 4 overall. I think you're misreading the cards here. The programs with the most money have always won in recruiting and on the field. Why is it only a problem now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#1,744
#1,744
Orange_Crush said:
NIL is not an agreement between the university and the athlete, as you yourself affirmed in the post. NIL is an external sponsorship deal, independent of the university (owners, in your analogy). For your analogy to work, the NFL would have to prohibit/limit the sponsorship money of athletes in an effort to promote equity of talent among the teams.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what I addressed in the last paragraph. What you said is exactly why I agree with the NIL rules in principle.

But in practice, all its done is defer the labor costs from the university to some interested third parties, who can launder the money under the guise of NIL.

If players, fans, and boosters were using NIL in good faith, I wouldn't have any issue with it at all. But I don't think anyone can look at the state of things now and act like prohibiting NIL money didn't serve a useful purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSVol
#1,745
#1,745
Ten_Titans said:
Yes, that's exactly what I addressed in the last paragraph. What you said is exactly why I agree with the NIL rules in principle.

But in practice, all its done is defer the labor costs from the university to some interested third parties, who can launder the money under the guise of NIL.

If players, fans, and boosters were using NIL in good faith, I wouldn't have any issue with it at all. But I don't think anyone can look at the state of things now and act like prohibiting NIL money didn't serve a useful purpose.
Click to expand...

What difference does that make? Did you not realize the teams with the most money would be able to provide the most nil opportunities for their players?

So many people hide behind the “it’s not the intent of the law” claim without ever stating why that’s an issue.
 
#1,747
#1,747
Vol8188 said:
MLB is just fine without a salary cap. You never stated why you support the NFL salary cap.

A&M's 3 pre-NIL recruiting classes were ranked 8, 6, and 4 overall. I think you're misreading the cards here. The programs with the most money have always won in recruiting and on the field. Why is it only a problem now?
Click to expand...
I think you picked not a great time to say MLB is just fine without a salary cap. MLB has tons of problems. Many of which stem from a lack of competitive balance. And that's why anyone would support a salary cap. Competitive balance. Small market teams go through years where it is literally impossible for them to compete. And the only reason it works at all is because of the intricate farm system in baseball that no other sport has, where teams hold players to 6+ year contracts from the time they are drafted. With the transfer portal and a maximum of four years to the rights of any players, most teams would never be able to get to the point of chasing championships.

You could make the argument the system was already broken, so just open the floodgates, what difference does it make. Maybe that's right.

I would argue that if the sport has a problem with under the table spending, addressing that problem is probably better than simply streamlining it. But maybe you're right. Who knows. The players are certainly better off now than they were. How temporary that is remains to be seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner
#1,748
#1,748
Ten_Titans said:
Yes, that's exactly what I addressed in the last paragraph. What you said is exactly why I agree with the NIL rules in principle.

But in practice, all its done is defer the labor costs from the university to some interested third parties, who can launder the money under the guise of NIL.

If players, fans, and boosters were using NIL in good faith, I wouldn't have any issue with it at all. But I don't think anyone can look at the state of things now and act like prohibiting NIL money didn't serve a useful purpose.
Click to expand...
If you agree that the athlete is entitled to sponsorship money, what is the "good faith" hang-up, and why the need to "launder"? Just let the athlete be compensated as the market will bear. You seem to be smuggling in the idea that freeing the market for athletes (outside of university scholarships) is wrong), while agreeing "in principle" with just the opposite.

If you think that an external agency should limit a player's ability to be compensated for his likeness/work/name/activity, then argue why. You'll just be pressed if the reason is "all the colleges won't be able to afford him".
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolByLaw and Vol8188
#1,749
#1,749
Ten_Titans said:
I think you picked not a great time to say MLB is just fine without a salary cap. MLB has tons of problems. Many of which stem from a lack of competitive balance. And that's why anyone would support a salary cap. Competitive balance. Small market teams go through years where it is literally impossible for them to compete. And the only reason it works at all is because of the intricate farm system in baseball that no other sport has, where teams hold players to 6+ year contracts from the time they are drafted. With the transfer portal and a maximum of four years to the rights of any players, most teams would never be able to get to the point of chasing championships.

You could make the argument the system was already broken, so just open the floodgates, what difference does it make. Maybe that's right.

I would argue that if the sport has a problem with under the table spending, addressing that problem is probably better than simply streamlining it. But maybe you're right. Who knows. The players are certainly better off now than they were. How temporary that is remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

The same MLB problem you referenced has existed in the NFL forever regardless of how high/low the salary cap has been set.

I think we should define “under the table”. What are you proclaiming currently is “under the table”? It seems it’s fairly open to me
 
#1,750
#1,750
Vol8188 said:
The same MLB problem you referenced has existed in the NFL forever regardless of how high/low the salary cap has been set.

I think we should define “under the table”. What are you proclaiming currently is “under the table”? It seems it’s fairly open to me
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that at all. Competitve balance in the NFL is much better, and the problems they have had recently seem to stem from how important they have made the QB position with rule changes, and there simply aren't that many good QBs. IMO.

Like I said, the NIL money is just labor costs disguised as NIL. The reason it is allowed is because it, theoretically, has nothing to do with the university. But that's a joke.

Are good players getting paid exponentially more because they are exponentially more popular, or because they are exponentially better players? Did AM just pay 30 million dollars because they brought in the most popular 25 high school kids in the country?

By under the table I don't mean illegal. I just mean it has nothing to do with name, image, or likeness per se. That's just the vehicle.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top