NIL.

And to think, this could likely have been curbed early on if the NCAA, not the schools, paid a nominal stipend to every athlete playing a sport with a TV deal.
 
And to think, this could likely have been curbed early on if the NCAA, not the schools, paid a nominal stipend to every athlete playing a sport with a TV deal.
That would make way too much sense. 8 Million and the kid still has another year of high school remaining. Sheesh!
 
That would make way too much sense. 8 Million and the kid still has another year of high school remaining. Sheesh!
Makes me think about how long this kinda Baby Poop will last.
If iam that kid i take the money, and if they were stupid enough to not put some clause in there i burn them and go to a different school. ( especially if its texas money —-any texas money, or bama money )
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uenth
I can imagine the number of loaner cars that become an issue after a loss. Maybe not the bigger stars but the lesser talents.
 
There are so many bad scenarios it staggers the mind. Its mid-season and your 2nd string guy proves himself better than the starter. How does he react to the fact the lesser player gets more money?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RED ED
There are so many bad scenarios it staggers the mind. Mid-season your 2nd string guy proves himself better than the starter. How does react to the fact the lesser player gets more money?
There are just so many scenarios that can be played out. None of them, near as I can figure out, are good.
 
There are so many bad scenarios it staggers the mind. Mid-season your 2nd string guy proves himself better than the starter. How does react to the fact the lesser player gets more money?
I tend to agree. One saving grace at Nebraska is that money equality is taken entirely out to the staff's hands. They are public employees and as such cannot have anything to do with who gets what. They can play who they want, and when they want. If an athlete is more "marketable" that is at least taken out of the talent part of the equation. Still, without some rules this thing is going to be bad imo. Pro athletic teams have caps for reasons.
 
I tend to agree. One saving grace at Nebraska is that money equality is taken entirely out to the staff's hands. They are public employees and as such cannot have anything to do with who gets what. They can play who they want, and when they want. If an athlete is more "marketable" that is at least taken out of the talent part of the equation. Still, without some rules this thing is going to be bad imo. Pro athletic teams have caps for reasons.

Is he right? "I know that's the popular version of what goes on. A lot of people would like to believe that"

 
  • Like
Reactions: innmc and Jimbosc
Is he right? "I know that's the popular version of what goes on. A lot of people would like to believe that"

He better be. If that doesn't materialize you can lose a team in a hurry. There are very few secrets among team members.
 
Any excuse to re-live this moment of movie history is a good one.
That's kind of how I looked at it. I can't say I was ever a Kinnison fan, found him to be way overboard but this scene cracks me up every time. That look he gives Dangerfield when he interrupts that exchange with the girl is classic.
 
There are so many bad scenarios it staggers the mind. Its mid-season and your 2nd string guy proves himself better than the starter. How does he react to the fact the lesser player gets more money?
Or your wr takes off his uniform and has a hissy fit on the sideline as he walks off , because he needs another TD for better exposure for his N.I.L deal




Oh sh1t i got my A Browns mixed up
 
And to think, this could likely have been curbed early on if the NCAA, not the schools, paid a nominal stipend to every athlete playing a sport with a TV deal.
That wasn't the issue at hand. It might be part of it. The biggest reason this came about is that schools would authorize to sell jerseys for star players. Never putting their names on the backs of those jerseys but selling those #'s they knew would sell. ie, 80 for Kenny Bell, 22 Burkhead, 8 Ameer, 3 Taylor Martinez. When those guys were playing a few years back those were the primary jerseys at Husker stores and especially the stadium. Store. The A.D. was making sales off their likeness even if their likeness (name, etc) wasn't on said jersey, etc. There's a reason you can only buy Husker jerseys with certain #'s. This year I believe its #2 and #22. Next year should be #2 and #23.
 
That wasn't the issue at hand. It might be part of it. The biggest reason this came about is that schools would authorize to sell jerseys for star players. Never putting their names on the backs of those jerseys but selling those #'s they knew would sell. ie, 80 for Kenny Bell, 22 Burkhead, 8 Ameer, 3 Taylor Martinez. When those guys were playing a few years back those were the primary jerseys at Husker stores and especially the stadium. Store. The A.D. was making sales off their likeness even if their likeness (name, etc) wasn't on said jersey, etc. There's a reason you can only buy Husker jerseys with certain #'s. This year I believe its #2 and #22. Next year should be #2 and #23.
I understand the ramifications of jersey sales. Players should have always had some compensation from those IMO. It would of made sense to include them as part of a regulated plan in how the NCAA would allow NIL while still keeping it from being the Wild West. They could’ve had time to come up with that plan had the stipend been in place long ago. Perhaps they could have nipped NIL in the bud entirely by saying “the players get to go to school for free and have some extra money in their pockets.”
 
I understand the ramifications of jersey sales. Players should have always had some compensation from those IMO. It would of made sense to include them as part of a regulated plan in how the NCAA would allow NIL while still keeping it from being the Wild West. They could’ve had time to come up with that plan had the stipend been in place long ago. Perhaps they could have nipped NIL in the bud entirely by saying “the players get to go to school for free and have some extra money in their pockets.”
Maybe it would've, maybe it wouldn't have. Not sure that increasing their spending stipend would've made that big of a difference because keep in mind if the NCAA say it'll cap the stipend at a certain # per scholar ship player doesn't mean all schools could meet that threshold.
 
Maybe it would've, maybe it wouldn't have. Not sure that increasing their spending stipend would've made that big of a difference because keep in mind if the NCAA say it'll cap the stipend at a certain # per scholar ship player doesn't mean all schools could meet that threshold.
That’s why i said the NCAA would pick up the tab, not the schools. That’s based on my assumption that the NCAA gets a huge portion of the TV revenue.
 

Members online

No members online now.