|
Nil
Feb 13, 2024 14:38:26 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by bleedorange21 on Feb 13, 2024 14:38:26 GMT -8
Is it possible that they create some kind of salary cap rule for how much teams can spend on NIL or has that ship already sailed? No one wants to watch teams like the ucks buy championships. It’s already one sided enough in recruiting it now they can buy them or take from the have nots and it’s going to be terrible. They need to do something. Professional sports have rules that help keep things competitive like with salary cap and draft order.
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 13, 2024 15:00:02 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by rgeorge on Feb 13, 2024 15:00:02 GMT -8
Is it possible that they create some kind of salary cap rule for how much teams can spend on NIL or has that ship already sailed? No one wants to watch teams like the ucks buy championships. It’s already one sided enough in recruiting it now they can buy them or take from the have nots and it’s going to be terrible. They need to do something. Professional sports have rules that help keep things competitive like with salary cap and draft order. "Teams" don't spend a dime in NIL. The organizations are not affiliated with the schools directly. And, a cap wouldn't work as it's donation based. Plus as of now player amounts can't be limited except by what a NIL is willing to give. And, I believe the new portal challenge of of "free" transfer is based on NIL limitations. Saying if a player transfers and doesn't get what they want they should be able to transfer again to seek more. It's all BS.
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 13, 2024 15:07:14 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by bleedorange21 on Feb 13, 2024 15:07:14 GMT -8
Is it possible that they create some kind of salary cap rule for how much teams can spend on NIL or has that ship already sailed? No one wants to watch teams like the ucks buy championships. It’s already one sided enough in recruiting it now they can buy them or take from the have nots and it’s going to be terrible. They need to do something. Professional sports have rules that help keep things competitive like with salary cap and draft order. "Teams" don't spend a dime in NIL. The organizations are not affiliated with the schools directly. And, a cap wouldn't work as it's donation based. Plus as of now player amounts can't be limited except by what a NIL is willing to give. And, I believe the new portal challenge of of "free" transfer is based on NIL limitations. Saying if a player transfers and doesn't get what they want they should be able to transfer again to seek more. It's all BS. Ya I know it’s not the actual team but was thinking like along the lines of a limit of how much can be donated monetarily. Agreed it’s all bs. That’s all the more reason the Beavs need to succeed and show it can be done still.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Feb 13, 2024 15:36:35 GMT -8
It's eventually going to settle out to a certain degree naturally, reach an equilibrium. I think there's an abnormally high supply of donor cash due to the novelty and pent up cash that would have been spent years if not decades ago moving its' way into circulation.
The same programs that always enjoyed an advantage will continue to enjoy a similar advantage, it's just a new twist on an old game. USC used to hoard 5 star talent that sat on the bench because every kid everywhere believes his own hype. Now they leave after the reality check and perhaps a dose of disillusionment for immediate opportunity, and fall to an Oregon State. Flip side to that coin is that USC jacks your starters once they make All-Conference.
The good lord giveth, and taketh away lol
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 13, 2024 20:16:41 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by nuclearbeaver on Feb 13, 2024 20:16:41 GMT -8
It's eventually going to settle out to a certain degree naturally, reach an equilibrium. I think there's an abnormally high supply of donor cash due to the novelty and pent up cash that would have been spent years if not decades ago moving its' way into circulation. The same programs that always enjoyed an advantage will continue to enjoy a similar advantage, it's just a new twist on an old game. USC used to hoard 5 star talent that sat on the bench because every kid everywhere believes his own hype. Now they leave after the reality check and perhaps a dose of disillusionment for immediate opportunity, and fall to an Oregon State. Flip side to that coin is that USC jacks your starters once they make All-Conference. The good lord giveth, and taketh away lol This for sure. I see a few things leading to natural controls. First off is return on investment: Many people donating are expecting success from the team. What success means varies but let's just focus on the P4. There is a legit 4-6 teams in each conference with fans that think they can do ate enough to win a conference championship. Well there's only 1 per conference so that return sucks for plenty of people. There's probably 15-20 teams with fan bases that honestly think their do action will contribute to a national championship, only one of those too. There's probably 40+ teams that think they can do ate their way to the playoffs....well that's 12. No matter what there will be fans who do ate and get slowly tired of paying for Mercedes leases while not getting what they want. Another aspect is companies return on investment for having contracts with players. How many players are really going to bring in half a million in revenue a season or have a national following. Many players are smart and have begun building social media followings to Garner deals but unfortunately very few players have a national presence. For example Colletto has some success with his jackhammer line but it was almost completely our fan base. Players that transcend their fan base or their conference in college to the point people will buy buy stuff on a national level are very rare. Anyone going to go buy something because Jayden Daniels endorsed it? The windows for capitalizing are short (sometimes just weeks) and the reach is not great. You are way better off paying an NFL player to sell your stuff for 5 years straight and due to only 32 real Dan bases the impact is far larger. Another big problem is just the nature of CFB. Players that capture the nations attention for multiple years like Tebow or Bush are rare and those players are just getting rarer due to them going to the league early or transferring. The attention span of the nation is also only going to last until you lose. Just look at Heisman races, players can be the hottest thing in the country for 5 weeks then not make sports center the rest of the season. I doubt anyone was clamoring to have Drake May after their third loss. He's still a great talent but once you stop being relevant to the playoffs you don't matter outside your fan base or upsets. Finally there will be a greedflation factor. How many flops will a fan base pay for? How many players will demand a ransom and deliver a turd? Eventually there will be provisions in contracts for production, injuries, and off the field issues as top talent demand more and the market gets beyond cash for wearing the jersey in spring camp.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Feb 13, 2024 20:32:23 GMT -8
Just to be clear with some "nonsense" posted...
N... "name I... "image" L... "likeness"
There can not, and will not, ever be contract provisions for: - playing time - performance specs - academic specs
NIL is not pay to play, or how you play. The contract in whatever form can not have anything other than player promotions (social media, appearance, ads, etc) for agreed upon remuneration. As mentioned it is estimated that 75%+ of all NIL deals do not involve "cash", but merch and accessibility that is given a $ value.
How NIL plays out is anyone's guess. But, it's just a legal way for the rich to get richer. For scumbags to try to take advantage of athletes and work the system. The under belly of college sports just had another layer added. And, in my opinion watch out what you wish for. As the entire NIL and legal issues that are to come might hurt potential college athletes now than it will ever help.
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 14, 2024 14:14:24 GMT -8
rgeorge likes this
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 14, 2024 14:14:24 GMT -8
"Teams" don't spend a dime in NIL. The organizations are not affiliated with the schools directly. And, a cap wouldn't work as it's donation based. Plus as of now player amounts can't be limited except by what a NIL is willing to give. And, I believe the new portal challenge of of "free" transfer is based on NIL limitations. Saying if a player transfers and doesn't get what they want they should be able to transfer again to seek more. It's all BS. Ya I know it’s not the actual team but was thinking like along the lines of a limit of how much can be donated monetarily. Agreed it’s all bs. That’s all the more reason the Beavs need to succeed and show it can be done still. There just isn't a great way to directly do this. You can't just cap it. What the supreme court rules is a school cannot prevent a player from earning money on his name, his image and his likeness. I think the only way to start attempting to control this a little better is with tax law. limit the degree some of this stuff can be claimed as donation or operating expense. Limit how much a company can claim as an allowable tax deductible expense as it related to, say, advertisement. You can only write off so much. Rich people will NEVER give even a penny of their money away if there is not a tangible and direct benefit to them. Maybe seeing their favorite team win is benefit enough, but something tells me a lot of this money is flowing for the tax advantage of it all.
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 14, 2024 14:34:51 GMT -8
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 14, 2024 14:34:51 GMT -8
Ya I know it’s not the actual team but was thinking like along the lines of a limit of how much can be donated monetarily. Agreed it’s all bs. That’s all the more reason the Beavs need to succeed and show it can be done still. There just isn't a great way to directly do this. You can't just cap it. What the supreme court rules is a school cannot prevent a player from earning money on his name, his image and his likeness. I think the only way to start attempting to control this a little better is with tax law. limit the degree some of this stuff can be claimed as donation or operating expense. Limit how much a company can claim as an allowable tax deductible expense as it related to, say, advertisement. You can only write off so much. Rich people will NEVER give even a penny of their money away if there is not a tangible and direct benefit to them. Maybe seeing their favorite team win is benefit enough, but something tells me a lot of this money is flowing for the tax advantage of it all. It seems just as easy, if not easier, to just excise college athletics from the Sherman Act than it would be to reformulate how donations to 501c entities are treated by the IRS. The former would be much easier to implement. Plus, you touch on a host of actual constitutional issues, when you mess with taxation of donations to 501c entities, which would be very, very problematic to first pass and then implement. I would further add that it is far easier to mess with a tangential issue, like the application of the Sherman Act to certain economic sectors, than how the beast actually gets fed. Taxation is the lifeblood of the government after all. That said, donations to university athletic funds was actually tweaked in the last tax overhaul back in 2017, so I am not saying that it cannot happen. But you would probably need Republicans to take back the White Houses and both houses of Congress (and maybe a supermajority in the Senate?) to get something like that through. Democrats, at least recently, have tended to shy away from tax overhauls. And they have tended to react negatively to actions, which might imperil, minimize, or threaten athletes' NIL revenue.
|
|
ftd
Sophomore
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 1,564
|
Nil
Feb 14, 2024 14:40:11 GMT -8
rgeorge likes this
Post by ftd on Feb 14, 2024 14:40:11 GMT -8
remember the good old days when
Freshman couldn't play 'varsity' Coaches were in charge Transfers didn't exist
Makes my one good eye tear up...
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 14, 2024 15:16:23 GMT -8
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 14, 2024 15:16:23 GMT -8
remember the good old days when
Freshman couldn't play 'varsity' Coaches were in charge Transfers didn't existMakes my one good eye tear up... No. Reminds me of Basketball: Denslow: Just like when I was a kid, and players were treated like, like... Coop: Indentured servants? Denslow: Yes!
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 14, 2024 15:54:38 GMT -8
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 14, 2024 15:54:38 GMT -8
There just isn't a great way to directly do this. You can't just cap it. What the supreme court rules is a school cannot prevent a player from earning money on his name, his image and his likeness. I think the only way to start attempting to control this a little better is with tax law. limit the degree some of this stuff can be claimed as donation or operating expense. Limit how much a company can claim as an allowable tax deductible expense as it related to, say, advertisement. You can only write off so much. Rich people will NEVER give even a penny of their money away if there is not a tangible and direct benefit to them. Maybe seeing their favorite team win is benefit enough, but something tells me a lot of this money is flowing for the tax advantage of it all. It seems just as easy, if not easier, to just excise college athletics from the Sherman Act than it would be to reformulate how donations to 501c entities are treated by the IRS. The former would be much easier to implement. Plus, you touch on a host of actual constitutional issues, when you mess with taxation of donations to 501c entities, which would be very, very problematic to first pass and then implement. I would further add that it is far easier to mess with a tangential issue, like the application of the Sherman Act to certain economic sectors, than how the beast actually gets fed. Taxation is the lifeblood of the government after all. That said, donations to university athletic funds was actually tweaked in the last tax overhaul back in 2017, so I am not saying that it cannot happen. But you would probably need Republicans to take back the White Houses and both houses of Congress (and maybe a supermajority in the Senate?) to get something like that through. Democrats, at least recently, have tended to shy away from tax overhauls. And they have tended to react negatively to actions, which might imperil, minimize, or threaten athletes' NIL revenue. A student athlete is not a 501(c)(3) organization. Though, an NIL collective may or may not be, however, the IRS has already declared in most cases they cannot be. So I am probably a little misguided on the notion of a donation write off, but not so much to the extent the business are purchasing likeness for using in their advertisements and sponsorships.
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 14, 2024 16:01:30 GMT -8
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 14, 2024 16:01:30 GMT -8
It seems just as easy, if not easier, to just excise college athletics from the Sherman Act than it would be to reformulate how donations to 501c entities are treated by the IRS. The former would be much easier to implement. Plus, you touch on a host of actual constitutional issues, when you mess with taxation of donations to 501c entities, which would be very, very problematic to first pass and then implement. I would further add that it is far easier to mess with a tangential issue, like the application of the Sherman Act to certain economic sectors, than how the beast actually gets fed. Taxation is the lifeblood of the government after all. That said, donations to university athletic funds was actually tweaked in the last tax overhaul back in 2017, so I am not saying that it cannot happen. But you would probably need Republicans to take back the White Houses and both houses of Congress (and maybe a supermajority in the Senate?) to get something like that through. Democrats, at least recently, have tended to shy away from tax overhauls. And they have tended to react negatively to actions, which might imperil, minimize, or threaten athletes' NIL revenue. A student athlete is not a 501(c)(3) organization. Though, an NIL collective may or may not be, however, the IRS has already declared in most cases they cannot be. So I am probably a little misguided on the notion of a donation write off, but not so much to the extent the business are purchasing likeness for using in their advertisements and sponsorships. This is the first year since 2023-004 came out, so I am curious how that all shakes out.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Feb 15, 2024 13:59:01 GMT -8
Ya I know it’s not the actual team but was thinking like along the lines of a limit of how much can be donated monetarily. Agreed it’s all bs. That’s all the more reason the Beavs need to succeed and show it can be done still. There just isn't a great way to directly do this. You can't just cap it. What the supreme court rules is a school cannot prevent a player from earning money on his name, his image and his likeness. I think the only way to start attempting to control this a little better is with tax law. limit the degree some of this stuff can be claimed as donation or operating expense. Limit how much a company can claim as an allowable tax deductible expense as it related to, say, advertisement. You can only write off so much. Rich people will NEVER give even a penny of their money away if there is not a tangible and direct benefit to them. Maybe seeing their favorite team win is benefit enough, but something tells me a lot of this money is flowing for the tax advantage of it all. You can't cap it the same way that the NFL can't cap how much $$ a player can make off of endorsement deals with say, State Farm Insurance. That's what the NIL was originally supposed to allow for: Players getting $$ from EA sports for using their name, image, and likeness in a video game, or Jeremy Bloom being allowed to get endorsements from his pro skiing while also being allowed to play football for Colorado. It's just that now that those things are allowed, the entire Pandora's Box is opened.
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 15, 2024 18:30:06 GMT -8
bvrbred likes this
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 15, 2024 18:30:06 GMT -8
There just isn't a great way to directly do this. You can't just cap it. What the supreme court rules is a school cannot prevent a player from earning money on his name, his image and his likeness. I think the only way to start attempting to control this a little better is with tax law. limit the degree some of this stuff can be claimed as donation or operating expense. Limit how much a company can claim as an allowable tax deductible expense as it related to, say, advertisement. You can only write off so much. Rich people will NEVER give even a penny of their money away if there is not a tangible and direct benefit to them. Maybe seeing their favorite team win is benefit enough, but something tells me a lot of this money is flowing for the tax advantage of it all. You can't cap it the same way that the NFL can't cap how much $$ a player can make off of endorsement deals with say, State Farm Insurance. That's what the NIL was originally supposed to allow for: Players getting $$ from EA sports for using their name, image, and likeness in a video game, or Jeremy Bloom being allowed to get endorsements from his pro skiing while also being allowed to play football for Colorado. It's just that now that those things are allowed, the entire Pandora's Box is opened. I think the idea of a collective is something that wasn't anticipated or at least broadly understood. I think the thought was players can just have an agent or whatever and do what they want. It would just mean players went and played where they wanted and people could approach players to sponsor their things or be in their ads or whatever and life would go on. Players could get a cut of their jersey sales or money from a video game. The schools angle would be more limited to "hey we are big and everybody watches our games, you will be a star!" and then a little bit of "hey a big alum at our school happens to have founded Nike, I bet he could get you in ads..." It is this collective part, that is effectively the school, but at the same time definitely NOT the school, but everybody knows it exists to represent the school (except it is totally different I swear...) that is the wrench in the works. it has equated to cash offers to play for a school (except you know, not really it is a cash offer from the totally different, I swear, collective that just really likes the school...)
|
|
|
Nil
Feb 15, 2024 21:38:07 GMT -8
Post by kersting13 on Feb 15, 2024 21:38:07 GMT -8
You can't cap it the same way that the NFL can't cap how much $$ a player can make off of endorsement deals with say, State Farm Insurance. That's what the NIL was originally supposed to allow for: Players getting $$ from EA sports for using their name, image, and likeness in a video game, or Jeremy Bloom being allowed to get endorsements from his pro skiing while also being allowed to play football for Colorado. It's just that now that those things are allowed, the entire Pandora's Box is opened. I think the idea of a collective is something that wasn't anticipated or at least broadly understood. I think the thought was players can just have an agent or whatever and do what they want. It would just mean players went and played where they wanted and people could approach players to sponsor their things or be in their ads or whatever and life would go on. Players could get a cut of their jersey sales or money from a video game. The schools angle would be more limited to "hey we are big and everybody watches our games, you will be a star!" and then a little bit of "hey a big alum at our school happens to have founded Nike, I bet he could get you in ads..." It is this collective part, that is effectively the school, but at the same time definitely NOT the school, but everybody knows it exists to represent the school (except it is totally different I swear...) that is the wrench in the works. it has equated to cash offers to play for a school (except you know, not really it is a cash offer from the totally different, I swear, collective that just really likes the school...) I have no idea if anyone anticipated anything. It's just that the legality of not allowing players to earn money off their own name and image while retaining eligibility was denied. Now, we're just left to figure it all out.
|
|